Julian Sanchez makes an interesting point, villains earn, heroes inherit:
While the ruthless corporate CEO as villain is pretty much a stock character in modern pop culture, superhero comics have always conspicuously placed successful businessmen on both sides of the hero/villain divide. Yet an interesting, and perhaps counterintuitive, pattern recently occurred to me. Just off the top of my head, here are some of the most prominent superhero characters who have, for some significant chunk of their histories, been portrayed as CEOs of large corporations:
Bruce Wayne (Batman)
Oliver Queen (Green Arrow)
Tony Stark (Iron Man)
Ted Kord (Blue Beetle)
Here are the first four CEO supervillains who spring to mind:
Lex Luthor
Wilson Fisk (Kingpin)
Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias)
Norman Osborn (Green Goblin)
Ok, comics geeks, pop quiz: What do the four heroes and the four villains each have in common?
The answer is that none of the four heroes founded the corporations that bear their family names: Each of them inherited their wealth. In some cases the heroes bear substantial responsibility for the success of their companies, but in the case of Stark and Kord, this is primarily a function of their scientific and inventive genius, not their business acumen. All but Wayne have, for some portion of their history, faced financial difficulties as a result, either losing or surrendering control of their companies at least temporarily.
For the supervillains, precisely the opposite is true. While the TV show Smallville and a handful of one-off comics depict Luthor as born to wealth, he has typically been portrayed as a child of abusive, impoverished parents who rose from the mean streets of Suicide Slum to found LexCorp. Fisk, too, grew up poor and bullied. Veidt describes his parents as an ordinary, unremarkable couple, and it’s implied that they are working or lower-middle class. [Update: As a commenter notes, I'm misremembering: Veidt's parents were actually wealthy, but he chose to give away his inheritance to charity as a teenager in order to start from nothing.] Osborn’s father was an industrialist who raised Norman in relative luxury… but also an abusive alcoholic who lost the business and his fortune before Norman was college aged, requiring him to effectively start over from scratch. While Kingpin’s wealth comes almost entirely from his criminal operations, with the “legitimate business” of Fisk Enterprises serving primarily as a front, the others seem to have earned most of their wealth by more-or-less legal means.
Now this ought to be at least somewhat surprising. Conventional wisdom, and the vast majority of popular film and fiction outside the superhero genre, suggest that the heroic characters—the ones we admire and identify with—ought to be the ones who earn success through their own merits after a long struggle, while the villains are snobbish children of undeserved privilege. When it comes to the most famous businessmen in comics, though, we find that just the reverse is the case! While on the surface, for instance, the rivalry between Luthor and Superman pits cosmopolitan, urban corporate wealth against humble American rural values, it has also often been stressed that Luthor resents Superman for simply being born with spectacular abilities that dwarf Luthor’s hard-won achievements. What might be going on here?
While the pattern in comics inverts the meritocratic ideal that seems to rule in most modern American fiction, it fits quite naturally with a pre-capitalist aristocratic ethos, which persisted at least through the early 20th century in the form of Old Money’s contempt for the nouveau riche….
Should anyone be surprised? In general, comic books are pulp. They are not great literature.
Funny that Potemra has a corner post about Roger Ebert's new book. This may also be a shocker. In general, movies are pulp. In general, the cinema is not great art.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe point can be made about popular attitudes more broadly, for example, about attitudes towards scholastic success. Consider the stereotype of the "grind": often Asian, she gets to the top of her class by working really hard. At least when I was in school, this was a somewhat negative stereotype. Her grades reflected hard work--which (supposedly) anyone could do--rather than her innate Creativity or Intelligence, and were therefore somehow illegitimate.
Creativity is a fetish we inherit from the Romantics, Intelligence one we inherit from the Progressives. To get ahead through mere hard work is viewed as cheating.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComics are pulp, but that's not the point. Pulp follows the culture and desires of the readers, or it doesn't sell.
Part of this, though, is that superheroes need worthy adversaries. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mitt Romney would make a credible Lex Luthor supervillain. Jon Huntsman would not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGosh Jimbo--in general contemporary ART is not great art, either. Let's not get too picky...and in the meanwhile, check the prices at Sotheby's for any of those Andy Warhol & Peers canvases which recreate...yes...comic book frames.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs that "pulp imitating art" or vice versa? I may not know what is and is not art, but I know I like Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, and heroes who stand for something and promote all-American values. We could use more of that kind of art, couldn't we?
I have always heard that millionaire Bruce Wayne appealed to Depression-era readers desire forget their sufferings in tough times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's because you consider only superhero comics, which are stupid, plagued by poor art and worse dialogue, and inevitably far left wing.
The best-selling comic in the 1950s was Uncle Scrooge, which sold two million comics a month while the wooden personages in superhero titles struggled to get to six figures. Unlike the heroes you name, Scrooge McDuck had made his money the old-fashioned way, climbing his way up from immigrant poverty to immense wealth by being smarter than the sharpies and tougher than the thugs.
Conservatives in particular would do well to introduce their children to the great writing and artwork of Carl Barks's classic Scrooge (and Donald) stories, which are far better than any superhero story ever was.
Besides the quality of the work, the Scrooge stories are far more aligned to conservative values than easy-solution superhero ability comics are. Barks promoted all the right things: hard work, perseverance, honesty, and independence. And he was a cynic about all the "right" things: social experimentation, punitive taxation, bureaucratic interference, and especially authoritarianism. His wonderful name coinage of Brutopia for the eastern bloc country whose sinister minions periodically try to infiltrate America deserves to enter the permanent lexicon.
Barks himself wondered later in life how he had gotten away with being so cynical in works ostensibly aimed at children. Of course it must have helped that his values and Disney's were generally aligned - and that reader feedback was immensely positive.
In any event, the result is wonderful to behold. One of my favorite moments is when the criminal Beagle Boys wreck the city trying to smash into Scrooge's money bin. In the aftermath, the mayor presents victim Scrooge with a huge tax bill to pay for all the destruction, on the grounds that "you're the only one who can afford it." That moment and others like it probably did far more to illustrate to young readers the unfairness of taxation for its own sake than any textbook answer ever could have.
Even Scrooge's miserly instincts and the massive collection of hard cash in his Money Bin are addressed. Barks pointed out that this was a stupid misuse of money, to just let it lie there. Scrooge at his best is shown resisting the impulse to merely hoard and instead running factories, railroads, and other businesses. It is when his tight-fistedness kicks in and he becomes a hoarder of paper and metal that he invariably finds himself in trouble as a result.
On other threads in the past I have seen pointless arguments over classic DC or Marvel, when the real answer is right in front of us. If you haven't tried Barks, track down some of the reprints of his stories from the 50s and see what your kids (and you) have been missing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me second that. Uncle Scrooge comics are great. In addition to promoting the right economic values Barks promoted other values too. One of the things I appreciate about Uncle Scrooge is that unlike other heros who seem to have some inner desire to serve others and who get all gooey inside, Scrooge was a tough old bird for whom doing the right thing was hard, but his sense of duty, dignity and pride meant he couldn't ignore it. Unlike someone like Superman who's first and only thought is to do good, Scrooge's instinct is to make money and when that conflicts with his code of duty/honor it is only with some regret that he does the right thing - but he does it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis goes way back:
"That was why I asked you the question, I replied, because I see that you are indifferent about money, which is a characteristic rather of those who have inherited their fortunes than of those who have acquired them; the makers of fortunes have a second love of money as a creation of their own, resembling the affection of authors for their own poems, or of parents for their children, besides that natural love of it for the sake of use and profit which is common to them and all men. And hence they are very bad company, for they can talk about nothing but the praises of wealth."
Plato, The Republic
It seems there is a historical bias against the "self-made man," while those who are merely managers of a burdensome family fortune get the adulation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, Plato as the original leftist, one of my favorite subjects, and I love how this pops up in the most unexpected places. I note that the Athenians thought Socrates such a menace that they put him to death (they actually exiled him, but in true leftist fashion, he had to make a protest). I think it is funny that Plato's diametric opposite, Aristotle, is the father of science and much more conservative than Plato.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuperhero comics really embody THE left wing fantasy: to have the power to single-handedly save the world... to be superior to everyone else, and able to make them all grateful to you ... to be the single most powerful figure in the universe (but all for the good of mankind, and always benevolent, of course!)
Most of the 'civilians' in superhero comics are uniformly adoring, or at least get over their terror once they see how just-plain-awesome the superhero really is.
(Except, of course, for X-Men, where the great moral struggle is whether to remain benevolent to the mere mortals ...or whether to just accept that "evolution" has made some people "The Future" and the planet belongs to them ....)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting that The Incredibles either consciously or unconsciously adopts the same theme; Mr. Incredible's abilities are in-born, while Syndrome's abilities have been created through his own genius and hard work. A bias against the self-made man?
As LittleOldMe noted below, there could be a subtle class bias built into the theme; the new rich being looked down upon by the old rich could very well go back to Plato, who saw the noble-born as the highest and purest strata of society. Plato was very bright and may have contributed a tremendous amount to Western thought, but it is difficult to avoid the possibility that he may have poisoned the well in the process.
@Patrick J, re: Uncle Scrooge, the same tendency can be seen in much of Dickens' works; his villains are almost always self-made men of the middle class, primarily lawyers and money-lenders, while the benefactors who ride to the defense of his forlorn protagonists are almost always upper-class figures with strong implications of inherited wealth. Ironically, the socially conscious Dickens presents nearly as rosy a view of the upper classes as does Austen; you would have to go to Elliott to find a more balanced view of high society.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe it's more of an old-fashioned nurturist argument i.e. - "parents, treat your children humanely or they'll grow up scarred and vengeful."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have some friends in the art business--they hate that term-they prefer creative arts. This meme doesn't surprise me. While in college in the 1980s most were enamored with Ted Kennedy (projecting JFK's myth upon him) and hated Ronald "Ray-gun". Kennedy inherited his money --Reagan earned his. But who was vilified as the "rich" by the left? {Note--many journalism majors are art majors who could not draw}.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLex Luthor went from being purely a mad scientist type to being a corporate titan in the mid-80s reboot of the Superman character lead by writer-artist John Byrne.
There were a lot of interesting ideas there based on the stuff Byrne found unbelievable in the previous versions. Why did the advanced civilization of Krypton die? In Byrne's telling Krypton had become a society in which citizen had no physical contact and rarely even met in the same location, instead relying on robotic servants for company and communicating with other Kryptonians electronically. The internet taken to the extreme. The bulk of the Kryptonian population died for sheer lack of interest in what was happening in the world outside their homes.
Luthor was made more interesting by taking him from outlaw dependent on thievery to finance his work and living in hiding to instead being the city's most prominent citizen with immense resources at his command. It wasn't so much an attempt to smear a successful business leader as to make a more interesting character in an era where the writing had gotten much more sophisticated. Luthor wasn't a bad guy because he was a brilliant CEO, he was a brilliant CEO who happened to be a rotten guy in secret. But his real failing is giving in to his obsessions and letting Superman become his bete noire for the mere ability to defy Luthor's will. The new Luthor wasn't looking to conquer the world in a literal sense but the very existence of Superman made him make bad decisions instead of adapting.
Byrne's Luthor is much more believable than Oliver Queen who became such a flaming liberal it is a mystery how he ever successfully ran his company. How could his personality have changed so radically without some brain damage being involved?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you may be overthinking somewhat. Inherited fortunes serve a dramatic purpose -- they let the good guy buy his battle-tech and travel the world. We see the good guy on an ongoing day-to-day basis. If he were a *real* businessman, that would consume all his time and leave not room for heroing. We see the bad-guy only in vingettes, so the question of how he runs a business and still has time to plan world domination doesn't really come up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso, the hero has to battle on an ongoing basis - the villain gets a shot, then off to prison/the morgue/some alternate universe for a while. Meanwhile, the hero has to deal with *another* villain before he can even get his suit through one cycle of the laundry, much less take care of any of his vast business empire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you nailed. The hero's ambition is to serve, but you don't make your own fortune that way, but the hero needs the fortune to do the cool stuff - a problem solved by an inherited fortune.
Villians are self-made because villians need to show how tough they are (making beating them all the more glorious) and how better to show your ability than being a self-made man?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is indeed a significant trend, it makes Zac Snyder's adaptation of Watchmen even more interesting. In his version the inherited wealth of characters like the second Night Owl is palpably enervating. Indeed, his character best embodies the decadence of the Watchmen especially when juxtaposed to the vigor of Rorschach, his former partner, who embodies the ascetic vigor better than any character I can think of in film.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the late 20c American meritocracy, the acquisition of prestigious degrees from professional schools affiliated with universities previously off-limits to those born outside the east coast Protestant elite became the American equivalent of the English peerage or the _noblesse de l'epee_ of France's ancient regime.
This new peerage - top-heavy with lawyers, economists and other PhDs, scornful of self-made entrepreneurs with no degrees or undergraduate degrees from public schools - is the backbone of the Obama administration. It is skeptical of common sense, ignorant of basic precepts about human behavior, given to chasing unicorns, and most importantly, constantly positioning itself for lucrative post-government gigs with the likes of Citigroup, Goldman and the Silicon Valley darling of the month.
It is thanks to these pseudo-sophisticates that we have a stimulus that blew a trillion on foolish giveaways to public
employee unions and cronies, the "green jobs" fiasco, and a botched healthcare bill. In reaction to them, the opposition's political base puffs up a depresiing parade of anti-intellectual lightweights, flakes and kooks.
We really need a new political class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, I hate to point it out but even the conservative super-hero movie, The Incredibles, sticks to the same formula. The Incredibles aren't rich, but their nemesis has grown rich by the sale of his inventions. What's more, he was rejected by Mr. Incredible at the beginning of the film because he wasn't really a superhero but relied on invention to fly, etc.
Hey, still a great movie though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse