Blade #1 this week certainly tarnished my feelings towards Spider-Man, once my favourite Marvel character. The dismissive way he was treated in that issue, wherein something happens to him that I'd say is amongst the most profound events to take place during his life, really turned me off the book and turned me off Spider-Man as a whole. Furthermore it just lends to the impression that Spider-Man is invincible, which is not something the reader should believe as it reduces dramatic potential for future stories, if the reader knows that Spider-Man can survive anything.

Was any of this for the sake of a good story? I don't think so. I think it was all for the sake of getting a canonical vampire Spider-Man on the front cover... ie shock valye to draw readers in. My high hopes for the issue were sadly, however, diminished.

Posted by Fetsur on 2006-09-22 20:26:27
"Radioactive" characters.
I understand where you're coming from, Tom. Spider-Man survived the Clone Saga. Batman survived Knightfall/Knightquest. Even Aunt May came back from the dead.

On the other hand, while it is true that you can't ruin a character forever (I'm still convinced that Barry Allen will return within the next nine years), there have been enough cases in the past where a character was deemed "radioactive". If I were a diehard Hawkman fan, the years between Zero Hour and Hawkman's return in JSA would have been hard, perhaps even tempting me to quit comics alltogether.
While I always preferred Kyle Rayner, I could understand why people didn't accept Hal becoming Parallax.
A good friend of mine hasn't read a single comic starring Spider-Man since Ben Reilly was revealed to be the clone. I told him numerous times that he is missing a lot of great stories, but he was so let down by the conclusion of the Clone Saga that Spider-Man, to him, is a radioactive character. After ten years!
Infinite Crisis drove me away from mainstream DC (with the exception of the new Justice League. I'd read a shopping list if it was written by Brad Meltzer).
Fetsur dropped Blade after one issue because he didn't like how Spider-Man was depicted.

What I'm saying is: It might be impossible to destroy a character completely. But it IS possible to tarnish a character for a couple of years. It happens all the time. And sometimes, those few years can be too much.

Wow, and this coming from a reader that actually likes progressive stories that aren't steeped in retro flair.

Posted by Michael Heide on 2006-09-22 20:59:14
Ehhh, Tom, sometimes it's like watching your favorite living room get remodeled by a famous trendy decorator. You live with the mess and fuss and disruption for something you don't have a particularly good feeling about and, just as the remodel is finished, another decorator is knocking on your front door to remodel the remodel. And, really, you'd have been happy with just seeing the furniture moved around a bit so you could look at it from a slightly different perspective, rather than having a demolition crew smash it all. Yes, you'll get an all-new! sofa, but the old one had character.

Right now, I've got serious remodeling fatigue - I'm enjoying the main Civil War series (the tie-ins less so), but Disassembled - House of M - Civil War has just been a bit too much, too quickly.

To use another metaphor (not that my last one was good) - the best rollercoasters have that little breathing space in them between the drops and loops that let you get your breath back, take stock of where you are and build anticipation for the next drop. All drops or all loops just blur into each other.


Posted by Mo_Soar on 2006-09-22 21:09:21
Hey Michael, just to clarifiy, I didn't say I dropped it after one issue, I was just turned off by it. I'm sure the series has a lot of potential; I just felt it was an ill-advised start. I suspect I'll give the book a few more chances just yet; not least of all because I like Chaykin!

Posted by Fetsur on 2006-09-23 04:03:34
FUBAR
I agree with much of what's been said. I think chracters such as Spidey can't be destroyed per se as there's always a bunch of new readers who will accept the current status quo.
What can happen though is, as some of the others point out, the characters are ruined for you personally and you don't ever see them in the same light.
Take Spider-Man, I've stuck with him through thick and thin seen his highs and lows and I'm still there reading this great chracter. There are many different versions of Peter/Spidey. JMS's take is different to PAD's, Bendis's, Jenkin's, RAS .. and heck all the way to Stan's depiction. Though essentially the core is still the same. Hell I even loved the way the characters were portrayed on the Sony animated series a few years ago ... Martini swigging Harry Osbourne was genius.
So, no they can't be destroyed but they can be ruined and for many readers there's often no going back when that happens.

Posted by eamonmcgrane on 2006-09-23 07:53:43
Playing on Change
Hi Tom,

I've read this blog with interest for a while but haven't previously felt the need to post.

As an editor in the entertainment industry myself, I fully understand the overreaction from fans which can greet changes as they see too drastic or irreversible. However, don't you think that to some extent this suggestion that the changes will have a permanent impact is actually something which Marvel creates?

Upcoming plotlines are regularly heralded with a raft of hyperbole telling eager readers how 'things will never be the same again' or '[character]'s world will be changed forever' and so on. This pretty much tells the readers that developments are intended to be permanent, and if they then perceive those developments as detrimental to their favourite character, they'll pretty much think it's ruined for good.

Personally, I think the characters are indestructible.They'll survive any use of them, but that isn't to say that any use of them will be a success - I think a lot of the flack creators cop from fans is actually for an unsuccesful use of the character; the fans simply demand quality.

Finally, I second some of the comments here, that trading too heavily on the indestructibility of the characters is risky in that it surely runs the risk of allowing rampant change, leading to all that remodelling fatigue one of the other correspondents refers to. I personally ceased reading comics in any regular fashion after the Clone Saga. It wasn't that I strongly favoured Ben Reilly, just that having seen the creators make such drastic changes, going back on it just seemed cheap - trading overly on the character's immortality. I've never returned to monthly books since, though the recent prominence of trade paperbacks keep me in touch with the characters. I wonder if, as has been my experience in a similar industry, Marvel finds customer retention much more difficult than it does customer recruitment. Constant tampering with characters, and the subsequent frustrating reversals, would suggest that it might. But hey, what do I know, and I'm sure this blog isn't the place to tell me anyway.

Thanks for the time,

MPK

Posted by A Scarred Chief on 2006-09-24 13:16:46
not to get too out there...
I think that it is true to a certain extent that there is an indestructable quality to the characters, and yet if one gets close, there is the risk of having the story destroy the idea. German thinkers and philosophers brilliantly make a distinction in their language which we can't really do in English, but they talk about Historie (reality and fact) and Geschichte (timeless, core story. In essence, a history by faith). The Geschichte will never be completely destroyed in the eyes of the community, even though Historie might counter the Geschichte. No matter what happens, Spider-Man will be a teenager bit by a radio-active spider who loves Aunt May and MJ. That is Geschichte. Historie says that he is no longer even a radioactive teen but an adult who is a spider totem, but that won't get in the way of the Geschichte forever. There are several examples of this, (Wolverine is a mutant who heals fast and has unbreakable bones and metal claws who can't remember his past, the Hulk is the dark side berserker of Bruce Banner, Phoenix is... , Captain America is...) and what remains true is that eventually all Historie in comics get back to reaffirming Geschichte. Geschichte is the timeless zero point which is the orienting center for the story. Historie can take is anywhere, but eventually Geschichte returns. The toughest part for the editors and writers is to figure out what is truly Geschichte and how to cut down to the core of the story.
The toughest part for the readers is to keep faith in Geschichte and not loose sight of the core through Historie. Eventually, that is what throws readers off of the books. They loose faith in what they thought was true.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2006-09-24 23:08:51
At the end of the day, its just a comic book
I was there at the Baltimore Convention. I seriously almost cried when I heard that question uttered.

As much as I hate to admit how passionate I get about the comicbook stories I read, in reality at the end of the day, it's just a comic book. Business-wise, most of the characters (since superheroes became a genre) is still with us since their induction into comic kingdom. To even worry about whether or not they'll be totally fazed out, can not even be fathomed by me. The truth is, to lose them is not very profitable for the comic companies.

Sure you can loose faith in how the current story is progressing, but you always know that sooner or later a big story line is gonna come up and wow our pants off.

The greatest magic comic ever had for me, was the fact that it always make me wonder how this or that superhero/villain can come back from their fall from grace or death or the destruction of everything around them this time around or the next time around.

How the writers can always think up ideas to let the characters do incredible things I've never even thought of, times and times again.

Lets just enjoy what the writers and artists provide for us. Sure there's gonna be rough time when the story goes in a direction that you don't like, but you know Spidey or Wolverine or Hawkman is gonna pull through them everytime. To call yourself a diehard fan and let such a miniscule thing as change to make you stop reading is a joke.

Just like the soap operas, where you know so and so is always gonna be back together despite what's happening this season, you know in comic book that no matter what they drag a superhero through you know at the end of the day or storyline or even the next, is gonna come out triumphant....just to be dragged again.

Posted by Lenzai on 2006-09-25 01:57:30
Common Sense
This post seems like such common sense to me, Tom. I don't quite understand why comic book fans sometimes are up in arms at the drop of a hat. Nothing is going to completely destroy these characters. I would probably tend to go the other direction, hoping that a higher number of changes would stick around. That's why the Ultimate line fascinates me, because things can go crazy and stay that way. Obviously, it's difficult to please this type of crowd and the crowd who have been reading this characters for 30 years, but I still don't understand why people react the way they do sometimes. These characters are iconic.

Sometimes I don't like the stories. For instance, I really did not like Peter Milligan's X-Men run in any way. I thought it was absolutely terrible, to be blunt. However, those feelings are far and few between. More often than not, I accept the stories for what they are and what the creators are trying to communicate. I like some more than others, but I appreciate them all. Even in Milligan's case, even though I flat out did not like what he was doing, I still respected the fact that he was doing it. It's more than I could do. Sometimes I wish we could be more concerned with critiquing what is presented rather than getting on the boards and demanding someone's head on a platter. However, these same people seem to keep buying the books they abhor. I think people lose a lot of credibility when they do this. Vote with your wallet. If not, then enjoy the ride for what it is.

I'm enjoying Civil War immensly, Tom. I'm picking up every Civil War related book that comes out.

Posted by PercussionMasta on 2006-09-25 10:53:05
True Enough
When dealing with such iconic characters are Spider-Man, the Hulk, Captain America--or any of the Distinguished Competitions legendary characters--you are absolutely right, Tom. Anything bad done to them can be fixed. As well, most all readers/fans know that it's the characters they love most. A bad story comes and goes, as do the good ones. But it's the characters that stay with us. We love them for a fundamental reason--they epitomize elements that we are drawn to and that connect with us (whatever that may be for each character and fan). Marvel's classic characters have been around for 40+ years and have gone through adventures that range from the most surreal and bizarre to the wonderous and exciting and everywhere inbetween. And they're still around. Tom's right, they're not going anywhere. And all we can hope for and for Marvel to strive for, is to showcase our favorite characters in great stories. That's always the challenge. Since the characters are established, it's the weaving of a good story that often proves to be the most challenging obsticles. A story like Civil War is working out very well, engaging many characters, topics, controversial issues, and making the reader a huge part of the overall process--we can't stop talking about it can we? Anyway, just my opinion. --AJW, Canada.

Posted by Riddick2 on 2006-09-25 16:49:40
I agree...
I agree with the comments made by PercussionMasta. It's ridiculous reading blogs and message boards so full of people flaming the creators of stories for one reason or another. They're comic books people! Have patience and enjoy the ride, lest you forget the reason you started reading them in the first place. Only the people making them should take them so seriously!

Posted by spiderseppy on 2006-09-25 17:00:08
Re: bigdaddyhub2
You said:

"...and what remains true is that eventually all Historie in comics get back to reaffirming Geschichte. Geschichte is the timeless zero point which is the orienting center for the story. Historie can take is anywhere, but eventually Geschichte returns. "

But I doubt that Geschichte always returns. While that is obviously true in the current "age" of superhero stories, there have been enough examples of Geschichte fading away, permanently replaced by a new Geschichte of a new character.

Look at the Golden Age, starting in the mid-thirties of the last century. There were characters called Angel, Atom, Sandman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, Flash and more.
Angel was a vigilante in a blue, Superman-inspired costume. Nothing like the X-Man bearing that name today.
Atom was superstrong. He couldn't shrink.
Sandman had a gas mask and used anasthetic gas to put criminals to sleep. He was not the god of dreams, he couldn't turn to organic sand.
Daredevil had a costume close to that of 3-D Man and fought Adolf Hitler.
Ghost Rider was a Wild West character. Without a flaming skull.
Green Lantern had a red/purple costume and a weakness against wood. He was the only one with this name and with his powers, which weren't of alien origin at all.
And Flash wore a helmet. He wasn't struck by lightning, and he didn't have a connection to a "Speed Force".

In the Silver Age, starting in the mid-fifties, editors (most notably Julie Schwartz) often took the name of an established character and created a new Geschichte around the name. Some had ties to their predecessors, but most had none. And it didn't matter. There was no "Alan Scott's Emerald Advancement Team" demanding Julie Schwartz' head on a platter. Almost nobody asked for the return of the "one, true Red Tornado".

Then, the Dark Age came, starting in the mid-seventies. Characters killed and got killed. Heroes, villains and supporting characters were first seen using actual drugs (not some fictional substance like Miraclo). The guns, breasts and shoulderpads got bigger and bigger.

Up until now, everything was straight-forward. While there have been instances of trying to work those earlier stories into the then-current continuity (changing the Geschichte in the process: Alan Scott's lantern now came from outer space, Flash had a connection to the Speed Force, the original Human Torch turned into Vision, and so on), the focus was laid on the future.

Then came the mid-nineties. And suddenly it was modern to put everything back to earlier status-quos. I guess it started when Bruce Wayne returned as Batman, Peter Parker was revealed as the original Spider-Man, the Wasp came out of the Heroes Reborn-pocket universe as a human being (instead of the cyberpunk insect being she had been before entering the pocket universe).
The Justice League roster consisted of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter.
Iron Man (for a while) returned to his "classic" armor.
The Punisher got rid of the supernatural powers.
Hypertime brought back the idea of a DC multiverse.
Rebirth brought back Hal Jordan, the Green Lantern Corps, the Guardians and Sinestro.
The whole point of the Ultimate line is the retelling of classic stories from days past.
Lex Luthor is wearing a purple-and-green armor most of the time.
Jason Todd is back. So is Bucky.
Next year, the real Thor will return (probably with ties to Dr. Donald Blake, at least that is heavily hinted at), Peter Parker will get rid of the Spider-armor, and Spider-Man will return to the black costume. It's only a question of time before Hank McCoy will change back to a blue gorilla and Mar-Vell comes back from the dead.

Right now, we're in the middle of the "Retro Age". In the year 2006, bigdaddyhub2 is right, characters always do get restored to their original Geschichte. No change is permanent, unless it is a change back to an earlier status quo. Notice that there are some exceptions to this rule (Daredevil comes to mind, the Superhero Registration Act looks promising, Runaways was the creation of an all-new superhero team amidst all the Invaders, Defenders and Teen Titans reunions).

But six, seven years from now, everything will change again. The logical step is a step forward. Big characters will die permanently. New concepts will be introduced (and I don't mean a new character with an old costume and name). New styles will emerge. The "big two" won't have a monopoly on Diamond's Top 10 anymore. People will stop collecting comics and start reading the damn things!

And then, Geschichte won't be as set in stone as it is today. Characters won't be invulnerable anymore, but that's what will make it exciting. Sure, we will lose readers that aren't satisfied with the new direction of their favorite heroes, but new readers will come in. Comic books will be available at the supermarket, the gas station, the drug store. Prices will deflate. And a comic writer will get the Nobel Price for literature (probably Alan Moore).

[/Ramble]

Thanks for the attention.

Posted by Michael Heide on 2006-09-27 10:04:31