comics and worlds like our own.

[steamteck]

This is a post on another board ( Steve Jackson games) and my response. I wondered what the feeling was around here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendu

Miracleman (unfortunately, out of print): super-powers DO change the world. Moore, and then Neil Gaiman, kind of wrote themselves into a corner here- when the world is no longer recognizably our own, why should we care about it?

Me--
As a long time reader of science fiction and fantasy. I've never been able to understand that complaint. In fact I prefer a world that's at least not quite our own so current events that are impossible in the super world don't destroy my suspension of disbelief.

[Podmark]

Neither bothers me. As long as the story and characters are interesting the universe is of little concern. I've seen a lot of anime that doesn't take place in a world remotely like our own and I've seen and read that was very much grounded in our world and enjoyed both.

[daglob]

I've read SF/Fantasy for years (and years and years...), and I usually don't have a problem with any variant or alternate world. A lot of SF written in the '30s (or '40s or '50s etc.) takes place in th far-off years of 1960, 1970, 1984, 2001, or 2010. When events pass the story by, it can still be entertaining as a fantasy-type "what if" world. Few people complain that Conan can't possibly have happened.

I had an aunt, though, that couldn't watch or read SF, because it wasn't "real". Like situation comedies, soap operas, and crime dramas are? It's not so much a "suspension of disbelief" issue as a "how far can I suspend my disbelief" problem.

If you read comic books, you accept super heroes and a lot of imaginary science. How much more can someone accept?

[steamteck]

I had an aunt, though, that couldn't watch or read SF, because it wasn't "real". Like situation comedies, soap operas, and crime dramas are? It's not so much a "suspension of disbelief" issue as a "how far can I suspend my disbelief" problem.

true but its more complicated than that for me.  For example for me its easier to suspend my belief  in a purely superhero world than to believe Al-quada would be anything but insignificant and just dealt with in a world where HyDRA. AIM etc are commonplace and dozens of superheroes with easily enough power to do so didn't stop any of the planes etc. ( I'm looking at you Marvel)

[steamteck]

Neither bothers me. As long as the story and characters are interesting the universe is of little concern. I've seen a lot of anime that doesn't take place in a world remotely like our own and I've seen and read that was very much grounded in our world and enjoyed both.

I agree I've enjoyed both as long as they have some internal logic and consistency.

[Talavar]

I don't mind either, though it starts to irritate me when the results of the superheroes (or whatever) should change the world, but never do.  For example, the technologies that could be developed from the inventions of super-geniuses like Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Hank Pym, Forge, etc. should dramatically change the world, but that never happens, because then the world of Marvel would be much more different than their current take of it being 'the real world + superheroes.' 

For instance, Forge has bionic limbs.  Well, why doesn't he go into business making prosthetic limbs for everyone with that need?  I'm not saying he even has to do it for free, making it cost-prohibitive, but that would change the world.  Instead of wasting time being a mediocre superhero, why doesn't Hank Pym dose food crops or livestock with Pym particles to feed the world's starving?  Heck, even if Spider-man just released the formula for his webbing that would be a major breakthrough for a number of fields, and even with its fast decay rate useful in a number of applications.

[thalaw2]

I don't mind either, though it starts to irritate me when the results of the superheroes (or whatever) should change the world, but never do.  For example, the technologies that could be developed from the inventions of super-geniuses like Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Hank Pym, Forge, etc. should dramatically change the world, but that never happens, because then the world of Marvel would be much more different than their current take of it being 'the real world + superheroes.' 

For instance, Forge has bionic limbs.  Well, why doesn't he go into business making prosthetic limbs for everyone with that need?  I'm not saying he even has to do it for free, making it cost-prohibitive, but that would change the world.  Instead of wasting time being a mediocre superhero, why doesn't Hank Pym dose food crops or livestock with Pym particles to feed the world's starving?  Heck, even if Spider-man just released the formula for his webbing that would be a major breakthrough for a number of fields, and even with its fast decay rate useful in a number of applications.

Good argument!  I've noticed that in the real world this is true too.  There are countless technology solutions held up that could change the world.  Many are held back because of financial gain that would be lost by quick solutions.

We could argue that in their world comic heroes could change the world with their inventions, but there would be some equal evil to stop it from happening.  Must have a balance of order and chaos. 

[The Enigma]

I don't mind unrealistic worlds, but I do mind unrealistic characters. If I can't have any connection and on some level understand their motivations, it really bothers me. Escapism is one thing, but if a world features human beings, I expect them to act like that (with all the good and bad it entails).
I have no problem with a human being with e.g. psychic powers, but if they have them and say "I will never use these powers to look at the mind of another" I end up thinking "why on earth not?" Now, if their reasoning is explained through backstory, (so say they did it with their parents who got really freaked out and abandoned them) I find it more acceptable. If they're a villain, though, there's no reason for them not to mess with absolutely everyone they can so I feel a bit miffed when someone with a totally different moral code still acts within certain boundaries for the sake of having a story where the good guys always win in the end.

[BWPS]

I don't mind either, though it starts to irritate me when the results of the superheroes (or whatever) should change the world, but never do.  For example, the technologies that could be developed from the inventions of super-geniuses like Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Hank Pym, Forge, etc. should dramatically change the world, but that never happens, because then the world of Marvel would be much more different than their current take of it being 'the real world + superheroes.' 

For instance, Forge has bionic limbs.  Well, why doesn't he go into business making prosthetic limbs for everyone with that need?  I'm not saying he even has to do it for free, making it cost-prohibitive, but that would change the world.  Instead of wasting time being a mediocre superhero, why doesn't Hank Pym dose food crops or livestock with Pym particles to feed the world's starving?  Heck, even if Spider-man just released the formula for his webbing that would be a major breakthrough for a number of fields, and even with its fast decay rate useful in a number of applications.

I think Firestorm might be the worst offender. Of all the things he could make that the world needs, shooting out harmful nuclear energy blasts definitely isn't on the top of the list. I agree how it always bothered me slightly how many heroes use their powers just to fight villains when they could solve a lot of the world's problems instead, especially when there's 1000 other guys who are fighting villains already.

[Tawodi Osdi]

I think that super heroes and villains, alien invaders, extra-dimensional beings, and mad scientists would be their presence have a profound affect on culture and technology and not exploring these changes would be inconsistent with their presences.  Consider the DC and Marvel universes, why don't they have Star Trek level technology.  People should be getting around in flying cars, and police and military would be armed with rayguns. 

On the other hand, I am not big fan of continuity, and I feel that every writer should do what is necessary to write good stories for their characters without having to learn both 60 years of comic history and remaining up to date with the current event being written in other books.  Some character and story concepts would not work well if certain facts were true.  The story should come first and continuity should take the backseat.

[Gremlin]

The complaint that powers would affect the world too much is one that strikes a real chord in me. I know that personally, if I had superpowers, I might fight crime for a couple months but then realize I'd be better suited using my abilities elsewhere. A (relatively) mundane example of this is Ex Machina, where the superhero decides to run for mayor. I can't name any published works off the top of my head where the tech level has made the world completely different, but a friend of mine did run a Mutants and Masterminds game where the first 15 superheroes pretty much dissolved the current world order, leaving it almost a postapocalyptic wasteland.

Actually, a god example of powers and insane technology REALLY messing with the world is Fine Structure by Sam Hughes. He really delves into the implications of not just superpowers but preposterously advanced technology. To be fair, his tech isn't actually caused by the heroes, but still, it's a good read.

[Tawodi Osdi]

I think Kingdom Come did a good job of portraying what things might be like if people really had super powers, but since Kingdom Come is an Elseworld and not mainstream, it might not count.