Yeah, but in those earlier days, most of the daytime personas of these heroes (particularly Superman) were either explicitly presented as "disguises" or they were jobs that aren't exactly unglamorous nine-to-fives (Green Lantern (Alan Scott) was a railroad engineer; The Flash (Jay Garrick) was a college student—which wasn't exactly a small deal back in the 30s; Hawkman (Carter Hall) was an archaeologist). Even Bruce Wayne, when starting off, wasn't exactly a one-percenter.
These heroes were usually presented as comfortably well-off, or somehow representative of the "American Dream". Their crime-fighting identities were just extra exceptionalism on people who were already pretty damn exceptional to start with.
Oh not that mistake again! Alan Scott was a CIVIL engineer - what he was doing in that train in his origin story was making a test run over a bridge that he had designed. (Yeah, so that sounds right out of Atlas Shrugged - except that Martin Nodell and Bill Finger did it first, by at least a decade.)
He later parlayed his engineering degree (and possibly some between-issues experience) into a job as radio engineer at the WXYZ radio station, and then worked his way up.
edited 27th Jan '15 10:29:41 PM by Maven
Meh. Same difference.
Between train driver and civil engineer? Quite a difference, yes. Blue collar (although undeniably a skilled trade) and white collar. Although if anything, that makes him more like the other three you mentioned.
Yes. That being my point.
I may have been wrong about the exact occupation, but not the point being made about said occupation
And even if I wasn't, railroad operators seem to have an average wage of 90k a year (in modern value), which still doesn't exactly put them at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
edited 28th Jan '15 6:20:37 AM by KingZeal
Another way to view the relatively cushy day jobs of most superheroes is in terms of how they're flexible enough to allow superheroics at a moment's notice, not to mention funding the various gadgets of non-powered capes. The latter is indeed prone to self-defeating inflation, however. It used to be that Bruce Wayne being an orphaned wealthy eccentric was little more than a handwave for his ample crime-fighting resources and understandable motivations. Nowadays, he's a plutocratic mess of parental issues who, as a result, seems less keen on actually fighting crime than embezzling company money for his own masochistic crusade.
Similarly, Superman and Spider-Man being journalists was a way for them to keep their ears to the ground before the advent of modern mass media, and an excuse to be seen close to crime scenes and disaster areas. Now, these are all but grandfatherly artifacts.
I'd say elitism is still part of the superhero mythos though, occasionally reaching blatant messianic symbolism - which I always find laughable, since the messiah invariably symbolized wasn't exactly one for punching out the opposition; in fact, the guy was quite ardently against that sort of thing. Meanwhile, the bruisers of classical mythology which modern superheroes evoke were hardly moral paragons, and most of their labors were explicitly pointless suicide missions, rather than endeavors of justice or fights against evil. In this, I find superheroes to be somewhat mismatched collections of qualities that were never meant to go together. Fittingly, the modern portrayal of Marvel capes as aggressive egomaniac jerks prone to infighting, may have actually gone full-circle and back to the classical meaning of "hero" in general.
edited 28th Jan '15 11:49:59 AM by indiana404
Interestingly they've tried several times each to give Spider-Man and Superman new careers because print journalism is dead, and it rarely ever sticks.
Though currently Peter Parker does still work at a lab.
Eh, ol' Stans' still kept Peter in the same spot at the Bugle over in the dailes, all while his wife makes a mint off broadway
edited 28th Jan '15 3:06:40 PM by Zarius
Formerly G.G.
Also, Spidey seems to be in the same spot since his conception.
"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."
Another inflation-caused point of contention is just how many revolutionary technologies appear to be only available to superheroes, while the rest of the world barely benefits. As the excuses and handwaves pile up, it really starts to look like the literally orbit-high club for the impossibly rich and supernaturally powerful simply likes their toys a bit too much to share them with the rest of humanity. It gets even more grating when said heroes claim their intent to "inspire" change rather than truly help effect it. Because indeed, there's nothing as inspiring as when the people supposedly pledging their vast resources for the benefit of mankind, don't seem to trust it enough to share some of the know-how.
Mind you, the point could be made that the world is not ready for that scale of advancement; however, the longer this goes on, the more humanity as a whole appears to be Too Incompetent to Operate a Blanket. In turn, this may feed criticism about superhero comics preaching elitism. Though my own personal reaction is that a fictional world this stupid isn't worth saving in the first place, so either way, I lose respect for the capes claiming to try and do so.
All in all, I know this is part of keeping the world relatable, but one way or another, that sort of inflation simply can't look good in the long run.
edited 30th Jan '15 7:47:07 AM by indiana404
It usually doesn't. As I said, superheroes eventually start to go toward an inevitable "Fascism/Elitism/Exceptionalism" curve as long as those factors are in play.
Foldable Human did a
couple of videos about Man of Steel and made a point I hadn't thought about: how Superman never really "debuted" in this movie. Like, he never revealed himself to the public. When he decides to demonstrate that he comes in peace, he delivers himself to the US Military. The highest authority he attempts to placate isn't an elected civilian figure like the President. It isn't a coalition like the United Nations. It isn't a public press conference. It's a random General. In the narrative of Man of Steel, as long as the US military declares Superman an ally, then it becomes implicitly understood that he is.
This sort of military elitism is one of the continuing problems of the superhero genre. Superheroes, as I've mentioned before, have two major Necessary Weasel tropes which are almost always present: (1) superheroes can solve problems Muggles can't and (2) fighting is usually that problem. That, in a nutshell, is military elitism. As such, no matter how much comics change, no matter how many individual superheroes come around that have more lighthearted or non-combat themes or try to make superheroes more ordinary, the military elitism will eventually resurge again.
edited 30th Jan '15 8:32:40 AM by KingZeal
I've noticed similar themes in urban fantasy - no matter how intricate the hidden magical world is or what sort of unusual traits the main characters possess, the overall plot inevitably boils down to finding the "bad" guys and beating the snot out of them. High and heroic fantasy quests can also frequently be summed up as convoluted road trips and random slaughter across the countryside... but as I mentioned, most myths these stories evoke were also pretty much made of that.
Similarly, pulp sci-fi almost invariably employs the particular technology it focuses on solely as either a doomsday device, or again as a limited-edition gadget. It's just that most pulp stories have the decency to end, so we can still imagine something useful came out of the whole ordeal. And then there's how space opera frequently builds drama around war... but not war, as in a highly complex affair involving conflicting interests, gray moral stances, and civilian casualties on both sides; but rather war as a simplistic B-movie alien invasion plot, only protracted across several seasons or book volumes.
Mind you, military involvement in superhero affairs never bothered me in particular - if anything, it's when capes don't answer to human armed force hierarchies that irks me; but I guess that's a cultural thing. In general, I'd say the issue is not so much with intended elitism or fascism - like most of the aforementioned space operas are criticized as - but that unimaginative writing will always resort to using the new and unique as blunt instruments for a cheap slug-fest. Why - because it's the easiest way to have action and drama, without a real change afterwards. And as lack of change is a perpetual fault of superhero comics, it's only expected for them to fall victim to that as well.
I think a good way to look at superpowers is that they're basically disabilities in reverse. In the real world there are people born unable to see, or with highly fragile bones, or with a very low IQ. That doesn't make them any better or worse than other people, but it does mean there are certain things they just will not be able to do. In the world of superheroes, this can also go in the opposite direction: there are people born with x-ray vision, unbreakable bodies, and brains too advanced for us to wrap our heads around. That doesn't make them any better or worse than other people, but it does mean they can do things that we will never be able to do.
It's not fascist or elitist to say that blind people shouldn't drive cars, or that people with brittle bone disease shouldn't try tackling a bank robber, or that someone with Down syndrome shouldn't operate a Large Hadron Collider. Similarly, I don't see a problem with superhumans saying that there are certain things non-superhumans just need to leave to them.
Technology comes to play as an equalizer though. With regard to physical force, humanity has had the power to instantly decimate an entire city for almost seventy years, and the wisdom and restraint to put that kind of power to use only for peaceful purposes. Saying ordinary people should best leave cape matters to the born winners is like saying a myopic race driver with corrective eye-wear shouldn't get near a car, even though he's already done thousands of miles on and off the track.
Similarly, the disability metaphor doesn't work for the likes of Iron Man - the guy's one of the most prominent heavy hitters in Marvel, but underneath the armor, he's still human. And that's not even going into the super-soldier program that created Captain America. All in all, it's not any inherent power that distinguishes cape from commoner, and superheroism isn't a "you have to be this tall to ride" roller-coaster.
edited 30th Jan '15 11:53:06 AM by indiana404
No, that is exactly elitist.
It's no different from dealing with problems faced by extremely tall people versus extremely short people. One might find it frustrating to deal with doorways that are never made with their height in mind, while the other may find it harder to find shelves they can use without a ladder. Either way, they have to deal with a world where the way they are is an afterthought.
The world isn't divided into neat little statements like people who are born this way/have this trait should be able to do this while others can't. Imagine if we had that attitude for reading books. "Sorry, if you were meant to read, you would be able to see." Everyone should be able to experience life as much as anyone else, and this is especially true when it's something which is either vital for society, personal comfort or safety, or general success.
The problem with superheroes isn't just that they can do things that others can't, it's that the things they can do eventually become of vital importance. That's what the "elitism" term refers to: the fact that eventually, the world simply cannot function without superheroes there to lead/guide/defend it.
edited 30th Jan '15 11:51:55 AM by KingZeal
Yeah, there's that messianic inflation again. Though with premises so dire, I usually lose suspension of disbelief and revert from mostly Watsonian to purely Doylist conclusions. One simple general rule I've come up with is this: Don't skin the necessary weasel.
Meaning - a lot of genres rely on stylistic implausibilities in order for the action to take place, or for consequences to be significantly different from what would follow in reality. But these elements cannot be addressed as plot points in and of themselves, apart from parodies or very thorough deconstructions. Otherwise, the result either seems like a ham-fisted fantastic aesop or a laughably contrived attempt at one.
For example, Avatar: The Last Airbender had people practicing mostly unexplained but somewhat rigidly codified supernatural martial arts, utilized for wuxia-style fights. Their origins and resulting implications weren't really addressed, but they were never plot points to begin with. Now cut to the first season of The Legend of Korra, where the plot turned them into X-Men wannabe genetic superpowers, tried to force an Occupy-style classist conflict stemming from the inequality issues they posed, broke every established limit for said superpowers apart from who could acquire them (which itself was further broken two seasons later), and apparently forgot about the existence of ranged weapons in general, so as to further tip the scales enough for the whole conflict to happen. The last bit led to a hilarious scene where some kung-fu cops entered a room in full SWAT-team style, only the lack of guns made them look like they were trying for an impromptu angels pose instead.
In short, the story forced a square premise down a round plot, and had to pull multiple saving throws in later seasons in order to recover from it.
When it comes to superheroes, there should either be a very good reason for why they keep operating on the terms they do, or the point should never be acknowledged, unless significant changes to the status quo are made to accommodate it. So yeah, all the marketing fluff about how humanity needs heroes and [insert character here] is the only one strong enough for the job - that could stand some toning down.
edited 30th Jan '15 3:44:09 PM by indiana404
I was talking about innate superpowers or the super-intelligence needed to invent fabulous technology, which cannot be feasibly transfered or replicated for other people. You can't take a tall person's DNA, inject it into a short person, and create another tall person, so (for example) most basketball teams are going to choose players with an innate height advantage over other players. By the same token, if some people are superhumanly good at beating up alien monsters, it's probably best to leave the alien monster fighting to them.
As for why super-advanced technology isn't used to let normal people work around their lack of superpowers, the same way books-on-tape and braille are used to work around blind people's inability to read, there are two explanations:
From a Doylist perspective, the writers want to keep the setting as an approximation of real life, modern day Earth, both for the illusion that all this wondrous stuff could be happening just a few blocks away, and for the more practical reason that keeping track of how the comic book's society diverges from our society would be an extra headache for the writers and artists.
From a Watsonian perspective, you have to remember that, in-universe, most of this super-technology has only been invented in the last five to ten years. It can take a while for an invention to go from experimental prototype to a mass-produced, household item; nuclear power was first used in 1945, but it wasn't until 1954 that you actually had a power grid running off of it.
Heck, consider that, from the debut of the Fantastic Four til now, only about a decade (maybe even less) has gone by in the Marvel Universe, but the general public has gone from using 1960's era technology to 2010's era technology. Theoretically, you could attribute that rapid technological advancement to the work of Reed Richards and other scientists like him.
edited 30th Jan '15 5:20:16 PM by RavenWilder
The basketball player point you're making there is only a further example of elitist ideology. Once again, you are taking an artificial value that has been decided upon as being acceptable or desirable. And then you have given a select group of people the ability to seek out people with those traits and raise them upon some type of pedestal of importance.
If, say, horse jockeying were the thing we were talking about and not basketball, the situation wouldn't change, but the elite trait would be shortness and dwarfism instead of tallness.
Even intelligence has a component of this because there are plenty of examples of it which are rewarded less than other examples. Some scientific fields can become more or less valuable than others, and some forms of learning, savvy, or comprehension are coveted not because of the effort, complexity or brilliance involved, but because of several socio-political issues which have decided this is the thing we all should care about and what the current world should revolve itself around.
And the Watsonian v. Doylist excuse doesn't fly either. We know WHY the trope exists in reality, but that doesn't remove the criticisms toward it.
Your Watsonian explanations, aside from being speculatory, don't wash either, because superheroes are typically shown as being perfectly comfortable in relying on their experimental technologies and inventions during situations where failure could prove disastrous. They also don't typically show any active control groups for integrating their achievements to the public. Or, even if they do, there's always some conveniently unexplained flaw which makes the general public unworthy of the gift. For example, the hero that the freak accident gave power just HAPPENED to have the unreproduceable trillion-to-one conditions that gave them their abilities.
This still reinforces some type of idea that this person is "special" or "blessed". Results not capable of being replicated is a hallmark of mysticism in literature and is inherently associated with the concept of the soul or the existence of divine providence.
edited 30th Jan '15 7:01:56 PM by KingZeal
I thought acknowledging that someone gained their power due to fortunate circumstances was anti-elitist, as opposed to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd?
No. Dumb luck can be interpreted as miraculous providence.
The only way to prove the difference between the two is by actually demonstrating that the situation can happen to others. If it isn't repeatable, it can easily be construed as "meant to be".
Uh, don't a lot of superhero stories end up feauturing other characters who got their powers from the same source? Other people escaped Krypton besides Superman, other people have tapped into the Speed Force besides the Flash, and who can even keep track of how many people have been mutated by radiation in Marvel?
Yes, but they simply end up joining the "elite club". For example, She-Hulk got her powers via blood transfusion from her cousin. This is handwaved as being possible because of their relation. Thus, the Banners/Walters gene pool carries some sort of "specialness" that the rest of don't.
Even when The Leader caused hulk outs in other people as well, it turned out that, for some reason, those hulk outs drove the people it happened to insane. This was handwaved as some sort of flawed or unethical methodology that The Leader used, but that only raises further questions about why it wasn't at least a "breakthrough".
The narrative, in a nutshell, is doing everything it can to keep the special, elite status of these characters as being unique and special. As I said, even when you have other people that gain powers like The Chosen One, it just becomes The Chosen Many. It's like how cars in general used to be a luxury item, but now we have a specific category of luxury cars. This is easily noticeable in the concept of "Omega Level Mutants", who have some extra "special" on top of their "special". Also remember that Marvel's immediate response to the concept of Mutants becoming a majority in their universe was to take it the complete opposite direction and make them more rare than ever.
On a second note, Superpowerful Genetics is a problem all its own, so to go back to your question about Kryptonians, remember that Kryptonians were implicitly stated to be "more genetically advanced" than humans. That is the ultimate source of a Kryptonian's abilities; they're just better than us.
Inherited powers seem to be a creation of a somewhat racist, hegemonic, and colonialist mindset. In real life, we can't breed people with inherent superiority. We can breed people with specific traits, like height, but not with abilities that the rest of society don't possess. To my knowledge, for example, we still can't breed an eight-foot-tall behemoth with guaranteed advantages in strength speed and dunking power. There's still the probability that some random kid from some random parents will outshine everything superkid can do.
edited 30th Jan '15 7:48:05 PM by KingZeal
I fail to see how superhuman abilities being rare translates to elitism. Elitism doesn't just mean acknowledging that some people are better at certain things than most people, or even acknowledging that some people are innately better at certain things than most people; elitism is when you believe that being better at those things than most people makes them better people. Which is something that superheroes (at least the ones who aren't intended to be Jerk Asses) don't usually do.
Leader of the Holey Brotherhood
Yes.
That is a good point. Most heroes don't consider themselves better than the people around them.
I mean, Tony is a bit of dick but I don't think even he is that bad.
One Strip! One Strip!
They're people with special powers that ordinary people can't have, but a big part of almost all those superheroes is that they have a resposibility to use those powers for the general good, and whenever they're not doing that, they lead ordinary lives and work (mostly) ordinary jobs, without even recognition for their extraordinary deeds. That seems far more socialist than libertarian or fascist (and, since we're discussing historical context, the 1930's was also the heyday of American socialism).