Greg Gildersleeve

Which comic book characters do you relate to and why? Do they represent some idealized self that you aspired to be when you were a kid (or perhaps still aspire to)? Do they have foibles and problems that you can identify with?

Superman is usually thought of as an example of the former type of character, while Spider-Man is a classic version of the latter. Superman, with all of his mighty powers, represents (or at least represented for many years) the American ideal: someone who made the world safe for Democracy (with a capital "D"), and had the power to do it. Spidey, on the other hand, was Everyman: an awkward teenager who tried to do good and had the power to do it, but whose efforts frequently failed or were misunderstood. In his alter ego of Peter Parker, Spidey had to contend with ordinary but serious problems, such as earning money and taking care of an elderly aunt, while Superman's most common "civilian" problem was getting Lois Lane to notice him as Clark Kent.

Which character do you think people (and comics fans specifically) identify with more: the Ideal or the Everyman?

[More:]

I got to thinking about this recently because of a thread posted on Legion World , a site devoted to fans of the Legion of Super-Heroes. The topic starter, Ultra Jorge, asked the board which Legionnaire they thought fans identified with most. Responders initially replied by discussing which Legionnaire they identifed with. While this was revealing in its own way, it didn't answer the original question, so Jorge repeated it: Which Legionnaire did we think fans (i.e., in general) identified with.

The peculiar condition of the Legion is that it has so many characters that it's probably impossible for one to come to the fore. There is no "main character," no Captain Kirk for us to focus our attention on. Every Legionnaire has been the main character of a particular story line or arc over the decades. Most super-hero teams, in fact, are written this way. (Captain America was the central focus of the Avengers for a long time in the 1960s, until he left the team. The Fantastic Four is a rare exception since it has only four protagonists; Reed Richards has always been the leader and, therefore, usually the central character.)

The main advantage to this form of story telling is that lets fans know every character in a way that is usually reserved in films and other forms of literature only for a single protagonist. The disadvantage is that it prevents readers from knowing which single character is the most important, i.e., which one they "should" root for. Thus, when one central character leaves the team (as Cap did), it can cause confusion: Which character should I relate to now? (I remember feeling that way upon reading those stories: the remaining Avengers at the time included Hawkeye, Goliath, and the Wasp, none of whom I cared for, and Quicksilver, the Scarlet Witch, and Hercules, all of whom left immediately after Cap.)

After reconsidering Ultra Jorge's question (and discussing the characters I personally identified with, Mon-El and Lightning Lad), I posted the following:

Judging by comments on this board, in letters pages, and elsewhere over the years, I'd say Ultra Boy is a common character for people to relate to.

I think the fact that he has a built-in limitation of using one power at a time, even though he's one of the most powerful Legionnaires, makes him appealing to many. Also, he's often been portrayed as "Jo Average": he could be working class or a jock, or just about any "normal" guy. He's smart, but not an intellectual (though he's sometimes portrayed as dimmer than he should be). He's tough, but not independent. For example, he needs help from Phantom Girl (ADV. # 316) and Chameleon Boy (SUPERBOY # 239).

He's also a character whose muscles have been emphasized in artwork, giving him a very powerful (and perhaps sexy) presence. (As an aside, I remember showing my copy of SUPERBOY # 197 to several friends when I was a child, with the idea that we were going to play Legionnaires. One friend was immediately drawn to Ultra Boy for no other reason than his muscles.)

A close second character for fans to relate to might be Timber Wolf, with his feral appearance and loner personality -- traits that made his "clone," Wolverine, immensely popular.

Of course, the peculiar nature of the Legion also results in a built-in limitation similar (but not identical) to Cap leaving the Avengers: When Ultra Boy (or Timber Wolf) doesn't appear for long stretches of time, or is de-emphasized in the title, what happens to his fan base? Do fans wait patiently for the character to be re-emphasized, or do they lose interest in the title and move on? Could this explain why the Legion (and certain other titles) wax and wane in popularity over the years -- because there is no central character?

(This question, I hasten to point out, may or may not apply to the Legion's current series, which I haven't read. But it does apply to just about every incarnation of the Legion from the 1960s through 2004.)

But this is all supposition on my part. As I pointed out, the characters in the Legion that I relate to are different than the characters I think most other fans relate to. I think this has always been true with whatever super-hero team book I was following. For example, I identified with Cyclops in the X-Men much more than I ever did with Wolverine. And I preferred Dr. Strange or Nighthawk to the Hulk in the Defenders. Yet the overwhelming popularity of Wolvie and ol' Greenskin is undeniable.

So, I'm throwing this question open to other comics fans and creators: Which characters do you relate to and why? Have you always related to these particular characters? What do you think makes them appealing to other fans? This can include characters who belong to a team and those who don't.

The answers to such questions can help us as comics writers and artists when we try to find an audience for our work. After all, knowing why you relate to your favorite characters is only half the battle.