(no subject)
Does Lady Gaga have a rogues' gallery?
Does Kavita Ramdas?
Did Gandalf? Well, the Necromancer, I suppose. But Lord of the Rings is not like an issue of Batman where he wrassles Killer Croc.
Can you imagine reading biographies of Gaga or Kavita Ramdas in which they are portrayed as having rogues' galleries, full of characters that suspiciously resemble pro wrestling "heel" personae? Would you think these were enlightening or accurate?
Now, they may have recurring kinds of problems to deal with; they may have persons in their lives that annoy them. But if someone were repeatedly trying to violently them & those around them, I'd expect this would find some resolution & not continue endlessly.
Some of you say, "Wouldn't it be badass if they did?" I say no. It would be pathetic.
This is a bias of mine, & I can see where it comes from. I came to superhero comics having already been into children's fantasy & detective stories. Think of The Hobbit, or Nancy Drew.
Fantasy stories traditionally end in resolution for the antagonist/protagonist conflict (except arguably Peter Pan, which is making a point of sorts). The protagonists in fairy-story often go somewhere, meet an evil, & do one of the following: a) defeat the evil; b) escape the evil, count themselves lucky, & seek a life of propriety & safety; or c) get devoured by the evil.
Detective characters may have lots of cases, but they make a point of closing them (except maybe in stuff like P. D. James's work, but that's not about fighting the same person in every novel either). Closure is part of the genre.
Superhero universes appealed to me as a kid because they had sci-fi, fantasy, & detective riffs. They could combine these things. But one aspect I don't like so much is the pro wrestling aspect. This is a bias of mine, sure. But...I think...it's a case of my bias being rooted in good writing & the typical superhero bias being rooted in well, bad writing.
When I see someone say that Wonder Woman needs her rogues' gallery built up, I roll my eyes. Rogues' galleries are stupid. It's as unrealistic as saying that she needs little power-ups hovering around her like Scott Pilgrim, or that she needs to take damage in level-dependent hit points like a Dungeons & Dragons player character.
Imagine a world where someone exists who is at once Kavita Ramdas, Lady Gaga, & Gandalf. Or bits of them. Kavita's social activism, Gandalf's divine mission & weird powers, Gaga's controversial celebrity & hatred of trousers. Imagine that person actually existing; not a pro wrestling persona, but a real life historical personage. Can you imagine reading a biography of this person in which she is portrayed as having rogues' galleries, full of characters that suspiciously resemble pro wrestling "heel" personae? Would you think these were enlightening or accurate? Would they be anything but parody, on the level of Tijuana Bibles (with wrestling instead of sex)?
But Philippos, you say, rogues' galleries are part of the genre! Well, they don't have to be. Until relatively recently, antagonists in action-hero comics didn't universally & always come back. (They do now, or nearly so, as the official works have descended into badfic.) Some antagonists are defeated for good. (And writers who resurrect those characters are usually writing derivative nonsense. Not always; but typically.)
Maybe Marston would have reused his rogues until they became ridiculous (arguably he did; but then his rogues started out ridiculous). But I'm not really looking to read a Marston pastiche. I gave up on trying to read the Marston run because I found it unreadably bad; why would I want more of the same?
So if I ever try writing about a Wondy-esque character again, & I'm not doing a camp parody that's trying to be stupid, don't be surprised if there are very very few recurring antagonists.
There can be gods, or tendencies that are personifiable: Conquest, Deception, & Greed; the Exploiter & his kin from The Challenge of Artemis. But these are less men than symbols of the evils men do; they inhabit different men.
There can be persons who are merely annoying rather than murderous; Mrs. Camellia Sackville-Baggins, Bilbo's hated relative; Ned Leeds, who married Peter Parker's ex-girlfriend; Jolly Jonah Jameson, who libeled Spider-Man to sell newspapers; Reggie.
But fighting a single murderous human being again & again & not actually trying to reform, incarcerate, or just plain incapacitate that person should be cause to take away your hero league membership card.
Does Kavita Ramdas?
Did Gandalf? Well, the Necromancer, I suppose. But Lord of the Rings is not like an issue of Batman where he wrassles Killer Croc.
Can you imagine reading biographies of Gaga or Kavita Ramdas in which they are portrayed as having rogues' galleries, full of characters that suspiciously resemble pro wrestling "heel" personae? Would you think these were enlightening or accurate?
Now, they may have recurring kinds of problems to deal with; they may have persons in their lives that annoy them. But if someone were repeatedly trying to violently them & those around them, I'd expect this would find some resolution & not continue endlessly.
Some of you say, "Wouldn't it be badass if they did?" I say no. It would be pathetic.
This is a bias of mine, & I can see where it comes from. I came to superhero comics having already been into children's fantasy & detective stories. Think of The Hobbit, or Nancy Drew.
Fantasy stories traditionally end in resolution for the antagonist/protagonist conflict (except arguably Peter Pan, which is making a point of sorts). The protagonists in fairy-story often go somewhere, meet an evil, & do one of the following: a) defeat the evil; b) escape the evil, count themselves lucky, & seek a life of propriety & safety; or c) get devoured by the evil.
Detective characters may have lots of cases, but they make a point of closing them (except maybe in stuff like P. D. James's work, but that's not about fighting the same person in every novel either). Closure is part of the genre.
Superhero universes appealed to me as a kid because they had sci-fi, fantasy, & detective riffs. They could combine these things. But one aspect I don't like so much is the pro wrestling aspect. This is a bias of mine, sure. But...I think...it's a case of my bias being rooted in good writing & the typical superhero bias being rooted in well, bad writing.
When I see someone say that Wonder Woman needs her rogues' gallery built up, I roll my eyes. Rogues' galleries are stupid. It's as unrealistic as saying that she needs little power-ups hovering around her like Scott Pilgrim, or that she needs to take damage in level-dependent hit points like a Dungeons & Dragons player character.
Imagine a world where someone exists who is at once Kavita Ramdas, Lady Gaga, & Gandalf. Or bits of them. Kavita's social activism, Gandalf's divine mission & weird powers, Gaga's controversial celebrity & hatred of trousers. Imagine that person actually existing; not a pro wrestling persona, but a real life historical personage. Can you imagine reading a biography of this person in which she is portrayed as having rogues' galleries, full of characters that suspiciously resemble pro wrestling "heel" personae? Would you think these were enlightening or accurate? Would they be anything but parody, on the level of Tijuana Bibles (with wrestling instead of sex)?
But Philippos, you say, rogues' galleries are part of the genre! Well, they don't have to be. Until relatively recently, antagonists in action-hero comics didn't universally & always come back. (They do now, or nearly so, as the official works have descended into badfic.) Some antagonists are defeated for good. (And writers who resurrect those characters are usually writing derivative nonsense. Not always; but typically.)
Maybe Marston would have reused his rogues until they became ridiculous (arguably he did; but then his rogues started out ridiculous). But I'm not really looking to read a Marston pastiche. I gave up on trying to read the Marston run because I found it unreadably bad; why would I want more of the same?
So if I ever try writing about a Wondy-esque character again, & I'm not doing a camp parody that's trying to be stupid, don't be surprised if there are very very few recurring antagonists.
There can be gods, or tendencies that are personifiable: Conquest, Deception, & Greed; the Exploiter & his kin from The Challenge of Artemis. But these are less men than symbols of the evils men do; they inhabit different men.
There can be persons who are merely annoying rather than murderous; Mrs. Camellia Sackville-Baggins, Bilbo's hated relative; Ned Leeds, who married Peter Parker's ex-girlfriend; Jolly Jonah Jameson, who libeled Spider-Man to sell newspapers; Reggie.
But fighting a single murderous human being again & again & not actually trying to reform, incarcerate, or just plain incapacitate that person should be cause to take away your hero league membership card.