InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I cast Zone of Truth."

starwolf_oakley (starwolf_oakley) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-23 23:27:00

Entry tags:

publisher: wildstorm, title: the authority

runespoor7's post of Jason Todd talking to Mia Dearden led to a thread discussion about billionaire vigilantes beating up poor criminals.

A panel from THE AUTHORITY: TRANSFER OF POWER shows that at least a few comic creators are aware of this.

"The Authority" was always pretty "out there" for superheroes. But that's Warren Ellis and Mark Millar for you.

For more than a few superheroes, actually being a superhero can be seen as a case of Noblesse Oblige. Noblesse Oblige can be seen as "With great power comes great responsibility... and a really smug sense of superiority."

It came back to Batman, as these things do. After all, we never really go into detail about how "well-off" the Kents were from farming, or how much Clark Kent's Daily Planet take-home pay is. Some seem to think it ties into "Lonely Place of Dying," that since Tim Drake's family is wealthy, Tim isn't as "street" as Jason Todd.

Quotes from users via http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/987439.html?thread=27947311#t27947311:

runespoor7 said: "The fact is, 'Oh, Jason was lower class and her turned out badly, and then he was replaced by Tim, who came from a good family the same side of the streets as Bruce and who did very well as Robin' leaves a strange impression."

lynxara said: "In particular, confronting the class issues at work in the Batman stuff is impossible without coming to the conclusion that most of the characters involved are selfish monsters so steeped in white privilege that they've lost all grasp of reality."

icon_uk said: "Dick was suddenly an ethnic Romany with angst about the likelihood of him ending up in jail like so many of his kin."

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	grazzt 2009-09-24 05:02 pm UTC (link)
	I don't know about including Peter. You could argue that he's a proponent of noblesse oblige ("with great power comes great responsibility"). Even if he is dirt poor, you can still get that subtext. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

thandrak
2009-09-24 05:57 pm UTC (link)

So? He's a proponent of it. That doesn't mean anything. Kid's dirt poor, raised by dirt poor people. That he was raised by them to be a good, upstanding citizen doesn't mean he came from wealth and privilege.

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48 Bible KJV

Besides, noblesse oblige doesn't really apply to Peter. He doesn't have the wealth. He doesn't have the prestige. He just has the power, and the ability.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

grazzt
2009-09-24 06:29 pm UTC (link)

Metaphorically, it does apply to him, though. Power is power, whether it's a large bank account or a Spidey-sense. I mean, when Uncle Ben said "With great power..." etc., do you really think he believed Peter would get superpowers one day? He probably just assumed that a smart kid like Peter would wield power in some other way, and that he should remember to do right by it.

And technically, you can say that he wasn't raised that way. He only became that way after his uncle died. He's comparable to Scrooge, in that he needed a good kick in the ass to get his moral bearings.

Hell, you could use that to further the class argument. Kid is raised in one class. Through an accident, he ends up in another, better class. Unaccustomed to his new class, he behaves improperly and only learns this after someone he cares about dies through his inaction. Then he devotes himself to proper behaviour for his new class. Peter Parker's story could be rewritten with a surprise inheritance instead of super powers and still be the same thematically.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sistermagpie 2009-09-24 06:39 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think it can be said to be the same thematically if the theme is class when his class is a concrete thing about him. The point here was that superheroes were people from one economic class beating up people from another. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

grazzt
2009-09-24 06:56 pm UTC (link)

To the first sentence: I don't think the theme is "class", though. It's your behaviour matching your class. To continue the comparison between Parker and Scrooge: Scrooge's behaviour didn't match his station as a wealthy businessman, so something happened to him to show him how wrong he was and so he would mend his ways before it was too late. Parker's behaviour also didn't match his station (as a superpowered being), so something happened to him to show him how wrong he was and so he would mend his ways before it was too late.

The only difference was that Scrooge got a warning, where Peter was giving an object example of the results of his meanness.

To the second: Certainly. But it seems like the argument is going too far in the opposite direction, that there aren't class issues in superheroes. The thread originator's argument that they aren't there because a lot of them were poor misses the fact that superpowers can be seen as a metaphor for class, so actually economic background doesn't matter as much. It would be like arguing that the X-Men aren't about being a minority because they all come from different ethnicities, some of them not minorities.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sistermagpie
2009-09-24 07:06 pm UTC (link)

Right, but where I'm just having a little trouble is that X-Men seems explicitly a metaphor for minority, where as superheroes really aren't, that I can see, a metaphor for class. But I don't really see superheroes as mapping onto a different economic class. They're in a special class due to their powers, yes. But their economic background seems to stay the same.

Like, it seems to me to come down to whether one can be whatever economic class one already is and also a super hero, and I think you can be. Where as in X-men being a mutant makes you a minority (though it doesn't make you a specific real world minority--a mutant can be white and also a mutant).

I do see what you mean about superheroes themselves being their own class and there I agree--but I think the original discussion was specifically talking about economic class.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	grazzt 2009-09-24 07:45 pm UTC (link)
	I wasn't necessarily trying to argue that they were exclusive, just that sometimes the superhero class is more important to the themes/moral of the story than the character's actual socioeconomic class. Of course, if we're arguing this in terms of specifically economic classes, then you can ignore me freely, but I think this discussion is more interesting anyway. :P (Reply to this) (Parent)

	thandrak 2009-09-24 07:04 pm UTC (link)
	But class, you see, is what you are born into. Not your status, but who you are, and how you were raised. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	grazzt 2009-09-24 07:14 pm UTC (link)
	I'd disagree with that. Class is your position in society. It's strongly influenced by who you are and how you're raised, but it isn't immutable. Sure, moving between stratas of class can get you looked down on by their members, but it is possible. I guess our argument is doomed to failure if we can't even agree to a definition of terms, huh? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	thandrak 2009-09-24 07:18 pm UTC (link)
	So, what is Peter's position in society? On the run from cops, a job with no permanency, and let's not even look at his love life... That said, this all started with a discussion of privileged upbringing. I don't really think you can say Peter enjoyed that at all. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

grazzt
2009-09-24 07:32 pm UTC (link)

Peter's position? Well, he's a superhero. I suppose that would map onto "aristocracy" in the real world in many ways. Alan Moore wanted to explore that comparison further in "Twilight of the Superheroes", with a new feudalism forming around the DC superheroes.

And even if Peter didn't enjoy a privileged upbringing, that doesn't magically erase any class subtext. His father-figure imprinted on him the idea that powerful people have a duty to others. When he ascended into the upper-class (so to speak), he had to relearn that lesson, brutally.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	arilou_skiff 2009-09-24 06:06 pm UTC (link)
	Considering the tendency to emphasize his roots, especially in modern retellings (USM made May & Ben ex-hippies and Spider-Man Noir made her a full-fledged commie agitator, which I think I actually posted) I find it easier to rephrase Peter's mantra as "From each according to his ability..." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	grazzt 2009-09-24 06:37 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, but Peter's mantra has no guarantee of benefit to it. Going by the communist creed, he'd at least be guaranteed his needs. But going by noblesse oblige, he's required to honourable behaviour, no matter the personal cost to him. That sounds a lot like the Peter we all know and love. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	thandrak 2009-09-24 07:10 pm UTC (link)
	Pete is the noble everyman, but he is not nobility. How can he be an upperclass sort and still an everyman? He has the drive and the spirit, but he has not the position of inherent power, the granted social standing, the independence and internalized sense of righteousness over others that the nobility has. And, by extension, the rich by blood. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	grazzt 2009-09-24 07:21 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, but that's the point. He's a nouveau riche (metaphorically), who has difficulties adjusting to his new station. Sure, there are those who look down on him, but that just makes us who aspire to a better standing love him more. And since he's willing to learn about his responsibilities, that puts him a step above those who have abandoned them. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -