The Game of Questioning Creator Intentions
July 16th, 2009 by Esther Inglis-Arkell | Tags: DC comics, metaI wrote, a few posts ago, about selective continuity, the practice of admitting some parts of continuity into your vision of a character and setting other parts aside, and the way that that leads to wildly different visions of the same character.
At the end, though, I mentioned that often I will dismiss a writer’s version of a character, particularly if it is a character I like and want to keep seeing in a certain light, while being fine with that writer mucking up another character’s reputation.
I’ve seen this happen a lot in comics, and there seems to be a consistent excuse for it; that the writer him or herself is biased toward one character, or one type of character.
“Don’t read him, he always writes women as bimbos.”
“She hates that character and is using the comic to make them look bad.”
“He’s given an interview where he talks about how that’s his favorite character from when he was a kid.”
What better way to drown out continuity than with a resounding cry of “NO FAIR!” There are, however, a few problems with it.
The first is the way it tends to exaggerate creator’s preferences. A casual mention of a character that a writer or editor liked or disliked as a child can lead to endlessly recurring denunciation by fans, who assume that any plot point is either meant to artificially build up or knock down that character. I’m not a huge fan of Wonder Girl, but if I ever write Wonder Girl in comics, I don’t think I’d take a hit out on her just because of my lack of appreciation. (And I’ve mentioned several times on this site that I think Batman is a jerk, a prick, and arrogant idiot, and a torturer. I hate to see what kind of backlash that will bring about when I write Batman comics. ((And I will. I swear it.)))
The second problem with taking a writer out by questioning their intentions is that it often turns into a self-selecting point of view. The few times when they did not adhere to their supposed pattern? Flukes. Fear of being mocked. Or something prevented by the constraints of the story. It’s never that their styles are more varied than critics will admit.
Finally, this view prevents readers from even considering a new take on their character. You cannot imagine how much it pains me to write that last sentence, but it is true. Characters often need to change or they stagnate, and seeing your character built up over time is a fun thing.
That being said, I do enjoy torpedo-ing a piece of bad, or obviously biased, writing from time to time. Writers as well as characters can stagnate, and writers as well as characters can have bad habits. (Of course I wouldn’t know about either.) And fans are free, and often eager, to point it out. Plus there is a air of good, old-fashioned village gossip to that kind of talk. As long as it doesn’t escalate to torches and pitchforks, it can be a lot of fun.
Similar Posts:
- Selective Continuity
- Loooooooooove is a Many-Splendored Thing!
- Zig-Zagging 2: The Case For Fan Outrage
- A Few Questions With Ian Sattler
- How Long Do You Keep Hope Alive?
I agree with the problems to this approach. It seems sometimes that since nowadays creators of all kinds are known to people–from interviews or things they say on the Internet or at cons or whatever–that people can start following almost a shadow narrative of “what the author is up to.” So a person casually saying that they think Batman is a jerk becomes canon, and you look for evidence of that in the way they write Batman. And sometimes, to be fair, it’s true. Sometimes a writer will write a certain character a certain way and explain in interviews that this is the way they see the character. (Sometimes they’ll see a character a certain but not write that into the story because they don’t really consider it mainstream canon.)
Anyway, I think it can get too over-simplified, definitely. Somebody “doesn’t like a character” and that’s why none of it counts or it’s all terrible. Or they’re just promoting the character they like. I would think most professional writers try to do right by all characters, and it’s not unusual for a writer to start off disinterested or not liking a character and then, because they write them, coming to understand and like them better.
Otoh, especially with comics, selective continuity is a fact because you do have different writers with different povs, and stories that contradict. And sometimes writers do have povs that you learn to recognize and see grafted onto universes from the outside. That can be weirdly comforting if you don’t like what they’re doing or if it seems OOC. It’s almost like “proof” of why this isn’t really in continuity.
“Otoh, especially with comics, selective continuity is a fact because you do have different writers with different povs, and stories that contradict. And sometimes writers do have povs that you learn to recognize and see grafted onto universes from the outside. That can be weirdly comforting if you don’t like what they’re doing or if it seems OOC. It’s almost like “proof” of why this isn’t really in continuity.”
That got me thinking that even the creators tend to also adhere to “selective continuity”. Except, unlike the readers, they have the ability to make it so. Although I have a feeling that other factors go into it, I’m almost sure some retcons and/or choice of the continuity they use in their run of x-character has to do with what they preferred about a character.
I am usually biased against writers who come onto a book and gush about being lifelong fans. I can’t help but assume that half of their ideas are ones they came up with in their teens and have been waiting years to trot out. Of course, this doesn’t apply to writers whose work I normally enjoy, but if it’s something I’m on the fence about, it could make me put the book down. This is the opposite of the typical raction where learning that the writer has no affinity for the character makes readers worry — in that case, I take comfort in the hands of what I presume is a Professional Writer hired to do a job. It’s not fair, but it’s how I tend to view things.
I respect writers who leave their politics out of their writing, no matter their views – Bill Willingham might be a nut, but so far, Fables hasn’t reflected that. Now, DC Decisions on the other hand…
Speaking of shared universes, does anyone know if any of the more recent Man-Kzin War books (the only other shared universe I can think of right off the top of my head) have retconned away some of the earlier stories or made any other sort of changes? It would be interesting to see if this wasn’t just isolated to superhero comics.
@Chad Nevett: I think a few writers say that to appease the people who believe that superhero comics are some sort of sacred trust, only fit to hand down to those initiated in The Mysteries. That doesn’t mean that they AREN’T fans of course, just that they don’t have fan blinkers on.
@Lugh: Oh, no doubt, but I can’t help but trust writers who say the gig came up and they had to research it before accepting. It suggests a familiarity via the research but also a more objective/distanced standpoint. But, I’m also a big Warren Ellis fan and he seems to be the best example of a writer who does a lot of superhero work, but has never been a fan of the characters or genre.
@capntightpants: I do get the feeling that the way the Dick/Kory/Babs triangle has been treated over the last decade or so is basically the result of ship wars carrying over from fandom to pros.
There’s also when creators question each other’s intentions, i.e. the current goofiness with Rob Liefeld and Peter David regarding Shatterstar’s sexuality. Rob seems to think he’s being purposely undermined, and has promised to overturn Shatterstar planting one on Rictor when he gets a chance.