TK isn't "real world".

What do you enjoy??

You're being sarcastic, but you are correct. What is the point of giving a character a name that has nothing to do with their particular schtick, unless, as noted many times, they somehow become appropriate via specific use, a la Cyclops or Medusa?

Troy: actually I scored a zero. The only one that comes close to applying is swearing. While I do not think it is "sophisticated," it would be completely acceptable for someone who spent the day dodging pumpkin bombs, dealing with their own clone, and coping with the one-man hate crusade of a newspaper editor to unleash a loud "FUCK" from the rooftops.

In fact, if they didn't verbally vent on bad days, I'd assume there was something wrong with them.

I would imagine it can make following a discussion harder sometimes.

Just what comment on these people referring to.

It depends on which characters. I've never been able to see Superman as 29. Like Kurt Busiek once said, he's always seemed "45 pretending to be 29."

>>>> 

He never seemed 45 to me --- I think that’s just a result of the nation’s current protracted adolescence. Someone closing in on 30 during the 1950s was far more mature than someone that age now, which is obviously unfortunate (there was a cover story for NEW YORK magazine that featured guys in their late 30s, early 40s dressed like teenagers, with baggy pants, beard stubble, and bedhead hair).

By the standards of the time, Clark was clearly depicted as a man in his late 20s. He was single and lived in a one-bedroom apartment. He was a relatively successful journalist but had not yet reached management. For the 1950s/1960s, his not having settled down (wife, kids, house in the suburbs) was evidence of his not being in his 40s.

>>>>> 

What's really grown to annoy me is that DC, in particular, seems to want to have it both ways. They want to do stories that take place over explicitly long periods of time (the "No Man's Land" story in the Batman titles took a full year of time; Lex Luthor was president nearly a full four years; the DC titles are all now taking place One Year Later; etc.) and have their characters age, apparently, not at all.

>>>>

It’s comics! That’s how it works. It never annoyed me that there were definite markings of the passing of time in Archie comics (Christmases and summer vacations passed) yet those characters never got older – they always wound up back in junior year.

“One Year Later” is a neat storytelling conceit – yet instead of taking it as such, many fans are harping on the continuity aspect (Robin must be 18 now! Batman is definitely 40 now!). When this is more important to you than the story, there’s a problem.

I recall during the early 80s, Captain America stories were still written as if Steve Rogers had lived through the ‘60s. It worked from a story-telling perspective and I never wasted time thinking that meant he – and most of the Marvel heroes – had to be in their 40s.

>>>> 

If DC comics were still written in the old fashion -- short stories, often done-in-one stories, that take place over a very short period of time -- then sure, why should the characters age. But don't have all this time pass and then tell me that Tim Drake is still only 17, guys. It doesn't work.

>>>>>>>> 

Yes, it does. The fault lies not in the stars, as they say.