So just what is "in-character"?

[dlw66]

We discuss often different Marvel characters who are being written "wrongly" these days. Some of us hearken back to days gone by, but some of our younger posters may think that certain characters are being handled spot on.

What's your opinion of how a specific character should be written? What are his/her personality traits? Can you name a situation that said character just wouldn't do (my examples would actually be from movies -- Daredevil, where DD kicks a guy onto the train tracks just as the train speeds by, and from Batman Returns, when Batman fires the Batmobile thrusters on a thug, burning him)? Or something they wouldn't say (anyone -- Oy!)?

[Doctor Bong]

How about Spider-Man spouting Yiddish words all the time or Wolverine yelling "Stop raping me!"...?

[scottharris]

Let's see, something someone wouldn't say... How about, Clint Barton would never say he was going to kill every Skrull in the world?

[Shiryu]

It's a very tough question. We decide what is and isn't in character for someone on the base of their past behaviour, and on how we assume he or she would apply that behaviour to a different, new situation.

Now, this works quite well on already-seen actions taking place without new external influences (i.e. Spider-Man happily fighting thugs during a routine city sweep). But when it's a new action, or an old action taking place under different circumstances, things change, and applying the usual filters can be a mistake.

In an early Lee-Romita story for example, Spidey ignores a shooting between policemen and robbers because he is in a hurry to bring aunt May her medicine. Is that out of character, or is it an in-character acceptable variation given the circumstances?

Also I don't generally see as out of character people saying they want to do something, even though I might if they actually do that thing. Spidey said he wanted to kill Wanda during House of M, which for me was acceptable. However, had he really killed her in cold blood, it would have been OoC. On the other hand, Wolverine's choice of word in Scott's example definitely sounded OoC because the character has never been written as one to plead or beg, no matter what.

Peter's deal with Mephisto is one that leaves me uncertain. Based on his past actions and behaviour I'd say he would have never accepted. But then again, as far as I know he had never been in quite that situation, so I tend to see it more as a moment of weakness than as something totally OoC.

So, to cut a long story short, it depends. But generally anyone taking a decisione widely different from a similar one taken under comparable circumstances. Like a mainstream hero killing in cold blood or letting someone (even a criminal/villain) die, Captain America snapping Hawkeye's bow, Reed Richards refusing to lend his equipment to Hank Pym or building a prison in the Negative Zone etc.

[humanbelly]

Jun 19, 2009 5:37:33 GMT -5 Shiryu said:

It's a very tough question. We decide what is and isn't in character for someone on the base of their past behaviour, and on how we assume he or she would apply that behaviour to a different, new situation.

Now, this works quite well on already-seen actions taking place without new external influences (i.e. Spider-Man happily fighting thugs during a routine city sweep). But when it's a new action, or an old action taking place under different circumstances, things change, and applying the usual filters can be a mistake.

In an early Lee-Romita story for example, Spidey ignores a shooting between policemen and robbers because he is in a hurry to bring aunt May her medicine. Is that out of character, or is it an in-character acceptable variation given the circumstances?

Also I don't generally see as out of character people saying they want to do something, even though I might if they actually do that thing. Spidey said he wanted to kill Wanda during House of M, which for me was acceptable. However, had he really killed her in cold blood, it would have been OoC. On the other hand, Wolverine's choice of word in Scott's example definitely sounded OoC because the character has never been written as one to plead or beg, no matter what.

Peter's deal with Mephisto is one that leaves me uncertain. Based on his past actions and behaviour I'd say he would have never accepted. But then again, as far as I know he had never been in quite that situation, so I tend to see it more as a moment of weakness than as something totally OoC.

So, to cut a long story short, it depends. But generally anyone taking a decisione widely different from a similar one taken under comparable circumstances. Like a mainstream hero killing in cold blood or letting someone (even a criminal/villain) die, Captain America snapping Hawkeye's bow, Reed Richards refusing to lend his equipment to Hank Pym or building a prison in the Negative Zone etc.

You've hit the nail right on head here, Shiryu. That "retconned" scene w/ Cap & Hawkeye was the first thing that came to my mind. Not only did Cap snap Hawkeye's bow, he sucker-punched him and humiliated him in front of everyone else. I know I'll come off sounding weirdly over-invested-- but that literally made me sick to my stomach. That kind of cruelty masquerading as "tough love" is almost as UN-Cap as something can be. Cap has always been the fellow who prevailed by respecting folks to death, as it were. Suddenly, we're supposed to believe that, back in 1964 or '65, he was actually a sadistic drill sergeant, and we just never saw that side of him. . .
Reed's a little tougher, 'cause I don't think he's been handled consistently over the years. Was destroying Franklin's brain in-character (even in a moment of huge extremis)? Was saving Galactus, and defending G's place in the Cosmic order in character? Was his mentally falling apart while trapped in the past in character? Taking over Latveria? Building a concentration camp in the Negative Zone? I believe many writers have taken too many liberties with Reed's capabilities, and may have unintentionally created a man who, if anything, is far more unstable and CLEARLY more dangerous than Hank Pym is. But he's not viewed that way in context, nor written that way, nor treated that way. He does these things for the convenience of plot device, not out of a sense of the history of his character. One would assume, though, that even at his pragmatic worst, Reed wouldn't build a Gitmo-like prison to house super-folk w/out due process of law.
Peter & MJ's sacrifice was, if nothing else, an uncharacteristically immature decision on their part. Peter is not one to surrender to no-win choices. And if May were to somehow discover the truth of what happened here, she would NEVER forgive them. NEVER. Pete & MJ would have to know that, no matter how deep their grief and heartbreak at losing her was. (Hey, on a side note-- did anyone notice in that Wedding Invitation ad this month, where it's covered by Spidey's mask, that the invite could read, "Mary Jane Watson & Peter Parker"-? Golly.)

But, yes, remaining "in character" is a matter of respecting precedent, initial creative intent, logical progression and context. Characters must always grow, of course. But a major deviation has to be earned in what it costs the character. If Spidey suddenly picked up a gun and started shooting thugs' knees off to extract information and expedite his mission, for instance, you've got a MAJOR transgression on your hands. And in this superhero business, if everyone is ultimately pushed to cross their moral limitations at some point (from which they can never go back), then you eventually have an entire population of grim, hardened, emotionally destroyed heroes for whom any horrible means justifies the "greater good" of the ends. And they become irrevocably. . . dull. They lose their humanity. Bloody and hard-edged isn't interesting in the long-term. If "extreme" is the norm, then where do you go from there? THAT'S why consistent characterization- and the necessary limits it imposes- is so important. As redundant as it sounds, that's what makes these folks likable, relatable, and interesting.

Hmm. This kind of poured out stream of consciousness this a.m. One of those mornings, I s'pose. Thanks for keeping up, if you went this far-!

HB

[bobc]

Right on, Human Belly.

There is a DISGUSTING lack of nobility in Marvel characters these days. I will say that Hudlin, in the past year, has made the Black Panther and Storm noble again, but beyond that...

[humanbelly]

Oh, as for other examples-- I've mentioned it elsewhere-- but this devil-may-care, more-is-better convention of having EVERYONE use mild profanity is stupid, lazy, and insulting. Dr. Strange simply wouldn't (being more than well-versed in the power of verbal oaths & curses!). Peter Parker CLEARLY wouldn't have used language like that in his formative years, and has FAR too sharp a verbal wit to have to resort to it at this point That's completely part of his charm. Cap would never use it casually (too straight-arrow), but certainly would go there when he meant what he was saying. Wasn't there a period a little ways back when Sue Richards suddenly went all foul-mouthed? Absolutely NO precedent for that with her. And she's never exhibited a need to appear "cool" or whatever. She's young and beautiful. . . but she still projects the image of "Mom"--- and hopefully moms don't use a whole lot of casual cursing. Matt Murdock? Okay, well, he's a lawyer-- and they pretty much put longshoremen to shame, so he gets a pass (my first year of grad school I lived in a dorm w/ Georgetown Law School students. That is one confidently foul-mouthed bunch, I tell you. . . ).

I mourn the loss of "!@#$%!" as a substitute for the actual words being used. I don't think it lessened the supposed dramatic impact a bit; we ALL knew more or less what was being expressed; and it didn't validate the words themselves in the eyes of younger readers by putting them right out there.

I truly anticipate that we're going to see Jarvis or Aunt May letting loose w/ an impassioned "D*** you!" or "Go to H***! or "Kiss my wrinkly old a**!" at some point. And it will be sooner rather than later. Because it will just be so "friggin' kewl" to have old geezers cussin' guys out, too.

I mean, that sells, right? So it must be in character.

HB

[ultron69]

It's a bit like Hitchcock being able to make a frightening film without having to resort to a lot of blood and guts (Psycho, anyone?).

[spiderwasp]

Although there are certainly times when characters behave "Out of character", I think that in general the term is usually used to simply describe bad writing. Lots of "Out of character" actions can be perfectly "In character" if motivations are written well enough. As an example, I'll give you a non super-hero situation. Let's say you have a character who has been actively protesting abortion for years, going to marches and appearing on tv shows to speak against it. One day, he just up and announces that abortion is not so bad. Thats out of character. On the other hand, let's say that his wife gets pregnant and the doctor presents him with the situation that his wife may not survive the pregnancy. He struggles with the delimna and ultimately urges his wife to have the abortion because he can't risk losing her. He then goes public and says "I've reconsidered my stance. Now that same action is in character. Writers like Bendis (And others) ignore this very important step and just have their characters change willy nilly. It's just bad writing.

Look at Sandman. I've talked before about how he slowly changed from villain to hero. He was accepted by the super-hero community enough to be brought into the Avengers and Wild Pack. Nothing about it seemed out of character. When the Wizard quickly changed him back to a villain, no one seemed to even question it. That was out of character for them.

Hawkeye and Quicksilver, among others, have recently turned on Hank Pym and criticized him for actions that happened years ago. This was out of character because they had since shown him a great deal of respect and admiration. There was absolutely nothing different that occured to change their opinions, and yet they changed all the same. Bad writing.

When the Avengers West Coast broke up, Vision and Captain America spearheaded the move. Vision cited an unstable line-up and the damage to the headquarters as reasons. However, during the reign of the WCA, the East Coast team had a constantly changing membership, even to the point that everyone quit and had to be replaced by Gilgamesh, Mr. Fantastic, and the Invisible Woman. The Wackos were never that unstable. As for damage to headquarters, during the WCA reign, the ECA lost their mansion and Hydrobase. Was Vison's argument out of character or was it just plain bad writing? I'm not sure it matters.

The drinking and wild behavior, including sleeping with Hawkeye when she and Hank were supposedly back together, in recent interpretations of the Wasp came out of nowhere. To me, that was totally out of character. If he had presented some reason for this change, it might have worked. Her revelation to the Scarlet Witch that the twins had once existed was out of character if the secret was that important. On the other hand, although going crazy wasn't completely out of character for the Scarlet Witch (She has had a history) it was still bad writing because it wasn't a secret in the first place.

Hawkeye becoming Ronin was out of character because there has never been anything in his history to indicate a love of swordplay and martial arts. He has always been a marksman. His stint as Goliath was also out of character, but less so because we saw that he did it because he was tired of not having the raw power of the other team members. There was motivation. He doesn't seem any more powerful as Ronin than as Hawkeye so that same motivation hardly applies.

Was Reed Richard's recent slamming of Hank Pym out of character? Again, I say yes because he was willing to trust and work side by side with Hank/Skrull when the two of them and Ironman headed up the Negative Zone prison and the Initiative but now that the real Hank is back, he doesn't trust Hank's judgement anymore. What changed?

The whole Marvel Universe acted out of character when the New Warriors incident at Stanford happened. Situations of this gravity are the norm in this universe, not the exception. The Warriors were criticized for having this battle in a populated area by the same Avengers who took a bus to a suburban neighborhood to battle Korvac, a cosmic being. When a reaction is convenient, the writers just use it. I say that you have to work around what's already there and still find a way to obtain that motivation otherwise you are just a lazy writer.


My basic point in this long bit of babbling is that few things are truly out of someone's character if they evolve slowly or from a natural place. Lots of things are out of character if they stem from a bad writer's desire to just have the person act this way or speak this way without bothering to justify it.

[bobc]

Human belly--do you mean like Sgt Fury calling Reed Richards a "bunghole?"

[humanbelly]

S-Wasp-

Yep, you're on the money. Almost by definition, OoC actions, language, and behavior are a MAJOR symptom of bad writing. After all, where else could the responsibility lie? Man, your examples are ALL ones that have crossed my mind. . .

Bobcat- Heh. . . well, actually, that sort of language for Nick is kinda IN character (And worse, to tell the truth. He was a bullet-spittin' Regular Army sergeant, after all. . .). But it's also a profoundly stupid way to talk to someone like Reed-- and Nick Fury ain't stupid by a long whisker. So it's out of character in that sense. Also, it's just a crude phrase that doesn't transfer well to the page. A CLEAR example of where "!@#$%!" would sufficeth so much better. . .

HB

[Shiryu]

Jun 19, 2009 14:20:05 GMT -5 spiderwasp said:

Look at Sandman. I've talked before about how he slowly changed from villain to hero. He was accepted by the super-hero community enough to be brought into the Avengers and Wild Pack. Nothing about it seemed out of character. When the Wizard quickly changed him back to a villain, no one seemed to even question it. That was out of character for them.

The drinking and wild behavior, including sleeping with Hawkeye when she and Hank were supposedly back together, in recent interpretations of the Wasp came out of nowhere. To me, that was totally out of character. If he had presented some reason for this change, it might have worked.

Excellent posts HB and SW. These two examples in particular are spot on. As far as I know the Wild Pack itselft was the only one to question Sandman's change in the Thunderbolts (in the early Busiek issues I think), and Clint and Wasp sleeping together wasn't OoC just for her but for him too, given his years of friendship and respect with both of them.

As for the language and the general loss of characters' nobility, I fear it's Marvel adapting to the real world trends

[starfoxxx]

I won't get too specific, but for me, Bendis writes all his characters with the same whiney, snarky, smart-a## Spider-man voice. New Avengers was TERRIBLE with inconsistent characters. Come on, Ms. Marvel and Iron Fist just SUDDENLY developed a snarky sense of humor??? And his Ares is all wrong.
For me, Bendis is the WORST offender of screwing up long-established characters in Marvel books.

The guy who writes Hercules in INCREDIBLE HERCULES is pretty bad, too.

And one of the WORST offenses I can remember off-hand is a crappy late 90's Marvel comic where the writer wrote the Grey Gargoyle with a thuggish, "Wrecking Crew"-type voice instead of his distinct, intelligent, French accent. ARRRRRRGH!

This is a nice thread, as writers sticking to characters is a BIGTIME pet peeve of mine. I don't care what wacky situation they come up with, just do a little research, and get the characterization right. SHEESH!

[Shiryu]

Jun 19, 2009 16:10:46 GMT -5 starfoxxx said:

For me, Bendis is the WORST offender of screwing up long-established characters in Marvel books.

Many won't agree on this, but another one I'd put almost up there in terms of mischaracterization is John Byrne (but to his credit, he gives everyone the right speech. His Doom sounds great for example). Vision, Wonder Man, She-Hulk, Wasp, Wanda, Spider-Man, Tigra, Sue Richards are just some of the characters he rewrote as he pleased.

[humanbelly]

Jun 19, 2009 14:02:40 GMT -5 ultron69 said:

It's a bit like Hitchcock being able to make a frightening film without having to resort to a lot of blood and guts (Psycho, anyone?).

Very, very true. And even John Carpenter's original HALLOWEEN is at its most effectively terrifying when you can't see Michael. Or when you're literally dreading that you're about to see him. The actual slasher moments are in fact a release of that horrible tension-- almost a relief.

I believe he said much of his camera work in that film was directly inspired by Hitchcock.

Sorry guys-- I'm a sucker and a fiend for tangential threads sometimes. (Oooh Ultron, you've sucked me in AGAIN!)

HB

[humanbelly]

Jun 19, 2009 16:23:55 GMT -5 Shiryu said:

Jun 19, 2009 16:10:46 GMT -5 starfoxxx said:

For me, Bendis is the WORST offender of screwing up long-established characters in Marvel books.

Many won't agree on this, but another one I'd put almost up there in terms of mischaracterization is John Byrne (but to his credit, he gives everyone the right speech. His Doom sounds great for example). Vision, Wonder Man, She-Hulk, Wasp, Wanda, Spider-Man, Tigra, Sue Richards are just some of the characters he rewrote as he pleased.

Oy, I wrote one of my habitual longish replies to this, and then it was lost when I posted 'cause I'd timed out in the interim.
In brief-- I kind of agree, but I'm not sure it's mischaracterization exactly. JB clearly loved his MU history, and indeed had a very nice facility for creating folks' voices. Two instances in particular- the destruction of the Vision and Sue Richards' possession by Malice-- were actually supported very well historically & circumstantially. BUT THEY WERE TERRIBLE THINGS TO DO TO THE CHARACTERS! And they had far-reaching consequences that the fans generally hated. It's more like he had a pretty good handle on the characters, but insisted on writing stories about them that didn't necessarily sit well with the fans. Just a very quirky direction-taker.

I seem to remember a Marvel Age cartoon after JB had left Marvel, depicting all of the injured, disgruntled characters in the "BYRNE WARD". Cap, Spidey, FF, Hulk (THERE was a big, ol' build-up to a comically short tenure!), and several others--- all angry at how they'd been mishandled by this premiere artist/writer in the comic book industry.

HB

[starfoxxx]

My quote about Bendis "screwing up long established characters" was meant to say he screws up the CHARACTERIZATION of long-established characters. As I said before, I don't really care WHAT situation a writer puts the character in (although KILLING them IS a d!ck-move......ARGH!!!BENDIS!!!!)----I mean it can always be ret-conned, or even look at all the wacky stories from the 50's that we've conveniently forgotten.

I was referring to him screwing up the "voice" or personality of long-established characters.

[Shiryu]

And they had far-reaching consequences that the fans generally hated. It's more like he had a pretty good handle on the characters, but insisted on writing stories about them that didn't necessarily sit well with the fans. Just a very quirky direction-taker.

Hmm. I agree with what you say here, but I still think that at times his handle on the character was oblivious of past characterization.

Wasp, who had always treated the Vision as a human, starts telling herself that Wanda deserves a "real" boyfriend/husband as opposed to a machine and is suddenly very supportive of her relationship with Simon. Simon in turn forgets his friendship with the Vision and suddenly turns hostile refusing to give him his brain patterns again. Likewise, Hank talks about the Vision not as an injured comrade but like broken toaster, and no one really seems to mourn the loss of his former self.

(Our titanic trio Sharkar-Tana-DLW have done a very in-depth discussion of this topic and they express the points much better than I can. Here is the general link
twogirlsaguyandsomecomics.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Vision)

At the same time over at the FF (or maybe it was in a graphic novel), Byrne had She-Hulk say that she has been "felt, touched and explored in places she didn't even know she had" or something like that, which is not too far away from Wolverine's "stop raping me" IMHO.

[scottharris]

The discussion of John Byrne the Antichrist is interesting for me, as I think it highlights some of the generational differences we have here on the board with the work Bendis is doing. Of course, woodside is probably avoiding this topic like the other one, but for me, these John Byrne issues are very much like the Bendis Avengers, excpet I see Byrne from both sides of the equation.

I started reading comics in late 1984. My first exposure to the FF was during the Byrne run, and I loved it. For me, since I had never known any previous characterizations of any of his FF -- Alicia or She Hulk or Sue Storm -- these were the real characterizations. This is what I started with, so it seemed right.

However, when he went over to WCA a few years later, he was taking over characters that I was, by that time, very familiar with, having collected most of the Avengers run by then. And I quickly grew to loathe his WCA for the reasons mentioned already -- he basically imposed his own view of Vision on all the Avengers, completely disregarding their personalities over the prior 25 years. Not to mention his attempts to destabilize Wanda in order to retell the Dark Phoenix storyline the way he wanted to the first time around (which eventually led, of course, to Disassembled).

In retrospect, Byrne's work on FF is probably as out of line with Marvel history and established characterizations as his WCA work was, but the difference for me was that I knew he was botching stuff in WCA and I didn't know it in FF, so I disliked WCA and liked FF. And I am assuming that this is likewise true of many fans who like or dislike Bendis.

[humanbelly]

Jun 20, 2009 16:15:00 GMT -5 Shiryu said:

(Our titanic trio Sharkar-Tana-DLW have done a very in-depth discussion of this topic and they express the points much better than I can. Here is the general link
twogirlsaguyandsomecomics.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Vision)

.

Yes, yes, yes-- okay, okay-- NOW I recall. I didn't even have to read that entire discussion. My problem is that I didn't re-read the run of WCA when I was re-reading the entire Avengers run. So the magnitude and depths of his transgressions in WCA hadn't stayed with me as keenly. It did bring back how horrified, betrayed, etc. I'd felt at the time. Yep, Byrne was SERIOUSLY guilty of MAJOR OoC transgressions. Good grief. The animosity he clearly felt towards the Vision almost borders on being religious in its fervor. And, yes, he just re-wrote everyone else as though they had considered Vizh as little less than an advanced tool/weapon, and even if he WAS a person, he was dead now, anyhow. Very, very ugly. I also remember that this was about the time I stopped liking JB unconditionally anymore.

I was definitely in the tank for him throughout his time with the FF, though. I may have mentioned it elsewhere, but he SAVED that book when he came aboard. It had gone into an awful decline for about 18 months prior, and was just a dog-bad book (some long arc involving the Sphinx, then the Brain Parasites; oh, it was bad. . .). He made some wild, unexpected choices, but I don't recall feeling like he was wrecking beloved characters or using them improperly. Having Sue lose her baby was harsh & heartbreaking--- but it wasn't out of line with what could be expected in the real world. Especially w/ radiation exposure, cosmic rays, etc in the mix.

But yeah, I am reminded of why he was considered a bad guy by many by the time he left Marvel. . .

HB

[Shiryu]

Jun 20, 2009 20:37:53 GMT -5 scottharris said:

In retrospect, Byrne's work on FF is probably as out of line with Marvel history and established characterizations as his WCA work was, but the difference for me was that I knew he was botching stuff in WCA and I didn't know it in FF, so I disliked WCA and liked FF. And I am assuming that this is likewise true of many fans who like or dislike Bendis.

I'm sure you are right. In the past we've discussed a few times the effects of the "first exposure" to a book, even art-wise. I started reading the Avengers when Al Milgrom was the artist, and to this day I struggle to shake the idea that that's how the characters are supposed to look like. While I prefer Perez, Buscema, Kirby, Adams and, art-wise, Byrne, I still put him up there. Others (many others ^^) see him as one of the worst Avengers' artists in history.

So likewise, for everyone who started to read the Avengers under Bendis, this probably are the definitive Luke Cage and the best team dynamics, while everything else that came before is cartoony or silly.