Permanently Deleted

  • MikeHockempalz [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    No

    The ideal of a superhero is inherently a liberal one. It's pure great man theory

    • RION [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Engaging with a premise doesn't mean you're endorsing it. I don't think William Golding is pro small-child tribalism just because he wrote Lord of the Flies. And of course, writers also engage with superhero tropes to repudiate them and real life implications people might draw from them. For instance, Robert Kirkman's Invincible, while not perfect, spends a lot of time reckoning with the fact that individuals, despite how much power they might have, can't make change on a larger scale by themselves.

      Even beyond that, it's fiction. If people draw the conclusion that "hey, super heroes would be cool and a force for good" that doesn't mean that much because they're not real, and fantasy doesn't have to obey our rules. Nobody complains about the unrealistic nature of Rip van Winkle time travelIing because it's a story and if Irving wanted to that shit to happen in his story then that's what happened. I suppose you could argue that they condition people to view real life figures as Great Men (e.g. "Zelensky is Captain America!"), but you could say the same about any kind of larger-than-life character, AKA a substantial portion of all literature and stories throughout human history, and at that point we've got bigger fish to fry.

      • Vncredleader
        ·
        3 years ago

        ^ this

        Superhero stories only tell you that individuals are important and chosen ones will fix everything irl if you are going in on bad faith or the writer is trash. Superman was fucking made by two Jewish guys from NY in the late 30s who felt powerless and wanted to make someone who could beat up cops and abusers and war profiteers. That seems like a pretty natural proletarian reaction to helplessness. I get that we like being cynical and assign hope itself as a liberal idea for drama, but there is a pretty good impulse inherent in Superheroes, that we want to create someone stronger than us who will help us. People feel powerless and so create powerful people who do good. It becomes skewed based on the persons own flaws or shortcomings or the industry itself.

        Morrison said something about Superman that always sticks with me

        In the end, I saw Superman not as a superhero or even a science fiction character, but as a story of Everyman. We’re all Superman in our own adventures. We have our own Fortresses of Solitude we retreat to, with our own special collections of valued stuff, our own super–pets, our own “Bottle Cities” that we feel guilty for neglecting. We have our own peers and rivals and bizarre emotional or moral tangles to deal with.

        I felt I’d really grasped the concept when I saw him as Everyman, or rather as the dreamself of Everyman. That “S” is the radiant emblem of divinity we reveal when we rip off our stuffy shirts, our social masks, our neuroses, our constructed selves, and become who we truly are. Batman is obviously much cooler, but that’s because he’s a very energetic and adolescent fantasy character: a handsome billionaire playboy in black leather with a butler at this beck and call, better cars and gadgetry than James Bond, a horde of fetish femme fatales baying around his heels and no boss. That guy’s Superman day and night.

        Superman grew up baling hay on a farm. He goes to work, for a boss, in an office. He pines after a hard–working gal. Only when he tears off his shirt does that heroic, ideal inner self come to life. That’s actually a much more adult fantasy than the one Batman’s peddling but it also makes Superman a little harder to sell. He’s much more of a working class superhero.

        American writers often say they find it difficult to write Superman. They say he’s too powerful; you can’t give him problems. But Superman is a metaphor. For me, Superman has the same problems we do, but on a Paul Bunyan scale. If Superman walks the dog, he walks it around the asteroid belt because it can fly in space. When Superman’s relatives visit, they come from the 31st century and bring some hellish monster conqueror from the future. But it’s still a story about your relatives visiting.

        But more specifically

        “We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.”

        “Because it all derived from Superman. I mean, I love all the characters, but Superman is just this perfect human pop-culture distillation of a really basic idea. He's a good guy. He loves us. He will not stop in defending us. How beautiful is that? He's like a sci-fi Jesus. He'll never let you down. And only in fiction can that guy actually exist, because real guys will always let you down one way or another. We actually made up an idea that beautiful. That's just cool to me. We made a little paper universe where all of the above is true.”

        “Somewhere, in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down...”

        Fiction can be an outlet for something we wish was real, and fiction needs protagonists. Superheroes are just a part of that

    • Vncredleader
      ·
      3 years ago

      A lot of proletarian literature focuses on the exploits of individual characters/heroes though. If you can make a great movie about Shchors or Lenin, you can tell a superhero story that's not just great man theory.

    • AFineWayToDie [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think the superhero myth is ingrained enough into the collective consciousness that it can be used to support deeper political/psychological analysis. Namely, the kinds of fucked-up people who'd want to be superheroes.