 |
| Pictured above: Evil? |
 |
| The perfect setting for supervillainy |
This past week I've been in a small cabin on the shore of Lake Superior in northern Minnesota with my wife and kids. It's a great week to relax and unwind as we watch summer wind down. However, my wife's extended family also joins us in the neighboring cabins, bringing a wonderful kind of lunacy to the week as well. I was playing (not necessarily voluntarily) with two of my wife's cousin's children - Teagan (8) and Jace (6) and the idea for this entry is, in part, thanks to them.
Teagan, being an inquisitive 8-year-old, was going from adult to adult asking, "What are you doing?" Since I enjoy confusing children, I responded with "trying to take over the world." This, in turn, led to Teagan and Jace spending the next half hour climbing all over me in an effort to thwart my evil plans. At the end of our time, Teagan asked me, "Why don't you join the good side?"
My reply: "What makes you think I'm not the good side?" This, of course, was met with a blank stare.
Now that I've shared my brief family anecdote, let me bring this into what you're here for: comic books.
 |
| The real stars of the blog |
I recently read two graphic novels by
Brian Azzarello:
Luthor and
Joker. Each of these focuses on a villain from the DC Universe; the archenemies of Superman and Batman, respectively. What struck me as I read these was the strikingly different portrayals of these two signature villains.
 |
The most frightening man to ever
wear a purple suit. |
In reading
Joker, it's made clear that the title villain is clearly a sociopath. There is no greater purpose behind his villainy other than personal gain. Joker is evil for evil's sake. Azzarello does a masterful job portraying the controlled chaos that the Joker personifies. I especially enjoyed the more realistic, less campy version of the Joker that Azzarello brings into his depiction. This Joker is similar to
Heath Ledger's portrayal in
The Dark Knight rather than
Cesear Romero's slapstick version from the 1960's
Batman television show. Azzarello's
Joker is a great character study of one of DC's most prolific and, arguably, most depraved villains that explores the basic nature of the character's evil. Be forewarned, this novel is intended for more mature readers and does contain somewhat more brutal violence than typical Batman comics.
 |
| A study in biased pictures |
As much as I enjoyed reading
Joker and generally prefer Batman to Superman,
Luthor and Azzarello's treatment of Superman's nemesis was, in my opinion, the superior graphic novel. Lex Luthor is depicted as something more than just a force of evil. Azzarello focuses on Luthor's intense distrust of the alien that has taken public opinion by storm. The book is best summarized in Luthor's statement to Superman - "All men are created equal. You are not a man."
 |
Comics at their best:
Philosophy with pictures |
Lex is shown in turns as generous, obsessive, loyal, protective, and evil. His illegal union busting as he works to complete a construction project stands in stark contrast to his obtaining a scholarship to a prestigious school for a janitor's son. The nuanced and complex portrayal of Luthor leaves the reader wondering, is Luthor really a villain? Are his aims truly evil?
So, I'll turn the question to you, what makes a villain? What draws the line that tells us that Lex Luthor is evil, while Superman is good? Is there a definite line or, as recent comics and other media suggest, is the line blurring?
It's interesting that the two characters they've chosen to portray are so drastically different—the Joker, an obvious evil, and Luthor, who is infinitely more ambiguous. While I didn't think it was a fantastic show, the TV series Smallville portrayed Luthor in a similar way, at least as I recall. I think assessing evil comes down to deciding which reveals the character's true nature: donating money to charities doesn't make up for, say, exploiting natural resources or undercutting small businesses by offering your products at a discount with the others can't compete. Flaws are one thing, as are occasional lapses in judgement or good-faith decisions gone awry. This makes us human. But intentional mistreatment of others can't simply be balanced out with good deeds.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the (I believe new, though I might be mistaken) prequels to Watchmen? Each one treats two different characters and their stories leading up to the Comedian's murder. I'm not sure how I feel about them—will they provide new insights into the characters and make for compelling reading, or is it just a way to cash in on the popularity of the original? I'm not a sequel man, myself (though, in fairness as much as in shame, I am excited for the new Wolverine movie...guh). Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Interesting assessment of the nature of evil. I agree with your thoughts especially with regard to the concept of a balancing act of good deeds and intentional bad deeds.
DeleteLuthor's ambiguity stems from his conviction that his ongoing need to kill Superman is based in his thought that Superman is, in the large picture, bad for mankind. This gets played out in another graphic novel that I'd like to revisit, Red Son (an alternate universe where Kal-El lands in Soviet Russia instead of Kansas). The theme also runs through the first several issues of DC's current Action Comics series, which I've been re-reading lately. In some ways, I think I find Luthor more interesting than Superman.
With regard to the Watchmen prequels, I've not read those, though I was excited when they first came out last year. If I can get a hold of a copy I'll put together a post. The graphic novels are just now being released. There may be some ongoing series still being published as well.
Jason, I loved the story about your family!!! That pulled me into reading your blog right away. I am reading graphic novels for my reluctant reader project so this post definitely spoke to me. I do think the lines are a little blurred on what a true villain is. Everyone's opinion might be different as we all interpret things differently. I feel here the author was intentionally leaving you unsure to keep you hooked. We, as readers, may not have a guide but we some how figure it out. To me it's just the antagonist, the "bad guy" or one who is involved in criminal activity. Knowing that Superman is good I would think any of his opponents are automatically villains.
ReplyDelete