Thread Closed
(03-20-2015, 01:03 AM)Ryoko Wrote:(03-19-2015, 05:43 PM)Verad Wrote:(03-19-2015, 05:14 PM)undefined Wrote: These self-indulgent special snowflake characters who always get their way are universally bad whether they are male or female.ÂWhy?
I think the original post has some real value in questioning how and why we are willing to deride the power fantasy. I can look to my left and find a shelf full of books that are power-fantasies with self-indulgent special characters that are considered classics.
So what the heck happened? It's not that writing got "better," I can tell you that. We aren't in some teleological state where we've discarded the power fantasy as being lesser.
Well, in fiction it's just personal preference. I personally hate just about anything involving superheroes. I think the very idea is insulting to the resilience and ingenuity of normal humans. But certain media appeals to certain people, and not everyone has to like everything.
However, it's a bit different when it's a group experience. I myself have had to remove a few people from Pathfinder campaigns because power-tripping ruins the fun for everyone else. Why lead a group of rag-tag adventurers on an epic quest to find Purplebeard's lost gold when your local hyper-wizard can just divine it's location and then teleport it to you? And good news, he didn't even need to get out of bed to do it. Â
From an observer perspective, the problem with overpowered characters is that creativity basically requires restrictions. Arthur Dent had infinitely more interesting adventures than Superman ever did, because he was facing similarly impossible issues, but had none of the tools with which Superman solved those problems, forcing him to improvise. This creates compelling narrative.Â
From an in-world perspective, superheroes cannot coexist with humans in a realistic environment, only rule us. Freedom cannot exist while Superman exists. See, it is established that Superman is greater than the combined might of all humanity. He never loses, he simply has setbacks. But eventually he wins, without fail. In this world, democracy cannot truly exist. Self-determination cannot exist. If we are allowed to make choices, it is only because Superman allows us to. Because if we upset him, he could destroy us all. We would have no recourse against him. No balance of power, no ability to rise up against tyranny. Just helpless ants being vaporized by a flying invincible jackass with laser vision. All of our elections, our wars, our revolutions, our social movements, all made irrelevant just by this one man existing. Countless millions die to shape our world, but for what purpose, when Superman has the final say?Â
I understand that most people will never try to take a character that far. But there has to be a clear limit.
There's actually a mostly-excellent series called Irredeemable (and has a sister comic called Incorruptible that I like a lot more) that covers that concept. It's a pretty good takedown of cape comics' politics even if I feel it goes off the deep end about 2/3 of the way through.
That's also a good reason why I stated Supes was a better example than Bats is. Batman's character arc has him reaching those points of ingenuity and determination. For all of his ability, he's still just one man trying to do what he feels is right. Superman just... is. If someone's got a grudge against Batman, they can just theoretically beat the crap out of him. If someone's got a grudge against Superman, he can just toss everyone into the sun if they become meddlesome. That's not an interesting story (or it is, it just happens to also be a short one) so writers are forced to go the other direction. Superman can't be reviled in the public opinion without becoming a super villain, so he has to be worshiped and adored by everyone but the paper bad guys.
This was a bit of a tangent. Sorry.
![[Image: yEROfKO.png]](http://i.imgur.com/yEROfKO.png)