Heroes and Culture
Apr. 20th, 2012 09:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serynAnother thing I was thinking about is how we view heroism.
From![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
comicbookmovies there was this link from the actor who plays Loki, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/apr/19/avengers-assemble-tom-hiddleston-superhero
It somewhat says that superheroes are a non-faith mythological context for our common culture.
Then I was reading "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" (fanfic by LessWrong)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/85/
The latest (linked) chapter of which talks about how superheroes are often monstrous because outside of the sterile bubble of civilization, when they use non-death methods to subdue villains, those villains escape and kill other people. It gives an example that the Joker kills lots of "little people" every time he escapes. But since none of those people are named people, we don't care and we like to think of Batman as having control over himself and his vengeance. It's actually not very heroic to let thousands of people die because killing the villain makes you squeamish.
What really interested me was the dichotomy between these viewpoints and how I agree with both of them. Firstly I love superhero movies. I wish I could stand being in theaters because I'd love to see Avengers on the big screen right away before all the complainers jump all over it. But I also think most of them are wrong when they let the police arrest the villain instead of killing him.
That's going to sound insane out of context. But I don't see how it helps society to imprison people for their entire lives. What are we saving them for? It's expensive and undermines any attempts we make toward rehabilitating people with shorter sentences. And we know that the majority of criminals who escape go on to commit more crimes of a violent nature. So in superhero stories, I actually agree that the person who doesn't "accidentally" squeeze too hard in the headlock is as much to blame as the villain when they escape police custody and slaughter innocents.
Then I started asking myself why it scares the police that Batman goes around at night fighting crime but people love Superman and would trust him with extraordinary powers. I think some of it is that Batman wants to kill and we never get the impression that Superman does. So Superman doesn't do his heroing out of a need for vengeance so it's okay that he acts on his heroism. Batman, not so much.
And Spiderman? yeah, we don't trust him either.
I realized that the major difference is in the masks... Superman is the regular identity, but his alter ego is the one who wears the disguise. Not that it would hold up with all the facial recognition nowadays.
But I keep wondering why we associate wimping out with heroism. But we totally do. If you're a real hero, you never have to make a choice where you sacrifice 100 people to save 1000. If you have to sacrifice anyone, then maybe we shouldn't consider you a hero. Only that's completely unfair since being arrested for violent crimes is a really good indicator of likelihood of further violent crimes.
So when Batman ties up criminals for the cops to take in, the criminals get out on bail or a technicality or for social reasons--- then they go on a murder spree.... we're all angry with Batman for not fixing the problem. Except if he did, we'd think he was a vigilante that needed to be stopped.
It's all well and good to claim heroes don't need violence to succeed, but reality is messier than that.
From
comicbookmovies there was this link from the actor who plays Loki, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/apr/19/avengers-assemble-tom-hiddleston-superheroIt somewhat says that superheroes are a non-faith mythological context for our common culture.
Then I was reading "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" (fanfic by LessWrong)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/85/
The latest (linked) chapter of which talks about how superheroes are often monstrous because outside of the sterile bubble of civilization, when they use non-death methods to subdue villains, those villains escape and kill other people. It gives an example that the Joker kills lots of "little people" every time he escapes. But since none of those people are named people, we don't care and we like to think of Batman as having control over himself and his vengeance. It's actually not very heroic to let thousands of people die because killing the villain makes you squeamish.
What really interested me was the dichotomy between these viewpoints and how I agree with both of them. Firstly I love superhero movies. I wish I could stand being in theaters because I'd love to see Avengers on the big screen right away before all the complainers jump all over it. But I also think most of them are wrong when they let the police arrest the villain instead of killing him.
That's going to sound insane out of context. But I don't see how it helps society to imprison people for their entire lives. What are we saving them for? It's expensive and undermines any attempts we make toward rehabilitating people with shorter sentences. And we know that the majority of criminals who escape go on to commit more crimes of a violent nature. So in superhero stories, I actually agree that the person who doesn't "accidentally" squeeze too hard in the headlock is as much to blame as the villain when they escape police custody and slaughter innocents.
Then I started asking myself why it scares the police that Batman goes around at night fighting crime but people love Superman and would trust him with extraordinary powers. I think some of it is that Batman wants to kill and we never get the impression that Superman does. So Superman doesn't do his heroing out of a need for vengeance so it's okay that he acts on his heroism. Batman, not so much.
And Spiderman? yeah, we don't trust him either.
I realized that the major difference is in the masks... Superman is the regular identity, but his alter ego is the one who wears the disguise. Not that it would hold up with all the facial recognition nowadays.
But I keep wondering why we associate wimping out with heroism. But we totally do. If you're a real hero, you never have to make a choice where you sacrifice 100 people to save 1000. If you have to sacrifice anyone, then maybe we shouldn't consider you a hero. Only that's completely unfair since being arrested for violent crimes is a really good indicator of likelihood of further violent crimes.
So when Batman ties up criminals for the cops to take in, the criminals get out on bail or a technicality or for social reasons--- then they go on a murder spree.... we're all angry with Batman for not fixing the problem. Except if he did, we'd think he was a vigilante that needed to be stopped.
It's all well and good to claim heroes don't need violence to succeed, but reality is messier than that.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-21 03:01 pm (UTC)You might be interested in reading Batman: Under the Hood, or watching its animated interpretation, Under the Red Hood. In the story, we do get the contrast between Batman's determination not to kill and Red Hood's willingness (perhaps even enthusiasm) to do so in order to clean up Gotham and protect the nameless little people. Batman's continuing refusal to kill the Joker, in particular, is especially important.
And still, I prefer Batman to Superman. I find Supes to be a giant douchecanoe, and the best description I've read of him was years ago in a JLU fic, calling him "a boyscout with disturbing...lapses."
I originally had more to say, but when I start talking about UtH, I have to grab it off my shelf and re-read it, so. *distracted*
no subject
Date: 2012-04-21 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-21 10:33 pm (UTC)Superman interested me a lot more on Superfriends than lately. I'll look for the book you recommend though.
(odd.. this was placed outside your thread, fixing)
Some of Superman's tendencies really bother me... he acts like an old man in most of the versions I've seen. Which you don't see so much of in Batman, because every time they start again, it gets updated backstory and context. There's a science fiction novel by Robert Sawyer which talks about people getting android bodies with their brains uploaded so they will live forever and this one character who was an old lady when she got hers eventually moved off planet because she didn't want to change with the times and that didn't leave any room for new people to have their own traditions and beliefs evolve.
Superman's beliefs haven't really evolved from the 1940s. He's pretty upset with Lois for not staying home where it's safe, for example.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-21 08:26 pm (UTC)Superman interested me a lot more on Superfriends than lately. I'll look for the book you recommend though.