Heroes Restored
Ken_from_Chicago
Hello, fellow superheroes, some of you know me, some of you don't. Who
I am doesn't matter. Why we exist does. We are superheroes. We fight
the good fight against the thugs, criminals, villains and
supervillains but we also fight for people, civilians, order, law and
justice. Somewhere along the way while obsessing on what we were
fighting against we lost sight of what we are fighting for. Time and
again as villains got worse we got worse to fight them, trying to
fight fire with fire, but when we become as bad as the villains we
fight, what have we won? Nothing. Worse, we end up with twice as many
villains, people as scared of us as villains--if not moreso.
I say enough. And I know I'm not alone. Yes, we fight the good fight,
and yes we have gone outside of some of the rules of society but that
there are still lines, boundaries, principles we still follow. We are
not perfect. We make mistakes. But where we stumble, let us vow to
rise up, rise above the worst to be our best, to strive for the best
in us all.
-- Ken from Chicago (who would love to see that 12-part mega series)
P.S. "Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and
cruel. That's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we
come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a
difference. We live as though the world were as it should be, to show
it what it can be. "--David Boreanaz, 'Angel', ANGEL.
badbad is not BLACKMYSTECH
You seek a relief from post, post-modernism. Good luck on that with our
current crop of writers who don't seem to intellectualize past the
latest hot TV show or movie.
\
badbad
Garbin
"Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:514dd747-bb47-466d...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Where's the BLACKMYSTECH RANGER when we need him most???
M.O.R
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwicke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's his day off.
BLACKMYSTECH RANGER
Re: Heroes Restored
Group: rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Date: Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 8:58am
(CDT+6) From: igc...@tesco.net (Garbin)
I am here, just been sick all day! I pledge to fight for what right an
just!
Time to be evil!!
Let's Rock!!!
Kitty Pryde/ShadowCat is HOT!!!
Badness is cool!!!
Ken from Chicago
"badbad is not BLACKMYSTECH" <noone_liveshere.net> wrote in message
news:00871c53$0$15797$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Some current writers do. Then again, how are you defining "current crop" of
writers?
Moreover I tend to blame the editING--because sometimes the editors are
overridden by TPTB.
-- Ken from Chicago
Wouter Valentijn
Indeed...
I fully agree with this post.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
Buffy: This is the Initiative Xander. Military guys and scientists do not
make out with each other.
Xander: Well maybe that's wrong with the world. Ever think about that?
'Buffy the Vampire Slayer 4x14: Goodbye Iowa'
liam=mail
Ken Arromdee
Ken_from_Chicago <kwic...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Hello, fellow superheroes, some of you know me, some of you don't. Who
>I am doesn't matter. Why we exist does. We are superheroes. We fight
>the good fight against the thugs, criminals, villains and
>supervillains but we also fight for people, civilians, order, law and
>justice. Somewhere along the way while obsessing on what we were
>fighting against we lost sight of what we are fighting for. Time and
>again as villains got worse we got worse to fight them, trying to
>fight fire with fire, but when we become as bad as the villains we
>fight, what have we won? Nothing. Worse, we end up with twice as many
>villains, people as scared of us as villains--if not moreso.
Silver age superhero morality only works because comic books aren't
realistic--and I'm not talking about the ability of a man to fly when I say
"unrealistic". The villains are somehow easy to stop without using lethal
force (not even a concussion, most of the time), and hardly ever endanger
anyone seriously even when they blow up buildings and shoot random energy
blasts. And when they do it's offscreen, and it's never treated as as much
of a tragedy as it would be in real life. In fact, damage isn't treated
realistically even ignoring any threats to life and limb; imagine you worked
for 20 years building a business and the Trapster decides to blow it up.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction is
writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of buildings."
Ken Arromdee
reason that the villains turn lethal when the superheroes do isn't that
superhero violence doesn't work. It's that genre conventions are that
superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them. This
no more has an explanation than the fact that villains only attack cities
that are protected by heroes, or that Darkseid seems to be in Superman's
territory far more than Batman's.
If you're really going to say "getting lethal led to the villains getting
lethal", you may as well say "having superheroes at all led to the appearance
of supervillains"--after all, there aren't any supervillains in cities that
don't have superheroes.
M.O.R
> And another thing: Stop blaming the superheroes for genre conventions. The
> reason that the villains turn lethal when the superheroes do isn't that
> superhero violence doesn't work. It's that genre conventions are that
> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them. This
> no more has an explanation than the fact that villains only attack cities
> that are protected by heroes, or that Darkseid seems to be in Superman's
> territory far more than Batman's.
>
> If you're really going to say "getting lethal led to the villains getting
> lethal", you may as well say "having superheroes at all led to the appearance
> of supervillains"--after all, there aren't any supervillains in cities that
> don't have superheroes.
> --
>
> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of buildings."
Slight nitpick, but Dr Doom occupies Latveria and there are no
superheroes there.
Otherwise, yeah, stable argument. Slightly strange that, about
villains only attacking the heroes city. The thing is, it is often to
get at the hero, as they see themselves as the cities protector. Each
citizen they hurt is another way of attacking the hero.
grinningdemon
<pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 7:22�pm, arrom...@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> And another thing: Stop blaming the superheroes for genre conventions. �The
>> reason that the villains turn lethal when the superheroes do isn't that
>> superhero violence doesn't work. �It's that genre conventions are that
>> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them. �This
>> no more has an explanation than the fact that villains only attack cities
>> that are protected by heroes, or that Darkseid seems to be in Superman's
>> territory far more than Batman's.
>>
>> If you're really going to say "getting lethal led to the villains getting
>> lethal", you may as well say "having superheroes at all led to the appearance
>> of supervillains"--after all, there aren't any supervillains in cities that
>> don't have superheroes.
>> --
>> � � � �Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net /http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>>
>> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
>> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction is
>> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of buildings."
>
>Slight nitpick, but Dr Doom occupies Latveria and there are no
>superheroes there.
Depends on who you consider a super hero...because there's a whole
load of Asgardians running around Latveria at the moment.
Billy Bissette
news:h2tfe3$2c0$3...@blue.rahul.net:
> If you're really going to say "getting lethal led to the villains
> getting lethal", you may as well say "having superheroes at all led to
> the appearance of supervillains"--after all, there aren't any
> supervillains in cities that don't have superheroes.
Superheroes led to supervillains has been repeatedly used in
Batman-related stories over the years. I know it has come up at least
once if not several times in the comics. It was used in the Arkham
inmate trial in B:TAS, when the inmates blamed Batman for their
actions. Batman Begins ends with Gordon telling Batman about Joker,
and talking about how the arms race between the good and bad guys.
Ken from Chicago
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@violet.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:h2tev1$2c0$2...@blue.rahul.net...
Somewhere between grim and gritty and beloved masked vigilante is a happy
medium that THE CLOSER, LAW & ORDER, COLD CASE, etc. and various other
modern police procedurals seem to handle with being saccharinly maudlin nor
obnoxiously bleak.
> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a
> realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
> is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
> buildings."
Ironically your sig would be a demonstration of that point, given modern
ethical problems the drama would be having superheroes struggling to
maintain principled morality.
IOW, writing a story where villains are not principled but heroes still are.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> And another thing: Stop blaming the superheroes for genre conventions.
> The
> reason that the villains turn lethal when the superheroes do isn't that
> superhero violence doesn't work.
What?
It's that genre conventions are that
> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them. This
That's when superheroes team up, just like local cops partner up, getting
posses, call in the FBI, the NSA, CTU, CIA, armed forces, Interpol, other
countries, etc.
> no more has an explanation than the fact that villains only attack cities
> that are protected by heroes, or that Darkseid seems to be in Superman's
> territory far more than Batman's.
Could it be comics only show the villains attacking where heroes are while
ignoring where villains get away Mr. Miracle?
> If you're really going to say "getting lethal led to the villains getting
> lethal", you may as well say "having superheroes at all led to the
> appearance
When did I say heroes going dark led to villains going dark?
I was arguing just the opposite.
> of supervillains"--after all, there aren't any supervillains in cities
> that
> don't have superheroes.
What proof is there of that negative?
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a
> realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
> is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
> buildings."
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:41056370-82e8-4c1c...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 7:22 pm, arrom...@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> And another thing: Stop blaming the superheroes for genre conventions. The
> reason that the villains turn lethal when the superheroes do isn't that
> superhero violence doesn't work. It's that genre conventions are that
> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them. This
> no more has an explanation than the fact that villains only attack cities
> that are protected by heroes, or that Darkseid seems to be in Superman's
> territory far more than Batman's.
>
> If you're really going to say "getting lethal led to the villains getting
> lethal", you may as well say "having superheroes at all led to the
> appearance
> of supervillains"--after all, there aren't any supervillains in cities
> that
> don't have superheroes.
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net /http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a
> realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
> is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
> buildings."
~Slight nitpick, but Dr Doom occupies Latveria and there are no
~superheroes there.
~
~Otherwise, yeah, stable argument. Slightly strange that, about
~villains only attacking the heroes city. The thing is, it is often to
~get at the hero, as they see themselves as the cities protector. Each
~citizen they hurt is another way of attacking the hero.
It's long been argued that Batman has ATTRACTED villains to Gotham, much as
a fast gunslingers attracted challengers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C40C7FB4162...@216.168.3.70...
Up to and including the latest Batman movie, DARK KNIGHT.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken Arromdee
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Somewhere between grim and gritty and beloved masked vigilante is a happy
>medium that THE CLOSER, LAW & ORDER, COLD CASE, etc. and various other
>modern police procedurals seem to handle with being saccharinly maudlin nor
>obnoxiously bleak.
Modern police proecdurals are on a much smaller scale than typical superhero
battles. I would also bet that most modern police procedurals have an
occasional killing of a criminal by police anyway.
>Ironically your sig would be a demonstration of that point, given modern
>ethical problems the drama would be having superheroes struggling to
>maintain principled morality.
>
>IOW, writing a story where villains are not principled but heroes still are.
The point of my signature is that it doesn't make sense to write a story
where superheroes do standard superhero things and fail miserably.
Superheroes only do these things because they work; in a world where they
don't work, superheroes wouldn't do them.
This does indeed apply to stories of unprincipled villains, but not in the
way you're saying. What it means is that it only makes sense for superheroes
to never kill villains if the world is set up so that you can avoid killing
villains but still protect the public.
If your villains are deadly, you've already violated that premise. If
your villains are even real-world, you've violated that premise. If your
villains are the Silver Age type who'll build a million dollar robot in order
to rob a bank but would never hurt anyone, you're okay, but we don't
usually consider that kind of story good writing any more.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
Ken Arromdee
>> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them. This
>That's when superheroes team up, just like local cops
But these are exceptions and not how the superhero's fight typically goes.
Batman fights the Joker. Superman fights Darkseid. If the Joker attacked
the Daily Planet Superman would catch him in three panels, and if Darkseid
attacked Gotham, it would be rubble before you could say "Batman plans
for everything".
>> there aren't any supervillains in cities that don't have superheroes.
>What proof is there of that negative?
It's not true that it's impossible to prove a negative, and at any rate,
that's not an absolute statement. There certainly aren't a whole lot of
supervillains with big schemes that affect millions of people in cities
without superheroes--otherwise we'd hear about them.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I'm not sure I agree; what you seem to be saying is Idealism Doesn't
Work, and if the villains are genuinely evil, then the heroes *have* to
break a few rules themselves. The Joker can be a genuine threat to the
public and still be stopped by a swift uppercut.
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In article <1pudnX2zBpU1Ps_X...@giganews.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>It's that genre conventions are that
>>> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them.
>>> This
>>That's when superheroes team up, just like local cops
>
> But these are exceptions and not how the superhero's fight typically
> goes. Batman fights the Joker. Superman fights Darkseid. If the
> Joker attacked the Daily Planet Superman would catch him in three
> panels, and if Darkseid attacked Gotham, it would be rubble before you
> could say "Batman plans for everything".
That's not how any of the Joker-in-Metropolis stories I've read went
down.
And Superman's villains aren't all Darkseids and Brainiacs. Lex Luthor is
the flipside of Batman's Crimefighting With Cash, Toyman makes explosive
toys, and the Prankster is, well, a psychotic practical joker (now, why
does that sound familiar?) And they all give Superman a run for his
money.
Ken from Chicago
> In article <1pudnX2zBpU1Ps_X...@giganews.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>It's that genre conventions are that
>>> superheroes always magically get a set of foes appropriate for them.
>>> This
>>That's when superheroes team up, just like local cops
>
> But these are exceptions and not how the superhero's fight typically goes.
> Batman fights the Joker. Superman fights Darkseid. If the Joker attacked
> the Daily Planet Superman would catch him in three panels, and if Darkseid
> attacked Gotham, it would be rubble before you could say "Batman plans
> for everything".
1) Villains often don't attack heroes that are way more powerful than said
villains because of simple common sense--not that villains are always
rational. Joker has attacked Superman, or at least operated in Metropolis.
Then again, Superman's main archfoe is Lex Luthor, someone without any super
powers--and in various incarnations, lacking massive wealth.
2) Batman has often fought villains who are way more powerful than him. It's
common enough as to be cliche where Batman, or Robin, depowered Storm, or
whatever UNpowered hero rescues the superpowered teammates in a supergroup
because the villain in question underestimated them.
3) That all said, yeah, villains tend to seek out heroes of comparable
levels because yeah, either they would be easily beaten by said overpowerful
heroes or they don't consider the underpowerful heroes to be a "challenge".
Natch, those tend to be different from villains who do NOT attack heroes but
are going about committing crimes and heroes happen to get in the way.
>>> there aren't any supervillains in cities that don't have superheroes.
>>What proof is there of that negative?
>
> It's not true that it's impossible to prove a negative, and at any rate,
> that's not an absolute statement. There certainly aren't a whole lot of
> supervillains with big schemes that affect millions of people in cities
> without superheroes--otherwise we'd hear about them.
But that often happens--in flashbacks or in the backgrounds of villains.
Often they show up having committed a series of crimes and just now bump
into a hero or a hero eventually hears about a villain or law enforcement
calls in a hero to take on a villain.
IOW, how often is a villain's debut the first time a villain actually is
commiting crimes, outside of their origin story (e.g., Evil Giant Man is hit
by a meteor and grows and stumbles thru town)?
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a
> realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
> is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
> buildings."
-- Ken from Chicago
Michael Wood
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C41CADCC6AEEda...@130.133.1.4...
I agree with you Dave. Even in the real world, there are idealistic cops who
believe that you use the minimal force necessary to stop a villain, that
might doesn't make right, that their job is to uphold the law, not take
justice into their own hands.
I can easily imagine a world where the super-heroes face real nasty bad guys
but maintain their own inner goodness. Surely that is what I WANT to read
about?
Michael Wood
Ken Arromdee
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure I agree; what you seem to be saying is Idealism Doesn't
>Work, and if the villains are genuinely evil, then the heroes *have* to
>break a few rules themselves. The Joker can be a genuine threat to the
>public and still be stopped by a swift uppercut.
The fact that you can knock out someone with no chances of grave injury from
the concussion is another example of comic book unrealism making the fight
less lethal. Perhaps you could catch him with a rope or net, but the fact
that ropes and nets work as well as more lethal means is also comic book
unrealism. There's a reason why police don't go to a bank robbery armed
only with Bat-ropes.
Ken Arromdee
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>2) Batman has often fought villains who are way more powerful than him. It's
>common enough as to be cliche where Batman, or Robin, depowered Storm, or
>whatever UNpowered hero rescues the superpowered teammates in a supergroup
>because the villain in question underestimated them.
Since the story is, after all, a story, the writer can have Batman defeat
anyone he wants. But there's a reason why overpowered villains are not
usually part of Batman's regular rogues' gallery--making the Batman versus
Darkseid fight work requires a lot of contrivances. What if Darkseid didn't
underestimate him and decided to just kill him?
>3) That all said, yeah, villains tend to seek out heroes of comparable
>levels because yeah, either they would be easily beaten by said overpowerful
>heroes or they don't consider the underpowerful heroes to be a "challenge".
>Natch, those tend to be different from villains who do NOT attack heroes but
>are going about committing crimes and heroes happen to get in the way.
It's not a question of seeking out. Most of the time a superhero's villains
originate in the superhero's city, or initially attack in that superhero's
city.
Ken Arromdee
Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>I agree with you Dave. Even in the real world, there are idealistic cops who
>believe that you use the minimal force necessary to stop a villain, that
>might doesn't make right, that their job is to uphold the law, not take
>justice into their own hands.
Idealistic cops believe in use of minimal force, not "no killing ever". I
think that many of them, if faced with Darkseid, would agree that Darkseid
should be killed.
Furthermore, in real life, cops don't run into armed criminals that much
and could go for years without having to use a gun. An idealistic cop
who ran into one dangerous criminal a week would probably end up having
to kill one fairly soon.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In article <Xns9C41CADCC6AEEda...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I'm not sure I agree; what you seem to be saying is Idealism Doesn't
>>Work, and if the villains are genuinely evil, then the heroes *have*
>>to break a few rules themselves. The Joker can be a genuine threat to
>>the public and still be stopped by a swift uppercut.
>
> The fact that you can knock out someone with no chances of grave
> injury from the concussion is another example of comic book unrealism
> making the fight less lethal. Perhaps you could catch him with a rope
> or net, but the fact that ropes and nets work as well as more lethal
> means is also comic book unrealism. There's a reason why police don't
> go to a bank robbery armed only with Bat-ropes.
Well, sure, but if you're taking it to that level, the fact there's a man
running around in a bat-costume stopping criminals is *also* an example
of comic book unrealism. I don't think I believe in a "realistic"
superhero world in the sense you seem to mean.
You said "Superheroes only do these things because they work; in a world
where they don't work, superheroes wouldn't do them". And, while I think
of myself as pretty idealistic, I can't help thinking that in a totally
realistic world *being a superhero* doesn't work.
But I'm not clear why you can't have a world where the villains are
deadly, but the idealistic-heroic methods of stopping them *do* work.
Ken Arromdee
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>But I'm not clear why you can't have a world where the villains are
>deadly, but the idealistic-heroic methods of stopping them *do* work.
Well, technically you could... but there are two problems: First, there
are other unrealistic elements in comics which work against that--in a comic,
whenever the hero catches the killer, the killer's going to escape a few
months later and kill some more people. Second, if you do that, the
reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a meaningful statement about real
world morality.
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <Xns9C43CC92CD0BEda...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>> But I'm not clear why you can't have a world where the villains are
>> deadly, but the idealistic-heroic methods of stopping them *do* work.
>
> Well, technically you could... but there are two problems: First,
> there
> are other unrealistic elements in comics which work against that--in
> a comic, whenever the hero catches the killer, the killer's going to
> escape a few months later and kill some more people.
Something that can happen in the real world. Escaping prisoners that kill
again. Even those that have served their term can.
> Second, if you
> do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a meaningful
> statement about real world morality.
I don't think every cop in the real world, when faced with such an escaped
criminal, has the all consuming urge to go all Chuck Bronson on him.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In article <Xns9C43CC92CD0BEda...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>But I'm not clear why you can't have a world where the villains are
>>deadly, but the idealistic-heroic methods of stopping them *do* work.
>
> Well, technically you could... but there are two problems: First,
> there are other unrealistic elements in comics which work against
> that--in a comic, whenever the hero catches the killer, the killer's
> going to escape a few months later and kill some more people.
Yes, if they're intended as recurring villains. But the Joker, say, is
going to be a recurring villain even if Batman is a gun-toting vigilante
determined to stop this psycho whatever it takes.
So if Batman's attempting to kill, rather than capture, the Joker, he has
to *completely fail*, allowing the Joker to get away scot free and kill
some more people.
You're not going to get a story where the Joker is finally stopped once
and for all, whatever Batman decides to do.
> Second,
> if you do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a
> meaningful statement about real world morality.
Which seems to lead back to my statement that superhero books are
*inherently* unrealistic, and the only way to make them reflect the real
world, if that's important, is to remove the superheroes altogether.
Ken Arromdee
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Well, technically you could... but there are two problems: First,
>> there
>> are other unrealistic elements in comics which work against that--in
>> a comic, whenever the hero catches the killer, the killer's going to
>> escape a few months later and kill some more people.
>Something that can happen in the real world. Escaping prisoners that kill
>again. Even those that have served their term can.
Not like in comic books. I defy you to point to a real life criminal that
has gotten out to kill anywhere near as many times as the Joker has.
>> Second, if you
>> do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a meaningful
>> statement about real world morality.
>I don't think every cop in the real world, when faced with such an escaped
>criminal, has the all consuming urge to go all Chuck Bronson on him.
Cops in the real world are faced with regular criminals, not supervillains,
and (at least when it comes to criminals that hurt other people) run into
them only rarely, not once a day or week.
Ken Arromdee
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Second,
>> if you do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a
>> meaningful statement about real world morality.
>Which seems to lead back to my statement that superhero books are
>*inherently* unrealistic, and the only way to make them reflect the real
>world, if that's important, is to remove the superheroes altogether.
But it seems a lot of the people who want superheroes not to kill are basing
this on some idea of real-world morality. It's not just "I don't want to
see stories where superheroes kill", it's "superheroes can show that there
are other ways" or "superheroes should be about the best in people" or
something like that.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In article <Xns9C4481B123627da...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Second,
>>> if you do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a
>>> meaningful statement about real world morality.
>>Which seems to lead back to my statement that superhero books are
>>*inherently* unrealistic, and the only way to make them reflect the
>>real world, if that's important, is to remove the superheroes
>>altogether.
>
> But it seems a lot of the people who want superheroes not to kill are
> basing this on some idea of real-world morality. It's not just "I
> don't want to see stories where superheroes kill", it's "superheroes
> can show that there are other ways" or "superheroes should be about
> the best in people" or something like that.
Interesting point.
I think I'm idealistic enough to prefer heroes (I'm suspicious about the
word "should") who represent the best in people. But at the same time I'm
cynical enough to consider this to be quite possibly inherently
unrealistic.
Where I think we differ is that I don't consider this to be a *problem*
as such. (At least, not a problem with the comics; if anything, it's a
problem with reality...)
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <4a57223c$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> Well, technically you could... but there are two problems: First,
>>> there
>>> are other unrealistic elements in comics which work against that--in
>>> a comic, whenever the hero catches the killer, the killer's going to
>>> escape a few months later and kill some more people.
>> Something that can happen in the real world. Escaping prisoners that
>> kill again. Even those that have served their term can.
>
> Not like in comic books. I defy you to point to a real life criminal
> that has gotten out to kill anywhere near as many times as the Joker
> has.
/Quantity/ ...
Regular criminals? No.
Besides, most criminals are either dead or retired once they reach the
Joker's age. ;-)
>
>>> Second, if you
>>> do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a meaningful
>>> statement about real world morality.
>> I don't think every cop in the real world, when faced with such an
>> escaped criminal, has the all consuming urge to go all Chuck Bronson
>> on him.
>
> Cops in the real world are faced with regular criminals, not
> supervillains, and (at least when it comes to criminals that hurt
> other people) run into them only rarely, not once a day or week.
The difference being the danger level you mean?
Ken from Chicago
It's the ease of villains escaping from prison that's unrealistic. Police
routinely counter lethal criminals with nonlethal force--tho they are
willing to use lethal force, it's not their first option (at least for the
overwhelming majority).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> In article <Xns9C4481B123627da...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Second,
>>> if you do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a
>>> meaningful statement about real world morality.
>>Which seems to lead back to my statement that superhero books are
>>*inherently* unrealistic, and the only way to make them reflect the real
>>world, if that's important, is to remove the superheroes altogether.
>
> But it seems a lot of the people who want superheroes not to kill are
> basing
> this on some idea of real-world morality. It's not just "I don't want to
> see stories where superheroes kill", it's "superheroes can show that there
> are other ways" or "superheroes should be about the best in people" or
> something like that.
"Grim and gritty" and "lethal" are not synonymous. JOHNNY QUEST and a lot of
cartoons in the 1960s had the villain killed--or die in "inescapable" bombs
/ traps / beasts / monsters / etc. Of course back then they had goodly sense
to not have said archvillains showing up every other week, but actual create
more villains so if said archvillains returned it truly was an Event.
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a
> realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
> is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
> buildings."
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "Ken Arromdee" <arro...@violet.rahul.net> wrote in message
> news:h37k6u$8c6$2...@blue.rahul.net...
> > In article <Xns9C4481B123627da...@130.133.1.4>,
> > Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> Second,
> >>> if you do that, the reluctance of the heroes to kill can't be a
> >>> meaningful statement about real world morality.
> >>Which seems to lead back to my statement that superhero books are
> >>*inherently* unrealistic, and the only way to make them reflect the real
> >>world, if that's important, is to remove the superheroes altogether.
> >
> > But it seems a lot of the people who want superheroes not to kill are
> > basing
> > this on some idea of real-world morality. It's not just "I don't want to
> > see stories where superheroes kill", it's "superheroes can show that there
> > are other ways" or "superheroes should be about the best in people" or
> > something like that.
>
> "Grim and gritty" and "lethal" are not synonymous. JOHNNY QUEST and a lot of
> cartoons in the 1960s had the villain killed--or die in "inescapable" bombs
> / traps / beasts / monsters / etc. Of course back then they had goodly sense
> to not have said archvillains showing up every other week, but actual create
> more villains so if said archvillains returned it truly was an Event.
Dr. Syn says "hello"
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Michael Wood
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v9adnYMefZbYJcTX...@giganews.com...
Exactly Ken. In the real world, law enforcement uses lethal force as a last
option. Cops who execute people (which is what is being advocated) are
something that police forces react very strongly too, unless they are
actually not cops but government thugs and assassins.
It seems that many people are advocating that Batman make the personal
decision to kill the Joker, as an example. In a "realistic" world, hunting
down Batman would jump to priority number one. Like a rogue tiger, a
vigilante with a taste for man is not going to stop with just one. Sooner or
later there will be a cop, or a child who gets in the way, and the decision
will be made for the "greater good".
That's the difference between a super-hero and a vigilante. The difference
between Batman and Punisher. You may also note that the Punisher only ever
kills forgetable villains. Fisk is still breathing, as is Doom, the Red
Skull and so on.
Michael Wood
Ken Arromdee
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Grim and gritty" and "lethal" are not synonymous. JOHNNY QUEST and a lot of
>cartoons in the 1960s had the villain killed--or die in "inescapable" bombs
>/ traps / beasts / monsters / etc. Of course back then they had goodly sense
>to not have said archvillains showing up every other week, but actual create
>more villains so if said archvillains returned it truly was an Event.
Having a villain die in a trap is a common excuse in not only comics, but
in action movies and similar. The comic (or whatever) doesn't want to show
the hero killing, yet it also doesn't want to show the consequences of
refusing to kill. So they make the villain conveniently get killed under
circumstances where the hero isn't to blame.
That's not even just the standard unrealism of comics. It's something
*specifically made unrealistic just so the hero doesn't have to kill*.
Of course the herio can avoid killing if the book does that.
--
Ken Arromdee
Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>> It's the ease of villains escaping from prison that's unrealistic. Police
>> routinely counter lethal criminals with nonlethal force--tho they are
>> willing to use lethal force, it's not their first option (at least for the
>> overwhelming majority).
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>Exactly Ken. In the real world, law enforcement uses lethal force as a last
>option. Cops who execute people (which is what is being advocated) are
>something that police forces react very strongly too, unless they are
>actually not cops but government thugs and assassins.
In the real world, nonlethal force is useful most of the time, but
occasionally it's not. If real police officers faced criminals as often
as Batman does, the police officer would end up having to kill someone
fairly soon.
And Batman's code against killing isn't "I'll never kill anyone, unless it's
a last resort".
>It seems that many people are advocating that Batman make the personal
>decision to kill the Joker, as an example. In a "realistic" world, hunting
>down Batman would jump to priority number one. Like a rogue tiger, a
>vigilante with a taste for man is not going to stop with just one. Sooner or
>later there will be a cop, or a child who gets in the way, and the decision
>will be made for the "greater good".
If Batman can stop himself when it comes to beating people up, why can't
he stop himself when it comes to killing? We don't say "a vigilante with
a taste for beating up people is not going to stop with just one. Sooner or
later, he'll beat up a cop, or a child, who gets in the way...."
>That's the difference between a super-hero and a vigilante. The difference
>between Batman and Punisher. You may also note that the Punisher only ever
>kills forgetable villains. Fisk is still breathing, as is Doom, the Red
>Skull and so on.
The Punisher only kills forgettable villains because of meta-reasons related
to keeping the villain marketable. This has no bearing on anything in-story.
whoswhoz
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <fr-dnUjd1b5jJ8TX...@giganews.com>,
>Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Grim and gritty" and "lethal" are not synonymous. JOHNNY QUEST and a lot of
>>cartoons in the 1960s had the villain killed--or die in "inescapable" bombs
>>/ traps / beasts / monsters / etc. Of course back then they had goodly sense
>>to not have said archvillains showing up every other week, but actual create
>>more villains so if said archvillains returned it truly was an Event.
>
>Having a villain die in a trap is a common excuse in not only comics, but
>in action movies and similar. The comic (or whatever) doesn't want to show
>the hero killing, yet it also doesn't want to show the consequences of
>refusing to kill. So they make the villain conveniently get killed under
>circumstances where the hero isn't to blame.
>
>That's not even just the standard unrealism of comics. It's something
>*specifically made unrealistic just so the hero doesn't have to kill*.
>
>Of course the herio can avoid killing if the book does that.
I dunno. It's a standard motif that goes back at least as far as Dick
Tracy. The villain is done in by his own villainy, caught in his own
trap, hoist on his own petard. It's Fate, Justice, a higher order of
the unverse righting things back to their natural course.
Given the fact that the US Constitution forbides the summary execution
of criminals and preserves for every one the right of a jury trial,
the only way to rush to the villain dying conclusion is to have the
villain fall into his own trap.
You don't like it, move to some fascist dictatorship where the police
just gun down people they don't like in the streets.
M.O.R
When Dick Tracy took out a gangster, they never came back cos he
killed em straight out. But Tracy was a detective, working for the
police, and legally carrying a gun. That he was allowed shoot
criminals was entirely part of the job. Okay, that he killed so many
would be of concern to most modern day chiefs of police, but times
were different. I suppose more innocent, in many respects. They
would not have had asked the questions of law enforcement that we, as
a generation would ask. No matter what country one lives in, most
would undoubtedly have questions or concerns about law enforcement due
to significant cases of corruption at all levels, so if we were to see
so many gangsters get killed, especially by one person, there would be
a lot of questions being asked.
But again, Tracy was employed by Law enforcement.
Batman is answerable to no authority, despite having support from many
in the Gotham police force. He cannot legally take a life anymore
than you or I. He is a vigilante, plain and simple. If he took a
life, he would be a murderer, and would undoubtedly be tracked down by
the police.
whoswhoz
<pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
>
>When Dick Tracy took out a gangster, they never came back cos he
>killed em straight out. But Tracy was a detective, working for the
>police, and legally carrying a gun.
Tracy didn't kill gangsters. You've obviously never read the strip.
That he was allowed shoot
>criminals was entirely part of the job.
Cops aren't allowed to shoot criminals. They get in lots of trouble
for doing that. Tons of paper work . Susepensions. Investigations.
>
>Batman is answerable to no authority, despite having support from many
>in the Gotham police force. He cannot legally take a life anymore
>than you or I. He is a vigilante, plain and simple. If he took a
>life, he would be a murderer, and would undoubtedly be tracked down by
>the police.
This is a pretty reasonable interpretation.
However, if the DC comics world was real, there is no way that Gotham
State, faced with hordes of murderous criminals that they had no
ability to keep locked up would not have the death penalty. And
insane or not, the Joker would be executed.
I don't think the Joker has ever been executed, but Luthor did get the
electric chair back in Superman 15 or thereabouts. Obviously the
outcome wasn't what was expected. Maybe people on DC Earth never
wanted to risk it again?
Edward McArdle
<783dd4a3-ffa3-4c12...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
"M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
The thing in fiction is *numbers*.
I would imagine that an average investigation is usually longer than an
hour, and over a lifetime the number of investigations would be reasonably
small. In comics and television they happen very quickly, and often.
(I believe the actual numbers of serial killers is minuscule, but they are
all over the place like mice in television. Psychopaths and Sociopaths are
much more common, but they mostly have enough sense not to do things that
would get them in trouble.)
Joker has been appearing on a regular basis since 1938, and in that time
he has killed an enormous number of people. In real life he would not be
as much of a problem, as he would be over a hundred years old. The mistake
with Joker was first in making him such a copious killer, and secondly in
using him so often. The other oddballs like Penguin, Riddler and co. are
hardly used in comparison. The writers don't seem to have the creativity
of the first writers.
--
Edward McArdle
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In article <uBG6m.4726$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>>That's the difference between a super-hero and a vigilante. The
>>difference between Batman and Punisher. You may also note that the
>>Punisher only ever kills forgetable villains. Fisk is still breathing,
>>as is Doom, the Red Skull and so on.
>
> The Punisher only kills forgettable villains because of meta-reasons
> related to keeping the villain marketable. This has no bearing on
> anything in-story.
I thought we were looking at meta-reasons, though. Heroes typically face
broadly compatable villains (your original point, IIRC) for meta-reasons
related to the story not being over in three panels...
Michael Wood
True Ken, but everything being discussed here is meta-reasons. The arguments
swing back and forth between meta-, in-story, philosophical and moral. We
are all mixing and matching.
There is no in-story reason why our villains can't be villainous and our
heroes paragons. All those arguments are meta.
And as for beating up people, I think the argument stands. Someone who
reacts with extreme violence toward criminals will be viewed as someone who
will potentially beat an innocent person, someone who disagrees with them or
someone who is trying to stop them.
In Oz we just had a footballer step away from the game because of a history
of on-field violence that he can't explain. He is removing himself to get
help before he does someone some serious damage. You kill anyone on the
street and the cops will make you a priority. They might thank you for the
work but they will not allow you to walk free. It also undermines them as an
authority.
Michael Wood
Ken from Chicago
True there are meta reason why villains seek out heroes there own level--but
again, it's also fairly plausible within the story itself, depending on the
type of villains in question, of which they can be categorized into two
groups:
1) Villains who seek out to defeat heroes.
2) Villains who don't.
The first kind villains tend to avoid much weaker heroes as they are little
if any challenge (altho they might just for sport, practice, warming up, to
lure out "bigger game") as well avoid much more powerful heroes to avoid
being defeated (tho not always, sometimes they have delusions of grandeur,
or a major power boost). They are like hunters or athletes or chess players,
etc., you seek out opponents of comparable, or slightly higher level for a
good workout while avoiding a blowout.
The second kind of villains are doing their own thing and merely bump into
whatever heroes are nearby, if any, who are weaker, comparable or stronger
power levels. Often in comics these villains often "just happen" to bump
into heroes of comparable power levels--tho often have defeated much weaker
heroes, leaving a trail of destruction, which heightens the tense for when
they finally do come across a comparably powered hero.
Just because there may be meta reasons for events occurring doesn't mean
there aren't logical, plausing in-story reasons as well.
-- Ken from Chicago (who does agree Joker has been way overused, like cylon
space attacks in BSG:TOS; that his appearances should be much rarer, and
thus more menacing, like cylon space attacks in BSG:TNS)
Ken from Chicago
"Michael Wood" <no-...@home.comj> wrote in message
news:25_6m.4913$ze1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Yes, and I would argue there are meta reasons why heroes should be paragons,
at least some of them, simply because it's simply boring to paint every hero
with the grim and gritty brush. If every hero is an anti-hero, then that
defeats the point.
> And as for beating up people, I think the argument stands. Someone who
> reacts with extreme violence toward criminals will be viewed as someone
> who will potentially beat an innocent person, someone who disagrees with
> them or someone who is trying to stop them.
Agreed. It's one thing to use physical force to stop a criminal, but then to
go on to beat them up, whether it's lethal or not, that's basically acting
as judge, jury and executioner in one. Sure, some people would cheer that
on, others would not, and rightly so, for a simple reason:
What if the vigilante makes a mistake?
It's said every conservative is a liberal who's just been robbed but that
every liberal is a conservative who's been FALSELY arrested. Where does one
get compensation if one is mistakenly attack? How can one trust the
vigilante's say so, especially if vigilante's identity is unknown?
> In Oz we just had a footballer step away from the game because of a
> history of on-field violence that he can't explain. He is removing himself
> to get help before he does someone some serious damage. You kill anyone on
> the street and the cops will make you a priority. They might thank you for
> the work but they will not allow you to walk free. It also undermines them
> as an authority.
>
> Michael Wood
Old saying: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Thrice is a pattern.
KEEP showing up killing people and law enforcement will definitely make you
a priority even if each death is ostensibly justified, they will get
suspicious and investigate.
-- Ken from Chicago
Lilith
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Old saying: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Thrice is a pattern.
I thought "thrice is enemy action."
--
Lilith
Mike B
I think it's more like (from memory):
"There's an old saying, Mr. Bond. The first time is happenstance.
The second time is coincidence. The third time is enemy action."
--Auric Goldfinger
In fact, I believe "Happenstance" "Coincidence" and "Enemy Action"
form the three parts of the novel GOLDFINGER by Fleming.
--Mike Blake
Ken Arromdee
What if the vigilante makes a mistake beating people up? Does that mean
vigilantes in comics should never beat people up?
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <i_qdnSJ8bNZRPcDX...@giganews.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
I see you have snipped the following /essential/ part:
"It's one thing to use physical force to stop a criminal, but then to
go on to beat them up, whether it's lethal or not, that's basically acting
as judge, jury and executioner in one. Sure, some people would cheer that
on, others would not, and rightly so, for a simple reason:"
>> What if the vigilante makes a mistake?
>
> What if the vigilante makes a mistake beating people up? Does that
> mean vigilantes in comics should never beat people up?
You've have several phases here:
1. criminal commits a crime
2. hero / vigilante is on the case and locates the criminal
3. hero stops the criminal
It could stop here!
Should there really be:
4. vigilante beats up the criminal??
The vigilante hero would say that point 3 is the end. He or she has done the
job. It is up to the justice system for further steps.
The vigilante anti-hero might very much enjoy 4.
I think that's what Chicago Ken means.
Ken from Chicago
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
news:4a5e14cb$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
You win the principled, tho imperfect, but striving to be its best, super
kewpie doll!
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken Arromdee
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You win the principled, tho imperfect, but striving to be its best, super
>kewpie doll!
If that's what you meant, then it doesn't make sense. When I talk about
beating criminals up, I'm not referring to catching them and beating them
up afterwards. I'm talking about things like beating them up to get
information, beating them up because they're guarding the target's lair,
beating them up so you can take some vital thing they've got, etc.
Superheroes do these routinely, under circumstances that in real life would
make them illegal assault and battery, and never beat up a person by mistake
unless it's a criminal who deserves it anyway.
Eminence
<pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
Which (shifting gears slightly) leads us to conclude that Batman will
only be caught if he *wants* to be. He's the goldurned Batman, after
all -- shortly after he gets wind that the cops are after him, the
whole freakin' Batcave disappears. Everyday police just aren't going
to find him.
And that means that Law Enforcement turns to his buddies -- loosely,
the whole superhero community, although Superman, Green Lantern, and
Flash are already overkill -- to hunt him down. (We are stuck with
meta reasons at this point for this particular story not lasting more
than two pages... here's the most obvious: word gets out that Batman's
wanted, and the supervillain community goes after him as well, leaving
about 99.9% of the heroes preoccupied with stopping the villains.)
The recent "Bruce Wayne: Fugitive" storyline notwithstanding, these
are the kinds of developments that not only make the characters
unappealing from a marketing standpoint, but ultimately transform the
shared universe into a more baroque, unrecognizable place to boot
(see, for example, just about any version of Squadron Supreme, or for
that matter, Kingdom Come).
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Wouter Valentijn
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote in message
<snip>
>>
>
> You win the principled, tho imperfect, but striving to be its best,
> super kewpie doll!
Thanks!
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <bamdnRLo9f3E5MPX...@giganews.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> You win the principled, tho imperfect, but striving to be its best,
>> super kewpie doll!
>
> If that's what you meant, then it doesn't make sense. When I talk
> about beating criminals up, I'm not referring to catching them and
> beating them up afterwards. I'm talking about things like beating
> them up to get information, beating them up because they're guarding
> the target's lair, beating them up so you can take some vital thing
> they've got, etc. Superheroes do these routinely, under circumstances
> that in real life would make them illegal assault and battery, and
> never beat up a person by mistake unless it's a criminal who deserves
> it anyway.
I do remember one Spiderman - Wolverine team-up in which Spidey lashed out
and killed a woman. He didn't mean to do so, but it happened anyway.
Anim8rFSK
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > In article <bamdnRLo9f3E5MPX...@giganews.com>,
> > Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> You win the principled, tho imperfect, but striving to be its best,
> >> super kewpie doll!
> >
> > If that's what you meant, then it doesn't make sense. When I talk
> > about beating criminals up, I'm not referring to catching them and
> > beating them up afterwards. I'm talking about things like beating
> > them up to get information, beating them up because they're guarding
> > the target's lair, beating them up so you can take some vital thing
> > they've got, etc. Superheroes do these routinely, under circumstances
> > that in real life would make them illegal assault and battery, and
> > never beat up a person by mistake unless it's a criminal who deserves
> > it anyway.
>
> I do remember one Spiderman - Wolverine team-up in which Spidey lashed out
> and killed a woman. He didn't mean to do so, but it happened anyway.
Spider-Man killed a woman?
Tim Turnip
wrote:
>In article <4a5f5d0b$0$185$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> > In article <bamdnRLo9f3E5MPX...@giganews.com>,
>> > Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> You win the principled, tho imperfect, but striving to be its best,
>> >> super kewpie doll!
>> >
>> > If that's what you meant, then it doesn't make sense. When I talk
>> > about beating criminals up, I'm not referring to catching them and
>> > beating them up afterwards. I'm talking about things like beating
>> > them up to get information, beating them up because they're guarding
>> > the target's lair, beating them up so you can take some vital thing
>> > they've got, etc. Superheroes do these routinely, under circumstances
>> > that in real life would make them illegal assault and battery, and
>> > never beat up a person by mistake unless it's a criminal who deserves
>> > it anyway.
>>
>> I do remember one Spiderman - Wolverine team-up in which Spidey lashed out
>> and killed a woman. He didn't mean to do so, but it happened anyway.
>
>Spider-Man killed a woman?
Yes, technically so, in James Owsley's sort-of-classic Spider-Man Vs.
Wolverine one-shot from 1987. The woman he killed was the mysterious
"Charlie" (Charlemagne), Logan's lover and fellow secret agent. Marked
for death in Berlin by the KGB, she chose to have Wolverine help her
end her life to avoid a worse fate in the Soviet prison camps; Spidey
interrupted, fought Wolverine and inadvertently delivered the final
merciful killing blow. Marvel revisited the story with a What If?
special last year showing what would've happened after that if
Spider-Man and Wolverine stayed in Europe to fight as their own
independent black ops team.
Anim8rFSK
Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeesh
I'd think Parker would hang up the webs after that.
Ken Arromdee
>and killed a woman. He didn't mean to do so, but it happened anyway.
When did that happen, and why isn't there a warrant out for his arrest?
Ken Arromdee
>Wolverine one-shot from 1987. The woman he killed was the mysterious
>"Charlie" (Charlemagne), Logan's lover and fellow secret agent. Marked
>for death in Berlin by the KGB, she chose to have Wolverine help her
>end her life to avoid a worse fate in the Soviet prison camps; Spidey
>interrupted, fought Wolverine and inadvertently delivered the final
>merciful killing blow. Marvel revisited the story with a What If?
>special last year showing what would've happened after that if
>Spider-Man and Wolverine stayed in Europe to fight as their own
>independent black ops team.
Ah. That doesn't count then.
Accidentally killing someone who *should be killed* doesn't really count as
a superhero using violence against the wrong person by mistake. Yeah,
technically it's a mistake, but not in the sense that the superhero's mistake
harmed someone who would otherwise be better off.
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <4a5f5d0b$0$185$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> I do remember one Spiderman - Wolverine team-up in which Spidey
>> lashed out and killed a woman. He didn't mean to do so, but it
>> happened anyway.
>
> When did that happen, and why isn't there a warrant out for his
> arrest?
I see you've seen Tim's post. :-)
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <ndiv55168kq6n7p42...@4ax.com>,
> Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, technically so, in James Owsley's sort-of-classic Spider-Man Vs.
>> Wolverine one-shot from 1987. The woman he killed was the mysterious
>> "Charlie" (Charlemagne), Logan's lover and fellow secret agent.
>> Marked for death in Berlin by the KGB, she chose to have Wolverine
>> help her end her life to avoid a worse fate in the Soviet prison
>> camps; Spidey interrupted, fought Wolverine and inadvertently
>> delivered the final merciful killing blow. Marvel revisited the
>> story with a What If? special last year showing what would've
>> happened after that if Spider-Man and Wolverine stayed in Europe to
>> fight as their own independent black ops team.
>
> Ah. That doesn't count then.
>
> Accidentally killing someone who *should be killed* doesn't really
> count as a superhero using violence against the wrong person by
> mistake. Yeah, technically it's a mistake, but not in the sense that
> the superhero's mistake harmed someone who would otherwise be better
> off.
Should be killed...
In the sense that there's an immediate clear and present danger and the
/only/ way to save innocents or the hero is to kill the villain.
Or:
The hero fancies himself to be a judge that punishes the villain, gratifying
his own inner sadist.
?
Wouter Valentijn
Yep, that's the one.
Parker was tired, annoyed and totally on edge. She manipulated things in
such a manner he struck her, without really realizing it was her.
The image kept on haunting his mind.
Also, in this one show (if I remember correctly) Logan said he knew Spidey
was Peter Parker (or visa versa), because of his smell.
Plus Ned Leeds gets it in that one-shot.
Ken Arromdee
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Ah. That doesn't count then.
>>
>> Accidentally killing someone who *should be killed* doesn't really
>> count as a superhero using violence against the wrong person by
>> mistake. Yeah, technically it's a mistake, but not in the sense that
>> the superhero's mistake harmed someone who would otherwise be better
>> off.
>Should be killed...
>In the sense that there's an immediate clear and present danger and the
>/only/ way to save innocents or the hero is to kill the villain.
>Or:
>The hero fancies himself to be a judge that punishes the villain, gratifying
>his own inner sadist.
This was an example of someone trying to get killed, which is neither of
those. Also, the reason it was good for her to get killed had nothing to
do with either danger to others or punishment.
The idea is that in real life, if you were to go around beating people up
(even if the police ignored you), you'd quickly end up hurting lots of
innocent victims in the ordinary sense. Superheroes do this, and never hurt
any innocent people. And if they can beat people up without beating up
innocents, they can kill without killing innocents.
Nitpicking the definition of "innocent victim" is just using a loophole. A
person who's trying to get killed and who finds death a relief isn't an
innocent victim in the sense "oh, no, he killed an innocent person!" The
story is trying to make the death seem much less bad than the death of a
random pedestrian.
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <4a60b99b$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> Ah. That doesn't count then.
>>>
>>> Accidentally killing someone who *should be killed* doesn't really
>>> count as a superhero using violence against the wrong person by
>>> mistake. Yeah, technically it's a mistake, but not in the sense
>>> that the superhero's mistake harmed someone who would otherwise be
>>> better off.
>> Should be killed...
>> In the sense that there's an immediate clear and present danger and
>> the /only/ way to save innocents or the hero is to kill the villain.
>> Or:
>> The hero fancies himself to be a judge that punishes the villain,
>> gratifying his own inner sadist.
>
> This was an example of someone trying to get killed, which is neither
> of those. Also, the reason it was good for her to get killed had
> nothing to do with either danger to others or punishment.
I was talking about those principles in /general/, not this specific case.
It was a question about the *should be killed* remark. Is it because it is
the only way to stop an immediate danger without any other means available,
or is it because of a personal need?
>
> The idea is that in real life, if you were to go around beating
> people up (even if the police ignored you), you'd quickly end up
> hurting lots of innocent victims in the ordinary sense. Superheroes
> do this, and never hurt any innocent people. And if they can beat
> people up without beating up innocents, they can kill without killing
> innocents.
Only if there is no other way to stop the bad guys! Otherwise they would be
almost as bad as the villains themselves. Maybe even /as/ bad.
There is a *gigantic* difference between 'beating up' and 'killing'.
BTW, what do you think is the more important thing here: The morality of a
situation (killing is bad), or the impunity (they can get away with it)?
>
> Nitpicking the definition of "innocent victim" is just using a
> loophole. A person who's trying to get killed and who finds death a
> relief isn't an innocent victim in the sense "oh, no, he killed an
> innocent person!" The story is trying to make the death seem much
> less bad than the death of a random pedestrian.
But it remains tragic.
It was a suicide-by-Spidey. And the guy to feel sorry for is in this case
Spiderman.
Reminds me of traindrivers who sometimes see people end their lives by
jumping in front of their train.
Michael Wood
> In article <25_6m.4913$ze1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>>> The Punisher only kills forgettable villains because of meta-reasons
>>arguments
>>swing back and forth between meta-, in-story, philosophical and moral. We
>>are all mixing and matching.
>
> sounded like you were saying that since the Punisher only kills
> forgettable
> villains, this shows that killing major villains doesn't work. Unless
> Batman knows he's in a comic book and that he can't kill the Joker because
> of
> the marketing department, this should have no influence whatever on
> Batman's
> actions.
>
>>And as for beating up people, I think the argument stands. Someone who
>>reacts with extreme violence toward criminals will be viewed as someone
>>who
>>will potentially beat an innocent person, someone who disagrees with them
>>or
>>someone who is trying to stop them.
>
> either 1) leads to people suspecting Batman will beat up innocents, or 2)
> Batman actually beating up innocents.
>
> If you're going to assume that masked vigilantes can work at all and not
> descend into being thugs, letting them kill isn't any more of a stretch
> than
> letting them beat up people.
>
>>In Oz we just had a footballer step away from the game because of a
>>history
>>of on-field violence that he can't explain. He is removing himself to get
>>help before he does someone some serious damage. You kill anyone on the
>>street and the cops will make you a priority. They might thank you for the
>>work but they will not allow you to walk free. It also undermines them as
>>an
>>authority.
>
> priority too. Yet this doesn't happen to Batman. And all superhero work,
> lethal or not, undermines the cops as an authority.
> realistic
> story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction
> is
> writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of
> buildings."
The point Ken is that everything that Batman does is for meta reasons
andthat is what this discussion is about. In the "real" world, cops aren't
executioners and vigilantes aren't tolerated.
In comic books, we ahve an idealised world where things can happen that
don't happen in the real world. I don't need to see my comic book heroes
acting like ME under the same conditions.
Michael Wood
Ken Arromdee
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>I was talking about those principles in /general/, not this specific case.
>It was a question about the *should be killed* remark. Is it because it is
>the only way to stop an immediate danger without any other means available,
>or is it because of a personal need?
Neither. It's about story requirements. If the superhero accidentally
kills someone who *according to the story* should be killed, this doesn't
count as an example of superheroes killing the wrong target by accident.
Ken Arromdee
But I'm just applying the same idealization to beating people up and to
killing.
Superheroes beat people up without beating up the wrong person (by the
standards of the story), without becoming addicted to the idea of beating
people up, and without progressing to less and less justified beatings.
Therefore they should be able to kill without killing the wrong person,
becoming addicted to killing, or killing for flimsier reasons.
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <4a60ef8b$0$191$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> I was talking about those principles in /general/, not this specific
>> case. It was a question about the *should be killed* remark. Is it
>> because it is the only way to stop an immediate danger without any
>> other means available, or is it because of a personal need?
>
> Neither. It's about story requirements. If the superhero
> accidentally kills someone who *according to the story* should be
> killed, this doesn't count as an example of superheroes killing the
> wrong target by accident.
Why 'should'?
Ken Arromdee
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Neither. It's about story requirements. If the superhero
>> accidentally kills someone who *according to the story* should be
>> killed, this doesn't count as an example of superheroes killing the
>> wrong target by accident.
>
>Why 'should'?
It would depend on why the writer of the story wrote it that way.
Michael Wood
But surely the point is not even about the characters, but about us. Should
our "super-heroes" routinely take the lives of others?
I say thee "Nay!"
Falsely suspecting someone is a mainstay of mystery writing and slips into
super-hero detectives all the time.
Falsely killing someone is a whole different ballgame, and it will happen.
Michael Wood
Ken from Chicago
"Michael Wood" <no-...@home.comj> wrote in message
news:D7z8m.6057$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The vigilante who's never wrong is unrealistic in-story and boring from
without.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken Arromdee
Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>But surely the point is not even about the characters, but about us. Should
>our "super-heroes" routinely take the lives of others?
This goes back to what I was saying about people wanting to make statements
about the real world. The only reason that nonlethal methods work as well
as lethal methods in the comics is that the genre allows unrealistic things
like car crashes that never hurt anyone, blows to the head that never produce
concussions, nonlethal weapons being much more effective than in real life,
etc. Superheroes' nonlethal nature cannot be about us, since we don't have
the benefit of such things.
>Falsely suspecting someone is a mainstay of mystery writing and slips into
>super-hero detectives all the time.
>
>Falsely killing someone is a whole different ballgame, and it will happen.
Falsely suspecting and falsely using violence aren't the same thing.
Superheroes falsely suspect people a lot, but they don't falsely beat people
up.
Wouter Valentijn
> In article <D7z8m.6057$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>> But surely the point is not even about the characters, but about us.
>> Should our "super-heroes" routinely take the lives of others?
>
> This goes back to what I was saying about people wanting to make
> statements about the real world. The only reason that nonlethal
> methods work as well as lethal methods in the comics is that the
> genre allows unrealistic things like car crashes that never hurt
> anyone, blows to the head that never produce concussions, nonlethal
> weapons being much more effective than in real life, etc.
> Superheroes' nonlethal nature cannot be about us, since we don't have
> the benefit of such things.
>
>> Falsely suspecting someone is a mainstay of mystery writing and
>> slips into super-hero detectives all the time.
>>
>> Falsely killing someone is a whole different ballgame, and it will
>> happen.
>
> Falsely suspecting and falsely using violence aren't the same thing.
> Superheroes falsely suspect people a lot, but they don't falsely beat
> people up.
I'm thinking about the classic Superman vs. Spiderman.
Luthor and Octavius kidnap Lane and Watson, making both heroes into patsy's
(sp?).
Supes and Spidey start to slug it out.
Ken Arromdee
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Falsely suspecting and falsely using violence aren't the same thing.
>> Superheroes falsely suspect people a lot, but they don't falsely beat
>> people up.
>I'm thinking about the classic Superman vs. Spiderman.
>Luthor and Octavius kidnap Lane and Watson, making both heroes into patsy's
>(sp?).
>Supes and Spidey start to slug it out.
Superhero/superhero fights don't have the effects that beating up a
normal person would. The wrongly beaten superhero doesn't go to the
hospital, lose time off from work to heal, or even have any emotional
trauma from being hit by someone who can lift trucks.
Also, comic book stories are specifically contrived for superhero/superhero
fights to happen, so they don't reflect upon superheroes' activity under
normal circumstances.
If you were in the DC or Marvel universe, there is no chance a superhero
would beat you up by mistake, which is really what I'm saying.
Michael Wood
> In article <4a638ebc$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> Falsely suspecting and falsely using violence aren't the same thing.
>>> Superheroes falsely suspect people a lot, but they don't falsely beat
>>> people up.
>>I'm thinking about the classic Superman vs. Spiderman.
>>Luthor and Octavius kidnap Lane and Watson, making both heroes into
>>patsy's
>>(sp?).
>>Supes and Spidey start to slug it out.
>
> Superhero/superhero fights don't have the effects that beating up a
> normal person would. The wrongly beaten superhero doesn't go to the
> hospital, lose time off from work to heal, or even have any emotional
> trauma from being hit by someone who can lift trucks.
>
> Also, comic book stories are specifically contrived for
> superhero/superhero
> fights to happen, so they don't reflect upon superheroes' activity under
> normal circumstances.
>
> If you were in the DC or Marvel universe, there is no chance a superhero
> would beat you up by mistake, which is really what I'm saying.
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
My point exactly. DCU is not our world. It has different rules. I don't see
any reason why we should drag our universes limitations into the DCU
Michael Wood
Ken Arromdee
Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>> If you were in the DC or Marvel universe, there is no chance a superhero
>> would beat you up by mistake, which is really what I'm saying.
>any reason why we should drag our universes limitations into the DCU
If you were in a comic book universe, and a superhero started killing but
was otherwise like a superhero (and I don't mean killing everyone he can get
his hands on, but rather killing in extreme circumstances like a police
officer might), there's no chance he'd kill you (or someone like you) by
mistake, which is what I'm saying. People seem to think that a superhero
who kills would kill their mother by mistake, or would start to develop a
taste for killing like a dog. This won't happen, for the same reason that
it doesn't happen for beating up.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
Michael Wood
> In article <e1Z8m.6317$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>>> If you were in the DC or Marvel universe, there is no chance a superhero
>>> would beat you up by mistake, which is really what I'm saying.
>>My point exactly. DCU is not our world. It has different rules. I don't
>>see
>>any reason why we should drag our universes limitations into the DCU
>
> If you were in a comic book universe, and a superhero started killing but
> was otherwise like a superhero (and I don't mean killing everyone he can
> get
> his hands on, but rather killing in extreme circumstances like a police
> officer might), there's no chance he'd kill you (or someone like you) by
> mistake, which is what I'm saying. People seem to think that a superhero
> who kills would kill their mother by mistake, or would start to develop a
> taste for killing like a dog. This won't happen, for the same reason that
> it doesn't happen for beating up.
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
Except that wouldn't last 5 minutes before some young gun, hot new writer
decided that killing the wrong person would add depth to the story. It is a
slippery slope. And readers find it hard to maintain connection with a
killer,outside of the killing. Imagine James Bond playing with children. It
doesn't sit well. You keep waiting for the bullets to fly.
Michael Wood
Ken Arromdee
Michael Wood <no-...@home.comj> wrote:
>> People seem to think that a superhero
>> who kills would kill their mother by mistake, or would start to develop a
>> taste for killing like a dog. This won't happen, for the same reason that
>> it doesn't happen for beating up.
>decided that killing the wrong person would add depth to the story. It is a
>slippery slope.
Wolverine's been killing for years and I don't yet recall a case where he
killed the wrong person (again, not counting situations where the story
claims that killing the wrong person isn't that bad). I don't recall Conan
ever doing so either.
I also don't recall it happening in Naruto.
>And readers find it hard to maintain connection with a
>killer,outside of the killing. Imagine James Bond playing with children. It
>doesn't sit well. You keep waiting for the bullets to fly.
I think readers find it easy to maintain a connection with Wolverine, Conan,
and Naruto.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic