What are "Pet Characters" and is it wrong if X Books writers / editors have them?

[celestialbodies]

Right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with favoritism per se because sometimes you have more fun writing some characters over others, but favoritism can get out of hand very quickly I hate to bring Fraction up but that was probably his biggest problem he had an amazing cast but he didn't ultilize them to the best of his abilities because at least the way his run was structured his love for Scemma. Also favoritism can result in some very wtf moments and a lot of PIS, and CIS.

[Home made ectoplasm]

But if I was a marvel writer and had a great Avengers story I wanted to write about moon knight, should I really have to bow to fan demand and give equal panel space to blue marvel?

Writers should tell the stories they want to tell - usually results in more enthusiastic writers and better stories.

[shark]

A writer shouldn't write his/her pet character unless somebody keeps him/her on a leash.

[MartinRedmond]

But if I was a marvel writer and had a great Avengers story I wanted to write about moon knight, should I really have to bow to fan demand and give equal panel space to blue marvel?

Writers should tell the stories they want to tell - usually results in more enthusiastic writers and better stories.

Then he should write a Moon Knight comic, sux4him. Good writers should be able to come up with good stories for the assigments they are given.

[darknessatnoon]

Pet characters are the main characters. The other characters are cast/stage dressing. Get over it.

[MartinRedmond]

Pet characters are the main characters. The other characters are cast/stage dressing. Get over it.

okay, done.

[BLACKWINGS]

But if I was a marvel writer and had a great Avengers story I wanted to write about moon knight, should I really have to bow to fan demand and give equal panel space to blue marvel?

Writers should tell the stories they want to tell - usually results in more enthusiastic writers and better stories.

I think "story" is the key word regarding this issue. I don't think it bothers fans if a writer wants to write a story about a favorite character - but it is when that story becomes a couple years of stories about a favorite character that it begins to weather fan's patience.

[shark]

Pet characters are the main characters. The other characters are cast/stage dressing. Get over it.

Not always.

Plenty of writers have the secondary characters as their pets.

[.A²]

There seem to be a lot of conflicting opinions as to what exactly a "pet character" is. It's not a term I'd use, so I won't attempt to define it. But certain writers are predisposed to certain characters (often ones they like), and so return to them when given the opportunity. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. If anything it provides consistency.

[Home made ectoplasm]

There seem to be a lot of conflicting opinions as to what exactly a "pet character" is. It's not a term I'd use, so I won't attempt to define it. But certain writers are predisposed to certain characters (often ones they like), and so return to them when given the opportunity. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. If anything it provides consistency.

Exactly. Like with PAD and Madrox.

[Panic]

I think where it becomes a problem is when a writer doesn't maintain an objective distance from his hero and story. Even if I'm not a big Moon Knight fan, a story revolving around the character should give me some level of enjoyment provided the story hits the right emotional beats, provides excitement and drama, and doesn't screw over other characters to further the aggrandisement of the author's hero. But that's where some writer's go terribly wrong. If I'm writing the Avengers and my "great" Moon Knight story actually consists of MK out-wrestling Thor, out-thinking Iron Man, and teaching Captain America what it means to be a hero and leader, then the story is detrimental to the other characters in the book and will alienate the reader.

[xhx23x]

I think where it becomes a problem is when a writer doesn't maintain an objective distance from his hero and story. Even if I'm not a big Moon Knight fan, a story revolving around the character should give me some level of enjoyment provided the story hits the right emotional beats, provides excitement and drama, and doesn't screw over other characters to further the aggrandisement of the author's hero. But that's where some writer's go terribly wrong. If I'm writing the Avengers and my "great" Moon Knight story actually consists of MK out-wrestling Thor, out-thinking Iron Man, and teaching Captain America what it means to be a hero and leader, then the story is detrimental to the other characters in the book and will alienate the reader.

I would very much enjoy reading an Avengers story that consist of that actually.

[Pixie_Solanas]

I think where it becomes a problem is when a writer doesn't maintain an objective distance from his hero and story. Even if I'm not a big Moon Knight fan, a story revolving around the character should give me some level of enjoyment provided the story hits the right emotional beats, provides excitement and drama, and doesn't screw over other characters to further the aggrandisement of the author's hero. But that's where some writer's go terribly wrong. If I'm writing the Avengers and my "great" Moon Knight story actually consists of MK out-wrestling Thor, out-thinking Iron Man, and teaching Captain America what it means to be a hero and leader, then the story is detrimental to the other characters in the book and will alienate the reader.

This may be why West Coast Avengers was a noble, beautiful, intelligent book that was ultimately doomed to fail. Scarlet Witch reduced the team roster to inert nonentities (they even resorted to using the ultimate nonentity, the original Human Torch) while she singly destroyed one current member of the team in one symbolic AND literal chomp for feminism.

There's no way the average Joe Sixpack reader at the time could have come away with that and felt good about the title. But that's exactly why it was a masterpiece, the subversion, the allegory, the general "Joe Sixpack can get bent" perspective frome the creative team - it was all golden from a golden age of comic experimentation.

[darknessatnoon]

This may be why West Coast Avengers was a noble, beautiful, intelligent book that was ultimately doomed to fail. Scarlet Witch reduced the team roster to inert nonentities (they even resorted to using the ultimate nonentity, the original Human Torch) while she singly destroyed one current member of the team in one symbolic AND literal chomp for feminism.

There's no way the average Joe Sixpack reader at the time could have come away with that and felt good about the title. But that's exactly why it was a masterpiece, the subversion, the allegory, the general "Joe Sixpack can get bent" perspective frome the creative team - it was all golden from a golden age of comic experimentation.

That's a pretty good reading. Vision literally became a non-entity.

[MartinRedmond]

I'm okay if a character exceeds the others, it's when there's only one or two characters who dominate every single scene in a team book. And when that character isn't there all of the other characters' scenes revolve around the others discussing the pet character, that's when the whole book becomes only about that one character. It's like the writer is some tween girl obsessed with Justin Bieber.