Tom Beland, artist of "True Story Swear to God" and writer on a few Big Two books here and there, offers this interesting opinion over on his Facebook page:
My thought on Marvel's/DC's war on marriage..? I kinda agree with them.
Because comic books aren't just for our generation. They're for every following generation. So your customer base is constantly leaving and arriving to the party.
And because of this, you have to keep characters at a certain age... because you need new buyers who are new to comics to relate to Peter Parker, or Clark Kent or whoever is wearing the <redacted> tights.
I was into Peter Parker as a kid because I felt like I was too young to be dealing with so much emotional <redacted> in my life. Peter was my age and he was dealing with <redacted>. Total relating and bonding with the character. I've bought Spider-Man since. And what I want is for some kid who's that age now to be able to relate to Peter Parker for the exact same reason I did back then. That kid should have the exact same awesome reaction that he's like Spider-Man.
That kid can't relate to Peter Parker being married, with a kid, working a job and trying to balance romancing his wife and saving the city. Peter might as well be the kid's math teacher if that's the case.
Because most older readers move on to different things or because comics are now $4 a book, leave them altogether. Which, I totally get.
$4 a book makes it impossible to follow any crossover event, so I don't buy any of the event books. Maybe I'll buy the trade, but I'm not using my rent money to buy 180 books that ends with the death of The Toad. I'm a fan... but I'm not a <redacted> idiot.
I remember when they were 12 cents. That sounds amazing until you have to realize that I had to beg for that 12 cents the way kids now beg for $60 for a video game. I had to mow the lawn... with a PUSH MOWER... for a quarter.
But here's the thing... some kid who's 7-years old, like I was when I got into comics, has no concept that comics used to cost twelve cents. Ever. To that kid, $4 is the standard price for a comic and some day THAT kid will be bitching about comics being $14 per book.
I'm the only one in my group of friends who still buys comics. So you can't just rely on one group of buyers to be successful forever, you have to deal with the new readers and you want them to have as much fun as you did when you were their age.
To me... events like marriage, or having a baby, or suffering a miscarriage... they're great for fans at that moment. But they end up horribly timestamping and aging their characters. 9/11 was over a decade ago, so isn't Spider-Man, who mourned the event alongside the other characters, be a decade older..?
My art student was shocked to find out Spider-Man was once in high school. I then told her that he was also once married and she asked me how old Peter Parker was supposed to be and I said "I think he's about 70." She got into the book after the whole Mesphisto storyline and she figured he was in his 30's because he had a job. I told her that when I got into Spider-Man, he was a kid in high school and she said "okay... THAT I would prefer."
It made sense that Peter Parker would age as I aged. I wanted him to go through life alongside me. Graduate... get married... kids. But in me getting that, the next kid doesn't get to have that character to relate to as I did. That kid gets Peter "married and taking naked photos of his wife to help with his depression" Parker. How <redacted> up is THAT..??
So, to ME... I'd say no life events. Ever.
No graduations, no marriages, no babies, no divorces or deaths, no careers, no being unemployed or anything else that takes that character and makes it impossible for my youngest reader to relate to.
And absolutely no life moments that timestamp the character. Spider-Man was around during Vietnam War... and every war since and yet he's still twenty..? For thirty years Franklin Richards was calling his Uncle Ben "Unca Ben." I kept asking why that kid never seem to grow up... even though he's lived through how many Presidents..?
I'd keep all that <redacted> out of my comics and maybe you won't get to read that issue of Avengers where Hank Pym gets to beat the <redacted> out of his wife and she files for divorce... but a kid who's new to comics gets to have his/her Ant Man and Wasp. The characters have to remain timeless.
And I'd make it mandatory that no characters die. Worst plot device ever. Great, you wrote a book where Gwen Stacy died. Awesome story. But you also just took Gwen Stacy away from new readers.
I'd allow dating in comics. Because it happens in high school and that's relatable. But no marrying because it'll just lead to one of them getting bumped off at a later date.
A connection to a comic book character is life-altering moment in time. Having a character you can relate to as I related to Peter Parker is an experience I'll take to my grave.
Every kid, every year, should be able to have that experience. Demanding that DC or Marvel age their characters because you're getting older is stupid. Your just robbing the next generation of readers the joy you had at that age.
Just my thoughts.
... And now I ask, what are your thoughts on the matter?
Replies
(Art by Tom Beland)
Can no one write anything without throwing in profanity anymore? When did these words become acceptable pronouns and adverbs? Doesn't anyone use eloquence and style to display their emotions in print?
I think that he is wrong. Having static characters to me means and endless recycling of the same storylines and is more suitable to the Power Puff Girls. As I kid I read Spider-Man in part to see how Peter would learn and grow from the experience of being a hero. Freezing the age simply means that Peter is going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Life moves forward, it changes. I don't like that but I've learned to live with it. And 'kids' relate to what they want to relate too. If a kid reading Spider-Man starts reading him in high school and Pete's in college he'll still relate, if he's in high school and Pete is married to MJ and is a teacher he might not relate as much but he will look at Pete married to a hot girl and realize that there is hope for anyone if Pete can find a girl like that.
If someone "needs" to read about Peter Parker at a certain age dealing with certain things... then they should read the STEVE DITKO stories.
This is the problem with corporate-owned characters who just go on forever...
I'm fine with DC and Marvel freezing marriages if they want. Unlike Mark I think you can tell good stories keeping characters the same. Considering most of the characters have remained pretty much unchanged for decades.
OK, as far as the language goes, I was under the impression that we were trying to keep the board "family-friendly", but since a mod posted it, perhaps not. I only bring it up since I can recall being having an Anglo-Saxonism or two of my own gently but firmly "corrected" over the years. A suggestion for the future might be to post a link to the statement, with a language warning,
You can tell good stories, but I think fewer readers would drift away if the stories weren't repetitive. It's not only marriages but the revolving door of death. I think people latch on to characters for different reasons and to say that Peter will only be relatable as young man ignores a large portion of readers.
Travis Herrick (Modular Mod) said:
I don't object to the language as much as I mourn the idea that a writer feels that he has to resort to profanity to make a point or that he just doesn't care.
The Baron said:
I was uneasy about the language myself, so I edited them all out I think.
Some of the most truthful words ever spoken: " But no marrying because it'll just lead to one of them getting bumped off at a later date."
I think Tom Beland is (mostly) right ... except where he isn't.
Tom Beland wrote:
True dat. I don't think we realize that. We look at it in terms of, "With $4, I could buy 32 12-cent comics!" and complain that comics are priced too high, when the issue really is -- and always has been -- "Do I want to spend my 12 cents (then) / $ 4 (today) on a comic or on __________ (fill in the blank)?"
Tom Beland wrote:
I always believed that comic where Dr. Doom is crying at the site of the World Trade Center was a bad idea.
Tom Beland wrote:
Now, there's where he lost me ...
... and where he got me back on his side ...
... and where he lost me again.
I don't think writers should never write those stories, but I DO think they shouldn't appear in the same title that's meant for a general audience. Archie's doing it right with the Life With Archie title; that's the place for tales of Archie and the gang all growed up, dealing with graduations, marriages, babies, divorces, deaths, careers, being unemployed, and more.
In the mainstream, regular titles, though? I'm good with the "illusion of change." Totally.
However, a blanket edict that all characters across board should never be married is just wrongheaded.
Yes, but it has changed with what you could buy with the comic book money. Back when I started it was buy a comic or go play a couple of video games at an arcade. Now it is buy a comic or eat a meal. Or to stick with my first analogy: buy a comic or play 16 video games (with taxes it would 17).
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next