Is It Disrespectful To Have Real Life Issues Be Solved In Superhero Comics?

[Shawn Hopkins]

I'm cool with writers who write superheroes who don't have to make compromises and manage to find a better way, but I'd never for a minute suggest that they "should not" make compromises. The superhero genre has room for both kinds of stories.

I think that "superheroes are brave" is such an important superhero trope that if you remove it, you're not doing a straight superhero story anymore. You're doing a deconstruction along the lines of Watchmen, Brat Pack or Marshall Law. That's fine in small doses, but can't really be called a superhero story without an asterisk.

[DrNewGod]

I don't think it's disrespectful, but it's impractical. From your fans' perspective, if your superhero takes on poverty or cancer, your hero's going to lose.

However, a great approach to this was how Ross handled the prestige format Batman, "War on Crime." How Batman chooses to fight the real enemy (poverty that breeds crime) was very good. You know he's not likely to win, but he's giving it a shot.

[dancj]

I can agree, there, but not when the compromise is "leave Lex Luthor in charge of America without ever even trying to speak against him."

I allow that one as artistic licence - much like No Man's Land. It allowed them to tell a fun story which stretches credibility a tad.

[dancj]

I think that "superheroes are brave" is such an important superhero trope that if you remove it, you're not doing a straight superhero story anymore. You're doing a deconstruction along the lines of Watchmen, Brat Pack or Marshall Law. That's fine in small doses, but can't really be called a superhero story without an asterisk.

I disagree. There's room for all levels of bravery in the straight superhero world. I also don't think this is about bravery anyway.