Character Consensus and the Evolution of Heroes - Oct 05, 2006 - 11:57am
Kurt, thanks for clairfying your point, but I'd like to suggest a few things. First of all, I guess there are a few broad classifications of characters that we're talking about. Golden Age, Silver Age and Modern (or whatever the 80-current comics age we're in is called, I never got the memo). Obviously, Golden Age Characters didn't spring fully formed out of the forehead of Zeus (Although I guess you could make a pretty good argument about that actually happening to Stan Lee in the early days of Marvel). They developed over time, and as you say, are composite creations. The real issue is where the development stops, or at least slows down to the point that we the reader recognize what is in and out of character (call it character inertia). Batman can be a paranoid, or he can have a deadpan sense of humor, all that exists on the margins. But when a character suddenly decides to act contary to decades of prior development for the sake of a plot device, I think we can and should call foul. Secondly: For almost all the characters we are talking about, the creators don't own these characters, the companies do. That's not a minor point in this discussion. These are valuable items of IP. That's why Superman is so bland and spiderman will never beat his wife. I remember an interview with Jim Shooter when he discussed a time when he was Editor at Marvel and someone brought him a story about Spiderman fathering an out-of-wedlock child. Not only would that be out of character for Spiderman, it would hurt the charaction, the spiderman brand, and eventually the stockholders of the parent company, so he nixed the idea (and suggested that the writer create a character everyone knew was spiderman for that story). Corporations, Time Warner and whomever ownes Marvel this week, are going to protect their investments.

---

Character Consensus and the Evolution of Heroes - Oct 04, 2006 - 12:34pm
But that is absurd on its face. There HAS to be such a think as "out-of-character" or we don't have characters to begin with, we only have costumes. Without boundaries, or personal morality, there is no there there. I'll concede the point that creators build on what was there before and that the creators lay the cornerstone for the characters they build, but I simply can't accept the notion that anyone's interpretation of a character is just as right or wrong as anyone elses, save the author. Hell, Wolverine was supposed to be a hyper-evolved rodent until Claremont got ahold of him. At the end of the day it is the readers who decide what the character is, because they reject interpretations of the character they disagree with. 50's Batman-in-space stopped being profitable, so it stopped being published, and the character took a new direction. If the paying audience doesn't recognize a character they lose interest. Timothy Dalton was the most closest film incarnation to the literary character of James Bond, but because he didn't crack jokes as he killed people he didn't last very long in the 007 tux. That's what's democratic about comics writing. We vote with our wallets. This can be good and bad of course: it lead to the "extreme" excesses of the 90's (Namor, anyone). I guess my point, and the problem with the article, is that there's got to be a point where acting "out-of-charcter" is relevant, because it's bad (or at least lazy) writing. And disrespectful to the creator and the creation, which is the bare minimum someone who's paid for the privledge of writing for characters who've been around for 40, 50 or 60 years.

---

Character Consensus and the Evolution of Heroes - Oct 04, 2006 - 10:22am
I've read this column three times and I'm still not sure of the point he's making. Is the point here the question of who "ownes" the characters, or that writing itself is a democratic process. There are two paragraphs setting up an argument (No one knows Batman except Kane and Finger! everythign else is Fan Fiction) then another two discounting it ("But really, anyone that employs such flawed logic has misunderstood the evolving, democratic endeavor that is comic writing."). I'm not sure what point I'm supposed to take away from the article? I think we can all agree that plot motivated out of character moments, like Zantana mind-wiping criminals without a hint of due-process is out of character, and a cop out from an editorial and an authorial perspective(the less said of a third-tier Avenger somehow becoming the most powerful character in the marvel universe and re-writing the fabric of reality the better.). But I don't know if comics should support some platonic ideal of Batman and Superman or Spiderman and Captain America, with slavish devotion to the original coception of the characters and no variation allowed. As we all know both Superman and Batman began life as poor man's versions of establish pulp properties. Batman Year One is certinly more intersting than a warmed over Shadow pastiche. But anyway, I'm getting away from myself. Could you clairfy a bit on your take on when and how, editorially, an out-of-character is justified?

---