|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 20, 2015 18:02:19 GMT -5
I'm not a Superman fan or reader much but I have read the theory from others that because Shuster & Siegel were of Jewish decent that Superman was a powerful answer of justice to all that the Jewish people had just endured from the Nazis. Superman can be seen as a metaphor for Jewish persecution and assimilation in the states. But you're too early for him to be seen as a response to Hitler. While there was clearly Jewish persecution from the time that Hitler took power in '33, there was a focus on encouraging Jewish emigration until the invasion of Poland lead to three million extra Jews in the Reich. That was a bit over a year after Superman's first appearance in Action #1 and Siegel and Shuster had been working on him conceptually since 1933. I did a slight bit of reading after seeing your comment and that does make sense. I mean anyone could posit that scenario with many comic characters, with a loose bit of truth, just because either justice or revenge is always a good theme for atrocities done to man. In that reading, I also too found out who your user name is. :thumb: He sounds like an interesting character. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 18:17:26 GMT -5
There are just too many confining tropes in the two largest sources of super hero fiction, and I think those two sources are inherently childish. I agree with Tolkien that adults can benefit from fantasy as well. But that doesn't mean the fantasy they choose to consume isn't for children. Unwinding with a new Smurfs HC takes a load off my mind, but the Smurfs are for kids. Inherently, and by their very nature, no matter what. I believe the same is true for Superman. That does not mean a character could be created that is not inherently juvenile, but when you place that character in the same fictional universe as Superman, with the same backdrop and under the same fiction-physics, or whatever you want to call the shared part of a shared universe, then it becomes juvenile by nature. I do not believe the same is true for self contained titles though, even though more often than not self contained titles (even from third party publishers) fall into the juvenile category as well, or are busy poking fun at it. Watchmen is a good example of a super hero comic that is not inherently juvenile. And it wasn't quite poking fun at the super hero tropes while at the same time not abandoning them. It was critiquing them without the humor. I think the ultimate goal would be to just completely abandon them and start from scratch. And this does not mean it has to be "grim and gritty" either. An action/fantasy in a contemporary setting featuring a crime fighter with extraordinary powers. But what if he didn't call himself "THE BLUE EAGLE" and wear a utility belt? What if he was just "Anonymous guy in nondescript clothing that saved some hostages with heat vision?" In comics I suspect it would not catch on, because I don't think action comics work all that well unless everything is exaggerated and larger than life. So give him big muscles and a blue bird head. But in movies and prose, I could see superhero type stories without the knee high boots and bright yellow briefs expanding the potential audience. In fact, in the popular Marvel and DC movies I often notice that stuff is toned down quite a bit. How often is Wolverine even in costume in the movies? Has he ever been in costume? The problem then becomes making a normal looking guy a valuable IP. No giant logo on the chest? This is why Cole from the Infamous games is not getting licensed and adapted for comics, movies, cartoons, coloring books, toys, ect. When he's not flying and lightning isn't shooting out of his hands he just looks like a regular urban resident  I just don't see Superheroes as being inherently juvenile at all, especially not as originally conceived in the 30's. Take Superman for instance, sure he's a big muscly guy in bright blue and is far from realistic but in some of his earliest adventures he's going after slum lords, wife beaters and corrupt politicians none of which are conflicts you're likely to see on the smurfs for instance. With the emergence of comics code things certainly got more juvenile with Superman saving cats and using his powers to play practical jokes on his friends, but that was a reaction to outside pressure not a natural evolution of the character. I think too often people, not just yourself, equate unreality with juvenile, when there is really nothing inherently juvenile about stretching the bounds of reality. The way I often put it is like this; are stories about Hercules inherently a juvenile? And the answer is no, he was not created as juvenile entertainment, and a good number of his stories aren't exactly suitable for children. However there are aspects that appeal to children and so more juvenile adaptations have been made and there's nothing wrong with that. So why then consider Superman to be different? He was not created specifically to be children's entertainment and if you take a measure of every Superman story ever told you'd find there are just as many stories that are not inherently juvenile as those that are so why should he be classified as juvenile? Can there be juvenile interpretations? Absolutely, and there have been but that doesn't make that the default position. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 20, 2015 18:46:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I completely disagree. While I don't see fantasy as juvenille - Like I said above, it's a higly effectiv literary technique to create objective distance between the audience and the issues discussed - Stories that are rooted in audience projection power fantasies are pretty dang juvenille. I think this yearning to be taken seriously and be I-M-P-O-R-T-A-N-T is a lot more psychologically necassary for children, who don't have a lot of freedom, power, or respect.. Add in bright, primary, eye-catching colors and stories without much depth or complexity to 'em* and...
o
well, there's a REASON that most people who care deeply about Batman are 9 years old. And why there have been many, many, many more juvenille interpretations of superheroes - at least in comics- reached a far wider audience than the adult versions.
Note that I don't think there's anything WRONG with adults enjoying stuff aimed at children, and I think it indicates mental flexibility more than feeble-mindedness. Mostly. Sometimes.
Granted, some of this is that it's easier to be taken seriously as a grown-up if you say "Yeah, I really like material that's basically for children" rather than "Superman is SERIOUS LITERATURE!" It's really hard to argue that superheroes are not basically aimed at the youngn's without sounding defensive, and I like the path of least resistance.
The fact that superhero comics are basically aimed at children makes them more interesting to me - I like seeing what moral lessons adult creators are trying to teach kids. (Downright f-a-s-c-i-n-a-t-i-n-g in the case of Mort Weissinger) And probably the main reason I'm interested in superhero comics is the tension inherent in
creators trying to express themselves and express complex ideas in a corporate environment that's generally designed to pump out homogenized and child-friendly product. Current Marvel and DC books ARE often aimed at adults, but that actually makes them far less interesting to me.
(At least in general. I still contend that Milligan and Fegredo's Enigman is the best American superhero comic of my lifetime, and there's nothing there for children.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 19:10:33 GMT -5
You wouldn't see the Smurfs going after slum lords, but you might see Mr. T do that in his Saturday Morning Cartoon.
An invincible and for all purposes immortal alien being with unlimited super powers stopping purse snatchers in his underoos is pretty juvenile in my opinion. It's not all that different from the G.I. Joe cartoon where they fought terrorism with ninja costumes and laser guns that couldn't kill anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 20, 2015 19:18:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 19:20:27 GMT -5
That's my favorite Smurf story, the first one I read, and one of my very first comics from when I was a kid  |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 20:05:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I completely disagree. While I don't see fantasy as juvenille - Like I said above, it's a higly effectiv literary technique to create objective distance between the audience and the issues discussed - Stories that are rooted in audience projection power fantasies are pretty dang juvenille. I think this yearning to be taken seriously and be I-M-P-O-R-T-A-N-T is a lot more psychologically necassary for children, who don't have a lot of freedom, power, or respect.. Add in bright, primary, eye-catching colors and stories without much depth or complexity to 'em* and... o well, there's a REASON that most people who care deeply about Batman are 9 years old. And why there have been many, many, many more juvenille interpretations of superheroes - at least in comics- reached a far wider audience than the adult versions. Note that I don't think there's anything WRONG with adults enjoying stuff aimed at children, and I think it indicates mental flexibility more than feeble-mindedness. Mostly. Sometimes. Granted, some of this is that it's easier to be taken seriously as a grown-up if you say "Yeah, I really like material that's basically for children" rather than "Superman is SERIOUS LITERATURE!" It's really hard to argue that superheroes are not basically aimed at the youngn's without sounding defensive, and I like the path of least resistance. The fact that superhero comics are basically aimed at children makes them more interesting to me - I like seeing what moral lessons adult creators are trying to teach kids. (Downright f-a-s-c-i-n-a-t-i-n-g in the case of Mort Weissinger) And probably the main reason I'm interested in superhero comics is the tension inherent in creators trying to express themselves and express complex ideas in a corporate environment that's generally designed to pump out homogenized and child-friendly product. Current Marvel and DC books ARE often aimed at adults, but that actually makes them far less interesting to me. (At least in general. I still contend that Milligan and Fegredo's Enigman is the best American superhero comic of my lifetime, and there's nothing there for children.) I don't think Superman is serious literature either but I don't think it need be serious in order to not be juvenile. Is there a subsect of readers who think super heroes are super serious stuff and take great um-bridge if you say otherwise? Absolutely, but that's a much different stance than saying that superheroes are no more inherently juvenile than romance novels or spy fiction, it's simply a genre that is open to many interpretations just like any other and conflating those two stances as one in the same is a serious lapse in judgement. Also, I don't think the typical power fantasy that is often a part of super hero stories is inherently juvenile either as that type of fantasy doesn't stop with children and is inherent in nearly every other genre of fiction. When you read the spy novels of Le Carr you experience the stories as the hero does and you are drawn into the story because the idea of all the action and intrigue excites you and takes you away from the reality of your 9-5 job. That's a power fantasy and it's no more different than wishing that you woke up one day and found out you had super powers, it's not even really all that much more unrealistic either as the odds of you becoming a super spy are not that much greater than gaining super powers as the former is so near as to zero as to make no practical difference. And to claim that the genre is often with out depth or emothional complexity just seems a little close minded. Are there some that are shallow? Certainly, but there are just as many that aren't and that's true of every other genre as well. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 20:24:29 GMT -5
You wouldn't see the Smurfs going after slum lords, but you might see Mr. T do that in his Saturday Morning Cartoon. An invincible and for all purposes immortal alien being with unlimited super powers stopping purse snatchers in his underoos is pretty juvenile in my opinion. It's not all that different from the G.I. Joe cartoon where they fought terrorism with ninja costumes and laser guns that couldn't kill anybody. That Mr. T cartoon was pretty funny,I loved it growing up, and yeah he did take on common urban issues but the tone was much more slap stick than your typical golden age or modern comic, and again the same is true of G.I joe, the tone makes it a sizable difference. And yes, the bright costumes are unrealistic but no more so than a single spy toppling massive criminal conglomerates all on his own with little more a tiny hand gun while dressed in a tux and swilling martinis but I don't often see James Bond labeled as juvenile. I just don't think realism is necessary for something to be considered adult, and the insistence that the opposite makes it juvenile just seems wrong to me. And, not your argument I know, but the idea that arguing that superheroes are not inherently juvenile is an overly defensive stance just rings wrong to me as well, indeed the opposite sometimes seems true to me. More often than not the arguments that state that superhero comics are just silly little diversions with little in the way of substance come off as simple elitism; their tastes have changed(which is completely okay) and they now look down on those whose tastes haven't like wise changed. And I think that's the only real difference between superheroes and other genres of fiction: personal taste. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 20:39:25 GMT -5
Not everything that is unrealistic is juvenile. All cartoon musclemen in rainbow capes are though.
Fritz The Cat is not appropriate for kids, but it is juvenile. Funny cartoon animals are juvenile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 20, 2015 21:03:00 GMT -5
Superheroes certainly became power fantasies, but I'd posit that they were initially a representation of an idealized form of social justice above and beyond the police and the rest of the government, which was and is often inept and corrupt. I think most kids desire power for freedom, not for subjugation, which is the noblest form in my book. What are you defining as the "initial" superheroes? Because Superman was a nerdy (powerless) dweeb who was was secretly incredibly powerful and free and the girls all loved him. Their was some social justice stuff on top of that, but the major selling point of Superman was that he allowed his audience to view themselves as secretly powerful and attractive and respected. The power fantasy was, by far, the most important selling point. I've read those early Superman stories (Well, I've read the first...12 or so in order) and beyond the relationship with Lois, I don't recall much interaction with other adoring female admirers. Most of the content revolved around Superman fighting corrupt industrialists, lobbyists, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 21:15:59 GMT -5
Not everything that is unrealistic is juvenile. All cartoon musclemen in rainbow capes are though. Fritz The Cat is not appropriate for kids, but it is juvenile. Funny cartoon animals are juvenile. All? I haven't seen a compelling reason for why that should be considered so. Blanket statements and generalizations, sure, but compelling reasons why they are inherently more juvenile than super spies, pulp heroes or classical mythology? None. And you can certainly be not appropriate for children and still be juvenile, Fritz is a perfect example, but the opposite can be equally as true as there are many characters that have great appeal to children with out being juvenile. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 20, 2015 21:58:05 GMT -5
You wouldn't see the Smurfs going after slum lords, but you might see Mr. T do that in his Saturday Morning Cartoon. An invincible and for all purposes immortal alien being with unlimited super powers stopping purse snatchers in his underoos is pretty juvenile in my opinion. It's not all that different from the G.I. Joe cartoon where they fought terrorism with ninja costumes and laser guns that couldn't kill anybody. That Mr. T cartoon was pretty funny,I loved it growing up, and yeah he did take on common urban issues but the tone was much more slap stick than your typical golden age or modern comic, and again the same is true of G.I joe, the tone makes it a sizable difference. And yes, the bright costumes are unrealistic but no more so than a single spy toppling massive criminal conglomerates all on his own with little more a tiny hand gun while dressed in a tux and swilling martinis but I don't often see James Bond labeled as juvenile. I just don't think realism is necessary for something to be considered adult, and the insistence that the opposite makes it juvenile just seems wrong to me. And, not your argument I know, but the idea that arguing that superheroes are not inherently juvenile is an overly defensive stance just rings wrong to me as well, indeed the opposite sometimes seems true to me. More often than not the arguments that state that superhero comics are just silly little diversions with little in the way of substance come off as simple elitism; their tastes have changed(which is completely okay) and they now look down on those whose tastes haven't like wise changed. And I think that's the only real difference between superheroes and other genres of fiction: personal taste. I agree that superheroes don't HAVE to be juvenille - Eightball # 23 exists. Enigma exists. And I think you can do superheroes with any tone and deal with any subject. But I don't think all different genres of fiction are the same and I think generalities are very useful. Superheroes skew to a younger audience than spy stories. Some of this is marketing ... they're aimed at younger readers. But even more importantly many of the elements of the stories are going to appeal more to younger readers than adults. Bright, primarilly colored costumes, secret identities, the so-soft-as-to-be-compeltely-permeable science-fiction-ness of the tone. Romance novels are a good comparison, and I'd label 'em about as "juvenille" than superhero comics, although a little more down to earth and less goofy. (Spy fiction - James Bond aside - tends to have more thematic depth by nature, and their are themes inherent to spy stories (generally either the shaping and nature of history or the persistence (pervausiveness) of the "true self"...) Likewise Westerns tend to have power fantasy elements but they're also about the individual's relationsip to history, how we're defined by our cultural values and stuff like that. Superheroes don't have any generalized thematic elements beyond power fantasy - And even stuff like the Death Ray is dealing with the IDEA of superhero-as-power-fantasy by refuting it. (Keep in mind that I really do like superhero comics even more than most people who like superhero comics like superher comics - I just did an overview of a 35 year old Superman comic series off the top of my head on another thread - and I don't see "juvenille" as a good argument for rejecting something. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 22:22:24 GMT -5
Not everything that is unrealistic is juvenile. All cartoon musclemen in rainbow capes are though. Fritz The Cat is not appropriate for kids, but it is juvenile. Funny cartoon animals are juvenile. All? I haven't seen a compelling reason for why that should be considered so. Blanket statements and generalizations, sure, but compelling reasons why they are inherently more juvenile than super spies, pulp heroes or classical mythology? None. And you can certainly be not appropriate for children and still be juvenile, Fritz is a perfect example, but the opposite can be equally as true as there are many characters that have great appeal to children with out being juvenile. They aren't more juvenile than pulp heroes, which are also inherently juvenile. Neither are really comparable to the faith of those who lived several thousand years ago. I don't find Greek mythology more juvenile than any of the popular modern faiths. But if we want to go down that road we can. Is Jesus more or less juvenile than Superman? Are they comparable? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 22:23:52 GMT -5
I agree that superheroes don't HAVE to be juvenille They also don't have to be an invincible and for all purposes immortal alien beings with unlimited super powers stopping purse snatchers in their underoos. The ones that are though, juvenile. Every last one of them. That wasn't a general statement. It was an incredibly specific one. The fact that it can be misunderstood as a general statement for super heroes just illustrates how pigeonholed in childish tropes the staggering majority of super hero output has historically been. I have stated earlier it's completely possible for a story about a super powered crime fighter to not be juvenile, but Captain Muscles VS Doktor Skeleton Face is a juvenile concept. Always and forever. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 22:24:35 GMT -5
That Mr. T cartoon was pretty funny,I loved it growing up, and yeah he did take on common urban issues but the tone was much more slap stick than your typical golden age or modern comic, and again the same is true of G.I joe, the tone makes it a sizable difference. And yes, the bright costumes are unrealistic but no more so than a single spy toppling massive criminal conglomerates all on his own with little more a tiny hand gun while dressed in a tux and swilling martinis but I don't often see James Bond labeled as juvenile. I just don't think realism is necessary for something to be considered adult, and the insistence that the opposite makes it juvenile just seems wrong to me. And, not your argument I know, but the idea that arguing that superheroes are not inherently juvenile is an overly defensive stance just rings wrong to me as well, indeed the opposite sometimes seems true to me. More often than not the arguments that state that superhero comics are just silly little diversions with little in the way of substance come off as simple elitism; their tastes have changed(which is completely okay) and they now look down on those whose tastes haven't like wise changed. And I think that's the only real difference between superheroes and other genres of fiction: personal taste. I agree that superheroes don't HAVE to be juvenille - Eightball # 23 exists. Enigma exists. And I think you can do superheroes with any tone and deal with any subject. But I don't think all different genres of fiction are the same and I think generalities are very useful. Superheroes skew to a younger audience than spy stories. Some of this is marketing ... they're aimed at younger readers. But even more importantly many of the elements of the stories are going to appeal more to younger readers than adults. Bright, primarilly colored costumes, secret identities, the so-soft-as-to-be-compeltely-permeable science-fiction-ness of the tone. Romance novels are a good comparison, and I'd label 'em about as "juvenille" than superhero comics, although a little more down to earth and less goofy. (Spy fiction - James Bond aside - tends to have more thematic depth by nature, and their are themes inherent to spy stories (generally either the shaping and nature of history or the persistence (pervausiveness) of the "true self"...) Likewise Westerns tend to have power fantasy elements but they're also about the individual's relationsip to history, how we're defined by our cultural values and stuff like that. Superheroes don't have any generalized thematic elements beyond power fantasy - And even stuff like the Death Ray is dealing with the IDEA of superhero-as-power-fantasy by refuting it. (Keep in mind that I really do like superhero comics even more than most people who like superhero comics like superher comics - I just did an overview of a 35 year old Superman comic series off the top of my head on another thread - and I don't see "juvenille" as a good argument for rejecting something. I seldom find generalities to be useful, especially in this case as there are just too many exceptions for them be worthwhile evaluations. And when viewed historically I don't think they were aimed directly at children either in terms of numbers through out their entire publication history, readership from the 1970's on to today has skewed older(and older still as the years progressed) and in the golden age readership was comprised of both those who grew up reading the pulps and children just becoming literate so between those two groups I'd say you'd have just as many readers who were children as there were that were not. And westerns and spy fiction have more stories that are similar to Bond or the Man with No Name than as not, and yet they are not termed inherently juvenile. On top of that there are a wide variety of thematic elements beyond the power fantasy present in super hero comics...and I still don't think the idea of the power fantasy is necessarily juvenile, it's no worse than any element of escapism and that's not an inherently juvenile literary technique. |
|
