Showing posts with label Mike Baron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Baron. Show all posts

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Thank You, Captain Planet -- Writers Respond to Politically Correct Character Casting

When I first heard the politically correct combining of various races and genders in a preset, paint-by-numbers exercise as "Captain Planet" casting, I nearly snorted Diet Coke onto the shoulders of the con-goer sitting in front of me.

I always hated Captain Planet as a kid, perhaps for that very reason. It seemed so... forced.

But rather than assuming I speak for every writer, I took the hard questions to a group of authors who know all about these things.


What responsibility (if any) does an author have for portraying a variety of cultures/races/genders in a given work?

Michael Baron: The first responsibility is to entertain. A good writer uses his imagination to put himself into the heads of many people. I use whatever characters are appropriate to the story. Anyone who reads my fiction knows I incorporate many diverse types. But not for the sake of diversity. For the sake verisimilitude.

Chuck Dixon: A writer has no responsibility to anyone about anything.

Adam L. Garcia: I believe the author responsibility is to tell a good story and should focus on that first, but should do so in a way that treats the characters equally, regardless of race/gender/culture.

Beau Smith: Writing a compelling story with characters that have something to say, Likability is a key that so many times goes neglected. Without an emotional investment, readers won't care about the situation, or the conflict.

Gordon Dymowski: Let's be absolutely clear – we live in a multicultural world. An author has an absolute responsibility to portray a variety of cultures, races, and genders within a story. Cliched complaints like being "politically correct" or "being inclusive" are merely forms of intellectual laziness, substituting catchphrases for honest, open dialogue. And for those who think that a writer should reflect their reader's politics, sorry people - writers don't serve any political agenda but their own.

Crafting a diverse range of characters even in a traditional pulp milieu can be done...and it actually has been done within New Pulp. Barry Reese's Lazarus Gray stories are an excellent example:  one of the characters is a gay person of color, and Barry's writing imbues the character with dignity and honesty while acknowledging that the time in which those stories takes place was not welcoming of diversity. (And let's not forget Black Pulp and Asian Pulp from Pro Se Productions) So yes, a writer should work hard to be as multicultural as possible within the context of their story and setting.

John Morgan 'Bat' Neal:
Well it doesn’t hurt to be mindful of it but it also isn’t something you want to force.  Like many things it should organic to what you are writing.  Many things have a reason to have the people populating the story that is being told.   But it can work to toss in something that contrasts with the commonality of the people and places that are the main part of the story.  Take Dracula for example.  Stoker told a timeless tale of an invading alien coming into a set society. Dracula was as different from the main English characters as he could be.  But he at least shared that uniquely European notion of nobility.  Stoker could have stopped there but he also added Quincey Morris.  A tall Texan.  A character that provided further contrast and relief and helped make the novel one of the best of all time.   So it pays to throw in a bit of spice.  That spice can come from different races, cultures, sexes, and sexual orientations.    In summation, I think the main responsibility of a writer is to write something good and entertaining.  Once that is achieved they can see about being socially responsible. 
 

Anna Grace Carpenter: I have a responsibility to write a convincing story that feels real, even when it's not. Different stories will involve different elements to feel "real", but lack of diversity has more and more taken on an aspect of unreality for me. (It was less so when I was younger and in a more limited social setting. As an adult I interact with all types of folks on a regular basis and recognize that is more the reality of most of the world.)

B. Clay Moore: Unless directly commissioned to address specific cultural, gender-related, or racially relevant themes, a writer's responsibility is to be true to himself (or herself), period. He has no "responsibility" to please anyone, or not to offend anyone. Once the work exists, it's open to whatever interpretation people want to lend it, and the author is open to whatever criticism may come. But there is no "responsibility" to anything beyond the story.

Logan Masterson: The writer bears whatever responsibility he or she accepts. We can write silly stories and sad stories and meaningful stories.

I choose to write what I hope is meaningful fiction. It's not all inclusive. Ravencroft Springs is about a white guy. But Canticle of Ordrass: Wheel of the Year is about a girl fleeing religious persecution only to confront racism and ignorance. All the MCs are women. It's a challenge for me to write, which is one of the better things about it, and I think it makes me better.

As makers of art, we are the front line in the culture war. Stories like ours become films. They become TV shows and graphic novels. They enter the zeitgeist.Our stories can change peoples' minds, and the world itself, if only in tiny ways. But we're all tiny, and pebbles make ripples.

Ultimately, are you obligated to be inclusive and exploratory in your work? No, but I am.

Lance Stahlberg: Responsibility? None. The author's job is to tell a story. It's not our job to appeal to the sensibilities of every possible reader. That way lies madness. You can't win with the politically correct. Don't even try.

Now, if you're trying to be realistic, then you are going to want to portray the variety of races that a reader would expect to find in your setting. If you're in a modern day major city, it might be weird if you don't run across any blacks or hispanics with a speaking role. Unless your plot takes place entirely within the Irish mob. Or a small Midwestern town. Then a random non-white character might feel like a token.

If you try to force something in, it will feel forced and your reader will be jarred out of the story. So the bottom line when it comes to ethnicity, IMHO, is be representative of your setting, but don't feel obligated.

Gender is a little different. Women are no longer relegated to damsels in distress or love interests. If you have a big cast of characters, but don't have any females outside of those two roles, readers will notice.

The Bechdel Test isn't half bad as a guide. But again, don't feel obligated. If your plot plot does not allow for the occasion for two female characters to meet, don't make them. Don't force anything into your work just to appease a reviewer at jezebel.com. Same as above, trying to make the politically correct happy is not your job. Telling a story that feels real and engages your target audience is.

Percival Constantine: It depends on the setting. I'm planning a series set in modern Japan which is very homogenous. So there won't be a lot of multiculturalism in that book. But if I'm writing something in Chicago, only having white guys would be unrealistic.

Ron Earl Phillips: As has been said, you shouldn't ever write to appease some cultural ideal. It is your world you are building, and so the situations are yours to create. But if your story is set in a specific reality, then it has to adhere to those rules set in that reality.

Robert Krog: I was never a fan of Captain Planet either for precisely the reason that it was so forced.  I don’t believe that a writer has any set obligation to meet quotas of that sort or even to write stories addressing such issues.  That being said, great works of literature that persist and are retold over many generations do address socially relevant issues such as equality, tolerance, and love of humanity.  I do believe that stories should tell the truth in as much as the writer knows the truth. I don’t mean the facts, necessarily, but the truth.  The truth is that people come in two sexes and from many cultures and ethnic backgrounds.  It’s bound to come up some time.  So have at it, but don’t force it. 

Also, be careful about being preachy.  It’s one thing to have a preachy character.  Those people exist.  It’s another to break readers out of the story by being a preachy author.  Sermons and stories are hard to weave together convincingly.  That is to say, it’s fairly easy to work a story into a sermon or a sermon into a story, but it’s also easy to confuse the two completely and lose either or both.  Most readers, these days, I think, do not want a story to turn into a sermon.  Some do, I suppose.  Most, I think, do not.  I’d avoid it.

What advice do you have for building an ensemble cast without resorting to a paint by numbers, politically correct cliche? 

Gordon Dymowski: The greatest lesson I learned in writing the “other” came from graduate school, when I was learning to be a counselor. One key  idea was that some counselors tend to stereotype certain groups by symptoms and/or beliefs (like “Asian-Americans are less likely to be alcoholic” or “Hispanic men rely on machismo), rather than seeing how specific cultures affect them. (It's also key to realize that there's no such thing as “Asian” or “Hispanic” culture – there's Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Mexican, Puerto Rican….in short, it's about learning the intricacies of each culture and reflecting those differences). Same with gender/sexuality - learning about the nuances and other's experiences allows me to be more empathetic towards them, and portray them as human beings first and traits later.

When I write a person of color (or gender/sexuality/other characteristic that is not me), I really try to understand that person emotionally, and how their culture affected them. When I was writing “When Angels Fall” for DREAMERS SYNDROME: NEW WORLD NAVIGATION, Jessica (the female lead) was originally a faded Southern beauty queen, chock full of the usual cliches and stereotypes. (In other words, the story sucked because of that poor writing). Remembering past work with local quinceanera shops in my neighborhood, I decided that might be a great way to make the character interesting, and that a cultural influence might strengthen Jessica's character. Integrating that aspect made Jessicar a more interesting character to write, granting her added dimensions which I hadn't considered when thinking about her.

(It also helps me as an author to step outside my comfort zone, and experience other cultures while learning about different groups of people. Actually realize that when you're writing a person of a different gender/sexuality/race, you're writing a person/character first who happens to be influenced by their experiences/culture. Writing stereotypes or falling on the typical cliched tropes hurts both the writers and the writing. As that same grad school professor once advised, eating at Taco Bell does not count as “engaging in Mexican culture.” 

Percival Constantine: Start with character. Always with character. I think about actors and actresses who would fit my characters so that can help.

Ron Earl Phillips:
I write stories set in rural America. Very homogeneous, and often times starkly black and/or white. And depending on how I want to serve the story, the use of outsiders would be distracting unless it were a stranger in a strange land type story. Serve the story first, then yourself, and then the reader.

Lance Stahlberg: Sean cited Captain Planet as an example of a paint by numbers cast. That is a great illustration of how putting the message first kills your story. That painfully lame cartoon never even attempted to be entertaining. It was only trying to push an agenda.

The example I always think of is Power Rangers. I mean, the white girl was pink, the Asian girl was yellow (!!!), and the black guy was in the black costume. Really??

In your writing, especially pulp writing, the story is king. So if you have, say, a Muslim character thrown in whose only apparent purpose is to be Muslim, your story sucks. If the fact that they are Muslim works within the framework of your story and is part of what makes them interesting, that's one thing. But if you do it just so you can puff out your chest and announce how diverse your cast is, you are not doing your story, your readers, or the Muslim community any favors.

Really, my advice is to just not overthink it. If your story calls for an culturally diverse cast, go for it. If you find that your lineup needs more variety to the point where you are afraid your readers will get them confused because they all look and sound alike, then yeah, it makes sense. But the minute you say "this story needs a _________", walk away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. It's your story, not the PC police's.

John Morgan 'Bat' Neal:
Just be mindful of it.  If you can’t see that you are being cliché or PC then perhaps you shouldn’t be trying to make an ensemble cast and go with what you know until you can see it.  But I think most if not all can if they try harder.  The best advice I can give is make the character.  And then see who they are, and usually that will lead to different races, cultures and orientations if that is what and who they are.  When I created the PostModern Pioneers I did not set out to make them all what they ended up being.  That came as they were being former.  “Bird” Portamayne for instance could have easily been White or Hispanic or whatever.  But as I was writing him it was clear to me he was a middle aged black man. 

And sometimes avoiding clichés is just as bad as pushing them.  Because sometimes clichés are based in a reality.  The character of “Granny” Roh is an Asian computer whiz. That is as cliché is cliché can get these days.  But it just never occurred to me to avoid that as that is what she was.  And it is what it is. 

Robert Krog: If your story includes people of diverse backgrounds, write those diverse characters based on people you actually know, not on stereotypes.  Most folks are not stereotypes.  They may spend a fair amount of time spouting ideology, grievances and talking points, but they do have lives outside of those things, for the most part. The sad truth is that some people are exactly like the stereotypes.  The glad truth is that most aren’t.  Recognizing that all members of the human race have certain common concerns regardless will go a long way toward making characters believable and real. 

It’s a bad idea, generally speaking, to start out writing a story to make a political point.  It’s much better to start out with (a) true-to-life character(s) and then put that/those character(s) into a situation involving socio-political issues relevant to racial/cultural/gender interaction. 

Incidentally, it usually helps not have characters self-consciously preface what they say or do with, “As a fat, white, middle-aged male, I think…” Or, “As a short, skinny, Polynesian woman brought up in Brooklyn, I always…”  There are some folks who shove their identity into the conversation every time they have the chance, of course.  Most people do what they do and say what they say without that.

Adam L. Garcia:
Just simply make them complicated, human characters first, their culture, race, sexuality comes second.. Just like you would do with any other character. Focus on the content of the character and then reflect how their background would influence them

Chuck Dixon: Figure out what your characters want. Build a three dimensional character. If your character is only about their "diversity" then they're boring stereotypes and far more insulting to the minority you're trying to represent than not including them would be.

Beau Smith: Again, likable characters. Everything else is secondary, gender, sex, race, whatever.

Anna Grace Carpenter: In order to try and get a broader group of characters, I ask myself what might prevent folks from multiple cultures living together. Then I figure out what sorts of things might cause them to live together. I don't look for token representation (one of every category) but attempt to create a group that indicates there is diversity, even beyond the characters I'm writing about.

B. Clay Moore: Build a cast naturally, and ask yourself if you're truly representing the environment in which you've set your story. Personally, I feel it's important to represent diversity even if the story doesn't demand it. I just think a diverse cast adds depth to the world I'm creating, and I understand that there's an audience out there actively seeking cultural and racial representations they can relate to. There's absolutely no harm in gender-switching or race-switching a character whose identity isn't wrapped up in being a white dude. But in doing so, consider how their relationship to their environment changes with the switch, if at all.

Logan Masterson: There has to be a convergence though, of meaning, market and entertainment. The market wants diversity. Diversity is definitely meaningful, and has plenty of room for fun.

And in a time where even what we consider diverse is still changing, it's an important area to explore. It wasn't that long ago that Irish and Italian people weren't "white." People of color weren't always thought of as people at all.

How can multi-cultural casting help your stories become better? How can it hurt them?

Chuck Dixon: Introducing multi-cultural-ism into a story for its own sake is idiotic pandering.

Adam L. Garcia: It represents modern society, and opens the story to readers of all kinds. It only hurts if you portray other cultures in a cliche negative fashion.

Lance Stahlberg: A monochrome cast has the potential to be really boring. And as I mentioned before, having too many characters who look and talk basically the same can get really confusing. I like to create as many different ways to refer to my characters possible, so that I don't have to fall back on the same words over and over again in my dialogue tags or when describing an action scene. One easy way to address both pitfalls is to vary up racial backgrounds.

But depending on the setting and the situation, throwing in characters of color might come across as a lame attempt at political correctness. In the real world, people of the same cultural and ethnic background tend to congregate. Not always, but a lot. It doesn't make them racist. It's just a fact of life that we never used to question. Same goes with a group of guys not necessarily having a female in their midst at all times and vice versa.

So if your story is about a crew in the Italian Mafia, or a bunch of rich kids in a suburban high school, or a farming community in rural Illinois -- or for that matter if it's set in east or west Baltimore, or the south side of Chicago, or Chinatown -- then you are not necessarily looking for ethnic diversity among the main characters. There are other ways to make characters unique without relying on race.

It's worth repeating: Don't overthink it. The story comes first.

Percival Constantine: As Adam said, it reflects modern society. But know why you're doing it. And know the cultures you're depicting. Living in Japan, I've seen lots of stories about Japanese characters that get it incredibly, insultingly wrong. Many western writers seem to assume Japanese history consists of three periods—the samurai era, WW2, and modern Japan. So you get things like samurai walking around with katana in stories set centuries before those things were even invented.

Robert Krog: The real world often involves people of different ethnicities brought up in different cultures meeting and doing things together.  We meet, trade, cooperate, fight, enslave, intermarry, etc.  Given this circumstance, stories involving such people interacting in such ways will tell truths about humanity.  But then, insular or isolated societies and peoples have also existed and still do exist. Stories of such isolated people can also tell truths about humanity.  I suggest, of course, that one should not write about what one doesn’t know.  If you haven’t a clue about a certain culture, and research isn’t helping, stop your story until you do if the culture in question is pivotal to story.  Not knowing your subject matter can kill your story. 

If your story doesn’t really need a particular character of a particular cultural or ethnic background and you force it in anyway for whatever purpose, it will probably show to the detriment of the story.  Readers will notice and probably not like it.  If the character’s particular ethnicity or culture is nice background color, that’s good and adds flavor to the work as a whole.  If it becomes an unnecessary or forced plot point, readers may notice and resent it.  Of course, the cultural meeting/clash may be vitally important to the plot and socially relevant at the moment and maybe even a timeless theme. That’s great. Go for it.  Know your stuff though.  Get it right.  You don’t want your protagonist who is an African American gangsta type to bravely face his fate with his shirt tucked in.  I believe sagging pants are the M.O. there.  He’ll rush out the door, facing down The Man with one hand holding his Glock sideways and the other holding his pants up.  That’s the stereotype, of course, but if you don’t know that, you can’t address it one way or another, and it sure will show if you don’t. 

Anna Grace Carpenter: Multi-cultural casting provides the opportunity both for more story conflict and deeper empathy and, for me, gives me a chance to explore real life issues without necessarily writing about "real life" circumstances. Lack of research into those issues and how they play out across different cultures can come across as patronizing or simply ignorant and weaken the story by falling into stereotypes.

B. Clay Moore: As I said above, it adds depth to the world you've created, and opens the door for a variety of perspectives. It only hurts a story if you're obviously pandering to an audience, or if you're a shitty writer who leans on stereotypes and broad tropes. In that case, though, your book is probably going to suck with or without a diverse cast. After all, part of being a good writer is being able to convincingly sell the reader on the believability of a variety of character types, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race.

As a straight white male writer, I fully understand that I won't get "credit" for the diversity of my cast, but it's still important to me not to present the universe only in shades of pasty pale.

Beau Smith: If it is a part of the real story and not forced upon you by a non-writer, editor, marketing, then it's fine, but what comes out of my imagination is what I've made up to be entertaining to hopefully more folks than myself.

Gordon Dymowski: Multicultural casting only hurts if I either do it to fulfill someone else's political agenda or if I choose to rely on outmoded tropes (the streetwise African-American male, the Asian tech expert, etc). Writing about certain time periods provides a great opportunity to write about other cultures with sensitivity and insight within a very oppressive, less enlightened historical context.

Think that writing for diverse, different perspectives is a challenge....well, let me provide a great example of such writing being done right: the television show Leverage provides a showcase where every role is played and written with a mind towards diversity/inclusion, but not at the expense of the overall narrative. If you think it's merely too much work….maybe you should consider not being a writer. (Also, for those who complain that such writing is "politically correct"....the 1990s just called; they want their overused catchphrases back).

John Morgan 'Bat' Neal: It can hurt if it’s just used as a device without any real story telling reason or purpose other than to be PC or inclusive.   Two of my projects have female leads.  Both lead a team of very varied individuals of various colors, sexes, sizes, and personalities.  But none of them were created with some agenda in mind of some meaningful message.  The only thing done on purpose was them all being different.  That is the hook that gets me.  And it comes from being a fan of Doc Savage’s Famous Five, and the Fantastic Four, and The Legion of Superheroes, and all the other things I love that had rich varied casts of all sorts of different folks.  That to me provides some of the richest story telling possible.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

The Illusion of Change -- The Comics and Pulp Conundrun

In comics and pulp stories, the marketability tends to be in the characters remaining the same, i.e. Batman is Bruce Wayne, The Phantom doesn't lose an arm, Spider-Man remains hapless and downtrodden, Doc Savage doesn't die and pass the name onto an adopted circus acrobat, etc. So, in light of that, we sought out some of the top comics and pulp writers to find out what they had to say about that very thing.

How do you keep characters interesting when you can't provide significant growth and change to let them adapt and mature?

Joe Gentile: I am of the school that likes to keep most of the character intact. We like these characters for a reason, so we see no real need for an overhaul. We want old and new readers of course. What we try to do sometimes is add some "bits' the characters when appropriate. We want to try to make the characters more 3D by personality. And sometimes, we will tweak an ability or skill to help the character stand out more from the pack. Plus, for good measure, we will give some dimension to the supporting cast as well. So, we like to add more than subtrac t... as long as it keeps the integrity of the character.

Erik Burnham: Show them something they haven't seen before and reveal their reactions. ...Or kill them. Hey, they could get better.

Mike Baron: In the case of the Badger, we're rebooting the whole thing.  Since many Badger stories deal in magical realism, this isn't a problem.  Badger readers have learned to expect the unexpected--guest appearances by Elvis, Charles Mingus, Warren Oates and W.C. Fields are common.  Ham is a powerful wizard and brings magic into play.  Since we are debuting Badger to an entirely new generation of readers, Badger is now an Afghani war veteran.  The classic elements remain: his brutal treatment at the hands of his step-father Larry, and all the old characters will reappear but in surprising new roles.

In the case of Nexus, we are merely sticking to the time line.  All readers need to know is that he is a cosmic executioner driven by his dreams to find and destroy mass murderers.  But now he is married and has a son.  It helps that the entire Nexus canon is available from Dark Horse in a series of hardbound volumes and now in a new cheaper omnibus format.

In the case of Batman, there have been so many stories, so many different takes--let's face it.  People who insist on seeing Batman as a real person and embrace his entire history have to realize he would have to be about a hundred Batmans to get them all in.  Comic books are escapism.  The best fiction is escapism.  But in order for us to fully enter into the escape we must believe it's real.  So a story's premise must fit comfortably within the character's personality.  Or within the personality's character.  People will not accept Batman as a callous killer.

I.A. Watson: This depends on the initial character concept. If it's a Harry Potter-type neophyte growing up then it's very hard. There are only so many life lessons to learn. But suppose the character is already fully formed, like Sherlock Holmes; then the fun comes from putting them into new situations and seeing how people react to them. We don;t need Sherlock to discover compassion or tact. We just want to see what happens when he encounters the French ambassador or the self-proclaimed king of thieves.

Lee Houston, Jr.: By developing interesting characters to begin with. After all, just what is it that keeps readers coming back to The Shadow, Spider-man, etc; and not one of the endless zillions of clonish knockoffs?

Jourel Freeman: This exact same question is one that haunts me daily. I feel that to establish a character heavily within a story, readers prefer to have that deep-seeded relationship with serial characters, and so it's best to keep characters consistent for a while. This way, so much can be absorbed before any major chance can be made.

Greg Glick: You put them in interesting plots or locales (James Bond is always a womanizer, it's where he is and who he's up against this time and how he's gonna defeat him that makes it interesting.  And who he's gonna bang this time, without the gun. ;)    In characters meant to adventure forever, you intertwine plot and character.

There's also the fact that, for the most part, many heroes are ALREADY presented as the peak of moral and ethical perfection in their little worlds (such as Superman and Doc Savage) when the adventures BEGIN.  There's no ROOM to grow.  How does a god grow into  a better god?  The Spider may be crazy in our world, but in his he's clearly presented as the most clear-thinking character around:  only HE can take care of the problem, and he knows it.

Marvin Cheveallier: I create a new challenge that will either require another way to take care of the situation outside of what the reader is use to. Sometimes making it hard enough that the character may need a little help to overcome. That way it gives me a chance to put supporting character in the spotlight for a short time. After all, I don't want said character to be the only one with fans.

Why is it important that characters remain the same? Is it for new readers, old readers, or more maintaining the marketability of the property?

Mike Baron: As far as I'm concerned, the First Rule is to entertain,  I would never change the basic nature of my characters because they are what they are and I like them that way.  It's their concepts that intrigue people as well as the writing.  Back to Badger.  We have been going round and round on how to reboot the series and I have written story after story that would have fit seamlessly into the old continuity but did nothing to bring readers up to speed on who Badger is.  Therefore we decided to reboot the whole thing in such a way as to please original fans and excite new ones.  He's still a multiple personality.  I know that the shrinks decided that MPD doesn't exist but they will probably change their minds next week.  And again the week after that.  The workings of the human mind are always fascinating, and the Badger is about psychology as much as anything.  It is also about kung fu and unexpected humor.

Much of the appeal of classic characters is like slipping into a warm bath of anticipation.  We know the characters and it is their character, as well as the narrative voice that draws the reader through the story.  That's why we gobble up series books like Robert Crais' Elvis Cole stories.  We know and like Elvis and he always has exciting adventures.  We want to slip into that frame of heightened expectation.

Erik Burnham: Familiarity SELLS. That's why you'll see "From the Guy Who Did The Special Effects On Jurassic Park" on a movie as a selling point. A lot of people saw Jurassic Park, it had special effects, so... bam. A connection is made, and the movie is no longer 100% unfamiliar. Same with comic characters -- familiarity sells.

Yes, the argument can be made for change (to appease old readers -- like Spider-Man getting married as the audience ages, to name one gripe folks who didn't like that plot point made... or new readers -- see Kyle Rayner... or maintaining the marketability... bringing Tony Stark back from an a teenager to an adult.)

I dunno. I just like writing fun stories.

I.A. Watson: In some cases the situation is the appeal. Secret identity characters are fun because no-one knows that Don Diego del Vega is secretly a masked hero. We share the joke with him. Remember when Superman stories ended with him winking to the reader as Lois was baffled again? In other stories the presenting problem defines the series. If the rebels defeat the terrible dictator then the driver of that series is over. If our hero ever truly avengers the murder of his fiancee and finds true love again then the drama is done.

Of course, in many cases its because fans of older stories who now have turns as creators themselves want to write the character as they first fell in love with him, in the situation they best enjoyed his tales. Since many "accretions" to stories move characters away from the concept that first made them popular writers often feel justified in contriving a return to original circumstances or a reasonable facimile thereof.

Publishers get to cash in two ways. "Everything changes" sells. "Back to basics" sells later. Then everything can change again.

Greg Glick: Frankly, I'd say marketability.   For example, there was an episode of Star Trek: Next Generation in which a parallel universe was created where the Federation was at war with the Klingons.  Someone pointed out, in a real war, characters like Riker would be given their own commands and starships, and wouldn't be serving on the Enterprise.  But fans want to keep seeing their heroes even if it doesn't make sense.  If a favorite character vanishes, the ratings go down.  Same with presenting character "relationships."  As long as Ross and Rachel are dancing around each other sexually, the ratings hold and profits continue.  The moment they "get together" or permanently don't, the reason for their existence is done--and so is their marketability.

Marvin Cheveallier: Most readers don't like major change to the story they already love. I think some writers fear that they may chase off some readers as well because the character went an unexpected direction for them. Other fans my see it as an improvement so it is a gamble for the writer. I don't fear such a change as it is my story and I enjoy the drama. Readers will just have to expect that of me, however there are still some character that I just love the part they play and wouldn't want to change them for any reason as they offer me too many doors in the story that I could open.

Lee Houston, Jr.: Basically, all of the above. Old readers get used to the writer(s) maintaining somewhat of a status quo, which gets new readers curious as to what is going on, and gives the marketeers selling points they can rely on from one new release to the next.

Si Mon: To see how marketability can be sustained while constantly developing characters, we only need to look at some of the comics from Japan, such as Dragonball, One Piece and Naruto. All of these have seen their protagonists grow from childhood into adulthood, their characters, relationships and abilities constantly evolving. All of them have also been phenomenally successful. The inability of Marvel and DC to move away from maintaining the status quo and allow their characters to change just shows what tired old dinosaurs these companies are. Interestingly, having said that, both Marvel and DC have enjoyed a massive amount of revenue from films such as the Batman and Spiderman series, which have been immense levy successful. one of the coon characteristics of these films is that their stories have been built around the development and growth of the central characters. Not one of them has left their protagonist as we found them.

Jourel Freeman: I look at how Avengers characters are seemingly ageless while we've seen the X-Men grow up from teens to militants and so on. This shows both how much it matters and how much it doesn't. It even shows both trends can co-exist in one continuous world. I guess the art lies in when and where to contort the time to where the story flows at a pace that keeps old and new readers going, while introducing new elements into the mix so that change can be mad more dynamically.

How do you know you've gone to far when writing a character that shouldn't change significantly? When do you go beyond what Stan Lee called the "illusion of change"?

Mike Baron: I trust my ear to tell me.  I read and re-read what I've written.  I ask myself, if I were telling this story to someone in a bar, would they follow me?  That's why it's important not to jump the shark.

Erik Burnham: If someone has to do a lot of work to either ignore or rewrite what I've done, I may have gone too far. Arguably.

Greg Glick: At the core of each character is a certain "soul", if you will, that cannot be bent.  Sometimes it is hard to define, but it is there.  And when it is broken, you know.  Usually by having a character do something you as reader know instinctively he would never do.  SPider Man selling his marriage to a demon is an example.  The Elongated Man losing his wife in an attempt to "darken" the character is another.  EM is, and has always been, light-hearted in nature, and to try and blacken him up violates him.

Marvin Cheveallier: When I get a lot of hate mail.

Lee Houston, Jr.: The obvious points would be by killing or altering the character in some drastic way, like giving him/her a new costume or sidekick.The illusion of change would be things like a temporary depowering or growing a mustache, or changing hair color if they had to go somewhere in disguise.

Jourel Freeman: The challenge for me would be HOW the continuity will work in the beginning, i.e., if in the beginning I want to create a world where superheroes have been around for, say, 25 years, and now you have to create the FEEL of an established world, and start from there.

I.A. Watson: Some situations break the paradigm. Once Peter Parker is happy, rich, married, his secret known and he publicly feted for his heroism, the distinctive things that made the Spider-Man series what is was are gone.

I'd like to give a special mention to those character-destroying storylines that pollute a hero forever after, requiring more radical rebooting than is usually credible. Green Lantern committing genocide, Iron Man's actions during Marvel's Civil War, any character that turns to murder, torture, or rape, become more or less lost causes unless its proven that it wasn't really them.

Kurt Busiek reflected once that writers should only make permanent changes if what they put in place is at least as robust as what they destroy. Do you agree? How can you know you're doing it right?

Erik Burnham: I do agree. And I figure I'm doing it right if there's no lightning from the heavens striking me down.

Mike Baron: Kurt is right.  Every writer must write to please himself first and foremost.  If I don't entertain myself I will not entertain others.

Greg Glick: Agreed -- but darned if I know how I would know I was doing it right!  The fans would have to tell me!

Lee Houston, Jr.: I totally agree with Kurt Busiek, although it should be the readers who ultimately decide if the changes are correct and not some editorial or boardroom committee.

With all that said, characters need to grow and expand as much as they can within their adventures, for their readers are certainly not exactly the same from one day to the next. Being an avid reader for decades now, I could definitely talk about this subject for more than just a few quick answers to this roundtable, but we would need the proper forum than just a brief Q&A to cover this adequately.

Jourel Freeman: I agree that a major change should be the catylyst to more change. Not in the way Marvel has been doing it for the past 10 years (Civil War, Secret Invasion, Messiah Complex, etc.), but in terms that show growth in both the story and the involving characters. Showing how major elements effect a story/character(s) is always a good way to go in my book (no pun intended) . The way you see if it is right for you is "Listen to the character." The readers may hate the direction you're taking a character, but one never knows how far you can turn a character inside-out and make a whole new direction out of pushing the limits.

Marvin Cheveallier: I fully agree. I really don't think one knows if they are doing it right until they get feedback. I think one way of knowing you have it right it is you have plans of reverting that character or presenting the change as an imposter or some kind of mental problem (or possessed) that gets resolved later. Now if that character is only getting stronger that is another story. However as a writer I think one has to be careful of not making characters too strong as it makes writing harder in the future. It is hard to create drama and clashing if a character can destroy anything with a snap of his fingers. You then take away your links to making it interesting.

I.A. Watson: It's a long time ago now, but I recall Busiek illustrating this by describing his proposal for a new Spider-Man series after the Ben Riley Spider-Clone debacle. It wasn't picked up. John Byrne was hired to do a run instead, starting with a modified Year One origin series that explained why Norman Osborn and Flint Marko had the same hairstyle.

I apologise if I'm grossly caricaturing Busiek's actual pitch; I'm reportng this from long memory. At that time, (as best I recall) Aunt May was dead, MJ had divorced Peter after he'd hit her (or was thought dead, I forget which), and Parker had been missing for some time. Busiek's plotline had JJJ discovering a badly-beaten Peter in circumstances that had Jonah decide to take care of the boy, perhaps even adopting him. JJJ effectively took over the Aunt May role, becoming as attached to Peter as he hated Spidey. Peter got a new flat, though he had some trouble with his landlord and occasional friend Flash Thompson. I think there was a Stacy cousin in there too to add some romantic tension. Effectively, Busiek found new relationship links to replace many that had been burned away by some poor storytelling choices beforehand. That seems to me to be a fair representation of moving things on while respecing the fundamental concepts of the series.

An actual example of such a change "done right" might be Justice League headquarters. After Mount Justice came the JLA satellite, then the embassy phase, and then the Watchtower. Let's try and forget Detroit. Each base fed a different kind of story for a different kind of team, but each felt right for its era. Another substitution that worked back in the Michelnie-era Iron Man period was the replacement of the relatively one-dimensional Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts with James Rhodes and Bethany McCabe (and the wonderfully fierce PA Mrs Arbogast). Rhodey and Beth brought rather more to the party than their predecessors and were key parts of that excellent run.