Are Superheroes Inherently " Dark "?

[BillR]

People watch cop shows, people watch medical shows, people even watch Heroes-- ditch the silly, naive treatment of the superhero concept and you have something that can be taken seriously.

Thoughts?

I don't take Heroes seriously. It's garbage.

Superheroes are inherently light, in my head, because they're supposed to represent the betterment of mankind, and an evolution to goodness.

[John Nowak]

Whenever I imagine Superheroes in the real world, I think back to shows like Third Watch or Law and Order, and wonder what one of their rescues would've been like if there had been the occasional Superhero helping out..

I would really love to read a comic book with that as the central premise.

Show the cops getting utterly pissed off because Spider-Man has left a crime scene so messy they will never get a conviction, *AGAIN*.

And don't police usually say that Barney Miller was one of the most realistic police shows on TV? Most of the complaints I've read about that sitcom were that the ranks were too high.

[Strannik]

No, superheroes are inherently absurd. They can have little realistic flourishes, but that's only to heighten the absurdity.

Absurd doesn't mean they have to be farcical; you can play the superhero game with a perfectly straight face.

You just can't pretend it has anything to do with reality.

Superheroes have become dark because too many creators and consumers of the genre don't want to face their absurdity and think that by making them violent and misogynist and decadent that they are hence more real and "better."

No, they're not. They're only more absurd, just no longer entertaining to mass audiences.

Okay, mate, I am going to pick on you because you posted the most recent example, but it's really my response to all the people who, over the course of this thread something along the lines of that there is some inherent quality (innocence, absurdity, "core concept", "kid-friendliness", etc) that means that superheroes simply cannot be treated seriously.

To put it as politely as I possibly can, that's nonsense.

First of all, as I argued before, 'serious' does not equal 'dark'. 'Realistic' does not equal 'dark'. Did lots of comic book writers go this route? Yes. But it's not the only route.

Second of all, there is nothing inherently absurd about a character having extraordinary powers. Fantastic, yes, but absurd - hardly. What makes superheroes absurd are genre conventions that keep the character trapped within absurd modes of behavior that leave them unable to evolve, advance and otherwise keep pace with the changing world. I am talking about things like dubious secret identities and everything they entail, impractical skintight costumes and rather simplistic method of solving the world problems. Is there room for something this absurd in comic books and other mediums - sure. I have no problem with absurd superheroes per se. What I object to is the assumption that every take on a character with extraordinary powers must abide by these absurd conventions. To me, this kind of thinking is no less problematic then an idea that every science-fiction story must abide by the conventions that dominated 30s science fiction pulps. Superhero stories can be light-hearted, escapist fair. But it shouldn't have to be.

As a writer, I refuse to be trapped by the old conventions and perceived limitations. I want, no, need to explore the ideas to the full potential, wherever they may take me. I want to go further, to dig deeper and to climb higher then those who came before me. I want to move, to challenge, to evaluate and ultimately to create something that remains conscious of it's sources without being trapped by them. I want to challenge my readers to look behind what they know, to reach beyond their comfort zones, to think thoughts they never would have thought otherwise. That is the what I am, it is what I do, and God help me, this is what I will someday publish.

But that is, of course, just my opinion. ;)

I think it's a realistic thing. How it plays out in a story depends on the guy writing it.

I agree with you. Heck, if I were in that situation I'd rather be with someone making gallows jokes. Given what the average superhero has been through, they're probably not likely to get all that weepy very often. Gallows humor in that sort of situation is probably more reasonable than the "Oh, the horror!" reaction.

But there's another issue as well: as a writer, you're trying to make a reader feel something. Can you make them feel horror if the characters are behaving like calm, professional emergency service providers?

But that's more an abstract question.

I agree with your statement.

On my part, I would like to answer your question with a definite "yes". It's not an easy thing to pull of, but I think it can certainly be done.

[Pól Rua]

As a writer, I refuse to be trapped by the old conventions and perceived limitations. I want, no, need to explore the ideas to the full potential, wherever they may take me. I want to go further, to dig deeper and to climb higher then those who came before me. I want to move, to challenge, to evaluate and ultimately to create something that remains conscious of it's sources without being trapped by them. I want to challenge my readers to look behind what they know, to reach beyond their comfort zones, to think thoughts they never would have thought otherwise. That is the what I am, it is what I do, and God help me, this is what I will someday publish.

...and in order to do this, you'll strip mine the same tired cliches that were starting to get rattly in 1986 when Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns came out.
Are superheroes inherently absurd? Yes. And I use the term advisedly. Check a dictionary - absurd doesn't mean light-hearted, happy oir childish. It means fundamentally preposterous.
Most superheroes' powers operated in violation of core laws of physics. The idea that there is a subculture of superhumans who divide themselves up as 'heroes' and 'villains', adopt colourful aliases, wear totemic costumes and engage in moral fistfights is absurd.
If you want to write about superhumans, you could probably get away with realism. Psychic thrillers like Stephen King's 'Firestarter' and 'The Dead Zone' are 'realistic' treatments of superhumans.
But seriously, this isn't 'mining new ground', and Philip Wylie beat you to it back in the 1930's.

Here's the bottom line. 'Dark, Realistic Superheroes' is one of the most tedious variations on the theme ever to have come down the pipe. For every 'Watchmen', 'Ex Machina' or 'The Death Ray', there are a million tedious, teeth-grinding, hand-wringing exercises in teenage cynicism.

Are superheroes inherently dark?

Well, you have people with superhuman abilities who identify themselves as 'heroic' (again, check y'r dictionary) and use these abilities to 'do good'.
Making superheroes 'dark' is a post-modern conceit. Taking a character or concept that's 'light' or whimsical and putting them in a dark context is a common strategy.
Robert Mayer did it in 'Super-Folks'. Scary Clowns and evil toys are another example. Taking something associated with fun, laughter and entertaining children and making it a thing or darkness and horror.

If superheroes WERE 'inherently dark', this wouldn't work.

So yeah... shit or get off the pot.
Stop telling us about how good you are and produce something.
Until then, you're just another johnny-come-lately trying to sell us on 'grim, fin-headed arserape'.

[Strannik]

...and in order to do this, you'll strip mine the same tired cliches that were starting to get rattly in 1986 when Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns came out.
Are superheroes inherently absurd? Yes. And I use the term advisedly. Check a dictionary - absurd doesn't mean light-hearted, happy oir childish. It means fundamentally preposterous.
Most superheroes' powers operated in violation of core laws of physics. The idea that there is a subculture of superhumans who divide themselves up as 'heroes' and 'villains', adopt colourful aliases, wear totemic costumes and engage in moral fistfights is absurd.
If you want to write about superhumans, you could probably get away with realism. Psychic thrillers like Stephen King's 'Firestarter' and 'The Dead Zone' are 'realistic' treatments of superhumans.
But seriously, this isn't 'mining new ground', and Philip Wylie beat you to it back in the 1930's.

Here's the bottom line. 'Dark, Realistic Superheroes' is one of the most tedious variations on the theme ever to have come down the pipe. For every 'Watchmen', 'Ex Machina' or 'The Death Ray', there are a million tedious, teeth-grinding, hand-wringing exercises in teenage cynicism.

Are superheroes inherently dark?

Well, you have people with superhuman abilities who identify themselves as 'heroic' (again, check y'r dictionary) and use these abilities to 'do good'.
Making superheroes 'dark' is a post-modern conceit. Taking a character or concept that's 'light' or whimsical and putting them in a dark context is a common strategy.
Robert Mayer did it in 'Super-Folks'. Scary Clowns and evil toys are another example. Taking something associated with fun, laughter and entertaining children and making it a thing or darkness and horror.

If superheroes WERE 'inherently dark', this wouldn't work.

So yeah... shit or get off the pot.
Stop telling us about how good you are and produce something.
Until then, you're just another johnny-come-lately trying to sell us on 'grim, fin-headed arserape'.

Oh, for God's sake, this is getting tedious.

Where, in this thread or elsewhere in this forum have I said that I want to create dark, depressing heroes?

I did not.

As a matter of principle, I take exception to the idea that I should not be able to write it. It doesn't mean I'm going to. Hell, my very first post in this very thread argued against the notion that realistic equaled "dark".

Also, you seemed to have missed the point of my previous post. Rather then arguing that superheroes are inherently dark, I argued that superheroes aren't inherently anything. To reiterate, superheroes are neither inherently "dark" nor inherently "light." They are just a concept one can use however one bloody wants. It's simple as that.

If you're going to argue with me, mate, the least you can do is get my position right. ;)

[Pól Rua]

Oh, for God's sake, this is getting tedious.

Where, in this thread or elsewhere in this forum have I said that I want to create dark, depressing heroes?

I did not.

Thread title.

As a matter of principle, I take exception to the idea that I should not be able to write it.

I didn't say that. In fact, quite the opposite. When I say, "Shit, or get off the pot", I mean it. I encourage you to write. I WANT you to write. What I don't want is to get into an argument based on the artistic merits of a piece of writing that doesn't exist yet.

Also, you seemed to have missed the point of my previous post. Rather then arguing that superheroes are inherently dark, I argued that superheroes aren't inherently anything. To reiterate, superheroes are neither inherently "dark" nor inherently "light." They are just a concept one can use however one bloody wants. It's simple as that.

Yes, and I was arguing that writing a 'realistic' superhero story has been done so often that it's become a tedious repetitive ouroboros cannibalizing itself.

If you're going to argue with me, mate, the least you can do is get my position right. ;)

The first half of my post was aimed at you. The second half, was in reference to the thread itself.
I should've made that clearer.

[Strannik]

Well, I did write a couple of stories. Unfortunately, most of them were posted in a forum that can only be viewed by registered users. However, there area few light-hearted experiments available elsewhere.

Fair warning: it's not my best work, nor is it exactly PG-rated.

[Shellhead]

Superheroes are not inherently dark, because the target market for superhero comics was children, at least up until about 20 years ago. Superheroes were directly inspired by the pulp heroes of the previous generation, and while those heroes functioned in a superficially dark and gritty environment, the actual characters and plotlines were not actually realistic or dark. Sure, badguys killed people and sometimes heroes even killed badguys, but there was a noticeable absence of rape or mutilation, unlike certain modern superhero comics.

[Pól Rua]

Superheroes are not inherently dark, because the target market for superhero comics was children, at least up until about 20 years ago. Superheroes were directly inspired by the pulp heroes of the previous generation, and while those heroes functioned in a superficially dark and gritty environment, the actual characters and plotlines were not actually realistic or dark. Sure, badguys killed people and sometimes heroes even killed badguys, but there was a noticeable absence of rape or mutilation, unlike certain modern superhero comics.

I have to disagree on the Pulp Hero front. Many of the 'hero pulps' were not aimed at kids, and the ruthlessness, disregard for human life and bloodthirstiness of 'The Spider' for example, is a far cry from the far more sanitized adventures of Batman.
Admittedly, Doc Savage is best approached as kiddie fare, but not all the hero pulps were like that.

[Pól Rua]

Okay, let's get past this 'should we/shouldn't we' bullshit for a sec, and address the initial question... "Are Superheroes Inherently Dark"?

Let's talk about that word, 'inherently' shall we?

Frankly, it doesn't mean 'has to be' or 'is always'. It means what they are at their essence. Now, to me, Superheroes are INHERENTLY light.
The bright, primary colours, the flambouyant and theatrical costumes, the named meant to be announced at high volume, the feats of derring do, the wish-fulfillment, the simplistic morality of good and evil or hero and villain.
Superheroes, being fundamentally contrary to the laws of physics, belong instead to a world of pseudoscience at their most rational, and outright fantasy at the other end of the spectrum - in short, Magic.
Superheroes are brightly coloured, magical beings who seek to do good and oppose the sinister, shadowy monsters at the edges of the world.

So inherently, at their core, superheroes are absurd. They are simplistic. They are light-hearted.

Are they ALWAYS? No. Alan Moore's Marvelman showed a very dark view on what was a very whimsical character originally. However, THAT'S what makes it effective.
Take a character as lighthearted as Marvelman and insert it into a dark context.

This isn't a superhero being INHERENTLY dark. It's an inherently LIGHT superhero in a dark context. Same with Dark Knight Returns, Same with Watchmen, Same with Superfolks, Same with The Death Ray, or Super Fuckers, or Brat Pack, or Elongated Man and his dead wife... The Characters Themselves, The Superheroes are INHERENTLY light.
They are heroes with magical powers who fight monsters.

Which isn't to say you CAN'T write something dark using these characters. But INHERENTLY dark?

Hell no.

[Shellhead]

I have to disagree on the Pulp Hero front. Many of the 'hero pulps' were not aimed at kids, and the ruthlessness, disregard for human life and bloodthirstiness of 'The Spider' for example, is a far cry from the far more sanitized adventures of Batman.
Admittedly, Doc Savage is best approached as kiddie fare, but not all the hero pulps were like that.

I agree that the pulps were aimed at an older audience, but they weren't exactly aiming for realism. Maybe the times were just more innocent, but the writers almost bent themselves into contortions to avoid realistic consequences in many of the stories. The mere concept of fighting gun-toting criminals on a regular basis without getting killed or even crippled strains credibility after a while.

You do have a particularly solid point about Doc Savage... he invented special mercy bullets so his followers didn't even have to kill their opponents when shooting them, and it was common for a good guy in a Doc Savage story to get merely knocked unconscious when shot in the head ("the bullet creased his skull") or beaten down by men with clubs/blackjacks/miscellaneous blunt instruments. And Doc Savage, the "man of bronze" with his arctic "fortress of soltitude" was clearly the inspiration for a certain "man of steel" who became one of the most popular superheroes ever.

[Pól Rua]

I agree that the pulps were aimed at an older audience, but they weren't exactly aiming for realism. Maybe the times were just more innocent, but the writers almost bent themselves into contortions to avoid realistic consequences in many of the stories. The mere concept of fighting gun-toting criminals on a regular basis without getting killed or even crippled strains credibility after a while.

The Spider wasn't particularly realistic, but it was dark.

And Doc Savage, the "man of bronze" with his arctic "fortress of soltitude" was clearly the inspiration for a certain "man of steel" who became one of the most popular superheroes ever.

The fact that Lester Dent, writer of Doc Savage, was friends with Mort Weisinger probably helped.

[dupersuper]

Yeah, that is probably the single greatest thing about Morrison's writing.

He's not a cynic.

-Brian

Totally. I love his last issue of Animal Man..."We thought that by killing your family, we could make your book more "realistic". God help us if that's true..."
A paraphrase, but you get the idea.

[John Nowak]

On my part, I would like to answer your question with a definite "yes". It's not an easy thing to pull of, but I think it can certainly be done.

One way might be to occasionally show a "twitch" from the characters -- just hint that they're supressing emotions. Or they go through a serious situation calmly, and then go ballistic over something trivial.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't like the idea that fantasy/sci-fi has to be inherently childish.

Nobody ever claimed that.

However, when we're talking about superheroic guys in tights that get super powers from magic rings and by saying magic words, and *which were designed primarily to appeal to kids,* well, yeah, there's something inherently childish about those characters and concepts. That's not a bad thing, though.

I think some of the examples you cite certainly demonstrate that there are merits to and possibilities of doing fairly "serious" superhero stories, but do keep in mind that such stories are never going to have more than a modicrum of reality to them, given that the characters are inherently unrealistic. And when you deal with much less realistic settings and characters, the darkness doesn't make sense. A grim, dark Tawky Tawny makes about as much sense as a grim, dark Laurel and Hardy.

Similarlly, while the world of life-saving and peacemaking and law enforcement in the real world is somewhat dark, this isn't universally the case, and it certainly isn't the case that those engaged in such activities invariably take a dark turn themelves. Not all cops become unhinged and most don't end up going bad or eating a bullet, most soldiers are stable people with a good moral compass, etc. There's a certain element of tragedy to such situations, but as someone else said, since reality isn't all dark, one can deal with the dark stuff without having to get all dark, either.