Portrayal of the mentally ill in comics

I agree that the portrayal of mental illness in Batman is a pretty awful conglomeration of stereotypes about insanity. I feel like these comics contribute to the idea that the insanity defense is an easy cop-out, when it's generally a very rarely applicable and difficult defense.

Honestly, I think that Batman comics end up as a gigantic strawman argument for the death penalty, despite whatever intentions the writers have.

And, also, yes, it's a cop-out for a motivation. Villains should have some kind of motive or purpose beyond "irredeemably evil by means of brain chemistry."

Well, I've also noted how most of the villains don't exhibit anything more than the usual "generic evil disorder" , molded to fit the writers' intent. Now, the heroes however - these guys' behavior actually shows a lot more clinically identifiable traits, and it looks way more fascinating to analyse.

For starters, Superman - Narcissistic PD. I know it sounds unlikely coming from the Blue Boyscout, but he does consider himself a lot more powerful and influential than he is in practice. The DC universe has half a dozen powerhouses capable of matching him in strength, yet he's the one most prone to a "World of Cardboard" Speech, easily forgetting his debilitating weakness to some Green Rocks.

Next, the Caped Crusader himself - another narcissist, thinking he's god's gift to Gotham and all that, but also schizoid, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive as hinted by his increasingly irrational moral code. Likely a result of PTSD, but that covers pretty much all heroes with a Death by Origin Story motivation.

And for one surprising dark horse, Deadpool - a clean bill of health. I mean, he thinks he's in a comic book. He's right. Hence, his behavior is no more unusual than that of any gamer playing a game with a high Catharsis Factor.

edited 27th May '13 12:34:51 PM by indiana404

Insanity is not objective. Objectively there are many damages and physical disorders that can happen to the human mind and body. Which of these count as insane and which are merely "quirky" or even desirable, vary from culture to culture.

In our culture Batman would be considered insane but in comic book world he is a hero. So, just admit that many people would consider our hero insane. People thought (and still do think) Jesus Was Crazy after all his ultimate message was "Love your neighbor".

In Roman society people craved lead filled syrup and horribly alcoholic whine even though they knew it was bad for them. We would call that insane. Today, people seek out nicotine lace sticks, food loaded with pepper seeds and high fructose engineered sugar water even though the health benefits are void and the risks are legion. People drink from cyanide wells because their prophets drank from it, people continue on with economic systems that do not work to the deaths of minions over devotion to dead impoverished German ranters, women nurse "sacred" calves, men loyally defend politicians and companies who would not piss on them if they were on fire-most of this done by people who would have objectively undamaged, non defected, free of disease minds. Yet we call it all insane.

edited 21st Nov '13 3:49:51 PM by indirectactivetransport

Heck, within living memory, homosexuality was in the DSM.

Ukrainian Red Cross

Being sane has nothing to do with being right, it's about conforming to a commonly accepted view of reality. That's why, if I talk to a dead raccoon because I think it has mystical powers, I'm insane, but if I talk to an Israeli carpenter who died 2000 years ago because I think he has mystical powers, then I'm not.

edited 27th May '13 6:47:38 PM by RavenWilder

I recall that one of the DCU Animated films had, as a special feature, a psychiatrist (more than one, actually) psychoanalyzing Batman and Superman. The verdict was that, no, neither one is even remotely mentally ill. Batman's broody and takes himself too seriously, but he's not insane. And Superman is downright admirable, apparently (though I already knew that, personally).

I have had the conversation, and hated it, with some non-comics fans (and some fans) that goes along the lines "Of course Batman's crazy! He dresses like a giant bat!" If you're going to have any hope of enjoying the adventures of a comic book super hero, you have to accept that he's a comic book super-hero. You've got to suspend your disbelief a bit...

So, what I'm getting is that insanity is less a psychological condition, but more a matter of social convention? Actually, that does sound logical. Recently I read about this "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" , where children and adolescents exhibit aggression, annoyance and "refusal to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules"... which I always thought was called "puberty in highschool" , with no need of registering in the DSM.

However, if we are to make assumptions on what's considered "normal" or "quirky" , then all bets are off on what's insane. Personally I see little psychological difference between the guy dressed like a clown going about and killing people, and the guy dressed like a bat who gets off on torturing them. It's one thing to suspend my disbelief about Batman, but when he shouts You're Insane! to his prospective opponent, the first thought that comes to mind is "Look who's talking".

edited 27th May '13 10:42:04 PM by indiana404

Or see, for example, Drapetomania.

edited 28th May '13 2:33:07 AM by RavenWilder

The notion of sanity and insanity is, itself, founded on one very faulty premise: that most people are fundamentally identical on a psychological level. I live with a paranoid schizophrenic who also has synesthesia and a handful of other mental illnesses (I think dissociative identity disorder is one of them?) and she's not actually very different from anyone else, she just has quirks.

She sees sounds, tastes feelings, gets attacked by hallucinations of spiders when she's emotionally stressed. But she's still a fully functional human being. The only reason she can't hold a job and have a normal life in society is because society banned her from doing so; she's barred from 86% of jobs in America because she's schizophrenic, so when the government decided she was fine enough psychologically to cut her Medicaid, she was pretty much SOL.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

This analysis of Henry Pym and his mental illness is relevant.

And, also, hit the nail on the head. It's a lie that most people are fundamentally identical, mentally.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

My roommate and I were actually discussing this yesterday. She mentioned that she rarely ever encounters people who are schizophrenic in the outside world, and we agreed that the reason for this is really just because the only people who are schizophrenic in the outside world are the ones who've learned to hush up about it and behave like everyone else.

That's actually a pretty good explanation of the entire concept of sanity and normalcy; there is no such thing as normal. The world isn't divided into Normal and Abnormal, it's just divided into people who know when to conform to the standards of their environment, and people who don't.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Reminds me of this, written by a professor of psychiatry.

Ukrainian Red Cross

Well, look at it this way. The devoutly religious would be viewed as insane if their beliefs weren't culturally accepted.

While it's true that what's "normal" depends on who's making the judgement, I think being unable to perceive reality in way that allows you to function within it is likely a problem. I do prefer to function without the benefit of drugs, but having to do so shouldn't qualify one as "insane."

The sociopathic, I'm sure, are more a danger to society than the legitimately mentally ill.

Or is it?

(yes, I know it isn't, but work with me here)

Fact of the matter is, comic books have a long and proud tradition of making clear cut villains out of real-life regular joes with merely a non-standard nationality, religious affiliation or sexual orientation, or even a peculiar hobby. Chick Tracts are infamous for that, but even the Big Two have used all sorts of Acceptable Targets as punching bags for their heroes.

Problem is, most of them have become Once Acceptable Targets, undermining the credibility of the heroes themselves. Particularly mental illness is more often pitied rather than feared and hated (not a perfect attitude, but still more progressive), making the hero look like the neurotypical analog of a Heteronormative Crusader. That might explain why Loki and Nolan's Joker get so many fangirls - their psychological issues get them Woobie points instead of being repulsive, while Thor and Batman come off as privileged bullies.

As for sociopaths, they too can function equally well as heroes - House, Dexter, and the new Sherlock are some decent examples. Granted, Dex is a serial killer, but with a benign streak, all things considered. In real life, similar traits are exhibited by snipers, entrusted with the morally bizarre job of taking lives in order to save lives.

All in all, mental conditions are no more a basis for villainy than race, sexual orientation, or nationality. Ironically, when you've been putting such people down for centuries, it's not unusual for them to be rightly pissed at you, indeed turning them into villains from your perspective, and closing the feedback loop.

edited 29th May '13 3:03:29 AM by indiana404

You know what would be fun?

An inverse version where the hero is judged "insane" and has to fight his way through all the "sane" people trying to imprison him.

Yeah.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

Batman has occasionally been portrayed that way. There's even an episode of Batman TAS where he's been locked up in Arkham, and the head psychiatrist is trying to convince that the Joker et al. are all misunderstood rather than dangerous. An interesting idea to be sure, but wrought with Unfortunate Implications, because of course one of the Arkham inmates is plotting to turn Gotham into his private fear experiment. One is left with the feeling that the psychiatrist is an ineffectual bleeding heart, which is counter productive if in fact one is trying to foster understanding for the mentally ill.

I agree, though, that it isn't enough to simply label a super-villain "insane" or even "sociopathic." The problem is, evil is classically incredibly banal, so realistic reasons for villains to do what they do usually seem quite weak sauce. Take a look at Voldemort over in Harry Potter; he's revealed to be astonishingly pathetic and petty when we finally get to know some stuff about him.

So what SHOULD make for a good villain? No wait, nevermind; there's already a thread for that...

edited 29th May '13 2:03:44 PM by Robbery

I think part of the pettiness and banality of recurring villains stems from the recurring part; an unfortunate fact of many great villains is that once they've blown their villainous load, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

The Evil Emperor, once deposed from his throne, is just some jackass in a cloak trying to exact petty vengeance with a knife and a couple bombs, instead of the power, station, and political sway he once had. The same is true of most villains; once he's been soundly and thoroughly defeated, stripped of all his possessions, denounced from his corporate station, and cast into prison...the great and almighty Lex Luthor is just some asshole with a shiny rock and a knife, swearing empty curses at the dark. Instead of plotting world domination, he's just plotting ways to stab the hero's girlfriend, because he'll never be globally threatening again without some manner of bullshit Diabolus ex Machina to make everyone forget he's an evil convicted felon.

Writers have to really go out of their way to come up with justifications for how Evil Villain 43 is still a threat to the hero after being trounced and tossed in jail 27 times already, and why he can't just suck it up and move on with his life. Villains of most genres aren't really that petty and banal the way supervillains are; they have their own breed of pettiness, obsession, and pathetic stubbornness because they are, by nature of the genre, compelled to keep trying again and again and again without ever gaining any headway or doing anything else. They inevitably devolve into a pathetic, worthless failure because they exist solely to perpetually fail in an endless cycle, never dying, never growing, and most importantly, never winning.

edited 29th May '13 3:16:57 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

I liked All-Star Superman's take on Luthor.

He tries to do new things to save/ruin the world, but Superman just. Won't. Get. Out. Of. His. Way.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

And this is why I like Corrupt Corporate Executives in comics, when done well. Even when they 'lose', they can still achieve a victory of some sort, thus turning the Heroes' 'victory' into a Pyrrhic Victory, and this then keeps their Threat-Cred. up.

I feel it's more like they're petty and banal by design, and the recurring part simply makes them more so. Guys like Luthor or the Joker only exist so that their respective heroes have someone to fight, and so their own motivation has been twisted to make them into adversaries. Nuh-uh, Lex Luthor can't have his own agenda - it always has to boil down to one-upping the alien. The Joker can't go around five seconds without exclaiming his man-love for the Bat, rather than doing his own thing. Even Doom has to dwell on his hatred for that blasted Richards, but at least he has a day job to look after, and occasionally gets thrown a bone or two by the writers.

In short, while we, the readers, know that fictional universes revolve around their respective heroes, when people in-universe start expressing this sentiment, it goes well over into Black Hole Sue territory. When the villains' motivations are tailor-made to enable the hero, the hero himself actually isn't so heroic in the first place.

Yeah, I prefer the notion that Luthor has his own agenda and Superman just keeps getting in his way. I remember over in Darwin Cooke's New Frontier, he had Captain Cold robbing a casino to Las Vegas specifically to get away from the Flash (who went to Vegas to stop him anyway—he IS the Flash, after all). The Joker, though, from what I understand is frequently portrayed not to just be an anarchist, bank robber, or what have you, but also to be obsessed with Batman. This adds credence to the notion of his instability, though I personally prefer the depiction of him that has the subtext that he's an agent of chaos. I'd prefer, too, that he not be caught, nor his body found when he appears to die.

Alternatively, have this obsession be a genuine clash of philosophies, rather than an excuse for villainy. The Xavier/Magneto conflict is legendary in that regard, and I don't see why something like this wouldn't work for DC. The Joker's brand of chaos is a great counterpoint to Batman's totalitarian order, and Luthor's embodiment of human self-sufficiency stands in stark contrast to Metropolites' tendency of Holding Out for a Hero. Neither philosophy need be portrayed as correct or incorrect... but tell that to the writers. In JLU for example, Luthor and Cadmus practically had to be sent Jumping Off the Slippery Slope, cement shoes included, lest their questioning of the League's methods appear even remotely valid.

Basically, irrational villains, whether dubbed insane, sociopathic, or violently extremist, are nowadays used to cover for irrational heroes. They're like a Straw Loser in that regard, existing only so that, say, an uber-rich vigilante in a bat-suit looks better by comparison. But again, when he fights guys as pathetic as these, he really doesn't.

edited 31st May '13 12:51:04 AM by indiana404

The Joker's whole schtick is that he does horrible things just because he thinks they're amusing. That's not really an "I can see your point" sort of philosophy.

It depends on who he does them to. A couple more pencil tricks and mobster immolations and he might just turn out a better organized crime deterrent than Batman ever was.

Otherwise, we get back to the conundrum of having a totally one-dimensional villain, who the hero not only has failed to stop, much less chosen to kill, but has even saved on occasion. In that regard, I fail to see his point, rather than the Joker's. The regular Doylist excuse is that there would be no more story if he finally ended the clown. But there's my counterpoint - if the hero has to personally intervene to keep such a villain alive and safe, the story's not that great to begin with.

edited 31st May '13 3:18:18 AM by indiana404

Yeah, it's one thing to not be willing to kill, but when you actually save the villain's life, you're an enabler. Also, there are other considerations beyond, "Should I kill this villain?"

There's a defeatist attitude regarding some heroes, especially in the DCU: it is better to lose the fight than to take a life. "An evil version of Superman has taken over the world and rules it with an iron fist! Nobody is strong enough to defeat him! He's slain many of the world's greatest superheroes! What will we do! Wait, what's that? Batman has a kryptonite gun that can stop him! That's GREA—wait a minute. Kryptonite gun would kill Evil Superman. No way. I refuse to have any part of this. It's better to let Evil Superman continue enslaving the earth. How dare you ask me to take a life?"

If an option for a nonlethal takedown isn't immediately present, it seems like DC superheroes would rather allow the villain to win and go on hurting people than dirty their hands with the victory. This also has the problem of making the villains completely physically unthreatening; the idea being that if Superman actually gets to choose how much force to use in taking down Mongul, so much so that it's never an issue of risking killing him in a fight, Superman can just apply as much force as he needs to knock him out...then he was never a threat to Superman in the first place, because Superman is so much more powerful than him that he doesn't have to bring everything he's got to the fight.

By contrast, look at the fight where Superman and Doomsday killed each other. Superman gave it literally everything he had. There was no concern of, "Wait, maybe I should only punch THIS hard because I might risk hurting Doomsday." It was an all-out bare-knucked throwdown because that was the only way to win against an enemy so physically powerful. If you actually get to make the choice, in the middle of a fight, whether or not to use lethal or nonlethal force to defeat your enemy, then your enemy is not a challenge at all.

edited 31st May '13 6:27:42 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.