Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
I’ve always thought it was ridiculous for the monarchy to claim they were chosen by god to be leaders. Then, as you pointed out, there are always those pesky siblings and cousins who try to dethrone the king, because they also have royal blood and think they deserve it more. Countless wars have been fought over this idiotic concept.
I’m no expert on the genre, so my question is genuine: could they be following the same monarchical template because they’re patterned on Western European myth and fables? I saw Black Panther and expected it to tell a new story, but it seemed like a familiar tale in new clothing. But I admit I’m likely uninformed.
I don’t think superheroes really rely strongly on myths. They’re more rooted in sf and adventure pulp. But those definitely are limited in plot and theme!
Yeah it's really lazy and annoying at this point. As you say, it really shouldn't be that hard to craft a story without it. One thing I appreciate about the Nolan Batman movies is he's basically a champion of democracy. He says in Batman Begins to Rachel "Your system is broken." And she points out how it's broken and why it's imperative for powerful people like him to try and fix it. He spends the rest of the trilogy trying to fix the system and hand its legitimacy back to the people, not himself (the trilogy ends with him faking his death, leaving his wealth to Alfred and the city, and just walking away to be a normal person).
Granted, there can be issues with a billionaire vigilante assuming the mantel of the savior of democracy. But to his credit Nolan at least tries to address some of this in The Dark Knight and tries to make it clear throughout the movies that the purpose of Batman is to be a symbol for the people, not just one man on a power trip. There are certainly other critiques, which Noah you've made over the years. But I think in general it gets a lot right, certainly more than the typical superhero movie.
I have been wondering for a long time, as a European raised on the Franco-Belgian comics/graphic novel tradition, why I never warmed to the US comics tradition (I did like Watchmen, though but hey, British writer, IINM). Maybe your post explains some of that reticence.
There is an element of royal exceptionalism in these kinds of tales. But they are only half of the true picture of this complicated genre.
Stories of this nature have always had a utopian sense of empowerment and self-reliance- the idea that anyone of any background was capable of being heroic with specific mental and physical development and a universalist sense of justice. The earliest American comic books were conceived by people from underprivileged backgrounds who had seen themselves and others around them repeatedly beset by ethnic prejudice, and wanted to invent scenarios where it was possible for people to succeed without disadvantaging each other in the process.
But they are not perfect- they are flawed and are aware of it, but still are able to do their job.
All I'm saying is: let's not make assumptions about the uniformity of this genre. There are themes and ideals in common, but heroes and villains are not all the same...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
I’ve always thought it was ridiculous for the monarchy to claim they were chosen by god to be leaders. Then, as you pointed out, there are always those pesky siblings and cousins who try to dethrone the king, because they also have royal blood and think they deserve it more. Countless wars have been fought over this idiotic concept.
Killmonger was T'Challa's cousin.
right you are; thanks for the correction!
Thanks for correcting :)
I’m no expert on the genre, so my question is genuine: could they be following the same monarchical template because they’re patterned on Western European myth and fables? I saw Black Panther and expected it to tell a new story, but it seemed like a familiar tale in new clothing. But I admit I’m likely uninformed.
I don’t think superheroes really rely strongly on myths. They’re more rooted in sf and adventure pulp. But those definitely are limited in plot and theme!
Yeah it's really lazy and annoying at this point. As you say, it really shouldn't be that hard to craft a story without it. One thing I appreciate about the Nolan Batman movies is he's basically a champion of democracy. He says in Batman Begins to Rachel "Your system is broken." And she points out how it's broken and why it's imperative for powerful people like him to try and fix it. He spends the rest of the trilogy trying to fix the system and hand its legitimacy back to the people, not himself (the trilogy ends with him faking his death, leaving his wealth to Alfred and the city, and just walking away to be a normal person).
Granted, there can be issues with a billionaire vigilante assuming the mantel of the savior of democracy. But to his credit Nolan at least tries to address some of this in The Dark Knight and tries to make it clear throughout the movies that the purpose of Batman is to be a symbol for the people, not just one man on a power trip. There are certainly other critiques, which Noah you've made over the years. But I think in general it gets a lot right, certainly more than the typical superhero movie.
I hate the Nolan Batman films I fear.
The webcomic strong female protagonist does a much better job of critiquing the genre I think…
SFP, now that's a really great superhero comic.
I have been wondering for a long time, as a European raised on the Franco-Belgian comics/graphic novel tradition, why I never warmed to the US comics tradition (I did like Watchmen, though but hey, British writer, IINM). Maybe your post explains some of that reticence.
There is an element of royal exceptionalism in these kinds of tales. But they are only half of the true picture of this complicated genre.
Stories of this nature have always had a utopian sense of empowerment and self-reliance- the idea that anyone of any background was capable of being heroic with specific mental and physical development and a universalist sense of justice. The earliest American comic books were conceived by people from underprivileged backgrounds who had seen themselves and others around them repeatedly beset by ethnic prejudice, and wanted to invent scenarios where it was possible for people to succeed without disadvantaging each other in the process.
But they are not perfect- they are flawed and are aware of it, but still are able to do their job.
The heroines I write about are examples of this:
https://davidperlmutter.substack.com/p/fandom
https://davidperlmutter.substack.com/p/film-flam
All I'm saying is: let's not make assumptions about the uniformity of this genre. There are themes and ideals in common, but heroes and villains are not all the same...