The term "character assassination" and Stark go well together since he has assassinated Marvel characters to further his agendas.

He gave himself the ability to walk again, but his armor couldn’t do half of what our cell phones can do these days.

Your cellphone flies and shoots particle beams? Is it one of those new iPhones?

Surely all of that is just the result of bad writing. I personally don't agree with you that it's true across the board, though I admit to reading fewer superhero books than ever these days (they're too damned depressing). Guys like Bendis and Millar seem to believe superheroes are just thugs with powers and no moral fortitude (a component I find necessary for a real superhero), and by their logic and in their stories, you probably have a point. In that ugly world with those ugly heroes, a lesser villain like Tony Stark would probably be acceptable. But in a world where Captain America's greatest strength is his idealism, and Spider-Man's is his sense of responsibility, Tony's Stark's cynical outlook is practically villainous. Since many superhero fans still prefer heroes who are, you know, heroic, it isn't much wonder that Iron Man is so vilified.

"And I disagree with John that Tony’s alcoholism only provides story in the temptation to drink (though the risk of relapsing is quite high in real alcoholics). Recovering alcoholics have loads of personal baggage– emotional and otherwise– to deal with, all rife for making interesting stories."

But in practical terms, Marvel's never going to have him relapse, (my guess would be) because it would make him look "weak-willed" and bad as a character. Despite the fact that yes, it's a very real problem for any alcoholic, and that a lot of people with drinking problems have had a relapse at one point or another (especially when under intense emotional strain, which pretty much describes Tony Stark's entire life), Marvel seems to have decided that he's too "tough" to fall prey to the temptations of liquor.

And really, that's all they seem willing to do with the idea ('Civil War' excepted, where it was used by both sides as an explanation for his actions; he was either a recovering super-hero-holic, or he'd found a replacement for alcohol in pushing around other super-heroes)...he just every once in a while pours a measure of whiskey into a glass, looks longingly at it, then pours it on the ground to show how strong-willed he is. And storywise, that's kind of a dead end. That's what I meant when I said "interesting idea, but..."

Yeah, I'm the guy who suggested Iron Man was a character that took a lot of time to get right (and I still think so) and I agree with what you say.

Iron Man started with a GREAT origin, but went on with substandard stories where he spent most of his time hunting commies (in the 60s, when it was starting to go out of fashion) and worrying about his armor's power levels, that were always ALMOST running out during his fights. Replace "commies" with "giant monsters" and he becomes Ultraman, for Dog's sake!

The guys that fulfilled his potential were Michelinie and Layton IMHO, who gave him a more coherent personality and worked the playboy multimillionaire angle better than anyone before (or after). Even got him some villians who weren't commies or racial stereotypes!

Tony Stark is a mix of Largo Winch (if you don't know the character, brit publisher Cinebook will be publishing it in english soon) and James Bond, but with all the gadgets on his armor! It has LOADS of unfulfilled potential yet.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Not to toot my own horn, but I went on at greater, and far more boring length about this in a piece I did for the New York Sun. The fun quote:

"Four of America's last five wars have been fought on Asian soil against Asian armies and that's become part of our collective unconscious," Jeff Yang, an author and a consultant on Asian-American marketing for Iconoculture, said. "Four decades of hostility, on and off, have given us this image of a cunning, heartless, inhuman Asian invader."

To read the whole article (which will probably induce instant sleep):
http://www.nysun.com/article/53085

Marvel no longer sells traditional super-hero stories, it sell stories about super-powered thugs who beat up people in order to deal with their neuroses. That is simply what it is now. I see no heroism in Spider-man or the X-men or the Hulk or even that cypher Captain America anymore. All their reasons for fighting have been stripped away over the years. They have become an aristocracy engaging in useless private wars. They have become a corrupt establishment, not even deigning to give a reason why they fight.

And what happens when Stark points out that things have gone horribly wrong? That the emperor has no clothes? Outrage! especially from their slavish hangers-on! "You say, we cant anonymously brutalize people! Then you're violating our civil rights! You have the audacity to question us!? You're a new Doctor Doom!"

Stark turned his back on his class, because his class turned their backs on the people. Tony Stark is the only hero left in Marvel.

That is why the writers had to take such drastic actions to assassinate his character and make sure the reader came to the politically correct interpretation. They couldn't destroy the idea, so they had to try and destroy the man. Even with that, he is still a better man than his opponents.

Tony became a paraplegic (a very interesting idea, but they backed off on it…which was kind of tacky, really. Tony Stark comes up with a cure for spinal injuries, uses it on himself, and it’s never mentioned again?)

How this never get's mentioned at one of those Illuminati meetings with Charlie X we'll probably never know...

I don't know if I'd make this arc sounds so simple. He didn't come up with the cure -- he spent months searching for it, and when it did happen, it ended up being something his enemies developed to use against him and take control of him. And though I never got past the Byrne issues, I know eventually the nervous system breakdown as a result was nearly fatal, so let's not discount the impact of that LOOONG arc (considering I only own/read 35 or so issues, and that didn't even finish it!).

Umm, if that's what you think traditional superheroes do, maybe you're reading the wrong genre. Even Alan Moore has abandoned the Watchmen-esque theory that superheroes are nothing but violent perverts. I'm all for re-examining genres to prevent stagnation, but if you stretch a genre, especially one like superheroes, too far, it breaks. If you can't accept the genre for what it is, you really should read something that suits you better.

Also, it would have been nice in Civil War if Cap's side hadn't been stubborn idiots, and Tony's side hadn't been villainous sellouts, but I guess you don't sell books by having people talk things out reasonably. For better or worse, Tony as a douche sells books, so they'll probably stick with that.

Even without the heart injury, I think Iron Man is one of the greatest wish-fulfillment superheroes. Any kid can dream of putting on the armor and being Iron Man

I agree entirely (and disagree with John's assessment). In fact, growing up as a kid in the '70s and '80s I didn't even know about the armor being a life support system (or if I did I thought it was something that only afflicted Tony in his origin story). I knew Tony through Micheline and Layton and in that era Iron Man was the coolest Marvel hero ever for the exact reason you say-- he puts on a suit of armour, flies and trashes bad guys.

And I disagree with John that Tony's alcoholism only provides story in the temptation to drink (though the risk of relapsing is quite high in real alcoholics). Recovering alcoholics have loads of personal baggage-- emotional and otherwise-- to deal with, all rife for making interesting stories. Particularly for someone who has the ability to put on a suit of super armor. Even the asshole of the current Marvel scene makes some sense in this light: it's a form of compulsive behaviour to make things right because he struggles with the AA credo of not having the serenity to accept the things he cannot change. If only they went to the trouble to try and connect it to the character better.

But that's just me.

I actually like this Stark, because even with all the character assassination, he is still the only person in the Marvel U that actually cares about other people.

Nevertheless, it's stuck fairly often and crops up either as paralysis, alcoholism, nervous system failure, retroactive evil, retroactive puberty, Jim Lee, etc. It almost always comes off as something of a crutch, an effort more adequately make IM conform to the "Marvel Formula" (whatever that is) As the comics themselves became more serial and continuity-bound, I don't think artificial jeopardy works as well as it did in the old days. Too much of the audience sticks around and gets wise to the obvious storytelling crutch that his ticker's going to give out if he doesn't find a wall socket in time. Then the threat loses all tension because whatever the story says you know he's going to survive. Thus, the jeopardy's burned out.

If anything, a case could be made that as an engineer, Stark's Achilles heel could be his constant desire to improve things and push back the boundaries of knowledge. After all, technology is defined as "anything that life makes easier." And obsessive self- improvement I would argue, has just as many storytelling possibilities as a bum ticker.

I think (and here I should point out I haven't read the latest IM issues) that was the impetus behind the character's action in Civil War. However, I think the execution has made him come off less as an obsessive social engineer than something of a prick, and that's a storytelling dead end in and of itself.

And as a P.S. I should point out I have never found the Mandarin at all and, given Marvel already as the Yellow Claw, fairly redundant in terms of fulfilling the Yellow Peril Quota.

Also, for the record, I hate the fact that the Mandarin is willing to accept "The Mandarin" as his own nom-de-guerre without any sense of irony. That's roughly equivalent to a white supervillain calling himself "The Honky" or a little less severe than an Italian supervillain calling himself "The Wop." As much as I love the concept and some of the stories told about him, that's an element I'm just not able to get my brain around. It's an annoyance about on the same level as the fact that Shang-Chi's name is a homonym for Chinese chess.

Well, he is the director of Shield.

Although the Doom comment rings true as well. . .