|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 11:47:58 GMT -5
From a Civil War tie-in:  Just what is the difference between anti-establishment and counter-establishment? We may all interpret that differently. Thinking about other fictional universes, the A-Team would have been anti-establishment, while Michael Knight & KITT would be counter-establishment, given that they were still operating within legal parameters despite being loners and rebellious in a certain sense. If you’re taking part in the WWE drinking game, well anti-establishment was Stone Cold Steve Austin and the entirety of ECW, while the likes of Ultimate Warrior would be counter-establishment, having moved away from the norms slightly while still operating in a rules-respecting boundary within the ring. Comics? I guess maybe Batman would be counter-establishment, given he’s a deputised agent of the law who has at least some police approval, even if not every Gotham City mayor has supported him. Someone like Spider-Man would be anti-establishment, with no legal parameters to work within - and most likely wanted by the police, at least early on in the Lee/Ditko run. But, perhaps my definitions are totally wrong. In a way, those two words can be the same thing, e.g. anti-clockwise and counter-clockwise. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 20, 2023 11:56:21 GMT -5
The problem is that a world where there are super-heroes, aliens and magic would be so different from ours that I doubt our "establishment" categories would apply.
I had mentioned this in my thread on superheroes and morality. Superheroes basically decide what's best for the common people, in defiance of democratic systems or otherwise. They answer to no one but themselves.
Probably the right definition would be "over-establishment", because even the highest elected offices must submit to the whims and decisions of the "super-heroes".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 12:30:12 GMT -5
I think the Civil War example is trying to "carve it's own path" if you will, the terms are not distinctly defined traditionally speaking. A quick example of say Merriam Webster provides "opposed or hostile to the social, economic, and political principles of a ruling class (as of a nation)", but they don't recognize "counter-establishment".
A quick Google search will land you with "establishment that opposes another establishment" as an attempted definition of counter-establishment.
I view antiestablishment personally pretty clearly, it's "rage against the machine" if you will, the perception (however valid/invalid in part or whole in given instances) that power structures exist that are wrong and one has a belief set in opposition. It can be a quiet belief, or it can be a raging activist life and all points between. But it is defined by its opposition characteristic.
The "counter-establishment" application in the Civil War tries to imply they do not do the "work of the establishment", but their goals are not in direct opposition of it either. I guess I would view most traditional superheroes who are relegated to "vigilante" status by law enforcement but are still trying to benefit society in this category.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 20, 2023 12:40:28 GMT -5
The "counter-establishment" application in the Civil War tries to imply they do not do the "work of the establishment", but their goals are not in direct opposition of it either. I guess I would view most traditional superheroes who are relegated to "vigilante" status by law enforcement but are still trying to benefit society in this category. There's always the question of how much realism can be applied to a superhero comic without the whole structure collapsing miserably. I can't believe in the slightest that any government on this planet would let walking WMDs run around unchecked. The rare times they've tried in the comics (see Civil War) they've been portrayed as the villains of the story. So we have to believe that a Thor or anyone at his level can do whatever they want, in defiance of the laws and any democratic system. We accept it because we know they are the good guys, but it is better not to think too much about it because we will realize that it makes absolutely no sense. So let's say that scenes like the one above are fine for me in a comic like Watchmen or similar, a little less so in the DC or Marvel universe, because if you scrutinize them too carefully, all the illogicalities would emerge. So let's apply a certain amount of suspension of disbelief and enjoy the stories. BANG! POW! ZANG! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 12:47:44 GMT -5
The "counter-establishment" application in the Civil War tries to imply they do not do the "work of the establishment", but their goals are not in direct opposition of it either. I guess I would view most traditional superheroes who are relegated to "vigilante" status by law enforcement but are still trying to benefit society in this category. There's always the question of how much realism can be applied to a superhero comic without the whole structure collapsing miserably. I can't believe in the slightest that any government on this planet would let walking WMDs run around unchecked. The rare times they've tried in the comics (see Civil War) they've been portrayed as the villains of the story. So we have to believe that a Thor or anyone at his level can do whatever they want, in defiance of the laws and any democratic system. We accept it because we know they are the good guys, but it is better not to think too much about it because we will realize that it makes absolutely no sense. So let's say that scenes like the one above are fine for me in a comic like Watchmen or similar, a little less so in the DC or Marvel universe, because if you scrutinize them too carefully, all the illogicalities would emerge. So let's apply a certain amount of suspension of disbelief and enjoy the stories. BANG! POW! ZANG! Yep...that's why I love comic books as escapism!! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 12:49:57 GMT -5
Suspension of disbelief is one of those things where people’s mileage varies.
Sure, we all accept some things, such as Batman acquiring/developing/building all of those things in secret. We accept Kal-El’s rocket landing near to salt of the earth people (of course, Elseworlds is a different story…). We accept a lot of things.
But other things, not so much. I think it’s a bit silly that that dying radioactive spider bit at least two other people besides Parker. Other people might just accept that as being what it is.
So with something like the issues discussed here, people’s tolerance of suspension of disbelief may differ.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 20, 2023 13:01:38 GMT -5
Suspension of disbelief is one of those things where people’s mileage varies. Sure, we all accept some things, such as Batman acquiring/developing/building all of those things in secret. We accept Kal-El’s rocket landing near to salt of the earth people (of course, Elseworlds is a different story…). We accept a lot of things. But other things, not so much. I think it’s a bit silly that that dying radioactive spider bit at least two other people besides Parker. Other people might just accept that as being what it is. So with something like the issues discussed here, people’s tolerance of suspension of disbelief may differ. Considering that the basis of the superhero genre is: "A guy acquires superpowers and decides to replace the police without any control or supervision", if you don't accept this, you might as well look for comics of a different genre.  Radioactive spiders are just a detail compared to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 13:03:33 GMT -5
Suspension of disbelief is one of those things where people’s mileage varies.Sure, we all accept some things, such as Batman acquiring/developing/building all of those things in secret. We accept Kal-El’s rocket landing near to salt of the earth people (of course, Elseworlds is a different story…). We accept a lot of things. But other things, not so much. I think it’s a bit silly that that dying radioactive spider bit at least two other people besides Parker. Other people might just accept that as being what it is. So with something like the issues discussed here, people’s tolerance of suspension of disbelief may differ. Ultimately it all comes back to this, I agree it's a personal thing. You could really dismiss SO many more things, even Batman's story. No human being could ever "train" and even be able to routinely swing around a city on a "batarang-line", once of the least "controversial" elements of his background. Nor could the simple wear to his joints and concussions received permit his career to last very long at all. As you said, we accept a lot of things. Comic book readers can be a little fickle (or a lot), especially after the young ages of innocence if we were traditional age readers back in the day. We want more realism at times because we lose enjoyment if it gets too silly/preposterous to our tastes, but too much realism and the whole fantasy can go up in smoke. Not just physical powers and whatnot, moral codes and that sort of thing too. And hence the endless debate of various topics, including this one, which is fun in itself! |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 20, 2023 13:07:30 GMT -5
You could really dismiss SO many more things, even Batman's story. No human being could ever "train" and even be able to routinely swing around a city on a "batarang-line", once of the least "controversial" elements of his background. Nor could the simple wear to his joints and concussions received permit his career to last very long at all. As you said, we accept a lot of things. they addressed this in one of the last comics! They resolved it with... Cloning? Lazarus Pit? I don't remember... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 13:10:17 GMT -5
It’s definitely a balancing act.
I mean, I don’t put much thought into Batman’s exploits, I just enjoy them. Same with Spidey. I think coincidences can be tolerable or not. I mean, I quite liked Bats’ dad being the original Batman (or was it Bat-Man?), especially how it was explored in The Untold Legend of the Batman, but then, as much as I love Peter David’s Hulk run, I am not sure some of the coincidences worked there. What was it, multiple-personality disorder or something similar? Didn’t need it, in my view. The Hulk’s origin/tale was enough for me.
But I can embrace the fun. Nominative determinism is certainly something I like.
|
|
Radioactive spiders are just a detail compared to that.