One of my favorite DC mega-crossovers ever was Legends, the first crossover after Crisis on Infinite Earths. The purpose of Crisis was clear; it was designed to redefine DCU, streamline it. Legends was a different story, it was a Crisis of the Soul (I believe one of the first potential titles for the book). But it also was the fertile soil of the new DC, a place from which a ton of highly successful, highly creative titles grew from. The 'bwa-ha-ha' JLA, the Suicide Squad, the Wally West Flash, the Ted Kord Blue Beetle, the George Perez Wonder Woman ... all of them popped up from this book.
And what a murderer's row of creators to be working on the book - John Ostrander, Len Wein, John Byrne, and Karl Kesel! That is an insane amount of talent to be on one book. And each of them went on to have a big part in many of the new titles that followed in the aftermath of Crisis.
I hadn't reread Legends in some time. The promise of it being reviewed on the new DCOCD podcast as well as having store credit at a bookstore after a holiday return, I decided to purchase the 30th anniversary trade.
While I loved the mini, it is important to remember that this was early in the post-Crisis DCU. There was no Supergirl in the universe, not even a memory.
One thing that has been an intellectual curiosity for me is really picking at the bones of the decision to remove Supergirl from the DCU. Perhaps I have been interested in this too much, spending much of the spring and summer of 2015 (the 30th anniversary of Crisis) reviewing Supergirl's role in the Crisis, the decision to kill her, and the subsequent aftermath.
I am always happy to stumble upon more snippets about that. In this particular Legends trade, editor Mike Gold talks about his job on the book, establishing the creative team and thinking about the story in general. It is a very interesting read, the sort of 'behind the scenes' stuff someone like me absolutely loves.
And right there in column one is Gold talking about how maybe he wasn't on board with all the changes the Crisis brought. To him, Supergirl was Linda Lee Danvers. How could she and Barry be dead!
This is what all of us long time DC readers were thinking at the time. How do we make sense of this new world? It is just interesting ... and maybe a bit reassuring ... that not everyone thought Supergirl should be killed. Not everyone thought she was superfluous.
All that said, you can't deny that the Crisis led to the incredible creative output from DC in the late 80s. And that Supergirl death is undeniably one of the most important images and most important moments in comic history. And, of course, she came back.
I am intrigued that Gold brings up the shape-changing paramour of Lex. He is, of course, talking about the Matrix Supergirl. But she wasn't even going to be seen until a year after Legends ended, in Superman #16. And even then, she wouldn't become involved with Lex II for years after that.
At the time of Legends, Supergirl was gone ... like GONE.
If you haven't read Legends, go read it. And thanks to Mike Gold for the great essay discussing the book and that time in DC history.
23 comments:
It's always good to find more evidence the "Everyone agreed with the decision to kill her off" statement is a grievous lie.
Honestly, if you think about it, offing her was silly because sooner or later someone was going to bring her back (right like Jean Grey, Ben Reilly... were brought back. Geez, if you think about it, Superman's parents also were brought back). In that regard, it's not surprising it was done. It's surprising it took eighteen years before someone went ahead and reintroduced Kara.
Off-topic, I take you've heard about Bendis taking over all Superman titles and writing his own Man of Stell mini? I'm honestly worried.
I've heard all sorts of anecdotal evidence that DC got a lot of negative verbal pushback at conventions and things re "The Death of Supergirl"...I wonder what the snail-mail read like in those days?
Certainly there was more than a few creatives at DC who didn't accord with the outcome of COIE #7, notably Mark Waid and Paul Levitz to name but two...and I don't think Alan Moore thought much of it either.
It took the internet and Bruce Timm to bring Supergirl back from the dead, the internet demonstrated she had an active disatisfied fanbase and the Bruce Timm was willing to take on The Gods Themselves with Kara In Zee on SM-TAS.
JF
Legends was one of those stories that the ties-in were better than the actual story (most DC Big Events from that era were like that, actually). I'm with Mike Gold here- not sure why they felt the need to 'streamline' things.
Crisis of the Soul was a different project. TwoMorrow's Back Issue #9 has the story on it.
I don't think it was obvious at all, at least at the time, that they would bring Supergirl back. Sure, there would have to be a Supergirl for trademark/copyright reasons, and not necessarily a Kryptonian one (as turned out to be the case). But the move to make Superman a more unique character was the right one. Much of the power in his origin is being the sole survivor of a dying planet. Having other survivors (to the point now where it seems like the only person who actually died on Krypton was Lara) is like Thomas and Martha Wayne being only slightly wounded during a mugging or Uncle Ben just being badly shaken up in a home invasion.
Let me add that I think the only reason people were upset over her death was sheer nostalgia or just liking the idea of the character. She'd had no direction as a character or memorable stories for at least 15 years prior to Crisis.
[Last one, I promise]
All that said, I would have been perfectly happy if during Crisis they had come up with some reason why Kara could only live in the 30th Century and be a part of the LSH.
If Kara had to go, I can't think of a better way to go than she did in CoIE. I think that moment cemented her as DCs greatest hero for me. DC gave her a hero's send off. She burned brighter than any other hero, and showed that her heart was larger than life.
Having said that - DC had terrible issues with how they treated their female heroes then, offing the girls idol so that Superman could feel unique. I wish I could say that was all in the past. But here we are decades later, and while CW, GCG and the DCSHG team are doing good work to promote female heroes so that one day they will be as recognized as the boys, the mainline comics and movies are just as bad as before. Superman is probably getting at least 5 times as many comics as his female counterpart, same with Batman. Justice League on the big screen is still a boys club where only WW is allowed, and she had to earn that place with the boys working as their secretary in the JSA for ages. Action Comics has gone as far as to pretty much fridge Kara by remaking Superman onto Kryptons only survivor again.
I haven't read any Bendis but from what I have garnered he seems to be a bit of a defender of female heroes. Maybe he will be the force needed to give Kara a place in the big league again. One can hope.
Thank you for the find Anj. It's always good to hear that Kara has people to hold her back. It feels comforting on days when it frustrates me that over half a century later those few years Superman had on her still carries such weight.
"I don't think it was obvious at all, at least at the time, that they would bring Supergirl back."
It was obvious to Marv Wolfman, the one who killed her. It was obvious that, sooner or later, someone who liked the character or thought it'd be a good story would bring her back (for example, Wonder Man was brought back and rejoined The Avengers in the 70's). And that was exactly what happened as soon as the "Only Kryptonian survivor" rule was repelled.
"But the move to make Superman a more unique character was the right one."
No, it was not. In fact it weakened the mythos.
"Much of the power in his origin is being the sole survivor of a dying planet."
No, it isn't. It was never a factor in the Golden Age stories where he didn't even know he was Kryptonian. His "last survivor" status never came up. He never was meant to be the only survivor of a dying world.
Also, the first other survivors showed up in 1950. He hasn't been the only survivor for most of his career, and remained a best-selling character for decades. At this point, complaining about Superman not being the only survivor is tantamount to complaining about Spider-Man not being a high-school student.
"Let me add that I think the only reason people were upset over her death was sheer nostalgia or just liking the idea of the character."
Have you considered they just liked the character? Or they actually liked her stories?
Nostalgia is usually a preposterous strawman, a buzzword meant to diminish different opinions, used by people who can't acknowledge the validity of other opinions or can't be bothered to think counter-arguments or merely agree to disagree: "Oh, no, it's not possible you like such and such thing which I happen to not like. Your reasons can't be possibly valid. It has to be nostalgia!"
But if you intend to play this game, then I'll tell the notion that Superman must be the only Kryptonian survivor is sheer Golden Age nostalgia. And automatically dismissing all other arguments. See why nostalgia isn't a good argument?
People were upset because they liked her. Period.
"She'd had no direction as a character"
Yes, she had. She moved and changed jobs constantly because the writers were given freedom to write what they knew.
"http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlogarchives/2007/2007_Individual/2007_07/001523.php"
And she had plenty character development through the Silver and Bronze Ages.
Anyway, it's an absurd argument. Most of characters struggle and are given shake-ups every time sales drop. Hal Jordan, Wonder Woman... characters like Superman and Batman with a a stable status quo tend to be the exception, not the rule.
"or memorable stories for at least 15 years prior to Crisis."
Once again, absurd argument. Maybe they weren't memorable -debatable-
but she had good stories. Most of characters have few memorable stories, if any. Most of Wonder Woman fans say everything between Marston and Perez is crap (40 years of stories!), and most of what came after Perez and wasn't written by Simone or Rucka is crap, too. And Diana was never a best-selling character. The X-Men was a poor-selling book prior to the 80's.
I guess they should have been considered expendable and killed off, too.
Should a character/book be considered expendable or killed because their stories aren't "memorable"? No, no and no. Moreover, let's tell I agree -which I don't- that she had no direction or good stories. The solution is simple and better than killing her off: writing better stories. Paul Kupperberg's run was great and elevated the character.
You never know when a writer can write a great run and rehabilitate a struggling character. X-Men was cancelled and condemned to reprints before Claremont took over. Jean Grey had no "memorable" stories prior to "The Dark Phoenix Saga". Batman was nearly cancelled years before Miller and Moore saw that he became DC's biggest cash cow. Teen Titans was a completely forgettable book before Wolfman and Perez's revamp. Legion of Super-Heroes' last classic run was written decades ago. Hal Jordan was turned into a villain and killed off because he wasn't considered interesting enough. Then Geoff Johns brought him back and wrote Green Lantern's most critically acclaimed run.
And how many people were Bucky's fans prior to "The Soldier of Winter"?
Fridging characters is a waste of resources.
Bravo!! All of this, perfectly said
"Let me add that I think the only reason people were upset over her death was sheer nostalgia or just liking the idea of the character."
Yipes....if bad writing and no direction punched a character's ticket for the terminal dirt nap then Wonder Woman, Jimmy Olsen Lois Lane, Batman Superman ALL of them would have been buried and forgotten years ago. Mort Weisinger was a b**t**d but his dictum rings true today "There are no bad characters, only bad writers and worse editors". Allegedly the only "good" Supergirl Story Marv Wolfman could come with required her death and expulsion from continuity this simply illustrates his limitations as a writer as far as I am concerned.
JF
Anonymous said: "[A bunch of stuff]"
Well, you're wrong.
"Yes, she had. She moved and changed jobs constantly because the writers were given freedom to write what they knew."
That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of having a direction. The link YOU PROVIDED even says "Makes sense from the creator's standpoint, but it gave the strip an unstable feel that it never shook."
"No, it was not. In fact it weakened the mythos."
What weakens the mythos is to have no better ideas for what to do with Superman than introduce Kryptonian after Kryptonian after Kryptonian after Kryptonian...
"but she had good stories"
Identify them. Tell me the good Supergirl stories written from 1970-1984.
"He never was meant to be the only survivor of a dying world."
You're implying from the time of his conception there was the possibility of other survivors. Back that up with proof.
Adventure Comics # 409 thru 424 (1970 thru 1972(is pretty much Supergirl's empire days, Steve Skeates in particular seemed to "get her" and dropped her into all sorts of supernatural situations, the dialogue was crisp and realistic & the artwork memorable. The character's downfall in 1985 is largely due to not building on the storytelling momentum established in this time period.
You can take the Wolfman critique and apply it almost universally to every other legacy female in the DCU...Batgirl makes Batman less special, Wonder Girl diminishes Wonder Woman Lady Blackhawk drags down the Blackhawks (snort)...
JF
"The move to make Superman a more unique character was the right one."
Trouble is, Superman stopped being a unique character long before Supergirl made the scene. EVERY costumed hero created since 1938 has made Superman less unique.
As for "sole survivor of Krypton", Siegel and Shuster could have given Kal El a case of survivor's guilt and had him carry that weight throughout his career, but they didn't. Being the sole survivor never did play a part in his day to day adventures. It certainly didn't motivate him the way the killing of Thomas and Martha Wayne motivated Batman, or the murder of Uncle Ben motivated Spider-Man.
I have never really understood the unique argument for killing Kara. Apply the same logic to Star Wars and every force user except Darth Vader or Leia could be considered copycats because they were the first on screen. After all what is Luke if not a copycat of Leia? They are the last members of an extinguished kind. They possess powers no other mortal can dream of. They are part of the same family line. How can you possibly write interesting stories for a copycat character like Luke?
Fridging females and giving them less exposure is a rotten core in the comics industry. Sure you can validate the behavior of giving Superman and Batman so much more exposure by claiming they sell better. But you can also sell more cars by having halfnaked women rub themselves against the cars in ads, that doesn't really make it right. They are too afraid to lose revenue to fix the skewed market they built themselves under decades of, let's be honest, a very patriarchal society. The comic companies should take a few lines from their own playbook.
"This isn't who we are, the House of El isn't ruled by fear."
- Kara Zor-El, Injustice 2
"Anonymous said: "[A bunch of stuff]"
Well, you're wrong."
So I lay out my arguments and your only answer is "You're wrong because I say so"? Well, you've just proved you have no real arguments and they mustn't be taken seriously.
"That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of having a direction. The link YOU PROVIDED even says "Makes sense from the creator's standpoint, but it gave the strip an unstable feel that it never shook."
No, it is not. The link I provided shows every creative had a direction in mind which they followed consistently throughout their tenure. No their fault the next writer had different ideas. And writers like Jack Harris and Kupperberg built upon the mythos instead of ignoring the former stories.
Once again, that's exactly what happened to characters like Wonder Woman and Hal Jordan. Every new creative tried different things.
"What weakens the mythos is to have no better ideas for what to do with Superman than introduce Kryptonian after Kryptonian after Kryptonian after Kryptonian..."
You're saying from 1950 to 1985 the writers had no better ideas than introduce Kryptonian after Kryptonian. That's completely untrue. Do you seriously thing people like Siegel, Bates, Pasko, Wein or Maggin didn't write good stories or didn't add anything to the mythos other than "other Kryptonian"?
I'm wondering if you're one of those fans who think Streaky was a Kryptnian cat...
Also, you're conveniently forgetting a lot of those characters didn't become popular so disappeared and were quickly forgotten (Dev-Em, Klax-Ar...) whereas characters like Kara Zor-El, Krypto, Zod or Faora endured precisely because they were popular, iconic and added to the mythos. So, you see, more Kryptonians isn't really a trouble because like any new character who doesn't earn the readers' favor they can be easily discarded.
And no, what weakens the mythos is changing the characters' past, identity and nature, or their world's, or keeping them dead during decades every time a new creative team takes over because they don't care for the characters. An iconic character needs a stable identity to be enduring and popular. Otherwise you have messes like Hawkman or Wonder Girl. Otherwise you have fans reluctant to get into Power Girl because of the confusing backstory: "She was a Kryptonian, then she was an Atlantean, then she was Kryptonian".
And I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but a while ago I told a friend of mine that Kara was killed off in the Crisis and replaced with a shape-shifter being called Matrix who would later merge with an human and become a flame-winged Earth Angel. Now, keep in mind said friend is a Marvel fanboy and doesn't care particularly for DC characters. And I never dissed Matrix. And still, his answer was "Seriously? It sounds like they ran out of ideas. And really... Supergirl being Kryptonian Superman's cousin makes more sense".
So you see, the drive to make Superman the only Kryptonian weakened the mythos. Instead of a streamlined universe which any casual or new fan can get into, you have a convoluted backstory and a divided fandom, and outsiders who aren't interested in getting into comics because the universe is unnecessarily complicated and confusing.
"Identify them. Tell me the good Supergirl stories written from 1970-1984."
First you said "memorable" stories and now you say "good"? It sounds like you're moving the goalposts. Also, I have the feeling you're already made your mind and will automatically write off as "bad" any story I tell, even if you've never read it or given one chance, using whatever nebulous criteria you see fit. But whatever.
Like another poster said, Adventure Comics #409-424 was a good run. The late Superman Family stories were also enjoyable. No incredible or anything but good enough and you told "good". And the whole "Daring Adventures" Kupperberg run was excellent.
And anyway, this is ridiculous. If every character who hasn't starred in a "memorable" or "good" story for years was deemed irrelevant, expendable canon fodder... Well, DC would have no CHARACTERS left other than Superman or Batman.
"You're implying from the time of his conception there was the possibility of other survivors. Back that up with proof."
No, what I'm TELLING you is his "sole survivor" status was never considered important, intrinsec or relevant, as proved by the fact Superman eventually found other Kryptonians in "Superman" #65 (July, 1950) and no one thought he was ruined forever or lost what made him appealing, or the fact that Jerry Siegel himself wrote stories featuring other Kryptonians (well, maybe there were some fans... right like there're Transformers fans who claim the franchise has been ruined forever every time Hasbro does... anything).
Proof, you tell? Where is your proof that Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster and their editors back in 1938 thought Superman's appeal was a "sole survivor" status which he should never lose?
Some fans think the Clark/Lois/Superman is intrinsec to the character and Lois being Superman's secret keeper weakens the mythos. Well, Siegel and Shuster definitely didn't think so, an intent proved by "The K-Metal From Krypton" story, and most of fans don't seem to care for that love triangle after two decades of Clark/Lois marriage.
"You can take the Wolfman critique and apply it almost universally to every other legacy female in the DCU...Batgirl makes Batman less special, Wonder Girl diminishes Wonder Woman Lady Blackhawk drags down the Blackhawks (snort)..."
I agree.
Then again, there's people who thinks the Green Lantern CORPS were a mistake because they make Hal Jordan less unique. Or Barry Allen should be the only Flash. Or Miss Martian weakens Martian Manhunter's mythos. Or X-23 shouldn't exist. Yes, good luck convincing Laura fans of THAT...
And remember: Lightning Lass makes her brother less special and should be removed. Still Lightning Lord can be allowed to exist for... reasons.
And let's remember some passionate defenders of the "A character must be completely unique" mindset write stories featuring Donna Troy or Aqualad or design a second Wonder Girl.
"As for "sole survivor of Krypton", Siegel and Shuster could have given Kal El a case of survivor's guilt and had him carry that weight throughout his career, but they didn't. Being the sole survivor never did play a part in his day to day adventures. It certainly didn't motivate him the way the killing of Thomas and Martha Wayne motivated Batman, or the murder of Uncle Ben motivated Spider-Man."
My thoughts, exactly.
Some people think Peter Parker should have remained a high-schooler forever. They think being a teenager is intrinsec to his character. Still it wasn't a opinion shared by Stan Lee. And Spider-Man stopped being a high-schooler fifty years ago. His being fifteen forever doesn't sound very important to me.
"Fridging females and giving them less exposure is a rotten core in the comics industry."
Very true.
"Trouble is, Superman stopped being a unique character long before Supergirl made the scene. EVERY costumed hero created since 1938 has made Superman less unique."
Very true.
In fact, Superman was not unique at all in the rebooted continuity. He wasn't the first super-hero anymore. He wasn't the most powerful either. Or one of the founding members of the world's premier super-team. He wasn't the main inspiration of heroes of the far-flung future. And being the Only Son Of Krypton was completely irrelevant since he was born on Earth soil, considered himself American and didn't care for Krypton or his alien heritage. He wasn't especial at all. He was just another super-hero.
Thanks for all the passionate comments!
I feel like going back to the Crisis and Supergirl is sort of like scratching at a scab. Healing is happening but but it can still bleed.
I have come to terms with her death there. I recognize it for the extremely powerful comic moments it is, defining the Crisis series, creating a iconic cover for the ages. I didn’t agree with the idea that she was useless as a character (heck I’ve been blogging about her for 10years). But I also recognize that her stories in the early 80s pre-Daring were a little lackluster.
Still, for me, it had always seemed around the Crisis that everyone at DC thought she was useless. So seeing these tidbits of creators who didn’t think so is great.
And heck, she’s back and stronger than ever!
Thanks again. I have loved this conversation!
Post a Comment