Now that I have my little ramble complete, I bring you some further thoughts and details about my earlier conversation.
Aquaman has a sort of ridiculous main picture in the Wikipedia entry. I always think I should like Aquaman because of his connection to water (and the fact that I too have a way with it), but then I realize he is rather lame. Besides stinking royally of fish, he truly does stink as a superhero. Even the Green Lantern is better, and that's saying a lot, I think.
Firstly, he has an absurd name. Arthur Curry? At least "Clark Kent" (with whom he started, of course, in Superman form) consists of two brusk first names. Both are pretty strong-sounding names, too. And of course, the power of "Superman" goes without saying. But, I don't know any "Arthur"s and certainly not many "Art"s that are very manly. When I think Arthur, I think short, slightly bumbling and drunk British men or aardvarks on public television. I do not think of mysterious might-be superheroes. And, his last name makes for a delicious dish, but again, it sort of makes my stomach hurt (I have a bad curry story about a trip back to London from the Lake District on a bus when I was living there at 19 that still gives me the Willies). I guess maybe as Arthur Curry he could work in an Indian restaurant and probably do pretty well ... but he wouldn't be able to turn into Aquaman very readily because he'd have to wait *at least* 30 minutes before entering the water, and I think, truthfully, a lot of cute and chirpy dolphins would probably die rather than be saved at the hands of Aquaman in this scenario.
That being said, I guess I just don't get his whole "deal." He does have some pretty interesting powers. The heightened senses, including the vision in the dark of course and the telepathic communication are by themselves fairly radical. But, I guess I don't know enough about Aquaman, because I don't really get exactly how universal or necessary his existence is (or why he quit his day job to superhero full-time). How does he pick a side and decide what things are evil underwater? And why does it matter? For example, I might be okay with him dispensing of all sharks, but I still realize they do have a purpose in the pecking order and are a necessity (a little bit like spiders in the insect community). The underwater world is pretty self-contained, so how far could that concept carry? And I thought Superman could go just about anywhere too, so ... why do we need a special underwater guy?
(I probably just checked my imagination at the door today.)
This part just seals my opinion, really: "Outside of water, Aquaman will gradually dehydrate and his physical abilities and energy will waver in response." So, basically, a lot of the world -- or at least the part with actual other people in it -- is his kryptonite. He would have to be in a water bubble to live outside. I realize a lot of the world must be his oyster (perhaps even literally), since most of the planet is covered with water ... but I'd think he'd get pretty lonely talking to fish (and where would his "fun" happen?), and of course, would stink to high heaven (not that he could go there).
Apparently someone realized his retardation later on, judging from the following statement: "The modern Aquaman has become a darker and more powerful character, often portrayed as angry and righteous. He is also more self-assured -- and even arrogant -- in his role as king."
So, I guess there's a moral that comes out of that for superheroes worried about their lameness (and maybe even regular people accused of acting ridiculously or pretentiously). The moral even sort of relates back to the first part of this discussion: When you think you're getting too lame for words, just rule arrogantly and be ultra-righteous (aka, when you start to worry that you might be sucking hard because you aren't getting as much done as you'd like, a la me earlier today, be totally cranky). You'll be wildly even more unpopular than you were when you were lame, but at least no one will mess with you.
