Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 360
  1. #256
    Astonishing Member DragonsChi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    No.



    ...And no.

    Readers have their own opinions on characters, yes.

    But some fans also think that their opinions give them actual entitlement as to telling writers how these characters should be written. They don't.

    And some readers don't understand - even though they should, because it happens all the time - that the writer has a better perspective on the story they're writing because they know where it's going. How often do fans fly into a rage because of some development in a story and proclaim that character x can never come back from action y only to see down the road, once the story has played out, that there was a plan in place from the start to take this character on a particular journey and they came back from it just fine. Writers have an omniscient view of where these characters are going. Readers don't but frequently try to argue, to poor effect, as though they do.
    This is not entirely correct. In a shared on-going universe if you do not build off what came before or at the very least respect it, you in return shoot yourself or the company in the foot in the long run.

    To deny that is to be willfully ignorant. There are way to many current examples of it a large one would be DC's 52. Where a whole line of stories got turned on their head and almost lead the company into ruins in the long term.

    Making a writer sound as if he is a god on a title that he will be on for a few months to a couple of years, if he is lucky is by far less concerning that a fan to recognizing the continual degradation or inconsistency of a character. Characters who have potential, if handled correctly, should out live said writer. Asking fans to just shut up and put faith in some person whose only concern is "How many eyes I can get on my personal name" is essential to "drinking the Kool-Aid" in this day and age.

    No, writers who earned respect from fans in this medium are those who respect the characters and their lore. Who also build their reputation on telling good stories again and again. Not those who push bait click stories for the wow factor to seem more interesting then they really are.
    Last edited by DragonsChi; 10-15-2018 at 05:03 AM.
    Idea's Open Discussion And Growth. Silencing Idea's Confirms Them To Be True In The Minds Of Those Who Hold Them. The Attempt Of Eliminating Idea's Proves You To Be A Fool.

  2. #257
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    No.



    ...And no.

    Readers have their own opinions on characters, yes.

    But some fans also think that their opinions give them actual entitlement as to telling writers how these characters should be written. They don't.

    And some readers don't understand - even though they should, because it happens all the time - that the writer has a better perspective on the story they're writing because they know where it's going. How often do fans fly into a rage because of some development in a story and proclaim that character x can never come back from action y only to see down the road, once the story has played out, that there was a plan in place from the start to take this character on a particular journey and they came back from it just fine. Writers have an omniscient view of where these characters are going. Readers don't but frequently try to argue, to poor effect, as though they do.

    Saying no isn't a basis on being correct, I do think that, you can disagree but that's your opinion, it's no more valid than mine,

    there are readers who act as you said, but that's not all of them, nor was I saying they were right

    I never made any comment about entitlement, but since you did I have no issue with anyone say how they think something should be done so lo g as they are civil, I actually do think someone has the right to say that without being offensive





    And your point that a writer knows where their story is going just augments my point about a character with multiple creatives, the writer knows their version better, but not necessarily the character as a whole

    I would question how many writers have read as much of a character as many avid fans

    Sure some fans act like they have the only correct view, but there are writers who do the same ignoring established mythos without exposition

    they might have the right to do that, but a reader imo also has the right to question it In a civil manner

    long gone are the days entertainment industries are detached from their consumers, they themselves engendered a link, they rely on it and feed on it

    Marvel often spouted that it was our universe as a marketing ploy, they often use social media to ply their trade and are happy for fans to comment, so long as it's all positive

    but that's not how the world works anymore, fans are imo entitled to comment civilly because we were invited to

    those comments are gonna be good and bad

    And to stress, at no point did I say a fan could tell a writer what they do is wrong, I never said that, I said an avid reader could have a better perspective than a writer, not all, and I wasn't being specific,

    But is it possible, yes

    Given the availability of the material as digital media, lots of fans could have read much more of a character than any given creative

    And therefore, by definition have a more valid perspective

    Not saying all the time
    Last edited by kilderkin; 10-15-2018 at 04:52 AM.

  3. #258
    Ultimate Member Ezyo1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    14,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    My main theme in these discussions is that it is not OK to attack the writers, accuse them of being ignorant, or claim to understand the characters better than them. These things are not only untrue they are entirely selfish in their perspective. There is a big difference between subjectiveness and cynicism.

    Especially when the writers often have a clear and coherent perspective on said characters and have a track record of success. It comes across as a huge misunderstanding of what the writer’s job is, and is cynical in that the opinion of the individual is placed above the work with little attempt to take in other perspectives or acknowledge that taste has anything to do with it (unless challenged when suddenly it is all about personal opinion.)

    It is OK to say “I don’t like this or that” but it is important to not point at everything as external and other people’s fault.

    “I prefer this other perspective on this character for these reasons...” is considered criticism but it doesn’t actually say a lot about the work in front of you. It is rare for this to develop into a contrast between the two styles that doesn’t just elevate the older more preferred work.

    “The writer is wrong to use this character in this way because it isn’t like my favourite or ideal version” says nothing about the work and very little about the writer. Especially when comic characters change constantly.


    “This has never been how the character has been written before” is slightly more considered but it lacks actual contrast. Given the huge range of writing on some of these characters it seems odd to singe out the current novel ideas in the face of a bookshelf full of them.
    I mostly agree with you, but this bolded can easily vary very much so, and writer's can COMPLETELY miss the mark of a character and their mythos greatly to the point where it shows ignorance of the character and mythos.

    This also really shows up when a writer makes a story plot driven and the characters react how the plot needs it to happen, rather then Character driven

  4. #259
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezyo1000 View Post
    I mostly agree with you, but this bolded can easily vary very much so, and writer's can COMPLETELY miss the mark of a character and their mythos greatly to the point where it shows ignorance of the character and mythos.

    This also really shows up when a writer makes a story plot driven and the characters react how the plot needs it to happen, rather then Character driven
    However there is a team of people who's job this is. That isn't really the writers job. Take the recent (terrible imo) depiction of Man-Thing. That is a editorial choice to allow the writer to take things in that direction. That is a choice not made of ignorance but boldness.

    I want bold new interpretations, not stale regurgitations. Sometimes they will work for me sometimes they wont. More importantly, sometimes they will find an audience and sometimes they wont. Trying to please a specific group of fans is usually a very bad idea.

    Also, it is not easy (probably practically impossible) to make a character driven large team book. This accounts for the very different feel of many single character books.

  5. #260
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    I am going to go point by point here, not to be argumentative but because most of the points you make break down common issues that always come up, which is helpful. Feel free to ignore if you think some of these things don't apply to you personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by kilderkin View Post
    If it's creator owned stuff I would absolutely agree

    With characters from a long running creative history, like much of marvel, I do think many readers have just as valid a perspective as the writers
    The words "just as valid" are the key ones. The writers perspective is valid even if not matching anyone else's perspective. Indeed it is more so on one level. They have jumped through multiple hoops to bring that perspective to the page.

    Not always, and they can be biased
    Everyone is biased. It is those who espouse their views as if there is some baseline objective truth to their own perspective that are overstepping the line.


    but so can the writers, many writers have said they are writing "their version" of a character
    That is the only version anyone can ever write. Or if we look at it another way, trying to write someone else'e perspective on a character is bound to be difficult, prone to problems and not advised by editors.

    the idea of a story revising history facilities this, perhaps to add but often just to tidy things up to make it easier for them
    It is still just a story though. Nothing about the unrevised continuity is vitally important, and usually the more experienced writers couch these things with unreliable perspectives or personal viewpoints so as not to not dictate to future writers. Indeed many of the things people assert are 100% true from the past are actually viewpoints, narrations or otherwise not as clear-cut as most think. Playing with continuity isn't cheating, it is part of the medium of long form comics.

    The notion that the writers of long established characters with many creative in their history, have a more coherent and more correct appreciation of them than a reader, by virtue that they are the writer, is entirely false imo
    I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but often the writer has been tasked specifically to bring their new vision to the page, so they are only doing the job they are being commissioned for. That necessitates the things they do. It is a feature not a bug.

    They will certainly know the version they want to write correctly, that really can't be argued, but in most regards their knowledge I feel isn't that much different to any avid fan
    As an avid fan I would agree. Indeed many writers acknowledge they are not always as well read as the fans. The last thing I would want is for the only people that qualify to write my favourite characters is to have read as much of their backstory as I have. That would severely limit who could actually write comics and limit the talent pool considerably. This is an unrealistic expectation for most long-running characters.

    Nor do I think it's less biased, Aaron himself said he would have to come up with a way to write Thor whilst also considering his own real views (I admit I can't cite that)

    I'm ok with that, it just crystallises my point for me

    Most writers have a style, by this virtue they will always present a somewhat tilted view of a character

    a disagree, I think many avid readers have a perfectly valid view of the subject biased by what they like, just as a writer will be biased by their style and what they like
    Again, how can he do otherwise? the important element to this is to write with some humility. Explore the characters as you go along and be prepared to shift and change perspectives. Something we see good writers express a lot. Aaron often does a very specific thing with his characters. He examines them and their established role in previous stories and asks questions of those notions and expectations. For me this creates some fascinating and thoughtful stories. I understand why challenging character ideas can also challenge readers, but as a reader that enjoys being challenged I actively seek out these kinds of writers.


    They may have a mandate from editorial but I feel marvel are rather loose with that in the last few years, no one is jim shooter in style for hood or bad

    Given the mandate I think they have much freedom to work, which is ok
    Some of the most respected runs in history come from eras when editorial were not too rigid. Claremont on X-Men was mostly left to do his own thing, as was Simonson on Thor. Both radically shook up many characters and overturned previous perspectives. Sometimes the best thing editors can do is give general advice and broad oversight and then get out of the way.

    In short I suppose I'm saying it's perfectly ok, imo, to say you think the creative is doing a bad or good job, coz in most times, I don't think they have a much better view than most avid readers

    but one should be civil about it
    I would define civil as not saying things like "this writer has no idea about characterisation" especially when the same could often be applied to the kind of critic who seems to have very set ways of interpreting the characters.

    Especially when the writers they inevitably point to as classic or better often did exactly the same thing and brought a radical or at least skewed interpretation to the page. Time seems to make these older comics seem more established, but when you are old enough to remember these same writers being criticised in exactly the same way it always seems ironic.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 10-15-2018 at 06:04 AM.

  6. #261
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonsChi View Post
    This is not entirely correct. In a shared on-going universe if you do not build off what came before or at the very least respect it, you in return shoot yourself or the company in the foot in the long run.

    No, writers who earned respect from fans in this medium are those who respect the characters and their lore. Who also build their reputation on telling good stories again and again. Not those who push bait click stories for the wow factor to seem more interesting then they really are.
    Respect is not always defined by a slavish devotion to the past.

    Some writers do well in catering to a more nostalgic view of a character. Others serve characters equally well by making bold moves with them.

    Calling any story that shakes a character or their world up "click bait" automatically labels anything that doesn't exist within certain safe boundaries as empty sensationalism and that's not the case. Not everyone defines "telling good stories" as just telling stories that are not provocative or challenging.

    Quote Originally Posted by kilderkin View Post
    And your point that a writer knows where their story is going just augments my point about a character with multiple creatives, the writer knows their version better, but not necessarily the character as a whole

    I would question how many writers have read as much of a character as many avid fans.
    This doesn't matter. And it goes back to entitlement. "I've read more than you so I know the character better." is not a legitimate argument.

    Someone who has read a character more may have a more opinionated view of that character but it doesn't make their interpretation more right or valid.

    Given how many creative hands characters pass through over decades, expecting every detail of that character's continuity to be assigned the same weight that an individual reader believes it should have is impossible. If a character acts in a certain way or says something that a reader says is contradictory to something they did or said in an issue from 1974, or 1988, or whatever - it's not necessarily that the writer is ignorant or disrespectful of that past history but that they simply don't feel it's pertinent to the story they're telling now.

    It would be impossible to make every current action of a character with decades worth of stories line up perfectly with everything they've said and done in the past. And you can't stop the narrative every time to explain for the benefit of that small group of fans hung up on one thing or another why, even though this character might have said such a thing in vol 3, issue 57 of their title but now they said such and such a thing in the new issue, that it actually makes sense because they might have thought this then in such a situation but now they have a different perspective and so on and so forth.

    Writers can't be so hidebound by continuity and readers need to understand that characters are more than rigid constructions.

  7. #262
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonsChi View Post
    This is not entirely correct. In a shared on-going universe if you do not build off what came before or at the very least respect it, you in return shoot yourself or the company in the foot in the long run.
    Not true. At best this is a generalisation that only holds true in certain instances. If you pitch a radical new take on a character and the company agree this is worth exploring then how is that wrong? By your assertion you seem to be arguing that these companies don't have the right to do this based purely upon your own idea of what they should do.

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonsChi View Post
    To deny that is to be willfully ignorant.
    Or it could be wilfully different, or wilfully challenging, or wilfully exploring new options because sales are poor. All of these things are much more likely than ignorance when you take into account who the writers are and which editors are involved in these projects.

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonsChi View Post
    There are way to many current examples of it a large one would be DC's 52. Where a whole line of stories got turned on their head and almost lead the company into ruins in the long term.
    It is easy to apply hindsight. Less easy to actually learn the lessons of history instead of having knee-jerk reactions to anything that reminds one of mistakes. DC were not in a good place before N52, something had to change. The nature of the change is in question here, not the process of change itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonsChi View Post
    Making a writer sound as if he is a god on a title that he will be on for a few months to a couple of years, if he is lucky is by far less concerning that a fan to recognizing the continual degradation or inconsistency of a character. Characters who have potential, if handled correctly, should out live said writer. Asking fans to just shut up and put faith in some person whose only concern is "How many eyes I can get on my personal name" is essential to "drinking the Kool-Aid" in this day and age.
    This is entirely rhetorical. Nobody here is saying Aaron is a god of comics. Your idea of continual degradation might be best turned back as self-reflection. You seem to be suggesting that these characters had a wonderful past when it might just be that your perspective of these characters was less cynical when you were younger.

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonsChi View Post
    No, writers who earned respect from fans in this medium are those who respect the characters and their lore. Who also build their reputation on telling good stories again and again. Not those who push bait click stories for the wow factor to seem more interesting then they really are.
    You seem to me to be describing the entire history of the medium. Not just the current state of play. I can't think of a single era of comic books that wasn't entirely based on sensationalising the story to get readers.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 10-15-2018 at 06:40 AM.

  8. #263
    Incredible Member bobellis75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Looks like I'm walking into the middle of an argument here...just was going to come by and say I really dug the issue. I have enjoyed Aaron's run so far on the book. I didn't think I'd like the first arc with the ancient avengers, etc, and I even liked that.

    Still not a big Ghost Rider fan...but dug the issue about the first Ghost Rider.

    Anyway - I'll duck out of here and let the argument continue

  9. #264
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobellis75 View Post
    Looks like I'm walking into the middle of an argument here...just was going to come by and say I really dug the issue. I have enjoyed Aaron's run so far on the book. I didn't think I'd like the first arc with the ancient avengers, etc, and I even liked that.

    Still not a big Ghost Rider fan...but dug the issue about the first Ghost Rider.

    Anyway - I'll duck out of here and let the argument continue
    Ignore us. We mostly finished talking about the plot and what else do you talk about on the Monday after?

    I also have reservations about Ghost Rider in this book. Clearly Aaron is a fan of the character concepts but they just leave me a bit cold generally. I didn’t mind the early Robbie books but here it just seems weird and zany to have him driving a car everywhere. I can only assume he plays a big part in the wider narrative.

  10. #265
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Ignore us. We mostly finished talking about the plot and what else do you talk about on the Monday after?

    I also have reservations about Ghost Rider in this book. Clearly Aaron is a fan of the character concepts but they just leave me a bit cold generally. I didn’t mind the early Robbie books but here it just seems weird and zany to have him driving a car everywhere. I can only assume he plays a big part in the wider narrative.
    Moving on...I actually found robbie one of the highlights so far, but I concede this is the only version of him I have read

    Looking back at that one shot where he fights star brand ( I can't recall the title it was a bit like DC's rebirth one shot) I am keen to see some link back to the Starbrand in the 1000000bc chapter, and what's going on with it now

    It's gotta have a consequence here I imagine

  11. #266
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    I am going to go point by point here, not to be argumentative but because most of the points you make break down common issues that always come up, which is helpful. Feel free to ignore if you think some of these things don't apply to you personally.



    The words "just as valid" are the key ones. The writers perspective is valid even if not matching anyone else's perspective. Indeed it is more so on one level. They have jumped through multiple hoops to bring that perspective to the page.



    Everyone is biased. It is those who espouse their views as if there is some baseline objective truth to their own perspective that are overstepping the line.



    That is the only version anyone can ever write. Or if we look at it another way, trying to write someone else'e perspective on a character is bound to be difficult, prone to problems and not advised by editors.



    It is still just a story though. Nothing about the unrevised continuity is vitally important, and usually the more experienced writers couch these things with unreliable perspectives or personal viewpoints so as not to not dictate to future writers. Indeed many of the things people assert are 100% true from the past are actually viewpoints, narrations or otherwise not as clear-cut as most think. Playing with continuity isn't cheating, it is part of the medium of long form comics.



    I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but often the writer has been tasked specifically to bring their new vision to the page, so they are only doing the job they are being commissioned for. That necessitates the things they do. It is a feature not a bug.



    As an avid fan I would agree. Indeed many writers acknowledge they are not always as well read as the fans. The last thing I would want is for the only people that qualify to write my favourite characters is to have read as much of their backstory as I have. That would severely limit who could actually write comics and limit the talent pool considerably. This is an unrealistic expectation for most long-running characters.



    Again, how can he do otherwise? the important element to this is to write with some humility. Explore the characters as you go along and be prepared to shift and change perspectives. Something we see good writers express a lot. Aaron often does a very specific thing with his characters. He examines them and their established role in previous stories and asks questions of those notions and expectations. For me this creates some fascinating and thoughtful stories. I understand why challenging character ideas can also challenge readers, but as a reader that enjoys being challenged I actively seek out these kinds of writers.




    Some of the most respected runs in history come from eras when editorial were not too rigid. Claremont on X-Men was mostly left to do his own thing, as was Simonson on Thor. Both radically shook up many characters and overturned previous perspectives. Sometimes the best thing editors can do is give general advice and broad oversight and then get out of the way.



    I would define civil as not saying things like "this writer has no idea about characterisation" especially when the same could often be applied to the kind of critic who seems to have very set ways of interpreting the characters.

    Especially when the writers they inevitably point to as classic or better often did exactly the same thing and brought a radical or at least skewed interpretation to the page. Time seems to make these older comics seem more established, but when you are old enough to remember these same writers being criticised in exactly the same way it always seems ironic.
    I don't really disagree with any of this

    I'm not saying we can expect any different really

  12. #267
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Respect is not always defined by a slavish devotion to the past.

    Some writers do well in catering to a more nostalgic view of a character. Others serve characters equally well by making bold moves with them.

    Calling any story that shakes a character or their world up "click bait" automatically labels anything that doesn't exist within certain safe boundaries as empty sensationalism and that's not the case. Not everyone defines "telling good stories" as just telling stories that are not provocative or challenging.



    This doesn't matter. And it goes back to entitlement. "I've read more than you so I know the character better." is not a legitimate argument.

    Someone who has read a character more may have a more opinionated view of that character but it doesn't make their interpretation more right or valid.

    Given how many creative hands characters pass through over decades, expecting every detail of that character's continuity to be assigned the same weight that an individual reader believes it should have is impossible. If a character acts in a certain way or says something that a reader says is contradictory to something they did or said in an issue from 1974, or 1988, or whatever - it's not necessarily that the writer is ignorant or disrespectful of that past history but that they simply don't feel it's pertinent to the story they're telling now.

    It would be impossible to make every current action of a character with decades worth of stories line up perfectly with everything they've said and done in the past. And you can't stop the narrative every time to explain for the benefit of that small group of fans hung up on one thing or another why, even though this character might have said such a thing in vol 3, issue 57 of their title but now they said such and such a thing in the new issue, that it actually makes sense because they might have thought this then in such a situation but now they have a different perspective and so on and so forth.

    Writers can't be so hidebound by continuity and readers need to understand that characters are more than rigid constructions.
    Baseing an opinion having read a 1000 books of a character over say having read 50 does, by definition make it more valid, within the context of opinion that is validity

    It does not make it more correct or sound, they could still be way off, but if it's based on much greater experience it is by definition more valid

    That's how expertise is applied in asking opinion in legal cases for example

    The expert with more experience has more validity, they may still be proven wrong, but the burden of proof is not on them

    Given the availability of the material nowadays of course, digital wise and so on, of course anyone might have that experience

  13. #268
    Incredible Member bobellis75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Ignore us. We mostly finished talking about the plot and what else do you talk about on the Monday after?

    I also have reservations about Ghost Rider in this book. Clearly Aaron is a fan of the character concepts but they just leave me a bit cold generally. I didn’t mind the early Robbie books but here it just seems weird and zany to have him driving a car everywhere. I can only assume he plays a big part in the wider narrative.
    Ha...I just finally read the issue last night. So I'm late to the party.

    It does seem weird to have the car underwater, etc. His character almost seems to be the conduit for the audience...the "oh look how cool it is to hang out with these guys" character. but overall, I have actually liked Robbie in this book. I don't think I'd want to read a solo book...but in smaller doses, as part of a team, he works for me.

  14. #269
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobellis75 View Post
    Ha...I just finally read the issue last night. So I'm late to the party.

    It does seem weird to have the car underwater, etc. His character almost seems to be the conduit for the audience...the "oh look how cool it is to hang out with these guys" character. but overall, I have actually liked Robbie in this book. I don't think I'd want to read a solo book...but in smaller doses, as part of a team, he works for me.
    I agree I think as part of a team he's great, on his own He might annoy me

    But I've always been a team book dynamics fan over solo titles

  15. #270
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kilderkin View Post
    Baseing an opinion having read a 1000 books of a character over say having read 50 does, by definition make it more valid, within the context of opinion that is validity

    It does not make it more correct or sound, they could still be way off, but if it's based on much greater experience it is by definition more valid

    That's how expertise is applied in asking opinion in legal cases for example

    The expert with more experience has more validity, they may still be proven wrong, but the burden of proof is not on them

    Given the availability of the material nowadays of course, digital wise and so on, of course anyone might have that experience
    And anyone might read the exact same amount of material involving a character and still come away with a different opinion than another fan or writer regarding what that character would or wouldn't do and what kind of stories that character can play a valid part in. You can read everything about a character and still not see eye to eye about that character with another person who's done the same. So for anyone to hold up their stats as a reader is ultimately meaningless. Reading a lot about a character might give someone a leg up in a trivia contest and that's it. It doesn't make them the final arbiter on what is right or wrong pertaining to that character simply by dint of the fact that they've read a lot.

    And there's a vast difference between the matters that are decided in court cases and arguing how, say, Spider-Man should be written.

    There is no "burden of proof" that a comic book writer has to present to readers in order to justify their decisions.

    If they were hired by the publishers and editors in charge of a property and whatever storyline they discussed went through the development process and were approved, that's it.

    Readers can like that final product or not but no one's "expert" opinion means anything except in rating the value of their own individual reading experience.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •