There’s a thread over at the Fanboy Radio Forums regarding the originality of comic book characters, and the beef about how no really “new” characters have been created. I wrote the following post, which I thought was written pretty well and had many good points regarding my thoughts on originality.

I posted my writing here in its entirety, no edits of any kind, and therefore it reads just as it does on the Fanboy Radio Forums thread. To check out the thread that started it all (about a column Erik Larsen wrote for ComicBookResources.com and Peter David’s response), click here, and to check out the spin-off thread on which this writing is posted (regarding original characters), click here.

I read through this thread and I think it’s amazing that everyone is arguing the point of originality from several positions, but ultimately many, if not most, arguments are leading to same conclusion, though in not-so-simple terms. That conclusion, as I read it, is that originality cannot be used as a blanket statement, as most everything is derivative of something, anything, no matter how obvious or understated.

I am going to use a base example. I’m sure I’ll get flak for this, in which case I’ll have my spit-guard up.

It can be argued that Superman is derivative of several things, some of which are a stretch and some are not: pulp magazine heroes, science fiction (which itself is derivative from science), Greek and Roman mythology, the need for a geek to imagine himself superior to others… supposedly, Siegel pulled from various places like Doc Savage, Philip Wylie’s novel Gladiator, the strength of Hercules and Samson, and borrowed the term “Superman” from various works of science fiction (you can reference this claim here, though take it with a grain of salt, as it is not the only writing on Supe’s origins. I use it because it was the only article I could find online regarding the character’s conceptual roots and I found that its source to appear valid). You could even argue that “the need for a geek to imagine himself superior to others” gave way to the superhuman attributes.

Designing his costume was a result of Siegel and Shuster’s need to use the brightest primary colors they could think of.

Then of course, there’s his origin, which is basically that of an alien taking refuge on earth and learning to be “human.”

When Superman hit the comic stands, a new type of comic book hero was born. He was so “new,” he became popular, and as the first comic book “superhero,” he became iconic.

Does that make Superman any more or less original? Yes and no. There is no way you can make a blanket statement about the originality of the character. This goes for many, many, many other characters, because originality is really a description that describes several aspects of a creation, which include:

*iconography
*concept of the character itself (basic idea)
*visual design
*basic story idea for which the character will be involved
*execution of story
*execution of the character within the story
*use of character after the initial story; evolution

Thus, since all of the above contribute to the overall character presentation, it’s better to think of originality as more of a sliding scale; is the character more or less original than ***? It’s all relative. Perhaps this sense of originality everyone is discussing is really more of a debate on how “fresh” a character is, overall, relative to other popular characters, but not necessarily “original” in the purest sense of the word.

Getting even more complex, each attribute in that list is subjected to relativity. How original are any one of those aspects compared to those of another character? We could even argue which aspect is more important, but I’m going to contend that they are all important, since they all contribute to the overall makeup of a comic book character.

There is not just black and white. There is black, white, and several shades of gray. Some things are, more or less, black, some things are white, and some things are gray.

As D-Hop said, “originality” is a subjective term. It depends on the person looking upon the work. Everyone will see it differently, depending upon how their “point of view” is constructed at the time. And the audience’s point of view will also certainly contrast with that of the creator, who will know why they did what they did.

There have been several new characters created by both Marvel and DC, as well as by several other companies and creators. I say “new” because no matter how similar a character’s overall presentation is to another’s, some aspect of the character in question is different. Therefore, I think it is very safe to say that new characters are created all the time. How “original” or “fresh” these new characters are is relative, and everyone will see each character differently. I don’t think we can avoid continuing to use “original” as a blanket term, but I think we need to keep in mind that its use is, more often than not, dependent on relativity.

Did I suck the fun out of this, or what?