Who else feels disconnected from the "superheroes" of old?

[cruggero]

What's the gap between "super" and "enhanced"? It feels like superpowers don't ever have a detailed, dare say, plausible explanation. There's also a level of infallibility attached to them. e.g. Superman never shot a eye laser beam thru an innocent. It makes "super" almost untouchable.

Counter to what stories of old like to convey, everything has shades of grey. Nothing's so simple that a person grows up to be the cackling fat man stuck up in a tower with a cigar hanging out his mouth who wants to rule the world. Honestly, there aren't many cut and dry scenarios involving ethical or moral based choices. It's like the kid stealing a loaf of bed because he's starving to death. It's neither moral nor ethical. It's the desperation of survival. Some situations are hard to even put in that kind of light, but superhero stories seem to always find a way. Doesn't seem natural, it's almost counter-intuitive.

 

[Parson]

I think that the appeal of super hero stories is that all of us want to be something more than what we naturally are. Humans and social animals have a yearning to better their circumstances. Each male monkey wants to be the alpha, each human wants to be master of their own fate.

While a male monkey may not be able to realize that his dream is unobtainable most humans believe their's is, unless their is some intervention from somewhere. (Hence we play the lottery, and dream of being the "man of steel.") You could make a case one of the main roles of fiction is to help us fantasize what it would be to be in very different (and therefore better/more interesting/more exciting) circumstances.

 

[cruggero]

Though not strictly, I'd imagine I'm not alone in the notion that stories should inspire. Adhering to that line of thinking, if a story is too fanciful their may be a disconnect between an inspiring quality and what the reader sees as unattainable. Belief is something the individual has to generate. Sure it can be supplied, but maintaining it is wholly individual matter. It's the difference spread from ("What ifs." to "I cans.")

I'm saddened by the thought someone's unimaginative enough to realize their dreams/fantasies/goals. Like the male monkey you referenced. Ultimately humans are the masters of their own fates. It's the power of choice. To enact ones will, hopefully with pure intent. We may have no say in birth, but "fate" is as one deems it. Kant would say "the thing in and of itself". Though I'm unsure that's verbatim.

 

[Mladen]

The point keeps coming up about absolute morality, good vs evil, so I thought I'd just comment, try to put some thoughts together on the topic. Interesting thread btw Cruggero...

I think I struggle with the absolute morality of superheroes because their method of enforcing it, violence, is inherently immoral.

One of few series which seem to understand and properly deal with the consequences of 'moral' thinking and an unbending 'code of ethics' would be Star Trek The Next Generation (and all of the Star Trek series), a show which focuses on diplomacy, where violent action is an absolute last recourse (which is the opposite of Superheroes, whose first recourse is violent action).

TNG takes these heroic characters, and often thrusts them in a dispute situation where they're compelled to intercede on the behalf of a victim, but there is usually no 'correct' course of action.

Do you forcibly displace a settlement along the border between two warring factions, or let them stay and end up violating the terms of a new peace treaty with a larger third party (thus putting many more other lives at risk)?

Do you let a race of pre-industrial people die out in the natural course of their development, or do you interfere (and thus thrust them 1000 years forward into a new society whose advanced society is something they won't be able to integrate into, thus destroying their culture just as quickly).

Do you commit complete genocide against a merciless foe like the Borg, or do you recognise their right as a species, to survive?

If all possible actions are ethically valid but will all cause harm, then which is the 'correct' one? Is inaction the best course of action? These questions seem more fascinating to me than what method will be used by hero to defeat villain's plot.

There's an uncomfortable 'punishment' element in these superhero stories too, where they usually end with the villain getting a thorough beating for their crimes (which I know fans of Frank Miller will understand). When punishment is enforced by an individual, how is that any better than mob-justice? We all have a sadistic urge in us, and to see people who have clearly done a terrible crime punished can be very satisfying, but is this a feeling we want to overcome, or to nurture, as a society? I suppose that everyone will have a different answer there...

For those reasons I don't think these superhero stories are at all helpful allegories to explain morality to children. If anything, it fails to develop that part of them which learns to question the morality of themselves and others, because it teaches them that there is a line between good and bad, and the 'bad' side will announce itself as such. They're left completely unprepared for how to assess the moral reasoning of others and themselves, all they're given is an imperative to punish evil-doers.

 

[Parson]

Though not strictly, I'd imagine I'm not alone in the notion that stories should inspire. Adhering to that line of thinking, if a story is too fanciful their may be a disconnect between an inspiring quality and what the reader sees as unattainable.

I think it is possible for a story to be too fanciful, but I think it pretty hard. Around here we specialize in speculative fiction which requires a very large view of what is possible.

Belief is something the individual has to generate. Sure it can be supplied, but maintaining it is wholly individual matter. It's the difference spread from ("What ifs." to "I cans.")

I'm saddened by the thought someone's unimaginative enough to realize their dreams/fantasies/goals. Like the male monkey you referenced. Ultimately humans are the masters of their own fates. It's the power of choice. To enact ones will, hopefully with pure intent. We may have no say in birth, but "fate" is as one deems it. Kant would say "the thing in and of itself". Though I'm unsure that's verbatim.

I would agree in a limited fashion. Humans do have a large amount of choice, particularly we who reside in the Western World in the modern age. But a lot of what is possible for any one human being has a lot to do with the situation s/he finds him/herself in. There are rare exceptions and people attain what seems to be beyond any rational possibility, but they are exceedingly rare.

However I would totally disagree with the phrase "humans are masters of their own fates." How do we decide who gets cancer? How do we decide who is gifted with coordination that is above 99.99% of the rest of humanity? Either one is likely a life changer, ruling out or in whole categories of possibilities.

We do decide how we will respond to the hand we have been dealt in life, and that response can make a world of difference. While we are not masters of our own fates, neither are we completely defined by our circumstances.

Do not mistake me for saying that we shouldn't strive for greatness or the remarkable. We should. There is a success in striving for greatness that is often achieved even when sometimes the greatness is not.

Malden said: For those reasons I don't think these superhero stories are at all helpful allegories to explain morality to children. If anything, it fails to develop that part of them which learns to question the morality of themselves and others, because it teaches them that there is a line between good and bad, and the 'bad' side will announce itself as such. They're left completely unprepared for how to assess the moral reasoning of others and themselves, all they're given is an imperative to punish evil-doers.

This is solid thinking! It is a step in the right direction if we are trying to raise children with a nuanced sense of morality. The normal Super Hero is generally seen as the good guy looking out for everyone else who is threatened. Which is a moral in itself, but quite an elementary one.

 

[cruggero]

I can't really find anything to disagree with there. It's funny, looking back because I caught myself being a little hypocritical. I know this isn't a critique thread but this line from one my characters will illustrate why.

Context of the excerpt is during a scene where a supporting character points out a pile of junk and asks the protagonist what he sees. Naturally he says junk. The conversation boils down to the support character comparing junk to destiny by saying "destiny's made with the junk you're given" in fewer words.

"Not one for predestination, way I see it. Something’s happen for a reason, some don’t, and some happen because ya don’t stop ‘em or have control to. Destiny ain’t a path you just idly drift down son, it’s a trial. A man can make something of himself with the junk he’s given … worth rememberin’ that."

On a side note the Malden bit is spot on. Ever seen a kid walking around like he was a "power ranger" and just started doing split stance poses as he punched stuff? Simple dynamic to give simple understanding breeds arrogance pertaining to a intricate matter in my view. I don't think my work would be read by children in their early developmental years, or at least I hope not. The "struggling hero" is what I've tired to create. Struggling with himself and others as others struggle alongside him. People helping people. He's in the same boat as everyone else. Not put on some pedestal where people go "oh! look! its a..." and so on. In life, heroes are seldom noticed. And I'm not talking about a soldier gone to war out of high school. I'm talking about people who make the hard choice and walk the road less traveled, take stands. Most importantly, think about others before themselves.

 

[Parson]

I can't really find anything to disagree with there. It's funny, looking back because I caught myself being a little hypocritical. I know this isn't a critique thread but this line from one my characters will illustrate why.

Context of the excerpt is during a scene where a supporting character points out a pile of junk and asks the protagonist what he sees. Naturally he says junk. The conversation boils down to the support character comparing junk to destiny by saying "destiny's made with the junk you're given" in fewer words.

"Not one for predestination, way I see it. Something’s happen for a reason, some don’t, and some happen because ya don’t stop ‘em or have control to. Destiny ain’t a path you just idly drift down son, it’s a trial. A man can make something of himself with the junk he’s given … worth rememberin’ that."

On a side note the Malden bit is spot on. Ever seen a kid walking around like he was a "power ranger" and just started doing split stance poses as he punched stuff? Simple dynamic to give simple understanding breeds arrogance pertaining to a intricate matter in my view. I don't think my work would be read by children in their early developmental years, or at least I hope not. The "struggling hero" is what I've tired to create. Struggling with himself and others as others struggle alongside him. People helping people. He's in the same boat as everyone else. Not put on some pedestal where people go "oh! look! its a..." and so on. In life, heroes are seldom noticed. And I'm not talking about a soldier gone to war out of high school. I'm talking about people who make the hard choice and walk the road less traveled, take stands. Most importantly, think about others before themselves.

I think we've come to agreement here. I would completely agree with the sentiment behind the phrase "a man can make something of himself with the junk he's given." I believe there are no hopeless situations. The only thing that is truly hopeless is people who have stopped trying.

I also resonate with the idea of a hero struggling along with other people. I look forward to reading some of your work. Although it would be the first graphic novel I've ever read.

 

[Mladen]

Haha, just stumbled across this great Calvin & Hobbes strip, seemed very relevant to the conversation we're having now...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_of7mShM5N1g/TMSbl7ehGxI/AAAAAAAACIo/7jNufD5KxE8/s1600/calvin_violence.jpg

 

[Parson]

Very apropos. I miss Calvin and Hobbs!!!

 

[cruggero]

I was very keen to over excessive violence. Violence is graphic in its nature so i felt it best to illustrate it that way, but do so sparingly and not with a lightheartedness. Point of fact, in the second book there's a scene where the protagonist is propositioned by a "pimp" who presents a young woman. At first the protagonist realizes that this is a common trade and simply denies but the "pimp" persists. The protagonist becomes angered by the "pimp's" mention of ownership over the young woman. So he buys her, pays full cost for the woman's release. As he's in the area for "business" nearby the protagonist states in so many words "I'm going in there, and when I come out I better not see my "heft" in your hand and the girl beside you"

(all currency trade is with precious metals hence instead of "cash", "coin", ect. money is referred by weighted slang "heft" "load" "tow" "haul" "weight" ect.)

He comes out of the building to find the "pimp" beating the girl unconscious for actually thinking she could leave. He's perturbed by the events that transpired where he was and is overcome by his emotion. He ends up beating the "pimp" but is remiss as the young woman gains consciousnesses and asks him to stop as it will not help or change the "pimp". AKA It's pointless. He does stop, sees the validity in what the girl says and apologizes to her for what he'd done.

I also took special note that the abilities my protagonist holds are like a "draw last shoot first" reflex. He is very uncomfortable with killing, and only does it if his life is in direct danger "reflexive". Most of the time he simply disarms or disables his enemies. I make strong efforts to break the strict lines of right and wrong or "law". Punishment is not his game.

Nice strip, I think you'll all like on the second script's plot line. Its titled "Duality" if that hints at anything.

 

[cruggero]

I'm not sure if I'd consider him diplomatic. But as I said earlier, a big theme is the protagonist's transition from hate to love. By extension you see his demeanor alter along those lines.

Oh, I had a question for you Mladen.
Hypothetical, you see a "defenseless" person (man/woman/child) being physically assaulted by whomever. Now, there is no means of communication elsewhere; you cannot call the police for example. You go talk to the assailant to stop him, he does. Say's get lost or you're next. You could leave, and that person's fate is in their own hands. Or you could use an adequate amount of violence to stop him, and save that person plus yourself. What to you do?

I see violence as an object. As such I find most objects don't hold any value other than what's defined. However, how you use that object does hold added value. Meaning the moral impact of the object is nonexistent. Where the moral impact lies is in the use, which is defined by the user.

 

[Mladen]

Oh, I had a question for you Mladen.
Hypothetical, you see a "defenseless" person (man/woman/child) being physically assaulted by whomever. Now, there is no means of communication elsewhere; you cannot call the police for example. You go talk to the assailant to stop him, he does. Say's get lost or you're next. You could leave, and that person's fate is in their own hands. Or you could use an adequate amount of violence to stop him, and save that person plus yourself. What to you do?

I see violence as an object. As such I find most objects don't hold any value other than what's defined. However, how you use that object does hold added value. Meaning the moral impact of the object is nonexistent. Where the moral impact lies is in the use, which is defined by the user.

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't agree with the idea that violence is an object. Violence is, by definition, a physical act (against another person's will), with intent to do harm. Violence is an action, and yes, the decision for that action can be based from what a person sees as moral or immoral. In the assailant's mind, their action is moral (maybe they're attacking someone who stole from them, or beating up a child-sex-offender who has served their time... In essence, they're re-enacting the lessons that superhero 'morality' and 'justice' has taught them), in which case I'm imposing MY morality over theirs through the use of force. That is dangerous territory for ANY individual to engage in. This is why we have courts, and mob justice (such as lynchings, vigilantism, etc) are illegal.

Wherever possible, its too powerful an action to be left to the decision of any individual, and it is better to explore all other options available to them. Of course, there are situations where it becomes necessary, as in the situation you described.

I am glad you mentioned that I had the opportunity to exhaust all non-violent options (calling police, yelling at him to leave) before interfering, which is what any normal person would do (or WANT to do, even if their courage failed them).

I am by no means a pacifist, but neither am I a superhero. The first recourse for the superhero is to punch first. Batman wouldn't call the police, he wouldn't offer the assailant a chance to leave, nor would he stay around to console the attacked person (which is something I myself have done before with a stranger, and it was very important to be there with her even as the police took her statements and the ambulance checked on her. Its a psychologically traumatising experience, you CAN'T leave).

What if Batman is flying overhead and sees me attacking this guy while the original victim is running for help? I assume he'd swoop down, knock ME unconscious (probably aim to break some ribs too, for JUSTICE), and fly away again. He also might tie me up and leave me at the police station with a note saying, "this is a criminal. arrest him! love- Batman".

 

[cruggero]

I'm a big fan of diplomacy. I held summer jobs while I was still playing ball at dive bars as a bouncer. Never once got into a ordeal though many were headed that direction. Amazing what talking can do. Violence is never the better solution and I'm no vigilante, but at times I know I can protect myself better than anyone else could. Its good to be defensible as long as you're defensive not proactive.

Ha, one time there was a road rage incident outside my apartment. Some beluga was very angered by a cell phone impaired teen. It got pretty heated quick. No way the police would got there in time. So, I improvised. Grabbed a empty liquor bottle I'd shelved as a tacky decoration and walked out there like I was drunk, acted a fool. The big guy got completely thrown off ... Problem solved.

Any who, as I never get tired of speaking about it and I'm sure you've noticed that. I try to place violence within the story in a negative light, not too glorified. I didn't want to place violence on a pedestal although its somewhat frequent due the story's context. On a number of occasions its downplayed as barbaric and idiotic.

 

[Joseph Gutierrez]

super heroes are from the 1940's

people don't need heroes anymore

 

[Pedro Del Mar]

super heroes are from the 1940's

people don't need heroes anymore

People need heroes more than ever. Children need figures to look to who inspire them. Take any of the athletes from the Olympics or the Paralympics. All heroes in my eyes.

 

[chongjasmine]

I love superheroes. Especially Mighty Thor, Daredevil and Batman.

 

[JoanDrake]

I've seen something similar.

However, in the good old days it wasn't always the fastest draw that walked away.

I seem to recall the people I saw (ages ago) would always be shooting at a target no more than eight feet away. The target never shot back and never dived to the side.

Whereas in a real situation, there's a 'fear factor' to consider. Plus if the fast bloke drew first there was a chance it could be ruled murder in court I believe.

They also seem to have very short barreled guns that could clear the holster quickly.

These would be 'couldn't hit a barn door' accurate at any distance and really only good from one side of a poker table to the other. I suspect most poker gunfights were settled 'under the table' so a fast draw would be of no use there either.

All just opinions of course. Quick Draw McTein I ain't.

It's a matter of some dispute as to whether the "quick draw" specialist ever existed. No less an authority than Louis L'Amour said no, that there was a dueling tradition and this was often mistaken. He also wrote a book called

,The First Fast Draw though, so I think the matter unresolved. What is pretty much beyond dispute is that the old idea of the "fast draw" who wandered the West challenging victims and simply walking away if "the other guy drew first" was mainly a Hollywood creation. The only actual recorded "high noon" type of gunfight was when Bill Hickok killed Bill Mulvey and several versions exist of that.

Most all towns in the West, even more than in the East, forbade the carrying of guns, (the gunfight at the OK Corral was a gun control dispute) and there is some likelihood, (again, much disputed) that the average Westerner was less likely to be armed than he is today.

The only "legendary" fast draw gunman ever recorded, (AFAIK), was Bat Masterson, who could draw and fire in .25 seconds. Sammy Davis Jr was said to be able to beat that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6aNzFYHyz8&feature=player_detailpage

I don't know if its the characters themselves, or the fact that they only work in very simplistic worlds of 'good' and 'evil'. That kind of thing is very dull to me, and when they attempt to transplant these characters into OUR world they cease to function and they come off as ridiculous.

I don't even think its the power or how they acquire it, its the shift from 'having a power' to 'using it for heroics' which always seems contrived to me. Doing the occasional good deed is one thing, dedicating your life to crime fighting (and not as a police officer, so you're ONLY answerable to your own moral code, not to the ethics and laws of the state) seems like a dangerous obsession and completely unheroic to me.

I like Batman well enough, but ever since Grant Morrison mentioned that the character is inherently classist (a wealthy white male crusades to beat up criminals, the desperate lower class, who he openly disdains from his very first appearance in comics), I have trouble with enjoying his stories now. Its unfair to say he has no powers, since his super power is that he's incredibly rich, which allows him the freedom and money to pursue his hobby. Without his billions of dollars, Batman is just Charles Bronson in Death Wish.

Batman, in most of the modern incarnations, is a tortured individual, created by the violent death of his parents as he watched. Given his wealth, a genius IQ and a gifted physicality I find him alone to be a believable and moral character. The others are, IMO, more amoral than the "evildoers" they hunt, since they use their extraordinary talents for nothing more worthy than your average "extreme" athlete, when, in most cases they could cure just about every sort of disease or disability known if they would only submit themselves for study and enable modern science to determine how they functioned.

Harsh stuff Mladen. I can agree to some extent although you have to accept he is a product of the society that spawned him, where being poor and therefore inclined toward the criminal (just to survive: product of the depression and all) would put you in the communist camp and therefore , in the US, fair game for a good kicking; any time day or night.

I myself prefer the hard working stiffs like spiderman who have to grin and bear what fate has dealt them (aging relatives, sad appearance leading to failure in love and zero sex life) and just get on with it.

Also his character allows for him getting a good kicking from the baddies which is always a good thing for a hero to suffer.

The trouble with Batman in my opinion was his inane lack of intelligence and his 'Holier than thou' attitude and his lack of any empathy with the baddies, given his privileged background.

However by far the most stupid part of his biography was the fact he always ended up in a near death situation and was only saved because the baddies couldn't afford the price of a bullet, that would've ended all our misery.

Batman wore a bulletproof breastplate and helmet, possibly greaves and a Kevlar cape as well. I'm not surprised that your average henchman in the midst of a fight would be unable to get off an accurate face shot.