There's an important distinction that we have to make between two different kinds of characters, 'clones' and 'analogues.' The key is that the former, clones, merely employ the reader's pre-existing emotional relationship with a character, while the latter, analogues, actively comment on the original character.
Now, bear with me a second, because my terminology gets a little funny. In a Bad Signal post from 17 October 2005, Warren Ellis mentioned these kinds of characters, but he uses the word 'analogue' the way I argue we ought to use the word 'clone':
“the truth of any current superhero "hit" is that they're about the audience's relationship with old characters. So how do you replicate that without resorting to a bunch of analogue characters (again)?”
The important part, according to Ellis (and I agree) is the "audience's relationship with old characters." This is true of what I call clones as much as it is with long-running characters. On this list, you can put characters like the original Captain Marvel or Supreme who, in their day, were so much like Superman that readers might buy their books to get the same satisfaction as when they read actual Superman comics.
Matthew Wolf-Meyer who, in a paper called "The World Ozymandias Made" (from The Journal of Popular Culture), uses the word 'clone' but describes exactly what I call an 'analogue' character:
“'Clones' are characters that[sic] resemble other established superheroes, both in costuming and abilities, [...] The Clones have their own lives, their own continuity, and their own costumes [...], but in their presence they make reference to the original [...]. This process of cloning allows the authors to partake of a particular aspect of the discourse of superhero comics, providing their readers with familiar iconography…” (504)
(Wolf-Meyer, Matthew. “The World that Ozymandias Made: Utopias in the Superhero Comic, Subculture, and the Conservation of Difference.” Journal of Popular Culture. Winter 2003, 36:3, 497-517. Italics are mine, for emphasis)
The key, here, is that the new version doesn't just capitalise on the popularity of the original, but actively comments on the original in some way. That extra layer of commentary is the important distinction between the two.
Examples of analogues include just about everything Alan Moore's ever written with superheroes in it. Miracleman is a commentary on the British clone character Marvelman, who himself was a clone of Captain Marvel, who was a clone of Superman. The Watchmen heroes are almost exclusively analogues of the old Charlton heroes. Tom Strong bares a strong resemblance to Doc Savage. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comments both on Victorian adventure/horror fiction and the 'super-team' concept itself. Moore's take on Supreme, starting with issue #41, quite playfully exposes the fact that Supreme was always a rip-off of Superman.
Ellis constantly uses both clones and analogues. At least twice in Stormwatch, he uses villains who are clones of the classic JLA. In Planetary, however, he switches to analogues of both superheroes (Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman), and pulp heroes (The Shadow, Tarzan, Doc Savage).
Much like Miracleman, JMS' Supreme Power is an analogue reboot of the original Squadron Supreme, which was merely a clone title.
I use the terms backwards to my sources because 'clone' carries the connotation of complete sameness, of a mere copy, which more appropriately describes a character built just to play on the reader's sympathies for an original. The word 'analogue' however, denotes comparison. If two things are 'analogous,' they're not identical; they're just different enough for us to compare the two and learn new things about both.
Posted by orion at February 20, 2006 5:26 PM