James Meeley of Sequential Treasures in Yakima, Washington read Mark Dudley’s most recent response (see “Mark Dudley, Illustrator and Sequential Artist, Responds”) and would like to address a few of Mr. Dudley's remarks:

Well, I see Mr. Dudley has returned for another round, firing back at the points of those who have been critical of his statements of Steve Bennett's lamenting of how far the classic superheroes have fallen from their pedestal of morality. Like Steve, I should know to let what has been said stand and walk away from this, but, also like Steve, that just isn't my style.

I'm going to attempt to address the key lines of Mr. Dudley's latest diatribe, starting with this: "...I think the idea of what makes a hero is basically up for grabs.  One person's hero is another person's oppressor."

Well, while such moral ambiguity might seem the dominate view of many people today, I think it perfectly speaks to just what the problem is, regarding how the classic superhero model has been damaged.  You see, what make a hero (or even more so a superhero) isn't based on what the societal culture of the time says, it is written in stone.  A hero always fights for fairness, the sanctity of life, the protection of the weak and helpless and to disrupt (if not stop) the plans of those who would do harm.  There is no "gray area" in what it means to be a superhero.  The fact he and others would think there is, seems to suggest they are the ones who don't understand, not those of us who've taken issues with the sullying if the classic superhero model.

"We live in a time were people are cynical of any type of morality that is endorsed by the religious right or the public sector."

And that cynicism, to me, tells me that the classic superhero model is needed now more than ever.  Why?  For what is the same reason so many probably feel such cynicism in the first place: They've lost their faith and hope that things will ever get better.  They think no one cares to work for something higher than what we have right now.  That there are no set standards for anything, or anyone, anymore.

"My only real problem with comics is that we never get to see the aftermath or cost of any of these superheroes exploits."

Then I guess Mr. Dudley must be new to superhero comics, or simply hasn't read very many at all.  Because I can name several such tales just off the top of my head:

Spectacular Spider-Man #134-136:  Spider-Man suffers a serious bout of lack of confidence in himself, when the man who was the villainous Sin-Eater is shown to have permanent injuries, due to a beating at Spidey's own hands.  It is a depression that just might cause the end of his career as Spider-Man.

Incredible Hulk #293:  The Hulk, now controlled by the mind of Bruce Banner, is forced to face some of the damage he had done as a rampaging monster, when a man who tries to kill him, tells him how the Hulk destroyed his hometown in a battle with the army.  In the end, Banner uses the power of the Hulk to make some small gesture of amends.

Thor #385:  When Thor engages in a battle with a rampaging Hulk, they destroy a small town.  In the end, Thor learns that he himself was no better than the monster he battled, due, not only to the fact he wanted to continue the fight, but that he did so only for the sake of pride, not of protecting the innocent.

Superman (vol. 2) #27-28 & Adventures of Superman #450-451:  Superman exiles himself from Earth, because he fears that the mental instability that has caused him to unconscientiously adopt the vigilante role of Gangbuster, will cause him to be a danger to those he's sworn to protect.  A mental instability, cause by his having to execute the three Kryptonian criminals of a pocket dimension, in which they killed every living thing in it and threatened to do the same to Superman's home universe.

And again, these are just off the top of my head.  Seems to me that there were plenty of creators who have been able to explore the aftermath of the classic superhero's "never-ending battle" against the forces of evil.  And they did it all with resorting to the "mature themes" Mr. Dudley infers are so necessary to tell such stories.

"If you feel a comic that you are reading has content that doesn't fit the rating system that be proactive, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!  Write the publisher and state your case on those grounds."

Mr. Dudley assumes no one who's stood against his views has done that.  I can tell you that I have do so.  It didn't change anything.  The publishers don't care what a few longtime readers and industry supporters think.  It's all about the money.  I deny them my own, as I noted last time that my reading list has gotten very short, but they don't even concern themselves with how well the comic sell, because they make more from movies and licensing, that the concerns of those who care about the comics, the very FOUNDATION of what gave them the abilities to make those movies and get those licensing deals, are completely insignificant.

And no appeal to the public will work, as they are all glazed over with the cynicism and apathy of hopelessness I noted earlier.  The same attitudes that are allowing the classic superheroes to be stripped of everything that has made them so unique and special.

Besides, stating our feelings here IS being proactive.  We are taking our case directly to those who stand at the frontlines of this industry every day... the retailers.  Getting our words and thoughts out to those who are giving the most monetary support to the publishers, would seem a very proactive thing to do.  Maybe Mr. Dudley doesn't think so, simply because he doesn't like being called out for being a part of the problem?

"I didn't look to the mythical for my morality..."

Another mistaken assumption, thinking that those of us standing against his viewpoint did.  While I'll certainly be the first to claim I did have certain morality points, like crime doesn't pay and harming others is wrong, backed-up by the classic superhero model, they were not the place that taught me those things.  They did teach me, however, that doing the right thing is always important, because doing wrong always has those who will suffer, even if you don't have to see their faces.  It's a lesson our political leaders most assuredly need a refresher course in.  
 
But what's more, isn't a people's mythical tales a gateway to their hearts, in some fashion? Doesn't it say something about them and what they believe in?  If comics are that "temporal window" Mr. Dudley claims, isn't what is shown running both ways?  He said "art imitates life," but that's not what an artist is supposed to do.  An artist (or creator) doesn't just attempt to recreate what we see in life.  They also try to make things better, by showing us how they want thing to be, as well.  What does the "mature themes" Mr. Dudley has been defending so vehemently say about how these artists want the world to be?  Or have they, too, simply succumbed to the cynical morality hopelessness, that the audience seems to have embraced?

You know, I was in a pretty heated debate not long ago, concerning how expensive convention sketches at shows have become.  It used to be that many artists would do them for free (or almost free), where now it has become a game only for those of comfortable means.  But it isn't simply greed that does this, but the artists attempts to protect themselves from being abused at the hands of art flippers, who want a free sketch, only to throw it up on eBay and make a nice little profit off an artist's goodwill.  I know this, because I've spoken with quite a few artists and they've told me as much.  The debate was about how fans shouldn't support sketch flippers and buy sketches from them.  Many stood against me, citing things like they can't get to shows or sketches are just another product to be bought and sold.  For me, though, that is where the problem lies.  I've never seen sketches as just another product (like cover art or pages).  It isn't something that was produced as a work-for-hire, but something special between me and the artist.  A keepsake that actually turns a moment in time, as well as that brief connection between artist and fan, into something tangible.  The fact you must look an artist in the eyes when you get a sketch, makes it much more precious a thing, than merely another product to be sold at market.  Despite my best efforts, I couldn't make those who disagreed see that.  I couldn't get them to empathize with that feeling I was explaining.  That's when I figured it out: seeing a sketch as more than just another piece of sellable art, is just like a believe if God or magic.  You either feel the spirit or you don't.  You can't make another believe, no matter how much you try.  If they don't have the spirit, they probably never will.

What's the point of this little story?  Just that it seems that the special and unique qualities of those classic superheroes, are pretty much the same thing.  You either believe in the magic, or you don't.  Steve Bennett and I do.  Those like Mr. Dudley do not. And I'm sad for those people, because they are truly missing out on something wondrous.  But the difference between my con sketch story and this, is that Mr. Dudley and those like him, don't have to believe, as there is plenty of other material (some of it even superhero related) that is produced for them and their tastes.  There is no need to take those classic heroes down that same road. Let them be what they have always been.  And if it won't sell, if it is doomed to die in the marketplace, that's fine.  Better to retire them as what they are, then to destroy them in an attempt to make them fit a mold they were never intended to be part of.

There is one point, on which I agree 100% with Mr. Dudley. It is when he said: "I believe that the real issue facing the comic book community is generational and one of responsibility."  I think it is, too.  But the slow destruction of the classic superhero model, for a generation that might not be interested in them, to be twisted into something else for them, while ignoring the rich history and longtime fan base of them, is a responsibility that is being shunned by publishers and those like Mr. Dudley.  You don't have to believe in the magic of the classic superhero, but you also don't need to ruin our desire to believe in it by destroying them with your modern "mature themed" and cynical ways.  So, if you want "mature themed" superheroes, create new works on that model, not simply breaking the classic ones to fit your desires.  Artists are supposed to CREATE, not destroy.  You'd think Mr. Dudley, being a self-professed creator, would know that.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.