I was disappointed in Denny's reaction. The point of the original piece was about will power, not about whether Green Lantern is a good role model, and it seemed that Denny didn't quite get that. So instead, he started writing about fictional heroes and how they're perceived in the world. That's all fine and good, I suppose, but it wasn't what the political essay was talking about.

For my money, though, the most interesting statement about Green Lantern in Denny's post is:

Here's this guy, a human living on Earth, who takes his orders from a bunch of high-and-mighty blue extraterrestrials and is expected to act on their commands without questioning them. . . . [H]e isn't my idea of a hero and I hope he isn't yours.

Hmm, Denny should unclench a bit.

I think there's two different but interrelated concepts here:

1) You can make anything happen by wishing it, if you just wish it hard enough (== the GL ring)

2) You can solve any problem with sufficient force (== how GL's *act*)

I'm tempted to claim the Iraq war provides one of the best arguments for why superheroes might decide to stick to battles with, let us say, well-defined parameters.

I'm tempted to claim the Iraq war provides one of the best arguments for why superheroes might decide to stick to battles with, let us say, well-defined parameters.

I'm not sure that exactly applies to "a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and the American Way". Or allowing "no evil" to "escape my sight", for that matter.

I'll go further: I'd submit that sticking to battles with well-defined parameters is incompatible with being a superhero. If Batman gives up the cowl once he's caught Joe Chill, he's not a superhero, he's a vigilante on a vengeance kick. Superheroes will "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe" in their quest for justice, war on crime, championing of the weak, or what have you. "Not my jurisdiction" or "too big for me" or what have you is the mark of the non-super or the non-hero (or at least the reluctant hero who must learn better or the street-level hero who must rise to the occasion) in superhero comics.

The evil might not escapes GL's sight, but plenty of it does escape his action. That's got to be qualified, otherwise he's setting himself up as a representative of a totalitarian occupying army (which is part of the point O'Neil is addressing). The Guardians Of The Universe are self-appointed (which is really extremely arrogant when you think about it - it's pretty close to Rulers Of The World, again, O'Neil's point).

"Not something I can solve" may sound defeatist, but it seems to be the only way to reasonably have any superhero universe not turning into Watchmen or The Authority.

The Guardians are expiating their own wrong; and, as I recall, they are willing to withdraw if they are both unwanted and unneeded. (E.g. United Planets in LSH c1.)

I prefer the mythological interpretation of both the Guardians and the GLs over the realpolitik interpretation: The Guardians are, in fact, extremely wise and benevolent (if sometimes overdistant from individual concerns), and GLs are chosen for their incorruptibility as well as their lack of fear. Because if you grant the mythological interpretation, then the totalitarian aspects of GL can be ignored and the authority-figure fantasy (innate in superheroes) can be embraced without those reservations.

Michael Schiffer -- I guess I'd think of the neverending battle as a series of finite battles, rather than as one overarching battle. Batman goes after a number of individual cases, rather than attempting to occupy and reform Gotham City as a whole.

But I do see and respect your point.

The real fallacy of the Green Lantern isn't that might makes right. It's that someone might be good enough to wield that much power. That, in a nutshell, is why we have democracy.

The real fallacy of the Green Lantern isn't that might makes right. It's that someone might be good enough to wield that much power. That, in a nutshell, is why we have democracy.

I'd actually agree with that. That's why superheroes are a fantasy-- precisely because they can be trusted with overarching power, answerable to no one. (Or, in the GLs' case, answerable to the Guardians. But I agree with Greg on the Guardians' portrayal.)

Alan Moore may have been the first (though not the last) to recognize that Superman's most important power was the ability to judge the right thing to do from inadequate information-- something made explicit and put at the center of Kingdom Come. But every hero needs it to some extent-- Batman has at least as much of that unrealistic ability to judge people and actions.

I agree with Greg. I don't think you can make this stuff realistic without giving up what is, for me, the heart of it: stories about people who are in fact that good and wise and such. I also enjoy some stories about people who have the power and claim the authority without the virtue, but I don't like those stories at the expense of the ones about heroes.

"The Guardians are expiating their own wrong; and, as I recall, they are willing to withdraw if they are both unwanted and unneeded. (E.g. United Planets in LSH c1.)"

What, you mean the time they claimed to have withdrawn from the UP but left their mole Rond Vidar behind?

This just proves that Denny, who I like a lot as a comics professional, never understood the Green Lantern concept and never understood Hal Jordan.

In comics, unlike real life Earth, we can believe that there is a circle of beings who are extremely powerful, wise, and benevolent. And that they create a group of protectors, choosen for the most part of the best representatives of the species of the universe, to defeat truly evil and destructive cosmic menaces. This is a cool idea and much can be done with it.

That such wise beings, ever watchful for galactic menaces, would bother to observe the building codes and real estate laws of a city on Earth (more or less the beginning of Denny's GL/GA story) is absurd.

The glaring weak spot in Denny's writing is that he cannot conceive that anyone acting from other than a white liberal guilt perspective can act morally. He did not know how to write Green Lantern, basically Chuck Yeagar as a superhero, and he did not know how to write the Question with his Randian libertarianism.

Enough Denny bashing though. I like his work for the most part.

Most writers do not seem to realize the potential of the Green Lantern Corps and what type of stories should be told.

James: Well, I'd've had a spy, too. After all, it's the sector of the galaxy with 3 billion Daxamites and the second-ever renegade GL. You gotta keep an eye on the place to make sure that the Guardians continued to be unneeded.

Chris: I loved O'Neil's Question, and a Randian libertarian interpretation of the character, even if it's his original portrayal, would have never led to me picking up a single issue. De gustibus non disputandum est.

And to quote O'Neil: "But, in a way, there is a kind of truth in the Green Lantern saga. It's the same truth that's in our mythology, our religion, and much of our popular fiction in general."

I think he understands the concept, he's just being a little skeptical of it.

Obviously, you can't push this too far in superhero comics without it exploding - but I think there's a way to make it work in that sort of universe, as a self-awareness of the pitfalls of power acting as a brake on the unrestrained exercise thereof.

Chris: For that story, the ring itself might have sent off a "potential renegade alert!" to the Guardians, based on pre-set algorithms, with a data-dump of the situation from Hal's mind. The Guardians were not going to tell Hal "The bugging device we have monitoring GL's for suspected terrorist activity just red-flagged you".

Seth: Precisely. It's not that superhero comics are unaware of the pitfalls of power and the temptation that might makes right; it's that it comes up, and the hero demonstrates that he's a hero by overcoming temptation, and the villains demonstrate their villainy by giving in to temptation.

"I think he understands the concept, he's just being a little skeptical of it."

That seems fair. In real life, I believe in due process and miranda rights and the Constitution. I don't think the death penalty is fair or effective.

In comics, I read Punisher.

I think this discussion illustrates the importance of the old "no killing" ethos in many older characters. Batman may not respect miranda rights, but at least he doesn't act as executioner.