I brought this up briefly in class today but I figured I'd expand on it a bit in a blog. I'm interested in the fact that in both Superman's and Batman's first issue, there's a distinct lack of origin story. When I first noticed this discrepancy, I felt like it was nonsensical that the first issues of these stories would not start immediately at the beginning of their stories. Beyond that, at least in Superman's first issue the reader gets some explanation as to what Superman can do (ie. his powers explained fairly extensively); in Detective Comics #27, all the reader gets is that "Bat-Man" is "mysterious and adventurous", that he fights crime, and that no one knows who he is (although we basically figure it out in the first couple of pages). No explanation as to why he chose to dress up in a bat-like costume, no talk about him moving in the shadows, no details regarding his utility belt or even how he got acrobatic. All this comes in later issues, but like with Superman, there's a bit of a disconnect when you read about this hero developing out of nowhere and saving the world.
When I brought this up in class, Colin said that the reason the respective authors decided to leave out the origin stories for the first issues of these superheroes is that they wanted to hook the readers with action right away, and not spend time on an origin story that could possibly turn off potential readers. I think this is the most logical reason for leaving out the origin stories from the first issues of these superhero comics. I think another thing to remember is that these stories were usually just one per the larger issue (ie. Detective Comics) and therefor the artists/writers only had so much space to make their characters/stories pop off the page and separate it from the other stories in the issue. However, I am interested therefor in how the creators of these comics chose when to reveal the origin stories to the readers. Especially considering there were no ongoing storylines throughout all the individual stories, there was no logical place to interject the origin story. Were they waiting until they got word back on how popular their comics were? Considering the Superman origin story didn't come until far after it's first handful of issues, I find this answer troubling.
It also is important to touch on the fact that Wonder Woman had her origin story in the first issue, bucking the trend of the male superheroes. Prof. Serrano suggested that this was because Wonder Woman's power had to be justified in that era in order for her to be respected, and I agree with that assessment. However, the success of Wonder Woman makes an argument that the origin story could lead to intriguing new possible readers. Especially for Batman, if it was revealed in the beginning that he was an orphan hell-bent on destroying the evil that killed his parents, that could have been a great way to bring in some intrigue and separation between his character and others.
The lack of origin story at the beginning of the comics, as you have assessed, reads a little strange in terms of chronology. But I think we have to consider the assumptions publishers may have made about their younger audiences. Would children have understood fully Bat-Man's psychological background? Was it necessary to introduce when first fostering a readership? Yes, I think Bat-Man's bloody beginning separates him from the cookie-cutter superhero mold, but did they want to do this this early? Our cravings for darker, more complex superheroes is something, I believe, that comes out of the perceived ambiguity of justice in the modern day. Something Bat-Man capitalizes on, but may not have been originally intended for.
ReplyDelete