Superheroes: A Roundtable Discussion

[danhagen]

The rational world at large would not tolerate a religious leader who advocates an oversimplified philosophical outlook of "peace through violence" and a serious politician pushing for the same would be laughed out of parliament.
----
The rational world at large might not, but the real world would --- the Spanish Inquisition, the fascists, etc.

[Talavar]

I guess the reason I wanted to bring up the thorny question of "superhero morality" vis-à-vis the violence inherent in the superhero genre is I've started to think about danhagen, Talavar, and BentonGrey's assertions that superheroes can inform the moral outlook of some people (with caveats, of course) in similar ways that religion or politics do.

Now, here's the thing... if we assume superhero comics' (and pop culture's, in general) primacy as some sort of moral/ethical guidebook, are superhero writers and artists then bound by the same restrictions and responsibilities accorded to purveyors of religion and political thought? The rational world at large would not tolerate a religious leader who advocates an oversimplified philosophical outlook of "peace through violence" and a serious politician pushing for the same would be laughed out of parliament.

The above had never occurred to me before, but that's because I've always viewed (and still view) superhero comics (and violent video games, movies, and even music) primarily as entertainment, a check-valve for the built-in primate hunter instincts I know I've got inside of me, a way to engage my limbic lobe and vicariously live out adolescent power fantasies in a healthy, socially acceptable, one could even say creative, manner. As such, I can enjoy reading Punisher MAX, playing Grand Theft Auto, and listening to Snoop Dogg "guilt-free" despite the wholesale brutality and violence contained in the media (and their diametric opposition to my conscious, higher-order, real-world values... heck, I'm a freaking vegetarian and I feel bad if I accidentally step on an ant!).

Are the purveyours of religious & political thought bound to any restrictions and responsibilities?  I know this is a touchy subject for our board here, so I'll leave it at saying there are some religious & political groups from all over the world whose espoused beliefs & philosophies I find quite as frightening as someone whose moral compass consists of punching bad people until they stop (which I do find frightening).  The older I get, the more I come to believe that the rational world is a pretty small place that most people visit only rarely.

I think the morality taken from superhero comics can be very troubling though, but I don't think it always has to be.  I've known people inspired (in part) to join the police & the armed forces by comics & their characters, while the flipside of that is the ugly vigilante justice you mention.  "Superhero morality" isn't alone in this; the same religion can inspire one person to work with the homeless while another is inspired to blow up a doctor's office.

[marhawkman]

Well, Superhero morality is typically simplified to the point of being silly, like "heros don't kill". Feh.... part of why I found the whole thing in DC where WW killed Lord to be absurd....

[danhagen]

Actually, I don't find a philosophy of not killing people to be "silly." If it is, then the world's greatest philosophers and religions might also be called "silly."
Killing people need not be necessary, any more than enslaving people is necessary.

[marhawkman]

Sometimes people NEED to kill other people to protect others. what I find to be silly is that superhero morality tends to take the stance of "there's never a situation wher you have to kill someone". which is absurd from a real world point of view.

[The Enigma]

I've never NEEDED to kill anyone for any reason. I doubt the majority of people on this forum can say otherwise, tell me: why exactly is it so critical that superheroes kill people? (We'll stay off the question of whether superheroics requires some sort of higher moral standard until someone else decides to jump in there and address that).

[Failed_Hero]

Sometimes people NEED to kill other people to protect others. what I find to be silly is that superhero morality tends to take the stance of "there's never a situation wher you have to kill someone". which is absurd from a real world point of view.

Wally West aka the Flash, has been written many times as a by the book law man a feels that if a man is sentenced to death then he should be put to death.  Wonder Woman, is an Amazon Princess she has killed many (nearly human creatures) including Medusa.  Not all superhero morality is summed up into one thing.  I've always taken the view of super-hero morality as simply as the super-heroes are protectors, guardians, and sentries against the things the normal authorities are ill-equipped to handle.  While the methods may be controversial and extra legal, they are the protectors of society therefore it they fulfill the position as to be the protector, not judge, jury, and executioner. There are a lot of heroes who kill, Moon Knight (in all of his series) Azrael (often inadvertantly or through non-action) Hulk (The Red King, various military personal) Savage Dragon.  Granted these characters are on the fringe heroism, but they have over the years been recognized as "The Good Guys." 

Wonder Woman's homicide of Maxwell Lord, is one of few cases where it was pretty clear there was no other choice.  Lord had control of one of the most powerful being in the universe, and he was going to use him to take over the world and place it under a freedomless system.  In order to preserve the lives of countless allies, countless innocents, and world as it is (imperfect as it may be) she made the choice that her warrior heritage breed in her, kill the enemy who seeks your destruction.  She does not do this every villain she encounters because but she believes she can find a better solution, but in the case of Lord there was no alternative. Even Bruce did not condemn her as far as I know, and she went willingly before a court of law to defend her action or face the consequences of it.

I think the stance that is taken is less "the is no situation where you have to kill" but more along the lines of there is "no satisfaction in the taking of a life".  That effectively Justice must trump Vengeance no matter how sweet vengeance may seem or how personal the attack. 

[marhawkman]

I think the stance that is taken is less "the is no situation where you have to kill" but more along the lines of there is "no satisfaction in the taking of a life".  That effectively Justice must trump Vengeance no matter how sweet vengeance may seem or how personal the attack.

Well, that's definately how it should be. But remember the idiotic events DC did following the WW example? Bleh....

[danhagen]

The problem of killing was already resolved by a higher civilization than ours in the comics. The solution was the Phantom Zone.
It is pretty clear that people of higher moral understanding would go a long way to avoid killing people, isn't it? The more quickly you resort to killing, the more primitive you are.

[Talavar]

Is the Phantom Zone better than killing?  You drift around conscious but unable to do anything for eternity - people would go insane subjected to that in record time.  For criminals that are never going to be released it seems fairly cruel actually.

[daglob]

I once sat in on a discussion between two Champions players, one who played a Superman-type boy scout, and the other who played a pulp-style vigilante. The players slipped into character, during the discussion, and it came down to this:

Super-types often have more choices than normals (even highly trained normals with weapons). When you are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful etc., there are seldom times when you have to kill to protect your self or others. The story is different when you can't race over there at the speed of sound and snatch the weapon away from someone who is about to shoot an innocent, or just stand in the way (we do it like Diving for Cover, but call it Diving into the Line of Fire). You shoot to kill, and hope that it either kills the target or disables them enough that you don't NEED to kill.

I don't remember where I read it, but even James Bond was subject to disciplinary action if he misused his licence to kill: it could be revoked. He would not be proscecuted for lives taken during a mission, but there would be a periodic review of his actions. If he was not acting wisely, he would find himself stuck at a desk job doing intelligence anaysis for those agents who were not misusing their 00 clasifications. You know, that would be worse on Bond than putting him in jail (from which he would probably escape with the help of a beautiful woman). This would prompt him to be careful when pulling the trigger, 'cause one that bullet is fired, it ain't comin' back. And there are stiull those to whom sentient life is sacred, and they will not kill under any circumstances (but how many heroes have a "code against NOT killing"). It is difficult to "shoot to wound" with a normal gun: Sam McCloud once said not to worry about a man he shot: he was dead. What makes you think you killed him they asked? Didn't have enough time not to was the answer.

Super heroes are just that: they are "above" hero. Their actions and morals should be "above" those of even a hero. There have always been comic book characters who killed, or who would kill if they had to (Captain America, for instance). There have always been those who wouldn't (Superman after the first few months, but does anyone remember the Phantom Zone criminals from Superboy Prime's world?) Part of the problem is that comic books became "kid stuff" at a point shortly after WW II. Never mind that GIs folded them in half and stuck them in their packs, or that they were decended from newspaper strips that had both mature and young audiences. The change to "kid stuff" from "general audience" meant a simplification of stories and morality. Nowadays, comic book writers want to do more mature stories (partially becasue they want to write something pertinent, partially because they have lost their younger audience now that it takes a full time job to buy comics), but they have nearly fifty years of simplified morality behind each character. It creates friction between the READERS, not to mention it makes for unusual behavior from characters we've read all our lives.

Hey, I blame Fredric Whertham.

[danhagen]

Well reasoned, Dag.

[marhawkman]

Yeah that is a good way of describing it, but paragraph two largely goes out the window when you have supervillains. Why? It's predicated on having the ability to do more things than your opponent. you have the option to NOT fight to kill. But if you can't simply slap someone senseless, and have to actually fight to the finish then it's by no means certain.

[daglob]

Ah, but that paragraph starts with the word "usually". Superman vs. Ultraman (or General Zod, or one of the dozens of other evil Kryptonians) with no Kryptonite in sight-does that have to be a fight to the death? It's probably going to come down to who is the most resourceful fighter. That, and who can stay on their figureative feet the longest. If Superman wins, he's not going to kill Ultraman because it's the smart thing to do, he's going to let him live because he would feel that it's the right thing to do. Ultraman would probably feel different.
Batman doesn't kill because that's what criminals do. He knows that personally. Spiderman feels the same way. For the same reason. Ditto Daredevil.
Reed Richards and Ben Grimm probably killed people when they were in the military (whichever war that is now), but neither feels that that is the best solution with opponents now.

In a perfect world, like the one in the silver age, heroes wouldn't feel the need to kill criminals. I miss that, despite enjoying the adventures of both The Shadow and The Spider (Ha! You want body counts? just read The Spider.) I don't think it's any more realistic for hero who kills ALL his enemies (no matter how mundane) than it is for one who NEVER kills them-even by accident.

[marhawkman]

that makes sense. A good example was Superman vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preus

Superman's fight with Preus didn't end until Superman had almost killed him.

[Ajax]

Not to try and change the subject or anything, but am I the only one who feels that time and the age of characters operate differently. It is obvious that time moves in the comic world, but aging doesn't reflect this. Dick Grayson was Robin in his teens, grew up is now in his mid twenties, but Batman remains in his early to mid thirties. Peter Parker went from High School to College and is now graduated but all the heroes around him who were adults when he started out are still the same age. Same goes for Johnny Storm the only character in the FF who aged. Kitty Pryde also went to college and graduated and the mean time everyone in the X-verse stayed the same. For some reason characters that are younger grow up, but once you reach that 20-30 range, you seem to stay that age forever. I know this is a well worn and tired subject but am I the only one this bothers?

[Previsionary]

Not exactly true. Most of the characters age, but they do so very, very slowly. It took Franklin and Valerie quite awhile to even reach their current age. As far as Spidey goes, JQ is against aging him passed 25 (or so) and marriage/kids factor into that. However, the X-men were also around his age when they started out and Cyclops and friends are clearly situated in their 30s. The fact of the matter is, they live in a serial world that earns someone money. They want to keep them around as long as possible and we all know how fans react to new characters taking over roles in most circumstances.

As a side note, once the characters begin hitting certain ages, they slow down considerably because there's this thing called "aging by association." For example, if the X-men reach their 40s and Spidey remains in his 20s, it'd give off this very odd effect. On another note, Marvel (specifically) should also limit the amount of offspring they introduce in a year *looks at Hulk*.
------

On another note, aging also works weirdly for young characters at times. Franklin is a good example, but let's look at Jubilee. How many times did she hit puberty and graduate (and forget some of her skills/gymnastics) before they finally decided to make her college age post HoM?

[danhagen]

I believe it was Umberto Eco who observed that the commercial, corporate nature of the media in which they are bound makes super heroes mythic figures who are forever frozen in time, largely. The story of a Hercules and a King Arthur has a beginning, middle and end, but the story of a Superman remains stuck in the middle because he makes money for the people who own him.
And yet, to the extent they are memes, those characters cannot really be "owned" in the commercial sense. They exist, essentially, as cultural icons in the minds of the world public.