I Am A Nerd

I hate myself for being a nerd. I know too much about Marvel and DC. I can recite facts about them, characters origins, how they've evolved, artists, writers, and other minutae. This about superheroes instead of Shakespeare or Virgil. It's not even avant-garde - superheroes are fascist pop. "Submit to law and order, or I'll beat you up!"

It used to be that more people read Shakespeare. But then education was democratized, because we started trying to make it easier, because we wanted to listen to the students, because we lost our youth, because we all started losing our innocence, because everyone could read, including the f---ed up shit. Now Peter Rabbit is studied in university.

Does that sociology theory work at all? Is it even a quarter-baked?

This information is meaningless, because it prevents meaningful discourse into the greater nature of anything. Who the fuck cares if Batman could beat Superman? There are two reasons it drives people: The DC reality is more important, more exciting, more vibrant than their own reality. Or, they go for the question underneath - nature vs. nurture? Intelligence vs. force? Which is more important, more powerful?

[UNIMPORTANT SIDETRACK - YOU CAN SKIP THIS]
(Batman nurtured his gifts and got smart, Superman was born with powers far beyond those of mortal men - although now it comes from the sun and was activated in his teens, trying to turn his power into an external source rather than an internal strength.)

But even if it's the second - nature vs. nurture - let's discuss it straight up, rather than about two fictional characters.

Re: Superheroes are fascist pop. (Sorry about bringing this back up. I love this sentence. Makes me seem like I'm smart, I do believe.)
The question of whether or not the idea of superheroes are inherently fascist is a "glass-is-half-empty/half-full" question. I myself personally don't believe it, (even though I acknowledge the question of superheroic fascism, as this seems to me the kind of thinking that equates all policemen as fascist.)

You have to ask what would Superman do if there was no Lex Luthor. If there was no crime, would he still beat up criminals? Or would he just leave them alone? Because one of the hallmarks of fascism is that the war never ends. The fascist state creates war in a vaccuum. But, if no one committed any crimes (in itself a form of fascism, obviously - "I want that money, I take it.") would Superman continue to beat up people?

That's why superheroes are inherently reactive - superheroes don't seek out supervillains. Luthor comes up with the plan, Superman stops him. Superman doesn't create the war, doesn't invade Poland, doesn't make Lex Luthor melt with his heat vision before he can make his doomsday weapon, he defends Poland, saves the world from Lex Luthor's weapons.

Superman patrols for crime. Is he looking for a bad guy to fight? Or is he looking for an innocent bystander to save, even if it's by beating up a criminal who will eventually hurt people?

If it's the former, he's fascist, obviously. Latter, he ain't.