Super Heroes

[jimtaylor]

I went to a panel hosted by the author Brandon Sanderson a couple weeks ago and something he said about writing has stuck with me since. I can’t seem to let it go because it had a lot of underlying truth to it. What he said is pretty simple. What makes a super hero someone we remember? What makes the stories of super heroes something we enjoy? Is it their powers? Can you name every one of Super Man’s infinite and sometimes convoluted powers? Probably not but can you name his weakness? People who don’t even like Super Man can tell you his weakness and why it is his weakness. That little green rock that is a piece of his home planet.

It seems like every good story, every story that we fall in love with is not driven by the inherent strengths in the characters, but their weaknesses. We are drawn to stories that highlight the flaws in others. Why is that? It seems like we are always looking, searching and hoping to find these flaws. Whether in fictional characters or in real life. When we find that weakness, it becomes how we define and classify that individual or we do the extreme exact opposite and refuse to the see bad in anyone we define as “good”. For example:

The Jedi — Portrayed as the good guys and victims in the Star Wars series but they have imposed their ideals just like the Sith upon the universe. They have; instead of indulging their senses in healthy moderation, have demonstrated absolute extreme cultism in the refusal of them which resulted in their downfall. They are no more “good” than the Sith but instead one side of the same coin. A dangerous extremism shrouded in supposed moral ideals. They highlight the dangers of falling for the facade of good versus actually doing good.

I think it is interesting how we do this. We focus on certain characteristics and fail to see the picture of the whole.

 

[Gaze]

yeah, a superhero's weaknesses was a factor but to be honest, it was always the honor in the character that drew me to superhero stories. It was not that they were seemingly invincible but that although they could do harm and could be tempted to do evil with the powers and/or abilities they had, they would strive to allow honor to win out. To steal a quote from Spiderman: "with great power, comes great responsibility." It never struck me as significant that superheroes had flaws. It was always how they used their powers that struck my interest the most. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Growing up, from a religious upbringing, you were constantly bombarded with messages about humanity as being flawed, so it wasn't really significant to acknowledge flaws in our character. It was more suprising when characters were portrayed as absolute powers without flaws or responsibility for their flawed actions, simply because they were human with powers, or god-like (but not God) with powers. Maybe the curiosity is with the assumption that someone with that kind of power must naturally be good or would only use their power for good, simply because they are more powerful.

 

[jimtaylor]

yeah, a superhero's weaknesses was a factor but to be honest, it was always the honor in the character that drew me to superhero stories. It was not that they were seemingly invincible but that although they could do harm and could be tempted to do evil with the powers and/or abilities they had, they would strive to allow honor to win out. To steal a quote from Spiderman: "with great power, comes great responsibility." It never struck me as significant that superheroes had flaws. It was always how they used their powers that struck my interest the most. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Growing up, from a religious upbringing, you were constantly bombarded with messages about humanity as being flawed, so it wasn't really significant to acknowledge flaws in our character. It was more suprising when characters were portrayed as absolute powers without flaws or responsibility for their flawed actions, simply because they were human with powers, or god-like (but not God) with powers. Maybe the curiosity is with the assumption that someone with that kind of power must naturally be good or would only use their power for good, simply because they are more powerful.

Good points but isn't the ability to be tempted kind of a weakness? Lex Luther could have used his wealth and intelligence for good as easily as bad. Just as Superman could have easily used his powers to become a god among men. If they were not human-like with the same character and personality flaws we all have, would they be interesting? If they were inherently good, would the story even be worth reading. If they were not tempted and able to make mistakes, would there be any way to connect to them? I think the best characters are those we can connect to because we can relate. We might not be able to fly, have super strength or anything of those things but we do have the ability to make a choice like the super heroes or villains to be who we want to be. We can choose not to fall into temptation or to protect others.

 

[Gaze]

Good points but isn't the ability to be tempted kind of a weakness?

But how strong is a superhero who is not able to overcome temptation? If you don't go through trials, then how can you know how strong or weak you are unless you've been tempted? Is having a flaw the issue or is it giving in that's the weakness? From what I understand it's the giving in that either made them seem more "human" or normal to us, which is why we identify with superheroes although we were in awe of their powers, while also being awed by their ability to overcome their flawed nature and still do what's right that made us admire them.

 

[Khalid]

I went to a panel hosted by the author Brandon Sanderson a couple weeks ago and something he said about writing has stuck with me since. I can’t seem to let it go because it had a lot of underlying truth to it. What he said is pretty simple. What makes a super hero someone we remember? What makes the stories of super heroes something we enjoy? Is it their powers? Can you name every one of Super Man’s infinite and sometimes convoluted powers? Probably not but can you name his weakness? People who don’t even like Super Man can tell you his weakness and why it is his weakness. That little green rock that is a piece of his home planet.

It seems like every good story, every story that we fall in love with is not driven by the inherent strengths in the characters, but their weaknesses. We are drawn to stories that highlight the flaws in others. Why is that? It seems like we are always looking, searching and hoping to find these flaws. Whether in fictional characters or in real life. When we find that weakness, it becomes how we define and classify that individual or we do the extreme exact opposite and refuse to the see bad in anyone we define as “good”. For example:

The Jedi — Portrayed as the good guys and victims in the Star Wars series but they have imposed their ideals just like the Sith upon the universe. They have; instead of indulging their senses in healthy moderation, have demonstrated absolute extreme cultism in the refusal of them which resulted in their downfall. They are no more “good” than the Sith but instead one side of the same coin. A dangerous extremism shrouded in supposed moral ideals. They highlight the dangers of falling for the facade of good versus actually doing good.

I think it is interesting how we do this. We focus on certain characteristics and fail to see the picture of the whole.

Dear sir,

I would like to begin answering this topic by considering the third paragraph of your original post; it doesn't follow your proposed order, but, as I will try to demonstrate, you can find there the principles I want to discuss.

Let's imagine a child. He believes the world is his to take, as it were; he knows no limits, because he's used to have people providing for him – if he cries, there will be food, for example. If he's not given a good education, he will grow up to be a childish adult, still believing that the function of everyone else is to provide for his good life, and that he may do whatever pleases him. He can't decide for himself (yet), so at this point he will need someone who is able to enforce something on his mind. He will go to school, and there the teachers must find a way to make him get used to sit and be silent and focused for some periods of time – he that only thinks about playing – so he can learn something. The necessity of doing this over that is, naturally, enforced upon him, and he needs that.

But there are teachers and teachers, of course. We can be sure something will be enforced, but what exactly that will be... well, that's up to the school, that's up to the teachers and so on. Maybe your child wants to write "wizdom", but she must learn that "wisdom" is the correct written form that expresses that idea. I would call a teacher that taught the first way of writing a "bad teacher", and in comparison to another teacher, this one that taught the correct way of writing, I would say the latter is "better" than the former. Why? Don't they use the same method? Don't they "force" the child to learn something, to behave in some way? Yes, of course, but the content they're teaching is different, and in this situation it's the content that matters.

If someone forces the door of my house, points a gun to me and my family and say: "Oh, why, hello, dear sir, I'm here to still from you, do some nasty (and wicked) stuff to your family, than I will kill everyone and have a nice drink.", I must say I'd prefer to shoot him first. I shoot, he shoots... the act is the same, but there's a clear distinction in the motivations in each case, isn't that correct? People can go ahead and say that "it's all relative!" as many times they want, but there is a difference in value between taking some remedy because you're ill and wants to get better and do the same because you're addicted to it.

So, the Jedi and the Sith. Let me try to understand: the Jedi seek balance, the Sith seek power. The Jedi can't "seek balance at any costs", because this statement bears unbalance in it, but of course they Sith can, and do, "seek power no matter what it takes". To seek balance, you must think about everyone that could be affected by your actions; if you want power at any costs, it would be better if you didn't – unless your thinking about some possible revenge, etc. The only way we can say the Sith and the Jedi are the same is if you don't believe in the (moral) superiority of a given behavior over another – and before someone say: "C'mon, but the definition of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' changes from place to place, let me remind that some of these definitions do not; as Chesterton puts very well:

Reason and justice grip the remotest and the loneliest star. Look at those stars. Don't they look as if they were single diamonds and sapphires? Well, you can imagine any mad botany or geology you please. Think of forests of adamant with leaves of brilliants. Think the moon is a blue moon, a single elephantine sapphire. But don't fancy that all that frantic astronomy would make the smallest difference to the reason and justice of conduct. On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a notice-board, `Thou shalt not steal.​

Some could argue that, in the fictional universe of Star Wars, you can't say how true is the good the Jedi say they're doing, if that's not some facade. I believe you can say that it depends: you can't realize the Good itself in its perfect form, but you can take it as an ideal and strive to get closer and closer to it; some will be closer, some won't. But what's the Sith's ideal? Power in itself, for the sake of itself. You can't say these two mean the same. You can say someone is not that good in living to the ideal they bear as their prime objective, even if that person is trying to, but even that would be better than what you have if someone's ideal is evil itself. One can become decay, the other is decay itself.

But about the heroes, in general, I do not agree [with the opinion expressed here]. When I think about Superman, it's not something like: "oh, yes, but he also has his weaknesses, he's not that great"; oh, no, I think: he exhibits an ideal of justice, despite the defects he may have. The same about Batman: "oh, he has a dark path and a troubled soul, but nevertheless he fights the evil", that why we respect him. So it's not about the weaknesses, but what they do despite them. Well, of course others may differ about this. I don't know how things are nowadays, but "in my times..." children wanted to be like heroes; not only strong, but just.

And while is true that sometimes we focus on details and forget about generalities, about the picture of the whole, is also true that sometimes we become very good in seeing the big picture but forget the small things. They do matter.

My best regards to you, sir.

 

[Tin Man]

First of all Super-man has numerous strengths, but only one weakness. It makes sense that you'll remember that weakness and only be able to recall a few of his strengths. There's also the fact of Super-man's fame to take into account. I doubt the general public would be able to name the Green Latern's weakness or The Flash's weakness. Cryptonite is ingrained in the general consciousness. It's something we associate Super-man with because it's such a primary focus in most of his movies or tv shows. While this says a lot about Super-man I don't believe it applies to super-heroes in general.

Did you know that Wonder Woman's main weakness is bondage? She's unable to free herself from the controlling influence of man. This is the result of the misogynistic society that created her, but it's not associated with her today. People see her now as a symbol of strength, courage and compassion. The only weaknesses she's connected to nowadays are very human ones, such as identity crisis or fear of failure.

We are of course attracted to fallibility in our heroes, but as Marvel has shown people relate far more to human weakness than some supernatural vulnerability. It's why protagonists such as Spider-man or Wolverine are so popular. So often their greatest enemy is themselves. It makes them relatable and easier to empathize with. Funnily enough what we are attracted to in super-heroes is the human condition.

I agree with your opinion of the Jedi. They're just as extreme as the Sith and will use extreme tactics in order to promote their ideology. There are a few extended universe fictions which explore this in more detail, suggesting a more balanced approach is in order.

 

[Khalid]

[...]
I agree with your opinion of the Jedi. They're just as extreme as the Sith and will use extreme tactics in order to promote their ideology. There are a few extended universe fictions which explore this in more detail, suggesting a more balanced approach is in order.

And yet it would be hard to believe any Jedi would, as Vader does, ensure cooperation by destroying entire planets.

 

[Gaze]

I would question how we define superheroes. Do we define them as aliens with abilities humans don't have which really puts them in a separate category than humans with flaws or does it just fall into our romanticized image of aliens as non-human entities who are more advanced, and therefore godlike. Do we define them as gods with human frailties which would justify more surprise since we assume gods are not supposed to be flawed (even if mythical gods are) and are expected to be beyond reproach. Or do we define superheroes as humans with extraordinary natural abilities or accidentally gained abilities which means being flawed is still par for the course, because they're human. So, if we are surprised by flaws, are we surprised because they are human or because they have superhuman abilities and still have flaws? Are we surprised because we believe having superhuman abilities should make superheroes able to overcome their flaws or have no flaws at all.

 

[jimtaylor]

Sorry, I have been very busy. I will reply soon!

 

[Tin Man]

And yet it would be hard to believe any Jedi would, as Vader does, ensure cooperation by destroying entire planets.

Pursuing a religious war is pretty extreme. You might say the Sith are evil, but who are the Jedi to police the universe. They manipulate governments to further their agenda and have no problem recruiting children to wage their war.

That said, the Star Wars universe is a very black and white place. The Jedi are obviously the good guys; the Sith clearly evil. I'm just having a little fun with the idea.

 

[Khalid]

Pursuing a religious war is pretty extreme. You might say the Sith are evil, but who are the Jedi to police the universe. They manipulate governments to further their agenda and have no problem recruiting children to wage their war.

That said, the Star Wars universe is a very black and white place. The Jedi are obviously the good guys; the Sith clearly evil. I'm just having a little fun with the idea.

Dear Jacobi,

Of course both of us – and everyone else here, I hope – are having fun with the idea; not only there is no reason to be "truly serious" about a work fiction like Star Wars, but also George Lucas' interest for Joseph Campbell's works show that his characters act as archetypal representations, thus being clear the good/evil dichotomy in the movies (and related material).

That said, well, we can't judge morals without taking in account the characters, time and place of what we're analyzing. We're not dealing with our world here, but with the Star Wars universe, the main difference – technology and all that apart – being that they have the Force. If the Force, in a state of balance, is the basis for the existence of that world itself, the element that moves and sustains it, it must be taken into account that the Jedi are the ones who strive for that balance, having the Force itself as a guide, while the Sith want to do the opposite: the power they seek must pass through the unbalance of the force and the corruption of life. We can argue that the Jedi may or may not have such a deep connection with the Force to "represent" it by means of their actions, and that maybe a third, better option than the Jedi and Sith could be find; but that aside, it wouldn't be hard to choose between the two of them.

My best regards.

 

[jimtaylor]

Did you know that Wonder Woman's main weakness is bondage? She's unable to free herself from the controlling influence of man. This is the result of the misogynistic society that created her, but it's not associated with her today. People see her now as a symbol of strength, courage and compassion. The only weaknesses she's connected to nowadays are very human ones, such as identity crisis or fear of failure.

We are of course attracted to fallibility in our heroes, but as Marvel has shown people relate far more to human weakness than some supernatural vulnerability. It's why protagonists such as Spider-man or Wolverine are so popular. So often their greatest enemy is themselves. It makes them relatable and easier to empathize with. Funnily enough what we are attracted to in super-heroes is the human condition.

I agree with your opinion of the Jedi. They're just as extreme as the Sith and will use extreme tactics in order to promote their ideology. There are a few extended universe fictions which explore this in more detail, suggesting a more balanced approach is in order.

I had no idea that was the case about Wonder Woman. I am not very well versed in comic books. I know more about science fiction. Another example might be Sauron from LOTR. He has a lot of strengths, we know that. Not all of them of which are very clearly defined or explained. However we know that if put the ring into the volcano, poof, bad guy gone. The entire series is based on that one principle, that one weakness. Not the inherent strengths of our fellowship or their many friends but the weakness of one "super" individual. So I guess this principle applies to evil as much as it does to good.

 

[jimtaylor]

@Khalid

I think you bring up great points but is power evil? Is balance, good? Yes balance is healthy, but are the Jedi actually balanced? From my perspective, they seem more preoccupied with the notion of being "good" and less with the idea of being balanced. Balanced implies that they are aware of the dark within and that dark or light are not good or evil. Dark and light are two sides of the same coin. To have balance means one most have an equal amount of both. The Jedi are not balanced as they are driven to be "good".

The Jedi/Sith comparison is actually a perfect way to discuss items like this because they are so black and white compared to most of reality. The same goes with most fictional works. Now you mentioned Darth Vader destroying worlds which is considered evil. But at the same time, how many conflicts have the Jedi caused by trying to enforce their ideals? The Clone Wars were not just caused by the Sith. The Jedi had an equal part. The Sith code:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

When I read this, I don’t see anything inherently evil about it. There is also truth to this. In all the time that the Jedi have led has there ever been peace? No from all the books, games, etc... There is just as much war, death and destruction under the influence of the Jedi as there is under the influence of the Sith. Which might bring up the question. Would they all be better off without both the Jedi and the Sith?

 

[Khalid]

Dear @jimtaylor *

Oh, it's surely a matter of debate knowing if the Jedi, despite having, as I believe, some kind of moral superiority because of their strive for balance in terms of Force – of course, I'm bearing in mind that world's mechanics – over the "anything for power" Sith's stand, actually succeed, or how much they do, in accomplishing it.

But, you see, they're not, as we're not, a perfect mix of equal parts of good and evil. Surely, energetically we have an positive/negative balance (at least that's the ideal condition), and each of our acts can represent more one of these two aspects than other; in a war, we can speak about, say, rigor and mercy, for example, and it's obvious that between sparing and killing we can find a clear distinction, if we see both acts as symbols, of the kind of universal archetype, they're emulating. But, that said, by which instance can we judge our acts? We're humans, it would be "hard" to say the very least, to live in a perfect balance of elements, if every possible act, small as it can be, would mean unbalance in one direction or the other. Well, I believe we could only choose the best we have – which, incidentally, would correspond to the "light aspect" of existence inside of us. But it's own nature, it's all comprising, therefore taking into account even the destructive aspects of our self, which than may be channeled and directed to serve a creative function (i.e., taking away what must change, which will then be the matter of a new creation), but which, taken instead as a guiding force, would be so self-centered as to grow without any measure or consideration.

Being "perfectly balanced" above being good is, I believe, more dangerous of a fetish than "being good even despite some eventual unbalance". Again, I've said it would be very hard to be perfectly balanced, or perfectly anything, in this world, because of its nature (and, of course, ours); to choose one direction and follow it, trying our best as to be and get as close to the realization of the idea (in Plato's sense of the word) as we can, is also the best we can do. I don't think they're trying to be balanced for balance's sake, but because it is better to, as a path to reach "the" good, taking balance more as a pole (a very important one, of course!) than a cemented concept.

I don't know Рas in "I don't remember enough of the movies when it come to this" Рif we can say that the Jedi can be blamed for the Clone Wars Рthis has a funnier name in Portuguese, by the way: "As Guerras Cl̫nicas" Рbut for being, well, dumb. (There's an evil Sith Lord on Senate, having dinner by your side, and you, Mr. I-Know-That-Much-About-The-Force, didn't realize it? Oh, c'mon!) Palpatine wanted power, the Jedi were unable to avoid that. I don't know, but it's like saying that a well dressed man that walks through a dangerous neighborhood and find himself robbed has equal parts of fault as does the robber Рhere they go as far as to invert the situation: "Oh, the robber is a poor victim of Capitalism, and the robbed is an oppressor!" But again, I don't remember enough of the movies.

Now, as to the Sith's code, maybe it wouldn't be inherently evil if it was true. Yes, indeed you can gain some kind of strength through your passions – and in Star Wars' universe, by indulging in some practices of the "dark side of the Force" –, but that's nothing if compared to the strength the passions themselves gain over you; you find ways to get what your want, but we can't say some particular passion is helping you out, but the other way around. If you look at a drug addict fighting with all the might of a very angry bull over a "stone" of crack you will know what I mean. Less extreme in appearance is the example of the lustful person: any man, dedicated enough to this, can become a Don Juan Tenório, become a master in the art of seduction and go from one girl to the other, from one night to the other, be so happy about that, and feel so powerful about that, and nevertheless, well, continue empty. I really can't take off my mind the image of Timothy Hunter, after becoming a power world ruler by dealing with a devil, living in a cardboard box, in some alley, dirty and hungry, but believing to be in a big mansion playing the violin. Incidentally, and understand I'm speaking here not in spiritual terms (which do apply) but socially, I don't think the Sith's code would change a comma to the moral code of the satanists.

As to your question, about the world being better off without both the Jedi and the Sith, I can't but say "dunno". But let me propose a follow up question: would that ever be a possible choice? I mean, even if, namely, both disappeared, and people decided they just wanted to live and let live, how long would it be before someone else wanting power and making some changes to the equation, which would thus require action coming from another part? This is the world of passions and movement, it's its nature to be illusory and "stimulating", despite most people being unaware of that.

Nevertheless, I'm going too astray here, far from "speaking about fiction", which I may be able to do but in general avoid, to "speaking about morals", in which my instance is "do my best and shut up about the theory because you don't know enough". Prudens in loquendo est tardus.

My best regards.

* P.S.: I didn't know about this "mentions" warnings, thank you!

 

[Matt3737]

Superheroes are a modern incarnation of the classical demi-god liminal figures.

Heroes were sometimes half-human and half-divine being borne from the lascivious pursuits of Zeus with mortal women including Heracles and Perseus.

Although not all heroes were demi-gods, such as Odysseus, Theseus, and Jason of the Argo or necessarily borne directly by Zeus himself:

Achilles was said to be a demigod; his mother was the nymph Thetis, and his father, Peleus, was the king of the Myrmidons.

In Greek mythology, Myrmidon was the eponymous ancestor of the Myrmidons.

He was the son of Zeus and Eurymedusa, daughter of Cleitor (Cletor) of Arcadia or of the river god Achelous. Zeus was said to have approached Eurymedusa in the form of an ant (Greek μύρμηξ myrmēx), which was where her son's name came from; others say that Myrmex was the name of Eurymedusa's mortal husband, and that it was his shape that Zeus assumed to approach her.

Neither were all Greek heroes triumphant ones as is the case with the tragic hero, Oedipus.

The supernatural elements take many different forms. One doesn't necessarily think of James Bond as a super-hero, but he is not so different than Batman is in his characterization. Whereas Batman/Bruce Wayne's resources are personal possessions, James Bond's resources come as a social collective and socially constructed, i.e. he's licenced by his government as a super-spy, yet still cloaked in secrecy like Batman is.

Science fiction has been described as a modern incarnation of medieval fantasy tropes where scientists/doctors are replacements for wizards and magicians, and where technology takes the the place of magic. The same basic themes still take place in what Joseph Campbell termed the monomyth or the hero's journey.

Star Wars, while explicitly acknowledging this influence, was also influenced by Japanese cinema and the work of Akira Kurosawa. It's largely believed that the term 'jedi' comes from the japanese word for period of time, 'jidai,' as in the Edo period or Tokugawa period (Edo jidai or Tokugawa jidai) because Kurosawa's films were mostly of a genre of jidaigeki, literally period drama, or also historical drama.

Star Wars creator George Lucas has admitted to being inspired significantly by the period works of Akira Kurosawa, and many thematic elements found in Star Wars bear the influence of Chanbara filmmaking. In an interview, Lucas has specifically cited the fact that he became acquainted with the term jidaigeki while in Japan, and it is widely assumed that he took inspiration for the term Jedi from this.

Jedi might be seen as fictionalized futuristic super-samurai where Bushido still has some influence in their characterizations. Although most of what might be seen as culturally japanese has, in my opinion, been removed, there is some Shinto influence in the portrayal of 'the Force' inasfar as it is an immaterial collective entity.