"One could make a case for Batman, but his persona and attributes have stayed relatively consistent for the past 20 + years."

True, although in Batman's case that's always been an "all things to all people" character. You can write Batman as a alien-battling superhero and turn around and write a noir story and no one will bat an eyelid at this point. In the terms of the article, Batman's mean is a range from absolute zero to infinity, and therefore there isn't really anything to "reset" to.

(This, of course, assumes that the Azrael story was a planned storyline from day one. I personally believe that, but I know many people don't and think Azrael was supposed to be the permanent replacement).

Greg Pak writes an amalgamated mostly-Bannerless Hulk (a la the version PAD wrote post-Onslaught), somewhat closer to the original Lee-Kirby Hulk. That first incarnation of the Hulk (semi-intelligent, mean) was off-stage for at least 15 years (late-'60s- mid '80s), supplanted by the child-like Hulk most familiar to comic-book readers and cartoon-viewers. The child-like Hulk, in turn, was off-stage for about ten years (excepting issues 372-377 and the occasional flashback). Of all the major super-hero comic book characters, the Hulk has been the one least-likely to follow the pattern of reverting to the mean. One could make a case for Batman, but his persona and attributes have stayed relatively consistent for the past 20 + years.

That was pretty much the status quo for the Bruce Jones run, which lasted... what, two years? Three?

Although in the Hulk's case, I think that's one of those where a mass-media adaptation has changed the mean, specifically to the "Bruce Banner as the Fugitive" take on the character. That's what Jones was writing as his "back to basics" take, even if that wasn't necessarily the original version (which was far more Hulk-centric)

"Jason Todd would become Red Robin."

Looks as though that's not going to happen - at least, the most recent issue of Robin seemed to establish Jason and Red Robin as two different people. Unless there's some multiverse BS infesting the Batbooks (unlikely... I hope....), it looks as though it's either (a) Dick (unlikely, but DiDido's obliviousness towards the popularity of the Nightwing character ranks up there with Quesada's opinion of the Spider-marriage) or (b) a new character.

Something else interesting - in ten - fifteen years, Hal Jordan's going to be erased from history by a group of now-teenagers who grew up watching Jon Stewart on Justice League, just as Hal's cultural intertia from the Super Friends era keeps him coming back.

It's a sad thing that the TV version of Birds of Prey didn't take, or else we'd likely never have to worry about Barbara becoming Batgirl again. Heck, I was stunned that Lana Lang wasn't made to look closer to an adult version of Kristen Kreuk when they had the excuse to do so post-Infinite Crisis.

The Titans wouldn't return to their old identities because new heroes had adopted them. We have a new Robin, Wonder Girl, Speedy and Kid Flash (OK, so he's currently dead).

I would love to see a retrun of the men regarding the X-Men. It's dificult to accept them as a minorty when half the comics published by Marvel are X-related.

Sue Storm-Richards as the helpless housewife, for instance. But I'd say dumb Hulk is another. Writers invariably make the Hulk smarter not only because they're nostalgic for some earlier "intelligent Hulk" phase, but because it's harder to write many stories about a superstrong giant with the mind of a 4-year old. Bill Mantlo has made him smarter, and Peter David, and Greg Pak.

Whereas for 'Swamp Thing', the mean for most people is the Alan Moore run, because 99.999% of Swamp Thing fans came to the character via either the Moore run or a post-Moore run that drew on him for inspiration. (Much in the same way that the mean for most Green Lantern fans is Hal, even though he's the second Green Lantern by a considerable margin. Obscure characters with popular new interpretations generate new means.)

And the third case is things like the Super/Spider-marriages, or the Wally West Flash. They've got two interpretations, both of which are quite popular and culturally established, but neither one quite having dominance. For Joe Quesada, he was "imprinted" with Peter and Gwen. For me, it was Peter and MJ. The question becomes, which mean will dominate? (I'm still betting on MJ...even if they don't return to the marriage, too many fans see MJ as Peter's OTP.)

It'll keep happening due to the nature of the Big 2. The stories will never end, and you won't and can't have the same person doing these stories. Someone decided that he wanted Hal as GL and Barry as the Flash. In 10 or 20 years...who knows?

I am now wondering how many of these alternate states can exist in a character. I mean, how many Magnetos can there be? How many Hulks? And does having all these alternate, mutually exclusive views - is it good or bad?

Furthermore, y'know, since deconstruction has gone through comics like a buzzsaw, it's possible that the trend itself is breaking down. That there will, eventually, be no meaningful concept of a mean - just a number of alternate viewpoints through which to view a character. Certainly the process has accelerated since the 80s. Characters largely stayed the same - very consciously - during the Silver Age, right? In the modern age, after all the Moorean and Millerian deconstruction, part of what is sought is redefinitions of characters that are more compelling than the original (thus the massive proliferation of year ones and retcons and the rest). They want to keep the iconography of the character, but change them enough to get us to sit up and take notice. That's a newish, starting only in the 80s and only fairly recently (as comics measure time) being widely done.

Y'know. Maybe. Or maybe I have yet to think this all the way through, myself.

Jason Todd would become Red Robin.

And what is ..gah..Red Robin, but Roy becoming Speedy again?

The best example I can think of for what I'm talking about is Jean Grey. She went from being Marvel Girl to being Phoenix (sort of) to being not only dead, but one of the characters people listed as examples when insisting that sometimes superheroes DO stay dead (along with Bucky, Thunderbird and Mar-Vell. And eventually Barry Allen. Don't they understand how we cling to these things?). Then she came and did it all over again, and again in the Ultimate line. How long before she does it again? How much of that is a result of writers/editors who are used to Jean being around replacing - and later being replaced by - ones that are used to her being dead?

Another example would be the intelligent Hulk vs. savage Hulk. When I started collecting comics, the Hulk was going through an intelligent stage, and all the Hulk stories I've liked have involved a Hulk who could at least speak coherently. But not too long after I started reading comics, he became a raging monster again. If I were to write the Hulk, I'd probably make him smart, but someone who started reading just a few years after I did would think the Hulk is supposed to be - no, NEEDS to be - an inarticulate savage. When that person eventually replaced me as writer, the Hulk would become dumb again. When they get replaced by someone who started reading when I was writing, he becomes smart again. When that person is replaced by a robot or evovled dolphin that started reading when my replacement was witing, he's dumb again, and so on until the end of time.

On topic: I look at the process slightly differently than Brian. I see mainstream superhero comic writing as conflict between the progressive and regressive elements. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of the "mean," so much as most every writer and every editor as seeing SOME specific elements of every characters background/iconography/whateva as vitally important, and SOME as hopelessly dated or non-fitting in with their specific vision.