The dilemma with super-relatives

I suspect that there’s a weird trend in superhero comics where whenever a superhero gets a biological younger relative at all it seems writers don’t know what to do with them. It’s like by the time they show up, they often almost always end up being raised by somebody else. Supergirl is Superman’s younger cousin but she got raised by the Danvers at least in the older stories and eventually Lana Lang.

Cable may be biologically to both Magdalyne Pryor and Jean Grey and was raised by those two and his sister Rachel but also ended up with the Askani or something. Rachel herself got raised by Ahab (in his own twisted way) and Cable’s doppelganger X-Man got raised by Mister Sinister and then spent time on his own.

(Somewhere online, I read there that Jean Grey’s an objectively bad mother.) Bart Allen is Barry’s grandson and whilst mentored by Wally West, he eventually hung out with the more distantly related Max Mercury. At other times whenever superheroes do get biological younger relatives, often their own children they’re eventually never to be seen again.

Stephanie Brown had a child but they got adopted and practically written off as to never be seen again. Same with Tigra and Rahne Sinclair’s children. (I actually think we could’ve gotten stories where Tigra takes her son on hunting and fishing trips.) This may not always be the case for some characters as there are others who do bother looking after them.

Most notably Mrs Incredible and Invisible Woman. Probably one of the Ant-Men and Wally West too. Another trend’s to render a biological younger relative nearly unrecognisable. This has happened to Supergirl in the 1990s and it’s only now they reverted her to being Superman’s biological relative again. Cable went from being an innocent child to a cyborg old man.

Rachel Summers has been made into an old lady (though that didn’t last long). Illyana Rasputin has gone demonic. Not to mention ageing them up real fast, this has happened to Cable, Rachel and Illyana and possibly Supergirl to a lesser extent. (In that she aged more gradually than they did but still seemingly faster if because Superman never seemed to age at all.) Superman also has a son and he also got aged up.

Bart Allen’s also stated to age fast. That still proves my point that superhero writers seem to have difficulty writing superheroes as having families, let alone get them to actually be involved in their younger relatives’ lives more often (or at least substantially so). Admittedly Disney and JJBA aren’t always any better but at least they actually do bother looking after them even if they sometimes screw up.

Though that would be that superhero writers do tend to prefer unrelated youngsters to biological relatives as the former are easier to self-insert as whilst with biological relatives there’s often the dilemma of trying to deal with them at all.

Seldom biological families

Like I said about superhero comics, they rarely if ever not only have biological families but also look after them too. It’s like in the Superman stories where if/when Superman got Supergirl for a cousin he often made her live with somebody else even though she sometimes assists him.

Or more recently, the Batman stories where Batman finally turned out to have a biological son but was initially raised by the Assassins or something though he could be trying his hardest in looking after him. Though I suspect this runs counter to the perception of superheroes as adolescent power fantasies.

If that’s the case, it makes sense why the minute some superheroes start having children or younger relatives in general they almost always end up being raised by somebody else. Bart Allen ended up with Max Mercury. Supergirl got raised by the Danvers. X-Men’s Rachel got trained and brainwashed by Ahad.

(She’s Jean’s and Scott’s daughter.)

Stephanie Brown gave up her baby for adoption. Cassandra Cain ended up being raised by Barbara Gordon after fleeing from her parents. Though that isn’t always the case (X-Men comics do have characters with recurring children and younger relatives, most notably Scott’s Cable and Rachel as well as Havok and Wolverine’s female clone though Dazzler’s Longshot counts).

But there are instances where if some superheroes do have children or younger relatives at all, they’re never to be seen again. Almost as if having a biological family in some way or another destroys the illusion of change in that they’ve got familial responsibilities to do. Even if they may not always succeed at it.

This isn’t always the case for other fictions. Let alone consistently so. But it seems for every Donald Duck, Goofy Goof, Joseph Joestar and Jotaro Kujo (characters who do look after or accompany younger relatives a lot), there’s yet another superhero who even if they do have a younger relative said younger relative’s often either sent to live with somebody else or never to be seen again.

Fear of domesticity

I suspect part of the reason why you don’t see that many truly married characters in superhero comics (or any adventure comics), let alone characters in actual long term relationships without convoluted nonsense is that it seems either boring or maybe some are just too private to depict married relationships (the latter seems likely). Another one, if the Flash comics are any indication, is that the girlfriend in question would be a nag. Or in Spider-Man’s case, she’d emasculate him in some way by being better than him in something else.

She could be wealthier (Mary Jane) or possibly much better at sports/physical activity than he’ll ever be (Big Barda, Wonder Woman and Supergirl to some extent). Though keep in mind that some writers seem comfortable enough to have the super-strong, brawny likes of Big Barda and Supergirl date/marry highly intellectual/academic men. Whilst others seem to have trouble considering the odd possibility that Stephanie Brown might be kilometres better than Tim at sports.

(Though one wonders if Supergirl, Wonder Woman, Jean Grey and Big Barda get away with this by the virtue of being highly exceptional, supernatural women that does excuse them from certain criticisms that plague poor old Mary Jane and Iris West.)

If that’s case, I guess the more normal a woman is whenever she starts emasculating her male counterpart the more hated she gets even if it’s not always nor consistently the case (especially for Wonder Woman and Supergirl). But it still makes sense that there’ll be attempts to knock them down. Look no further than what’s been done to Big Barda. Ad infinitum.

There are a number of Spider-Man readers who can’t stand Mary Jane, finding her emasculating on the belief that she outearns Peter Parker and preferring him to be with Gwen (who in reality wasn’t any better early on). There are a lot of fans who can’t stand Iris West, black or white. There are some who consider her to be a mean little shrew.

Even before the CW programme aired. Whilst Steph’s an already polarising character, should she turn out to be better than Tim in sports and nag at him whenever he refues to help her in caring for her family and doing household duties fans will surely hate her for being a ball-breaker. And partly why domesticity rarely happens in superhero comics. Nobody wants a nagging wife/girlfriend.

Nobody wants a girlfriend/wife who’s stronger or better than him in some regards (look no further than what Mary Jane gets). Alternately speaking, not too many superheroes have children. Let alone allow them to grow up and have children or at least learn to look after younger relatives in general for extended periods of time, even if they may not always raise them right (Jojo’s Bizarre Adventures or X-Men comics to some extent).

This might partly account for why at least in the magazines writers never allow Spider-Man to grow up. Never mind that early on in the comics he was actually mature for his age (having to look after his family and a job whilst studying). Similarly, we never get to see Steph look after younger relatives for long even though other characters are allowed to do this (Donald Duck, Jotaro Kujo and his grandfather Joseph). But that would necessitate situations where she’d nag at Tim for not helping her around.

The only few characters allowed to actually raise children or look after younger relatives in any way, even if it’s flawed are generally rather a few. These include Invisible Woman and Mr Fantastic, Superman (at times), Jean Grey and Scott Summers, Roy Harper, Wally West and the Invisibles to whatever extent. When I mean by that, most superheroes rarely look after biological relatives.

Just a few of them actually do it often. But that would mean necessitating the character to mature for good. Jotaro Kujo went from a delinquent to a loyal mentor to his younger relatives even if he still screws up. Donald Duck’s sometimes responsible for his nephews. Even Peter Parker has to be responsible for Aunt May. There won’t be any illusion of change in here.

Especially when they have serious familial obligations to do, they can’t go back to being children again. That’s a strong contrast to the usual superhero get-up where if a superhero turns out to have a younger relative they let other people babysit them. This is what Supergirl usually gets and we rarely see her hang out with fellow Kryptonians.

If superheroes are supposed to be a childish power fantasy, having them get to raise younger biological relatives ruins this. But that would mean characters would have to become adults. The younger relative might be a nephew/niece or even uncle (again in Jojo’s Bizarre Adventures, the first lad Jotaro mentors is his much younger uncle) or an actual son/daughter (X-Men has this in spades).

You could age up that child but once that happens, characters like Jotaro and Scott can’t go back to being children as they’ve got a younger relative to raise and care for. And why the illusion of change thrives on minimising or eliminating the possibility of familial obligations and domesticity for most superheroes.

The female werewolf

Not entirely elusive depending on if you regard dogs as wolves though from what I know about witchcraft trails and the like, the wolf witches (female wizards) are likelier to turn into are dogs. This makes even more sense in Russian as the word for dog’s feminine and the one for wolf’s masculine, the former’s inevitable going to be associated with the household and the latter’s expected to go out in the woods by oneself more often. Maybe not always the case but makes sense to some extent.

There were accounts and texts about witches turning into wolves as well as having them as familiars, which might sometimes be much more common in other places at some point like in Switzerland and Estonia. It’s not so much that female werewolves are entirely nonexistent but that the lack of a well-founded idea of a she-wolf in some languages (and countries)’s to blame for it. Not necessarily this common but always possible in hindsight.

Then we get to female werewolves in American comics. DC did have one in House of Mystery before. But Marvel’s got a recurring female werewolf in the form of Rahne Sinclair though the Flash’s Caitlin might become one herself. (The latter might bring out the inevitable comparisons to Red Riding Hood and it’s going to be really blatant.) If that were to happen, Caitlin could easily be the most infamous female werewolf in superhero lore.

And one with the most profound connections to fairy tales/folklore.

Raining snow by surprise

I still think if Caitlin were to turn into an evil werewolf, it would happen through her newfound sadism by taking somebody else’s powers as well as DNA of dogs and wolves to make her not only avenge animals but also get away with murder. And possibly enable showrunners to retell Red Riding Hood all over again.

No seriously, it’s really going to happen and even horror fans would be shocked to see that a superhero programme has an evil werewolf in it. Though there’s a precedent for it in DC’s House of Mystery, it’s Marvel that beat them to it when it comes to a recurring one in Rahne Sinclair. The comparisons are going to be inevitable regardless if it’s X-Men or a fairy tale.

That and Caitlin becoming the foremost female werewolf due to sheer controversy.

Much worse than that

I still stand by the opinion that if racebending Iris West’s bad, Caitlin becoming a werewolf’s significantly worse if because it radically changes the way they use her. Not to mention the inevitable Red Riding Hood undertones and it’s going to be this obvious, right down to Barry saying ‘Caitlin, what big teeth you have?’

She goes ‘the better to rip you apart’. I’m dead serious when this happens.

Made even worse by that although DC did have a female werewolf before in House of Mystery and intermittently in Supergirl, Marvel beat them to it in having a recurring female werewolf and that’s Rahne Sinclair. Caitlin becoming an evil werewolf ensures that it’s controversial enough to bring up the comparisons to Rahne.

Even if Rahne’s own fans wouldn’t like or want it anyways.

Good wolf, bad wolf

Should Caitlin Snow become a werewolf on the Flash, I have a feeling that this gives her a big advantage over Marvel’s Rahne Sinclair especially through sheer controversy. (Though I stated before why almost nobody bothered to bring up the X-Men stories’ anti-clerical, even Sadeian tendencies let alone very often in its unfavourable depictions of Christians.) Rahne Sinclair predated her both on telly and in comics.

However this gets complicated by that the earliest Killer Frost (Crystal) and DC’s own female werewolf in House of Mystery predated her by years. (That and Supergirl being a werewolf makes you wonder why DC never bothered to have its equivalent to Rahne until recently with Caitlin.) Nonetheless Marvel’s got a recurring female werewolf in Rahne Sinclair.

But if Caitlin does become a werewolf on telly and that more people watch telly than read comics, then it’s inevitable that due to the sheer controversy she could be better known than Rahne ever was, even if she predated her (both on telly and in the comics). It’s also going to be inevitable if Caitlin’s a werewolf, Barry’s going to be her Red Riding Hood.

Even the plot’s going to be the same really. Right down to the lines.

The other blind spots

I think it’s similar to how I feel about Harry Potter. I neither like nor dislike Harry Potter and any criticism of it’s understandable. Yet surprisingly very little Evangelicals don’t care much about superheroes like X-Men, given I think it’s actually way more vitriolic and open in criticising Christianity than Harry Potter would ever be. There are really just a few sympathetic Christians in those stories for every mean, evil fundamentalist.

The X-Men comics even had a church being destroyed. Despite not knowing about Harry Potter much, I don’t even the HP franchise has similar episodes. Though it’s not wrong to like X-Men, I still think it’s arguably somewhat nastier in how it portrays Christianity whilst in Harry Potter it’s just nonexistent. (Especially with one character eating her evil pastor father and another evil pastor abusing yet another mutant.)

I even think the X-Men comics are like a kiddie Marquis de Sade which is unsurprising that telly and film adaptations skip the more vitriolic anti-Christian components as to not offend outsiders. (To be fair, Marquis de Sade did eventually soften his opinion even when he still gave into it.) There are also a few other superhero stories that seemingly take devilish characters very, very lightly.

(Though the X-Men pretty much has at least two devilish characters but when it comes to depicting pastors as suspiciously evil, though understandable, it makes you wonder if the X-Men’s actually more a devilish recruiting franchise than Harry Potter would ever be.)

I guess I think not too many Evangelical Christians care about superheroes, let alone that some stories seemingly insult Christianity (X-Men’s a notable repeat offender) is that either they’re pretty much a blank slate or that despite being conservative, most Evangelicals are plain indifferent. Though I think indifference may be more of a problem especially as I think X-Men’s far more vitriolic in its depictions of Christianity.

Whereas in Harry Potter, it’s practically ignored.

Solving the problem

I actually think the least Mary Sue Kitty Pryde could be’s found in Age of Apocalypse and X-Men Forever to some extent. But given she’s sometimes shown to be a deadly clawed assassin or even clawed with a seriously bad temper (at least in X-Men Forever), that’d mean considering the more realistic or logical option. She’s trained a lot with Wolverine and actually did have claws from time to time.

She’s also trained to be a ninja. It’d be much more realistic for Kitty Pryde to become the character Psylocke ended up as. She’d also make X-23 redundant. But that would involve seriously considering the logically realistic option (at least within the context of her trajectory) to the point where rather than being a highly idealised character, she’d probably be X-Men’s most formidable hitwoman.

The very fact that Psylocke’s transformation was literally undone suggests she wasn’t meant to become this. Kitty could’ve easily become this and that would’ve stuck. Keep in mind that realism in here means going where the character would naturally go/become. Though that would be realising that either Kitty has real flaws or that writers would have to develop guts to do so.

If Age of Apocalypse’s any indication.

Makes much more sense

I still think the least Mary Sue versions of Kitty Pryde would be the stories where she’s a deadly clawed assassin. That makes perfect sense given her strong ties to Wolverine, ninja training and cats have retractile claws. The odd thing about most clawed characters in comics is that they seem to have claws all the time. Though not necessarily a bad thing, Wolverine and X-23 are the only characters I can think of with retractile claws (at least in cape comics).

But they’re not even based on cats. Quite parsimoniously, it actually makes much more sense for Kitty Pryde to have retractile claws and if she’s originally intended to be this heavily influenced by Wolverine, she’d logically be a true feline. That’s even hinted in other stories too. But I suspect it also goes against certain author and reader idealisations of her even when that’s ironically the least Mary Sue take we’ve ever seen of her.

In the sense of going where she’d logically be(come). Age of Apocalypse shows it can work but it’s something not too many bother going there.