It’s not a “rubber-glue” defense, it’s just a logical fallacy of the criticism being raised here. If you berate comics for mentioning Katrina at all because of its awful real-world cost, you get into the uncomfortable territory of wondering what is “safe” to mention. Superhero comics have always frequently mentioned real world catastrophes with grotesque human costs in passing, as mere story props. A list of the times Marvel alone has published this material would be very lengthy.

It makes no sense to begin objecting to this now, simply because Katrina happens to be fresh in our minds. It’s just selfishness masquerading as social consciousness; what the criticism really means is “you know, I don’t want to think about this depressing stuff when I sit down to read a funnybook”. And that’s not a valid criticism, that’s a statement of personal taste masquerading as one. To express it in a way that cloaks itself as sensitivity or social consciousness is tasteless in the extreme, in my opinion.

Far more tasteless than mentioning a real-world disaster a few years after the fact in a setting that is nominally obligated to follow real-world historical events and reflect the reader’s reality on a superficial level, anyway.

Just because he couldn’t stop Katrina doesn’t mean he didn’t stop Andrew in the Marvel universe. Although, as I typed that, it does feel a little weird to think that way. I think the story worked in that issue, but maybe when you step back like at all, it doesn’t work.

Ask why superheroes fail to prevent real-world catastrophs, and you’re basically asking why they don’t solve any real-world problems in their own universes. The answer is always going to be simple and predictable: their world reflects ours first, and deals with supertech and superpowers and their ramifications second.

As to the odd (and often voiced, these days) desire for WWII-style propaganda comics, well, I’m reposting an old essay of mine from elsewhere on the CSBG forum page for all to attack me at.

And here’s a page from it:

http://www.dailyraider.com/comics/screwedupcomics4/17.jpg

Also, you could own the first printing of it if you had way too much money:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Superman-Captures-Hitler-and-Stalin-Comic_W0QQitemZ270164500602QQihZ017QQcategoryZ35752QQcmdZViewItem

There was totally a story where Superman beat Hitler and Stalin! I’ve seen it in a couple Superman anthologies! I’m pretty sure I have it in the collection of Superman Sunday comic strips I got for Christmas! Why can I not stop using exclamation when I am dog tired? !!!!!

Thor is the god of thunder. Stopping a hurricane from destroying a city is kind of his job. He feels like he really dropped the ball by being dead and is very, very disheartened to see that no one else picked it up.

I like how real world events match up to the super-hero world. Yeah, they’re going to miss things and yeah, they’re going to drop the ball sometimes. Saying you can’t apply real world events to comics is the same discussion as saying that Mr. Fantastic would have solved hunger, disease, and the world’s energy problems. Reed can’t do that, and heroes are going to miss a hurricane now and then.

Besides… they were all in the negative zone. Fighting Dr. Doom or something

Anyway, there was a point in time when stopping disasters and helping people was one of the prime things superheroes did. There was a point in time when Marvel would’ve published a Hurricane Katrina benefit book about heroes going to New Orleans and trying to help people, and perhaps failing in the face of real-world problems (ala the 9/11 specials). That time is past, and there is something tasteless and selfish in berating a writer for even daring to point out that such a thing has changed.

I’m sorry, it’s tasteless and selfish to criticize (not berate) a writer for trivializing the tragedy and significance of how Katrina actually played out by blaming it on superheroes?

The “I’m rubber-you’re glue” defense doesn’t really ever work, especially not here. Katrina was a natural disaster made worse by the incompetence of normal people. To bring supernatural elements into the mix is to simplify it, and ignore the real issues surrounding the situation.

Whether Hudlin was initially responsible for the idea or not, nobody forced JMS to use it. He made the decision, he gets the criticism.

And you run the risk of cheapening the efforts of those dealing with the problem in the real world (“Sorry you lost 20 million people fighting the Nazis, Russia, but our guy in the blue tights took care of it just fine”), and/or making the people affected feel worse (“Sorry you lost your home, your friends, your job and your dog, but here’s a story about people who didn’t”). There can be a fine line between wish-fulfillment and just rubbing it in; the 9/11 comics were about providing support for those affected, not pretending the situation didn’t exist.

That said, and taking these factors into account, it’s probably better to leave the elephant in the room alone unless you’re willing to handle the tricky follow-through. If Thor stops the next major natural disaster with his magic hammer AND Marvel is willing to deal with the consequences of this for their fictional world, fine; otherwise, having a character reject a key facet of the nature of maintaining that fictional world–without going so far as to reject it oneself–is cheating.

Would it be in bad taste if superheroes were able to stop real-world tragedies from happening in their fictional worlds? Would it be in bad taste if Superman had been able to catch the second plane in 9/11? Superheroes are, or at least used to be, all about wish-fulfillment; Captain America was depicted punching Hitler in the face years before the Reich was actually beaten, and everybody understood that Cap punching ut Hitler was a fantasy, and that it was good. Why wasn’t Osama Bin Laden punched in the face by a superhero yet? Have the medium, and its readers, changed THAT much? Aren’t superheroes supposed to be all about doing larger-than-life feats?

I don’t understand why Katrina had to happen exactly the same way, in a world where superheroes exist. It’s a very, very depressing thought. And it makes the “heroes” look unbelievably bad.

The other apporach is to just say that this takes place on an Earth where certain things that happened in our world did not. Now, I think this would be fine because I don’t think it neccessarily takes away from that world being believable. It’s fantasy in the first place so if you aren’t willing to use your imagination what’re you doing here?

It’s just that on our world we have faced things like 9/11 and Katrina. On theirs maybe they didn’t have that but they’ve had Skrulls, Galactus, ordinary criminals who don’t need guns because they can shoot rays from their hands, etc.

In other words, both worlds..our and theirs will in their own time and their own way have dangers or disasters to face. There will be those who ignore or captialize on such things but as well there will always be heroes who arrive to and who emerge from such events to help when they are needed.

Go back to Midnight Nation and the like, JMS – that was good stuff.

I dislike the idea of real world disasters and wars entering into superhero comics much, because (ironically, I guess) it really stretches my belief in the story. But I can understand why they do it- to ignore it altogether seems cruel, and one of the things that has always seperated the Marvel U from DC has always been its grounding in something resembling reality.

I actually thought ASM 36 was great. If it really bothers you, just think of it as Marvel’s ‘out-of-continuity’ tribute to an event that honestly couldn’t have gone unmentioned. Bizarrely enough, reading that comic was the first time that 9/11 hit home for me. Being from Australia and not New York, I guess I couldn’t quite get my head around it, but JMS nailed it for me, and I cried like a baby.

No, but even if he didn’t, it would probably come up sooner or later, probably more justifiably.

Or would New Orleans become a no-go zone for Marvel Editors, because to mention New Orleans automatically raises this issue?

My problem is that JMS is writing all of this as though the character were pro-fascism, which isn’t the same thing.

It reads as a bit odd when Tony tries to ideologically bully Peter Parker into submission. And when that doesn’t work, to just flat-out pound on him. THAT doesn’t read like Tony Stark.

So they will need, at some point, to retcon away his unsympathetic actions in order to sweep them under the rug and get on with him being the kind of guy you would want to read about _in the long term_. Sure, a complex, unlikeable morally ambiguous character is interesting if you’re going somewhere with it…but Tony Stark has to be around for the next fifty years, and to do that, you have to feel for the guy.

(And if your counter-response is, “Why does Tony Stark _have_ to be around for the next fifty years?”, you automatically lose this round of conversation. Marvel is not interested in driving themselves out of business, despite all evidence to the contrary, and they do need their continuing characters to stick around. An enduring, consistently popular character that can sustain his/her own series for decades is not something you find very often, and you preserve the ones you have.)

So, like Hal Jordan, they will need to retcon away…probably everything since he took the Extremis, which will probably be used as the excuse…as the actions of “someone else”, and not the Iron Man you like. Hal Jordan is the example I used because it came immediately to mind, but I could also have used Iron Man himself…’Heroes Reborn’ was basically a quick and dirty dodge to avoid dealing with the fallout from Kang’s mind-control, the Teen Iron Man fiasco, and restore the character to default settings.