The metal boards I go to are pretty rough, at least as bad as comic forums can be.

Music forums are much much worse. They're also the easiest and most fun to troll on.

You are right, Trevor. I love superheroes -- and that love is what keeps me from wanting to make them MINE. I want to recapture the magic that drew me to the genre, so others can experience it as I did. That doesn't happen when the stories begin with the fan mentality. It's too inbred, too insular.

Hawkeye was the leader of the Avengers at one time, and integral to the 1960s teams (as either himself or Goliath) like no other member aside from Captain America and Hank Pym. If you, Trevor, were to write THE AVENGERS, is slanting your stories in more of a Hawkeye manner really a disservice to the Avengers?

The idea seems to be that a professional removes themselves from the stories in question in order to produce entertainment on a professional level. If you're reading Ludlum, are you writing espionage like Ludlum or are you writing John Byrne's Nick Carter?

When does the fan stop and the pro start?

I think even the worst creators don't have the same resolution over and over. If Hawkeye is integral to saving the day every time, he's acting as an Avenger. As a team member, he performs a singular function that operates within the group dynamic for the resolution to take place. In Trevor's AVENGERS, Hawkeye isn't "out of his element" and on the sidelines, or unconscious somewhere, or however writers decide a character isn't necessary to Plot A. Having an affinity for Hawkeye, as a pro, wouldn't mean Cap and Thor and Iron Man get short shrift.

I can argue this mentality might have kept a minor Canadian character devoid of flashy powers from stepping to the fore in a poor-selling team book. Not to say that was best for comics, but JB, Claremont, Frank Miller, and Paul Smith certainly can't complain, considering their stars began rapid ascension soonafter that initial "hot" period of Wolverine's popularity explosion.

And this is NOT me arguing fans turned pros are legit. But loving a character for its potential, for all the stories that COULD happen, and being a fan of a character and wishing you could MAKE them happen, are ocean depths apart in terms of intent. Aren't they?

Trevor, I'm in the same spot. I had an artist cat want to produce a real comic book (real enough anyway) from some ideas for original characters I had. "Original" in superhero comics is a hard concept. Lucky for me, this guy is OCD enough that, visually, the characters' design doesn't remind either one of us of anyone else. And YET, we did want the archetypes, we did want to REMIND readers of other characters, just enough to intrigue them.

I adore some of the characters I created; others I think are boners, but this dude likes them. So thinking like a pro, I am taking those characters I'm not crazy in love with and I'm making them work. I think I have the skill to pull that off. It's a harder row to plow.

The ones I adore, I step back from them and look at them from a standpoint of What IS the best story I can tell here? What if this happens, how will the character react? For me, "professionally", the difference between the character I love and the character I don't is minimal, and this is because I respect them both.

Personally, though, Alpha Centauri difference in affection.

Let's say JB's AVENGERS WEST COAST "overindulges" in Scarlet Witch-centric storylines.

Is this good or bad story-telling? Is the Scarlet Witch a favorite character of JB's, or the most interesting character in this particular comic book?

It's pretty difficult to tell, considering the face time Scarlet Witch receives in that run.