Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 9
Topic: Fantastic, Not Plastic (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Carmen Bernardo
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3666
Posted: 21 April 2013 at 11:29am | IP Logged | 1  

   On the case of OHOTMU, I often wonder if they would've done better if they left unexplained powers as they were.  For instance, they could've gone with something along the lines of "The exact nature of so-and-so's powers remain unexplained."  All you needed to know was that the character had a finite amount of time he/she could exercise those powers before mental or physical exhaustion impaired them.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35945
Posted: 21 April 2013 at 11:33am | IP Logged | 2  

I'm just the opposite of you, Chris.  One of the things that eventually drove me away was the constant need to over explain.  Started with OHOTMU and WHO'S WHO for me.  Hated those books.  Just not my cup o' tea.  Talk about sucking all the fun out of comics by coming up with a set of rigid rules and parameters.  However, they were easy enough for me to ignore and I did just that.  Then they started bleeding into the comics.  Definitions, rules, maps, specifics I didn't care anything about all of a sudden seemed to be of paramount importance.  I never cared one whit about how Spider-Man could stick to walls or that Mr. Fantastic stretched, only that they did.  That was enough for me as long as the stories were entertaining.

Finally, with definitions and explanations came mining previous stories to show how it all "really" worked.  Yeah, I used quotes there (reference to another thread) but I think you can understand why.  They only "really" worked because that particular author of that particular title had a bugaboo about something they thought needed an explanation when, in reality, I never gave it a second thought.  Again, sucking all the fun out of what had previously been a rather entertaining story.  Why did I need to know that The Daily Planet was X number of blocks away from Clark's apartment or that Wayne Manor was exactly X distance from Gotham?  I didn't and still don't.  Couldn't care less. 

I've gone on at length about characters changing to become all but unrecognizable to me as the main reason why I left most mainstream superhero comics, but the origins of OHOTMU and WHO'S WHO definitely played a part for me as well. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Chris Basken
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 January 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 120
Posted: 21 April 2013 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 3  

Matt, I think one thing we both agree on is that whatever rules are made up by the writers, they should remain behind the scenes. While it's okay to drop tidbits here and there in exposition, they should never take the place of actual storytelling.

So handled properly -- as they are in a lot of SF literature -- the reader is never told the rules, but it's clear by what's going on that the writer is following them. This has a consequence of forcing the writer to write within the constraints forced upon him by those rules.

A simplified example might be: "How come we never see stories about Spider-Man flying under his own power?" Obviously, because Spider-Man can't fly under his own power. Even if the writer has a wonderful idea for a "flying Spider-Man" story, he can't do it. At least, he can't do it if he doesn't want to damage Spider-Man's (and his own) credibility.

So setting parameters is important. Even having fairly complex rules is okay as long as the reader isn't directly exposed to that complexity. Of course, writers will try to mine that ruleset for story ideas. Lesser experienced writers will seize on the first thing that tickles their imagination. Better writers will be choosier, and only use ideas that reinforce the core of the character. I would imagine it would be up to editorial to act as gatekeeper in that regard.

I don't need to know how far away the Planet is from Kent's apartment, mainly because such a fact would pretty much never come up in a story in any relevant way. But I might want to have a grasp on how his x-ray vision works, since it's used fairly often. If I were writing Superman, I sure as hell would have worked out exactly how his x-ray vision works -- consulting a physicist if I had to. I don't think I would ever offer up that explanation in any Superman story, but I would always make sure his use of that power fit with the model I had worked out.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133328
Posted: 21 April 2013 at 5:30pm | IP Logged | 4  

A simplified example might be: "How come we never see stories about Spider-Man flying under his own power?" Obviously, because Spider-Man can't fly under his own power. Even if the writer has a wonderful idea for a "flying Spider-Man" story, he can't do it. At least, he can't do it if he doesn't want to damage Spider-Man's (and his own) credibility.

••

Unfortunately, "to tell a good (wonderful) story" is all too often used to justify a writers excesses.

Back to Top profile | search
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

<< Prev Page of 9
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login