I have the power: The problem with superheroes
I have the power: The problem with superheroes
I’d imagine that the very title of this article is going to get me in trouble with a lot of people. Superheroes are after all modern cultural icons, with repeated films from Marvel and DC raking in the billions every year, and fans ranging from hardline comic collectors who can tell you in detail what kind of polish Ironman uses on his suit or what the current price of Wayne Enterprises stock is, to casual film watchers who just love to see people in funny costumes spout off quips whilst dodging explosions and throwing buildings at one another.
Yet the honest truth is, that no, I do not like superheroes. This dislike goes beyond dislike of a given hero, universe or continuity, and into a dislike of the concept as a whole. It is entirely possible that this dislike of mine is simply an irrational prejudice, however being as I do tend to think about matters from an overall writing perspective, I am inclined to consider my dislike to have some sort of justifiable basis behind it, particularly because there have been occasions in the past I have enjoyed superhero stories, albeit less mainstream ones such as the anime Tiger and Bunny, Mercedes Lackey’s secret world chronicle or (depending upon the definition of superhero), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, indeed I even played a mutants and masterminds tabletop game with a group of superhero loving friends for a solid seven years, and had a great time, (my character was a battle suit wearing concert pianist called Silver Knight).
I was also quite disheartened when doing some research on the subject of superhero dislike, to find an unpleasant group of people who express their dislike for superheroes, as a direct and insulting attack on fans of superhero fiction especially fans of the comics. So, first a disclaimer. This article is not intended as an attack on anybody, rational disagreement is always welcome, just an expression of my own opinion and the reasons why I hold it.
Also, just because I have an issue with the concept of superheroes in fiction, doesn’t mean that the concept cannot be, and has not been executed well in the past (see my article on formula).
My main issue with the idea of superheroes can essentially be split into two problems, the problems of power, and self-obsession, or roughly speaking, the problems of being “super”, and “a hero”.
It is part of the very definition of superheroes that they are “super”, that they possess powers and abilities (most frequently martial ones), which raise them above the level of ordinary humans. Therefore, right from the get go you start with a fairly major problem in building conflict into a story, since things that could affect a normal person, bullets, falls from a height, punches from thugs, steel doors, are not obstacles for superheroes. Thus, you have already by definition got a character who is at an advantage in most normal situations and must manufacture ever more abnormal situations to give that character obstacles to deal with, usually in the form of people with similar levels of power for the character to fight against.
Unfortunately, because the superhero is by definition super and therefore “special”, the obstacles which an author must have them confront must in their turn be specially tailored to the hero as well, and this leads directly on to the second problem, the problem of self-obsession, or of being a “hero.
Because the superhero is inherently more powerful than those around them and can only be challenged by similarly powerful situations, the author must also give the superhero a strict moral code to prevent the hero from simply taking advantage of others through their power. Superman doesn’t simply punch open cash machines and grab money out of them because he knows stealing is wrong, even though he very much could.
This unfortunately gives the hero not only physical power, but moral power as well. Indeed, even in cases where the author flaunts with the idea that the hero might have some sort of temptation to use their power for personal gain (Batman’s vengeance), we know ultimately that either the hero will refrain from such actions, or if they give in to such once or twice, will inevitably repent it.
So with a hero who must act in generally morally good ways, i.e. ways that promote the good of others, and is chiefly defined by conflicts created by the author to test that hero, the hero becomes the absolute focus of the story, not merely a player in events, or a person caught up in something larger than themselves, but the ultimate authority in that universe upon which moral actions are to be judged and for whom conflicts occur. In the worst cases, this can lead to either heroes whose moral choices are so transparent they are not choices at all, or worse, heroes who are so much the centre of their own stories, that the entire universe is divided not merely into right and wrong actions, but those expressly for, or against the hero. Indeed, in really extreme cases, this can lead to occasions where even the hero’s emotional conflicts are entirely self-focused: “It is so terrible for me! That this thing has happened. Everyone is relying on me to solve the problem, how can I risk having a romantic relationship when I am a hero”.
As I noted in my article on Dark Lords, one of the most beautiful things I find in fiction is the opposition to the idea that might makes right, positions where the powerless, not the powerful succeed.
Many superheroes, however nice their moral code directly go against this premise, Indeed, my own ideal “hero”, is someone much more like Frodo from Lord of the Rings, someone with very little power who undergoes great hardship for the sake of others, endures long lasting consequences and damage, but succeeds in the end despite overwhelming odds.
Of course, the trope of the hero as utter focus of the story, and the definition of the story’s universe solely with reference to that hero is not unique to costume wearing superhero fiction, and might be seen just as much with a character like Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan, however the problem is more serious for superheroes, firstly because they are almost exclusively defined with reference to their super powers it’s usually in the name, Spiderman, Iron Man, Wonder Woman and so on. And secondly because those powers are almost always either the result of some inherent specialness, most often in born or due to exclusive access to personal wealth or resources, or made inherent to the character through some sort of fortunate accident.
Indeed Hitler’s favourite philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche, a firm believer in might makes right and a huge proponent of the idea that overpowered individualists should force those around them to bend to their will actually called his moral ideal the “Übermensch”, amusingly enough usually translated from the original German as “Superman”).
There is also a major difference in a character who has simply acquired certain skills through practice, skills which many others possess, and a character with abilities unique to themselves that others do not have. After all, any fantasy kingdom might be chock full of awesome sword fighters, and after all even the best sword fighter can be overwhelmed by numbers or superior skill or weaponry (in cases where this literally isn’t the case, we might be dealing with an incipient superhero).
Equally, it’s not true that all characters with inherent special powers are necessarily bad ones either, provided those powers are not the defining trait of the character, and that the character isn’t the absolute focus of the world the character lives in.
Of course, in a world where the gap between the few people with power and the many without it is ever increasing, I do see the attraction to wish fulfilment fantasies of power and admiration. However it is at this sort of time that I personally would see the powerless heroes, and characters undergoing a complex journey as more, rather than less important, since whilst with great power might come great responsibility, with little or no power, responsibility must be something everyone needs to take for themselves.
Why are fantasy films and books so popular?
Audio-book review: Left Hand of God read by Sean Barrett
Nietsche seemed to believe that heroes are necessary (and by extension, a good thing) because wars are necessary: otherwise society becomes complacent and corrupt. So yeah, it’s a very old-fashioned notion of what constitutes a ‘hero’! Crucially – just like you say – whatever importance of such people might have in actuality, as literary creations they can be pretty dull – e.g. Hercules. Maybe one reason why superheroes suffer from the same problem is their origins? Superman was originally just meant to be a strip in some newspaper. There wasn’t a lot of room for nuance.
Crucially, myths and stories evolve over time, as do ethics. So what worked for the Greeks would have limited application today. By extension, heroes can evolve into more interested characters, the same story often subverting or supplanting earlier versions. I remember reading a book called ‘The Golden Shadow’ as a kid, in which Hercules was presented as a pretty damaged human being. It made him a lot more interesting!
Hi and thanks for the comment.
FYI, I’m actually English myself, albeit my lady is American, and thus I’ve been in the states on occasion.
Your very correct on Nietzsche and the radical powerful individualism which fed the Nazi movement, however there is another reason I bought him up specifically in discussion of superheroes, and that is mythology.
In Twilight of the idles, Nietzsche argued that the concept of “good” we have is a corruption of the original concept found in mythology, that “good” in mythological terms simply did mean martially strong and superior.
He sites for example a passage in the Iliad in which Achilles is continuing to deface the fallen Hector’s body and there is a discussion of why Achilles who is “good”, would engage in something so dishonourable.
For the record, what I know of ancient Greek culture probably suggests that whilst they did have a high value on strength martial prowess, there concept of “good” was probably a bit more sophisticated than that (you just need to look at Socrates dialogues, where he questions those very ideas).
However, it’s this idea of Nietzsche’s that mythological heroes simply were good because they were strong and strong because they were good that seems to bare on superheroes, since a frequently used argument I’ve seen in favour of superhero fiction is that they don’t need to be complex characters because they are “mythological figures.”
I’m fairly sure Nietzsche would agree fully with this one, however from a story telling perspective, what it tends to miss is the fact that in terms of character, with the possible exception of Odysseus, most mythological figures are pretty dull and uninteresting characters because they simply are! defined by their capacity to go and pound on the bad guys?
Who is Perseus? He’s the one who killed the gorgon.
Who is Theseus? He killed the minotaur.
What stories are there about Thaw?
How his hammer got stolen and he went to Giant land in drag to get it back, giving all the giants a good old pounding in the process!
We don’t know much else about such characters beyond their martial strength and the fact that they defeated their enemies.
Occasionally, they would be given some sort of gift or special ability in addition to basic fighting skills, EG Perseus mirrored shield, but these would be an adjunct to their skills, not special items in their own right.
this isn’t to say I’ve got any downer on battles at all, or on characters actually fighting their enemies. It can be both cathartic, and a great character moment at the same time, heck yesterday I watched the duel between the mountain and the viper in game of thrones, and if you want to talk awesome battle with a heavy basis in world and character you don’t have to look further than that.
However, it’s working out both the motivations behind the battle, as well as the real human experiences of the battle that makes it worth it, and it’s this sort of thing that I find so lacking in Superhero films, since the characters are so “super” and so “good”, that I simply do not care whether they’re going to win or not, however many big explosions, randomly casualtyless exploding buildings, or other pretty flashy things hollywood throws at me to convince me that there is actually some sort of real emotional weight to this confrontation.
Btw, haven’t seen misfits, sounds interesting, although when I’ve finished game of thrones I think my next series will be the boys.
@Aonghus Fallon thanks for the comment.
FYI, I’m actually in England myself, albeit I’m married to an American, and thus have spent several months at a time in the states during the last five years.
I mention Nietzsche specifically, not just for the irony of the “superman” misnomer (though in fairness of course, these days in most translations I’ve seen ubermench is more directly translated as “overman” to avoid confusion with the superman character), but also because of a rather worrying parallel I’ve seen between Nietzsche’s explanation of “good” in the twilight of the idles, and a frequently proposed defence of Superheroes, namely that superheroes don’t need to be complex characters because they represent mythological icons.
As you might be aware, In Twilight of the idles, Nietzsche argued that “good”, previously meant martial strong, commanding and accomplished at war, and had little to do with being decent to people.
His example of this was a discussion in the Iliad in which Achilles continues to deface and abuse the dead Hector’s body, with the gods apparently wondering why someone as “good” as Achilles would engage in such “bad” action.
I’m not convinced on Nietzsche’s interpretation of things here, but that aside, it worries me that a lot of people claim this “mythological” defence of superheroes, without actually realising that most mythological characters were basically not essentially very “good”, (ha ha), character to begin with, essentially just doing things to prove their strength or cunning or earn a reward, with the gods they serve not that much better either.
This isn’t to say that i’m one of these ultra pacifist advocates who hates any hero with martial skills, indeed a martial conflict when written with enough characterisation behind it can be a pretty awesome thing, however what bothers
me in the super hero sense, is that rather than those skills and abilities simply being a facet of the character which they possess; likely along with many others in that world, they are the main purpose of! that character, and much like Nietzsche’s simplistic definition, you cannot extricate the morality from the character without the powers, or visa versa.
Also I confess, the “”specialness” nature of superheroes is one that is bothering me more as I get older. Maybe it’s being a disabled person myself I don’t know, but whereas I don’t mind a fairly decent, human, flawed and generally reasonable person thrust suddenly into an unknown situation by power or ability or choice and needing to cope (Harry Potter and the two sided problem of being both admired, and singled out), when basically we’re told that a character is super special because they are just born that way or have magical amounts of cash and suddenly they’re the ultimate saviour/bringer of justice, I find it bothers me.
Just looked up misfits, sounds interesting, and a little like Being human, which I enjoyed up until series 3 when they basically murdered half the cast :D.
I enjoy the odd superhero movie, but not the degree of seriousness people are willing to attach to them. Both are largely American phenomena.* Now you can argue this is because Americans have no shared mythology (or a very limited one) and superheroes fill that void. But the popularity of – say – the western suggests they also identify with characters who dispense justice rather than institutions that do.
You mentioned Nietzsche. It’s easy to forget Superman as a character was created before the war, that he reflects a key preoccupation of the day – the idea of the exceptionally gifted individual who has a transformative effect on those around him through sheer force of will, an idea which was to find its darkest iteration with the Nazis and the whole idealogy of the master race.
What might seem sinister only works on the printed page (or in a film) because we accept the mc is a hero and the people he is fighting are evil, as indeed they are – for the purposes of the story. I guess this is why I get irritated by all the philosophising about Batman et al, as if these stories had any meaningful resonance instead of just being enjoyable popcorn. Is vigilantism wrong? Well what do you think? If an omnipotent man in a red cloak appeared over New York city would we take it for granted he had our best interests at heart? Errr….
Frodo, on the other hand….Tolkien was terrified of enlisting (he kept putting it off despite the ridicule of his relatives) and I think the point he was trying to make via Frodo is that there are other kinds of courage rather than purely physical kind – and right he was, too.
* to see how perceptions differ on this side of the pond, look at a series like ‘Misfits’.