DC superheroes aren't interesting. Yes, this is my opinion, but I have valid reasons. DC heroes have no character, no juice, no angst, no reason to sympathize or relate. They are like... virtuous Greek gods, and how boring would THAT have been? There is a reason Zeus shagged animals; it got people's attention. Imagine if Superman had a flaw... any flaw (as i was thinking about this myself, I came up with several concepts: a cripple when not in sunlight, a womanizer, an alcoholic, poor, homeless, had a family of normals, had a disgusting disease, etc) and suddenly the character is interesting. But he isn't. Because he is virtuous, a god, perfect... unrealistic.
Lets take a look at a few DC characters, and why they have so little to offer:
-Batman is the only character worth telling a story with, because, like so many Marvel heroes, he has obvious flaws: IE he is insane.
-Green Lantern is a guy with a ring of, basically, unlimited wishes. It is a god-ring. And we are supposed to worry about him, or relate in any way? And somehow, he'll get beat-up during the first 50% of the story... able to make any tool or, well, ANYTHING and yet he still loses. Come-on!
-Or Superman, who's only angst is a really unbelievable secret identity. Sure, he was born on another planet, but he didn't grow up in a foster-home, he was adopted by loving parents as his first memory, so the angst of that feels sorta trite and weak. Plus, he is a god. Yet he gets beat up for the first 50% of the comic? Come-on!
-The Flash is as fast as light, yet not fast enough to keep from getting beat up for the first 50% of the comic? Come-on!
-Wonder Woman has great hooters, but she is a goddess and that is part of the deal. And her only angst is about being a woman; unfortunately relevant 60 years ago, but not a big deal anymore.
-Martian Manhunter, despite his tragically stupid name, has an intersting and tragic character concept. He was accidentally teleported to Earth just as his home-planet of Mars has a cataclysmic event wipe out all the indigenous life. Heart-breaking, truly. But he has god-like power, so... Granted, more could be done with the guy, but isn't.
-Now, Aquaman is interesting. He has serious personality issues, and trust issues, and had his hand eaten off by piranha (wonderful irony there). He just doesn't have a very relevant power-set unless you also live in the ocean.
-Green Arrow, who shoots trick arrows at bad-guys, standing next to Superman, The Flash, and Green Lantern is like a kitten in a buffalo herd. He's cocky, which is interesting, but he'd have to be as a kitten in buffalo-herd. otherwise we'd realize just how uninteresting he really is.
My point is, the DC characters are caricatures, silly and unrealistic. One has to decide not to ask any serious questions about them. You can't ask a question like "What if Lois Lane was falling off a skyscraper, and a bus of kids had a bomb underneath it?" because the obvious, and really only, answer is "Win". Sad. You ask that of Wolverine, and you get a tragic ending. Superman is never fired for not being at work on time because he chose to save a bus full of children and C-4. He never has his identity outed, despite his clever ruse(??) with the glasses, even though outing him would mean... nothing. He is untouchable. Since he can't lose, why worry about how you could?? Daredevil had his secret identity known, and it ruined his life. But Daredevil couldn't stop Kingpin from having him disbarred (as a lawyer), ruining his legal practice and friendship with business partner, killing his girlfriend, etc. Daredevil had vulnerabilities, could be exploited, could lose. Superman has no vulnerabilities, in his powers or in his life.
Why? Why do we need a Superman who can't lose? It has been described to me that Marvel Comics are for the people who enjoy unhappy endings once in a while. People who enjoy tragedy, flaws, shades of gray, realism. While DC, I was told, is for the people who don't like to lose, who are scared of weaknesses, who like simple black-&-white hats on their cowboys. And in early days of comics, that worked. We were a simpler culture then. We knew less, and could have the wool pulled over our eyes easier. But with this information age we are privy to the machinations of powerful people, to their selfishness and deceit, and to the moral grays of personal perspective. Sterile stories aren't interesting anymore because we don't relate to them. Why doesn't Superman just shed is "secret" identity if he has proven that he can, time and time again, protect those close to him from danger? Why does Green Lantern swat villains with a giant green spatula when a force-bubble would capture them every time? Why would Flash ever move slow enough to get punched if he can move at the speed of light? Why does Wonder Woman's jet have to be invisible? Why does Batman need a sidekick if he is smarter than any of his villains? Or better; why would Batman endanger the life of an innocent kid if he wasn't seriously insane? Why does Superman care about a world he has never known, and never can, when he has really swell adopted parents who loved him unconditionally? Well, I can answer that one: because Superman needs angst in his life. He needs flaws. Otherwise, we would see him for the tragically uninteresting character he really is.
I completely understand your perspective, although I don't quite agree. Between these two behemoth super-hero machines, I'm also more a fan of Marvel generally speaking. I think there is merit to the moral and ethical questions that arise, though. It isn't just about whether someone is going to get beat up, it's about what they choose to do with their power.
ReplyDeleteA good counter-example is Dr. Manhattan of The Watchmen. He becomes all-powerful, or close enough to it, and in so doing he loses interest in humanity. He ceases to see the point of caring about flawed, mean-spirited, weak creatures that he quite simply doesn't need. You could call this a character flaw, but it doesn't really have any negative impact on him.
Conversely, the goodness of DC heroes leaves that option completely off the table. It's important for the moral and ethical dilemma of defining goodness that human weaknesses don't muddy the waters. In the early days of Superman, he was putting bullets in Nazis like they weren't even people. Superman's concept of good and evil has evolved since then, even though our tendencies as fallible human beings doesn't often seem to have gone through the same degree of evolution.
To be fair to the characters you criticize, however, there are actual limitations you gloss over. Wonder Woman is not actually a goddess; she's just a well-trained human princess from the remote island nation of Themyscira. Yes, her abilities are super-human, but they are not actually limitless.
Every Green Lantern may hold something close to unlimited power in a ring, but they all have to hone their personal willpower in order to wield those rings effectively.
The suggestion I get from that is that physical power alone is not the key to being a hero. Being a force of goodness requires more than the ability to win a fight against the badguys. It requires constantly wrestling with one's own psyche, whether the goal of that wrestling is to continue seeing the value in others, or to overcome doubts about one's own self.