Rarely, almost never, and never: The plot techniques that are better off avoided

[skyvolt2000]

Almost never: Creating legacy replacements and changing a character's codename and ID. These rarely work well. The best cases tend to revolve around the first character being anchored to an earlier time. Doing it in the present is cheap. Unless the character has already been using a ton of different names.

Generally the plan is for the original to come back and the new guy gets a new name and more importantly INVESTMENT.

We saw that with Jean Paul-he was Batman and then went back to being Arzael and we saw a 100 issue run.

We saw that with James Rhodey as Ironman than as War Machine with a mini and 2 different ongoings.

We saw it with Erik Masterson as Thunderstrike and Jane as Valkyrie.

We saw it with Doom as Ironman-while folks were hating Riri Williams who NEVER called herself Ironman. Same with Frank Castle as War Machine.

Never: Changing a character's sexual orientation. If the creators didn't intend on doing it early on, it shouldn't happen.

Seeing that the creator does not OWN said character-the COMPANY does-they can do whatever they want. No matter how many fans cry about it.

It also traps any future writers and silences fans who disagree with the change

If all you do is cry about the sexuality of the character- you are going to get pushback.

Nobody is throwing a fit about Harley or Ivy or Batwoman being LGBTQA+.
Not one of them were created that way. WHY??? Because of what I pointed out earlier- an INVESTMENT in creating material.

And not just pulling out a LGBTQA+ character for the annual Pride book or poorly done story about homophobia.

See Prodigy-what has he done since coming out Bisexual? He's been killed off twice, clowned by Antman, plot device in Young Avengers and dumped in Pride annual. A guy that is one of the most dangerous mutants and could take over the world according to Emma Frost.

Alan Scott or Prodigy or Tim Drake sexuality should NOT interfere with stories being written with them having adventures. Being LGBTQA+ did not take away any of their skills.

[KurtW95]

The main source for it is Plutarch - an ancient Greek writer. It's not a modern interpretation at all. You can find references to Hercules' male lovers in other old works, like Christopher Marlow's Edward II.

I challenge you to find and present an actual primary source from the writer that cannot possibly be an interpretation or bad translation. Either way, if it were the truth, it would only be coming from one writer among countless who did not say so. I do not know about the play that you mentioned, but the same can be said that people could be reading into it and also that one writer from way more recent times doesn't get to change a mythological character.

So...Byrne allegedly disagrees with Claremont's interpretation of a character they created together, therefore she can only ever be interpreted as straight? It makes no sense.

Characters that were always portrayed as straight until recently. And I am quite skeptical that Claremont intended otherwise way back when too.

Seeing that the creator does not OWN said character-the COMPANY does-they can do whatever they want. No matter how many fans cry about it.

So, I take it that you've never been upset about a direction that a company has taken with a character that you like. And if you ever were upset, ridicule and siding with the company would be the proper response?

Nobody is throwing a fit about Harley or Ivy or Batwoman being LGBTQA+.
Not one of them were created that way. WHY??? Because of what I pointed out earlier- an INVESTMENT in creating material.

Neither of those characters should have been changed either. The third was a new character that heavily borrowed from Kathy Kane. I think she can be in comics as her own character and not replace Kathy, who should still be the first version of the character and a Bruce Wayne love interest.

Alan Scott or Prodigy or Tim Drake sexuality should NOT interfere with stories being written with them having adventures. Being LGBTQA+ did not take away any of their skills.

These character have been changed to the place where it's al the characters are. And your state meant begs the question; if it doesn't interfere in any way, why do it in the first place?

[Agent Z]

I challenge you to find and present an actual primary source from the writer that cannot possibly be an interpretation or bad translation. Either way, if it were the truth, it would only be coming from one writer among countless who did not say so. I do not know about the play that you mentioned, but the same can be said that people could be reading into it and also that one writer from way more recent times doesn't get to change a mythological character.




Characters that were always portrayed as straight until recently. And I am quite skeptical that Claremont intended otherwise way back when too.



So, I take it that you've never been upset about a direction that a company has taken with a character that you like. And if you ever were upset, ridicule and siding with the company would be the proper response?



Neither of those characters should have been changed either. The third was a new character that heavily borrowed from Kathy Kane. I think she can be in comics as her own character and not replace Kathy, who should still be the first version of the character and a Bruce Wayne love interest.



These character have been changed to the place where it's al the characters are. And your state meant begs the question; if it doesn't interfere in any way, why do it in the first place?

Magneto wasn't a Jewish holocaust survivor until Claremont made him one. In fact, this change is far more intrusive than altering a character's sexual orientation because the further we get from World War 2, the more future writers have to adjust the sliding timescale to a point it makes sense that Magneto is still at an age where he can be so active.

As for Kathy Kane, she brings nothing to the table. She's utterly redundant in a comic series that is already packed to the gills with love interests for the main hero, many of which are far more interesting.

[Alan2099]

As far as Claremont's intentions, the guy was an incredible perverted man. He frequently ripped off characters clothes,. dressed them in bondage and fetish gear, and wrote ever female character as if she was about to make out with another woman at the first chance. Let's not pretend him writing a character as gay was any great progressive or even well thought out character trait.

[CaptCleghorn]

As far as Claremont's intentions, the guy was an incredible perverted man. He frequently ripped off characters clothes,. dressed them in bondage and fetish gear, and wrote ever female character as if she was about to make out with another woman at the first chance. Let's not pretend him writing a character as gay was any great progressive or even well thought out character trait.

So true. If Claremont was "32 flavors and then some", it's a certainty none of them is vanilla.

[Psy-lock]

I challenge you to find and present an actual primary source from the writer that cannot possibly be an interpretation or bad translation. Either way, if it were the truth, it would only be coming from one writer among countless who did not say so. I do not know about the play that you mentioned, but the same can be said that people could be reading into it and also that one writer from way more recent times doesn't get to change a mythological character.

Ffs, we're talking about Greco-Roman mythology, in which most of the gods and heroes had a boy lover in one version or another. The argument about which interpretation is more canon is pointless, because there's no such thing as canon in stories that have been retold and reinterpreted countless times. But since you've asked...

Both Plutarch and Aristotle observed that male lovers in Thebes exchanged sacred vows at Iolaus' tomb

"And as to the [male] loves of Hercules, it is difficult to record them because of their number; but those who think that Iolaos was one of them do to this day worship and honor him, and make their loved ones swear fidelity at his tomb."

"It is a tradition likewise that Iolaos, who assisted Hercules in his labors and fought at his side, was beloved of him; and Aristotle observes that even in his time lovers pledged their faith at Iolaos' tomb."

And here's a quote from Apollodorus, another ancient greek writer

For Hylas, son of Theiodamas and beloved (eromenos) of Heracles, had been sent to draw water, and was snatched away by nymphs.

Christopher Marlow was a gay/bi man. Edward II was a gay king. In the play, Edward compares his grief for his lover to Hercules' grief for Hylas.

Characters that were always portrayed as straight until recently. And I am quite skeptical that Claremont intended otherwise way back when too.

Yeah, she had such a rich and well-received heterosexual history...

Anyway, I'm sure none of it is enough for you, since you obviously consider heterosexual interpretations as inteherently more valid. So you need not reply

[Anthony W]

Hercules was not created by Marvel

Marvel had its own interpretation of the character of Hercules that fans have been following for decades that they tossed in the trash. Long term fans of the character are not going to care about you bringing up previous interpretations of Hercules. They only care about "their" Hercules the one they have been following for decades. This is what a competent editor would tell a writer to shut this down.... but Marvel has been bad since 2010 and keeps getting worse .

They think the character is now ruined and they have every right to think that. I find it amusing that Hercules was destroyed because someone pushed up their glasses and said "Well, actually...."

[Username taken]

Marvel had its own interpretation of the character of Hercules that fans have been following for decades that they tossed in the trash. Long term fans of the character are not going to care about you bringing up previous interpretations of Hercules. They only care about "their" Hercules the one they have been following for decades. This is what a competent editor would tell a writer to shut this down.... but Marvel has been bad since 2010 and keeps getting worse .

They think the character is now ruined and they have every right to think that. I find it amusing that Hercules was destroyed because someone pushed up their glasses and said "Well, actually...."

Interestingly, Axel Alonso was flat-out opposed to changing 616 Hercules.

I think as soon as he left, everything just happened.

[Thor-Ul]

Ffs, we're talking about Greco-Roman mythology, in which most of the gods and heroes had a boy lover in one version or another. The argument about which interpretation is more canon is pointless, because there's no such thing as canon in stories that have been retold and reinterpreted countless times. But since you've asked...

Both Plutarch and Aristotle observed that male lovers in Thebes exchanged sacred vows at Iolaus' tomb

And here's a quote from Apollodorus, another ancient greek writer

Christopher Marlow was a gay/bi man. Edward II was a gay king. In the play, Edward compares his grief for his lover to Hercules' grief for Hylas.

Yeah, she had such a rich and well-received heterosexual history...

Anyway, I'm sure none of it is enough for you, since you obviously consider heterosexual interpretations as inteherently more valid. So you need not reply

The greek also had their group of virgin goddess too. Remember that. (But I confess I have certaind doubts about what "virginity" meant to greeks.)

Marvel had its own interpretation of the character of Hercules that fans have been following for decades that they tossed in the trash. Long term fans of the character are not going to care about you bringing up previous interpretations of Hercules. They only care about "their" Hercules the one they have been following for decades. This is what a competent editor would tell a writer to shut this down.... but Marvel has been bad since 2010 and keeps getting worse .
They think the character is now ruined and they have every right to think that. I find it amusing that Hercules was destroyed because someone pushed up their glasses and said "Well, actually...."

Anyway, the question with Hercules being every moment closer to his mythical version is not only his love life, but also we should face the questionable actions than also are described in mythology. And that is going to be complicated.

[Psy-lock]

Marvel had its own interpretation of the character of Hercules that fans have been following for decades that they tossed in the trash. Long term fans of the character are not going to care about you bringing up previous interpretations of Hercules. They only care about "their" Hercules the one they have been following for decades. This is what a competent editor would tell a writer to shut this down.... but Marvel has been bad since 2010 and keeps getting worse .

They think the character is now ruined and they have every right to think that. I find it amusing that Hercules was destroyed because someone pushed up their glasses and said "Well, actually...."

Oh, for the love of..."Ruined"? "Destroyed"? Because he likes men as well as women? Poor suffering heterosexuals.

[Anthony W]

The greek also had their group of virgin goddess too. Remember that. (But I confess I have certaind doubts about what "virginity" meant to greeks.)



Anyway, the question with Hercules being every moment closer to his mythical version is not only his love life, but also we should face the questionable actions than also are described in mythology. And that is going to be complicated.

You're giving them way too much credit. This was just about the one thing. I doubt they even like the character.

[Anthony W]

Oh, for the love of..."Ruined"? "Destroyed"? Because he likes men as well as women? Poor suffering heterosexuals.

It turns out fans don't respond well when their favorite characters undergo radical changes in character that are poorly thought out. Who knew?

[marvelprince]

The orientation thing is a little subjective. Some like Shatterstar and Rictor where it was heavily implied and are now being fleshed out I think work a little better than former horndog was gay all along. Although that does actually happen IRL too ��*♂️.

I don’t agree with the legacy characters thing though. It again depends on the story but I think stories can be more impactful with the legacy. We wouldn’t have the history of characters like the modern day Flash and Green Lantern if they avoided the golden age legacies. And in some cases they manage to even surpass the originals.

[Zero Hunter]

A firm Never is ageing up kids to adults. It has worked maybe once with Cable (and I'm not even sure if Cable was always intended to be Christopher Summers to begin with). Most of the time it just sucks and its lazy storytelling.

[Anthony W]

The orientation thing is a little subjective. Some like Shatterstar and Rictor where it was heavily implied and are now being fleshed out I think work a little better than former horndog was gay all along. Although that does actually happen IRL too ��*♂️.

If its just "a little better" then it's not worth the effort. Just make new characters.