The Enduring Weight Of Myth
I think it’s the Spider-Man 2 DVD that has an extra called ‘The Mythology of the 20th Century’. I’d check, but the movie shelf seems oh-so far away from my desk right now. The title’s always struck me as being a little off.
That’s not to say it isn’t broadly accurate, at least from the largely accepted (within what is humourously known as the comics community) viewpoint of super-heroes as a modern American myth. But as I understand it the phrase applies more to DC’s stable of properties than Marvel’s. I’ve read several pieces on line that deal with the concept of DC’s iconography opposed to Marvel’s street-level perspective, which is very rarely (if at all) contradicted.
Superman’s ‘mythological’ (messianic, perhaps) elements are obvious, and Wonder Woman’s origin is literally legend-based. Even so, I’m not completely sold on the idea that it’s the mysterious power of Myth alone is the reason for their longevity.
Take other long lived, well-loved characters. I’ve written (well, ranted) about King Arthur recently, and he’s a super-hero with over a thousand years on the clock. There’s Robin Hood, Don Quixote, the Three Musketeers, Captain Nemo. Is it really a burning need for Heroes and Villains that’s responsible? Does that account for Sherlock Holmes? How about Elizabeth Bennett? Or Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones (as opposed to Pontypridd’s Tom Jones)?
There’s no doubt that Batman will reach his century, with 70 years already under his utility belt. But that kind of character always does. Not necessarily because of a need for myths and heroes, but for characters we recognise and that resonate with us. Ones we want to spend time with, want to emulate, want to be, or ones we dislike in just the right way. Characters that reflect aspects of ourselves that we are compelled to revisit.
