Afterword

One of the questions that occasionally sparks debate online is why the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) does so much better than its DC counterpart. There are a great many answers, mainly revolving around Marvel taking the time to build the first two generations of movies and characters up carefully rather than trying to rush it, but I have often found those answers unsatisfactory. There is no inherent reason why DC could not do the same, given that DC has an equally large stable of iconic characters to draw on and decades of storylines that could easily be adapted for a wider universe. As the MCU starts to decline, with accusations of toxic wokeness infecting the franchise and ruining it for everyone else, it is worth asking why Marvel was successful in the first place.

The core difference between the majority of the iconic DC characters and their Marvel counterparts is this: DC focuses on epic characters; Marvel focuses on characters who are truly human on the inside. Superman, for example, is the Big Blue Boy Scout; a superhuman with the maturity to handle his powers without ever abusing them. Batman is the peak of human physical and mental perfection. Green Lantern Hal Jordan is the man without fear. Wonder Woman represents the ideal of the feminine warrior. These characters may be strong, but they are rarely threatening. They do not come across as bullies, characters who could misuse their powers and maybe would. Superman has the maturity most of his evil counterparts - Homelander, Plutonian, Omni-Man - lack. This is so strongly part of his character that even alternate versions of Superman from the Elseworlds line can rarely be said to be evil, even if they serve an evil cause.

By contrast, most of Marvel’s characters are people first and superheroes second. The vast majority of Marvel’s characters, and certainly the most popular ones, fit into one of three categories:

First, the strong in heart but weak in body nerd who would totally be a hero if only he had superpowers, and when he gets those powers he genuinely becomes a hero, a hero who never loses track of where he came from and how horrible it felt to be weak and helpless. Captain America is the iconic example of this type of character.

Second, the bullying jock who marches around convinced he is king of the world until he gets a reality check, which shows him the error of his ways and lets him unlock his potential as a true hero. Iron Man and Thor are iconic examples of this type of character.

Third, a person who belongs to a minority group that is feared, hated, and oppressed, but instead of allowing such treatment to turn him into a monster instead stands up to defend his people and also to defend the wider community against his peers who genuinely do become monsters. The X-Men are a very good example of this type of character.

Spider-Man is the most popular Marvel superhero for a reason, and that reason is that he embodies all three character archetypes. Peter Parker was a weak nerd, pushed around by thuggish bullies and jocks, until he gained superpowers. He then allowed those powers to turn him into an arrogant jock himself, refusing to lift a finger to stop a thief … only to get a reality check when that thief went on to murder his uncle. And as a superhero, he is constantly slandered as a menace by large swaths of the local community, but he never let that turn him into a supervillain.

These characters are instantly understandable, if not likeable, because they are human. Captain America’s story is a story of a man who is great, but that greatness rests in his heart rather than a bottle of superhuman formula. Iron Man’s story is a story of a man who learns better, and devotes his considerable talents to improving the world. The X-Men’s story is a story of people who do what is right, even if it means opposing their peers. None of these characters are as simple and straightforward as their iconic DC counterparts, they wrestle with their humanity and the consequences of their actions in a way very few DC characters do. They have their ups and downs, they rise and fall, and those stories are easier to represent on the big screen than the more epic DC characters.

But I think a greater truth is that these stories speak to human nature, and human aspirations. We have all known that we could be heroes, if we had superpowers. It is easy to be brave if bullets bounce off you, but harder in the real world. We have all known that we could become so blind to our own privilege that only a hopefully-metaphorical slap in the face will bring us back to our senses, and remind us that there are very real consequences for our mistakes. And we have all known that the tribal instinct is barely beneath the surface for most of us, demanding that we support our friends and families even when they are explicitly in the wrong. These stories are stories of people rising to the challenge, overcoming their doubts and fears to do the right thing.

They also work through having shadow counterparts. The bullied nerd who becomes a bully himself. The man who falls from riches to rags, and swears he will never be poor or hungry again on his climb back to the top no matter how many people he has to step on along the way. The in-group that feels constantly attacked and belittled and goes on the offensive, starting a war that could only end in genocide. The great heroes of the MCU are shadowed by enemies who are very much like them, and if they made different choices there would be no difference between the heroes and villains at all.

I have always liked all three character archetypes, but my personal favourite is the second. I’ve known too many people who were not only blind to their own privilege, yet also unwilling to make any actual use of it. We might make jokes about the ‘self-made man who made his company from nothing but his father’s millions,’ yet at least he did something. If you are born into wealth and power, and if your families are willing and able to educate you in any subject you desire, why not? Tony Stark gets a lot of stick for designing and selling weapons, as well as being an arrogant ass, but at least he was doing something. The character who rests on his laurels is one thing; the character who rests on his father’s laurels is quite another.

In writing this book, I had the feeling the Anastasia would be Adam’s shadow counterpart. Adam has no money, no connections and no magic, but he works hard and studies and makes a breakthrough that changes the world and catapults him to fame and fortune. Anastasia is a literal magic princess, heir to the throne, and yet she makes very use of it. She has a duty to train to become the next monarch, when her father dies, and she doesn’t. It is not until she finds herself thousands of miles from home - alone, effectively enslaved, unable to even tell anyone who she truly is - that she gets the kick in the pants she needs to start improving herself, learning the skills she needs to get home before it is too late. The urge to just give in, to spend the rest of her life in exile, is overwhelming. And yet, she knows now that consequences are very real. She cannot leave her family at the mercy of an impostor, one who is even now taking over the monarchy and the kingdom itself.

Getting home is no easy task. She must master the skills she had the opportunity to learn earlier, with far worse teachers and under far less favourable conditions. She must work with allies, always aware they may betray her, and she must be ready to leave and go onwards at a moment’s notice. In doing so, she will undergo a far harder apprenticeship than she would have done if she had studied earlier, although some lessons can only be learned by doing. And in the process, a good-natured but lazy and ignorant Princess becomes a worthy successor to the throne.

In some ways, of course, Circe/Patsy is also Anastasia’s shadow counterpart. She grew up on the streets. She had to sell the only thing she had, her body, to gain the lesson she needed to become a sorceress. Somewhere along the line, it stopped being about self-preservation and turned into an endless lust for power, because power was the only thing that stood between her and a fate worse than death. In a sense, Anastasia grew up safe and didn’t realise, until it was too late, that the world was never truly safe. Circe, by contrast, is all too aware that the world is not safe, that powerful people will abuse their power, that rules are only for those too weak to ignore them. In her mindset, one can either be the player or the played upon.

If things had been different, Anastasia could have wound up like Circe.

And now I have written all this, I have a request to make.

If you have enjoyed this novel, please leave a review. It is getting harder and harder to make a living through self-published books, and the algorithms grant more promotion to books with more and better reviews. Please also follow my blog, mailing list, fan page, and everything else: the more followers I have, the better I look to any prospective publishers. And please feel free to email me with your comments, criticisms, and everything else. I’m in the market for more beta readers, so let me know if you’re interested in that too.

Thank you for your time.

Christopher G. Nuttall

Edinburgh,2025