The full meal deal on death in comics and Erik Larsen (as excerpted in Wizard #117) is presented here in its entirety.

First, a Mr. Tom O'Rourke....

Dear Wizard,

I just read the new Wizard (#112), and had some thoughts regarding Erik Larsen's letter. Mr. Larsen stated the opinion that he was against killing off characters in long-standing comics. I couldn't disagree more with that opinion.

I've been reading comics for about 24 years, so I think I qualify in saying that I've seen it all. I think that deaths in comics are not only acceptable, but necessary to show development and continuity in the title. Most of my favorite superhero comic storylines involve some kind of death or major character change. A short list: "The Dark Phoenix Saga," "The Elektra Saga," Batman: The Killing Joke, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, the "Gwen Stacy/Green Goblin Saga." All of these storylines could not be possible without a major shakeup in the status quo of the book, often resulting in the death of a major character.

Mr. Larsen posed the question "Is DC really better because Hal Jordan got bumped off?" First of all, Hal Jordan is still a vital character in the DC Universe; His role has just changed. Second of all, the Green Lantern comic was treading water in a serious way before the "Emerald Twilight" storyline. I think that the Kyle Rayner Green Lantern character is far more interesting and three-dimensional than Hal ever was. Even a recent Wizard poll voted Kyle as the most popular Green Lantern. So, yes, I would say the DC Universe is better as a result. Another example of a character becoming more interesting due to their removal from and subsequent change in continuity would be the Batgirl/Oracle character. She has been more fully fleshed-out in the past few years as Oracle than in the entirety of her existence as Batgirl.

I really don't understand what the gripe is with the Mysterio death in Kevin Smith's Daredevil run. Is Mysterio really THAT important of a character that the Marvel Universe couldn't afford to lose him in the interest of a (my opinion) fantastic storyline? My gripe is that Marvel doesn't leave the characters dead. Jean Grey, Elektra, Aunt May, Mysterio, Norman Osborn, and several others should have STAYED dead; the return of these characters merely cheapened the storylines. I applaud DC's decision to move forward by removing characters and bringing in their proteges. How long do we need to read storylines that are merely Stan Lee/Jack Kirby rehash? How long must these characters wallow in storylines that refuse to shake up the status quo? Or, worse yet, shake up the status quo only to erase it a few issues later? How long will Spider-Man be a perpetual 20-year old? It is precisely for that reason that I stopped reading Marvel superhero comics during the '90s in favor of DCs.

Also, as the recent success of Ultimate Spider-Man is showing, well-written and conceived reboots are not only possible, but necessary to the continued vitality of these characters. What would be wrong with a continuity book for long-term readers in which we could see Peter Parker's character develop and age (and, yes, even die and pass the torch to another Spider-Man or -Woman) while simultaneously running a rebooted comic that newer (or even older) readers can follow without having to catch up on 40 years of back issues? I see nothing wrong with this. I might actually buy Amazing Spider-Man again.

I don't see the deaths of superhero characters to be "removing toys from the sandbox." I see it as a needed change in continuity-based comics. How are these characters supposed to remain vital if they never age, never change, and never die?

Tom O'Rourke
tomobass@aol.com

And Erik Larsen's response......

I could write the most touching death of Spider-Man you'd ever read, you'd be crying your eyes out for weeks and I'd get a stack of awards for my brilliant yarn, but you know what? It would be completely insane and self-destructive for Marvel to ever tell that story.

These characters are their bread-and-butter and yes, frankly, a character that's lasted for 35 years ISN'T worth killing for the sake of a single story. Mysterio, for example, certainly IS that important. He's a great visual with a unique power and one of the best villains from Spidey's rogues gallery. Why deprive countless generations of readers of this terrific character for the sake of a single story? I'm not trying here to take anything away from the story or the writer here, but think about these things.

Marvel and DC are KILLING their characters in exchange for short-term profits. Yeah, we all grew up with the whole Superman/Clark/Lois triangle and it was a pretty neat idea, the next generation will NEVER get to experience that! THEY get the adventures of their DAD, a married, henpecked superhero who's gotta make sure to get back home in time for supper and remember to take out the trash and keep the toilet seat down! How fun!

The reason, incidentally, that Kyle got more votes than Hal is that Hal's been out of the picture for ten years! As a guy who's read both in their prime I've got to say: Give me a break! The biggest problem here is that you've been reading stories about guys fighting crime in their underwear well past the time you should have stopped. We can't pander to you. The industry, as a whole, is shooting themselves in the foot in an effort to hang on to every 38-year old who lives at home with their parents and has computer access. Once you caught on that Archie will never get married to either Betty or Veronica you moved on, and that's EXACTLY how it should be with superhero comics from Marvel and DC.

Really! The only way these characters CAN stay vital is if they never age, change or die! You don't make characters more vital by killing them! They don't become more energetic as they start getting gray hair. Aging and death of superheroes may all sound dandy now but stop and think about it a bit. Had they been doing this all along, most of the characters you know and love would be old or dead. Spider-Man would be 54 years old and chasing around a 65-year-old Dr. Octopus. Superman would be in an old-folks' home. You would be being deprived of ALL of the enduring icons as they were initially conceived. IF things had progressed in that manner, in all likelihood the books would resemble "Marvel: the Next Generation" or Spider-Girl. The characters would be second generation heroes trying to look like icons while imitating preexisting characters. Do you see a Spider-Man in there? A Hulk? A Fantastic Four? I know, I know, you're talking about starting the process NOW but how fair is that to the NEXT generation of readers? There's a
  reason the Simpsons stay at the same age while the Cosby show ended its run, characters that age outlive their initial concept, and once that happens a new one has to be devised or it falls apart.

Part of the problem is that MOST of the cool names and powers have been taken which forces names that are less powerful or striking. Superman is pretty direct and powerful; Mighty Man is less so. "Powerful Man" is even worse, and eventually THAT would sound good as the SIXTH generation showed up. In addition, creators are less likely to give Marvel and DC the next Superman because of the way previous creators were given the shaft. When they can SEE that Todd McFarlane got loaded BECAUSE he retained ownership of Spawn, what incentive do they have to give the big two their next big property? (At this point you may think I'll be holding back on Defenders, not giving the book anything new. Rest assured this is NOT the case. Still, there are certainly a lot MORE new characters making their way into Savage Dragon).

Also, you'd need maps and flow charts to keep everybody on the same page and continued stories would be a real mess. Got a six-issue yarn that takes place over a week? Then you'll need to cover seven MONTHS in the next issue!  Sure, I can do this sort of thing in Savage Dragon (and I do) but I'm one guy with one book. I control every aspect of the book, and my hero is bald to begin with. Imagine having to explain to the many creators how much hair Peter Parker has lost THIS year or how much gravity has affected Sue Richards' breasts of late. It gets VERY complicated. Kid sidekicks are only kids for a few years, tops; we'd be on our 10th Robin by now! The others having gotten too old for the job.

Look at the heroes that have been created at Marvel and DC in the last 20 years, not an icon in the bunch (Not even DC/Milestone's Icon became an Icon). Cable, Deadpool, and Impulse are about the extent of it, hardly enough to carry a company.

The Dark Knight Returns was an example you cited and that's how to do this sort of thing -- Take the character and age him a good 20 years or so if you want. But do it out of continuity -- then the characters killed therein are not being denied to successive generations of readers.

I'm not saying there should NEVER be death in comics, but that it really should be more thought through. What are the benefits and opposed to the detriments? Yes, there have been a few nifty deaths in comics, but far too many have been tossed out and then later undone and it's just awful. Think before you kill, folks.

ERIK LARSEN