TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Portrayal of the mentally ill in comics

Go To

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#176: Jun 3rd 2013 at 1:34:23 PM

Like I noted, it's not that criminals get released, but instead they're sent to the lamest correctional facility there is. Violent killers get saved by a self-proclaimed protector, who tries to be frightening without actually being capable of doing anything scary. Honestly, at some point the in-universe justifications for all of it just stop making sense. Not bad on its own, but couple it with a Darker and Edgier setting that takes itself too seriously, and trying to pull it off as some sort of moral stance, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Just because you CAN evade the consequences doesn't mean you will.
And yet he does evade them, doesn't he? Whenever he goes on an evil-induced rampage, he never has to pay for any collateral damage, and the whole universe has to warp so as not to allow human causalties. Like I said, on its own, that's fine. The Powerpuff Girls can't go five seconds without flying through a rooftop as well. But when he's also considered a moral paragon, an adult and responsible person - that's what flies in the face of all human logic.

Anteres Since: May, 2010
#177: Jun 3rd 2013 at 1:41:30 PM

[up][up] I was disagreeing with your view of Batman being an in-universe bad thing, so his portrayal isn't the issue for me.

That said, I've read issues where Bruce acknowledges he's not psychologically sound. (I think he was discussing it with Alfred in Knightfall.) I think myself, and most Batman fans, would agree he has serious issues, PTSD the most obvious one. And the world hardly goes out it's way to pat him on the back. Even most of the Justice League think he's terrifying at best. He has and does make mistakes. Tower of Babel, War Games, choosing Azrael as his replacement to name three. The Bat-Family, Dick especially, constantly call him out on his actions. The Bat-God situation does arise, but it's hardly his only portrayal.

Anteres Since: May, 2010
#178: Jun 3rd 2013 at 1:49:17 PM

[up][up] Superman's not evading responsibility if no one is looking for him to pay up. It's a situation where he could feel like he should pay, but it's hardly evasion.

That said, the weird nature of the DCU I agree with. Especially recently, it's an odd mix of light and dark, Silver Age and Dark Age. It's one of the reasons I don't read their stuff normally. I prefer Marvel. The mistrust of heroes makes more sense to me.

edited 3rd Jun '13 1:50:18 PM by Anteres

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#179: Jun 3rd 2013 at 1:57:29 PM

yet he looks ever more impotent not actually doing anything of consequence with said powers.

Okay, what do you want him to do to change the world, then? Because to change the world, you have to change people. And changing huge masses of people, whole societies, in a way that truly goes beyond fads or surface alterations, takes time and a lot of effort. No real world person has ever changed the whole world by themselves either- It's a process that requires groups, most often built around a leader, but almost never solo or even small group based efforts. True, we have never had someone like Superman, so calculating the kind of change such a person could have in the real world is tricky, but even so, powerful as you may be, you can't just change the world overnight without literally forcing it to.

Ironically, I think the Pre Crisis Superman with his crazy stupid super science might do more for that, but Post Crisis Superman can't just rail people into 'being good'. At some point, you've gotta ask yourself 'am I doing TOO MUCH?' And who decides where's that point? Superman himself? Is that even his right? Where is the line where he starts being ineffective, and where's the line where he starts being a Justice Lord, bullying humanity into not being corrupt and harming each other or else...?

Re: Batman's bad writing. See, that's a double edged sword. What you call bad writing (and bad is a very YMMV thing) is a result of superhero comics being products of a time that wasn't anally obsessed with 'believability'. Back then, the market was aimed at a much younger audience. The same tropes and conventions that today are seen as goofy or lame weren't minded by anyone because it was just entertainment for an age group that wouldn't give a flying fuck over police procedures.

Today, the average superhero comics are made for adults, but the genre, by its very origins and the needs of an ongoing format where no one ever ages too much, and the same golden and silver age need horses need to be rehashed over and over, is still wearing a skin it outgrew long ago. And the skin, naturally, doesn't fit anymore. That matters in the meta sense, and greatly so, but it still doesn't change the fact that's how that meta angle affects the in-universe world. Is that bad writing? From an angle, YES SO VERY MUCH, but from another angle, it's also telling of how the genre just went into a stage where the old rules don't work anymore, but here's the catch- Those looser old rules, were they a bad thing? Are Silver Age comics objectively bad now because, seen through a modern lens, are not believable and naive?

The answer, I think, is the modern comics try to be both things at once. They try to pass as 'realistic' on mere grounds of being 'grim and gritty' but holding to the 'unrealistic' tropes of yore. Modern comics are a Frankenstein's monster patchworked of Silver Age formats with Dark Age sensibilities, and to keep the former, the publishers force suspension of disbelief we can't take because we are mature and sophisticated and adult. We comics readers aren't the children we once were. And on that path, I won't speak for comics fans themselves, but superhero comics themselves in general have fallen into a 'manchild' stage.

Modern superhero comics are a Peter Pan who refuses to grow up while bloodily stabbing pirates through the chest.

edited 3rd Jun '13 1:58:30 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#180: Jun 3rd 2013 at 1:58:32 PM

Superman's not evading responsibility if no one is looking for him to pay up.
Point. But that's up there with the ConvenientlyEmptyBuildings as an excuse. It kinda goes to show that in a universe with "Gods Among Us" , it's everyone else that has to be a lunatic to allow them to go on like this.
Okay, what do you want him to do to change the world, then?
Well, he does have a veritable fortress stacked to the brim with the knowledge of an entire planet - at least some of that can be useful to a lot of developing nations out there. He could, as David Brin once pointed out, share some samples of his blood to be used for medicinal purposes, perhaps even elevating the rest of humanity to his own level. Really, there's plenty of room for positive change not requiring him to wear a red blanket on his shoulders.

edited 3rd Jun '13 2:14:17 PM by indiana404

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#181: Jun 3rd 2013 at 2:09:37 PM

Re: Batman's bad writing. See, that's a double edged sword. What you call bad writing (and bad is a very YMMV thing) is a result of superhero comics being products of a time that wasn't anally obsessed with 'believability'. Back then, the market was aimed at a much younger audience. The same tropes and conventions that today are seen as goofy or lame weren't minded by anyone because it was just entertainment for an age group that wouldn't give a flying fuck over police procedures.

Today, the average superhero comics are made for adults, but the genre, by its very origins and the needs of an ongoing format where no one ever ages too much, and the same golden and silver age need horses need to be rehashed over and over, is still wearing a skin it outgrew long ago. And the skin, naturally, doesn't fit anymore. That matters in the meta sense, and greatly so, but it still doesn't change the fact that's how that meta angle affects the in-universe world. Is that bad writing? From an angle, YES SO VERY MUCH, but from another angle, it's also telling of how the genre just went into a stage where the old rules don't work anymore, but here's the catch- Those looser old rules, were they a bad thing? Are Silver Age comics objectively bad now because, seen through a modern lens, are not believable and naive?

The answer, I think, is the modern comics try to be both things at once. They try to pass as 'realistic' on mere grounds of being 'grim and gritty' but holding to the 'unrealistic' tropes of yore. Modern comics are a Frankenstein's monster patchworked of Silver Age formats with Dark Age sensibilities, and to keep the former, the publishers force suspension of disbelief we can't take because we are mature and sophisticated and adult. We comics readers aren't the children we once were. And on that path, I won't speak for comics fans themselves, but superhero comics themselves in general have fallen into a 'manchild' stage.

Modern superhero comics are a Peter Pan who refuses to grow up while bloodily stabbing pirates through the chest.

I actually agree wholeheartedly with everything you said here. Comic books are in a stage where they are struggling to decide whether they want to be children's cartoons, adult entertainment, or both. They're kind of schizophrenic right now, where you might have one comic featuring the Joker spraying laughing gas into a circus and then prancing away like a magnificent poof, and then in another comic he's making a dog rape a United States Senator.

But some comics have grown up. Iron Man did away with his ridiculous bodyguard excuse a long time ago. Reed Richards and Sue Storm got married and had kids. Many of the silly kid sidekicks, both DC and Marvel, quit their sidekick role because they got old enough to strike out on their own, or replace their mentor; hell, Marvel's gone to great lengths of late to actually justify Bucky's old role as a Kid Sidekick, and done a fairly impressive job of it.

I think that's one of the core differences between the two companies; Marvel typically treats the silly, slapstick antics of the Silver Age as an Old Shame, while DC considers them a vital part of the superhero legacy. While Marvel is willing to let a lot of the Standard Superhero Tropes die in order to tell more grounded stories, DC puts those same tropes on pedestals, clinging to them while still trying to grow up.

Going back to my rant about realism versus believability, this is what people are talking about when they say Marvel's more realistic. It's really not. Radioactive superpowers from a spider-bite isn't realistic. Bruce Banner's Gamma Mutation isn't realistic. Tony Stark being so smart that he can build the Iron Man in a cave with a box of scraps isn't realistic.

But it has a much easier time being believable, because it's willing to let some of the more ridiculous elements of the genre fall by the wayside for the sake of telling a better story.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#182: Jun 3rd 2013 at 2:12:50 PM

[up][up]Yes, but how many comics can you sell of Superman distributing medicines and arranging peace meetings, compared to comics of Superman punching Metallo in the face?

At this point, are you sure your core issue is with Superman himself, or with superhero comics in general?

Reed Richards Is Useless and Cut Lex Luthor a Check are terribly awkward tropes by modern, logical standards, but averted on a continued basis make ongoing superhero comics almost impossible to work out fine. At some point you run out of reasons why there should be any conflict in your Reed Richards-created worldwide scientific utopia, or why most Spider-Man villains aren't swimming in their riches from selling Vulture wings and superweaponry around, instead of screwing around with Peter Parker.

edited 3rd Jun '13 2:29:42 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#183: Jun 3rd 2013 at 2:16:06 PM

There's actually a simple enough justification for both Reed Richards Is Useless and Cut Lex Luthor a Check. The same reason why the Iron Man isn't actually feasible as a military-grade weapon: cost. Tony Stark's multi-million dollar superweapon may be feasible for one man with billions of dollars to burn on it, but you can't outfit thousands of soldiers in it without killing your entire nation's economy.

Reed Richards might be able to invent a cure for cancer, but if it costs $6 billion per shot, it doesn't actually affect the world in any conceivable way. A common mistake superhero comics mistake is forgetting that the economy is a thing that exists; usually done in the form of having bottomless insurance budgets in order to justify why blowing up half of New York in a fight between Thor and the Hulk is an okay thing and not at all horrible, but this can actually serve as an explanation for why super-scientists have not transformed the world into a scientific utopia.

edited 3rd Jun '13 2:17:45 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#184: Jun 3rd 2013 at 2:16:14 PM

Modern superhero comics are a Peter Pan who refuses to grow up while bloodily stabbing pirates through the chest.
Saddest thing is, they didn't start that way. Golden Age Superman and Batman both justified their portrayals - one was a not too powerful but proactive procurer of social justice, the other was a merciless masked murderer of the guilty. And that worked just fine. It's the later changes that started piling up the irrational nonsense, and the even more nonsensical justifications for it. That's what I have a problem with, especially nowadays when creative freedom means that it can just be written off, or at least deflated.

VampireBuddha Calendar enthusiast from Ireland (Wise, aged troper) Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, they are imaginary
Calendar enthusiast
#185: Jun 4th 2013 at 12:01:33 PM

So I happened to come across this article from 1983 on why masks and secret identities are a bad idea, written by a lawyer.

Ukrainian Red Cross
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#186: Jun 4th 2013 at 12:36:14 PM

This article makes me feel like I should be a lawyer.

...it takes a lot of education and years of study to get the credentials to be a lawyer.

I should be a senator.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
SaintDeltora The Mistress from The Land Of Corruption and Debauchery Since: Aug, 2012 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
The Mistress
#187: Jun 4th 2013 at 12:41:55 PM

[up]I don`t get it...

"Please crush me with your heels Esdeath-sama!
ATC Was Aliroz the Confused from The Library of Kiev Since: Sep, 2011
Was Aliroz the Confused
#188: Jun 4th 2013 at 1:09:50 PM

Tobias Drake is implying that Senators are less educated than lawyers.

This is meant to imply that Senators are uneducated.

This is meant to imply that Senators are dumb.

This is meant to insult the Senators.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

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
TheEvilDrBolty Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
#189: Jun 4th 2013 at 1:11:31 PM

With possible additional irony because the majority of senators begin as lawyers.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#190: Jun 4th 2013 at 1:12:39 PM

[up][up] and [up], exactly. It was a mean-spirited joke about senators.

edited 4th Jun '13 1:13:01 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#191: Jun 4th 2013 at 3:24:26 PM

Uneducated they may be, but since they get to make far more money than most educated people will ever do, who are the dumb ones? Think before you answer.

Canid117 Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#192: Jun 4th 2013 at 3:28:52 PM

The people who vote for them?

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#193: Jun 5th 2013 at 9:51:17 AM

[up] Well, that's democracy for you.waii

Speaking of which, there is one important detail I realized I'd overlooked that might solve at least some issues with Batman - the Bat-signal. It's the ultimate sign that the Bat still considers himself subject to civil authority, being on the call of whatever honest official still remains in Gotham. Thus, he feels not morally, but legally bound to never cross the line, never substituting himself for judge, jury, and executioner. This would also explain his retirement in the Nolan-verse after killing Harvey Dent, denoted with the breaking of the signal itself. Or, for that matter, why he's a bit more flexible whenever it comes to otherworldly threats - there's no law for those.

And as for Supes, I guess he does have to live with the threat of helping too much , leaving the world Holding Out for a Hero. His best moments are when he's shown as, you know, only human. Which is why I loathe the messianic baggage he's burdened with, both by writers, and in-universe by Jor-El. Way to put pressure on your boy there, J; I'm sure he'll have no problem living up to your expectations.

edited 5th Jun '13 9:52:24 AM by indiana404

Anteres Since: May, 2010
#194: Jun 5th 2013 at 10:13:56 AM

[up] I always suspected that this was secretly one of the reasons Superman is friends with Batman. Batman seems determined to be better at everything than everyone else so there's no way he could accept Superman as a messiah. It would indicate that Batman couldn't solve everything on his own. So Batman is psychologically incapable of seeing Superman as anything other than, at best, an equal, which is what Superman wants the most. Batman puts no pressure on him to be perfect all the time.

You could actually say something similar about Lois, at least before they hooked up. Her constantly looking to trump Clark Kent must have been relaxing for him because it was someone who viewed him as beatable. Hell, Lex is the same. Superman isn't a god or an idol to any of them.

ATC Was Aliroz the Confused from The Library of Kiev Since: Sep, 2011
Was Aliroz the Confused
#195: Jun 5th 2013 at 10:16:57 AM

I don't think Ma and Pa Kent see him as a god or a messiah, either.

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
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#196: Jun 5th 2013 at 10:28:27 AM

I actually tinkered with writing a Superman adaptation built around the Idea of Superman a while back. The story would feature a Clark who has his powers, but isn't as powerful as people believe he is, because who could possibly be? The Idea of Superman is that Superman never fails. Superman always wins, Superman saves everyone, Superman can move however fast he needs to move, is as strong as he needs to be, Superman is this perfect Messianic Savior figure.

Imagine the pressure of living like that. Of knowing that everyone expects flawless perfection from you. Clark is a man literally living in his own shadow. Imagine the mental, physical, and psychological strain of having to live up to that image.

So Clark's trying to stop a runaway train, and it's breaking his body. His muscles are screaming to give out, but he can't. Why? Because Superman would stop that train.

He's fighting a bomber, he's angry, the guy killed dozens of people, maybe even injured one of Clark's friends. He's hurt and pissed and he really wants to just cave the guy's skull in, but he can't, because Superman wouldn't kill this man.

The story plays with both the idea of Superman as a guy trying to do the right thing, and as the Messianic Archetype, with Clark himself basically living his life on the principle, what would Superman do?

edited 5th Jun '13 10:32:25 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
ATC Was Aliroz the Confused from The Library of Kiev Since: Sep, 2011
Was Aliroz the Confused
#197: Jun 5th 2013 at 10:29:37 AM

Sheesh, give the poor guy some pleasure in his life.

Give him something to live for.

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
indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#198: Jun 5th 2013 at 10:31:26 AM

I don't think Ma and Pa Kent see him as a god or a messiah, either.
Nor does Garth Ennis, apparently - I really liked Tommy Monaghan's speech in Hitman, on how Superman is the ultimate American immigrant, capable of leaving all his cultural baggage behind and joining the melting pot. Which, again, flies in the face of every other writer trying to glue a Kryptonian halo to the cape, but hey - that's what Alternate Character Interpretations are for.

And speaking of the ascerbic assassin, it'd be nice if he appeared in the DCNU, maybe pulling a finisher on some really deserving lowlife. A no-kill code is all well and... morally dubious actually, considering the long-term results; but sometimes you really need a Token Evil Teammate to balance it out.

edited 5th Jun '13 11:52:21 AM by indiana404

Anteres Since: May, 2010
#199: Jun 6th 2013 at 3:20:08 AM

The issue of Hitman with Superman is, to me, one of the, if not the, best Superman story ever BECAUSE it was about exactly what Tobias Drake is talking about. How it feels when everyone thinks you'll save the day and that seeing you means they're safe and that's just not true. The pressure that puts him under, the need to do the impossible every time.

There was also the idea that Superman can't turn off his super-hearing, so every day when he's getting coffee as Clark he's hearing people calling for his help and having to ignore it because he CAN'T be on call 24/7 or he's crack up. I like that idea too. The concept of a hero choosing NOT to save everyone from every problem. Again, it flies in the face of Super-Messiah, but is much more interesting. That psychology of Superman fascinates me. Shame it's ignored so much.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#200: Jun 6th 2013 at 4:44:02 AM

Shame indeed. It's this humanization that makes Marvel heroes more fleshed out as people, rather than walking symbols. Saying they're only human actually makes them stronger as characters.

In contrast, I often deride DC for inflation, by which I mean promoting its heroes as super-powerful, super-rich, super-influential etc., while racking up excuses on why they haven't changed anything. It's these excuses that start looking like psychological issues in-universe, and when they stop holding water, DC's only solution seems to be to pull a reboot and start all over again, but actually changing nothing of consequence.

Conversely, a lot of DC's villains really push the generic evil cliche, with insanity being used as a Hand Wave for their lack of any coherent motivation. Which is why I want to ask: At what point does insanity stop covering for Bad Writing? At what point can we admit that, say, claims of the Joker's unpredictability or sick sense of humor are actually excuses for poorly written motivation and inconsistent characterization? Or that Lex Luthor's twisted ambitions and self-aggrandizing schemes boil down to providing target practice for Superman, and his inactivity otherwise is not a character flaw, but a writing flaw?

edited 6th Jun '13 7:56:33 AM by indiana404


Total posts: 241
Top