Aren't ALL DC Heroes Derivative?

Valerie D'Orazio has an interesting post up here responding to David's post here all relating to the discussion of minority characters.

It's an interesting discussion, but she raises a point of argument that I don't think is particularly valid on examination when she says:

Seems to me, David, the real shame is that John Irons had to be originally cast in Superman's image, not his own.

That John Stewart had to be cast in Green Lantern/Hal Jordan's image, not his own.

That Jakeem Thunder had to be cast in Johnny Lightning's image, not his own.

That Shilo Norman had to be cast in Mister Miracle's image, not his own.

That Ryan Choi had to be cast in The Atom's image, not his own.

That Kathy Kane had to be cast in Batman's image, not her own.

Do you know why that happens, David, behind-the-scenes?

Because editors are afraid that a non-white non-male non-straight character cannot lead their own comic unless they are tied in to a preexisting character. Because there is the perception behind-the-scenes that "women books don't sell," that "Black books don't sell," "that books with gays don't sell," etc.

I don't think that's the reason at all.

John Stewart was created in Hal Jordan's image, yes. And Ryan Choi was created in Ray Palmer's. But that's rather ignoring the fact that both Hal and Ray were part of a movement that derived names from previous properties as well. John is derived from Hal. Hal is derived from Alan Scott. Ryan is derived from Ray. Ray is derived from Al Pratt.

Kathy Kane was created in Batman's image. But Kathy Kane was a straight female character. Kate Kane, the lesbian was created in Kathy Kane's image. Much like Jason Todd and Tim Drake are derived from Dick Grayson. Or Barbara Gordon is derived from Bruce Wayne.

Jakeem Thunder's not the first derivative of Johnny Thunder, he's just the only one that stuck. And while Scott Free is not a derivative character, Shilo Norman's hardly the only derivative of a 4th World character. Both of those characters, it must be noted originate in stories where EVERY character is either a Golden Age character re-envisioned or a derivative of a Golden Age hero. And John Henry was created in the same move that created Hank Henshaw and Conner Kent.

I'm not saying DC is perfect or that there aren't serious problems in their treatment of minority characters. But to compare DC's treatment of Marvel's with regards to minority characters in the terms of which one's characters are more derivative of existing white heroes is ridiculous.

Derivative characters are the staple of the DCU. It's how it introduces new characters of any type. I think if you look at DC's output, their frontrunners, you're going to see either 1) characters created in the Golden Age, 2) characters created in the Silver Age using the names of characters in the Golden Age, 3) characters introduced to fill out groups starring Silver Age or Golden Age characters (JSA, JLA, Teen Titans, All-Star Squadron), 4) derivatives of any characters that fit categories 1,2 or 3 such as kid sidekicks, girl versions, rivals, partner heroes, replacement/legacy characters or the like, or 5) miscellaneous other characters from any of the aforementioned heroes' personal books

Essentially, it's like a bullseye diagram. Golden age characters in the center, and then extending outward. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any character, be he straight white male or not, leading a book who doesn't fit into the bullseye somewhere. All new characters must connect somehow with what came before.

In contrast, Marvel is a lot less about derivative characters and more about group filling. We need a new batch of X-Men, okay, let's make one of them a black woman from Kenya with weather powers! Let's slot out a few Avengers, okay, let's bring in the ruler of a fictional African country! I think they're also more likely to introduce solo characters with no real tie to any existing group. (Young Avengers is the only book I can think of off the top of my head where most of the characters involved seem to have been created in the DC style: that is derived specifically from, or created to appear derived specifically from, pre-existing heroes.)

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I think both methods have their uses and creates fantastic characters. I do think characters created by DC will end up a bit more obviously derivative. Characters created by Marvel will probably be a lot more individualized in terms of powers and name. I know personally part of the reason I tend to prefer DC over Marvel is that I like sidekicks and legacies and lineages and generations which DC's method provides and Marvel's doesn't. Everyone's tastes are different though.

But I don't think using John Henry's derivation from Superman to compare him negatively to Black Panther is fair, when really I think that's indicative more of the companies's policies in general than their policies toward race/sex/sexual orientation in particular. You're going to end up with a greater number of derivative minority characters if most of the characters you create are already derivative.

Now as to which company gives their minority characters more exposure/attention once created, that would probably be a much better area for comparison, but it's not one I feel personally equipped to tackle.