We Hate Heroes - Let This Plotline Die
macloserboy
a superhero that the public feared and hated. Then as comics tried to
become more "realistic" it's seeped over to all the other books and
frankly I'm sick of it. Part of the whole suspension of disbelief in
comics for me is that no one would question a guy in a costume
dispensing justice. Not that I want to see Robin teaching at the
police academy like he once did back in the Golden Age, but if I see
another "public turns against the Avengers" storyline again, I'm going
to be sick. Now we even have this turning up in Superman.
Superman!?! Bad enough Batman stopped being a superhero almost twenty
years ago because Frank Miller decided he should be a whacked out
vigilante, but now Superman's being questioned?
For The X-Men, fine. It's part of their whole "bigotry as metaphor"
raison d'etre. And even for the Avengers, because they're in the same
universe. For Spider-man it too is part of his "I'm put upon"
schtick, but does it really have to be in every freaking book!?! Yes,
this might happen in "the real world" but I'm not reading about the
real world, am I? Nor am I reading Dark Horse, Image, Top Cow or any
other line that exists to give the public what DC and Marvel can't (in
Powers, the people have actually started murdering superheroes). I'm
reading full-on mainstream comics and I want my heroes unquestioned
and beloved by their public, goddamnit!
Yusaku Jon
there be unchallenged superheroes. The actions of Spider-Man and
Batman are a prime example of this: both characters are basically
taking the law into their own hands and literally knocking down the
doors to get at the criminal element they think that the police are
unable to get to. Never mind that they're acting on personal
feelings that many victims of crime may share (guilt for Spidey,
vengeance on Bats's part).
I can see even Superman getting some flack in spite of his "boy
scout" image. How could you feel if you saw a man in a red cape jump
out of nowhere and start pounding a car full of people (not yet
knowing that these were the bad guys) into a hillside until the
stunned and frightened passengers dropped out?
I used to rail against this portrayal of the X-Men. It was a kind of
helpless feeling on my part, seeing as how the public that seemed so
eager for their blood was virtually ignoring the fact that the
Fantastic Four (virtually indistinguishable from the X-Men until you
know their origin) also possessed freakish powers that normal humans
didn't possess. Now I can understand the principle of the
anti-mutant sentiment, at least as far as those mutants whose powers
manifest themselves destructively are concerned.
Marvel was founded on more than a concept of public derision for
superheroes. One of the biggest things about the FF and others was
that the characters had lives and concerns outside of their costumed
identities. The FF had to pay bills. Daredevil and Thor had to
balance their costumed hero roles with responsibilities to their
chosen professions and family relations. The Avengers often had
members who didn't get along at all (Hulk vs. everybody, Hawkeye vs.
Hercules, etc.). Iron Man had to add health problems (the bad heart)
to that balancing act. You take the super-powers into the equation,
and the drama level increases.
So does the interest.
Now, of course, I've lost my interest in most of these characters
because I've read all the stories that I could read out of them.
This is especially true for the X-Men, who've gone through what I
think is their third cycle of "the-whole-damn-world-is-out-to-get-us"
conflicts. But I still think the idea of the imperfect hero is
valid.
It doesn't matter if a character has personal issues which remain
unresolved for years or if they're faced with the dialemma of a
hostile public (and consequently, authorities who want to deal with
that public's demands). We all have to face those situations, sooner
or later.
Marvel (and its imitators) has given us a mirror to look into.
--
Yusaku Jon
yusaku...@dca.net
http://members.dca.net/yusaku-jon-3/
jspektr
"The downtown headquarters of Banetronics Inc. has just exploded.
Casualties are unknown, but flashes of light and the sound of powerful
impacts continue to be heard in the dust and smoke. OH MY GOD, THEY'VE
THROWN A BUS, A BUS FULL OF PEOPLE!!! It's being torn apart in
mid-air, those animals, they, holy @#$% RUN, RUN, THEY'RE...*
Cut to static as flames, ice, lightning bolts or rocket book exhaust
engulfs the camera.
This could easily represent a fight between some villains and the
Avengers, FF, X-Men, or whoever. Even a public team with press
conferences afterward would have a hard time containing the terror and
fear that would arise from their actions.
I think the public isn't portrayed as hating the heroes nearly enough
in the comics, at least the really powerful ones. I can see people not
liking Batman or Spider-Man, but when a group of masked lunatics that
answer to no one and appears without warning to destroy whole city
blocks with powers that dwarf those of the military, I think people
would be flat-out terrified.
But then, I'd also expect the president to order the military to hunt
down and kill most supervillains, too.
JSpektr
Glenn Simpson
The thing to consider, however, is that it's highly unrealistic for
anyone to actually be a super-hero or super-villain, so it's not that
big a deal that the general public also behaves unrealistically.
As someone smarter than me said, comics are melodrama; even beyond the
laws of physics that are different, the characters also have
exaggerated personalities.
Flash Forever
For those not currently reading New X-Men, Grant Morrison has "outed"
the X-Men. Their existence is now known to the general public. Members
of the public have had very different reactions to this: while some are
still fearful, many are now embracing the idea of the mutant hero. This
has even become something of a fad. Kinda like, "Hey, it's _cool_ to
like mutants now."
Meanwhile, Morrison is exploring a disturbing undercurrent of the
mutant/non-mutant dynamic--taking the idea of homo superior and
extending it to its logial (and frightening) conclusion: mutants are the
next step in human evolution and the time of the homo sapien may be
coming to an end more rapidly than anyone believed. And some mutants
seem very willing, even eager, to embrace this destiny.
Seth Richards
> The thing to consider, however, is that it's highly unrealistic for
> anyone to actually be a super-hero or super-villain, so it's not that
> big a deal that the general public also behaves unrealistically.
Actually, it's not that unrealistic. Different people react different ways
to the same situations. Some people who got superpowers would use them to
become a celebrity, some people would use them just to make their everyday
lives easier, some people would use them to go out and fight crime/make the
world a generally better place, otherwise known as "being a superhero" (me,
for instance, and yeah, I'd take being thrown in jail for being a
vigilante,) and some would use them to commit some sort of illegal act for
whatever reason...which, guess what, is the definition of "supervillain."
Seth
jay
wrote:
>The thing to consider, however, is that it's highly
> unrealistic for anyone to actually be a super-hero
> or super-villain, so it's not that big a deal that the
> general public also behaves unrealistically.
If everyone is going to behave unrealistically,
there's no point in even writing the stories, and
there would be no point in reading them, either.
In consuming superhero stories, you accept a
world in which a big green guy can flatten a
building or a guy can burst into flames and fly
around--that's suspension of disbelief. When
you have everyone reacting to such things in a
completely unrealistic fashion, you do violence
to the reader's willingness to suspend disbelief.
"Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
that operate above and beyond all human laws.
macloserboy
No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point, which is the obsession
with trying to inject realism into stories about flying men in
costumes is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure I get from
reading them.
If you want this sort of thing, there are litterally dozens of books
that pride themselves on it (The Authority, etc.), but now that I see
it in Superman I feel that it's gone too far. I enjoy reading it
Powers, but not in Action Comics.
And quite frankly, if I want to see heroes treated like crap for
sacrificing their lives, I can look outside. I live in Manhattan.
You know what the reward for the heroes of 9/11 is? They have to
march in the street to try and get pay raises. That's my reality.
Forgive me if I don't want it in every single one of my comic books.
Part of the reason we all read comics is to see a world where good
always triumphs over evil. Why can't a triumph over the evil of
cyncism be part of it? Again, not in every book, but in at least a
few, especially where the hero in question represents just that.
jay
wrote:
>> "Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
>> anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
>> enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
>> masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
>> that operate above and beyond all human laws.
>
> No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point,
> which is the obsession with trying to inject
> realism into stories about flying men in costumes
> is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure
> I get from reading them.
We disagree on the issue. I think the trend toward
greater realism in the last decade or so is a positive
step; certainly it opens the comic medium in the U.S.
to much more serious writing than was previously the
case. I don't think devolving into a less realistic
approach would be a positive step or one the market
would support. (The market, of course, is no real
measure of quality, but I mention it only to be realistic :)
> If you want this sort of thing, there are litterally
> dozens of books that pride themselves on it (The
> Authority, etc.), but now that I see it in Superman
> I feel that it's gone too far. I enjoy reading it
> Powers, but not in Action Comics.
If you feel Action has become somehow "polluted,"
drop the title. If enough people follow your example,
DC will very quickly become the EPA in the matter.
The market, particularly in the U.S., can be a very
frustrating thing when a trend emerges which you
dislike. I left comics entirely for years at the dawn
of the "Speculation Age" of the 1990s, when writers
came to be regarded as unimportant and it seemed
as though every issue of every book was devoted
to how to package the hot-artist-of-the-week in as
many different gimmicky ways as possible
(polybagged issues with five different glow-in-the-dark
acid-cut foil covers, a poster, and a trading card
inside--wipe and flush). When enough people
jumped ship alongside me, the Speculation Age
(the McFarlane Age?) finally ended.
> And quite frankly, if I want to see heroes treated
> like crap for sacrificing their lives, I can look
> outside. I live in Manhattan. You know what the
> reward for the heroes of 9/11 is? They have to
> march in the street to try and get pay raises.
> That's my reality. Forgive me if I don't want it in
> every single one of my comic books.
Or, to use another example, Saxby Chambliss, a
candidate for Senate from Georgia, runs ads on TV
accusing his opponent in the race of failing to live
up to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
The opponent in question is a Vietnam vet who, in
the process of failing to live up to his oath, lost both
his legs and one arm in the war, while Chambliss sat
out the war on an allegedly bad knee (supporting it,
as long as someone else had to fight it). The
President of the United States endorses Chambliss,
and on election day, Georgia votes him into office.
The bastards always win; that's the way the world
is. I can certainly understand the need for escapism
in such a dismal place--we're really only disagreeing
over the degree of escapism. And, in fact, we're
really not disagreeing at all--you just want some
books to be less realistic than others, and I certainly
feel that a broad range of options in such matters is
always best.
> Part of the reason we all read comics is to see
> a world where good always triumphs over evil.
That's part of the reason you read comics. In most
of what I would regard as the better comics, it isn't
that simple.
> Why can't a triumph over the evil of cyncism be
> part of it? Again, not in every book, but in at
> least a few, especially where the hero in question
> represents just that.
In your intiial post, you seemed to be arguing that
mainstream comics should, for the most part, abandon
the more realistic approach. Your header backs up
this interpretation, as well. I'm always in favor of a
wide range of choices. I do, however, think the trend
toward greater realism is, for the most part, a positive
one.
---
"The power of accurate observation is frequently
called cynicism by those who don't have it."
--George Bernard Shaw (who frequently didn't
have it himself)
"Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees
things as they are, not as they ought to be."
--Ambrose Bierce (who always had it)
Tue Sorensen
> jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<E07A8BE92253071C.A896C22D...@lp.airnews.net>...
> > On 16 Nov 2002 14:12:33 -0800, gls36...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson)
> > wrote:
> >
>
> > "Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
> > anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
> > enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
> > masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
> > that operate above and beyond all human laws.
>
> No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point, which is the obsession
> with trying to inject realism into stories about flying men in
> costumes is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure I get from
> reading them.
I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero comics are supposed
to show us a better world, a world of heroic role models for us to try
and live up to. One of the things I've always missed in comics are the
oridinary people's Hero Appreciation Societies. There should be
legions upon legions of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
that would be unrealistic. Given that the kind of heroism we see in
comics actually existed, many people would flock around it. The only
ones who hated them would be the government/military and everyone else
with an interest in preserving the status quo; in maintaining the evil
that goes on in a thousands areas every day (which the superheroes
*threaten*, trying to create a better world). So, the contention of
Mark Millar and others that heroes like the Avengers are
"card-carrying upholders of the status quo" is a total, flat-out
misunderstanding of what superheroes are all about. Unfortunately it
is that conception that is gaining more and more prevalence, and this
is why, IMO, many current superhero comics suck so much. Instead of
having heroes be radical and concerned with improving a sick society
(albeit often in symbolic terms), they are now being turned into part
of the establishment, which has the effect of fulfilling a lot of the
common (and hitherto wrong) prejudices about superheroes in the
general population. That is a step in a simpler, more narrow-minded
direction.
- Tue Sorensen
Dwight Williams
>
Superhero comics are supposed
> to show us a better world, a world of heroic role models for us to try
> and live up to. One of the things I've always missed in comics are the
> oridinary people's Hero Appreciation Societies. There should be
> legions upon legions of superhero *supporters*.
If we go by the pages of _Doom Patrol_ during the Morrison years,
they've evolved into Political Action Committees, but certainly haven't
gone away.
--
Dwight Williams - Orleans(Ottawa), ON, Canada
Personal Homesite: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
*I* own my Usenet postings, not some archival service!
jay
wrote:
>>> "Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
>>> anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
>>> enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
>>> masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
>>> that operate above and beyond all human laws.
>>
>> No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point,
>> which is the obsession with trying to inject
>> realism into stories about flying men in costumes
>> is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure
>> I get from reading them.
>
> I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
> comics are supposed to show us a better world,
> a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
> up to.
No, that's what some superhero comics have
aimed for. There's no rule written down
anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
supposed to do or even what they should do,
and, in fact, if you were to compile a list of the
real classics of the genre, there would probably
be very few of them on it that did what you
propose they're supposed to do.
> One of the things I've always missed in comics
> are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
> Societies. There should be legions upon legions
> of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
> that would be unrealistic.
Some of the legions of "supporters," though, would
be more frightening than the villains with which the
hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to imagine
reactionary militia-type people adopting a
character like, say, the Batman as their hero. And
wouldn't a character like Thor, who is literally and
openly a god who walks the earth, draw all manner
of weird worshipper cults?
> Given that the kind of heroism we see in comics
> actually existed, many people would flock around
> it.
There would be ordinary fans of some of the heroes,
and, in fact, there are--I can't remember Daredevil,
for example, ever having been out of public favor.
But ordinary people who would form "hero
appreciation societies" or similiar things would be
groupie-like marginal oddballs.
> The only ones who hated them would be the
> government/military and everyone else with an
> interest in preserving the status quo; in maintaining
> the evil that goes on in a thousands areas every
> day (which the superheroes *threaten*, trying to
> create a better world). So, the contention of Mark
> Millar and others that heroes like the Avengers are
> "card-carrying upholders of the status quo" is a
> total, flat-out misunderstanding of what superheroes
> are all about.
No, it isn't--it's a more realistic interpretation. In the
Ultimates, that's exactly what the heroes are. In the
regular Marvel universe, that's what most of them
would be, as well. It's impossible, for example, to
imagine Captain America, one of the ultimate
Establishment figures, actually exposing and
bringing down a criminal conspiracy such as
Iran-contra--it's very easy, OTOH, to imagine him
actually taking part in such operations on a regular
basis. To use two other examples, the post-Golden
Age Superman--like Cap, the ultimate Establishment
figure--would hunt down and take out the very
anti-Establishment Golden Age Superman, if the
two coexisted in the same world. The same is true
of Batman. The coopted Establishmentarian
law-enforcement figure of the later Golden Age
forward would hunt down and take out the original
Golden Age Batman, a violent, criminal vigilante
whose power came from spreading terror among
the underworld. Comics in the U.S. don't have a lot
of overtly political heroes, particularly not
revolutionary-type heroes, and if they DID emerge,
most of the other heroes would show up to put
them out of commission. Warren Ellis did a
fantastic--and, more importantly, completely
plausible--story arc on this point in Stormwatch a
few years ago.
BTW, I'm certainly in favor of more overtly political
characters.
> Unfortunately it is that conception that is gaining
> more and more prevalence, and this is why, IMO,
> many current superhero comics suck so much.
> Instead of having heroes be radical and concerned
> with improving a sick society (albeit often in symbolic
> terms), they are now being turned into part of the
> establishment, which has the effect of fulfilling a lot
> of the common (and hitherto wrong) prejudices about
> superheroes in the general population. That is a step
> in a simpler, more narrow-minded direction.
It's a more realistic and intellectually honest
interpretation, which means it's a step in a less, not
more, myopic direction--you can hardly make any
case that your own suggestion that these types of
books always have to be one thing and only one
thing and to hell with the fact that the one thing
doesn't make any sense is somehow a more
broad-minded approach. The interpretation you're
now seeing in comics and which you object to isn't,
as you seem to think, a reversal of what's happened
in the past, either. Whether stated or wholly
unrecognized, there has always been a subtext
in superhero comics of heroes as Establishment
figures--it's just being offered more overtly now. By
battling crime and, from time to time, corruption,
the heroes operate as enforcers of the status
quo. They're opposing the visible ills generated by
the system--hence reinforcing it--while leaving the
system that generates these ills in place and
untouched.
jay
Chiennedelh) wrote:
>>> The only ones who hated them would be the
>>> government/military and everyone else with an
>>> interest in preserving the status quo; in maintaining
>>> the evil that goes on in a thousands areas every
>>> day (which the superheroes *threaten*, trying to
>>> create a better world). So, the contention of Mark
>>> Millar and others that heroes like the Avengers are
>>> "card-carrying upholders of the status quo" is a
>>> total, flat-out misunderstanding of what superheroes
>>> are all about.
>>
>> No, it isn't--it's a more realistic interpretation. In the
>> Ultimates, that's exactly what the heroes are. In the
>> regular Marvel universe, that's what most of them
>> would be, as well. It's impossible, for example, to
>> imagine Captain America, one of the ultimate
>> Establishment figures, actually exposing and
>> bringing down a criminal conspiracy such as
>> Iran-contra--it's very easy, OTOH, to imagine him
>> actually taking part in such operations on a regular
>> basis.
>
> Wait up. I don't necessarily disagree with your main
> point here (although you state it a heck of a lot more
> stongly than I would), but there appears to be a
> closed loop here. Namely: superheroes do
> Establishment things because they're part of the
> Establishment. And they're part of the establishment
> because they do Establishment things.
They are a part of the Establishment because they
serve its interests. If they didn't serve its interests (or
mostly serve its interests), they couldn't fairly be
classified as Establishment figures.
> And, speaking as a vaguely left-wing Scot, I've
> always seen Cap as symbolising what America's
> *supposed* to be, not what it *is* (although I
> certainly have problems with that as well,
> especially this whole "Manifest Destiny" thing...)
To quantify that, though, you have to do what Cap's
writers have almost always avoided doing--you have
to create a definition of what America is supposed to
be, and, more specifically, what Cap thinks America
is supposed to be. An ugly truth about U.S. history
is that those who have always made such a big
show of telling us what "patriots" they are--and you
don't get much showier on that score than wearing
the flag itself--are the ones who tend to do the most
violence to the ideals Americans like to attribute to
their country in their own cultural mythology (love of
freedom, tolerance of diversity, etc.). Ambrose Bierce
was right about Samuel Johnson's famous comment
on "patriotism"--it isn't the last refuge of a scoundrel;
it's usually the first.
> I really can't see him getting involved in Iran-contra,
> although I can easily imagine him refusing to accept
> any evidence it existed, because the American
> Government "wouldn't do something like that", or,
> more likely, expose bits of it, with due outrage, but
> refuse to accept how high up it went. Establishment,
> yeah, but not *unquestionly* Establishment, quite.
See, I can imagine him accepting and even adopting
for himself the same rationale some of those involved
in the conspiracy said they'd adopted: "It's for the good
of the country." Here, you get back to that question of
defining what Cap thinks America should be. If what
the conspirators were doing was for the good of the
country, it's easy to rationalize going along with a
cover-up to shield the upper echelon of the executive
branch. If they were acting for the good of the country,
it certainly wouldn't be in the country's best interests to
bring them down. And so on, like a snowball becoming
an avalanche. I've always seen Cap, first and foremost,
as a soldier. A soldier doesn't ask questions. He's given
orders and he follows them. In doing so, he accepts the
notion that those running the show know the score and
know what needs to be done, or at least have a good
idea of it.
> Heck, Superman's archenemy is the President, how
> anti-Establishment do you want 8-)?
Lex Luthor as President. One of the horrific plot ideas
that has dragged Supes back down into the Silver Age
Superman toilet he had managed every so briefly to
escape.
That aside, try imagining Supes aligned against a
presidential administration more like one that actually
exists, rather than against a fictional one run by a
cartoonish ruthless criminal mastermind.
See my point? It ain't easy. On the other hand,
Frank Miller's portrayal of Superman in "The Dark
Knight Returns" is very easy to accept, and is
completely plausible. It just isn't a very pretty picture.
macloserboy
> > I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
> > comics are supposed to show us a better world,
> > a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
> > up to.
>
> No, that's what some superhero comics have
> aimed for. There's no rule written down
> anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
> supposed to do or even what they should do,
> and, in fact, if you were to compile a list of the
> real classics of the genre, there would probably
> be very few of them on it that did what you
> propose they're supposed to do.
>
Again, I'm not sayng every book should have hero worship, but is it
too much to ask that NOT every book should have hero suspicion and
scorn?
And all your arguments---as well as others---after that are "if it
were real, this is what would happen." Well, my point is IT'S NOT
REAL, SO THE REALITY IS ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE. In a world where
physical laws obviously don't apply, then I don't think that
behaviorial laws have to either.
Granted, it's a point of view that realism in comics is a good or bad
thing. Sometimes it is great and fun, but other times it's a real
freaking drag. It's great and fun in Powers, The Authority,
Stormwatch, etc., but for someone who's read Superman since Curt Swan
was boring the hell out of us all, it's a real drag there.
And to take the discussion in another direction, let me say the other
major problem with this storyline is that NO ONE TAKES IT ANYWHERE.
Only Grant Morrison (ironcially, a major Superman worshipper) has
taken the whole "man & superman" relationship to another level in The
X-Men. Everyone else just regurgitates the the same crap I read when
I was a kid. If it must exist, DO SOMETHING WITH IT. When is a
writer going to introduce a Jackie Robinson or Martin Luther King of
the superhuman world who destroys bigots and changes the world around
him?
And though I live in NYC, I'm originally from GA and I heard about
that election. I'm at a loss for words.
Brian Henderson
<sid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Actually, it's not that unrealistic. Different people react different ways
>to the same situations. Some people who got superpowers would use them to
>become a celebrity, some people would use them just to make their everyday
>lives easier, some people would use them to go out and fight crime/make the
>world a generally better place, otherwise known as "being a superhero" (me,
>for instance, and yeah, I'd take being thrown in jail for being a
>vigilante,) and some would use them to commit some sort of illegal act for
>whatever reason...which, guess what, is the definition of "supervillain."
That may be true, but look at Marvel and DC. While yes, it's true
that a few people with superpowers have used them for fame and fortune
over the years, they generally...
1. Fame and fortune.
2. Fame and fortune, but they fight crime on the side.
3. They fight crime, but pursue fame and fortune on the side.
4. They fight crime.
DC is generally worse than Marvel, as most of their 'heroes' are so
two-dimensional as to be laughable. Why do they fight crime? Because
they were written to fight crime. Any other course of action simply
never crossed their mind.
Personally, I like the Rising Stars approach, where being a hero or a
villain isn't the only thing open to someone with superpowers. In
fact, I'd suspect that only a very small percentage of people who had
superpowers in the real world would pursue either course of action.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Part of the reason we all read comics is to see a world where good
>always triumphs over evil. Why can't a triumph over the evil of
>cyncism be part of it? Again, not in every book, but in at least a
>few, especially where the hero in question represents just that.
That's sure not why I read them. I'd much rather have a more
realistic book (within the context of things, of course), where the
good guys in white hats don't always win. Why would you want to read
a story where the villain is going to capture the good guy, put them
in a ridiculously overcomplicated, yet obviously faulty deathtrap,
explain their insidious plot to take over the world, including the
location of the top-secret self-destruct button, and then leave,
allowing the hero to escape? Why bother reading that? You know how
it turns out before you pick it up.
Indeed, why care about a hero who has complete plot immunity? They
cannot be hurt significantly, they cannot lose, they cannot be killed,
they will triumph in the end no matter what happens?
Seems extremely dull to me.
Brian Henderson
>On 17 Nov 2002 07:24:03 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
>wrote:
>> I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
>> comics are supposed to show us a better world,
>> a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
>> up to.
>
>No, that's what some superhero comics have
>aimed for. There's no rule written down
>anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
>supposed to do or even what they should do,
>and, in fact, if you were to compile a list of the
>real classics of the genre, there would probably
>be very few of them on it that did what you
>propose they're supposed to do.
You're absolutely right. There are far too many people who are saying
what comics "are". Comics are for kids. Comics are about good
triumphing over evil. I've never seen an authoratative definition of
comics that demanded any of this.
Comics are a medium. Superhero comics are a genre within that medium.
You can no more say that superhero comics are supposed to be any one
thing than you can demand that all Sci-Fi movies have to be about any
one thing.
>> One of the things I've always missed in comics
>> are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
>> Societies. There should be legions upon legions
>> of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
>> that would be unrealistic.
>
>Some of the legions of "supporters," though, would
>be more frightening than the villains with which the
>hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to imagine
>reactionary militia-type people adopting a
>character like, say, the Batman as their hero. And
>wouldn't a character like Thor, who is literally and
>openly a god who walks the earth, draw all manner
>of weird worshipper cults?
To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would be frightened by any
superpowered individual, much moreso than they'd idolize them. It's
especially true in the Marvel Universe where anyone, and probably most
people are mutants (or at least that's how it feels anymore). I'm not
sure that anyone, outside of Thor and the like, would really draw all
that many followers, at least very few other than the 'oddballs'.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Again, I'm not sayng every book should have hero worship, but is it
>too much to ask that NOT every book should have hero suspicion and
>scorn?
Apparently those are the ones that sell though, right?
>And all your arguments---as well as others---after that are "if it
>were real, this is what would happen." Well, my point is IT'S NOT
>REAL, SO THE REALITY IS ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE. In a world where
>physical laws obviously don't apply, then I don't think that
>behaviorial laws have to either.
But the comic-buying audience apparently doesn't want the kind of
scrubbed, sanitized for your protection superheroes that you want, or
more of those books would exist.
Menshevik
>On 18 Nov 2002 00:38:05 GMT, daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid
>Chiennedelh) wrote:
>
>>>> The only ones who hated them would be the
>>>> government/military and everyone else with an
>>>> interest in preserving the status quo; in maintaining
>>>> the evil that goes on in a thousands areas every
>>>> day (which the superheroes *threaten*, trying to
>>>> create a better world). So, the contention of Mark
>>>> Millar and others that heroes like the Avengers are
>>>> "card-carrying upholders of the status quo" is a
>>>> total, flat-out misunderstanding of what superheroes
>>>> are all about.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't--it's a more realistic interpretation. In the
>>> Ultimates, that's exactly what the heroes are. In the
>>> regular Marvel universe, that's what most of them
>>> would be, as well. It's impossible, for example, to
>>> imagine Captain America, one of the ultimate
>>> Establishment figures, actually exposing and
>>> bringing down a criminal conspiracy such as
>>> Iran-contra--it's very easy, OTOH, to imagine him
>>> actually taking part in such operations on a regular
>>> basis.
Funny, for me it is exactly the other way around, based on
having read the title during the 1970s and 1980s, when Cap
frequently disagreed with the government etc., to the point
of abandoning his Captain America identity on two occasions.
>>
>> Wait up. I don't necessarily disagree with your main
>> point here (although you state it a heck of a lot more
>> stongly than I would), but there appears to be a
>> closed loop here. Namely: superheroes do
>> Establishment things because they're part of the
>> Establishment. And they're part of the establishment
>> because they do Establishment things.
>
>They are a part of the Establishment because they
>serve its interests. If they didn't serve its interests (or
>mostly serve its interests), they couldn't fairly be
>classified as Establishment figures.
Serving the Establishment's interests and being part of the
Establishment are two kettles of fish. Were the Blacks who fought in
the US Forces in the World Wars and Vietnam part of the
establishment? I don't think so. Then of course there is the highly
thorny problem of what constitutes serving the Establishment --
some people would consider anything short of actively trying to
overthrow the government as "serving the Establishment".
But on the other hand, terrorists or foreign governments hostile to
the US government could also be said to serve the interests of
the Establishment because they make people rally around the
leaders provided by the Establishment...
>
>> And, speaking as a vaguely left-wing Scot, I've
>> always seen Cap as symbolising what America's
>> *supposed* to be, not what it *is* (although I
>> certainly have problems with that as well,
>> especially this whole "Manifest Destiny" thing...)
>
>To quantify that, though, you have to do what Cap's
>writers have almost always avoided doing--you have
>to create a definition of what America is supposed to
>be, and, more specifically, what Cap thinks America
>is supposed to be.
I don't think so. Captain America is often described as the
embodiment of the American Dream, not that of one sociopolitical
doctrine. Although he has certain views privately (I tend
to think that he is still fairly close to those he held back in the 1930s
and 40s, which would by today's standards probably make him a
vaguely leftish Liberal), he sees his Captain America persona
as representing all the nation, not just one political belief
system or section of the population. (I think he also "embodies" some
old American traditions, not least important of which is a deeply
engrained distrust of ideologies). I think he would consider
it an abuse of the prestige he won by his actions to exploit
it to tell his fellow citizens how to run their lives or the
country.
> An ugly truth about U.S. history
>is that those who have always made such a big
>show of telling us what "patriots" they are--and you
>don't get much showier on that score than wearing
>the flag itself--are the ones who tend to do the most
>violence to the ideals Americans like to attribute to
>their country in their own cultural mythology (love of
>freedom, tolerance of diversity, etc.). Ambrose Bierce
>was right about Samuel Johnson's famous comment
>on "patriotism"--it isn't the last refuge of a scoundrel;
>it's usually the first.
Nice general point, but what does that have to do with Captain
America as he has been portrayed in the comics since at
least the 1960s? After all, among his enemies you also find
zealous super-patriots (including the Commie-hunting
Captain America of the 1950s). In some stories written in the
1970s but set in World War 2, Captain America speaks out to
his superiors against the internment of Japanese-Americans.
>
>> I really can't see him getting involved in Iran-contra,
>> although I can easily imagine him refusing to accept
>> any evidence it existed, because the American
>> Government "wouldn't do something like that", or,
>> more likely, expose bits of it, with due outrage, but
>> refuse to accept how high up it went. Establishment,
>> yeah, but not *unquestionly* Establishment, quite.
In the 1970s, around Watergate, there was a storyline which
culminated in the unmasking of the US President as the leader
of the evil Secret Empire.
Cap then became "Nomad, Man Without a Country" for a few
issues.
In the 1980s he had a falling-out with the government department
in charge of superheroes which led to him being replaced by
a more pliable new Captain America while he himself adopted a
new identity as The Captain.
Tilman
"Who wants to read something about this subject will find it in a book, the
title of which I've forgotten. But it's the 42nd chapter."
Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)
macloserboy
Then you must be bored with most every comic around, because every
character with their own book goes through exactly what you just
described on a regular basis, all the way down to not being hurt
significantly, not losing, not being killed and triumphing in the end.
The only difference between "now" and "then" is that the cop on scene
doens't say, "Thank you, Superguy for saving the city." He now says,
"Costumed freak, it's your fault the city was in danger."
Seth Richards
> Personally, I like the Rising Stars approach, where being a hero or a
> villain isn't the only thing open to someone with superpowers. In
> fact, I'd suspect that only a very small percentage of people who had
> superpowers in the real world would pursue either course of action.
>
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you that it'd be a *very* small
percentage, but you're absolutely right. It would at least be a small
percentage. And yes, a world of superhuman beings divided into *just*
superheroes and supervillains *is* unrealistic. (But isn't that part of the
point of comics?) I just object to the notion of the superhero concept
itself as unrealistic. After all, even if it is a small percentage, there
are actually people out there who do use their time to do good, even without
superhuman abilities. (And actually, doesn't DC make the worst example for a
universe where superhumans should be feared on sight, given that that
Earth's had superheroes and villains for over 60 years now? If anything,
shouldn't the appearance of a superhero or villain almost be a given in a
universe like that?)
jay
I should have put my cards on the table about my
own Cap reading. I'm not a regular Cap fan. I've
read probably every CA story from the 1960s, and
a lot of the 1950s tales that John Romita drew (a
period which probably negatively influenced my
view of the character, fairly or not). Outside of that
period, my reading has been relatively
sparse--several Golden Age stories, a stray issue
of his own book from time to time, and a lot of Cap
apprearances in other titles like the Avengers.
>>> Wait up. I don't necessarily disagree with
>>> your main point here (although you state it
>>> a heck of a lot more stongly than I would),
>>> but there appears to be a closed loop here.
>>> Namely: superheroes do Establishment
>>> things because they're part of the
>>> Establishment. And they're part of the
>>> establishment because they do Establishment
>>> things.
>>
>> They are a part of the Establishment because
>> they serve its interests. If they didn't serve its
>> interests (or mostly serve its interests), they
>> couldn't fairly be classified as Establishment
>> figures.
>
> Serving the Establishment's interests and being
> part of the Establishment are two kettles of fish.
> Were the Blacks who fought in the US Forces
> in the World Wars and Vietnam part of the
> establishment? I don't think so.
They were defending the Establishment. They
don't have to be "insiders" to serve its interests.
> Then of course
> there is the highly thorny problem of what
> constitutes serving the Establishment -- some
> people would consider anything short of actively
> trying to overthrow the government as "serving
> the Establishment".
It's frequently a matter of focus. If one adopts an
exceedingly narrow focus, reformers can be
seen as anti-Establishment. A broader focus
sees reformers as serving the Establishment,
because they're trying to save it from its own
excesses. To make it better and hence stronger,
not to replace it. I suppose FDR is the classic
example, here. To use another, consider
Christopher Hitchens' criticism of Mother
Theresa; she tried to ease the suffering of those
afflicted by repression/poverty/starvation, etc. in
the Third World without ever challenging the
systems that left them in such a miserable state.
Is it better to provide relief and assistance to
refugees from, say, the U.S. client regime in
Guatamala over several decades, or would it
be better to focus one's efforts on wiping the
regime that perpetrated such horrors from the
face of the earth?
> But on the other hand,
> terrorists or foreign governments hostile to the
> US government could also be said to serve the
> interests of the Establishment because they make
> people rally around the leaders provided by the
> Establishment...
Of course they do--that's why the U.S. government
is so fond of manufacturing such threats. That's
really outside the scope of what I was talking about,
though.
>>> And, speaking as a vaguely left-wing Scot, I've
>>> always seen Cap as symbolising what America's
>>> *supposed* to be, not what it *is* (although I
>>> certainly have problems with that as well,
>>> especially this whole "Manifest Destiny" thing...)
>>
>> To quantify that, though, you have to do what
>> Cap's writers have almost always avoided
>> doing--you have to create a definition of what
>> America is supposed to be, and, more specifically,
>> what Cap thinks America is supposed to be.
>
> I don't think so. Captain America is often
> described as the embodiment of the American
> Dream, not that of one sociopolitical doctrine.
But he can't be the former without a definition of
the latter (unless the latter is solely intended as an
empty platitutde).
> Although he has certain views privately (I tend
> to think that he is still fairly close to those he held
> back in the 1930s and 40s, which would by today's
> standards probably make him a vaguely leftish
> Liberal), he sees his Captain America persona
> as representing all the nation, not just one political
> belief system or section of the population. (I think
> he also "embodies" some old American traditions,
> not least important of which is a deeply engrained
> distrust of ideologies). I think he would consider
> it an abuse of the prestige he won by his actions
> to exploit it to tell his fellow citizens how to run
> their lives or the country.
But that leaves him an empty shell, being nothing
and standing for nothing. Perhaps this is an
appropriate symbol of America! Most people
probably wouldn't agree with that, though.
>> An ugly truth about U.S. history
>> is that those who have always made such a big
>> show of telling us what "patriots" they are--and you
>> don't get much showier on that score than wearing
>> the flag itself--are the ones who tend to do the most
>> violence to the ideals Americans like to attribute to
>> their country in their own cultural mythology (love of
>> freedom, tolerance of diversity, etc.). Ambrose Bierce
>> was right about Samuel Johnson's famous comment
>> on "patriotism"--it isn't the last refuge of a scoundrel;
>> it's usually the first.
>
> Nice general point, but what does that have to do
> with Captain America as he has been portrayed in
> the comics since at least the 1960s?
It was a general point about people who make a show
of their "patriotism." In context, I was pointing out that,
as I said above, Cap's writers have most frequently
left him an empty shell. What would that shell perhaps
cointain? From an historical standpoint, the possibilities
aren't promising (which was the point of my musing
above).
> After all, among his enemies you also find zealous
> super-patriots (including the Commie-hunting
> Captain America of the 1950s).
I didn't know he'd ever been an enemy of CA; I
thought he was supposed to have died before
Cap was reawakened in the '60s. (Isn't the
50s Bucky the guy who became Nomad in the
80s?)
> In some stories written in the 1970s but set in
> World War 2, Captain America speaks out to
> his superiors against the internment of
> Japanese-Americans.
Never read it, but that would certainly be a
major improvement over the Cap stories that
were actually done contemporaneous to the
war itself (which used all manner of racist
imagery).
>>> I really can't see him getting involved in
>>> Iran-contra, although I can easily imagine
>>> him refusing to accept any evidence it
>>> existed, because the American Government
>>> "wouldn't do something like that", or, more
>>> likely, expose bits of it, with due outrage, but
>>> refuse to accept how high up it went.
>>> Establishment, yeah, but not *unquestionly*
>>> Establishment, quite.
>
> In the 1970s, around Watergate, there was a
> storyline which culminated in the unmasking of
> the US President as the leader of the evil
> Secret Empire. Cap then became "Nomad,
> Man Without a Country" for a few issues.
The legendary Marvel take on Watergate, which,
shamefully, I've never read.
> In the
> 1980s he had a falling-out with the government
> department in charge of superheroes which led
> to him being replaced by a more pliable new
> Captain America while he himself adopted a
> new identity as The Captain.
Haven't read that one, either.
PeterDoug72
What exactly do you suck?
Menshevik
Perish forbid you should let your ignorance of the subject
stop you from making sweeping generalizations.
>>>> but there appears to be a closed loop here.
>>>> Namely: superheroes do Establishment
>>>> things because they're part of the
>>>> Establishment. And they're part of the
>>>> establishment because they do Establishment
>>>> things.
>>>
>>> They are a part of the Establishment because
>>> they serve its interests. If they didn't serve its
>>> interests (or mostly serve its interests), they
>>> couldn't fairly be classified as Establishment
>>> figures.
>>
>> Serving the Establishment's interests and being
>> part of the Establishment are two kettles of fish.
>> Were the Blacks who fought in the US Forces
>> in the World Wars and Vietnam part of the
>> establishment? I don't think so.
>
>They were defending the Establishment. They
>don't have to be "insiders" to serve its interests.
But that still doesn't make them part of the establishment.
So you have a win-win situation: If superheroes don't
challenge the status quo, then they serve the establishment. And if
they do challenge it, they also serve the establishment.
>
>>>> And, speaking as a vaguely left-wing Scot, I've
>>>> always seen Cap as symbolising what America's
>>>> *supposed* to be, not what it *is* (although I
>>>> certainly have problems with that as well,
>>>> especially this whole "Manifest Destiny" thing...)
>>>
>>> To quantify that, though, you have to do what
>>> Cap's writers have almost always avoided
>>> doing--you have to create a definition of what
>>> America is supposed to be, and, more specifically,
>>> what Cap thinks America is supposed to be.
>>
>> I don't think so. Captain America is often
>> described as the embodiment of the American
>> Dream, not that of one sociopolitical doctrine.
>
>But he can't be the former without a definition of
>the latter (unless the latter is solely intended as an
>empty platitutde).
Sure he can be, because a dream is more diffuse, not as
narrowly defined as a political doctrine. And I think part of the
American Dream would entail leaving it up to decide for themselves
what they want, to accept that there is going to be a plurality of
beliefs instead of deciding that there is One Correct Way
that everybody should embrace. Which is why for instance
Cap, while not embracing pacifism for himself, can admire the
strength of his pacifist friend's beliefs.
>> Although he has certain views privately (I tend
>> to think that he is still fairly close to those he held
>> back in the 1930s and 40s, which would by today's
>> standards probably make him a vaguely leftish
>> Liberal), he sees his Captain America persona
>> as representing all the nation, not just one political
>> belief system or section of the population. (I think
>> he also "embodies" some old American traditions,
>> not least important of which is a deeply engrained
>> distrust of ideologies). I think he would consider
>> it an abuse of the prestige he won by his actions
>> to exploit it to tell his fellow citizens how to run
>> their lives or the country.
>
>But that leaves him an empty shell, being nothing
>and standing for nothing. Perhaps this is an
>appropriate symbol of America! Most people
>probably wouldn't agree with that, though.
Which I guess must prove they must be wrong. ;-)
>>> An ugly truth about U.S. history
>>> is that those who have always made such a big
>>> show of telling us what "patriots" they are--and you
>>> don't get much showier on that score than wearing
>>> the flag itself--are the ones who tend to do the most
>>> violence to the ideals Americans like to attribute to
>>> their country in their own cultural mythology (love of
>>> freedom, tolerance of diversity, etc.). Ambrose Bierce
>>> was right about Samuel Johnson's famous comment
>>> on "patriotism"--it isn't the last refuge of a scoundrel;
>>> it's usually the first.
>>
>> Nice general point, but what does that have to do
>> with Captain America as he has been portrayed in
>> the comics since at least the 1960s?
>
>It was a general point about people who make a show
>of their "patriotism." In context, I was pointing out that,
>as I said above, Cap's writers have most frequently
>left him an empty shell.
And you know this from practically never reading his
title since the 1960s.
>> After all, among his enemies you also find zealous
>> super-patriots (including the Commie-hunting
>> Captain America of the 1950s).
>
>I didn't know he'd ever been an enemy of CA; I
>thought he was supposed to have died before
>Cap was reawakened in the '60s. (Isn't the
>50s Bucky the guy who became Nomad in the
>80s?)
The Captain America and Bucky of the 1950s were put into
suspended animation and then reappeared in CA #153,
where they ran up against the real Captain and his
then partner, the Falcon in a story by Steve Englehart. Some time
after the defeat the 50s Cap fell under the control of a brain-washing
bad guy who used him as the leader of a Nazi-style group,
the National Force. He ultimately committed suicide in CA #236 (1979).
The 1950s Bucky indeed became the new Nomad in the 1980s.
Brian Henderson
In Rising Stars, only a VERY few of the 113 superpowered humans went
on to become costumed superheroes, and only one of those could
arguably be a villain. The rest just want to live normal lives, or
use their abilities for other purposes. And no, I don't think there
is any "point" to comics at all, they can be anything they wish to be,
you can't demand that every comic fits into a preconceived mold.
I think that DCs problem is simply that there is little or no
justification behind the character roles. Why is Superman a
superhero? Because he is. No rhyme or reason, that's just how it
goes. Why is Lex Luthor a villain? Because. I mean, give me a
break. The guy is one of the richest men in the world and at the
moment, he's president, for crying out loud. Why is this guy out to
do evil? It makes no sense.
"I'm bad because I am" is no justification.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:<3l7htu03t1178fsi3...@4ax.com>...
>> Seems extremely dull to me.
>
>Then you must be bored with most every comic around, because every
>character with their own book goes through exactly what you just
>described on a regular basis, all the way down to not being hurt
>significantly, not losing, not being killed and triumphing in the end.
> The only difference between "now" and "then" is that the cop on scene
>doens't say, "Thank you, Superguy for saving the city." He now says,
>"Costumed freak, it's your fault the city was in danger."
With Marvel and especially DC? Absolutely. That's why the number of
Marvel and DC comics keeps going down for me. Then again, I'm not
really reading the traditional superhero comics anyhow.
Isaac
wrote:
>
> I think that DCs problem is simply that there is little or no
> justification behind the character roles. Why is Superman a
> superhero? Because he is. No rhyme or reason, that's just how it
I think Superman's motivation has been explored in depth in the comics.
It isn't the subject of every issue, but to suggest that there isn't
any reason why Superman is a hero makes me think you are at most a
casual reader. Batman's motivation is even more apparent. His motivation
is as well fleshed out as any Marvel character.
I don't find any consistent difference between the depth or believability
of the justification for the major Marvel and DC Superheroes.
> goes. Why is Lex Luthor a villain? Because. I mean, give me a
> break. The guy is one of the richest men in the world and at the
> moment, he's president, for crying out loud. Why is this guy out to
> do evil? It makes no sense.
>
> "I'm bad because I am" is no justification.
I think ultimately for all the sane characters, there is no real justification
for being evil. How do you explain the evil people you encounter in real
life?
Isaac
Glenn Simpson
But you admit that if you were to try to use them to help people,
you'd be a vigilante, not a super-hero. I'm defining super-hero as a
person who operates in public wearing a skintight costume, who's
probably been given some limited police authority and who is generally
respected and considered cool by the general public.
That's not going to happen. People look silly in skintight costumes,
and you couldn't wear it under your clothes because you'd burn up.
Also, unless your mask covered your entire face, you'd still probably
be recognized. You couldn't help people between 9 to 5 because you
can't get away from work for that long without eventually getting
fired. You couldn't fly to work every day because sooner or later
someone who knows you would ask you to give them a ride or help them
jump-start their car.
You wouldn't have any super-villains to fight because only a very very
very small percentage of people who want to commit crimes using the
powers would be stupid enough to do it in broad daylight - and if they
did it at night, and had powers that were at all effective, they'd be
in and out so fast, so you'd never have a chance to stop them.
People would think you were a freak. I don't care how much you help
them. Plus, there's not a lot of chances to really help people. Other
than those once-every-few-years "kid trapped in a well" situations or
big forest fires, most crimes or emergencies are over and done by the
time anybody in the general public knows about it. You could
masquerade as a police officer or fireman, but then you wouldn't be
able to slip away to change into your costume because someone would
miss you, so you'd have to use your powers while in your uniform which
means you aren't a super-hero.
The police would be obligated to try to arrest you for your vigilante
ways, especially if someone actually got hurt by you. While I know
there are lots of laws revolving around protecting others and
self-defence and whatnot, sooner or later they'd find some sort of
charges to bring you up on. You think a policeman wants to take a
chance on getting hurt, or a buddy getting hurt, because they stood by
and let you do your thing? Or for that matter the police force being
sued because someone sees them standing by not trying to stop you, and
as a result someone gets hurt.
OK, but let's say you do find a way to show up for the actual crimes.
Keep lots of rope handy. People don't get knocked out in real life as
easily as they do in the comics. But of course, if you intentionally
hit them hard enough to knock them out, you're probably doing more
than is allowed in the "self-defence" catagory. So you've got to
subdue them one by one and tie them up. If there's a gang of them, I
hope you can pull this off without innocent bystanders getting hurt.
Then there's your friends and family. Are you going to tell them?
Remember, unreal things almost never happen in real life. Let's say
you have telekinesis. You go home and show your parents your powers by
floating something across the room. They are going to freak out. You
think it's cool, because you've read comics all your life. But for
them, it's scary. You're not normal. You're a freak. Nobody in real
life has ever had to deal with something this bizarre and
unexplainable - I can't imagine the results would be positive.
Yes, there are magicians who do amazing things. But everyone goes into
it understanding that the guy isn't REALLY doing this stuff, that
there's some trick to it. We may not be able to figure it out, but we
know it's a trick. But if you start floating things around in a
personal setting, people are going to freak.
I love comics. I've loved them all my life. And I've spent no short
amount of time imagining a real world where super-heroes exist. But as
I've grown older I've realized that the difference between the world
in the comics and the real world goes beyond just the physics of super
powers. There are a number of other sociological, psychological and
biological differences between the two worlds. We ignore them in the
comics because they aren't any big deal. But they do exist.
By the way, I obviously know nothing about you, your job, your family
and friends, or for that matter what powers you might have :) - I'm
just speaking generally.
Glenn Simpson
> On 16 Nov 2002 14:12:33 -0800, gls36...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson)
> wrote:
>
> >The thing to consider, however, is that it's highly
> > unrealistic for anyone to actually be a super-hero
> > or super-villain, so it's not that big a deal that the
> > general public also behaves unrealistically.
>
> If everyone is going to behave unrealistically,
> there's no point in even writing the stories, and
> there would be no point in reading them, either.
People act unrealistically on TV, in movies, in plays, in many many
forms of entertainment. Bill Cosby could always solve his children's
problems in 30 minutes. People on TV and in comics spend a lot of time
explaining what's going on in their lives for no apparent reason
(other than to fill in the reader/viewer). They often think out loud
so we'll know what they're thinking. And yes, they accept unrealistic
things in their lives so that the overall story can continue without
that weirdness being a central point of the story.
Mathew Krull
>
>DC is generally worse than Marvel, as most of their 'heroes' are so
>two-dimensional as to be laughable. Why do they fight crime? Because
>they were written to fight crime. Any other course of action simply
>never crossed their mind.
>
Why does Captain America fight crime? Is his motivation somehow more
intrinsically logical than Superman's? Why does Spider-Man fight crime?
Is his loss somehow more real than Batman's? The X-Men? The Silver
Surfer? Why are ther motivations somehow more important than the Doom
Patrol's or Green Lanter's?
--
My name is not misspelled.
jay
>> appearances in other titles like the Avengers.
>
> Perish forbid you should let your ignorance of the
> subject stop you from making sweeping
> generalizations.
I used an example, one among many. If I used it
improperly, I'll retract it. You haven't shown that
I've done so, though.
>>>>> but there appears to be a closed loop here.
>>>>> Namely: superheroes do Establishment
>>>>> things because they're part of the
>>>>> Establishment. And they're part of the
>>>>> establishment because they do Establishment
>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> They are a part of the Establishment because
>>>> they serve its interests. If they didn't serve its
>>>> interests (or mostly serve its interests), they
>>>> couldn't fairly be classified as Establishment
>>>> figures.
>>>
>>> Serving the Establishment's interests and being
>>> part of the Establishment are two kettles of fish.
>>> Were the Blacks who fought in the US Forces
>>> in the World Wars and Vietnam part of the
>>> establishment? I don't think so.
>>
>> They were defending the Establishment. They
>> don't have to be "insiders" to serve its interests.
>
> But that still doesn't make them part of the
> establishment.
As I just wrote, "they don't have to be 'insiders' to
serve its interests." If someone literally putting their
life on the line defending it on a battlefield as a part
of its army isn't doing so, no one ever is. You have
to evaluate a given situation.
No, I have one situation that is relevant to the
discussion at hand and one that is totally outside
the discussion at hand. Doom, to translate the
foreign nation example into comic book terms,
can never be made into an Establishment figure
in the United States, even if he does cause the
public there to rally around their institutions--he
isn't one that would be used in such a manner.
In Latveria, OTOH, he is the Establishment.
>>>>> And, speaking as a vaguely left-wing Scot,
>>>>> I've always seen Cap as symbolising what
>>>>> America's *supposed* to be, not what it *is*
>>>>> (although I certainly have problems with
>>>>> that as well, especially this whole "Manifest
>>>>> Destiny" thing...)
>>>>
>>>> To quantify that, though, you have to do what
>>>> Cap's writers have almost always avoided
>>>> doing--you have to create a definition of what
>>>> America is supposed to be, and, more specifically,
>>>> what Cap thinks America is supposed to be.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Captain America is often
>>> described as the embodiment of the American
>>> Dream, not that of one sociopolitical doctrine.
>>
>> But he can't be the former without a definition of
>> the latter (unless the latter is solely intended as an
>> empty platitutde).
>
> Sure he can be, because a dream is more diffuse,
> not as narrowly defined as a political doctrine. And
> I think part of the American Dream would entail
> leaving it up to decide for themselves what they
> want, to accept that there is going to be a plurality
> of beliefs instead of deciding that there is One
> Correct Way that everybody should embrace.
By attributing that to Cap, you begin to fill up the
hollow Cap with a specific liberal point of view that
automatically alienates those Americans who *do*
think of the American Dream as a narrow One
Correct Way thing--in other words, a large
percentage of the population, including--and this
is quite important--virtually the entire population of
public Pharisee-flag-wavers.
> Which is why for instance Cap, while not
> embracing pacifism for himself, can admire the
> strength of his pacifist friend's beliefs.
>
>>> Although he has certain views privately (I
>>> tend to think that he is still fairly close to
>>> those he held back in the 1930s and 40s,
>>> which would by today's standards probably
>>> make him a vaguely leftish Liberal), he sees
>>> his Captain America persona as representing
>>> all the nation, not just one political belief
>>> system or section of the population. (I think
>>> he also "embodies" some old American
>>> traditions, not least important of which is a
>>> deeply engrained distrust of ideologies). I
>>> think he would consider it an abuse of the
>>> prestige he won by his actions to exploit it to
>>> tell his fellow citizens how to run their lives or
>>> the country.
>>
>> But that leaves him an empty shell, being nothing
>> and standing for nothing. Perhaps this is an
>> appropriate symbol of America! Most people
>> probably wouldn't agree with that, though.
>
> Which I guess must prove they must be
> wrong. ;-)
Uh...
>>>> An ugly truth about U.S. history
>>>> is that those who have always made such a
>>>> big show of telling us what "patriots" they
>>>> are--and you don't get much showier on that
>>>> score than wearing the flag itself--are the ones
>>>> who tend to do the most violence to the ideals
>>>> Americans like to attribute to their country in
>>>> their own cultural mythology (love of freedom,
>>>> tolerance of diversity, etc.). Ambrose Bierce
>>>> was right about Samuel Johnson's famous
>>>> comment on "patriotism"--it isn't the last refuge
>>>> of a scoundrel; it's usually the first.
>>>
>>> Nice general point, but what does that have to
>>> do with Captain America as he has been
>>> portrayed in the comics since at least the 1960s?
>>
>> It was a general point about people who make a
>> show of their "patriotism." In context, I was pointing
>> out that, as I said above, Cap's writers have most
>> frequently left him an empty shell.
>
> And you know this from practically never reading his
> title since the 1960s.
It's never been a very good book when I looked
at it. For that matter, it wasn't very good in the
'60s. The period is mostly noteworthy for its horrific
squandering of fantastic ideas like the Red
Skull/Cosmic Cube thing.
>>> After all, among his enemies you also find zealous
>>> super-patriots (including the Commie-hunting
>>> Captain America of the 1950s).
>>
>> I didn't know he'd ever been an enemy of CA; I
>> thought he was supposed to have died before
>> Cap was reawakened in the '60s. (Isn't the
>> 50s Bucky the guy who became Nomad in the
>> 80s?)
>
> The Captain America and Bucky of the 1950s
> were put into suspended animation and then
> reappeared in CA #153, where they ran up
> against the real Captain and his then partner,
> the Falcon in a story by Steve Englehart.
Was that done in the '50s, or was that a retcon?
I haven't looked at a lot of this stuff in years, but
I'm almost certain I remember something in Cap
about the '50s Cap being dead.
Brian Henderson
<is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:28:35 -0800, Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com>
>wrote:
>> I think that DCs problem is simply that there is little or no
>> justification behind the character roles. Why is Superman a
>> superhero? Because he is. No rhyme or reason, that's just how it
>
>I think Superman's motivation has been explored in depth in the comics.
>It isn't the subject of every issue, but to suggest that there isn't
>any reason why Superman is a hero makes me think you are at most a
>casual reader. Batman's motivation is even more apparent. His motivation
>is as well fleshed out as any Marvel character.
Batman does have a reason, the death of his parents. Same reason as
Spiderman and the Punisher, at least initially.
Superman doesn't have that. There is no pivotal event that changed
his life and made him stop being Clark Kent, football hero and start
being Superman, defender of Metropolis.
>> goes. Why is Lex Luthor a villain? Because. I mean, give me a
>> break. The guy is one of the richest men in the world and at the
>> moment, he's president, for crying out loud. Why is this guy out to
>> do evil? It makes no sense.
>>
>> "I'm bad because I am" is no justification.
>
>I think ultimately for all the sane characters, there is no real justification
>for being evil. How do you explain the evil people you encounter in real
>life?
Look at Magneto. He has a perfect justification, and his goals are
not "do bad things and take over the world" like Luthor's are. He has
a reason to do what he does, and in fact while his methods often bring
him at odds with the heroes, they are not distinctly evil methods
necessarily.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
Spiderman has a motivation. Batman as well. Green Lantern? I don't
know that "Here's a ring, go get the bad guys" is motivation.
magius
That guy, IIRC, eventually became the USAgent, who could never really get
over his envy of Cap. The writers tended to portray him as pretty one
dimensional especially in the Avengers West Coast book. He just seemed to
serve the purpose of a Cap substitute in AWC. Last I sw of him, he threw
his shield into a bay/river/some large body of water and, I think, replaced
it with some sort of energy shield similar to the one Cap used in Man
Without a Country..
Anyone know what became of that character?
Lynley
Nathan Sanders
> Superman doesn't have that. There is no pivotal event that changed
> his life and made him stop being Clark Kent, football hero and start
> being Superman, defender of Metropolis.
And what pivotal event do the vast majority of the X-Men have as a reason
to fight crime? Captain America? The Wasp?
> Look at Magneto. He has a perfect justification, and his goals are
> not "do bad things and take over the world" like Luthor's are. He has
> a reason to do what he does, and in fact while his methods often bring
> him at odds with the heroes, they are not distinctly evil methods
> necessarily.
Like Ra's al Ghul over in DC.
Luthor is DC's Kingpin. They're just badguy businessmen. They don't
need further motivation.
Though pre-Crisis, Luthor's motivation more closely matched Dr. Doom's.
Nathan
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================
Nathan Sanders
> Spiderman has a motivation. Batman as well. Green Lantern? I don't
> know that "Here's a ring, go get the bad guys" is motivation.
Green Lantern's motivation is the same as Silver Surfer (or any other
herald of Galactus): normal person selected by cosmic being(s) to wield
supreme power and follow his/their rules.
Green Lantern's motivation is also the same as Spider-Man's: with great
power comes great responsibility.
Green Lantern's motivation is also the same as Captain America's: given
power by a powerful group, use that power to maintain order and justice in
that group's jurisdiction as part of their military.
Menshevik
Only if you go by the rule "I can ignore what I haven't bothered
to read".
Given how we have seen Captain America interact with the
US government as portrayed in the comics since the 1970s
at least, it not only is very easy to imagine him exposing something
like Iran/Contra, it really is pretty much impossible that he would
participate in something like that except under some form of
hypnosis.
In other words, you decided to shift the goalposts -- part of
the establishment, serving the establishment (which pretty much
everyone does in some form or another, e.g. by paying taxes),
it's all the same thing.
[snip, this is getting rather long]
>> So you have a win-win situation: If superheroes
>> don't challenge the status quo, then they serve
>> the establishment. And if they do challenge it,
>> they also serve the establishment.
>
>No, I have one situation that is relevant to the
>discussion at hand and one that is totally outside
>the discussion at hand. Doom, to translate the
>foreign nation example into comic book terms,
>can never be made into an Establishment figure
>in the United States, even if he does cause the
>public there to rally around their institutions--he
>isn't one that would be used in such a manner.
>In Latveria, OTOH, he is the Establishment.
Totally disagree. Besides, it does not cover some of the threats
within fictional USA, some of which work to take control of the
country even though (or because) they are establishment figures
(e.g. the Hellfire Club, Lex Luthor, the Roxxon Corporation
etc. etc.)
>>>> I don't think so. Captain America is often
>>>> described as the embodiment of the American
>>>> Dream, not that of one sociopolitical doctrine.
>>>
>>> But he can't be the former without a definition of
>>> the latter (unless the latter is solely intended as an
>>> empty platitutde).
>>
>> Sure he can be, because a dream is more diffuse,
>> not as narrowly defined as a political doctrine. And
>> I think part of the American Dream would entail
>> leaving it up to decide for themselves what they
>> want, to accept that there is going to be a plurality
>> of beliefs instead of deciding that there is One
>> Correct Way that everybody should embrace.
>
>By attributing that to Cap, you begin to fill up the
>hollow Cap with a specific liberal point of view that
>automatically alienates those Americans who *do*
>think of the American Dream as a narrow One
>Correct Way thing--in other words, a large
>percentage of the population, including--and this
>is quite important--virtually the entire population of
>public Pharisee-flag-wavers.
>
I don't attribute views to Cap, the "hollow Cap" is how you
want to see him, not how he has been shown in the comics.
So you make your generalizations about what Cap's writers have
most frequently done on the evidence of about one or two decades
of stories (1950s Captain America existed for about 2 years
1953-1954, Golden Age Cap about 10 years, 1960s Cap started
in 1964) while demonstrating an almost total lack of knowledge
of the stories of over three decades that followed.
>> The Captain America and Bucky of the 1950s
>> were put into suspended animation and then
>> reappeared in CA #153, where they ran up
>> against the real Captain and his then partner,
>> the Falcon in a story by Steve Englehart.
>
>Was that done in the '50s, or was that a retcon?
I already gave you issue numbers and years. Sheesh.
Menshevik
>>> were put into suspended animation and then
>>> reappeared in CA #153, where they ran up
>>> against the real Captain and his then partner,
>>> the Falcon in a story by Steve Englehart.
>>
>>Was that done in the '50s, or was that a retcon?
>
>I already gave you issue numbers and years. Sheesh.
If your "was that done in the '50s?" refers just to Cap and Bucky
being put into suspended animation, I don't know, not having read
their final 1950s appearance. From the way Timely/Atlas/Marvel
operated at the time, I assume that it was a retcon and that
Captain America was abruptly cancelled without them
bothering to remove the "next issue" blurb in the final issue :-)
Shirley J. Helms
> > One of the things I've always missed in comics
> > are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
> > Societies. There should be legions upon legions
> > of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
> > that would be unrealistic.
>
> Some of the legions of "supporters," though, would
> be more frightening than the villains with which the
> hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to imagine
> reactionary militia-type people adopting a
> character like, say, the Batman as their hero. And
> wouldn't a character like Thor, who is literally and
> openly a god who walks the earth, draw all manner
> of weird worshipper cults?
Once in a *very* great while, such matters are actually touched upon in a
story, if they make an important plot point. The last time was in an issue
of Green Lantern, back when Kyle had recently become Ion and all that power
was going to his head a little bit. He got shown that there were "already" a
slew of Internet fan sites and several 'Net cults based on Ion. (They were
never referred to again.)
The logical deduction from this is that such sites, fan clubs, etc. are
around 24/7/365 - they just usually don't impact directly on the day-to-day
activities of the hero(es), and so aren't mentioned.
For that matter, there are almost certainly similar sites and groups
dedicated to at least some of the *villains*. :)
We HAVE been shown that heroes generally *do* get pestered by autograph
hunters whenever they show up and hang around long enough to be noticed. One
such incident led to the Golden Age Flash accidentally giving the pen that
contained and controlled Johnny Thunder's Thunderbolt to a kid named
Jakeem - and now that kid is in the new JSA.
Maven
Shirley J. Helms
> To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would be frightened by any
> superpowered individual, much moreso than they'd idolize them.
I don't completely follow this. Are you afraid of Tiger Woods? Andre Agassi?
Venus and Serena Williams? Michael Jordan? Brian Boitano? ;)
They're all capable of performing feats at the outer edge of human
possibilities, some of which *seem* superhuman. (And South Park has already
decided that Boitano *is* a superhero, so there....)
Now, I can see being afraid of Mike Tyson, but that's because he's
apparently a very nasty individual, not because he's got fists that can
knock most people into next week.
Maven
~consul
> You could masquerade as a police officer or fireman, but then you wouldn't be
> able to slip away to change into your costume because someone would miss you, so you'd have to use your powers while in your uniform which
> means you aren't a super-hero.
Spider-Man and PowerPack, during Inferno, had a scene that I always remembered. There was
a big fire in a building, and they all come unto the scene. PP wants to help out, but
Spidey asks them if they know CPR or first aid, as that's what they need right now.
> Then there's your friends and family. Are you going to tell them?
> Remember, unreal things almost never happen in real life. Let's say
> you have telekinesis. You go home and show your parents your powers by
> floating something across the room. They are going to freak out.
"Oh my goodness! What has those comics done to you!?!?!"
--
"Even from a dark night, songs of beauty can be born."
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu http://www.dolphins-cove.com
xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com (remove x's to reply)
Brian Henderson
<mave...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>"Brian Henderson" <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> > To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would be frightened by any
>> superpowered individual, much moreso than they'd idolize them.
>
>I don't completely follow this. Are you afraid of Tiger Woods? Andre Agassi?
>Venus and Serena Williams? Michael Jordan? Brian Boitano? ;)
No, but none of those people have anything even remotely resembling
superpowers. I don't see the ability to hit a ball as being
particularly noteworthy in fighting crime, do you? But if any of
these people could fly, or were bulletproof, or could bend steel bars
into pretzels, then absolutely, people would have every right and
reason to fear them.
Isaac
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:12:18 GMT, Isaac
><is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:28:35 -0800, Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com>
>>wrote:
>>> I think that DCs problem is simply that there is little or no
>>> justification behind the character roles. Why is Superman a
>>> superhero? Because he is. No rhyme or reason, that's just how it
>>
>>I think Superman's motivation has been explored in depth in the comics.
>>It isn't the subject of every issue, but to suggest that there isn't
>>any reason why Superman is a hero makes me think you are at most a
>>casual reader. Batman's motivation is even more apparent. His motivation
>>is as well fleshed out as any Marvel character.
>
> Batman does have a reason, the death of his parents. Same reason as
> Spiderman and the Punisher, at least initially.
>
> Superman doesn't have that. There is no pivotal event that changed
> his life and made him stop being Clark Kent, football hero and start
> being Superman, defender of Metropolis.
While I'd disagree that there weren't adequate trigger events for Superman
not continuing to be a football hero, why is a single pivotal event the only
justification acceptable? Why couldn't a combination of things (Up bringing,
series of life events, learning of alien heritage) be adequate justification.
It's just as reasonable to argue that single pivotal event motivations are
simplistic.
>
> Look at Magneto. He has a perfect justification, and his goals are
> not "do bad things and take over the world" like Luthor's are. He has
> a reason to do what he does, and in fact while his methods often bring
> him at odds with the heroes, they are not distinctly evil methods
> necessarily.
I think you're oversimplifying Luthor's character. For the most part,
Luthor isn't evil for the sake of being evil, although he does seem to
have a sadistic streak.
Luthor is greedy and immoral, but most of his objectives are no more
unreasonable that those of real world people (politicians, Gates, etc).
I think he's fleshed out rather well.
Isaac
Tom Galloway
Nathan Sanders <san...@ling.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Green Lantern's motivation is also the same as Spider-Man's: with great
>power comes great responsibility.
>
>Green Lantern's motivation is also the same as Captain America's: given
>power by a powerful group, use that power to maintain order and justice in
>that group's jurisdiction as part of their military.
I tend to agree with this, but in retrospect looking at Hal Jordan's origin,
it is a bit weird.
I mean, while there were some superheros established on Earth-1 at that point,
it wasn't the crowd scene it is today, nor was there the JSA precedent.
So, we've got a test pilot, happy with his job and career and no indication
that he's especially big on charity or public service, suddenly being given
a power ring and told "Hey, it picked you to be Supercop".
So, Hal promptly becomes GL/Supercop. He doesn't ask what the salary and
benefits package is, or even know who he's working for at first. Basically,
he's taking considerable time out of his social life to be GL at some
personal risk with no obvious return on doing so other than being a good guy.
Basically, either Hal is one of the most altruistic men on the planet, despite
nothing in his background indicating he's other than a generally good
person, or he got turned on by his initial fame as GL as his reward.
Take a look at the early GL stories. It's clear that Hal took fair advantage
of GL being a celebrity, attending social functions, going on dates, etc.
as GL. I think this might have been at least a contributing factor to his
continuing as GL, rather than doing it for a bit and then wondering why
he was doing it.
tyg t...@Panix.com
jay
From more than 60 years of the character's history,
you've referenced two stories and offered no real
details of either. And I did a little reading about
them today and found that one of them more
closely backs up what I've been saying all along.
In the Secret Empire story, Cap discovers that a
White House official--presumed but never stated
to be the President of the United States--is the
head of the Secret Empire. When the Prez shoots
himself, Cap, good Establishment man that he
is, agrees to go along with the cover-up, which
involves replacing the dead guy with a look-alike
and manufacturing a lesser scandal in order to
create a pretext for the look-alike to resign. Hey,
it's for the good of the country, right?
I haven't shifted anything. The poster that started
this particular topic was outraged that guys like
Mark Millar were portraying the heroes as
"card-carrying upholders of the status quo." My
comments have been aimed at pointing out that
this is a more realistic interpretation of what most
of them are, and that, further, this is a subtext
that has always existed in the books, even when
unmentioned. There simply isn't a case to be made
that guys like Captain America--a creation of the
government, and quite literally a card-carrying
agent of it for virtually his entire career--are a pack
of Emma Goldmans. You shifted the discussion
into the matter of defining what exactly constitutes
serving the Establishment--whatever we agree
to on that point, however, the Caps of the world
still ain't gonna' be anti-Establishment.
> [snip, this is getting rather long]
>
>>> So you have a win-win situation: If superheroes
>>> don't challenge the status quo, then they serve
>>> the establishment. And if they do challenge it,
>>> they also serve the establishment.
>>
>> No, I have one situation that is relevant to the
>> discussion at hand and one that is totally outside
>> the discussion at hand. Doom, to translate the
>> foreign nation example into comic book terms,
>> can never be made into an Establishment figure
>> in the United States, even if he does cause the
>> public there to rally around their institutions--he
>> isn't one that would be used in such a manner.
>> In Latveria, OTOH, he is the Establishment.
>
> Totally disagree. Besides, it does not cover some
> of the threats within fictional USA, some of which
> work to take control of the country even though
> (or because) they are establishment figures (e.g.
> the Hellfire Club, Lex Luthor, the Roxxon Corporation
> etc. etc.)
Historically, fascism arises in a given nation with the
enthusiastic backing of that nation's financial and
business elite (the Establishment doesn't like it when
the government isn't strongly enough serving their
interests).
>>>>> I don't think so. Captain America is often
>>>>> described as the embodiment of the American
>>>>> Dream, not that of one sociopolitical doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> But he can't be the former without a definition of
>>>> the latter (unless the latter is solely intended as an
>>>> empty platitutde).
>>>
>>> Sure he can be, because a dream is more diffuse,
>>> not as narrowly defined as a political doctrine. And
>>> I think part of the American Dream would entail
>>> leaving it up to decide for themselves what they
>>> want, to accept that there is going to be a plurality
>>> of beliefs instead of deciding that there is One
>>> Correct Way that everybody should embrace.
>>
>> By attributing that to Cap, you begin to fill up the
>> hollow Cap with a specific liberal point of view that
>> automatically alienates those Americans who *do*
>> think of the American Dream as a narrow One
>> Correct Way thing--in other words, a large
>> percentage of the population, including--and this
>> is quite important--virtually the entire population of
>> public Pharisee-flag-wavers.
>
> I don't attribute views to Cap, the "hollow Cap"
> is how you want to see him, not how he has been
> shown in the comics.
If you weren't intending to attribute the view you
outlined to Cap, there was no point in outlining it
in the first place (read it again).
As for how I'd like to see him myself, I'd like to
see a more honest, realistic, and, most importantly,
non-hollow Cap, which may be what we'll get with
the Ultimates. I think that offers all sorts of story
possibilities not open to a hollow Cap.
On the matter of the "hollow Cap", if you want
proof, just start a thread called something like
"The Politics of Captain America." All you have
to do is ask something like "Well, what are they?"
If you're right and Cap isn't hollow, everyone will
stream into the thread and they'll all say the same
thing.
If I hadn't openly outlined my experience with
reading Cap, you wouldn't know, to this instant,
that you weren't talking to someone who'd read
every Cap story ever written. I used Cap as an
example of a larger point, a point which you've
successfully managed to bury in this thread. If
I'd misused him in this, all you had to do was
show how.
jay
>>>> The Captain America and Bucky of the 1950s
>>>> were put into suspended animation and then
>>>> reappeared in CA #153, where they ran up
>>>> against the real Captain and his then partner,
>>>> the Falcon in a story by Steve Englehart.
>>>
>>> Was that done in the '50s, or was that a retcon?
>>
>> I already gave you issue numbers and years.
>> Sheesh.
>
> If your "was that done in the '50s?" refers just to
> Cap and Bucky being put into suspended animation,
> I don't know, not having read their final 1950s
> appearance.
That is what I was referring to.
jay
wrote:
>>> I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
>>> comics are supposed to show us a better world,
>>> a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
>>> up to.
>>
>> No, that's what some superhero comics have
>> aimed for. There's no rule written down
>> anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
>> supposed to do or even what they should do,
>> and, in fact, if you were to compile a list of the
>> real classics of the genre, there would probably
>> be very few of them on it that did what you
>> propose they're supposed to do.
>
> Again, I'm not sayng every book should have
> hero worship, but is it too much to ask that NOT
> every book should have hero suspicion and
> scorn?
I've already said that not every book should be
the same. It's the premise of everything I've
written.
> And all your arguments---as well as others---after
> that are "if it were real, this is what would happen."
> Well, my point is IT'S NOT REAL, SO THE
> REALITY IS ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE.
> In a world where physical laws obviously don't
> apply, then I don't think that behaviorial laws
> have to either.
Then Superman can be a sterling hero one month,
a dastardly villain the next, and someone who just
doesn't care, one way or the other, the next?
You can't just blithely throw "behavioral laws"
overboard like that. These are things that *can't*
just be whatever you want them to be. A book
where that would be the case would be a badly
written book.
Let me give you another example. Do you ever
watch horror movies? When the people in such
films, stalked by a killer/monster/threat behave
in a completely unrealistic manner, doesn't it
make you groan? See enough of that, and you
soon start looking for more intelligent horror films,
where that isn't the case.
> Granted, it's a point of view that realism in
> comics is a good or bad thing. Sometimes it
> is great and fun, but other times it's a real
> freaking drag. It's great and fun in Powers,
> The Authority, Stormwatch, etc., but for
> someone who's read Superman since Curt
> Swan was boring the hell out of us all, it's a
> real drag there.
Curt Swan was only a drag when he was
imitating incredibly boring Boring. When he
was finally allowed to cut loose in the 1970s,
his work soared.
> And to take the discussion in another
> direction, let me say the other major
> problem with this storyline is that NO ONE
> TAKES IT ANYWHERE. Only Grant
> Morrison (ironcially, a major Superman
> worshipper) has taken the whole "man &
> superman" relationship to another level in
> The X-Men. Everyone else just regurgitates
> the the same crap I read when I was a kid.
> If it must exist, DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
> When is a writer going to introduce a Jackie
> Robinson or Martin Luther King of the
> superhuman world who destroys bigots and
> changes the world around him?
It's a thought. I'm at a bit fo a disadvantage
here, in that I haven't read Morrison's X-Men,
or much of the X-Men at all since it initially
started to suck so badly around issue 212
or so.
> And though I live in NYC, I'm originally from
> GA and I heard about that election. I'm at
> a loss for words.
Makes one wonder if the newly-installed
touch-screen voting machines there held
some opinion on the matter.
jay
>> To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would
>> be frightened by any superpowered individual, much
>> moreso than they'd idolize them.
>
> I don't completely follow this. Are you afraid of Tiger
> Woods? Andre Agassi? Venus and Serena Williams?
> Michael Jordan? Brian Boitano? ;)
Can any of those folks--even Serena Williams--flatten
a building with one punch, blast a hole through a
mountain, or theoretically devastate the entire surface
of the earth? If not, they have no relevance to the
subject at hand.
Catherine D. Kobasiuk
I couldn't add anything more. Just agree whole heartedly.
cat
"Yusaku Jon" <yusaku...@dca.net> wrote in message
news:3dd52...@news.dca.net...
> I can agree to some extent, but I disagree with your insistence that
> there be unchallenged superheroes. The actions of Spider-Man and
> Batman are a prime example of this: both characters are basically
> taking the law into their own hands and literally knocking down the
> doors to get at the criminal element they think that the police are
> unable to get to. Never mind that they're acting on personal
> feelings that many victims of crime may share (guilt for Spidey,
> vengeance on Bats's part).
>
> I can see even Superman getting some flack in spite of his "boy
> scout" image. How could you feel if you saw a man in a red cape jump
> out of nowhere and start pounding a car full of people (not yet
> knowing that these were the bad guys) into a hillside until the
> stunned and frightened passengers dropped out?
>
> I used to rail against this portrayal of the X-Men. It was a kind of
> helpless feeling on my part, seeing as how the public that seemed so
> eager for their blood was virtually ignoring the fact that the
> Fantastic Four (virtually indistinguishable from the X-Men until you
> know their origin) also possessed freakish powers that normal humans
> didn't possess. Now I can understand the principle of the
> anti-mutant sentiment, at least as far as those mutants whose powers
> manifest themselves destructively are concerned.
>
> Marvel was founded on more than a concept of public derision for
> superheroes. One of the biggest things about the FF and others was
> that the characters had lives and concerns outside of their costumed
> identities. The FF had to pay bills. Daredevil and Thor had to
> balance their costumed hero roles with responsibilities to their
> chosen professions and family relations. The Avengers often had
> members who didn't get along at all (Hulk vs. everybody, Hawkeye vs.
> Hercules, etc.). Iron Man had to add health problems (the bad heart)
> to that balancing act. You take the super-powers into the equation,
> and the drama level increases.
>
> So does the interest.
>
> Now, of course, I've lost my interest in most of these characters
> because I've read all the stories that I could read out of them.
> This is especially true for the X-Men, who've gone through what I
> think is their third cycle of "the-whole-damn-world-is-out-to-get-us"
> conflicts. But I still think the idea of the imperfect hero is
> valid.
>
> It doesn't matter if a character has personal issues which remain
> unresolved for years or if they're faced with the dialemma of a
> hostile public (and consequently, authorities who want to deal with
> that public's demands). We all have to face those situations, sooner
> or later.
>
> Marvel (and its imitators) has given us a mirror to look into.
>
> --
> Yusaku Jon
> yusaku...@dca.net
> http://members.dca.net/yusaku-jon-3/
Landru99
a very nasty individual, not because he's got fists that can knock most people
into next week.>>
OJ Simpson might be a better example, as it's an established fact he's capable
of committing murder.
Landru
troy
"PeterDoug72" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:545fa697.0211...@posting.google.com...
> Hey You-Suck-A,
>
> What exactly do you suck?
do chicks EVER fall for that line?
Paul Andinach
news:AF8E55F088023F85.65BE7F48...@lp.airnews.ne
t:
So, we're not allowed to mention Batman in this discussion? What
about Spiderman? Green Arrow? Wolverine? etc.
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
~consul
> "Brian Henderson" <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would be frightened by any superpowered individual, much moreso than they'd idolize them.
> I don't completely follow this. Are you afraid of Tiger Woods? Andre Agassi?
> Venus and Serena Williams? Michael Jordan? Brian Boitano? ;)
> They're all capable of performing feats at the outer edge of human
> possibilities, some of which *seem* superhuman. (And South Park has already
> decided that Boitano *is* a superhero, so there....)
"I didn't know Xena could fly!"
"I told you already! I'm not Xena, I'm Lucy Lawless!"
Simpsons episode with her flying.
jay
<pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>>> To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would
>>>> be frightened by any superpowered individual, much
>>>> moreso than they'd idolize them.
>>>
>>> I don't completely follow this. Are you afraid of Tiger
>>> Woods? Andre Agassi? Venus and Serena Williams?
>>> Michael Jordan? Brian Boitano? ;)
>>
>> Can any of those folks--even Serena Williams--flatten
>> a building with one punch, blast a hole through a
>> mountain, or theoretically devastate the entire surface
>> of the earth? If not, they have no relevance to the
>> subject at hand.
>
> So, we're not allowed to mention Batman in this
> discussion? What about Spiderman? Green
> Arrow? Wolverine? etc.
Why would you think that? I've already mentioned
at least one of those elsewhere in the thread.
where...@yahoo.com
I thought Micah Wright did a nice take on this idea in the third
Stormwatch issue a couple of months ago, where the superhero
(invulnerable, flying, heat vision, etc.) who messes up the Stormwatch
operation turns out to be the super-form of a 17-year-old kid, who,
Stormwatch's leader notes, has already killed 11 people that he knows
of, and wonders how long till he crosses the line and starts killing
people just for the fun of it. Made me think back to high school. I
may be remembering wrong, but it seems to me there were a lot more
guys like this one than like, e.g., Peter Parker.
Tue Sorensen
> On 17 Nov 2002 07:24:03 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
>
> >>> "Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
> >>> anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
> >>> enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
> >>> masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
> >>> that operate above and beyond all human laws.
> >>
> >> No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point,
> >> which is the obsession with trying to inject
> >> realism into stories about flying men in costumes
> >> is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure
> >> I get from reading them.
> >
> > I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
> > comics are supposed to show us a better world,
> > a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
> > up to.
>
> No, that's what some superhero comics have
> aimed for. There's no rule written down
> anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
> supposed to do or even what they should do,
There is the rule of general practise in the majority of the actual
comics (at least the majority of the good and worthwhile ones). As
good a rule as any. Other than that, yeah, I was just stating how *I*
think it's supposed to be.
> and, in fact, if you were to compile a list of the
> real classics of the genre, there would probably
> be very few of them on it that did what you
> propose they're supposed to do.
Dunno about that... might be worth looking into someday...
> > One of the things I've always missed in comics
> > are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
> > Societies. There should be legions upon legions
> > of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
> > that would be unrealistic.
>
> Some of the legions of "supporters," though, would
> be more frightening than the villains with which the
> hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to imagine
> reactionary militia-type people adopting a
> character like, say, the Batman as their hero.
No, but I, for one, find it equally easy to imagine perfectly ordinary
people like the ones regularly supporting Greenpeace, or whatever,
actively supporting superheroes and their causes.
> And
> wouldn't a character like Thor, who is literally and
> openly a god who walks the earth, draw all manner
> of weird worshipper cults?
Sure. I believe he does so in The Ultimates...
> > Given that the kind of heroism we see in comics
> > actually existed, many people would flock around
> > it.
>
> There would be ordinary fans of some of the heroes,
> and, in fact, there are--I can't remember Daredevil,
> for example, ever having been out of public favor.
> But ordinary people who would form "hero
> appreciation societies" or similiar things would be
> groupie-like marginal oddballs.
So you think that all the members of the Strongmen of America are
groupie-like marginal oddballs? :-) Seriously, though, I disagree
unreservedly. In a world of real superheroes, some of the heroes would
lead entire radical movements, whose ranks would extend to perfectly
ordinary people because there would be so much buzz surrounding them.
World change would proceed far faster than it does in the actual real
world, and lots of "ordinary people" would be at the forefront of that
change. As they would today if there were truly inspirational
progressive figures to rally around.
If the superpeople simply upheld the status quo the world would be a
fascist police state (as indeed we have already seen in everything
from Watchmen to The Authority), and the entire heroic idea would be
gone. So when I speak of the possibility of real-life superheroes, I
am presupposing radical, progressive types who would really want to
actively change the world for the better. As it is, that's what I
believe classic superheroes represent, even if it isn't always clear.
And that's also the model to which superhero readers (and writers)
should aspire. The misguided idea of superhero "realism" that many
British comics writers seem to have is something I would be overjoyed
to do without.
> > The only ones who hated them would be the
> > government/military and everyone else with an
> > interest in preserving the status quo; in maintaining
> > the evil that goes on in a thousands areas every
> > day (which the superheroes *threaten*, trying to
> > create a better world). So, the contention of Mark
> > Millar and others that heroes like the Avengers are
> > "card-carrying upholders of the status quo" is a
> > total, flat-out misunderstanding of what superheroes
> > are all about.
>
> No, it isn't--it's a more realistic interpretation.
What it basically is is an interpretation founded on the premise that
real-life heroes would be government stooges. That's not what the
heroes are in the Marvel Universe. In the MU the heroes are part of
what Gruenwald called "the grand anarchic tradition". The superhero
I'm talking (and reading) about is a progressive, because no one else
can properly be labeled "hero". Millar and Morrison and their ilk
choose to turn heroes into right-wing cronies and call it "realism",
probably just because they get a kick out of it and get high on the
shock value and enjoy deflating the "naive notion" that real heroes
are in any way realistically possible. All they're accomplishing with
this is to show how futile it is to try and oppose the establishment.
Considering that Millar and Morrison are personally very left-wing, I
find their behavior paradoxical and nonsensical and damaging in the
extreme.
> In the Ultimates, that's exactly what the heroes are.
Yeah, and as a result they can no longer rightly be called heroes.
> In the
> regular Marvel universe, that's what most of them
> would be, as well. It's impossible, for example, to
> imagine Captain America, one of the ultimate
> Establishment figures, actually exposing and
> bringing down a criminal conspiracy such as
> Iran-contra--it's very easy, OTOH, to imagine him
> actually taking part in such operations on a regular
> basis.
Except that the hypothetical character you're talking about here is
not the Captain America character we know. The Captain America that
we've seen thus far declined running for president and publicly
proclaimed that the American dream was in bad shape (Cap #250). He's
had multiple squabbles with the elected officials of the U.S.
government and gave them the finger when they demanded that he become
their errand boy (Cap #332-333). He has repeatedly sought to reclaim
and/or rediscover the real substance of the American dream and the
American people in ways that unabashedly transcend capitalism and
government policy, and for this purpose he always goes back to the
people and away from the white house (as I believe he's also doing in
the most recent incarnation of his title). The Captain America we know
and love is not under the thumb of the establishment, at least no
establishment this side of the United Nations (which to me is
acceptable).
> To use two other examples, the post-Golden
> Age Superman--like Cap, the ultimate Establishment
> figure--would hunt down and take out the very
> anti-Establishment Golden Age Superman, if the
> two coexisted in the same world. The same is true
> of Batman.
Perhaps. I have never been much of a fan of either one, and as far as
I'm concerned the Golden Age versions were far more intriguing (esp.
in terms of what might be done with them today, in a "back to basics"
scenario).
> Comics in the U.S. don't have a lot
> of overtly political heroes, particularly not
> revolutionary-type heroes,
The operative word being "overtly". The superhero genre contains a lot
of subtle social criticism (in fact, I did a paper on it in high
school... ); one need only mention Ann Nocenti's Daredevil for a
particularly extensive and clear example. I also believe that the
entire idea, essence and field of superheroes is (or when it isn't,
ought to be) inherently progressive and visionary and looking ahead to
a better world. These things are communicated more through the general
message of heroism and powers coupled with responsibility than through
the literal events taking place in the stories. The heart of the
superhero genre is to save the world. In the stories this is taken
literally, as in saving the world from an evil conqueror or such, but
this is merely an allegory for saving the world in the more
conventional (and sometimes political) way, namely to abolish hunger,
strife and corruption and build a world based on the positive elements
of human nature (something which, of course, can only be understood
and embraced by those who believe that human nature is fundamentally
good, which is another sentiment that I believe most superheroes
communicate and represent).
> and if they DID emerge,
> most of the other heroes would show up to put
> them out of commission.
I choose to see it very differently, and I sincerely doubt that
anything you can say will make your notion more validly "realistic"
than mine.
> Warren Ellis did a
> fantastic--and, more importantly, completely
> plausible--story arc on this point in Stormwatch a
> few years ago.
And Millar practically made it the be-all and end-all of The
Authority, didn't he.
> BTW, I'm certainly in favor of more overtly political
> characters.
As am I.
> > Unfortunately it is that conception that is gaining
> > more and more prevalence, and this is why, IMO,
> > many current superhero comics suck so much.
> > Instead of having heroes be radical and concerned
> > with improving a sick society (albeit often in symbolic
> > terms), they are now being turned into part of the
> > establishment, which has the effect of fulfilling a lot
> > of the common (and hitherto wrong) prejudices about
> > superheroes in the general population. That is a step
> > in a simpler, more narrow-minded direction.
>
> It's a more realistic and intellectually honest
> interpretation, which means it's a step in a less, not
> more, myopic direction-
You're deluding yourself. See below.
> -you can hardly make any
> case that your own suggestion that these types of
> books always have to be one thing and only one
> thing and to hell with the fact that the one thing
> doesn't make any sense is somehow a more
> broad-minded approach.
I can and I have and in the hope that you are openminded I will again
(however briefly). Of course I am in favor of varied types of comics,
and I certainly thought Watchmen was a neat and thought-provoking
little story (but that's all it was; to me it didn't impact on
mainstream superheroes at all). When it comes to mainstream
(particularly Marvel) superheroes, however, I believe it is an
imperative tenet of the superhero genre itself that it obey certain
symbol schemes and stay within the frames of reference set up by that
scheme, lest it become something different altogether and lose its
genre-specific cohesion. This is a long discussion which concerns the
very nature of the superhero genre and the shared universe nature of
the Marvel and DC universes, and which I will only touch upon in
extremely general and broad strokes for now.
Probably *the* foremost purpose of dramatic art is to reflect reality
for the purpose of increasing our understanding of it (which also
activates the desire for social and cultural improvement). This
reflection of reality is not literal but structural, providing the
recipient with a piece of work that essentially theorizes about the
nature, structure and mechanisms of history, society and human thought
(much in the way that scientific theories consider the basic forces of
the material universe). By capturing our attention and making us think
about these things by way of representational devices in fiction, we
are spirited ever closer to a fuller understanding of their real-life
counterparts. In other words, what appears to be "escapism" is
actually a means of stimulating and improving our cognitive capacities
for understanding the real world. And here's the clincher: The more
detailed the fictional account; the more it follows consistent rules
of logic and action that are inherent to its special scenario, the
more effective it is in equipping its recipients to think profitably
and productively about the real world. Because the internal logic of
the fictional setting reflects the natural laws by which the real
world functions and by which we can understand it. Like both religion
and science, art exists to enable us to better understand the world
around us, and the more perfect the consistency of a work of art, the
more successful its ultimate effect and purpose, and the more
successfully it equips and pushes us towards understanding the world
we live in. That is why, in this genre, continuity is all-important:
When it breaks down, it inadvertently communicates to the reader that
the real world does not function by consistent laws either, which is
unconstructive and unsatisfying. (Though all this is of course a
generally subconscious process. The mechanisms I speak of are outlined
in Hungarian critic Georg Lukács' 1935 essay "Art and Objective
Truth".)
The desire to understand reality and the desire to solve the problems
of the human condition are ultimately the same thing, and this is the
desire that true superheroes embody.
> The interpretation you're
> now seeing in comics and which you object to isn't,
> as you seem to think, a reversal of what's happened
> in the past, either. Whether stated or wholly
> unrecognized, there has always been a subtext
> in superhero comics of heroes as Establishment
> figures
Perhaps - but that is primarily because part of the subtext has to be
literal; has to seemingly stay within the generally acceptable
political range in order for the comics to be allowed to be published
at all. Hence other means, artistic means, are found to communicate
the progressive message (which is inherent in all good art). Just like
in the fairy-tales of olden times. Superhero comics are the last
consistently allegorical genre, and is therefore capable of saying
things that are out of reach of the more straightforward realistic
approach, which must always bow to the establishment (whether that of
the government or the given publisher).
>--it's just being offered more overtly now. By
> battling crime and, from time to time, corruption,
> the heroes operate as enforcers of the status
> quo.
Superficially. In superhero comics (and perhaps somewhat less visibly
in the real world) crime and corruption *are* the status quo, and
exist to be fought. In nearly any type of fiction, the basic premise
(the action universe) represents the desirable state of harmony and
happiness. Then there is the level of the inevitable conflict that the
plot revolves around, which in good fiction represents and reflects
the real world problem that needs to be addressed and resolved so that
the state of harmony can be restored. In the real world we live amid
oodles and oodles of problems and conflicts, and our fiction and its
allegories are part of the cultural mechanisms that help us deal
intelligently and efficiently with these problems. Thus, what
superhero comics are really suggesting is that the causes of crime and
corruption should be understood and removed. Which in a universe where
these things are part and parcel of the establishment ultimately
entails a wholesale overhaul of the system. Revolutionary? You betcha!
> They're opposing the visible ills generated by
> the system--hence reinforcing it--while leaving the
> system that generates these ills in place and
> untouched.
You (and many with you) are taking things literally that aren't
supposed to be taken literally. Start looking at the bigger picture.
Well - had enough, or ya gonna come back for more?! Given the time, I
can wax on this till the cows come home...
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> And to take the discussion in another direction, let me say the other
> major problem with this storyline is that NO ONE TAKES IT ANYWHERE.
That's postmodernist writing for ya. Eventually it'll realize its own
emptiness and die out.
> When is a
> writer going to introduce a Jackie Robinson or Martin Luther King of
> the superhuman world who destroys bigots and changes the world around
> him?
As soon as my projected superhero universe finds a publisher! Dunno
when that'll be, though...
- Tue Sorensen
jay
wrote:
>>>>> "Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
>>>>> anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
>>>>> enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
>>>>> masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
>>>>> that operate above and beyond all human laws.
>>>>
>>>> No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point,
>>>> which is the obsession with trying to inject
>>>> realism into stories about flying men in costumes
>>>> is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure
>>>> I get from reading them.
>>>
>>> I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
>>> comics are supposed to show us a better world,
>>> a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
>>> up to.
>>
>> No, that's what some superhero comics have
>> aimed for. There's no rule written down
>> anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
>> supposed to do or even what they should do,
>
> There is the rule of general practise in the majority
> of the actual comics (at least the majority of the
> good and worthwhile ones).
The fact that the "majority of the good and worthwhile
ones" [superhero comics] today *don't* follow that rule
is what formed the basis of the complaint that launched
this thread. Think about it for a moment--list, in you mind,
the good stuff on the market recently. Writing off the
ones that don't follow that rule leaves virtually nothing
(Astro City is the only thing that leaps immediately to
mind).
> As good a rule as any.
The problem, of course, is that you are making
a "rule." Deciding what a superhero comic is
supposed to be, an implicit criticism of anything
that doesn't follow that rule. And it doesn't help
your case that most of the good superhero
comics on the market today don't, in fact, follow
that rule. This is something we're just not going
to agree upon.
> Other than that, yeah, I was just stating how
> *I* think it's supposed to be.
Of course. I don't think it should be any so
specific way, though.
>>> One of the things I've always missed in comics
>>> are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
>>> Societies. There should be legions upon legions
>>> of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
>>> that would be unrealistic.
>>
>> Some of the legions of "supporters," though,
>> would be more frightening than the villains with
>> which the hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to
>> imagine reactionary militia-type people adopting
>> a character like, say, the Batman as their hero.
>
> No, but I, for one, find it equally easy to imagine
> perfectly ordinary people like the ones regularly
> supporting Greenpeace, or whatever, actively
> supporting superheroes and their causes.
The proper comparison here isn't Greenpeace
(which doesn't take down street thugs)--it's
Bernhard Goetz.
>> And
>> wouldn't a character like Thor, who is literally and
>> openly a god who walks the earth, draw all manner
>> of weird worshipper cults?
>
> Sure. I believe he does so in The Ultimates...
It seems he recently has in the regular Thor book,
as well.
>>> Given that the kind of heroism we see in comics
>>> actually existed, many people would flock around
>>> it.
>>
>> There would be ordinary fans of some of the heroes,
>> and, in fact, there are--I can't remember Daredevil,
>> for example, ever having been out of public favor.
>> But ordinary people who would form "hero
>> appreciation societies" or similiar things would be
>> groupie-like marginal oddballs.
>
> So you think that all the members of the Strongmen
> of America are groupie-like marginal oddballs? :-)
> Seriously, though, I disagree unreservedly. In a
> world of real superheroes, some of the heroes would
> lead entire radical movements, whose ranks would
> extend to perfectly ordinary people because there
> would be so much buzz surrounding them.
The problem is that there aren't any superheroes
who lead radical movements. The tradition, in the
U.S., is toward completely "non-political"
characters (which, in fact, are political, but their
politics are status quo), and this thread offers a
perfect example of why. Overtly political
characters--like overtly political people--are
instantly controversial, which alienates a portion
of their potential audience (this is particularly true
if the politics of the character are radical).
Publishers want to try to draw as large an audience
as possible, which is how the characters end up
being status quo. To put it in concrete terms, if you
write a Captain America story wherein Cap begins
engineering jailbreaks for the American citizens the
Bush administration is currently unconstitutionally
holding, more than half your audience would leave
the book in outrage that Cap was being "written
wrong."
I should add again, for the record, that I strongly
believe there should be more overtly political
characters of the kind you're discussing (and I'd
read a Cap that did things like that every month).
The reality, however, is that there simply aren't,
which really places this part of the exchange
outside of the main topic.
> World change would proceed far faster than it
> does in the actual real world, and lots of
> "ordinary people" would be at the forefront of
> that change. As they would today if there were
> truly inspirational progressive figures to rally
> around.
>
> If the superpeople simply upheld the status quo
> the world would be a fascist police state (as
> indeed we have already seen in everything from
> Watchmen to The Authority), and the entire
> heroic idea would be gone.
Not at all, because there would be superpeople
to battle the bad guy superpeople.
> So when I speak of the possibility of
> real-life superheroes, I am presupposing
> radical, progressive types who would really
> want to actively change the world for the
> better. As it is, that's what I believe classic
> superheroes represent, even if it isn't always
> clear.
It isn't always clear because it's virtually never
true. The primary reason why the superheroes
have come to be overtly portrayed as upholders
of the status quo is that this is exactly how
they've been portrayed for decades. It's just
that our view of the status quo has changed.
The Golden Age vs. later incarnations of both
Superman and Batman come to mind, again.
Superheroes were made to be law enforcement
officials or spies or other government operatives
of some form or other. At the time, this was
considered a good thing. These days, we see it
in a more realistic light--it ain't always a good
thing, and sometimes it's a very bad thing
indeed.
> And that's also the model to which superhero
> readers (and writers) should aspire. The
> misguided idea of superhero "realism" that
> many British comics writers seem to have is
> something I would be overjoyed to do without.
Again, this is something on which we simply aren't
going to agree. You can't lay down such restrictive
rules about what the books must (or should) be.
>>> The only ones who hated them would be
>>> the government/military and everyone else
>>> with an interest in preserving the status quo;
>>> in maintaining the evil that goes on in a
>>> thousands areas every day (which the
>>> superheroes *threaten*, trying to create a
>>> better world). So, the contention of Mark
>>> Millar and others that heroes like the Avengers
>>> are "card-carrying upholders of the status quo"
>>> is a total, flat-out misunderstanding of what
>>> superheroes are all about.
>>
>> No, it isn't--it's a more realistic interpretation.
>
> What it basically is is an interpretation founded
> on the premise that real-life heroes would be
> government stooges.
No, it's based upon the premise that superheroes
*have* been government stooges. Again, all that's
changed here is our view of institutions. When the
heroes were made to serve those institutions, it
was considered heroic to serve those institutions.
Now, we see some of the ugliness that comes
with that sort of service.
> That's not what the heroes are in the Marvel
> Universe. In the MU the heroes are part of
> what Gruenwald called "the grand anarchic
> tradition". The superhero I'm talking (and reading)
> about is a progressive, because no one else can
> properly be labeled "hero".
Again, all of the conservative readers are
going to take great offense at that, and
sometimes they're even going to have reason
to do so, which goes back to the fact that you
simply can't make these restrictive rules, make
them ironclad, then impose them on the genre.
It would be the death of the genre if you could,
which is only an academic fact, because you
couldn't.
Something you should also think about is that
what you're advocating, with all these rules,
and the way you're advocating it--arguing that
it is traditional--is a completely conservative
approach, and undermines your basic premise
that you want a more progressive approach.
> Millar and Morrison and their ilk choose to turn
> heroes into right-wing cronies and call it
> "realism", probably just because they get a kick
> out of it and get high on the shock value and
> enjoy deflating the "naive notion" that real
> heroes are in any way realistically possible.
Millar is simply highlighting, in light of our own
changed sensibilities, something that has
always been inherent in the characters. If you
realize this (as Millar does), there's no "shock
value" in it.
> All they're accomplishing with this is to show how
> futile it is to try and oppose the establishment.
> Considering that Millar and Morrison are personally
> very left-wing, I find their behavior paradoxical and
> nonsensical and damaging in the extreme.
Instead of considering it paradoxical, maybe you
should consider the possibility that you're completely
wrong.
>> In the Ultimates, that's exactly what the heroes
>> are.
>
> Yeah, and as a result they can no longer rightly
> be called heroes.
That depends on how you define "hero."
My hypothetical Cap is a realistic extrapolation
of the type of guy who would be Cap, and doesn't
contradict the character as he's been done in the
comics. Cap, as he's been done in the comics, is
as apolitical as possible--a "hollow Cap," if you will.
His so-called squabbles with the government have
been absurdly overblown in this thread to make
him look less of an Establishment figure and ignore
the fact that such "squabbles" have been
non-existent for virtually the entire 60+ years of
the character's existence, while he's worn the
flag for a uniform and carried a license from that
same government. Since the "hollow Cap" is, to
me, an inherently unreasonable take on the
character, I ask myself what sort of person would
do what he does, and what I put forward was
what I believe to be a reasonable portrait.
>> To use two other examples, the post-Golden
>> Age Superman--like Cap, the ultimate Establishment
>> figure--would hunt down and take out the very
>> anti-Establishment Golden Age Superman, if the
>> two coexisted in the same world. The same is true
>> of Batman.
>
> Perhaps. I have never been much of a fan of either
> one, and as far as I'm concerned the Golden Age
> versions were far more intriguing (esp. in terms of
> what might be done with them today, in a "back to
> basics" scenario).
In 100% agreement. If you want to really get killed,
try going to the newsgroups devoted to those
characters and suggesting a "back to basics"
approach. The times I've done that are probably
the only times I've had to fight an entire newsgroup.
OTOH, the GA variations on those characters aren't
what I imagine you'd classify as "heroes" either.
>> Comics in the U.S. don't have a lot of overtly
>> political heroes, particularly not revolutionary-type
>> heroes,
>
> The operative word being "overtly". The
> superhero genre contains a lot of subtle social
> criticism (in fact, I did a paper on it in high
> school... ); one need only mention Ann
> Nocenti's Daredevil for a particularly
> extensive and clear example.
No need to single out Nocenti's Daredevil for
this distinction--her work in this vein was, in
fact, very heavy-handed (not subtle). Look at
practically any DD writer from the last 25 years
or so (though St. Frank is certainly the guy who
did it better than anyone else). They present a
world through the eyes of Dashiell Hammett, one
where virtually everything is corrupt and, though
its never flatly stated, the hero, who keeps
slogging on in the face of this, has absolutely no
chance of ever winning in the end. His is a lost
cause before it ever begins.
> I also believe that the entire idea, essence and
> field of superheroes is (or when it isn't, ought to
> be) inherently progressive and visionary and
> looking ahead to a better world.
There's goes DD's "hero" credentials.
Again, there you go making rules about what
superhero comics should be. You simply can't
do that.
> These things are communicated more through
> the general message of heroism and powers
> coupled with responsibility than through the
> literal events taking place in the stories. The
> heart of the superhero genre is to save the
> world. In the stories this is taken literally, as in
> saving the world from an evil conqueror or such,
> but this is merely an allegory for saving the world
> in the more conventional (and sometimes political)
> way, namely to abolish hunger, strife and
> corruption and build a world based on the positive
> elements of human nature (something which, of
> course, can only be understood and embraced
> by those who believe that human nature is
> fundamentally good, which is another sentiment
> that I believe most superheroes communicate
> and represent).
You're absolutely correct on this point, but you
miss the most crucial element, namely that people
have radically different ideas about what constitutes
"saving the world." You think it has to be a positive,
progressive thing, and want to make that a rule,
whereas others would have very different views.
You mentioned the classic example earlier:
Watchmen. Veidt wanted to save the world, and,
in fact, DID save the world in the end, and the
other characters went along with him because
they could see that this would be the case.
Veidt's solution, which involved the grisly muder
of several million people, can hardly be looked
upon as positive, but it did save the world from
a nuclear conflict.
>> and if they DID emerge,
>> most of the other heroes would show up to
>> put them out of commission.
>
> I choose to see it very differently, and I sincerely
> doubt that anything you can say will make your
> notion more validly "realistic" than mine.
Consider a Golden Age Superman story
wherein Supes sees an acquaintance run
down by a drunk and begins a crusade for
auto safety. Besides terrorizing drunks, this
crusade also involved going to car lots that
sell unsafe autos and smashing them to bits.
He also went to the factory of a fictional
company that manufactured unsafe cars
(because, of course, it was more profitable)
and wrecked the entire factory. Now, can
you honestly see a character doing that in
a comic today, and the heroes NOT trying
to stop him?
(Even Superman today would try to stop
him.)
>> Warren Ellis did a fantastic--and, more
>> importantly, completely plausible--story
>> arc on this point in Stormwatch a few
>> years ago.
>
> And Millar practically made it the be-all
> and end-all of The Authority, didn't he.
I haven't read Millar's Authority yet (haven't
quite finished with Ellis' Stormwatch). I was
unaware that Millar had revisited the story.
>> BTW, I'm certainly in favor of more overtly
>> political characters.
>
> As am I.
...and so began a market...
(I think it was EXTREMELY influential on
mainstream comics)
> When it comes to mainstream (particularly
> Marvel) superheroes, however, I believe it
> is an imperative tenet of the superhero genre
> itself that it obey certain symbol schemes and
> stay within the frames of reference set up by
> that scheme, lest it become something
> different altogether and lose its genre-specific
> cohesion.
You're making an extremely conservative
argument here. It has to be what it's always
been or it will cease to be what it has always
been (and ignoring the fact that it hasn't always
been that at all).
Except for some assumptions, none of this is
particularly controversial, but none of it backs up
what you were arguing, and most of it backs up
what I've been saying throughout this thread. I've
been arguing that the trend towards greater realism
in the comics is a positive thing, as the lack of it
does violence to our suspension of disbelief and
alienates us from the work in the manner described
above. By contrast, you've created all kinds of
a priori "rules" you feel comics must follow, even if
they are completely unrealistic. They must be this
and they must be that (or should be this and should
be that). This necessarily chops off the possibility of
the kind of representations of events from the real
world described above in comic form, placing a
choke-hold on the medium; keeping it narrowly
defined, and, in the end, killing it, when no one is
any longer interested in seeing, reflected through
such a narrow prism, such a narrow range of
characters and events. You can't put a stranglehold
on art then say you're doing so in the name of art.
> The desire to understand reality and the desire to
> solve the problems of the human condition are
> ultimately the same thing, and this is the desire
> that true superheroes embody.
...which, for the umpteenth time, sets aside the
fact that people reach different conclusions
about how best to solve the problems of the
human condition, a conflict which would have
to be present in the superheroes as well.
>> The interpretation you're
>> now seeing in comics and which you object to
>> isn't, as you seem to think, a reversal of what's
>> happened in the past, either. Whether stated
>> or wholly unrecognized, there has always been
>> a subtext in superhero comics of heroes as
>> Establishment figures
>
> Perhaps - but that is primarily because part of the
> subtext has to be literal; has to seemingly stay
> within the generally acceptable political range in
> order for the comics to be allowed to be published
> at all.
Historically, that isn't the case at all. Heroes
were Establishment figures because doing so
was considered heroic. We no longer consider
it necessarily heroic, and those who do it are
looked upon with greater skepticism. You simply
don't find a lot of radicals yearning to break free
lurking between the panels of mainstream
superhero comics.
> Hence other means, artistic means, are
> found to communicate the progressive message
> (which is inherent in all good art).
There you are with those rules again.
> Just like in the
> fairy-tales of olden times. Superhero comics are
> the last consistently allegorical genre, and is
> therefore capable of saying things that are out of
> reach of the more straightforward realistic
> approach, which must always bow to the
> establishment (whether that of the government
> or the given publisher).
Superhero comics offer opportunities to explore
parallel worlds, to create allegorical situations that
challenge our perceptions and our beliefs. Given
this readily available opportunity to do so, however,
few of them ever did in the past. As I said, you just
don't find a lot of radicals between those panels.
>>--it's just being offered more overtly now. By
>> battling crime and, from time to time, corruption,
>> the heroes operate as enforcers of the status
>> quo.
>
> Superficially. In superhero comics (and perhaps
> somewhat less visibly in the real world) crime
> and corruption *are* the status quo, and exist to
> be fought.
That's true in almost none of the superhero
comics. Daredevil, mentioned earlier, is an
exception to the rule, but that's one of the
things that makes it special. Aside from DD,
corruption is almost always presented as an
abberation of the system, not a product of it.
> In nearly any type of fiction, the basic
> premise the action universe) represents the
> desirable state of harmony and happiness.
> Then there is the level of the inevitable
> conflict that the plot revolves around, which
> in good fiction represents and reflects the
> real world problem that needs to be
> addressed and resolved so that the state of
> harmony can be restored. In the real world
> we live amid oodles and oodles of problems
> and conflicts, and our fiction and its allegories
> are part of the cultural mechanisms that help
> us deal intelligently and efficiently with these
> problems. Thus, what superhero comics are
> really suggesting is that the causes of crime
> and corruption should be understood and
> removed. Which in a universe where these
> things are part and parcel of the establishment
> ultimately entails a wholesale overhaul of the
> system. Revolutionary? You betcha!
Except that, in the superhero world, such
corruption is *not* part and parcel of the
Establishment but an abberation of it, and
when writers try to make it the former, they
face criticism from folks like yourself who
don't like the implications of such a world on
the heroes who exist in it, which is what's
happened in this thread so far. I'll repeat
again that there's no rule anywhere that says
comics have to address issues from the real
world in an overblown or silly or sensational
allegorical, rather than realistic, fashion, nor
do the means to make such a rule even exist,
nor would most of us want such a rule if it
*could* be made.
Paul Andinach
news:6EDA4EDA0691B48B.AFEE7B41...@lp.airnews.ne
t:
Can any of these folks--even Wolverine--flatten a building with one
punch, blast a hole through a mountain, or theoretically devastate
the entire surface of the earth? If not, they have no relevance to
the subject at hand, apparently.
Mark W Modrall
that god-like powers and people exercising them would destablize
the world and engender fear more than adolation.
Of course the gray area comes with Wolverine and Spiderman and the
super-powered-but-not-so-much-so ilk. With them, you'd probably
have nightly asshole-tearing fests on Nightline...
-mark
In article <Xns92CF481B...@130.133.1.4>,
jay
Modrall) wrote:
>>>>>>> To be honest, I'd think that *MOST* people would
>>>>>>> be frightened by any superpowered individual, much
>>>>>>> moreso than they'd idolize them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't completely follow this. Are you afraid of Tiger
>>>>>> Woods? Andre Agassi? Venus and Serena Williams?
>>>>>> Michael Jordan? Brian Boitano? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can any of those folks--even Serena Williams--flatten
>>>>> a building with one punch, blast a hole through a
>>>>> mountain, or theoretically devastate the entire surface
>>>>> of the earth? If not, they have no relevance to the
>>>>> subject at hand.
>>>>
>>>> So, we're not allowed to mention Batman in this
>>>> discussion? What about Spiderman? Green
>>>> Arrow? Wolverine? etc.
>>>
>>> Why would you think that? I've already mentioned
>>> at least one of those elsewhere in the thread.
>>
>> Can any of these folks--even Wolverine--flatten a
>> building with one punch, blast a hole through a
>> mountain, or theoretically devastate the entire
>> surface of the earth? If not, they have no relevance
>> to the subject at hand, apparently.
>
> The original point was essentially one of the points
> of Watchmen - that god-like powers and people
> exercising them would destablize the world and
> engender fear more than adolation.
Exactly. To quote the original comments from
"jspektr":
"I think the public isn't portrayed as hating the
heroes nearly enough in the comics, at least the
really powerful ones. I can see people not liking
Batman or Spider-Man, but when a group of
masked lunatics that answer to no one and
appears without warning to destroy whole city
blocks with powers that dwarf those of the
military, I think people would be flat-out terrified."
> Of course the gray area comes with Wolverine
> and Spiderman and the super-powered-but-not-
> so-much-so ilk. With them, you'd probably have
> nightly asshole-tearing fests on Nightline...
With Spiderman, you have a guy who resembles
an insect, climbs on walls, is strong enough to
move a subway car with his bare hands, has been
a suspect in multiple murders over the years, and is
routinely villainized in the press. Wolverine is an
essentially unkillable guy with blades that sprout
from his hands, a frequently nasty disposition, and
who has *commited* multiple murders over the
years. Neither answer to any public authority. As
"jspektr" suggested, they aren't going to engender
the fear of a Magneto, but that doesn't mean
they're going to have a lot of fans.
macloserboy
Okay, let me point out the basic flaw in the arguments of all of you
who've suggested "If someone in a costume really..."
It's not real.
Understand? And by that I mean all of this, and I mean all of it
takes place in a universe (Marvel, DC, Image) where people with
superpowers are commonplace, so you can't apply human reaction in our
world to human reaction in a world where super-powered people are an
everyday occurance, where alien invasions are on the news, where
ATLANTIS IS REAL! It's like applying the value system of people who
live to be 75 in a city filled with today's most advanced technology
to the value system of people who only live to be 30 on an island who
still work with stone tools. To you and I a car, a truck, a bus is
nothing, but imagine trying to explain to someone from Bora Bora a
hundred years ago why you don't live in fear in a world where vehicles
of two tons or more speed alongside you a speeds great enought to kill
you, even though deaths like that are literally an everyday occurance.
Hell, we even dodge traffic because we're too impatient to wait for
it to stop. And we do it without fear. Why? Because it's the world
we live in.
And it's also another thing to see it for the first time. In more
than a few "universes", superhumans have been around for 50 years or
more. That means literally generations of people who have never known
a world where there were no people without powers. Why would they be
afraid if they saw someone in costume dispensing justice when they've
never known a world where that hasn't been the case? When Captain
America and The Justice Society are in history books in pictures with
FDR, why are you afraid of Spider-Man or the third Green Lantern or
third Flash?
Take this into account before you start a response with "If someone
really..."
Mathew Krull
>
>Okay, let me point out the basic flaw in the arguments of all of you
>who've suggested "If someone in a costume really..."
>
>It's not real.
>
We realize that it not real.
>
>
>Understand? And by that I mean all of this, and I mean all of it
>takes place in a universe (Marvel, DC, Image) where people with
>superpowers are commonplace, so you can't apply human reaction in our
>world to human reaction in a world where super-powered people are an
>everyday occurance, where alien invasions are on the news, where
>ATLANTIS IS REAL!
>
But, in order to involve the reader, you really have to apply 'human
reaction in our word' to the reactions of people in that world. The
story would come off as too fake without the realism that reaction
provides.
> It's like applying the value system of people who
>live to be 75 in a city filled with today's most advanced technology
>to the value system of people who only live to be 30 on an island who
>still work with stone tools. To you and I a car, a truck, a bus is
>nothing, but imagine trying to explain to someone from Bora Bora a
>hundred years ago why you don't live in fear in a world where vehicles
>of two tons or more speed alongside you a speeds great enought to kill
>you, even though deaths like that are literally an everyday occurance.
> Hell, we even dodge traffic because we're too impatient to wait for
>it to stop. And we do it without fear. Why? Because it's the world
>we live in.
>
Some people do, dome people don't. Some people live in fear of cars and
trucks because they have seen people killed by them. And that is the
world presented in comic books.
>
>And it's also another thing to see it for the first time. In more
>than a few "universes", superhumans have been around for 50 years or
>more. That means literally generations of people who have never known
>a world where there were no people without powers. Why would they be
>afraid if they saw someone in costume dispensing justice when they've
>never known a world where that hasn't been the case? When Captain
>America and The Justice Society are in history books in pictures with
>FDR, why are you afraid of Spider-Man or the third Green Lantern or
>third Flash?
>
The same reason I am afraid of guns in the hands of strangers. I don't
know them, I don't know how they are going to react with the power they
carry.
>
>Take this into account before you start a response with "If someone
>really..."
>
>
All the are trying to point out to you is that not everybody has the
same reaction to the world that you do. In the comics, they show a wide
variety of reactions to super-heroes. Hell, they just showed the annual
Super-Hero Day Parade in Metropolis in the new Man of Steel. The people
at the parade obviously didn't hate and fear super-heroes, they
celebrated their existence. It just wouldn't be realistic to show this
all of the time.
--
My name is not misspelled.
macloserboy
> macloserboy wrote:
>
> >Take this into account before you start a response with "If someone
> >really..."
> >
> >
> All the are trying to point out to you is that not everybody has the
> same reaction to the world that you do. In the comics, they show a wide
> variety of reactions to super-heroes. Hell, they just showed the annual
> Super-Hero Day Parade in Metropolis in the new Man of Steel. The people
> at the parade obviously didn't hate and fear super-heroes, they
> celebrated their existence. It just wouldn't be realistic to show this
> all of the time.
Not realistic to constantly show the celebration of a superpowered
alien from another planet who just saved the planet from a different
superpowered alien by diving into the heart of sun? Not to mention
this celebration took place in a city that was transformed to have
flying cars by a futuristic version of yet another superpowered alien.
It this the "realism" of which you speak? "You know, as I was coming
here in my flying taxi from the future listening to the King of
Atlantis talk about last week's alien invasion from JlA headquarters
on the moon where he'd transported to, I was thinking I don't trust
this third Flash."
Since my insistence that I don't necessarily want hero worship in
every book is contiually ignored, let me clarify it a bit more: I
don't want this tired cynical reaction in books that are anything but.
If you're looking for cynical realism and fear, you're not reading
Superman, period. You're damn sure reading X-Men, but not the big,
blue boy scout. It's an ill fit and a stupid assumption that if you
bring in the cynical aspect of more successful books, your book will
sell more as well. Spider-man went constantly dark for awhile and its
sales went into the toilet because that's not why people buy
Spider-man. That's not his character. Batman goes darker and sales
go up, because that's his character.
If this tired, never-developed plotline must exist, at least let them
use it where appropriate.
I V
> If you're looking for cynical realism and fear, you're not reading
> Superman, period. You're damn sure reading X-Men, but not the big,
> blue boy scout. It's an ill fit and a stupid assumption that if you
Which is ironic, because the X-books these days are among the few giving a
plausible and realistic picture of how the general public might respond
positively to superheroes (Powers, of course, is another good example).
> If this tired, never-developed plotline must exist, at least let them
> use it where appropriate.
I dont't read many DC books (in fact, having dropped JLA because of dumb
'event' stories and Green Arrow because of dumb continuity wanking, I don't
think I read any non-Vertigo DC books any more), but I think Marvel and the
indies are doing a damn good job with telling stories that raise
interesting questions about how the general public would respond to super
powered 'heroes'. Some are loved (X-Statix, or Retro Girl), some are hated
(the X-Men, at least by mainstream society). That surely captures quite
nicely our ambivalent attitude to celebrities.
Tue Sorensen
Again, I agree completely with your points (and that last one is a
particularly good one).
Keep on truckin'!
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
Who ever said anything about *today*?! There are extremely few good
and worthwhile comics out today. As far as I'm concerned, good and
worthwhile mainstream comics nearly disappeared in the mid-'90s, and
they've yet to resurface. Sure, there are always exceptions, but they
are few and far between.
> > As good a rule as any.
>
> The problem, of course, is that you are making
> a "rule." Deciding what a superhero comic is
> supposed to be, an implicit criticism of anything
> that doesn't follow that rule. And it doesn't help
> your case that most of the good superhero
> comics on the market today don't, in fact, follow
> that rule. This is something we're just not going
> to agree upon.
Agreed! :-) What you apparently see as a narrowing rule, I perceive as
a rich potential for setting the genre free and starting to
communicate progressive messages for the benefit of both the
readership and the world situation.
> >>> One of the things I've always missed in comics
> >>> are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
> >>> Societies. There should be legions upon legions
> >>> of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
> >>> that would be unrealistic.
> >>
> >> Some of the legions of "supporters," though,
> >> would be more frightening than the villains with
> >> which the hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to
> >> imagine reactionary militia-type people adopting
> >> a character like, say, the Batman as their hero.
> >
> > No, but I, for one, find it equally easy to imagine
> > perfectly ordinary people like the ones regularly
> > supporting Greenpeace, or whatever, actively
> > supporting superheroes and their causes.
>
> The proper comparison here isn't Greenpeace
> (which doesn't take down street thugs)--it's
> Bernhard Goetz.
No, Goetz is not a hero; he's the Punisher. I'm suprised and shocked
that you would make superheroes at large out to be ruthless gun-totin'
creeps with little regard for human life (and if this is your view I
can certainly see why you adhere to the typically British way of
looking at superheroes, which I find completely misguided). Did you
grow up in the '90s, knowing only that kind of "hero"? Superheroes
don't hurt people. If they seriously hurt even their worst enemies,
it's usually by accident (and one which the villain is usually to
blame for).
Maybe the heart of our disagreement is that I believe a real-life hero
– if he were really a hero - could and would reflect his comic
book counterpart (if not in literal fact, then at least in principle),
while you apparently believe that superhero comics are silly
romantized versions of a character type that could only be Nietzschean
power freaks with psychopathically inflated egos in the real world.
Or, if you do accept that some idealistic heroes could occur, you are
certain they would quickly be taken down by other superpeople loyal to
the establishment. I don't see any kind of particularly valid realism
in your view that the most and the strongest superpeople would be on
the side of the system. Sure, one might say the same about my view
that they wouldn't be, but that's because I'm presuming an actual
heroic element in the equation, whereas you are probably considering
people more "realistically", believing that superpeople would be no
more heroic than real people. My view, I admit, depends on the
superheroes being people who understand the power/responsibility
coupling, and this is probably what you find unrealistic. The problem
with your view is that the very act of having and expressing it will,
and does, help create its reality. Pessimism, as well as optimism, is
self-enhancing, and I must stress that this is a catastrophic thing
for progressive people not to take into account. If we want a better
world, the very least we can do is to believe that it's possible to
create one, and work towards that end in everything we do, incl.
setting positive examples for others to live by (for instance by
writing upbeat, constructive superhero stories). Otherwise we'll be
helping the other side.
But there are even more important differences between our views on
real-life superheroes. I don't actually see superheroes as such
existing in the real world at all (nor do I see much point in
considering how they would be if they did). To me they will always be
symbolical characters which embody heroic ideals, and therefore
utterly transcend any kind of establishment status quo. Indeed, that
is an essential and basic point of the superhero genre; a point which
is shredded and thrown out by the British view of heroes as agents of
the establishment. I'm also arguing that the type of stories our
culture produces has an important effect on the population at large,
and that the stories play an integral part in showing our collective
culture the way to solve the problems of the human condition. This,
too, is what the superheroic role model ideally accomplishes to a
significant degree, and by claiming that we should do stories where
the establishment tears down the heroes from their position as heroic
examples for us to follow, you are severely damaging this progressive
element and expressing only despair and despondency. All for the sake
of some insistence that your brand of "realism" (which is questionable
at best) is preferable to setting a positive and encouraging example
and showing people that alternative paths are possible.
The real flaw of your argument is that, like a good postmodernist, you
consider the real world to be a bleak place with little or no room for
the positive human spirit; the drive that overcomes even the greatest
obstacles. Where you see a paved-over piece of soil, I see a lot of
cracks in the pavement with flowers growing out of them. In my
preferred perspective, which I will argue for till the day I die, it
is possible for these flowers to be nurtured so much that the asphalt
loses its hold on them. In your "realistic" perspective, there's
apparently always an establishment steamroller that will repave the
ground and kill the flowers in their bud. With such an attitude the
progressive cause is lost before the battle has begun.
> The problem is that there aren't any superheroes
> who lead radical movements. The tradition, in the
> U.S., is toward completely "non-political"
> characters (which, in fact, are political, but their
> politics are status quo), and this thread offers a
> perfect example of why.
Yes it does. One way of putting it is that we are discussing whether
the superhero comic book status quo correspond to the real-world
establishment status quo. I vote nay, you vote aye.
> Overtly political
> characters--like overtly political people--are
> instantly controversial, which alienates a portion
> of their potential audience (this is particularly true
> if the politics of the character are radical).
> Publishers want to try to draw as large an audience
> as possible, which is how the characters end up
> being status quo.
But comics have nearly always had a very small audience, and when Stan
Lee introduced the modern superhero comic with his Marvel Revolution
in the '60s, the segment of people who picked them up was *still* only
a small segment of the entire population (predominantly imaginative
college student, which must be said to be part of the intellectual
elite). Let's say that a million people (when times are really good)
enjoy reading superhero comics now and again. That's between one third
and one half of one percent of the U.S. population. Superhero comics
can afford to be more radical than the establishment status quo; they
can afford to alienate some of their potential audience; they can
afford some controversy (again, just look at this thread for evidence
to that effect). And they do, if you have the eyes to see it. If you
want the lowest, most unashamed common denominators, go to the movies.
Comics are better than that. The comics audience understands (whether
consciously or not) the need to be radical, because that is what
superheroes essentially are. The spirit that overcomes.
> To put it in concrete terms, if you
> write a Captain America story wherein Cap begins
> engineering jailbreaks for the American citizens the
> Bush administration is currently unconstitutionally
> holding, more than half your audience would leave
> the book in outrage that Cap was being "written
> wrong."
I'm not sure that's the case *at all*. Seems quite in line with what
Gruenwald's Cap would do. The audience for superhero comics are not
representative of the American people at large. I have always found
most superhero comics to be considerably more intelligent that the
average person, and thus appealing to people of above-average
intelligence. Indeed, this is part if the reason the comics field has
always been comparatively small. This in turn means that, even if the
heroes adhere to a (not the) status quo, it's a heroic status quo,
which is quite different from that of the real world. This is
certainly part of what I feel the British comics writers have never
understood. Instead, they/you seem to look at superhero comics are
wholly representative of the general American mindset, and all
their/your opinions of them are colored accordingly. This view just
doesn't hold water. American superhero comics are morally progressive
in the extreme, thanks primarily to Stan Lee's brilliant antithesis to
the "power corrupts" adage, which you Brits can't seem to release
yourselves from adhering to.
> I should add again, for the record, that I strongly
> believe there should be more overtly political
> characters of the kind you're discussing (and I'd
> read a Cap that did things like that every month).
See my point? (And don't forget that Reagan was billed as "the
deadliest snake of all" on the cover to Cap #344! Sure, he'd been
turned into a reptilian, but even so!)
> The reality, however, is that there simply aren't,
> which really places this part of the exchange
> outside of the main topic.
Not at all. Check out, if you will, What If vol. 2 #30 ("What if the
FF's second child had lived?"). Mary Richards becomes the leader of a
radical movement which marches on the white house and returns all
power to the people. The last page has the U.S. President holding his
head in his hands, saying "it's all over...". The Mary Richards
movement is the unabashed protagonist of the story. No grey areas, no
pandering to the establishment. I admit this kind of clarity in
superhero comics is rare (and yes, writers often toe the line out of
fear of going too far), but if you understand the genre and read it
correctly, you are always aware that it is there. And I, for one,
think it would be a plus if this become more obvious. In this day and
age, we could sure use it.
> Superheroes were made to be law enforcement
> officials or spies or other government operatives
> of some form or other.
Except for when the early Superman wrecked factories, etc. Not much
establishment loyalty there. But I guess that was a time (the late
'30s) when capitailsm as we know it hadn't become the generally
accepted status quo yet.
> At the time, this was
> considered a good thing. These days, we see it
> in a more realistic light--it ain't always a good
> thing, and sometimes it's a very bad thing
> indeed.
Yeah, and that angle does deserve some stories, but it's already gone
way out of hand, and when it impacts on mainstream comics to the
severe detriment of their progressive content, it's time to stand up
and object about it.
> > And that's also the model to which superhero
> > readers (and writers) should aspire. The
> > misguided idea of superhero "realism" that
> > many British comics writers seem to have is
> > something I would be overjoyed to do without.
>
> Again, this is something on which we simply aren't
> going to agree. You can't lay down such restrictive
> rules about what the books must (or should) be.
You're the one letting your notion of "realism" impose restrictions.
What I'm doing is trying to create a medium where progressive ideas
can be explored, suggested and depicted very broadly.
> > What it basically is is an interpretation founded
> > on the premise that real-life heroes would be
> > government stooges.
>
> No, it's based upon the premise that superheroes
> *have* been government stooges.
On the part of most heroes, esp. Marvel heroes, I don't think this is
true (and in DC's Legend mini-series, most of the heroes decided to
violate the ban on superheroic activity). Superman, yes, he's
generally decided to subject himself to presidential decree. In fact,
I always thought this added to his character. Superman is not the
brightest guy. Like an ordinary Joe, he acknowledges that he might not
understand the world situation perfectly, and he therefore chooses the
moral stance of trusting in the proper authorities. Considering the
damage his powers could do to all the world if not kept reasonably in
check, this is a pretty good and level-headed decision. Still, he
would be significantly *more* interesting to us if he had more
skeptical attitudes to the establishment, as he did originally.
I am sad and sorry that you believe superheroes have mostly been
government stooges. I can only tell you that you're not reading them
right. The point of superheroes is to save the world. They frequently
go on cosmic adventures aganist huge threats, saving not only the
world but the universe. And you're saying that that doesn't matter;
that doesn't have any significant symbol value, because when we see
the Avengers serving under the UN we're being told that superheroes
are establishment agents? This is the heart of our differing views.
You take something literally that I don't think is significant in the
symbol scheme of superhero comics, but just a part of the premise
which has nothing to do with the conflict itself; nothing to do with
the issue being treated in each given story. I believe the superhero
is symbolic and is *all about* the desire to save the world; make it a
better place. That is the true nature of the hero, and a drive that in
my opinion should be explored more directly and clearly. It is *this
aspect* which attracts readers to the superhero genre. Surely you
can't avoid seeing the sense in that? If your (/the British)
interpretation is true, then the people attracted to this genre should
only (or primarily) be people who are, and/or desire to be, completely
loyal to the establishment. And that is completely silly. You British
readers and writers (most of whom are left-wing and generally
skeptical of the establishment) apparently have the gall to believe
that you are the first progressive readers of superhero comics, and in
order to open up all other people's eyes, you introduce your
interpretation which is based on the assumption that superheroes have
always been under the foot of the system. That is an enormously
conceited attitude, and it is unequivocally incorrect. Every true fan
of the superhero genre is, like the typical superhero himself (and in
this sense the government-loyal Superman is not typical), a
progressive, with morals that transcend the status quo to some degree
(whether a lot or a little). If British readers and writers don't see
this, it's either because they haven't read enough of them, or because
they don't read them with the right attitude of optimism and wonder
(Alan Davis being the perennial exception!). I can't claim that you
aren't intelligent, so the answer must be that most of you can't
suspend your disbelief enough to fundamentally understand the nature
of superhero comics.
> Again, all that's
> changed here is our view of institutions. When the
> heroes were made to serve those institutions, it
> was considered heroic to serve those institutions.
> Now, we see some of the ugliness that comes
> with that sort of service.
To a degree, you are right. And this is a positive aspect to this type
of stories. What I object to is that the core of the characters and
the genre is being done a huge disservice, because the heroism itself
is being deconstructed in many of these stories. That means that the
drive towards world improvement that was always inherent in the comics
goes away. And thus fades away my reason for reading them. Instead of
being radical in a symbolic way, they become just as bleak and
postmodern as most European comics. And the more comics of the ones
you advocate are written, the worse it becomes. That, in my opinion,
sucks.
> Something you should also think about is that
> what you're advocating, with all these rules,
> and the way you're advocating it--arguing that
> it is traditional--is a completely conservative
> approach, and undermines your basic premise
> that you want a more progressive approach.
In no way. The only reason I advocate a return to an earlier way of
writing superheroes is that it was *more* nuanced and had a *greater*
range of symbolism and topicality than the mostly simplistic stories
being done today.
> Millar is simply highlighting, in light of our own
> changed sensibilities, something that has
> always been inherent in the characters.
No, something which was inherent in the premise of the stories, and
not supposed to be understood the way he (and you) reads it.
> >> In the Ultimates, that's exactly what the heroes
> >> are.
> >
> > Yeah, and as a result they can no longer rightly
> > be called heroes.
>
> That depends on how you define "hero."
A hero is someone who fights the good fight.
> My hypothetical Cap is a realistic extrapolation
> of the type of guy who would be Cap, and doesn't
> contradict the character as he's been done in the
> comics. Cap, as he's been done in the comics, is
> as apolitical as possible--a "hollow Cap," if you will.
> His so-called squabbles with the government have
> been absurdly overblown in this thread to make
> him look less of an Establishment figure and ignore
> the fact that such "squabbles" have been
> non-existent for virtually the entire 60+ years of
> the character's existence, while he's worn the
> flag for a uniform and carried a license from that
> same government. Since the "hollow Cap" is, to
> me, an inherently unreasonable take on the
> character, I ask myself what sort of person would
> do what he does, and what I put forward was
> what I believe to be a reasonable portrait.
I'm sorry, but the idea of accepting the take on Cap's character of
someone who considers the entire way Cap's been portrayed thus far
"unreasonable" strikes me (as it should strike every self-respecting
Marvel editor) as utterly ridiculous. You are not talking about the
same character. You are talking about a completely new and different
character, based on completely different assumptions. Surely you can
see that. So go ahead and create your own universe with such a
character, but leave the Marvel Universe and its characters the hell
alone. What you're proposing is ruining them, taking away and spitting
on everything they are. And all because you see establishmentarianism
where many of the rest of us see progressiveness. One side has to be
wrong. And regardless of which it is, the fact remains that if your
take is done on non-Marvel characters there's no harm no foul, but if
it's done on Marvel (and, to a lesser extent, DC) characters, then
your side is actively making war on ours, and this is what we object
against: why must you insist on destroying and discrediting not only
the classic superhero per se, but the actual specific characters that
are so revered by us (and we're plenty progressive, thank you very
much) who understand how the classic superhero works?
But, in the end, the editors are to blame. It was their job to keep
the classic superhero pure. The current administration are hardly even
superhero fans.
> Look at
> practically any DD writer from the last 25 years
> or so (though St. Frank is certainly the guy who
> did it better than anyone else). They present a
> world through the eyes of Dashiell Hammett, one
> where virtually everything is corrupt and, though
> its never flatly stated, the hero, who keeps
> slogging on in the face of this, has absolutely no
> chance of ever winning in the end. His is a lost
> cause before it ever begins.
The whole point is that, though it seems like a lost cause, he doesn't
give up. That's a very strong heroic message which communicates the
same to it's readers. Kinda like in the Matrix movie. The real world
is far far bleaker than the world generated by the Matrix, and yet the
free people choose to stay there and fight for their cause. It shows a
world where it is very difficult to be a hero, but some people have
the resolve to be so anyway. I find it highly effective. But I do
prefer entertainment that are rather more upbeat, projecting a rather
more optimistic attitude.
> > I also believe that the entire idea, essence and
> > field of superheroes is (or when it isn't, ought to
> > be) inherently progressive and visionary and
> > looking ahead to a better world.
>
> There's goes DD's "hero" credentials.
You're taking things far too literally again. See above.
> Again, there you go making rules about what
> superhero comics should be. You simply can't
> do that.
It's not about making rules. It's about understanding the nature of
the genre.
> > These things are communicated more through
> > the general message of heroism and powers
> > coupled with responsibility than through the
> > literal events taking place in the stories. The
> > heart of the superhero genre is to save the
> > world. In the stories this is taken literally, as in
> > saving the world from an evil conqueror or such,
> > but this is merely an allegory for saving the world
> > in the more conventional (and sometimes political)
> > way, namely to abolish hunger, strife and
> > corruption and build a world based on the positive
> > elements of human nature (something which, of
> > course, can only be understood and embraced
> > by those who believe that human nature is
> > fundamentally good, which is another sentiment
> > that I believe most superheroes communicate
> > and represent).
>
> You're absolutely correct on this point, but you
> miss the most crucial element, namely that people
> have radically different ideas about what constitutes
> "saving the world." You think it has to be a positive,
> progressive thing, and want to make that a rule,
> whereas others would have very different views.
Sure. And the superhero genre is all the stronger for being able to
very broadly symbolize many different approaches. However, I do think
that it's possible for informed people to make decisions that are
better than those of more uninformed people, and I also think it is
part of the task of art to promote and spell out this view, and work
with it towards solutions to world problems. I am a strong believer in
common sense, and I would certainly like superhero comics to become a
bit more literal and direct (and hence controversial) in a number of
ways regarding the current world situation. But I believe in positive
provocation, in proposing positive alternatives. It's not so much
about criticizing the bad trends as promoting the good ones.
> You mentioned the classic example earlier:
> Watchmen. Veidt wanted to save the world, and,
> in fact, DID save the world in the end, and the
> other characters went along with him because
> they could see that this would be the case.
> Veidt's solution, which involved the grisly muder
> of several million people, can hardly be looked
> upon as positive, but it did save the world from
> a nuclear conflict.
Yeah, but that's a highly hypothetical situation. Except in a
symbolical way, it's not generally necessary in mainstream
entertainment to show that nearly unacceptable losses is the price of
final success. Sure, it has pathos and it's a serious story with a
serious message on a high artistic level, but where we probably differ
is that I don't think this story is relevant to the tenets of the
classic superhero genre. It's a nice story taken in itself, but it
works on totally different levels than the classic superhero genre,
and has no business being interpreted as any kind of substantial
comment upon it. That it *has* been interpreted so is a different
matter.
On the www.comicon.com panels a few days ago Mvoid offered this quote
from an Alan Moore interview:
"in the 15 years since Watchmen, an awful lot of the comics field
devoted to these very grim, pessimistic, nasty, violent stories which
kind of use Watchmen to validate what are, in effect, often just some
very nasty stories that don't have a lot to recommend them. And some
of them are very pretentious, where they'll try and grab some sort of
intellectual gloss for what they're doing by referring to a few song
titles, or the odd book. They'll name-drop William Burroughs here or
there. Just like MAD comics, which was a unique standalone thing, it's
almost become a genre. The gritty, deconstructivist postmodern
superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen, also became a genre. It
was never meant to. **It was meant to be one work on its own.** [my
highlighting. -Tue] I think, to that degree, it may have had a
deleterious effect upon the medium since then. I'd have liked to have
seen more people trying to do something that was as technically
complex as Watchmen, or as ambitious, but which wasn't strumming the
same chords that Watchmen had strummed so repetitively. This is not to
say that the entire industry became like this, but at least a big
enough chunk of it did that it is a noticeable thing. The apocalyptic
bleakness of comics over the past 15 years sometimes seems odd to me,
because it's like that was a bad mood that I was in 15 years ago. It
was the 1980s, we'd got this insane right-wing voter fear running the
country, and I was in a bad mood, politically and socially and in most
other ways. So that tended to reflect in my work. But it was a genuine
bad mood, and it was mine. I tend to think that I've seen a lot of
things over the past 15 years that have been a bizarre echo of
somebody else's bad mood. It's not even their bad mood, it's mine, but
they're still working out the ramifications of me being a bit grumpy
15 years ago."
So, it seems, are you. Get over it already!
> Consider a Golden Age Superman story
> wherein Supes sees an acquaintance run
> down by a drunk and begins a crusade for
> auto safety. Besides terrorizing drunks, this
> crusade also involved going to car lots that
> sell unsafe autos and smashing them to bits.
> He also went to the factory of a fictional
> company that manufactured unsafe cars
> (because, of course, it was more profitable)
> and wrecked the entire factory.
I know. Action Comics #12. And not an isolated example, either.
> Now, can
> you honestly see a character doing that in
> a comic today, and the heroes NOT trying
> to stop him?
You want me to see that the only answer to this question is "no", but
I want you to see that the premise for the question is faulty.
Smashing factories (assuming for a moment that this is the literal
action, and not a symbolical story point which in fact it was) would
not be the actions of a level-headed person - much less a hero - that
any segment of the population could safely place their trust in. That
is part of my problem with your argument (and the way it is portrayed
in the comics you advocate): can you really not conceive of pacifist
radicalism? Purely positive action that doesn't hurt anyone (except
the sensibilities of the establishment)? Public debate? To be an
activist or part of a progressive movement does not necessarily
involve destruction. Was Martin Luther King jr. a vigilante? In the
comics superpowers are a symbol of the resolve and the ability to
propose better alternatives to the way things are being done now. And
what I would like to see in superhero comics are heroes who both have
superpowers *and* specifically stated progressive attitudes. But they
should be true and clear role models, a la King, who are also
pacifists (except of course when they have to combat supervillains,
which is an act inherent in the symbol scheme of superhero comics).
Perhaps in some cases, when a large segment of the population is
behind them, they can take revolution action in some area, forcing
their views through because it will clearly be for the general good.
But even so, any kind of killing and destruction should be avoided if
at all possible (and it *would* be possible to avoid! The violence
almost always comes from the oppressive established system trying to
defend itself more than from the revolutionaries who after all just
want justice).
Pacifist radicalism, you might say, is not dramatic enough for a comic
book story. If that is what you believe, where is your sense of
subtlety?! Having radical heroes who go on destructive sprees is a
*tiny* bit heavy-handed, wouldn't you say? Like hitting the point home
with a piledriver! What should be done is to make the progressive
element a literal (as opposed to symbolic) part of the superhero
universe; of the basic setting, so that the attitude would always play
a part in how the stories turned out. This, I'm certain, could be done
with a minimum of controversy. In terms of environmental issues, third
world impoverishment, education, health, etc., ect., - the real
problems - it's quite easy and straight-forward to actively advocate
improvements, and make suggestions to that effect. Lots of
entertainment is already doing it. How many episodes of Star Trek
haven't pointed out the environmental, capitalistic, nuclear and other
troubles of the current age? To maintain a similar or even stronger
attitude in superhero comics would perhaps alienate some readers, but
I am confident that it would delight even larger audiences. Lots of
people are progressive in the general outlook, but don't do anything
because of the ignorant and complacent current climate. We need
catalysts to activate people, and doing comics (and other forms of art
and entertainment) with progressive elements might be a good step
towards such catalysts. The postmodern current era, well wrapped in a
blanket of establishment sentiments, is not going to be the ultimate
fate of our society. There will be new movements and radical changes;
many attitudes from the '60s and '70s are slowly returning. Let's roll
with that development instead of wallowing fatalistically in our
depressed jadedness.
> >> Warren Ellis did a fantastic--and, more
> >> importantly, completely plausible--story
> >> arc on this point in Stormwatch a few
> >> years ago.
With all the usual misconceptions, I'm sure. One of the problems with
the likes of Millar and Ellis is that they'll rather be irreverent
towards classic superheroes, taking a dump on them, than they want to
write interesting, thought-provoking stories in which progressive
ideas and alternatives are actually proposed. In their superhero work
at least (which is just disposable entertainment anyway, right?), they
have been unable to free themselves of that restriction. Such comics
have very little entertainment value to me.
> > When it comes to mainstream (particularly
> > Marvel) superheroes, however, I believe it
> > is an imperative tenet of the superhero genre
> > itself that it obey certain symbol schemes and
> > stay within the frames of reference set up by
> > that scheme, lest it become something
> > different altogether and lose its genre-specific
> > cohesion.
>
> You're making an extremely conservative
> argument here. It has to be what it's always
> been or it will cease to be what it has always
> been (and ignoring the fact that it hasn't always
> been that at all).
It has mostly been that. And I don't want it to simply be that again
(although I would certainly keep reading it, as opposed to now, where
I'm dropping books left and right); I want it to be more radical and
more in tune with the times. But failing that, I think the classic way
is much better than the current, where heroism is being trod upon and
continuity is looked down upon.
[a couple of quoted paragraphs snipped]
> > That is why, in
> > this genre, continuity is all-important: When it breaks
> > down, it inadvertently communicates to the reader
> > that the real world does not function by consistent
> > laws either, which is unconstructive and unsatisfying.
> > (Though all this is of course a generally subconscious
> > process. The mechanisms I speak of are outlined in
> > Hungarian critic Georg Lukács' 1935 essay "Art and
> > Objective Truth".)
>
> Except for some assumptions, none of this is
> particularly controversial
I don't recall having claimed otherwise, but I *will* claim that most
people (esp. current readers, writers and editors) don't understand
this, and don't act according to it.
> but none of it backs up
> what you were arguing, and most of it backs up
> what I've been saying throughout this thread.
Madness! I don't know what screwed logic you are going by.
> I've
> been arguing that the trend towards greater realism
> in the comics is a positive thing, as the lack of it
> does violence to our suspension of disbelief and
> alienates us from the work in the manner described
> above.
I don't think your view on this is at all clear; I cannot identify the
underpinnings of your reasoning. Imaginative literature requires us to
suspend our disbelief and accept a number of symbols which reflect
elements of the real world, but you're saying that this requirement in
itself, just by not being "realistic", does violence to our suspension
of disbelief?? Complete nonsense! The only ones alienated are those
without imagination and wonder and an open mind. If you belong in that
caetgory, my condolences. If not, please clarify what on earth you
mean.
> By contrast, you've created all kinds of
> a priori "rules" you feel comics must follow, even if
> they are completely unrealistic. They must be this
> and they must be that (or should be this and should
> be that). This necessarily chops off the possibility of
> the kind of representations of events from the real
> world described above in comic form, placing a
> choke-hold on the medium; keeping it narrowly
> defined, and, in the end, killing it, when no one is
> any longer interested in seeing, reflected through
> such a narrow prism, such a narrow range of
> characters and events. You can't put a stranglehold
> on art then say you're doing so in the name of art.
I can only assume that your insistence on seeing my definition of what
the superhero is supposed to be as something intolerably narrow is the
result of your lacking understanding of what I'm saying. You really
shouldn't bandy around terms like "necessarily" and "narrow" without
making sure you have understood what we're talking about. The root of
our disagreement rests on what we each consider realistic. My
understanding of the term (which is different from yours, which is why
I have spoken of "realism" in citation marks during most of the
debate) is this: what is realistic depends on the attitudes of the
people involved in the given situation. Some choose to see things a
certain way, others choose to see them differently. I am not opposed
to realism in comics, but I am opposed to what you perceive as
"realistic", because I don't agree with your attitude; with the basis
on which you estimate what would be realistic. In the case of a
progressive element, your only perspective is that radical heroes
would be big, noisy troublemakers and therefore necessarily hunted
down by the forces of the establishment. My perspective is that they
would be peaceful, inspirational figures that didn't verbally abuse
everything around them nor proclaim their hate of the establishment
far and wide. This is not radicalism; this is stupidity. Positive
world change can only come from rolling with and thus enhancing the
positive trends that are already going on in general society, and this
must be done via a positive, constructive outward attitude. This is
the attitude that I would like to make part of superhero comics, and
it would be an outlet for all manners of progressive ideas and
suggestions, leaving no stone unturned. This is not narrow. And based
on the appropriate attitude, it's entirely realistic.
> > The desire to understand reality and the desire to
> > solve the problems of the human condition are
> > ultimately the same thing, and this is the desire
> > that true superheroes embody.
>
> ...which, for the umpteenth time, sets aside the
> fact that people reach different conclusions
> about how best to solve the problems of the
> human condition, a conflict which would have
> to be present in the superheroes as well.
Sure, and it would be. I see religion, philosophy and science as
having the same functions: searching for truth and understanding.
There's loads of potential common ground between them.
> You simply
> don't find a lot of radicals yearning to break free
> lurking between the panels of mainstream
> superhero comics.
As a matter of fact, I do. But that has to do with the way I choose to
interpret my comics. I don't believe it is only my subjective
interpretation, though. It's one existing dimension to them; one which
can of course be taken far, far further.
> > Hence other means, artistic means, are
> > found to communicate the progressive message
> > (which is inherent in all good art).
>
> There you are with those rules again.
I'm merely stating some of the mechanisms by which the genre works.
> Superhero comics offer opportunities to explore
> parallel worlds, to create allegorical situations that
> challenge our perceptions and our beliefs. Given
> this readily available opportunity to do so, however,
> few of them ever did in the past. As I said, you just
> don't find a lot of radicals between those panels.
Depends on how you read them. It is a poor reader who's missed these
things.
[a couple of quoted paragraphs snipped]
> > what superhero comics are
> > really suggesting is that the causes of crime
> > and corruption should be understood and
> > removed. Which in a universe where these
> > things are part and parcel of the establishment
> > ultimately entails a wholesale overhaul of the
> > system. Revolutionary? You betcha!
>
> Except that, in the superhero world, such
> corruption is *not* part and parcel of the
> Establishment but an abberation of it, and
> when writers try to make it the former, they
> face criticism from folks like yourself who
> don't like the implications of such a world on
> the heroes who exist in it, which is what's
> happened in this thread so far.
Okay, the corruption example had a limited applicability. Let's look
at the roles of the heroes and villains. The purpose of the heroes is
to vanquish the villains. Let's say they did it. Vanquished *all* the
villains. What would we be left with, according to the symbol scheme
of classic superheroes? A perfect society, governed by an unchallenged
heroic spirit! Reed Richards for President! The heroes would simply
help a society no longer troubled by significant problems (which the
villains represented) progress further and further until all hardship
and suffering were abolished! In classic superheroes, untroubled by
realism, it's that simple. Of course, it's so simple that it would be
pretty pointless doing as long as there are still problems in the
world (though it might in fact be pretty inspirational – I'd buy
it!). In order to address the real problems, a more direct approach is
needed, and this is why I argue for an explicitly progressive element
in superhero comics. The way I see it, there's always (well, since
Stan Lee, anyway) been an implicit such element, and I think it would
be a logical and straight-forward development to bring it into the
open. It would be the Next Generation of classic superheroes. Making
superhero comics more controversial would, in my view, also be a plus.
Some readers might be lost, but others would be gained. In the
capacity as a fan and projected creator of superhero comics, I don't
particularly think that anyone who doesn't want (consciously or
subconsciously) the world to be a better place has any business
reading superhero comics. Post-Stan Leesque superhero comics is a
progressive genre, and it's time that dimension was taken to the next
level. What Millar et al. are doing is a little tiny step in the right
direction, but also a great stride in the wrong direction, as it
leaves out the heroic essence that comprises the progressive element
in superhero comics, replacing it with a jaded brand of "realism". You
people need an attitude adjustment. Wake up and see the wonder.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:52:04 GMT, mod...@world.std.com (Mark W
> Modrall) wrote:
> > The original point was essentially one of the points
> > of Watchmen - that god-like powers and people
> > exercising them would destablize the world and
> > engender fear more than adolation.
>
> Exactly.
Yes - in a world where, with great powers, comes *no* great
responsibility. The approach you speak of severs the powers from the
responsibility, while by the way leaving the unrealistic part of the
setting - namely the powers - unchanged. Your only claim to this being
a "more realistic" portrayal of the situation in a world of
superheroes is the assumption that, in the real world, people with
power do *not* feel a sense of responsibility.
And that's exactly the attitude that Stan Lee originally wanted to
emend, and did so with great success, creating a genre where all the
positive qualities of the human spirit was coupled with superpowers
(thus making superheroes interesting for a radical and optimistic
audience). The point: with great powers *should* come great
responsibility. It is an effective, didactic message. We should all
strive to be heroes. Watchmen and similar approaches are marching back
to an earlier and more primitive (even reactionary) outlook, which
they justify by calling it more "realistic" despite still portraying
unrealistic superpowers.
Most entertainment - particularly mainstream entertainment - shows
what *ought* to be the case: a hero triumphant. By attempting to show
what those of your mindset believe *would* realistically be the case,
you are actually creating comics in which you communicate, probably
against your will, that the realism as you see it not only *is* the
case, but *ought* to be the case. Whether that is your intention or
not, that is how people (even if subconsciously) will understand it.
Your brand of realism reckons without the heroic drive of the human
spirit, and that will be your undoing. Because if it isn't, its
continued reproduction will be all our undoing, diluting and ignoring
the human spirit into non-existence.
> With Spiderman, you have a guy who resembles
> an insect, climbs on walls, is strong enough to
> move a subway car with his bare hands, has been
> a suspect in multiple murders over the years, and is
> routinely villainized in the press. Wolverine is an
> essentially unkillable guy with blades that sprout
> from his hands, a frequently nasty disposition, and
> who has *commited* multiple murders over the
> years. Neither answer to any public authority. As
> "jspektr" suggested, they aren't going to engender
> the fear of a Magneto, but that doesn't mean
> they're going to have a lot of fans.
Why not? You only listed the negative things. Would there be no effect
of the hundreds and hundreds of times when they have saved people's
lives in front of throngs of witnesses? Would no people be able to
make up their own minds about whether the heroes acted heroically or
not? Think again!
- Tue
jay
wrote:
>>> The original point was essentially one of the
>>> points of Watchmen - that god-like powers
>>> and people exercising them would destablize
>>> the world and engender fear more than
>>> adolation.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Yes - in a world where, with great powers,
> comes *no* great responsibility.
In a world where great responsibility doesn't
necessarily come with great powers, which
is the case in any fictional superhero universe,
just as it's the case in the real world.
> The approach you speak of severs the
> powers from the responsibility,
The two aren't in any way intrinsically
connected, unless this is another
restrictive rule you want to impose.
> while by the way leaving the unrealistic
> part of the setting - namely the
> powers - unchanged. Your only claim to
> this being a "more realistic" portrayal of
> the situation in a world of superheroes is
> the assumption that, in the real world,
> people with power do *not* feel a sense
> of responsibility.
How on earth could you argue against such
a propositon? People with power act
irresponsible as hell all the time. The entire
scheme of government in the United States
is premised on diffusing power in order to
lessen the chances of this becoming a
problem (and it fails, even in spite of this
design feature). That power is corrupting is
a truism; so obvious as to be self-evident.
> And that's exactly the attitude that Stan
> Lee originally wanted to emend, and did
> so with great success, creating a genre
> where all the positive qualities of the human
> spirit was coupled with superpowers (thus
> making superheroes interesting for a radical
> and optimistic audience).
...which ignores the fact that the people who
gained great powers in Marvel in the '60s
overwhelmingly acted completely irresponsibly,
not responsibly. The protagonists in those titles,
in fact, spent most of their time dealing with an
endless stream of characters who gained great
powers and used them totally irresponsibly.
> The point: with great powers *should* come
> great responsibility. It is an effective, didactic
> message.
As I suspected, you're creating yet another
restrictive "rule" for comics. You're going to
have quite a long list of these before this is
over, you know.
> We should all strive to be heroes. Watchmen
> and similar approaches are marching back to
> an earlier and more primitive (even reactionary)
> outlook, which they justify by calling it more
> "realistic" despite still portraying unrealistic
> superpowers.
The premise is "What if?" What if a man gained
the power to walk through walls? What if a man
gained the power to heal any wound? What if
a man gained the power to level a building with
his bare hands? Would he use that power
responsibly? Some would and some wouldn't,
and, often, the "would" or "wouldn't" would
depend on how we define "responsibly." And,
though you haven't so far dealt with the fact,
opinions on that subject would be like
assholes--everybody has one.
> Most entertainment - particularly mainstream
> entertainment - shows what *ought* to be the
> case: a hero triumphant. By attempting to
> show what those of your mindset believe
> *would* realistically be the case, you are
> actually creating comics in which you
> communicate, probably against your will, that
> the realism as you see it not only *is* the case,
> but *ought* to be the case. Whether that is
> your intention or not, that is how people (even
> if subconsciously) will understand it.
That would only be true with the very tiny
number of comic readers who may come to
the medium expecting to be told what should
be the case in such a matter--it assumes that
the reader brings nothing at all in the way of
judgment to the table. You are, IOW,
propagating a rather outrageous canard.
> Your brand of realism reckons without the
> heroic drive of the human spirit, and that
> will be your undoing. Because if it isn't, its
> continued reproduction will be all our
> undoing, diluting and ignoring the human
> spirit into non-existence.
To the contrary, your brand of lack-of-realism
banishes from comics the full range of human
emotions, reactions, considerations that fall
outside your very (and increasingly) narrow
definition of what constitutes a "hero."
>> With Spiderman, you have a guy who
>> resembles an insect, climbs on walls, is
>> strong enough to move a subway car
>> with his bare hands, has been a suspect
>> in multiple murders over the years, and is
>> routinely villainized in the press. Wolverine
>> is an essentially unkillable guy with blades
>> that sprout from his hands, a frequently
>> nasty disposition, and who has *commited*
>> multiple murders over the years. Neither
>> answer to any public authority. As "jspektr"
>> suggested, they aren't going to engender
>> the fear of a Magneto, but that doesn't
>> mean they're going to have a lot of fans.
>
> Why not? You only listed the negative things.
I listed the things that would stick in people's
minds when evaluating these individuals.
> Would there be no effect of the hundreds and
> hundreds of times when they have saved
> people's lives in front of throngs of witnesses?
> Would no people be able to make up their
> own minds about whether the heroes acted
> heroically or not? Think again!
They'll have their fans, but at the end of the
day they're masked men with incredible
and frightening powers who answer to no one.
The general public isn't going to form an
opinion of them so at odds with what their
institutions tell them about such people
(that they're violent, unpredictable outlaws).
Glenn Simpson
It's human nature to only remember the bad stuff. OJ Simpson was a
friggin football hero, but do you think anybody is thinking of his
football career now when they consider him?
jay
and will be shut down."
And though there had been no operation, illegal
or otherwise, those words heralded the doom for
more than three hours worth of work I'd put into
a reply to this. It hit within two seconds of my
finishing the final sentence.
I'd very much like to continue this at some point
in the future. I don't know when. I can't rewrite
what was lost, though, so I'm withdrawing from
this thread for now, and probably from these
groups for a while.
macloserboy
God's way of telling you that you're not supposed to spend three hours
on something like this.
jay
wrote:
>> "This program has performed an illegal operation
>> and will be shut down."
>>
>> And though there had been no operation, illegal
>> or otherwise, those words heralded the doom for
>> more than three hours worth of work I'd put into
>> a reply to this. It hit within two seconds of my
>> finishing the final sentence.
>>
>> I'd very much like to continue this at some point
>> in the future. I don't know when. I can't rewrite
>> what was lost, though, so I'm withdrawing from
>> this thread for now, and probably from these
>> groups for a while.
>
> God's way of telling you that you're not supposed
> to spend three hours on something like this.
It was a slow night.
Landru99
football hero, but do you think anybody is thinking of his football career now
when they consider him?>>
Well, it's pretty hard to admire Simpson's athletic accomplishments after he
practically decapitated his wife within earshot of his sleeping kids.
Landru
Michael Lehmeier
> I think that DCs problem is simply that there is little or no
> justification behind the character roles. Why is Superman a
> superhero? Because he is. No rhyme or reason, that's just how it
> goes. Why is Lex Luthor a villain? Because. I mean, give me a
> break. The guy is one of the richest men in the world and at the
> moment, he's president, for crying out loud. Why is this guy out to
> do evil? It makes no sense.
>
> "I'm bad because I am" is no justification.
If I were asked to devide people in "good" and "evil", the more higher
I go in the power scale the more the "evil" people dominate.
I don't think that power corrupts, but I think that evil people tend to
get to power sooner.
This makes comparisons with superheroes difficult. In the case of mutants
they just get the powers and can't do anything about it.
I believe in the saying "power does not corrupt, it just shows how you
really are".
Unfortunately people in general seem to be mostly either stupid or bad
and I think the former is worse than the latter.
So yes, once such super-powers emerge on earth there would be a time when
things get bad, with superheroes and supervillains fighting each other.
But this doesn't excuse the way comics handles this.
They wouldn't dress like that. And the fights would be over in a couple
of seconds leaving a big part of the fighters dead or in jail. And once
they are in jail only very few of them would ever escape.
This situation would not last very long. As has always been in history,
once a new technology is invented, times are getting unstable. Until
people start getting used to it and know how to handle it.
BTW, I, too, have been thinking how I would behave if I got super powers.
If I had only little power, I wouldn't do anything. If I had much power,
I would use it for fame or fortune or hide it depending on what it is.
If I were a Magneto-style power, I would try to change things to the better
on this world and most likely end up classified as a supervillain.
I would be much like Magneto, I guess.
(BTW, I can count the names of the people that I would categorize as
simply "good" or "evil" on the fingers of one hand. A certain popular
terrorist is not among them.)
Brian Henderson
<m_leh...@gmx.de> wrote:
>If I were asked to devide people in "good" and "evil", the more higher
>I go in the power scale the more the "evil" people dominate.
>I don't think that power corrupts, but I think that evil people tend to
>get to power sooner.
I disagree. I don't think there's any such thing as a "good" or
"evil" person because no one is inherently either. Certainly the
actions of some can be seen as "good" or "evil, but not the person
themselves. Further, you don't see people doing "evil" simply for the
sake of being evil. Anyone who does that is psychotic. Even the most
evil people you can think of still have a reason and a justification
for what they do. Bin Laden didn't just wake up one morning and
decide to fly a couple planes into buildings.
>This makes comparisons with superheroes difficult. In the case of mutants
>they just get the powers and can't do anything about it.
>I believe in the saying "power does not corrupt, it just shows how you
>really are".
That's true, but people who didn't control themselves and act
responsibly, assuming that superpowered people would be allowed to run
free at all, would find themselves very quickly on the receiving end
of either local police might, or for something more powerful, with a
lot of lethal military hardware aimed in their direction.
Even if you might have "evil" leanings, no mutant is going to go out
and be evil, just to be evil.
>So yes, once such super-powers emerge on earth there would be a time when
>things get bad, with superheroes and supervillains fighting each other.
>But this doesn't excuse the way comics handles this.
Most superhero comics are simply fantasies, black-and-white value
dramas. They're little different than the classic cowboy serials of
the 20s, 30s and 40s, where the guys in white hats always win.
Unfortunately, that's not what sells today, it's not what people
expect. Most people expect a little reality in their entertainment
and unfortunately, superhero comics don't deliver for the most part.
>They wouldn't dress like that. And the fights would be over in a couple
>of seconds leaving a big part of the fighters dead or in jail. And once
>they are in jail only very few of them would ever escape.
Dressing in yellow spandex only makes you a target. While things have
improved on the Marvel side over the years to some extent, DC is still
purely fantasy.
Tue Sorensen
> "This program has performed an illegal operation
> and will be shut down."
>
> And though there had been no operation, illegal
> or otherwise, those words heralded the doom for
> more than three hours worth of work I'd put into
> a reply to this. It hit within two seconds of my
> finishing the final sentence.
I'm very sorry to hear this... I know exactly how it feels; it's
happened to me more than once.
> I'd very much like to continue this at some point
> in the future. I don't know when. I can't rewrite
> what was lost, though, so I'm withdrawing from
> this thread for now, and probably from these
> groups for a while.
I will make one more comment, though. This whole argument, I think,
boils down to the question of heroism. Your take is: in the real
world, people with superpowers wouldn't be heroic. So the heart of the
matter here is that you (and many Brits with you) don't believe in
heroes. Period. So of course you have a problem with the superhero
genre, where the concept of heroism is so important.
You said earlier that political characters are instantly
controversial. Well, it seems to me, particularly in light of this
thread, that heroic characters, too, are instantly controversial.
Thus, very generally speaking, being heroic *equals* being political.
Superhero comics have heroism in place of politics, and it is a
failing on *your* part if you are unable to see this heroism as
political. The problem with your view is that, if, at a fundamental
level, you don't believe in heroism, then this belief, being voiced,
*helps discourage heroism* in both yourself and those around you. That
is detrimental to the spirit of hope and success, and it is an
attitude that you should seriously consider revising.
One can only be a hero (whether in a comic book or real life) if one
has hope, and believe that better ways are possible. Good superhero
comics are rife with hope; rife with the animating spirit of all that
is good and admirable in human nature. That attitude in itself helps
enhance these qualities in those that are exposed to these comics, and
that is what matters. Superhero comics can do a very special thing,
and they have this ability purely because they entertain a heroic
philosophy. They may not be realistic, but nor has this ever been
their purpose or point. They exist to spread optimism and wonder and a
happy and positive attitude to the world, and to sustainably call
attention to the fact that the world needs saving. There is a job to
do, not just for the superheroes in the comics, but for us out here in
the real world.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> On 24 Nov 2002 06:52:03 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
>
> >>> The original point was essentially one of the
> >>> points of Watchmen - that god-like powers
> >>> and people exercising them would destablize
> >>> the world and engender fear more than
> >>> adolation.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> > Yes - in a world where, with great powers,
> > comes *no* great responsibility.
>
> In a world where great responsibility doesn't
> necessarily come with great powers, which
> is the case in any fictional superhero universe,
> just as it's the case in the real world.
You should be less concerned with what is, and more with what *could*
be, because this is the concern that will shape your future. The world
could be a better place if more people decided to be responsible, and
this is a choice that good superhero comics (the kind I'm talking
about) can help people make.
> > The approach you speak of severs the
> > powers from the responsibility,
>
> The two aren't in any way intrinsically
> connected, unless this is another
> restrictive rule you want to impose.
It's a good rule, which sets a good example for others to live by. I
once emailed with a guy who had Superman and his morals as his
personal role model! And this was not a nerd but a physically (and
sexually) active guy who had - and, I assume, still have - the highest
political ambitions!
> > while by the way leaving the unrealistic
> > part of the setting - namely the
> > powers - unchanged. Your only claim to
> > this being a "more realistic" portrayal of
> > the situation in a world of superheroes is
> > the assumption that, in the real world,
> > people with power do *not* feel a sense
> > of responsibility.
>
> How on earth could you argue against such
> a propositon? People with power act
> irresponsible as hell all the time. The entire
> scheme of government in the United States
> is premised on diffusing power in order to
> lessen the chances of this becoming a
> problem (and it fails, even in spite of this
> design feature). That power is corrupting is
> a truism; so obvious as to be self-evident.
What everybody knows is often wrong. It is not power itself, but
privilege, that corrupts. The villainously inclined will use their
power to enrich themselves, thus creating a privileged environment for
themselves, which makes them all the more comfortable in their chosen
inclination. Others might also get into positions of privilege, esp.
in a social system where politicians and other important people are
lavishly rewarded with huge salaries and all sorts of fringe benefits.
However, in fictional settings like the Marvel and DC universes we may
witness a more sober and not unrealistic attitude to non-privileged
power, such as that of Spider-Man. The difference becomes very clear
when looking at the histories of Steve Rogers and John Walker as
Captain America. Being Captain America automatically entails great
reverence and therefore many potential privileges, but Steve Rogers
habitually turns away from these, maintaining his heroic integrity.
John Walker, on the other hand, wallowed in them, and became
increasingly arrogant and holier-than-thou.
Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness
thrust upon them, as the Bard says. The true hero must continually
achieve his chosen model of behavior, and it is this drive and
determination that makes him a hero. Those who have come into power by
some happenstance occurrence (like many of those being part of the
political bureaucracy, or those who early on knew that they wanted
power *because* of the privileges it bears with it), however, do not
feel obliged to live up to the moral responsibility that their power
ideally imposes on them. So, my point is, the adage that "power
corrupts" is not as black and white as all that!
> > And that's exactly the attitude that Stan
> > Lee originally wanted to emend, and did
> > so with great success, creating a genre
> > where all the positive qualities of the human
> > spirit was coupled with superpowers (thus
> > making superheroes interesting for a radical
> > and optimistic audience).
>
> ...which ignores the fact that the people who
> gained great powers in Marvel in the '60s
> overwhelmingly acted completely irresponsibly,
> not responsibly. The protagonists in those titles,
> in fact, spent most of their time dealing with an
> endless stream of characters who gained great
> powers and used them totally irresponsibly.
Of course. That is the symbolic nature of this genre; the villains
embody the negative trends in society.
> > We should all strive to be heroes. Watchmen
> > and similar approaches are marching back to
> > an earlier and more primitive (even reactionary)
> > outlook, which they justify by calling it more
> > "realistic" despite still portraying unrealistic
> > superpowers.
>
> The premise is "What if?" What if a man gained
> the power to walk through walls? What if a man
> gained the power to heal any wound? What if
> a man gained the power to level a building with
> his bare hands?
No, the most basic premise of (proper, not British) superhero comics
is, "what can we use the superhero figure for? Ah! We can tell
constructive, upbeat, entertaining stories about good prevailing over
bad!"
> Would he use that power
> responsibly? Some would and some wouldn't,
> and, often, the "would" or "wouldn't" would
> depend on how we define "responsibly." And,
> though you haven't so far dealt with the fact,
> opinions on that subject would be like
> assholes--everybody has one.
Absolutely. And I see lots of discussion of what is responsible in
classic superhero comics. Squadron Supreme comes to mind. The Emperor
Doom graphic novel. Both DD and Spidey have been frustrated about the
violent way in which they use their powers. The X-Men continually
philosophize about how they should react to a world that hates and
fears them.
> > Most entertainment - particularly mainstream
> > entertainment - shows what *ought* to be the
> > case: a hero triumphant. By attempting to
> > show what those of your mindset believe
> > *would* realistically be the case, you are
> > actually creating comics in which you
> > communicate, probably against your will, that
> > the realism as you see it not only *is* the case,
> > but *ought* to be the case. Whether that is
> > your intention or not, that is how people (even
> > if subconsciously) will understand it.
>
> That would only be true with the very tiny
> number of comic readers who may come to
> the medium expecting to be told what should
> be the case in such a matter--it assumes that
> the reader brings nothing at all in the way of
> judgment to the table.
You mean the very tiny number of readers who come to the medium to be
entertained...? And that versus the huge, great number of readers who
come to the medium with a skeptical and sharply
analytical/intellectual attitude, aloofly expecting a grand artistic
elaboration of every shade of the rights, wrongs, responsibilities and
politics associated with superpowers? Come on! Readers come because
they want a good story with a sympathetic protagonist and a happy
ending, and this is also what the publishers want to give them. People
subconsciously understand fiction in a certain way - our culture
schools us that way -, and although it's all very well to depart from
the basic mechanisms to tell a different type of story now and again,
it holds true that most stories are read according to certain sets of
assumptions inherent in both the story and the reader. I know you
don't like these "rules", but they are there and they must, most of
the time, be respected. The trick is not to become independent of them
(by trying to ignore them), but to understand what they are there for,
and help the positive and progressive aspects of them along.
> You are, IOW,
> propagating a rather outrageous canard.
Good Grief!
> > Your brand of realism reckons without the
> > heroic drive of the human spirit, and that
> > will be your undoing. Because if it isn't, its
> > continued reproduction will be all our
> > undoing, diluting and ignoring the human
> > spirit into non-existence.
>
> To the contrary, your brand of lack-of-realism
> banishes from comics the full range of human
> emotions, reactions, considerations that fall
> outside your very (and increasingly) narrow
> definition of what constitutes a "hero."
It seems like we are not really reaching each other. I will try to
explain even so. The typical story, even the most commercial, abides
by a certain structure which has not been put into it deliberately,
but has emerged over centuries of cultural development because people
have responded favorably to that structure. Think of the process as
natural selection. In this structure - and very often in the
commercial stories, because they have been designed according to great
experience of what people want - are contained a microversion of the
entire human condition, or at least aspects of it. This type of story
becomes an allegory of overall human history and its most important
key points, and it can carry huge amounts of important substance which
can inform people about their cultural identity, their past and their
possible futures. When a great writer employs this structure, as for
instance Shakespeare did, the educational value and resulting
enlightenment can be staggering. This is the kind of story that
educates its audience broadly and fundamentally, and also the kind of
story that has the potential to say far, far more than any "realistic"
story which only treats a very limited question or topic. Compared
with the richer possibilities of allegorical fiction, I'm hard put to
find redeeming values in "realism" at all. If you want realism so bad,
why bother with fiction at all? Why not just establish a theoretical
field a la mathematics about the issues you are interested in? Well,
OK, my argument is getting out on a limb, but still. Ask yourself that
question.
> >> With Spiderman, you have a guy who
> >> resembles an insect, climbs on walls, is
> >> strong enough to move a subway car
> >> with his bare hands, has been a suspect
> >> in multiple murders over the years, and is
> >> routinely villainized in the press. Wolverine
> >> is an essentially unkillable guy with blades
> >> that sprout from his hands, a frequently
> >> nasty disposition, and who has *commited*
> >> multiple murders over the years. Neither
> >> answer to any public authority. As "jspektr"
> >> suggested, they aren't going to engender
> >> the fear of a Magneto, but that doesn't
> >> mean they're going to have a lot of fans.
> >
> > Why not? You only listed the negative things.
>
> I listed the things that would stick in people's
> minds when evaluating these individuals.
Bitter, negative and suspicious people's mind, you mean.
> > Would there be no effect of the hundreds and
> > hundreds of times when they have saved
> > people's lives in front of throngs of witnesses?
> > Would no people be able to make up their
> > own minds about whether the heroes acted
> > heroically or not? Think again!
>
> They'll have their fans, but at the end of the
> day they're masked men with incredible
> and frightening powers who answer to no one.
> The general public isn't going to form an
> opinion of them so at odds with what their
> institutions tell them about such people
> (that they're violent, unpredictable outlaws).
The Daily Bugle hardly constitutes the entirety of the people's
"institutions" informing them about superheroic activities. Surely the
Avengers must receive plenty of favorable mass media attention.
- Tue
jay
wrote:
>> "This program has performed an illegal operation
>> and will be shut down."
>>
>> And though there had been no operation, illegal
>> or otherwise, those words heralded the doom for
>> more than three hours worth of work I'd put into
>> a reply to this. It hit within two seconds of my
>> finishing the final sentence.
>
> I'm very sorry to hear this... I know exactly how it
> feels; it's happened to me more than once.
Many moons ago, when I was first starting these
online discussions, I got into a spat with a rather
conservative fellow over a political question.
In the course of less than a week, I lost no less
than three messages I'd prepared in similar ways.
After the third incident, I dropped that discussion
without a further word, because I'd concluded
that the individual had placed either a hex upon
my computer or had sold his soul for supernatural
protection. I'm a writer, in the real world, and losing
such a large amount of what I thought to be
relatively interesting writing is a bit like losing a
child. My mourning period is almost over, though,
and I believe I'll be returning to this at the point
at which I left off, probably in the next few days.
>> I'd very much like to continue this at some point
>> in the future. I don't know when. I can't rewrite
>> what was lost, though, so I'm withdrawing from
>> this thread for now, and probably from these
>> groups for a while.
>
> I will make one more comment, though. This
> whole argument, I think, boils down to the
> question of heroism. Your take is: in the real
> world, people with superpowers wouldn't be
> heroic. So the heart of the matter here is that
> you (and many Brits with you) don't believe in
> heroes. Period. So of course you have a
> problem with the superhero genre, where the
> concept of heroism is so important.
At this late date, I find it almost impossible to
believe you would honestly characterize my
position in that way. In this thread, you've
defined a "hero" as being only what you think
it is, and forcefully argued that it can't be
anything else. I'm not a nonbeliever in
heroism--I just don't accept your premise. I
have an opinion as to what constitutes a
hero, you have another opinion, and the guy
down the block has still another opinion, and
any one of us could probably make a strong
case for our individual view. Your severely
restrictive definition has no objective
character, and cannot be imposed on the
medium, as you want to impose it--it's simply
how you want things to be done. I feel as
though I've written this and similar sentiment
10,000 times by now. It's dishonest, in the
extreme, to pretend as though your
characterization of my comments bears any
resemblance to reality.
> You said earlier that political characters are
> instantly controversial. Well, it seems to me,
> particularly in light of this thread, that heroic
> characters, too, are instantly controversial.
> Thus, very generally speaking, being heroic
> *equals* being political.
"Controversisal" doesn't equate to "political."
> Superhero comics have heroism in place of
> politics, and it is a failing on *your* part if you
> are unable to see this heroism as political.
Again, "controversial" doesn't equal "political."
Just because all politics are controversial doesn't
make all things controversial political.
<snip repetition of mischaracterization of my view,
and the further comments derived from that
mischaracterization>
jay
wrote:
>>>>> The original point was essentially one of the
>>>>> points of Watchmen - that god-like powers
>>>>> and people exercising them would destablize
>>>>> the world and engender fear more than
>>>>> adolation.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Yes - in a world where, with great powers,
>>> comes *no* great responsibility.
>>
>> In a world where great responsibility doesn't
>> necessarily come with great powers, which
>> is the case in any fictional superhero universe,
>> just as it's the case in the real world.
>
> You should be less concerned with what is, and
> more with what *could* be, because this is the
> concern that will shape your future. The world
> could be a better place if more people decided
> to be responsible, and this is a choice that good
> superhero comics (the kind I'm talking about) can
> help people make.
All good and fine, but it doesn't address the point
at all, which is that great power doesn't necessarily
come with great responsibility.
>>> The approach you speak of severs the
>>> powers from the responsibility,
>>
>> The two aren't in any way intrinsically
>> connected, unless this is another
>> restrictive rule you want to impose.
>
> It's a good rule, which sets a good example
> for others to live by.
You list of restrictions continues to grow. It's
length is probably quite impressive by now.
>>> while by the way leaving the unrealistic
>>> part of the setting - namely the
>>> powers - unchanged. Your only claim to
>>> this being a "more realistic" portrayal of
>>> the situation in a world of superheroes is
>>> the assumption that, in the real world,
>>> people with power do *not* feel a sense
>>> of responsibility.
>>
>> How on earth could you argue against such
>> a propositon? People with power act
>> irresponsible as hell all the time. The entire
>> scheme of government in the United States
>> is premised on diffusing power in order to
>> lessen the chances of this becoming a
>> problem (and it fails, even in spite of this
>> design feature). That power is corrupting is
>> a truism; so obvious as to be self-evident.
>
> What everybody knows is often wrong. It is
> not power itself, but privilege, that corrupts.
> The villainously inclined will use their power
> to enrich themselves, thus creating a
> privileged environment for themselves, which
> makes them all the more comfortable in their
> chosen inclination.
That's a dodge. They couldn't become
comfortable in the way you describe without
first abusing their powers. The comfort follows
the abuse, not vice-versa.
> Some are born great, some achieve greatness,
> and some have greatness thrust upon them, as
> the Bard says. The true hero must continually
> achieve his chosen model of behavior, and it is
> this drive and determination that makes him a
> hero. Those who have come into power by
> some happenstance occurrence (like many of
> those being part of the political bureaucracy, or
> those who early on knew that they wanted
> power *because* of the privileges it bears with
> it), however, do not feel obliged to live up to the
> moral responsibility that their power ideally
> imposes on them. So, my point is, the adage
> that "power corrupts" is not as black and white
> as all that!
Restrictive defintion of "hero" aside, you just
made my case for me.
>>> We should all strive to be heroes. Watchmen
>>> and similar approaches are marching back to
>>> an earlier and more primitive (even reactionary)
>>> outlook, which they justify by calling it more
>>> "realistic" despite still portraying unrealistic
>>> superpowers.
>>
>> The premise is "What if?" What if a man gained
>> the power to walk through walls? What if a man
>> gained the power to heal any wound? What if
>> a man gained the power to level a building with
>> his bare hands?
>
> No, the most basic premise of (proper, not British)
> superhero comics is, "what can we use the
> superhero figure for? Ah! We can tell constructive,
> upbeat, entertaining stories about good prevailing
> over bad!"
That's just another restriction you've invented
to avoid the larger point.
>> Would he use that power
>> responsibly? Some would and some wouldn't,
>> and, often, the "would" or "wouldn't" would
>> depend on how we define "responsibly." And,
>> though you haven't so far dealt with the fact,
>> opinions on that subject would be like
>> assholes--everybody has one.
>
> Absolutely. And I see lots of discussion of
> what is responsible in classic superhero
> comics. Squadron Supreme comes to mind.
> The Emperor Doom graphic novel. Both DD
> and Spidey have been frustrated about the
> violent way in which they use their powers.
> The X-Men continually philosophize about
> how they should react to a world that hates
> and fears them.
One of the places you won't find such
discussions is in the comics you've been
advocating in this thread, as you've already
imposed your own restrictive version of
what constitutes "responsibility" on these
hypothetical stories. The only time any other
point of view would be featured would be in
a phony kangaroo-court-type story designed
to show the wrongness of it (it would all be
like Magog in Kingdom Come).
Publishers only favor such stories to the degree
that they are entirely formulaic, and, as such, have
been shown to be successful in the past. That this
is NOT, in fact, the trend is publishing now is what
has formed the basis of all of your complaints in this
thread.
> People subconsciously understand fiction in a
> certain way - our culture schools us that way -, and
> although it's all very well to depart from the basic
> mechanisms to tell a different type of story now and
> again, it holds true that most stories are read
> according to certain sets of assumptions inherent in
> both the story and the reader.
Heaven forbid art should ever challenge our
assumptions, right?
You wrote, in a different part of this thread, that
you thought comic readers were, as a rule, more
intelligent than the average joe. You should
realize that, if that's true, the sort of comics you're
advocating wouldn't get anywhere with them--the
more intelligent folks among us are never going
to be satisfied with formulaic crap. Some readers
may be looking for that--they ain't gonna' be the
bright ones.
> I know you don't like
> these "rules", but they are there and they must,
> most of the time, be respected. The trick is not to
> become independent of them (by trying to ignore
> them), but to understand what they are there for,
> and help the positive and progressive aspects of
> them along.
I reject all such rules in the strongest possible terms,
including the new one you just created. It isn't the
role of an artist, working in any artform worthy of the
title, to be continually consulting a rule book on how
not to challenge our assumptions, and it's
inappropriate to stigmatize him as less of an artist if
he refuses to do so. He would be less of an artist
if he DID agree to put such shackes on his work.
>> You are, IOW,
>> propagating a rather outrageous canard.
>
> Good Grief!
That's what I said.
You're trying to put a more respectable sheen
on it, but all you're advocating here is formulaic
writing. You can't put a respectable sheen on
that, though. In our language, "formulaic" is
synonymous with "bad," and there's a reason
for that. A formula, by definition, doesn't engage
the audience on anything more than a wholly
superficial level, and, very quickly, not even on
that level. Formulaic writers are parasitic on
original writers, for reasons I'll get to in a moment.
> Compared with the richer possibilities of
> allegorical fiction, I'm hard put to find redeeming
> values in "realism" at all. If you want realism so
> bad, why bother with fiction at all? Why not just
> establish a theoretical field a la mathematics
> about the issues you are interested in? Well,
> OK, my argument is getting out on a limb, but
> still. Ask yourself that question.
The mathematics of a formula are, "how many
times can I get people to pay to see exactly the
same thing?" Formulaic writing takes something
original that was a success and repeats it until
it's milked to death. When someone comes
along with something original and has a success
with it, it's made into a formula by hacks who
can't create anything original on their own, and
who then milk it to death. You're encouraging the
hacks--I'd rather encourage the original writers.
>>>> With Spiderman, you have a guy who
>>>> resembles an insect, climbs on walls, is
>>>> strong enough to move a subway car
>>>> with his bare hands, has been a suspect
>>>> in multiple murders over the years, and is
>>>> routinely villainized in the press. Wolverine
>>>> is an essentially unkillable guy with blades
>>>> that sprout from his hands, a frequently
>>>> nasty disposition, and who has *commited*
>>>> multiple murders over the years. Neither
>>>> answer to any public authority. As "jspektr"
>>>> suggested, they aren't going to engender
>>>> the fear of a Magneto, but that doesn't
>>>> mean they're going to have a lot of fans.
>>>
>>> Why not? You only listed the negative things.
>>
>> I listed the things that would stick in people's
>> minds when evaluating these individuals.
>
> Bitter, negative and suspicious people's mind,
> you mean.
You can now prove me wrong by saying you think
of OJ Simpson as a football hero, or the funny guy
in the Naked Gun movies, rather than a killer.
>>> Would there be no effect of the hundreds and
>>> hundreds of times when they have saved
>>> people's lives in front of throngs of witnesses?
>>> Would no people be able to make up their
>>> own minds about whether the heroes acted
>>> heroically or not? Think again!
>>
>> They'll have their fans, but at the end of the
>> day they're masked men with incredible
>> and frightening powers who answer to no one.
>> The general public isn't going to form an
>> opinion of them so at odds with what their
>> institutions tell them about such people
>> (that they're violent, unpredictable outlaws).
>
> The Daily Bugle hardly constitutes the entirety
> of the people's "institutions" informing them
> about superheroic activities. Surely the
> Avengers must receive plenty of favorable mass
> media attention.
The Avengers carry a license from the State, and
would probably get all kinds of positive coverage,
which has nothing to do with the characters in
question here; those who don't "answer to any
public authority," to quote myself from earlier.
Tue Sorensen
>
> Many moons ago, when I was first starting these
> online discussions, I got into a spat with a rather
> conservative fellow over a political question.
> In the course of less than a week, I lost no less
> than three messages I'd prepared in similar ways.
> After the third incident, I dropped that discussion
> without a further word, because I'd concluded
> that the individual had placed either a hex upon
> my computer or had sold his soul for supernatural
> protection. I'm a writer, in the real world, and losing
> such a large amount of what I thought to be
> relatively interesting writing is a bit like losing a
> child. My mourning period is almost over, though,
> and I believe I'll be returning to this at the point
> at which I left off, probably in the next few days.
Glad to hear it! Does this mean you'll address my long post to which
you lost your original reply? I'm dying for your comments!
> > I will make one more comment, though. This
> > whole argument, I think, boils down to the
> > question of heroism. Your take is: in the real
> > world, people with superpowers wouldn't be
> > heroic. So the heart of the matter here is that
> > you (and many Brits with you) don't believe in
> > heroes. Period. So of course you have a
> > problem with the superhero genre, where the
> > concept of heroism is so important.
>
> At this late date, I find it almost impossible to
> believe you would honestly characterize my
> position in that way.
All right, I can see that I must be misunderstanding you as much as
you misunderstand me. I genuinely thought I'd worked out the crux of
the issue there: that you find heroism unrealistic. This seems to be
what you have said time and again. I see your view in the perspective
of my own, and acc. to my perspective the consequence of your view is
as I said. But I think the missing piece in the equation here is that
I have no clear idea about what *your* definition of heroism is, and
just how you propose to create a better world through fiction (whether
your own or the existing heroic genres). I don't think you have said a
whole lot to clarify the specifics of your view (except that you have
of course applied it to mine), so I hope you will remedy that.
> I have an opinion as to what constitutes a
> hero, you have another opinion, and the guy
> down the block has still another opinion, and
> any one of us could probably make a strong
> case for our individual view.
Not just could, but should. Nothing will ever get done if we don't
debate, test, and at least to some degree resolve, the quality of our
views.
> Your severely
> restrictive definition has no objective
> character, and cannot be imposed on the
> medium, as you want to impose it
Obviously, I disagree. I think I'm identifying very deep and extant
mechanisms which govern much of the genre despite the creators rarely
being aware of it.
> It's dishonest, in the
> extreme, to pretend as though your
> characterization of my comments bears any
> resemblance to reality.
I was only trying to figure out the how and why of it. No dishonesty
was intended.
> > You said earlier that political characters are
> > instantly controversial. Well, it seems to me,
> > particularly in light of this thread, that heroic
> > characters, too, are instantly controversial.
> > Thus, very generally speaking, being heroic
> > *equals* being political.
>
> "Controversial" doesn't equate to "political."
>
> > Superhero comics have heroism in place of
> > politics, and it is a failing on *your* part if you
> > are unable to see this heroism as political.
>
> Again, "controversial" doesn't equal "political."
> Just because all politics are controversial doesn't
> make all things controversial political.
But I thought everything was political. That's what left-wing types
always say. I still think my point stands. Any brand of heroism makes
some kind of choice about how the world should be changed, and if this
isn't political, what is?
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> On 28 Nov 2002 16:22:11 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
> > You should be less concerned with what is, and
> > more with what *could* be, because this is the
> > concern that will shape your future. The world
> > could be a better place if more people decided
> > to be responsible, and this is a choice that good
> > superhero comics (the kind I'm talking about) can
> > help people make.
>
> All good and fine, but it doesn't address the point
> at all, which is that great power doesn't necessarily
> come with great responsibility.
Okay, so you make a very sharp distinction between how things *are*
and how they *should be*? Because, obviously (I hope), you do think
that with great powers *should* come great responsibility? But I don't
see why this must conflict with my view that by using mainstream
entertainment to show how things should be, we will promote that
attitude in the general population. Indeed, that very property of
commercial/mainstream entertainment (nearly always characterized by a
happy ending) is what justifies its existence, and the involvement of
intelligent writers in it. You advocate realism in comics, and I say
you should give comics a wide berth when it comes to imagination and
high adventure, which in the final analysis aren't as escapist as they
appear to be. It seems to me that your realist preferences should be
directed towards other, less commercial, genres and media. Why do you
want to make superhero comics more realistic? And I would also like to
know how you would prefer to include a positive message in the kind of
fiction you advocate (since it must be very different than the way
it's done in classic superhero comics)?
> > What everybody knows is often wrong. It is
> > not power itself, but privilege, that corrupts.
> > The villainously inclined will use their power
> > to enrich themselves, thus creating a
> > privileged environment for themselves, which
> > makes them all the more comfortable in their
> > chosen inclination.
>
> That's a dodge. They couldn't become
> comfortable in the way you describe without
> first abusing their powers. The comfort follows
> the abuse, not vice-versa.
No dodge. OK, in the above I made the initial assumption of villains
being "villainously inclined", but if you imagine a neutral person
being initially inclined in no direction, I believe that what will
turn him down the immoral path is the privilege associated with power,
and not the power itself. I think it is a significant distinction,
because it impacts so much on the "power corrupts" adage. Many
superheroes have power, but are often not in particularly privileged
positions (e.g. Spider-Man and the X-Men). Yet those who are
anal-retentive about "power corrupts" uses the maxim to portray
superheroes in a way I find distasteful and unconstructive.
> > Those who have come into power by
> > some happenstance occurrence (like many of
> > those being part of the political bureaucracy, or
> > those who early on knew that they wanted
> > power *because* of the privileges it bears with
> > it), however, do not feel obliged to live up to the
> > moral responsibility that their power ideally
> > imposes on them. So, my point is, the adage
> > that "power corrupts" is not as black and white
> > as all that!
>
> you just made my case for me.
I can see how the above would apply to many superheroes, true. *If*
they were realistic, which I have expressed no desire for them to be.
My point, however, was that your "power corrupts" perspective is, to
use a word you seem fond of, restrictive.
> > I see lots of discussion of
> > what is responsible in classic superhero
> > comics. Squadron Supreme comes to mind.
> > The Emperor Doom graphic novel. Both DD
> > and Spidey have been frustrated about the
> > violent way in which they use their powers.
> > The X-Men continually philosophize about
> > how they should react to a world that hates
> > and fears them.
>
> One of the places you won't find such
> discussions is in the comics you've been
> advocating in this thread, as you've already
> imposed your own restrictive version of
> what constitutes "responsibility" on these
> hypothetical stories.
I'm saying, as I should hope would be clear by now, that those debates
are inherent in the premise of the classic story type that I'm
advocating, even if they often remain unsaid. I can even prove it with
a rare current example (it certainly constitutes proof from my
perspective; I don't know about yours):
*SPOILERS AHEAD!*
Claremont's X-Treme X-Men: X-Posé #1. The best Claremont story in
ages, filled with comments on the comics industry and the classic
story type (like Claremont's good old brand of X-stories) versus the
new (as represented primarily by Grant Morrison's New X-Men). We see a
couple of sympathetic journalists, Neal and Manoli (obviously
representing Claremont's view), who want to portray the X-Men and
their heroism fairly versus a media corporation who want to portray
them as dangerous and potential renegades simply because that will
garner higher ratings. So we have integrity vs. shock value. We have
old-school people who know the score from previous association with
superheroes (representing old-school American comics writers) versus
new-school people who just arrived and are taken aback by the very
existence of the heroes and being supremely skeptical about them
(representing British comics writers and other new-school
sympathizers, in which category I place most of the Quesada
administration). Witness these comments on the state of current
comics, which mirror my position to perfection:
Manoli: "Neal, our ratings are as strong as ever! He's made up his
mind about us, the same as he has about our story!"
Neal: "New management, new attitudes."
Manoli: "So you're giving up?"
Neal: "Not a chance. Paul's right, we're TOTALLY old-school. And PROUD
of it! We still do the job better than anyone else! This is OUR show,
Manoli, this is OUR story. Paul's newbies can do it their way, we'll
do it ours. Let's see who turns in the better show."
Later in the story we find nothing less than a voicing of the
progressive element that I've argued all along is present in the
old-school classic story type that this very issue exist to represent:
Neal: "You think you know BETTER than any government?"
Wolverine: "Don't YOU?"
Neal: "What do you mean?"
Wolverine: "I look at the life I've lived, the things I've done
– much of it in the "SERVICE" of my country. Look at the state
of the world, bub. I figure we can't do any WORSE."
It's not over-stated, but it *is* stated: the heroes in these
old-style stories comprise, and believe in, an alternative to the
establishment way of doing things. I now consider my case proved as
fully as it can be proved, and your British perspective about most
heroes being essentially stooges of the establishment refuted. If
that's what you believe, you are reading the comics wrong. The
mechanisms I've been speaking of are there, and they are not
restrictions. On the contrary.
(I'll admit that, particularly on the basis of this thread, there is a
deeper philosophy than just "shock value" behind the British
perspective, but from the classic superhero perspective it looks like
little else. And as long as the likes of Millar and Morrison wallow in
hell-bent irreverence, their case isn't getting any stronger.)
XX: X-Posé is what I call art. This is what the medium can do: discuss
issues of heroism, take a stand, and argue for it. All in the midst of
a story filled with high-grade characterization and multi-level
symbolism. And sheer substance (notably *without* the notorious
Claremont verbosity) that humbles any new-school mainstream writer
(and that includes recent American names like Rucka, Bendis, Ney
Rieber, et al), whose stories are usually read in five minutes. This
is an issue that you instantly want to read again upon finishing.
This, in short, is Da Stuff! An instant milestone that I've already
absorbed to such a degree than whenever I read this comic again, the
situations will be of classic significance to me. (Also thanks to the
art, of course. Funnily, this issue/series is drawn by a British
artist, Arthur Ranson, though I have to say it isn't on his usual
level. Was he somehow unhappy with this project...?)
> The only time any other
> point of view would be featured would be in
> a phony kangaroo-court-type story designed
> to show the wrongness of it (it would all be
> like Magog in Kingdom Come).
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I think I get the Magog
reference, but not the point you speak of. Any other point of view to
what...? If you mean what I suspect you mean, you're totally wrong,
but that's a dangerous assumption to make.
> >>> Most entertainment - particularly mainstream
> >>> entertainment - shows what *ought* to be the
> >>> case: a hero triumphant. By attempting to
> >>> show what those of your mindset believe
> >>> *would* realistically be the case, you are
> >>> actually creating comics in which you
> >>> communicate, probably against your will, that
> >>> the realism as you see it not only *is* the case,
> >>> but *ought* to be the case. Whether that is
> >>> your intention or not, that is how people (even
> >>> if subconsciously) will understand it.
> >>
> >> That would only be true with the very tiny
> >> number of comic readers who may come to
> >> the medium expecting to be told what should
> >> be the case in such a matter--it assumes that
> >> the reader brings nothing at all in the way of
> >> judgment to the table.
Not at all. My entire perspective is what I, as a reader and potential
writer, bring to the table. And I suggest that this is also the way
most readers subconsciously understand the stories. And this should be
played up to, turning the stories and therefore the readers' attitudes
down progressive paths.
> > Readers come because they want a good story
> > with a sympathetic protagonist and a happy
> > ending, and this is also what the publishers
> > want to give them.
>
> Publishers only favor such stories to the degree
> that they are entirely formulaic, and, as such, have
> been shown to be successful in the past.
That is, to a great extent, the conscious rationale of the publishers,
certainly. "Give them what they've already paid for; they'll pay for
it again." I'm fully aware of that. But consider human nature. We
prefer a certain type of story for a reason. The commercial story type
evolves according to audience preferences over time, thus developing
into something that says a lot about human nature and the human
condition. Both the news media and entertainment media use
perspectives that favor the common man instead of the capitalist elite
that is actually in power. Gradually, this turns the development of
all human society in a direction where the power elite's point of view
gets more and more diluted, unspoken, and unjustifiable, ending up
being downright immoral. There is a throng of immensely commercial
Hollywood (even Disney) movies which are about evil capitalists, evil
corporations, evil employers, and vindicating the plight of the common
man and his values (and many left-wing values, such as environmental
concerns). I can give you lots of examples if you need them, but I
doubt that you do. These things are what intelligent writers bring to
even the most commercial of entertainment, and it is hugely important
for and influential upon our collective cultural evolution. And in
many cases it far transcends the formulaic. More on that below.
> That this
> is NOT, in fact, the trend is publishing now is what
> has formed the basis of all of your complaints in this
> thread.
Yep!
> > People subconsciously understand fiction in a
> > certain way - our culture schools us that way -, and
> > although it's all very well to depart from the basic
> > mechanisms to tell a different type of story now and
> > again, it holds true that most stories are read
> > according to certain sets of assumptions inherent in
> > both the story and the reader.
>
> Heaven forbid art should ever challenge our
> assumptions, right?
You misunderstand. The assumptions I speak of above are good and true
and extremely progressive, informing us about the nature of the human
condition and what we can do to make the world better. As yet they are
still mostly dormant and not perceived by most people, but if I have
anything to say in the matter, they won't stay that way!
> You wrote, in a different part of this thread, that
> you thought comic readers were, as a rule, more
> intelligent than the average joe. You should
> realize that, if that's true, the sort of comics you're
> advocating wouldn't get anywhere with them--the
> more intelligent folks among us are never going
> to be satisfied with formulaic crap.
You seem to think that I'm promoting bad comics, although I've kept
pointing out this misunderstanding. Let's take the formula discussion,
then. You say:
> You're trying to put a more respectable sheen
> on it, but all you're advocating here is formulaic
> writing. You can't put a respectable sheen on
> that, though. In our language, "formulaic" is
> synonymous with "bad," and there's a reason
> for that. A formula, by definition, doesn't engage
> the audience on anything more than a wholly
> superficial level, and, very quickly, not even on
> that level.
While I of course agree that much formulaic work can be categorized as
"bad" (like bad crime and romance novels and, sure, some bad comics),
the fact remains that, ultimately, your definition doesn't work (and
how far do you take this postmodernist mumbojumbo about dissolving all
old-style structures, anyway? Where do you set the limit to
deconstruction?). Or at least you would have to define the exact
formula being discussed, and not make a sweeping "formulaic = bad"
generalization, which imposes unreasonably narrow restrictions (there
they are again!) upon the concepts involved. The single most
successful writer in history, Shakespeare, is strongly formulaic
(although his formula tend to be a complex and very varied one).
Citizen Kane is formulaic. A formula can be good. The
beginning-middle-end structure, for one, is a good formula (as I
believe opponents of the open-ended superhero universe usually
maintain). Your perspective is based on the not unmeritable sentiment
that repetition becomes unbearably tiresome. But that doesn't mean
that the themes repeated aren't valid and true (and in the case I'm
making they aren't even consciously perceived). Lots of clichés are
nearly sickening by now, but often have a core of truth. And people
are different, with different tolerance levels. Some people, perhaps
incl. you, may become tired of the typical old-style superhero story
very quickly, whereas others will have a more nuanced view of them and
consider them worthy of deeper and prolonged perusal. Claiming that
your perspective on superhero comics is more objective is folly. If
you consider them tiresome, don't read them; read something else. But
don't claim that they have a great, basic problem which you take it
upon yourself to come up with some Big Solution for. That is very
arrogant and will only result in your eventual self-embarrasment.
I have a good example that illustrates the nature of the superhero
formula. Look, if you will, at Power Comics, the short-lived
British-produced superhero comic (starring, I think, a "Power Man",
not Marvel's) written for an African audience (it was commissioned by
some public institution), drawn by such notable names as Brian Bolland
and Dave Gibbons. Perhaps you know them (the comics I mean). I don't
recall the writer's name, but *these* comics are formulaic! And so
horrifically so that they are painful to read (through no fault of the
artists, of course). They are entirely devoid of any kind of passion.
The heroics and the villainy are without motivation and as such
pathetically ridiculous and supremely dull. There is no kind of rhyme
or reason to the premise whatsoever. They are simply the worst and
most sterile superhero comics I have ever read.
Now compare this to any average mainstream American superhero comic,
esp. of the old style. The kind of sterility mentioned above is never
there. No matter how boring the story, there is always *some* amount
of passion in it, on the part of the writer; passion which can be
transferred to the enthusiastic reader. There is always some kind of
meaning, some kind of philosophical underpinning, and if nothing else
at least it's part of a large fascinating universe and ties into other
interesting events somewhere in that universe.
My point: The formula used in most mainstream superhero comics (esp.
of the old style) is one pregnant with constructive meaning and
messages, capable of being widely and richly interpreted; widely and
richly understood. Unless, that is, people with narrow definitions of
the nature of formulas comes into power. Which unfortunately they are
beginning to.
I find it very difficult to shed the conviction that you do not read
the comics right. You do not bring the perspective of copious
substance to them, and therefore they seem "formulaic", status quo
biassed and just plain bad to you. These comics, the ones I call good
and you call bad, are apparently a tool that you quite simply haven't
learned to use (which is what I've believed from the beginning). You
are unable to detect their real content, and the passion with which
they are produced and which transport them far beyond the
simplistically formulaic. You (and that goes for many Brits) haven't
learned to read them, and therefore you read them wrong, focusing on
aspects of them that are not supposed to be focused on; not supposed
to be taken literally. Far be it from me to forbid you to do the kind
of comics you happen to like, but when your perception actively
influences American mainstream superhero comics, to their significant
detriment, then I feel justified in objecting, and requesting that you
(whether or not you are British - this also goes for much of the
Quesada administration) not destroy the foundations of the classic
mainstream superhero genre. Because that would be a great and tragic
loss, the effects of which we are already starting to see.
You also say:
> Formulaic writing takes something
> original that was a success and repeats it until
> it's milked to death. When someone comes
> along with something original and has a success
> with it, it's made into a formula by hacks who
> can't create anything original on their own, and
> who then milk it to death.
The obvious flaw in your "formulaic = bad" dogma is that the very
thing you describe is a process. In the beginning of the process of
repetition, the original hasn't been "milked to death" yet, and may
have a lot of merit. Of all the repetition going on everywhere, parts
of it are at different stages in this process than others. The quality
and degree of repetition, or plagiarism, are also different. You do
not seem to appreciate the nuances here.
> You're encouraging the
> hacks--I'd rather encourage the original writers.
What exactly is a hack? What exactly is an original writer? Where
would you place Shakespeare? You are making distinctions that lack
proper definition, and don't take the nature or the range of the
things being formularized into account.
I consider writers of classic superhero stories quite original. The
superhero genre has never been as commercial as the larger venues of
commercial fiction and cinema; the comics industry simply has never
been large enough. Classic superhero comics have hit upon a very good
formula which has inspired a lot of writers to create great stories of
enormous merit. You seem to want to dismiss most mainstream comics as
hack work on the level of tabloids. I don't think that says a lot for
your sense of the factual condition and history of the comics
industry.
> > I know you don't like
> > these "rules", but they are there and they must,
> > most of the time, be respected. The trick is not to
> > become independent of them (by trying to ignore
> > them), but to understand what they are there for,
> > and help the positive and progressive aspects of
> > them along.
>
> I reject all such rules in the strongest possible terms,
> including the new one you just created. It isn't the
> role of an artist, working in any artform worthy of the
> title, to be continually consulting a rule book on how
> not to challenge our assumptions, and it's
> inappropriate to stigmatize him as less of an artist if
> he refuses to do so. He would be less of an artist
> if he DID agree to put such shackles on his work.
You misunderstand. I'm talking about "rules" that have been gradually
and strenuously created over many centuries by all the greatest
writers in all our most classic works, and through which the human
species finds its identity and overall situation reflected. I'm
talking about identifying, understanding and refining these "rules" so
that they will say even more about ourselves and our place in the
scheme of things, and guide us ever more effectively towards a more
level-headed world where peace, love and understanding - despite that
being a cliché - will be the guiding principles in everything we do.
The "rules" I'm talking about are revolutionary and totally
progressive, and it is the great triumph of art to have brought them
forth in the first place. I'm not talking about passionless commercial
formulas, but about themes and concepts that it has been, and still
is, the historical mission of art to communicate to us. To reject them
is to forever constrain your work to function at a lower, less
informed level. Unless of course you're using the "rules"
suconsciously, which you almost certainly would be.
Perhaps, but it's a good formula; in fact it's the best one there is.
I am very surprised that you would reject the substance I speak of
here as "formulaic" in the sense of "bad"; it seems to me that only an
imbecilic writer would do so. But I may be wrong, so I ask you: How do
you figure?
> Formulaic writers are parasitic on
> original writers, for reasons I'll get to in a moment.
There is very little original writing. I certainly don't intend to
waste the better part of my career trying to be original. I take good
ideas from elsewhere and put a spin on them that turns them into my
own. Come to think of it, that *is* a form of originality. But, what
is original is a long, long discussion. If you can be fundamentally
original, more power to you. Me, I have no qualms standing on the
shoulders of giants.
> > Compared with the richer possibilities of
> > allegorical fiction, I'm hard put to find redeeming
> > values in "realism" at all. If you want realism so
> > bad, why bother with fiction at all?
You didn't answer this question... well, maybe it was flippant, but
still. I have a great argument with your definition of realism. You
say that realism must show things the way they are, or the way they
would realistically be, given a certain premise. To me, realism is to
inform people about the true nature of the world and the human
condition in overall terms, and that is what the symbolical "rules"
I've been talking about are doing. In fact, I think I've pinned down
our exact disagreement about "realism": Your brand of realism is
specific to events taking place in current society (like, "if a person
from the world today gained superpowers, he would most probably do so
and so"). My brand of realism is specific to the underlying laws of
nature that govern the human mind as well as the rest of the universe.
The big picture (like, what are the mechanisms that make human
cultures evolve?). My goal, like that of all the greatest art, is to
understand the human condition, human nature and past, present and
future history. And I think art can say an awful lot about these
things, and significantly help resolve the inherent conflicts. Your
goal, apparently, is to set up a limited situation which treats a
limited problem that you lift from a real-world problem in the outside
present-day world. If by doing so you treat a real-world problem and
reaches a better understanding or estimation of it, cool. I just think
my brand of artistic ambition has a far bigger world-changing
potential. A far bigger impact on, and relevance for, the real world.
The superhero comics I advocate are a mix between our two approaches
(as outlined above). I want to push them further towards my approach,
because I think that makes them better, and you want to push them
further towards your approach, which I believe is making them worse.
Fundamentally, it's all to do with just what we each read into them. I
consider them a medium for the communication of epic narratives with a
huge potential for informing people about themselves and cultural
evolution; not being able to see this, you consider them formulaic and
devoid of any greater significance, believing that they would get
better if they became more "realistic".
> >> I listed the things that would stick in people's
> >> minds when evaluating these individuals.
> >
> > Bitter, negative and suspicious people's mind,
> > you mean.
>
> You can now prove me wrong by saying you think
> of OJ Simpson as a football hero, or the funny guy
> in the Naked Gun movies, rather than a killer.
Not that this has any bearing on our discussion, but I think of O. J.
Simpson as someone whose trial was televized, and that's about it. To
boot, I didn't watch it. All I know is that one trial acquitted him
and another convicted him. I really can't say whether he's a killer or
not.
> The Avengers carry a license from the State, and
> would probably get all kinds of positive coverage,
> which has nothing to do with the characters in
> question here; those who don't "answer to any
> public authority," to quote myself from earlier.
I think it has a lot to do with the debate at hand. The Avengers are
made up of heroes with mostly secret identities. What reason does the
State have to vouch for them? None other than that they trust them;
trust their judgment. This is illustrated no better than in the
current storyline where the UN turns over the custody of the world to
the Avengers. From my point of view this is because the world agrees
with and trusts the Avengers' moral position, while from your point of
view it is undoubtedly because the Avengers are just a sort of
government peace-keeping force loyal to the system's way of doing
things. This is the point you are missing: the Marvel Universe
functions by the heroes' standard, not the real world's. It is the
system that is (in this particular case) loyal to the heroic morals,
not the heroes that are loyal to the establishment. It's one HECK of a
difference.
- Tue
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Okay, so you make a very sharp distinction between how things *are*
>and how they *should be*? Because, obviously (I hope), you do think
>that with great powers *should* come great responsibility?
Depends on what you mean by power and responsibility, I suppose.
Personally, just because someone has great power doesn't mean they
should be forced to use it to help anyone. Please explain why
Superman or Spiderman or Fill-in-the-blank-man has any responsibility
to become a superhero, simply because they can do things that ordinary
man cannot? Do they not have a responsibility to themselves, their
families, their friends, etc., all of whom would be put in danger if
they went and fought crime?
I certainly do advocate realism in comics and as such, very FEW people
who had superhuman powers would ever band together and fight crime, or
become criminals themselves. The overwhelming majority would just
want to live normal lives, just like everyone else.
Tue Sorensen
> On 2 Dec 2002 10:16:43 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
>
> >Okay, so you make a very sharp distinction between how things *are*
> >and how they *should be*? Because, obviously (I hope), you do think
> >that with great powers *should* come great responsibility?
>
> Depends on what you mean by power and responsibility, I suppose.
> Personally, just because someone has great power doesn't mean they
> should be forced to use it to help anyone. Please explain why
> Superman or Spiderman or Fill-in-the-blank-man has any responsibility
> to become a superhero, simply because they can do things that ordinary
> man cannot? Do they not have a responsibility to themselves, their
> families, their friends, etc., all of whom would be put in danger if
> they went and fought crime?
Riiight, here we go again... brace yourselves for another long rant:
So, you consider it ethically justifiable to care about the 20-30
people you know to the exclusion of the six billion people you don't?
If this was how all people felt, human civilization would never have
moved beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. There wouldn't be concepts
like equality, legal rights; heck, there wouldn't even be any ethics.
Your attitude is that of the cave man who just wants to be normal and
do what everyone else does, and not distinguish himself or others in
any way. Nobody is truly happy that way, because we are not animals
who live in harmony with nature. We are human beings with spiritual
and intellectual inclinations and ambitions, and we are irrevocably
embroiled in a constant social project to improve ourselves, our
morals, our technology, our standard of living, etc. Most people may
not contribute much, but that's a problem that should be ameliorated,
for their own as well as all our sakes. Happy people are active people
who are part of something bigger; belong in a larger context. Those
who only care about their own little life are turning their backs on
99.999999% of reality and are the ones really trying to escape from
it.
If there were actually superheroes and supervillains, and the villains
regularly threatened the world, and the heroes regularly had to save
it, the actions a hero chose to take or not to take would in fact be a
matter of the planet's entire well-being (just as, in a smaller way,
real people's actions are). If he chose to not give a damn about the
world, chances are his own friends and family would not be saved,
either. This is an important part of what we should keep in mind here.
In the superhero universe, there is no guarantee that the world will
be all right without the devoted effort of even the most insignificant
superhero (and not even then). Friends and family (and comics fans...)
who don't have understanding for this are part of the problem rather
than the solution.
> I certainly do advocate realism in comics and as such, very FEW people
> who had superhuman powers would ever band together and fight crime, or
> become criminals themselves. The overwhelming majority would just
> want to live normal lives, just like everyone else.
Not much of a superhero fan, are you...?
"Realism". Realism is not what superheroes are about. I'll tell you
what would happen in the real world: An average guy gets superpowers
and is scared shitless. He goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, what's
wrong with me?". The doctor, seeing this guy's powers, calls in the
big soldier boys and before he knows what's going on, the poor
superguy ends up on a dissecting table operated by the
military-industrial complex. What fun. What great potential for
constructive storytelling.
My point is: Superhero comics - any heroic fiction - are morality
plays. The difference between "what is" and "what should be" is part
of the choices you make, and this is the general message of superhero
comics. Life's what you make it. You can change things. You can even
be a hero. If you believe that it is a good idea to make the world a
better place, then this idealism colors your actions in the direction
of how you think the world should be. This is the kind of thing we see
in good superhero comics, although not always as clearly as I, for
one, would like.
"What is" and "what should be" don't just boil down to realism vs.
idealism, either. The symbolical world of the "should be", in whatever
form and whatever medium, is our culture's way of inquiring about,
analyzing and refining the nature and identity of the human
experience. Through good speculative fiction we learn more and more
about ourselves and the universe we live in. All fiction is a kind of
toy for our cultural consciousness to play with, so we learn about
ourselves and reality. These aspects, which actually thrive enormously
in commercial entertainment, are very basic and foundational, and
their effect is very general and overall. But they are essential, and
in my view they most of the time comprise much better "realism" than
the jaded, unimaginative, "level-headed" approach that I perceive your
brand of realism as, because your form of realism would only treat a
tiny bit of the whole and not be relevant for everybody; in fact it
wouldn't be relevant for anybody except those few who happened to be
interested in the precise situation.
You're arguing for the introduction of a realism that will transform
superhero comics from commercial fiction and into what you undoubtedly
would consider "serious" fiction. Well, that's not what the mainstream
superhero genre is. It's something much deeper and much less limited
that works with universal devices which are meaningful on far more
levels, and above all appeals to a much wider range of sensibilities,
esp. instinctive and intuitive such. It treats the big questions very
generally, as opposed to the small questions very specifically
(although I must reluctantly admit that the current trend is going in
the latter direction). Yes, classic superhero stories often appeal to
a lower common denominator, but this is sometimes necessary if you
want to say something basic about human nature. And appealing to a low
common denominator is not necessarily bad. If it is meaningful to a
very large number of people, its influence is extremely great and can
have very positive effects. Effects that cannot be achieved with
"realistic" fiction.
As for specifically why a superhero has heroic responsibilities; for
this there can be many many reasons. Most of the existing superheroes
(in the comics) have each their own motivation. If I were to discuss
the reasons I'd say that it has a lot to do with basic human rights
and the upholding of these. There are many many things in the world
that we'd be inhuman if we didn't care about, and helped doing
something about, esp. if we had significant power to do so. In our
society at large, one of the primary functions that the superhero
genre fulfills is to show people that it would be morally right to use
any power you have to do good with, to make the world a better place,
to fight the problems of the world, whether crime or third world
poverty. These are our society's *common concerns* (as opposed to
individual ones), and they are expressed in good superhero comics, and
this is the prime justification of the genre: it sets a good example
for us to follow, if we so choose. And the more popular the genre
becomes, the more people will choose to be affected by these morals
(or be affected subconsciously).
To transform superhero comics into "realistic" stories where
superpowered people were just selfish, or even just led normal lives,
would be a huge cultural loss, and undermine the positive moral
direction in which our society is moving (not that this is the only
direction it's moving in; there are many negative as well as positive
trends). If we don't actively want social improvement, it won't come.
This is more important than I can possibly say. Both optimism and
pessimism are self-enhancing and it takes considerable strength of
will to move from a pessimist outlook to an optimist one. Optimistic
fiction helps generate that strength of will, thus in a very real way
helping to save the world!
Considering that those comics fans who advocate "realism" are often
articulate and intelligent left-wing types (unless of course they are
selfish types who don't give two hoots about heroism) who supposedly
are quite concerned with the state of the world and what can be done
about it, I am stunned by the lack of insight into the merits of the
classic superhero genres that you display, and by your narrow
definition of realism (Grant Morrison is esp. criminal in this
behavior, which I can certainly rant about if you would like me to).
No offense. I can only conclude that classic superheroes must bore the
hell out of you, and you react to that by trying to change them into
something that you would be more interested in, but which would
destroy their considerable moral, didactic and entertainment
qualities. Which means that people like me must try to show you the
error of your ways.
- Tue
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>So, you consider it ethically justifiable to care about the 20-30
>people you know to the exclusion of the six billion people you don't?
Hell yes. I don't think you're going to find many people who are
willing to put strangers before their own friends and family either.
>If this was how all people felt, human civilization would never have
>moved beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. There wouldn't be concepts
>like equality, legal rights; heck, there wouldn't even be any ethics.
This is how 99.9999999999% of humans feel. I'm trained in CPR. I can
save lives. That doesn't mean that I'm going to search the streets
looking for someone to save. If I come upon someone who needs help,
I'll do so, but until then, only a complete idiot would run around the
city in the unlikely event that someone just might need some help.
>Your attitude is that of the cave man who just wants to be normal and
>do what everyone else does, and not distinguish himself or others in
>any way.
So, do I assume you drive aimlessly around town hoping to find someone
you can help? Why in the world do you assume that someone with super
abilities, whatever they may be, has nothing better to do with their
lives than patrol the city night after night? Don't you think these
people have LIVES? What do you think puts food on their tables?
Crime-fighting? With very few possible exceptions, how many
superheroes make *ANY* money with their crime-fighting? How do they
survive?
Or hadn't you thought about that?
>If there were actually superheroes and supervillains, and the villains
>regularly threatened the world, and the heroes regularly had to save
>it, the actions a hero chose to take or not to take would in fact be a
>matter of the planet's entire well-being (just as, in a smaller way,
>real people's actions are).
The villains wouldn't be trying to take over the world if they
existed, or they'd be faced with a ridiculous amount of armed
resistance. You think for one second that if Magneto decided to do
half the crap he's done in comics, he wouldn't be on the receiving end
of a large amount of military weaponry? Heck, if someone like Magneto
even EXISTED, he'd be hunted down and killed, simply because of the
potential danger he'd represent. The same is probably true of any
high-powered superhero as well. You'd end up with very few
openly-powerful people at all. Most would be hiding in fear of their
lives.
>If he chose to not give a damn about the
>world, chances are his own friends and family would not be saved,
Unless he only acted to protect his friends and family. As has been
pointed out MANY times in comics, when you're a hero, those you love
become targets. If you go out and make enemies, your friends and
family members will pay the price for it. Who would want that?
>> I certainly do advocate realism in comics and as such, very FEW people
>> who had superhuman powers would ever band together and fight crime, or
>> become criminals themselves. The overwhelming majority would just
>> want to live normal lives, just like everyone else.
>
>Not much of a superhero fan, are you...?
Actually I am. I'm not a fan of stupid superheroes though. I'm not a
fan of 40s superheroes where the good guy always wins, the bad guy
puts the hero in stupid deathtraps and then explains his entire plan,
etc. I'm certainly not a fan of 99.9999% of DC comics where this is
still common practice.
If you want fantasy, fine. I want more.
jay
wrote:
>>>>>>> The original point was essentially one of the
>>>>>>> points of Watchmen - that god-like powers
>>>>>>> and people exercising them would destablize
>>>>>>> the world and engender fear more than
>>>>>>> adolation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - in a world where, with great powers,
>>>>> comes *no* great responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> In a world where great responsibility doesn't
>>>> necessarily come with great powers, which
>>>> is the case in any fictional superhero universe,
>>>> just as it's the case in the real world.
>>>
>>> You should be less concerned with what is, and
>>> more with what *could* be, because this is the
>>> concern that will shape your future. The world
>>> could be a better place if more people decided
>>> to be responsible, and this is a choice that good
>>> superhero comics (the kind I'm talking about) can
>>> help people make.
>>
>> All good and fine, but it doesn't address the point
>> at all, which is that great power doesn't necessarily
>> come with great responsibility.
>
> Okay, so you make a very sharp distinction
> between how things *are* and how they
> *should be*?
How they should be has nothing to do with how
they are. Your restrictions aside, it isn't the job of
fiction to show the world as it should be. It can
do that, but it does an almost infinite number of
other things as well.
> Because, obviously (I hope), you do think that
> with great powers *should* come great
> responsibility?
One would hope for it. Most of the time, in vain
(an important point).
> But I don't see why this must conflict with my
> view that by using mainstream entertainment to
> show how things should be, we will promote that
> attitude in the general population.
You're talking about entertainment-as-propaganda.
There's a place for that. The minute you say there's
no place for anything but that, though, you kill
whatever medium you're imposing that restriction
upon.
> Indeed, that very property of commercial/mainstream
> entertainment (nearly always characterized by a
> happy ending) is what justifies its existence, and the
> involvement of intelligent writers in it.
And I say that an entertainment medium doesn't
have to "justify" itself in that way at all. As for the
involvement of intelligent creators, these are the
people who rise above convention rather than
wallow in it; they're not to be mistaken for the
hacks who swamp up with formulaic crap
capped with phony "happy" endings at every
turn. If a happy ending belongs at the end of
their story, they put it there, and if it doesn't,
they don't.
> You advocate realism in comics, and I say you
> should give comics a wide berth when it comes
> to imagination and high adventure,
I think the trend toward realism is a positive thing,
and that "imagination and high adventure" should
never be used as an excuse to do violence to our
willingness to suspend disbelief. Silver Age
Superman could move planets. This is stupid. If
he tried to physically move a planet, he would only
succeed in crippling or destroying it. Morons may
clap with joy when Superman moves Earth out of
the path of some approaching menace--anyone
other than a moron is going to groan. Another
example from a different angle was when the
Swamp Thing attacked Gotham. The premise was
unspeakably silly, and ST was acting completely
out of character (replicating, in fact, the actions of
a villain he'd taken down in another ST story not
so many issues earlier). It made for an entertaining
read, but, again, is an example of "imagination and
high adventure" being used as an excuse to set
aside the more realistic approach--in this case, the
established character--and, in the process, doing
violence to our willingness to suspend disbelief.
A third example from yet another angle would be
absurdly unrealistic dialogue--the sort of thing where
Bigshot-Man has to announce to Badguydude that
"I'm hitting you with my supersonic screwball kick
that I learned from a witch doctor in Kenya!", rather
than just hitting the guy. It seems pointless to
cite actual examples--this sort of thing has plagued
superhero comics across the board for six decades,
and you know plenty of them yourself.
> which in the final analysis aren't as escapist as
> they appear to be.
Escapism can be brainless, soulless, and pointless,
but it doesn't have to be any of those things, and
frequently isn't.
> It seems to me that your realist preferences
> should be directed towards other, less
> commercial, genres and media. Why do you
> want to make superhero comics more realistic?
I've just outlined some examples--I think comics
would be much better if such things didn't
happen.
> And I would also like to know how you would
> prefer to include a positive message in the kind
> of fiction you advocate
I have a chance to go into one example a little
further below.
>>> What everybody knows is often wrong. It is
>>> not power itself, but privilege, that corrupts.
>>> The villainously inclined will use their power
>>> to enrich themselves, thus creating a
>>> privileged environment for themselves, which
>>> makes them all the more comfortable in their
>>> chosen inclination.
>>
>> That's a dodge. They couldn't become
>> comfortable in the way you describe without
>> first abusing their powers. The comfort follows
>> the abuse, not vice-versa.
>
> No dodge. OK, in the above I made the initial
> assumption of villains being "villainously inclined",
> but if you imagine a neutral person being initially
> inclined in no direction, I believe that what will
> turn him down the immoral path is the privilege
> associated with power, and not the power itself.
...privilege which is unavailable to him without the
power. You went in a circle there and ended up
back where I said you were. I have this power.
If I'm the beggar before LaGuardia and use it to
steal bread, am I abusing it? If Spiderman catches
me in the act, beats me up, and leaves me for the
law, is he using *his* powers responsibly?
> I think it is a significant distinction, because it
> impacts so much on the "power corrupts" adage.
> Many superheroes have power, but are often not
> in particularly privileged positions (e.g. Spider-Man
> and the X-Men). Yet those who are anal-retentive
> about "power corrupts" uses the maxim to portray
> superheroes in a way I find distasteful and
> unconstructive.
That power tends to corrupt is a truism. A story
that points it out and thus encourages the reader
to be skeptical of those with it is one that contains
a positive message. People can use power
"responsibly," by however you define that--usually,
they aren't going to. That last isn't the creation of
some mean school of realistic comic writers--it's, in
fact, an underlying theme found in all superhero
comics, of whatever era (even when unremarked
upon). It's a medium where, for every character
who uses his powers in a "responsible" fashion,
there are dozens who don't. There are infinite
possible shades of grey in this equation as well.
That's why the quotes around "responsible"
above--people differ on what constitutes a
"responsible" use of power. The grey areas
generated by this have remained virtually
unexplored by the medium (or only addressed in
a cursory and childishly simplistic way) until very
recent years--the trend toward delving into them
is, of course, the one you've deplored in this
thread.
>>> Those who have come into power by
>>> some happenstance occurrence (like many of
>>> those being part of the political bureaucracy, or
>>> those who early on knew that they wanted
>>> power *because* of the privileges it bears with
>>> it), however, do not feel obliged to live up to the
>>> moral responsibility that their power ideally
>>> imposes on them. So, my point is, the adage
>>> that "power corrupts" is not as black and white
>>> as all that!
>>
>> You just made my case for me.
>
> I can see how the above would apply to many
> superheroes, true. *If* they were realistic, which
> I have expressed no desire for them to be. My
> point, however, was that your "power corrupts"
> perspective is, to use a word you seem fond of,
> restrictive.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men..."
--Lord Acton,
letter to Mandell Creighton,
April 3, 1887
That isn't restrictive at all, no matter how you slice
it. It's meant to encourage a healthy skepticism of
those with power, and, as I said earlier, it's an
underlying theme of superhero comics of all eras,
even when unremarked upon (which is most of the
time--you don't like it that it *is* sometimes being
remarked upon today). To deny it, on the other
hand, is to ignore the whole of human history, and
so alienate the work from the experience of the
potential reader that the work has no resonance.
You can do this if you want, and even pride
yourself on your lack of realism, but most readers
are going to be looking at the next book on the
rack, at that point, and it doesn't do much good to
create the propaganda you want to create if no
one is going to bother reading it.
>>>> Would he use that power
>>>> responsibly? Some would and some wouldn't,
>>>> and, often, the "would" or "wouldn't" would
>>>> depend on how we define "responsibly." And,
>>>> though you haven't so far dealt with the fact,
>>>> opinions on that subject would be like
>>>> assholes--everybody has one.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And I see lots of discussion of
>>> what is responsible in classic superhero
>>> comics. Squadron Supreme comes to mind.
>>> The Emperor Doom graphic novel. Both DD
>>> and Spidey have been frustrated about the
>>> violent way in which they use their powers.
>>> The X-Men continually philosophize about
>>> how they should react to a world that hates
>>> and fears them.
>>
>> One of the places you won't find such
>> discussions is in the comics you've been
>> advocating in this thread, as you've already
>> imposed your own restrictive version of
>> what constitutes "responsibility" on these
>> hypothetical stories.
>
> I'm saying, as I should hope would be clear by
> now, that those debates are inherent in the
> premise of the classic story type that I'm
> advocating, even if they often remain unsaid.
Real discussion of what constitutes "responsibility"
in your hypothetical comics would be constrained
within a very narrow spectrum (making, of course,
the "discussion" meaningless). You've already
said you think the characters have to use their
powers "responsibly," defined "responsibly" as
being in a "progressive" fashion, and defined
"progressive" as what you consider "progressive"
to the exclusion of every other view on the matter.
That leaves no room for anything else. If those
are all rules, then the only time any different
perspective on any of this would be brought in
is to show how wrong it is, in a kangaroo court
setting. I'll come back to the court in a moment.
Some characters would find it "responsible" to
work for the government doing black-bag
work--"serving their country." Some would
consider that "irresponsible." Some would
consider it "responsible" to assassinate leaders
in government who press for things like mutant
registration. Some would consider it "responsible"
to go after those assassins. And, to use an
earlier example, GA Superman considered it
"responsible" to destroy the factory of an auto
company that manufactured defective products
that killed people. Later-version Superman
would consider it responsible to take down GA
Superman in such a circumstance. You can
make a case for any of these positions (and an
infinite number of others), and there frequently
wouldn't be any clear-cut "correct" answer at
the end. Your hypothetical comics, however,
already have all these "answers" before the
story even begins, and the story would have to
be tailored to suit that preconcieved "answer."
That's what your rules demand.
I snipped your description and comments upon
"X-Men X-Pose," as I haven't read it.
>> The only time any other
>> point of view would be featured would be in
>> a phony kangaroo-court-type story designed
>> to show the wrongness of it (it would all be
>> like Magog in Kingdom Come).
>
> I 'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I
> think I get the Magog reference, but not the
> point you speak of. Any other point of view to
> what...?
"...your own restrictive version of what constitutes
'responsibility'," as I said before. Magog in KC is
an example of what I was just writing about--the
presentation of a different point of view in a
kangaroo-court setting. One of the themes in KC
was the contrast between the "kinder, gentler"
characters of the past with the more violent ones
of the present. You had, here, an opportunity for
a potentially fascinating exploration of this contrast,
but, instead of offering it, KC stacks the deck.
Magog is a violent character who kills the Joker
after the Joker's last murder spree (93 people,
including Lois Lane). Mark Waid, with his stacked
deck, made it so that Magog only did the deed
after the Joker has already been taken into
custody. Superman insists that Magog has done
a horrible thing for which he must be prosecuted.
He is, and despite Supes' best efforts, is acquited.
Superman, furious, disgusted, and feeling as
though the world has rejected him, goes back
to the Mid-West to farm, and Magog essentially
takes his place. Ten years later, Magog's
violence and carelessness--again, the stacked
deck--are responsible for Kansas being nuked.
This is the kangaroo court at work, and the
reasons for that are obvious--an honest
evaluation of the contrast would have to admit
there are merits to either side, and no clear-cut
answer.
>>>>> Most entertainment - particularly mainstream
>>>>> entertainment - shows what *ought* to be the
>>>>> case: a hero triumphant. By attempting to
>>>>> show what those of your mindset believe
>>>>> *would* realistically be the case, you are
>>>>> actually creating comics in which you
>>>>> communicate, probably against your will, that
>>>>> the realism as you see it not only *is* the case,
>>>>> but *ought* to be the case. Whether that is
>>>>> your intention or not, that is how people (even
>>>>> if subconsciously) will understand it.
>>>>
>>>> That would only be true with the very tiny
>>>> number of comic readers who may come to
>>>> the medium expecting to be told what should
>>>> be the case in such a matter--it assumes that
>>>> the reader brings nothing at all in the way of
>>>> judgment to the table.
>
> Not at all. My entire perspective is what I, as a
> reader and potential writer, bring to the table. And
> I suggest that this is also the way most readers
> subconsciously understand the stories. And this
> should be played up to, turning the stories and
> therefore the readers' attitudes down progressive
> paths.
It's strange and a bit disconcerting when you
respond to the same paragraph twice.
>>> Readers come because they want a good story
>>> with a sympathetic protagonist and a happy
>>> ending, and this is also what the publishers
>>> want to give them.
>>
>> Publishers only favor such stories to the degree
>> that they are entirely formulaic, and, as such,
>> have been shown to be successful in the past.
>
> That is, to a great extent, the conscious rationale
> of the publishers, certainly. "Give them what they've
> already paid for; they'll pay for it again." I'm fully
> aware of that. But consider human nature. We prefer
> a certain type of story for a reason. The commercial
> story type evolves according to audience preferences
> over time, thus developing into something that says a
> lot about human nature and the human condition.
> Both the news media and entertainment media use
> perspectives that favor the common man instead of
> the capitalist elite that is actually in power. Gradually,
> this turns the development of all human society in a
> direction where the power elite's point of view gets
> more and more diluted, unspoken, and unjustifiable,
> ending up being downright immoral.
The idea that the news media "use perspectives
that favor the common man instead of the capitalist
elite" is a real joke. There are exceptions, as there
always are, but the corporate press is almost entirely
the creature of that elite.
As for entertainment media, the smooth evolution
you suggest here simply doesn't exist. The kinds
of stories in which people partake over a period
of time change, and the number of factors
involved in this are almost infinite. Primarily, an
original product emerges, is successful, and is
followed by years of imitators seeking to exploit its
success. I just came across an example a few
days ago; a commercial for yet another Die Hard
ripoff. A full 14 years after that film, one of the
cable networks has created what appears to be
yet another virtual remake called "Christmas Rush."
Another example that jumps immediately to mind
(because I watched part of it again today) is
"Halloween." That movie, from 1978, was
transformed into a formula that virtually dominated
the horror genre for a decade after it. The slasher
formula was a right-wing formula, reflective of the
Reagan Eighties, which brings me to the next part
of this. The stories people watch tend to be
reflective of the times in which they're made, not
of some greater aspect of human nature.
Sometimes, they're reflective of people's desire for
escape from the reality of the times in which they
live, which is why the musical is born and thrives
during the worst part of the Great Depression.
This aspect of the equation has been attacked
by left-wing critics in Europe for decades,
particularly in France and Italy--they see in such
products as attempts by elite capital to anesthetize
the population.
> There is a throng of immensely commercial
> Hollywood (even Disney) movies which are
> about evil capitalists, evil corporations, evil
> employers, and vindicating the plight of the
> common man and his values (and many
> left-wing values, such as environmental
> concerns). I can give you lots of examples
> if you need them, but I doubt that you do.
> These things are what intelligent writers
> bring to even the most commercial of
> entertainment, and it is hugely important for
> and influential upon our collective cultural
> evolution.
Roger Corman, "the Pope of Pop Cinema,"
made it a point, for decades, to work in some
sort of progressive angle into the flicks he
worked on. These tended to be more subtle,
but they're there, just the same.
As for the more general use of progressive
viewpoints worked into popular cinema in the
manner you describe, this is usually done for
less than noble purposes, often simply to pander
to the audience in order to sell tickets, or for
matters of practicality--a villainous corporate
CEO, for example, has access to the kind of
resources it would take to create the army of
heavily armed underlings required to give our
hero a hard time. It's the same reason mob
bosses are used as villains (FAR more
frequently than CEOs, btw). In most of these
cases, it isn't even correct to say the use of
such a character is reflective of a "progressive"
viewpoint. A corrupt businessman is just
that--corrupt--suggesting, of course, that the
problem isn't systemic and that a more ethical
businessman wouldn't do such a thing. An
example that comes to mind is "The Fire Down
Below," a grotesque Steven Seagal movie
which TNT has acquired--they seem intent on
running their print of it to ribbons. In that movie,
the evil businessman played by Chris
Christopherson is dumping toxic waste in a
small southern town. He is clearly a corrupt
businessman, not someone whose actions
reflect systemic problems, and Seagal, the
hero of the piece, brings him down using the
engine of officialdom.
> And in many cases it far transcends the
> formulaic.
If it transcends it, then it isn't formulaic.
>>> People subconsciously understand fiction in
>>> a certain way - our culture schools us that
>>> way -, and although it's all very well to depart
>>> from the basic mechanisms to tell a different
>>> type of story now and again, it holds true that
>>> most stories are read according to certain
>>> sets of assumptions inherent in both the story
>>> and the reader.
>>
>> Heaven forbid art should ever challenge our
>> assumptions, right?
>
> You misunderstand. The assumptions I speak
> of above are good and true and extremely
> progressive, informing us about the nature of
> the human condition and what we can do to
> make the world better.
You misunderstand. It isn't the job of art to
reinforce our assumptions (that's what
commerce does when it feeds us a formula).
It can do that, but that isn't why it's there. A
place where one's assumptions are never
challenged is a place where critical thought
is dead. The land of the ditto-head.
>> You wrote, in a different part of this thread,
>> that you thought comic readers were, as a
>> rule, more intelligent than the average joe.
>> You should realize that, if that's true, the
>> sort of comics you're advocating wouldn't
>> get anywhere with them--the more intelligent
>> folks among us are never going to be
>> satisfied with formulaic crap.
>
> You seem to think that I'm promoting bad
> comics,
I think comics confined within the incredibly
narrow restrictions you suggest would be
mostly bad from the beginning, and grow
even worse as time went by and the
barriers erected by the restrictions actively
discouraged any innovation. This is what
happened before--there's no reason to
assume history wouldn't repeat itself and the
restrictions be dumped again. In the Golden
Age, there were virtually no restrictions, and
the industry flourished in the United States
as it probably never will again. After
McCarthyism nearly destroyed it, the industry
handicapped itself with the Comics Code
Authority. It limped along in a virtual living
death for a few years, then began to
recover. As soon as it became healthy
again, it immediately began challenging the
restrictions. There wouldn't be much point
in repeating the same process again
(particularly with tighter restrictions than
even those of the Comics Code).
Quite a caveat there, to quite a statement.
The notion that Shakespeare was a writer
of formula isn't even really worth addressing.
No one had ever written as he did--whole
segments of the English language began
with his work. When you say this sort of
thing, it's insulting.
> Citizen Kane is formulaic.
Equally insulting. There isn't a "formulaic"
camera angle, line of dialogue, story,
performance, story structure, or edit in
"Citizen Kane" anywhere. It's very literally
like nothing that had ever been done
before, and any suggestion that it's
"formulaic" is ludicrous.
> A formula can be good.
> The beginning-middle-end structure, for one,
> is a good formula (as I believe opponents of
> the open-ended superhero universe usually
> maintain).
It's a criticism made of anything that's episodic.
Whatever one thinks of this, such a structure
isn't "formula" at all.
> Your perspective is based on the not unmeritable
> sentiment that repetition becomes unbearably
> tiresome.
It's actually based on a preference for originality
over something I've already seen. The repetition
does become tiresome, but only because it is
repetition.
> But that doesn't mean that the themes
> repeated aren't valid and true (and in the
> case I'm making they aren't even
> consciously perceived). Lots of clichés are
> nearly sickening by now,
("I'm gettin' too old for this shit!" Or "It's over."
Conveniently placed at the end.)
> but often have a
> core of truth. And people are different, with
> different tolerance levels. Some people,
> perhaps incl. you, may become tired of the
> typical old-style superhero story very quickly,
> whereas others will have a more nuanced
> view of them and consider them worthy of
> deeper and prolonged perusal.
Translation: Some may be inclined to make
of them more than they are. That doesn't
mean those of us not so inclined are less
intelligent or mean or wrong (as you've
assumed throughout this thread).
> Claiming that your perspective on
> superhero comics is more objective is
> folly.
Those who want to make more of them
than they are rely on an entirely subjective
view to do so. That doesn't mean they're
bad people--it does mean they're less
objective than those who don't do so.
> If you consider them tiresome, don't read
> them; read something else. But don't claim
> that they have a great, basic problem which
> you take it upon yourself to come up with
> some Big Solution for. That is very arrogant
> and will only result in your eventual
> self-embarrasment.
I have no idea what any of that means, or
what it has to do with anything that's been
discussed in this thread.
[Having never read "Power Comics,"
I've declined to comment on them.]
> My point: The formula used in most mainstream
> superhero comics (esp. of the old style) is one
> pregnant with constructive meaning and
> messages, capable of being widely and richly
> interpreted; widely and richly understood.
You're here describing the willingness to
make more of them than they are.
> Unless, that is, people with narrow definitions
> of the nature of formulas comes into power.
> Which unfortunately they are beginning to.
>
> I find it very difficult to shed the conviction
> that you do not read the comics right.
"Gee, if only you were as smart as I, all
your troubles would be over."
The condescension is tiresome--let's have
a little less of it, alright?
In that spirit, I've snipped your long sililoquy
on how I'm obviously some yahoo who doesn't
understand comics because I refuse to read
into them things that aren't there.
> Far be it from me to forbid you to do the kind
> of comics you happen to like,
You've been arguing for doing so throughout
this entire thread--it's what all of your rules have
been about.
> but when your perception actively influences
> American mainstream superhero comics, to
> their significant detriment, then I feel justified
> in objecting, and requesting that you (whether
> or not you are British - this also goes for much
> of the Quesada administration) not destroy the
> foundations of the classic mainstream superhero
> genre.
And I say that my views don't influence comics
to their detriment, significantly or otherwise, much
less "destroy" anything. I say, in fact, that they
make for better comics--otherwise, I, a life-long
comic fan, wouldn't hold them. I think your view
that comics have to function under what must,
by now, be about 30,000 restrictive rules, most
of them utterly nonsensical, is fundamentally
wrongheaded.
> You also say:
>
>> Formulaic writing takes something
>> original that was a success and repeats it
>> until it's milked to death. When someone
>> comes along with something original and
>> has a success with it, it's made into a
>> formula by hacks who can't create anything
>> original on their own, and who then milk it to
>> death.
>
> The obvious flaw in your "formulaic = bad"
> dogma is that the very thing you describe is
> a process. In the beginning of the process of
> repetition, the original hasn't been "milked to
> death" yet, and may have a lot of merit. Of all
> the repetition going on everywhere, parts of it
> are at different stages in this process than
> others. The quality and degree of repetition, or
> plagiarism, are also different. You do not seem
> to appreciate the nuances here.
An imitator can do a riff on a formula better
than the original--it happens all the time. A
Kurosawa can plop a "Hidden Fortress"
down right in the middle of an otherwise
soulless jidai-geki genre. I do understand
such a nuance, and haven't written anything
upon which you could base your comments
about me above. You're missing the point.
Do you want to encourage Kurosawa to
make more "Hidden Fortress"es, or do you
want to encourage him to make a "Seven
Samurai" or a "Rashomon?" To use another
example, do you want a Martin Scorcese to
remain in exploitation and create more
"Boxcar Bertha"s, or do you want him to
make a "Raging Bull" or a "Goodfellas?"
>> You're encouraging the hacks--I'd rather
>> encourage the original writers.
>
> What exactly is a hack? What exactly is an
> original writer?
Among other things, someone whose work
consists only of grinding out a copy of
something someone else has already done
is doing hack-work. Eisner's "Spirit" is to be
encouraged--his "Wonder Man" is not.
> Where would you place
> Shakespeare? You are making distinctions
> that lack proper definition, and don't take
> the nature or the range of the things being
> formularized into account.
>
> I consider writers of classic superhero stories
> quite original.
Some of them are, and most of them aren't.
I suppose it depends on whatever you've
arbitrarily chosen to define as "classic
superhero stories."
> The superhero genre has never
> been as commercial as the larger venues of
> commercial fiction and cinema; the comics
> industry simply has never been large enough.
At the height of the Golden Age, comic
companies in the United States were moving
over a billion books a year.
> Classic superhero comics have hit upon a
> very good formula which has inspired a lot of
> writers to create great stories of enormous merit.
> You seem to want to dismiss most mainstream
> comics as hack work on the level of tabloids.
Most of it IS hack work on or below the level
of tabloids. That's the case with every medium.
Sturgeon's Law is that 90% of everything is
crap. In reality, that number is closer to 99%.
The 1% is what's worth watching.
> I don't think that says a lot for your sense of
> the factual condition and history of the comics
> industry.
"Gee, if only I was as smart as you, Louie..."
>>> I know you don't like
>>> these "rules", but they are there and they
>>> must, most of the time, be respected. The
>>> trick is not to become independent of them
>>> (by trying to ignore them), but to understand
>>> what they are there for, and help the positive
>>> and progressive aspects of them along.
>>
>> I reject all such rules in the strongest possible
>> terms, including the new one you just created.
>> It isn't the role of an artist, working in any
>> artform worthy of the title, to be continually
>> consulting a rule book on how not to challenge
>> our assumptions, and it's inappropriate to
>> stigmatize him as less of an artist if he refuses
>> to do so. He would be less of an artist if he DID
>> agree to put such shackles on his work.
>
> You misunderstand. I'm talking about "rules"
> that have been gradually and strenuously
> created over many centuries by all the
> greatest writers in all our most classic works,
In my readings of Dostoevsky, I seem to have
missed the part where he wrote that all superheroes
were supposed to embody your notion of
"progressive" sentiment. I can't remember Dickens'
discussion of how superhero comics are supposed
to show their readers your version of a better world
full of heroic role models for them to try and live up
to. And I don't remember Mark Twain having any
opinion on whether Spiderman or Superman used
their powers responsibly.
To put a finer point on it, let's cut the crap.
> and through which the human species finds
> its identity and overall situation reflected. I'm
> talking about identifying, understanding and
> refining these "rules" so that they will say
> even more about ourselves and our place in
> the scheme of things, and guide us ever
> more effectively towards a more level-headed
> world where peace, love and
> understanding - despite that being a cliché - will
> be the guiding principles in everything we do.
"All we need is love..."
> The "rules" I'm talking about are revolutionary
> and totally progressive, and it is the great
> triumph of art to have brought them forth in the
> first place.
A "progressive" rule that says you must be
"progressive." Very thoughtful.
> I'm not talking about passionless commercial
> formulas,
Actually, that's exactly what you're talking about.
> but about themes and concepts that it has
> been, and still is, the historical mission of art
> to communicate to us. To reject them is to
> forever constrain your work to function at a
> lower, less informed level.
You're the one whose been arguing for a less
realistic (which is to say, inherently less informed)
level, and no matter what rhetorical flousishes
you employ, you're simply never going to make
a case that you "constrain" yourself by refusing
to be constrained by a pack of restrictions. It's
an Orwellian notion.
Being such an imbecilic writer, I would
probably find that it's difficult for me to
communicate ideas effectively to others
if I had any concept of what effectively
communicating ideas meant. Obviously,
being such an imbecile, I don't, so I can
only do the best my little idiot's brain can
manage and hope people get what I'm
driving at:
Formulaic writing is not something to be
encouraged. Original writing is much better,
and should be encouraged instead. If I wish,
I can fabircate, from whole cloth, simplistic
(and nonsensical) notions about how a
formula is something that reflects centuries
of cultural development and evolution, but
at the end of the day, a formula will still be
nothing more than one writer ripping off
another.
>> Formulaic writers are parasitic on
>> original writers, for reasons I'll get to in a moment.
>
> There is very little original writing. I certainly don't
> intend to waste the better part of my career trying
> to be original.
Then you should CERTAINLY consider another
line of work.
Re-read what you wrote above--doesn't that
embarass you?
> I take good ideas from elsewhere and put a
> spin on them that turns them into my own. Come
> to think of it, that *is* a form of originality. But,
> what is original is a long, long discussion.
And this is already a long, long discussion.
> If you
> can be fundamentally original, more power to
> you. Me, I have no qualms standing on the
> shoulders of giants.
You wouldn't be standing on their shoulders--you'd
be a leech attached to their arteries.
>>> Compared with the richer possibilities of
>>> allegorical fiction, I'm hard put to find
>>> redeeming values in "realism" at all. If you
>>> want realism so bad, why bother with fiction
>>> at all?
>
> You didn't answer this question...
Reflective of the seriousness of the question.
> I have a great argument with your definition
> of realism.
I haven't offered you my definition of "realism."
You've simply taken it on yourself throughout this
thread to assume you know what it is. I found it
amusing at first that you seem to think I'm a
priest of some sort, hawking a religion; an "-ism."
The charm of this has now worn off, though.
> You say that realism must show things the way
> they are, or the way they would realistically be,
> given a certain premise.
That isn't "realism"--that's good writing. As opposed
to bad writing, where people behave in completely
unrealistic ways.
> To me, realism is to inform people about the true
> nature of the world and the human condition in
> overall terms, and that is what the symbolical
> "rules" I've been talking about are doing.
You can do that without a pack of rules.
> In fact, I think I've pinned down our exact
> disagreement about "realism": Your brand of
> realism is specific to events taking place in
> current society (like, "if a person from the
> world today gained superpowers, he would
> most probably do so and so").
Properly stated,
"If a person gained superpowers, he could..."
You fill in those ellipses with your rules--I prefer
to leave them open-ended.
> My brand of realism is specific to the underlying
> laws of nature that govern the human mind as
> well as the rest of the universe. The big picture
> (like, what are the mechanisms that make human
> cultures evolve?). My goal, like that of all the
> greatest art, is to understand the human condition,
> human nature and past, present and future history.
> And I think art can say an awful lot about these
> things, and significantly help resolve the inherent
> conflicts.
Your rules are a barrier to allowing it to do so.
> Your goal, apparently, is to set up a limited
> situation which treats a limited problem that
> you lift from a real-world problem in the outside
> present-day world.
My only "goal" here, if it can even be called
that, is to see more good work done in the
field.
> If by doing so you treat a real-world problem
> and reaches a better understanding or
> estimation of it, cool.
You're always going to reach a better
understanding and estimation of it by treating
it realistically, rather than refracting it through
a prism of preconcieved notions (your
rules)--plug in, here, the Magog example from
Kingdom Come
> I just think my brand of artistic ambition has
> a far bigger world-changing potential. A far
> bigger impact on, and relevance for, the
> real world.
And I can't even imagine how you would
reach such a conclusion.
> The superhero comics I advocate are a mix
> between our two approaches (as outlined above).
> I want to push them further towards my approach,
> because I think that makes them better, and you
> want to push them further towards your approach,
> which I believe is making them worse.
> Fundamentally, it's all to do with just what we each
> read into them. I consider them a medium for the
> communication of epic narratives with a huge
> potential for informing people about themselves
> and cultural evolution; not being able to see this,
> you consider them formulaic and devoid of any
> greater significance, believing that they would get
> better if they became more "realistic".
Interesting how you contiually pull "my" view about
such matters right out of your ass. I've noticed it
hasn't given you any pause in attributing them to
me.
>>>> I listed the things that would stick in people's
>>>> minds when evaluating these individuals.
>>>
>>> Bitter, negative and suspicious people's mind,
>>> you mean.
>>
>> You can now prove me wrong by saying you think
>> of OJ Simpson as a football hero, or the funny guy
>> in the Naked Gun movies, rather than a killer.
>
> Not that this has any bearing on our discussion,
> but I think of O. J. Simpson as someone whose
> trial was televized, and that's about it. To boot, I
> didn't watch it. All I know is that one trial acquitted
> him and another convicted him. I really can't say
> whether he's a killer or not.
Not a very good dodge there.
Tue Sorensen
> On 4 Dec 2002 04:46:11 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
>
> >So, you consider it ethically justifiable to care about the 20-30
> >people you know to the exclusion of the six billion people you don't?
>
> Hell yes. I don't think you're going to find many people who are
> willing to put strangers before their own friends and family either.
Let me put it this way: If you had to choose between your own friends
and family and everyone else in the world, would you sacrifice the
lives of everyone else to save your family? If so, you're pretty
stupid, because odds are you and your family would be very unhappy
being alone in the world, and you might not even survive. I know, this
is a ridiculous example, but these are the kind of questions that we
talking about. In a movie like Deep Impact, the astronauts are well
aware that, if necessary, they will give their own lives to save the
planet. And it does become necessary, and they do. The point, as I've
already said, is that heroic fiction helps our personal morals evolve,
so we become more aware of the common good, and how much our own
personal good actually depends on the common good. So much so, in
fact, that it's worth sacrificing yourself and perhaps some of your
loved ones for.
> >If this was how all people felt, human civilization would never have
> >moved beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. There wouldn't be concepts
> >like equality, legal rights; heck, there wouldn't even be any ethics.
>
> This is how 99.9999999999% of humans feel.
Yeah and that's the problem that heroic fiction is trying to fix.
> I'm trained in CPR. I can
> save lives. That doesn't mean that I'm going to search the streets
> looking for someone to save. If I come upon someone who needs help,
> I'll do so, but until then, only a complete idiot would run around the
> city in the unlikely event that someone just might need some help.
Sure, but now you're taking the comics literally. To create a better
world it's pretty futile to just run around the streets waiting for
stuff to happen so you can rescue somebody or such. In the real world
you don't have to wait. You can contribute to all sorts of charities,
be active in all sorts of organizations, and shape your personal
morals in such a way as to influence those around you in positive
ways. These are the kind of elements I'd like to see more of in
superhero comics. I'd like to see characters taking stands about all
sorts of social and environmental issues, third world poverty, etc.,
etc.
> >Your attitude is that of the cave man who just wants to be normal and
> >do what everyone else does, and not distinguish himself or others in
> >any way.
>
> So, do I assume you drive aimlessly around town hoping to find someone
> you can help? Why in the world do you assume that someone with super
> abilities, whatever they may be, has nothing better to do with their
> lives than patrol the city night after night?
I don't assume that. I assume they think about things and act in the
way they find most effective, their special circumstances considered.
Batman and his co-heroes are actually pretty effective as a night-time
police force; considering their circumstances (being in Gotham)
they're doing good and important work. The same could be said of many
other superheroes, their setting taken into account. Similarly, us out
here in the real world must shape our actions according to *our*
circumstances.
> Don't you think these people have LIVES?
Yeah. It's their life to make a difference, to fight for what's right.
More people should consider these things important.
> What do you think puts food on their tables?
> Crime-fighting? With very few possible exceptions, how many
> superheroes make *ANY* money with their crime-fighting? How do they
> survive?
In the comics, somehow they do. That's what matters. In the real
world, of course we have to make a living and of course this can
interfere with well-meaning efforts to influence the world in positive
directions. But hey - if it's important enough, you make the time.
> >If there were actually superheroes and supervillains, and the villains
> >regularly threatened the world, and the heroes regularly had to save
> >it, the actions a hero chose to take or not to take would in fact be a
> >matter of the planet's entire well-being (just as, in a smaller way,
> >real people's actions are).
>
> The villains wouldn't be trying to take over the world if they
> existed, or they'd be faced with a ridiculous amount of armed
> resistance. You think for one second that if Magneto decided to do
> half the crap he's done in comics, he wouldn't be on the receiving end
> of a large amount of military weaponry? Heck, if someone like Magneto
> even EXISTED, he'd be hunted down and killed, simply because of the
> potential danger he'd represent. The same is probably true of any
> high-powered superhero as well. You'd end up with very few
> openly-powerful people at all. Most would be hiding in fear of their
> lives.
Perhaps. But this is another futile "realism" discussion. If there
were villains, wouldn't there also be heroes? The permutations of this
theme are endless, and no one interpretation can be particularly more
valid than another, unless you specify the circumstances in incredible
detail.
> >If he chose to not give a damn about the
> >world, chances are his own friends and family would not be saved,
>
> Unless he only acted to protect his friends and family. As has been
> pointed out MANY times in comics, when you're a hero, those you love
> become targets. If you go out and make enemies, your friends and
> family members will pay the price for it. Who would want that?
I can only say, if the cause is important enough, then that sacrifice
is made. In comics heroes usually solve it by having a secret
identity. In the real world, well, you have to make up your mind about
what's more important. Currently, Scott Ritter is travelling around
arguing against the war on Iraq, and as a consequence he's considered
a near-traitor by the FBI, his home (with his wife and kids) watched,
his every move monitored. But maybe he thinks it's more important to
save thousands of Iraqi lives. The needs of the many...
> >> I certainly do advocate realism in comics and as such, very FEW people
> >> who had superhuman powers would ever band together and fight crime, or
> >> become criminals themselves. The overwhelming majority would just
> >> want to live normal lives, just like everyone else.
> >
> >Not much of a superhero fan, are you...?
>
> Actually I am. I'm not a fan of stupid superheroes though. I'm not a
> fan of 40s superheroes where the good guy always wins, the bad guy
> puts the hero in stupid deathtraps and then explains his entire plan,
> etc. I'm certainly not a fan of 99.9999% of DC comics where this is
> still common practice.
I'm not much of a fan of those, myself. I certainly prefer good
stories with interesting and relevant themes, and some obvious
connection to reality. But what I'm arguing for here is that most
heroic fiction has a positive overall effect on the general
population's morals, and this is a good thing. It seems to me that, if
we do away with happy endings and good triumphing over bad, this
entire dimension will be lost, and that will be disatrous. We need our
entertainment to comprise good moral examples for us to follow. We
need art to blaze the trail for us, showing us the way towards a
better world dominated more by solidarity and compassion and less by
selfishness and ignorance.
- Tue
jay
wrote:
>> Many moons ago, when I was first starting these
>> online discussions, I got into a spat with a rather
>> conservative fellow over a political question.
>> In the course of less than a week, I lost no less
>> than three messages I'd prepared in similar ways.
>> After the third incident, I dropped that discussion
>> without a further word, because I'd concluded
>> that the individual had placed either a hex upon
>> my computer or had sold his soul for supernatural
>> protection. I'm a writer, in the real world, and losing
>> such a large amount of what I thought to be
>> relatively interesting writing is a bit like losing a
>> child. My mourning period is almost over, though,
>> and I believe I'll be returning to this at the point
>> at which I left off, probably in the next few days.
>
> Glad to hear it! Does this mean you'll address
> my long post to which you lost your original
> reply?
Yes.
> I'm dying for your comments!
>
>>> I will make one more comment, though. This
>>> whole argument, I think, boils down to the
>>> question of heroism. Your take is: in the real
>>> world, people with superpowers wouldn't be
>>> heroic. So the heart of the matter here is that
>>> you (and many Brits with you) don't believe in
>>> heroes. Period. So of course you have a
>>> problem with the superhero genre, where the
>>> concept of heroism is so important.
>>
>> At this late date, I find it almost impossible to
>> believe you would honestly characterize my
>> position in that way.
>
> All right, I can see that I must be misunderstanding
> you as much as you misunderstand me. I genuinely
> thought I'd worked out the crux of the issue there:
> that you find heroism unrealistic. This seems to be
> what you have said time and again.
I haven't said anything even remotely resembling
that.
> I see your view in the perspective of my own,
> and acc. to my perspective the consequence
> of your view is as I said. But I think the missing
> piece in the equation here is that I have no
> clear idea about what *your* definition of
> heroism is, and just how you propose to create
> a better world through fiction (whether your
> own or the existing heroic genres).
I haven't offered my definition of "heroism," and,
in fact, don't hold to any hard rules on the subject.
My view is more like that of Potter Stewart's view
of obscenity: "...I know it when I see it." I'm
content to let other writers impose their own
definition on their own works, and I'll decide
whether I agree with them. Some of the best
stories come from the point where the question
is debatable.
As for creating a better world through fiction, I
don't see that as being the point of fiction. It
can do that, of course, but that isn't its mission.
> I don't think you have said a whole lot to clarify
> the specifics of your view (except that you have
> of course applied it to mine), so I hope you will
> remedy that.
I don't have a hard set of specific rules, if that's
what you're asking.
>> I have an opinion as to what constitutes a
>> hero, you have another opinion, and the guy
>> down the block has still another opinion, and
>> any one of us could probably make a strong
>> case for our individual view.
>
> Not just could, but should. Nothing will ever
> get done if we don't debate, test, and at least
> to some degree resolve, the quality of our
> views.
...which is why I lambasted you in my last
post about your comments suggesting that
art shouldn't challenge our assumptions, if
we assume our assumptions to be correct.
The only way to ever test one's views is
to have them challenged, and honestly
challenged (not in a kangaroo court setting).
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Brian Henderson <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:<1mttuu8s1ibhqgevp...@4ax.com>...
>> Hell yes. I don't think you're going to find many people who are
>> willing to put strangers before their own friends and family either.
>
>Let me put it this way: If you had to choose between your own friends
>and family and everyone else in the world, would you sacrifice the
>lives of everyone else to save your family? If so, you're pretty
>stupid, because odds are you and your family would be very unhappy
>being alone in the world, and you might not even survive. I know, this
>is a ridiculous example, but these are the kind of questions that we
>talking about. In a movie like Deep Impact, the astronauts are well
>aware that, if necessary, they will give their own lives to save the
>planet. And it does become necessary, and they do. The point, as I've
>already said, is that heroic fiction helps our personal morals evolve,
>so we become more aware of the common good, and how much our own
>personal good actually depends on the common good. So much so, in
>fact, that it's worth sacrificing yourself and perhaps some of your
>loved ones for.
Yes, it is a ridiculous example, but if given the choice between my
friends and family dying, and an equal number of absolute strangers, I
pick my friends and family every time. However, you've made a big
change here. It's one thing to potentially sacrifice yourself for the
greater good, and there are plenty of jobs like police and firemen who
do this on a regular basis, and sacrificing all of the people who are
important to you. I do not think you'd find a single person on the
planet who would let his loved ones die so that others could live. If
you think that, you're the stupid one.
>> This is how 99.9999999999% of humans feel.
>
>Yeah and that's the problem that heroic fiction is trying to fix.
What, that heroes are idiots? Yeah, that sounds like heroic fiction
to me.
>> I'm trained in CPR. I can
>> save lives. That doesn't mean that I'm going to search the streets
>> looking for someone to save. If I come upon someone who needs help,
>> I'll do so, but until then, only a complete idiot would run around the
>> city in the unlikely event that someone just might need some help.
>
>Sure, but now you're taking the comics literally.
If you're looking at them realistically, of course. How else should
you take them?
>To create a better
>world it's pretty futile to just run around the streets waiting for
>stuff to happen so you can rescue somebody or such. In the real world
>you don't have to wait. You can contribute to all sorts of charities,
>be active in all sorts of organizations, and shape your personal
>morals in such a way as to influence those around you in positive
>ways. These are the kind of elements I'd like to see more of in
>superhero comics. I'd like to see characters taking stands about all
>sorts of social and environmental issues, third world poverty, etc.,
>etc.
That doesn't make for very exciting reading though, does it? The
problem with superheroes taking real-world political stands is that
isn't what a comic is for. It's for entertainment. It's not for
moralizing.
>> Don't you think these people have LIVES?
>
>Yeah. It's their life to make a difference, to fight for what's right.
>More people should consider these things important.
Then they can make a difference for about 2 weeks, at which time they
starve to death since they don't make any MONEY fighting crime. You
keep dodging all the problems and keep insisting you're right. Try
again.
>> What do you think puts food on their tables?
>> Crime-fighting? With very few possible exceptions, how many
>> superheroes make *ANY* money with their crime-fighting? How do they
>> survive?
>
>In the comics, somehow they do. That's what matters. In the real
>world, of course we have to make a living and of course this can
>interfere with well-meaning efforts to influence the world in positive
>directions. But hey - if it's important enough, you make the time.
Yeah, it's all a fantasy, huh? Why worry about crime anyhow, it
doesn't really exist. People don't even act HUMAN in comics. They
don't care what happens, they don't care about the potential threat of
mutants and supervillains. The military conveniently forgets to
actually handle these threats. In Ultimate War #1, Magneto blows up a
bridge and kills 800 innocent people. Does anyone seriously think
that the US military is going to do a damn thing about it? Do you
think that US citizens are going to call for a crackdown on mutants in
general? Hell no, they'll forget about it by the middle of the next
week like they always do and go back to thinking that the green guy
sitting next to them on the bus is perfectly normal.
>> The villains wouldn't be trying to take over the world if they
>> existed, or they'd be faced with a ridiculous amount of armed
>> resistance. You think for one second that if Magneto decided to do
>> half the crap he's done in comics, he wouldn't be on the receiving end
>> of a large amount of military weaponry? Heck, if someone like Magneto
>> even EXISTED, he'd be hunted down and killed, simply because of the
>> potential danger he'd represent. The same is probably true of any
>> high-powered superhero as well. You'd end up with very few
>> openly-powerful people at all. Most would be hiding in fear of their
>> lives.
>
>Perhaps. But this is another futile "realism" discussion. If there
>were villains, wouldn't there also be heroes? The permutations of this
>theme are endless, and no one interpretation can be particularly more
>valid than another, unless you specify the circumstances in incredible
>detail.
It's about as futile as your "moralism" discussion.
>> Unless he only acted to protect his friends and family. As has been
>> pointed out MANY times in comics, when you're a hero, those you love
>> become targets. If you go out and make enemies, your friends and
>> family members will pay the price for it. Who would want that?
>
>I can only say, if the cause is important enough, then that sacrifice
>is made. In comics heroes usually solve it by having a secret
>identity. In the real world, well, you have to make up your mind about
>what's more important. Currently, Scott Ritter is travelling around
>arguing against the war on Iraq, and as a consequence he's considered
>a near-traitor by the FBI, his home (with his wife and kids) watched,
>his every move monitored. But maybe he thinks it's more important to
>save thousands of Iraqi lives. The needs of the many...
I'm sure glad I'm not a member of your family, you seem to have no
normal concern or care for them. Sure, if you think the cause is
important, you don't care if they live or die.
>> Actually I am. I'm not a fan of stupid superheroes though. I'm not a
>> fan of 40s superheroes where the good guy always wins, the bad guy
>> puts the hero in stupid deathtraps and then explains his entire plan,
>> etc. I'm certainly not a fan of 99.9999% of DC comics where this is
>> still common practice.
>
>I'm not much of a fan of those, myself. I certainly prefer good
>stories with interesting and relevant themes, and some obvious
>connection to reality. But what I'm arguing for here is that most
>heroic fiction has a positive overall effect on the general
>population's morals, and this is a good thing. It seems to me that, if
>we do away with happy endings and good triumphing over bad, this
>entire dimension will be lost, and that will be disatrous. We need our
>entertainment to comprise good moral examples for us to follow. We
>need art to blaze the trail for us, showing us the way towards a
>better world dominated more by solidarity and compassion and less by
>selfishness and ignorance.
Most of the general population doesn't give a damn about comics and
you know it. Back in the 30s and 40s, cowboy and police drama was
very popular. The good guys wore white. The bad guys wore black.
There was never anything redeeming about the bad guys, they were just
evil through and through, never had a reason to be evil, never has a
justification for their actions, they were just bad. And the good
guys always won.
Guess what? Things changed. The good guys don't always win anymore.
The bad guys aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. Some of
them actually have a reason for doing what they're doing. Many of
them can't even truly be categorized as evil. And y ou know
something? That's a GOOD THING! It's REALISTIC! It shows that
movies and television, and yes even comic books, aren't shallow and
2-dimensional.
As for your morality idea, whose morals do we use? Yours? Mine?
Osama bin Laden's? Why not? Who says that your morals are any more
valid than anyone else's?
Tue Sorensen
jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0266C9FB10D9E13E.57CF79D0...@lp.airnews.net>...
> On 2 Dec 2002 06:40:58 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
> > All right, I can see that I must be misunderstanding
> > you as much as you misunderstand me. I genuinely
> > thought I'd worked out the crux of the issue there:
> > that you find heroism unrealistic. This seems to be
> > what you have said time and again.
>
> I haven't said anything even remotely resembling
> that.
Really? So every time you've said that in real life, a person would
not associate powers with responsibility and therefore not become a
hero, you in fact *haven't* been saying that you find heroism
unrealistic? Well, then, I'm stumped! Is it because you consider
"heroism" to be a completely separate issue from what we were talking
about? In that case I must remind you that when I use the term I am
presupposing that a hero is someone in whom powers and responsibility
go together.
> > I see your view in the perspective of my own,
> > and acc. to my perspective the consequence
> > of your view is as I said. But I think the missing
> > piece in the equation here is that I have no
> > clear idea about what *your* definition of
> > heroism is, and just how you propose to create
> > a better world through fiction (whether your
> > own or the existing heroic genres).
>
> I haven't offered my definition of "heroism," and,
> in fact, don't hold to any hard rules on the subject.
> My view is more like that of Potter Stewart's view
> of obscenity: "...I know it when I see it." I'm
> content to let other writers impose their own
> definition on their own works, and I'll decide
> whether I agree with them. Some of the best
> stories come from the point where the question
> is debatable.
Does that mean that you're simply playing devil's advocate with
everybody else's views? Isn't that bordering on sophistry? But I guess
that the consequence of postmodernist philosophy...
> As for creating a better world through fiction, I
> don't see that as being the point of fiction. It
> can do that, of course, but that isn't its mission.
This, of course, is a very long discussion. Naturally art and fiction
have many and multifacetted purposes, but in my view there is one
purpose/mission which is the noblest, the most justified and also
thoroughly extant in great art, and that is to treat the human
condition at its most basic, educating us about our identity and the
potential directions of cultural evolution. A lot of art, incl.
commercial entertainment, already does this with effectively automated
regularity, without anyone necessarily being aware of it. The
substance of the basic narrative grows and expands as human history
progresses, becoming ever more pregnant with our collective
self-knowledge. The best we can do is to understand this and help that
trend along, increasing our self-understanding and resolving our basic
conflicts. Now, this can be done through a flurry of double-meanings
(as Shakespeare showed us), so it can actually be done at the same
time as telling a "smaller" more specifically topical story. That is
certainly what my experience with literature teaches me, and it is
definitely how I want to work in my own fiction.
> The only way to ever test one's views is
> to have them challenged, and honestly
> challenged (not in a kangaroo court setting).
Yes, but it's not just a question of challenging; there must also be
presented an alternative (or several). Indeed, if the progressive camp
has any major general shortcoming, it is its failure to present
alternatives to the established ways of doing things. If you have
nothing constructive to say, I question the merit of your writing
ambitions.
Same goes for postmodernism. If you just want to deconstruct things
and don't care about the consequences, then you are helping to
indescriminately dissolve everything that our cultural discourse is
based on, good as well as bad. Where do you think that process will
lead, and end, honestly?
- Tue
jay
wrote:
>>> All right, I can see that I must be
>>> misunderstanding you as much as
>>> you misunderstand me. I genuinely
>>> thought I'd worked out the crux of
>>> the issue there: that you find heroism
>>> unrealistic. This seems to be what
>>> you have said time and again.
>>
>> I haven't said anything even remotely
>> resembling that.
>
> Really?
Yes.
> So every time you've said that in real life,
> a person would not associate powers with
> responsibility and therefore not become a
> hero, you in fact *haven't* been saying that
> you find heroism unrealistic?
All I've said (maybe a few dozen times now)
is that there's no inherent connection
between power and responsibility. Some
people will see it, some won't, and some
won't care, one way or the other. Among
those who do see it, they would all have
their own idea of what "responsible" use of
their power would mean.
> Well, then, I'm stumped!
No sweat--you just weren't paying attention.
>>> I see your view in the perspective of my
>>> own, and acc. to my perspective the
>>> consequence of your view is as I said.
>>> But I think the missing piece in the
>>> equation here is that I have no clear
>>> idea about what *your* definition of
>>> heroism is, and just how you propose to
>>> create a better world through fiction
>>> (whether your own or the existing heroic
>>> genres).
>>
>> I haven't offered my definition of "heroism,"
>> and, in fact, don't hold to any hard rules on
>> the subject. My view is more like that of
>> Potter Stewart's view of obscenity: "...I
>> know it when I see it." I'm content to let
>> other writers impose their own definition on
>> their own works, and I'll decide whether I
>> agree with them. Some of the best stories
>> come from the point where the question is
>> debatable.
>
> Does that mean that you're simply playing
> devil's advocate with everybody else's
> views?
Only when they fail to do it themselves (plug
in Kingdom Come discussion here). I would
expect them to do the same to mine, if I
failed to do so.
> Isn't that bordering on sophistry?
No.
>> The only way to ever test one's views is
>> to have them challenged, and honestly
>> challenged (not in a kangaroo court
>> setting).
>
> Yes, but it's not just a question of
> challenging; there must also be
> presented an alternative (or several).
> Indeed, if the progressive camp has
> any major general shortcoming, it is its
> failure to present alternatives to the
> established ways of doing things. If
> you have nothing constructive to say,
> I question the merit of your writing
> ambitions.
In doing so, of course, you make the
unjustifiable assumption that criticism
isn't constructive.
> Same goes for postmodernism. If you
> just want to deconstruct things and don't
> care about the consequences, then you
> are helping to indescriminately dissolve
> everything that our cultural discourse is
> based on, good as well as bad. Where do
> you think that process will lead, and end,
> honestly?
You seem quite fixated on talking about
"postmodernism." Is there a point to that?
Brian Henderson
>All I've said (maybe a few dozen times now)
>is that there's no inherent connection
>between power and responsibility. Some
>people will see it, some won't, and some
>won't care, one way or the other. Among
>those who do see it, they would all have
>their own idea of what "responsible" use of
>their power would mean.
Personally, I'd say that the number of people who would, simply as a
consequence of having super abilities, dedicate their lives to truth,
justice and the Amerian way is ridiculously small. You get nothing
out of being a hero but perhaps some satisfaction, while you waste
your life, make no money, have to hide, have to deal with your friends
and family being in constant peril.
Doesn't sound like a job any rational person would take.
>> Well, then, I'm stumped!
>
>No sweat--you just weren't paying attention.
Like that's a surprise.
jay
<cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote:
>> All I've said (maybe a few dozen times now)
>> is that there's no inherent connection
>> between power and responsibility. Some
>> people will see it, some won't, and some
>> won't care, one way or the other. Among
>> those who do see it, they would all have
>> their own idea of what "responsible" use of
>> their power would mean.
>
> Personally, I'd say that the number of people
> who would, simply as a consequence of
> having super abilities, dedicate their lives to
> truth, justice and the Amerian way is
> ridiculously small.
Totally agree.
> You get nothing out of being a hero but
> perhaps some satisfaction, while you waste
> your life, make no money, have to hide, have
> to deal with your friends and family being in
> constant peril.
>
> Doesn't sound like a job any rational person
> would take.
These are some of the considerations that
would drive those with powers who *are*
inclined to derring-do into the arms of the
powers-that-be.
Tue Sorensen
in two parts.
jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0FDBFCF507D8EB7A.8A0E70DD...@lp.airnews.net>...
> On 2 Dec 2002 10:16:43 -0800, twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen)
> wrote:
> >> All good and fine, but it doesn't address the point
> >> at all, which is that great power doesn't necessarily
> >> come with great responsibility.
> >
> > Okay, so you make a very sharp distinction
> > between how things *are* and how they
> > *should be*?
>
> How they should be has nothing to do with how
> they are.
Except that much fiction (not to mention religion and philosophy) is
exceedingly (and justly) preoccupied with discussing the one in
relation to the other. Your opinion about how things should be will
always color the way things (esp. around you personally) are. The two
have everything to do with each other; everything to do with human
thought, morals, social and judicial systems, and people's personal
morals. I would like to know how you think it is warranted to separate
the two.
> Your restrictions aside, it isn't the job of
> fiction to show the world as it should be. It can
> do that, but it does an almost infinite number of
> other things as well.
Fiction reflects life. Life is largely about dealing with the
unfairness of the general situation, both personal and societal, so I
would argue that almost all fiction can be seen to, one way or the
other, dealing with questions relating to how things *should* be; how
we are concerned with changing our lot into something more beneficial
(whether for ourselves individually or all humanity).
> > Because, obviously (I hope), you do think that
> > with great powers *should* come great
> > responsibility?
>
> One would hope for it. Most of the time, in vain
> (an important point).
No, the important point is that one keeps the hope alive, and does
one's best to proliferate it. But thanks for demonstrating a tiny
glimmer of it. That means there's something to work with!
> > But I don't see why this must conflict with my
> > view that by using mainstream entertainment to
> > show how things should be, we will promote that
> > attitude in the general population.
>
> You're talking about entertainment-as-propaganda.
> There's a place for that. The minute you say there's
> no place for anything but that, though, you kill
> whatever medium you're imposing that restriction
> upon.
I intend no restrictions. I'm not trying to outlaw different ways of
doing it. I'm just arguing for the way I think is best, most effective
and most satisfying. For the whole of humanity. And specifically, I'm
protecting a genre - mainstream superheroes - from being undermined by
what I deem to be an inferior style of storytelling.
> > Indeed, that very property of commercial/mainstream
> > entertainment (nearly always characterized by a
> > happy ending) is what justifies its existence, and the
> > involvement of intelligent writers in it.
>
> And I say that an entertainment medium doesn't
> have to "justify" itself in that way at all.
No? Then why do you want to reform classic superheroes by changing
them into something more "realistic"? Seems like you think that the
genre as it exists now (or existed before) isn't justified.
> As for the
> involvement of intelligent creators, these are the
> people who rise above convention rather than
> wallow in it;
Which suggests to me that you don't (contrary to what you say above)
find any commercial, formulaic form of expression justified. You want
to make everything avantgarde. This will appeal to a few; what about
the many? Shouldn't there be something for (nearly) everybody? What if
the mechanisms I suggest in fact exist, and the collective
self-knowledge of all society actually is closely associated with our
popular entertainment's capacity to reflect the human condition and
identity and inform us of who we are? Would it be in any way good to
lose that function of entertainment? I say it will be catastrophic; it
will enhance negative trends and help dissolve civilization.
> they're not to be mistaken for the
> hacks who swamp up with formulaic crap
> capped with phony "happy" endings at every
> turn. If a happy ending belongs at the end of
> their story, they put it there, and if it doesn't,
> they don't.
Indeed. And the end of the first part of human history (that we live
in now) needs a happy ending; the human struggle towards a good,
rational and compassionate society needs to come to a successful
conclusion. That is why popular fiction has happy endings. To help
that happen. If, as a writer, you are incapable of seeing that, you
are very blind indeed. There is more to "formulaic crap" than you
suppose. A whole lot more. Isn't there the merest possibility that you
might come to accept that?
> > You advocate realism in comics, and I say you
> > should give comics a wide berth when it comes
> > to imagination and high adventure,
>
> I think the trend toward realism is a positive thing,
> and that "imagination and high adventure" should
> never be used as an excuse to do violence to our
> willingness to suspend disbelief.
As with the first time you said it, I really have trouble wrapping my
mind around that one. Suspension of disbelief is what you do when you
*accept* an imaginative and unrealistic story element. But you're
saying that *because* of (exaggerated, but that's actually beside the
point) imagination and unrealism, violence is done to our suspension
of disbelief. Technically, this is gobbledy-gook. What you're
*actually* saying is that *your* suspension of disbelief can't handle
elements that transcend a certain, defined by you, level of
imagination/unrealism.
> Silver Age
> Superman could move planets. This is stupid. If
> he tried to physically move a planet, he would only
> succeed in crippling or destroying it. Morons may
> clap with joy when Superman moves Earth out of
> the path of some approaching menace--anyone
> other than a moron is going to groan.
Case in point. Firstly, many of these stories are for children. This
alone justifies them. Children have *a lot* of imagination and can
suspend their disbelief *a lot*, because many of their beliefs and
disbeliefs haven't been formed yet. Secondly, many of these stories
are, to a greater or smaller degree, symbolical. This, too, justifies
them as modern fables and parables; a current-day pendant to folkloric
"tall tales". Thirdly, most adults have crippled imaginations, owing
to an exaggerated preoccupation with what they perceive as "reality".
Open- and active-minded people have much more imagination, and
appropriately resemble children in this regard, thus being capable of
finding significant entertainment value in "ludicrous" stories. I will
postulate that most adults have, for one reason or another (mostly to
do with their environment, of course), had violence done to their
imaginative faculties, which as a consequence have become severely
limited. I will also postulate that we, even as adults, are naturally
supposed to maintain the same, or even a greater, imagination as when
we were children. An imaginary world is just like a new theory which
treats something unknown, extending suggestions that may bring a new
clarity to it. This is the value of popular entertainment, no matter
how formulaic. Even if the given story is so bad as to not provide
anything new in itself, it still trains the reader to think in a more
flexible, openminded fashion. Yes, some of the mechanisms I speak of
are very subtle and small, but the cumulative, long-term effect is
crucial and comprehensive.
> Another
> example from a different angle was when the
> Swamp Thing attacked Gotham. The premise was
> unspeakably silly, and ST was acting completely
> out of character (replicating, in fact, the actions of
> a villain he'd taken down in another ST story not
> so many issues earlier). It made for an entertaining
> read, but, again, is an example of "imagination and
> high adventure" being used as an excuse to set
> aside the more realistic approach--in this case, the
> established character--and, in the process, doing
> violence to our willingness to suspend disbelief.
OK, that I can understand: inconsistent characterization! Sure, with
mass-produced comics there are often many kinds of lapses, and I'm not
saying that there aren't a lot of bad stories. But this is
inconsequential for both our arguments, esp. since you say it made for
an entertaining read. But yes, here we agree about violence being done
to the reader's suspension of disbelief. But that's on a surface level
and nothing to do with the basic premise of the overall scenario.
> A third example from yet another angle would be
> absurdly unrealistic dialogue--the sort of thing where
> Bigshot-Man has to announce to Badguydude that
> "I'm hitting you with my supersonic screwball kick
> that I learned from a witch doctor in Kenya!", rather
> than just hitting the guy. It seems pointless to
> cite actual examples--this sort of thing has plagued
> superhero comics across the board for six decades,
> and you know plenty of them yourself.
Certainly. This kind of thing once had a certain charm, but now it's
been over-done to the point where it gets really annoying (unless it's
for satire, as in some of Alan Moore's ABC stories). But this is
really just a cliché of the genre which has been maintained (and yes,
mostly by DC, who seem hell-bent on recommitting all their past
mistakes) when it ought to have been replaced with something more
innovative. I don't think it constitutes a great example of doing
violence to our suspension of disbelief. I guess you can see it like
that (and I won't argue the point - much), but personally I would
describe it as an element of bad storytelling, which in that capacity
becomes unworthy of my attention. It's not, to my mind, a question of
it being "too imaginative" or even "too unrealistic". (And besides, a
significant element in most superhero comics of any kind is fun.
Self-satire. A cheesy comic can be a great read if you laugh at its
cheesiness, and accept the comics as being good for a laugh *because*
of its cheesiness. Whether this is originally intended by the comic's
creators or not. I expect you haven't read Scott McCloud's
fairly-hard-to-find DESTROY!!, which epitomizes just how much fun and
cheesiness can combine to form an uproariously entertaining comic. In
that case, very intentionally!)
> > which in the final analysis aren't as escapist as
> > they appear to be.
>
> Escapism can be brainless, soulless, and pointless,
> but it doesn't have to be any of those things, and
> frequently isn't.
Right. But I actually quarrel with the term "escapism" in the first
place (see below).
> > It seems to me that your realist preferences
> > should be directed towards other, less
> > commercial, genres and media. Why do you
> > want to make superhero comics more realistic?
>
> I've just outlined some examples--I think comics
> would be much better if such things didn't
> happen.
But those are very basic things. Most (well, *many* then!) post-'60s
Marvel comics should be fine for you, then. I thought you were arguing
against the general way standard superhero comics have been done all
the way up to today. If you're only criticizing Silver and Golden Age
comics, then I'm inclined to agree with most of your criticism of
their annoying points. But good superhero comics to me are post-Stan
Lee comics. I'm a Marvel fan first and foremost, and the true Marvel
Age, I figure, is 1961-1991. That's where the good comics are. That's
when "everything was good", which of course it wasn't, but sometimes
it sure seems that way (esp. now!). I believe continuity is
all-important, and I strongly disapprove of the attitudes of the new
Marvel administration, and also disagree with most of the British
writers' ways of doing things. The best fiction has a broad appeal,
and we should strive for nothing but the best. This means rolling with
commercial elements, using them instead of being used by them. This,
with the application of a little intelligence, is quite possible.
> ...privilege which is unavailable to him without the
> power.
Yes, but that still doesn't mean that all people in positions of power
necessarily have, or embrace, concomitant privileges. Some monarchs
have been known to abdicate in favor of leading a normal life. Some
politicians, from as early as Themistocles, have served the interests
of the people. Some police and military men (though I can’t say
how many) presumably handle their power responsibly and by the book.
Most people are fairly honest. Are you claiming that one of the most
basic human features - upon which assumption all significant fiction
and philosophy should be based - is that this honesty is proportional
with their lack of power, and that power will invariably corrupt them?
While there are certainly many examples of this having happened, it
is, at best, an extremely controversial step to extrapolate from that
and to a general philosophy of human nature (*and*, it has already
been done to death). Power is created by society. Natural features go
deeper. By understanding our deepest nature, we can eventually build a
society that is in harmony with it. There, "power corrupts" will be a
non-issue. As someone with (I assume) progressive concerns, it would
suit you if you were at least open to that possibility. Otherwise, by
your reckoning, nothing but anarchic chaos will ever be possible, will
it? I have more faith in humanity than that.
> I have this power. If I'm the beggar before LaGuardia and use it to
> steal bread, am I abusing it? If Spiderman catches
> me in the act, beats me up, and leaves me for the
> law, is he using *his* powers responsibly?
Good questions! And they cast the "power corrupts" adage into doubt.
What is corrupt and responsible behavior in an unjust world? Who can
really be said to be abusing the power they have? These are huge
questions, and rarely have simple answers. Was Mao corrupted by power,
or did he simply give the peasants what they wanted (namely an
emperor) because they were used to it and couldn't function any other
way? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Relations involving powers,
corruption and responsibility aren't anywhere close to clear-cut. But
the "power corrupts" maxim; now that's *very* clear-cut, wouldn't you
say? This should be worrying you.
> That power tends to corrupt is a truism.
Perhaps, but not one that precedes and underpins all others, as you
seem to insist, and not one that necessarily holds true under all
circumstances. You are apparently a "power corrupts" purist, and you
should seriously reconsider the foundation for that conviction. Are
you quite sure it holds water? More on this below.
> A story
> that points it out and thus encourages the reader
> to be skeptical of those with it is one that contains
> a positive message.
All you Brits seem to agree about this with one voice, and of course
it is true and admirable to some limited extent. However, you are
using it as a mantra, making it supersede any other point a story
could possibly have. Superhero comics, on the other hand, discuss and
investigate the deeper relationships, pointing out that power doesn't
always have to be corrupting; we can choose to be better than that.
This is only as unrealistic as *you* decide for it to be. Realism is a
flexible and fluctuating thing, because human culture progresses (but
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even believe that). Like I've
said before, the whole powers and responsibility coupling is the great
progressive stride that Stan Lee introduced, and he did it precisely
to bring nuance and novelty to concepts that, with the ongoing
cultural advancement, are in fact becoming more nuanced. The world we
live in now is far freer than it has been before (except perhaps for
some point in the '60s and '70s, but I mean in the much bigger
historical perspective); people can nearly say, read and do anything
they like, and because of this it is becoming more and more important
and appropriate to influence public opinion in positive and
constructive directions, because public opinion has a lot (not all,
but a lot) to do with the way our current and future social system is
structured. In fact it is imperative for making people at large
understand alternatives and think flexibly. In contrast to that, your
mission to reinstate the power corrupts truism will be a backward
step. Like I've said before. In a cynical and relativist direction
where the triumph of good holds little importance, since the very
concepts of good and bad are cast into doubt (and do correct me if I'm
misrepresenting your view here). The message you insist on is not only
covered ground; it is obsolete. And I will even claim that, today, its
positive quality is of extremely limited usefulness (unless, that is,
your story simultaneously has other redeeming values to boot). It is a
wallowing in numbing, pacifying bitterness about the unfairness of the
world. We need to work with our freedoms and strengths, which are
considerable; not whine about our oppressors. The former can suggest
alternatives and is as such far more constructive and has a far
greater potential for real and positive change than the latter. People
in general are not aware of being oppressed; they are aware of being
bored. Positive stimuli will activate them; over-intellectualized
social criticism won't. Your politics are out of date.
And to add insult to injury I will even say that the whole "power
corrupts" and "let's question authority" shtick has already been done
to such lengths that, in their heavy-handed incarnations (which I
perceive yours as), they have become boring clichés, yea, even
formulas. Unless done extremely well, with many other things going for
them.
But, let it be known that I am not generally opposed to the "let's
question authority" angle (except in certain cases, like Marvel
superhero comics). It, too, helps strengthen the case and the position
of the common people, of course.
> That's why the quotes around "responsible"
> above--people differ on what constitutes a
> "responsible" use of power. The grey areas
> generated by this have remained virtually
> unexplored by the medium (or only addressed in
> a cursory and childishly simplistic way) until very
> recent years--the trend toward delving into them
> is, of course, the one you've deplored in this
> thread.
I don't agree that the grey areas have gone virtually unexplored until
recent years. They've just been explored in terms and symbols that you
haven't got the eyes to see (and maybe you just haven't read enough
good superhero comics). As I have also expostulated on earlier. Just
because it is a given in the setting that a hero is an unquestioned
good guy doesn't mean that the story can't explore all sorts of
issues, grey and otherwise.
> "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely."
No one has ever had absolute power. And if you make a survey of all
the most powerful men in history, will they also correspond to the
most corrupt and/or evil? I'm not certain of that at all, and the
power/corruption coupling fails right there. It simply isn't
fundamental enough to base all other forms of assumptions on. Stan Lee
realized that, and reformed it.
If you look at famously evil and corrupt characters from history, most
of them have survived in stories because people enjoy stories about
evil characters (and fortunately most often those stories involve the
evil characters being brought to justice), but most of them have not
been in great positions of power. Contrary to that Wonder Woman
Elseworlds graphic novel by Bill Messner-Loebs, Jack the Ripper didn't
actually become king of England. You can then argue that every monarch
or head of state who decides to go to war is a mass-murderer, but does
this necessarily have anything at all to do with corruption? No.
People in general accept that kings and presidents sometimes have to
make these choices. It is part of the (albeit imperfect) system, and
not generally considered immoral or corrupt. I believe Churchill is
one of England's most admired men ever.
Even if you pick the examples that seem to bear the power corrupts
adage out, such as Hitler and Stalin, you would be commencing huge
discussions about whether their activities really had much to do with
themselves or just with responding to particular situations and very
strong trends that were going on at the time. Hitler rode (and
probably intensified) a wave of massive popular support, the causes
and other particulars of which are tremendously complex. Stalin did
what he had (and probably felt he was forced) to do to maintain a
coherent Russia under the given circumstances (I'm not justifying his
actions one bit, but simply observing that Socialist Russia would have
fallen apart had he done less. Of course it did anyway, since
Stalinist Russia was Socialist in rhetoric only).
So - don't you think, in light of this, that your insistent eagerness
to observe Lord Acton's maxim is a little bit less than warranted?
That things might be a little more complex? That human nature is not a
natural sponge for power and corruption?? Don't you at least
acknowledge the constructive merit of striving for an alternative
human self-understanding than that?
> To deny it, on the other
> hand, is to ignore the whole of human history, and
> so alienate the work from the experience of the
> potential reader that the work has no resonance.
That doesn't seem to be the case for superhero fans, does it, now. In
fact, as far as superheroes go, no comics have had greater resonance
for more people than those of Stan Lee.
Ignore the whole of human history? You're choosing to read human
history in one way and one way only, and define everything else
thereby. I posit that you have not thought your basic philosophy
through. If the crux of human nature and the prime message of history
is all about power and corruption, you must think that humankind will
forevermore subsist in the shadow of these. Which makes any attempt to
call attention to this state of affairs futile, as we can never be
released from it anyway. What a sad creature man must be in your eyes.
You have allowed your pessimism (which you probably see as
objectivity) to blind you. Or do you acknowledge any alternatives at
all...?
> You can do this if you want, and even pride
> yourself on your lack of realism, but most readers
> are going to be looking at the next book on the
> rack, at that point, and it doesn't do much good to
> create the propaganda you want to create if no
> one is going to bother reading it.
But that still remains to be seen. The current "realistic" trend is
not a reader demand (despite vocal and articulate proponents such as
yourself), but an editorial decision. In my opinion, it is a wrong
decision. And sales aren't picking up appreciably. Looking at the
sales charts, most titles are losing a thousand readers a month. Even
when some relaunch or other "big event" briefly boosts sales, the
pattern reverts to form after a few short months. As a consequence of
this state of affairs, the current administration experiments with new
approaches. Unfortunately, there're trying to find an audience that
doesn't want to be found, and steadily alienating the audience they
had in the past. This just makes it worse.
> Real discussion of what constitutes "responsibility"
> in your hypothetical comics would be constrained
> within a very narrow spectrum (making, of course,
> the "discussion" meaningless).
Sounds like a pretty hypothetical statement to me.
> You've already
> said you think the characters have to use their
> powers "responsibly," defined "responsibly" as
> being in a "progressive" fashion, and defined
> "progressive" as what you consider "progressive"
> to the exclusion of every other view on the matter.
I certainly have not excluded every other view.
> That leaves no room for anything else.
You don't know how broad and all-encompassing my view is! :-) See
below.
> If those are all rules,
That's what you call them, not I.
> then the only time any different
> perspective on any of this would be brought in
> is to show how wrong it is, in a kangaroo court
> setting.
I consider myself a scientist. My views, like any theory, must be
proved right in a process of comparison and application with other
views. That's all I ask, and surely that's quite reasonable.
> You can
> make a case for any of these positions (and an
> infinite number of others), and there frequently
> wouldn't be any clear-cut "correct" answer at
> the end.
All right, now we've both made this point. You make it to argue
against clear-cut answers altogether; I make it to argue against what
I see as an unnuanced adherence to a questionable and very general
adage which you apparently use as the only guide-line for producing
stories with "positive messages". Is that in fact what you do? If you
cling to the "power corrupts" angle and can't function as a writer
without it, I'd say you have a great many things to learn. Getting a
more positive outlook on life should be a priority.
> Your hypothetical comics, however,
> already have all these "answers" before the
> story even begins, and the story would have to
> be tailored to suit that preconcieved "answer."
> That's what your rules demand.
Yep. Because I've got a consistent view on such matters worked out.
And it's a view that can use double-meanings and symbols to effect an
enormous range of progressive expression. But I don't consider it
unchallengeable truth. I want my views to be continually tested and
refined. At least I have a starting point for this process, which
seems to be more than you have. Are you certain you're ready to be a
writer?
Or do you think a writer is *supposed* to have no answers? Just throw
up some questions and end on a "who the hell knows?!" note? Sure, a
story showing that there are few if any easy answers can be very
meritable, but even such a story's purpose would be to make people
think. And making people think means setting in motion a process that
begins to approach some answers. My way makes this process go faster.
Very much so.
I must stress that the vast majority of writers write with an agenda
of some kind, and this is, in most cases, a good thing (personally, I
consider the heavyhanded current reform of the superhero genre by
British writers to be largely an exception. But hoo boy, talk about
having an agenda!). It means that they partake in a debate, and help
treat diverse questions, thus helping us all progress in our
understanding. But because a writer has some ideas for answers to
complex issues doesn't mean that he insists on their definitive truth.
They are just suggestions thrown into the mix. But sometimes they are
extremely qualified, and informs us substantially about the human
condition. This is the case with classic literature, from Homer to
Joyce, and in different ways it is also the case with commercial
entertainment, at least the better parts of it. (Of course a lot of
trivial crime and romantic fiction really is horrifically poor!)
> I snipped your description and comments upon
> "X-Men X-Pose," as I haven't read it.
Your loss. You got most of the context from my comments, though.
[On Magog/KC:]
> This is the kangaroo court at work, and the
> reasons for that are obvious--an honest
> evaluation of the contrast would have to admit
> there are merits to either side, and no clear-cut
> answer.
Do you realize what you're saying? You're actually claiming that no
stories should take a stand of their own; that no writer should
attempt to say something that is important to him, and which he deems
to also be of import to others. You are earnestly suggesting that all
fiction should be "objective" and always look equally on both sides
and never judge in favor of one over the other. Always conclude that
there are no clear-cut answers. I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous
conviction. Did you ever consider that perhaps there *are* some
answers? Perhaps it *is* possible to work out the best course of
action? Or at least make some suggestions to that effect? Most
writers, esp. the good ones, write because they have things to say.
Things they burn for. If you have none such, I suggest you get some
before you proceed. Writing is all about having something to say, and
in order to have something to say you must believe in something. The
postmodernist view you seem to embody believes only in soulless
greyness. Not that I believe in souls, but you get the idea: No
objective absolutes, no answers, no motivational drive. Just
bleakness, and perhaps a distant voice that struggles, against its own
better judgment, to present a half-hearted "positive message", which
it is under no illusion will have any constructive effect anyway. I
must inform you that this inclination is part of a very brief cultural
trend which has already over-exposed itself and won't survive for much
longer.
I don't agree with every part of KC's structure, either, but I can
appreciate that Waid took a stand. I agree that (at least the vast
majority of) heroes shouldn't kill, but while I look back to the
'60-80s for good (Marvel) comics, it seems that Waid looks back even
further (and to DC comics), and I can't say I'm with him there.
> >>>> That would only be true with the very tiny
> >>>> number of comic readers who may come to
> >>>> the medium expecting to be told what should
> >>>> be the case in such a matter--it assumes that
> >>>> the reader brings nothing at all in the way of
> >>>> judgment to the table.
> >
> > Not at all. My entire perspective is what I, as a
> > reader and potential writer, bring to the table. And
> > I suggest that this is also the way most readers
> > subconsciously understand the stories. And this
> > should be played up to, turning the stories and
> > therefore the readers' attitudes down progressive
> > paths.
>
> It's strange and a bit disconcerting when you
> respond to the same paragraph twice.
I had something additional to say, so...
> > Both the news media and entertainment media use
> > perspectives that favor the common man instead of
> > the capitalist elite that is actually in power. Gradually,
> > this turns the development of all human society in a
> > direction where the power elite's point of view gets
> > more and more diluted, unspoken, and unjustifiable,
> > ending up being downright immoral.
>
> The idea that the news media "use perspectives
> that favor the common man instead of the capitalist
> elite" is a real joke.
No joke. See below...
> There are exceptions, as there
> always are, but the corporate press is almost entirely
> the creature of that elite.
Technically, yes, and this is associated with all sorts of problems.
We don't have a press that directly serves democracy, or in any way
gives equal time to different matters of importance and relevance. But
there is another side of the coin which favors the ordinary public.
Are you familiar with Chomsky's (actually rather obvious) concept of
internalization? When for instance a journalist is hired by a
newspaper, he will gradually internalize the going values and opinions
of that paper, because otherwise he will not adapt well to the work
environment, and certainly not advance in it. This principle goes for
everything. Media, politics, and huge sociological trends. The most
overpowering standard make all dissenting views gradually conform to
it. If you think about it, you will realize that this is integral to
the way culture and society progress historically. The morals and
standards that are now prevalent in the media are - remarkably! -
those of the common person. The extravagance of the rich, the true
morals of the right (who are social Darwinists and do not truly honor
basic human rights), the true ruthlessness of the capitalist system,
and a thousand other things that can be directly connected to the
"rich ruling class" and the "capitalist elite", are politically
incorrect in the media climate. If they are significantly expressed,
there usually is an overwhelming uproar from all sorts of NGO and
watchdog groups which browbeat these unreasonable views, and sometimes
even make them recant. I'm working on gathering good examples, but for
now you'll just have to take my word that there is a general ethics in
the media which favors the people and not the powers that be (although
there are, of course, opposite influences in other areas of the
media). And this moral standard was created in large part by popular
entertainment. This is the successful purpose of art, even the most
commercialized art. As I mentioned in a previous post, movies are rife
with negative porrtayals of the powers that be, and favorable ones of
the common man's perspective. This has a huge cumulative effect in the
direction of a better world; an effect that no ruling elite can
counter.
Funnily, the negative portrayal of the powers that be is also what you
want to do with your fiction. Question authority. Surely you can see,
then, that even your own view is part of the mechanisms I refer to?
And again, I'm not saying that questioning authority is unwarranted or
an unfit theme for fiction. What I'm saying is two things: the
superhero genre is not about questioning authority, but about showing
the responsible use of power. This is what should be done in the
existing mainstream genre (if you want to do something else, introduce
another universe). And secondly, a story which understands the larger
mechanisms I'm speaking of (as, naturally, Shakespeare's work does)
can include them and produce a far greater and more informed and
constructive effect than one which doesn't. But even so, most stories
will be part of the mechanism and have a constructive effect. Unless
is is actively deconstructionist.
What I'm basically saying is, there is a cultural evolution going on,
independently of our being aware of it. This evolution is structured
according to human nature (which is good), and moves towards a state
of perfect self-knowledge. The more we are aware of this, the more we
can intensify it, and the faster we can make it happen. If we ignore
it, there is no guarantee that the process will ever be complete. In
fact, if we do not help the positive trends along, negative ones will
increasingly win out, and we will almost certainly spiral towards
collective destruction. The optimism of the human spirit is needed now
more than ever.
> As for entertainment media, the smooth evolution
> you suggest here simply doesn't exist.
If human nature is good, it does. You need a bigger overview. You
might start by reading some of the thinkers who first proposed things
along these lines. Giambattista Vico, Auguste Comte... their works
exist in excellent translations. Of course, I also recommend Georg
Lukacz, for instance his book The Historical Novel. For media
analysis, try Noam Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent is the seminal work)
and Raymond Williams (for instance The Long Revolution). Then spice up
your literary diet with more Shakespeare, Hans Christian Andersen and
the Romantic poets. I assure you that the understanding that Beauty is
Truth will come in handy one day.
I'm sorry if that last bit comes across as condescending. I mean it
only as friendly advice.
End of the first half of this response. Continued in part 2.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0FDBFCF507D8EB7A.8A0E70DD...@lp.airnews.net>...
> Primarily, an
> original product emerges, is successful, and is
> followed by years of imitators seeking to exploit its
> success.
But that's not all. Every imitation is different, and much of that
difference contains original aspects. That's why one type of story
gets outdated and must be renewed. But there is much more to it. There
are far more aspects to the structure of any given story than you seem
aware of. There are enormous amounts of differences, and enormous
amounts of similarities. They reflect reality in different ways, and
in order to see them you have to understand a great many of the
complexities of reality. I think you have a simplistic and categoric
perception of fiction, and miss entire universes of possible elements
and interpretations. But I admit that my view can be difficult to
argue for; difficult to find good examples of. I'm continually at work
remedying this.
> I just came across an example a few
> days ago; a commercial for yet another Die Hard
> ripoff.
I'm among those who think that Die Hard wasn't terribly original,
myself.
> "Halloween." That movie, from 1978, was
> transformed into a formula that virtually dominated
> the horror genre for a decade after it. The slasher
> formula was a right-wing formula,
I suppose that's as good a way as any to put it. I never liked horror
of any description. (I do have a small run of Swamp Things; something
like #65-85, but that's because of Alfredo Alcala's art.)
> reflective of the
> Reagan Eighties, which brings me to the next part
> of this. The stories people watch tend to be
> reflective of the times in which they're made, not
> of some greater aspect of human nature.
They can be reflective of both at the same time. You cannot be very
aware of the overall human condition since you cannot see it reflected
in fiction. My email address above (which, incidentally, is no longer
in significant use) comes from the Hamlet quote: "O 'tis most sweet /
When in one line two crafts directly meet." Makes ya think, doesn't
it?! :-) When you know enough to look for them, double meanings are
everywhere. And I mean EVERYWHERE. Well, not *everywhere*, but in a
hell lot of places, and certainly in all good fiction. The amount of
double entendre it is possible to cram into a story can boggle the
mind. I know, because it frequently boggles mine. Of course,
Shakespeare, again, is the master here. But of course, as we've
touched upon before, it also depends on what *you* bring to the
reading experience. An attitude of wonder is crucial. Trust me.
> Sometimes, they're reflective of people's desire for
> escape from the reality of the times in which they
> live, which is why the musical is born and thrives
> during the worst part of the Great Depression.
But the desire to escape is also the desire to reach something better,
and this can be, and frequently is, channeled into radical action for
the promotion of a better world. There is a great Fallacy of Escapism
going around, and people don't seem to realize that the essence of
"escapist" literature is a critique of the established system, and
most often a suggestion, however vague, of something better. The
symbol language of "escapism" is furthermore often quite
comprehensive, reflecting far more aspects of reality and society than
your vaunted "realistic" fiction. Which is why, when read correctly,
"escapist" fiction can be far more relevant and truly realistic than
mundane fiction, which deals with real life literally. It's a good
thing that people perceive this symbolism subconsciously, because if
they didn't perceive it at all, popular entertainment wouldn't exist,
and everybody would think like you.
> This aspect of the equation has been attacked
> by left-wing critics in Europe for decades,
> particularly in France and Italy--they see in such
> products as attempts by elite capital to anesthetize
> the population.
I don't believe there is any such conscious attempt at play. They want
to make money, sure, and therefore produce *what people want*. What
people truly want, and the fact that the entertainment industry is
giving it to them, will be the eventual undoing of capitalism. They
give us the dreams we need in order to cope with the unfairness of the
world. Some of us make up our own dreams irrespective of what the
system offers, but many people have little imagination and so gulp up
that which is presented to them. Eventually people will be so filled
with dreams of a better world that they will not be content to let the
dreams remain dreams; they will make them real.
The thing is, for now there is no alternative but making ourselves
aware of the rules underpinning the mechanics of literature and
appropriate them for our own progressive purposes. This is what can
make a difference from the anesthetizing humdrum of The System, and
that's the point I'm making: art, of whatever kind, tends to help us
progress as a culture. There is a little bit of right-wing art, but
most of it is far more progressive, and far moreso than any left-wing
ideology has yet managed to extract. The development of art has its
own impetus, producing an effect on all society's development which
too often goes unregarded. Shakespeare knew this, played up to it, and
now, after four hundred years, he's placed firmly at the core of the
literary canon. One day soon I believe we will be able to analyze and
understand just what it is about Shakespeare that is so fantastic, and
when we do we will see that his work is infinitely *more*
revolutionary than anyone has thus far suspected. My own theories are
to a large extent culled from what I see in the structure of
Shakespeare's work.
> Roger Corman, "the Pope of Pop Cinema,"
> made it a point, for decades, to work in some
> sort of progressive angle into the flicks he
> worked on. These tended to be more subtle,
> but they're there, just the same.
You sound like a B-movie expert... :-)
> As for the more general use of progressive
> viewpoints worked into popular cinema in the
> manner you describe, this is usually done for
> less than noble purposes, often simply to pander
> to the audience
If the effect is the same, what difference does the intention make?
That's one of my points: the big mechanisms I'm describing are in
effect because human nature, one way or the other, demands it. Also, I
am not only talking about the progressive views that are intentionally
worked into fiction, but also claiming that unintended progressive
content emerges in commercial fiction as an inevitable effect of
market forces. I know this is a very radical claim, but trust me, it
will be an integral part of the progressive politics of the future.
> It's the same reason mob
> bosses are used as villains (FAR more
> frequently than CEOs, btw).
Ah, here's an interesting point. I don't watch much in the way of
gangster and police shows. So from the perspective garnered from my
chosen entertainment habits, CEOs (and evil employers, like in say,
the first Flintstones movie) are actually more frequently villains
than mob bosses - at least I remember them better. I would think
that's because I choose more intelligent entertainment, and therefore
receive a stronger progressive feeling of the kind I've been talking
about (although I feel like I'm wallowing in pop culture, I am in fact
also being quite picky and only engage in material that is to my
particular taste). Crime fiction is more trivial and much less
progressive, and tailored for more conservative tastes. Not the really
good crime fiction, perhaps, but the vast majority of it.
> In most of these
> cases, it isn't even correct to say the use of
> such a character is reflective of a "progressive"
> viewpoint. A corrupt businessman is just
> that--corrupt--suggesting, of course, that the
> problem isn't systemic and that a more ethical
> businessman wouldn't do such a thing.
Ah, but who does *that* fool? :-)
> An
> example that comes to mind is "The Fire Down
> Below," a grotesque Steven Seagal movie
You're really putting your entertainment preferences on display here!
I'm afraid they don't help your case much... :-) Well, not to put too
fine a point on it, anyway. I appreciate pop culture a great deal
myself, but not so much in the mindless action movie vein. I mean, I
like a good action movie, but I generally think that movies like those
of Seagal and Van Damme are too silly to spend my time on. I have seen
a couple, though, and I grudgingly have to admit that the Seagal ones
were not quite as bad as I'd assumed... :-)
> which TNT has acquired--they seem intent on
> running their print of it to ribbons.
TV rots your mind! :-)
> In that movie,
> the evil businessman played by Chris
> Christopherson is dumping toxic waste in a
> small southern town. He is clearly a corrupt
> businessman, not someone whose actions
> reflect systemic problems,
Says *you*! You have to think of it in combination with all the other
similarly themed movies, and consider the overall effect on the
population as a whole. And over the span of decades. Every individual
film is part of a broader trend; some larger "sign o' the times". I
see the action hero as a kind of messianic figure (seen the new Planet
of the Apes?), which has become better and better defined in recent
years. Look at Neo in the Matrix. Look at Russell Crowe in Gladiator.
"A Hero Will Rise." And you know what? The superhero genre was and is
way ahead of Hollywood, and has been since the inception of the genre.
Only now are ordinary people beginning to see that what they really
want (and consequently what they really want to be) is a hero, and the
bigger the better. That's why we are now entering a time where
superhero movies are very successful. It is my hope that this will
result in a significantly raised moral bar where ordinary people will
be driven more and more strongly to discover the hero inside
themselves. Then we will be well underway towards a better world.
Where people will associate power with social responsibility. Because,
you see, people can change. And they do. That's cultural evolution for
you.
> and Seagal, the
> hero of the piece, brings him down using the
> engine of officialdom.
What, his fists? I haven't seen this one. I've only seen, I think, two
Seagal movies. One had an environmental theme and ended with a tirade
against the automobile industry, pointing out that they buy out
non-polluting technology and shelf it, so they can go on making money
on oil. Not bad, for such a movie!
> > And in many cases it far transcends the
> > formulaic.
>
> If it transcends it, then it isn't formulaic.
Well, then, your definition of the formulaic must be too sweeping,
then! Seems an odd contrast to the kind of movies you watch... OK, no
further comments on that!
> >> Heaven forbid art should ever challenge our
> >> assumptions, right?
> >
> > You misunderstand. The assumptions I speak
> > of above are good and true and extremely
> > progressive, informing us about the nature of
> > the human condition and what we can do to
> > make the world better.
>
> You misunderstand. It isn't the job of art to
> reinforce our assumptions (that's what
> commerce does when it feeds us a formula).
No, I think I understand, and I think we're talking about different
assumptions. You're talking about commercial entertainment reinforcing
the establishment sentiments, which serves a conservative function,
and to some extent that's certainly true. But it doesn't exclude other
properties of popular entertainment. I'm talking about the fact that
art (which of course exists in many forms) has discovered some of the
basic aspects of human nature, and - sometimes by the help of poets
who knew what they were doing, but other times quite unwittingly -
incorporated the description of these into itself, so that the popular
story type evolves into a form more and more pregnant with the
knowledge of the human condition, the human identity and what to do to
advance in a collectively beneficial direction (and these things,
which I admit are somewhat vague as yet, will eventually be figured
out in full, revelatory and eminently useful detail). These are the
most basic elements of art; in fact they are the very elements that
comprise art. And I say they are in full flower in much commercial
entertainment, and very much so in good, passionate superhero fiction,
set in a complex shared universe.
> It can do that, but that isn't why it's there. A
> place where one's assumptions are never
> challenged is a place where critical thought
> is dead. The land of the ditto-head.
Of course. Why do you think I'm spending all this time challenging
yours?
> > The single most
> > successful writer in history, Shakespeare, is
> > strongly formulaic (although his formula tend
> > to be a complex and very varied one).
>
> Quite a caveat there, to quite a statement.
>
> The notion that Shakespeare was a writer
> of formula isn't even really worth addressing.
> No one had ever written as he did--whole
> segments of the English language began
> with his work. When you say this sort of
> thing, it's insulting.
That is a healthy reaction. I must admit that the formula I suggest
Shakespeare used is one that I have identified myself, and which I see
in much art. Shakespeare found the perfect way of doing it, and trust
me, he abides by loads of restrictions. "Self-supporting arrangement"
as Thomas DeQuincey put it. But this is a huuuge discussion which
would make this debate all the more unwieldy. One day I'll write a
couple of books about it.
> > Citizen Kane is formulaic.
>
> Equally insulting. There isn't a "formulaic"
> camera angle, line of dialogue, story,
> performance, story structure, or edit in
> "Citizen Kane" anywhere.
Story structure, yes there is. But as this is a good and definitive
formula, it probably doesn't jibe with your use of the term (quoth
you: "formulaic" = "bad"). All the very best art achieves its
greatness by following rules of universal validity and appeal; rules
culled from deep inside the human psyche and its development through
history. The trick only is to find out what those rules are. And
obviously I believe I've got a pretty good bunch of suggestions. There
are a couple of notes to this effect at www.sorensonian.com but the
site is sadly incomplete. I'll try to add more content really soon.
> It's very literally
> like nothing that had ever been done
> before, and any suggestion that it's
> "formulaic" is ludicrous.
Thank you for taking it so well and not just leaving the entire
debate. The formula Citizen Kane abides by is an allegorical parallel
to the full course of human history. Like the best dramas, it is a
tragedy and thus a warning, showing the abysmal end we will come to if
we forget Beauty ("Rosebud"), which in Citizen Kane is represented by
his uncorrupted childhood innocence (in turn represented by the sled).
The parallels to capitalism, of course, and the way money usurps all
other values including the most crucially vital ones, are obvious. The
same theme and structure recur in all sorts of art all through
history. Want to hear Shakespeare's take on the consequences of
capitalism? Read Timon of Athens, the title character of which is a
personification of money (/gold).
> > A formula can be good.
> > The beginning-middle-end structure, for one,
> > is a good formula (as I believe opponents of
> > the open-ended superhero universe usually
> > maintain).
>
> It's a criticism made of anything that's episodic.
> Whatever one thinks of this, such a structure
> isn't "formula" at all.
Why not? Too basic? I argue the same case for the literary mechanisms
I speak of.
> > Your perspective is based on the not unmeritable
> > sentiment that repetition becomes unbearably
> > tiresome.
>
> It's actually based on a preference for originality
> over something I've already seen. The repetition
> does become tiresome, but only because it is
> repetition.
Fine. You want to see something new. We all do. In fact, "new" is the
single word that consumers respond most strongly and favorably to in
ads. But where does "new" begin and end? Some things are so basic that
everything new *must* be built on them. For instance, if I continued
this discussion using words you didn't know, the result wouldn't be
"Yay, something new! How cool!"; it would be "Nonsense! Stop it!" We
have to use words we know. Similarly, we have to use
beginning-middle-end structures (most of the time, anyway), and
similarly certain genres use certain foundational devices. A
Renaissance poem usually rhymes. A thriller usually attempts to be
thrilling. There is a reason for the existence of different meters,
forms, styles, and genres. Each does something well. Each set of
restrictions allow for certain types of stories to be told, which
could not be told under other conditions. I'm sure you know this. Fans
of each genre invoke some sort of justification for their preferred
genres, and they often have a good case. We need different types of
stories. We need both the specificity and the variety. The fact that
you think the tenets of a certain genre are somehow dull or repetitive
is just a sign of your taste. It is not an objective truth which
forces you to take steps to change that genre into something more to
your liking. What is repetition to you may be something more nuanced
to others. In fact I can say for sure that it is.
> > But that doesn't mean that the themes
> > repeated aren't valid and true (and in the
> > case I'm making they aren't even
> > consciously perceived). Lots of clichés are
> > nearly sickening by now,
>
> ("I'm gettin' too old for this shit!" Or "It's over."
> Conveniently placed at the end.)
"I can't do this." is one phrasing I'm particularly tired of. "I can't
take it anymore." These supposedly dramatic but completely unspecified
emotional outbursts. That's why I virtually always zap by sitcoms. Not
that I own a TV, mind you, but I visit my mother on weekends and she
has one!
> > but often have a
> > core of truth. And people are different, with
> > different tolerance levels. Some people,
> > perhaps incl. you, may become tired of the
> > typical old-style superhero story very quickly,
> > whereas others will have a more nuanced
> > view of them and consider them worthy of
> > deeper and prolonged perusal.
>
> Translation: Some may be inclined to make
> of them more than they are. That doesn't
> mean those of us not so inclined are less
> intelligent or mean or wrong (as you've
> assumed throughout this thread).
Less intelligent, perhaps not. Mean, perhaps not. Wrong, absolutely.
Claiming that your interpretation of the superhero genre thoroughly
and definitively penetrates and exhausts it, and then proclaiming that
everyone who disagrees with your appraisal are making more of it than
what's in it... now, *that* is ridiculous. Not much experience in
seeing things from other viewpoints, have you? You seem to have a lot
of rather presumptious answers at hand for someone who's preaching
that there aren't any clear-cut ones...
> > Claiming that your perspective on
> > superhero comics is more objective is
> > folly.
>
> Those who want to make more of them
> than they are rely on an entirely subjective
> view to do so. That doesn't mean they're
> bad people--it does mean they're less
> objective than those who don't do so.
Ah, so you think you're being objective. Well, so do I. That I am, I
mean. Seeing as I'm not a relativist, both of us can't be right. You,
however, have exhibited a lot of relativist behavior, always
maintaining how different people's views, politics and answers are,
and how hard it is to make any certain value judgments at all. I'm
wondering where this objectivity is suddenly coming from? You getting
tired of giving equal time to all viewpoints? If so, I can certainly
sympathize. Other people's opinions can be interesting, but they've
nearly invariably wrong, aren't they? :-)
Seriously, though, as serious thinkers we have to accept that our take
on things are merely our theories, which must be tested against other
theories. This is an ongoing process which ultimately involves the
full philosophical situation of our entire culture. Meanwhile, we just
have our opinions. Let's not get too cocky and disparage other
people's values gratuitously (although the temptation to do so is
always overwhelming!).
> > If you consider them tiresome, don't read
> > them; read something else. But don't claim
> > that they have a great, basic problem which
> > you take it upon yourself to come up with
> > some Big Solution for. That is very arrogant
> > and will only result in your eventual
> > self-embarrassment.
>
> I have no idea what any of that means, or
> what it has to do with anything that's been
> discussed in this thread.
Translation: You're proposing to change the superhero genre into
something more "realistic", arrogantly dismissing its classic merit.
I'm saying I think that's a bad idea, so would you please refrain.
Since you are, IMO, wrong about what makes good superhero comics, your
efforts will eventually end in your own embarrassment (if things pan
out as I believe they will). But you, of course, view that very
differently. What I'm saying is: as a fan of the mainstream
superheroes it is my right to express my disapproval of what you think
should be done with the comics, and in order to protect the superhero
genre I'm simply asking that you carry out your plans in comics that
doesn't comes from the established mainstream (esp. Marvel). This is
all academic, of course, as I assume you aren't currently writing any
mainstream superhero comics.
> [Having never read "Power Comics,"
> I've declined to comment on them.]
Well, if you don't know the examples I proffer, at least you must
acknowledge that there are perspectives of relevance to the discussion
that you are not considering.
Which comics *have* you read?
> > My point: The formula used in most mainstream
> > superhero comics (esp. of the old style) is one
> > pregnant with constructive meaning and
> > messages, capable of being widely and richly
> > interpreted; widely and richly understood.
>
> You're here describing the willingness to
> make more of them than they are.
I don't make more of them than they are (or at least not of what they
ought to be!), but I would like to make them more than what they are
now.
> The condescension is tiresome--let's have
> a little less of it, alright?
All right. And that's two words, not one. Oh, sorry!
> In that spirit, I've snipped your long sililoquy
Sillyloquy! Funny!
> > Far be it from me to forbid you to do the kind
> > of comics you happen to like,
>
> You've been arguing for doing so throughout
> this entire thread--it's what all of your rules have
> been about.
Not really. The kind of comics you like are part of the positive
mechanisms I've spoken of, unless they are blatantly deconstructionist
with no redeeming values, but on that point I'll give you the benefit
of the doubt. I've always been willing to let you do whatever comics
you like; I'm just asking you not to do it to a genre (or more
rightly, to the Big Two, esp. Marvel) that works very well without the
redefinitions you prefer to impose. We have some meritable superhero
universes in the mainstream comics field, and I'd like them to
continue going strong. Although that's pretty much a lost cause by
now... *sigh!*
> > but when your perception actively influences
> > American mainstream superhero comics, to
> > their significant detriment, then I feel justified
> > in objecting, and requesting that you (whether
> > or not you are British - this also goes for much
> > of the Quesada administration) not destroy the
> > foundations of the classic mainstream superhero
> > genre.
>
> And I say that my views don't influence comics
> to their detriment, significantly or otherwise, much
> less "destroy" anything. I say, in fact, that they
> make for better comics
Yes, well, that's the point on which we differ.
> --otherwise, I, a life-long
> comic fan, wouldn't hold them. I think your view
> that comics have to function under what must,
> by now, be about 30,000 restrictive rules
Whoa, you counted?!
>, most
> of them utterly nonsensical, is fundamentally
> wrongheaded.
And yet you keep up the debate. How come?
> Do you want to encourage Kurosawa to
> make more "Hidden Fortress"es, or do you
> want to encourage him to make a "Seven
> Samurai" or a "Rashomon?" To use another
> example, do you want a Martin Scorcese to
> remain in exploitation and create more
> "Boxcar Bertha"s, or do you want him to
> make a "Raging Bull" or a "Goodfellas?"
Yes, but this is not an accurate analogy to superhero comics. Many
people working for Marvel and DC in fact invest all their passion and
interest and talent in producing interesting work for those companies,
because they see great potential in the characters. They love being
where they are; they do not feel they are prostituting themselves or
creating diluted and disposable material when they could produce
something more original elsewhere. In fact, many of them would never
be able to create better characters on their own. Stan Lee's creations
are hard to top. Not much good came from the Image guys when they
struck out on their own, but most of them did memorable work for
Marvel. Those people who feel they can do better work away from the
mainstream, like Frank Miller, still cannot get beyond the fact that
most people consider his best work to be for Marvel and DC. Superhero
material is popular. It is liked. It is the core of the U.S. comics
industry. For a reason.
> someone whose work
> consists only of grinding out a copy of
> something someone else has already done
> is doing hack-work. Eisner's "Spirit" is to be
> encouraged--his "Wonder Man" is not.
Ah, so no title should go beyond one issue? Or beyond one creative
team? Well, I think we know by now how much we disagree.
> > The superhero genre has never
> > been as commercial as the larger venues of
> > commercial fiction and cinema; the comics
> > industry simply has never been large enough.
>
> At the height of the Golden Age, comic
> companies in the United States were moving
> over a billion books a year.
That's a lot of comics! But, the era of the really good comics is
later. Begins with FF #1. And the industry since then has never been
all that large, although it became larger than it was immediately
before.
> > Classic superhero comics have hit upon a
> > very good formula which has inspired a lot of
> > writers to create great stories of enormous merit.
> > You seem to want to dismiss most mainstream
> > comics as hack work on the level of tabloids.
>
> Most of it IS hack work on or below the level
> of tabloids.
If we look at Marvel comics from 1961-1991, I'd have to disagree
vehemently. Most of it contains true passion, true humor and good
ideas.
> Sturgeon's Law is that 90% of everything is
> crap. In reality, that number is closer to 99%.
> The 1% is what's worth watching.
I've always argued that with superhero comics (esp. Marvel) the ratio
is different, and this is why I collect them and not other stuff. I
think Marvel comics from the good period may even be as high as
fifty/fifty. Or, if you insist that this is too generous, at least
75/25. That's at least 25% non-crap. But that's just my opinion, which
isn't presided over by pop truisms.
> In my readings of Dostoevsky, I seem to have
> missed the part where he wrote that all superheroes
> were supposed to embody your notion of
> "progressive" sentiment. I can't remember Dickens'
> discussion of how superhero comics are supposed
> to show their readers your version of a better world
> full of heroic role models for them to try and live up
> to. And I don't remember Mark Twain having any
> opinion on whether Spiderman or Superman used
> their powers responsibly.
The rules I was talking about are general literary rules; not rules
endemic to superheroes. And of course I don't have to tell you about
the copious progressive elements in the works of Dostoyevsky and
Dickens.
> "All we need is love..."
Absolutely. Lennon knew.
> > I'm not talking about passionless commercial
> > formulas,
>
> Actually, that's exactly what you're talking about.
Yes, all right, but I'm talking about *more* than that!
> > but about themes and concepts that it has
> > been, and still is, the historical mission of art
> > to communicate to us. To reject them is to
> > forever constrain your work to function at a
> > lower, less informed level.
>
> You're the one whose been arguing for a less
> realistic (which is to say, inherently less informed)
That's funny, I see that the other way around. The more informed you
are, the more you will speculate (also in fiction) about how to change
the world and take action acc. to those speculations. The more you
understand about the state of the world, the more empowered you become
to change it (knowledge is power). If my theories about symbolism in
fiction are correct, the more informed view will always prefer a large
imaginative fictional world through which to reflect the important
aspects of reality, rather than a limited perspective which treats a
fictional setting by the literally exact same laws as the real world
functions by (which, just like the laws of the imaginary world, will
be an approximation at best). But, again, this is a loooong
discussion.
> level, and no matter what rhetorical flourishes
> you employ, you're simply never going to make
> a case that you "constrain" yourself by refusing
> to be constrained by a pack of restrictions.
Well, your preferences are restrictive to my view, and you think mine
are restrictive to yours, though I deny this. I guess we've got that
much clear, at least.
> > it's a good formula; in fact it's the
> > best one there is. I am very surprised that you
> > would reject the substance I speak of here as
> > "formulaic" in the sense of "bad"; it seems to
> > me that only an imbecilic writer would do so.
> > But I may be wrong, so I ask you: How do you
> > figure?
>
> Being such an imbecilic writer, I would
> probably find that it's difficult for me to
> communicate ideas effectively to others
> if I had any concept of what effectively
> communicating ideas meant. Obviously,
> being such an imbecile, I don't, so I can
> only do the best my little idiot's brain can
> manage
OK, you're not taking *this* so well...
> and hope people get what I'm
> driving at:
>
> Formulaic writing is not something to be
> encouraged. Original writing is much better,
> and should be encouraged instead. If I wish,
> I can fabricate, from whole cloth, simplistic
> (and nonsensical) notions about how a
> formula is something that reflects centuries
> of cultural development and evolution, but
> at the end of the day, a formula will still be
> nothing more than one writer ripping off
> another.
Well, I can only say that I think you're clinging to some very set
notions and defining your whole writer's being from those set notions.
I don't think they are consistent or constructive; for instance they
entail dismissing the entire notion of genre. Are you so convinced
that genres are a blight on literature and we'd all be better off
without 'em? I don't think "formula" and "originality" are
particularly applicable terms at all; the two of us certainly don't
agree on their definitions, which in itself renders them mostly
useless for our discussion. But, I guess the whole argument can be
illustrated to our mutual satisfaction by saying that I believe most
popular fiction is an amalgam of formulaic and original elements
weaved into each other. I've tried to show you where there original
elements are and what they consist of, but you still cannot see them.
I think you'll change your mind someday, but for now there's probably
not much more to be done.
> > There is very little original writing. I certainly don't
> > intend to waste the better part of my career trying
> > to be original.
>
> Then you should CERTAINLY consider another
> line of work.
There you go, defining everything writing-related in hardline
absolutes. Your problem is that you can't come to any ultimate
definition of originality. Most of what anyone writes yields to
technique, structure, etc., and it can only be based on that which
went before. Your quest for hardcore originality demonstrates to me
that you are in the very very early stages of being a writer, still
believing that you can attain the pipe dream of originality. But, I
don't even know where you set the boundaries of your definition of the
word.
> Re-read what you wrote above--doesn't that
> embarass you?
Er, no...?
> > I take good ideas from elsewhere and put a
> > spin on them that turns them into my own. Come
> > to think of it, that *is* a form of originality. But,
> > what is original is a long, long discussion.
>
> And this is already a long, long discussion.
That it is.
> > If you
> > can be fundamentally original, more power to
> > you. Me, I have no qualms standing on the
> > shoulders of giants.
>
> You wouldn't be standing on their shoulders--you'd
> be a leech attached to their arteries.
Ah, there's a clue to your definition of originality. I don't have to
be *entirely* original, apparently. I can be original while standing
on the shoulders of giants. It's only when I stoop to leeching them
that I am no longer original. Well, then, since I said that I will be
standing on the shoulders of giants, then, obviously, by my
understanding (and now, we see, also by yours), I *will* be able to be
original, if in fact I do as I say. What right have you to assume,
then, that my definition of the term means that I will be a leech on
the arteries of giants? It seems to me we have both just concluded
that originality is possible on the shoulders of them, so why not
seize that common ground? Giants, after all, have broad shoulders! :-)
> >>> Compared with the richer possibilities of
> >>> allegorical fiction, I'm hard put to find
> >>> redeeming values in "realism" at all. If you
> >>> want realism so bad, why bother with fiction
> >>> at all?
> >
> > You didn't answer this question...
>
> Reflective of the seriousness of the question.
OK, I suppose it's kind of nonsensical.
> > I have a great argument with your definition
> > of realism.
>
> I haven't offered you my definition of "realism."
See my problem?
> You've simply taken it on yourself throughout this
> thread to assume you know what it is. I found it
> amusing at first that you seem to think I'm a
> priest of some sort, hawking a religion; an "-ism."
Did I? How's that? If you mean "realism", then yes, I guess I sort of
see you like that.
> > To me, realism is to inform people about the true
> > nature of the world and the human condition in
> > overall terms, and that is what the symbolical
> > "rules" I've been talking about are doing.
>
> You can do that without a pack of rules.
Certainly not. Language itself is a rule. And the rules I speak of are
nearly as basic. It's too bad people tend to lose sight of this.
"Blank slates", my butt!
> > My goal, like that of all the
> > greatest art, is to understand the human condition,
> > human nature and past, present and future history.
> > And I think art can say an awful lot about these
> > things, and significantly help resolve the inherent
> > conflicts.
>
> Your rules are a barrier to allowing it to do so.
No, they are the means.
> > Your goal, apparently, is to set up a limited
> > situation which treats a limited problem that
> > you lift from a real-world problem in the outside
> > present-day world.
>
> My only "goal" here, if it can even be called
> that, is to see more good work done in the
> field.
Yeah, but the definition of "good work" is the topic of our quarrel.
> > If by doing so you treat a real-world problem
> > and reaches a better understanding or
> > estimation of it, cool.
>
> You're always going to reach a better
> understanding and estimation of it by treating
> it realistically, rather than refracting it through
> a prism of preconcieved notions (your
> rules)
But what if the preconceived notion of the writer is *correct*? Is it
not then also the most realistic? Or does any kind of quality, like
good and bad, not exist by your objective criteria? I'll tell you
that, if so, this is a fallacy of objectivity. Good and bad exist
objectively. Look at a happy child and tell me I'm wrong. Positive and
negative emotions are factual. This means that the direction in which
society develops matters a great deal, and thus a progressive writer's
preconceived notions can help make a better world. Quite objectively.
I imagine you'll object to this use of the terms, because you believe
that the definitions you go by are more valid. This, however, is not
the case. Ultimately - and esp. in discussions like this - there are
no definitions except those that people who debate about them arrive
at in mutual agreement. That's the only way people can ever understand
each other.
>--plug in, here, the Magog example from
> Kingdom Come
Ah, so you're not arguing against the original setting, but only
against Waid's preconceived notion, which you call "unrealistic". But
before you argued against the entire power/responsibility coupling,
which must be said to be fairly present in Waid's original setting (as
far as the old-style heroes are concerned), if you disregard the
preconceived notion. Your examples seem to jump from being critiques
of inconsistent characterization or a writer's agenda in an individual
story and to being a sweeping critique of the entire
power/responsibility thing. But all right, as long as that's clear.
> > I just think my brand of artistic ambition has
> > a far bigger world-changing potential. A far
> > bigger impact on, and relevance for, the
> > real world.
>
> And I can't even imagine how you would
> reach such a conclusion.
Practice!
> > The superhero comics I advocate are a mix
> > between our two approaches (as outlined above).
> > I want to push them further towards my approach,
> > because I think that makes them better, and you
> > want to push them further towards your approach,
> > which I believe is making them worse.
> > Fundamentally, it's all to do with just what we each
> > read into them. I consider them a medium for the
> > communication of epic narratives with a huge
> > potential for informing people about themselves
> > and cultural evolution; not being able to see this,
> > you consider them formulaic and devoid of any
> > greater significance, believing that they would get
> > better if they became more "realistic".
>
> Interesting how you continually pull "my" view about
> such matters right out of your ass. I've noticed it
> hasn't given you any pause in attributing them to
> me.
Hey, what can I do in a discussion like this except trying to figure
out what the hell your view is!
In terms of your position that realism is always preferable and too
much imagination will do violence to our suspension of disbelief, try
this one on: If you're a fiction writer (and let's say a really good
one) who wants to prepare people for the galactic empire that we will
be living in in a few thousand years, how can you do that without
adding large amounts of speculative elements which will require any
reader's significant suspension of disbelief? Would you be able to do
that "realistically"? No, not without the readers' consent that the
elements you included would be fairly realistic, and in order for them
to make such a decision at all, they need imagination and suspension
of disbelief. Those without those qualities will just dismiss the
whole scenario as unrealistic.
> >>>> I listed the things that would stick in people's
> >>>> minds when evaluating these individuals.
> >>>
> >>> Bitter, negative and suspicious people's mind,
> >>> you mean.
> >>
> >> You can now prove me wrong by saying you think
> >> of OJ Simpson as a football hero, or the funny guy
> >> in the Naked Gun movies, rather than a killer.
> >
> > Not that this has any bearing on our discussion,
> > but I think of O. J. Simpson as someone whose
> > trial was televized, and that's about it. To boot, I
> > didn't watch it. All I know is that one trial acquitted
> > him and another convicted him. I really can't say
> > whether he's a killer or not.
>
> Not a very good dodge there.
I thought the implication was obvious: in a world of superheroes,
someone with my optimism and enthusiasm (as opposed to the bitter,
negative and suspicious people who would react like you said) would
root for them; understand their heroic motivation.
Well, thanks for sticking with this debate as long as you have,
although we haven't reached a heckuva lot of agreement. If you want to
continue, by all means snip everything you consider less than
worthwhile to respond to. I, of course, do the same. Perhaps we can
make the next posts a little bit shorter. I had a quite similar
discussion with another Brit, Andrew Ness, some time ago, but he
didn't stick with it as long as you already have.
One thing I'm kind of doubtful about in this debate is exactly which
comics we're each talking so staunchly about. Do I know which comics
you're vaguely referring to, and do you know which comics I'm vaguely
referring to? We've covered some examples (though you hadn't read
mine), but the more general kind of comics we're talking about hasn't
been quite specified. But the debate is entertaining anyway! If we
want to do something about this point, maybe we should start
mentioning comics more specifically.
For the record (and in case you are unaware), I just want to say that
you haven't been arguing with an American in this exchange. I am a
Dane, rightly situated in the only slightly rotten state of Denmark,
and I just happen to have a fondness for Marvel superheroes, their
universe and history. I have over 15,000 comics and I consider myself
a bit of a comics scholar (my collection, my library!). And while this
is my foremost hobby I have a wide range of other interests, from
cosmology to Shakespeare criticism, which are really much more serious
than comic collecting, and which I plan to spend the brunt of my time
on in the forthcoming years. Because, as a writer, I have a Project. I
believe that knowledge and enthusiasm is the cocktail that will
eventually solve all the world's problems. It'll only happen if we
very actively *want* it to, because optimism is self-reinforcing. That
is my primary positive message - the idea I want to communicate and
qualify -, and I see all the universe as the means through which to
compose and extend that message.
I cull from art and poetry the message that wonder and enthusiasm -
Beauty - are human nature's true ground state. The main problem of the
human condition is that we have, as a culture, lost sight of this.
Lost Rosebud. Lost the name of action. Rediscovering the infinite,
volcanic Beauty and god-like Reason that our brain is the cradle of is
going to be humankind's greatest adventure.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> is that there's no inherent connection
> between power and responsibility.
And how does that *not* translate into your finding heroism
unrealistic? Could it be because you are open to the fact that *some*
people might decide upon such a connection, which, incidentally, would
make it a realistic state of affairs for *them*...?
And BTW, I do think there is an inherent connection. If you are a
person who cares about your fellow people (and I would argue that all
people naturally are; many just never really discover it because they
live under extremely repressive conditions), I'd say you're morally
obligated to use your power responsibly. But, I know, I know, people
have different ideas about what constitutes "responsibility".
> > Does that mean that you're simply playing
> > devil's advocate with everybody else's
> > views?
>
> Only when they fail to do it themselves (plug
> in Kingdom Come discussion here). I would
> expect them to do the same to mine, if I
> failed to do so.
So you don't consider any view superior to any other? Equal validity
all round? That's relativism. And it is a view that doesn't make any
considerations of objective quality, and disregard all forms of
qualification as source of more meritable outlooks. I utterly and
totally diagree with that attitude, and to claim that you are
objective is a misconception to end all misconceptions. You are
equalizing all views, ignoring the objective criteria that make some
views more qualified than others.
> > Isn't that bordering on sophistry?
>
> No.
I say it is.
> >> The only way to ever test one's views is
> >> to have them challenged, and honestly
> >> challenged (not in a kangaroo court
> >> setting).
> >
> > Yes, but it's not just a question of
> > challenging; there must also be
> > presented an alternative (or several).
> > Indeed, if the progressive camp has
> > any major general shortcoming, it is its
> > failure to present alternatives to the
> > established ways of doing things. If
> > you have nothing constructive to say,
> > I question the merit of your writing
> > ambitions.
>
> In doing so, of course, you make the
> unjustifiable assumption that criticism
> isn't constructive.
How's that?
> > Same goes for postmodernism. If you
> > just want to deconstruct things and don't
> > care about the consequences, then you
> > are helping to indescriminately dissolve
> > everything that our cultural discourse is
> > based on, good as well as bad. Where do
> > you think that process will lead, and end,
> > honestly?
>
> You seem quite fixated on talking about
> "postmodernism." Is there a point to that?
None other than that your view seems to be postmodernist through and
through.
- Tue
jay
wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jspektr" is quite correct in this thread--if
>>>>>>> anything, people aren't portrayed as frightened
>>>>>>> enough by superheroes in comics; anonymous,
>>>>>>> masked figures, frequently with godlike powers,
>>>>>>> that operate above and beyond all human laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he's not. Everyone has missed my point,
>>>>>> which is the obsession with trying to inject
>>>>>> realism into stories about flying men in costumes
>>>>>> is now threatening to deprive me of the pleasure
>>>>>> I get from reading them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with you all the way, macloserboy. Superhero
>>>>> comics are supposed to show us a better world,
>>>>> a world of heroic role models for us to try and live
>>>>> up to.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's what some superhero comics have
>>>> aimed for. There's no rule written down
>>>> anywhere, though, that says that's what they're
>>>> supposed to do or even what they should do,
>>>
>>> There is the rule of general practise in the majority
>>> of the actual comics (at least the majority of the
>>> good and worthwhile ones).
>>
>> The fact that the "majority of the good and worthwhile
>> ones" [superhero comics] today *don't* follow that rule
>> is what formed the basis of the complaint that launched
>> this thread. Think about it for a moment--list, in you mind,
>> the good stuff on the market recently. Writing off the
>> ones that don't follow that rule leaves virtually nothing
>> (Astro City is the only thing that leaps immediately to
>> mind).
>
> Who ever said anything about *today*?! There
> are extremely few good and worthwhile comics
> out today.
There are more really good superhero comics
these days than there have been since the
early-to-mid-80s.
> As far as I'm concerned, good and worthwhile
> mainstream comics nearly disappeared in the
> mid-'90s, and they've yet to resurface. Sure,
> there are always exceptions, but they are few
> and far between.
They're always few and far between. We tend
to overromanticize certain eras, but the truth is
that most of the time, most of what's on the
market is pure shit. That's true in any other
medium, as well. It's always a matter of picking
and choosing.
>>> As good a rule as any.
>>
>> The problem, of course, is that you are making
>> a "rule." Deciding what a superhero comic is
>> supposed to be, an implicit criticism of anything
>> that doesn't follow that rule. And it doesn't help
>> your case that most of the good superhero
>> comics on the market today don't, in fact, follow
>> that rule. This is something we're just not going
>> to agree upon.
>
> Agreed! :-) What you apparently see as a
> narrowing rule, I perceive as a rich potential
> for setting the genre free and starting to
> communicate progressive messages for the
> benefit of both the readership and the world
> situation.
...which is all just spin, intended to give a glossy
shine to a severe restriction that reads: "Superhero
comics are to show us my narrow definition of a
better world, a world of heroic role models--again
defined by myself in excruciatingly narrow terms--for
us to try to live up to."
>>>>> One of the things I've always missed in comics
>>>>> are the oridinary people's Hero Appreciation
>>>>> Societies. There should be legions upon legions
>>>>> of superhero *supporters*. I don't even think
>>>>> that would be unrealistic.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the legions of "supporters," though,
>>>> would be more frightening than the villains with
>>>> which the hero tangles. It isn't difficult at all to
>>>> imagine reactionary militia-type people adopting
>>>> a character like, say, the Batman as their hero.
>>>
>>> No, but I, for one, find it equally easy to imagine
>>> perfectly ordinary people like the ones regularly
>>> supporting Greenpeace, or whatever, actively
>>> supporting superheroes and their causes.
>>
>> The proper comparison here isn't Greenpeace
>> (which doesn't take down street thugs)--it's
>> Bernhard Goetz.
>
> No, Goetz is not a hero;
Nope. Nor did I say he was. I'm going to
assume you misrepresented my comment
and went off on the tangent below because
you honestly weren't paying attention. The
subject at hand was the reaction of the
public to characters like Batman. You used
a grossly inaccurate example. I was merely
pointing out that the direct example certainly
isn't Greenpeace, when it comes to activities
like this; it's Bernhard Goetz, who was widely
hailed as a hero in the United States after his
infamous encounter with subway-riding thugs.
I found this to be a profoudly disturbing
comment on American society. I would argue
that a Batman, whose MO (usually ignored by
his writers) is spreading fear, would draw an
even stronger version of the same reaction
from the public.
> he's the Punisher.
Just to morally complicate the Goetz question,
all the fellows he shot except the one he
physically incapacitated went on to a long life
of crime--one of them raped, beat, and may
have killed a pregnant 17-year-old girl (my
memory is sort of fuzzy on the "killed" part).
This makes it a bit more difficult to summarily
dismiss the idea of a Punisher.
> I'm suprised and shocked that you would
> make superheroes at large out to be ruthless
> gun-totin' creeps with little regard for human
> life (and if this is your view I can certainly see
> why you adhere to the typically British way of
> looking at superheroes, which I find completely
> misguided). Did you grow up in the '90s,
> knowing only that kind of "hero"?
Actually, I stopped reading comics entirely for
most of the '90s--the Speculation Age (or the
McFarlane Age). You're talking about a period
of time when writers were largely relegated to
irrelevance, and all attention shifted to the
artists, whose job, in those days, was nothing
more than to try to outdo one another in faking
a Frank Miller "grim and gritty" atmosphere.
The soullessness of this work was then buried
behind the industry focus on how to package
the "hot" artist-of-the-month in as many
gimmicky ways as possible. Let's have six
different etched foil covers and put it in a bag,
with a poster and some trading cards and a
signed portrait of Jesus.
The comics scene, at present, is the polar
opposite of what it was in the Speculation Age.
Today, the focus has shifted away from all that
and back to writers, thanks, in part, to those
talented Euro imports you so decry. Readers
who found this period appealing won't find
much they care for in the work of these writers
(I suspect that ideas--or even words--would
make their heads hurt).
> Superheroes don't hurt people.
The standard protocol is to beat the
troublemaker until he is no longer capable
of causing trouble.
> If they seriously hurt even their worst
> enemies, it's usually by accident (and
> one which the villain is usually to blame
> for).
The villain-kills-himself-while-trying-to-take-
out-the-hero is an horrific cliche, one intended
to keep the hero's hands clean while avoiding
the uncomfortable questions of responsibility
that arise when the villain is allowed to live and
kill again and again. This is what we call bad
writing.
> Maybe the heart of our disagreement is that
> I believe a real-life hero--if he were really a
> hero--could and would reflect his comic book
> counterpart (if not in literal fact, then at least
> in principle), while you apparently believe that
> superhero comics are silly romantized versions
> of a character type that could only be
> Nietzschean power freaks with
> psychopathically inflated egos in the real
> world.
You can't discern, from the fact that all grass is
green, the idea that all things green are grass.
I find it very offensive when you misrepresent
my position, and I would ask that you stop
doing so. I don't do that to you, and I'd ask
that you return the courtesy.
> Or, if you do accept that some idealistic heroes
> could occur, you are certain they would quickly
> be taken down by other superpeople loyal to
> the establishment.
Such conflicts would inevitably emerge. I can't
imagine anyone would argue otherwise. Except,
of course, you.
> I don't see any kind of particularly valid
> realism in your view that the most and the
> strongest superpeople would be on the
> side of the system.
I haven't advanced any such view, so your
comments here amount to an attack upon a
straw man of your own construction. Many
superpeople would be on the side of the
Establishment, as they would consider that to
be the heroic path to take--many more people,
in fact, than would be against it. That brings
things back around to your very narrow
definition of "heroic." People have all kinds
of ideas about what "heroism" consists of,
and all you would be doing, if you could
impose your restrictive version, is excluding
any exploration of those other viewpoints.
> Sure, one might say the same about my view
> that they wouldn't be, but that's because I'm
> presuming an actual heroic element in the
> equation, whereas you are probably
> considering people more "realistically",
> believing that superpeople would be no more
> heroic than real people.
People who gained superpowers wouldn't be
any more heroic than real people, which is to
say that some of them would be very heroic,
some of them bad people who didn't behave
in a heroic fashion, and most of them wouldn't
care one way or another.
> My view, I admit, depends on the
> superheroes being people who understand
> the power/responsibility coupling, and this
> is probably what you find unrealistic.
Here, again, you have, as a premise, a specific
idea of what constitutes "responsible" use of
one's powers.You aren't talking about people
who "understand the power/responsibility
coupling"--you're talking about people who
accept your view of that coupling.
>> The problem is that there aren't any superheroes
>> who lead radical movements. The tradition, in
>> the U.S., is toward completely "non-political"
>> characters (which, in fact, are political, but their
>> politics are status quo), and this thread offers a
>> perfect example of why.
>
> Yes it does. One way of putting it is that we are
> discussing whether the superhero comic book
> status quo correspond to the real-world
> establishment status quo. I vote nay, you vote
> aye.
It's a safe bet that it doesn't correspond to the
"establishment status quo" of Mars. We can
pretend as though the U.S. Dept. of Justice in
the X-Men and the Avengers doesn't correspond
to the actual U.S. Dept. of Justice, but that's all
we're doing--pretending.
>> Overtly political characters--like overtly political
>> people--are instantly controversial, which
>> alienates a portion of their potential audience
>> (this is particularly true if the politics of the
>> character are radical). Publishers want to try to
>> draw as large an audience as possible, which is
>> how the characters end up being status quo.
>
> But comics have nearly always had a very small
> audience,
At the height of the Golden Age, comic publishers
moved over a billion books a year.
> and when Stan Lee introduced the modern
> superhero comic with his Marvel Revolution in
> the '60s, the segment of people who picked
> them up was *still* only a small segment of the
> entire population
Because comics in the United States still bore the
stigma placed upon them during the McCarthy era.
> (predominantly imaginative college student, which
> must be said to be part of the intellectual elite).
Comics readers were predominantly children until
very recent years.
> Let's say that a million people (when times are
> really good) enjoy reading superhero comics
> now and again. That's between one third and
> one half of one percent of the U.S. population.
> Superhero comics can afford to be more radical
> than the establishment status quo; they can
> afford to alienate some of their potential
> audience; they can afford some controversy
> (again, just look at this thread for evidence to
> that effect).
Reason dictates exactly the opposite
conclusion--that with a small potential
audience, you DON'T want to do anything
to alienate it. This isn't merely an assertion--it's,
as I said earlier, backed up by the history of
mainstream superhero comics, where the
tradition has always been completely
non-political characters.
> And they do, if you have the eyes to see it.
Translation: If you are willing to read into the
books things that are completely absent. Of
all the things you say so often, this is easily
the stupidest. Josette Frank read Wonder
Woman and saw, in the boats in the book,
the mother of the child reading it. In the
submarines, she saw penises with evil intent.
Are these substantive observations, worthy
of serious consideration, or was Josette
Frank just full of shit?
> The audience for superhero comics are not
> representative of the American people at large.
> I have always found most superhero comics to
> be considerably more intelligent that the
> average person, and thus appealing to people
> of above-average intelligence. Indeed, this is
> part if the reason the comics field has always
> been comparatively small.
This is an elitist theory of comics, on which I
have no data and no opinion. I will say, however,
that you later contradicted your own comments
on this subject (as I'll get into momentarily). I'll
also add that if you're right about comic readers
being more intelligent, it really dooms your
cause--the more intelligent among us are never
going to be satisfied with reading the simplistic
and formulaic comics that would be produced
within your restrictions.
> American superhero comics are morally
> progressive in the extreme, thanks primarily
> to Stan Lee's brilliant antithesis to the "power
> corrupts" adage, which you Brits can't seem
> to release yourselves from adhering to.
Stan's dictum isn't the antithesis of "power tends
to corrupt"--it compliments (and reinforces) it. No
comic with a theme of dismissing the idea that
power tends to corrupt could have any real claim
to being morally progressive (or to being
progressive in any other conceivable way, in my
view).
>> I should add again, for the record, that I
>> strongly believe there should be more
>> overtly political characters of the kind you're
>> discussing (and I'd read a Cap that did things
>> like that every month).
>
> See my point? (And don't forget that Reagan
> was billed as "the deadliest snake of all" on
> the cover to Cap #344! Sure, he'd been
> turned into a reptilian, but even so!)
A caveat which negates whatever "point" you
were trying to make.
>> The reality, however, is that there simply aren't,
>> which really places this part of the exchange
>> outside of the main topic.
>
> Not at all. Check out, if you will, What If vol. 2
> #30 ("What if the FF's second child had lived?").
> Mary Richards becomes the leader of a radical
> movement which marches on the white house
> and returns all power to the people. The last
> page has the U.S. President holding his head in
> his hands, saying "it's all over...". The Mary
> Richards movement is the unabashed protagonist
> of the story. No grey areas, no pandering to the
> establishment. I admit this kind of clarity in
> superhero comics is rare
A caveat which, again, destroys whatever "point"
you thought you were making. Other caveats in that
same vein include the fact that this is a single story
starring a character that never, in fact, existed in the
Marvel Universe, acting out events which never
occured in the Marvel Universe (and have no
impact upon it) in a title that has long since been
cancelled because no one was interested in
reading it.
> (and yes, writers often toe the line out of fear of
> going too far), but if you understand the genre
> and read it correctly, you are always aware that
> it is there.
"If only you were as smart as I, you would
see those penis/submarines..."
>> Superheroes were made to be law enforcement
>> officials or spies or other government operatives
>> of some form or other.
>
> Except for when the early Superman wrecked
> factories, etc. Not much establishment loyalty
> there.
Every version of Superman that was adopted
after that period would take down the Golden
Age Superman.
>> At the time, this was considered a good
>> thing. These days, we see it in a more
>> realistic light--it ain't always a good thing,
>> and sometimes it's a very bad thing
>> indeed.
>
> Yeah, and that angle does deserve some
> stories, but it's already gone way out of hand,
> and when it impacts on mainstream comics to
> the severe detriment of their progressive
> content, it's time to stand up and object about
> it.
Reread what you just wrote--you just objected to
comic stories that show that the Establishment
frequently does bad things, on the grounds that
such stories interfere with the progressive content
of the books.
Not very thoughtful (and CERTAINLY not very
progressive).
>> Again, all that's changed here is our view of
>> institutions. When the heroes were made to
>> serve those institutions, it was considered
>> heroic to serve those institutions. Now, we
>> see some of the ugliness that comes with
>> that sort of service.
>
> To a degree, you are right. And this is a positive
> aspect to this type of stories. What I object to is
> that the core of the characters and the genre is
> being done a huge disservice, because the
> heroism itself is being deconstructed in many of
> these stories. That means that the drive towards
> world improvement that was always inherent in
> the comics goes away. And thus fades away my
> reason for reading them. Instead of being radical
> in a symbolic way, they become just as bleak and
> postmodern as most European comics. And the
> more comics of the ones you advocate are
> written, the worse it becomes. That, in my opinion,
> sucks.
What you're calling deconstruction of heroism
here is simply writers allowing in other (and more
specific) points of view about what constitutes
"saving the world." You're disagreeing with those
points of view, and pining for a "return" to a more
simplistic approach in which there wouldn't be
any meaningful disagreements on that issue.
>> Something you should also think about is that
>> what you're advocating, with all these rules,
>> and the way you're advocating it--arguing that
>> it is traditional--is a completely conservative
>> approach, and undermines your basic premise
>> that you want a more progressive approach.
>
> In no way. The only reason I advocate a return
> to an earlier way of writing superheroes is that it
> was *more* nuanced and had a *greater* range
> of symbolism and topicality than the mostly
> simplistic stories being done today.
The complexity of and multifaceted nature of
today's stories is what forms the core of your
disagreement with them. After proposing so
many rules that have no other purpose than
to simplify them, it's a little late to start throwing
the "simplistic" label at them.
>>>> In the Ultimates, that's exactly what the
>>>> heroes are.
>>>
>>> Yeah, and as a result they can no longer
>>> rightly be called heroes.
>>
>> That depends on how you define "hero."
>
> A hero is someone who fights the good fight.
...which, again, just begs the question of how
they define "the good fight."
>> My hypothetical Cap is a realistic extrapolation
>> of the type of guy who would be Cap, and doesn't
>> contradict the character as he's been done in the
>> comics. Cap, as he's been done in the comics, is
>> as apolitical as possible--a "hollow Cap," if you will.
>> His so-called squabbles with the government have
>> been absurdly overblown in this thread to make
>> him look less of an Establishment figure and ignore
>> the fact that such "squabbles" have been
>> non-existent for virtually the entire 60+ years of
>> the character's existence, while he's worn the
>> flag for a uniform and carried a license from that
>> same government. Since the "hollow Cap" is, to
>> me, an inherently unreasonable take on the
>> character, I ask myself what sort of person would
>> do what he does, and what I put forward was
>> what I believe to be a reasonable portrait.
>
> I'm sorry, but the idea of accepting the take on
> Cap's character of someone who considers the
> entire way Cap's been portrayed thus far
> "unreasonable" strikes me (as it should strike
> every self-respecting Marvel editor) as utterly
> ridiculous.
It might get a good guffaw from Marvel editors, the
same way DC's editors would give a good ol'
belly-laugh when I told them having Batman as a
law enforcement officer is an unreasonable reading
of the character and totally inconsistent with his
premise, even though it's been an aspect of the
character, with few exceptions, since 1940. In both
cases, however, I'd be right and they'd be wrong.
> You are not talking about the same character.
> You are talking about a completely new and
> different character, based on completely
> different assumptions.
I'm talking about exactly the same character,
based on exactly the same assumptions
(perhaps you should read what I'd written
again), but with the hollow spot filled in. I
think this shading is essential. The idea of a
person in Cap's position having basically no
opinion on political matters--which is how Cap
is done--is absurd. That's a level of writing that
was simplistic even in the '40s.
> What you're proposing is ruining them, taking
> away and spitting on everything they are.
Here, again, you're objecting to the introduction
of complexity.
> And all because you see establishmentarianism
> where many of the rest of us see
> progressiveness. One side has to be wrong.
You're talking about completely subjective
things--there's no right or wrong about them.
> And regardless of which it is, the fact remains
> that if your take is done on non-Marvel
> characters there's no harm no foul, but if it's
> done on Marvel (and, to a lesser extent, DC)
> characters, then your side is actively making
> war on ours, and this is what we object
>against: why must you insist on destroying and
> discrediting not only the classic superhero per
> se, but the actual specific characters that are
> so revered by us (and we're plenty progressive,
> thank you very much) who understand how the
> classic superhero works?
Don't you feel silly for having written something
like that? There's no "war" here. Comics are
growing up. Sometimes that can be a frightening
experience. I'm not "destroying" or "discrediting"
anything, nor is it my intent or those of the other
writers you malign with this libel. I think it's
unfortunate that you've closed your mind to the
wide-ranging possibilities open to these characters
beyond the silly restrictions you think should be
imposed upon them. In the end, the market will
decide there things, as it always does.
> But, in the end, the editors are to blame. It
> was their job to keep the classic superhero
> pure. The current administration are hardly
> even superhero fans.
Now "progressive" you is chiding management
for not exercising an iron-enough hand over
the talent. Is there anything to your "progressive"
self-designation that isn't just talk?
>>> These things are communicated more through
>>> the general message of heroism and powers
>>> coupled with responsibility than through the
>>> literal events taking place in the stories. The
>>> heart of the superhero genre is to save the
>>> world. In the stories this is taken literally, as in
>>> saving the world from an evil conqueror or such,
>>> but this is merely an allegory for saving the world
>>> in the more conventional (and sometimes political)
>>> way, namely to abolish hunger, strife and
>>> corruption and build a world based on the positive
>>> elements of human nature (something which, of
>>> course, can only be understood and embraced
>>> by those who believe that human nature is
>>> fundamentally good, which is another sentiment
>>> that I believe most superheroes communicate
>>> and represent).
>>
>> You're absolutely correct on this point, but you
>> miss the most crucial element, namely that people
>> have radically different ideas about what constitutes
>> "saving the world." You think it has to be a positive,
>> progressive thing, and want to make that a rule,
>> whereas others would have very different views.
>
> Sure. And the superhero genre is all the stronger for
> being able to very broadly symbolize many different
> approaches.
It was mostly noteworthy, until recent years, for
being unable to properly deal with any different
approach above mushy, simplistic generalization.
> However, I do think that it's possible for informed
> people to make decisions that are better than
> those of more uninformed people, and I also think
> it is part of the task of art to promote and spell out
> this view, and work with it towards solutions to
> world problems.
Here, you're assuming your own position is more
informed, which is what the writers who were
incapable of properly dealing with other
perspectives assumed as well.
>> Consider a Golden Age Superman story
>> wherein Supes sees an acquaintance run
>> down by a drunk and begins a crusade for
>> auto safety. Besides terrorizing drunks, this
>> crusade also involved going to car lots that
>> sell unsafe autos and smashing them to bits.
>> He also went to the factory of a fictional
>> company that manufactured unsafe cars
>> (because, of course, it was more profitable)
>> and wrecked the entire factory.
>
> I know. Action Comics #12. And not an isolated
> example, either.
>
>> Now, can
>> you honestly see a character doing that in
>> a comic today, and the heroes NOT trying
>> to stop him?
>
> You want me to see that the only answer to this
> question is "no",
Because the only answer to this question IS "no."
> but I want you to see that the premise for the
> question is faulty. Smashing factories (assuming
> for a moment that this is the literal action, and
> not a symbolical story point which in fact it was)
> would not be the actions of a level-headed
> person - much less a hero - that any segment of
> the population could safely place their trust in.
There's nothing in the Rulebook for Radicals [tm]
that says your actions have to be level-headed.
Aside from that, you're simply dodging the question.
If he went around smashing factories, all the heroes
you would insist were so "anti-Establishment" would
come after him.
> That is part of my problem with your argument
> (and the way it is portrayed in the comics you
> advocate): can you really not conceive of
> pacifist radicalism?
Of course I can, but that makes for boring comics.
> Purely positive action that doesn't hurt anyone
> (except the sensibilities of the establishment)?
> Public debate? To be an activist or part of a
> progressive movement does not necessarily
> involve destruction.
It doesn't necessarily NOT involve it, either (a point
you missed).
"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge."
--Michael Bakunin
> Was Martin Luther King jr. a vigilante? In the
> comics superpowers are a symbol of the resolve
> and the ability to propose better alternatives to
> the way things are being done now. And what
> I would like to see in superhero comics are
> heroes who both have superpowers *and*
> specifically stated progressive attitudes. But
> they should be true and clear role models, a la
> King, who are also pacifists (except of course
> when they have to combat supervillains, which
> is an act inherent in the symbol scheme of
> superhero comics).
...which would, of course, mean they weren't
pacifists.
> Perhaps in some cases,
> when a large segment of the population is
> behind them, they can take revolution action in
> some area, forcing their views through because
> it will clearly be for the general good. But even
> so, any kind of killing and destruction should be
> avoided if at all possible (and it *would* be
> possible to avoid! The violence almost always
> comes from the oppressive established system
> trying to defend itself more than from the
> revolutionaries who after all just want justice).
>
> Pacifist radicalism, you might say, is not dramatic
> enough for a comic book story.
Bingo.
>>>> Warren Ellis did a fantastic--and, more
>>>> importantly, completely plausible--story
>>>> arc on this point in Stormwatch a few
>>>> years ago.
>
> With all the usual misconceptions, I'm sure. One
> of the problems with the likes of Millar and Ellis is
> that they'll rather be irreverent towards classic
> superheroes, taking a dump on them, than they
> want to write interesting, thought-provoking stories
> in which progressive ideas and alternatives are
> actually proposed. In their superhero work at least
> (which is just disposable entertainment anyway,
> right?), they have been unable to free themselves
> of that restriction. Such comics have very little
> entertainment value to me.
Heaven forbid anyone should impose the
"restriction" of wanting to write "interesting,
thought-provoking stories," eh?
>>> When it comes to mainstream (particularly
>>> Marvel) superheroes, however, I believe it
>>> is an imperative tenet of the superhero genre
>>> itself that it obey certain symbol schemes and
>>> stay within the frames of reference set up by
>>> that scheme, lest it become something
>>> different altogether and lose its genre-specific
>>> cohesion.
>>
>> You're making an extremely conservative
>> argument here. It has to be what it's always
>> been or it will cease to be what it has always
>> been (and ignoring the fact that it hasn't always
>> been that at all).
>
> It has mostly been that. And I don't want it to
> simply be that again (although I would certainly
> keep reading it, as opposed to now, where I'm
> dropping books left and right); I want it to be
> more radical and more in tune with the times.
It is, which is what you've been objecting to.
Guys like Millar and Ellis are FAR more radical
than virtually anyone working (or who has
worked) in U.S. mainstream superhero comics.
>>> That is why, in this genre, continuity is
>>> all-important: When it breaks down, it
>>> inadvertently communicates to the reader
>>> that the real world does not function by
>>> consistent laws either, which is
>>> unconstructive and unsatisfying. (Though
>>> all this is of course a generally subconscious
>>> process. The mechanisms I speak of are
>>> outlined in Hungarian critic Georg Lukács'
>>> 1935 essay "Art and Objective Truth".)
>>
>> Except for some assumptions, none of this is
>> particularly controversial
>
> I don't recall having claimed otherwise,
I assumed that you wrote the paragraph you
posted that I was responding to.
> but I *will* claim that most people (esp. current
> readers, writers and editors) don't understand
> this, and don't act according to it.
Readers always understand this. When the
world established within the story doesn't
follow its own rules, their willingness to
suspend belief breaks down. This sort of
shoots down your idea that writers and
editors don't understand it--if they didn't,
their readers would disappear.
>> but none of it backs up what you were
>> arguing, and most of it backs up what I've
>> been saying throughout this thread.
>
> Madness! I don't know what screwed logic
> you are going by.
I explained it to you, starting in the very next
sentence--try paying attention, for a change.
>> I've been arguing that the trend towards
>> greater realism in the comics is a positive
>> thing, as the lack of it does violence to
>> our suspension of disbelief and alienates
>> us from the work in the manner described
>> above.
>
> I don't think your view on this is at all clear;
> I cannot identify the underpinnings of your
> reasoning. Imaginative literature requires us
> to suspend our disbelief and accept a number
> of symbols which reflect elements of the real
> world, but you're saying that this requirement
> in itself, just by not being "realistic", does
> violence to our suspension of disbelief??
No, you weren't paying attention; read it again.
> Complete nonsense! The only ones alienated
> are those without imagination and wonder and
> an open mind. If you belong in that caetgory,
> my condolences. If not, please clarify what on
> earth you mean.
To use an example I've already used elsewhere,
when Superman physically moves a planet out
of the path of some approaching menace, that
does violence to our willingness to suspend
disbelief--he couldn't physically move a fucking
planet without crippling or destroying it. Those
who groan when they see him do this aren't
those "without imagination and wonder and
an open mind." They're reacting sensibly to
bad writing.
>> By contrast, you've created all kinds of
>> a priori "rules" you feel comics must follow,
>> even if they are completely unrealistic. They
>> must be this and they must be that (or should
>> be this and should be that). This necessarily
>> chops off the possibility of the kind of
>> representations of events from the real world
>> described above in comic form, placing a
>> choke-hold on the medium; keeping it narrowly
>> defined, and, in the end, killing it, when no one
>> is any longer interested in seeing, reflected
>> through such a narrow prism, such a narrow
>> range of characters and events. You can't put
>> a stranglehold on art then say you're doing so
>> in the name of art.
>
> I can only assume that your insistence on seeing
> my definition of what the superhero is supposed
> to be as something intolerably narrow is the result
> of your lacking understanding of what I'm saying.
> You really shouldn't bandy around terms like
> "necessarily" and "narrow" without making sure
> you have understood what we're talking about.
Here, I'm completely at the mercy of your ability to
express yourself. If you don't mean what you say,
then please say what you mean, from now on.
> The root of our disagreement rests on what we
> each consider realistic. My understanding of the
> term (which is different from yours, which is why
> I have spoken of "realism" in citation marks
> during most of the debate) is this: what is realistic
> depends on the attitudes of the people involved
> in the given situation. Some choose to see things
> a certain way, others choose to see them
> differently. I am not opposed to realism in comics,
> but I am opposed to what you perceive as
> "realistic", because I don't agree with your
> attitude; with the basis on which you estimate
> what would be realistic. In the case of a
> progressive element, your only perspective is that
> radical heroes would be big, noisy troublemakers
That's a perspective I've offered, not my only
perspective. For the umpteenth time, you've
divined that all things green are grass from
the fact that all grass is green. It would be most
helpful if you stopped doing that.
> and therefore necessarily hunted down by the
> forces of the establishment. My perspective is
> that they would be peaceful, inspirational figures
> that didn't verbally abuse everything around them
> nor proclaim their hate of the establishment far
> and wide. This is not radicalism; this is stupidity.
> Positive world change can only come from rolling
> with and thus enhancing the positive trends that
> are already going on in general society, and this
> must be done via a positive, constructive outward
> attitude.
Now you've created a new restriction about who
is allowed to be a radical, and how they're able to
express their radicalism. Newsflash: A lot of radicals
do verbally abuse everything, do proclaim their
hatred of the establishment far and wide, and do
legitimately regard reformism as de facto
collaboration with The Man; stupid, negative, and,
utlimately, destructive. You would either excise
such characters from your comics on the grounds
that dealing with them would make your "heroes"
look bad, or throw them into a story, in a kangaroo
court setting, including them only to show, while
dealing from a stacked deck, how wrong they are.
> This is the attitude that I would like to
> make part of superhero comics, and it would
> be an outlet for all manners of progressive
> ideas and suggestions, leaving no stone
> unturned. This is not narrow. And based on
> the appropriate attitude, it's entirely realistic.
And no matter how much you huff and puff, you're
never going to blow a flame from a spark that says
"restrictions are liberating" ("Freedom Is Slavery").
>>> The desire to understand reality and the
>>> desire to solve the problems of the human
>>> condition are ultimately the same thing,
>>> and this is the desire that true superheroes
>>> embody.
>>
>> ...which, for the umpteenth time, sets aside the
>> fact that people reach different conclusions
>> about how best to solve the problems of the
>> human condition, a conflict which would have
>> to be present in the superheroes as well.
>
> Sure, and it would be. I see religion, philosophy
> and science as having the same functions:
> searching for truth and understanding. There's
> loads of potential common ground between
> them.
But there are far more conflicts between them.
>> You simply don't find a lot of radicals yearning
>> to break free lurking between the panels of
>> mainstream superhero comics.
>
> As a matter of fact, I do. But that has to do
> with the way I choose to interpret my comics.
You can read a progressive message into the
label on a soup tin, but that won't mean it's
really there.
> I don't believe it is only my subjective
> interpretation, though.
That's all it is. You see what you want to
see, and gloss over what's actually in the
stories.
>>> Hence other means, artistic means, are
>>> found to communicate the progressive
>>> message (which is inherent in all good art).
>>
>> There you are with those rules again.
>
> I'm merely stating some of the mechanisms
> by which the genre works.
You're defining "good art" as only propaganda.
>> Superhero comics offer opportunities to
>> explore parallel worlds, to create allegorical
>> situations that challenge our perceptions
>> and our beliefs. Given this readily available
>> opportunity to do so, however, few of them
>> ever did in the past. As I said, you just don't
>> find a lot of radicals between those panels.
>
> Depends on how you read them. It is a poor
> reader who's missed these things.
"Gee, if only I was as smart as you..."
>>> what superhero comics are
>>> really suggesting is that the causes of crime
>>> and corruption should be understood and
>>> removed. Which in a universe where these
>>> things are part and parcel of the establishment
>>> ultimately entails a wholesale overhaul of the
>>> system. Revolutionary? You betcha!
>>
>> Except that, in the superhero world, such
>> corruption is *not* part and parcel of the
>> Establishment but an abberation of it, and
>> when writers try to make it the former, they
>> face criticism from folks like yourself who
>> don't like the implications of such a world on
>> the heroes who exist in it, which is what's
>> happened in this thread so far.
>
> Okay, the corruption example had a limited
> applicability.
Very diplomatic.
> In order to address the real problems, a more
> direct approach is needed, and this is why I
> argue for an explicitly progressive element in
> superhero comics. The way I see it, there's
> always (well, since Stan Lee, anyway) been
> an implicit such element, and I think it would
> be a logical and straight-forward development
> to bring it into the open. It would be the Next
> Generation of classic superheroes. Making
> superhero comics more controversial would,
> in my view, also be a plus.
Unless they were controversial in a more
realistic way, of course.
> Some readers might be lost, but others would
> be gained. In the capacity as a fan and
> projected creator of superhero comics, I don't
> particularly think that anyone who doesn't want
> (consciously or subconsciously) the world to be
> a better place has any business reading
> superhero comics.
Now, you're restricting the readership, as well.
jay
before it was anywhere close to finished.
jay
> Ignore that last post--I hit the "send" button
> before it was anywhere close to finished.
Hey, maybe it didn't send it--it hasn't come up
yet. Great!
Tue Sorensen
>
> There are more really good superhero comics
> these days than there have been since the
> early-to-mid-80s.
Ah, so you thought the early-to-mid-80s comics were as good or better
than the current comics? Are you talking about any Marvel comics at
all or just the usual overrated Swamp Thing, DKR and Watchmen...? And
even if you aren't, what is there today that is truly on that level?
But obviously we disagree. And there isn't much *discussion* in merely
stating each of our positions as fact in the face of the other's view.
> > What you apparently see as a
> > narrowing rule, I perceive as a rich potential
> > for setting the genre free and starting to
> > communicate progressive messages for the
> > benefit of both the readership and the world
> > situation.
>
> ...which is all just spin, intended to give a glossy
> shine to a severe restriction that reads: "Superhero
> comics are to show us my narrow definition of a
> better world, a world of heroic role models--again
> defined by myself in excruciatingly narrow terms--for
> us to try to live up to."
Your continued description of my preferences as "narrow" and
"restrictive" merely demonstrate to me that you are not even
attempting to understand the mechanisms I'm talking about. For the
second time, the preferences you consider progressive would be
incorporated (subtly) in my perspective, and because there would be an
increased awareness of how the world works there would be a far more
effective and wide range of progresive content. But, reject it if you
like. If I'm right, you, too, will come around one day.
Yeah, but I *think* we were talking about different activities. I was
talking about Hero Appreciation Societies for proper heroes; can I
help it if you brought in an anti-hero like the early Batman and then
assumed that the entire discussion would shift into that context all
of a sudden?
> it's Bernhard Goetz, who was widely
> hailed as a hero in the United States after his
> infamous encounter with subway-riding thugs.
> I found this to be a profoudly disturbing
> comment on American society. I would argue
> that a Batman, whose MO (usually ignored by
> his writers) is spreading fear, would draw an
> even stronger version of the same reaction
> from the public.
You mean he'd be hailed as a hero? But he works in the shadows,
playing up to the fact that criminals don't even know whether he
really exists. He couldn't be a public figure.
> > I'm suprised and shocked that you would
> > make superheroes at large out to be ruthless
> > gun-totin' creeps with little regard for human
> > life
Which you weren't; you were talking about the early Batman. So there
was a conflict of contexts in that part of the exchange.
> You're talking about a period
> of time when writers were largely relegated to
> irrelevance, and all attention shifted to the
> artists
And it hasn't shifted back yet. Many of today's hottest writers
(though perhaps not Mark Millar) write hardly any words on the page,
and one reads their issues in five minutes or less. That's an insult
to those who pay cover price for the issues, and these writers should
be ashamed of themselves. Or, the editors should.
> The comics scene, at present, is the polar
> opposite of what it was in the Speculation Age.
> Today, the focus has shifted away from all that
> and back to writers
I'm sure many British comics were always as scarce on words as many
U.S. comics are now, and so you don't really notice the big
difference. But it is there, and it is huge. I like words in my
comics. To have pictures telling the story almost entirely by
themselves is a pandering to the art side, and almost always produces
simplistic stories. But, this is a difficult point to be specific
about without drawing some specific comics into the discussion.
> > Superheroes don't hurt people.
>
> The standard protocol is to beat the
> troublemaker until he is no longer capable
> of causing trouble.
That's villains (being beaten I mean). Villains rarely represent real
people; that's what innocent bystanders are for.
> The villain-kills-himself-while-trying-to-take-
> out-the-hero is an horrific cliche, one intended
> to keep the hero's hands clean while avoiding
> the uncomfortable questions of responsibility
> that arise when the villain is allowed to live and
> kill again and again. This is what we call bad
> writing.
Of course. And why I can't stand the Joker, who's a mass-murderer too
iconic to ever be brought to justice.
> > Maybe the heart of our disagreement is that
> > I believe a real-life hero--if he were really a
> > hero--could and would reflect his comic book
> > counterpart (if not in literal fact, then at least
> > in principle), while you apparently believe that
> > superhero comics are silly romantized versions
> > of a character type that could only be
> > Nietzschean power freaks with
> > psychopathically inflated egos in the real
> > world.
>
> You can't discern, from the fact that all grass is
> green, the idea that all things green are grass.
I don't see how the above constitutes that.
> I find it very offensive when you misrepresent
> my position, and I would ask that you stop
> doing so. I don't do that to you, and I'd ask
> that you return the courtesy.
You don't do that to me? *laughter* You do it constantly!
> Many superpeople would be on the side of the
> Establishment, as they would consider that to
> be the heroic path to take--many more people,
> in fact, than would be against it.
And maybe they would be right, as a matter of fact.
> That brings
> things back around to your very narrow
> definition of "heroic." People have all kinds
> of ideas about what "heroism" consists of,
> and all you would be doing, if you could
> impose your restrictive version, is excluding
> any exploration of those other viewpoints.
*Sigh* I have been talking about "heroes" as being more progressive
than just having establishment loyalties because I was trying to meet
you on what I thought were a point on which we generally agreed,
namely that being exclusively loyal to the ruling elite does *not*
make you a hero, but a government stooge. I was trying to approach
*your* terminology; *your* perspective that authority should be
questioned, because, acc. to my definition of a hero, a hero *does*
question authority (OK, so you didn't get this, and I apologize for
not clarifying it better). But now you're ignoring all ideas of heroic
morals and terminology and offering a relativist definition of heroism
which is any damn thing anybody chooses to see it as. Fine. We can
play it that way instead. But it requires different symbolical anchor
points, at least if presented through mainstream entertainment (where
there is a protagonist who ultimately wins the day - which is an
assumption I make, but one that you reject, I know). Thus, by my
reasoning, if the hero is anti-establishment, the setting of the story
is one in which the establishment is corrupt. If a hero is loyal to
the establishment, the (fictional, symbolical, idealistic) setting of
the story is one in which the establishment is morally in the right.
This in fact is an excellent analysis of how superhero comics are done
by British and American writers, respectively. The thing you don't
understand - and this is important - is that the symbolism of both
defines the hero as something separate from (and better) the
*real-world* establishment. And you furthermore don't understand that
in order for these comics to remain meaningful to the audience, these
symbol schemes must be upheld. You don't care about this (because you
can't understand the significance), and insist on adding all sorts of
chaotic elements which to your mind make the stories "realistic" (such
as no happy ending, and taking no stand about how to change the
world). What you're really accomplishing is to deconstruct heroism and
cast out comprehensive doubt about everything, which numbs and
pacifies the readers.
> > My view, I admit, depends on the
> > superheroes being people who understand
> > the power/responsibility coupling, and this
> > is probably what you find unrealistic.
>
> Here, again, you have, as a premise, a specific
> idea of what constitutes "responsible" use of
> one's powers.You aren't talking about people
> who "understand the power/responsibility
> coupling"--you're talking about people who
> accept your view of that coupling.
It's not just my view - it's the view propagated by Stan Lee in
thousands of comics; a view which comprises one of the only explicit
foundations for heroism that has been defined in modern times. I
choose to embrace that view, but surely I am not alone in doing so.
> >> The problem is that there aren't any superheroes
> >> who lead radical movements. The tradition, in
> >> the U.S., is toward completely "non-political"
> >> characters (which, in fact, are political, but their
> >> politics are status quo), and this thread offers a
> >> perfect example of why.
> >
> > Yes it does. One way of putting it is that we are
> > discussing whether the superhero comic book
> > status quo correspond to the real-world
> > establishment status quo. I vote nay, you vote
> > aye.
>
> It's a safe bet that it doesn't correspond to the
> "establishment status quo" of Mars. We can
> pretend as though the U.S. Dept. of Justice in
> the X-Men and the Avengers doesn't correspond
> to the actual U.S. Dept. of Justice, but that's all
> we're doing--pretending.
Well, I'll be damned. You are claiming that any depiction of something
real in fiction must necessarily correspond to that thing in reality?
Try looking up the word "symbolism". It's obviously a novel concept
for you. I mean, really. You have time and again seemed to reject all
symbolism in favor of taking things in fiction absolutely literally.
Is that the full extent of your perspective? No double meanings
anywhere, no symbolism anywhere? My mind boggles that your
understanding of art has such a limited scope. And the question that
you dismissed as stupid comes to mind again: Why do you bother with
fiction at all when you are so in love with utter and unpolluted
"realism"? I am genuinely perplexed.
> > and when Stan Lee introduced the modern
> > superhero comic with his Marvel Revolution in
> > the '60s, the segment of people who picked
> > them up was *still* only a small segment of the
> > entire population
>
> Because comics in the United States still bore the
> stigma placed upon them during the McCarthy era.
So...?
> > (predominantly imaginative college students, which
> > must be said to be part of the intellectual elite).
>
> Comics readers were predominantly children until
> very recent years.
Except when they were college students. (My most recent piece of
evidence is the J. M. DeMatteis interview in Write Now! #1)
> > Let's say that a million people (when times are
> > really good) enjoy reading superhero comics
> > now and again. That's between one third and
> > one half of one percent of the U.S. population.
> > Superhero comics can afford to be more radical
> > than the establishment status quo; they can
> > afford to alienate some of their potential
> > audience; they can afford some controversy
> > (again, just look at this thread for evidence to
> > that effect).
>
> Reason dictates exactly the opposite
> conclusion
You misunderstand. They can afford it because they exist on a premise
where they're already appealing to a certain segment of the population
only. So within the limits of that premise, they can tell stories
which would alienate those who haven't got a taste for the initial
premise anyway.
>--that with a small potential
> audience, you DON'T want to do anything
> to alienate it.
I'm not talking about alienating the audience that *is* there, but
keeping things so that especially people with a certain perspective
will like the stories. The ones alienated are those who don't share
that perspective. And that was fine by Stan Lee, who was beginning to
produce the comics he personally wanted to see, rather than the
previous monster, etc. comics that he had tired of. That this was a
commercial success means that he found the audience he was looking
for. And that's intelligent, imaginative, science-minded, generally
atheist readers with literary interests (all of which together damn
well nearly spell "progressive" to me!). Obviously these are only a
certain segment of the potential audience, but considering the small
size of the comics industry, it was enough to succeed. Too bad that's
all being disassembled now.
> This isn't merely an assertion--it's,
> as I said earlier, backed up by the history of
> mainstream superhero comics, where the
> tradition has always been completely
> non-political characters.
I hate to mention "symbolism" again, but you make it necessary. You
apparently are convinced that all symbolical interpretation exists
only in the mind of the reader and was never intentionally included by
the creators? You assume that other creators strive for "objectivity"
because that is your own aspiration? Well, they don't.
> > And they do, if you have the eyes to see it.
>
> Translation: If you are willing to read into the
> books things that are completely absent.
That you, by your own admission, are completely blind to.
> Of
> all the things you say so often, this is easily
> the stupidest. Josette Frank read Wonder
> Woman and saw, in the boats in the book,
> the mother of the child reading it. In the
> submarines, she saw penises with evil intent.
> Are these substantive observations, worthy
> of serious consideration, or was Josette
> Frank just full of shit?
Just because one (in that case Freudian) interpretation is wrong,
doesn't mean that any other interpretation is also wrong. Okay, so you
don't agree with my interpretation. That's clear.
> > American superhero comics are morally
> > progressive in the extreme, thanks primarily
> > to Stan Lee's brilliant antithesis to the "power
> > corrupts" adage, which you Brits can't seem
> > to release yourselves from adhering to.
>
> Stan's dictum isn't the antithesis of "power tends
> to corrupt"--it compliments (and reinforces) it.
How on earth do you figure? It comments on it, certainly, and reaches
an antithetical conclusion. It compliments it only in the sense of
acknowledging its prior existence. And it certainly does not reinforce
it. Unless you're trying to point out some extremely roundabout
symbolism - but that would be out of character for you. Some extremely
roundabout form of alleged logic would be more like you.
> No
> comic with a theme of dismissing the idea that
> power tends to corrupt could have any real claim
> to being morally progressive (or to being
> progressive in any other conceivable way, in my
> view).
I have to say that your view is that of an ignoramus. As I have said
many times, we live in a culture that progresses, also morally. Power
relations change. If power always corrupted equally, why would there
be a progression from monarchy to democracy, for instance? Why isn't
society always equally totalitarian? Explain that. And by all means,
don't be adverse to go into detail.
> > (And don't forget that Reagan
> > was billed as "the deadliest snake of all" on
> > the cover to Cap #344! Sure, he'd been
> > turned into a reptilian, but even so!)
>
> A caveat which negates whatever "point" you
> were trying to make.
Not at all. You really aren't one for subtlety, are you?
> > Check out, if you will, What If vol. 2
> > #30 ("What if the FF's second child had lived?").
> > Mary Richards becomes the leader of a radical
> > movement which marches on the white house
> > and returns all power to the people. The last
> > page has the U.S. President holding his head in
> > his hands, saying "it's all over...". The Mary
> > Richards movement is the unabashed protagonist
> > of the story. No grey areas, no pandering to the
> > establishment. I admit this kind of clarity in
> > superhero comics is rare
>
> A caveat which, again, destroys whatever "point"
> you thought you were making.
Not at all. It simply demonstrates the subtlety of the point.
> Other caveats in that
> same vein include the fact that this is a single story
> starring a character that never, in fact, existed in the
> Marvel Universe, acting out events which never
> occured in the Marvel Universe (and have no
> impact upon it)
But were expressed in extension of that universe and its characters.
True, a more radical story was possible because it was in a minor,
non-canonical story, but it still shows what can happen when extant
elements of the genre come to a head.
> Every version of Superman that was adopted
> after that period would take down the Golden
> Age Superman.
I think that is the fourth time you say this. Cling to your favorite
points much? If I were writing Superman, yes, the modern one would
take a destructive Superman down, but for more subtle reasons. He
would take him down because he knew of better ways to change society.
(As opposed to the current Superman, who indeed is pretty much a
government stooge. Though not completely.)
> >> At the time, this was considered a good
> >> thing. These days, we see it in a more
> >> realistic light--it ain't always a good thing,
> >> and sometimes it's a very bad thing
> >> indeed.
> >
> > Yeah, and that angle does deserve some
> > stories, but it's already gone way out of hand,
> > and when it impacts on mainstream comics to
> > the severe detriment of their progressive
> > content, it's time to stand up and object about
> > it.
>
> Reread what you just wrote--you just objected to
> comic stories that show that the Establishment
> frequently does bad things, on the grounds that
> such stories interfere with the progressive content
> of the books.
I think that's an unreasonable inference. What I'm saying is that I
would express progressive elements in a very different way than you
would. I don't think it's necessary to be overtly anti-establishment.
All you need is to overtly express a desire for a better world, and
suggest how a better world can be created on the basis of the society
we live in right now. That would give us all the positive aspects of
progressiveness, such as the general population's sympathy, and none
of the negative aspects of progressiveness, such as the animosity of
the ruling elite. I'm suggesting a smarter and more ultimately
efficient approach to progressive action that the overtly
anti-establishment approach, and I'm also suggesting that the classic
superhero comics I've been talking about already comprise such an
approach.
> What you're calling deconstruction of heroism
> here is simply writers allowing in other (and more
> specific) points of view about what constitutes
> "saving the world."
Oh? How? Where? I've yet to see any such suggestion. All I've seen is
(an unwaranted) critique of the heroes' being loyal to the status quo.
I've heard about no honest and realistic alternatives to how the world
should be changed. All we see in The Authority and the like is heroes
who are taken down by establishment superthugs because they are
considered a threat (and rightly, sometimes, as the "heroes" wanted to
use their superpowers to wreak havoc on the System - an approach which
can't happen in reality as no one has superpowers).
> You're disagreeing with those
> points of view, and pining for a "return" to a more
> simplistic approach in which there wouldn't be
> any meaningful disagreements on that issue.
No, I'm advocating a premise which has the subtle progressive elements
that all good art has, and thought-provoking stories which suggest
diverse forms of world-change on top of that.
> > A hero is someone who fights the good fight.
>
> ...which, again, just begs the question of how
> they define "the good fight."
Telling good and bad apart is not that hard.
> > You are not talking about the same character.
> > You are talking about a completely new and
> > different character, based on completely
> > different assumptions.
>
> I'm talking about exactly the same character,
> based on exactly the same assumptions
> (perhaps you should read what I'd written
> again), but with the hollow spot filled in.
"Hollow" from your POV. Which would make a different character.
> > What you're proposing is ruining them, taking
> > away and spitting on everything they are.
>
> Here, again, you're objecting to the introduction
> of complexity.
Arguing for the retention of complexity is more like it.
> > And all because you see establishmentarianism
> > where many of the rest of us see
> > progressiveness. One side has to be wrong.
>
> You're talking about completely subjective
> things--there's no right or wrong about them.
That's where you're wrong.
> In the end, the market will
> decide there things, as it always does.
But the market would have decided rather different things if different
editors had presented it with different comics.
> > the superhero genre is all the stronger for
> > being able to very broadly symbolize many different
> > approaches.
>
> It was mostly noteworthy, until recent years, for
> being unable to properly deal with any different
> approach above mushy, simplistic generalization.
Yes, if you only applied three brain cells to it.
> > However, I do think that it's possible for informed
> > people to make decisions that are better than
> > those of more uninformed people, and I also think
> > it is part of the task of art to promote and spell out
> > this view, and work with it towards solutions to
> > world problems.
>
> Here, you're assuming your own position is more
> informed
Sure. That's why *I* have something to say, and will insist on saying
it. Could I be wrong? Of course. Time will be the judge.
> There's nothing in the Rulebook for Radicals [tm]
> that says your actions have to be level-headed.
In the Rulebook for Non-Violent Radicals [tm], there certainly is. I
advocate peaceful and rational (but of course still intensely
impassioned) change, precisely because a revolution might end up
nuking us all to atoms. That's not a risk I'm willing to take, nor
should any sane people. If I had lived in 1848 I might have been a
classical revolutionary. But this is the nuclear age.
> If he went around smashing factories, all the heroes
> you would insist were so "anti-Establishment" would
> come after him.
And perhaps teach him that there are more constructive ways to change
the world. This is a nonsensical part of the discussion, though, as my
perspective includes a much wider range of alternatives than your
narrow, literal, "realist" perspective.
> > That is part of my problem with your argument
> > (and the way it is portrayed in the comics you
> > advocate): can you really not conceive of
> > pacifist radicalism?
>
> Of course I can, but that makes for boring comics.
So only large-scale destruction mirroring revolutionary pipe dreams
makes for interesting comics? Silly. Any kind of story can be good if
it is told well. And a good way to tell this kind of story would be by
having it take place on a progressive, symbolic premise.
> > Purely positive action that doesn't hurt anyone
> > (except the sensibilities of the establishment)?
> > Public debate? To be an activist or part of a
> > progressive movement does not necessarily
> > involve destruction.
>
> It doesn't necessarily NOT involve it, either (a point
> you missed).
Of course I didn't miss it. I used to *be* a revolutionary before my
understanding of the mechanisms of cultural evolution became more
nuanced.
> "The urge to destroy is also a creative urge."
> --Michael Bakunin
Yeah, the old must be torn down before the new can be built, blah blah
blah. What you don't see is that much of what is already built is good
and useful for a better society (or better comics). We have a fairly
open society where non-violent popular action *can* change things
significantly. All we need is the understanding, the will and the
optimism. Being that knowledge is power, the two latter, I trust, will
come with the former.
> > Was Martin Luther King jr. a vigilante? In the
> > comics superpowers are a symbol of the resolve
> > and the ability to propose better alternatives to
> > the way things are being done now. And what
> > I would like to see in superhero comics are
> > heroes who both have superpowers *and*
> > specifically stated progressive attitudes. But
> > they should be true and clear role models, a la
> > King, who are also pacifists (except of course
> > when they have to combat supervillains, which
> > is an act inherent in the symbol scheme of
> > superhero comics).
>
> ...which would, of course, mean they weren't
> pacifists.
Again: You really are incapable of understanding symbolism, aren't
you? Maybe that's why you don't understand what I've been talking
about: you're reading everything totally literally! Which of course
means that you're only seeing a surface that comprises less than 1% of
the real substance of any kind of art.
> > Pacifist radicalism, you might say, is not dramatic
> > enough for a comic book story.
>
> Bingo.
Which is why it should be subtly included in the classic symbol scheme
that classic superhero comics do so well. And that my Next Generation
of superheroes will do significantly better.
> Heaven forbid anyone should impose the
> "restriction" of wanting to write "interesting,
> thought-provoking stories," eh?
I wish to Heaven that someone would.
> > I want it [the superhero genre] to be
> > more radical and more in tune with the times.
>
> It is, which is what you've been objecting to.
There are always positive and negative trends going on. Yes, much of
the British writers' work is in tune with the times, but they're
latching on to the negative, unconstructive trends, like
postmodernism. That's the problem. With this material, we're not
progressing. We're just deconstructing. That has to stop before
everything is ruined and there is nothing left.
> Guys like Millar and Ellis are FAR more radical
> than virtually anyone working (or who has
> worked) in U.S. mainstream superhero comics.
Too bad they follow the 2000AD mode of doing near-fascist comics for
fun. Some of us think that kind of comics have severely limited
merits.
> To use an example I've already used elsewhere,
> when Superman physically moves a planet out
> of the path of some approaching menace, that
> does violence to our willingness to suspend
> disbelief--he couldn't physically move a fucking
> planet without crippling or destroying it. Those
> who groan when they see him do this aren't
> those "without imagination and wonder and
> an open mind." They're reacting sensibly to
> bad writing.
I can see I understood you perfectly the first time, and you're
completely wrong. By that attitude a huge portion of cartoons and
animated movies should be summarily dismissed as totally unmeritable.
You're expressing NOTHING AT ALL except your *own* personal limits of
your capacity for suspension of disbelief. Making supposedly objective
statements about this is a ridiculously arrogant and subjective thing
to do, and by the way imposing narrow restrictions upon everything
else. Just because there is a number of areas of symbolic fictional
devices that you don't understand, you would claim that nobody else
can possibly understand them either? Guess that means you're
all-knowing. You're some piece of work!
And in extension of that: Do you actually want to do away with all
symbolism, or does it just appear that way?
> > You really shouldn't bandy around terms like
> > "necessarily" and "narrow" without making sure
> > you have understood what we're talking about.
>
> Here, I'm completely at the mercy of your ability to
> express yourself. If you don't mean what you say,
> then please say what you mean, from now on.
I think there has been very little wrong with my articulation. The
problem is that we see these things in two very different contexts. To
understand my words in your own context only is a sign of bad
conversational ability. Discussion is about attempting to understand
the other person's context by trying to understand his definitions.
You, however, insist on remaining true to your own definitions. I'm
not saying you should change those definitions; merely that you should
attempt to find out just what my definitions mean in relation to yours
(even if that means temporarily modifying your definitions for the
sake of argument).
> > and therefore necessarily hunted down by the
> > forces of the establishment. My perspective is
> > that they would be peaceful, inspirational figures
> > that didn't verbally abuse everything around them
> > nor proclaim their hate of the establishment far
> > and wide. This is not radicalism; this is stupidity.
> > Positive world change can only come from rolling
> > with and thus enhancing the positive trends that
> > are already going on in general society, and this
> > must be done via a positive, constructive outward
> > attitude.
>
> Now you've created a new restriction about who
> is allowed to be a radical, and how they're able to
> express their radicalism.
I'm sorry you don't understand.
> Newsflash: A lot of radicals
> do verbally abuse everything, do proclaim their
> hatred of the establishment far and wide, and do
> legitimately regard reformism as de facto
> collaboration with The Man; stupid, negative, and,
> utlimately, destructive. You would either excise
> such characters from your comics on the grounds
> that dealing with them would make your "heroes"
> look bad, or throw them into a story, in a kangaroo
> court setting, including them only to show, while
> dealing from a stacked deck, how wrong they are.
And they *are* wrong. Revolutionaries are willing to destroy mankind
in revolutionary war because they are ignorant of all the immense
opportunities for progressive action that can be found in a plethora
of social and cultural areas, inside which positive trends are going
on which can be rolled with and enhanced.
> > This is the attitude that I would like to
> > make part of superhero comics, and it would
> > be an outlet for all manners of progressive
> > ideas and suggestions, leaving no stone
> > unturned. This is not narrow. And based on
> > the appropriate attitude, it's entirely realistic.
>
> And no matter how much you huff and puff, you're
> never going to blow a flame from a spark that says
> "restrictions are liberating" ("Freedom Is Slavery").
It should be clear by now that I don't see these things as
restrictions. To keep using your own definitions in this way is to be
demonstratively contrary (since I'm using other definitions and you
are well aware of this). Where's the point in disguising that as
discussion and pretending to keep it up...? I don't feel like you're
even trying to understand what I'm saying. And without even trying
you're certainly not going to succeed. In other words, you're holding
a kangaroo court here, never letting any other views besides your own
into the court of your consciousness.
> >>> The desire to understand reality and the
> >>> desire to solve the problems of the human
> >>> condition are ultimately the same thing,
> >>> and this is the desire that true superheroes
> >>> embody.
> >>
> >> ...which, for the umpteenth time, sets aside the
> >> fact that people reach different conclusions
> >> about how best to solve the problems of the
> >> human condition, a conflict which would have
> >> to be present in the superheroes as well.
> >
> > Sure, and it would be. I see religion, philosophy
> > and science as having the same functions:
> > searching for truth and understanding. There's
> > loads of potential common ground between
> > them.
>
> But there are far more conflicts between them.
Which lead to wars and racism, etc. Better to try and unite people
under those aspects that nearly all religions and philosophies have in
common.
> >> You simply don't find a lot of radicals yearning
> >> to break free lurking between the panels of
> >> mainstream superhero comics.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, I do. But that has to do
> > with the way I choose to interpret my comics.
>
> You can read a progressive message into the
> label on a soup tin, but that won't mean it's
> really there.
The meaning of art has always emerged as a process of interaction
between the art itself and the way it is perceived. I'm simply saying
that if we discover the intuitive ways that people read art (which of
course is what my theories are all about), and play up to that, then
we can produce better art with far greater progressive effects. And
this, by the way, is exactly what many great artists have been doing
in the past.
> >>> Hence other means, artistic means, are
> >>> found to communicate the progressive
> >>> message (which is inherent in all good art).
> >>
> >> There you are with those rules again.
> >
> > I'm merely stating some of the mechanisms
> > by which the genre works.
>
> You're defining "good art" as only propaganda.
Propaganda for a universal good, yes, that no informed people should
have anything against; on the contrary. But that is only the "high"
purpose of art. There is also a more immediate purpose, which is to
entertain, please, thrill, enthuse the consumer, like most music is
designed for. But even so, elements of the "high" purpose are always
lurking in the background. Fortunately for all of us.
> > Some readers might be lost, but others would
> > be gained. In the capacity as a fan and
> > projected creator of superhero comics, I don't
> > particularly think that anyone who doesn't want
> > (consciously or subconsciously) the world to be
> > a better place has any business reading
> > superhero comics.
>
> Now, you're restricting the readership, as well.
No, just saying who I think the ideal readership comprises. And that's
a part of the population that is growing, and that, by playing up to
it, good writers can make grow even faster.
- Tue