Daredevil: Avatar of Saturation

I've seen a lot of talk about how the superhero genre is dying, and its weight is only sinking an industry tied to it. At the very least, the superhero monoculture, if not a financial burden, is at least not something the right-minded would actively wish for. Basically, such a sentiment deserves a mascot. Superman represents the superhero genre in general, and the concept at its purest. Spider-Man the everyman superhero and the "Marvel Age". Green Lantern is the shorthand for how nerdy someone is in their devotion to comics--the equivalent to Pink Floyd conjuring the image of potheads. I propose we name a single character to represent the saturation and redundancy of the superhero genre in the comics medium. I nominate Daredevil.

Daredevil was the creation of Stan Lee and Bill Everett in a presumably more sober state, made his way onto the stands in 1964--one of their last signifigant superhero characters that was not a revamp or spin-off or something to that degree. Being launched in his own title, the ideas surrounding him certainly seemed novel--in his secret identity as a blind lawyer. (Of course, in being a lawyer, blind or even named Daredevil--he is not the first in any of these respects) Ultimately, the book had a solid following as most of Marvel's silver age superheroes did. It featured the art of noteable artists like Gene Colan and Wally Wood, and many fans fondly remember its wackier storylines. (Mike Murdock and whatnot) But ultimately it wasn't hard to see the character was a deritive of Spider-Man, with the blind gimmick thrown in. Generally not a big deal, every craze is going to have its hangers-on, and there were still non-superhero books, even if they were being phased out.

Circa the late seventies, we have a character who's still hanging around. Not quite one of Marvel's first-stringers like Spider-Man and the Hulk, but hanging towards the back with folks like Dr. Strange and Captain Marvel. (Who would in a few years be killed off) As Frank Miller likes to tell it, his first love is crime comics, but all he was able to work with was superheroes. So he took the book as a thin cover to tell crime stories, bringing it to places the industry would never take Spider-Man or Batman. (Until DC let him bring Batman to those places) Miller's work was acclaimed, and drove up the book's sales. A happy ending, right? Except, keep this mind. First, the thing to keep in mind is the superhero genre flourished because it could ingest other genres, while other genres couldn't exactly do the same. Once you're a superhero comic, you're a superhero comic. Secondly, because it prevented a second stringer from languishing in obscurity and established him as royalty in the House of Ideas. This established that it's never too late to make something of a trademark, even one that was only moderately popular to begin with. Moon Knight? Sure! Nova? Why not? Also, of all the barely-well known figures from the Stan Lee vaults, it had to be the one that, no matter how many mobsters and ninjas you throw in, is always going to be a superhero character. Perhaps a reinvention of Kid Colt, Ka-Zar or Dr. Strange could have allowed at least one of Marvel's top figureheads to be a little different from the rest.

Now, of course, many would probably save their emnity for the X-Men franchise. It was also a likewise moribund franchise revived in the seventies. It also provided an easy and endless supply of superbeings, not to mention spin-offs. (And the impenetrable continuity it would garner) However, these excess, though many, aren't unique to the superhero genre, or even comic book medium. Nor do they signify domination per se. Captain Marvel managed many spin-offs even though superheroes weren't the only game in town in the forties. Likewise, Richie Rich's 30 titles a month probably didn't indicate an industry dominance of his genre. At the point a franchise becomes popular enough to support multiple spin-offs, there's probably something inherent in the property that genre popualrity won't affect too much. And as for the revamp, one could argue it was at least done with largely new creations, often promoting a diversity superheroes sometimes lack.

Yes, Daredevil's book often attracts top writers. But should it? Would efforts be better served going to characters that are going to be published anyways, as they simply have a multimedia scale Daredevil doesn't? Or better yet, go to an actual crime comic? And even if that can't be, keep in mind, I'm not saying superhero domination is Daredevil's fault, simply that he embodies it. He's a character, I believe, could not survive a genre crunch like in the 50's, and his being around signifies how dominant the superheroes are. So I just point this out; If you wish there weren't so many superhero comics, on some level, Daredevil really has to stick in your craw.

Timothy I think Wolverine reprents a lot of excesses, and his overexposure is annoying, but I think that's just the thing--he's at such a level of popularity that I don't think a lowering a tide would hurt him so much.


Prankster, keep in mind I'm not saying Daredevil caused it, simply that he represents it. And I do notice that he usually stands outside all the megacrossovers. (Probably more recently due to Bendis's clout than anything) But on the other hand, that means one could never consolidate him like with say, the Avengers characters.

To be fair there were other costumed/masked sorts running around at the time--although it's true whatever identitiy Hank Pym might have had would proably sink back into obscurity. Though I always liked that Marvel had a stable of heroes--Hulk, Human Torch, Silver Surfer, Nick Fury, Dr. Strange and even Iron Man, that were visually striking and unique without the typical mask and tights bit. (Though I don't think I could ever wish for Spider-Man not to exist)

Not so much forces the writers to work on it, but that the book is kind of forced to be published, until intervals that it's relevant again (And that it goes back to attracting top talent is that Marvel has an obligatory title that's so often under the radar, talent can do pretty well with it). Granted, this happens with a lot of characters, but I think Daredevil in particular represents it, because he's not an especially potent property off the comic pages. (Let me put it this way--of all the superhero adaptations this decade, I really think that franchise is the most forgotten)

I admit, "saturation" wasn't the best word to use--it was pretty late at night. But I'm not saying he represents a marketing blitz for one character. But, for lack of a better reference, think of a Jeff Foxworthy joke. "You know superheroes are such a dominant part of the industry when Daredevil's been published non-stop for forty years". I'm saying if you think there are too many superheroes, Daredevil should kind of piss you off.