Comic Geek Realization

[thehefner]

After talking with a friend about the fundamental differences between DC and Marvel comics, I remembered the story JLA: THE NAIL, an alternate reality story of what the DC Comics Universe would have been like if there were no Superman. What happened was Lex Luthor became president, and the superheroes were generally viewed with distrust, contempt, and hatred, with paranoia sweeping the world that these superheroes are alien invaders, or else alien pawns dead-set on taking over the world. As a result, the super-powered, heroes and villains alike, are arrested and put in camps for experimentation, Batman is mentally broken, and the heroes have to fight to save a world that fears and hates them.

And that's when I realized what the main difference between DC and Marvel comics is. It's Superman. Superman is the ultimate symbol of hope and justice, of right prevailing and the power of ideals. No other super-character before or after him ever represented this like Superman. It's because of him that the DC superheroes are seen more as celebrities than creatures to be feared by the "normal" humans. Unlike, say, the Marvel Universe, where anybody with superpowers is another creature to be feared and distrusted, and while the X-Men get the brunt of the prejudice, all the superheroes feel it. Spider-Man is branded a villain, even.

Superman is the single factor that kept and still keeps DC from becoming Marvel. And I just now realized this. It's a wonder more people haven't touched upon this.

Comments

[jcsbimp.livejournal.com]

Once Scarlet and I talked about this. DC's two biggies, Superman and Batman, are impossible for the average comic book reader to relate to, beyond a certain extent, in terms of life circumstance. Superman is alien and invulnerable, and Batman's filthy rich. I think some of Marvel's pantheon was deliberately designed to be sort of "warts and all" humanity. DC's Superman comics always seemed to me to be pure escapism -- escape to a world where the good guy would win because he's essentially unstoppable.

Er?

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Superman is imminently relatable. Haven't you ever felt like an outsider who wanted acceptance from a target group? Not fear, but acceptance and love, which drives you to do good, nay, great things for that group? And as for Batman - haven't you ever wanted righteous revenge?

Sure, Superman and Batman have superhuman abilities or resources, but that's just an exaggeration of a very human thing. Everyone has talents. Haven't you ever thought to yourself, boy, I'm a great speaker or actor or scientist or businessman; if only everyone could see that?

In fact, some pop psychologist back in the 40s or 50s(?) made a lot of hay out of this supposed "Superman complex". In a way, he was on to something. Young boys weren't just looking for a good guy to save them; some fantasized that they were that good guy.

Re: Er?

[jcsbimp.livejournal.com]

"Superman is imminently relatable. Haven't you ever felt like an outsider who wanted acceptance from a target group? Not fear, but acceptance and love, which drives you to do good, nay, great things for that group?"

Yes, and if I also had super-powers, and if my desire for acceptance didn't cause emotional tumult and make me a major screw-up when I was a child and adolescent, perhaps I would have felt a closer bond with the Man of Steel.

"And as for Batman - haven't you ever wanted righteous revenge?"

Yes, but I also learned that vengeance belongs to a Higher Power, and that we human beings usually screw it up. Or we get our abilities appropriated, like Ender Wiggin, without our full knowledge or consent, into channeling our anger for Their ends, whoever They may be at the time.

Ahem. That's the "royal you".

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

I wasn't necessarily meaning YOU, Esteemed jcsbimp. :-)

Many young readers of comics no doubt desired acceptance, didn't get it (or think they got it), and grew frustrated. And for them, Superman was an outlet. Superman was their inspiration, the man they wish they could be, the man they would try to at least be like.

He not only had super strength; he had super courage, super conscience. If he were merely very strong, he could bully the few villains who attacked him personally, and otherwise live in ignominy. But because he's super-strong, he can take on any villain, any destructive force, anywhere in the world, on behalf of those that cannot. He could have become the supreme dictator of millions instead, but that would have earned him their fear and obedience. He'd rather have their love and adoration.

That was the message Simon and Schuster ended up delivering to their readers. It's the message that makes a lot of them want to become policemen and firefighters. They identified with Superman, and wanted to be like him.


(Gotta read Ender's Game one of these days.)

I must have Scrabble on the brain.

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

At this point I must say that I am a schmuck.

I meant Siegel and Shuster, not Simon and Schuster.

Scheesh.

Re: Ahem. That's the "royal you".

[jcsbimp.livejournal.com]

Ya know, when someone actually ASKS in a reply to me "Haven't you ever . . . ?" and then they pull out later that they were using "the Royal 'you'" or meaning people in general . . . hmm. Forgive me for misinterpreting and thinking you were actually asking me. Because that's why I answered.

Let no dead horse go unbeaten

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

I'll forgive you for misinterpreting, if you'll forgive me for making my point so poorly. Honestly, upon third inspection, I can't see how anyone would have read my first comment differently from you, including myself. Harrumph. And I even failed to see that with my second comment.

I'm not quite as well-written as I thought.

Re: Let no dead horse go unbeaten

[jcsbimp.livejournal.com]

No prob, my friend. All's forgiven. Just like old times, eh?

Re: or whipped

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Somehow this all came back to me accidentally pistol-whipping you. Gah.

[ussentinel.livejournal.com]

That was an interesting post; I liked reading your POV and spin on that. I think some folks have touched upon the point in articles in fanzines like CBG and others, but perhaps not recently. I think you draw on a single factor (Superman -- the first great and most copied superhero) which can be debated, but I contend there's a few more roots to the tree.

When I get into debates with friends on which DC character would win in a fight with the closest Marvel counterpart, I always give the edge to the DC character. Why? Becuase the DC character(s) hardly EVER lost. Also, the Marvel characters were usually traditionally flawed. The Justice League of America always won. The Avengers or Fantastic Four usually won, but sometimes it would be a draw and there would be a next time.

In Marvel's early days, DC was still churning out stories with occasionaly silliness like their heroes turning into gorillas, and Bat-Mite running around. However, in the last panel of the story, it was a hero's smile/laugh and "all's well that end's well" ending. But at Marvel, Spider-Man may have caught the Vulture, but he was still broke, had whatever girlfriend pissed at him, and Aunt May was still sick. Peter Parker RARELY smiled in the last panel of the story. Quite a contrast.

In the mid '60s, Thor went to Vietnam. Iron Man battled villains in Communist Russia (Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man) and China. Tony Stark had to go to a Senate subcommittee to answer for his "bodyguard." You wouldn't see ANY of this stuff going on at DC. They had their own stable of villains; rarely deviating from them. Back then, about as daring and "real" as DC ever got was having an IRS agent going after Superman for not paying taxes. Marvel used New York city for the backdrop, a real city. DC had the fictionalized Metropolis and Gotham City. Marvel parodied its characters (and DC ones) in a humor title (Not Brand Echh). DC never got quite that bold, only making their own humor characters (Inferior 5) and relying on the Bob Hope and Jerry Lewis titles for thier source of humor (which makes me wonder if the '60s generation still found them funny).

As Marvel became more popular, the old hacks at DC eventually came around and tweaked their stories. It was a slow and ongoing process. Some things worked (O'Neil/Adams on Green Lantern) and some things didn't (O'Neil on Wonder Woman, poorly addressing Women's Lib issues and making her a non-powered heroine briefly).

Further, I think DC and Marvel's editorialship really had different perceptions of their fan base as evidenced by the letters columns of the day. At DC, replies to letters seemed to talk down to the fan; almost insulting you if you were an adult and still reading their comics. If you pointed out a mistake, you may have gotten a smart-alecky reply. At Marvel, Stan Lee replied to letters as if he knew you already like a casual friend and if you pointed out a mistake, you may have been awarded a No-Prize. Marvel inserted more pop-culture references in its stories than DC did.

Incidentally, Alan Davis is doing a follow-up to his "Nail" series which should be out this summer.

It's a bit more than Superman.

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Ever since DC and Marvel became the Big Two of comics, DC was always perceived as The Establishment, Marvel as The Upstart. DC characters were custodians of law. Marvel characters were agents of chaos.

There were exceptions - Marvel has Captain America, and DC has Green Arrow - but they only prove the rule.

This is all more of a confirmation on how important Superman is, rather than the difference between DC and Marvel. If Simon and Schuster had never come up with Superman, DC Comics would probably be roughly the same type of company. Batman and Wonder Woman would probably have become the dominant characters. Batman would be more lawful, more visible, less vengeful. He wouldn't be the Dark Knight. He'd fill the niche Superman fills today. Or maybe Flash or Green Lantern would. Or maybe the niche would remain open until Captain Marvel came along, and he'd effectively be DC's Superman.