Real Life Politics in Comics

My main problem with the no-kill code as it's presented in various stories isn't really with the code itself, but with the juvenile and farcical justifications for it, frequently relying on stramwn or slippery slope fallacies in order to justify the heroes' moral stance, which just draws attention to the fatal flaws of that kind of approach.

I still think this whole problem began when they decided to make The Killing Joke canon. That was the story that really cemented the idea of Batman not killing you no matter how despicable you are. I mean, The Dark Knight Returns also touched on it, but at least that Batman was willing to take somewhat more permanent measures.

(For comparison - just a few years before these two stories came out, there was a story where Bruce deliberately killed Ra's al-Ghul (with the guy's own gadgets, no less) and blew the ashes into the sun. Hell, Bronze Age Bruce in general was a lot more casual about giving "a fitting end" to criminals.)

Yes, that story should have never been canon and Alan Moore wasn't even writing it thinking that it would be so.

Is it just me, or is there an unreasonably high amount of defensive knee-jerk reactions to Moore's deconstructive takes among the later generation of writers? Sure, he pointed out some of the silly and unrealistic aspects of comics, and played them for drama. He got praised for making a story out of jokes that all fans have already made, but were considerate enough not to make an issue of. If he were writing Star Trek, it would be a dark dystopia full of irresponsible starship captains that send half their crew on suicide missions while boning every alien they haven't killed (to the sounds of Leonard Cohen's Halleluja, if Snyder's doing the film adaptation). Is it really that necessary to try and "disprove" him, particularly if it just means taking his premise verbatim and trying to reinforce the status quo regardless?

To be fair, it's not like he's trying to stop them. Heck, if we take Supreme as his "What if I kept writing for DC after Watchmen" AU, he'd probably be joining them...

edited 1st Jul '17 12:00:01 AM by Rubber_Lotus

Generally speaking people still seem to hold Moore's work itself in high regard, but don't think most cape comics should take after him, an opinion that Moore himself seems to agree with. Even some of the writers championing "traditional", escapist comics that "embrace" the medium like Mark Waid have written very dark and deconstructive comics like Irredeemable.

Part of the reason why Watchmen works as well as it does is that, while obviously it owes to the genre and character archetypes it's commenting on, it's still its own story that was allowed to end and isn't endlessly revisited and retconned into an incoherent mess (there were the Before Watchmen comics but they're fairly easy to ignore and DC hasn't done anything like it since). That means it's able to stick to its guns and create actual drama, because the story has actual consequences and is able to follow up the questions it raises and give the due uncomfortable answers, making the book richer for it.

You can't reasonably pull off that sort of thing as well in a mainstream book at DC or Marvel simply because of the infinite serialized nature means a good chance exists of it being undone or contradicted by other material, cheapening the story.

A lot of the backlash to the era that was supposedly influenced by Moore and Miller also feels like an overreaction. Yes, it's ok to have the lighter, more optimistic and traditional heroes too, but it doesn't automatically mean the darker and more somber stories or grim n' gritty antiheroes have no value just because a lot of the stories from that era were horrible.

edited 1st Jul '17 12:33:50 AM by Draghinazzo

If anything, I'd say the grim and gritty anti-heroes were a reaction to Moore's imitators, rather than being imitators themselves. The Moore and Miller wannabes went for genocidal supervillains and serial killers, while Liefeld and Jim Lee created new heroes to match... and were soon criticized for how violent they were. And, y'know, the fact that they also gave the finger to the mainstream industry and started their own company had nothing to do with it, no sirree.

I also agree that while Moore's stories had definitive endings - even TKJ can be said to have ended with Batman killing the Joker, or even going insane himself - modern attempts at recreating their success invariably write checks they can't actually cash. That's why I maintain that comics should stick to adventure and mystery frameworks, as those can be serialized. Alternatively, I'd go for lightening up the tent-pole villains, so that the main conflict is somewhat grayer and there's no drama milked from their very existence. The Joker is emblematic in that regard, but even Lex Luthor beat the idea of a legally immune villain against a self-restrained hero to the ground. Nowadays if you want to watch ruthless tycoons abuse positions of barely limited power with only token attempts at resistance, you might as well flip on the news.

Moore, interestingly enough, doesn't want to see anyone else doing the kinds of stories he did. Other writers found his deconstructions so kewl and edgy that that's all anyone wanted to do for 15 years or so, much to Moore's chagrin (to be fair, it of course is not Alan Moore's fault that a bunch of less talented writers wanted to ape his work, or that editors allowed them to do so). That's why he did stuff like Supreme and Tom Strong, because he was sick of seeing super heroes analyzed to death.

He described the problem as being "analysis without synthesis." It's fine to take the watch apart to see what makes it work, and to see how it can be made to work better, but eventually you need to put that watch back together again. In the end, we all get sick of seeing the tropes and the shortcuts and the logical fallacies pointed out to us, and just want to see someone put the gears back together and tell a good story.

edited 2nd Jul '17 4:00:55 PM by Robbery

Pretty much. There's a difference between pointing out an issue and then trying to alleviate it, and just bashing strawmen and pretending it ain't there no more. Occasionally it even leads to rather impressive inanities, such as Jason Todd complaining that the Joker ain't dead... while still dripping from the Lazarus pit himself.

My own peeves fundamentally boil down to two elements that have become endemic in mainstream titles. For one, there's the needlessly decompressed and stretched out stories with inconclusive or outright downer endings - I don't think it's too much to ask for a story to have a beginning, middle, and a definite end, with the villain acknowledged as defeated, regardless of whether it means imprisonment or something more extreme. There's got to be an endgame to these things.

Second, there's the apparent need to point out how superheroes and related characters are oh-so-totally not like everyone else, even if amounts to nothing more than having a custom bow and arrow set; and deserve special treatment and legal immunity for whatever they do, regardless of how many civil rights they ignore. I don't think this can fly anymore altogether. Having them as eccentric specialists on call for benevolent government institutions is about as far as their operations can be stretched right now, unless they actually do admit to being well-intentioned criminals, like Batman in the recent films.

All in all, and like I've mentioned before, the modern storytelling faults and unwholesome political implications of the genre have little to do with its fundamentals, but instead exist for their own sake, trying to recapture a genie that went out of the bottle more than three decades ago.

At this point, does anyone disagree with anyone else anymore? It feels like we're all just circlejerking, and any objectors have just shrugged and gone elsewhere.

That's the fate of discussions of this nature. People really only keep it up because they have pet causes to push, or personal disputes to settle with those not in agreement with them.

edited 4th Jul '17 8:57:41 AM by VeryMelon

It's a politics thread - whadja expect? Though this is the first time I've ever seen complaints about too much agreement in a thread. Talk about a tough crowd.

At any rate, another reason for this particular discussion is that the themes covered are very often found in the genre, and urban fantasy in general, to the point they've become cliches in their own right, or otherwise dependent on plain and simple bad writing. Seems reasonable enough to analyze and look for ways to avoid them.

Superheroes in particular suffer from a Catch-22 situation, regarding both power and purpose. For one, any crisis bad enough to warrant their attention, should have already had jets and tanks charging into the fray, really big guns blazing. There's only so powerful that superheroes can believably get in order to stay useful on a modern battlefield. On the other hand, any period of time peaceful enough to have in-universe discussions whether superheroes should be allowed to run around without supervision... is probably better off without them running around without supervision. The fundamental issue is that they are essentially civilian volunteers - meaning that at any given time, for any reason, anyone would be justified in asking why they in particular should handle a given problem.

You can see a similar trend in most urban fantasy, at least the ones featuring a masquerade. The hero is either already an operator for a covert agency tasked with handling the supernatural, or shuns and despises any form of government meddling, since it would basically render them obsolete. The resulting political implications - that governments are evil, people are stupid, and the world is not ready for whatever floats the hero's boat - are cringeworthy enough on their own. However, what actually makes them unwholesome is that they are built on circular reasoning. Behold, the world is too foolish to be aware of the random junk I just made up; people are too weak to handle themselves without the hero I keep giving New Powers as the Plot Demands, etc. etc.

All in all, regardless of one's political perspectives, I think we can all agree that making plot points out of necessary weasels isn't exactly the mark of a good story, and contrariwise it's a useful exercise to see if and how they may be done away with altogether.

If for no other reason, this thread makes a good general area of discussion for all relates subject matters.

This is going off-topic, but it's increasingly unclear just why supernatural beings in urban fantasy even bother with keeping themselves secret. I guess it makes sense if they're both uncommon and predominantly evil, but you'd think that if vampires were generally nice, they'd see the success of Twilight as a reason to finally come out of the shadows. (I think the Buffy comics did go that route, but I've only read a couple of them).

Though this is the first time I've ever seen complaints about too much agreement in a thread.

What do you think the term circlejerk refers to?

...in this context.

Like I said, it's mostly for the convenience of the vampire slayers. I mean, if vampires existed in real life, and they presented a threat to humans, does anyone think that the best way to fight them would involve hormone-laden teenagers, no matter how super-speshul some prophecy says they are? Such issues would likely fall under the jurisdiction of specialized government, military and scientific units... which completely coincidentally are usually depicted as villains or obstructive incompetents, if they are mentioned at all.

In that regard, a lot urban fantasy is all about setting up a nice and simplistic separate world where the main character is the bee's knees, social frameworks don't go beyond some pseudo-feudal system with demon lords and vampire criminal kingpins ^note though I reckon impressions of both medieval society and the modern criminal underworld themselves are just as simplified, and all the pesky rules and regulations of civilization are ignored, lest they endanger the power fantasy aspect of the whole deal. Similarly, paranormal romance is all about having a magical boyfriend or girlfriend that fawns over the protagonist for unspecified reasons - and as with chewing gum, unless they've brought enough for the whole class, chances are they won't be able to keep theirs either.

In either case, the question of why the supernatural aspects aren't more integrated into mainstream society is completely justified... but the fulcrum of most urban fantasy is the separation from mainstream society to begin with. The modern world is complex and often restrictive, and such fiction is designed to offer a short power trip with no actual requirements, at least not for the protagonist. It's similar to exaggerated spy and hard-boiled detective novels, where characters ultimately have their own little bubble universe to play in, with little actual relevance to reality.

And of course, the same can be said of superhero stories. Social response to spandex fetishists thrashing about downtown is something that fans can joke about, but it never should've been put to print. It simply can't be taken to any logical conclusion that doesn't wreck half the fundamentals of the genre... with the notable exception of the simple vigilante man framework, that unfortunately mainstream superheroes have long abandoned.

That pretty much describes Hamilton's Anita Blake series, except that in her reality there isn't any "Masquerade." After a book or so, the whole thing seems like an excuse for the heroine to be fawned over by supernatural entities who find her desirable for no discernible reason. Adolescent power fantasies are fine, but one does need to hang a story on them.

And herein lies the paradox - unless you're going for pure comedy, a story has to challenge the protagonist in some way or another, meaning all their powers and privileges effectively lose their initial purpose. With great power comes great responsibility, leading to the counter-intuitive situation of characters designed as escapist power fantasies spending a bunch of their time moping about how much it sucks to have such powers.

To contrast, note how stories with an already Adventure-Friendly World where the protagonists aren't too unusual - like the aforementioned spies and detectives - are rather more cheerful in outlook, as the protagonists aren't burdened with a ton of existential issues, and their profession and activities are at least acknowledged as something real, even if the details are exaggerated and fanciful. Granted, both superspies and hard-boiled detectives are somewhat obsolete archetypes themselves these days, but I'm pretty sure they can still be adapted one way or another. Which is what I hope can be done for superheroes as well.

That's just it. Superheroes are already common in the universes they occupy so that attitude shouldn't be that common. Marvel and DC have unintentionally created an adventure friendly world they just need to treat it as such.

I remember one story where someone (it may have been Lois Lane, it may not) asked Superman why he did what he did, and his answer was "Because no one else can." A sharp reader pointed out in the letters column (remember those?) that with all the other heroes in the DC universe, that answer makes patently no sense. It's not an answer I ever cared for anyway, and smacks of a lack of thought on the part of the writer. I always preferred a permutation of Spider-Man's motivation, that when confronted with a threat it is one's responsibility to do what one can to help. That's been parsed a variety of ways ("With great power comes great responsibility" and "When bad stuff happens and you could stop it, but you don't, it's kinda your fault") but what it ultimately boils down to is: help where you can, when you can. And in the case of someone like Superman, that's considerable more than the average person. Rather than "Because no one else can" the answer should simply be "because I can." Which is what the whole fantasy is about anyway, doing what we wish we could do, and doing what we hope we would do in similar circumstances.

edited 6th Jul '17 2:45:32 PM by Robbery

Or we could simply kick out the Shared Universe and bring Superman back to a genuinely unique being in his world...

A world, however, where his abilities have to be constantly inflated if he is to stay unique. For that matter, the very fact that he is a confirmed and vastly powerful extra-terrestrial living on Earth would require considerable suspension of disbelief to ignore how it doesn't lead to a complete shift of global policy, particularly in defense technology and military spending if he were to act like his gung-ho old self.

The other main difference from the early age of comics is that it has become fashionable to try and discuss real-life issues, which results in either a) gross simplification of the subject matter while at the same time lamenting how it can't be fixed by the standard superhero methodology of finding and beating up a scapegoat; or b) thinking up elaborate excuses for those problems that could be solved by certain superheroes, but would thus become unrelatable to reality.

All in all, it is probably for the best if the big two companies indeed acknowledge that they operate in a sort of heightened reality where a number of things are taken for granted, and just work with the setting as-is, rather than try to justify it... if only because their main method seems to be to beat a strawman of the complainer into submission.

Superman's old gung-ho self didn't concern himself much with what the public thought of him; he'd pop up, do what he felt he had to do, and then vanish. It'd be an interesting take on Superman to have Clark Kent carry the narrative, and only have Superman show up when there were heroics to be done (the original Superman radio show was more or less structured along these lines, to great success; Clark on the radio was a very interesting character, considerably different than the Clark of the early comics).

So Sean Murphy's Batman Elseworld has an... interesting premise. Basically, it's a universe where the Joker is the hero and tries to combat crime through a media war against Gotham's elite.

http://www.cbr.com/batman-is-the-villain-in-sean-gordon-murphys-white-knight/

Could be good. Could be bad. It being non canon at least gives it more freedom

Heh.

I'm thinking a lot of people will like that.

It's certainly gonna be different, that's for sure.