InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "ur the scum between my toes"

arbre_rieur (arbre_rieur) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-06-29 00:33:00

Entry tags:

creator: keith giffen, creator: kurt busiek

Kurt Busiek and Keith Giffen tell us why superheroes suck!

An intrepid band of explorers is hunting their latest monster in the Himalayas.

Kungoro, Monster of the Snows, has found them before they could find him! They fare less than well against him.

One old man's bout of raving later...

(Post a new comment)

	magus_69 2009-06-29 03:28 am UTC (link)
	Shades of Kingdom Come here, what with the "obsolescence" of humanity. The only difference is that the populace embraces the Wonders instead of fearing them/being resigned to them, but what a difference it is. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2009-06-29 03:39 am UTC (link)
	... fascinating. For a moment there, as I read your comment, my brain somehow substituted "Childhood's End" (the Clarke novel) for KC. Which also fits. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jlroberson
2009-06-29 03:47 am UTC (link)

>>what with the "obsolescence" of humanity...

This to me has always been one of the most depressing motifs in mainstream comics, whether in X-Men, KC, or that crappy "Fantastic Force" thing. Mankind is replaced or preserved by the superheroes because of massive disasters and breakdowns of the sort we have already started to taste. Disasters that nothing else could save mankind from, or could survive our extinction and assure civilization's continuation.

Y'know why that depresses me? Because there ARE NO SUPERHEROES.

So when the world dies...well, when you think of it as something now very difficult to slow down in the real world, the stories like this come off as a cruel taunt, if you really think about it as deeply as the creators want you to.(though maybe not to those conclusions)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

icon_uk
2009-06-29 05:33 am UTC (link)

Y'know why that depresses me? Because there ARE NO SUPERHEROES

Depends on your definition of superhero I suppose. Those who risk their lives to save others from certain death and/or disaster, in many cases without being certain their effort will succeed, certainly qualify in my book: Firemen (and women of course), medics in wartorn countries, disaster relief specialists.

We haven't seen disasters on the scale of comics, or at least not many that weren't happening before humanity came along (volcanic eruptions, tsunami, flash floods etc), so far Earth appears to be 100% alien invasion free, for example. But we are more numerous, and living in area's most sane species would never choose to live in (Anyone whose home is built in a flood basin for start) and are better connected communications wise, so we are simply more AWARE of the disasters which can befall us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

janegray
2009-06-29 05:05 am UTC (link)

I'm sorry, I just don't get why they are whining that superheroes saving the World is a bad thing.

I guess his anti-superheroes argument could work if he is just referring to isolate accidents that only involve people who are very willing to risk their lives for the thrill and excitement. I can see why those people wouldn't want superheroes to get in their way. But then he goes on bitching about superheroes saving the world from dictators and alien invasions.

"Yay, we sure are lucky that there are no superheroes to prevent wars and disasters from killing and maiming billions! That means we get to live the dream of having cool adventures over the death and suffering of countless innocents!"

CRY MOAR, bitch.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	icon_uk 2009-06-29 05:24 am UTC (link)
	Possibly the same basic problem that Lex Luthor has with Superman. Disasters should be pushing HUMANS to develop solutions, not relying on apparently benevolent aliens who happen to be passing. It's ultimately detrimental to human development and leads to an unhealthy dependency on self appointed superheroes. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

janegray
2009-06-29 05:58 am UTC (link)

My problem with that stance is that some problems are just beyond human's abilities, period.

Example: if Galactus decides that the Earth looks yummy, wtf could human people do? Even assuming that they could eventually come up with a way to defeat Galactus (I doubt it, but let's say they could, for the sake of argument), it would take them a long time to get ready. They'd never make it in time.

And what if aliens invade the Earth with overwhelming forces? Should humans be left alone to fight off a much more technologically advanced and much better-armed army, as surely facing such an invasion would eventually led to their development and to a better future? That worked so well for Native Indians.

Plus, even on a much smaller scale, call it dependency or whatever, but if I were assaulted by a criminal I'd be damn grateful to any superhero who could give me a hand, I certainly wouldn't think "hell, no, why couldn't a human cop save me!?"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

icon_uk
2009-06-29 06:33 am UTC (link)

Certainly there are events which are beyond human intervention, but that's the way the universe goes. In the real world, if such a thing happens, we're screwed, no doubt. But it hasn't happened and it's dubious what the odds are of it ever happening.

In Luthor's worldview humans should be uniting against such a threat, with a genius such as himself in charge, and with the tech he can devise, it's a distinct probablity he would win.

Plus, even on a much smaller scale, call it dependency or whatever, but if I were assaulted by a criminal I'd be damn grateful to any superhero who could give me a hand, I certainly wouldn't think "hell, no, why couldn't a human cop save me!?"

But you probably should be thinking about that, because it reflects a possible underlying problem with the society you are living in, that you actually DID require a hero to save you because he happened to be passing/on a whim, as opposed to a properly funded and organised police force capable of dealing with the assault on you.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

janegray
2009-06-29 07:09 am UTC (link)

But the thing is, much like Batman's skills, Luthor's genius has been overblown to such a level that I don't buy him as human anymore. He can come up, in five minutes, and completely effortlessly, to problems that have plagued humanity for thousands of years. No, I definitely don't buy him as a human. If he were in the Marvel Universe, he'd be a mutant with the mutant power of super-intelligence.

And even if I could buy him s a human? As you said, Luthor would need to be in charge for humanity to accomplish anything big. And, knowing him, he'd be pretty much totalitarian: even in the Red Son AU, where Luthor is a good guy and does end up leading humanity to greatness, he does everything on his own, single-handedly, refusing to let anybody (even his own wife) in on his plans. How could that push humanS to develop solutions? Humanity as a whole relies on him, just like it would otherwise rely on superheroes. In the far future of Red Son, after Luthor's death, people can't come up with a way to prevent their planet from exploding, and their whole race (but one baby) perishes in the explosion.

As for the possible underlying problem with the society, I don't believe that any police force, no matter how well-funded and organized, could prevent all assaults. That's the thing with humans: they have limits. Remove the limits, and you remove the humanity as well. It's no coincidence that the robot in The Bicentennial Man had to give up his immortal and artificially efficient body (particularly the brain) for humanity to finally accept him as their own. It's the reason that Batman, once a living glorification of human's potential, is now mocked as "Batgod" by his own fans because he can do anything.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tanetris
2009-06-29 08:38 am UTC (link)

Essays could be (and I presume have been) written on the artificial "other"ing of mutants in the Marvel universe, who are at the most basic level human. Suffice to say that's a different matter from the benevolent aliens, the literal gods-descended-from-on-high, ordinary people empowered by gifts from 5th-dimensional beings, etc. And yes, Luthor is a hypocrite. Does this surprise anyone?

I think the moderate view to take on superheroing is as analogous to parenting. I don't know of anyone who makes the argument that chidren are better off without parents at all, but by the same token, an overprotective parent can be as damaging, if not more, to a child's development as a neglectful one. A Superman who wards off Darkseid and saves people from burning buildings is good. A Superman who does everything from picking up every piece of litter to curing cancer is less positive, even if seeing Superman picking up litter or trying to cure cancer makes him that much more likeable.

The thing about humanity and limits is that we push them. Maybe not all of us individually, but as a species, we push and push at our limitations, and when we break through one, we get right to pushing at the new one past that. That's why limits are seen as so human, and those who can (or seemingly can) do anything are not. When a superhero does everything for us, we no longer have anything to push against, meaning we either lose a piece of our identity, or we find something else to push against (like said superhero).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

starwolf_oakley
2009-06-30 01:34 am UTC (link)

Some of this reminds me of Bill Maher's dislike of superheroes, or more specifically, superhero movies. He said it makes us (Americans) look like we have a childish view of good and evil and can only solve problems with extreme violence.

Maher's dislike of the superhero genre can be seen here:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/14/hatin-on-heroes-directors-who-turn-down-superhero-flicks/

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/04/13/ron-howard-declined-spider-man-bill-maher-ridicules-comic-book-movies/

A similar essay that suggests Bruce Wayne embezzles money from Wayne Enterprises to build his Batman equipment.

http://open.salon.com/blog/ericonomist/2009/06/08/batman_isnt_a_superhero

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlroberson 2009-06-29 09:05 pm UTC (link)
	And that is a point I've always agreed with Lex on. But thing is? Superman agrees too. (Reply to this) (Parent)

alschroeder
2009-06-29 05:32 am UTC (link)

Challengers of the Unknown vs. the Justice League.

The Challs had a Rogue's Gallery worthy of any super-hero---Volcano Man, Kra the alien Robot, the telekinetic Dabney, a shape-changing Multi-Man...but they were just four guys. Four nonsuperhuman guys, getting by on smarts, skill, and competence. (Same with the original Suicide Squad, for that matter.) Yet tackling foes that would give many a super-hero pause.

They seem almost quaint now, old-fashioned, as we've gotten used to superhuman battling superhuman---but like Batman, their skills more than made up for their lack of power.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

janegray
2009-06-29 06:08 am UTC (link)

See my reply to

icon_uk above. A Rogue's Gallery is one thing, an army of normal human soldiers could handle that (even if the battle would probably have a much higher body count). But when it comes to sudden intergalactic threats to the whole world, you need superhumans.

Also, I add that Batman isn't really a good example of human skills making up for lack of superpowers, because his skills have been overblown to such a ludicrous extent that he effectively doesn't really count as human anymore. There is a reason Fandom nicknamed him Batgod. And even then, he only fights the really big threats with the help and backup of the Justice League.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

alschroeder
2009-06-29 07:59 am UTC (link)

I suggest you read the Challengers' Archives. They often battled intergalactic threats to the whole world. (Kra, for example.)

For that matter, Adam Strange often battled intergalactic threats both to his own and his adopted world, Rann---without any superhuman powers at all.

Besides, often the comic book intergalactic villain's power is then upped to an overwhelmign degree. Starbreaker, Darkseid. If Galactus is invading, the Fantastic Four are so utterly powerless compared to him, that Galactus might as WELL be facing the Challengers.

And for all their power, often it is either Reed Richards' inventions, or Batman's strategy, which turns the tide against their foes.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

janegray
2009-06-29 11:25 am UTC (link)

I admit I haven't read the Challengers' Archives, but if you say that they battle intergalactic threats to the whole world, I'll take your word for it. But then, I actually think that makes this story even more senseless.

To my understanding, this story is stating that the superhuman makes the human obsolete.

If the humans in question have proven able to take on, and actually defeat, intergalactic threats to the whole world, how on earth does the introduction of superheroes make them obsolete? Why couldn't the guy in the story fight alongside the superheroes, instead of retiring from his life of adventures and going on to live a quiet, bitter and resentful existence?

It seems to me like this story wants to have its cake and eat it too. "Superheroes make human heroes obsolete because humans can't compete with them! Even though human heroes can totally perform the same deeds as superheroes do!"

Batman (even before he became the Batgod, when he really was just an extremely skilled and intelligent human) never stopped fighting just because his world already has Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and many other god-powered heroes; instead, he makes allies with them and they fight all together against evil. If he can do that, so could these Challengers guys fight alongside their superheroes. If they chose not to, that's not the superheroes' fault.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2009-06-29 07:31 am UTC (link)

Given the sort of adventures Riff seems to have had (and the fact it states he successfully defeated alien invader Garakk), I imagine he would have defended the Earth from aliens the old fashioned way - with quicksand (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/googam.htm), movie props (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/dragoomst.htm), hypnotism (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/scorpionjim.htm), bright lights (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/marwhosc.htm), erupting volcanoes (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/thorgpreff.htm), water (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/sandmanj.htm), or a large net (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/haaghunt.htm).

None of this would happen in the real world, but we are not talking about a real world. We are talking about a comic book world, where all of those things have worked. Humanity was able to protect itself just fine without superheroes, but now humanity is entirely reliant upon them.

Superheroes also have a much worse track record than normal humans - the Skrulls have attacked Earth regularly for 50 years and, yes, have been stopped each time by superheroes, but they soon attack again. But when a normal human defeated an alien race, it was rare if they ever returned. Superheroes merely give aliens the impression that we NEED superheroes to defend us.

In the end, in Riff's world, humanity will do just fine without superhumans (especially when you consider that with superheroes came supervillains too). But with superhumans, humanity becomes obsolete and starts to think that they can't do any of the things that they were once capable of, unless they too are superhuman.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

janegray
2009-06-29 11:39 am UTC (link)

See my reply to

alschroeder. If humans can really keep up with superhumans, then that's undeniable proof that superhumans don't make humans obsolete. If humans don't realize that simple fact, then they need to grow a spine, stop blaming superpowered people who are just trying to be helpful, and accept and appreciate that humans and superhumans can fight side by side (seriously, it's not like the world is ever going to run out of evil, there is plenty of room for all kinds of heroes).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2009-06-29 06:48 pm UTC (link)

In the story, the only one to blame superhumans for this is Riff - as soon as superheroes (even human ones like Batman) appear the humans, the press and the superhumans all assume that he, a human that has fought and defeated dozens of aliens and monsters, needed the superheroes help.

From Riff's perspective, his kind (adventurous human explorers) are considered a thing of the past. Even if they did go off to find new things and battle strange monsters, some superhero will assume they need their help, 'rescue' them and take all the credit (as happened to Riff). The world Riff lived in has ended, and a new one has emerged that he doesn't think is as good or exciting as the one it replaced because he no longer has a part in it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	khaosworks 2009-06-29 05:49 am UTC (link)
	From "The Dark Horse Book of Monsters", if anyone's interested. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ulf_boehnke 2009-06-29 08:08 am UTC (link)
	Thank you, I was about to ask. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	blake_reitz 2009-06-29 08:35 am UTC (link)
	Riff could have avoided all this moping with a simple unauthorized trip into space in an untested rocket with his three teammates. Oh well. (Reply to this)

richardak
2009-06-29 09:26 am UTC (link)

I mean no offense to anyone when I say that I think this whole debate about how super-heroes would render humanity obsolete misses the point, as does this comic. Human beings have been telling stories about larger-than-life heroes with abilities far beyond those of mortal men since the dawn of time: Herakles, Gilgamesh, Roland, Galahad, Robin Hood, etc., all superheroes. Telling such stories is as much a part of human nature as our desire, our need, to push against our limits. In fact, the point of such stories, if they have a point beyond their entertainment value, is to inspire people to push against their limits.

Would the presence of real-life superheroes infantilize the rest of humanity? Maybe, maybe not. Fortunately, all but the weakest superhero powers, those least likely to have any major effect on human civilization, are physically impossible.

(Reply to this)

cmdr_zoom
2009-06-29 10:17 am UTC (link)

I'm reminded a bit of David Brin's rant about how Star Trek is a more democratic, and thus more modern and superior, setting to Star Wars - conveniently ignoring how in place of princesses and anointed god-kings doing the important stuff, we have the senior officers of ships named Enterprise, which is usually the Only Ship in the Quadrant. The rest of Starfleet is just there to send distress calls, die, or be pompous and bureaucratic from HQ. Six of one...

(Reply to this)

	mullon 2009-06-29 12:10 pm UTC (link)
	I wonder if the heroes he despises are doing it for the fame like he is. (Reply to this)

	the_lassiter 2009-06-29 01:15 pm UTC (link)
	He is being left behind in a changing world. Much like our own world, when cultural and social norms have expanded many elderly people cannot bridge that gap. INMHO this story is about him losing his place in the world. It has very little to do with him being right. (Reply to this)

besamim
2009-06-29 03:29 pm UTC (link)

I see this as more of a metafictional reflection on heroic hunter/explorer fiction (e.g. Haggard's Alan Quartermain novels, or Conan Doyle's Professor Challenger books) giving way first to the occult-powered heroes of the pulps (The Shadow) and earliest comics (Doctor Occult, Zatara) and finally to super-powered characters. Once you had characters who could "cloud men's minds" or better, toss cars around and bounce bullets off their chests, somehow a hero who was "merely" brave, intelligent and handy with guns didn't do it for many readers anymore.

(Reply to this)

	aaron_bourque 2009-06-29 04:09 pm UTC (link)
	Why am I reminded of this: Oh. Right. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-06-30 01:16 am UTC (link)
	Interesting and amusing. The fox has can't get the grapes, but can use the Internet. Wikipedia says: Study of older versions of the fable suggest that "unripe" might be a more literal translation, the idea being that the fox would come back later to try in earnest. (Reply to this) (Parent)

irenem
2009-07-02 08:53 pm UTC (link)

My interpretation (hurray for coming late to the party! I haven't posted in a month) is that he doesn't resent the superheroes for doing good, but for replacing him in the minds of the people--he doesn't mind that he was "saved" by a superhero, but is bothered that everybody considers him to be nothing more than a helpless bystander. Everyone is so starstruck that they don't even care what the explorers themselves did.

(Reply to this)

	jlbarnett 2009-07-05 08:22 pm UTC (link)
	you know looking at this I don't think he's meant to be taken seriously. I mean look how chavaunistic he's portrayed and how helpless June is portrayed. (Reply to this)