determining the "most canonical" facts

[stumpy]

This is something that struck me several times in recent threads about various comic characters and the history that surrounds them: In the face of inconsistent treatment by comic writers, artists, and editors, how do we determine the canonical truth about some bit of comic fact? Obviously, there isn't just one right method (how ironic if it were otherwise), but I am curious how other people make the call.

This comes up all the time. How strong is Wolverine? What is Captain America's shield made of? Is Hero A more or less a match for Hero Z? Everyone has an opinion and we usually try and support our opinions with the published facts. (As an aside, I wonder how much more fun high school speech and debate classes would be if this were their domain?  :cool:) But, to playfully misquote Mr. Dickens, the published facts are a jackass. Comics are replete with contradictory information, so how do we choose?

One option is to take the most recent reference as the most definitive. If, in last month's Avengers, the caption says, "And Cap hurls his mighty pandurium-Teflon® shield..." then clearly Marvel is saying our hero carries a Pn-T shield, right? The obvious problem here is that, while this method may capture the latest thinking on a given topic, it may also enshrine the latest continuity or editorial blunder.

Other popular sources for material are the various handbooks and Who's Who guides. After all, they are intended to be canon, right? And they are a great resource, no doubt. But, they also give rise to the same issues as any other comic resource. What do we do when the Who's Who says that someone can lift two tons and last issue he was shown throwing a school bus? What good is official comic canon when it's ignored by comic officialdom?

There is also the method of relying on a kind of statistical moving average of canon that combines all the depictions of the thing or event in question, weighted by how recently they were shown. This is the sort of thing where, "Sure, Byrne said Superman's heat vision was a psionic remote molecular agitation power and he showed it that way several times, but it has been shown as heat beams like a thousand times since, so that's what it is."

And there are modifying factors. People give greater weight to stuff that appears in a character's own titles than stuff where he is part of a team or even just making a cameo in someone else's book. And, there is often good reason to heed the "first confrontation curse" where two characters meet for the first time and it seems writers throw all sense to the wind in order to provide a dramatic entrance or make a battle go a certain way. It may be wise to ignore such events (which can be even worse if it is a character's first appearance ever).

And, since I'm not an epistemologist, there are probably many other methods people use. Personally, I tend to combine the second and third techniques. The stuff from the guidebooks holds sway until it has just been contradicted too many times in newer material, at which point I conclude that the company has given up on that idea, no matter how definitive they thought it was when the guidebook came out.

And, naturally, when I see something that I like most or that makes most sense to me, I assume that to be the canonical version and ignore the other slip-ups and soon-to-be-forgotten retcons. At least, until my version makes it into the handbooks, at which time it is clearly the authoritative source and too bad for the lackwits and naysayers who disagree.  :P :P :P

[Talavar]

I generally use the statistical moving average method, where how something is portrayed the most often, and the most consistently is generally my view.  John Bryne can blow it out his ear, Superman's heat vision is beams, dammit, beams!   :)  For another example, Namor used to occasionally use electric powers, but never very often, and not for 20 years at least.  Do I think Namor has electric powers?  No, no I don't.  Just looking at the most recent versions is often a bad idea, as new changes or ideas are being tried out that may only last as long as one writer's run on a character, or even less time than that.

I generally disregard any instances of a character doing something extreme or redefining if they only do it once.  As mentioned in another thread, Spider-man beat Firelord once.  Do I think Spider-man is more powerful than Firelord?  Also no.  A dumb writer or editor can justify any character doing anything once; until it's done again in somewhat similar circumstances I feel free to disregard it. 

I also pay little attention to guidebooks and handbooks; typically they're written by different people than those who write the actual comics, and they can contradict themselves just as often. 

I don't get too bent out of shape about continuity, as, like stumpy, whatever I like the best and makes the most sense to me I remember; what I don't like or can't agree with gets jettisoned. 

[stumpy]

John Bryne can blow it out his ear, Superman's heat vision is beams, dammit, beams!   :) 

And here's the principle in action: That's several times that I've heard Byrne has the power to blow things out of one or another orifice. I believe that makes it canon!  :D

[BentonGrey]

Haha, well, I sorta' use the same principle.  However, I also apply a liberal amount of self determination.  If I feel a character should be able to do X, or if I feel that Y is more in the spirit of a character, then that settles it.

[Cardmaster]

I just pick and choose facts and make up my own comic book universe. ^_^ Case in point: Bart Allen is still Impulse.

-CM

[BentonGrey]

Yeah, me too.  Hal is GL, Arthur is Aquaman, Barry is the Flash, and Dick is Robin.....haha, I pretty much follow the Timmverse on a lot of things.

[Dweomer Knight]

Not that this is any more accurate, but I often look at how a super works with whatever team they get thrown on.  Characters usually get "played up" in their own titles and I often like how they're depicted in a team format better.  Not always though.  A bad team writer is no better than a bad single character writer.

DK

[Talavar]

Well, I'm willling to have some flexibility.  If you're a stickler for originals, then shouldn't Jay Garrick be the Flash, Alan Scott the Green Lantern, and Namor be Aquaman? :D  I liked Wally West as the Flash too, and I'm willing to give Bart a shot; as to GL, I like that there's lots of them; and I'm particularly glad that Dick Grayson was allowed to grow up and become Nightwing.  The problem with a lot of the silver age mainstays of DC comics, is that, powers aside, they were basically the same character.  

[Valandar]

Talavar: The Aquaman example is quite incorrect. Both characters came out from different companies in the Golden Age (admittedly Namor was first) and so on.

Meanwhile, I find 'what they show' to be far more informative than 'what they say'. Superman often claims a given opponant is "as strong as I am!" after a few punches or getting snagged into a clinch. But later evidence shows said character's strength to be orders of magnitude lower, unless it's a 'worldbeater' like Doomsday or Darkseid.

For me, the comics are the primary source for 'statting' a character. And in that, I take a majority of occurrences. Most of the time, for example, Wolverine is depicted as having peak human strength for his height and build, though occasionally he is 'merely' athletic and sometimes mildly superhuman. Likewise, spider-man is usually squarely in the 10 ton strength categore, but sometimes has trouble lifting a car and sometimes tosses a fifteen ton chunk of concrete like it's a softball.

The LAST source to use as canon for stats is the various guidebooks, ESPECIALLY Marvel. The 100 ton limit is HIGHLY arbitrary, and is actually at odds with many of the stronger characters in the Marvel Universe. Thor has thrown trains, weighing thousands of tons, the Thing has tossed boulders the size of mountaintops, and in general anyone over 20-40 tons lifting ability is almost always a LOT stronger than they give them credit for. And as for the recent ones, they gave Nightcrawler (one of the finest swordsmen in the MU and an exceptionally experienced hand-to-hand combatant) the same fighting skill level as a typical beat cop, so I put no stock in them, either.

[Talavar]

The Namor thing was a joke, as Aquaman and he share basically the same back story, and Namor was first.  Humour on the internet just doesn't come across so easily sometimes.

[thalaw2]

Why not use the writers as canon since they are the cause of so much debate?  For example the next time we talk about a versus we could say Peter David's Hulk vs. Grant Morrison's Wolverine....this way we only have to include the actions of the characters while they were under a given writers run on a series.

[Alaric]

The LAST source to use as canon for stats is the various guidebooks, ESPECIALLY Marvel. The 100 ton limit is HIGHLY arbitrary, and is actually at odds with many of the stronger characters in the Marvel Universe. Thor has thrown trains, weighing thousands of tons, the Thing has tossed boulders the size of mountaintops, and in general anyone over 20-40 tons lifting ability is almost always a LOT stronger than they give them credit for. And as for the recent ones, they gave Nightcrawler (one of the finest swordsmen in the MU and an exceptionally experienced hand-to-hand combatant) the same fighting skill level as a typical beat cop, so I put no stock in them, either.

I tend to think of the 10-ton level as being the upper limit for relative accuracy (for most characters) in Marvel handbooks. Beyond that, the listed strengths become increasingly lower than actual demonstated strengths.

Also, while it seems like a convientient way to do it at first glance, I'm not convinced that "how many tons character X can lift" is a good way of comparing relative strength- there's more to strength than lifting ability, and some comic book characters seem to be stronger in certain ways and weaker in others than other characters. In fact, this sort of thing actually resulted in the weakening of one Marvel character- namely, Sasquatch. Originally, Sasquatch was supposed to be close to the Hulk in strength level. In his first Handbook entry, it was stated that, due to the unusual way his musculature was destributed, he could only lift about 70 tons (or was it 75?), despite the fact that his overall muscle strength was noticably greater. Unfortunately, many people- readers, writers, games designers, etc. simply read the "70 tons" part, and ignored the rest- as a result, Sasquatch sudenly became noticably weaker.

[GhostMachine]

John Bryne can blow it out his ear, Superman's heat vision is beams, dammit, beams!   :) 

And here's the principle in action: That's several times that I've heard Byrne has the power to blow things out of one or another orifice. I believe that makes it canon!  :D

Man, why are so many people anti-Byrne?

[Panther_Gunn]

John Bryne can blow it out his ear, Superman's heat vision is beams, dammit, beams!   :) 

And here's the principle in action: That's several times that I've heard Byrne has the power to blow things out of one or another orifice. I believe that makes it canon!  :D

Man, why are so many people anti-Byrne?

To quote (or paraphrase....I don't have it in front of me) She-Hulk in one of her first issues of her new (Byrne pencilled & written) series: "There's a reason most people know Byrne as an artist and not as a writer!"

I love his artwork, but some of his writing needs help (but still much less than Claremont!).

[Urthman]

I find the writing in comics to be of very uneven quality.  Some stories are great.  Some are awful.  So, for me, the canonical conceptions of a character are the ones where she was written well and I enjoyed the stories.

Paradoxically, some of the worst comics writing is where the writer ignores earlier stories because he wants to tell a particular story and doesn't want to bother with the earlier stuff that's in his way.   And some of the best comics writing is when the writer takes dumb ideas or bad stories from the past and incorporates them in a new story so that they become more interesting and compelling in light of the new story.

I thought the Hal-Jordan-goes-nuts, kills the GL corps, and becomes a cosmic supervillian story was a bad idea and poorly executed.  I never liked Kyle's solo book.  But Kyle ended up being a great character in Morrison's JLA - the newbie Green Lantern, his friendship and rivalry with Wally, etc.  I think were more interesting than Hal would have been.

[Spe-Dog]

I just pick and choose facts and make up my own comic book universe. ^_^ Case in point: Bart Allen is still Impulse.

-CM

Geez, I wish that were true!  At least still Kid Flash.  He's just not ready for the big red suit.

I think that only the things that stick as canon are the immutables of the character.  No matter what version of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, or Hulk you read there are certain things that are the same; that make that character who and what he/she is.

[starlock]

i am on another site which has a versus thread hehe,the fights over the net are numerous and heated, it is a major setback for me who loves some of the versus threads, i try and enjoy and be fair with my responses,but this topic brings up good points which i will try and bring to my other family.

[lugaru]

Paradoxically, some of the worst comics writing is where the writer ignores earlier stories because he wants to tell a particular story and doesn't want to bother with the earlier stuff that's in his way.   And some of the best comics writing is when the writer takes dumb ideas or bad stories from the past and incorporates them in a new story so that they become more interesting and compelling in light of the new story.

A very odd example has been nextwave. It picks all sorts of obscure marvel trivia, villains, characters and such and uses them very wisely and effectively. Then again it also frequently deveates from continuity but it does so in an exagerated manner that is almost refreshing, such as each characters mentor being terrible (particularly funny was the sexist version of captain america for Monica). In other words I think that sometimes you DONT have to invent anything in comics... there's tons of great old villians and heroes to mine. But by being flexible with continuity you can really make stories feel fresh.

I think that only the things that stick as canon are the immutables of the character.  No matter what version of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, or Hulk you read there are certain things that are the same; that make that character who and what he/she is.

Good point, I think if you respect the personality of a character that is 2/3rds of the battle. For example if I wrote a comic where Tony Stark has a cybernetic arm people would say "wow, I wonder if this is a future tony stark... I wonder how he lost his arm... etc". But If I wrote Tony as anything less than chivalrous (Civil War) people immediatly smell a fake and go after the poor characterization. Exiles has been good about this... for example there is a murderous version of spider man, but just because he has spidermans sense of humor you can easily believe that this serial killer is in fact peter parker under different circumstances.

[The Enigma]

Lugaru: I think that might be because the quality of writing on Nextwave and Exiles is somewhat higher than Civil War as well as because of the freedom of the authors to do slightly wacky and off the wall things because of the type of story they're telling.

[Talavar]

As Enigma mentioned, Nextwave and Exiles are both kind of 'under the radar' books.  Civil war was a huge crossover, and so had tons of management involvement.  That gives the former greater freedom, and puts the latter under a lot of constraints.

[Protomorph]

The guy I tend to have the most problems with is Wolvie. This is the guy who, after run through with a kitana by Kitty in their mini series, nearly died. Today, he gets ALL of his flesh burnt off of his body by Nitro and regenerates it in about an hour. Today's wolvie wouldn't even pause drinking his beer after being impaled by a ninja. This also implies that in the Days of Future Past, when he gets the same treatment from a Sentinel - metal skeleton on the floor - he'll be better pretty soon.

All of this current hyperbole in the Wolvie books etc of late truly makes his character unkillable. There is no more drama left with him. He is never going to be in any danger ever again. If he wanted to be altruistic, he could donate organs to needy patients...over and over again.

[Talavar]

I don't disagree that Wolverine's healing power has ramped up too much lately, but as I've argued about Superman, an unkillable character does not necessarily negate drama.  Unless you were so gullible that you thought Marvel would really kill off Wolverine, the character's personal danger shouldn't enter into consideration. 

[Alaric]

I don't disagree that Wolverine's healing power has ramped up too much lately, but as I've argued about Superman, an unkillable character does not necessarily negate drama.  Unless you were so gullible that you thought Marvel would really kill off Wolverine, the character's personal danger shouldn't enter into consideration. 

I've never bought that kind of argument. It all ahs to do with "willing suspension of disbelief". I like to be able to imagine that the characters I'm reading about might actually die, to feel that they're actually risking their lives, even if logically I know that's not going to happen. It adds to my enjoyment of a story.

[Talavar]

So you can suspend your disbelief that Marvel/DC will kill off a cash-cow character, but you can't suspend your disbelief that X is a serious threat to whatever character?  Interesting.  I've always felt that a risk of the character actually dying isn't necessary to an interesting or dramatic story, as long as there is a risk of the character failing, since I've known for a very long time that the hero in any story isn't likely to die.  I mean, it happens occasionally, but those times are few and far between.

[Alaric]

So you can suspend your disbelief that Marvel/DC will kill off a cash-cow character, but you can't suspend your disbelief that X is a serious threat to whatever character?  Interesting. 

Yes, while I'm reading any sort of story, I find it easier to ignore things outside of the story "world" than things inside that "world".