PeterDavid.net

I've read a number of comments across the internet in the last week about how Reeve was a prick before the accident, and, because only after it did he decide to help people, he was still a prick.

Apparently, "flip flopping" applies to those outside politics as well.

And in the end, I just shake my head at it - I think alot of people would do the same thing Reeve did if they were in his situation, and I don't think you could blame them.
It's easy to ignore something until it happens to you, and only then take a vested interest. It's human nature.

I don't know about Reeve being a hero, but he was certainly courageous - I don't know if I could live as he did, but it obviously takes a great will to live.

If with great power comes great responsibility then with a loss of power (and few losses are greater than Reeve's loss of control over his formerly athletic body) comes at least the opportunity for a lessening of responsibility. Instead Reeve took responsibility for himself, for his family and for others.

As you said, he could have become a recluse. He could have retreated. But instead he came out fighting publicly for both research and treatment of his own and similar conditions as well as fighting privately (from what we have heard) to enjoy every possible moment with his family and friends.

I recommend his book. It was written by a hero.

--My

"I've read a number of comments across the internet in the last week about how Reeve was a prick before the accident, and, because only after it did he decide to help people, he was still a prick."

And because it was said on the internet, it must be so.

I never met him, but Kathleen did on several occasions, spent time with him, knew a lot of people who knew him, and all knew him to be sweet, caring, unassuming and generous long before he fell off the horse.

PAD

Reeve making public appearances, advocating for stem cell research and progress for the disabled, not only reevaluating the importance of his family, but promoting the value of family to others and dealing with the humility needed to continue functioning in light of his accident are all factors that make the label "hero" workable in my mind. Unless Reeve did the best acting of his life in the years since he found himself in that chair, there was amazing growth, strength of character and heroism that inspired people throughout the world.

Fred

Regardless of Reeve's personality, how he lived the last twelve years of his life certainly meets the criteria of the Hemingway Hero: Grace under Pressure.

Granted, a very strong argument can be made that he brought his condition on himself, that his horse-riding instructor cautioned him several times not to make the jump that was his undoing, but the example he made of his life after the accident is admirable.

Mark

.... and actually, when you think about it, the motivations behind one's actions or even the actions themselves don't necessarily dictate what makes a "hero". If 1 person found inspiration from Reeve, regardless of any other factors, he is a hero, isn't he?

The term hero is used way too loosely today. The "Jerry Springer" / "Oprpah Winfrey" effect has made it heroic to simply tell everyone you once wet a bed.

That being said, Christopher Reeves was heroic in almost any sense of the term. I don't know what is bothering Byrne, but I *do* think how Chris R. responded to his situation is a choice, and the choices he made were heroic.

I personally do not agree with suicide or assisted suicide. But I can understand the temptation in a case such as this. He fought long and hard to overcome his disability. He stuck it out and never gave up. He never took the easy way out. As someone else posted, Reeve's example is inspiring, and that, for me, is a core element of what makes someone a hero.

Jim in Iowa

And because it was said on the internet, it must be so.

Well, I won't dispute that, and I never said that what I read was the truth of the matter.

I'm sure Reeve had his moments, but the comments and opinions are mind boggling nonetheless.

"Well, I won't dispute that, and I never said that what I read was the truth of the matter.

I'm sure Reeve had his moments, but the comments and opinions are mind boggling nonetheless."

Yeah, well, them fans, they do love to talk. I mean, according to some, I'm a wild-eye, extreme liberal nut who gets off on attacking people, rather than the sweet, lovable, non-confrontational candy-ass I truly am.

PAD

I wonder if Bryne really feels this way, or just posts thinks like that to be contraversal. Either way, he is an ass.

PAD:

>Yeah, well, them fans, they do love to talk. I mean, according to some, I'm a wild-eye, extreme liberal nut who gets off on attacking people, rather than the sweet, lovable, non-confrontational candy-ass I truly am

..... my hero. ;)

I can't believe people would even discuss this. Who the hell are we to judge whether or not the man suffered enough, or accomplished enough after losing the ability to breathe without assistance? It's ridiculous that anyone would attempt to attack the man after his death for not living up to some absurd ideals of what is required of a paraplegic to qualify as a hero.

If there are those who believe that he was a hero, and make no mistake, I am among them, then let them hold that belief. To issue public statement attacking that belief, and chipping away at the character of the man after his tragic death, is the height of cowardice.

Phinn

:And because it was said on the internet, it must be so.

I never met him, but Kathleen did on several occasions, spent time with him, knew a lot of people who knew him, and all knew him to be sweet, caring, unassuming and generous long before he fell off the horse."

Yea but who are you gonna believe? Kathleen or the internet?

"Yeah, well, them fans, they do love to talk. I mean, according to some, I'm a wild-eye, extreme liberal nut who gets off on attacking people, rather than the sweet, lovable, non-confrontational candy-ass I truly am"

Why can't you be both?

;)

Hi everybody,
I personally don't listen to "internet" opinion or JB's ones. to me Chris was the one that made me really believe a man could fly...2 times. Yes He was ONLY an actor...till the moment he became something more (maybe only for me, I don't know.): he became an inspiration,in the end he did something! maybe it was only public appearances but it was a lot more then somebody else is doing. Now all I'm hearing is: "he was a jerk!", "he wasn't a hero", ok maybe a hero he was not, but he had a pair of B***s that I don't see in people spittin' on his grave!
he had courage.. he was a MAN (all capital)!
in the end this is important: he was a jerk? ok in the end he was not! someone else still is!!!

I had often heard Byrne was an asshole until I met him at a convention about 10 years ago or so. And guess what, he was an asshole. From his comments about Reeve I have to say that things haven't changed much.

Wow. He has no love for anything Superman related, does he? First he consciously and deliberately deconstructs one of the most iconic figures in American literature during his run on the book, and now he's posthumously bashing the actor that brought that character to life for our generation. Jeez, what a piece of work.

As everyone else has said, the definition of a hero is a very personal definition - it is subjective. There are no objective measurements as to what defines a hero. Pat Tillman is an example - he's just one of over a thousand US soldiers that have died in the Middle East since we started bombing Afghanistan. He could have had a life of leisure - making millions of dollars as a pro football player, but walked away from it to fight for what he believed in. In fact, every single one our boys and girls that have given the supreme sacrifice are heroes, but there are those that want to say that they're not because our actions over there are not justified. It does not matter what side of the ideological fence you're on - whether you believe our actions over there are justified or not, are legal or not, the fact remains that even though our troops had no choice in being sent over there they gave the ULTIMATE sacrifice in the service of their country.

Hell, Peter, you can even consider yourself a hero - you made a permanent body alteration just to raise money for the CBLDF. I admire what you did and know it took guts for a "non-confrontational candy-ass" to make good on his word and walk into that tattoo parlor. (In fact, I would love to see the completed tat, and I've got the $10 donation required, but you've got to make down to Memphis to get it :)).

A nice definition of "hero" can be found in Galaxy Quest, I think. "Never give up, never surrender."

There's always the choice between doing something and doing nothing. Or rather trying and not trying (and don't go all Yoda on me, here; that line was inspirational bull).

Of course Reeve had a choice. Reeve had the choice of begging to be put out of his misery, or of not trying to walk again and just be waited on, or any number of choices boiling down to just accepting the blow fate dealt him and lie down in defeat. But he chose not to.

Reeve chose to try. So he fought, made great advances, ultimately failed, but he tried.

I choose to think Reeve was pretty heroic in his struggle. I choose to think John Byrne is being stupid in denying that. Every day I choose a lot of other things that put me nowhere near the greatness Reeve exhibited in his plight. Life's filled with choices. It's filled with little bits of heroism, big bits of heroism, and humoungous bits of cowardice. I'd have thought we could all take some inspiration from Reeve.

Silly me...

I'm with Byrne on this one... for the most part. I think that what Reeve did to further research and shine a light on this condition was admirable... but we've reached a point where the word "hero" has all but lost its meaning. I think Christopher Reeve may very well have been a great man, but I can't say that he was a hero because I'm simply not sure it applies. He was a parapalegic crusading to find a cure for his condition. Admirable and honorable to be sure, but heroic? I dunno.

And anyway this is a really pointless discussion because a true hero wouldn't want that label.

Granted, a very strong argument can be made that he brought his condition on himself, that his horse-riding instructor cautioned him several times not to make the jump that was his undoing

But the usual consequence of failing a jump in riding is a little humiliation and a lot of bruising. It's not as though anyone told him "skip this jump or be a quadrapalegic; your choice." What happened was a one-in-a-million accident, not something he deliberately courted.

Perhaps John Byrne is burned out and bitter about it.(pun intended).

It seems to me from what I have seen from John Byrne that he has become CRANKSHAFT.

I read something similar to Byrne's rant a few months ago on another website well known for its crassness (which I'll refrain from directing you to). The guy who runs this fairly popular site goes out of his way to be offensive to everybody, kind of like "South Park". But even when read through that kind of lens, it's still pretty offensive. It turns out, though, that Reeve did do quite a bit of charity work BEFORE the accident, so the argument that Reeve somehow repented and became a charity saint when he was the one in the wheelchair doesn't hold much water with me.
That said, such commentary coming from an industry idol like Byrne is just uncalled for. It was borderline on a humor site, but coming from a guy who worked a run on 'Superman,' it's just plain offensive. It's this kind of stuff that forces me to use a goofy psuedonym when posting in comic forums.
That OTHER John Byrne

Well waddaya know?
Back in the early '80s I had occasion to go to San Diego. John Byrne had a table where he was doing sketches and signing comics for fans. I had never met him, and he had never met me, even though I was a reasonably decent-sized cog in the distribution wheel at that time. (Big deal)
I was excited because I really enjoyed his work.
I came up to the table and began to address him:
"Mr. Byrne, I just wanted to tell you how much I love your work. I'm from Canada too," at which point I offered my hand to shake his.
He looked up at me, checked his watch, looked up again and spoke, "I have a screening I have to get to. I'll be back in about an hour or two."
And with that he got up from his chair and walked away, literally leaving me with my outstretched arm in place! I stood there dumbfounded for a few seconds, took my left hand and placed it on my right arm and moved my right arm back to a vertical position next to my body, then turned and walked away. It was literally like a scene from a cartoon!
That incident is one of the kind that sticks with you your entire life.
Even so, we must still look at things from the bright side: Assuming that Chris' dream of stem cell research bears fruit, John will be able to benefit from the Alzheimers treatments that will surely result.

PAD,

You left off part of Mr. Byrne's comment. The full text (taken from his own site) reads as follows:

I have noticed that people have begun referring to Christopher Reeve as a "hero". I do not wish to take away one iota of the courage he must have needed not to wake up screaming every single day, but the hard truth is there was nothing "heroic" in what happened to him, or how he dealt with it. In fact, as far as how he dealt with it, he didn't even have a choice. We could imagine he spent every hour of every day (when not in front of the cameras) begging family members to simply kill him and get it over with -- but none of them did, so he had no choice but to deal with each day as it came.*

Heroism, I believe, involves choice.

*Not in any way suggesting this is what was
happening, just in case there are those who are
paralyzed from the neck up who might be
reading these words. . ."

I encountered this whole mess yesterday, and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Based on the context of what came before it, I have begun to suspect that Mr. Bryne wrote in an attempt to illustrate a point by stating an extreme example. Thus, I now find it only incredibly insensitive and assinine.

Oh and for the record, I DO think that Christopher Reeve was a hero. I can't imagine what it cost him to go on as a public figure after he lost so much that he loved. It would take a blindly narrow view of what it is that makes a hero to not consider him such.

I tend to think the media labels Christopher Reeve as a "hero" even though he's probably for the same reasons VH1 labels people like Beyonce or Jewel as "Divas" even thought they are definitely are not. Christopher Reeve was an admirable, honorable man who turned a horrible tradgedy into a wonderful crusade for good... but in my opinion he was no more a hero than Jewel is a diva. She's just a pretty decent musician.

John Byrne acted like an ass again. Is this news?

I've hit a point with John where I've given up being infuriated with him. It does me no good. I've been called Insult Boy twice on his board, and gave up looking at the board in January because I was tired of being insulted. It's amazing that a person with that talent, being able to provide joy through his comics to so many people, could be so...anti-human in the "real world". Maybe that's what require of artists of his caliber- you view people as black and white lines, rather than as souls.

I still love his work (yes, even his current work still holds the potential to thrill me). I just ignore the rantings of the man behind the work.

Hell, Dale Earnhardt [i]was[/i] an asshole, but everybody seems to think [i]he[/i] was a hero, and all he did was drive a car into a wall. Screw Dale Earnhardt.

Christopher Reeve was a great actor -- after Superman, it was great seeing him played against type, and he did it extremely well. I honestly don't know that heroism is the term that comes to mind for me, but I won't deny that it took courage not to give up in his situation. One of the websites I read that bashed him said he was a selfish prick because he didn't start it until after it happened to him, rather than after he was aware of the sort of problems people have that eventually did befall him. Apparently he played a character in a movie with a similar ailment, and he's regarded as selfish because it wasn't until this condition of which he was already aware wasn't important enough to work to help until after it had befallen him. It's a valid point, but it doesn't cancel out the work he's done or the value it's had.

I was banned from Byrne's board a half a year ago or so. Why? I dunno. It was never explained to me. In fact, I didn't even know I was banned until I tried to log in to post one afternoon and kept getting an error message. I had to reregister with a different name and email one of the admins (because you can't contact them unless you're registered) and asked what was happening. After exchanging a few emails where he said next to nothing, he finally admitted that I had been banned. When I asked why, he admitted that he didn't know, just that "Byrne had said so."

Ok. So in no way am I defending Byrne. Clearly, I have first-hand evidence that he's about as big a jerk as everybody claims. But being an asshole doesn't mean he's always wrong... he's just *usually* wrong. But in this case he's right, in my opinion.

You know, I was wondering why we had not had a conversation on Reeve's death on this blog, and it is a shame that it has to be in response to someone who more and more comes across as a cruel jackass.
Whether or not you want to argue that a "true hero" would not want the label, the way he lived his life, especially these last few years, was unquestionably heroic.
The politics of stem cell research aside, the fact that Reeve was always OPTIMISTIC about his situation ("I will walk again"), was able to progress physically and was able to act again (how precious those "Smallville" appearances are to me now) was absolutely inspiring to those who found themselves in similar predicaments, and of course those whose burdens weren't quite as severe.
To knock the good he did because "he had more money than the rest of us" or "he brought it on himself" or whatever other vile stuff has been said is beyond distasteful.
We all, each of us, have the ability to not only live our lives to the fullest but use the gifts we have to help others. Not all of us do so. Christopher Reeve did.
That certailnly makes him heroic.
It reminds me of the scene in PAD's "Star Trek" annual where Scotty's nephew is killed in an accident. When told that her son died heroically, she responds, "Who cares how he died? He's just as dead." To which someone responds that none of us have attained physical immortality - not yet, anyway. But that the memory of her son will live on, and when it does he will be remembered as someone who died doing his duty.
That was one of your most memorable and powerful exchanges of dialogue ever, PAD. I think it applies here as well.
In the long run, Reeve will be remembered more for his help with spinal cord research and the like than he was playing Superman on screen, and that's saying something.
Something very good, indeed.

Somebody correct me if i'm worng, but isn't there a story about Christopher Reeves Flying to South America in order to draw attention to the plight and possibibly help rescue a group of actors who were going to be deported and/or killed? (Pre-Accident, Natch)

I could have sworn i've heard something like that.

If i remember correctly, I'd sure as shooting say that makes the man a hero.

"Whether or not you want to argue that a "true hero" would not want the label, the way he lived his life, especially these last few years, was unquestionably heroic."

Saying something is unquestionable doesn't actually make it so. the fact that this conversation is actually taking places proves that it *is* questionable. There is no such thing as absolute heroism. As PAD himself wrote, heroism exists in the eye of the beholder. It is a lable others put on somebody else in reflection of the opinions they hold about that person.

So the idea that somebody can absolutely be a hero or that somebody's opinon can be unquestionable wrong or right in a case like this is a little silly and illogical, in my opininon.

I don't consider Christopher Reeve a hero, some people. We can both be right... because it's all a matter of personal opinion.

I think that's really enough of that.

I'm with Donald Pfeffer on this one.

A hero steps up and fights when he doesn't have to. Reeve suffered his injury horse-riding (not a neccessary activity in this day and age) and after being crippled, THEN he got all "Let's find a cure".

Don't get me wrong, it's admirable how he didn't give up under the weight of his handicap and the massive change is his life, but "hero" is used way too often these days...

I can only assume Byrne has never faced a serious illness, been artificially paralized, or simply had a bad day where he had to choose how he would act (and given his behaviour over the past years, it seems Byrne simply has one mode of behaving - asshole - and that might explain a lot).

I have a choice when I get out of bed every morning. I can choose to be positive, negative, apathetic, or a variety of attitudes. I choose what to eat, drink, wear, whether to go to work or class or both or neither. Life is made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of choices on a daily basis. Get into the realm of years and it becomes awesome to even contemplate how many decisions we make.

For the last 12 years, Chris Reeve made the decision to wake up every morning and face the day with grace, dignity, humour and kindness. He dedicated his time educating the public and campaigning for research so much, much more important than just him, and he realized that in order to get human embryonic stem cell research approved, federally funded, and legal, it needed to have a spearhead. A visible presence to the world, and a face that people could put with it.

If you or I were faced with the choice of putting ourselves in the limelight daily, to have our injury constantly talked about by everyone, would we? Would we have the strength of character to not give up, to not beg to be taken off life support in those first few, harrowing months? Would we have the ability to get out of bed daily, with a smile, with optimism and belief, and then go outside and share that with all the people equally afflicted, and bring them hope because you have the ability, through a few silly and loved movies, to catch the attention of people making laws so much better than someone stuck in a house in Illinois?

I'm not sure I'd be able to do that and I'd eat my nalgene bottle of Byrne ever had half so much grace under pressure.

To make the choices Reeve made, to live the life he did, is nothing short of miraculous, for himself and for all the people he so positively affected. If that's not heroism, I don't know what would be.

-Kelly

"Actors, after all, have egos. Monumental, towering egos. Can it possibly have been easy for the former "Superman" to allow the public to see him immobilized, helpless, a crippled shadow of what he once was? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking that he had a lot to overcome, both physically and emotionally, just to put himself out there again and again."

Yes! This is what I have been saying all over the place, you just put it much better.

And the thing is...even before the accident Reeve was doing a lot of good work. It just that the accident shifted his attention.

Based on what I know of Byrne, and comments I've read from (eg, on Jessica Alba's being cast as Sue Storm), I am less than surprised.

In various interviews, Mr Reeve and his wife had said that immediately following the accident, he had (like, frankly, any sane individual) seriously thought about suicide. He decided not to follow through. He also decided to become an advocate for those like him. To me, that showed (to use a cliche) great courage in the face of adversity.

In addition, let me say that if something like that accident happened to me, I truly do not know whether or not my decision would be to end it all. However, I do know that if I decide to literally choose life, the way Mr Reeves lived his life post-paralyzation would be a significant factor in that choice.

Once again to me, that is heroic.

I myself agree that the word “hero” has been overused. I remember how when I was 13, I was deeply shocked and saddened by the death of the four Challenger astronauts, and even so, I kinda had a mental “Um…waitasecond” moment when President Reagan referred to them as heroes…as if they somehow chose to die, or something. Sure, all astronauts are theoretically heroes because it’s such a potentially dangerous job, but the President doesn’t laud all of them publicly at every shuttle launch.

Another example was when American fighter pilot Scott O’Grady was shot down over Bosnian Serb Territory and, armed with a gun and a radio, hid in the forest for six days, eating ants and drinking rain water until he was rescued. Vince Bugliosi, in his book, Outrage, correctly pointed out that he was in no way a “hero.” At best, I would opine that he was a survivor. (I would point out that although I agree with Bugliosi on this, Bugliosi also stated that the word “hero” implies choice.)

In my opinion, Christopher Reeve was heroic. He didn’t have choice in terms of the accident that crippled him, but he had a choice as to how to face his injuries, and the choice he made was a reflection of his character. I would like to be able to say that I’d do the same, but I’m afraid I would just curse everyone and everything if what happened to him happened to me. For all of Byrne’s speculation about him begging family members off-camera to kill him, Reeve didn’t have to go on camera at all, but chose to do so anyway. He also didn’t have to insist that he would walk again, and yet, he managed to regain (with an surgical implant) the ability to breathe on his own, the ability to move his finger, the ability to move his legs when underwater, sensation in his body, and even his sense of smell. Had he not died, he might’ve regained more. I would not have thought that possible, but I was proven wrong. I thought his insistence that he would walk again was naïve. By the end of his life, I couldn’t say that with the same certainty. That a paraplegic could defy such odds and cause a disbeliever like me to believe, even to a small degree, is an accomplishment and is most certainly requiring of courage.

Byrne’s behavior, on the other hand, requires nothing more than cold-hearted cynicism and misanthropy.

I'm with Donald Pfeffer on this one.

A hero steps up and fights when he doesn't have to. Reeve suffered his injury horse-riding (not a neccessary activity in this day and age) and after being crippled, THEN he got all "Let's find a cure".

Sorry, but this is all wrong.

A) No, he didn't have to do what he did. He could have confined it to occasional events from his home. He didn't.

B) He was doing considerable charity work and donations BEFORE the accident. Why are people dismissing it when he's just changed the focus?

This all seems like part of our modern culture's mania to degrade and defile those who are better than us; we constantly thirst for heroes and and compelled to degrade anyone who comes close to that standard.

I think Byrne was trying to say that surviving in the face of what G-d throws at you is not heroic in itself. And with that I agree. But as you put much more eloquently than I was able to on my blog, Reeve did much more than that in his last 12 years.

Personally, I don't think Reeve had much of a delusion that he could save himself through his actions. He knew research took time. He was acting for those who came after him.

Byrne's comments are beyond galling, beyond ludicrous.

When we discuss Christopher Reeve, we discuss a man who single-handedly shifted the paradigm on how modern science views paralysis. Towards the end of his life he could wiggle his fingers, move his arms and legs in an aquatic environment, and breathe on his own for extended periods of time- all things that were deemed medically impossible before his injury. Reeve raised enormous awareness and funding for an affliction that affects tens of thousands of people worldwide. If being a one man juggernaut in the face of debilitating illness isn't heroic, I don't know what is.

And oh, let's not forget that he CONCIEVED OF, DIRECTED AND STARRED IN the remake of Rear Window, wrote two books, started his own charitable organization, and lended his directorial abilities to two other films. I know plenty of fully mobile folks who lack the willpower to tackle such endeavors.

How easy would it have been for him to gather dust in a corner under a morphine drip? How many other people in his position would have done so, or taken their own lives?

Chris did neither, he chose to battle his affliction and help others who shared his condition. And THAT, Mr. Byrne, was a choice.

"A hero steps up and fights when he doesn't have to."

No. That's an idiot, or perhaps a thrillseeker.

A hero is someone who steps up and fights because he feels he must. Because to refuse to fight is simply unacceptable.

PAD

Putting Reeve aside entirely, John Byrne's comments were wrong, because he was attempting to define the word "hero" in a way that is far narrower than is used in this country.

According to the Merriam-Webster website, the definition of hero is:

1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : SUBMARINE 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL

There's no question Reeve meets several of those definitions. I don't know if Byrne's narrower defintion of the word was accurate at some point in time, but it's certainly out of synch with the world today.

I don't think the word hero is used enough.

For me, a hero is somebody who consciously tries to make the world a better place for other people, especially when it is inconvienent for them.

I don't understand why teachers in public schools are not considered heroes. Teachers take crap pay, work in a sometimes dangerous environment, just so they can make a difference in other people's lives.

I had a teacher named Dr. Eades. He taught chemistry in my highschool. He originally tried to join the army, but they wouldn't let him. His IQ was too high. So the government paid for him to get his doctorate and he became a researcher for the army. He was making the big bucks. After that, he went on to teach at a university, again making a really good living for himself but it was a paycut. While there, he formed the opinion that students were not coming into the university with enough science fundementals. So he took a huge paycut to teach in a High School...just to make sure that some teenagers got the education he thought they deserved.

Can somebody explain why he isn't a hero?

"In my opinion, Christopher Reeve was heroic. He didn’t have choice in terms of the accident that crippled him, but he had a choice as to how to face his injuries, and the choice he made was a reflection of his character."

My feelings exactly.

I'm not sure of Byrne's motivation here. I suppose that, because he works daily to chronicle the lives of fictional "heroes," he feels obligated to protect the integrity of that term. Or maybe some part of him thrives on controversy or attention.

In any case I find his words misguided at best.

Goodman:

>Putting Reeve aside entirely, John Byrne's comments were wrong, because he was attempting to define the word "hero" in a way that is far narrower than is used in this country.

This is consistant with many of the controversies surrounding John Byrne's statements. Whether he talks of the definition of "hero" "What makes Spider-Man Spider-Man" or why almost every comic not written in the way that he would do so is wrong, he tend to believe that his interpretations are truth.

Impossible to discuss with anyone who thinks in this fasion.

Fred

What really amuses me about that disgusting old coot is that being disrespectful to real people like Jessica Alba and Christopher Reeve is all well and good, but God help you if you call your favorite hero "Supes" or "Bats". Because you MUST respect the characters.

What I think is being overlooked is that some people, in trying to so Reeve is not a hero, are defining the term so that you have to be physically fit (or at least nominal) in order to be a hero. I think they are saying essentially that a physically handicapped cannot, inherently, be heroes.

That doesn't sit right with me.

I've always thought of a hero as a larger than life figure who goes out to fight the good fight in order to make life better for others. Christopher Reeve could have quietly stayed home, made all these improvements in his quality of life and only concentrated on himself. He did not have to become an advocate. He did not have to put pressure on politicians. He did not have to give speeches to inspire others. But he did. He was and always will be a hero. Those of you who cannot see this will never have heroes to look up to. Your standards are too high. I find that quite sad. Meanwhile, the rest of us will find inspiration and comfort that people like Christopher Reeve exist in a world full of negatives.

Break out the torches and pitchforks! John Byrne has once again said something that people don't agree with. He had the ultimate NERVE to state his opinion of what a hero is. HOW DARE HE!? Why to give his opinion on a matter of semantics is about the worst thing anyone could ever do.

There are already calls on other message boards to start petitions and to contact DC to have Byrne removed from the books he's working on because of his opinion on the definition of a word. What next, trying to have someone thrown off of a book because of their political beliefs?

Donald Pfeffer,
"I think that's really enough of that."
I agree, especially since you chose to focus on a small snippet of what I said that didn't jibe with your belief.
Okay, it's my OPINION that Reeve's actions and the way he carried himself were heroic.
Happy now?
Jesus. What is it with so many people today? Why are so many jaded? Why do we thirst for those who try to do good and try to make the world a better place and then take the first opportunity to cut them down when they do?
As I stated earlier, I feel a person's actions, not their status, define them as heroes or at the very least inspirational.
But it seems these days not only do more people seem to no longer truly believe in the existence of a Higher Power (not necessarily a bad thing, depending on your perspective) but they no longer choose to see good in their fellow man. Which is quite sad, since there is so much good, in so many people, and so many people striving not only to better themselves (which not everyone does) but the lives of others.
But it's more fun for many to be negative.
That's sad.

Karen,
For once, we agree. 100%.
Thank You.
Jerome

Jerome Maida wrote: “You know, I was wondering why we had not had a conversation on Reeve's death on this blog...”

Actually, there is a previous entry about Christopher Reeve. As of this writing, there are 49 comments on it.

Regarding what makes someone a hero, you could certainly make the argument that if nothing else, Chris Reeve was a hero to his family, especially his children, for not giving up, and for demonstrating how one works through adversity.

And, for the record, Reeve was a quadriplegic. A paraplegic is someone who has lost the use of their legs, but can still use their arms. The late Heidi Van Arnem, for example, was a paraplegic.

But anyway, Reeve’s efforts to advance the understanding of spinal cord injuries and treatments of same can also be considered heroic, because he blazed a trail for others to follow. OF COURSE he wanted that research to benefit himself, but he wasn’t thinking only of himself. If he was, I doubt he’d have started his foundation.

Chris Reeve was a positive inspiration to others. If that doesn’t meet the definition of a hero, it comes pretty close to the mark.

Rick

"Okay, it's my OPINION that Reeve's actions and the way he carried himself were heroic.
Happy now?"

No. I dunno. Sure? Frankly, I don't care what you think so my happiness wasn't riding on what you had to say. I think you took my post a little too personally. I was simply saying that PAD, Byrne, you, and everybody else has the right to their own opinions on what constitutes heroism and who they choose to give that label. That's all. So when I said "That's all there is to that," or whatever, I simple meant that this debate can't really go any longer without people saying the same things over and over again. It all amounts to a question of opinion. Why keep going on when opinions on heroism are completely subjective?

"Jesus. What is it with so many people today? Why are so many jaded? Why do we thirst for those who try to do good and try to make the world a better place and then take the first opportunity to cut them down when they do?"

Who's being "cut down"? Did I "cut down" Christopher Reeve because I *didn't* call him a hero? So now your idea of an insult is a lack of overly laudatory praise? Most people I meet on the street don't consider me a hero. I don't take that as an insult.

I said that Reeve was a good man. I said he was honorable and admirable. I also said that I don't consider him a hero. Those are still complimentary words all things considered. Nobody is cutting anybody down.

Not to drag politics into it, but I think it might do to remember that John is rather conservative in his political beliefs, and upon Reeve's death many conservative online hangouts were less than kind to him, mostly (from what I can tell) due to their mistaken belief that stem cells come from aborted foetuses (foeti?) rather than fertility clinics. Also, as some people on this thread have noted, Reeve was indeed very active and charitable before his accident, but the causes for which he fought were unabashedly liberal ones (I recall all his work on behalf of actors' unions, for instance).

"Break out the torches and pitchforks! John Byrne has once again said something that people don't agree with. He had the ultimate NERVE to state his opinion of what a hero is. HOW DARE HE!? Why to give his opinion on a matter of semantics is about the worst thing anyone could ever do."

Okay, now what you REALLY need to do is overdramatize even MORE. You're almost over the top as it is, but I think you might actually be able to clear the top and skid down the other side if you just give it a bit more "oomph."

"There are already calls on other message boards to start petitions and to contact DC to have Byrne removed from the books he's working on because of his opinion on the definition of a word."

Yeah, that's just stupid. I think it's one of Byrne's dumbest opinions, but I don't dispute his right to have it, and I would in no way endorse boycotts or punitive measures over it. And I'd *still* by "Next Men" if he ever did it again.

"What next, trying to have someone thrown off of a book because of their political beliefs?"

Right, because that would never happen.

PAD

Although I haven't read the book, inspirational speaker Susan Jeffers talks about a book written by a concentration camp survivor. Although it recounts the cruelty and horror of the camps, its main thrust is the surprising amount of human kindness that also went on.

People giving their last crust of bread to a sick inmate, comforting the dying, finding time to distract a child whose parent had died...it all went on. It all summed up to a statement that went something like this, quoted by my crack-brained memory:

Everything can be taken from a human being, except the one inalienable, permanent posession he or she has; the right to choose how one will face the circumstances of life. The right to choose one's way.

Reduced to that final posession, Reeve made some remarkable choices.

And on a nearly unrelated topic; what angers me about so many of the sadistic horror movies is that there are no heroes in them. The "victims" are only trying to save their own lives. They never step in the way of Freddy or Jason to give someone else the chance to run. If those films are emblematic of our time (and I'm afraid they are) then we're all stinking, selfish jerks. Which is why what John Byrne said doesn't surprise me at all.

I have a hard time thinking of anyone as a "hero" unless he or she is willingly putting themselves into physical danger. But if we must label them heroes, Jimmy Carter and Jerry Lewis can both be considered more "heroic" than Chris Reeve because they stump for causes that in no way benefit themselves personally, while Reeve and Michael J. Fox are obviously acting out of their own self-interest. That having been said, the post-accident Chris Reeve continuously impressed me with his wit and intelligence. Once, after losing his hair, he remarked that he now looked more like Lex Luthor than he did Superman. That remark alone gets him mega-props in my book. He may not have been a "hero," but he certainly was admirable.

P.S. John Kennedy may have been A hero for what he did in WWII, but he was MY hero for banging both Marilyn Monroe and Joey Heatherton.

"Or we could be heroes/Just for one day."

I've said this on other boards, but it bears repeating: Jeff, the negative backlash towards Byrne isn't so much WHAT he said but HOW he said it. He has every right to his opinion. He just chose to express it in a crass, insensitive and completely inappropriate way, much like the "Jessica Alba looks like a hooker to me" comment. His statements reek of ignorance and intolerance, and THAT'S what makes him so offensive. Whether you classify Christopher Reeve as a hero or not is a matter of interpretation and semantics; but hero or no, Byrne could have at LEAST tried to show the slightest shred of dignity and tact.

Superman is impervious to bullets.
Superman stands in front of a mugger with a gun.

Is that really heroic? That presents as much of a threat to him as a teaspoon of water does to me. Silly.

Reeves did more for his cause than most in his circumstances. Did his popularity help in that effort? Yes. Could he just as easily rolled off into obscurity, yes, and no one would have blamed him in the least. I doubt he always wanted to be on national television a broken man, but he stepped up to the plate. I wouldn't be that strong, I know it.

I like Byrne's work but he's pretty far off the mark on this one (not the first time).

Break out the torches and pitchforks! John Byrne has once again said something that people don't agree with. He had the ultimate NERVE to state his opinion of what a hero is. HOW DARE HE!? Why to give his opinion on a matter of semantics is about the worst thing anyone could ever do.

I find it hard to sympathize with cries of outrage in support of Byrne's opinions when his message board regularly deletes and bans people who say even the least bit negative thing about Byrne or his work.

As for Byrne, he can keep doing whatever books he wants for all I care. I stopped buying anything with his name on it years ago - Not because of anything he said, but just because I haven't found his work enjoyable for a long time.

Now, on to my personal definition of a hero: A hero is somebody who inspires others through word or action, to do great things that have a positive impact on the world. The fact that Reeve advocated for stem cell research out of self-interest doesn't matter. That he could make others think, "Wow, if he hasn't given up hope, then neither should I," makes him a hero in my opinion.

Other people may have different criteria for what makes someone a hero, but that's good enough for me.

As for Byrne, the only thing he inspires in me is a desire to buy somebody else's comics.

Oh darn. I really hoped to have gone totally over the top there.

Maybe it's the drugs (I'm dealing with a major leg infection-cellulitis), but I really don't see the point of everybody jumping on John Byrne for his opinion. He never degraded Christopher Reeve, just doesn't choose to refer to him as a "hero".

I honestly think Byrne has gone bonkers.

I usually don't have too much trouble separating my admiration for a celebrity's work from their personal life and ideas. I'm a big fan of Bing Crosby's acting and singing, yet by family reports he was a brutal child abuser. I think Courtney Love is a complete wacky clown, and yet the first couple Hole albums are among my favorites. I don't always agree with PAD's politics, but I'm always one of the first in line to read his comics. I think that nowadays an awful lot of what John Byrne says is the equivalent of Cartman pontificating...but that doesn't take away the fact that I really, really like much of his older work and some of his newer stuff.

My point, howver (and I do have one) is that once in a while it's a wonderful thing when we feel we can reconcile our love of a celebrity's work with the public image they project. Chris Reeve was one of them; I never met him but by most reports he was friendly and unassuming and I salute his bravery for playing the hand he was dealt with strength and dignity. If a man who worked as he did to increase awareness of paralysis isn't a hero, I don't know who is. I suppose you can make a case that the true hero is the man who was not 'forced' into the role of spokesperson for his condition, but i don't feel this diminishes Reeves's work.

(I wonder if we will feel the same about the eventual death of Michael J. Fox, another, I think, widely-regarded 'nice guy' celebrity who is doing a lot of work on behalf of stopping Parkinson's disease.)

"This all seems like part of our modern culture's mania to degrade and defile those who are better than us; we constantly thirst for heroes and and compelled to degrade anyone who comes close to that standard."

I agree, though not ALL the people who have opined that Mr Reeve was not a hero need fit the description. Mt definition of hero may well be overly broad to some. Oh well.

I do wonder at the motivations of those who are so determined to remind us that our heroes are not, in fact, heroes. For starters, you look like a dick. Is there anyone on either side of the political spectrum that doesn't see John Byrne and Tedd Rall as Brothers in Extreme Tooldom? Secondly, what's the supposed benefit you are going for? Trying to train today's youth to have only the highest standards for the word, because, God knows kids have way too many people to look up to these days. Jesus!

It's perfectly valid for someone not to feel that reeve was a hero but to spend time and effort trying to convince others to feel the same way...watta dick.

Jeff: "He never degraded Christopher Reeve, just doesn't choose to refer to him as a 'hero'".

John Byrne: "In fact, as far as how he dealt with it, he didn't even have a choice. We could imagine he spent every hour of every day (when not in front of the cameras) begging family members to simply kill him and get it over with -- but none of them did, so he had no choice but to deal with each day as it came."

What's that again about not degrading Mr. Reeve? I shouldn't press too much because you are technically correct. Mr. Reeve is beyond any degradation that Mr. Bryne could throw his way. It was simply an insensitive and hateful thing to say and he should be ashamed of it. If I had a friend or family member in the same situation and Mr. Bryne had said such filth about them, I'd want to spit in his face at the very least. He metaphorically spit in the face of Reeve's grieving friends and family for the sake of an arguemental tool. As I said before, it was shameful and he should be ashamed.

All that said, I'm against any type of attempt to organize any type of boycott or get him ousted by DC. If he's offended someone to the point that they can no longer get any pleasure out of his books, then they should stop buying. As PAD said, "I'd still b[u]y "Next Men" if he ever did it again. I'm currently buying Doom Patrol. I'm not going to stop unless the BOOK disappoints, not if Mr. Bryne does.

One final note. On another message board I read talk of someone considering burning his FFs that were done by Bryne. Although it is the right of someone to use or dispose of their property as they see fit I would suggest that anyone considering this or any similiar act of destruction instead sell the relavent works on eBay and donate the proceeds to the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation. It would likely be as emotionally satisfying and be much more likely to accomplish some good in this world.

" much like the "Jessica Alba looks like a hooker to me" comment."

Was this Byrne's comment? I've been seeing references to a hooker comment that had people cheesed off at him. Was this it?

And, if he's referring the the Alba as Sue Storm comment, well, she does looke like a hooker. I know sex sells and all, but yeesh, shouldn't Sue Storm have a covered neckline, rather than a plunging one? I thought the FF movie was supposed to be a family film...

I'm not hacked off over Byrne's opinion; rather, I'm hacked off over his smug, misleading, self-conceived empirical categorization of Reeve as a non-hero. To say that Reeve had no choice as to how he faced his affliction is ludicrous. He did more with his ten years as a quadrapelegic than many fully mobile folks do with their whole life. It's also funny to me that Byrne feels that Reeve showed courage in the sheer act of waking up but categorizes him as a non-hero through absense of choice. Funny, I've always been under the impression that courage WAS a choice.

Well said, Pad, well said.

John Byrne's a jerk for making such a comment.

I've heard stories that Reeve was a very decent man. I also had the chance to meet him and I saw for myself what a decent man he was. I even wrote him a letter about what he has done and he responded to me. This was last year.

The man is a hero. Let's honor his memory and not degrade it.

I just read my previous post and realized that the way I wrote it is misleading and makes it look like some of my own words are a quote of PAD's the correct text is:

As PAD said, "I'd still b[u]y "Next Men" if he ever did it again." I'm currently buying Doom Patrol. I'm not going to stop unless the BOOK disappoints, not if Mr. Bryne does.

I previously neglected to close the quote and made it look like my words were his. Sorry about that Mr. David

Clay wrote:

"When we discuss Christopher Reeve, we discuss a man who single-handedly shifted the paradigm on how modern science views paralysis."

Much as I admired Reeve's advocacy efforts for those suffering from spinal cord injuries and degenerative nerve diseases, I think "single-handedly" is a extremely presumptuous.

Yes, he was the most visible spokesperson for such afflictions, but there has been an army of scientists, doctors and other paralysis suffers who made astonishing inroads in this area long before Reeve took his fall.

As for Reeve being a hero, though some on this thread have questioned that label, I believe absolutely that Reeve was a hero. The dictionary defines a hero as one who is distinguished for valor or fortitude. Fortitude, by definition, is "strength of mind to meet or endure unfalteringly pain, adversity or peril." Heroes also inspire, and Reeve certainly did that.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Re: Byrne and Jessica Alba.

What Byrne said in response to the press photo of Alba in her Sue Storm costume was that all Hispanic women who dye their hair blonde look like hookers.

(In fact, I would love to see the completed tat, and I've got the $10 donation required, but you've got to make down to Memphis to get it :)).

Hey Critter42,
you're a Memphis local too? We need to get a convention in town so we can bring PAD to town for some Barbecue (hmmm... I'l bet ribs are out. Maybe a Huey Burger).

If you get a chance, head over to TimmyCon this Saturday.
http://www.suspiciousmindtrick.net/TIMMYCON!.htm
I won't be able to make it, but some friends interested in Star Wars and comics and stuff are putting it on.

-Joe

PS - Yeah, Byrne's bein' a dick. Big surprise. Christopher Reevs will always be one of my heroes.

I get the feeling Byrne made those comments just to get attention...anyways I wholly disagree with what he said and especially in saying after Chris Reeve died..

"Much as I admired Reeve's advocacy efforts for those suffering from spinal cord injuries and degenerative nerve diseases, I think "single-handedly" is a extremely presumptuous."

Without taking anything away from the accomplishments of his predecessors, I was trying to emphasize the fact that Reeve's recovery broke ground in terms of what was considered "impossible" by many experts in the field. Bruce Lee is another great example, all of his famous films were produced after a debilitating back injury which prompted many doctors to tell him he'd never walk again.

I also read an interview with one of Reeve's physicians who stated that the body of research concerning spinal cord injuries had advanced more in the past five yearts than in the past fifty, and that Reeve's advocacy and recovery was a big factor in that trend.

I do see Reeve's contribution as singular and outstanding, but I in no way meant to demean the contributions of others. Reeve's recovery was undoubtedly made possible not only through his own willingness to challenge the status quo, but by the physicians and researchers who were willing to do so as well.

I think Marc Buoniconti has done as much if not more than Chris Reeve to further paralysis research and awareness.

Nevertheless I would favor the USPS creating a Chris Reeve postage stamp, at a face value of 50 cents, with the additional 13 cents going to paralysis research.

Heroism is about courage, sacrifice and facing challenges greater then yourself. It doesn't matter when you find the courage to face a challenge, but that you do. So for those, including Byrne, who say that if he only began to act after the accident, a man like Reeve then only acted in a selfish bid for self-preservation.....well, quite frankly, bite me.

What the man fought for in his last years was mounumentally important. Both the work itself, and the fact that as a cultural icon he was able to humanize the plight of his cause for people around the world. What he had to go through with his disability was a horror that goes beyond what most of us could imagine. And how he, and others with similar disabilities, are able to overcome the instinct to just shut down and give up is an act of heroism in and of itself.

I completely agree that the word Hero is overused on a daly basis. But not in this case. So go spread that cynical, Ayn Rand-esque manure somewhere else. It's misplaced.

I fall somewhere between Peter and Byrne on the question of what makes a hero but I have to say...

a) I think it would be a courtesy to link Byrne's full message rather than just a quote
2) Is Byrne not thinking that Reeve was heroic really sufficient reason to call him a 'prick'?

I wonder if this anti Reeve posturing by Byrne and others is due to politics. After all Bush is anti Stem Cell and Kerry is in favor of it.

I can see what Byrne's getting at, in his oh-so-personable way. I recall that episode of The Simpsons where Bart pretends to fall down a well and Homer calls the kid a "hero." Lisa asks him why he's a hero, and Homer's response is, "Have you ever fallen down a well?" or something along those lines.

Luigi made an interesting point about the Challenger astronauts being called heroes. I say interesting because I did believe that they were heroic...in fact, I think that astronauts are one of the last possible heroes left on this planet...always have. I guess to me, heroism is about sacrifice. And I ask myself, what did Reeve sacrifice? To be honest, to NOT have killed himself speaks volumes (and remember, he did think about it at first). I don't see stumping for causes overly heroic; I don't see donating money and time to things when you have money and time to spare terribly heroic. However, dealing with a horrifying situation straight on, and with optimism, that means more to me than anything else.

I dunno. I guess the only thing I know for sure is that I can see the germ of what Byrne's saying, but he's still an ass...

J. Alexander said:
"After all Bush is anti Stem Cell and Kerry is in favor of it."

Is there an award for most egregiously misleading statement on this board?

That quote is the full message IIRC.

I never got to meet Christopher Reeve myself, but I've interviewed at least half a dozen people that worked him, and without exception, they had nice things to say about him. As I value the opinion of a couple of these people very highly, I'm prepared to take them at their word.

John Byrne on the other hand, I have met on three different occasions, all at conventions over a period of two or three years. The first time I met him, he acted like a jerk. The second time I met him, he acted like a jerk. The third time I met him, he acted like a really big jerk. As you can imagine, I had no great motivation to speak to him at subsequent appearances!

I have to come down smack in the middle of this.

John Byrne is 100% right, in my opinion, that being a Hero requires making a choice (or taking an action or a stand).

Policemen, firemen, and soldiers are *not* heroes. Not all of them, as a group. Nobody get a freebie designation of Hero just because of their career choice. After all, when it comes to a firefight or a car chase or a burning building, some of them turn tail and run. You're probably more liekly to get heroic actions from a fireman than from a comic book writer, of course, but they also get put in situations which tend toward that end.

On the flip side, I'll acknowledge Reeve as a Hero: he made the choice, took the action, took the stand. He went beyond what he had to do into what he could do, facing down adversity in the process.

Maybe where Byrne is off is in thinking (but not stating) that Hero requires Bravery.  I can't say that Reeve was Brave, necessarily. Courageous, perhaps (subtle shaidng of difference there), or other words I can't come up with at the moment. Maybe there are two types of Hero to be looked at here: those who persist in the face of physical danger, and those who persist in the face of other aversity.  Many firemen are in the first clasee; Reeve was in the second.

I think there's a great discomfort for people, even ones like myself who think there's a pretty high standard for what makes a hero, when someone makes the positive claim that someone ISN'T a hero. I don't think I personally would have ever independently used the term 'hero' to describe Reeve but I'm a little confused about why anyone would go out of their way to argue the point absent any kind of context.

This is just silly. Of course Christopher Reeve is a hero. No, not because of his accident. He did make a choice. He appeared in front of all sorts of groups of people on behalf of stem cell
research. That's important, too because our President has aligned himself with religious right-wing zealots. Reeve kept himself going working for his cause. He showed that if he could find a purpose in his life, anyone else can find purpose in their's.

You know i used to like John byrne's work as a kid.Then at some point his work just started stinking out loud to me.Now i just have the reality of his being a complete JERK confirmed.I would use stronger terms but im trying not to be a pottymouth.
Christopher Reeve,Micheal J.Fox and Janet Reno all reacted to their illness in way i consider very heroic.It would have been easy to be a recluse and keep the images people have of them in their minds as is ,instead they have all made appearances and openly talk about their conditions.
As someone else mentioned for Mr Reeve to be so positive about his life says so much about him as a man.I work in the medical field and trust as bad as we all piss and moan about our lives ,someone is always worse.In my experience ,people that were nice before they got sick are nice afterwards.Yes they,may get down and bitter but the true person is shown when life throws them a bad turn.Based on his optimism and what i have seen and read about him Christopher Reeve is a hero.
" What Byrne said in response to the press photo of Alba in her Sue Storm costume was that all Hispanic women who dye their hair blonde look like hookers."
What an asshole this guy must be in real life.

it seems he is still inspiring us. Many of us that disagree vociferously on many subjects are agreeing on this one. Another win in his favor! :)

I never gave any thought to whether Christopher Reeve was a hero or not. It was inspiring of the progress he was making and I kept up on his improvements. The superbowl commercial really had me.. I believed a man could walk.

As I'm writing this, Yes.. he is a hero. There are many that he has inspired to do better.. to work harder. Everyone has handicaps to deal with. His were far worse than most of ours will ever be. If he can fight against them, then who are we not to? A hero inspires us to do better.

John Byrne is well entitled to his opinion. I can't believe he would make such a post, but I can understand his reasonings. People are going to his site to read his opinions on matters. We just don't have to agree with them.

I support George Bush and it bugs me reading PAD's political views on here. But its his site and we're here to read what he thinks. I'm still going to buy every Book and comic he puts out regardless. I just wish he'd come out to Dallas more often. It would be nice to see him at Wizard World Texas.

I don't understand why teachers in public schools are not considered heroes.

I think it is fair to say that there can be a degree to which someone is "heroic." Someone who is faithful to teach in a school can be inspiring to a kid. A teacher who is faithful in a school that is plagued with violence, etc., could perhaps be seen as more heroic because of the increase in danger. A fireman or military person who goes into danger to protect another could be seen as more "heroic" in the sense that they had a greater risk and more to lose.

I don't count most of my teachers as "heroic" but I do see them as role models and find them inspiring. But it is disappointing that a sports player or actor can be seen as more "heroic" simply on the basis of their position, not because of what they do. (By the same token, not all policemen, firemen, military persons, etc., are heroic just because they held the position.)

I repeat what I said in my first post. Christopher Reeves was a heroic to me, and I think many people, by his decision to reach his potential in spite of the enormous difficulty invovled. And in the process, he clearly reached out and helped others.

One other note: I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research (which is only one part of the wider field of stem cell research). But I can easily respect and admire C. Reeves in spite of his views on the issue. I have yet to hear one conservative friend ever say something negative about C Reeves (as a person) because of his political views. Obviously I can't say no one has ever done so, but the suggestion earlier that this is what is polarizing this debate about whether Reeves should be considered heroic is just a wild speculation that has no basis in fact. Sorry to burst the bubble of a few of you out there, but there is such a thing as a compasionate conservative.

Jim in Iowa

A friend of mine worked in Hollywood since Sid Caesar's heyday. She has a long list of pricks she encountered and some wonderful stories about some of the folks with whom she worked. She knew Chris before his accident. She said he was always a warm and wonderful guy. I have never met anyone who had met Chris who disagreed.

She told me that he would still get requests for autographs although paralysed. He sometimes joked that perhaps he should bite the photos, thereby leaving a dental signature of sorts.

Not to drag politics into it, but I think it might do to remember that John is rather conservative in his political beliefs, and upon Reeve's death many conservative online hangouts were less than kind to him, mostly (from what I can tell) due to their mistaken belief that stem cells come from aborted foetuses (foeti?) rather than fertility clinics. Also, as some people on this thread have noted, Reeve was indeed very active and charitable before his accident, but the causes for which he fought were unabashedly liberal ones (I recall all his work on behalf of actors' unions, for instance).

Maybe, but then again maybe JB is just being an ass. Being conservative doesn't make me mourn Reeve less. To me he is Superman, Richard Collier and a man who shouldered an amazing burden with grace and dignity. I may disagree with Reeve politically, but I don't think his death is the time to take him to task for it.

Byrne does have a general point about the use of the word hero, but Reeve's death probably isn't the most appropriate time to make it.

A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles. - Christopher Reeve

The thing about Byrne's comment is this:

He's not going to get any work at Marvel as long as Joe Quesada is the Editor In Chief. I highly doubt he'll get work at Image. He hasn't worked at Dark Horse in a while.

Why make this point about a guy, Reeve who made a lot of money for the company you currently work for, DC/AOL Time Warner, especially when finding similar work at a similar company is nearly impossible?

If DC decides to fire Byrne over these comments- not likely, but possible- where is he going to go?

All this so he can have get into an academic discussion over the meaning of heroism that denigrates the work of a guy that just died.

As a response to TCJohnson above:

Dr. Eades sounds like a hero to me.

I was just writing part of an editorial for the next issue of Impact and felt compelled to mention both Reeve and the nature of 'hero'. I guess this thread makes it relevant to cut and paste one of the paragraphs I wrote...

***

The term ‘hero’ is bandied around quite freely nowadays. All you have to do is be a successful one-hit-wonder pop act, have a bit part in a soap or be the victim of a tragedy and certain elements of the press will automatically crown you as the new hero of the masses, whatever the truth or circumstance. Comic artist John Byrne (still perhaps best known for his seminal work on The X-Men back in the early 1980s) recently made a comment at his website to that effect and he has a point. However he then went on to say that he didn’t see anything heroic about the life of Christopher Reeve, a man who, he felt, had little choice in how he faced the world after his riding accident. It is here we must vastly disagree. News of the actor (who personified Superman for a generation) and campaigner’s death came just as we went to press for last issue and we present a bigger tribute to him this month. Reeve wasn’t a hero because of his injury. Arguably he wasn’t even a hero because he decided not to give in and die after the accident that left him paralysed from the neck down (though it must have required a great deal of bravery, strength of spirit and love for his wife). No, what made Reeve a hero was the way he didn’t merely survive, but actually ‘lived’. He decided he would not be defined by his paralysis and went on to actively and successfully campaign for those suffering similar conditions. It is without doubt that his willingness to spearhead the campaign for spinal injury research and his refusal to ever give in to despair, that inspired many, many people to do the same. It is very likely that his determination will eventually play a part in helping others to walk again. Christopher Reeve once made us believe a man could fly. Later and more importantly, he made us believe a man could walk. He took a tragedy and didn’t merely endure it, but turned it into a triumph. THAT, Mr Byrne, is what makes a hero of anyone.

Byrne's not the typical conservative. He doesn't revere the founding fathers, he's an atheist, he's pro-gay rights and (I think) pro-reproductive rights. He does, apparently, vote Republican, which I find incongruous considering his views. (If he were very wealthy it'd make sense, but I don't think he's ever achieved, say, McFarlane-level wealth.)

I'm on the Byrne board. I opted to not contribute to the debate over Chris Reeve's heroism or lack thereof.

Now Role Model is something I'd call Mr. Reeve

I believe John Byrne is a DICK.

In fact, Satan just bluetoothed me that when the myopic bastard kicks-- we're going to clear an entire wing down here just to give him *extra* special attention.

My only hope is that Heaven will lend us Chris long enough to exact some good ol' fashioned ass-kicking justice on the bastard when he arrives.

Peter, bravo for offering to buy any future Next Men. I applaud your being able to push aside the personal to savor the creative.

Personally, the only thing I'll buy with John Byrne's name attached to it will be a newspaper featuring his OBIT.

Ray--Is it possible Byrne WANTS to get fired so he can proclaim himself a true hero, defender of the first amendment and all that?

"I don't understand why teachers in public schools are not considered heroes."

I think I can speak for most of them when I say Thank you for the compliment, but most of us actually like the job. I didn't give up a better paying job in the exciting world of soybean oil chemistry because I wanted to be a hero. I wanted a more interesting job.

Helping kids through tough times or going to bat for them during various crisis' also gets the "hero" word bandied about, but to me that's just common decency.

Lots of people besides teachers do things we desperately need. That's why when folks talk about how we should get more pay I readily agree (not being, you know, stupid) but let's face it, the town does just fine for 2 months in the summer without me, as opposed to how it would do if the Garbage Man left.

BUT...if you see teachers as heroes, that's just fine and I'm not going to talk you out of it. Similarly, when one reads an obituary where some guy died "after heroically fighting a brave battle against cancer" one should certainly not feel obligated to call up the widow and whine about how he wasn't a hero at all, just a guy with carcinoma cells who suffered through the chemotherapy because the only option was death. Unless you're a total asswipe, that is.

(Actually, I think dying well, with dignity and courage is quite heroic. It brings comfort to those around you and stands as an example for others to aspire to when, as it will, it becomes their time. When Fabrizio Quattrocchi, an Italian hostage taken by the islamofascists in Iraq was about to be killed like the others, he tried to pull off his mask and shouted "Now I will show you how an Italian dies!" The resulting tape was not deemed by Al-Jazeera suitable for viewing. Too gruesome, they said. Not good propaganda, I say. Quattrocchi may not be a hero to Byrne any more than Nathan Hale--neither had much choice in what happened to them--but being able to look death in the eye and deny one's killers any sense of satisfaction, to, in fact, demean them in their own eyes...gotta admire it.)

First, a quote from the early SIMPSONS:

Homer : Yeah, that Timmy O'Tool is a real hero.
Lisa : How so dad?
Homer : Well... he fell in a well... and he can't get out.
Lisa : How does that make him a hero?
Homer : Well it's more then you've done.

That said, Christopher Reeve was one of the biggest advocates for stem cell research. If he had retired himself away, wallowing in pity and sorrow, no one would have begrudged him that. Instead, he put himself out there, taking a stand on a controversial issue. He worked hard, fought hard, and even returned to acting after his accident (SMALLVILLE and THE PRACTICE leap to mind). It's probable that the word "hero" is tossed about too lightly, but I have no problem using that word for the late Christopher Reeve.

First, I am dismayed that the open-minded, tolerant left would seem to think that all conservative right-wingers would be cruel and unkind in regrards to the death of Christopher Reeve just because of his support of Kerry, stem cell research, and his political beliefs. When death and grief strike a family, politics become meaningless.

Second, I will be the first to admit, I can't figure John Byrne out. I love his work. Many comments about comics, the industry, etc. I can agree with. Other things he has said on his message board I can't quite figure out where he is coming from. Mainly because I have met him three different times at the three different conventions. And he has been polite and professional each of those times. I remember once that I got up to his table that I had so many questions I wanted to ask him, but not enough time considering the long line of fans behind me. He told me to just step to one side and ask away. I was so stunned that my mind went blank and I just quietly walked away as he GAVE a kid an autographed comic instead of the convention program the kid had.

Third,

Yeah, Christopher Reeve is a hero to this right-wing,born-again Christian. Irregarless of his relgious beliefs, politics, etc. the man inspired. As a comicbook geek, it is thanks to him that I now know how Superman flies and can fool people with a pair of glasses. After his accident, he reminded me to appreciate my aching legs and tired feet at the end of a long work day standing on concrete. And his passing reminds me to check out the sunsets a little longer, enjoy the scent of wet, fallen leaves in the early morning rain a little more deeply, hug a loved one a little tighter.

Hang in there and take care!
Scott E. Hileman

I think Byrne needs to go see a heart specialist.
It seems apparent to me that he is not getting enough oxygen to his brain.

The actor who played Superman in the 50s was named Reeves. The actor who just died was named Reeve.

He had been around long enough for everybody to know that, I would have thought.

I personally don't like using the term "hero" for almost everyone under the sun and reserve it for people who, like, jump in front of bullets or pull bodies out of flaming cars and the like. Standard Superhero-ism, maybe, but that's what a life of comic books did to me.

Christopher Reeve was inspirational, an awesome guy, and a hellova fighter. Did tons of great stuff even after he got paralysed. But unless he threw someone out of the way of an oncoming truck I don't think he's a hero.

Hero to me is Life or Death stuff. 9/11 firefighters - those guys were heroes. Saving someone from dying or trying to save someone from dying - that's my own personal view of heroism. You use the term too much and too loosely it decreases its value.

I personally don't like using the term "hero" for almost everyone under the sun and reserve it for people who, like, jump in front of bullets or pull bodies out of flaming cars and the like. Standard Superhero-ism, maybe, but that's what a life of comic books did to me.

Um. I'm not sure that's a very ringing endorsement of your position.

I think a definition of hero ALSO encompasses a moral example that others can follow, By your definition, superheroes aren't really heroes, because the risks they take are much lower than for the rest of us--Superman facing bullets is not the same as your or I facing bullets. And people like Sherlock Holmes are not heroes either, because their main mode of operation is the use isn't the flashy, death defying feat. They may catch the bad guy by seeing what others don't, but they're not heroes according to your definition.

I don't think that's a very good definition.

>>PAD:

>Yeah, well, them fans, they do love to talk. I mean, according to some, I'm a wild-eye, extreme liberal nut who gets off on attacking people, rather than the sweet, lovable, non-confrontational candy-ass I truly am

Mmmm....candy.

[i]Um. I'm not sure that's a very ringing endorsement of your position.

I think a definition of hero ALSO encompasses a moral example that others can follow, By your definition, superheroes aren't really heroes, because the risks they take are much lower than for the rest of us--Superman facing bullets is not the same as your or I facing bullets. And people like Sherlock Holmes are not heroes either, because their main mode of operation is the use isn't the flashy, death defying feat. They may catch the bad guy by seeing what others don't, but they're not heroes according to your definition.[/i]

Well I was just being flip with the Superhero example. Don't read too much into it.

To put it more simply, to me, a hero is saving a life. Be it in combat saving a buddy, or fighting in a war (by extention this war will save lives down the line), stoping someone from killing someone, the bodies pulled from cars, getting someone out of flaming wreckage, that kinda stuff. Firefighters, cops, people who protect others at the risk of themselves. Hell, if a "Doctor X" cures cancer or AIDS he's a hero because he saved lives.

That's not definite: You can say if a goalie saves alot of goals in a series - they were the "hero" of that game. Its a very facetious usage of the term, but in the strictest sense they were the "hero" of the game. They saved the day. But there's a *huge* difference between a sports hero and an honest-to-God true life hero.

I think providing a moral example is inspirational, but not heroism. To get back to the main example: Christopher Reeve was inspirational and brave. He was a great man who everyone should look up too. But personally I don't like throwing around the term "hero" unless someone else's life is on the line.

This is going to get really circular in abit, though, as all arguments on the net are.

But I thought John Bryne's definition of heroism being defined by "having a choice" is silly. You could have someone not want to be in a situation (ie. draftees, as PAD mentioned) but thier actions they do something heroic by saving someone else.

and so on and so on and so on;
Al

This may be off-topic, but I can't help but think of Superman 4: The Quest for Peace, a movie that took a strong stand for nuclear disarmament. Chris Reeve was passionate about this issue and felt it important enough for Superman to address. Sure, the movie is pretty bad (A demolished Great Wall of China being rebuilt by Superman's "brick'o'vision"?!) but it had a lot of heart.

For a long time Chris has felt the burden of being a hero. Funny to think that now it's Superman's burden to live up to Chris's legacy.

"First, I am dismayed that the open-minded, tolerant left would seem to think that all conservative right-wingers would be cruel and unkind in regrards to the death of Christopher Reeve just because of his support of Kerry, stem cell research, and his political beliefs."

Speaking as an open-minded, tolerant leftist, I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I've studiously avoided making this about politics, and have condemned no one on this matter based on their belief about stem cell research.

PAD

[i]"Well I was just being flip with the Superhero example. Don't read too much into it."[/i]
[i]"I think providing a moral example is inspirational, but not heroism. To get back to the main example: Christopher Reeve was inspirational and brave. He was a great man who everyone should look up too. But personally I don't like throwing around the term "hero" unless someone else's life is on the line."[/i]

I don't have to look very hard to read too much into it.
The notion that someone can only be a hero if he risks his life or saves someone else's life is such a narrow view of the word hero, that it can only be the product of a mind that can only deal in comic book terms of black and white.
That must be why Byrne has the views he has. It's evident in some of his arguments that he is incapable of using or even understanding a dictionary.

Byrne's comments explain why his writing sucks, he actually has no idea of what a hero is. This explains his Superman plots.

CR is a easy target, he can't confront him like real live people do (EG PAD)

Thanks to PAD for responding, I couldn't be bothered to respond on the Byrne Idiotics website, I'd probably get banned so sharply even if I could bring myself to digitally sign the nazi like terms and conditions.

Oh look I didn't have to do that here.

its a pity this has become about dissecting a personality... there isn't much point at this stage.

would like to say thankyou for PADs words.. wise in general. More of THESE kinds of words are needed, wisdom about those in our life, as opposed to the kind of gossip and speculation that sells magazines.

Everyone needs a hero to believe in at difficult times in their pives and i'm sure for some, Christopher symbolized just the hero they needed to inspire them to keep going every day. He knoew that was part of his public responsibility, and he seemed to bear that hefty responsibility quite graciously.

"Heroism, I believe, involves choice"

Damned out of his own mouth. Yes, heroism does involve choice. Reeve had the choice, after his accident, to fade into the background, live a private life, sit all day whining about cruel fate and an indifferent universe....or "take up arms against that sea of troubles", which he did by staying public, campaigning, and proving through his work that a disability is not a complete inability. He provided a role model and an inspiration for people in similar situations, and made some of those not in that situation think about the relative inconsequentialness of their own petty complaints.
A hero is that person who sets a bar to measure yourself against. I'm surprised to see that John, who might very well have faded into obscurity by now had it not been for Superman, and had Reeve not boosted the flagging popularity of that character, cannot recognize the value of a person like Reeve. It's pretty sad when the people who create our heroes no longer believe in heroes.

Reeves was self-serving. As is Michael J. Fox. That doesn't make them bad people, considering they just decided to give to charities that might save their lives AFTER they got a life threatening disease. But they are by no means heros. I cannot stand when people call cancer survivors heros. My grandpa died from cancer, does that mean he wasn't a hero? Because he gave up? Of course not, it has nothing to do with that. You get the kemo, and you either live or die. It doesn't make you a hero if you live, it just means your body could withstand it. The term hero is used WAY too loosely for people who doesn't deserve it.

Not sure if it has been said as I have not looked through all 111 (!!!!!) posts but the question I have is what kind of person waits until a person passes away to make a twisted comment like this? He was thought of as a hero before he died because of all the work he was doing, why didn't Byrne make the comment then. Seems kinda low to me.

"Speaking as an open-minded, tolerant leftist, I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I've studiously avoided making this about politics, and have condemned no one on this matter based on their belief about stem cell research."

For the record, it was Elayne Riggs who made the comment that someone who was non-supportive of Reeve possibly because they were a conservative, so that's how politics was brought into this.

But the real reason I posted is to list my agreement. Reeve is a here. Period. 3 years ago my cousin became paralized from the neck down. He was 17, the football star in his school, and had a great life in front of him. I'm not sure if he would be alive today without Christopher Reeve's work. On top of any motivation Christopher may or may not have supplied to my cousin, my cousin also was enrolled into Christopher Reeves program in St. Louis, where many of the ground breaking treatments are taking place thanks to Reeves' work. If my cousin is ever even partially healed, it will be due in no small part to Christopher Reeves' efforts.

Oh and for the record, my cousin is now living his life, attending college, and generally living again. Something we didn't expect to see him do, so I've seen the stuggle it takes for someone to keep on living in the face of this type of adversity.

Kent Lee, I think you're missing the point. Mr. Reeve was a hero because he inspired people. You are totally right in saying that his actions were self-serving, in that if he was successful in garnering enough support that some regenerative/replacement procedure was developed that would restore to him the use of his body would be developed while he was still alive. How does this make him less an inspiring figure?

Cancer survivors are heroes to some. So are cancer victims. My grandfather also died of cancer. Yet he withstood the terrible pain he was in for the last years of his life quietly and with dignity. Is he less heroic because he died? Of course not. He's heroic for the example he se, for me and my family, for showing us how to deal with the things life brings to you. He could have gone out whimpering, complaining, bemoaning his fate, asking "why me?" And maybe he did have those moments when he indulged in those acts. But the face he presented to us was one of a man determined to not collapse in the face of his pain and fear.

I think you can argue with someone over the acts and people they decide are heroes to them, but you can't really tell people who their heroes can or should be. It's a very personal aspect, to decide who you look to for inspiration. And your viewpoint heavily influences that.

I'll use an example from Smallville: According to the native american legend in the show, Clark is destined to have his closest friend become his mortal enemy. Yet we "know" that Clark will one day become the hero Superman.

Lex, while dicussing the legend with Clark, says maybe it's the OTHER guy, who everyone assumes will be the villian, that's really the hero. Because if the Superman is supposed to have all these powers, wouldn't it take a man of incredible courage to stand up against that power? So, which one you decide is the hero really depends on how you look at things.

Kent:

>Reeves was self-serving. As is Michael J. Fox. That doesn't make them bad people, considering they just decided to give to charities that might save their lives AFTER they got a life threatening disease. But they are by no means heros. I cannot stand when people call cancer survivors heros. My grandpa died from cancer, does that mean he wasn't a hero? Because he gave up? Of course not, it has nothing to do with that. You get the kemo, and you either live or die. It doesn't make you a hero if you live, it just means your body could withstand it. The term hero is used WAY too loosely for people who doesn't deserve it.

Kent, although we are all self-serving, Reeve didn't simply serve himself. He did acts of charity well before his accident, but also made 1-on-1 visits to others who were disabled after he had been confined to his chair. Not for cameras or self-promotion or even an agenda that I can figure out. The latest issue of People Magazine is probably the most recent source of specific instances of this.

Fred

"Mr. Reeve was a hero because he inspired people. "

And I'm sure Osama bin Ladin, Timothy McVeigh, and Charles Manson inspired quite a few people. Does that make them heroes?

Bladstar:

>>"Mr. Reeve was a hero because he inspired people. "

>And I'm sure Osama bin Ladin, Timothy McVeigh, and Charles Manson inspired quite a few people. Does that make them heroes?

To those whom they inspired, sure. A tricky term because, as others have pointed out, it is subjective.

Reeves was self-serving. As is Michael J. Fox. That doesn't make them bad people, considering they just decided to give to charities that might save their lives AFTER they got a life threatening disease.

Um, no.

Aside from his charitable work before the accident (which meant merely that the target of his charitable work changed), you can do substantial things in this area and still not come anywhere near what Reeve did with his life. As someone in the non-profit world, I know what he did is WAAAAAYYYY above and beyond the call of duty. Many folks could get buy with a check, use of his name and a public appearance every two years or two, but what he did was astonishingly overwhelming for an unaffected person, let alone for someone with his condition.

Bladestar wrote: And I'm sure Osama bin Ladin, Timothy McVeigh, and Charles Manson inspired quite a few people. Does that make them heroes?

No, not for most people. Inherent in the idea of "hero" is that there is something "noble" or "good" in them that we want to emulate.

The examples you cite may "inspire" a few people. But at least for virtually anyone on this post, they do not inspire us to something greater than ourselves, to something good for everyone. When you look at history, you rarely (I can't think of any) find a figure such as Osama Bin Laden who people want to emulate today. He has never built anything, he has only torn things down. Yes, the cliche is that history is written by the victors, but they have to leave something and someone behind to write it. People like Manson and McVeigh do not inspire more than a very small radical fringe.

Jim in Iowa

Well, Bladestar, let's see if I can get this one across with it's meaning intact.

Do I consider bin Ladin and and others like him, who advocate the use of terror and murder as a means to accomplish their goals? No, no, and emphatically no.

However, do I think that there aren't people in the world who DO consider these people heroes? Unfortunately, I don't. I think it's a practical fact that for people who advocate the use of terrorism find bin Ladin and McVey and Manson to be heroes. I think those people are sick and twisted, and would really rather not have to share the earth with them, but that isn't going to make them go away.

I'll try to get my point across again. Hero is a subjective, not an objective, term. One person's hero is another person's villian. Is Beowulf a hero because he slays Grendal? To the people Grendal was eating, sure he is. But what about to Grendal's family? Beowulf is a murderer in their eyes, and hardly a hero.

And now that I see Fred Chamberlain's post, I can see that at least someone understood me.

One of the best plots we have in our entertainment is the interaction between the hero and the villian. Some of the best stories examine just how close the hero and villian are to each other. Take Fallen Angel (which, I'm happy to state, I just completed my collection, getting my last back issue to bring me current). Is Lee a hero? Is Juris? Or are both somewhere in between?

Heck, I've been told that I'm a hero to some, because in 9th grade, when I was a skinny little nuthin kid, I went out for track (sprints) and started off so bad that even the 40something, not in shape coach could beat he (in practice, saying nothing about competition) but in 4 years of work I ended up being a state-qualifying sprinter. Did I set out to be a hero? A role model? Heck no, I just wanted to run fast. But through my actions, regardless of my motivations, I ended up being that hero.

Do I call myself a hero? No. Well, outside of this story, anyway. Does that stop me from being one? I guess not, so long as there are those who still tell that story. Will everyone see me as a hero because of it? I hope not, cause personally I think that's a silly thing to be called a hero for.

Point being, once again, that Hero is a subjective term, totally depending on your point of view. Christopher Reeve was a hero to many, many people, evidenced by the reaction to Mr. Byrne's comments about him. Osama bin Ladin, seen by most Americans as a world-class villian, is seen by his supporters as a Nation-beating Hero.

Well said, PAD.

I was one of the ones that went over to the John Byrne site to state how I was offended by his comments, not just about Christopher Reeve being a hero or not, but more by the second half of his comments about asking to be killed everyday.

Yes, at first Reeve admitted thinking and talking about ending it all, but only at first....after his family and his faith sustained him through that period he turned around and become a powerful advocate for paralysis research, and also went around the country giving speeches of hope.

I'd say he's a hero, and deserves better than to have those achievements belittled by an overly narrow and controlling view of what a hero should be. I mean, the man just died, and Byrne's arguing semantics??

That was my point kingbobb, it wasn't aimed at you per se, but more at the people who keep asserting the CR is/was a hero as if it were a fact.

Hero status is strictly opinion in the eye of the beholder, not a status that can be granted by fiat of not giving up...

ANd what if CR had been an ordinary Joe rather than a rich actor?

What if he'd been a regular poor/middle-class who justcouldn't afford all the medical care and physical therapists and the like, and his hanging on to life would've destroyed his family's future, plunging them into financial ruin?

Not a hero just because he's rich and crippled...
An example to others beset with a sudden handicap, but not a hero.

Bladestar asked: "ANd what if CR had been an ordinary Joe rather than a rich actor?"

It is pretty well-known that Reeve was not that financially well-off and that his old friend, Robin Williams, paid all of Reeve's medical expenses.

I have only heard good things spoken about Christopher Reeve, both before and after his accident. He probably had his moments like most people. That being said, I must respond to what Mister Byrne said.

In my opinion, his work in comics has gone downhill after Next Men, and he's trying to get some much needed publicity. Now, I'm going to pick apart his quote.

"I have noticed that people have begun referring to Christopher Reeve as a "hero". I do not wish to take away one iota of the courage he must have needed not to wake up screaming every single day, but the hard truth is there was nothing "heroic" in what happened to him, or how he dealt with it. In fact, as far as how he dealt with it, he didn't even have a choice."

Okay first of all, Reeve did NOT have a choice as far as the horse riding accident, meaning he didn't choose to fall off the horse and get a broken neck. He DID have a choice about continuing to live or not after the accident. In fact, Reeve himself told Barbara Walters that he considered suicide until he saw his children. He made a choice to live for his family, BUT he did NOT have a choice about being in a wheelchair.

"We could imagine he spent every hour of every day (when not in front of the cameras) begging
family members to simply kill him and get it over with -- but none of them did, so he had no choice but to deal with each day as it came."

See what I said in the previous paragraph. Reeve wanted to live for his family. Why in the name of Hell would he ask those that he's living for to kill him? He CHOSE to live and deal with each day as they come, unlike what Mister Byrne believe.

Speaking as a disabled person, I did not CHOOSE to be born premature and have a lack of oxygen to my brain at birth cause me to not have the use of my legs. However, I DID CHOOSE to live. I live day to day. I choose to live for my wife and for our pets. I choose to live to see my wife give birth to children someday. I choose to live to see those same children get married and have children of their. I choose live to one day see a comic book I wrote published. I made a choice to live despite all adversities. HOWEVER, I DID NOT choose to have a disability.

Heroism, I believe, involves choice."

Okay, I disagree with Mister Byrne completely. I'll give some real world and fictional examples to show heroism is not a choice. It in fact depends on situations.

A fireman doesn't CHOOSE to go into a burning building to save someone. They REACT to situations as they occur. They CHOOSE to be firemen.

The people that saved others in the Twin Towers. They reacted to situations without thinking of the consequences to themselves.

A person doesn't CHOOSE to jump in the water at the moment a person is about to drown. That pwerson REACTS to the situation.

Superman did not choose to be a hero. The upbringing of the Kents helped make him the way he is.

Batman did not choose to be a hero. The death of his parents made him want to do what he does.

Spider-Man did not choose to be a hero. The death of Uncle Ben at the hands of a burglar he could have stopped made him become a hero.

In closing, I honestly hope one day Mister Byrne can understand what it's like to be disabled, or at least see firsthand what a disabled person goes through and how they get the courage to live day to day.

JHL

Would that we all had "well-off" friend to pay our bills...

Superman, Batman, and Spiderman didn't choose to be heroes, they are ficticious and they writers crafted backgrounds that made them choose to be heroes.

They "chose" to use their powers/skills/abilities for good not evil in those fictions, hence the element of choice, even though in their case, it's illusoury since they don;t actually exist and can only do what their writers make them do...

If you read what I said, you'll see that said, I'd use real world and fictional examples. I'm not debating what you said about the writers making them do what they do. I'm saying that a fate, or upbringing in Superman's case, created by the writers made these particular heroes what they are.

JHL

John Byrne, a conservative? Okay, I don't really know the man all that much, but I've followed most of his work, and I always thought he was a liberal.

Wasn't Byrne the one who introduced the lesbian chief of police in Superman comics? And he always depicted her with utmost sympathy, and her origin story was an authentic "heroic gay person going against an intolerant society to find herself". I doubt a conservative would be capable of that.

Likewise, his Next Men has a passage where a young prostitute gets an abortion in a cheap illegal clinic, and becomes sterile for the rest of her life, and a character comments something like: "All because some stupid people denied her the right to choose what to do with her body, so that she could've been treated in a decent hospital"

BTW, I was not, in any way, shape, or form, defending John Byrne and what he had to say about Christopher Reeve. Just saying that he don't meet my profile of "conservative".

Would that we all had "well-off" friend to pay our bills...

So?

I think the point remains that what Reeve did was above and beyond the call of duty FOR ANYONE, let alone those who are handicapped.

Isn't that part of being a hero?

When you don't have to worry about bankrupting your family, no, that's not a hero. That's just someone who doesn't want to give up yet. The scientists who do the research and discover the cures are more heros than CR...

"The scientists who do the research and discover the cures are more heros than CR..."

But thanks to CR, they are more likely to get donations needed to fund the research. Ditto Jerry Lewis and MDS.

There was one comedian who commented that he wanted to help out a good cause, but all the good diseases were taken. "So send in your dollars to help fight the scourge of dandruff!"

Glad you selectively snipped only parts of things...you wouldn't want to actually present the whole story or anything. Because I know it's not like you have any agendas here.

Howabout the later comments Byrne made?

"When someone ends up in a wheelchair because
he has had is limbs blown off as a result of throwing
himself on a live grenade to save the lives of his
fellow soldiers, he is a hero. When someone ends
up in a wheelchair because he fell off a horse while
playing a rich man's game, he is not a "hero" no
matter how he deals with his situation.
Courageous? Yes. Stoic? Most definitely.
Admirable? Without a doubt. Inspiring? Certainly.

But "hero" is a word we should save for heroes."

You know I like him as a writer, he's able to give me some entertainment, and forget the "real" world for the a little while. And as a writer (as with them all) he's even mentioned that the charactor's thoughts and attitudes aren't those of his personnally....In this case though, I really wish that one of his charactos talking.

Eveyone has a choice, he could have chosen to die and nothing anyone would/could of have done would/could have prevented it, if he really wanted, and the fact that he didn't...

To paraphrase Al Bundy, "The fact that I get up every morning and never put a bullet through My brain makes me a winner. You pudding of a woman" I know how's he gonna pull the trigger if he's paralyzed, but you get the point.)

Stupidity really pisses me off sometimes
Ernie

Before posting I have read most of the comments already made and there isn`t much I can add. Some people expressed my feelings better than I could.

I don`t know John Byrne personally, therefore I am willing to assume that his views are based on ignorance and thoughtlessness. Not that these are good excuses but it is at least better than being malicious and attacking the disabled on purpose.

Should Mr. Byrne ever become disabled, even if it is just something temporary, maybe he will understand why especially disabled people like me find his views offensive. On the other hand, what happened to me I wouldn`t wish to happen to anyone.

This issue obviously has "hit a nerve." In my opinion it is because there are fewer absolutes, so it is harder to pin down what makes someone noble and worthy of emulation. It makes it harder to judge when it is expected and when something is really a sacrifice. As a result, we are looking for heroes but have a harder time agreeing on what they are.

After 9-11, it was fairly unanimous that the firefighters and police officers, etc., who entered the Twin Towers were heroes because they put aside their own safety to help others. Saving a life is still respected as a noble cause.

Adding to what I said above, C. Reeves was working to save other lives, and yes, his own. If I had to measure it, a firefighter on 9-11 might rank higher because of the greater personal risk, but I would suggest C. Reeves did help others. Yes, he had a unique platform as an actor that many of us do not have. But I also consider Joni Erickson Tada a hero. She became a quariplegic in a diving accident. She has worked hard to teach others about dealing with disabilities. She was a nobody, but her work has caused her to have an impact all over the country. She did not start with the opportunities Reeves has, but she created her own. Bottom line, it is what you do in a situation that matters. C. Reeves and Joni both reacted in a way that reached out beyond themselves (even though they disagreed on issues such as embryonic stem cell research). They both helped the world around them (as opposed to, say, Osama Bin Laden, who was mentioned above). How much honor they should be given as a hero is up to each individual, but it does seem petty for John Byrne to take issue with Reeves being called a hero.

Jim in Iowa

John Byrne has always had something against the disabled. Going back to at least the issue of Action that featured Superman teaming up with the Teen Titans which was published long before Reeve had his accident. Before you ask, Yes I'm disabled(though not with the same thing Reeve had.) The fact is, I didn't always agree with Reeve, I always considered the man a hero. Byrne? great artist who is apparently a lousy person. As for Jessica Alba, I consider her to be a good actress, not the obvious choice for the Invisible Girl. However,she is Defintely NOT a hooker!

Baerbel wrote:

"Should Mr. Byrne ever become disabled, even if it is just something temporary, maybe he will understand why especially disabled people like me find his views offensive. On the other hand, what happened to me I wouldn`t wish to happen to anyone."

When I was in my early 20s, I tried to understand what it was like to be blind by spending the afternoon walking around my apartment blindfolded. That included simple things like making lunch, doing dishes and cleaning. Needless to say, when I finally took that blindfold off, it opened my eyes in more ways than one. From that day on, I had more respect and empathy than ever for the vision-impaired.

The more I read this thread, the more I hear the Rush song "Nobody's Hero" in my head...

"...Hero
Is the voice of reason
That gains the howling mob,
Hero
Is the pride of purpose
In the unrewarding job,
Hero,
Not the handsome actor
Who plays the hero's role,
Hero,
Not the glamour girl
Who'd love to sell her soul
If anybody's buying,
Nobody's hero..."

Who cares what John Byrne thinks or says.
He draws comic books. How can that qualify him as one who's opinion is more important than anyone else's?
Opinions are like elbows, everyone has one or two. I pray JB always has two fully functional ones.

"Wasn't Byrne the one who introduced the lesbian chief of police in Superman comics? And he always depicted her with utmost sympathy, and her origin story was an authentic "heroic gay person going against an intolerant society to find herself". I doubt a conservative would be capable of that."

And you'd be wrong.

Frankly, the only bad thing about the way Maggie was portrayed in the issue that "outed" her was that Byrne used the cheap trick of always having Superman about to say "gay" or "lesbian" and having his thoughts be interrupted-- "It's a shame that people are bigoted against Maggie only because she's a...hey, someone's robbing the Metropolis National Bank!" That sort of thing, though I'll bet it was probably forced on him by DC.

Anyway, lots of conservatives have no problemo at all with gay folks. Some conservatives ARE gay. Happy to have raised your consciousness.

After 9-11, it was fairly unanimous that the firefighters and police officers, etc., who entered the Twin Towers were heroes because they put aside their own safety to help others. Saving a life is still respected as a noble cause.

I think what's striking a nerve is that some people are holding that "saving a life" (and in only a specific way) is the ONLY way to be a hero. And some people just don;t agree.

Bill, I didn't meant to offend anyone. I just think that when I think "conservative", what immediately springs to my head is SOCIAL conservative. And I also think that is the way the word is more often used.

I do realize though that it's possible for someone to, say, take a conservative stance in economical and foreign policy matters, but be a progressive in social issues (actually, I could consider myself in this group, but I tend to call myself a "libertarian", not a conservative).

Or maybe you're refering to conservatives who are sympathetic to gay people, but still are against changing society's structures to better accomodate gays (so, they still want to CONSERVATE social structures). Given the way society is stacked up against gay people, I find that a tightrope to walk on, though.

Following Peter's title, "I shouldn't...and yet...I must"...

Let's take blow-hard Byrne's comments one step further and say that a blonde Jessica Alba not only LOOKED like a hooker (because she was Hispanic and blonde) but (because she was Hispanic and blonde) actually WAS a hooker...

... I'm afraid the second Fallen Angel tpb would have to sit on my amazon.com "Wish List" for a very long time. :-)

"Why bother? PAD long ago appointed himself my
own personal Jiminy Cricket, always -- so he claims -- leaping in to correct my bad history, lies and, according to him, grammar -- yet since we have established this board, with proper rules of behavior, he has not once bothered to even try confronting me in an arena where he would be open to the same ripostes as anyone else.

Bored now. "

That was John tonight... he has a point. You've never visited the new site, Peter. The proper rules of behavior assure a level playing field that can't be found here on your blog. If you're really interested in discussing what John said and why he said it, in a forum where he can feel comfortable talking to posters who all use their real names, start a thread on the subject there. Or you could just warp it all out of context here in your safe little cave of cowardly anonimity. Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing you on the JBF!

PLEASE EXCUSE THE ALL CAPS.

I must get your attention, Jim in Iowa.

The man's last name is Reeve, not Reeves.

Sheesh!

In reference to the post by Mr. Patterson:

I have never been to the Byrne board (and never will after this latest fiasco). I have read several times about Byrne and his behavior, both online and off. He may proclaim his innocence all he wants, but there are too many people, both pros and non-pros, who have had run-ins with him. He always says that the other guy is not telling the truth.

"That was John tonight... he has a point. You've never visited the new site, Peter. The proper rules of behavior assure a level playing field that can't be found here on your blog. If you're really interested in discussing what John said and why he said it, in a forum where he can feel comfortable talking to posters who all use their real names, start a thread on the subject there. Or you could just warp it all out of context here in your safe little cave of cowardly anonimity. Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing you on the JBF!"

Oh, I've visited the site. A place where people frequently apologize for even mentioning my name. Sounds very receptive.

And why would I post there? John ignores the fact that I spent years confronting him head-on in his AOL forum and previous fan website. I finally realized there was no point to it, since he spent most of his time distorting my statements or dodging questions while his supporters spent most of their time saying "Go away, nobody wants you here."

John, meanwhile, has never had the guts to show up on any site of mine, from the AOL site to here, and indeed has made a point of holding that up as a mark of his innate superiority, as have his supporters. "Why do you come to John's site and harass him? He never does that to you!" Can't tell you the number of times I heard that one.

Either not going to someone else's site, particularly when you can anticipate a hostile reaction by many, is a sign of consideration and class or it's a sign of cowardice. Can't have it both ways...unless, of course, you're John Byrne, in which case you can: It's all right when you do it, all wrong when someone else does it.

As for comparing the playing fields...frankly, that's just too ridiculous a statement to even bother addressing.

PAD

Oh, here's the capper: The thread mentioned above? Even if I wanted to post a response to it...I couldn't. John locked it off so he could have the last word and no replies would be permitted.

Right. Reeeeeeal level, that playing field.

PAD

Mr. David, go ahead and post to the thread titled "Out of Context" started by Mr. Byrne.

"Mr. David, go ahead and post to the thread titled "Out of Context" started by Mr. Byrne."

Nope. As I noted, I have most assuredly been there and most definitely done that. All it'll do is piss off his fans, just like always. (On his last site no matter what I posted, no matter how innocuous, people would scream "GO AWAY!" Once I said something nice about Byrne's work. His reply? "And now you're expecting me to compliment you back. That's not going to happen." And his fans chimed in, "Yeah! John's not falling for your compliments! GO AWAY!" Fun times.)

Besides, John doesn't get to hold up his refusal to post in other's websites as a plus and hold up my refusal to post in yet another of his sites as a minus. If he wants to come here, where he can't delete posts or shut down threads, he's more than welcome. I've regularly participated in his sites any number of occasions. Time for reciprocity.

PAD

"How about the later comments Byrne made?

"When someone ends up in a wheelchair because
he has had is limbs blown off as a result of throwing
himself on a live grenade to save the lives of his
fellow soldiers, he is a hero. When someone ends
up in a wheelchair because he fell off a horse while playing a rich man's game, he is not a "hero" no matter how he deals with his situation. Courageous? Yes. Stoic? Most definitely. Admirable? Without a doubt. Inspiring? Certainly. But "hero" is a word we should save for heroes."

Well, two things come to mind:

First, since according to John, being a hero involves choice, it could be argued that the soldier was not a hero if he was a draftee. He was not given a choice about being there. He probably didn't want to be in that situation. But he was thrust into it and, when faced with a difficult circumstance, reacted bravely. As did Chris Reeve.

Second, "Courageous? Yes." Okay, let's crack the American Heritage dictionary. "Hero: (2) Any man noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose." "Feats of courage." That would be "courageous," yes? Seems to me John is more interested in splitting semantic hairs rather than giving a proper evaluation of, and credit to, a dead man's spirit.

PAD

"That was John tonight... he has a point. You've never visited the new site, Peter. The proper rules of behavior assure a level playing field that can't be found here on your blog. If you're really interested in discussing what John said and why he said it, in a forum where he can feel comfortable talking to posters who all use their real names, start a thread on the subject there. Or you could just warp it all out of context here in your safe little cave of cowardly anonimity. Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing you on the JBF!"

Having posted at the various JB message boards over the last few years, I've seen PAD there on numerous occassions... and it's pretty much how PAD puts it. Lots of folks telling him to go away, although there's usually a few polite folks talking with him. At some point, I even posted a very polite and respectful note to PAD saying, "there's not much point you being here, every discussion follows *exactly* the same formula". PAD agreed with me, and I don't think he's been back since.

And there's other pros that have had similiar problems there. If a pro goes there to defend some statement that Mr. Byrne (or one of his fans) took out of context, they're usually driven away (or in a few cases, banned) pretty quickly. I think Gail Simone was one of the few who managed to correct a mis-statement, then when faced with the "why are you posting here" responses (as if they've got any shot of talking behind someone's back on the Internet) managed to difuse the situation amicably.

Even the hardcore fans who post there have found themselves on the other end of the stick when they disagree strongly with something he's said.

In this particular case, I, more or less, agree with Byrne; although he definitely stated his opinion in the worst possible way. One would think a writer would know that presentation can *radically* alter how one's position is viewed by others. Same deal with the "hispanics with dyed blonde hair" bit... I *love* dark hair, and it annoys me to no end that so many attractive women change their hair color to something that so obviously does not suit them. Just another example of Byrne putting forth his opinion in the worst possible manner.

To clarify, the Gail Simone story above was *NOT* Mr. Byrne. I don't think he posted in that discussion at all. That was the fans.

Just pointing out that many pros have had troubles there, not just PAD. Not trying to imply that Mr. Byrne gave her any trouble.

Sorry about the possible confusion.

Ditto Jerry Lewis and MDS.

I think this is part of the reason I make the distinction between those that contribute to an admirable cause, such as Reeve and Michael J Fox, and those who are heroes.

Jerry Lewis does not suffer from MDS. Yet, he has spent a great many years of his life raising money for research and such.

I guess I'm on the line for former Cubs third baseman Ron Santo. I just watched This Old Cub the other night, a documentary about Ronnie by his son, Jeff Santo.

Santo has lived with Type 1 diabetes since he was 18, has spent decades raising awareness of the disease and raising money for research, yet he kept it a secret for 12 years (almost his entirely baseball career) because he didn't want people to say he couldn't play as a diabetic.
The man is the epitome of optimism - he's had quadruple bypass surgery and lost both legs below the knee to the disease. Yet, he keeps doing what he's doing.

It's a case of him dedicating his life because of the disease. Yet it's still a choice made because it has a direct impact on his life.

Btw, this thing is saing I need for correct for questionable content, yet I have nfc what it's having a fit about. :P

>or why almost every comic not written in the way that he would do so is wrong...

Fred, in all fairness, this only means Byrne is just like every comic book fanboy out there. :p

Heroes are NOT about choice. Heroes are, as Peter David points out, the people with their backs against a wall. If they had a choice, if they stopped to choose, they wouldn't be heroes.

A philosophy professor of mine recently pointed out that Germans who helped hide their Jewish neighbors during the Holocaust, when questioned and interviewed later, could not explain why they did what they did. It was simply the right thing to do.

And one basis for which Byrne contends that Reeve is not a hero is that he had a secondary motivation whereas his definition of a pure heroic act involves a soldier being paralyzed to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. In other words, because Reeve had a choice that he could think through whereas the soldier's motivations were, perhaps, purer because they didn't involve thought or deliberation. In other words, Byrne is siding more with the Danish legend of Amleth (who killed his wicked uncle out of duty and vengeance-right) over Shakespeare's reinvented Hamlet (who talked to himself and contemplated his fate and was more or less entrapped by his duty).

What Byrne is saying, I think, is that there is something more intrinsically heroic about a deed founded in noble action than an act borne out of self-contemplative thought. I took his comments on the glorification of drug users by labeling people in rehab as heroes to be about responsibility and heroism... But I think he's aiming at a bigger target.

Take his argument to the logical extreme and what you've got is this notion: Thought and self reflection pollute the moral purity of a virtuous action.

Or in other words, good people are stupid.

No wonder he made Superman a jock who dropped out of high school and made the advanced, intelligent people on Krypton into a-holes.

Smart = Evil. Heroism is anethma to thought in Byrne's view, it would seem.

I think John Byrne must have rebooted the Bizarro World as the John Byrne Forum sometimes... *sigh*

"No wonder he made Superman a jock who dropped out of high school ..."

Patrick Gerard what issue did this happen in?

Oh, right, it didn't happen.

Take his argument to the logical extreme and what you've got is this notion: Thought and self reflection pollute the moral purity of a virtuous action.

In other words, if you have time to consider your motives, you are not as moral as a person who just acts? Debateable.

Consider:

1) A mother who goes into a burning house to save her child.
2) A neighbor who goes into a burning house to save a child after seeing how bad it is.
3) A fireman with full gear going into a burning house to save a child.

Which is more heroic? I would say 2. The mother is acting off of maternal instinct, the fireman out of training (with protection). The neighbor is doing so out of the goodness of their heart. The fact that they thought about it makes it more heroic, IMHO.

No, I think your rejected point is what Byrne is getting at. Reeve had a self-interest and that self-interest makes his heroism not as genuine.

I would agree that Reeve's motives were somewhat self-centered because of the accident (whose wouldn't be?), but I don't think he should be insulting his memory either.

It is absolutely amazing to me how people can analyze whether a man is a hero or not based on knowing about 10% of his life.

I think the argument here is more of what the actual definition of hero is rather than if Reeve was a hero or not.

It is absolutely amazing to me how people can analyze whether a man is a hero or not based on knowing about 10% of his life.

People have been doing that forever - and for more than just heroes. Is John Kerry a hero because of the one event in Vietnam? A traitor for one night in France?

Is Bush a criminal for a drunk-driving citation? A moral man for choosing Christ?

Depends on who you ask :)

>What Byrne is saying, I think, is that there is >something more intrinsically heroic about a deed >founded in noble action than an act borne out of >self-contemplative thought.

Heh, actually it seemed to me Byrne said exactly the opposite. That a hero is a hero because of choice. And choice most times would require thought.

To accuse Byrne of anti-intelectualism seems quite a stretch to me. Byrne's Superman isn't a "dumb jock", even though he also isn't the supergenius he was Pre-Crisis. But the reduction of Superman's intelligence seems to have a much simpler explanation: Byrne simply tried to make the character less omnipotent and more manageable.

And Byrne always portrayed Reed Richards, the epithome of the intelectual hero in comics, sympatheticaly.

I just think some of you guys are going too far in pinning all sort of pet peeves of yours into Byrne's, first he is a conservative, now he is anti-intelectual, another one said he despised handicapped people (actually, the Teen Titans/Superman story in question ended with a speech about how handcapped people could be heroic, as evidenced by the mute hero Jericho, Byrne merely said that not ALL handicapped people are brave and heroic).

From what I've read, I think Byrne is arrogant and egocentric and insensitive, but you guys seems too intent in demonizing the man, choosing the ideas you seem to most hate and attributing them to him.

"Is Bush a criminal for a drunk-driving citation? A moral man for choosing Christ?

Depends on who you ask :)"

I asked Christ. He said the former, and suggested we all vote for Kerry.

Hope that helped.

PAD

If Byrne was saying that not all handicapped or disabled people are heroic, I agree with that. All he had to do was have Superman and the Titans arrest the disabled villian. I guess I could give him points for using Jericho, but Superman's speech at the end was incredibly pompous and arrogant.

Anywhere I can find that speech online?

>If Byrne was saying that not all handicapped or >disabled people are heroic, I agree with that. >All he had to do was have Superman and the >Titans arrest the disabled villian. I guess I >could give him points for using Jericho, but >Superman's speech at the end was incredibly >pompous and arrogant.

Pompous and heavy-handed, certainly. But we don't need to assign to Byrne any malice against disabled people. Morality lesson speeches in the end of stories usually are pompous. And Byrne wrote in the style of his time. Byrne, Claremont, and pals were a lot more loquacious and teatrical in their dialogues than modern writers.

Arrogant? Perhaps. I can see that having someone as physically gifted as Superman lecturing the disabled villain about letting his bitterness get the best of him can be seen as arrogant. Especially for a reader that happens to be disabled and is sensitive to the issue. It would work much better if another disabled character had made the speech. But the only one on hand was Jericho, and a speech in sig language wouldn't carry the same weight... so Byrne had Superman using Jericho as an example of a disabled person being heroic. I think that is good enough.

I'm not crazy about John Byrne as a person, but I don't quite see him as the anti-christ some would paint him.

Originally posted by PAD:
I asked Christ. He said the former, and suggested we all vote for Kerry.

Hope that helped."

I'm just going to keep asking you to adopt me until you do it. :)

Years ago when I first heard that Christopher Reeve had been paralyzed, I could not believe it. I am a huge Superman fan, and the total loss of his mobility is like something out of the comics. It sounded like a tale of Superman under the Red Sun, where he looses his powers. What could be a more extreme measure of loosing ones powers than being completely paralyzed!

Could any of us have predicted that he would become such a visible and tireless crusader for spine research? Despite of all that adversity he rose up to fight the good fight every day. The movie people never knew how well they chose when they chose Christopher Reeve to portray earth's mightiest hero.

He represents heroism in its purest form. I feel sorry for anyone whose soul is so bereft that they can't recognize true valor, and true heroism.

I am sad that Chris won’t get a chance to walk as he promised, but we may well see the day that Thousands may walk thanks to his work. Superman would have done no less.

- Lee Hester
- Lee’s Comics of California

I don't really see Byrne as the anti-christ either. I'm just saying that he drew the X-Men for years and should have known better than that speech and his current attitude. If that speech was a necessity, I would have rewrote it and given it to Cyborg or maybe even Changeling.They are closer to the problem than Superman is at least in the comicbook sense. I can't really see Claremont writing it for example. Oh, Luigi it was Byrne's first issue of Action right after the Man of Steel miniseries.

>If that speech was a necessity, I would have >rewrote it and given it to Cyborg or maybe even >Changeling.They are closer to the problem than >Superman is at least in the comicbook sense.

I think you are right, at that. Cyborg would have been a better choice. I think Byrne can be insensitive, but I don't think he was malicious in this instance. I suppose he simply chose Superman because a)Superman was the star of the comic; b)Superman is the kind of big icon who usually makes morality speeches.

About his current oppinion about Reeve, I'll not enter into the merit of it. I just think it's petty, pedantic, and rude of him.

>I can't really see Claremont writing it for >example. Oh, Luigi it was Byrne's first issue of >Action right after the Man of Steel miniseries.

What I meant was, pomposity wasn't a stranger to writers back then. In this particular instance, it may have been compounded by Byrne's disregard for the sensitivity of certain readers.

You know, this is really perfectly simple.

First, Mr. Byrne is clearly talking more, whether he knows it or not, about his personal perception of the meaning of the word "Hero" than about Mr. Reeve. For the rest of us to get all pissed off at him over his discussion of that topic is really pretty ludicrous. All the answer it deserves is, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

That said, by his own criterea, Mr. Byrne is flatly wrong, and the reason is that he doesn't get that it wasn't his disability, or the event that brought it about, that made Mr. Reeve a hero, it was the life he lived thereafter.

I completely agree with Mr. Byrne -- and so, if you're honest, do you -- that falling off a horse while playing a rich man's game, and breaking his neck, didn't make Mr. Reeve a hero.

What Mr. Byrne doesn't get, and we do, is that even under his definition, where "heroism requires choice," Mr. Reeve then made the choice that made him heroic. He _did_ have a choice: "Get busy living, or get busy dying," to quote "The Shawshank Redemption."

Reeve could have chosen to withdraw, and put his considerable fortune to work making himself as comfortable as possible, with no thought for any other human being.

Instead he chose -- I'll say that again, he chose -- to devote his fortune, his energy, his life and his tireless efforts to finding treatments and cures for kinds of paralysis that were heretofore considered incurable. He chose, by the effort of his own will, to move medical science forward for everybody.

I don't know that Mr. Byrne is right when he says that heroism requires choice. But I do know that, any way you look at it, Christopher Reeve made heroic choices.

And in the end, that's all that matters.

Up a while ago, Elayne said due to their mistaken belief that stem cells come from aborted foetuses ...I don't want to go political, either, because that's always painful, but did want to step in and correct this misassumption. In actuality, stem cells are indeed harvested from aborted foetuses; the difference is that they're not embryonic stem cells, they're adult [differentiated] cells. It gives people a bit of a pause, since a lot of people think fetus == embryo, but in the case of stem cells embryonic is referring to the maturity of the cell, not of where the cell is from. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent or totipotent, depending on when they're harvested, and can differentiate into just about anything with the proper coaxing (or at least that's the hope).

Stem cells from aborted foetuses can be used due to a 1993 law that allows research on an embryo up to 8 weeks of gestation; these stem cells tend to be used in Parkinson's research. So while a new line of stem cells cannot be derived from and used in public setting due to the Aug 2001 regulation on stem cell research, the acquired stem cells can be used for other experiments (with Parkinson's, they were injecting certain differentiated neural stem cells into the brain).

Anyhow, there's a lot of confusion about stem cells, types, and where they come from, and I felt slightly obligated to say something about it. Sorry. :)
-Kelly

I'm just a little curious about the title of this post, Peter. Why did you feel that "must" post this?

I'm guessing that you either don't know the definition of L'shon Hara, or you just don't care.

"I'm just a little curious about the title of this post, Peter. Why did you feel that "must" post this?"

Because although I knew that posting it would feed into the "Peter David's out to get John Byrne" mentality of some fans, and just give his Bullet Takers another reason to grouse, I felt I had to because the comments were so egregious, so wrong-headed, so frelling hurtful and dumb, that I couldn't let it pass.

"I'm guessing that you either don't know the definition of L'shon Hara, or you just don't care."

"L'shon Hara" refers to the prohibition against gossip. There's nothing "gossipy" here. Byrne said something, it's easily findable for anyone to see, and it's being discussed on something like half a dozen boards, and I felt inclined to make my opinion on it known. I made the choice. By John Byrne's definition, that's the first criteria for heroism.

If a faceless fan had made this statement and I'd learned of it, I would have said the exact same thing. So is John Byrne to be exempt from that same criticism? Or is he to be held to an even higher standard than a faceless fan because of who he is?

I do appreciate the patronizing tone of your post, though. I wonder if there's a Jewish law about courtesy to one's host.

PAD

I looked for John Byrne's comments on Christopher Reeve, but could not easily find them on his website.

I believe that he makes an incredible error right from the beginning.

From the interviews I have seen, Reeve himself said that he considered suicide briefly following his accident. He reconsidered after first seeing his family. They were the reason that he lived in this new condition he found himself.

He could have chosen to die or to live. He chose to live.

I find his life following the accident a source of inspiration. I find his actions over the last few years courageous and - yes - heroic.

Byrne's comments appear incredibly insensitive, hostile, antagonistic and inflammatory.

Up until this point I had never really been a big fan, this cements that image.

Actually, Peter, its not just a prohabition against "gossip," but also slander and generally speaking ill of people. It is thought to rate right up there with murder because the damage one's words do cannot be called back. There was really no reason for you to bring this up other than to further blacken John's name. I'm not defending what he said, but if what he said was indeed as bad as you interpret it to be, why further spread such words around? Why not just leave him to his own devices?

Patronizing? Yes, isn't it awful when someone else starts judging the things you say?

I disagree. It is important to bring ugliness to light and discuss why it is ugly. In some cases it will cause a person to reevaluate his or her stance. In others it lets you understand that those who believe in the ugliness may not be people you wish to spend time with. There are lessons to be learned and taught, but not if we all keep quiet. If PAD had kept his thoughts to himself wouldn't that be condoning what was said by his omission? Though he may not want to hear different opinions, shouldn't JB know his comments are hurtful or wrong? If he chooses to do nothing about his attitude, that is certainly his right. It is also the right of decent people everywhere to point out that words can do damage. Silence condones, discussion enlightens.

Uhm. Superman dropping out of high school?

He left Smallville after a football game he played in.

Do the math.

This was retconned at Mark Waid's behest when he was helping Jeph Loeb with SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS.

And as high as my emotions run every time Byrne runs his mouth... coupled with how I really have no love of his writing or art outside of a few projects for which my enthusiasm dwindles constantly, anybody who wants to argue his talent or the validity of his opinions with me will gain no ground.

I've tried to understand and respect the man but every time I think I can, he wriggles into some new sardonic quagmire. I try to enjoy his work but I'm just repulsed by it.

I can't be positive about someone who isn't positive in their outlook on people and life.

And I definitely can't come close to any kind of appreciation for someone whose fans challenge anyone who opposes him.

Dear lord, I'm willing to concede that my best friend has serious faults. I'm willing to see flaws in Shakespeare's work.

But heaven forbid anyone accuse John Byrne of a single flaw or his fans will flank you, no matter where you go online.

He's entitled to his opinions unchallenged but if anyone expresses distaste for his work or his commentary, any opposition must be challenged and crushed.

I would give my left pinky for a place where no supporter of Byrne's could harass people who don't like the man's views or his work.

"Actually, Peter, its not just a prohabition against "gossip," but also slander and generally speaking ill of people. It is thought to rate right up there with murder because the damage one's words do cannot be called back. There was really no reason for you to bring this up other than to further blacken John's name. I'm not defending what he said, but if what he said was indeed as bad as you interpret it to be, why further spread such words around? Why not just leave him to his own devices?"

While you're busy lecturing on Hebrew definitions, you might want to take a whack on brushing up on English. First, "slander" is oral, not written. Written is "libel." In either case, "falsehood" is an implicit ingredient. I have said absolutely nothing false. Furthermore, taking issue with statements made by an individual is not remotely the same as speaking ill of them.

Let us compare and contrast, for instance, the time that I took issue with some changes John had made to the Spidey mythos in "Chapter One" (statements I made right on his board, by the way, and not out of his view), and John twisted and distorted my words in order to claim I was advocating that--if a police officer were being beaten to death--citizens should stand by and do nothing. Or the time that John held up "Spidey 2099 #1" as an example of how to do an origin issue wrong because it didn't feature the title character...and when it was pointed out that he was, in fact, in costume and using his powers in that issue, admitted he hadn't read it but, amazingly, stood by the criticism because he claimed to have skimmed it and didn't recall that Spidey was in it.

So please: Don't play the violin of sympathy for poor, beleagured John Byrne and expect it to strike a chord with me.

Yes, by all means, let us be silent while others say things that are offensive and insulting. You think someone is voicing an ill-informed and abhorrent position. Absolutely, the thing to do when you see something like that is shut the hell up. I'm sure that's exactly what the rabbis had in mind.

"Patronizing? Yes, isn't it awful when someone else starts judging the things you say?"

I notice you didn't answer the question.

PAD

Byrne said heroism involves choice. He's right in that...
But choosing to live---in humiliating and painful circumstances---rather than having someone end it all, which I'm sure Reeve could have arranged---IS a choice.
If it's a heroism shared by thousands, it's still more heroism than an invulnerable hero facing bullets---or even kryptonite, which we know will not really kill him for good.
I'm glad Reeve fought for what he believed, till the end of his days.---Al

This topic astounds me. Everyone chooses who their heroes are and they are not the same to everyone.

I can state what I knew of Mr. Reeves before his death very quickly: He stared in Superman I - IV, I & II were great, III & IV were horrible; I saw one other movie he stared in and it left little enough impression with me that I can't even remember the title or plot; he fell or was thrown from a horse and because of the accident he became crippled and confined to a wheelchair; he appeared in at least one episode of Smallville (which I have not seen).

Should I have thought of the man as a hero if that is all I knew of him? I did not think of him that way because what little I knew was not heroic, tragic in some parts, but not heroic. I mourned his death because anyone dying is sad and because of my love of the first two Superman movies.

I may not agree with Mr. Byrnes opinion of what makes a hero but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it either. What I do find wrong is the vile way that posters on some message boards choose to express their displeasure with Mr. Byrne’s opinion.

Oh, and while I am thinking about it... Choosing to live is not heroic because it is not a choice. Once you are born living is what you are by default until something brings that state to a close. Killing yourself is a choice (and we can probably leave discussion of that to a Dr. Kevorkian message board somewhere),what you do with your life is a choice, but not living.

Mike, I can only conclude that you have been fortunate enough to have never experienced severe depression. I pray that you remain so lucky.

Believe me, sometimes living is the hardest choice of all.

Mike:

>Oh, and while I am thinking about it... Choosing to live is not heroic because it is not a choice. Once you are born living is what you are by default until something brings that state to a close. Killing yourself is a choice (and we can probably leave discussion of that to a Dr. Kevorkian message board somewhere),what you do with your life is a choice, but not living.

I'd add to Jonathon's sentiment by adding that one of the main symptoms of suidicidal intent is the delusional (Yes, actually delusional) belief that life can not and will not improve. It is faulty thinking and it is very difficult to overcome on one's own.

It is not as black and white or as easy a decision as you portray it to be.

Fred

No the belief that in all cases life WILL get better is the delusional belief. If you don't think things can get worse and automatically assume they'll get better, then you are delusional.

me:

>>I'd add to Jonathon's sentiment by adding that one of the main symptoms of suidicidal intent is the delusional (Yes, actually delusional) belief that life can not and will not improve. It is faulty thinking and it is very difficult to overcome on one's own.

>>It is not as black and white or as easy a decision as you portray it to be.

Bladstar:

>No the belief that in all cases life WILL get better is the delusional belief. If you don't think things can get worse and automatically assume they'll get better, then you are delusional.

Reread my post. Focus on the black and white angle. You are not arguing my point, just taking the side of the other extreme.

Again, suicidal individuals are working from the faulty assumption that life can't get better. If a person is at the point of committing suicide, he or she is at the lowest point of their psychological life. It is 100% about persepctive and perception of the individual. In a perception, if one is at the lowest point, it only makes sense that moving up is a very distinct possibility.

Although you could attempt your approach with a suicidal person, I wouldn't recommend it.

And you made the same error.

Believing ONLY that things HAVE to get better is delusional. If you don't think things can get worse, you're really kidding yourself. You have to be prepared for the fact that things can get worse. Otherwise youonly set yourself for more diappointment when your whole "Things can only get better" attitude is revealed to be wrong when things do get worse, that only deepens the depression of the feeler and drives them that much closer to ending it all.

Although if a person wants to kill themselves, that's their perogative and their RIGHT. (Assuming they don't kill themselves by driving head on into a bus or by blowing themselves up in a crowded building, etc, etc...)

Bladstar:

>And you made the same error.

Nope, since my response was directed at responding to someone in a suicidal mindset, I didn't.

>Believing ONLY that things HAVE to get better is delusional. If you don't think things can get worse, you're really kidding yourself.

I never stated that things "can only get" or must get better.

>You have to be prepared for the fact that things can get worse.

This isn't something that you would need to convince a suicidal person of. They are already convinced that they will.

>Otherwise youonly set yourself for more diappointment when your whole "Things can only get better" attitude is revealed to be wrong when things do get worse, that only deepens the depression of the feeler and drives them that much closer to ending it all.

It doesn't get any deeper than suicidal, if they are already there. This isn't about my perception or your perception, it is about the person who is being responded to.

Although if a person wants to kill themselves, that's their perogative and their RIGHT. (Assuming they don't kill themselves by driving head on into a bus or by blowing themselves up in a crowded building, etc, etc...)

Actually, it is not a right. It's currently a crime.However, many people feel the way that you do. That is fine, but it is also a reason that you are not a srisis responder.

Fred

>Uhm. Superman dropping out of high school?
>He left Smallville after a football game he played in.
>Do the math.

Are you sure? I'm positive that he came to the decision of leaving after that game (actually, after his father lectured him about his responsibilities). But that is not the same as leaving in the day after. The story isn't clear about this.

>anybody who wants to argue his talent or the >validity of his opinions with me will gain no >ground.

Every single one of us has their own tastes.

>I can't be positive about someone who isn't >positive in their outlook on people and life.

Are you refering to Byrne as a person or as a writer? I don't find him particularly sympathetic as a person either. But I have enjoyed some of his work.

>And I definitely can't come close to any kind of >appreciation for someone whose fans challenge >anyone who opposes him.

What Byrne has got to do with the behaviour of his fans?

>But heaven forbid anyone accuse John Byrne of a >single flaw or his fans will flank you, no >matter where you go online.

Cry me a river, friend. I think the Byrne bashers outnumber the Byrne fans 10 to 1. From where I stand, it's more like you can't say anything remotely nice about him, and 10 people will swarm at you about how hateful Byrne is. Few comic book professionals are so widespreadly bashed as Byrne.

If you want a even friendlier environment to bash Byrne in, you just have to kill the half-dozen fans he has left.

"Cry me a river, friend. I think the Byrne bashers outnumber the Byrne fans 10 to 1. From where I stand, it's more like you can't say anything remotely nice about him, and 10 people will swarm at you about how hateful Byrne is. Few comic book professionals are so widespreadly bashed as Byrne."

I've praised Byrne's work any number of times. When I did so on his own boards, I got bashed for it by his fans and Byrne and repeatedly told to go away. So, y'know, any chance that Byrne and Co. bring some of this on themselves?

PAD

It appears that what Byrne has with his website is a bunker like mentality. You are either for him completely or against him.

At one time, I really enjoyed Byrne's creative output. X-MEN, FF, NEXT MEN, ALPHA FLIGHT, ROG, and on and on. Except for the first two miniseries of GENERATIONS, he has not done anything of interest to me in years. Byrne's comments about Reeve, his website and my opinion as to his recent material. Perhaps there is a question.

Note, this is not just politics. I really enjoyed Chuck Dixon's recent material for CrossGen and I understand that he is pretty conservative.

No, the reason I'm not a "srisis" (guessing you meant "Crisis") responder is because I don't care if people kill themselves. More jobs, money, land, space, etc. for the rest of us.

Bladstar:

>No, the reason I'm not a "srisis" (guessing you meant "Crisis") responder is because I don't care if people kill themselves. More jobs, money, land, space, etc. for the rest of us.

Thanks for the spelling correction, yep, that's what I meant to type. No edit feature here.

My statement wasn't a judgement towards you, but it certainly explains your lack of knowledge or compassion in the topic area. I'm just not sure why you'd respond to the reply if you don't care or have knowledge pertaining to it.

>I've praised Byrne's work any number of times. >When I did so on his own boards, I got bashed >for it by his fans and Byrne and repeatedly told >to go away. So, y'know, any chance that Byrne >and Co. bring some of this on themselves?

I agree with you, PAD. Byrne's personality and behaviour has much to do with it.

I just found it funny Patrick Gerard saying you can't bash Byrne in peace because people will rise to his defense.

It's funny that Byrne is still pretty popular here in Brazil. Mostly because Byrne's comics were great hits, but Byrne's "real life" persona is not known to most Brazilians.

The second major reason he is hated (the Superman retcons) also don't hold water here. Late 70s, early 80s Superman was published irregularly here, so the fact that the comic book Silver Age Superman was pretty much a dying property by the early 80s is more widely remembered here. And that fact that Byrne returned Superman to greatness making it a best selling comics that is still popular today also isn't lost to people.

It's just whole watering down of the concept of hero...

Craig J. Ries,
"Jerry Lewis does not suffer from MDS. Yet, he has spent a great many years of his life raising money for research and such."

Jerry Lewis does it from guilt from, essentially, making a fortune by mocking handicapped people during his Martin/Lewis days.

Craig J. Ries,
"Santo has lived with Type 1 diabetes since he was 18, has spent decades raising awareness of the disease and raising money for research, yet he kept it a secret for 12 years (almost his entirely baseball career) because he didn't want people to say he couldn't play as a diabetic."

That's keeping a secret, not being modest.

Mike Murphy,
"Should I have thought of the man as a hero if that is all I knew of him? I did not think of him that way because what little I knew was not heroic, tragic in some parts, but not heroic. I mourned his death because anyone dying is sad and because of my love of the first two Superman movies."

You're right. We should only judge out of ignorance. And be steadfast in our ignorance.

Mike Murphy,
"I may not agree with Mr. Byrnes opinion of what makes a hero but I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it either. What I do find wrong is the vile way that posters on some message boards choose to express their displeasure with Mr. Byrne’s opinion."

Byrne can speak ill of the dead, But we're "vile" for calling him on it.

Mike Murphy,
" Oh, and while I am thinking about it... Choosing to live is not heroic because it is not a choice. Once you are born living is what you are by default until something brings that state to a close. Killing yourself is a choice (and we can probably leave discussion of that to a Dr. Kevorkian message board somewhere),what you do with your life is a choice, but not living."

Even by your own definition, simplistic as it is, Reeve is a hero.

Rene,
"Cry me a river, friend. I think the Byrne bashers outnumber the Byrne fans 10 to 1. From where I stand, it's more like you can't say anything remotely nice about him, and 10 people will swarm at you about how hateful Byrne is. Few comic book professionals are so widespreadly bashed as Byrne."

It's not without reason there are more Byrne haters than supporters.
But I don't really see swarms when people say nice things so much as I see swarms when Byrne says something stupid.

Byrnes idea about the over use of the word hero was correct.
His target and justification was wrong, and the people arguing his point seem to be rather bitter(Bladestar) or simplistic.
Oprah is not a hero for having a car company donate, but trying to grab the credit for, cars to people who can't afford the tax or insurance on them.
People who get kidnapped aren't heroes.
Byrne had several better targets to chose from for his rant.
and if it had been Oprah who died, it would've been bad form to bring it up so soon.

For the few here who seem to be missing out on the facts (Mike Murphy),
or are just ignoring things to support their argument.

Christopher Reeve was not rich. He was better off than Margot Kidder (wondering around disoriented in people yards), or the guy who played Jimmy Olson (saw him in a Burger King commercial a few years ago), But the only people who made money off the Superman movies were Brando, the Salkinds and Warner's for 2 or 3 of them.

Reeve Did good work BEFORE his accident. whether it was appearing at fund raisers, giving his personal time to charities, or going down to Chili to help out actors there who were being arrested and killed for voicing dissent of their government.

He was aware that most of the research he was fighting for wouldn't produce any real results in time to help him.

But he didn't believe, like some people, that just because it's going to take years for results, there's no reason to even start.

And not to take a symbolic stance against stem cell research to appeal to your voter base, while saying nothing about actual government funded research using tissue from aborted fetuses.

Sorry to veer off at the end there, but I had to comment on some of the other things brought up in this thread.

>It's not without reason there are more Byrne >haters than supporters.

It's what I told PAD. I'm fully aware of the fact that a lot of the hate flung in Byrne's direction isn't without a reason.

I just found it funny that the guy was complaining about being persecuted for criticizing Byrne. Personally, I find it hard to feel persecuted when my oppinion is the same of the overwhelming majority.

>But I don't really see swarms when people say >nice things so much as I see swarms when Byrne >says something stupid.

Heh. Perhaps I'm guilty of fighting exageration with a bit of exageration myself, but I've know lots of places where you can't say how much you like his FF issues without at least 5 different people coming forward to bash him.

Rene:

>Heh. Perhaps I'm guilty of fighting exageration with a bit of exageration myself, but I've know lots of places where you can't say how much you like his FF issues without at least 5 different people coming forward to bash him.

......those were damn good issues.

Can I just say what an odd revelation it was for me to discover how much bad blood there is between PAD and Byrne? I've been a diehard Byrne fan since ... forever. Even through some of the bad stuff. And I've been a diehard PAD fan since about 5 years after that. Based on works alone, if you'd asked me to gamble over whether these two men got along, I'd have bet quite heavily that they did. Imagine my surpise.

The great irony here is that the stories of both PAD and Byrne over the years have helped define what the word "hero" means to me. Yet the two seem to have such a differing viewpoint on the subject. Go figure.

"Can't we all just get along?" Heh. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

>Can I just say what an odd revelation it was for >me to discover how much bad blood there is >between PAD and Byrne? I've been a diehard Byrne fan since ... forever. Even through some of the >bad stuff. And I've been a diehard PAD fan since >about 5 years after that.

I felt exactly the same way when I learned that there isn't much love lost between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. Two great talents that seem to have so much in common stylistically, one would think they'd get along.

John Byrne is a jerk.

A more true statement has never written Mindy.

"A more true statement has never written Mindy."

Usually it's the author who writes the statement, but okay... :)

See, I didn't know I was being graded... Now that I know, I'll really attempt to mind my "p's" and "q's".

Here are the definitions for "statement" that I was able to come up with after a 7 second search:

state·ment (n)
1. the expression in spoken or written words of something such as a fact, intention, or policy, or an instance of this
2. something that somebody says that is not a question or an exclamation and that expresses an idea or facts in definite terms
3. a specially prepared announcement or reply that is made public

Other Jonathan, if you want to be my personal English Teacher, please allow me to bust open my Miss Piggy Bank and I'll see if I can buy you a badge... or maybe I'll round up enough coin to afford a nameplate for your desk! :-)

It's sad that someone as talented as John Byrne has nothing better to do than to insult the dearly departed. Maybe retcon some more DC Comics history that doesn't need fixing, or something just as bad.

Keith

Insideman, I can't tell if you didn't get it (perhaps by reading what you MEANT to type, rather than what you DID type), or if you're just being so subtle that I don't get it now.

Your sentence was, "A more true statement has never written Mandy." Of course, what you obviously meant was, "A more true statement has never BEEN written, Mandy." Leaving out that one word, however, created an unintentionally (I assume) humorous statement. I pointed this up, with a little snap of my own, as is often my wont. Now that I've thoroughly killed the gag, perhaps we should leave its bleeding corpse there...

Mindy? Mandy?

Who's CHECKING the CHECKER?!?

Actually, I did NOT get that I had left the word "BEEN" out.

NOW I get it.

But I was never mad, Other Jonathan... Really, I wuzn't. :-)

Is it wrong for me to adore Peter David now?

Best wishes,

Gail Simone

Peter David,

Thank you for saying something. While John has a right to think and say what he wants. I am not mad about him stating that Chris is not a hero, he has been saying that for sometime now. What makes me mad is the lack of respect he gives him after his death.

For those that did not know, Mr. Reeve involvement in the community and political started long before his spinal cord injury. Over the course of his life, he has served as a national spokesman on behalf of the arts, campaign finance reform and the environment. He served as Co-President of The Creative Coalition from 1992-1994, and was also involved with Save the Children, Amnesty International, National Resources Defense Council, The Environmental Air Force and America’s Watch. In 1987 in Santiago, Chile on behalf of 77 actors threatened with execution by the Pinochet regime. Reeve was given a special Obie Award in 1988 and the annual award from the Walter Briehl Human Rights Foundation for this act.

It was only after Reeve has become a powerful advocate for the profound impact medical research can have on all of our lives. His sharp intelligence, wit and curiosity have enabled him to become a spokesperson for all who are affected by diseases of the brain and central nervous system.

Reeve would later join the Board of Directors of the American Paralysis Association (APA) in late 1995, and in May of the following year he became its Chairman. In January 1996 Reeve and his wife Dana started the Christopher Reeve Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting paralysis caused by spinal cord injuries. On April 14, 1999, Reeve gave hope to the hundreds of thousands affected by spinal cord injury when he announced the merger of the APIA and the CRF into the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation (CRPF). CRPF, a national, nonprofit organization, encourages and supports research to develop effective treatments and a cure for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury and other central nervous system disorders. CRPF also allocates a portion of its resources to grants that improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. Reeve serves as Chairman of the Board of CRPF. Other board appointments include Vice Chairman of the National Organization on Disability and World T.E.A.M. Sports. In addition to the countless other work.

My question to John and those that agree with him so blindly is what makes you so worthy to say who is and who is not a hero? I leave all of you with one last thing.

Christopher Reeve once said, “A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to preserve and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.”

Peter I am sorry for taking so much of your space on here. Thank you once again for saying what you did.

I wonder--how many of you walk, or have a disability (as diagnosed by a doctor, not yourselF)?

We should all be interested in the disabled community. In the flash of a second, we could each join it.

--from NEW MOBILITY 4/02, paraphrased