The Epic Superhero

I'm writing my Bachelor's Essay on how Superheroes are akin to Epic heroes, and I figured this would be a fun way to keep track of my research

[batmantobeowulf]

Self Sacrifice

In my defense, these posts take me a good hour to compose, so once a week is good for me.

This is a huge issue, and it ties in with my last post. Essentially, ever hero is at some level sacrificing himself for the greater good. However, this is a sacrifice of happiness and fulfillment rather than life. When it comes down to a battle, you don't see often see superheroes make a meek sacrifice. This panel from Thor 310 is one notable exception:

It is important to note though that it is Donald Blake, not Thor, that makes this sacrifice. In this human form, Blake is portrayed as weak and helpless and, I'm going to make this leap here, very feminine. As soon as he becomes the mighty Norse hero once more, he fights rather than simply hands himself over. This, and again I have to ask you to stay with me on this and trust this assertion, is because as a male hero, he is not allowed the self-sacrificial move that women of epics and comics so often take part in. In a larger piece I have written, I talked about how women tend to be used as plot points in both classical epics and today's comics (to be part of Being Lois, if I'm lucky enough to get chosen for publication). Only one section has to do with sacrifice, but hopefully it will help you see where I'm coming from:

One area in which Lois has found it incapable to move away from is the issue of sacrifice. Today’s culture is riddled with women sacrificing their well being in order to aid others. Women are not allowed to fight for what is theirs, rather they are taught to give themselves up for the greater good . There is the blatant stereotype, for instance, that deems a woman can not have a family and job. She must sacrifice her career and advancement for her children to be prosperous. This is not restricted to working mothers though, as Disney has propagated this sacrificing notion with vigor. The company often has their princesses give up their happiness or well-being in order to save a male loved one: Belle goes to the Beast to save her father, and Rapunzel sacrifices her freedom to save Flynn. There is never a moment when they consider an alternative, and the dynamic is set up in such a way that if they were to consider fighting or looking after themselves, the princess would be deemed selfish and unheroic. Dido did not fight for Aeneas, but instead ended her own life, and Penelope did not argue for the right to rule her country on her own, but instead stayed quiet and sacrificed her own happiness in order to easily maintain the peace. Lois too engages in this, sacrificing her own happiness in Season 10 episode 2 of Smallville, when instead of attempting to find a way to reconcile her love of Clark and his identity as the Blur, runs away to Africa in a sort of sacrificial move, as she gave up her happiness for the betterment of Metropolis. Clark, meanwhile, seems to not understand, and in the end Lois looks a little idiotic as Carter Hall talks her into going back to Clark. It ends up taking a man to push her into really arguing for her own happiness. This is not to say that Bryan Q. Miller’s Lois is not an amazing character, but it is something that the majority of female characters fall victim too. In the epics, which were if not solely created by men were at their mercy upon being compiled, their characters often upheld the ideals that men had for women of both Greece and Rome (King148).  While men are taught to fight for what is theirs, women are “held to strict social codes of conduct that seem to drive these extremes of either intense and self-sacrificing motherhood or selfish betrayal” (Smith). A woman either lies down her life for the cause, neglecting her own well being, or she is selfish. Granted, there can be something noble in sacrifice, but the lack of trying any other option epitomizes female characters. Lois is no different, and throughout her tenure with Superman she has played her part as the sacrificial lamb, always putting the wants and needs of the Man of Steel light years ahead of her own.

I'm sure there are examples of heroes sacrificing themselves in this same way, but I'm going to stand my ground on this and argue that, for the most part, women aren't allowed to fight and not only tend to, but are expected to sacrifice their well being for the 'greater good' without much of a fight. There could be so much more said on this topic, but as I'm not sure I'll be able to use it in my bachelor's essay, I won't expand on it here.

Next up on my agenda is the issue of death, and why we never see it in comics. It's so common it's almost cliche in epics for the hero to kill the enemy, yet we never truly see it comics. That one, though fun, will be ridiculous to try and answer, so if anyone has thoughts on it, I'd love to hear them. 

[batmantobeowulf]

Do I really have to be a hero?

I've met with my adviser a view times and we are well on our way. We spent two hours debating if Hector or Achilles was better (I argued Hector, because I love him and I'm not sorry for that), about how Menelaus and Agamemnon acting as lofty generals rather than soldiers made life suck for the Greeks, and then how Achilles, who is the central hero of the story, has a very poignant moment where he decides he'd rather not be a hero at all. Though he is steeped in a society based on glory in battle, Achilles dares to dream of escaping it all. Even when people left and right are begging and pleading with him, and with Agamemnon promising him treasures and 6 Lesbos women (they were a pretty big deal), he still says no:

"...my squadrons sail at dawn,

fanning out on the Hellespont that swarms with fish,

...the third day out we raise the dark rich soil of Phthia.

There lies my wealth, hoards of it, all I left behind

when I sailed to Troy on this, this insane voyage-" (IX:437-43)

Achilles was literally born and bred for the very task of toppling kings. To see him turn his back on his duty to Greece (and the entire culture as a whole as glory in battle and duty to your country were paramount) is both shocking and, for the modern reader at least, incredibly humanizing.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Tobey Magurie's Spider-man, but the second film was my favorite of the trilogy. This is partly because we see what the real side effects of having an alter ego are. His love life is in shambles, he's doing horrible at work, and Aunt May is not seeing him nearly enough. So when he loses his powers, it's a God send. Where people had been criticizing him before, suddenly they called back for him. And yet he didn't respond. Of course, it wouldn't be a superhero film if he didn't put the tights back on and, just as Achilles did, Spider-man would go on to do his duty to the world.

So the question that both these stories bring us is this: if you have extraordinary power, do you have to use it? After all, Ben Parker says "With great power, comes great responsibility." According to this logic, Achilles must fight for Greece, just as Spider-man must fight for New York. 

The popular theory of Utilitarianism comes into play here. Essentially, this means that anything is permissible as long as it benefits the greater good (think: the end justifies the means). With this logic, it doesn't matter how man sacrifices our heroes make because they just have to keep doing it as long as they are bringing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It also doesn't say anything to Achilles or Peter's character, as they have no choice in the matter.

Nonconsequintialist theory, however, gives them that choice. This philosophy does not base goodness solely on the end result, thus giving much greater freedom when making choice. It also gives the heroes a choice, as they are given a choice to be a hero. Christopher Robichauld writes on this in Superheroes and Philosophy:

"...we think that part of what makes the superheroes heroic is that they don't have to do what they do. It's permissible for them to live ordinary lives. Their choosing to do otherwise is what makes their actions that much more praiseworthy." (187)

After all, could you really look at this kid and blame him:

So then, when he goes and does this: 

We don't see it as a "Finally!" moment; we see it as a wonderfully selfless gesture on the part of our hero. No one could blame Miles for not wanting to become a hero, but to see him choose that path is quite gratifying. If Achilles had been a killing machine with no thought for any life besides war, there would have been nothing heroic in his actions. Seeing him yearn for something different shows us just how much of a struggle it was, and tends to make us value him all the more. 

[batmantobeowulf]

The Chronicling of Names

This, like in medias res, is a calling card of epics. Heroes are frequently given an long list of qualifiers that are attached to their name. Though nearly every major hero of The Iliad has at least a few, I'll give some examples of just Odysseus:

"the great tactician" (III:319), "Royal son of Laertes" (IX:373), "steady, long-enduring" (IX:824), "battle-hardened" (X:270), "shrewd tactician" (XIV:99)

Most of these are repeated at least one time or another, with my favorite through out being "red-haired Menelaus", simply because I can't imagine a red headed Greek.

This is incredibly apparent in comics. It's even what first made me realize that this might be a viable bachelor's essay, as Iron Man is called everything from 'shell-head' to 'The Iron Warrior' (I don't have citations now, but I promise they're there).

So continuing in my Thor usage, here is Thor 310, where the almighty god of thunder faces off against Mephestus. He's called not only 'the mighty son of immortal Odin', but also 'scion of the realm eternal' which, though basically meaning the same thing, are really alike to some of the names we see in ancient epics. Even the title of the comics 'The Mighty Thor' works with this. 

Also, this is just a super cool panel, and I really wanted to use it.

[batmantobeowulf]

The Interference of gods

The gods' place in ancient epics is tenuous at best. While they are all powerful beings, their intervening is often limited to singular events, such as Athena saving just Paris's life, or Poseidon destroying one ship.

At one point in the battle between the Trojans or Achaeans , Zeus even demands that other gods stay out of it:

"Hear me, all you gods and all goddesses too,

as I proclaim what the heart inside me urge.

Let no lovely goddess - and no god either -

try to fight against my strict decree.

All submit to it now, so all the more quickly

I can bring this violent business to an end.

And any god I catch, breaking ranks with us,

eager to go and help the Trojans or Achaeans -

back he comes to Olympus, whipped by lightening,

eternally disgraced... (Book VIII: 7-14)

Of course, this decree ends up being seen as a challenge more than anything. But Zeus attempting to keep the gods out of this battle presents an interesting topic. Should these almighty beings, who could easily walk all over them and use them as their play things, really be involved in human affairs? Zeus seems to think not (though that was because of his own interest in the war), and we'll later see in The Odyssey that Odysseus doesn't think much of godly intervention either.

So when Batman poses this question in DC's World's Finest Comics no.299, it seemed too perfect to pass up. 

Granted, the DC universe got considerably luckier with their god like creatures than people of Ancient Greece. But Batman raises an interesting point. Why should Superman be allowed to interfere with our world when he is so obviously outside of it? How on earth can we trust his morals and stance on death and suffering when he can, for the most part, experience neither.

I'm sure this question as come up with Thor as well, and I really look forward to addressing it when it presents itself.

[batmantobeowulf]

To Avenge

It's not exactly a secret that Odysseus and the other characters of The Iliad were killing machines. Morality in ancient Greece is a little more, shall we say, flexible, than in today's time. If you did something wrong, such as killing a friend, you, in turn would be killed for it. 

So when Leucus, Odysseus's friend, is tragically killed by Democoon, Odysseus wastes no time in avenging his dear friend.

"Enraged at his friend's death Odysseus sprang in fury,

helmed in fiery bronze he plowed through the front

and charging the enemy, glaring left and right

he hurled his spear - a glinting brazen streak -

and the Trojans gave ground, scattering back, 

panicking there before his whirling shaft - 

a direct hit! Odysseus struck Democoon,

Priam's bastard son come down from Abydos,

Priam's racing stables. Incensed for the dead,

Odysseus speared him straight through one temple

and out the other punched the sharp bronze point

and the dark came swirling thick across his eyes - 

down he crashed, armor clanging against his chest." (IV: 570-582)

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your view point, the times are a changing, and we know longer support the eye for an eye justice system. This was the crux of the problem in DC's newest animated release, Superman vs. The Elite. The Elite, while 'good guys', saw no problem with killing off criminals (which a disturbing amount of the populace was okay with). This all lead up to this climatic and terrifying scene

And, of course, Superman proved that letting the justice system do it's duty was the proper way to handle your problems.

However, that hardly means that avenging is gone from comics (there's a whole team and now billion dollar franchise devoted to it). Even brutal avenging, a death for a death, is seen, such as in this page from Thor 306 where the Firelord attempts to kill Thor for apparently killing the Firelord's ally Gabriel:

Everything gets sorted out, no one gets killed, and Thor and the Firelord go back to being allies themselves, which struck me as odd. Superman, and I'd venture to say even Captain America, would not have accepted this behavior from the Firelord and would have hence forth seen him as a threat. But Thor's just like 'Cool, thanks for not killing me since I didn't actually do anything wrong.', implying that the Firelord would have had the right to kill Thor had the latter actually done it.

This is why I love Thor though. The writers really give him that old world Norse attitude in regards to his morality. He creates an awesome juxtaposition to other characters in the Superhero universes. I'll definitely be writing more on this one. 

[batmantobeowulf]

Passion in War

Two in a row. Here's hoping I can keep this up.

So there's the old adage "All is fair in love and war", implying that love and war are interchangeable. Therefore, when Zeus says to Aphrodite in book V of The Iliad:

"Fighting is not for you, my child, the works of war.

See to the works of marriage, the slow fires of longing.

Athena and blazing Ares will deal with all the bloodshed." (V:492-494)

it seems counter intuitive. To say that only wisdom and military tactic have a place on the battlefield seems to show a gross ignorance for what actually happens in war. Therefore, I think we are meant to read this as a moment when Zeus is not quite the all knowing and powerful god that he lets on to be. This becomes especially true when we learn in The Odyssey that Aphrodite and Ares have an affair together, ultimately tying passion and war. 

War in comics is no different. The latest battle in the Marvel universe is Avengers vs X-Men, and it is rife with passion, as seen in the first issue of the series:

Doubtless, most of this passion comes from cyclops being an idiot, but the point stands. The Trojan war embodied the same spirit as this. There are two factions here, the one that very clearly should step down, and yet can't because of pride (think X-men and the Trojans), and the side that doesn't want to fight, but will because of principle and a bit of pride of their own (Avengers and the Greeks). 

So just as in ancient epics, comics show that passion is far from removed during war, but actually an essential part of it.  

[batmantobeowulf]

The Importance of Armor

Oh hey, was I supposed to be regularly updating this thing and be completely ahead of the game come the school year?

Whoops.

Well anyways, I'm at least pretending to jump back on the bandwagon today and really dug into The Iliad. One thing that jumped out to me today was in Book III: Helen Reviews the Champions. The way Paris is described putting on his armor, all 10 lines of it, is incredibly ornate and told in an almost reverent way:

"First [Paris] wrapped his legs with well-made greaves,

fastened behind the heels with silver ankle-clasps,

next he strapped a breastplate round his chest,

his brother Lycaon's that fitted him so well.

Then over his shoulder Paris slung his sword,

the fine bronze blade with its silver-studded hilt,

and then the shield-strap and his sturdy, massive shield

and over his powerful head he set a well-forged helmet,

the horsehair crest atop it tossing, bristling terror,

and last he grasped a spear that matched his grip." (III:386-395)

I think Iron Man really embodies this. In this panel from "The Five Nightmares" series, we see Tony preparing for battle:

Iron Man putting on his armor always gives rise to some amazing art and the science behind it is always spectacular. Just as Homer's attention Paris's armor is elegant in it's description, Tony putting on his armor is, dare I say it, beautiful. 

[batmantobeowulf]

In Medias Res

This is a calling card of Epics. We start the story in the middle. The Odyssey, for example, begins with us meeting Odysseus towards the end of his journey, with the majority of the story being told through flashback narratives. Though this may be a stretch, the covers of comics often do the same thing.  The story in comics is not typically told through a series of flashbacks, but rather with a very powerful shot of what is to come later in the narrative. Take the cover of Marvel's Secret Wars II, Issue 1: 

This scene never actually takes place in the comic, but it sets up the action that will come. It is used to draw the reader in quickly and give a hint as to what's to come. So, yes, this is somewhat as a stretch, but for now I'm going to go for it and make this huge leap from exciting cover to an example of in medias res.