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
• 
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 pìšš øff 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. 😛
>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
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 pìššëd øff 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 hëll 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
>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 dámņ 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.