I don't think we ever said either way whether he'd be generally worthy or generally unworthy -- just that he was worthy once, and not worthy shortly thereafter -- and admittedly, picking up the hammer to return it to Thor isn't an inherently worthy purpose, not when there's no danger and he's standing right there.
The reason we did that bit was because neither Tom Brevoort nor I liked the long, long list of people who'd lifted the hammer over the years, so we wanted to introduce the idea that "worthiness" is not steady-state, it varies according to circumstances and purpose, as well as the character's worth, by whatever Asgardian standards the hammer's spell recognizes as worth. Just because someone picked it up once -- or twice, or a dozen times -- does not mean they'll always be able to do it.
As for what exact parameters factor into things, I don't think it should ever be fully spelled out -- the hammer is godly and mythic, and there should be an air of mystery about it to some degree. It's not a science-fiction weapon whose workings are mathematically transparent to human minds, so you could say, "Well, so-and-so saved a busload of children in 1968, so therefore he can lift it."
The only way to know is to try it and see. And then the only way to know if you can do it again is to try it and see again. That would go for everyone, not just Superman (including pre-Crisis Supes, Earth-2 Supes, Kingdom Come Supes, Twinkie-ad Supes or any other). I think the only guy who the reader should expect can always lift Mjolnir is Thor, and I'm not opposed to surprising them there, either.
kdb
Thank-you very much for that response, Mr. Busiek. That's exactly as I interpreted your JLA/Avengers books on this matter. I'm very pleased that your author intent jibes with that.
My druthers has always been to leave Thor the sole wielder of Mjolnir. While Simonson had an admittedly cool idea to explore the idea of another being worthy, he didn't see the unfortunate future consequences of opening that ugly door. While I detest Beta Ray Bill myself, I do see the one-shot value of the jarring revelation that one other was worthy. But that left the concept open to all kinds of inferior writers who wanted their own 'lifters' so we see the concept became watered-down to near-meaninglessness. Thankfully, not only did you show us that Superman could be worthy, but that the army of wielders no longer were 100% worthy all the time anymore.
Also, the concept of worthiness as you put it is very much in keeping with religious themes, which is what Thor was based on after all. Why does God cause the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the good and bad alike? The ways of gods are mysterious and I believe that's what you were trying to say to us here regarding the mystery of who's worthy under what circumstances. One must accept and believe that a higher power knows what's best, in this case with Mjolnir.
Oh, and not to digress too much, while I'm mildly entertained by your one-time former friend, Darren Madigan, he misses the point of communication. Communication is about saying the most with the least. Mr. Madigan suffers from verbal diarrhea and seems not to realize that few besides himself enjoys his tirelessly expending dozens of pages exploring every possible witticism on a topic before he gets to the infernal point. You get this which is one reason why I suspect you're a working comics professional and he's a jealous wannabe.
Less is more.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM