The Suit: Heather or Mac?

[cmdrkoenig67]

How is Heather any different than say...White Tiger(the new one)? Take the Jade Tiger amulet away and they are powerless. How about Blue shield, The Arabian Knight, Darkhawk or Frank Drake(without "Linda").

Then there's the Falcon, Quasar(I doubt he'd know how to repair those gauntlets, if they ever malfunctioned), Green Lantern and remember what used to happen to Thor if his hammer was taken away for too long?

If you get right down to it....how powerful would Shaman be without his medicine bag? Could he fix it, if it too malfunctioned?

Dana

[Northcott]

How is Heather any different than say...White Tiger(the new one)? Take the Jade Tiger amulet away and they are powerless. How about Blue shield, The Arabian Knight, Darkhawk or Frank Drake(without "Linda").

There's a reason why every character you've mentioned above has failed to qualify as a "heavy hitter". The best any of them have had was a brief spurt where they were new and shiny and so benefitted from the grace period accorded to such characters.

Dodge the conventions of the genre, pay the price.

Then there's the Falcon, Quasar(I doubt he'd know how to repair those gauntlets, if they ever malfunctioned), Green Lantern and remember what used to happen to Thor if his hammer was taken away for too long?

Falcon learned how to care for his own tech a long time ago, iirc. But, again, with the exception of Green Lantern, each character you mention here suffers the same problem. Ever notice how Falcon and Quasar never last too long in any Marvel title they're written into? The exception being Falcon's run in the 70's when he was Captain America's sidekick.

The issues with GL were dealt with earlier in this thread: there are elements of the character beyond the ring that create the appeal. There's a reason why many fans clamour for the return of Hal Jordan. Even with that exception, the ring was granted fictional properties so that it acted as an extension of the character: it couldn't be destroyed, and because it was controlled by thought GL eventually figured out that he could trigger it even if it was removed from his hand. It's only limitations were duration of power and yellow. The ring was a tool, but did not define the character's limits: rather his innate attributes defined the limits of what he could accomplish with the tool.

Thor's power remained innate. That example doesn't apply here. The cane/hammer shtick was throw in as a limitation to create dramatic tension at appropriate moments: it wasn't the source of his power, it was the source of his weakness. His power was innate, and key to his nature.

If you get right down to it....how powerful would Shaman be without his medicine bag? Could he fix it, if it too malfunctioned?

Yep, he can. Again, the special properties lay within the character, not the tool. Willpower, training, vision, vast lore, the ability to see beyond the physical world, these are required to use the medicine bag. We know full well that not just anyone can get their hands on it and be a superhero. Shaman has many special properties, innate to the character, beyond the tool he uses.

The suit isn't a tool for Heather, it's a crutch. It does not rely upon any special, innate trait that she possesses. Without it she does not function in the superheroic mould: there is nothing special (epic or legendary) about her. There is nothing she does that could not be equalled or surpassed by another normal human better trained for the role.

[cmdrkoenig67]

The issues with GL were dealt with earlier in this thread: there are elements of the character beyond the ring that create the appeal. There's a reason why many fans clamour for the return of Hal Jordan. Even with that exception, the ring was granted fictional properties so that it acted as an extension of the character: it couldn't be destroyed, and because it was controlled by thought GL eventually figured out that he could trigger it even if it was removed from his hand. It's only limitations were duration of power and yellow. The ring was a tool, but did not define the character's limits: rather his innate attributes defined the limits of what he could accomplish with the tool.

I don't know about you, Ed....but I thought Heather had a lot to offer, even before the suit(elements of the character beyond the suit that create the appeal) to paraphrase what you said.

The suit isn't a tool for Heather, it's a crutch. It does not rely upon any special, innate trait that she possesses. Without it she does not function in the superheroic mould: there is nothing special (epic or legendary) about her. There is nothing she does that could not be equalled or surpassed by another normal human better trained for the role.

So Falcon's wings aren't a crutch?...Shaman's pouch? Could he use magic without it's presense? I think your just short-changing her....we're talking about comics here...she could be written as having learned much more about the suit...with the suit she's accomplished some really great things. Without the suit, Mac would just be another comic book scientist...he would not be a icon or legendary hero....period.

Dana

[Northcott]

I don't know about you, Ed....but I thought Heather had a lot to offer, even before the suit(elements of the character beyond the suit that create the appeal) to paraphrase what you said.

Many characters do. Not all characters, however, become super-heroes. Once again, the point is not whether or not a character is interesting or well-written: it's whether or not they bear within them some innate ability that bridges the gap from commonality to legendary. Heather lacks that.

So Falcon's wings aren't a crutch?...

My apologies if I come across as more blunt or acerbic than I intend to be here, but I'm rather at a loss for how to explain this more clearly.

My contention is that characters that fail to meet certain requirements of the genre will often, if not always, fail to achieve the iconic status needed to attain the level of the greatest characters of the genre. A team comprised of such creations will also fail to attain the level of the major players: JLA, Avengers, etc.

I clearly pointed out the Falcon's role as a character that has failed to achieve that level, his longest run being as a sidekick.

Shaman's pouch? Could he use magic without it's presense?

We've had that much confirmed. The only question remains how much he can access without the pouch, and/or how easily.

I think your just short-changing her....we're talking about comics here...she could be written as having learned much more about the suit...with the suit she's accomplished some really great things. Without the suit, Mac would just be another comic book scientist...he would not be a icon or legendary hero....period.

And, again, that is the point. Heather did not create the suit. She does not have the capacity to create the suit. She's an interesting, strong, and compelling character... but she is not a marvel. Not a super-hero in a manner that can take advantage of the genre.

You're right: without the suit, Mac wouldn't be an icon or a legendary hero. If Captain America decided to become a security guard in Hoboken, New Jersey, we'd never have heard of him. All his phenomenal gifts would still be in place, but he'd be a non-entity.

It's not merely a question of what the character can do, but what they do with it. But the fact remains, they both must have and must do to achieve that status. The point was previously made: what makes Mac an iconic figure in the superhero genre is not merely his phenomenal ability, but the fact that he is active in using it. Disregarding that element of the character is nothing short of discarding the character.

[HappyCanuck]

I don't agree with you Ed. In my eyes, Heather's more of a 'marvel' than most anyone out there. What makes her a 'marvel' is that she took a piece of technology she didn't understand, learned how to use it, and utilised it to its/her full extent, not because she wanted glory, but because she felt she NEEDED to. THAT's what makes her a Marvel: because she's a normal human, with no skills or extraordinary talents, but the drive to do what needs to be done. Yes, the suit is a crutch in a way - I prefer to think of it as a means to an end: she knew she was nothing special so found something that would give her that edge. What's more, Heather has no penitential need to be the hero: people like Falcon, Luke Cage and Wonder Man, they are in the gig because they f****d up when they were younger and went into the hero business to atone for past sins. Heather became one for more altruistic reasons: because someone needed to fill in the shoes of her then-late husband, and she was the only one available. That's also why, unlike Falcon she amounted as more than just a 'sidekick' character, and as a formidable combattant - and ally. Which is more impressive: a person with superhuman abilities doing right because they can, or a regular joe with no reason to risk their butt, going out to do right because they have the will and drive to make the world a better place? This is the same reason why the cops, firefighters and military personelle, in my eyes, should be given more accolades than they recieve - and many comic writers agree with me by way of the characters they write - because they CHOSE to have the crappy end of the stick for purely altruistic reasons: not because they CAN, but because they know that if they don't, who else will?
.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Powers, special skills or intellectual genius aside...To me, if we're talking icons...it's the suit(and I'm not talking about the technological part of it)...that makes the Icon. The Canadian flag suit is what makes Heather or Mac(and even ...ick...major mapleleaf) icons(which they may not even truley be...yet).

Cap's suit and shield make him an icon....without them, he's not really Captain America...he's a highly trained acrobatic, regular guy.

They are symbols of something. I don't consider any of the other Alphans to be icons....or even any of the other Avengers. Some of them may be very recognizable, but they are in no way...icons.

Batman and Superman may be icons, but that has only come from the sheer amount of exposure they've had over the many years they've been around... It's the same with Spidey. It isn't their powers, so much as what they stand for(and their very images, which play the biggest part) that makes them icons. I think Women just aren't really ever viewed in the same way(which is very sad)...except Wonder Woman.

Perhaps I'm viewing things too simply..but that's how I view comics(my sig speaks for me)....I just think Heather is really cool. I've always found Mac horribly boring...I can't get past the fact he's been really, really badly written since Byrne left the book(but even under Byrne's pen...he was a bit of a bore).

Dana

[Northcott]

I don't agree with you Ed.

That's cool. I didn't expect that everybody would... or in the case of the Alpha fan board, that many would.

In my eyes, Heather's more of a 'marvel' than most anyone out there.

Again, I'll draw the seperating line: a character does not need to be a superhero to be the root of good stories. They do not need powers or remarkable abilities to be a strong, compelling character.

They do, however, require as much to be superheroes in terms of the conventions of the genre that make for the longest-lasting and most iconically potent characters. My premise isn't that Heather is a bad character, but rather as a superhero that she is (in a sense of literary notions) weaker than other characters.

That's not to say that genre staples can't be ignored or altered, but in doing so there's a great risk run that the suspension of disbelief that allows the genre to function begins to unravel. As a character, Heather is an excellent tool. She does, however, make for a poor super-hero figure in that she's a jumping-off point for the unravelling of suspension of disbelief.

What makes her a 'marvel' is that she took a piece of technology she didn't understand, learned how to use it, and utilised it to its/her full extent, not because she wanted glory, but because she felt she NEEDED to.

That doesn't make her a Marvel anymore than any fireman, cop, or soldier. Fantastic people, potentially compelling character concepts, but not super-heroes.

That she felt the need to use power to a better end makes her no better or worse than any one of several dozen other characters out there. That doesn't qualify as a unique or remarkable ability.

What's more, Heather has no penitential need to be the hero: people like Falcon, Luke Cage and Wonder Man, they are in the gig because they f****d up when they were younger and went into the hero business to atone for past sins.

This is a new element to the debate, and tangental. The need for redemption does not figure into this equation -- though I'd be happy to tackle it in another thread, if you want. My personal take on it is that the need for redemption is merely another literary device, and does not serve to either minimialize or aggrandize a character concept, save to provide another layer of motivation.

Both the altruist and the seeker of redemption have remarkably noble qualities that allow them to function very well as heroic figures.

Which is more impressive: a person with superhuman abilities doing right because they can, or a regular joe with no reason to risk their butt, going out to do right because they have the will and drive to make the world a better place? This is the same reason why the cops, firefighters and military personelle, in my eyes, should be given more accolades than they recieve - and many comic writers agree with me by way of the characters they write - because they CHOSE to have the crappy end of the stick for purely altruistic reasons: not because they CAN, but because they know that if they don't, who else will?
.

If we take that turn in logic to it's natural extension, then comics about cops, firefighters, and soldiers without super-powers would be viable super-hero comics.

When we look at sales figures, however, we see the exact opposite. Both DC and Marvel have attempted to focus on the "everyday heroes" of their respective continuities in the past. Each attempt has failed after relatively short periods of time. The longest-running one I can think of was "the 'Nam"; which was, iirc, set outside of Marvel continuity and had absolutely nothing to do with superheroes. That it was illustrated by a war vet, Mike Golden, helped immensely, I'd think.

What allows superheroes to function as a literary device is the notion that, in spite of their connection with the fictitious "common man", they are above and beyond in one or more ways. Once that is stripped from them, the natural extension is to explore the lack of the crossing line, which in turn leads to other conventions that lead to other genres.

This is neither a good nor a bad thing: it simply is. That transition, however, phases out the very type of story that allows the characters to hold relevance in their context. Striding down this path must, by needs, change the Marvel Universe... or else the stories fail to stand on their own legs. They ring hollow.

Dini's use of Silver Age conventions blended with modern sensibilities made his animated take on the DCU fly in popularity. In print media, we see a similar progress with the works of Busiek and Waid.

In terms of the tools that work most effectively for storytelling within the genre, Mac is a better choice for a superhero than Heather, in spite of the latter being (at the very least) an equally compelling character. If a version of Alpha that can sustain a presence similar to the Avengers or JLA is desired, then it's best to look at what makes those more successful fictions function, and match their quality. So long as that information is disregarded, the same failings will plague the IP again and again.

[Northcott]

Powers, special skills or intellectual genius aside...To me, if we're talking icons...it's the suit(and I'm not talking about the technological part of it)...that makes the Icon. The Canadian flag suit is what makes Heather or Mac(and even ...ick...major mapleleaf) icons(which they may not even truley be...yet).

The clothes make the man? I'd say it's the opposite.

There have been a host of characters through the years that attempted to use national symbolism as a launching point, only to fail. A character that can't sustain interest has failed to become iconic. I'm referring to it in more than visual terms; iconic characters are those who have become, in and of themselves, templates -- or alternately, those who function so well in their role that they either function within an iconic role, or have the potential to become iconic.

All the original Alphans fall in the latter category, imo. The combination of visual design, personality, and simplicity of purpose (fast, strong, water-based, etc) gives them a core strength unmatched by most modern creations. They touch upon older design philosophies that have been ignored in the industry for years.

Batman and Superman may be icons, but that has only come from the sheer amount of exposure they've had over the many years they've been around... It's the same with Spidey. It isn't their powers, so much as what they stand for(and their very images, which play the biggest part) that makes them icons. I think Women just aren't really ever viewed in the same way(which is very sad)...except Wonder Woman.

It's what they stand for, their powers, and the elements of design with which they were created. They're part of the evolving language of literature, and helped forge the templates for the genre. A great deal about what makes stories of this nature tick can be learned from observing how the characters, and the types of tales surrounding them, have evolved over the years.

Perhaps I'm viewing things too simply..but that's how I view comics(my sig speaks for me)....I just think Heather is really cool. I've always found Mac horribly boring...I can't get past the fact he's been really, really badly written since Byrne left the book(but even under Byrne's pen...he was a bit of a bore).

The same is often said of Superman and Captain America; the two characters who are generally recognized as leading the JLA and the Avengers. I don't think that's entirely a coincidence.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I still like Heather better(at least she has a personality), so :P

Dana

[Northcott]

I still like Heather better(at least she has a personality), so :P

Dana

I can completely get behind that. (What the hell? There's no "thumb's up" emoticon!)

I think that Heather's a wonderful character. I'm just working this from a combination of academic and functional (i.e. How does this impact the story) angles. Personal preferences are a horse of an entirely different colour.

I read an interview with J.K. Rowling where she talked about killing off one of the characters in her Harry Potter novels. After writing the scene, she was utterly unconsolable; wept bitterly. She'd just offed one of the characters she liked the most.

Her husband, being the sensible sort that doesn't write books, simply asked, "Then why don't you change the story?" She answered that she couldn't, because the character had to die to bring about certain elements of progression in the story.

I don't want anybody getting the idea that I dislike the character of Heather... or that I'm even apathetic about the character. Quite the opposite.

[kozzi24]

I think much of what makes the "iconic" heroes is expossure. Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman...they have JLA, their own books, they had Superfriends, TV series. Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman...they're not as iconic.
Spidy, the FF, they've had chartoons every generations, and movies now. Exposure of Marvel's other icons such as Cap, Thor, Hulk and Iron Man and more recently Wolverine have also have other exposure, in and outside comics, and within comics multiple books.
Part of what has kept Hather from that iconic status, I think, is that every time an Alpha title is cancelled, there's a Mac, freshly resurrected, to make appearances in the broader Marvel Universe. Mac appeared in the Repo Man cartoon. I don't think Marvel's given her the chance to reach iconic stature.

Hether being the "common man" rebuilding herself from nothing is part of what makes her the greater hero. As Allan said, she stepped forward as a hero because she saw the need. Her ascension could have been written much worse,,,she did not even fall into the cliche of donning the suit to avenge her husband's death. Shor rose because there was a need, and she rose against the naysayers who didn't want her to take the suit, or even to train her. Some of the other characters scoffed. She listened to her own voice, her own judgment.

The death of Snowbird comes up as a black Mark against Heather...I've questioned why the other Alpha never took her to task for it myself. But the form of a demi goddess and great beast was being overrun by Pestilence. Heather made the decision to do WHATEVER necessary to stop the threat, and she willfully killed a teammate to do it.

I think Heather has the spirit to be an icon, in abundance, but she lacks the exposure. Mac has had more exposure despite almost ten years of Heather in the suit, but the character to me ALWAYS lacked the spirit.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Hey...John Byrne himself said that he found Mac to be the least interesting character in AF....it's one of the reasons he decided to have him die...along with it being for dramatic effect. I believe(I'm "mind-reading" a bit here) he also did it to bring Heather more into the spotlight(as leader)...since she was Byrne's favorite character.

Dana

[HappyCanuck]

Hey...John Byrne himself said that he found Mac to be the least interesting character in AF...

Hmm. "Byrne said"... I was gonna say something snide (namely that our thoughts on the dullness that is Mac have been revoked just on that statement), but since that would be classified as creator bashing, I'll withhold...

[syvalois]

Ed, I don't have your knowledge, this topic is going for ever because we don't find an argument that is as strong as yours. Yes iconic characters can be boring Captain America, Mac and Superman are (sorry, That's what I think) Like my comic history teacher said :"what made Tintin so populatr was that every young man (or women) could identify with Tintin. The is great to be a reporter and to go around the world, we never much about him, his parents if he had any, is family, he never got any sexuality, never knew is age... But what made the book interesting was the secondary characters, Captain Haddock, Professor Tournesol, Les Dupont et Dupont without forgetting La Castafiore.

Now that can also be true to AF. Except that your logic for Heather don't work for me. Makes me think of a debate we had at school in my philosophy class: Is Mother theresa ego selffish, because it gives her pleasure to help people. Let just say that the class never got to a consensus. I think it's depens on what your logic is and in my case, it do not work for me. You like too much Mac, to see Heather as the leading role. If mac had never died we would not have knew her as much as we did. Her mourning was one of the greatest moment in the character and the serie, finally a death that as a great mourning. It also give Mac more dignity (he did not need more, he was already a great hero). Bur like me, who don't really like Mac, her mourning made you appreciate more Mac character and how he was important. Like your J.K. Rowling comment, the death of Mac was important in the development of the story.

You could argue that the team was already appart before that, because the Gov. had already stop funding the team when the serie began.

ok, I could bring other arguments, but it's time to do my homeworks.

can we agree the disagree Ed?

[Northcott]

I think much of what makes the "iconic" heroes is expossure. Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman...they have JLA, their own books, they had Superfriends, TV series. Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman...they're not as iconic.

My feeling is that the iconic nature of a character has little to do with exposure: a character can be created in very iconic format and be little known. Utilizing the hidden language that creates that type of character, however, can result in a much stronger presence.

It's my contention that it is precisely that, the utilization of that unspoken language, that allowed for Alpha's initial explosion of popularity. They had the combination of archetypical personalities and abilities, combined with the more iconic elements of visual design, to automatically launch the characters into icon status. I believe this holds true for every member (or nearly every member) of the original team.

Part of what has kept Hather from that iconic status, I think, is that every time an Alpha title is cancelled, there's a Mac, freshly resurrected, to make appearances in the broader Marvel Universe. Mac appeared in the Repo Man cartoon. I don't think Marvel's given her the chance to reach iconic stature.

I think that there's a reason for that. As you've pointed out, Heather's had more face time in the comics. By the logic of exposure, as you've pointed out above, she should undoubtedly be perceived as the more iconic, and so more used, if these theories hold true. Yet every time Alpha merchandise or guest appearances pop up...

Hether being the "common man" rebuilding herself from nothing is part of what makes her the greater hero.

And again: a great hero isn't necessarily a good superhero. Cops, firefighters, and soldiers are among some of society's greatest heroes. At one point comics about them were quite popular -- but they were never mixed in with superheroes in the long term.

The death of Snowbird comes up as a black Mark against Heather...I've questioned why the other Alpha never took her to task for it myself. But the form of a demi goddess and great beast was being overrun by Pestilence. Heather made the decision to do WHATEVER necessary to stop the threat, and she willfully killed a teammate to do it.

Because heroes make the difficult choices and live with the consequences of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's a painful truth of life.

Superheroes find a way to circumvent the two choices, finding a better, third path that a normal hero cannot achieve. Spiderman doesn't let MJ or the cable trolley drop -- he saves them both. Superman doesn't surrender the alien refugee, nor does he allow the earth to be destroyed.

Some people, irredeemable cynics imho , claim that the superhero genre is nothing more than an adolescent power fantasy gone on too long. I think this is utter tripe. The genre isn't a power fantasy: the fantasy is altruism, and the dream of a better world. Power is just the fantastic vehicle by which the fantasy is lived out. (the comics of the 90's being an exception)

The key to superheroes is that they succeed where normal people would fail. Where they come back down to earth, become mortals again, is in their personal lives. When the two mix, they are stripped of potency.

I think Heather has the spirit to be an icon, in abundance, but she lacks the exposure. Mac has had more exposure despite almost ten years of Heather in the suit, but the character to me ALWAYS lacked the spirit.

She has the spirit, but not the ability. Mac has both. While it might be argued that Heather's had more face time in the comics, it could also be argued that Mac has had little time where he hasn't been used as a ham-fisted plot device. He's more iconic, but lacks proper development.

Ed, I don't have your knowledge, this topic is going for ever because we don't find an argument that is as strong as yours.

My apologies if I'm seeming unusually cantankerous in this. Truth be told, I'm really enjoying this discussion. Granted, I haven't taken my writing seriously in a loooong time, but I still like to look at things through that lens now and again. And, hell, I'll admit it... I'd love to write and draw Alpha.

It's a pipe dream, but there it is. Strength of argument has nothing to do with this, for me. It's a wonderful opportunity to clarify ideas, reasoning, and stances, though. So if my pipe dream should ever come true, you'll know exactly what's going on in my head, and the reasoning behind the actions of the characters.

Or at least the ones I've prattled endlessly about.

Yes iconic characters can be boring Captain America, Mac and Superman are (sorry, That's what I think)

Which is kind of funny, 'cause I always really liked Captain America and Superman as well. Hell, Superman's my favourite character, and my dream job.

Like my comic history teacher said :"what made Tintin so populatr was that every young man (or women) could identify with Tintin. The is great to be a reporter and to go around the world, we never much about him, his parents if he had any, is family, he never got any sexuality, never knew is age... But what made the book interesting was the secondary characters, Captain Haddock, Professor Tournesol, Les Dupont et Dupont without forgetting La Castafiore.

That's pretty much a mirror to my thoughts. Characters that serve as a focal point, a solid lynchpin for a story, often pale in comparisson to other characters in the story: a character that transcends heroic to become larger than life may inspire others, but invariably leaves the audience somewhat distant. Secondary characters are the perfect solution to this: you can get more milage in exploring a story with them, play with more flaws, and take more risks in having them likeable -- which automatically means they'll be hated by some.

In cinema, movies like Braveheart are a perfect example of this. Few people spoke of William Wallace as their favourite character, but the number of people that raved about how funny/cool/brave the secondary characters were -- that's what drove the movie's popularity.

That's how many of the older heroes worked, and in recent attempts to bring them to television or movies, the most successful attempts have utilized the same (or similar) principles. Wolverine's the insanely popular one, but where would the story be going without Xavier's compassion and cool reasoning? Spider-Man's the hero, Parker's the perpetual hard-luck case, but we see the most dramatic character elements in Harry, MJ, and the villains (brilliant casting on those). In Smallville, Clark's our hero, but it's Lex, Lana, Chloe, Pete, and a host of transitory characters that moved the story along.

So should the day come that I get a crack at this dream project, and I'm doing something that has the lot of you rolling your eyes, you'll know I'm aiming for the target that's lead to longevity and strength for other franchises.