TF Views

It seems to me that attachment to characters is what keeps many readers buying a book through different writers and variable quality. People become emotionally invested in certain characters and don't like it when changes are taken too far. Hence, in my case, my dissatisfaction with the New 52 and its many and varied changes to characters.

BWprowl wrote:But there's acknowleging something is a stupid idea, there's being attached to a character, and then there's being *too* attached to the point that your attachment to that character limits your capacity to accept new stories.

I don't agree that being "too attached" to a character would limit a reader's capacity to accept new stories at all. In fact, I think just the opposite would be true for many fans so attached to a character, they'd keep reading *despite* whatever changes made to that character. I mean, as you point out, Spider-Man has been around since the 1960's. He's gone through high school, college and is now an adult near 30. Changes are inevitable. But this isn't change just for the sake of allowing the character to grow or to revitalize him to some capacity like you normally see in comics. This is essentially replacing him. And it's just a bad storyline on top of it.

Ignoring that switching his brain with Dr. Octopus and killing him off is a stupid, stupid, stupid idea, fans like this probably wouldn't be receptive to replacing Peter even if it was done well, with a *good* idea. Just look at the letters in the back of the issue, where they're mostly complaining about Otto because he's 'not Peter', some of them acting as if they honestly believe Marvel plans to keep him killed off for good (have these people never read a comic book before?). Look, you can be sad that a character you liked died, but at the end of the day, that character isn't real and you should probably be over it by the time you're done reading the issue.

Like 06 said, of course fans are going to react baldy to a storyline where Peter is replaced. You're missing the whole point by saying "the character isn't real, just get over it". No one likes to see a favorite character get killed off or replaced, it doesn't matter that they aren't real.

You ever watch Fullmetal Alchemist?

Yup, I watched both Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Great show, both versions.

But I didn't write Funimation or Studio Bones or Hiromu Arakawa complaining about what monsters they were for writing that part of the story where a cute little girl died in a terrible, terrible way. I accepted it as part of the story, and moved the hell on, the way supposedly mature grown-ass men reading the lead-up to Superior Spider-Man should be able to. It's just fiction, you can't get genuinely upset about what happens in it, you should just roll with it. And given that there's fifty years and thousands of issues of prior Spider-material starring Peter Parker, it's not that hard for them to go back and read stories about him that they DO like.

Sorry, but who the hell are you to tell people how they should or shouldn't react to a story? You want to just accept it for what it is and move on? That's fine. For you. But not everyone is going to share in that opinion. Some people, believe it or not, like to voice their grievances. That's hardly an immature reaction. If anything, that's actually a very rational reaction. If you really think about it, all of us have done that to some degree here, in voicing different thoughts and opinions on various subject matters. People become emotionally invested in characters and can get upset if they're killed off, but that's not a bad thing like you seem to be making it out to be. And I know I've said this before, but just because you can go back and read past stories is irrelevant here. The point here is about wanting seeing those adventures with that character to continue forward, not to re-read their past exploits.

andersonh1 wrote:It seems to me that attachment to characters is what keeps many readers buying a book through different writers and variable quality. People become emotionally invested in certain characters and don't like it when changes are taken too far. Hence, in my case, my dissatisfaction with the New 52 and its many and varied changes to characters.

Exactly. That's also why I stopped reading Amazing Spider-Man with OMD. And the Ultimate comics after Ultimatum. Although, I did get the Death of Spider-Man TPB. That seemed like a nice 'bookend' for the series, since I really have no interest in reading about Miles Morales as the new Ultimate Spider-Man.

Sparky Prime wrote:Like 06 said, of course fans are going to react baldy to a storyline where Peter is replaced. You're missing the whole point by saying "the character isn't real, just get over it". No one likes to see a favorite character get killed off or replaced, it doesn't matter that they aren't real.

I admit that I may not 'like' it when a character I'm fond of gets killed off or replaced, but when that happens, I also recognize when it was done as something the writer had a reason for contributing to the story, and I don't completely write off and ignore anything that comes after it, all while whining to the writer that their story is ruined because it no longer has a character I happened to personally like in it, and that the ONLY way to make it good again is to bring back said character. It's the ideas and the qualities of the stories themselves that are important, not which characters the author chooses to keep around while he's telling them.

Yup, I watched both Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Great show, both versions.

Even though some of the characters that got killed off over the course of it (and there are a lot of them) were likely ones you liked? So you were able to keep following and enjoy a series even though it got rid of characters you were attached to?

Sorry, but who the hell are you to tell people how they should or shouldn't react to a story? You want to just accept it for what it is and move on? That's fine. For you. But not everyone is going to share in that opinion. Some people, believe it or not, like to voice their grievances. That's hardly an immature reaction. If anything, that's actually a very rational reaction. If you really think about it, all of us have done that to some degree here, in voicing different thoughts and opinions on various subject matters. People become emotionally invested in characters and can get upset if they're killed off, but that's not a bad thing like you seem to be making it out to be. And I know I've said this before, but just because you can go back and read past stories is irrelevant here. The point here is about wanting seeing those adventures with that character to continue forward, not to re-read their past exploits.

Actually, I am absolutely saying it's immature and irrational to scream directly at the authors of a piece of media that they've somehow ruined a particular series or story just because they chose to remove one character or another from it. We're adults, I would think we've grown past the point where we need out mommies to tell us that Bambi's mom is actually not dead at all and is just hiding, but no, here I see a bunch of your supposed 'mature, rational' people writing into Marvel begging them to tell them that "Peter's not *really* dead! He's just hiding! Everything will be okay!". Newsflash: Peter Parker isn't a real person! When an author writes a story where he dies, it's completely irrational to flip out and go "How DARE he?! What a monster to do something like that to my poor, precious, important-element-in-my-life Peter Parker!" The most 'rational' thing to do would be, at most, to go "Wow, that's a really stupid direction for the story to go into!" and decide if you want to keep following the story or not based on whether the author looks like he'll be presenting something of decent quality. Now in this case, I admit that Superior Spider-Man isn't...the most quality story in the world, I absolutely don't blame the fans and readers who bailed simply because they thought it was an astronomically stupid idea. It's the ones writing into Marvel bawling about "bring my Peter Parker back!", the ones that just can't let go of their relatable cartoon teenager that I'm taking issue with.

Because this is specifically something that comic book fans, and to a wider extent, simply people like...us do, while other, 'normal' people don't. When my dad watches Law & Order, he doesn't get indignant when Alexandra gets unceremoniously killed off, writing angry letters to NBC telling them that they've *ruined* the show and that he won't be watching again until they come up with some stupid retcon to bring her back to life. My co-workers who keep up on 'The Walking Dead' don't come in screaming one day because their favorite character got devoured, organizing a petition with my other office-mates who are into the show to get them to bring that character back, or whatever. Hell, I didn't see any of the Joe Schmoes who went to see 'The Avengers' go bawling to Marvel because Agent Coulson died. This is what Dom was talking about regarding comic book fans and real world problems. If these fans could muster the sort of passion they get when one of their poor little favorite cartoons gets killed, if they could write to their congressman with the same vigor they write to Marvel Editorial with, if they could organize the sorts of petitions and mass bawling and online protests that they do when a 50-year-old character's costume gets altered slightly, they might be able to actually affect some of the *real* issues that go on in the world, instead of looking like a bunch of immature whiners complaining because their funny-books went and did something different on them.

Exactly. That's also why I stopped reading Amazing Spider-Man with OMD. And the Ultimate comics after Ultimatum. Although, I did get the Death of Spider-Man TPB. That seemed like a nice 'bookend' for the series, since I really have no interest in reading about Miles Morales as the new Ultimate Spider-Man.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Your attachment to the Peter Parker character has directly limited your capacity to accept other stories. The Miles Morales Spider-Man comics could be good, interesting comic books, but you're too fixated on "Not my Spider-Man" to even give them a chance.

Biggitty-boom. Prowl nails it.

Get this noise. The other week, I was up late for no reason and decided to spend the night writing a fake MICHAEL BAY'S POWER RANGERS reboot film script. The point was to make something absolutely horrible and also hilarious. I got about 50 pages in and had a basic plot setup. Basically, the Green Ranger gets introduced as the main bad guy in the movie and he beats the crap out of Billy (the only Power Ranger at that point in the script), and that's where I stopped writing. I showed it to a few people and one of my friends said, "So is Tommy gonna become a good guy at the end for the sequels?" And I said, "I dunno, I haven't really thought about it. I thought maybe I'd make him switch sides at the end and sacrifice himself heroically or something. Redeem himself, you know? And then die."

And he went into this shit! "You can't kill Tommy off though! He's like the main character for the entire rest of the MMPR series." And I was just like...so what? This is a terrible film reboot that has damn near nothing to do with the original. It would be remiss if I actually didn't kill at least one Power Ranger. I'm not even emotionally attached to Film Version Tommy, and I fucking invented him.

There's an inherent difference in going, "This character died and was replaced poorly," and screaming for him to come back. Qui-Gon Jinn dies pretty uselessly at the end of the Phantom Menace, but I didn't exactly see anyone clamouring for him to come back. And he actually fucking does!

BWprowl wrote:I admit that I may not 'like' it when a character I'm fond of gets killed off or replaced, but when that happens, I also recognize when it was done as something the writer had a reason for contributing to the story, and I don't completely write off and ignore anything that comes after it, all while whining to the writer that their story is ruined because it no longer has a character I happened to personally like in it, and that the ONLY way to make it good again is to bring back said character. It's the ideas and the qualities of the stories themselves that are important, not which characters the author chooses to keep around while he's telling them.

Again, Marvel has made no secret of the fact they know these stories will make the fans angry. What reason does a writer have to do that as a contribution to that story? Wasn't it you that said you thought this must have been a bet to see who could come up with a story worst than OMD? Most people I've seen who said they liked it is because of how absurdly BAD it is. That's *not* an idea driven story with any sort of quality to it. That's a low grade story which is more of a marketing plot for nothing more than shock value that only serves to boost sales in the short term. And fans have every right to complain about this. It's a total disservice to fans and readers in general. Deliver a bad product and you get complaints about it. And a story is more than a sum of it's parts. With out characters, characters that can pull a reader into the story, why should they care about reading it all? You give the character way too little credit.

Even though some of the characters that got killed off over the course of it (and there are a lot of them) were likely ones you liked? So you were able to keep following and enjoy a series even though it got rid of characters you were attached to?

To point out a fair comparison here, everyone that was killed in Fullmetal Alchemist was a supporting character, not the title character. For Peter Parker to die would be like if they killed off Ed and Al Elric. That's a whole lot different than talking about a supporting character. With out the Elric's, it would be a totally different story. But a supporting character like Maes Hughes, he would be like George Stacy for the Spider-Man universe for example. You might get a attached to them, but frankly they aren't as big of a deal if they are killed off like the title characters would be. Still, those supporting characters have followers too so you never know sometimes.

Actually, I am absolutely saying it's immature and irrational to scream directly at the authors of a piece of media that they've somehow ruined a particular series or story just because they chose to remove one character or another from it. We're adults, I would think we've grown past the point where we need out mommies to tell us that Bambi's mom is actually not dead at all and is just hiding, but no, here I see a bunch of your supposed 'mature, rational' people writing into Marvel begging them to tell them that "Peter's not *really* dead! He's just hiding! Everything will be okay!". Newsflash: Peter Parker isn't a real person! When an author writes a story where he dies, it's completely irrational to flip out and go "How DARE he?! What a monster to do something like that to my poor, precious, important-element-in-my-life Peter Parker!" The most 'rational' thing to do would be, at most, to go "Wow, that's a really stupid direction for the story to go into!" and decide if you want to keep following the story or not based on whether the author looks like he'll be presenting something of decent quality. Now in this case, I admit that Superior Spider-Man isn't...the most quality story in the world, I absolutely don't blame the fans and readers who bailed simply because they thought it was an astronomically stupid idea. It's the ones writing into Marvel bawling about "bring my Peter Parker back!", the ones that just can't let go of their relatable cartoon teenager that I'm taking issue with.

How did you get from writing a letter to Marvel that voices dissatisfaction with a story for specific reasons, to screaming directly at the author? You're absurdly over-exaggerating to try and prove your point here, but that's hardly what the majority of these fans reactions are like. Writing a letter to complain to Marvel, or voicing their opinions in general, about a sub-par storyline for given reasons is not immature or irrational in the least. It's called feedback. Killing off the TITLE character in a story ABOUT that character is kind of a big deal. One more time: It. Does. Not. Matter. That. He. Isn't. Real. People still care about reading about that character. The MAIN character of the story. They are going to complain about it if he's killed/replaced. It's a rational response, especially when the story is of poor quality, as even you have to admit, this one is.

Because this is specifically something that comic book fans, and to a wider extent, simply people like...us do, while other, 'normal' people don't. When my dad watches Law & Order, he doesn't get indignant when Alexandra gets unceremoniously killed off, writing angry letters to NBC telling them that they've *ruined* the show and that he won't be watching again until they come up with some stupid retcon to bring her back to life. My co-workers who keep up on 'The Walking Dead' don't come in screaming one day because their favorite character got devoured, organizing a petition with my other office-mates who are into the show to get them to bring that character back, or whatever. Hell, I didn't see any of the Joe Schmoes who went to see 'The Avengers' go bawling to Marvel because Agent Coulson died. This is what Dom was talking about regarding comic book fans and real world problems. If these fans could muster the sort of passion they get when one of their poor little favorite cartoons gets killed, if they could write to their congressman with the same vigor they write to Marvel Editorial with, if they could organize the sorts of petitions and mass bawling and online protests that they do when a 50-year-old character's costume gets altered slightly, they might be able to actually affect some of the *real* issues that go on in the world, instead of looking like a bunch of immature whiners complaining because their funny-books went and did something different on them.

You're kidding yourself if you think that is something specific to comic book fans or people "like us" that "normal" people don't do. Just because you haven't seen someone flip out about it at home or work isn't proof of that it doesn't happen with other media forms. Have you ever actually seen someone do that over a comic book in person? I know I haven't, even at the comic book stores I've visited. But clearly, it still happens. It might just be more visible with comics since they do tend to print letters at the end of the comic. They don't do that at the end of a TV episode or movies. But you will find anything online. Seriously Google "Law and Order bring back Alexandra" or any other example you brought up here. You will find petitions and articles about exactly that. In fact, one of the first results that came up for me on that Law and Order search is a Facebook page where the description is someone saying they wont watch the show anymore if they don't bring that character back. And I see an article from NY Daily News where they say they did a special episode that brought that character back (I presume as a flashback sort of a thing) to explain her fate. So it does happen. And this is why I commented that if everyone, not just comic book fans, focused more on real world problems that the world would be a different place. Because it isn't just comic book fans that applies to.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Your attachment to the Peter Parker character has directly limited your capacity to accept other stories. The Miles Morales Spider-Man comics could be good, interesting comic books, but you're too fixated on "Not my Spider-Man" to even give them a chance.

My attachment to Peter Parker has nothing to do with it. As I said, I was done with the Ultimate Universe after the Ultimatum storyline. I did read a few issues after that story to give it a chance, but frankly it wasn't as good of a story or that interesting to me anymore. I only got Death of Spider-Man, again as I said, because it seemed like a good 'bookend' for the Ultimate Spider-Man series. And I did read the Spider-Men crossover with 616 Peter meeting Miles, which was alright. But again, the Ultimate Universe just hasn't recovered in my eyes since Ultimatum, so because of that I really don't have interest in reading about Miles Morales or anything set in that universe anymore.

Onslaught Six wrote:Biggitty-boom. Prowl nails it.

Get this noise.

WHAT? I can't hear you over all the noise!!

Qui-Gon Jinn dies pretty uselessly at the end of the Phantom Menace, but I didn't exactly see anyone clamouring for him to come back. And he actually fucking does!

They originally started with episode 4. Everyone already knew he'd die and the only Jedi to survive would be Yoda and Obi-Wan.

Sparky Prime wrote:Again, Marvel has made no secret of the fact they know these stories will make the fans angry. What reason does a writer have to do that as a contribution to that story? Wasn't it you that said you thought this must have been a bet to see who could come up with a story worst than OMD? Most people I've seen who said they liked it is because of how absurdly BAD it is. That's *not* an idea driven story with any sort of quality to it. That's a low grade story which is more of a marketing plot for nothing more than shock value that only serves to boost sales in the short term. And fans have every right to complain about this. It's a total disservice to fans and readers in general. Deliver a bad product and you get complaints about it. And a story is more than a sum of it's parts. With out characters, characters that can pull a reader into the story, why should they care about reading it all? You give the character way too little credit.

I do not need to 'give a character credit', the character isn't real and hasn't done *anything* to earn 'credit'. It's entirely the work of the author and what they do with those characters. Giving the character credit for a good story would be like giving a football credit for scoring a touchdown!

I don’t know about you, but I generally care about reading a story based on whether or not it’s a good, interesting story (my reading of Superior Spider-Man for trainwreck value aside), not whether it has a character I’ve imprinted on or not.

And like I said, I’m totally fine with people dumping on Superior Spider-Man and dropping the book because they think it’s a dumb story, that’s perfectly rational. It’s these guys writing in to cry to Marvel specifically because they chose to kill off their favorite character that I’m taking issue with.

To point out a fair comparison here, everyone that was killed in Fullmetal Alchemist was a supporting character, not the title character. For Peter Parker to die would be like if they killed off Ed and Al Elric. That's a whole lot different than talking about a supporting character. With out the Elric's, it would be a totally different story.

It might be a ‘totally different’ story, but it might also be the story the author was simply intending to tell. To keep using anime as an example, you ever seen Gurren Lagann? Kamina, the show-stealing, charismatic, much-loved member of a trio of characters that the show had been treating as main characters up til that point, goes out with a bang, getting shockingly killed off just eight episodes in. They just kill off one of their main characters less than a third of the way into the show! Because that’s an element of the story they wanted to put forward, and Kamina, as bombastic, charismatic, and loved by the audience as he was, could do more for the series’ ideas and themes dead than he ever would have been worth alive. Gurren Lagann has gone on to win praise from all circles and become recognized as a well-loved anime series that’ll probably be regarded as a classic one day, and it never would reach the levels it did if it worried about making viewers feel bad because a pretend character they liked died a fictitious death.

But a supporting character like Maes Hughes, he would be like George Stacy for the Spider-Man universe for example. You might get a attached to them, but frankly they aren't as big of a deal if they are killed off like the title characters would be. Still, those supporting characters have followers too so you never know sometimes.

Wait, so are you insinuating that stories should just refrain from killing off any characters they can, for fear that they’ll offend or alienate people who have become too attached to those characters? That’s utterly ridiculous and callously limits the options of storytellers.

A friend of mine was *very* fond of Maes Hughes, so when he was offed in what’s probably the second-saddest death in the first FMA series, this friend of mine got hit pretty hard by it. No joke, he was actually legitimately depressed for a few days about this. But he didn’t get *angry* about it, he didn’t write in to any of the publishers or authors of the series telling them he hated them, and he certainly didn’t stop watching the show because of it. He, and this is the big important part, *got over* it.

How did you get from writing a letter to Marvel that voices dissatisfaction with a story for specific reasons, to screaming directly at the author?

Well, when someone writes a letter to the authors of a particular story that contains a bunch of angry language, exclamation points, and irrational rage about what the author did in that story, I kinda equate that with ‘screaming at the author’.

You're absurdly over-exaggerating to try and prove your point here, but that's hardly what the majority of these fans reactions are like. Writing a letter to complain to Marvel, or voicing their opinions in general, about a sub-par storyline for given reasons is not immature or irrational in the least. It's called feedback. Killing off the TITLE character in a story ABOUT that character is kind of a big deal. One more time: It. Does. Not. Matter. That. He. Isn't. Real. People still care about reading about that character. The MAIN character of the story. They are going to complain about it if he's killed/replaced. It's a rational response, especially when the story is of poor quality, as even you have to admit, this one is.

Complaining (say, in a review) about a story being of low quality is one thing. I’ve bitched endlessly over in the MTMTE comic thread about stuff in that series that just drives me insane. But I would hope that you can recognize the difference between complaining about a story in a review among your peers, and writing a pissed-off letter to IDW Editorial chewing them out for being horrible people for killing off poor Flywheels.

It's also worth noting here that I typically find the 'main' characters in a given story to be the least interesting of it, and generally don't get attached to them all that much in any case.

You're kidding yourself if you think that is something specific to comic book fans or people "like us" that "normal" people don't do. Just because you haven't seen someone flip out about it at home or work isn't proof of that it doesn't happen with other media forms. Have you ever actually seen someone do that over a comic book in person? I know I haven't, even at the comic book stores I've visited. But clearly, it still happens. It might just be more visible with comics since they do tend to print letters at the end of the comic. They don't do that at the end of a TV episode or movies. But you will find anything online. Seriously Google "Law and Order bring back Alexandra" or any other example you brought up here. You will find petitions and articles about exactly that. In fact, one of the first results that came up for me on that Law and Order search is a Facebook page where the description is someone saying they wont watch the show anymore if they don't bring that character back. And I see an article from NY Daily News where they say they did a special episode that brought that character back (I presume as a flashback sort of a thing) to explain her fate. So it does happen. And this is why I commented that if everyone, not just comic book fans, focused more on real world problems that the world would be a different place. Because it isn't just comic book fans that applies to.

Yeah, and the people who do that sort of thing are friggin’ crazy! I don’t doubt for a second that there are unstable Law & Order fans on Tumblr who knee-jerk their way to hating the series when it bumps off their favorite assistant DA, but my point was that ‘normal’ people like my family members, my co-workers, etc, DO NOT do that sort of thing. They accept it as part of the story and move on. You ever read Stephen King’s ‘Misery’ or watch the movie? The bit where Kathy Bates’ character goes in and starts screaming at the author because he killed off the title character of his best-selling series at the end of the latest novel? Notice how that’s portrayed as something a crazy person does and not as a rational reaction? Because that’s how the people on Facebook petitioning for characters to come back come off as to your everyday moviegoers who had no problem with Agent Coulson dying: people with serious attachment issues and amazingly skewed priorities who will disregard an author’s intentions and ideas for a story because they can’t handle losing a fictional attachment point in their life.

A reader has no ownership over a character and no say in what happens to them, they’re just along for the ride. If the author chooses to get rid of them for his purposes, that was his choice to make, and the reader should be able to understand that, rather than trying to wrestle the character’s fate out of the hands of the ones in charge of the story.

It seems to me that attachment to characters is what keeps many readers buying a book through different writers and variable quality.

Which creates a situation where there is less incentive for companies to publish good comics using main characters. (Why expend the effort and resources on cutlivating those books when they will sell anyway?) Unless a company puts an A-list writer (a Bendis or a Morrison) on a mainline book, I rarely bother with those books now.

Actually, I am absolutely saying it's immature and irrational to scream directly at the authors of a piece of media.....bawling about "bring my Peter Parker back!", the ones that just can't let go of their relatable cartoon teenager that I'm taking issue with.

I agree.

Because this is specifically something that comic book fans, and to a wider extent, simply people like...us do, while other, 'normal' people don't.

Not quite. Define "people like us". Because I would call the people you are describing "over-grown children and fucktards", both being groups that I would not include myself with.

You are a little young to remember this clearly. But, back in the 90s, there was a show called "Friends". And, a distressing number of people (including adults) seemed to count the characters from "Friends" as their actual friends.

This is what Dom was talking about regarding comic book fans and real world problems.

I should not have specifically tagged it to comic readers. Sports fans are also pretty bad in this regard. And, there are other hobbies and fandoms with simialr problems.

The thing I will say is unique to comic and sci-fi fans is that they are more likely to get attached to a character or some other thing that "should not change". (Sports fans generally favour teams regardless of performance and players contingent on performance.) Maybe it is a question of some of them being so socially mal-adjusted that they get their socialization from fictional characters or some other kind of vicarious living (I once heard a Trekkie bemoan the destruction of the Enterprise-D on the basis of feeling like he "grew up on that ship".)

There are also plenty of fans (comics and otherwise) who really do not like change for the sake of not liking change. This is especially true of highly visible changes (character or costume changes) rather than less visible change (from one writer or editor to another). "All New Spider-Man" is an example of this. Bendis is the guy who killed off Ultimates Parker and replaced him with Morales. The same guy is writing the book, meaning that the story will likely be of similar quality. But, too many pitched fits about wanting Peter Parker back and how it was a crime to kill him in the first place.

Again, Marvel has made no secret of the fact they know these stories will make the fans angry. What reason does a writer have to do that as a contribution to that story?

Trainwrecks sell tickets. (Hell, I will buy in for a trainwreck sometimes.)

off the TITLE character in a story ABOUT that character is kind of a big deal. One more time: It. Does. Not. Matter. That. He. Isn't. Real. People still care about reading about that character.

Then the story can have a new main/title character. If you want to give moral rights to fictional characters, (which is fucking insance and sadly common problem with the fandom), then what about the new character's right to exist and shine?

Of course, it does, or at least should, matter that the character is not real. It is part of that whole recognizing the difference between fact and fiction that is necessary for adults to do. Some people get way too wrapped up and involved in their fiction.

You're kidding yourself if you think that is something specific to comic book fans or people "like us" that "normal" people don't do.

I partly agree. It is not wholly unique to comic and sci-fi fans. But, I would argue, if a bit optimistically, that most adults do not do this, which would make the behavior abnormal.

I don’t know about you, but I generally care about reading a story based on whether or not it’s a good, interesting story

Um....

my reading of Superior Spider-Man for trainwreck value aside),

Okay then.

Wait, so are you insinuating that stories should just refrain from killing off any characters they can, for fear that they’ll offend or alienate people who have become too attached to those characters? That’s utterly ridiculous and callously limits the options of storytellers.

To be fair, not killing bankable characters makes economic sense. (It is less likely to get my money. But, I ain't got much money to spend.)

You ever read Stephen King’s ‘Misery’ or watch the movie?

I have not. Have you ever seen "Pulp Fiction", especially the part with the ball gags and sodomy? Because forcible sodomy is also presented as a bad thing there. Not sure how forcible sodomy compares to people getting too attached to fictional characters. More research needs to be done on this topic.


Dom
-still appreciates the old Marvel TF comics for generally changing.

We all know who Prowl's referring to when he says "our kind". Geeks. Nerds. Those of us who indulge in sci fi, comic books, gaming and other various things considered to be "nerdy". And let's face it, most people that fit into that category are people that do not have strong social skills and probably do latch onto fictional characters as a way of some sort of social connection to society. To us here (where we're not disassociated from reality and actually have social abilities) such things seem insane. But, I have known plenty of people that fit that mold all to easily. Watch either King of the Nerds or even the Big Bang Theory. Each of the main characters in Big Bang seems to represent a different archetype of geek or nerd and the varying lack of social ability that goes with it. Unfortunately, to the rest of society, that is the norm for "our kind" and not us. It's a sad but true fact. And these same people are the ones who write into authors threatening them for killing off fictional characters.

Dominic wrote:

It seems to me that attachment to characters is what keeps many readers buying a book through different writers and variable quality.

Which creates a situation where there is less incentive for companies to publish good comics using main characters.

"Good comics" is very subjective, and the incentive is sales. Companies aren't in the game to lose money. If you think companies just randomly pick C-list writers and artists and assign them to A-list characters because "they'll sell no matter what", you're wrong. It doesn't work that way.

(Why expend the effort and resources on cutlivating those books when they will sell anyway?)

I doubt sales are taken for granted on any book or any character these days.

BWprowl wrote:I admit that I may not 'like' it when a character I'm fond of gets killed off or replaced, but when that happens, I also recognize when it was done as something the writer had a reason for contributing to the story, and I don't completely write off and ignore anything that comes after it, all while whining to the writer that their story is ruined because it no longer has a character I happened to personally like in it, and that the ONLY way to make it good again is to bring back said character. It's the ideas and the qualities of the stories themselves that are important, not which characters the author chooses to keep around while he's telling them.

Stories don't exist in a vacuum. A lot of stories that can be told depend on a certain type of character. Put Superman into Gotham and tell me if the character lends itself to the same type of stories that can be told using Batman, just to pick one example. Could Marvel tell the same type of stories with Cyclops that they can with Peter Parker? Could you swap Wolverine with Daredevil and have the same series? No to all of the above. Characters matter. Characters should drive the plot, not the other way around, at least more often than not.

And to the other point, if I don't care about a character I'm not likely to care what happens to him. Yeah, it can go way too far, and when people are sending death threats to Dan Slott, it's gone too far. Those people need to stop placing more value on their fictional characters than on a real life human being. But there's nothing wrong with deciding that I like a character, that I enjoy reading his adventures every month, and then being unhappy when said character is altered beyond recognition or removed entirely. All that means is that some writer somewhere did his or her job properly and got me as a reader to empathize or enjoy reading about that character. That's not to say someone shouldn't be open to change, but conversely, not all change is good or acceptable. It's perfectly alright to drop a book because the character you want to read about is no longer in it.

andersonh1 wrote:And to the other point, if I don't care about a character I'm not likely to care what happens to him. Yeah, it can go way too far, and when people are sending death threats to Dan Slott, it's gone too far. Those people need to stop placing more value on their fictional characters than on a real life human being. But there's nothing wrong with deciding that I like a character, that I enjoy reading his adventures every month, and then being unhappy when said character is altered beyond recognition or removed entirely. All that means is that some writer somewhere did his or her job properly and got me as a reader to empathize or enjoy reading about that character. That's not to say someone shouldn't be open to change, but conversely, not all change is good or acceptable. It's perfectly alright to drop a book because the character you want to read about is no longer in it.

I disagree! Going back to my previous example, if I'd stopped watching Gurren Lagann at episode 8 after Kamina died, I would've missed out on something incredible in the rest of that series. Had I dropped Last Stand of the Wreckers after Rotorstorm got his head blown off in issue 3, I'd have missed out on that great series as well. Many times, a character getting taken out of a story is a step towards that story's point, and you can't just blindly dismiss something because the author saw fit to dispose of a character. I find it's best to at least give them a chance to show *why* they made that decision.

It's not the character or even really the plot that drives a story, it's the author writing it who drives the story, and I'm far more interested in what they have to say than any of the characters on the page.