Did Dan Slott Reveal the Smoking Gun why Superheroes Appeared in 1961 at Marvel?

[Huntsman Spider]

I suppose it is to be expected. In the 1960s, when Marvel.was rising, there was a sense of optimism pervading the US and the comics. Even the Marvel world building that didn't have their characters at the center of things gave them a place in a cosmos of grandeur. It shouldn't surprise us that the writers have developed a steadily darker view.

That's a good point, actually, especially since the world as a whole has gotten far more cynical since then.

[jackolover]

That's the real life explanation, yes. Flash was rebooted in 1956, followed by Green Lantern, then DC banded together Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter (who'd debuted in 1955 in Detective Comics), creating the Justice League of America. That inspired Atlas, newly rebranded as Marvel Comics, to create their own superhero team, the Fantastic Four. It sold well, so they started adding superhero characters to their anthologies. Amazing Fantasy was almost immediately relaunched as Amazing Spider-Man, and then Daredevil, Avengers, and X-Men launched a year later.

What about all the ww2 heroes? What about the west heroes like phantom rider and some super powered bad guys? What about the magic and powered bad guys from conan and soloman kaines era? What about doc savage? What about the 50s "lost" heroes from that limited series? What about that bc avengers group? Sorry but there were many heroes who had powers before the fantastic four.

What I’m concentrating on is the in-universe structure of its super-humans beginning in 1961, despite the real world explanations. At the time Atlas was publishing, no superheroes were present in those books, only on flashbacks much later. So what I am looking at is the Atlas-Marvel world suddenly sparking a proliferation of super-heroes never seen before. That’s the moment I’m talking about. That’s the smoking gun I’ve been looking for.

[jackolover]

I suppose it is to be expected. In the 1960s, when Marvel.was rising, there was a sense of optimism pervading the US and the comics. Even the Marvel world building that didn't have their characters at the center of things gave them a place in a cosmos of grandeur. It shouldn't surprise us that the writers have developed a steadily darker view.

I’m also agreeing with this sentiment. Something wonderful happened when JFK became President in 1960, and a host of other social issues took over importance from the depressive post-war rivalry with the Soviets. From then on, out of that collective soup, something new emerged out of Marvel Comics. I’m just wondering if the editors today are giving a qualified imprimatur to the concept Cosmic Rays from Spyre caused all that to happen?

[DrNewGod]

I’m also agreeing with this sentiment. Something wonderful happened when JFK became President in 1960, and a host of other social issues took over importance from the depressive post-war rivalry with the Soviets. From then on, out of that collective soup, something new emerged out of Marvel Comics. I’m just wondering if the editors today are giving a qualified imprimatur to the concept Cosmic Rays from Spyre caused all that to happen?

IMO, it was a much wider phenomenon than JFK and the other influential figures of the time (to include MLK, Friedan, et al.):

• The US was still economically ascending (helped by the fact we were almost the only major industrial society whose industries hadn't been bombed to ashes 15 years earlier)
• Higher education and the upward mobility that went with it were becoming more widely available (in part to ensure that - literally - millions of veterans didn't discharge with no employment, and in part to feed the growing industries with talent)
• All this industry and education seemed to be bringing us new innovations and consumer products that bettered life virtually every time we blinked (in part because we weren't looking into the consequences of those innovations)
• We weren't yet tuned into the voices of the oppressed in own backyard
• There was a naive trust that our authorities were acting in the best interests of the greatest number of us.

As for the in-universe view, a clear cause in 1961 is muddled. There were superheros operating in the 1950s, and more besides given revisions like Blue Marvel. Even discounting the revisions, taking 1961 for the launch date, you would have had the likes of Professor X, Magneto, Dr. Doom, the Mandarin, and possibly Dr. Strange all running about to bridge the span between the 1950s and 1960s.

[Huntsman Spider]

IMO, it was a much wider phenomenon than JFK and the other influential figures of the time (to include MLK, Friedan, et al.):

• The US was still economically ascending (helped by the fact we were almost the only major industrial society whose industries hadn't been bombed to ashes 15 years earlier)
• Higher education and the upward mobility that went with it were becoming more widely available (in part to ensure that - literally - millions of veterans didn't discharge with no employment, and in part to feed the growing industries with talent)
• All this industry and education seemed to be bringing us new innovations and consumer products that bettered life virtually every time we blinked (in part because we weren't looking into the consequences of those innovations)
• We weren't yet tuned into the voices of the oppressed in own backyard
• There was a naive trust that our authorities were acting in the best interests of the greatest number of us.

As for the in-universe view, a clear cause in 1961 is muddled. There were superheros operating in the 1950s, and more besides given revisions like Blue Marvel. Even discounting the revisions, taking 1961 for the launch date, you would have had the likes of Professor X, Magneto, Dr. Doom, the Mandarin, and possibly Dr. Strange all running about to bridge the span between the 1950s and 1960s.

The last one, especially, because now that we know all too well that those vested with great power will more often than not abuse or misuse that power for their own benefit, that mindset of "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" logically gets applied to the superhero genre, resulting in bleak, even nihilistic stories where the characters are at best unable to accomplish any lasting good or meaningful change for the better and at worst, their flaws and failings have made them as complicit in the problems of that setting as the more obvious villains.

[jackolover]

The last one, especially, because now that we know all too well that those vested with great power will more often than not abuse or misuse that power for their own benefit, that mindset of "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" logically gets applied to the superhero genre, resulting in bleak, even nihilistic stories where the characters are at best unable to accomplish any lasting good or meaningful change for the better and at worst, their flaws and failings have made them as complicit in the problems of that setting as the more obvious villains.

Yeah it’s an issue alright. You do have to wonder if the benefits of super heroes outweigh the drawbacks? That’s a more existential question as to the gains to society. Iron Man once put a monetary figure to the benefits of superheroes to the Committee before the Civil War wanting to enforce the SHRA, let alone how many times they saved the whole world. It was difficult to comprehend the historical significance to all societies just on that point alone. But certainly, you could extrapolate the interference of super heroes when there is interventions, that seem to escalate to large casualties leaving bitterness and not appreciation. It’s hard to balance the price that has to be paid to maintain the status quo.

Myself? When the heroes decided that intervention was best, (rather than sit on the fence and do nothing), I felt the fact that heroes did rescue people being attacked physically, was easily much better than letting harm come to innocents. That really gave people encouragement that there was someone out there that wouldn’t just sit back and let bad things happen. I think super heroes brought such great confidence back into society; to cheer outload when someone intervened.

[Huntsman Spider]

Yeah it’s an issue alright. You do have to wonder if the benefits of super heroes outweigh the drawbacks? That’s a more existential question as to the gains to society. Iron Man once put a monetary figure to the benefits of superheroes to the Committee before the Civil War wanting to enforce the SHRA, let alone how many times they saved the whole world. It was difficult to comprehend the historical significance to all societies just on that point alone. But certainly, you could extrapolate the interference of super heroes when there is interventions, that seem to escalate to large casualties leaving bitterness and not appreciation. It’s hard to balance the price that has to be paid to maintain the status quo.

Myself? When the heroes decided that intervention was best, (rather than sit on the fence and do nothing), I felt the fact that heroes did rescue people being attacked physically, was easily much better than letting harm come to innocents. That really gave people encouragement that there was someone out there that wouldn’t just sit back and let bad things happen. I think super heroes brought such great confidence back into society; to cheer outload when someone intervened.

Actually a pretty solid point. In a society and system paralyzed by apathy and choked by corruption, superheroes could very well be the game-changer that would inspire people to feel hope again, at least at first. As for the issue with the status quo, that's something "capepunk," a reexamination of the superhero genre that primarily focuses on what motivates or drives superheroes to do what they do in the first place and whether or not it's worthwhile, let alone if society is better or worse for their existence. I thought Marvel Knights Spider-Man by Mark Millar presented a pretty good explanation for why superheroes couldn't accomplish any lasting good with their abilities and resources, namely that they were deliberately preoccupied by basic goons bankrolled, equipped, and/or augmented by a dark alliance of unscrupulous businessmen and politicians that wanted to keep them distracted from making lasting changes for the betterment of the world, since that would cut into the alliance's ability to hold onto the profit and power from their illicit and immoral dealings.

[super curry max]

Why does everyone forget the First Line and other heroes from the Lost Generation?

Also all those iron fists

[super curry max]

LOL, according to the current Avengers run, yes, that. Exactly. Traveling Celestial got a space virus, crash landed on Earth, died, and life sprung from his/her/their spilled blood and vomit. Oh, and the Avengers are currently living in said Celestials hollowed-out shell of a body.

What issue(s) is this laid out in?

[jackolover]

Actually a pretty solid point. In a society and system paralyzed by apathy and choked by corruption, superheroes could very well be the game-changer that would inspire people to feel hope again, at least at first. As for the issue with the status quo, that's something "capepunk," a reexamination of the superhero genre that primarily focuses on what motivates or drives superheroes to do what they do in the first place and whether or not it's worthwhile, let alone if society is better or worse for their existence. I thought Marvel Knights Spider-Man by Mark Millar presented a pretty good explanation for why superheroes couldn't accomplish any lasting good with their abilities and resources, namely that they were deliberately preoccupied by basic goons bankrolled, equipped, and/or augmented by a dark alliance of unscrupulous businessmen and politicians that wanted to keep them distracted from making lasting changes for the betterment of the world, since that would cut into the alliance's ability to hold onto the profit and power from their illicit and immoral dealings.

It would have been nice to actually see this dark alliance it was claimed existed, in later stories, but it just comes off as evil men trying to mess with Spider-Men. Peter doesn’t seem to believe it, or, if he never found out, the villains in the scheme have never revisited the issue again.

[Desmark]

Slott must have wanted to make use of the plot point of the FF being the first to matter just like supes over DC. ;p

[Mr.B]

Sliding timescale it wouldnt be 1961 anymore.

[DrNewGod]

Yeah it’s an issue alright. You do have to wonder if the benefits of super heroes outweigh the drawbacks? That’s a more existential question as to the gains to society. Iron Man once put a monetary figure to the benefits of superheroes to the Committee before the Civil War wanting to enforce the SHRA, let alone how many times they saved the whole world. It was difficult to comprehend the historical significance to all societies just on that point alone. But certainly, you could extrapolate the interference of super heroes when there is interventions, that seem to escalate to large casualties leaving bitterness and not appreciation. It’s hard to balance the price that has to be paid to maintain the status quo.

Myself? When the heroes decided that intervention was best, (rather than sit on the fence and do nothing), I felt the fact that heroes did rescue people being attacked physically, was easily much better than letting harm come to innocents. That really gave people encouragement that there was someone out there that wouldn’t just sit back and let bad things happen. I think super heroes brought such great confidence back into society; to cheer outload when someone intervened.

Actually a pretty solid point. In a society and system paralyzed by apathy and choked by corruption, superheroes could very well be the game-changer that would inspire people to feel hope again, at least at first. As for the issue with the status quo, that's something "capepunk," a reexamination of the superhero genre that primarily focuses on what motivates or drives superheroes to do what they do in the first place and whether or not it's worthwhile, let alone if society is better or worse for their existence. I thought Marvel Knights Spider-Man by Mark Millar presented a pretty good explanation for why superheroes couldn't accomplish any lasting good with their abilities and resources, namely that they were deliberately preoccupied by basic goons bankrolled, equipped, and/or augmented by a dark alliance of unscrupulous businessmen and politicians that wanted to keep them distracted from making lasting changes for the betterment of the world, since that would cut into the alliance's ability to hold onto the profit and power from their illicit and immoral dealings.

In fairness, today's superhero comic publisher does have a special problem that they didn't face in 1961: long-tenure readership. When your audience completely cycled every 3-5 years, it was fine for superheroes to do big, hopeful things, and take down gigantic menaces, or hugely benefit society in one issue, only to have the environmental status quo unaffected in future issues. When the audience sticks around to see 50+ years of Daredevil smashing rackets left and right, you've got to wonder why New York isn't crime-free just yet. In a similar vein, one has to explain why Stark, Richards, and T'Challa's technologies haven't completely remade civilization. About the only tools a creator has to explain that away is a pretty cynical interpretation of the world around our heroes.

[Huntsman Spider]

What issue(s) is this laid out in?

Avengers #1-6 by Jason Aaron.

It would have been nice to actually see this dark alliance it was claimed existed, in later stories, but it just comes off as evil men trying to mess with Spider-Men. Peter doesn’t seem to believe it, or, if he never found out, the villains in the scheme have never revisited the issue again.

Maybe, but it's as good an explanation as any now that the sliding timescale would have ruled out Communism as a major source of villains.

In fairness, today's superhero comic publisher does have a special problem that they didn't face in 1961: long-tenure readership. When your audience completely cycled every 3-5 years, it was fine for superheroes to do big, hopeful things, and take down gigantic menaces, or hugely benefit society in one issue, only to have the environmental status quo unaffected in future issues. When the audience sticks around to see 50+ years of Daredevil smashing rackets left and right, you've got to wonder why New York isn't crime-free just yet. In a similar vein, one has to explain why Stark, Richards, and T'Challa's technologies haven't completely remade civilization. About the only tools a creator has to explain that away is a pretty cynical interpretation of the world around our heroes.

Which reflects the cynicism people have about social, cultural, political, and economic structures in the real world.