When the camera angle spoils you, when seconds before someone's about to die, the view suddenly switches to a wide shot of that person and the surrounding area just so you can get the full image of their surprising death. You're literally advertising it. Wouldn't it be a lot more shocking if it happened while zoomed in like usual?
Similarly, when the subtitles in both live-action and anime alike end up spoiling what's about to happen by using "--" at the end of the line or by blatantly depicting what the shocking dialogue is going to be. The former is especially annoying because we know that either someone is going be forcibly stopped from speaking, either from someone else interrupting them or them getting attacked, and you can usually tell which it's going to be. And every time you see it in the subtitle, you're on edge that someone's about to die.
Indeed, Superman has spent most of a century being representative of all the best values and principles of society while rejecting the corruption and negative aspects. When his character slides, it's generally because different writers have different ideas as to what those best values and principles are. But his character represents "the best of us," not "above and beyond us." (There's a reason why the "Superman goes bad" storyline near-inevitably turns to Supes using his powers to shape society to what he believes it ought to be; it's a pretty direct inversion of his character.) Writing an ubermensch or Objectivist Superman is pretty explicitly undercutting what the character is supposed to represent.
Indeed, Superman has spent most of a century being representative of all the best values and principles of society while rejecting the corruption and negative aspects. When his character slides, it's generally because different writers have different ideas as to what those best values and principles are. But his character represents "the best of us," not "above and beyond us." (There's a reason why the "Superman goes bad" storyline near-inevitably turns to Supes using his powers to shape society to what he believes it ought to be; it's a pretty direct inversion of his character.) Writing an ubermensch or Objectivist Superman is pretty explicitly undercutting what the character is supposed to represent.
From what I recall the original version of the DC hero question was created as a way for the creator to explore their objectionist views so its not like there isn't already a objectionist hero in the DC universe.
Its interesting that most people's fantasies of 'helping people' involving unilaterally punching out over-the-top cardboard cut-out villains in egregious displays of vigilante violence rather, you know, helping people. I mean its true that some works put more of the focus on well, saving people, but most of the time its just punching people and causing lots of collateral damage.
Granted its a sight better than the endless cavalcade of violently lethal vigilantes on a revenge kick that seem to permeate a lot of media. Batman being a rich white guy beating up mentally ill poor people is still a damn sight better than Liam Neeson living out the far-right fantasy of gunning down the super-evil swarthy foreigners that stole his wimmen.
No society considers civilians fighting crime in their pajamas to be rules compliant, and most societies are actually quite ok with lethal violence as a tool of self-defense and threats to the public or state. Being a powerful vigilante bound only by your own moral code, living in a corrupt and broken society that necessitates your actions, that is basically as ubermensch as it gets.
Lots of people seem to miss that the idea of the ubermensch wasn't simply a rejection of the social order, but a call for a new social order. Its saying that the kings and priests and wisemen of old days have lost power, that they aren't listened to and probably aren't worth listening to, that new problems and new power centers are arising and society needs to adapt. The Justice League may shave off the worst of the vigilante aspects but in return its basically a UN with teeth, which is a bogeyman in many people's books and understandably so. (well delusions of the UN already having teeth, not so much). The Justice League might claim to be non-interventionist but they're already taking up the duties of states, because they exist in a setting where the state is too weak to actually do them itself. As well as saying that they are willing to intervene in the internal politics of states to keep supervillains from taking over, but not more conventional villains, because reasons.
Reasons range from "form of Western neocolonialism" to "useless and ineffectual and incompetent" to "totally biased against us or our allies" to "planning to establish one-world order".
Reasons range from "form of Western neocolonialism" to "useless and ineffectual and incompetent" to "totally biased against us or our allies" to "planning to establish one-world order".
One thing that a lot of fantasy works, especially ones not on the grimdark wagon, still do that bugs the shit out of me is casting bandits as essentially always chaotic evil orcs in pink skins who the protagonists can slaughter at will. The implications of it are actually a fair sight more fucked up than the usual greenskin genocide.
They're often depicted as kill happy rapey monsters, whereas in reality the same rules for muggers and bank robbers are going to apply, they want your money, not your life and too much bloodshed against too many important people brings the hammer. Also historically speaking bandits tended to come from the peasantry or lower classes as a reaction against poverty, oppression and inequality and people resorting to thieving to put food on the table. There's a reason why so many lower class folk heroes throughout history were outlaws.
So, like, in the Wise Man's Fear when Kvothe lightning strikes a bandit camp, who's to say he didn't just fucking kill the husbands and sons of the surrounding villages, or shit the families themselves if it was more of a population displacement situation and the bandits were keeping their wives and children around?
Unemployed soldiers with no connection to the lands around them or foreign raiders like Vikings are less dire in terms of sword fodder. But most works fail to make the distinction.
Historically bandits though were people who were literal outlaws which meant they could be legally killed by anyone with no consequence and said people would even be rewarded for doing so. They were not apart of local settlements and indeed bandits often terrorized villages and towns and frequently killed people including in the settlements they raided.
One thing that a lot of fantasy works, especially ones not on the grimdark wagon, still do that bugs the shit out of me is casting bandits as essentially always chaotic evil orcs in pink skins who the protagonists can slaughter at will. The implications of it are actually a fair sight more fucked up than the usual greenskin genocide.
You definitely have a point there, but there are at least as many works of fiction that do the opposite. The way that pirates are frequently romanticized and glorified is probably the most obvious. Yes, these types of crime usually stem from deeper societal problems, but that doesn't actually change the fact that they were profiting off human misery, and that they often did do some pretty terrible things. Certainly, depictions of outlaws shouldn't be divorced from the broader context, and it's pretty disgusting when they're dehumanized, but it's also pretty gross to whitewash piracy.
Historically bandits though were people who were literal outlaws which meant they could be legally killed by anyone with no consequence and said people would even be rewarded for doing so. They were not apart of local settlements and indeed bandits often terrorized villages and towns and frequently killed people including in the settlements they raided.
... I love how you started with historically before saying a bunch of wrong stuff that, even if they were right in one specific time period, wouldn't have encompassed, you know, "Banditry around the world, in all its specific causes, forms, reactions to causes, etc, etc."
If bandits weren't part of the local population then where the fuck did they come from? Unemployed and homeless soldiers are one possibility. But, like, in the period of warlordism in 1930s China there were millions of bandits. If bandits are just evil bad people and not disaffected peasantry how the fuck do twenty million of them show up? Do they grow out of the ground?
Also, maybe a legal carte blanche to murder anyone the upper classes say is a criminal is, um... bad?
Its interesting that most people's fantasies of 'helping people' involving unilaterally punching out over-the-top cardboard cut-out villains in egregious displays of vigilante violence rather, you know, helping people. I mean its true that some works put more of the focus on well, saving people, but most of the time its just punching people and causing lots of collateral damage.
Granted its a sight better than the endless cavalcade of violently lethal vigilantes on a revenge kick that seem to permeate a lot of media. Batman being a rich white guy beating up mentally ill poor people is still a damn sight better than Liam Neeson living out the far-right fantasy of gunning down the super-evil swarthy foreigners that stole his wimmen.
One of Batman's premier enemies is an extremely rich and refined gentlemen. (Ra's) Could mak a case for Batman being mentally ill, too.
No society considers civilians fighting crime in their pajamas to be rules compliant, and most societies are actually quite ok with lethal violence as a tool of self-defense and threats to the public or state. Being a powerful vigilante bound only by your own moral code, living in a corrupt and broken society that necessitates your actions, that is basically as ubermensch as it gets.
Lots of people seem to miss that the idea of the ubermensch wasn't simply a rejection of the social order, but a call for a new social order. Its saying that the kings and priests and wisemen of old days have lost power, that they aren't listened to and probably aren't worth listening to, that new problems and new power centers are arising and society needs to adapt. The Justice League may shave off the worst of the vigilante aspects but in return its basically a UN with teeth, which is a bogeyman in many people's books and understandably so. (well delusions of the UN already having teeth, not so much). The Justice League might claim to be non-interventionist but they're already taking up the duties of states, because they exist in a setting where the state is too weak to actually do them itself. As well as saying that they are willing to intervene in the internal politics of states to keep supervillains from taking over, but not more conventional villains, because reasons.
The people actually voted for Donald Trump. If Donald Trump used a mind control ray, that is a whole other matter. I don't think there's a problem with this.
The thing is, by their nature, comics love and need a status quo which means superheroes love and uphold the status quo. You need to go into miniseries or Alternate Universes to see supers really making a difference. Like, TDKR Batman is an Ubermensch because that story allows him to do things normal Batman never could.
If bandits weren't part of the local population then where the fuck did they come from? Unemployed and homeless soldiers are one possibility. But, like, in the period of warlordism in 1930s China there were millions of bandits. If bandits are just evil bad people and not disaffected peasantry how the fuck do twenty million of them show up? Do they grow out of the ground?
I said they weren't part of local settlements not that they weren't always part of the local population. Outlaws who often formed bandit bands were people were stripped of all legal rights as members of society and indeed legally anyone could kill a outlaw on sight as if they were wolf or some other wild animal especially when you start talking ancient history to the early modern period.
Of course you also had border reivers along places between hostile countries like that of Scotland and England who often raided and pillaged both sides of the border as long as the victims had no kinship to themselves or powerful ties and indeed were often encouraged by one country or another to do just that and of course quite a number of mercenary bands frequently turned to brigandry when unemployed when they weren't outright being paid to do so.
I said they weren't part of local settlements not that they weren't always part of the local population. Outlaws who often formed bandit bands were people were stripped of all legal rights as members of society and indeed legally anyone could kill a outlaw on sight as if they were wolf or some other wild animal especially when you start talking ancient history to the early modern period.
Of course you also had border reivers along places between hostile countries like that of Scotland and England who often raided and pillaged both sides of the border as long as the victims had no kinship to themselves or powerful ties and indeed were often encouraged by one country or another to do just that and of course quite a number of mercenary bands frequently turned to brigandry when unemployed when they weren't outright being paid to do so.
You're legitimately making yourself look more and more ignorant every time you drastically generalize without citations. I assume you've read the Justinian Law Code, as well as the various legal texts of the Ming, Qing, Russian Empire, old France, Britain, Scotland, Spain, the many law-codes of Italy, Germany... and of course you've no doubt examined the problems and legal status of "banditry" in the Ottomon Empire, and couldn't possibly be talking out of ignorance.
Outlaws who often formed bandit bands were people were stripped of all legal rights as members of society and indeed legally anyone could kill a outlaw on sight as if they were wolf or some other wild animal especially when you start talking ancient history to the early modern period.
How did they know who was an outlaw or not? I mean, I assume that descriptions aren't very good. They didn't have mass photographs and Wanted posters, so how?
Historically bandits though were people who were literal outlaws which meant they could be legally killed by anyone with no consequence and said people would even be rewarded for doing so. They were not apart of local settlements and indeed bandits often terrorized villages and towns and frequently killed people including in the settlements they raided.
Okay, so how does this account for areas like the Anglo-Scottish border during the mid-late 1500s-early 1600s, where banditry was a way of life for everyone (after all, there was fuck-all else to do most of the time, with how often the area had been fought over).
They're often depicted as kill happy rapey monsters, whereas in reality the same rules for muggers and bank robbers are going to apply, they want your money, not your life and too much bloodshed against too many important people brings the hammer. Also historically speaking bandits tended to come from the peasantry or lower classes as a reaction against poverty, oppression and inequality and people resorting to thieving to put food on the table. There's a reason why so many lower class folk heroes throughout history were outlaws.
Unemployed soldiers with no connection to the lands around them or foreign raiders like Vikings are less dire in terms of sword fodder. But most works fail to make the distinction.
I don't mean to, "Well actually" this, but the whole concept of bandits as a sort of medieval organized crime has always fascinated me, so I've researched them online a bunch. I find that these two reddit threads are very helpful. This is only for medieval bandits though.
Main points are that bandits were really not typically poor, oppressed peoples, but an unofficial tax used by many aristocrats as a way of attaining a little mo' money. Robber knights were a common fear, and they're a large part of why we have the word "robber baron". And the thing about that is that those types were usually the less violent ones. They wanted to extort rather than outright plunder. After all, you still want traders to come on through your little tax route. And this line was heavily blurred by the existence of actual, official tolls. Medieval travelers didn't have type of toll app to let them know who set up a toll where.
But "less violent" is relative because bandits were vicious. They did in fact, slaughter, loot, and rape regularly during their work (whether they be "career" bandits vs opportunists), either preying on the roads or moving from town to town. Evidence of this is the fact that the kingdoms often couldn't tell the difference between a bandit attack and an attack by enemy army, which allowed many bandits to pretend to be legitimate soldiers in order to get passed glances. Which in turn led to blurred distinction, since many medieval soldiers did turn to banditry after the war was over (see routiers). Which was a cause for legal confusion when they were actually caught. But there wasn't going to be a hammer drop regardless because bandits were a constant problem everywhere, especially on the roads between towns and cities, that have always existed. Unless they did something extremely aggravating like holding up in an actual castle. Then they were ratted out.
Now a really good example of this that demonstrates all of these aspects is "The Last Kingdom". The protagonist,, who is a lord, finds himself heavily indebted to the Church, and to resolve this issue, he decides to raid a nearby, relatively defenseless kingdom (Cornwall), and he does so disguising his English forces as Vikings so that no one would bat an eye.
So, in conclusion, everything is blurred. Every aspect you could examine it of it exists on a scale. Aristocratic vs opportunists, legal vs illegal, tolls vs robbery, official soldier vs bandits. But, IMO, the idea that medieval bandits were poor, oppressed peoples who only used violence when desperate strikes me as a largely an artificial one. I'm sure there were some instances, but not enough to be a definitive pattern.
Yes, poorer areas going through a lot of shit would obviously have more banditry, but that can be seen as stemming from the lack of ability (or will) to stop it on the feudal lords' part. In the prelude to the War of the Roses, one of the many things during Henry VI's reign that caused a great amount of resentment by the common people (enough to eventually get York to oppose him) was the fact that despite how England itself was prospering, the bandits, robbers, and vagabonds only increased and severely plagued the countryside. The fact that he (nor the councilors that basically ruled in his stead) wouldn't force the sheriffs to take it seriously, was seen as a big symptom of the corrupt, inefficient government at the time. As for why so many outlaws are seen as folk heroes is simply because they fought against the system they (for the time) hated, their brutal crimes and motivations ignored. It happens to this day.
Its complicated. People who end up at ends with the state often do so because they are impoverished, discriminated, or oppressed by the state... but outlaw status tends to bring out the worst in people, and the difficult conditions often mean that the sadistic thugs and fanatical zealots end up rising to the top. Bandits are people too, but so are Nazis, doesn't change the fact that their social context has turned them into something that needs to be stopped with extreme prejudice. The mafias may have found purchase in the USA due to discrimination and neglect of Italian-Americans, in the end said people became their biggest victims.
@Reveen , keep in mind that the Warlords Era The period of time surrounding the Taiping Rebellion in Chinese history is perhaps not the best example to draw upon. Yes, it's true that the eponymous warlords were often bandits that nonetheless tried to impose a semblance of order in their home territories, but the same period also saw a lot of roving bandit bands that - for obvious reasons - went out of their way to loot, pillage, and rape places that were very much not anywhere close to their homes, for obvious reasons. The Qing Dynasty would eventually co-opt a lot of these bandit groups as mercenary forces - the warlords themselves were considered to be too powerful and ambitious to really rely upon - thus sometimes instilling a bit of discipline in them, but sometimes this was also exacerbated by the aforementioned "robber knights" issue that Europe also experienced.
@Reveen , keep in mind that the Warlords Era of Chinese history is perhaps not the best example to draw upon. Yes, it's true that the eponymous warlords were often bandits that nonetheless tried to impose a semblance of order in their home territories, but the same period also saw a lot of roving bandit bands that - for obvious reasons - went out of their way to loot, pillage, and rape places that were very much not anywhere close to their homes, for obvious reasons. The Qing Dynasty would eventually co-opt a lot of these bandit groups as mercenary forces - the warlords themselves were considered to be too powerful and ambitious to really rely upon - thus sometimes instilling a bit of discipline in them, but sometimes this was also exacerbated by the aforementioned "robber knights" issue that Europe also experienced.
I am an idiot, sorry. I was actually thinking of the Taiping Rebellion, but I was associating it with a film starring Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro called The Warlords set during the Taiping Rebellion. My mistake, sorry. x_x
