The Featured Cast

Before I turn to comics characters, I want to talk briefly about Dr. Zachary Smith (as portrayed by Lost in Space's permanent Guest-Star, Jonathan Harris).

"Is this REALLY necessary, my boy?"

Whenever you read any on-line discussion about Lost In Space, someone inevitably complains about Dr. Smith being useless. I can understand why they think this: certainly, his virtues are almost nonexistent, his skills debatable at best,  and his flaws are, if not endless, nearly bottomless.

Many people forget that originally Dr. Smith was an Air Force Colonel, the Jupiter program's head physician, and an expert enough combatant to knock out a military guard with one karate chop.  Over time, the show intentionally "forgot" all these details so that Dr. Smith would be as useless as possible. 

People focused on Dr. Smith's in-universe uselessness tend to overlook Dr. Smith's narrative purpose (other than as an "internal antagonist"): Dr. Smith was there to emphasize the HORROR of the situation.

And NO ONE has ever been better at emphasizing horror than Zachary Smith.

The Space Family Robinson (including Don West) are supernaturally brave.  It's kind of baked into the fact that they were chosen for the Alpha Centauri mission to begin with, and they are remarkably resolute in the face of each episode's new terrors. Dr. Smith is there to provide a "normal" (if frequently dramatic) reaction to the horrors they encounter (and of being lost in space generally).  People complain about Dr. Smith's goofy histrionics undercutting the seriousness of show.  But it is exactly that quality of Dr. Smith that SELLS THE DANGER.  It is, ironically, Dr. Smith who convinces you to take seriously the threats that might otherwise seem just goofy.  There is ZERO doubt that Dr. Smith is 100% terrified EVERY TIME and you cannot help but identify with it to some degree.  Dr. Smith's shrieking cowardice isn't a character flaws; it's his principal FEATURE.  If you miss that, you are missing much of the point of the series.

Similarly, many readers, too focused on imposing their own logic to "in-universe" situations, miss the narrative purpose of supporting characters (or of certain characteristics of some main characters).

The prime example of this is, of course, James Bartholomew Olsen.

"... again"?

I'm just going to assume that if you are reading this blog, you are already sufficient familiar with The Flaws of Jimmy Olsen.  Let's just say that Jimmy is somewhat ... impulsive.  And overconfident.  Such traits get him into Situations, ones that even his pal, Superman, is challenged to handle.

But that is not a "flaw" of Jimmy Olsen; that is the POINT of Jimmy Olsen.  It's not just a useful plot device that Jimmy's a congenital idiot with less impulse control than a toddler; it's essential metaphor.

Jimmy Olsen isn't merely "non-superhuman", he is painfully HUMAN.  Jimmy Olsen -- powerless, too impulsive for his own good, foolishly confident, oddly blasé when he finds himself in bizarre situations he has usually brought on himself -- IS humanity.  To ask "Why on earth is Superman pals with Jimmy Olsen?" is to ask "Why does Superman put up with humanity AT ALL?!"  Jimmy Olsen shows what makes Superman special.  It's not having superpowers; it's have superpowers and STILL caring about a self-destructive, short-sighted mess like Jimmy Olsen (and by extension the rest of us).  And Jimmy provides a benefit to Superman that almost no one else in-universe: by and large,  he treats Superman and Superman's life as NORMAL

Look, we all love Superman, but normal he ain't.

If Superman has one consistent fear, it's of being ostracized and abandoned.  There is nothing Superman -- who is really just Clark Kent, after all-- values more than being treated as normal.  The reason all his friends are work colleagues is because (other than his appearance) having a job is the most human thing about him.

Nothing says "I'm secretly afraid of being abandoned by my entire planet AGAIN" than naming your secret headquarters "The Fortress of Solitude".

There's a similar situation with Wonder Woman: the readers who deride classic Etta Candy as merely a "funny fat friend", an extended fat joke from a less enlightened era.  

Your crippling man-hungriness repulses me, Diana; and I am someone highly accepting of man-hungriness.

But they are missing the point of Etta Candy (especially all those writers who have her lose weight).  

Dieting Etta Candy is not Etta Candy at all.

As I pointed out twenty years ago, Etta Candy neither needs nor wants your permission to be herself.  Unlike Golden Age Wonder Woman, Etta is neither vain nor hung up on men.  

Shut up, Diana. I'm sick of your sanctimonious fat-shaming. Etta is not your "project".

Etta isn't "fat" because she lacks willpower; she could be thinner,  but trying to have a Wonder Woman physique isn't where her values lie.  

Etta knows her value doesn't come from others.

Etta's purpose isn't to be laughed at; it is to be admired because she doesn't HAVE to be a runway model to be vivacious, popular, and effective.

Batman has a misunderstood supporting character; it's must less obvious, but I think it's just as important. The character is Bat-Girl (the real one, I mean).

SPOILER ALERT:
She's a heroine.

So many versions of Barbara "Batgirl" Gordon integrate her fully into the "Bat-family".  It takes a variety of forms.  In some media/contintuities, she has a romantic relationship with Dick Grayson (or even Bruce!) or she operates out of the Batcave with her efforts being coordinated by Batman as leader of the Bat-family.  To me, this misses the point of the characters. Specifically, to BE independent of Batman.

Whose baby ARE you, anyway?

The Batman'66 show, of all versions, got it right.  Batman and Robin never knew who Batgirl was, but they appreciate her cooperation and her professionalism and never tried to control her.

There's was not an entangling alliance.

Even when Barbara Gordon switched from being Batgirl to being Oracle, she wasn't "Batman's resource".  She was depicted as an independent operator and a resource for the entire superhuman community.  The independence of Batgirl made her a feminist role model (in a way that man-crazy Wonder Woman never actually was), the logical successor of the original Batwoman and Bat-Girl.

Remember them...?

Now only modern Batwoman serves that role and it's undercut rather severely by the fact that Batwoman is Bruce Wayne's cousin and so is quite literally part of the Batfamily.

I am sure the attempts to be "inclusive" of Batgirl in the Batfamily are well-meant; no one wants to dismiss or diminish Barbara Gordon as a character.

Well; almost no one.

But doing so does diminish her as an entity inspired by yet still independent of Batman. This is why I have always resisted fandom's relentless "shipping" of Barbara Gordon and Dick Grayson.

That and sartorial considerations.

I am myself am (somewhat) guilty of this type of mistake.  No one has been more critical of Silver Age Aqualad than I.

Because he is a big-headed, purple-eyed freaky menace.

But even in my blinding detestation of Aqualad (who was always useless in-universe), I intuited his narrative purpose: making Aquaman look cool.  When Aqualad was freaking out, Aquaman retained his composure.  When Aqualad thought they were doomed, Aquaman remained hopeful. When Aqualad could see no way out, Aquaman found a simple solution.

Or at least the Silver Age's idea of "simple".

I have been similarly critical of Iris West. a.k.a., The Meanest Woman Alive.  But her in-universe flaw is a narrative feature: she shows that Barry Allen is The Most Patient Man Alive.  Which explains how he, the Flash, can live in world where literally everyone is much slower than he is.

Hal Jordan's legendary bone-headedness is certainly a flaw, but it has a narrative function: it highlights the fact that his defining features aren't intelligence or planning, but rather fearlessness and willpower.  

For about the sound of one hand clapping.  
What does it mean for Hal Jordan's mind to go blank?

Now, you might think these are insufficient or inappropriate virtues to determine who wields a power ring, but you are not the Silver Age Guardians of the Universe.

And who are we to doubt the wisdom of beings with their superior sense of color coordination?

I could go on, but I've covered most of the icons and I think you catch my drift.  Next time you feel critical of the flaws of a particular character, stop to consider whether those are part of their narrative function.  Or do so right now in the comments!

Emperor Aquaman

 I want discuss something I will call "serial sustainability".

There are two kinds of stories: ongoing (like an American soap opera or a newspaper drama strip) and self-contained (like a novel or a telenovela).  You might also think in terms of episodic storytelling, where each story can stand alone, but is part of a larger story being woven across many episodes.  But the two underlying principles remain: either what you have designated as "the story" is designed with an endpoint or it is not.

Historically, most stories are self-contained as short stories or novels.  They have luxury of doing whatever they need to do to tell the story; life-, even world-, changing events and character deaths and changes are all fair game.  They have a hard stop, but, essentially, no guard rails.  Ongoing stories are the opposite; they have no endpoints, but, as a result, they have to color in between the lines in such a way as to allow the story to continue.

After all, can't continue the story of Brenda Starr, Reporter if you kill off Brenda Starr.
Like by mailing her what appears to be a deadly tarantula named "Patch".

It may sound stupid of me to lay out for you such obvious concepts.  But I do so because sometimes it sees to me as though a lot of comic book writers DON'T understand such obvious concepts.

If you think about The Sword of the Atom,

(as I often do)

its goal is clear.  The Atom, as a concept, was out of juice, or, at least, out of favor with readers.  Given that, writing a story that colored WAY outside the lines, recasting atomic scientist Ray Palmer as the heroic center of a sword'n'sandals fantasy epic seemed like a worthwhile gamble. If the Atom wasn't selling or being used as part of the broader DCU, why not roll the dice by doing something wildly different with him?

But The Sword of the Atom was clearly a telenovela (or, as comics call it, a mini-series).  At the end of it, the tiny kingdom of Morlaidh was completely destroyed and Ray returned to civilization.

To degree that Jean Loring can be credibly considered part of "civilization".

From this ending, a new creative team could take Ray "The Atom" Palmer in whatever direction they see fit.

Let's look at another example: Jonah Hex.  Jonah Hex was a "weird western" characters introduced pretty much as DC's last Western character.  He had a great run, but after Crisis on Infinite Earths his comic, DC last Western comic, was cancelled (like much of DC's past).  But DC took the gamble of recasting Jonah Hex in a far-future post-apocalyptic wasteland comic, 

At least he got away from Bat Lash.

Even more than The Atom, Jonah Hex whose native setting -- the weird West -- had been played out and wouldn't sell with readers any more. They had little to lose by re-contextualizing him into a Mad Max setting, and this new ongoing series lasted 18 issues.  It wasn't intended as a mini-series, but before it was cancelled, its creators still had enough notice (and thoughtfulness) to end the series in an open-ended way

In fact, DC's greatest and most memorable "open ending" of all time.

And Jonah Hex DID return, in several subsequent miniseries and another regular series that put him back in the weird West.

I'm not always fond of these experiments with characters, but I can certainly understand why they happen and acknowledge that sometimes they enrich the characters long-term.  Such excursions can give you more options with a character and make them more usable in the broader DCU. Nowadays, if Ray Palmer ever nears to whip out a sword and hack somebody up, it's perfectly believable and in character, given his past adventures.  And, more than once, when there are time-travel shenanigans, modern day superheroes cross paths with Jonah Hex and he takes the concept of time-travel entirely in stride.  

This is not a conversation that Batman could have with, say, The Wyoming Kid.
God, I hate The Wyoming Kid.

Jonah Hex nearly killed Superman.
Can't say that about The Wyoming Kid.

Really, at this point, you can't time-travel WITHOUT running into Jonah Hex at some point.

So, in both of these instances, creators took marginal characters in unusual directions that made them better (or at least, more useful) characters in the broader storytelling of the DCU.  In both of these case, there was a general understanding, I think, that the re-contextualizations were did not have "serial substantability"; there was no illusion that this extended "side-quest" could really be maintained as the new status quo for the character.  We knew scientist Ray Palmer couldn't continue as a sword-n-sandals adventure and that Weird Western icon Jonah Hex wasn't going to remain in the future.

There are other times a character has a shift of context that is intended to broaden, update, or refresh their setting, but that are NOT clearly "side-quest"; they seem to be legitimately intended as permanent changes to the status quo. Such as the changes in the status quo for Superman and Batman.

In 1971, all kryptonite became inert, Superman lost a third of his power, and Clark Kent became a newscaster instead of a newspaper reporter.

In 1969, when Dick Grayson left for college, Batman shut down the Bat-cave and Wayne Manor, and Bruce Wayne moves into penthouse in the city and opens the "Victims Incorporated Program".

And these new statuses quo were sustainable.  There was nothing intrinsically off-model about them and both writers and editors believed that this was now The Way Things Would Be.

These two settings have long since been superseded by new ones, of course, because comic book universes are ONGOING storylines, designed with the fervent hope that they will NOT end.  They slowly but continually write and re-write themselves in such as way as to facilitate their expansion (or at a minimum their continuation). Individual stories may take characters in different directions, but not so far afield as to damage or unduly limit the storytelling prospects of the larger enterprise of which they are merely a part. 

Where does the 1977 murder of Aquababy fall along this spectrum? 
It is a subject for debate!

But that is why I am concerned when creative teams are allowed to take major characters -- not marginal or unused ones, but real icons -- into directions and contexts that do NOT seem sustainable.  

Or even non-major characters.

With all this as background, let usconsider the new direction that is currently charted for Aquaman and whether it has serial sustainability.

I'm sorry; I mean "EMPEROR Aquaman".

Now, Aquaman is no stranger to such shifts, such of which are now nearly forgotten.  

Like when Aquaman was a government spy, battling O.G.R.E. (the Organization for General Revenge and Enslavement), and wearing a dinner jacket underwater.

Or when he became a Medieval fantasy character with a magic hand made of water?

Or when he was turned into a submarine Tarzan, ridiculously raised by porpoises?

Or when he had a squid for a face?
I think everyone has agreed to forget that one.

These many experiences has made me skeptical of "new directions" for Aquaman. And this time, the redux is a real swing for the fences.

As the result of Some Crossover Nonsense, Aquaman now wields The Blue, a mytho-metaphysical abstract of water and the seas of this world and of other worlds.

[ASIDE] This is the crux of the shift, but as world-changing as it is, it's by no means NEW.

The concept of The Blue (a.k.a. The Clear) goes back to thirty years to 1995, when Mark Millar introduced it as a parallel expansion of the concepts of The Green and The Red, which had been introduced in Swamp Thing and Animal Man. The Green was plant life, the Red was animal life, and the Blue was water (the element necessary for life in general) along with the plant and animal life within the seas.  Aquaman was explained to be a champion of The Clear, with many of his powers a manifestation of his connection to it.  It wasn't emphasized outside of the context of Swamp Thing and all that jazz got run over when the New 52 hit in 2011.

Aquaman's newfound connection to "The Blue" has given him a general power-up and some specific power additions.  He now has aquakinesis and can use the Blue to travel around.  He is noticeably stronger and seems a lot more focused and confident. And, of course, he got a new trident.

Because Aquaman Gets A New Trident is basically a spring ritual at this point.

[ANOTHER ASIDE]: Now, from my perspective, this is pretty much already how Aquaman is and always has been. He's already had a connection to The Blue, he's had aquakinesis in several media interpretations, he's been shown repeatedly as able to go toe-to-toe with Superman or Wonder Woman, and seems to find Renewed Resolve and Purpose on a quarterly basis.  I think it's less that Aquaman needs to be powered up than writers simply keep FORGETTING how powerful he is and decide (again) that THEY will be the ones who will finally make Aquaman TRULY powerful.

The creative team isn't stopping at hitting this Blue schtick hard.

And they are hitting it almost COMEDICALLY hard.
Also; that is a truly perverse way to tile that room.  

They have taken other steps that, as we have observed here before, are smart and strong steps toward building a heroic dynasty.

They have quickly tidied up existing mytho-messiness, putting all the historical pieces back on the table in standard condition. Atlantis, a re-powered Mera, Tempest, Aqualad.  Places like Xebel and the other undersea kingdoms have been put into a coherent context. 

Impressively, they have also taken some of the flotsam from previous Aqua-runs and incorporated in appropriate tiers in the Aqua-dynasty: Arion, the Lady of the Lake (from Arthurian Legend), Captain Nemo (from the Land of Public Domain), Lori Lemaris (from Superman lore), and the Shiver (a trio of DCU's shark monsters, Titanus, Karshon and King Shark) and friggin' ZAN (from the SuperFriends). Making every significant water-character you can part of Aquaman's squad really expands his dynasty and makes him seem powerful and authoritative!  

I shall call it "The Time Everyone Joined My Beach Volleyball Team!"

This "Justice League Blue" (as Zan nicknames it so that the creators can be exonerated from doing so) are Arthur's "away team" who have begun to help him establish outposts in THE SEAS OF OTHER PLANETS.

The kind of thing he used to do off-panel in the Silver Age.

Yeah, this is a BIG swing.  Aquaman can travel to other planets now, on a whim.  Where he intends to set up "lighthouses"; stations to serve as beacons for ocean-dwellers on other planets to request assistance and connect all the oceans in big network of Doing Good.  

This is the first time a creative team has really carried the lighthouse theme of Aquaman's origin into the way he does business and, while it is not subtle, it is brilliant.

Turns out there's a treacherous problem on the first planet they visit (because of course there is), that they solve in record time with a generous helping of Aquaman's new eXXXtreme powers.

Pretty sure most people know that water becomes ice when it gets cold, Arthur.

But not before it's made very clear that
ZAN IS A STONE-COLD FREAK, who is up for anything.

I appreciate that, while the creative team is sure-footedly doing this heavy-work of world building, they are not skipping details and bits of character-building interactions. A few examples:

BOTH Tempest and Zan's eyes are consistently colored PURPLE, exactly as they should be.

Aquaman's hair is consistently fabulous. This is no joke. This is not merely an old-school joy. It sends a MESSAGE: Aquaman is the most on the ball person in the room. He's got it covered.

It's not easy to distinguish three nearly-identical shark-guys.  Here, the creative team does it with their short answers to one question; the Professional, the Zealot, and the Dumb Dog. This team knows how to write EFFICIENTLY, which is rare nowadays.

Tempest, Aqualad, and Mera are the protective types whom Aquaman can confidently rely upon to take care of things at home while he's away.  Zan is the Wacky Weird Foreigner, eager to be taken seriously, but less eager to take things seriously.  The kind who makes out with alien ant-people five minutes after he meets them.

Despite being powerful, Arthur is still very casual.

I could cite more example, but I think you should just read the new issues for yourself to enjoy them properly.

The gang at Weird Science describe the new "Emperor Aquaman" direction as "bold and sustainable".  It is definitely BOLD. 

But... do you think it is SUSTAINABLE?  

I certainly WANT it be, given how readable it is.  Making Aquaman a planet-hopping protector is a big jump.  It has many pluses beyond even those I have mentioned.  It frees the writers from trying to make Atlantis interesting (and SO MUCH effort has been poured into that black hole in the past);  it raises Aquaman's profile enormously; it allows endless vistas for stories.

In fact, what this direction reminds me of us MOST is: The Aquaman Filmation cartoon, in which Aquaman was always decisive and powerful, the world of land heroes was irrelevant, and the seas teemed with weird races, dangerous beings, and mysterious phenomena. 

But he had it handled.

What are your thought on this new direction for Aquaman and its sustainability?

P.S. Special consideration will be given to commenters who have written Aquaman comics...