![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Civil War again, oh god
This Robot 6 piece returns us to the horror that is Marvel's Civil War. Well, for the record, I've always been vaguely in agreement with the idea of superhero registration. Superhuman registration is a step too far, and UN sanctioned superhero teams (like the Avengers or Justice League) are a step not-far-enough. If you transport superheros into a real world context, they're a lot harder to like. They're a lot harder to believe in. Who the fuck would want Tony Stark zipping around the world in flying, powered-armor, punching the shit out of 'bad guys'? And what about the Hulk? Man, publicly I'd be all about curing his sad, sad plight. Privately, I would be sympathizing with the Illuminati - yes, let's shoot this fucker out into space where he's no longer an unstoppable, rampaging force of id.
In the comments, Mark Waid says that "Superheroes are not about rules, they're about flying." And he's pretty much right. It's why grim-and-gritty, 'realistic' reboots of beloved superhero properties are so grating. But let's thought-experiment our way through this morass anyway. Sorry Mark, we're killing all ur fun! What if superheroes were real? Would your position on superhero registration change?
In Civil War Marvel writers and editors stacked the deck against the pro-reg position (by making it unreasonable, reactionary, tyrannical, and in all the ways that Robot 6 suggests), because the continuing adventures of superheroic do-gooders requires that the pro-reg position be bankrupt. If there's no reasonable objection to the government aggressively discouraging superpowered vigilantes, then there can be no superheroes. So:
If the government is corrupt, there can be superheroes.
If the justice system is ineffective, there can be superheroes.
If the government is oppressive, there can be superheroes.
If we suspend the normal rules of real world politics, justice, and physics, there can be superheroes.
If the government is well-meaning and the justice system mostly effective, permanent superhero organizations start to look a bit suspect. Why NOT put on a uniform instead of a mask, if the government isn't interning/abusing/unjustly imprisoning people? Spider-Man, who operates on a street level and doesn't have a super-cool base of operations, or a permanent support structure, is less suspect than say, the X-Men. Spider-Man the neighborhood vigilante is less of threat to the state's monopoly on force, than the X-Men. He's not the superhero equivalent of a citizen militia or paramilitary organization. He can absolutely be dangerous, and will likely end his days in prison, after going too far, violating someone's rights, or accidentally injuring someone, but he doesn't inspire them same level of OH SHIT fear that a militia or paramilitary org does. Apples and oranges. Then there's the Fantastic Four. They're superhuman adventurers, and as such, there's no need for the state to regulate their activities. So long as Reed and the gang are exploring alternate dimensions, discovering scientific wonders, and lending a hand in a crisis, they're ordinary citizens, leading extraordinary lives. Contrast them (again) with the X-Men, who do the street level vigilante thing, and the adventuring thing, but whose basic mission is fighting other mutants. The X-Men and similar teams (the New Warriors, the Outsiders, the Avengers, the Justice League etc. etc), are scary stuff when we transport them into the real world.
It's like this, in a functioning, well-run democracy, citizen militias that horde weapons (particularly things like TANKS), start to look dangerous. In an oppressive and/or criminal pseudo-democracy, citizen militias are potentially heroes. (I say potentially because spottily trained civilians, possessing weapons of six kinds of holy-hell-destruction can go either way, really. And as a lefty mcleft social democrat, I distrust the libertarian position like whoa). The trouble is that we're talking about superheroes, many of whom are innately weaponized (powered), and there is no real world equivalent. Skilled fighters, hackers (and maybe athletes) are probably the best analogy we can find, but even that doesn't quite work. And so we get the nastiness of superhuman registration. And so, this whole thought experiment starts to fall apart. So far, there exists nothing like superheroes in the real world.
Steven R. Stahl makes some useful comments on why Civil War exists, and how superheroes function in contemporary Marvel comics:
Superheroes need to be superheroes. They need to fight surreal, fantastic threats that no one else can. Otherwise they're scary vigilantes that maybe DO need to be regulated. It's Marvel who created this problem (the tension between fantasy and realism in superhero comics), and it's Marvel who's got to solve it. If you don't want fans poking holes in the realism of your stories, stop trying to write 'realistic' superhero stories. Embrace fantasy, kids. Embrace superheroes as superheroes.
In the comments, Mark Waid says that "Superheroes are not about rules, they're about flying." And he's pretty much right. It's why grim-and-gritty, 'realistic' reboots of beloved superhero properties are so grating. But let's thought-experiment our way through this morass anyway. Sorry Mark, we're killing all ur fun! What if superheroes were real? Would your position on superhero registration change?
In Civil War Marvel writers and editors stacked the deck against the pro-reg position (by making it unreasonable, reactionary, tyrannical, and in all the ways that Robot 6 suggests), because the continuing adventures of superheroic do-gooders requires that the pro-reg position be bankrupt. If there's no reasonable objection to the government aggressively discouraging superpowered vigilantes, then there can be no superheroes. So:
If the government is corrupt, there can be superheroes.
If the justice system is ineffective, there can be superheroes.
If the government is oppressive, there can be superheroes.
If we suspend the normal rules of real world politics, justice, and physics, there can be superheroes.
If the government is well-meaning and the justice system mostly effective, permanent superhero organizations start to look a bit suspect. Why NOT put on a uniform instead of a mask, if the government isn't interning/abusing/unjustly imprisoning people? Spider-Man, who operates on a street level and doesn't have a super-cool base of operations, or a permanent support structure, is less suspect than say, the X-Men. Spider-Man the neighborhood vigilante is less of threat to the state's monopoly on force, than the X-Men. He's not the superhero equivalent of a citizen militia or paramilitary organization. He can absolutely be dangerous, and will likely end his days in prison, after going too far, violating someone's rights, or accidentally injuring someone, but he doesn't inspire them same level of OH SHIT fear that a militia or paramilitary org does. Apples and oranges. Then there's the Fantastic Four. They're superhuman adventurers, and as such, there's no need for the state to regulate their activities. So long as Reed and the gang are exploring alternate dimensions, discovering scientific wonders, and lending a hand in a crisis, they're ordinary citizens, leading extraordinary lives. Contrast them (again) with the X-Men, who do the street level vigilante thing, and the adventuring thing, but whose basic mission is fighting other mutants. The X-Men and similar teams (the New Warriors, the Outsiders, the Avengers, the Justice League etc. etc), are scary stuff when we transport them into the real world.
It's like this, in a functioning, well-run democracy, citizen militias that horde weapons (particularly things like TANKS), start to look dangerous. In an oppressive and/or criminal pseudo-democracy, citizen militias are potentially heroes. (I say potentially because spottily trained civilians, possessing weapons of six kinds of holy-hell-destruction can go either way, really. And as a lefty mcleft social democrat, I distrust the libertarian position like whoa). The trouble is that we're talking about superheroes, many of whom are innately weaponized (powered), and there is no real world equivalent. Skilled fighters, hackers (and maybe athletes) are probably the best analogy we can find, but even that doesn't quite work. And so we get the nastiness of superhuman registration. And so, this whole thought experiment starts to fall apart. So far, there exists nothing like superheroes in the real world.
Steven R. Stahl makes some useful comments on why Civil War exists, and how superheroes function in contemporary Marvel comics:
Based on the excerpts I saw, Ackerman and Klein are both wrong. You can tell they aren't writers, and they might be unfamiliar with the '70s Marvel comics as well. The stories worked then, and they would work now just as well, because they featured superheroes with powers fighting against villains that, at times, the combined armed forces of the U.S., couldn't deal with. The government called on the services of the Avengers as needed.
The "Civil War" scenario only works for some people because, in the Bendis era, the heroes no longer fight super villains regularly. They fight foes that the police or other well-armed people could handle, and they fight among themselves. Stories are no longer morality plays; they're crime fiction scenarios with the heroes stuck in the slots that law enforcement agents should fill. If the heroes and paranormals generally are depicted as threats to the public, then readers might go along with the assertion in a story, but that attitude toward the heroes negates the reason for using them in stories. If the story is going to be that "realistic," then go all the way and have police as the heroes, fighting normal lawbreakers.
That internal contradiction -- using superheroes in stories but not writing them as superheroes -- has been present in Bendis's stories since "Avengers Disassembled" and has, I expect, been present elsewhere. Perhaps Ackerman and Klein should be thanked for focusing attention on the faux realism in the Bendis era, but they need to read stories from decades past, when the heroes were actually super.
Superheroes need to be superheroes. They need to fight surreal, fantastic threats that no one else can. Otherwise they're scary vigilantes that maybe DO need to be regulated. It's Marvel who created this problem (the tension between fantasy and realism in superhero comics), and it's Marvel who's got to solve it. If you don't want fans poking holes in the realism of your stories, stop trying to write 'realistic' superhero stories. Embrace fantasy, kids. Embrace superheroes as superheroes.