|
Post by zaku on Aug 21, 2022 7:25:09 GMT -5
I felt like writing a few rambling lines after the very interesting discussion on the thread "Nuance and taking a life". There, very interesting things were written about the ethics of taking the life of another human being. But in my opinion the real question is more basic: why does a person (the superhero) choose to put himself in a position to make such choices? Let's summarize the classic concept of superhero (I mean in its meaning of vigilante, not that of secret agent / soldier / policeman but with a flamboyant costume). A person has above average abilities (resources, intelligence, superpowers etc). He decides that the best way to use these skills is to put on a costume and go beating on anyone who doesn't adhere to his personal concept of right or wrong (or save a few kittens from the trees). His personal motivations may vary, but the basic concept is always the same: he thinks that the structures that society entrusts to defend itself (police, firefighters, etc.) are unsuitable for this purpose. So he decides that he must defend his ideal of society, outside the rules and structures of society itself. It is not a discussion you often read on American forums, but in other countries one often wonders why the concept of superhero is so intrinsically American. Yes, other countries have created even successful superheroes, but on average using the more fanciful version of their American colleagues (like pre-Moore Miracleman). There has never been a successful overseas-created superhero patrolling the streets of Paris or Rome to rid them of criminals. And why? Because usually of the attitude in other countries towards their governments: either people think they know how to do their job of maintaining public order, or they think the government doesn't know how to do it. At that point there is a struggle to change the government, they do not want just to act as a substitute for the police. Here then arises the fundamental difference, which is based on American Individualism. The Superhero thinks society is incapable, so he takes care of everything. To do what? Basically to keep the Status Quo. Because, at the end of the day, (removing any supervillains from the scene) a world with superheroes is just identical to a world where law enforcement and firefighters are a little more efficient. Superheroes are reactionaries disguised as revolutionaries. So, in my opinion, this makes superhero ideology fundamentally a fascist ideology. Attention, I don't mean "fascism" as the Americans mean it (which for them is just a synonym for "violent"). I mean in the most political sense of the term: to be convinced that a democratic society is incapable of looking after itself and therefore there is a need for the Strong Man to take care of the weak masses. Here, then, we return to the point of Justified Kills. The problem is not when or why a superhero can kill, the problem is that the superhero has decided to place himself outside the rules of society that have established how to behave in these cases. The justified kills (or not) are simply a corollary to the most important theme in which the hero decides that all the rules do not apply to him and only follows a subset of them that he likes. And only when they are not in the way. In real life we know that it cannot be one man who decides what can be right or wrong. Because? Well, I think this video explains it perfectly. Now, what did the writers come up with to keep Superhero comics from being just a Mussolini's wet dream (as Batman and Superman were basically in the beginning)? They invented supervillains. And convoluted reasons why when Doctor Madness is about to blow up the world only a guy in spandex can stop him. So the superhero genre comes down to a great zero-sum game where superheroes and supervillains cancel each other out, doing nothing to improve society. Because in real life, if one really wanted to use his abilities to make a better world, he would become a policeman, a fireman, a politician. Heck, even a revolutionary if he thinks that society as it is cannot be saved. The most stupid thing would be to put on a costume to dispense the concept of justice of him, because in the end it would be useless, indeed, it would also be harmful. Why try to improve the world we live in if there is already a guy in a costume who thinks of everything? Ok, sorry for the long rant (and any mistakes! English is not my language!). I'd like to hear your opinion on my ruminations
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 21, 2022 8:22:48 GMT -5
It helps to understand the context in which the genre was born. If I may, once again, be permitted to quote myself:
"Dr. Nerod's imaginative solution to the problem of Axis aggression exemplified a theme running all through the comic books of 1940. It appeared again and again: as Superman delivering Hitler and Stalin to the World Court; as Samson and Strongman defeating entire armies with their bare hands; as The Black Ace and his brethren foiling the dastardly designs of hostile nations like Nazilia, Swastikia, Muscovia, Prussland, and Toran; as any number of wish-fulfillment fantasies disposing of the source of America's collective anxiety in 12 action-packed pages. Outside the context of those military strips openly dealing with the war, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were rarely identified by name. Still there was little doubt where the creators stood: Simon and Kirby made the point inescapable in Red Raven Comics #1 when they stripped away the human facade of “Rudolph Hendler” to reveal the satanic features of Pluto beneath. It was no coincidence that so many of the movers and shakers of the industry, both executives and creators, were Jewish. Their justified fear for the fate of their European relatives at the hands of the genocidal Nazi regime was symbolically exorcised again and again through their comics.
The many costumed vigilantes prowling the urban jungle reflected similar anxieties, albeit on a smaller scale. Corrupt politicians, unscrupulous businessmen, and murderous gangsters might grind the average schmoe under their thumbs in real life, but in comic books Batman or The Comet or The Face could impose justice upon them, often with extreme prejudice.
The message was clear: the world had become so corrupt, so dangerous, that nothing less than divine intervention—literally, in some cases—could save us. Before the year was out, super-heroes and mystery-men had come to completely dominate the industry, commanding the covers and lead features of virtually every comic that included one. The appeal was visceral, not intellectual, morally black and white – the hero is always right and the villain deserves whatever grisly fate comes his way. It was a child's solution to events beyond his or her understanding."
-- from American Comic Book Cronicles 1940-44, Chapter 1
Cei-U! I summon the summary!
By the way, Americans--at least those of us with a decent education--do not use "fascist" as a synonym for "violent." We know exactly what fascism is and are alarmed at the current Republican Party's fervent embrace of it.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 21, 2022 9:27:55 GMT -5
I do not believe that most superheroes are ideological fascists. I find the idea that superheroes are fascist to be deeply cynical. I can appreciate and enjoy works like The Watchmen and The Boys, but to me they're an interesting alternative take on superheroes and not explicit truth. I can understand how some people might think superheroes are the manifestation of fascist ideals, but I don't agree with them. Superheroing, what a rough gig. You bust your ass trying to save the world only for someone to accuse you of being a fascist.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 21, 2022 10:55:49 GMT -5
Short story … yes. In the real world behavior like that wouldn’t be tolerated as the ends don’t justify the means. But thankfully its not a problem in the real world. Most people in reality are to selfish to be vigilantes.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Aug 21, 2022 11:04:08 GMT -5
With powers, being both a superhero and and a super villain, are mostly ridiculous compared with what you could do with them otherwise. Now someone like superman might be different when he addresses global or large threats and not fighting crime. But Spider-Man, Batman, Daredevil... patrolling and stopping the random criminal act here in there is a waste.
But these are myths and fairy tales and follow a trope.
Creating global or cosmic threats that only these super powered beings can meet makes it less incredulous.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 21, 2022 11:31:30 GMT -5
Creating global or cosmic threats that only these super powered beings can meet makes it less incredulous. To me, global and/or cosmic threats are boring if it constantly happens. Crisis on Infinite Earths was created to be the last word in that kind of conflict, so it was--for innumerable reasons--fascinating to see even street-level heroes play a part within their limits, but anything afterward was retread, and it becomes as entertaining as watching an After Effects loop of explosions in space. Its the reason the MCU had their bloated "Infinity Saga" and are moving on to yet another "sprawling space epic" with Kang, Galactus and the Skrulls. Yawn. That type of story (in the MCU) was barely tolerable with the Thanos plot, but gearing up to do it a second..third time? Again, yawn.
Despite the arguments of ethics and morality of superheroes imposing their will wherever they choose to fight crime, I still find it more entertaining than removing them from situations where the moral issues / argument means something (in cities which are a reflection of real life cities) instead of an environment where you either cannot relate or grow fatigued at soulless, space-born attack #530,000 from Galactus, Thanos, Kang, the High Evolutionary, et al.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Aug 21, 2022 11:39:32 GMT -5
I said it was less incredulous, not less boring.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 21, 2022 12:01:44 GMT -5
Superheroes are about wish fulfilment. They were born out of the Great Depression, when people felt helpless and governments seemed useless, or corrupt, or ominous. Superman was a wish fulfilment from a nebishy writer, whose father died of a heart attack, during a robbery of his store. He took on war profiteers, wife beaters, gangsters and dictators, in a very Left Wing wish fulfilment mode.
Costumed vigilantes were an extension of pulp fiction, where they were staples, with characters such as Zorro, The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Spider, Operator 5, G-8, The Phantom Detective and such. They grew out of the gang wars of the 1920s, where Prohibition fueled a rise in violent crime, as well as the increased urbanization, brought on by the industrial revolution. Some of those characters were very liberal; but, most, again, were wish fulfilment: wealthy individuals who had the resources to take on the criminals and madmen seeking to destroy or rule. That, in itself, was an extension of Baroness Orczy's The Scarlet Pimpernel, about a British nobleman who rescues victims from revolutionary France. The hero is a wealthy man who masquerades as a fop, but runs an organization of agents and is a master of disguise and tactics, tweaking the noses of French authorities, in the form of Citizen Chauvelin. Upon historical examination, The Scarlet Pimpernel is hardly a heroic figure, as his aim is to rescue the very people who ruled the populace of France with an iron thumb. However, many aristocrats were guilty of nothing more than an accident of birth and there were many victims of the guillotine who were guilty only of ideological differences or political opposition to The Terror.
Superheroes are hardly an American concept; it just took hold in popular culture, in the form we know, after a period of evolution in prose. Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman points a finger directly at the ancestors of the superhero, though Phillip Jose Farmer had been doing that for years, with his Wold Newton shared universe concepts. At the same time, French pulp literature was filled with super criminals and costumed heroes and even superheroes, with the Nyctalope, who debuted in 1911, a generation before Superman.
Within comic strips, figures like Superman existed long before, in various forms. You had Tarzan, The Phantom, Flash Gordon, Prince Valiant, Mandrake the Magician, Popeye, Dick Tracy and many others, who all fed into the look and stories of the early superheroes. Again, their ideological execution depended on the creative team. Siegel and Shuster were more liberal than Bil Finger and Bob Kane's artists, though Finger was mostly swiping from the pulps and film. Batman preyed on criminals and faced bizarre enemies, in a swipe of the gangsters in Dick Tracy.
Supervillains are less a metaphor for a political idea and more a necessity of serialized storytelling. Heroes need villains to fight and heroes in serialized stories need a steady stream of villains to fight, to maintain interest.
Vigilantism, by nature is putting one's self outside the law; but, that was hardly an American concept. There have been self-appointed protectors of society in multiple cultures, whether they were figures of The Church, nobles who exerted influence over their lands, political machines, street gangs, protest groups, moralist groups, missionaries, evangelists, protective societies, tongs, guilds, unions, fraternal orders or what have you.
You also have to keep in mind the various superhero archetypes have different motives. Superman is someone who cannot be bullied by the thugs of the world. Batman is the crusader who is not restricted by the laws that organized criminals hide behind. Zorro is a trickster, thumbing his nose at the corrupt authority, as he sows chaos within, until the people are strong enough to throw off the repressive government. You have the hero's out to avenge the deaths of loved ones. You have swashbuckling adventurers, out for thrills and excitement. You have gimmicks, who may fulfill one or many archetypes, but do so in a colorful manner. Speedsters are the dream of every boy who couldn't run fast enough. Flight is the dream of man watching the birds. Strength the desire of anyone who has done physical labor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 9:45:43 GMT -5
I often have trouble with quoting here, so this is from Zaku:
Couldn’t disagree more. That’s a nihilistic viewpoint. Of course, it’s YOUR viewpoint and I would always defend your right to express an opinion, but that is cynical.
Also from Zaku:
I may agree with some of this, but including a fireman in that is peculiar and doesn’t work for me. Let me explain why.
Firefighters DO make the world better, whether it be fire prevention (which UK fire brigades place a lot of emphasis on) or rescuing people from fires. But if superheroes are about stopping bad guys, that’s a different ball game entirely to firefighting. There aren’t too many crime-fighting firefighters about, one might imagine.
Also, take Clark Kent as an example. As a reporter, and didn’t he talk about this once, he can keep an eye on world events and slip away without the need to explain his absences. What better excuse than chasing a scoop? But now put Clark Kent in a fire crew. He has to man the fire truck. At an incident (a hotel fire, for instance), the fire chief - or whatever rank is present - might instruct him to lay down foam and stay at that point. Well, then you have Clark unable to leave his post. He’s there to lay down foam as ordered to by the fire chief. He can’t fly into a building and rescue anyone. Well, he could, but later on in the firehouse, the fire chief would say, “I ordered you to lay down foam while others were in the burning building. Why did you leave your post?”
Firefighters deserve all the respect we can give them. But a person with super powers can’t go chasing after mad scientists and bank robbers if he’s laying down foam or attending a road traffic accident. Firefighters can be firefighters, but it would seem a waste of Clark Kent’s powers to restrict himself to fighting fires. We can’t all be firefighters. Within the DCU, let great firefighters - human beings - utilise those skills, but let a super-powered man handle the bad guys.
What about your other choice, a politician? Well, yes, one might argue that Bruce Wayne could have devoted his life to running for the Congress or Senate (didn’t he do that in an alternate universe?). Maybe he could have left crime-fighting to the GCPD. At the same time, there are counter-arguments, e.g. the scene in The Untold Legend of the Batman, where Bats mentions (to Gordon) that he isn’t bound by red tape. You could argue that the likes of Batman - or any deputised superhero - are semi-equivalent to black ops units, such as when Christian Bale’s Batman entered Hong Kong to pick up a suspect, something the GCPD could not do.
Everyone is entitled to their view, but it’s sad if a default opinion - of anyone - is that superheroes are fundamentally a fascist ideology. Obviously, Zaku has stated it is his opinion, which is refreshing (I hate it when journalists and politicians state something as if it is fact), but I’d like to believe superheroes are not fundamentally fascist.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 10:25:53 GMT -5
I may agree with some of this, but including a fireman in that is peculiar and doesn’t work for me. Let me explain why. Firefighters DO make the world better, whether it be fire prevention (which UK fire brigades place a lot of emphasis on) or rescuing people from fires. But if superheroes are about stopping bad guys, that’s a different ball game entirely to firefighting. There aren’t too many crime-fighting firefighters about, one might imagine. This is interesting: why anyone with superpowers should be immediately fight crime? Why they can't use their abilities to help other people in different ways? To be a super-doctor for example. Super-volunteer. This is an argument rarely tackled in the superheroes comics published from the Big Two. Yes, Great Powers=Great Responsabilty, but why should this responsibility automatically amount to doing law enforcement work? Let's assume that I want to help my fellowmen in a different way than playing cops and robbers. Does it mean that I am running away from my responsibilities? Or that I am simply a mature person who understands that I can help even without chasing some snatchers? Yep he did. In... (googling) Whom Gods Destroy Let's use the Kantian method to determine if something is ethical: What if everyone did it? Everyone decides that the rules don't apply to them: at that point it's anarchy. Yes, we know we can trust Batman, because, well, he's Batman. But the rules exist for a reason. And virtually all super heroes have decided that they are above the rules. Let's say it's not a fascist concept, but you'll admit it's Nietzschean at least. Well, of course that's my opinion . However I would like to emphasize that I did not say that the superhero itself is a fascist, indeed, many in the comics are depicted as liberals, but the concept behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 10:31:47 GMT -5
Whatever disagreements there may be, I appreciate your post. (I say this not to be sycophantic, but tone, body language and so much else just can’t translate to the written word)
Why should someone with super powers immediately fight crime? That is a good point. I concur with you on that. I mean, Clark Kent could do pretty well as an on-call mountain rescue worker. Wouldn’t begrudge him that. I think of the scene in Superman the Movie (maybe not the theatrical cut), where Jor-El tells Superman that people tend to exploit their resources, and that Superman should not be available 24/7. Or words to that effect.
I do have a limited amount of judo knowledge (it’s rusty!), and I have thought about picking it up again. I was pretty good with it. But that doesn’t mean I should use my skills as a doorman or bodyguard. I’m happy driving.
So, no, I don’t think you are running away from your responsibilities in these hypothetical scenarios. If you woke up with the power of super-strength and flight, well I’d see nothing wrong if you decided your life path should involve a career that does not involve crime-fighting.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 10:55:04 GMT -5
I do have a limited amount of judo knowledge (it’s rusty!), and I have thought about picking it up again. I was pretty good with it. But that doesn’t mean I should use my skills as a doorman or bodyguard. I’m happy driving. Just to add that you are already more qualified than, what, 90% of Golden Age Heroes?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 11:08:00 GMT -5
Also, this: Yes! You see, if we expected everyone to play cops and robbers based on their talents, then we could go down the road of demanding that everyone with a high IQ should become a cop and then specialise as a detective. After all, why waste that high IQ on anything other than being a detective? Naturally, we don’t feel that way, of course.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 11:13:58 GMT -5
Also, this: Yes! You see, if we expected everyone to play cops and robbers based on their talents, then we could go down the road of demanding that everyone with a high IQ should become a cop and then specialise as a detective. After all, why waste that high IQ on anything other than being a detective? Naturally, we don’t feel that way, of course. You know, I would love to read a comics from the Big Two (independent publishers have already done something like that) where someone with superpowers decide he doesn't want to be a superhero (superhero as "supervigilante", because all superheroes are just that) or a supervillain.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 22, 2022 11:14:07 GMT -5
Because, at the end of the day, (removing any supervillains from the scene) a world with superheroes is just identical to a world where law enforcement and firefighters are a little more efficient. Superheroes are reactionaries disguised as revolutionaries. An interesting point. My own suspicion is that superheroes stopped being relevant decades ago, but we imbued them with such rich characterization and continuity that the genre has stuck around as a sort of default. Really, so few non-Batman comics these days are about costumed heroes patrolling and fighting crime. They're more about brightly colored, easily identifiable super-beings who regularly come into physical conflict with one another. I'd argue it's more akin to televised wrestling. And not all Americans view fascism in the way that you apparently think they do. I'd like to believe we are not all of a single, collective group-think.
|
|