
Superheroes a 'cultural catastrophe', says comics guru Alan Moore (2014) - chippy
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/21/superheroes-cultural-catastrophe-alan-moore-comics-watchmen
======
codingdave
I've noticed a similar trend - I am now in my 40s, and we played games, read
comic books, watched TV and movies growing up... but we never made them part
of our self-identity. But recently, people's media consumption is part of
their identity. From Whovians to Bronies, people are starting to treat their
entertainment as core pieces of who they are.

I find it odd. But maybe that is just part of getting old... that you don't
quite understand the youth of today.

~~~
robotresearcher
Same as it ever was. Trekkies. Yankees fans. Smiths fans. Goths. Deadheads.
Beatlemania. Hippies. The Beats. Greasers. Flappers. Oscar Wilde fans. We
didn't invent popular culture this generation.

~~~
_asummers
The difference is, we have the Internet to actually create large communities
centered around these interests. This makes it look like more people are
involved, when in fact all the separate islands of fans have simply been
bridged together.

~~~
joezydeco
And the internet has enabled those fans to be continuously engaged in their
interests.

Where trekkies/ham operators/beatlemaniacs might have assembled once in a
while or yearly at a convention, now they can stay with their tribe all the
time. What's the cultural impact when that happens?

~~~
robotresearcher
Didn't ham operators talk to each other all night long over random and often
amazing distances? That was kind of the point.

~~~
joezydeco
Okay, yeah, bad example. I was trying to think of groups that actually met F2F
in the days before the Internet.

------
jgorn
Simon Pegg expressed a similar sentiment in May of this year
[http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-
critici...](http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-05-19/simon-pegg-criticises-
science-fiction-and-genre-films-for-dumbing-down-cinema)

 _" part of me looks at society as it is now and just thinks we’ve been
infantilised by our own taste... Now we’re essentially all consuming very
childish things – comic books, superheroes... Adults are watching this stuff,
and taking it seriously!”_

~~~
mhurron
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely
descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being
grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the
suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and
adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy
symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life
or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really
arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would
have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read
them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the
fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” \- C.S. Lewis

People who go on about others not growing up perhaps need to look at
themselves. Positioning themselves as better because they're 'adults' because
everyone else is acting like 'children', they may find they never actually
left high school and are trying desperatly to be the cool kids.

~~~
digi_owl
A personal take is that adults are children that are better at hiding their
asshole behavior.

~~~
aswanson
I think there is some truth to this. Children can be extraordinarily vicious
and unempathetic.

------
walterbell
A counter-example to the following point is that the recent "Avengers: Age of
Ultron" movie included debate on contemporary transhumanism, although that
could be Joss Whedon's writing influence:

 _"..a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to
understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that
they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-
least-still-finite 'universes' presented by DC or Marvel Comics.._"

Another reason for shorter copyright terms:

 _"..it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a
previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to
allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant
and sufficient to its times.."_

------
jameshart
For centuries the cultural touchstones were all retellings of classical Greek
or Roman myths, or Bible stories. Modern media's exploration of Marvel's canon
or the expansion of the Star Wars mythos is no different than Shakespeare
rebooting Cleopatra and updating her with analogs to contemporary politics.

~~~
noblethrasher
Human thinking and reasoning gets short-circuited by too much vividness. The
difference between those previous eras and now is that our fiction _may_ have
become dangerously vivid.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Nonsense. Media vividness isn't a quality of the media -- it's attributed by
the viewers. People will perceive the media of their day at the same level of
vividness that they would have, in the past, perceived the media of the past.
It's self-adjusting.

~~~
noblethrasher
By vividness, I’m talking about the relative powers of various _kinds_ media
to impress us; e.g. that television is more vivid than radio, which is more
vivid than writing. I wasn’t talking about the impressiveness of special
effects specific to visual media. The idea is that since live-action media is
more vivid than cartoons and comic books, it might be the case that either it
is displacing better media for dealing with complex topics (e.g. books), or
monopolizing a particular media that could be put to “better” uses (i.e. more
art films and historical dramas)[1]. But, this isn’t a new argument, Neil
Postman devoted an entire book to it 30 years ago [2].

Also, the word “nonsense” really wasn’t an appropriate rejoinder because I
wasn’t making a deductive argument in the first place. Rather I was suggesting
that there _might_ be evidence that using increasingly more vivid media for
ever more trivial things is a net harm to society.

[1] I say this as someone who is guilty of watching superhero movies almost
exclusively (I even paid to see Iron Man 2 in the theater five times).

[2]
[https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#s...](https://www.google.com/?q=amusing%20ourselves%20to%20death#search_plus_one=form)

------
DocSavage
I think he's dead on about the relative proportion of violence/murder versus
rape in popular media, particularly the US. Part of it might be the
puritanical history of the US. Why is it more acceptable (gauged by PG-13
rating systems) to show killing and violence than even show a breast or two
people making love? You'd almost think the latter was a crime instead of the
former. The general squeamishness of media on these issues completely distorts
the real-world statistics of murder versus domestic violence and rape. So
calling Moore out on it is more a statement of current US norms and is very
different than other cultures like Japan.

~~~
topoligel
Rape is very different from showing a breast or two, or two people making
love.

There are many illustrations of murder which include the psychological impact
on the victims. I really haven't found any material that empathizes with me,
as a rape victim. Instead, every rape and sexual assault scene in Hollywood is
1-5 minutes long and triggers me into wanting to cry and rock back and forth.

I haven't seen any of his work regarding sexual violence, but there is a lot
more depth to it than just the illustration of it. People who write about it
who have never experienced it nor researched it sufficiently will not portray
rape in a way that demonstrates the impact it has on the victim. It is often
exaggerated and minimized as 'part of the life' of the character that endures
it. The reality is that it is like your life was made of glass and rape is the
bullet that was shot through it, creating cracks that continue to crack in
everything that is connected to it, and sometimes the whole thing shatters and
you can't ever imagine how to go back to the person you were before you were
raped. You don't know how to put the pieces back together and neither does
anyone else. But yet you are expected to keep on going. Happiness without
sadness is a thing you don't understand, and you acknowledge that you may
never understand. Fear is your best friend and your worst enemy. You might
become repulsed by your own body. Your identity may fracture and your sense of
reasoning and rationality may twist and warp. Labels follow you everywhere. It
is a violation of life.

~~~
DenisM
That sounds awful. How long has it been? Does it get any better over time?

~~~
topoligel
It's been 10 years. I have objectively gotten better, I take better care of
myself. Even when I feel like I can not go on, I still get out of bed and I do
my daily routine, whether it is going to work or going to the gym and doing my
chores. I've hidden in the bathroom at work to cry, and I've had many nights
where I've gone to sleep wishing I would not wake up in the morning.

I have had some wonderful conversations with people online, and that gives me
hope that I will be able to feel happy and be able to recognize it when I feel
it. I make art, I make music, and I take great care in learning about computer
science and code, and making improvements in it. I have an interest in
philosophy and a love of knowledge in general, and I often think it is amusing
to me that I use abstract maths to distract myself from traumatic memories, a
bit of a quirk that I like about myself. I have my moments where I feel like I
think I might love myself and I know who I am, few and far apart they may
sometimes be. The last 5 or 6 years have been like a hurricane for me. I still
struggle with a lot of things, but I think it has gotten better.

~~~
DenisM
That's rough. No one deserves this much anguish and suffering.

You mentioned lack of relatable narratives in the media, I think I know one
you might find close: "CSI: special victims unit". I only watched one episode,
but I found it touching so there is hope the rest of it is close too.

Perhaps more importantly, there must be a way for you to have your feelings
acknowledged by real, live people. Is there a sex crime victim support group
where you live? If there is, I encourage you to attend it, both for you own
sake and for the sake of the other people there - they need to be understood
in their pain as much you need it. More broadly, what you describe sounds
close to PTSD, and anyone who's gone through that hell will readily relate to
your story.

~~~
topoligel
I know I should, but for right now talking on the internet about it (with the
ignorance about whether I am truly anonymous blanketing me) is the most I can
do. I have had bad experiences in group therapy, I did not find it helpful.

I have been diagnosed with PTSD, I know I show many symptoms of it. It makes
me upset that it may have held me back in achieving goals in my life, but I
just know that regardless, I need to take things slowly. I have too many
emotions that distract and cloud my ability to think clearly about things I
consider very difficult (mostly stuff in computer science and math).

So I just go really slow, as slow as I need to, and I wait for things to
click, and then they do. I just try to forget that the rest of the world is
still rushing by, and I remind myself that none of that matters to my own
personal understanding about the things I want to learn about. I get
discouraged a lot, and sometimes my mind can really feel completely clouded,
and nothing I do seems to help it, and I can become very afraid that I will be
lost in confusion forever. That I am either past my prime, or that I never
really was smart, or that I'm too damaged to really persist and actually see
the fruits of my labor. Sometimes I think it is good enough to be convinced
into persisting despite knowing that I never will actualize, but that thought
saddens me in an exceptionally destructive way.

I know I am strong and that if there's anything that really keeps me wanting
to live day to day, it's being able to experience learning in the right way,
and I consider myself lucky that I get to do that even though I work.

~~~
ectoplasm
Individual therapy? It's hard to find a good match, so just keep trying people
until you find someone you like.

------
maus42
Moore has been preaching this since forever. I think his position could be
divided to two, slightly different points. I am not sure if he agrees, but
this is my take on what Moore is saying:

>1\. (Superhero) comics were originally children's entertainment, almost a
century ago. It is an unhealthy sign that not only we're still stuck with
them, they are now deemed acceptable for adult consumption.

Interesting thing is that this isn't limited to capestories. The whole genre
of YA fiction seems to be focused on this kind of "entertainment literature",
with similar (on meta level) formulaic characters and stories.

And maybe he has a point; even the "realistic takes" on the genre, "grown-up
post-modern deconstructions of inherent sillyness of common assumptions and
tropes of caped vigilantes" and that kind of stuff ...it was already done
decades ago (people like Moore himself). Yet still Marvel and DC go on and on
with the same old stuff, maybe with some "adult" twist or to (like a debate on
transhumanism, or making a the protagonist troubled anti-hero, or something),
while re-hashing the same 'kiddie' storylines and action. Maybe we are just
more self-conscious about this (TVtropes is a thing).

However, I think Moore is making a mistake assuming that in the "golden olden
days" any more significant majority of people 'graduated' to a more serious
(whatever that means) forms of fiction.

Even if it's "unhealthy" (I don't agree), it's not like this kind of fiction
is anything fundamentally _new_. As soon as there was the physical possibility
of pulp fiction, pulp fiction appeared, and most of that stuff was utter
rubbish. (And even before 1920's pulp, there was 1800s cheap literature; most
of it was similar melodramatic rubbish, too.) And best of them remain in
public consciousness even today. Is popularity of Sherlock Holmes that
different thing, on a fundamental level, than popularity of Batman or
Superman? Good grief, Moore himself did Extraordinary Gentlemen!

2\. (Superhero) comics are not original _form_ for entertainment of our time;
we should come up with something new of our own that reflects our time, not
just repeat the same and old and tired. For example, instead of trying to come
up with a totally new idea, movie industry just makes yet another superhero
movie for their next blockbluster candidate. Or DC/Marvel makes yet another
'new' superhero (exactly like the old ones, just different powers and costume
which is just 'make-up'), or comes up another variation of old plots for old
ones. The Spider Man or Batman aren't going anywhere on any fundamental level,
and there isn't new and innovative replacements.

Well, I think this is a more valid point, but it has more to do with the
current (unhealthy) economical logic of Western mass entertainment industry
than with something 'deeper' in our culture.

------
leoc
I love _Watchmen_ , but I went straight to /r/nottheonion with this
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superhe...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/3du90o/superheroes_a_cultural_catastrophe_says_comics/)
.

------
lesingerouge
slightly off-topic: if you didn't watch it yet, you should rush to see this
documentary about Alan Moore. They mind of this guy is a fascinating universe.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindscape_of_Alan_Moore)

------
Lewton
(2014)

------
hellbanTHIS
Alan Moore pops up every so often just to bum everybody out. Superheroes are a
fun, stupid and occasionally brilliant genre. They're the Westerns of the 21st
century.

Lighten up Al.

~~~
calibraxis
You might like to read deeper on why mainstream superhero plots follow such a
peculiar formula... Are they trying to teach adolescent boys something?

> "These “heroes” are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no
> projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent,
> Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane’s
> pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem
> almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the
> money in the world can’t seem to think of anything to do with it other than
> to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to
> Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains.

> "Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains,
> in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and
> ideas. Clearly, we are supposed to first, without consciously realizing it,
> identify with the villains. After all, they’re having all the fun. Then of
> course we feel guilty for it, re-identify with the hero, and have even more
> fun watching the superego clubbing the errant Id back into submission."

> "It’s in this sense that the logic of the superhero plot is profoundly,
> deeply conservative." ([http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-
> position/](http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/super-position/))

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in
contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and
ideas._

Interestingly, Metropolitan Man touches on this. At a certain point in the
plot, Superman approaches a villain and asks him to identify the most
productive things he can do with his superpowers, recognizing that stopping
robberies isn't it.

It's actually a fantastic work of fiction, I highly recommend it.

[https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan-
Man](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/1/The-Metropolitan-Man)

~~~
thaumasiotes
[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2305](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?id=2305)

> seems... a bit monotonous...

> Oh, that reminds me. Keep your speed constant at all times.

------
stcredzero
I am annoyed by people who claim to be "geeks" and "nerds" because they read
comics and watch Marvel movies, but who are amazingly ignorant about science.
Just the other day, I met one: Thought the solar system was around _10
million_ years old, and that the prediction of the Sun going red giant in 4.5
billion years was some kind of BS guess. He was ready to render judgement on
the entire discipline of astronomy but had basically no idea about the
findings and methods of astronomers, other than vague notions that there are
stars and planets up there.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks" and
"nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts, but
who are amazingly ignorant about culture.

~~~
stcredzero
_I 'm sure there are people who are annoyed by folks who claim to be "geeks"
and "nerds" because they read science articles and memorize scientific facts,
but who are amazingly ignorant about culture._

Summary: "Geek" used to mean "has real knowledge." Not so much anymore.

It used to be that the appellation of "geek" would indicate a good working
knowledge of science, and a healthy attitude towards knowledge of all kinds.
It's more a workable epistemology that I miss in today's "geek" set than
science. Really, the guy I describe above is hardly better than a young earth
creationist -- his ignorance of highly relevant science is just as large. The
chief difference is only that his preferred mythology get a better movie
directors and bigger box office returns. I love Marvel movies and read comics
myself, but I know enough real-world knowledge to place them into the realm of
"sheer awesome/entertaining nonsense." A world full of people who lack the
pieces of their high-school education to do just that is kinda a scary place.

The "geeks" have taken over the world, but huge swathes of them are now
effectively the "Idiocracy" with different cultural trappings.

------
ryanmk
Dude sounds like he's stuck in his own head.

~~~
Ygg2
He seems lucid enough.

His points about rape are on mark. It seems to tie in into general pattern of
squeamishness when it comes to sex.

His point about superheroes being detractors from reality is an interesting
one. Not sure if it's as bad as he claims, but it makes sense.

