Alan Moore: "Superheroes are a Cultural Catastrophe"

[Mister Mister]

This from comics guru and anarchist Alan Moore, author of Watchmen, V for Vendetta and others.  He's kind of a nutty eccentric old man, but had some interesting things to say, particularly

 

"It looks to me very much like 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. I would also observe that 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."

 

It was interesting to me especially relating to Podcast #1651, and the increasing proliferation of, and cultural obsession with comic-book superhero movies.

 

[AncapFTW]

Aren't Watchmen and V Darkhorse comics?  He specifically mentioned DC and Marvel, so I was wondering.

 

I've been wanting to create an Anarchist comic, but I can't draw worth a crap.

[shirgall]

Hrm, I call this phenomenon "Mastery of Sand Castles". I saw it a lot in my RPG days, or video games days, or pretty much all the time where people gain mastery of a subject but not necessarily mastery of themselves. Wanting to be Superman, or Gandalf, or even Joan of Arc is the desire to be greater than oneself without doing all the work, or taking any risk.

 

There's another phenomenon of Zombie movies, where people seem to want to see what it's like when the world ends, and their normal skills become super because most everyone has died or can't cope. Compare Robinson Crusoe to The Walking Dead some time to see a marked difference in survival motifs.

[Wuzzums]

Alan Moore's writing has always tried to put the superhero genre in a realistic setting. He portrays superheroes as flawed humans, this is in opposition with Grant Morrison's style which portrays superheroes as symbols, perfect creatures in a two dimensional world. There's never really any heroes in Moore's stories, no central figure that's "the good guy". For instance in "V for Vendetta" the central figure is a mad terrorist maybe as worse as the regime he's fighting against (the Guy Fawkes mask is a hint). However the movie makes it clear that's he's on the side of good, which is a simplistic view of a more nuanced problem. 

 

I believe this is where Moore is coming from. People now are leaning more towards the view of heroes as symbols, which he opposes. However, if these billion dollars movies were about more complex characters he wouldn't be so critical about it. Also it is important to note he doesn't really watch movies, and I doubt he reads mainstream comic titles anymore, so his view might be one out of ignorance. The heroes he hears about are making waves at the box office are far more complex than their 70s-80s original versions, which is what Moore is probably most familiar with.

 

He's incorrect when he's saying the old culture is keeping this century's culture to develop. Much like music, the superheroes mirror the trends of the new culture with characters being vastly different from one generation to another. The Superman from my generation was the father figure that eventually saved the day no matter how dire the situation. The Superman of this generation is a guy with incredible power that somehow destroys a whole city for some reason or another. A great quote from a screenwriter about the "Man of Steel" movie: "A superhero movie where a city doesn't get destroyed should be a Superman movie"; yet the movie make a fortune at the box office. Different generations, different points of view. We still have Mustang cars today, that doesn't mean the Mustang car is holding back car development, and that doesn't mean the Mustang of yesteryear is the same with the Mustang of today.

[Mister Mister]

He's incorrect when he's saying the old culture is keeping this century's culture to develop. Much like music, the superheroes mirror the trends of the new culture with characters being vastly different from one generation to another. The Superman from my generation was the father figure that eventually saved the day no matter how dire the situation. The Superman of this generation is a guy with incredible power that somehow destroys a whole city for some reason or another. A great quote from a screenwriter about the "Man of Steel" movie: "A superhero movie where a city doesn't get destroyed should be a Superman movie"; yet the movie make a fortune at the box office. Different generations, different points of view. We still have Mustang cars today, that doesn't mean the Mustang car is holding back car development, and that doesn't mean the Mustang of yesteryear is the same with the Mustang of today.

That's an interesting point.  I think Moore's point was that, rather than portray life as it is, or heroism as it could be, pop-culture offers an escapist fantasy based on characters from childrens' stories from 80 years ago.

 

The phenomenon of cities being destroyed is pretty fascinating in and of itself.  "Independence Day" came on TV the other day, that's the first I can remember.  That movie also ties in with Shirgall's point about survivalism, making heroes of the survivors of a catastrophe who have to band together and rebuild.  Then you have Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, the Avenger's movie, the Man of Steel, and probably many others.  Is this the expression of Western Culture's suicidal fantasy?

[Lingum]

I don't think the fact that we don't have new superheroes is a sign of generational squatting. Rather, the reason why superheroes rose to prominence in the last century is the same reason why the West is dying today. The previous generations gladly accepted the idea that progress would come from the outside; heroes to worship, institutions. Childhood has been extended indefinitely, and similarly there are benevolent and paternal forces keeping us out of harm: narcissism.

 

Hrm, I call this phenomenon "Mastery of Sand Castles". I saw it a lot in my RPG days, or video games days, or pretty much all the time where people gain mastery of a subject but not necessarily mastery of themselves. Wanting to be Superman, or Gandalf, or even Joan of Arc is the desire to be greater than oneself without doing all the work, or taking any risk.
 
There's another phenomenon of Zombie movies, where people seem to want to see what it's like when the world ends, and their normal skills become super because most everyone has died or can't cope. Compare Robinson Crusoe to The Walking Dead some time to see a marked difference in survival motifs.

 
I think the biggest appeal of zombie- and doomsday movies is the eradication of expectations. As an increasingly narcissistic society, people are looking outside for direction, other people to define their identity. These movies offer the fantasy of no longer living for others. You don't have to do things you don't want to fulfill the expectations you believe others have of you. You are free from the bondage of other people. What now? Well, now that everything you know and love is wiped off this earth, you can live. In this way, zombie movies deliver the most poignant critique of the totalitarianism and atrophy of the modern welfare state.
 
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.html
 
A second appeal is the destruction of civilization and technology. As we get more tools and toys, they demand more of our time and attention. The simple act of enjoying the presence has become an impossibility. We believe that our lives will start when we have finished the current stage, accomplished our current goals. That's when we can be happy. In the meantime, only novelty brings us out of our automation. We go weeks without tuning in, being mindful. Racing toward our graves.
 
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html

[shirgall]

A second appeal is the destruction of civilization and technology. As we get more tools and toys, they demand more of our time and attention. The simple act of enjoying the presence has become an impossibility. We believe that our lives will start when we have finished the current stage, accomplished our current goals. That's when we can be happy. In the meantime, only novelty brings us out of our automation. We go weeks without tuning in, being mindful. Racing toward our graves.

 

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html

 

This is interesting, because in The Walking Dead living people keep emphasizing that even though the world has ended we shouldn't lose our humanity. Of course, the title refers to the survivors and not the zombies. It's point is that humanity is already dead, but for some reason keeps going through the motions... like a zombie.

[Donnadogsoth]

I agree with Moore.  The superhero genre is fluff.  Just use Shakespeare and Beethoven as the standards for culture and what do we see?  Gropings toward ever more novelty but really just the same masturbatory fantasies iterated over and over.

 

Western civ will advance when pop culture ends.

[shirgall]

Western civ will advance when pop culture ends.

 

"We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies for them." -- Titus Livius ("Livy") 27-25 BC (Also "The populace is like the sea, motionless in itself, but stirred by every wind, even the lightest breeze.")

[Wuzzums]

That's an interesting point.  I think Moore's point was that, rather than portray life as it is, or heroism as it could be, pop-culture offers an escapist fantasy based on characters from childrens' stories from 80 years ago.

 

The phenomenon of cities being destroyed is pretty fascinating in and of itself.  "Independence Day" came on TV the other day, that's the first I can remember.  That movie also ties in with Shirgall's point about survivalism, making heroes of the survivors of a catastrophe who have to band together and rebuild.  Then you have Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, the Avenger's movie, the Man of Steel, and probably many others.  Is this the expression of Western Culture's suicidal fantasy?

 

That's what I find most confusing about Moore's statement. In a lot of his work cities get destroyed. For instance the final fight between Zod and Superman is very reminiscent of Moore's  run on Miracleman (now Marvelman). In it two golden era superheroes (i.e. 50s style Superman where the only swear word is "golly") are put in the real world. One thing leads to another and they have this epic fight which leveling the whole city killing hundreds of thousands.

 

I don't know what he's exactly criticizing, superheroes today for not having grown (which they have) or culture as a whole for not living up to the standards of the time (which is a self defeating argument because culture sets its own standards).

 

There's also a 3rd option in which he's trolling like a pro. He's a master at making vague statements just to get the conversation going, it's his superpower and he's very candid about it.

 

Or maybe he's just bored with superhero comics and wants people to stop talking to him about it.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't know what he's exactly criticizing, superheroes today for not having grown (which they have) or culture as a whole for not living up to the standards of the time (which is a self defeating argument because culture sets its own standards).

 

There's also a 3rd option in which he's trolling like a pro. He's a master at making vague statements just to get the conversation going, it's his superpower and he's very candid about it.

 

Or maybe he's just bored with superhero comics and wants people to stop talking to him about it.

 

A fourth option is he's made a halting statement, when he should have simply said "pop culture in its entirely is a cultural catastrophe" to include architecture, comcs, novels, music, fashion, and film.  If anyone in the comics world is in a position to have the perspective on popcult just iterated, he is.

 

I don't know, he seems...wise...and yet useless for anything other than either producing interesting comics or waffling tremendous.  You're gonna die in ten or twenty years man, you've got the ear of many, sink your fangs in.

[NumberSix]

What bothers me is when adults are into video games, comics, scifi, and steampunk; they are a symptom of the infantilization of our culture. Men acting like boys, because they can’t handle reality. The simpler, two dimensional characters are for children, and Moor’s characters are for teenagers and adults.