When you think "Superhero"....

[Wanderer]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

I think of a person that has superhuman powers, and chooses to use them in selfless altruistic dedication to the common good and/or in service to a cause that common sensibility would recognize as worthy (such as fighting crime, defending peace, liberty, freedom, the innocent, justice, the environment, the oppressed, fighting a just war, etc.) and following a code of conduct that would generally entail respect for the person (protecting the innocent, fighting fair, being honorable, giving mercy when it's deserved, following the "rules of war", using powers in a responsible way).

 

To me, it essentially means being an "hero" in the broadest sense of the word, with superhuman powers. It has nothing to do with the specific cliches that four-color genre or its later polar opposite attached to the word. Absolute, indiscriminate taboos against killing, unreasoning subservience to authority, an unwarranted prudish or ascetic personal life, a hero do not make. Nor, conversely, indiscriminately dealing out death, rebelliousness or debauchery for the sake of it.

[proditor]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

I hate to be a "Me too"er, but Hermit and MitchellS nailed it on the head for me.

 

Heck, I even went off about this (more or less) on my LJ, just proving what a HUGE geek I am.

[Ascolacicola]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

A superhero is a literary device used to address the nature of power and how it is applied. The heroes listed in this thread are power myths: at their best they tell stories about how power should be used or misused. Superheroes, with their superpowers, most effectively address the question. Small wonder, isn't it then, that super heroes in comic books flourished during America's rise to power in the mid-twentieth century and are still so relevant today?

 

I think superhero I see the world’s sole superpower

[Lord Liaden]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

A superhero is a literary device used to address the nature of power and how it is applied. The heroes listed in this thread are power myths: at their best they tell stories about how power should be used or misused. Superheroes, with their superpowers, most effectively address the question. Small wonder, isn't it then, that super heroes in comic books flourished during America's rise to power in the mid-twentieth century and are still so relevant today?

 

I think superhero I see the world’s sole superpower

 

As I once elaborated in this post, as an American phenomenon the comic-book superhero embodies the ideals of American culture: truth, justice and the rule of law; the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak; the few standing against all the forces of chaos and destruction; extraordinary beings who consider less gifted individuals to be fundamentally their equals, worthy of respect.

 

I should point out that even Batman believes in the spirit of the law, if not always its letter. He doesn't choose the punishment for the criminals he fights; he turns them over to "the system" to deal with as they deem appropriate. Not assuming the role of judge, jury and executioner is a key element of what sets Batman apart from more ruthless vigilantes. And I expect that takes as much idealism and strength of will as Superman not turning Lex Luthor into a bloody smear.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Like Mitchell et al, I feel that a strong personal conviction is the ultimate determinant. A character who 'soaks it all up because he can shrug it off and then wants to see the look on you and your friends faces while he pummels you into a creamy blend of flesh pudding-- well, he has the _super_ part down, but it doesn't make him a hero. It makes him tough; it makes him superhuman. But it doesn't make him a superhero.

 

Now a character who volunteers to to soak it all up to defend others-- friends or strangers-- even those who might be his enemies--- that's a hero. A character who can retaliate without retribution, that's a hero.

 

I should stop; so many others have already said this better than I can.

 

 

Though I would like to bring up a smaller 'sub-question,' if you will:

 

 

Heroes have to have feet of clay in my view or they wind up being self-righteous prats. Superheroes in particular need such flaws (all hail Tony Stark) or they lose all empathy with normal folks and become nightmares.

 

 

I wonder if this really would serve only as justification for those around him for their own flaws or shortcommings. Granted, everyone has flaws; everyone has problems. But does a 'hero' who strives at every moment to do the 'rightest thing possible' not better serve as a role-model for those who might admire him than say--- I don't know; a brutish thug super-boxer who gets his interviews cancelled because he refuses to speak more than two consecutive sentences without grotesque vulgarities?

 

Tony Stark had problems, but Iron Man did not-- at least, I don't think anyone ever saw a big suit of armor getting snokered at Luigi's. But even at that, did Tony Stark's drinking make him a more 'palatable' hero for his flaws, or did his struggle and triumph(s) over his demons show the strength of character within him?

 

Sorry-- some rambling.

 

The question, rephrased: is a Hero who doesn't 'get it right' somehow better or 'more acceptable' than a Hero who doesn't get it right, but who never misses a chance to try?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

The question' date=' rephrased: is a Hero who doesn't 'get it right' somehow better or 'more acceptable' than a Hero who doesn't get it right, but who never misses a chance to try?[/quote']

 

No, he isn't. You're right that heroes are human, and so they have flaws and make mistakes, and sometimes fall short. The difference for them is that they don't simply accept that. They never stop trying to be better than they are, to overcome their doubts and weaknesses and do what's right.

 

I remember the end of a Superman comic a while back, showing Supes flying away from Lois as she tells him, "You can't save everyone." Superman's reply: "I have to try."

[Springald Jack]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

"You can't save everyone." Superman's reply: "I have to try."

 

That's it. Superheroes require

1. A commitment to Higher moral principles (Truth & Justice)

2. At very least humans with incredible training if not out and out Superpowers.

[DEFCON Clown]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

The first think of Captain America and then I think of the two brothers from the Boondock Saints.

[Badger]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Gotta agree with Mitchell and Hermit.

 

When someone says "superhero", I see capes, tights, and generally a Golden Age or Silver Age attitude. (Silver age for me means players are allowed to have problems or "real life" issues, but they overcome them and do the right thing.)

 

Going by that I say Silver Age more so than Golden Age. Being a hero to is like everyone said before me, but having something to rreally overcome makes them seem more so. Especially if they had the "temptation" to go the easy route, but said "No way, I am going to do right no matter what".

 

 

Also, I generally wouldnt consider one of the supers cozying up to the media greatly heroic. To me, the hero goes in and gets the job done and not worry what the media thinks about. A real hero doesnt save people for the thanks and the awards and PR. He does because it is the right thing to do.

[Badger]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Forgot to mention: Costumes.

 

It is part of the genre, but I dont consider it a requirement.

[Badger]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

I do not think of people who "always do the right thing' date='" I think of people who try to make the world a better place. A flawless hero of the Superman/Captain America model bugs the hell out of me. First I don't believe it's possible for them to be flawless. When Superman was fighting Doomsday and the kid yeled for him to come save his little sister under the truck we are supposed to applaud Superman for doing and believe that no innocents died in Doomsday's rampage because Supes took that break. Heroes have to have feet of clay in my view or they wind up being self-righteous prats. Superheroes in particular need such flaws (all hail Tony Stark) or they lose all empathy with normal folks and become nightmares.[/quote']

 

Admittedly, I like some flaws. But, when push comes to shove they rise to the occasion. I have to admit I hate Superman(well, not a big fan, anyway) But, I also admit to liking Cap. Contradictive? Who knows?

[input.jack]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

.... I generally wouldnt consider one of the supers cozying up to the media greatly heroic. To me' date=' the hero goes in and gets the job done and not worry what the media thinks about. A real hero doesnt save people for the thanks and the awards and PR. He does because it is the right thing to do.[/quote']

 

Actually, this brings up an interesting point. Ive played in many supers games over the years, and theres something Ive learned.

 

Sometimes, a hero -needs- to accept the thanks of the public.

 

Ive played loner heroes and team players, and Ive come to understand that, for characters who do not want to be perceived as brooding loner-types, a certain amount of concession to the press is not only useful, but healthy.

 

People rescued by the hero -want- to say "thank you"; to express their gratitude that of all the things that the hero could be doing, he chose to save MY life! When a hero flies off without a word or before anyone can thank him, it leaves the rescued person at a loss. They can easily feel that they we5re just "another statistic" for the hero in question; that he didnt save them because they have any intrinsic value as a human being, but instead they are just "part of the job".

 

Its a very callous and insensitive thing to do.

 

Which is why Batman does it. Batman is all practicality and theatrics. He doesnt -care- if the general public likes or trusts him or not. In fact, he -wants- to be aloof and mysterious; its part of his plan. So he can be rude and blow off thanks and press questions, and its all part of his Batman-ness.

 

But a character who isnt comfortable with being incredibly rude, and who values public perception (which should be most heroes), is well advised to accept the "thank yous" of the people he saves, and to at least spend a moment giving the press a word or two about what just happened, if theyre on hand.

 

Thats part of why Superman and Captain America are trusted and respected, and Batman is feared and considered a looney.

 

My character Black Eagle wasnt much for talking to the authorities or the press. In fact she rather avoided it, thinking it was "silly". But her partner Goldenstar has always taken the time to be courteous and informative, and now, a couple of (real and game) years later, everyone knows and loves Goldenstar. But very few people really understand what Black Eagle is all about. Goldenstar has become an icon.

 

And that can be -very- useful. When we need to clear peope out of an area, Goldenstar announces that theyre in danger, and they flee. No questions, no back-talk. They just run for it. Because they know and trust her. When we need information from the FBI, Goldenstar asks, and we get help. Because they know and trust her.

 

Gloryhounds and self-serving pompous jerks are pretty self-evident, and they never get very far. But a genuine hero who takes the time to build a rapport with the people of their city has a big advantage; one that can save lives in a pinch.

 

Black Eagle has started talking to reporters recently, and its already started to make a difference in how shes treated. She recently accepted an award, not because the -wanted- the darned thing, but because she felt that, if the citizens of Angel City felt they wanted to give it to her, it would basically be rude and hurt their feelings to refuse to accept.

 

Its part of the job.

 

Your right about a real hero doing what they do because its what needs to be done. Not for the recognition or accolades. But dont underestimate the importance or value of having a good relationship with the press, both as a tool for the hero to help save lives, and as an outlet for the gratitude of the people they save.

[Adventus]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

My main character, Adventus, doesnt consider himself a hero. Why? because it is easy to be the Hero when you are basically invulnerable. He considers firemen and police to be bigger heroes than himself.

 

His job that he does to pay the bills is: Stuntman. The jobs he does because he wishes to use his abilites to help people: smokejumper and red cross disaster relief. and if necessary crimfighter.

 

Yes he does talk to the press, all the time.

[Narratio]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

What images and concepts do you get? Personality wise' date=' morals wise and basic nature? Is just having powers enough or is there a certain mindset required in your opinion?[/quote']

 

Mindset. Being willing to put oneself in harms way for total strangers who may not want you save them from whatever's happening. But doing it anyway so that they do have a chance to shout and scream at you rather than being dead.

[OzMike]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

... I think dedication and motivation.

 

Well, for the memorable ones anyway. Writers often forget that it's not so much what the person in tights can do, but how and why they do it.

 

Also the good ones are flawed in some way, sometimes their flaw being the other side of their dedication and motivation.

 

For me one of the coolest things about Mr Fantastic isn't that he can bend and stretch, or that he is one of the great scientific brains in the Marvel Universe, but that he once defended Galactus' right to live because he is so dedicated to the ideal.

[David Blue]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

What images and concepts do you get? Personality wise' date=' morals wise and basic nature? Is just having powers enough or is there a certain mindset required in your opinion?[/quote']Mindset comes before powers. Showbiz (a good thing in itself) comes later.

 

Buddy: This is because I don't have powers, isn't it? Well, not every superhero has powers, you know. You can be super without them. I invented these.

[points to his rocket boots]

Buddy: I can fly. Can you fly?

Mr. Incredible: Fly home, Buddy. I work alone.

Bomb Voyage: [French] And your outfit is totally ridiculous!

 

There are superheroes without powers - but none with attitudes like Syndrome's.

 

Someone with Bob Parr's passions - and the ability to back them up - is a superhero. Whether Bob was bulletproof or an inventor or whatever was a minor issue. (Bob's inability to stand up to the law when it told him not to be a hero was a major issue.)

 

A reasonable test for a superhero - one I use when I'm looking at characters, including my own - is, if you were starring in a jihad video like Nick Berg or many others, and this character was aware of it and had the power to act - what would they do? Or to put in another way - if you had a signal watch and only time to call one hero before the Allah hu Akhbars finished and the carving began - who ya gonna call?

 

Mister Incredible is a top line superhero. Very few published characters, if any at all now, are his equal. It would take a great deal of authority - backed ultimately by law - to get him to hesitate till it was too late. He would burn and ache to help.

 

Most modern heroes or modernized heroes would at least be inclined to help, though on the whole they would not be very reliable.

 

A lot of highly respectable heroes don't seem eager to take on controversial cases. I would not pick one of them. (Superman would likely pay attention to someone else he could rescue without taking sides in a controversy. And that's legitimate - with his power there is always someone else for him to help. But you'd still die horribly.)

 

But Ultimate Captain America is solid choice, not easily deterred by political correctness. Or Christian Bale's Batman - he seems like the real thing (as comic book adaptation characters go). Therefore, those are superheroes.

 

A lot of published superheroes would be worth calling only if you couldn't think of anybody good. Daredevil might be contemplating his own insanities (again). Ultimate Thor's first thought might be whether you were worth anything politically, so that is so he could blackmail the American president into doubling the foreign aid budget (again). Comic (non-animated) Batman (Bat-god) might not care. So I would call these characters only marginal superheroes.

 

Though he is vastly more powerful than any of these except the Bat-god, Molecule Man would be a total waste of a signal watch call. So he's not a superhero.

 

If I come up with a character like Gladiatrix, who would guaranteed-from-God help all they could, but their motives would be extreme, even crazy, and in some ways reprehensible (like needing to be loved by an audience, even if an audience of one), I go with it. She may need some work, she may have a long dark journey of the soul to get where a real superheroine should be - but she's the real deal and on the path.

 

If I came up with a character who seems sympathetic, but when I mentally give them the jihad video test and they are willing to be respectable citizens and not get involved or they would think first of their own self-pitying mutant issues or whatever, I know that however well the powers add up and however cool the costume is, I don't have a superhero concept, and I have to start again from scratch.

 

Someone who can be given official government orders not to get involved - and will take them - is for me not a superhero at all. I've played a couple of those in games that required registered, salaried head-kickers. I did not like them at all, and I would cheerfully have seen the villains kill them. Their cool powers, costumes and so on meant nothing to me.

 

A hero fights for a cause, not a salary. And he or she will not be told "not today."

[Lord Liaden]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

David Blue, that was a very good post which made some really pertinent points; but I have to disagree strongly with you over this one:

 

A lot of highly respectable heroes don't seem eager to take on controversial cases. I would not pick one of them. (Superman would likely pay attention to someone else he could rescue without taking sides in a controversy. And that's legitimate - with his power there is always someone else for him to help. But you'd still die horribly.)

 

Superman generally does not insert himself into purely political or social disputes, true. But if he's aware of the situation, Superman will not stand by and let anyone die horribly, whether the perpetrator is the American government, the Christian right or God Himself. (And a few times in the past it's almost come to that.) He'll try not to take sides on the issues, or if he's forced to will usually choose the established democratic order, because he believes in it. But no-one is dying without at least due process on his watch, as long as he has breath.

[David Blue]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

David Blue, that was a very good post which made some really pertinent points; but I have to disagree strongly with you over this one:

 

[...]

 

Superman generally does not insert himself into purely political or social disputes, true. But if he's aware of the situation, Superman will not stand by and let anyone die horribly, whether the perpetrator is the American government, the Christian right or God Himself. (And a few times in the past it's almost come to that.) He'll try not to take sides on the issues, or if he's forced to will usually choose the established democratic order, because he believes in it. But no-one is dying without at least due process on his watch, as long as he has breath.

I'm very glad to hear it, and I'll defer to someone who is reading more Superman than I am. (At the moment, that's more than nothing, though I like the latest movie a lot.)

 

OK, this isn't an ideal replacement example, as it uses animals rather than human beings, but it should be enough to get the idea across (I hope).

 

Wonder Woman can talk to animals - and they can talk to her. A bird comes to her and appeals for help. It's a forest fire. Wonder Woman goes and takes a look. Yup, it's a fire. So she decides to let the forest burn, but protect some houses. Flash shows up too, and starts putting out the fire. Wonder Woman stops him. After all, she explains, death is part of life, and if we say life is a blessing we must say death is a blessing too. Flash hears out the New Age lecture, and goes back to stopping the blaze - but Wonder Woman stops him, offering combat right there and then. Nothing is going to stop the blessing of death being giving to its unwilling recipients (including presumably the mate and chicks of the bird that pleaded for her help), and Wonder Woman is just the heroine to see to it that no rescue comes for the doomed.

 

What the bird had needed was not someone with better powers, but someone who heard "Help!" as a call for help rather than interesting free information obtained through their nifty listen to animals power. (Or, since Flash did show up and show willing, what the bird needed was someone with the right attitude, and tough enough to beat down Wonder Woman. And there's not a lot of people that answer to that description.)

 

Wonder Woman is an odd character, because she's so political and so much about standing up boldly for her beliefs - yet at the same time she's so political in the other sense of being slippery. As Greg Rucka wrote her, she would always stand up boldly and be framed as being in the right - but then the scene would shift to keep secret the answer to the question "right about what?" Trying to figure out what she actually stood for was a lot like being an old Kremlinologist, teasing meanings out of where people stood in May Day parades.

 

And that seemed deliberate. Even though she was about telling the truth, she was never going to do so, because it was more important not to alienate any portion of her potential readership by taking one (and only one) side of a divisive issue. She acts, or doesn't act, on the basis of what seem to be secret beliefs that follow the market.

 

That's not the most reassuring and inspiring that a superheroine can be. I think Wonder Woman is the best there is. But I think you could design a superheroine who would be better than her, in the sense of being more a superheroine than she is.

 

(If it's not obvious - I'm not picking on characters like Wonder Woman and Superman because I think they're no good. I'm picking on them because I want an example of what I find less than ideal about even the very best superheroes - which means I can't use examples based on people like Ultimate Giant Man.

[zornwil]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

My main character' date=' Adventus, doesnt consider himself a hero. Why? because it is[i'] easy[/i] to be the Hero when you are basically invulnerable. He considers firemen and police to be bigger heroes than himself.

 

His job that he does to pay the bills is: Stuntman. The jobs he does because he wishes to use his abilites to help people: smokejumper and red cross disaster relief. and if necessary crimfighter.

 

Yes he does talk to the press, all the time.

I also think the super-powered non-hero is as interesting a character as the super-hero, often even more engaging, to me.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

What images and concepts do you get? Personality wise' date=' morals wise and basic nature? Is just having powers enough or is there a certain mindset required in your opinion?[/quote']

Guns. Big guns. Big freakin guns. Lots of big freakin guns.

A take-no-prisoners attitude. Bloodlust is cool. Kill em all. This is war.

 

 

 

 

And big tits.

[Catacomb]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Spider Man is pretty much the best example IMO. He's not a conflicted loon(Batman), he's not an indestructable uber hero(Superman), he's not a symbol(Captain America.). He's not hunted or forced into his role, he simply is a hero because to be anything less with what he has would be a sin in his eyes.

[input.jack]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Wonder Woman can talk to animals - and they can talk to her. A bird comes to her and appeals for help. It's a forest fire. Wonder Woman goes and takes a look. Yup, it's a fire. So she decides to let the forest burn, but protect some houses. Flash shows up too, and starts putting out the fire. Wonder Woman stops him. After all, she explains, death is part of life, and if we say life is a blessing we must say death is a blessing too. Flash hears out the New Age lecture, and goes back to stopping the blaze - but Wonder Woman stops him, offering combat right there and then. Nothing is going to stop the blessing of death being giving to its unwilling recipients (including presumably the mate and chicks of the bird that pleaded for her help), and Wonder Woman is just the heroine to see to it that no rescue comes for the doomed.

 

...Wonder Woman is an odd character, because she's so political and so much about standing up boldly for her beliefs - yet at the same time she's so political in the other sense of being slippery. As Greg Rucka wrote her, she would always stand up boldly and be framed as being in the right - but then the scene would shift to keep secret the answer to the question "right about what?" Trying to figure out what she actually stood for was a lot like being an old Kremlinologist, teasing meanings out of where people stood in May Day parades.

 

And that seemed deliberate. Even though she was about telling the truth, she was never going to do so, because it was more important not to alienate any portion of her potential readership by taking one (and only one) side of a divisive issue. She acts, or doesn't act, on the basis of what seem to be secret beliefs that follow the market.

 

That's not the most reassuring and inspiring that a superheroine can be. I think Wonder Woman is the best there is. But I think you could design a superheroine who would be better than her, in the sense of being more a superheroine than she is.

 

Thats not the Wonder Woman I know. If thats how shes being written now, stop reading. Thats cr*p. Whoever is writing that has NO idea what the character is about, and needs to never work in comics again, because they dont understand what a Hero is.

 

Wonder Woman is -supposed- to be about equality and respect for all. She is, as Enforcer 84 put it, a person whose "hippy ideals conflict with her warrior backgeround", but shes NOT some deranged looney who will fight her own teammates to -prevent- them from saving lives.

 

Thats TOTAL BS.

 

So Id advise you to write a letter to DC and ask them to replace the clearly insane writer who is portraying Wonder Woman like some freak-o New Age weirdo who doesnt want to disturb the "natural order" of disasters with someone with a brain.

 

This is getting to be a pet peeve of mine; shoddy managing editors and writers have been cr*pp*ng on these characters so long now that there are peopl;e who dont realize that the travesty they see in the comics now is a mere mockery of what these characters SHOULD be.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

I also think the super-powered non-hero is as interesting a character as the super-hero' date=' often even more engaging, to me.[/quote']

 

As do I.

 

In fact, I am struck by many similarities between the character "Adventus" and my own (now retired) Martin Power, in that it seems niether of them desired or even openly chose to be recognized as "heroes;" Power helped because when it came right down to it, he could, and it was the 'right' thing to do.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Ah--

Input Jack has stumbled across my own pet peeve, it seems. It's what I was alluding to when I asked about "heroes who don't get it right."

 

While I realize it's all new-age/PC/touchy-feely/I'm Okay; You're okay type pandering to those who need examples of why the shouldn't feel pushed to reach for higher standards in themselves, it is my own belief that a _superhero_ absolutely requires two things:

 

Being super-- whether it be through unique gifts, fancy gadgets, or sheer force of will

 

and Being a _hero_.

 

Perhaps I have outlived the mindset to which I was raised, but I can't help believe there is no such thing as an anti-hero. There is either a hero, or someone following his own selfish goals, even if they just happen to be in the interest of the greater good. You can very much be super without being anything like a Hero.

 

I do not mind tragic heroes, flawed heroes, or even failing heroes. But I draw the line at someone who 'so what?'s his way through his own universe.

[OddHat]

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

 

Thats not the Wonder Woman I know. If thats how shes being written now, stop reading. Thats cr*p. Whoever is writing that has NO idea what the character is about, and needs to never work in comics again, because they dont understand what a Hero is.

 

Wonder Woman is -supposed- to be about equality and respect for all. She is, as Enforcer 84 put it, a person whose "hippy ideals conflict with her warrior backgeround", but shes NOT some deranged looney who will fight her own teammates to -prevent- them from saving lives.

 

Thats TOTAL BS.

 

So Id advise you to write a letter to DC and ask them to replace the clearly insane writer who is portraying Wonder Woman like some freak-o New Age weirdo who doesnt want to disturb the "natural order" of disasters with someone with a brain.

 

This is getting to be a pet peeve of mine; shoddy managing editors and writers have been cr*pp*ng on these characters so long now that there are peopl;e who dont realize that the travesty they see in the comics now is a mere mockery of what these characters SHOULD be.

 

Agreed on all points, but with one to add. Wonder Woman has rarely been written as well as she should be, especially in her own titles. Mostly she's been written by male writers with a college sophmore's view of Feminism (or worse). Marston's own ideas on the Virtues of Women that WW was meant to embody don't mesh all that well with mainstream views almost three generations later, and he at least liked the character (as oppossed to the many writers she's had who apparently hate her). In the end, she's a tough character to get a handle on. Go too far in treating her as a mainstream modern heroine and she loses her mythic roots (which I see as the most interesting thing in her character). Go too far into the Feminist side of her and you end up wandering through Feminist theory that tends to get distorted even in academia, let alone in comics.

 

Personally, I'd make her a Hellenic Heroine tempered by an understanding of the modern world and sixty+ years of experience, but that's not what mainstream comic readers seem to be looking for.