I don't want to fetishize Fleisher
too much (but why stop now?), but I thought these further quotes are interesting:
...the author and his assistant made use of no outside sources whatever. Only the direct, firsthand evidence of the comic books themselves was used. --TGSBix
This is part of the fun --re-reading the comics. There are many sites and fanzines that chronicle the behind the scenes aspect of the comics. I am a fan of those as well and STTA is one of the best.
this book contains no information concerning either the literary or artistic genesis of the character or of the literally dozens of writers and artists who have since 1938 been creatively responsible for shaping SM's destiny --ibid
I guess the exception to this would be when Julie, Maggin, Swan or Bates appear in a story.
Wherever strong support exists in the texts for opposing sets of facts, the evidence for both is examined in detail --TGSBx
This is part of the beauty of our project and of Fleisher's books. Some of the greatest efforts in fandom, like the Omniverse, Roy Thomas's writings, or the work of Superman fans like those on these boards (many of whom are linked to elsewhere and in the internet info thread), have at their heart the desire to make sense of the sometimes jumbled continuity and variety of conflicting stories of comics. Working to rectify continuity gaffs is harder than simply admitting that they are all imaginary stories and we should decided which one of these two tasks the Supermanica is for. I would argue it can't be both. An encyclopedia can have artistic integrity too.