Final Crisis Mixup Clarified (?)

Grant Morrison, master writer of the grand, bizarre and ambiguous, was recently interviewed by Newsarama about the inner workings of Final Crisis 1. While the interview does nothing to exonerate Morrison from the rest of the failings of Final Crisis' first issue (aka. boring and lacking in impact, as well as being a burden to those not well versed in the DC universe), it does free him from the burden of being a continuity monkey.

In summary, DC editorial screwed up continuity by providing Grant Morrison with a 2-year project based on the events from 52 and prior, but was unable to provide proper overlap with both the Countdown to Final Crisis and Death of the New Gods, which, though they were created after Final Crisis, were inexplicably released before said mini-series. The result of which is a mess which can only be dismissed as "You would enjoy Final Crisis more if you didn't read the weekly series that was supposed to lead to Final Crisis."

What are we as readers supposed to do? If you read the continuity-related series that led up to Final Crisis, the continuity of Final Crisis confuses you, but the events and characters contained therein are okay. If you don't read the continuity-related series leading to Final Crisis, you enjoy Final Crisis more, but have to pull out a dozen Wikipedia pages just to keep up with who's who and how they got to where they are.

Congratulations to the DC editorial pool. Once more their inability to comprehend the meaning and impact of a continuity series gets in the way of enjoying what might have been a perfectly good book. Or at least a decent one, when you consider that Morrison is writing it.