Page 33, Vol. 1, #11

DC Versus Marvel Showdown!

I recently told someone that even though I own a huge number of figures representing characters from the Marvel continuity, that I actually prefer DC Comics.

Why this is has been a mystery for much of my life. My favorite superhero of all time is Spider-Man (despite the disproportionate number of columns I've written about Supergirl). There's a level of sophistication that shows up in a number of Marvel stories that isn't as present in much of DC's lineup. I believe, also, that Marvel has a more realistic assimilation of superheroes into society (though it's hard to forgive them the major discrepancy of allowing aliens but not mutants as public heroes).

So what is it? I have thought, before, that perhaps it was a character versus story issue. Marvel had more interesting characters, while DC had better stories. But while on that track I've thought of many DC story telling … well, not much way to put it besides "mistakes," and many, many weak characters in the Marvel universe. Maybe it's the other way around? Well, Superman, Batman, The Flash, a couple Green Lanterns, they're pretty strong and interesting personalities, but they never get past a certain point of development. And Marvel stories? Well… like I said, they often have sophistication, but all too frequently that turns into the characters whining about their personal problems – as if there's the law that bind Spider-Man (With great power, yatta yatta) is what every superhero on the planet is supposed to subscribe to with enthusiasm. Seriously, some of those heroes are so screwed up in the head that they really need to sit down and see a therapist for a few years before they even trying to help anyone else with their problems.

So what is it?

I thought maybe I had the answer when I was thinking about the recent House of M epic.

To be honest, I haven't read it yet. Sounds promising, sounds like it might be cool, but… y'know, it also sounds an awful lot like the Onslaught saga.

Marvel has this tendency to, every week, promise you that the story contained in the 32 pages of sequential storytelling in your hands will alter the fate of the Marvel universe irrevocably. Or something. A year later, it's all the same.

See, in Onslaught, for example, Prof X becomes a bad guy, fuses with Magneto, and they/he go out and start killing, well, everyone. Including: The Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man, The Hulk, and the Fantastic Four. All the first stringers. Not mutants though, for reasons which only barely make sense within the story, and certainly not out of it. A year later, they're all restored. Prof. X gets his powers back, etc, etc.

Magneto himself is another example of this phenomenon. He's bad. Then he's good. Then he's bad. Then he's good. Repeat ad nauseum. In fact, the only relatively permanent thing I can really think of Marvel ever doing is killing off Ben Reilly. Then the ended Spider-Man and started it all over again. So it really doesn't matter.

Now, DC does this too (because you Marvel fans are getting angry at me). Didn't I just spend several columns talking about the resurrection of Hal Jordan? Superman died, then came back, then his powers changed, then changed back. But, frankly, they don't do it as frequently. And there's a very key difference.

DC never claims that everything you know about the DCU is going to change forever. Ok, not never, but when they make such a claim, it turns out to be something like Crisis on Infinite Earths, which, surprisingly, did reshape the entire DCU permanently.

It's a lot easier to believe that nothing has changed after the universe's existence has been threatened after the good guys actually won, not just stopped the threat at the cost of all that's good and holy in the world (after which all that's good and holy comes right on back).

But, I think this points to a deeper problem. Orson Scott Card said that the lead character needs to suffer. That's an interesting philosophy, and I believe it to a certain extent. But it seems like the only thing that is ever accomplished by any major Marvel story-arc (be it Spider-Man, the very short-lived Ultragirl, X-Men, or the Avengers) is an exponential increase in the angst, self-esteem problems, and depression that is so prevalent in Marvel-ville.

I'm all for pointing out that there's a price paid for the powers we get, but isn't Spidey being unpopular, Hulk's anger management, and Daredevil's trading sight for superpowers enough to do that? Do they have to be miserable rejects with no shots at happiness? In the Onslaught arc, Remy LeBeau points out that they have it pretty good. A huge mansion, the coolest technology on the planet, and they're always surrounded by their friends. Take away the hatred humanity has for them, and it'd be great. To which Bishop has to point out that the hatred's there, so life must suck. Poor baby.

Look, I take medication for my depression. It helps a lot. The reason I do so is because I don't want to wallow in my negative feelings. I like feeling good. Why would I read escapist literature if it turns out that life is, if anything, worse when you've got superpowers? Maybe some of these superheroes should try some Valium. It'd do wonders.

So what's the ultimate lesson from all this? I'm not entirely sure. Maybe it's about not promising more than you ever intend to deliver. Maybe it's about making us feel like something is being accomplished. Maybe I'm just selfish and want to impose my view on storytelling.

Or maybe comics are just about escaping. They really are about seeing what could happen if we were so much more than we are. Marvel gives us a cautionary tale, while DC points out, as Orion explains in JLA's World War III storyarc, that this place, even with the people who don't have superpowers, is the place where gods will come from.

The latter is a dream I can believe in.

Discuss it in our forums.

Written by SaintEhlers on January 17th, 2006