Warning: Random rant ahead. Read at own risk
The only reason I'd start reading comics again (that is, more often than once every 6 months) is if they start focusing more on the character rather than the abilities. The term hero has been watered down to such an extent in real life that it has all but lost its meaning. Get a cat out of a tree and you're a hero. By comparison, heroes in comics actually do rise above the pack, though in a rather flamboyant way in many cases (much to the spandex industry's delight). What bothers me is how most heroes seems to be defined. It seems to have more to do with the brute force they have at their disposal, than the spirit and determination.
The primary reason why I dislike Superman (and those like him, though Superman is obviously the archetype) is because, essentially, he's embodies the idea that powers is what makes someone a hero. I well and truly hate that line of thought. By pure chance, he was born on another planet, got a bunch of really ridiculously overpowered abilities, and suddenly he's the worlds greatest hero? He's the all-American good guy with a slice of apple pie, kissing babies and being a role model. What the hell? Am I supposed to idealize someone whose primary credential is being an alien? How could he possibly inspire anyone to be all good like him, when one of the primary reason why he can be so good is because he was born a friggin demi-god? The writers didn't even have the common decency to give him a flaw. Oh sure, everyone have their metaphorical kryptonite, which in Superman's case is actual kryptonite, but that's just how you go about doing damage. What I care about is a character flaw. But is he dumb? No. Ugly? No. Cruel, arrogant, selfish, allergic to clam or anything negative really? No. In fact, in most cases, he's supposedly the opposite (I'm not sure how he feels about clam though). Whenever he does something wrong, it seems to be because he's put in impossible situations and because he's too "good" to do the right thing (now there's a debate: the difference between "good" and "right"). Asking for him to be more human when he's clearly an alien seems a bit of an oxymoron I suppose, but I see nothing wrong with asking for him to be less of a Mary Sue.
The thing is, as I see it, it's easy to be nice and noble and risk your life when you know that the chances of you actually getting hurt is slim to none. Of course, that chance is forcibly increased by the writers who then add in ridiculously overpowered villains to counter the ridiculously overpowered heroes (apparently, the cold war never ended in the comic universe), which only further servers to highlight my original point; that heroism in comics is more about who has the biggest stick than who struggles and sacrifices the most for a cause they truly believe in.
Batman in comparison (oh yeah, there's more), is in many ways an archetype for the opposite ends of the spectrum. He didn't get anything for free, all his abilities he acquired through blood, sweat and tears. He goes out and risks his life on a daily basis, and unlike some of his colleagues that can only be hurt by exotic materials, powerful magics or other rare items/circumstances, all it would theoretically take to put an end to Batman's career is a sufficiently heavy rock and half-decent aim. He is clearly human and has several flaws. He's an arrogant, rude and manipulative bastard. You'll never see him kissing babies or being a role model, and he doesn't care what people think. He does what he believes is the right thing and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty, even if the people he saves will hate him for it. But despite all this, he does have a moral code and judges himself more harshly than anyone. While his behavior may not be very noble, his cause is.
That is not to say that Superman is all bad and Batman is great. In fact, I mostly used them as an example for the general idea I see behind them. Batman certainly has his less appealing sides, such as the fairly overdone dark "I am vengeance/the night/Batman" attitude. His abilities have also more than once been pushed towards and beyond the superhuman borderline, which I'm not very happy about. Anyway, the main point is that, as I see it, Superman (and those like him) are heroes primarily because of who their parents were or whatever type of radiation they were exposed to, while Batman (ditto) are heroes because of how they fought to rise above. If I hadn't made it clear yet, I much prefer the latter definition, because ultimately, I think what defines a person is not what he can do, but how hard he tries. It's not that I hate all superpowers, I recognize their use for spicing up the narrative, but they should be of reasonable scope and should never take precedence over the heroes that wields them. In many cases, such as Superman juggling planets mentioned above, that's exactly what I feel happened. Then again, perhaps I got the whole thing wrong, given the very limited number of comic books I've read the past 14 years. *Shrugs*
Phew, that was longer than I had planned, and probably makes me look like a lot more enthusiastic than I think am. Oh well.
PS. Is it just me, or do a lot of comic heroes, DC in particular, have really silly names?
