Marvel.com Blogs - Blah Blah Blog by Tom Brevoort

web marvel.com

BLOGS HOME|COMIC BLOGS|VIDEO GAME BLOGS|OTHER BLOGS|MARVEL NEWS

The Pryde Scale
2008-11-19 08:48:26

I received the following e-mail recently, and even though I don't agree with all of it (you can't build a formula for the passage of time in the Marvel Universe backwards--it only works if you build it forwards) I thought it was worth sharing and opening up to the rest of the world. Plus, this makes for an easy blog entry for the day.

Fun With Character Aging In The Marvel Universe
or
'The Pryde Scale'

by Edward Gore, AKA: WinterRose

I was catching up on Uncanny X-Men today, hoping Ed Brubaker had meant when Sam Guthrie said he was 21 years old in a bar that he'd meant he was OVER 21. Yeah, I'm persnickety about The New Mutants and always have been. When the character debuted in 1982 in the Graphic Novel 'The New Mutants', he was 16 years old and working in a coal mine. The character of Kitty Pryde was introduced in 1980, and was described at the time as being 13 and a half. She was also described as being 14 in 1983 when The New Mutants got their own ongoing title. So far this is all stuff you already know. I WILL get to the point.

My own take on it was that if Kitty Pryde was 21 years old at the time of her alleged termination (Yeah, we'll see how long THAT lasts.), then she's taken 28 reader years to age 8 character years. Breaking that down, (and ignoring the fact that there's been a Christmas issue every year in Marvel Comics since 1980), that would mean she's aged one character year for every 3.5 reader years. As well, everyone who was IN the X-Books since then should have aged at least 8 years since Kitty Pryde was introduced in 1980. I'm calling it 'The Pryde Scale' for easy future reference.

THE PRYDE SCALE
1 Character Year = 3.5 Reader Years
For Easy Reference:
Pryde Age / Reader Year

13 / 1980
14 / 1983 & 1/2
15 / 1987
16 / 1990 & 1/2 (Legal Adult, UK)
17 / 1994
18 / 1997 & 1/2 (Legal Adult, US)
19 / 2001
20 / 2004 & 1/2
21 / 2008 (Status: Unknown. Presumed Dead)

(Note: This could also be reasoned out to some degree with the aging of Katie Power from Power Pack, who debuted in 1984 at 10 years old, and as of 2007 was 17 in 'The Loners'. Her rate of age breaks down to 1 year per 3.2 reader years.)

28 reader years. With a Christmas issue every year. I don't care how ya slice it, that's a lot of Chaunukkah candles. But we'll forgive this. If she'd aged a year for every reader year, that would have made Joss Whedon's favorite little Shadowcat a whole 41 years old. Dem mutants do be agin' slow, Miss Daisy. Might as well be walkin'.

As Kitty Pryde is/was at least 21 nowadays, Sam Guthrie should be at least 23. Here's a note for Peter David as well. Rahne Sinclair is old enough to have a beer now. Kitty was serving alcohol in Chicago in MekaniX (2002-2003), which you have to be at least 18 by law in Illinois to do. On the Pryde Scale, Kitty was 19 years old then. Kitty was only a year older than Rahne, who was 13 back in 1983. So if Kitty was/is 21 when she caught the big bullet train out, then Rahne should be 20 years old.

One also hopes that when Kitty was sleeping around with Pete Wisdom back in her time with Excalibur that he waited to do that with her til after about the middle of 1997. Unless of course Pete Wisdom was having relations with a minor. Of course, the Pryde & Wisdom mini happened in late 1996, and Kitty was talking about how it was likely that her mom might shoot Pete on sight when she introduced the chain smoking cradle-robber to her family. Lucky for him the age of consent in the UK is 16 years old.

Let's take this a step further shall we? Since I'm having fun at Marvel's chronological expense. Emma Frost has gone on record as saying that she's 27 back in Grant Morrison's 'New X-Men' in 2003. On the Pryde scale, this would mean mean she's 29 going on 30 today. This also means that back in 1980, when she took on the Phoenix masquerading as Jean Gray in her Phoenix Saga debut, she was a whole 21 years old.

This would make Emma a mere 22 years old when she kidnapped Kitty, The New Mutants and took in Firestar in the early 80's. She was also already Headmistress of the Massachussetts Academy (1985). Barely 6 years older than both Angelica Jones and Sam Guthrie who were supposed to have been of the same age then. (See: Firestar: limited series)

Also, Cyclops said he was 25 back in X-Men #51 (1996). Whee! More dates to work with! Kitty was 17 then. (Bad Wisdom! Hot Knife Hands off the Loli!) Meaning Scott was ALSO 21 like Emma was in 1980 when Kitty was 13. How nice. He and Emma are the same age!

And of course, what age rant would be complete without poking a little fun at Franklin Richards? Incomplete! That's what! Franklin appears ALLLL the way back in 1968. And was not named until 1970 according to his wiki page. Okiedokie. Let's see what his proper age is on the Pryde scale. Little Franklin has been around for 40 years! 40 / 3.5 = 11.4. So he should be eleven & a half on the Pryde Scale. So... Franklin's depiction as a little boy all this time really isn't really all that off the mark if his aging is consistent with that of Kitty Pryde.

What other characters' ages could be figured out on the Pryde Scale then? In X-Men (v2) #20, Hank McCoy was apparently angsting about turning 30 years old in the reader year, 1993. That makes him 27 all the way back in 1980, which makes him 34 now. But he was introduced all the way back in 1963 with Scott. Let's figure a little more...

2008 - 1963 = 45 reader years.
45 / 3.5 = 12 Character Years
Current Age = 34 - 12 = Introductory Age of 22 in 1963.

And if Scott is 5 years younger than Hank now (29 going on 30 with Emma) that means Slim was 17 all the way back in 1963 when Jean was wearing poodle skirts and Cyclops had all the physique of a wire hanger. FUN!

Yeah. I suppose I'm easily amused. And I admit that I have way too much time on my hands. Character aging is an old bone I gnaw on from time to time, and being a Kitty Fan, with dates where they've mentioned her age from time to time, it's something to practice my geek-fu on. I hope this helps. Or at least finds you well.

-WinterRose

More later.

Tom B

ok, so how old is wolverine?

Posted by lateralusapc on 2008-11-18 20:02:49

I like the scale, and it's fun to try and guess the ages of marvel characters. The passage of time is hard to make concrete in the Marvel U. but there's no harm in playing around with it

Posted by kedd on 2008-11-18 20:29:23

What do you mean, there is no tooth fairy?

Posted by Michael Heide on 2008-11-18 20:36:12

Instead of wasting your time on this fictional pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, why not apply your mind to, I dunno, fixing the economy?

Posted by Fetsur on 2008-11-18 20:38:52

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Festur. We've gotta set priorities. How is he going to reliably fix the economy if he can't first develop an age-scale for Marvel characters?

Posted by doncorswhazie on 2008-11-18 21:44:20

That was awesome! Best yet, it works in most cases of Marvel Superhero aging!

Quick, do Spiderman! That ought to throw off the curve a little!

Posted by DRock1 on 2008-11-19 00:02:46

Age is Just a Number ?
Very cool idea, "the Pryde Scale". My hat's off to the original author. Excellent work, fun idea.

I don't think it's binding, necessarily--- but I think it's a cool ballpark.

I've always thought of it like this: the FF debuted on the scene roughly ten years ago in Marvel Time. So divide however many "reader years" there have been since 1961 (2008-1961=47; 47/10=4.7), and that's the working ratio of the moment. So the "All-New X-Men", who have been around for 23 reader years have been on the scene in the Marvel U for just under five years (4.89...).

This model slides FORWARD, as per Tom's preference, and avoids the kind of irregular compression you get from specific character birthdays/milestones in-text.

And none of that counts the many, many Christmases enjoyed by the heroes of the Marvel U....

Posted by Gentleman Jack on 2008-11-19 02:31:24

Ghack!
Ignore my math above.

The All-New X-Men have been around 33 reader years, so just over 7 character years.

Which makes much more sense.

Posted by Gentleman Jack on 2008-11-19 02:33:26

not bad...
But I think the Franklin argument still holds - except you could argue that he was aged and then de-aged so maybe he's supposed to be 11 but he was de-aged and still a toddler. FYI - I think he just had his 6th birthday.

I've heard another formula that 5 years in our time = 1 year on MU time. I think that made more sense to me.

Here's another one - Peter Parker. If he was 16 in 1963, that's 45 "real" years ago. If you divide that by 5, then that was 9 years ago. 16 + 9 = 25! Exactly the age Peter is supposed to be.

Then again, there's the statement (and it's actually in one of the recent Marvel Handbooks) that the MU operates on a sliding scale. This works, in that even though the FF launched into space in 1962, it was never more than 10-12 years ago.

Love that time argument!

Oh - a side note on Kitty.... After she broke up with Wisdom, there was I think an Uncanny Annual or Unlimited issue where she was still mentioned as being 15!!! EEK!!! Pete Wisdom you CRADLE ROBBER!!! HAHAHAHA!!!

Ya just gotta have fun with this stuff.

Posted by pmpknface on 2008-11-19 10:30:19

Character age is irrelevant
in a ficton where planets, galaxies and even whole universes are destroyed and recreated. Eternity has reset the universe on at least 2 occassions in Dr. Strange stories. Thanos and Nebula both messed with reality during the Infinity War. Franklin Richards has altered reality a couple of times. During the first Secret War virtually every Marvel character was destroyed and recreated. Characters have been aged and deaged by both mystical and scientific methods in various stories over the years.

I'm still not even sure why it matters to anyone. Are they just trying to prove that comics are illogical and reading them is stupid since they can't even keep the characters ages straight?

There are plenty of solid works of fiction where characters age and die as the series progresses, Bujold's Vorkosigan series for example. Comics don't work that way and they never have. There are certain conventions one has to accept as a comic book fan. If you aren't willing to accept them, find another source of entertainment.

Posted by izzatrix on 2008-11-19 13:25:51

Valeria.
Franklin may be 11, but in recent issues (especially those written by Aguirre-Sacasa), his sister Valeria appears like a 5 years old. Considering that she was depicted as a newly born in 2002, she’s off the scale.

Posted by freyes2000 on 2008-11-19 13:32:20

Completely disagree
I don't want my characters to age. Because I don't want them to be the same age as my parents and still fighting crime. And I don't want them to die of old age. Aging characters is stupid. Peter Parker is 23 forever!

What is Tom B's email by the way? I wanted to email a question as well that is lengthy, so I didn't want to just post it here.

Posted by pineappleprotein on 2008-11-19 14:04:08

Franklin Richards
Don't even bring up Franklin Richards. He has been the most neglected kid in comics history. And when they try to use him, we see the most outrageous story that can be told...Heroes Reborn anyone? Damn kid ruined continuity for a year!

Posted by bzoo2000 on 2008-11-19 20:55:36

great
yeah.
Ages is an interesting point , especially in regards of CHristmas issues.
Characters dies so time passes.
A way to talk about X-Men's books today: the unbelievable had becoming true, the New Mutants are now fashionnable, anybody believed this could possible, but Mrs Fraction and Brubaker did it. Despite, I don't know if it's a writiing intention or a penciler's will the make the characters think together about Doug Ramsay as if there was noddles AGAIN for dinner.That was just sick. The new Mutants from this era were just great, and the death of Doug Ramsay had a meaning.
I love you guys, I really do.

Posted by notapotatoe on 2008-11-20 10:29:01

I always assumed it was 2.5... but 3.5 works
As opposed to some on the comments here, I'd much prefer my fiction to age... like Savage Dragon or Invincible. This way real-world events and generational heroes can be a factor, much as WWII was a formative part of Marvel history.

That said, I understand why Marvel and DC age slowly, but I think it's important that hey age in some way. I tried working this out in the 90s (with much less detail) and got to about 2 years for every year... but 3.5 works better.

I honestly wish Marvel kept an unofficial timescale in their offices, to prevent things like the slinky-like growth of Franklin. He's 4 then he's 8 then he's 3 then he's 10. Freaky.

Posted by brandechh on 2008-11-20 10:40:43

real time comics
Izzatrix - there are plenty of real time comics as well. http://enterthestory.com/realtime_examples.html

Posted by tolworthy on 2008-11-22 06:45:13

wow
This was a fun little trip. Although i myself dont like thinking about my characters aging because it means that they could die and frankly i dont want someone to replace them with a successor that people try to make out to seem better than the heroe or villain for that matter that they are trying to replace.
But nonetheless it was intersiting to think about.

Posted by Ati11a on 2008-11-22 09:20:26

DUDE
(LOL) You don't miss a thing!

Posted by terciera on 2008-11-23 13:28:44

About "Katie Power".....
I believe that you've been extremely busy to notice that it's JULIE POWER {aka LIGHTSPEED} that you're talking about; since Katie {aka ENERGIZER} was Five when she debut within Power Pack and would be 12 years old currently {since she's five years younger that her sister}.......

As for Franklin, I agree with the majority about him being Eleven at this time, instead of seven {though I think that's another error made; since I remember the MK'S "FOUR" Series having Franklin celebrating his EIGHTH Birthday back then}.....

Posted by PaxHouse on 2008-11-24 19:47:49

Woooot
Way to go, Winterose - A BenBo original.

Posted by dp_lombardo on 2008-11-25 00:27:29

Re: Pryde Scale
pmpknface, I think Kitty mentions being around 15 in the high evolutionary X-Arc right before Claremont takes over. I want to say its like X-Men #98 or #99, which came out in 2000. So it's a bit off for the Pryde Scale, but yeah. As an Excalibur reader, that one stuck out in a "wait, she's that young? but then, pete wisdom and her, wait..." type moment.

And as to the ages of the original X-Men, didn't Stan give their ages back in the first issue or three of Uncanny? I always remember Beast being the oldest (I want to say 19) and Cyclops being a year or two younger. Bobby was the youngest at like 16, which was funny because Beast was turning 30 in the aforementioned X-Men issues, when shortly thereafter Bobby was having difficulty getting into the bar for Cyclops' bachelor party (which i think was what? Uncanny #310?).

Posted by watchmanone on 2008-11-25 18:54:54

emma
Emma Frost was obviously lying about her age, it fits her character. I think she's even gone on the record as lying about her age. I imagine she's in her early 30s but, if anything she seems younger now than she was in the old days as a villain.

Posted by peegee on 2008-11-26 19:41:19

Emma
Emma is the same age as the Original 5...she see's them on TV in her mini. In Gen X the editorial said she was 25.

Posted by ExodusCloak on 2008-11-29 13:47:23

Franklin's easy. He doesn't want to grow up, so he doesn't. The kid can alter reality, so for him it's pretty easy to change things so he stays a kid forever.

In truth he should be a teenager, but he just doesn't want to grow up that much.

I tend to count Marvel time by Spider-Man. In keeping with all the time mentions in Amazing, Spidey should be between 30 and 33 years old. Especially with Slott's time mentions in the Initiative.
Hence the Marvel universe is at least seventeen past the Fantastic Four's first appearance. (quite honestly you can not possibly make Peter any younger than thirty without wrecking continuity. Not that Quesada cares.)

Posted by liliaeth on 2008-12-01 18:07:11

Array

Enter a response to this blog post:

About this blog:
Ramblings and musings from the mind of Tom Brevoort. "It won’t be clean. It won’t be fun. It mostly won’t be coherent."

About the author:
Tom Brevoort is Executive Editor for Marvel Comics, and oversees such titles as New Avengers, Civil War, and Fantastic Four.


save this link

More entries by this author:
One last... (2009-01-04) (5 responses)
It seems... (2009-01-01) (10 responses)
It's great... (2008-12-31) (2 responses)
Well,... (2008-12-30) (2 responses)
It's a very... (2008-12-28) (3 responses)