Posted by Peter David at spider-wb053.proxy.aol.com on April 02, 2000 at 20:08:37:
In Reply to: Re: Supergirl posted by Frank Reynolds on April 02, 2000 at 10:21:36:
: : Shame you don't like "Supergirl" though. At this point it's probably the
: most ambitious work I've got going. But, again...different strokes.
:
: I have to admit, part of that could not be your fault: I tend to be a
: "Superman purist," in that if you wear the "S" you oughta be from Krypton.
: (Elliot Maggin's Superwoman was my one exception to the rule.) It did look
: like you tried to make the best of a character that was, in my opinion,
: badly conceived. But also, a lot of the mystical-sorcery stuff you did in
: the earlier issues turned me off...wasn't my thing. (My brother was the
: Dungeons & Dragons guy; I was the Star Trek/Superfriends guy.)
Fair enough. The thing is, when I was handed the title, it would have been extremely easy to turn it into yet-another-clone of the mainline Superman titles. But I decided that the only hope of survival the book would have would be if I went off in a wildly different direction. Explore things that had never really been explored in an "S" book before. Things that *I* had never done stories about. So I used it as a vehicle to do stories centering on theology, philosophy, the nature of love, matters of faith, and the essential goodness (or lack thereof) of man. Then I crossed my fingers and hoped the series wouldn't die inside of a year because it was too different. Fortunately enough it seems to have developed its own audience, as I was hoping it would.
PAD