Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I'm asking this question on a few other forums but I just know the folks here will have some encyclopedic knowledge to share with me and help me in my quest.

The Problem

Most superheroes were created by working-class cartoonists in the sweatshops of the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s.  Ironically, very few superheroes are actually working-class.  Outside of Bob Burden's Mystery Men, where are the superheroic truck drivers, mechanics and steelworkers? There seem to be more working-class villains than heroes.

I would like to compile a list of actual working-class heroes. Masked adventurers and comic-strip stars welcome.  Please note: for the purposes of this list, I am only interested in heroes with working-class jobs (ie, blue-collar/pink-collar/"proletarian").  I will accept tradesmen, factory workers, farm workers, unemployed/poor, craftsmen, etc.  NO white-collar workers, rich people, politicians, government agents, or cops  (including scientists, playboys, writers/reporters, professional athletes, pilots, lawyers, engineers, doctors, teachers, professional entertainers/actors/broadcasters).  I will accept Private Eyes and soldiers in a pinch.  And small businessmen ("Petit bourgeois").

A short list:
Freddie Freeman/Capt. Marvel JR --crippled newspaper delivery boy
Diana Prince/Wonder Woman --Princess who works as nurse
Johnny Chambers/Johnny Quick --newsreel camera operator
Peter Parker/Spider-man --photographer
Ma Hunkel --housewife/mother
Black Canary/Dinah Lance --florist
Luke Cage/Powerman --Hero for Hire

You can put all the Marvels there, since none are rich or have high paying jobs.

Although Billy Batson eventually works his way up to radio personality for WHIZ --sent on glamorous assignments all over the world. :D

Wasnt there a construction worker who's name eludes me done for Marve or DC in the 80s drawn by Alan Weiss?

Something like Power Tool? :roll:

Aquaman doesn't have a job at all and never has as far as I know.  Plus for a lot of his recent history, he's been technically homeless (and looked like it with that beard!).  But he's also royalty so I'm guessing he won't pass your test.

Green Arrow started off rich but went bust.  For a lot of time it was unclear whether he had any job at all.  I think he was doing something by the time of Mike Grell's series, but it might have been no more than delivering flowers for Dinah's shop.

Hal Jordan started off in the glamorous vocation of test pilot but later bounced around from dead-end (and arguably blue collar) job to job for years, including travelling toy salesman and long haul truck driver.  During the famous O'Neil/Adams run he seems, like Ollie, to have been pretty much a hobo with no visible source of income.

Al (Atom) Pratt was a college student.  Which in itself suggests money in the family, but I don't remember him in a job per se.

Ted (Wildcat) Grant was a professional boxer, in fact heavyweight champion of the world.  So he may have had money (if so, little is made of the fact) but he got it in about the most blue-collar, sweat and muscle, agonizing way you can.  And in later stories I think he ran a gym.

I know you're excluding cops, but in the case of Jim (Guardian) Harper and others I don't know if that's fair.  They're hard-working, beat-walking cops (not office types) and that's not what I'd call a white-collar job.  But they also work for "the man," so depending on the point you're trying to make I guess they're out just for that.

Denny (Spirit) Colt has no job and lives in a cemetery!  But he was a trained detective before being "killed" so I guess you wouldn't count him.

Steve (Capt. America) Rogers was an Army private.  He became other things, but he was created, in my view, as a blue-collar kind of guy.

So much of this comes down to semantics.  Are you defining "blue collar" by what a guy does for a living, ie whether its physical labor that doesn't require an advanced degree?  Because lots of characters find themselves in those jobs at one point or other in their long histories.  Or do you limit it to guys who can't manage any better if they try?  For example, Peter Parker sells photos for rent money and not much more, but at heart he's a brilliant scientist who could someday amount to something and make big bucks.

I think what you'll find in the Golden Age is a reliance on the Scarlet Pimpernel/Zorro model of the aristocrat who fights for the little man.  It's not a deliberate attempt to glorify men with "better breeding," it's more just adhering to a stereotype for masked heroes.  In the Silver Age, the emphasis is on science and technology, so all the heroes are guys like Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Barry Allen and so on.

In other words, you may indeed be able to make a case for blue collar workers being underrepresented in the longjohn crowd.  But if you argue that's an intentional bias, or a deliberate statement about the virtues of one class of worker or other, you've got a big job ahead of you.  It's just the way things worked out.

Plus, from a storyteller's point of view, it's easier for a roving reporter to go AWOL for a few hours and fight crime than it would be for someone on a factory production line.  What's he going to do, say, "I'd love to save the city from destruction, but my shift's not over for another two hours!"

How would you consider Superboy, he was a student in an average high school and worked part time in his Dad's store/ or did chores around the farm?

I think Superman/Clark is turning out to be the spoiler in this --pivotal here as in so many other ways.  I admit I had certain ideas when I asked the question but only because I've been thinking about these things for a long time.  In most cases I'm interested in the character as initially conceived or in trhe character's most lasting incarnation.  It's not surprising that they follow the sterotype/formula --just disapointing I guess.  How much harder for a taxi driver or piano tuner or computer technician (or cartoonist) than a millionaire, doctor, lawyer, etc to drive around at night looking for crimes?  Only a matter of degrees (ie, if you have time to bowl, you have time to roll).  Without being too critical, I think scholarship has established that there is really not much "innocent" or unintentional about the structure of popular adventure fiction and its role in reproducing so-called "ruling class" ideology in readers, however mediated and "against the grain" that reading experience may be --for instance, I read Lone Ranger or Superman comics on a number of levels (ironically, nostalgically, critically, politically, etc), hopefully fully aware of the biases inherent in the genre, from Hercules to Dark Knight II.

Why are superheroes usually loners?  What are the functions of side-kicks?  These are things that I can't believe just "worked out" randomly, as the best possible solution to stroytelling problems, in a political and moral vacuum.

Well here's where I stray into politics, so everybody put on your kevlar!  :lol:

Frankly I think even though many critics have labeled superheroes as fascist fantasies and slaves to the Establishment, the truth is they were born of a liberal mindset.  Like most Liberal heroes (FDR, JFK, etc) they fight for the "little guy" from a position of assumed superiority.  They exist in (or believe they exist in) a world where there will always be an underclass incapable of defending themselves and so, out of a sense of "noblesse oblige," they look out for them and see to their interests.  Yes, there is honor and virtue in the concept of a millionaire like Don Diego or Bruce Wayne fighting for the peasants, just as there is nobility in a Kennedy or Roosevelt leaving his ivory tower to fight for migrant workers, but there is also a certain arrogance and moral presumption as well.  So I think you need to regard comics in the larger context of American's notions of who and what we are.

America is a land of paradoxes, a land dedicated to the notion of equality which nonetheless recognizes a select few historic figures as "more equal than others."  A country that fought to be rid of a monarchy, then spent the next 200 years trying to create a new royalty out of politicians, inventors, athletes and movie stars.  We may say we believe in the equality of the sanitation engineer to the star quarterback, but when push comes to shove we look to the beautiful, the wealthy and the strong for leadership and direction.

In that sense, it doesn't surprise me at all that superheroes tend to be geniuses, millionaires or people with glamorous vocations.  I for one would rather read about a guy with a mansion and a fortune's worth of crime-fighting gadgets and vehicles than, to use your example, a cabbie who lives in a flea-ridden apartment and has nothing more in his crime-fighting arsenal than a mask and a set of brass knuckles. Does that make me elitist? Maybe, or maybe it just means I prefer seeing cool designs and enjoying, however vicariously, the life of a rich man.  I'm from the camp that sees comics as escapism, and I prefer to escape to a world more glamorous than the one I'm escaping from!  

Sometimes we need the benefit of hindsight to recognize our bias, I'll grant you.  If you read 1912's "Tarzan of the Apes," the subtext is pretty shocking by today's standards, but readily accepted at the time.  Basically the idea is that a British nobleman is by his genetic heritage so far superior to the common man that he can survive and excel at anything, and by extension, that certain other races aren't good for much of anything.  Maybe there is a bit of that at work in Batman, but I will hold to the idea that most of this stuff is market-driven; the object is to write what sells, not to preach a dogma.



Not a vacuum, none of us live in a vacuum.  We're all the product of our times.  But it's much harder for me to believe that these guys sat down and deliberately worked to make a political statement, or even analyzed in any great detail the psychological or political reasons a character works.  In most cases, these guys were just kids...they simply knew what they liked in other characters and they stole it!  Batman was a riff on Zorro, Superman was part John Carter and part Hugo Danner, and so on.

I think the side-kick thing did  just "work out."  Someone -- most now agree it was Jerry Robinson -- decided kids needed a point of identification so they invented Robin.  It worked.  Others saw Robin worked, so they copied him as closely as possible.

For me, that's the history of comics in a nutshell...it's a process of trial and error, run everything you've got up the flagpole, and when one idea out of a hundred succeeds, everyone rushes to imitate it in as many variations as legally possible.  At the end of the day, the fact that some thigns work and some don't says more about us as an audience than it does about them as creators.  America has embraced the notion of the aristocrat as defender, and for the most part yawned at "working-man heroes."  The publishers just give us what we want.

Personally I think it boils down to readers asking, "If this guy is so great, why can't he get a better job?"  :lol:

As far as blue collar goes, don't forget the orginal Red Tornado. Even her mask was just a soup pot.

I guess my interest is more in looking at where liberalism and conservatism/fascism might share similarities and where they diverge from more extreme forms of progressive politics (socialism, anarchism, environmentalism, feminism).  I have no doubt that the mostly Jewish creators and publishers of the superhero comics, right through to the 60s at least, were motivated in part by an ideology informed by ideas of freedom from dictatorship, equality, etc.  I will even allow that comics helped win WWII.


This is the interesting part!  

 
All societies share some of these paradoxes.  I guess I'm interested in delineating them more clearly although the temptation is just to gloss over them or "live with it".



A concise summation of the "dogma" or ideology of the marketplace.  "What sells" can never be wrong.



Robin may be the first child side-kick in the comics, but Hercules had one 3000 years ago.  And let's not forget the "childlike" pulp sidekicks (especially Zorro's mute and the Lone Ranger's Tonto).



Great points (especially the last :D ) --although I would venture that many of the elites we honour are in some part seen as working-man heroes in some way --especially when we think of sports stars and self-made millionaires.  The myth of meritocracy combined with love of the underdog.  The pioneer heroes, cowboy movie stars,  firefighters, etc. etc.

Again, we're more or less in agreement here (though in the case of movie stars, success is often more about looks -- an accident of birth -- than about any personal merit).

But it reinforces my last point...America's built on the notion that with a certain amount of moxie, resolve, brainpower and sweat a man or woman can accomplish anything.  So while a superhero might start out in issue 1 as a production line worker, I'd get pretty tired of it if after a year or two he/she hadn't moved up the ladder.

This is why Spider-Man never held my interest.  There's only so much "poor me" I can stand.  If Peter Parker is such a freaking genius, why can't he pull his life together?  Adversity is one thing, but perpetual failure is something else again.

As for the crossover between liberalism and conservatism, it's probably the rule and not the exception.  If you look at countries where elections involve a real choice between multiple parties with wildly varying world views, America's pretty much got a one-party system.  We tend to disagree on relatively minor issues and fan them into major social fissures.

Superheroes straddle the line: they believe in a lot of liberal notions, but they enforce their views as fascists would, with fists and weapons.  They work for "law and order" but operate from a vigilante status.  And so on.  I remember once a Siskel and Ebert special on the "Dirty Harry" film series and the Gene and Roger observed the films had always stayed one step ahead of critics.  In the first film, Harry strikes a blow for cowboy justice in an America hamstrung by legal bureaucracy.  But in the second, he battles a group of rogue cops who set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner.  And so on.  Superheroes walk that same line, adjusting in each era to fit the zeitgeist of the times.

One thing that always appealed to me about Superman is that he tried to lead by example.  He's more concerned with saving lives than remaking the world in his image of a utopia.  Of course those same traits are perceived by many as goody two-shoes pollyanna-ism.

I thought I'd dredge up this thread in time for Labour Day.

I'm still working on my "definitive" list of working-class superheroes and am interested in suggestions from fans more knowledgeable than myself.  Especially in the area of Golden Age heroes.

Happy holiday!  Tears for the end of summer.

Interesting question; nothing "just happens," there are trends and cause-and-effect that make it interesting to figure out why things are, like for example, why blue collar characters are underrepresented in comic book superheroes.

Someone once pointed out in COMIC BOOK NATION that the DC Heroes of the 1950s possessed a "serve and protect" mindset, personifying ultimate authority figures. For that reason the characters of the 1950s were either policemen or wise scientists.

One possible reason for the fact blue collar characters are underrepresented is, there is a degree of admiration for intelligence and education that is only usually found in two other genres, detective and science fiction. One thing that can't be said about comics is that they are anti-intellectual. Look at all the scientist characters: Peter Parker, Reed Richards, the Black Panther, Barry Allen, Ray Palmer, Batman (at least the sciences related to crimesolving), Bruce Banner, Hank Pym, and so on.

Superheroes' primary function is to serve as wish-fulfillment projection, which is why socket wrench heroes may be uncommon. How many superheroes for example, are outright MONARCHS, royalty of foreign lands? Aquaman, the Black Panther, Namor, Wonder Woman, Geo-Force, Amethyst: Princess of Gemworld, Thor (son of Odin).



I think you've hit it on the nail here: one of the most important criteria for superhero jobs is that they have a degree of mobility. This is why so many heroes are reporters, actors, private detectives, and millionaire playboys; characters that have jobs founded in a specific location are usually the exception. Stories can be advanced when, say, Clark Kent is sent to cover a mysterious explosion in the Metropolis Mine Works or when Simon Williams is asked to make a movie in the American Southwest (where dinosaurs have been discovered).

Here's one working class hero for you: Underdog, in his guise as Shoe-Shine Boy. "He's both humble, and loveable."

The ultimate "working class hero," naturally, is the always put-upon everyman Spider-Man.

While he may not be working collar or have a job of any kind, Captain Planet certainly has working class hair: check out his bright green mullet!



Minor detail: Green Arrow was a reporter for a while after his company had disappeared.

nt

nt

nt

nt

Back to liberalism, social movements are always sparked by the elite on behalf (or perceived behalf) of the people. Zorro is an excellent example of this. Likewise with Green Arrow, who basically is Robin Hood.

There does appear to be a total lack of working class heroes in the Golden Age; the worst of the Depression hit before that, when Pulp heroes reigned supreme. However, it looks like the writers opted for people who had the power to change things for the working class. Superman became a reporter so that he could help, and become "the champion of the oppressed," for example.

This deficit appears to have been corrected in the Silver Age. Alan Scott was replaced by the Green Lantern Corps, and all the Green Lanterns from Hal Jordan forward have been working class. (Not sure what Guy Gardner does, but Hal was in the Air Force and Kyle Rainer was I think unemployed.) Perhaps sidekicks were used as a counterweight to fix this perceived problem. Jimmy Olsen was given a greater role in Superman comics, and Robin the Boy Wonder figured prominently into Silver-Age Batman comics.

While the comics industry had been based in New York and largely ignored the South, we began to see the emergence of black superheroes, and other Southern characters like Gambit, Rogue, and Swamp Thing.

Speaking of Swamp Thing, there are many, many magical characters in the DCU. Magic is something that the very lower classes believe in or practice, while the upper classes either dismiss it or campaign against it...and Swamp Thing is himself homeless. If you are looking for working-class characters, the magical sector will probably provide a gold mine, starting with The Spirit.

Guy Gardner was first a college football player, then a lawyer, then he worked with physically challenged children until the time of his coma.  Afterwards, he was just a hero until he gained the Vuldarian powers and he became a bartender and owner of a succesful chain of bar and grills called Warrior's

As matter of fact, Guy has actually employed other heroes and some villians to act as waiters, waitressess, and bouncers for Warrior's.

Kyle Rayner was unemployed until he succesfully sold some of his artwork to a museum. He then got a job being a comic book artist until his assistant got beaten nearly to death.

John Stewart is an architect.

The pre-Crisis Supergirl went from reporter to student counclier to soap opera star.



Mark Merlin a detective of the occult is another

Again, my initial urge was to eliminate educated professionals (white-collar workers) and agents of the state (cops and soldiers), just to see how many blue-collar workers could be dug up.  I eliminated predessional athletes and entertainers as well, or else Deadman, Dick Grayson, and early Stuntman could be used --arguably circus trapeze artists are "blue-collar".

Lots of rich people believe in magic as well, but that doesn't mean that magic superheroes are working class or "ruling class" or anything else.  (Wait, the Spirit is magic???)

Jimmy Olsen, office boy and Jimmy Olsen, reporter are 2 different things and only reporter Jimmy gets superpowers, no?

Maybe our heroes are more working-class than we thought.  Check out these cool photos from a fun site called, "Dial B for Blog"...

http://dialbforblog.com/archives/56/

hehe...now that's more like it.

Well, here we go then, with more recent characters. I would consider cops, firefighters, etc. more working class heroes than government agents. But I digress.

Superboy. Maybe this is why people like Smallville better than they like other Superman shows... it shows the Kents, farming.

John Henry Irons- as we first saw him, a construction worker saved by Superman. Since then, the character has been really messed up a lot.

Spider-Man- Peter Parker, photographer.

Swamp Thing- the last, most homeless Earth elemental. That's gotta suck.

Clark Kent has taken blue-collar jobs since being Superboy, working in mines, etc, usually as an undercover operation. For example, in "The Steeplejack of Steel" he was a construction worker. Part-time working class hero.

Mutants- the story of the Xmen in a lot of ways parallelled the Civil Rights movement. There are plenty of blue-collar members of the Xmen, Alpha Flight, and their offspring, most famously Wolverine.

Booster Gold was a janitor. Kyle Rainer, Green Lantern, was...unemployed, I guess.

Bobo, the Detective Chimp

That's all for now...might edit later.

Pre-Crisis, the Kents also owned the Kent General Store in Smallville, where young Clark Kent helped out (they had sold the farm and bought the store by the time Clark began school).



Kyle was supposed to be an artist (though judging from the imaginativeness of his ring constructs that I saw, probably not much of one.... ;-P).