It’s kind of a long-running comic joke at this point. Whenever Kyle Rayner (Green Lantern/Ion)Â is close to a woman it seems like something will happen to her. Whether the base for feminist complaint or a silly joke, it usually makes for a good conversation starter.
Point:
In his review of Sinestro Corps, Smith Michaels links the phenomenon to changes in Kyle’s life.
One final observation: isn’t it odd how every major change in Kyle’s life is predicated by the death of one of the women in his life? (Kyle becomes GL = that poor girl in the fridge, Kyle becomes Ion = Jade dies, Kyle’s mom dies of yellow space cancer = Kyle goes evil)
Counterpoint:
Rich from Comic By Comic wonders how important gender is in the equation.
Excerpt:
Would it have been that hard for a male support to die? Actually, yes - because outside of coffee-shop owner Radu and new landlord Schuyler he didn’t really have any. Every guy needs pals, but Kyle’s were really Wally West, Guy Gardner or Roy Harper - far too important to kill off. And killing Terry would probably have caused even more outrage.So what does this mean?
I haven’t a clue. I think each death served an important story purpose but I’m left wondering if each character killed had to be a woman. It happens that the important people in Kyle’s life were women - but then that in itself is a function of the writing; if he had a close straight non-super-powered male friends then I like to think that they would have been killed off instead.
I like to think that.
I’m just not sure its true.
So what do you think?
July 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Not that it makes much of a dent, but Jade actually didn’t die when Kyle became Ion…the FIRST time. That character change resulted in him realizing that being God-like was no favor to the human race…and led to Jade being brought back as a super-powered character.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Kevin — Note, it was in kind of a not empowering way (Kyle effectively told her “John could do that on his own, you need my help”) anyway.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:18 am
The argument that a character is “far too important to kill off” is probably true… but it’s also symptomatic of something that’s wrong with superhero comics- there’s absolutely nothing at stake.
The best stories violate such arbitrary rules as “this person is immune to death because they’re marketable down the line.” If a character can only die in order to come back to life a few months or even a few years later, then there’s precious little point in reading about any situation where they’re ostensibly in danger.
Of course Guy Gardner or any of those guys can die- in any medium beyond mainstream superhero comics, and in stories that are about transformative experiences that involve actual character growth, not marketing schemes or soon-to-be-retroactively-removed storylines.
“Too important to die?” Too silly to be believed is more like it.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:39 am
“The best stories violate such arbitrary rules as ‘this person is immune to death because they’re marketable down the line.’”
That’s true. And now you see why so many people fail to get the satisfaction they want from “mainstream corporate comics.” Because, you see, mainstream corporate comics aren’t about grand and fascinating stories, that open our minds to possibilities and deeper levels of understanding the human condition. No, mainstream corporate comics are about creating marketable intellectual properties, that can be used to shlep everything from cereal, to toothpaste, to underoos. Sure, there have been series put out by them that did more than that, but they are the exception that proves the rule. They will always follow what is easiest and will make them money.
This means, as silly as one might think it is, Ion’s “guy pals” are “too important to die.” They can have a marketability down the line, which killing them off, however great the artistic and entertainment value it might bring creatively, will be taken away if they did so. And mainstream corporate comics didn’t become corporate, because they put artistic integrity ahead of what can bring in the bucks.
It never fails to astonish me how so many people don’t seem to grasp exactly what mainstream corporate comics are all about. Yes, they want to appeal to as many people as possible, but only insomuch as to get their money. They don’t care about you. They don’t care about what you think makes for good fiction. They don’t care about artistic and creative values. They only care what it takes to get the money out of your wallet and into their pockets. And if what it takes is too hard, troublesome, or might cost them later down the line (which is where killing off potentially marketable IPs come in), then they’ll ignore you and focus on soaking whoever they do get.
In short, they own the bus, they own the street the bus rides on, they own the driver and they own the destination the bus ends up at. All we have the power to do is pay for the ride they want to give, or keep our money. And if anyone expects something different, they are only fooling themselves. Stop expecting mainstream corporate comics to be something other than what they are. It only leads to endless frustration and ulcers.
You want stories that violate such arbitrary rules as “this person is immune to death because they’re marketable down the line”? Then you have to look elsewhere, than mainstream corporate comics. There’s plenty of other publishers willing to give you that. If you can’t enjoy mainstream corporate comics for what they are, inculding all the conventions and cliches they practically live by, you need to stop buying them and move on to something else you will enjoy. Simple as that.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Ya know James, you’re not wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
“If you can’t enjoy mainstream corporate comics for what they are, inculding all the conventions and cliches they practically live by, you need to stop buying them and move on to something else you will enjoy. Simple as that.”
Done and I mean DONE, my man!