User blog comment:Hatebunny/An interesting quote from Alan Moore/@comment-220364-20120908141932

There are a few things that come to mind about this.

First is that Schwartz had a lot of luxury in the creation of the silver age. This avoided a lot of what Moore later identified.
 * Most of the characters that were rebooted at that time - Green Lantern, Flash, Atom, etc - hadn't seen print in a number of years. So a "Crisis" wasn't needed, just presenting the new versions.
 * Reader turn over at that time was, IIUC, on the order of years. Most of the people buy DC Comics in the lat `50s were unaware of the stories published 5 years prior, much less 10.
 * The half dozen or so super hero characters that had been in constant publication since the golden Age weren't really tinkered with so if there were long term readers of those stories at that time, they didn't notice a change.

1985 also side stepped a chunk of it by either allowing/forcing story lines closed in the run up to or during COIE or having them pick up again right after it. There was still a lot of "unpersoning" done and a selection of stories that couldn't have happened in the new time line, but since it real was the first time this was done on a massive scale, I don't think the readership really felt cheated.

Zero Hour was a non-case since almost nothing change.

52, Infinite Crisis, and Final Crisis did a lot of adding, but very little invalidation. That makes it the "shake up" Schwartz talked about - new plot elements, new directions, and new story possibilities.

"Flashpoint" plays right into what Moore was talking about though. A lot of characters are waiting to be "re-personed" and lost of old story lines. And to be honest, I'm surprised most of DC's line didn't see a sales dip during it since a;most all of the stories were more or less pointless.