On his website, John Byrne posted the following, which has gotten some notice throughout the internet:
“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.”
John believes wrong.
“Heroism” is a word involving shadings. It has different meanings to different people under different circumstances, as do other words such as “love”…or “hate”…or…oh, I dunno…”prìçk.”
John F. Kennedy, when called a hero for saving his fellow crewmembers after the PT 109 was sunk, dismissed the term. “A hero? For what? Having my ship blown out from under me?” Yet hero he was called, and hero he was, for heroism–like art and beauty–are in the eye of the beholder, and it may not be easily defined, but we know it when we see it. To a Catholic, Mother Teresa is heroic because of her unceasing efforts to aid the needy. To Boston Red Sox fans, Curt Schilling is a hero for pitching through an injury that would have crippled someone else. To a child, his hero might be his dad or mom who goes out, earns a living, feeds and clothes the family and creates a safe haven in a threatening world. And who are we to say that any of them are wrong?
“Involves choice?” By that criteria, any draftee from World War I or II or Korea or Vietnam…they can’t be considered a hero under any circumstance because they had no choice about being there. By that criteria, there’s no such thing as a hero policeman or a hero fireman, because they’re just doing their salaried job. Die in the line of duty? Well, Jack, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it. Sucks to be you.
How dare anyone be so dismissive of Chris Reeve’s heroism. Yes, he had no choice but to deal with each day as it came, but it was HOW he dealt with it that was heroic. How easy it would have been for him to simply give in to despair. To make no effort beyond what was minimally required to keep functioning. For that matter, how easy it would have been for him to become a recluse. 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.
Of course, it would be easy to say that his doing so was selfish. After all, the result of his money raising, awareness raising endeavors would ultimately be self-serving. If his efforts resulted in a cure, he could walk once again, and thus would benefit personally. Does that diminish his heroism? No. Not at all.
Because you’ll find that some of the greatest heroes in history did not, in fact, have a choice. Instead they were just guys who had their back against the wall and were trying to fight their way out of a bad situation so they could live to fight another day. They were the ones who seized a predicament and said, “I have no choice. I have to change this, I have to overcome this, because failure to do so is not an option.”
Heroes are what uplift people. Inspire them. Make them aware that there are ineffable qualities and capacities for human achievement that they had never considered before. Heroism is fulfilled capacity for greatness. And in that, Chris Reeve is indisputably, for all time, a hero.
PAD
• 
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-ášš 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. Hëll, 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”
Ðámņëd 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 Hëll 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 pìššëš 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 høøkër!
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 høøkër (because she was Hispanic and blonde) but (because she was Hispanic and blonde) actually WAS a høøkër…
… 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