|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 22:34:16 GMT -5
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? I don't think you'd find that many would agree with you in that estimation, unless you count those who strove to abolish the genre from the newsstands in the 30's. And I'm not comparing them to the faith they held in antiquity but rather as they are viewed now as literature and in that light I don't think you'd find many that would say that classical mythology is a juvenile genre. As for Jesus, as a literary character, I personally find him to be only moderately more mature than Superman but I don't think there has been a significantly long amount of time since the stories of Christ were first popularized and the modern era for him to be seen as a purely literary character that can be compared to other contemporary characters by most people. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 22:39:55 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. And I don't think that's anywhere near an accurate summation of superhero comics and if that's all you are cape-able of seeing I think we're at an impasse. Are there a lot of comics that fit that description? Sure, but there are a lot that don't too so why characterize it as a genre as one or the other? Why not say it has a lot of tones and levels of maturity like a myriad of other genres? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 22:52:36 GMT -5
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. And I don't think that's anywhere near an accurate summation of superhero comics and if that's all you are cape-able of seeing I think we're at an impasse. Are there a lot of comics that fit that description? Sure, but there are a lot that don't too so why characterize it as a genre as one or the other? Why not say it has a lot of tones and levels of maturity like a myriad of other genres? It's an accurate summation of some of them. I wasn't characterizing a genre. I've stated two or three times now that super hero comics don't HAVE to be that, although they often are. I even gave specifics in one reply of super hero comics that aren't that. The fact that when I describe Superman or Captain America in explicit detail, someone thinks I'm talking about every super hero character, story, and comic ever published, it's just a sad reflection of comics. Because realistically, the entire shared universe of both Marvel and DC fall under that umbrella, as well as several attempts by third parties. If I said "Musclemen in bicep tassles with sweet mullets and chain fed machine guns are childish" everyone would realize I was talking about something specific. A subgenre of action movies. Not all action movies, and certainly not all movies. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 20, 2015 22:56:39 GMT -5
And I don't think that's anywhere near an accurate summation of superhero comics and if that's all you are cape-able of seeing I think we're at an impasse. Are there a lot of comics that fit that description? Sure, but there are a lot that don't too so why characterize it as a genre as one or the other? Why not say it has a lot of tones and levels of maturity like a myriad of other genres? It's an accurate summation of some of them. I wasn't characterizing a genre. I've stated two or three times now that super hero comics don't HAVE to be that, although they often are. I even gave specifics in one reply of super hero comics that aren't that. Then if they represent only some of the genre then why say superheroes are inherently juvenile? If something is inherent then it characterizes the whole, so if the characteristic you describe applies to only some then it by definition it isn't inherent. And I don't think that your generalization fits every Superman or Captain America comic either. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 20, 2015 23:52:54 GMT -5
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? Wait...you're saying all pulp heroes are juvenile? So Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe and Lazarus Long are juvenile? |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 21, 2015 0:31:36 GMT -5
As with most things, I think there's a gradation rather than a strict line with juvenile characters all on one side and everything else on the other. Spade and Marlowe aren't wish-fulfilment characters to nearly the same degree as most or all superheroes, but there is a slight tinge of that to them. James Bond - at least in the movies - would be further along the range in the direction of superheroes; Doc Savage even more so.
As for the "super-powered" figures of myth and religion, the key difference between them and superheroes is that the gods were never designed as stand-ins for the reader to identify with as one does with the protagonist of a novel or comic, but rather work as symbols of various aspects of human nature or the external natural world.
Where that gets tricky is when deities become symbols of tribal supremacy - "My god is greater than your god" - and then we are in my view veering closer to the childish sort of identification and power fantasy that we see in superheroes, except here the identification is on a group or cultural rather than individual level.
So yeah, I think there is something basically juvenile about the kind of power fantasy we see in superhero stories, but it doesn't have to be that way. Or at least that element doesn't need to be emphasised to the degree it is too often. I actually find many current superhero comics more childish from this POV than the supposedly less sophisticated comics of the 60s and 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 1:24:51 GMT -5
And I don't think that your generalization fits every Superman or Captain America comic either. I disagree. That's the very nature of the characters. And it's not a single thing that makes something juvenile, but a collection of things. Checking boxes and when you hit a certain point, there you are. Trademarked logo on chest? Goofy animal ears on your spandex costume? Giant muscles? Good guys in red, white, and blue, bad guys with skull or goblin faces? Bad guys having zero motivation for doing bad things beyond screwing with the hero? Good guy having zero motivation for doing good things beyond having a special ability? Can't go 22 pages without getting in a knockdown dragout brawl that destroys the city but leaves both you and your opponent completely unharmed? I can go on and on. There are so many. Not every single Marvel comic will feature all of them, but there isn't a mainstream superhero comic out there that doesn't feature a good chunk of them. There is a formula that both companies have built up from since the beginning. And while the finishing touches, like house style, number of pages, lengths of stories, and level of sex and gore may have changed, the architecture is still there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 1:28:05 GMT -5
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? Wait...you're saying all pulp heroes are juvenile? So Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe and Lazarus Long are juvenile? The two thousand year old guy with the kilt and machine gun? And again, I'm not saying that enjoying juvenile things is bad. I love 'em. But I own it. Usagi Yojimbo is a fantastic comic. A fantastic comic about a cartoon samurai rabbit who sometimes teams up with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It can be a terrific tale and "kid stuff" at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 21, 2015 10:56:03 GMT -5
And I don't think that your generalization fits every Superman or Captain America comic either. I disagree. That's the very nature of the characters. And it's not a single thing that makes something juvenile, but a collection of things. Checking boxes and when you hit a certain point, there you are. Trademarked logo on chest? Goofy animal ears on your spandex costume? Giant muscles? Good guys in red, white, and blue, bad guys with skull or goblin faces? Bad guys having zero motivation for doing bad things beyond screwing with the hero? Good guy having zero motivation for doing good things beyond having a special ability? Can't go 22 pages without getting in a knockdown dragout brawl that destroys the city but leaves both you and your opponent completely unharmed? I can go on and on. There are so many. Not every single Marvel comic will feature all of them, but there isn't a mainstream superhero comic out there that doesn't feature a good chunk of them. There is a formula that both companies have built up from since the beginning. And while the finishing touches, like house style, number of pages, lengths of stories, and level of sex and gore may have changed, the architecture is still there. Most of that(especially the bits concerning the costumes) seems to be a rather arbitrary to me, and on top of that many are generalizations that don't fit every book. Are there many books where there is zero motivation for the heroes and villains? Absolutely, but again there are just as many that include varied and interesting character motivations that go far beyond, "I'm strong so I'm gonna do good!". And it's the ame thing with city destroying brawls, do they yes, but more often than not the property damage is nil so again not really an accurate picture of super hero stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 21, 2015 12:46:55 GMT -5
Lotta sweeping generalizations in here. I also think there's a bit of a lack of understanding of history.
Comic books grew out of two predecessors, the comic strip and pulp magazines. Both were all-ages, though they would target audiences within the format. For example, daily strips were aimed at an older audience while Sunday strips skewed younger. See, for example Mickey Mouse. Likewise, while most pulps were all-ages, within the format they would target audiences. Most of the detective pulps skewed older. Doc Savage probably skewed a bit younger. The SF pulps tended to draw a teenage audience. But pulps in general were very much aimed at working class adults. They were not "kid stuff."
The earliest comic books, again, were not aimed at children. They were repackaged comic strips and were aimed at an all-ages audience the same as the comic strips in the newspapers. When the available comic strips were spoken for and there was still demand, the original content comic books took their cue from the pulps and aimed at all-ages, essentially throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck. One of the things that stuck were super-heroes. However, super-heroes were not developed as necessarily "kid stuff." Superman certainly wasn't. Siegel and Shuster played with prose/pulp versions and the strip itself was developed to try to sell as a comic strip. Both all-ages formats. At the point that Action Comics #1 came out Siegel & Shuster definitely weren't aiming for the 8-12 year old market...at least not exclusively. Nor, I don't think, were Shelly Mayer and Vin Sullivan.
Certainly Super-heroes became a genre that was read predominantly by children, though there was always a sizable number of teens and adults reading as well. But that was definitely not their genesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 21, 2015 13:23:24 GMT -5
Siegel and Shuster may not have been aiming for children but the editorial staff at DC and All-American operated under the assumption kids were their audience from the start. Here is the inside front cover of Action #1: Attachment DeletedAnd here is an editorial page from All-American #1: Attachment DeletedCei-U! I summon the hard evidence, counselor! |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 21, 2015 13:34:36 GMT -5
I'll retract my statement vis-a-vis Mayer & Sullivan. Though I'm still not sure that was the case with all publishers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 21, 2015 17:52:26 GMT -5
And even if many of the very first generation superhereoes weren't aimed at children, the Marvel family were the dominant/best selling superhero title of the golden age, and the one that set the tone that the other publishers followed. And the Marvel's definitely WERE aimed at the young uns.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 21, 2015 20:16:16 GMT -5
Isn't it all juvenile? All entertainment? Functional human beings with great minds and vast capabilities pretending they're fighting a war against aliens via a controller, or beding all the gals and shooting all the bad guys like the one on the screen, or saving the world from some egomaniac at the turn of every page? Escapism IS juvenile when the plight of humanity is where it is. Constructive things can be done to help along the human race before we all kill each other, starve each other, or destroy the planet itself. But we'd all rather take an hour and watch to see how many bull testicles a person can shove down their throat for money. 100% of the world has the capability for escapism even if it's only folk tales. And in light of what we could be doing with that time it's all juvenile.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to drink beer and pretend I'm kill some necromorphs in space with mining tools. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 21, 2015 23:41:14 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that all literature functions strictly as escapism, though. Telling stories and listening to (or reading, viewing, etc) stories seems to be pretty fundamental to human nature, and we use stories to communicate in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons, including but not limited to pure escapism from the stresses and hardships of the real world. Some stories embody deeply felt feelings or perceptions about that real world, for example - folk stories and myths often work that way. A lot of the better science fiction can be described as novels of ideas, rather than escapism - though they surely hope to present those ideas in an interesting or entertaining way.
|
|
