In Defense of Superheroes

An article came out recently that posed the question, "Should Batman die in the new movie, The Dark Knight Rises?"  The author went on to state, "Batman’s death would be the only satisfying conclusion to this trilogy..."

Really?

Now admittedly, I'm a comic book geek. I collected them as I grew up and am ever thankful that my older brother collected them in the '70's, because that allowed me to read them later when I was able. Friends and family still come to me when they have questions about comic book superheroes and I've even incorporated some of them in lessons plans as a teacher. So it's safe to say that this is a genre that I know something about.

But that's not the reason I think killing Batman would be a bad idea.

In the world of comic books, characters rarely stay dead very long. There's a reason for this. People don't want these folks to die (obviously, since some most of the well-known superheroes in history have "died" at some point or another - in some cases, multiple times).  Death is something that we deal with on a daily basis in real life. Comics provide an escape from that reality if only for a few pages. Same with movies. It's the adventures, the trials and tribulations of these characters that keep people coming back for more. I'm not saying that the Batman franchise - or any other superhero franchise for that matter - needs to go on and on ad nauseum. But it doesn't have to go to the other extreme and kill the hero either. You can just stop making the movies.

The author goes on to write, "Tragedy in film helps position the moral compass of society, exposing the natural vulnerability and flaws of people through on-screen characters. To see misery unfold unrelentingly on screen or in text is one of the greatest forms of catharsis we can experience." Utter nonsense.  Real life itself provides that.  That's part of why people go to the movies, especially to movies about iconic superheroes, to disconnect from that for a while. People know life sucks already, they don't need to be reminded of that in these stories. They go to see the hero face the challenge, get beaten down or be pushed past their limits and fail again and again, only to finally succeed because of their perseverence and dedication to an idea or a cause. They're meant to inspire us, and remind us of the potential good in people, going back to the very first issue of Action Comics.




We see injustice, moral ambiguity, blatent disregard for the public good every day of our lives. Just turn on the news or buy the newspaper - it's rife with stories like this. But these other stories, these "superheroes", they remind us that there's more than that. And at the very least, they communicate the idea that we're all in this together, that we shouldn't give up hope, and that we should look out for each other. 

Given that, how can killing one of these characters that stand for these very same ideals, be a good idea?

Thirsty?

“The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice.” – George Eliot.

Mayor Bloomberg wants to take away a choice.  It's that simple.

While it may seem trivial to criticize a proposal that will prevent sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces from being sold, it does illustrate an example of choices being taken away from citizens. He says that he wants to push this ban in an effort to tackle the obesity problem in NY, which seems noble enough in principle.  After all, some of his previous bans obviously were created for the common good.  A decade ago, smoking was banned in bars and restaurants – fair enough.  I’m a cigar smoker myself, and I totally understand that it’s not fair to subject others to a vice that I happen to enjoy, especially one that will, at the very least, make their clothes smell – not to mention the obvious health detriments. But in that instance, something I’m doing is directly infringing on someone else’s life or experience.

And I get it, you know? I understand “looking out for the public good” and all that, but where does it stop?  Where’s the line? It might sound like I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but again, it’s not so much what is being prohibited, as it is the idea of a choice being taken away. Personally, I don’t buy drinks as large as 16 ounces – especially if I’m not near a bathroom.

Look, Mr. Bloomberg (like he’s really reading this), I appreciate you wanting to come across as someone who cares about the health of others and are so concerned that you propose to remove certain “unhealthy” choices from our daily lives.  But wouldn’t a leader prove their point more by setting an example rather than taking away someone’s right to choose? You were on the right track in 2008 by requiring food providers to publish calorie counts on menus; you didn’t pressure them to remove things you felt were “unhealthy”. I mean, live a healthy lifestyle yourself, promote and attend community groups that seek to educate people about eating better and working out (and invite the press to get it on public record so that it pops up every time someone visits Google or Yahoo or MSN, etc.), create public awareness campaigns, paper the city with “healthy lifestyle” posters like these:

  

But don’t presume to act like a scowling parent to the people who put you in office ten years ago (and helped keep you there, incidentally). I mean what’s next on the list then, the pastrami sandwich at the Carnegie Deli? Stickball? A bedtime, perhaps?