We don't have any comics other than the Freedom Four annual number 1, so there's no way for them to show that kind of stuff except in card art, and I have a feeling that would end up offending you even more. For the way that they are telling it, it doesn't come across as "Look at us! We have a character with Aspbergers! That makes us awesome!" It comes more as just an aspect of the character.
Totally agree, it was mentioned so much in her background story that I just couldn't get it out of my mind. They were trying way too hard to sell it, i'm suprised her name was Aspergers with how much it was brought up.
If someone asked me what is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Parse, it would be that she has Aspergers, not that he is an archer or can see the weak points in structures and even people.
It was brought up once in the opening sentence "For all the trouble her Asperger’s syndrome gave her in her younger years," It's not even a full sentence. This is literally the only time in her bio that it comes up. I don't personally think of Parse as the Aspbergers hero. She is a highly intelligent data analyst who happens to have Aspbergers.
Sarcasm on the internet never works. Curse you internet!
Sorry, Ronway. For what it's worth, I was confused by your sudden change in personality.
for the game, it's an irrelevant aspect of the character, that's what makes it read as being attention grabbing. Tachyon's bio doesn't talk about her sexuality because it is 100% irrelevant to her job in saving the multiverse. Including that element to the comic was a nice touch that deepened the character and wasn't exploitive because in the story we were taking a peek into her home life, and that was a great space to add color to the heroes.
Again; it's not a failure of intent, it's a failure of craft.
The guys at >G are socially consious folks. They're trying to celibrate diversity. That's awesome. More people should try to do that. But rule one is to create strong characters first, then allow anyone to inhabit those roles.
These bios make me curious about the mechanics, not the characters. Which is too bad, because previously they did both.
Are these going to hurt sales? Absolutley not.
On a personal level, will it cause me not to buy Vengence? Absolutely not.
Does it make me less interested in other products by >G? Kind of. Because between these and the fluff backing GSF it feels like they stumbled onto something that resonates strongly with me, as opposed to understanding how to harness it. 6th Sense was cool...the Happening? Not so much.
While I know you're being sarcastic, I honestly didn't even recall that she saw weak points in structures because the lasting impression was "She's Katniss with Aspergers".
EDIT: There's a differnece between being exploitative and beating someone over the head with the concept stick. SotM isn't being exploitive, but it IS getting more and more hamfisted
The fact that Parse has Asperbergers is not 100 percent irrelevant to her job of saving the multiverse. It's partly been learning to cope with the condition that Parse sees the world the way she does and was such an effective data analyst which in turn became even more souped up with the Omnitron incident. Likewise, Medico's sexual orientation was brought up because he and his partner were raising another one of the heroes as their daughter.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant in raising children. Saying Medico adopted the girl conveys the same thing; as writtern there is nothing personal about it that ties it to the larger world. If Medico's partner was a villain who later turned bad, or was the warden of the block then it ties to the larger narrative. this was just calling out that Medico was gay for no larger purpose other than to say that Medico has a partner named Caleb...compare that to The Wraith...the death of her boyfriend helped drive her to be a hero, and that dude doesnt even have a name (at least not in the bio).
EDIT: Who knows, maybe Caleb will end up being a villain in the expansion, or a character in the environment and this will all be apart of some masterstroke (or changed to retroactively be a master stroke :) ), then at least it would have value. As for Parse, I think we just have to agree to disagree.
Nothing important that ties it to the larger world? The girl he's raising is a superhero? She fights villains with him, and is part of the team. What is your definition of larger world? The death of Wraith's boyfriend is even more unimportant to the story than Idealist's adoption. It was even cut out of the rulebook, and is only listed in the extended biography. Character relationships between heroes are important because that's what helps build the larger world.
What about Caleb is relevent to the Idealist's adoption? It's very important that Medico adopted her. But they deliberately went out of their way to call him out as gay.
So it wouldn't have offended you then, if Caleb was Sarah instead? Because that would be deliberately calling him out as straight.
It would interest me a great deal to know how many other Sentinels characters are gay, or disabled, or belong to any other group that exists and might bear representing. I personally do see the need for both the mention of Aspergers and Medico having a partner, but since it has been previously stated that there's a great deal of minor and intricate detail about the characters we don't know, it would be interesting to see if there's anything major they're not raising a flag for.
I think might be missing my point: It offends me, not because he's gay, but because from an intent point of view it feels like they are using his sexuality presentionally, as opposed to a trait of his character.
None of the other bios (to my knowledge) call out any other loved ones, including Tachyon. But they deliberately called it out in his. It's a subtle thing, but it's an important one.
Again, it doesn't matter that Medico is gay. It doesn't matter that Parse has Aspergers. And because it doesn't matter it's lazy writing to force it in. The issue isn't the content. It's the execution.
To be clear on what I'm trying to say: They're badly written. That's what offends me.
They're not badly written. The details are mentioned at points in the bio in which they are important. Being raised by a single dad is very different than being raised by two parents, and also different from being raised by two parents of the same or different gender. Knowing that Medico has a partner while raising Idealist is an important thing to mention because the image and conflict of a single dad are very different from one in a relationship. It also isn't heavily thrown at the reader's face that he's gay.
Legacy's wife isn't mentioned because his relationship with her doesn't directly affect his connection with any of the other heroes. By the time Felicia becomes relevant to the picture, she's eighteen and her own independent character not toally reliant on her mother.
Parse's aspbergers is also not poorly written. It gets mentioned early and gives us an idea of why her mind works in the way that it does that is a different flavor than the genius of Tony Stark.
I'm sorry, but from a writing perspective both of the aspbergers and the gay partner fit perfectly into the narrative of the characters. I have to disagree that it's poorly written.
Just wanted to say real quick that everything Melonball has said on this issue is pretty much exactly what I meant to say earlier, before I got carried away into a rant and eventually got a warning for it. It's not that I'm against Caleb or Parse, I just don't think it was necessary or very classy to point it out the way they did.
Stories are full of things that are strictly unnecessary to the plot. Unnecessary isn't necessarily bad if it expands the character and gives them a more rich personality. It's true that Dana wasn't mentioned in Tachyon's bio, but would it have been really that bad if it was. I think Stephen King puts it very well in his prologue to his re-release of the Stand. I've done my best to edit the swearing. Stephen King is a little foul, surprise.
"If all of the story is there, one might ask, then why bother? Isn't it
indulgence after all? It better not be; if it is, then I have spent a large
portion of my life wasting my time. As it happens, I think that in really good
stories, the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. If that were not
so, the following would be a perfectly acceptable version of "Hansel and
Gretel":
Hansel and Gretel were two children with a nice father and a nice mother.
The nice mother died, and the father married a b###. The b### wanted the
kids out of the way so she'd have more money to spend on herself. She
bullied her spineless, soft-headed hubby into taking Hansel and Gretel into
the woods and killing them. The kids' father relented at the last moment,
allowing them to live so they could starve to death in the woods instead of
dying quickly and mercifully at the blade of his knife. While they were
wandering around, they found a house made out of candy. It was owned by a
witch who was into cannibalism. She locked them up and told them that when
they were good and fat, she was going to eat them. But the kids got the best
of her. Hansel shoved her into her own oven. They found the witch's
treasure, and they must have found a map, too, because they eventually
arrived home again. When they got there, Dad gave the b### the boot and
they lived happily ever after.
The End.
I don't know what you think, but for me, that version's a loser. The story is
there, but it's not elegant. It's like a Cadillac with the chrome stripped off
and the paint sanded down to dull metal. It goes somewhere, but it ain't, you
know, boss.
I haven't restored all four hundred of the missing pages; there is a
difference between doing it up right and just being downright vulgar. Some of
what was left on the cutting room floor when I turned in the truncated version
deserved to be left there, and there it remains. Other things, such as Frannie's
confrontation with her mother early in the book, seem to add that richness and
dimension which I, as a reader, enjoy deeply. Returning to "Hansel and Gretel"
for just a moment, you may remember that the wicked stepmother demands that her
husband bring her the hearts of the children as proof that the hapless
woodcutter has done as she has ordered. The woodcutter demonstrates one dim
vestige of intelligence by bringing her the hearts of two rabbits. Or take the
famous trail of breadcrumbs Hansel leaves behind, so he and his sister can find
their way back. Thinking dude! But when he attempts to follow the backtrail, he
finds that the birds have eaten it. Neither- of these bits are strictly
essential to the plot, but in another way they make the plot they are great and
magical bits of storytelling. They change what could have been a dull piece of
work into a tale which has charmed and terrified readers for over a hundred
years."
Also, keep in mind that we don't actually know the full story of the multiverse, so really who are we to say what is and isn't necessary when we have no idea what's coming next or even what the stories involving these characters are like. I don't care if the information we get is strictly necessary. I care that it's enjoyable and enriches the characters, which I feel both Parse and Medico's backstories do.
Hey, folks. We've wandered into the realm of different opinions, which is perfectly acceptable. Just remember that they are opinions and respect that we have different opinions.
You complain they told you a character was gay yet call them out for lacking class. Grow up.
This thread is infuriating.
Nielzabub, I actually think your Stephen King excerpt reinforces my point: these bios are truncated pieces and just casually throwing in a sentence to get a reaction cheapens a moment that could be more powerful if done with care (see: Dana)
last night I think I came off as too strong with "badly written", but it is incredibly inconsistent and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If every character bio had amongst the vital statistics a section that said:
relationship status:
then listed if a hero was single, widowed, married, etc. then listed the partners name, there would be no issue for me because than the writer is informing the reader with even information. By calling it out (however well intentioned) it shines a spotlight on something in an attention getting way...something I might add, that was effective givin by how many people were lauding the stories for being inclusive.
different opinions are just that. You like them. I don't. But to be clear, I don't like them not because of their content, but because I know they can (and have in the past) done better.