I have the entire run of Miracle (Marvel)  Man and I consider Moore's run absolute genius not to mention John Totlebens artwork. Issue 15 "Nemesis" with Johnny Bates vs MM was unbelievable...easily one of the scariest moments in comic history. I would love to elaborate but I can tell it would be to spoiler filled and I don't want to distract future readers.

The only problem I have with the MM series is that it helped launch a "deconstructionist" movement away from the traditional comic hero. I would not mind IF the quality of Moore imitators was better but I think it has fallen far short.Either way ...I think MM should be required reading if you like the Super Hero genre. Enjoy

I agree completely

As novel a concept as it might have been when it came out 20 some years ago, it seems to me that a story of supreme beings wielding their supreme power to excess is one of the easier tales to tell.  It's a one trick pony, and if you follow the series, by the time the MM forced utopia arrives, there's really not too many places left to go with the story.  Super powered ragnarok is a given...I would've, overall, much preferred some...restraint, I guess.  The first few issues were some great dynamics and there could have been a lot of neat stuff to dive in to deeper, but then it went the easy route (IMHO) and went to hell.

If it wasn't "first", as far as the deconstructionist/power corrupting/feet of clay angle, I really don't think it would be as well remembered as it is.  There's a degree of gloss that goes with being first, which sometimes is mistaken for being the best.

I had always understood 'feet of clay' to mean 'fallible', standing on shaky foundations, and not mean necessarily 'corrupt'.  If I have got this wrong, may I take this opportunity to thank the board once again for putting me straight on something I thought I knew (which is happening with alarming regularity....)

I'm guessing that part of the problem for many readers here may be that they've read it 20 years after it was published. Looking at it now, nearly every aspect of the tale has been plundered and reused in comics and movies - I can see how a 21st century reader might regard it as tired. You have to remember that at the time (to a 16year old reader such as myself who'd been reading Marvel, DC and 2000ad for 10 years) it was more than a breath of fresh air. It was a revelation.

Bob Simko wrote: It's a one trick pony, and if you follow the series, by the time the MM forced utopia arrives, there's really not too many places left to go with the story.

Which, I guess, is why Moore ended the story there. Even then though, there's a glimmer of doubt and uncertainty left hanging in the air at the end.

Bob Simko wrote: If it wasn't "first", as far as the deconstructionist/power corrupting/feet of clay angle, I really don't think it would be as well remembered as it is.  There's a degree of gloss that goes with being first, which sometimes is mistaken for being the best.

But isnt that the point, Bob? It was the first to tackle superheroes in a recognisably real world, run with it and take it to its logical (and extreme)conclusion.

I'm sure someone will point out some other title that was first, but like I said, at the time, to a teenage reader that loved comics but wasnt used to seeing anything really new, this was the best.

I still dig the Moore issues out every now and then and read them together. I think its a beautiful and intricate work, lessened only slightly by the guest/ artist slots in Volume 2.

Of course, this thread ties in perfectly with the whole 'books shipping on time' debate. Wasnt the publication gap between MM issues 15 & 16 over 2 years?

Gaiman doesn't get superheroes; so he's never been strong on them. 1602 implicitly acknowledges that point; Gaiman would never be comfortable or successful writing a story in the actual Marvel Universe. Luckily, he usually plays to his strengths by staying away from superheroes when he deigns to grace the medium with his resplendent presence.

Jeremy Nichols wrote: "Forcing 'good intentions' on society." Well, that's what we humans do. That's power. I mean, only by society's own forced good intentions do we get that stealing, killing, etc. is wrong.

I think someone like Superman tries to use his powers to make people play nice while all the time hoping that people will become moral...perhaps by his example; but he would never think to 'force good intentions on society'. He plays by society's rules and accepts the veracity and objectivity of the moral values and standards he was raised by and to.

Batman, on the other hand, is a character who can be written as above, or as Frank Miller has done at the end of Dark Knight Returns and throughout DK2 as a man who forces people to become moral individuals themselves. Miller's Batman, by his attitude, actions and example, forces people around him to wake up to their right to liberty, equality and fraternity, but also to their concomitant responsibility to become moral agents with a duty to take account of the moral character and effects of their choices and decisions.

QUOTE: There is no REAL right and wrong. There is no REAL good and evil. Just as there are no REAL unalienable rights to anything... except maybe death.

If there's a right to death, then there's a responsibilty to live well. And if there's a responsibilty to live well, then there's a standard against which to judge that. And if there's a standard against which to judge it, then there's an objective morality. Therefore, if there's a right to death, then there's an objective morality. Q.E.D. ;-)