We all can't attain a decent family life? Or choose to give a kid one?
Hell, if anything, Superman is the poster child for good parenting.
And really, if the measurement of a superhero is how capable one is of attaining their powers and abilities, then The Punisher must be the greatest character of all time.
Why? Superman has given his abilties to ordinary people before. Hell, there's a type of Kryptonite that can do that. Lex has a battlesuit that can do almost everything Superman can do (and plenty of others). The Parasite is a human that gained the ability to steal Superman's powers. Hank Henshaw was hit by cosmic radiation that gave him not only Superman's abilities, but the power to control machines. There are wizards out there who are handing nice-enough people powers that are direct rip-offs of Superman.
There's a thousand different ways to get superpowers in the DC Universe equal to or close to Superman's abilities if you're determined enough to get them.
So a Super Serum or Green Lantern Ring are more likely to happen?
Then what's stopping them? What baggage does Wonder Woman have? Green Lantern? Captain Marvel? What's stopping them from rescuing cats in trees, helping old ladies cross the road, and doing all the stuff Superman does?
And even then, why is this a zero-sum game? You know what's better than having one superhero that can save me from a fire? Two superheroes that can save me from a fire in case the other one is busy.
You say that like Superman doesn't look out for other planets. There's also the fact that Green Lantern can call for backup. Superman can't.
And a GL is so accountable that whenever a Green Lantern goes evil, they pretty much defect and either become a one-man corp in their own right, start their own corps, or destroy their old one.
[[qutoeblock]]Even Luthor has to be careful with his power, lest he compromise himself.[[/quoteblock]]
Been done. He always gets that power back, and more besides. And when he DOES go full-out evil, he just builds a super-lair and starts making doomsday weapons. So again: what accountability?
Yes, yes. How bad it "could" be. And the point of the character is to show how bad it isn't. It's a point that every "Superman goes evil" alternate reality tends to miss.
edited 16th May '13 2:15:40 PM by KingZeal
I'd say good parenting is more Jonathan Kent's accomplishment. It's the difference between being a good parent and having good parents - the latter is less than a matter of choice. And yes, the Punisher is awesome, though a bit dreary for me. I'm more of a Deadpool guy.
To be honest, I wasn't that aware of the various Green Rocks conferring superpowers. This point is conceded on my part. Still, it makes for a good question why there isn't a Supermen Corps made up by people of human origin. Food for thought.
The issue remains that Superman's moral fiber is a direct product of his heritage and environment. He doesn't ever need to resist temptation, because really, when a guy can make diamonds from lumps of coal with his fists, there's nothing to tempt him with.
In contrast, Luthor really could have been just a regular small time crook. He's had little guidance otherwise, little support from anyone else. It is his drive that makes him unique, his personal ambition to be a Man of Steel in his own way. Alas, Ambition Is Evil , and the aesop appears to be that being born into power makes you good, and gaining it by yourself is the mark of a bad guy. Like I said, in the classical age this would have been accepted with a straight face. But we've come a long way from then, and merit based solely on birthright is hardly respectable today.
In light of this, the main reason Luthor has to be written as selfish and immoral is that if he's allowed to have more ambiguous motives and less extreme actions, he'd become the guy to root for. Morrison put it best - he's a man who dares to challenge a god, fully believing that this god has no moral reason not to blast him into pieces. Now that's inspiring.
So...what I'm getting from people is this rather fatalistic perspective that it's pretty much inevitable for someone to turn out a certain way. It's important to understand what reality holds at a certain point in time for a number of reasons, but also to help people can react, change, or adapt accordingly. Basically what I'm getting is "oh since I wasn't given superpowers and morals" means I can't be a good person. Yes I agree, circumstances make it difficult to change, and in the end it will often boil down to degrees.
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's one of the reasons I find characters like Deadpool so compelling - he's never been given a basis to be heroic, save the idea that he could be. He's had almost no luck, and yet keeps trying at it, at the same time wondering if he's really cut out for the hero thing at all. Even Spidey has shared that notion. He's a saint on Earth, or at least as close as he could get.
Thing is, the superhero ideal is a sort of continuation of old Greek and Arthurian fables, and these were quite fatalistic. They were also quite racist, sexist, and morally skewed from a modern perspective - criticisms that have been raised with regard to comics as well. But since most of Marvel's superheroes were deliberately made less than ideal, they avoid a lot of the critique aimed at the genre. No one wonders why the Fantastic Four don't just take out Doctor Doom - for the most part, they actually can't, and not for lack of trying. And whenever they get a shot, the villain turns to be not so villainous after all, and more of a Well-Intentioned Extremist.
The reason Superman and Batman get so much flak for not finishing off their respective arch-enemies, is that they are indeed much more powerful than them, while there being no chance of redemption on the bad guys' part. And as the bodycount rises, any moral reasoning starts to look shallow, as if these so called heroes have chosen not to save lives, lest they smudge their own rap-sheet.
And? Is having good parents some sort of societal longshot?
Figures. Although by your logic, he should suck because he's a completely unattainable standard. Hell, he's actually worse than most in this regard.
It's been tried often. It tends to end in a super arms race. Or, instead of having one all-powerful demigod to worry about, now you have a few dozen.
Sooooooo...are we going to just ignore every story in which he wasn't raised by the Kents and still became a hero? Such as JLA The Nail, Superman: Speeding Bullets, Superman True Brit, Superman Secret Identity, Superman: Shogun of Steel, et cetera, et cetera. Even Superman Red Son and Superman The Dark Side had a Superman was just misguided.
If we're saying that Superman's morality is completely a result of his upbringing, can I bring those up?
Except that you keep calling Luthor a self-made man. He wasn't. In most continuites, he was born pretty wealthy and acquired the rest of his fortune by exploiting other people. Lex Luthor isn't a good argument here because his ambition is specifically evil. It's not ambition itself that's the problem.
Again, except that Luthor's actions usually directly cause the deaths of innocent people.
Deadpool is an easy character to write. He's "crazy", so there's no bar to strive for. He's an anti-hero, so he can do whatever and it's totally in-character.
The only thing that separates Deadpool from any other Ninties Anti Hero is that he's funny.
I've mentoned before that Batman and Superman should not HAVE to kill off their arch-enemies. The only reason why people give them shit about it is because the government powers in the DCU (you know, the ones with the actual authority to execute dangerous and irredeemable criminals) never do it. If Arkham or Strykers were actually LEGITIMATE prisons, there wouldn't be a need to kill anyone. And if they aren't, why doesn't the government have shoot-on-sight orders for the Joker or the Toyman?
At least Superman has the Phantom Zone as a good alternative.
edited 16th May '13 4:32:08 PM by KingZeal
Then you can just argue the same for Superman. What reason does he have to be heroic? Because old couple told him it was the right thing to do? Again, I'm trying to say that we're applying rather conventional standards to this.
Joker Immunity's a problematic trope i'll give you that. But I do have some moral compunctions about simply killing the villain. It's the contrivance of the plot that constantly makes them break out, so I would probably blame it on that.
edited 16th May '13 4:29:05 PM by blueflame724
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
Well, being raised by the old couple has a bit more sway than simply being told what to do. And there's the issue not just of being raised properly, but also having superpowers almost from birth. He's been instilled a love for humanity, and for a good part of his life he's had little reason to feel anything else. Nothing to fear, nothing to hate, nothing to want for - and such things are the basis for plenty of antisocial behavior. He's an ideal hero because he's never needed to be anything else, never tempted to be anything else. Never made the choice to go against his upbringing.
So I wonder, if he was taught a more stern morality, of the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" variety, would he then become a killer, unfazed by the consequences of his actions, because he was taught it was the right thing to do? Would he stay his hand from helping innocents, if he was told to? In light of the "Man of Steel" trailers, it seems this question may be answered soon.
Like I said, Luthor has to be written as an excessively bad guy in order for the dynamic to work, while Big Blue has to remain squeaky clean. A favorite JLU episode of mine was the one where Luthor builds a self-powered city block for the poor, and it's Superman's paranoia that ruins it, earning him a timely What the Hell, Hero? from Captain Marvel. While Luthor planned the clash, he had to count on Superman not being so gracious after all. A disconcertingly correct assumption. As for his wealth, I usually go with the Suicide Slum background and/or the DCAU version, as a rich kid wanting to be more powerful doesn't sound like a thoughtfully written motivation for anything. It may work for The Powerpuff Girls, but doesn't hold up to the steel will of a self-made man.
Lastly, it's not the Joker Immunity that's the problem, but it being applied to a world of brutal killers and not too few a Complete Monster. At least in Marvel, it's exactly guys like Deadpool or The Punisher that very quickly deal with Joker-wannabes, not needing to hold any moral high-ground. There's just some things only an anti-hero can do, and even Batman is lightweight in that regard.
edited 16th May '13 5:35:44 PM by indiana404
So I wonder, if he was taught a more stern morality, of the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" variety, would he then become a killer, unfazed by the consequences of his actions, because he was taught it was the right thing to do? Would he stay his hand from helping innocents, if he was told to? In light of the "Man of Steel" trailers, it seems this question may be answered soon.
So we're going to ignore all of those books I listed earlier? That's what we're doing?
You remember the part where Superman was completely right, right? That the whole thing was a setup by Luthor?
Wait. You're saying that "a rich person wanting to be richer" doesn't seem like a "thoughtfully-written" motivation. But, "I'm poor, so I'm an asshole" somehow is?
Bullshit. The Punisher and Deadpool only work as characters when they somehow get away with what they're doing squeaky clean. How about the Cable & Deadpool story where Deadpool commits a murder that he was totally unaware of and didn't remember? Because he was crazy. And what about the whole plot of Punisher War Zone being the fact that he killed an undercover cop because of his actions?
The idea that only Anti-Heroes can deal with complete monsters is so cliche it hurts. It's one of the things that made The Dark Age Of Comic Books so laughably bad.
And hell, if you want to get technical, this is comics. Not even death stops bad guys permanently. And no matter how many "complete monsters" people like Punisher or Deadpool gun down, things never get any better.
edited 16th May '13 6:57:41 PM by KingZeal
Raven Wilder
I'd like to address a comment from the previous page.
I'd say what qualifies as "ultimate infinite power" is a matter of perspective. Imagine you're the parent of a two-year-old; you might feel weak and downtrodden, but from your child's point-of-view, you're all powerful. Everything they have, they got from you. If you decided to hurt them, they'd be powerless to stop you. And, if no one else is around to help them, they'd die without you.
I can't recall a story that explicitly portrayed it that way, but it makes a surprising amount of sense to think of Superman's relationship with humanity as like a parent's relationship to their children. He spends a lot of time keeping them from hurting themselves and cleaning up their messes, but when he has the chance he likes to kneel down to their level so he can play with them (his Clark Kent guise), or maybe go away somewhere where he doesn't have to think about the kids for a while (the Fortress of Solitude).
Viewed from this angle, Lex Luthor is a problem child, a kid who bullies the other children and resists any attempt at discipline because he thinks he's grown up enough already. The robots, death rays, and other devices he builds to rival Superman are like a kid trying to drive a car; they want the power and freedom that comes with being an adult, but don't have the maturity to use that power responsibly.
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
Superman wasn't right. That was the whole point - even if Luthor planned it all (as I've noted, mind you) , the capes acted prematurely, disregarded all notion of safety, and got disgraced and verbally torn a new one for it. They illustrated perfectly why a bunch of unaccountable walking ordnance launchers can't always be trusted to do the right thing, but only what they think is right at the moment.
A motivation like "I'm poor, so I'd do anything not to be => I made myself rich, so I've earned some respect" makes more sense fueling hatred toward the alien. The rich kid resenting the competition is ultimately much less interesting than the self-made man suspicious of a Born Winner. You might as well revert to the "he made me bald" motivation and call it a day.
Seriously, I've yet to see anyone , in or out of universe, to consider Castle and Wilson anything near clean. They're both hunted by the authorities all over the world, and attacked even by people on the same side. It's trying to overcome their mistakes that makes them interesting. How would Big Blue fare if he accidentally killed someone, with no secret identity to hide behind? Not well, I gather.
And honestly, that's fine. I like the idea of a Superman who realizes exactly how great of a Born Winner he is, and hesitates to act when presented with a world of cardboard, lest he break it by accident. A Superman who's so powerful, he scares himself. And a Luthor who never realizes how powerful he's become, who never hears the screams of those he hurts, having grown up where screams weren't meant to be heard. But to have this as a basis for any relatable moral conflict - it just doesn't work. The main problem with DC's heroes is that when you fight a guy who's irredeemably evil, that doesn't set a high bar for you to look good in comparison.
edited 16th May '13 11:37:46 PM by indiana404
If you're going to make a nature vs nurture argument, that hardly matters.
Superboy Prime is completely different from any other incarnation of Superman. The fact that he's a young teenager who sees the comic book universe as not real being chief among them.
Look at how different his reactions were to Kal-L of Earth-2 for emphasis.
And? Superman was still right. Even if he acted "prematurely", his reasons were absolutely correct. You presented it as if Luthor was going to do something for the benefit of all mankind. He wasn't.
That's an opinion, and one which makes absolutely zero sense. Just because that's what YOU would like doesn't mean it makes inherently more sense.
And also, remember that despite being born pretty wealthy, Lex STILL made the vast majority of his fortune himself.
When I say "clean", I mean that they still have their freedom. They're still loose to shoot people and do what they do. Despite the fact that it makes no sense, especially in a world full of superheroes.
That only depends on the writer. The idea that Superman would jump off the slippery slope if he made a mistake is another form of bad writing that I despise. As I said before, it's a constant go-to gimmick of every person who wants to write an evil Superman story and doesn't get the character.
That's hypocritical. The only way characters like the Punisher or Deadpool work is if they kill characters so evil an so one-dimensional that it justifies their actions. You said a minute ago how "unbelievable" you think Superman is, but how "believable" is it that people like Frank Castle or Wade Wilson can just go around killing these complete monsters? I'll answer that: not very.
Most criminals are actual people. Yes, there may be ruthless and sociopathic people, but for someone who calls Lex a "strawman" when he's clearly a sociopath, you are awfully accepting of the fact that Frank Castle and Deadpool fight villains that are the same way.
You forget that both Wilson and Castle were originally written as villains, before receiving a ton of Character Development. They're still never written as unambiguously heroic, that's their whole point. They're not set as a moral example, so they don't have to live up to it, yet still try to be at least half-decent. And really, their freedom is no greater than that of Wolverine, and the living adamantium weapon gets much less flak than they do.
If Luthor ever got a personal reason to fight crime, his being a rich sociopath with access to technology would actually paint him quite close to a certain other man of metallic mayhem, also not particularly known for a no-kill policy. Less a Man of Steel... but rather, an Iron Man. More food for thought.
Conversely, I wonder how Big Blue would react to that. I like the Silver Age version actually hoping that Lex would use his potential for good, believing he had it in him somewhere. But a brash, suspicious Superman acting in spite of any advice from the other capes - he had it coming. The game was rigged, but it was him playing that did the damage.
Superman (also Batman) being written as standing on a slippery slope is something that, I agree, is stupid beyond belief. It's kinda like if Captain America wasn't allowed to shoot people in war, lest he turn into a Nazi. It's little more than a way to perpetualize Joker Immunity, but it's getting old. It's one thing when every time Doom gets blasted it was Actually a Doombot, it's completely different when this is played as some sort of moral quality.
Lastly, there is one pretty unambiguous hint that Superman's morality and worldview stems literally from the way he sees the world - the ending of All-Star Superman. When Luthor gains not just his powers, but also his sight, only then does he realize why the alien is who he is. Only then does he see the paradise, allowing him to even consider truly being a saint. It speaks volumes on why Superman can never be anything but moral... but also why humans can never be expected to live up to that.
In that same story, he saves an comforts a suicidal girl, urging her that she's much stronger that she realizes. However, a good word and a warm hug would mean little if she had to return to an abusive father or an alcoholic mother. He may be moral and well-meaning, but when it comes to personal experience, when it's him that has to see the world from the eyes of a human, he has no clue what he's talking about. He's a paragon, just not The Paragon.
edited 17th May '13 5:26:44 AM by indiana404
Not the point. The fact that they have no standard to live up to is exactly the problem. They're not difficult to write in that sense. As long as they look marginally better than the people they kill or fight, that's fine. And if they fight another character of ideological differences, they have an invisible plot safety net protecting them from any permanent repercussions for their actions.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'm confused about what the point of this is. So what?
What are you talking about? Again, what is your point?
They're both plot contrivances, though. The fact that a villain is just so unstoppable that no one can catch them gets just as old after a while.
Sure they can. If anything, All-Star Superman is a perfect example of how wrong your argument is. Lex Luthor managed to get to that state. He did it through very manipulative and selfish means, but he did it.
The fact that Superman lives that state all the time is actual interesting to me. As I said, it would be interesting to explore, if writers didn't screw it up.
Except that, once again, you're wrong. Suicide is, more often than not, a spur-of-the-moment decision. Most people who decide to kill themselves do it in a moment of weakness which, if it passes, will usually save your life. For example, suicide rates tend to skyrocket with gun ownership, because owning a gun makes it that much easier to do it.
Also, you're making a flat out assumption. How do you know Superman didn't get the girl help? Do you remember that, in the same scene, Superman tells the girl "it's okay, your therapist really was late to your meeting"? Like I said, it's a spur-of-the-moment decision.
Also, you're once again, making a hypocritical argument. First you say you think killing a villain wouldn't make someone jump off the slippery slope, but now you're saying that because Superman doesn't hold someone's hand the entire way to a recovery process, he's not "the paragon" (whatever that means)? In what world? Just because he doesn't perfectly solve every problem doesn't mean that he doesn't make things better. Whether for the whole world, or for one person.
To be frank, it seems that you really don't like Superman as a character and are projecting your personal feelings of the character.
edited 17th May '13 7:25:20 AM by KingZeal
My point is that Luthor inevitably gets to be written as a hypocritical clear cut villain, in order to keep Superman as a clear cut hero, as if he wouldn't be able to stand some moral ambiguity. That if Luthor is given some real redeeming qualities, and Superman's shtick as The Messiah is openly questioned, that would bring some actual moral conflict in the story that would be more interesting than "how many bullets will bounce off Big Blue's bulk this time around". This is the ultimate plot contrivance, this is what has gotten old - they still remain cardboard archetypes, while the rest of the comic world has moved on to having actual people. To answer @blueflame724's original question - what makes Luthor compelling is that he has the potential to be even better than Magneto as a philosophical foil to the hero, but he's never allowed to become so.
To add insult to injury, Superman has to be portrayed as The Paragon (seriously, read the trope description) , because apparently an invincible alien standing up to a cardboard villain takes some moral fiber, or that upholding the status quo is the same as making things better. It doesn't, it isn't. To contrast Castle and Wilson, it is exactly when they tell off those who consider themselves morally superior is when they truly shine as characters. When the Punisher puts a gun in Daredevil's hand and forces him to choose whether to pull a trigger to save a life, or when Deadpool brushes the X-Men off for being exactly as manipulative as the Brotherhood.
I like Superman as a character. I don't like him as an archetype. And I find it sad that he's more often than not written as the latter, rather than the former. As to why I don't like the archetype itself, try and answer me this: What does he stand for? And would anyone in their right mind oppose it?
edited 17th May '13 8:13:55 AM by indiana404
Superman has plenty of morally ambiguous antagonists, though. Maxima, the Eradicator, Cadmus, Sam Lane, Bizarro, Atlas, Lobo, and various other one-off vilalins for example. Luthor being a sociopath has nothing to do with that.
There are lots of things that make Luthor interesting. He doesn't need to be Magneto. Let him do his own thing.
Again, you're projecting your own opinions here. Superman does not fight for the "status quo", except in stories written by particularly bad authors. Superman has fought against the status quo several times.
Again, that sounds just as contrived. Since when are the Punisher and Deadpool (especially Deadpool) a moral authority?
I get it. You like anti-heroes, but you're searching for reasons to make them sound good.
Superman stands for "tomorrow"; or, to be more precise, a better tomorrow.
And as for why someone would oppose it, there's lots of reasons. For some, making other peoples' lives better goes against their interests (for example, in Real Life, car companies have sold faulty cars that resulted in fatalities and then, when called out for it, tried to oppose the people who demanded a better product).
For some people, it's just pure jealousy. For example, Thomas Edison is notorious for opposing scientific innovation and discovery only because HE wasn't the person who did it. He's cheated people, stolen their inventions, lied, and generally destroyed peoples lives just so that HE was the person who got credit for it (and got paid for it). In other words, he was Lex Luthor.
So, to be frank, if Superman stands for a better tomorrow, there are tons of people who would oppose it for a number of realistic reasons.
You may claim to "like" Superman, but I don't think you get Superman.
As for anti-heroes, they shine best not so much by presenting themselves as a moral authority (neither Wilson nor Castle have ever done that with a straight face) but when they deconstruct those who do, getting them off the high horse for a change. Those who'd put the world in a bottle. It was "Red Son" by the way, that had this exact ambiguity I hold so highly. That is the Superman I get. And I don't feel the main Big Blue would lose anything by having his halo just a little smudged, and his archenemy just a little bit right on some accounts.
I just gave you examples of people—in Real Life—who have fought against a better tomorrow for their own reasons, including "Because I can". Just because something seems "obvious" to you doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly fall in line.
Again, your argument is hypocritical. You can't blame Lex Luthor for being a flat out villain when the X-Men villains who want segregation are the same. The villains in the X-Men who want humans and mutants to be segregated are clearly villainous. Even Magneto, the most ambiguous one of all, will (as I said earlier) will swan dive off the slippery slope when the plot requires him to.
That's not Superman's fault. That's the comic book industry's fault. It's for the same reason that mutant/human co-relation will never truly happen.
But that's exactly what makes them a moral authority. In order to make gun-toting, murderous anti-heroes look good next to more idealistic characters, they have to have a moral high ground. They have to look more "competent" because of some This Is Reality logic.
As I said, that's just as contrived. Sometimes, a person is just wrong. The failing of characters like Deadpool and the Punisher is that writers/fans want to have it both ways: they want a character who is flawed and imperfect, but not actually deal with those imperfections in any realistic or decisive way. The things they fight against (the "monsters" as you call them) always have to exist. The government has to remain incompetent, and idealistic characters have to remain oblivious.
Again, that's a hypocritical standpoint. That's every bit as contrived as a paragon character who is flawless (again, you can be a paragon and not be flawless—which is something people who criticize Superman don't get).
edited 17th May '13 9:09:09 AM by KingZeal
Like I said, unless the reasoning is somewhat more complex than "because I can", it's not a moral conflict in the first place. It's not a moral imperative to stand up to a flat out villain - it's plain common sense.
Conversely, you don't have to claim authority in order to question authority. It's not about replacing one black and white view with another, only slightly shifted. And considering how many titles Wilson is heading now, I'd hardly say he's failed in that regard.
I should ask, by the way, what is it that you find so interesting in the irredeemable sociopath you feel Luthor should be?
That's overly simplistic. Did you know, for example, that Aquafina and Dasani flat out lied about where the sources of its bottled water came from? Or that the diamond industry inflates the price of diamonds, leading to genocidal levels of deaths annually?
So now that you know about it, what are you going to do about it? You say it's "common sense", but that doesn't mean everyone can fight it. What makes Superman interesting is specifically his ability to fight the battles that we humans can't or won't. That's good enough.
Questioning authority is one thing. However, your original statement was that you like Deadpool and Punisher because they "do things others can't".
That makes them an authority. If you are the only person that can do a needed job, to the point that your value is based upon your ability to do that job, that makes you an "authority".
Sociopaths are interesting in and of themselves. Sociopaths are still human beings. There are millions of them in real life who live in society and have never done anything wrong. They're called "functioning sociopaths". They're interesting because they don't have the same problems with empathy that the rest of us do; for example, a woman who spends her rent money on drugs and fabricates a sob story won't have any affect on a sociopath. No rent? Out on your ass. It's a unique focus to view the world.
What makes Lex Luthor interesting is that despite doing cool things for the wrong reasons, he still does cool things.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
I've lived with a few sociopaths. In my experience, they're really not that interesting. If anything, they're actually the opposite; a sociopath is less interesting than a functioning human being, because they have thoroughly two-dimensional, sometimes even one-dimensional personalities.
What they can be is entertaining, but that is not the same as interesting. The sociopaths that I've known are fun people to be around, sure, but there's nothing new or compelling about them. They don't grow or change or develop. They're emotionally stilted individuals with whom there was nothing new left to learn about them after about 2-3 months of knowing them. Four years later, there's still nothing new to experience about them. They just continue to exist in exactly the same fashion forever.
That, ultimately, is the problem with sociopaths as long-running characters. They never grow, change, or develop in any meaningful way. There is never anything new to see.
edited 17th May '13 10:54:13 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
Interesting. But, fiction doesn't seem to conform to that logic.
In "doing what other's can't" I meant the fact that they act as the Poisonous Friend, doing the dirty work more moral heroes hesitate to do, but at the same time not wanting to get flak from them for it. There's a joke why Marvel superheroes get to fight actual supervillains and not street level crazy thugs - The Punisher kills them all before the issue's over.
As for sociopaths doing cool stuff, the problem is that sociopathy itself does not equal villainy. Modern Sherlock Holmes is a functioning sociopath, and it only makes him a better detective, a hero in practice, if only to escape boredom. Conversely, Luthor needs a sizeable amount of Evil Virtues to do all the cool things he does. It is these virtues that make him a compelling character. His purposes may be, for lack of a better word, evil, but his resolve is just as inspiring as the alien's heroics, possibly even more so.
edited 17th May '13 11:16:52 AM by indiana404
I agree. Which I've mentioned before in various topics around here.
I hate the "Superman is the world's keystone" scenario that writers keep thrusting upon him. Just as you said, it makes him boring. It invokes the Villains Act, Heroes React and Reed Richards Is Useless storytelling that poisons superhero comics on a large scale.
But, where I disagree with you is that Superman doesn't need to be darker and kill his opponents, and you don't need to intentionally discredit him as a paragon. That only side-steps the problem. It's, ultimately, writing which is just as lazy.
I knew what you meant. My point still stands. One of the problems about the Poisonous Friend trope is that putting it in a story instantly makes your story extremely dark, or extremely bright, with no in-between. Because the Poisonous Friend is either correct, or they're incorrect.
If the Poisonous Friend is incorrect, then the story will go into great lengths about why what they did was wrong. About how it caused more harm than good. If the Poisonous Friend is correct, then the story will either downplay their actions or justify them. This means that they were either the moral authority or they weren't. There's no gray area to be had there.
For example, let's take a story where The Punisher kills a villain that's holding an innocent family hostage. In a story which is morally objective, the family would die as a direct result of his actions, and Spider-man would be right to call him out for it. In a morally ambiguous story, the Punisher's actions would either directly save the family, or have no consequence either way, which means the Punisher would be correct.
Sure. But, at the end of the day, his fatal flaw is his ego. And there's really nothing wrong with having a fatal flaw.
edited 17th May '13 11:35:58 AM by KingZeal
Really? I thought a theme with Batman's character is always being Batman either out of a sense of duty or quelling his inner demons, or alienating people. I'm not trying to knock Batman, but he is susceptible to stagnation as well.
But let's try to agree on something because a lot of this debate is really coming down to preferences no matter how many times we try backing things up(for both sides). What do we want from our characters? I'm sure you just want to explore different angles of every character. Superman can work as an inspiration and model, but this isn't mutually exclusive to being relatable; the embodiment of us realizing our possibilities for the future and how we strive to impact society as a whole. Batman may be an exceedingly wealthy individual but I know people relate because he deals with the tragedy which we all deal with in one way or another.
edited 17th May '13 11:38:58 AM by blueflame724
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
edited 16th May '13 1:45:04 PM by indiana404