TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Are we cynical about superheroes?

Go To

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#201: Feb 6th 2015 at 8:31:56 PM

I doubt it. Whenever he's left by dead, the Joker returns just as quickly as when he's left in jail.

The best actual solution would be teaching Batman writers to actually trust other Batman villains to carry on the stories during Joker's absences. Because nowadays, even when they aren't writing Joker himself, their villains end up looking like Joker wearing a different skin more often than not. Not even Spider-Man relies on his Green Goblin, Venom or Doc Ock that much.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#202: Feb 7th 2015 at 1:48:43 AM

I still stand by my position that if Batman doesn't want to kill criminals, he shouldn't have to kill criminals. Just because he's dedicated his life to fighting crime doesn't mean that he can't have personally-imposed scruples...especially since he's a private entity with no actual oversight.

The problem is, and will always be, a government that is inept at holding and/or executing villains like the Joker.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#203: Feb 7th 2015 at 2:32:01 AM

Yet in his methods, he precisely mirrors that government - an overfunded mess of issues too self-centered to do anything the people actually call for. And like @wehrmacht said, there's also the cases where someone else finally pulls the trigger, only to have Batman drop down and perform CPR on the clown. Killing is a choice he has the right not to make, but not the right to revoke. Given his otherwise obsessive restrictive monopolization of Gotham's cape complement, it's safe to say heis the reason the city stays rotten, not just because he won't go the distance himself, but because he won't let anyone else either. And again, going to town on all things not-quite-human isn't really convincing in the moral department, more like an excuse to have his bloodthirsty cake and eat it too. Indeed, he has dedicated his life to fighting crime... just not actually wanting to stop it.

The way I see it, superheroes exist to address, at least temporarily, the faults of official organizations, whatever they may be, rather than just get their kicks beating up criminals. In this, there's a difference between failing from metafictionally-mandated lack of consequences, and from just plain lack of trying, never mind preventing anyone else.

edited 7th Feb '15 2:32:20 AM by indiana404

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#204: Feb 7th 2015 at 2:44:15 AM

No, he certainly has the right to revoke it. If we were talking about Batman busting in and stopping an execution that is the result of a fair and just sentencing of the state, then I would agree with you. But Batman stopping another random entity like him from playing executioner is another matter.

I also disagree with your implied definition of "the faults of organizations", because that runs into Concepts Are Cheap very quickly. It's easy to start seeing "faults" everywhere whenever things doesn't happen perfectly or the way you want them to. Or, in this case, executing people because the State won't do it. Once that genie's out of the bottle, there's no way to put it back in, no matter how much the state improves.

And yes, pretty sure we all agree on the non-human stance and violence fetishes. But that's a simple enough fix: just don't do it.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#205: Feb 7th 2015 at 4:42:38 AM

All this does is make for even more contrived fightscenes, particularly during mass invasion events. And no, seeing as how he can claim neither legal authority, nor private ownership of the city itself (much as he may want to), he has no business regulating how vigilantes are supposed to operate, especially under his own schizophrenic moral code, wherein beating a guy to one late ambulance away from death is a-ok, but actually doing it personally is going too far. As much as inflated marketing may pretend otherwise, he's just a man dressed like a bat, to whom no one's obliged to defer to. Mind you, seeing as how he still associates with the likes of Catwoman and Jason Todd, knowing full well about them continuing to cross the line when needed, the situation visibly still boils down to him actively trying to keep only his own opponents alive, as an excuse to keep torturing himself, regardless of whoever else gets hurt.

It's one thing to want better writing, where characters aren't faced with choices compromising their morality - although that usually just makes me feel like they can only get by when handled with velvet gloves, despite all pretense of complexity and darkness. It's another thing however to openly ignore what does happen, saying that it shouldn't. I calls it as I sees it, and base conclusions on that, not on how I'd do things if I were Running the Asylum.

edited 7th Feb '15 7:31:01 AM by indiana404

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#206: Feb 7th 2015 at 9:58:09 AM

The thing with the 'Kill the Joker or not' dilemma is it's a false one in the first place, because it's born from an original impossible situation; Batman can apprehend Joker without killing him and then tossing him in the asylum, and then the government can keep him in the asylum because he indeed has an insanity condition (unlike any ever seen in real life, yes, but still acceptable in-universe; I have gone into details over why I don't consider him legally responsible before). And guess what? That should be it. The only reason why he keeps escaping over and over in a routine basis is because of an absurd Plot Fiat, so you're basically asking to apply a rational answer to an irrational, absurd problem. The solution is not keeping springing the Joker over and over and using him wisely. His loss would be a great one to Batman canon, but for Pete's sake, use him only when there's a really worthwhile story about him, not just yet another repeat of the goddarn basic Joker tale.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#207: Feb 7th 2015 at 10:24:41 AM

As much as inflated marketing may pretend otherwise, he's just a man dressed like a bat, to whom no one's obliged to defer to.

If we're talking about the way Batman comics work currently, then actually, yes he is. Batman is the de-facto authority on Gotham vigilantism, thanks to the incompetence of the police and/or the scale of power of the villains. Gotham literally cannot function without him, and despite any failings, he still saves more lives than lost. In that sense, he totally gets to choose what crime-fighting methods he tolerates and which he does not, because literally no one else (except maybe Dick Grayson) can do his job but him.

If Batman wishes not to be party to murder, then by the logic of the DC Universe, he has that right. There's no official channels to stop him (because they're vigilantes). He gets to set whatever hard limits to his methods he wants. And like I said, if he didn't, and the whole "murder is the best solution" can of worms gets opened, it can't be put back. If every individual hero has the right to decide when murder is a good solution to end criminals, you end up with urban warfare.

Obviously, this would be different if there were some sort of Council of Vigilantes that decided amongst themselves when murder was an appropriate solution ("Don't shoot Roxy Rocket if no one's in danger, but feel free to murder the crap out of Mr. Freeze if he tries freezing the whole city again!"), but right now, such a Council doesn't exist except for Batman's. Which is why he's the de-facto authority.

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#208: Feb 7th 2015 at 11:46:00 AM

Right, 'cause his parents died and made him king. Like I said, his tolerance of Catwoman et al., to the point he more often tries to take her to bed than to jail, pretty conclusively demonstrates he has no problem with killers, so long as they touch not but a hair on his other twisted love interest's bleached head. The guy has issues, but they're certainly not moral ones, that's for sure. Consequently, Batman Beyond showed how his successor is up to the task when necessary, without descending down a slippery slope or the city exploding into anarchy. He did kill the Joker, and all was well with the world. For that matter, the show also proved that a superhero franchise is ultimately about the superhero, without an obligatory cast of rehashed supervillains he just won't get rid of.

And then there's the likes of Wonder Woman, who has shown time and again that a less restricted attitude toward killing doesn't preclude being a noble hero in itself, or having regular antagonists, so long as there are other reasons for not driving the blade right away. Sans Spider-Man and occasionally Daredevil, that's also the Marvel attitude in a nutshell, and it's proven more than beneficial in the long run.

The real genie that's out is the notion that villains win because heroes hold back, regardless of their excuses for it. If there's anything cynical about the superhero genre, it's this. The solution is in either Lighter and Softer iterations that try and pretend they've forgotten about that whole idea, or simply taking after those heroes who do address it, so the next time a villain is brought back from the dead, it won't be due to the hero's unwillingness to do a thorough job during their previous bout.

edited 7th Feb '15 11:57:54 AM by indiana404

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#209: Feb 7th 2015 at 12:16:51 PM

A story with a hero killing a villain and "all was better" doesn't inherently prove the betterness of that solution. It's no less of a construct than the Kir K Summation that makes the foe make a full face turn. If killing a villain solves everything, then it's because the story said so. If talking to a villain stops them for good, it's because the story said so. There are no ricochets or collateral damage or victims caught in the crossfire unless the writer says there is. Just like there's no internal brain hemorrhaging from a punch unless the writer says there is.

It all comes down to what story the writer and hero want to tell, and then Consistency to go with it. That's why I said that you aren't wrong about the non-human issue. But you can't have stories where independent heroes get to decide on their own who is worth killing and who isn't. Again, unless there's an agreement amongst the characters (or staff) that there is a line that won't be crossed.

Batman Beyond proved a superhero show is about the superhero. It also ended. If you want to argue that comics should also be willing to end after ideas have run their course, then sure. But, comparing the show to the comics universe isn't equivalent.

As I said, I stick with the idea that the problem isn't Batman. Just because he wants to stop crime without murder doesn't mean he's wrong. The story is wrong for forcing a narrative where this only works when the criminal doesn't have fans.

edited 7th Feb '15 12:22:21 PM by KingZeal

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#210: Feb 7th 2015 at 1:37:27 PM

Like it reads plain as day in the above post, seeing how Wonder Woman hasn't ended, despite her attitude, is a pretty big nail in that idea's coffin. For that matter, constantly treating a story like some sort of artificial construct pretty much ruins any suspension of disbelief, making whatever point the story builds toward ultimately unconvincing. Some genre elements are less realistic than others, and whenever one of them is pointed out in-universe, particularly with regard to character choices and moral stances, it can't be left unaddressed. Genre conventions can change with the times, and that includes the attitude of the heroes, at least if any of their moral pretense is to be taken at face value. In short, I can acknowledge Batman's unwillingness to kill people as his own personal choice, and it's not my call to change that... but I do get to interpret this stance as incredibly hypocritical, and not bother with any metafictional justifications.

In general, I'm actually flabbergasted by just how many creative deficiencies one has to stomach in order to enjoy most superhero comics - from continuity issues to enough necessary weasels to fill a forest - as opposed to simply picking up any half-decent urban fantasy series that would never be affected by them in the first place. The other thing Batman Beyond demonstrated is that good writers can still create a whole superhero from scratch, even as a legacy character, and just have a normal story with a beginning, middle, and end, after which the audience can move on to the writers' next project. But as comics themselves are very rarely creator-owned, and it shows just how much the stories suffer for it, it's clear this sort of thing is a major exception. Problem is, it's an exception nobody has to accept. Rather than attribute it to cynicism, it may be prudent to admit that potential fans simply don't want to bother with the comic industry's own issues, rather than, like I said, just watch the cartoons.

No really, think about it - for all the number of Batman cartoons alone, nobody's ever complained about them being reboots or overexposing some villains, or even recycling the stories themselves. No - because each of them was short enough for these things to not become issues in its own private continuity, and as they didn't have to leave things open for indefinite serialization, they could kill-off characters, have lasting progress and status quo changes, and a great big grand finale to top it all off. And then another show would be free to offer its own interpretation, no strings attached.

I guess that's why I gravitate toward non-flagship characters that don't need to always have an ongoing series - it's pretty much the same deal but on page.

edited 7th Feb '15 1:38:47 PM by indiana404

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#211: Feb 7th 2015 at 1:50:19 PM

What? Wonder Woman comics are infamous for how repeatedly they're cancelled. And her Rogues Gallery is often derided as being one of the worst in comics. She's not exactly a model I'd use for a good example. Maybe Judge Dredd, but even his premise is still rather different than American comic books.

And again, as for universes with definite endings, it's not like we don't have those bases covered already. There are tons of closed continuity stories that scratch that particular itch. Seriously, we don't really lose anything, since limited series are pretty damn common and in some cases, a fan can just pretend a particular story arc is their definite ending. I personally think Heart of the Monster so neatly wrapped up the Hulk's story that no matter what they do in the future, that will be my personal headcanon.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with ongoing storytelling if it weren't for the cosmic reboot. Even Dork Age stories like Wolverine with no nose and Electro Superman I can deal with, because I can just move over to another character I like in the meantime. But the cosmic reboot is just a middle finger because it made everything before it a "Shaggy Dog" Story. For example, if you were interested in seeing what Conner Kent would be like when he fully realized his potential and became either the second Superman (not likely) or his own Nightwing/Arsenal/Donna Troy type hero, well too bad. He's gone forever and replaced by a character In Name Only.

edited 7th Feb '15 1:54:09 PM by KingZeal

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#212: Feb 7th 2015 at 2:23:12 PM

Well, if Wonder Woman isn't up to your standards, there's guys like Wolverine and the whole Lantern spectrum, the former of which is the fulcrum of more titles while dead than most heroes get when they're alive, while the latter simply aren't affected by the industry's marketing restrictions, and use lethal force when needed - while regular antagonists like Sinestro are restrained enough not to warrant it in any immediate fashion.

For that matter, the notion that a superhero should even have perpetual opponents is yet another of those genre elements that no other medium feels the need to bother with. Sure, Wonder Woman has a poor rogues gallery, and someone like Deadpool has none to speak of. You know what he does have? Good regular stories that don't use forced moral stances or overdrawn symbolism to shill beating a dead horse, or insanely inflated stakes to try and distract the audience from the fact they just can't pay out on even the smallest personal level. If anything, the cosmic retcons are the inevitable consequence of that sort of premise, where the only thing able to provoke even the slightest change in the status quo is for the whole universe to shatter in pieces. But like I said, my preference for non-flagship characters who develop well enough on their own does make me immune to most of that rubbish. Who knows, maybe even the new Lobo might build up to something worthwhile.

bookworm6390 Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: Abstaining
#213: Feb 7th 2015 at 2:31:01 PM

It's just a story, you all should really just relax! Though sometimes writers don't do a good job of writing the story. Bummer. Give me some cheesy goofy happy stories and I be fine! Is there a DC Comic equivalent to Ms. Marvel type story character?

indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#214: Feb 7th 2015 at 2:47:12 PM

Is there a DC Comic equivalent to Ms. Marvel type story character?
None right now that I could think of, unless you count Batman '66 or the like. Current DC policy seems to be that all Lighter and Softer iterations should devolve into utter camp, lest someone ask for the main universe to take after their example.

Marvel also has the new Squirrel Girl ongoing right now, and I dare say it's even better. It's kinda like a furry-superhero-starring Sabrina The Teenage Witch, wherein as of the second issue, she's going to space in a custom Iron Man outfit, armored fluffy tail and all... to defeat Galactus. And the way the story takes itself, it'll probably make it work too.

edited 7th Feb '15 3:08:21 PM by indiana404

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#215: Feb 7th 2015 at 3:44:47 PM

From what I understand, Gotham Academy might actually be DC's version of Ms. Marvel. Cute, fun, funny, intelligent, and just an all-around great book.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
VampireBuddha Calendar enthusiast from Ireland (Wise, aged troper) Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, they are imaginary
Calendar enthusiast
#216: Feb 7th 2015 at 4:55:38 PM

Maybe Judge Dredd, but even his premise is still rather different than American comic books.

True. For one thing, he isn't a superhero. Strontium Dog might be a better comparison.

Ukrainian Red Cross
Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#217: Feb 7th 2015 at 5:21:21 PM

The "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker" question is a stick they use to beat comics fans with. It's a question that was initially posed by fans that were bantering with each other, and then got obsessed over to the point where it's no longer fun, or funny. It's a point that gets raised to demonstrate the cleverness of the point raiser, much like the "how can these idiots not know Superman is Clark Kent?" question. Seriously, you'll note the Doctor over in Doctor Who doesn't get nearly as much flack for not killing people...

If you can't accept that it's just something you have to suspend your disbelief for, you can ponder the idea that Batman doesn't kill the Joker cuz it's not part of the mission he's set for himself. He continually defeats the Joker and sometimes even brings him to justice. It then becomes the job of the justice system to deal with him, which it perpetually does by not locking him up in prison or by executing him, but by putting him in Arkham. Which is silly, because the Joker is not clinically insane. He may be sociopathic, but that isn't a bar to being locked up or executed necessarily, as he understands that what he does is considered wrong and simply doesn't care. So in the end, the Joker's continued existence is not Batman's fault, it's the criminal justice system's fault.

I can understand a complaint that one gets tired of seeing dumb writers try to make the Joker terrifying by having him wipe out scores of people. I'd be much happier seeing the Joker getting consistantly defeated. But really, his continued existence is only a problem if you, as a reader, insist on it's being one. And whether or not you have an issue with realizing that the fiction you read is, in fact, fiction, and can forgive it for being so.

To King Zeal at post 211: When was Wonder Woman ever cancelled? It ended around the time Crisis on Infinite Earths ended, there was a WW mini series in the interim (as per their then-contract with the Moulton estate) and then it started up again in '86 or '87. I don't think it's ever been out of print for any great length of time (which does surprise me a bit, as it's always been one of the most "meh" books out there, imo, outside of Adam Hughes covers).

edited 7th Feb '15 5:31:17 PM by Robbery

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#218: Feb 7th 2015 at 5:40:36 PM

Batman's failures at stopping crime are just as plot-imposed as they are to any other superhero in a long standing continuity— the Punisher certainly hasn't made Marvel's New York any safer for anyone with all the killing he's done either. The whole discussion is kind of stupid in the end because it's trying to apply a Watsonian view on a Doylist problem. Even if Batman were to riddle the Joker with bullets, stab him everywhere, strangle him, behead him, chop his body to itsy bitsy pieces, burn it all, smash the charred bone to dust, put the dust in a cement mixer, place the block of cement in a rocket and shoot the rocket into the moon, six months later a writer would say he either killed a Joker impostor or ignore that story altogether. Just like Dixon's attempt to jail the Joker into Antarctica and Rucka's attempt to leave him with a lame less and thus far less mobile were completely ignored by the next writers.

As for failing to make his city a better place, or even making it worse? It actually happens with pretty much every superhero— New York didn't start having Green Goblins and Electros and Kravens and Doc Ocks until after Amazing Spider-Man # 1, and Metropolis didn't have superpowered brutes wrecking the city and imps in bowler hats turning people into eggplants until after Superman arrived. No offense intended, but other than satisfying a hateboner on Batman, I fail to see why dumping that on him alone while ignoring it's the same thing everywhere.

The funny thing being, logically, it could easily be argued Gotham might have benefited from the change from Mob ruling to costumed supervillainy just by using some logic, because the former should be more insidious and harder to control and identify than the later— if you dress up as an ostrich, call yourself Ostrich Master and go rob a bank, there's a better chance you'll be stopped than if you act protected by the mob and a corrupted police force. Add to that how many Batman villains have lapses into Anti Heroism and/or at least controlled pragmatic villainy (Catwoman, Bane, Riddler, Penguin, Catman, Harley, Ivy, Deadshot) and how a good, non-cardboard psychiatric institution should take care of most of the rest, and the only real reason why the comics canon says otherwise is because of editorially forced contrivance.

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#219: Feb 7th 2015 at 5:45:58 PM

[up] And then you get stuff like Gotham, which is illustrating the change from mob-centered crime to super-empowered criminal personalities long before Batman shows up. It would be interesting for writers to postulate that the super-villains preceded the appearance of the super-heroes; that's actually be a bit more realistic, given the usual trend of human nature...

HandsomeRob Leader of the Holey Brotherhood from The land of broken records Since: Jan, 2015
Leader of the Holey Brotherhood
#220: Feb 7th 2015 at 6:27:22 PM

Wasn't it said in Watchmen that the bad guys wore masks first, so the heroes decided When in Rome and did the same?

I think that kinda goes along with what your saying right there.

One Strip! One Strip!
wehrmacht belongs to the hurricane from the garden of everything Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
belongs to the hurricane
#221: Feb 7th 2015 at 6:45:20 PM

Batman doesn't necessarily have to kill Joker but if Arkham Asylum has such shitty security that Joker can break out more or less when he feels like it, then he should probably just invest a shitton of money or call in a favor from one of his JL buddies to help construct a facility the Joker can't get out of that easily.

Or to be more sensible he could put some of that gadget money to good use and do what any rich person with an interest in politics does: lobby. Campaign for legal reforms to make sure the death penalty can be applied to insane people who've committed particularly heinous crimes. given that he basically has an infinite amount of money he could pretty much stuff just a bunch of dollar bills in people's pockets and have the Joker be sentenced to death in a couple of months.

it actually reminds me of that one scene in Superior Spider Man where Sp Ock kills that one villain whose name I can't remember. The guy was a functionally irredemable psychopathic murderer who was one trigger pull away from killing a bunch of hostages. Far from blaming him, pretty much everyone who was there understood and supported his decision. Ghost Peter gave him shit for it but you know what? Fuck Ghost Peter. I actually think that Spock made the right decision in that case.

As I've said before, it's not that killing someone is good, or right. But sometimes it's just something you might have to do to prevent something even worse from happening, even if you have to live with the guilt for the rest of your life. To me that's what being a real hero is about.

edited 7th Feb '15 6:46:41 PM by wehrmacht

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#222: Feb 7th 2015 at 7:59:13 PM

A lot of people argue that, because Batman refuses to kill the Joker, he bears responsibility for the Joker's subsequent crimes. I just want to point out that this argument is false. Batman is not responsible for the choices other people make. The only person responsible for the Joker's crimes is the Joker. And any accomplices who help him out, obviously.

I think the whole idea of "the blood is on Batman's hands" actually ties into what Zeal was talking about earlier, with elitism. By trying to argue that Batman bears responsibility for what the Joker does, people are essentially arguing that Batman is the only person who matters. It actually dismisses free will, by suggesting that people are only allowed to do what the Person Who Matters chooses to allow them to do. A guy doesn't choose to mug a woman, Batman allows a guy to mug a woman, by not being in the right area at the right time.

edited 7th Feb '15 9:32:27 PM by Tiamatty

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
indiana404 Since: May, 2013
#224: Feb 8th 2015 at 12:29:01 AM

Like I've said before, the issue wouldn't be so egregious, if Batman really didn't kill anyone, as opposed to slaughtering countless mooks of inhuman origin, pestering anyone else who tries to take on the city's villains, and then sucking face with Catwoman or Thalia after their own latest misdeeds.

Here's the real deal though - it's not about killing, it's about having options. It's become abundantly clear that if the villain in a Batman story pulls the "you can't kill me, therefore I win" card, it can always be exploited for cheap angst because there's nothing the Cowl will do about it, even for people who make baby Jason cry - so all that angst actually builds up to nothing. It's also clear that whenever the story does call for the villain to die, it'll either be an accident, a self-inflicted karmic death, or someone like Catwoman will do the dirty work. But I happen to find the former two developments extremely unsatisfying, while the latter inevitably has me asking why I should care about Batman, who obviously can't batter up to solve his own problems, and not just read about Catwoman, or any other hero who can. That's how vicious ensemble dark horses like Wolverine get popular in the first place - not because there's anything inherently more interesting in Darker and Edgier bloodthirsty killers, but because they'll always have this one more option - and in a genre built around fighting, it's an option that comes up quite often.

With that in mind, I have to ask - whenever the Joker starts gloating in his face as usual, why doesn't Batman explore the other non-lethal options available? Why doesn't he just causally snap a finger or two, shatter his larynx so as to avoid yet another annoying monologue, or even leave him castrated and quadriplegic before he hauls him back to Arkham - all things he doesn't spare to any other human mook. If the answer is that writers love to stroke their Joker-on, that's fine... but I'm tired of metafictional justifications, so in-universe, it still looks like the guy's just a glutton for emotional punishment, and all his suffering is ultimately self-inflicted.

On the flip-side, there's nothing wrong with Lighter and Softer iterations of the genre, full of, well, fluffy squirrel girls battling all-powerful overlords on the Moon - but that's another range of options that the currently fashionable overly serious portrayal of flagship characters fears to explore, with the Bat-family hit the hardest. Instead, they are bound to brooding in self-perpetuated angst, with less emotional variability than the ridiculously human robots they regularly have to square off against, so as to be able to go all the way in a fight without the moral guardian alarm going off.

edited 8th Feb '15 3:06:17 AM by indiana404

NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#225: Feb 8th 2015 at 5:38:19 AM

but I'm tired of metafictional justifications, so in-universe, it still looks like the guy's just a glutton for emotional punishment, and all his suffering is ultimately self-inflicted.

But as long as there's a metafictional problem, it doesn't matter at all if there's an in-universe justification or not, the problem, on itself, continues being there. That's hardly the characters' 'fault', but it's an elephant in the room that can be ignored more easily in that line of the Fourth Wall compared to this one.


Total posts: 763
Top