I found it a lot less compelling as an argument for comics as literature than either Sandman or Watchmen

Well, I'm not even sure what value judgments/other criteria I'm applying to the word "literature," but both Sandman and Watchmen cleave much closer to in in my eyes than pretty much anything in the general superhero arena -- Dark Knight Returns is a damned impressive piece of work, but I think I need a word that's not literature, but still implies worthy.

Storytelling.

Micole, you need to read Starman.

Micole, you need to read Starman.

Oh, yes.

When you're analysing a character mythos, one can't take every appearance into account, unless one has more time and money than I can imagine.

However, due to the medium-bound nature of any character's story, I think it would be pretty impossible to coherently process all the data for any character old enough to be interestingly complex. You do have to ignore bits of canon, don't you?

But how do you choose? What that was said about/by Batman/Wolverine/Cyclops counts, and what disappears? How authoritative can you be, and still make sense?

But how do you choose? What that was said about/by Batman/Wolverine/Cyclops counts, and what disappears? How authoritative can you be, and still make sense?

I think it's almost like the process that creates folk stories. The narratives which work best become most authoritative. You wind up discarding the stuff which wasn't effective or engaging with the proviso that you also need some distance in years so it doesn't impinge on anything currently happening. Ple was talking about how The Huntress kept getting reworked until she made emotional sense.

Ple was talking about how The Huntress kept getting reworked until she made emotional sense.

Chris Claremont, for instance, has tossed out some bits of Kitty Pryde. But I read them. They inform my understanding/appreciation of her, and colour my discussions.

I, on the other hand, reject the "Madelyne unconsciously won the Storm/Cyclops fight for Storm" retcon because it's dumb, and ill-serves a character I like. But I read it, and if nothing else, my irritation at it makes me dislike Cyclops more, but that's neither here nor there. Nor fair, but whatEV.

As consumers, not as creators, we can't speak of one Batman. We don't get to pick. But we kinda have to, to communicate. None of us have the same canon, so we're not really talking about the same guy.

I found Elseworlds really helped me to nail down some core Batman, just through repetition, helping me understand what stuck to the mythos, what made it Batman when everything was mutable.

Still, some worked, and some completely didn't. Which is based on my canon Batman.

So my question can boil down to -- is there a vaguely mass-accepted ur-Batman/Wolverine/Wonder Woman? What composes him?

is there a vaguely mass-accepted ur-Batman/Wolverine/Wonder Woman? What composes him?

I'm gonna say psychosis, admantium, and a magic lasso.

I'm gonna say psychosis, admantium, and a magic lasso.

Okay, that's a kinda hot combo.

Okay, that's a kinda hot combo.

A bunny, some might even say.