Phalanx wrote:Regarding superhero comics: Not meaning to put down those of you who do superhero comics; but this is just my personal preference: I don't like doing superhero comics much...
I think it's because of the concept that they have that inherent edge (superpowers) over normal people, making them too powerful and invulnerable. When they get shot at, or fall from heights, or have a building fall on them, I don't really feel concerned because chances are, they get away with nary a scratch afterwards.
I like writing vulnerable characters. It makes it ten times scarier when I put them in dangerous situations and wonder if all of them are going to make it out alive. It's also interesting when I give them a problem to solve that others can't, and they solve it as normal human being, without the help of superpowers or magic or whatever. That's what makes a character special for me.
So yeah, give me heroes that bleed anytime

.
(Nodding.) I see what you mean. That's where Frodo has it above a lot of heroes---he's all too human, indeed smaller than human, yet he struggles every inch of the way to Mordor...
Still...in defense of superheroes...there are a lot of fantasies that are best expressed through superhuman beings...much of mythology comes to mind.
Where the especial genuis of super-heroes came along is the way they accentuated the idea of a secret identity (an idea older than they---see the Shadow, and more importantly, see the Scarlet Pimpernel)---a contrasting secret identity. It's not enough to have a secret identity--but one that is notably different from the costumed self---for reader identification---makes the whole concept work.
Superman is Clark Kent. Kent is infinitely more interesting and fun to watch and act (especially in Chris Reeve's opinion) than the near-invincible, near-invulnerable Superman, especially when portrayed as weak or cowardly. When they redid Superman after Crisis, all the sudden he was a respected novelist and not especially cowardly....
Secret identities as a whole have been declining...
And coincidentally, so have comic book sales as a whole.
Flash was the perpetually late Barry Allen.
Thor was the lame Don Blake.
CAptain Marvel (the original) was a kid, Billy Batson.
The scary and relentlessly competent Batman is also party-loving rich man about town Bruce Wayne.
The sarcastic and often delightfully uninhibited Spider-Man is also the quiet nerd who did the best in tests at school.
It's the DUALITY that makes it interesting. Of course, secret identities aren't the only way to make characters interesting. Tarzan has an inner conflict between the oddly-shaped ape he was brought up as, and his being Lord Greystoke, one that Burroughs never forgot...and made Tarzan far more interesting than Mowgli, his predecessor.
Sherlock Holmes and the often dull and unperceptive Dr. Watson are in effect, a team that work. Dr. Watson is everything Holmes is not---keen appreciation for women, often married, often missing vital clues---he's the weakness with which we identify with. There are two stories without Watson. They are probably the least liked in the entire Canon.
My own comic wouldn't be any fun without MM's point of origin...Lorelei. Lorelei is the contrast, the emotional centre, the mentally challenged one, the one who is discriminated against, and mocked. A strip purely about the more-than-human superintellect MM would be boring to write or draw.
Comic book writers have more or less moved away from other identities. You have to be careful about them---too often Clark Kent was a charactature, not a character....but I regret that. I think they are losing reader identification thereby.
But no genre is exhausted...as long as talented people try to come up with new ideas for such.---Al