Robot 6

The Relentless Pursuit Of Imperfection

Grumpy Old Fan

Grumpy Old Fan

[Yes, this is still a DC-centered column.]

As I was finishing up the first Peter David Hulk collection, it hit me (because I am slow) that the end of the Hulk is hardwired into his character makeup. Once Bruce Banner is irrevocably “cured” of his monstrous alter-ego, the series is over. Yes, there have been several status-quo-changing variations on this solution over the years, including (from what I understand) the current Red Hulk/Green Hulk situation. Nevertheless, if Marvel ever wants to get out of the Hulk business, the most direct solution is right there waiting.

Most of the classic Marvel characters started out with some such hard-to-overcome trait. Ben Grimm wanted to be human again, and Reed wanted to cure him. Captain America struggled with Bucky’s death and his man-out-of-time status. An ignorant (but significant) segment of society persecuted the X-Men. Odin forbade Thor’s love for Jane Foster. (Plus, Thor-the-comic always had Ragnarok to look forward to.) While each of these subplots has been resolved, to one extent or another, another always seems ready to take its place. (Not unlike the heads of Hydra, amIrite?) Marvel characters are seen as deeper, more complex, etc., because they are generally tragic figures.

By contrast, DC’s Silver Age superhero books were about solving problems, be they Batman-style mysteries, Flash-type hypotheses, or JLA-level obstacles. Character traits only entered into the story as bits of secret-identity business: Clark’s nerdiness, Barry’s tardiness, Hal’s emotional manipulation of Carol. For the most part, these folks didn’t have to deal with anything beyond the scope of the immediate story, so each of those stories was allowed to end on its own terms.

Of course, when fans invoke the conceit that all these stories must take place in the same shared universe, and from there pile character bits, plot points, trivia, etc., into one big data file, we get the bogeyman called Continuity. Continuity is just another way to say that This Is All One Story. Again, where Marvel is concerned, the “this” — the One Story — is of an Earth (centered on New York City) where superpowers generally cause as many problems as they solve. With DC, the One Story is harder to discern, because there are so many different characters, approaches, settings, what-have-you. What, indeed, is the One Story of a particular DC character, let alone the larger DC Universe? For the Trinitarians, those endings probably sound fairly utopian: Batman is pretty much finished once Gotham City has been scrubbed clean; Wonder Woman’s mission will be accomplished when the Earth is finally at peace; and Superman might not be satisfied even then. Implicit in DC’s lattice of “legacies” is the notion that there will always be some evil for super-people to fight, from the present day into the far, far, far future.

Therefore, Marvel can do as many depressing, woe-is-us, everything’s-in-the-toilet Big Events as it wants, because they all reinforce the superhero line’s mission statement: superpowers bring you grief. Without that kind of overarching theme — unless “good always triumphs in the end” counts as an overarching theme — DC’s Big Events aren’t One Story, but “one thing after another.” This, in turn, robs the line of a central focus, and tends to make every official pronouncement from the publisher sound like some variation on wait and see. It’s always nice to hear statements with some finality in them, on the order of this week’s “[s]o much of what we’ve been building toward for the last few years has been leading us to [Blackest Night].” Considering how the past several events have flowed one into the next, though, such statements are rather rare.

And that’s understandable. If Blackest Night is really the last link in the latest Great Chain of Events, it is the end of a story DC has been telling since George W. Bush’s first term. (It may be a story only a flowchart could love, but it is a story nonetheless.) Accordingly, BN must say something meaningful, both about reanimated, cosmically-powered super-corpses and the people who love them, and about its predecessors in the Great Chain. After all, neither Blackest Night nor any other big DC storyline can piggyback, Marvel-style, upon a larger theme.

Story continues below

Let’s be clear: this is not necessarily a problem. In fact, as I have argued previously, it is built into the structure of DC’s superhero line. The publisher’s corporate history is full of expansion and assimilation, from mergers in the Golden Age to recent deals concerning the Red Circle superheroes and THUNDER Agents. There is no One Story coming out of the DC superhero line because there is no single creative figure (or team) whose work has informed it. In other words, Marvel today is continuing a mega-story which Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko started. DC is not, because it cannot — but again, this is not that big a deal.

See, in order to keep its soap-opera fresh, Marvel must tinker constantly with its characters’ inner turmoil, sometimes at the expense of their otherwise-reasonable growth. Last week Justin Zyduck at theorized that Spider-Man must have gotten pretty good at superheroing over the course of his career — but not too good, and not too successful at juggling it with his personal life, or it wouldn’t have been true to his character. The Peter who was Tony Stark’s protégé, who was married to a supermodel and living with the Avengers, and who had finally managed to placate Aunt May’s fears about Spider-Man, was evidently not sustainable in terms of the ongoing serial narrative.

Compare Spider-Man’s escape from continuity with the 1986 Superman reboot. Prior to 1986, Superman and Lois’ relationship was defined by the phrase “eternal triangle.” Supes himself was, in his heart, a lonely Kryptonian haunted by various tragedies, including the deaths of his foster parents, the shrunken Bottle City of Kandor, and (oh yes) the destruction of Krypton itself. He fit into human society primarily through the elaborate fiction of “Clark Kent,” the eternally self-effacing journalist who remained something of an outcast even as a network news anchor. Today, though, “Superman” is the fiction; a well-adjusted Clark is married to Lois; Pa Kent lived a much longer life (and died of natural causes unrelated to his son); and Kryptonian society is rebuilding itself just a couple of A.U.s away from Earth. While these changes aren’t improvements on the pre-1986 status quo, they do represent differences from (and perhaps resolutions to) those pre-reboot concerns. Not everyone was happy with the fundamental alterations which facilitated these developments, but they did give the Superman mythology room to breathe and grow.

Naturally, there are various degrees of experimentation currently on display at DC, from the forward-to-the-past movements which brought back Hal Jordan et al. to the envelope-pushing Secret Six and the almost-comforting sameness of (any) Batman. However, each of DC’s superhero characters exists on its own terms, not as an expression of some company-wide mission statement.

This has not stopped DC from trying either to craft such a statement (“The Original Universe,” anyone?) or to build such a shared universe. The Marvel U clearly plays to the strengths of the Direct Market, and vice versa; and DC naturally wants to duplicate its success. Even so, Marvel’s characters may be too complex to be sustainable over the long haul. The publisher is advertising its 70th anniversary this year, but the one which counts more is the 50th anniversary of the Fantastic Four two years from now. At that point, Marvel will be trying to cram five decades’ worth of superhero publishing into — what? — 12 years of “comic-book time.” (I’m making a rough estimate based on Franklin and Valeria Richards.) When DC turned 50, it came pretty close to blowing everything up and starting all over; and it still blew up quite a lot. Marvel may well keep rolling along, albeit with its headliners freshly tweaked for maximum familiarity. I can only hope that DC’s tweaking will have finished by that time.

Although I do get frustrated with DC’s attempts to play exclusively to one set of aging fans (of which I am, admittedly, a member), I am more willing to give it a pass on the tweaking. Marvel’s characters were designed to grow and change with virtually every issue, and so they did: Peter Parker and Johnny Storm went to college, Reed and Sue became parents, Jane and Thor broke up, Cap got over Bucky’s death. At some point, though, that growth and those changes came slower and slower. By contrast, DC’s characters weren’t supposed to change. (If they did, as when Barry and Iris got married, it tended to reinforce the status quo.) Changes would only get in the way of solving each story’s puzzle — they weren’t the point of the story.

Story continues below

In fact, although Green Lantern: Rebirth was a medal-round display of continuity gymnastics, and laid the groundwork for Blackest Night, I daresay the bulk of the ongoing Green Lantern title hasn’t cared a whole lot about Hal Jordan’s growth and development as a person. Specifically, the point of de-Parallaxing Hal was to roll back all those years of doubt, so he could once again be the confident GL of the Silver Age; and Flash: Rebirth looks to be pointing Barry Allen and friends down the same path. I expect the new Flash ongoing (whenever it might appear) will deal much more heavily with the Rogues and the Speed Force than with Barry’s personal issues. Because DC’s various rehabilitation projects ostensibly allow it to tell more discrete, straightforward stories, the tweaking therein seems more honest than Marvel’s constant attempts at preservation. Over the years, Johnny Storm has been about as aimless as Hal Jordan, but Hal was never part of “the world outside your window.”

To me, once a character’s final fate becomes apparent, the larger arc of his life (or at least his career) must deal with that fate either directly or obliquely. By and large, the motivations which drive DC’s characters have external sources (fighting crime, etc.), and aren’t the kinds of things which one grows out of, or otherwise learns to deal with. They may make DC’s characters less complex on an issue-by-issue basis, but more sustainable in the end.

Indeed, DC’s great strength isn’t so much in its characters themselves, but in the diversity of styles and genres its characters represent.  Its superhero line can be an excellent venue for telling a wide range of stories in a variety of ways.  If Blackest Night is really the culmination of the Great Chain’s efforts, perhaps that diversity will flourish in its wake.



This was a really good read. You touched on ideas I’ve had floating around in my head regarding DC for a while, of which I couldn’t quite put into words. I hope a lot of people come across this article.

Great piece, Tom!

Excellent Piece. I really enjoyed it.

Great piece, Tom!

Just echoing what everyone else said: Great article, Tom!

I want to comment on it, but I haven’t wrapped my mind all of it yet. There are aspects to both company’s approaches that I like, and others that frustrate me. I do wonder how Marvel will eventually be able to keep explaining both Steve Rogers (after he returns) and Nick Fury, given that they were both a part of WW II.

As far as Superman goes, I really liked the 1986 reboot, and even though I bought some Supes as a kid in the late 70’s/early 80’s the Byrne Superman really is “my” Superman, and I like the growth that reboot gave the character of Kal/Clark and his supporting cast. It’s therefore interesting to note that, as of late, there seems to be return of so many Silver Age elements to the Supes mythology: Supergirl, Kandor, Brainiac, Pa Kent’s death, even Steve Freakin’ Lombard (I could do without that last one). This is has been true throughout a lot of the DC line (reviving Hal and Barry, for instance), and while I’m not fan of it all (I like Hal, but I’d have rather Barry’s signficant death remained so) it’s still interesting.

Thanks for all the kind words, folks!

Shaun, I’m waiting for the day about ten years from now when DC and Marvel realize that their Golden Age characters are about to turn 100 years old…. :-)

The streamlining of the Marvel Universe and the collective story that it tells is what draws me more to Marvel than DC, but I can understand why some people would prefer DC over Marvel for the exact same reasons.

Very interesting article, on the trap that continued “personal development” can be.

To my mind, the real problem is that Marvel wanted it both ways: they wanted to have characters that dealt with personal issues and growth, and at the same time, were usable as long as the comic sold. Logically, characters with superpowers should continually face challenges and problems as they move into different stages of life, but different ones, including aging. But that doesn’t work well with a comic that comes out once a month, where a single month, week or day in comic time can be spread out over a year of real-world time.

So on the one hand, Peter Parker should have been dealing with 40 years of life experience, based on how long the comic’s been going on, and the external cultural referents. On the other hand, based on the actual events in his comics, he may have actually lived somewhere between a quarter and a tenth of that time. And the longer a comic goes on, the more the difference is accentuated.

It’s worth noting that some of the longer-running webcomics are facing the same problem of “Change without actually changing anything”. Consider how long the “will they or won’t they” love triangle in Sluggy Freelance has been going on. I’m interested in how some recent webcomics such as Dovecote Crest are dealing with that issue by deliberately have characters grow and change fairly rapidly, and then move on.

i enjoyed the article, as so many others did, but i don’t entirely agree with every premise (it would be odd were i to, i suspect). let me try to order my thoughts… for one thing, i’m not entirely certain that there’s a rigidly adhered to overarching thema to either of the publishers’ output, specifically in the face of the fact that the work is written by individuals, and they occasionally even forget or rewrite details of continuity (grant morrison springs to mind, though, in his case, it has less to do with forgetting, i imagine, and i’m not totally on top of what’s canon in his output) – the more poorly thought out one probably being the reintroduction of earth-n’s, post crisis. please excuse me if i ramble; i’ve been up for twenty four hours. i thought one of the best things DC ever did was to explore barry’s actions after iris’ death. i always got the feeling that he was a normal human being, much in the marvel mould, if not necessarily as dreary as some of that august institutions stable. his death, to me, was truly heroic, and, not incidentally, the end of an era in my fandom. i, perhaps naively, thought he might really not be coming back, because it would cheapen his sacrifice. i even appreciated the confused professor zoom showing up imagining himself the scarlet speedster (i’m hoping the statute of limitations on these spoilers have lapsed), as it added depth to HIS character (to say nothing of the implications of barry’s taking of his life to both). superman, too, has been in and out of marriage with lois, previously. if the suskind films bear upon the mythology, which i think can hardly be denied, clark was driven nearly mad with her death, and the knowledge that, with all of his powers, he’s still not able to save everyone, everywhere, at all times, which must be a terrible burden (a samaritan comic employed this trope, if i recall aright). the newer media, for its varying flaws and merits, places great emphasis on clarks very real alienation. this is character stuff, not merely monster of the week fare. it may be that i invest too much into the mythos (to the extent that i have recurring nightmares where i’m kal, and, demigod that i may be, am unable to FIX the world [make of my psychology what you will]), but it’s because it is a mythos, and resonates with us in a powerful emotional way. and the gods and heroes of myth, resplendent as they are, are very much flawed creatures. tragedy requires failings.

well, i’ve meandered on long enough, to likely little end. i hope my lengthy lecture was not unduly a waste of your colective time. thanks for the forum.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives