|
|
Post by gothos on May 8, 2014 17:19:03 GMT -5
Do superheroes need defending these days?
In the Golden Age outsiders like Wertham and Legman scorned comics in general but devoted considerable ink to the costumed crimefighter phenomenon, which they considered fascist. In the same time period, even some insiders, notably Will Eisner, looked down their respective noses at the masked mystery men and women. Later some certain elitist publishers went out their way to stigmatize everything about the genre.
But now, even though American superhero comics are limited to a small audience, the idea of the superhero has become popular as never before, at least in Hollywood's megabuck translations of the concept. In the "old days" Johnny Carson didn't know Jack Kirby from a hole in the ground; now the Supreme Court will decide on whether or not to hear the "Kirby vs. Marvel" case.
It might be said that success, even limited success, is the best revenge. But whatever one thinks of superheroes as a mass-medium movie presence, there are still a lot of ways in which readers and critics have sought to "defend superheroes."
I confess that I'm contemplating an essay-cum-book on this topic. I would be interested in seeing if posters here care to respond to the topics I'll be raising.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 8, 2014 17:26:10 GMT -5
DEFENSE #1--
The easiest defense I've encountered is a variation of "I like what I like." I still remember a lettercol-writer in AMAZING HEROES who stated something along the lines of "If we're adults, we can read whatever we want, no matter who might find it childish."
I think this has some merit because it's demonstrable that the majority of people who read books or watch movies tend to patronize "popular culture." I'm not going to try to define pop culture here, but there's obviously a large section of it that critics of all media consider lowbrow and unchallenging-- be it romance-fiction, westerns, cozy mysteries or superheroes.
Still, while "I like what I like" is an extremely *practical* to the Elitist Critic's recommendation to "patronize the good stuff," it's not a good *theoretical* response because it's not able to respond to the Critic's advice on its own terms.
So there's not much to say about this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 8, 2014 17:37:34 GMT -5
DEFENSE #2: Son of Freud--
To my knowledge the first strong theoretical response to the critiques of Wertham and Legman appeared in Jules Feiffer's 1965 book THE GREAT COMIC BOOK HEROES. Despite its title HEROES didn't only talk about either "realistic" heroes or superheroes, though those were the primary characters under discussion. Feiffer does not defend superheroes or any single genre, what he defends is what I've called "popular culture" and which Feiffer calls "junk:"
"Junk is there to entertain on the basest, most compromised of levels... Junk, like the drunk at the wedding, can get away with doing or saying anything because, by its very appearance, it is already in disgrace... Its values are the least middle-class of all the mass media. That's why it is needed so."
This is a good riposte to the gatekeepers of High Culture, asserting that we need disreputable, lower-class entertainments. Why? Feiffer's vague on this point, but I think his viewpoint is basically Freudian, meaning that we need fantasies to express the frustrations that real life forces upon us.
I like this defense, but I don't feel that it goes far enough. So on to the next one, some time tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 17:58:31 GMT -5
Super heroes as a concept is fine for fantasy. Super heroes as executed in comics by the majority of the market, yeah, that needs a defense team worthy of the OJ Simpson trial. This is why the super hero movies gain large audiences but the comics don't. They feature the same characters, but they are not the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Man of Tomorrow on May 8, 2014 18:10:15 GMT -5
DEFENSE #2: Son of Freud-- To my knowledge the first strong theoretical response to the critiques of Wertham and Legman appeared in Jules Feiffer's 1965 book THE GREAT COMIC BOOK HEROES. Despite its title HEROES didn't only talk about either "realistic" heroes or superheroes, though those were the primary characters under discussion. Feiffer does not defend superheroes or any single genre, what he defends is what I've called "popular culture" and which Feiffer calls "junk:" "Junk is there to entertain on the basest, most compromised of levels... Junk, like the drunk at the wedding, can get away with doing or saying anything because, by its very appearance, it is already in disgrace... Its values are the least middle-class of all the mass media. That's why it is needed so." This is a good riposte to the gatekeepers of High Culture, asserting that we need disreputable, lower-class entertainments. Why? Feiffer's vague on this point, but I think his viewpoint is basically Freudian, meaning that we need fantasies to express the frustrations that real life forces upon us. I like this defense, but I don't feel that it goes far enough. So on to the next one, some time tomorrow. I haven't read that book in about 33 years. My high school library had it in the reference department. Now I need to find a copy.  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on May 8, 2014 18:59:45 GMT -5
I just think the superhero concept is horribly outdated. In the 1930s, it made sense to fantasize about vigilantes working outside the law that could stop things like organized crime. It was a real problem most people understood and feared.
The concept has lost its relevance since then.
Really, even Batman stopping muggers -- with the advent of ATM cards and pin numbers, it just doesn't pay to mug people in the way that it used to and it's easier to track electronically.
The problems we face these days -- whether political, economic, or environmental, just don't make for exciting storytelling.
I think that's part of why superheroes had to make the move towards greater introspection in recent decades. What they do on the outside holds no meaning for us beyond cliches.
I still like the idea of colorful costumes, empowerment fantasies, and long-standing mythology, but the conflicts themselves have lost all relevance unless it's an issue of self-preservation and, if a hero is constantly working only to save themselves or those they love, are they truly serving any purpose as a superhero in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 8, 2014 19:14:23 GMT -5
I don't know about that, despite the rise of debit cards muggings are still pretty prevalent and for the same basic reasons; desperate people in desperate times. But on the other hand I'm not sure that was ever really why super hero books were ever relevant, stopping muggers and crooks seems more like a product of telling simple action stories rather than either an attempt to tap into a zeitgeist of the era by the writers or an actual draw to the books for the readers.
I think the loss in relevance has much more to do with the shift in entertainment for young people than anything else and the shift towards introspection would seemed to be caused more by a desire to simply tell different stories than what has come before than as a reaction to the loss of social relevance. I mean, there are only so many times you can write a basic action story starring Batman, you can create new villains and new death traps but sooner or latter the possible permutations grow thin and you have to branch out to tell new and interesting stories and looking at the emotional and moral implications of being a superhero is just one of those options.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 4:06:30 GMT -5
a critic of any entire genre is usually the most shallow of people. "the things i like are awesome. the things you like are rubbish. my consumption of other people's art defines me as a person of taste and learning and a person to be listened to." to define yourself by what you consume rather than your own actions and thoughts is a very shallow definition of yourself. superhero books don't need any defense from these people because the attack is more a indictment on the people making them than the genre itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 9, 2014 8:16:46 GMT -5
You're attacking a generalization via a generalization.People who do that are.....Wait now I'm doing it
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 8:33:43 GMT -5
one could certainly see it that way - but for me i don't see it as a generalisation - i see any attack on a whole genre of any art form as agenda driven and attempted self serving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 9, 2014 9:25:35 GMT -5
You're attacking a generalization via a generalization.People who do that are.....Wait now I'm doing it Where's the "like" button? |
|
|
|
Post by thebeastofyuccaflats on May 9, 2014 10:09:36 GMT -5
You're attacking a generalization via a generalization.People who do that are.....Wait now I'm doing it Shh, you'll scare them. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on May 9, 2014 10:17:28 GMT -5
You're attacking a generalization via a generalization.People who do that are.....Wait now I'm doing it Generalizations are always wrong! |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 10:35:59 GMT -5
You're attacking a generalization via a generalization.People who do that are.....Wait now I'm doing it i'd turn that around and say that there is a clear pattern of general motivations of against whole genres, whether that be rock and roll, rap, metal, punk etc which does allow generalization. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 10:43:21 GMT -5
a critic of any entire genre is usually the most shallow of people. "the things i like are awesome. the things you like are rubbish. my consumption of other people's art defines me as a person of taste and learning and a person to be listened to." to define yourself by what you consume rather than your own actions and thoughts is a very shallow definition of yourself. superhero books don't need any defense from these people because the attack is more a indictment on the people making them than the genre itself. While I agree that painting an entire genre with the same broad brush stroke is usually a sign of an uninformed critic, I disagree with your very personal reasoning on why that is. There's noting wrong with being a critic, that's a position that has gone hand in hand with literature and art probably since there has been literature and art; when the first cave man took up a reed and drew the first picture on the cave wall there was almost assuredly another cave man standing behind him saying, "Your proportions are all off my good man." When the critique is done well it adds nearly as much to the artistic fields as the art itself as it causes us, the consumer, to stop and truly evaluate what we are consuming which gives you a greater appreciation of the field as a whole. Then there are those that add nothing to the field and scathing reviews of entire genres are such reviews as they seldom go into any great depth in their discussions and offer little real insight, which when you boil it down is pretty much just complaining and that is very different than offering a critique. And while offering up that kind of critique can be annoying it is not an invitation to throw out personal barbs against either that critic or the genre of literary critique as a whole because when you see the big picture that's all literary critique is a genre of writing in the same way that superhero fiction is and if it's wrong to paint all superhero fiction with the same brush it is then like wise wrong to paint all critiques in the same manner. |
|
