|
|
My impression (sorry if I'm wrong) is that it's others' perception of superheroes that makes you wary of it as a genre -- because you see superheroes as something with negative connotations. Your incredulous citing of Incredibles and Watchmen as superhero stories indicates that you think good work somehow shouldn't be classed as "superhero", as if something rich and complex should have some other name.
I don't think it should be classified as Superhero because I think it's a bogus genre. I think the only reason that some people have started using Superhero as a genre is because there have been comics produced that do not have anything going on in them except the person's job and clothing. I think a "genre" should describe a work's thematic intent. I don't consider being a Superhero one of those things.
Again, it's as though you're saying this is good, it can't be superheroes -- we'll have to call it something else. Ironi cally, crime and SF are also genres that others are prejudiced against; maybe they're just a bit higher on the scale than superheroes.
Again, it's not about the prejudice against the genre, it's that it should not be a genre to begin with. "Good" "superhero" comics have more going with them than the fact that people are punching each other.
Daredevil has elements of crime, SF and drama. But to me, it has more in common with Batman than it does with CSI, Kojak, The Bill and The Maltese Falcon. I don't have a problem with classing Daredevil as primarily superhero, with tendencies towards a certain other genre (eg. Loeb's Daredevil:Yellow could even be classed as superhero-romance) because I don't see "superhero" as something we should try to get away from.
I don't think it's something that should be gotten away from, it's something that should be completely eliminated as a distinguishing marketing characteristic. Obviously, I'm not saying that that we should get away from telling compelling and complex stories involving people with powers. I think they represent an enormous opportunity to explore any number of themes. I just don't think that opportunity is itself a theme.
You're saying let's make "courtroom drama" a sub-genre, which it is. It's just not called Lawyer. That's like saying hey, what if we made up a genre called Cowboy, wouldn't that be ridiculous, and we'd put quality like Unforgiven in there alongside crappy Lone Ranger cartoons.
Well, it's not called Cowboy but yes, crappy Lone Ranger cartoons do belong in the same genre as quality like Unforgiven, and that's just how genres operate -- not through whether the material is good or bad but through other identifiable characteristics, like key iconography, setting, characters and themes.
Hm. That is a good point. I think what you might think of me qualifying something as "good" is really just me pointing out that something is themetically about something other than the people's clothing and occupations. I think, and this is just a personal feeling, that Western is a pretty weak "Genre" classification.
You could make the same argument about the Western though. Blazing Saddles is the same genre as The Searchers, just because it's set in a certain place at a certain time, with people in certain outfits with certain accessories? Well, yes. That's how you define a Western, with the proviso that Blazing Saddles is a comedy-western. You can draw distinctions through that kind of hybridity.
Again, you seem to be saying something isn't a superhero title if it's any good, or not identical to all other superhero titles.
I hope I've clarified myself. As far as Westerns go, I guess I could a little further about why it's kind of a bullshit genre, but then I might start questioning Sci-Fi, Fantasy, all that, so that's another slippery slope. I guess I just go by what belongs on the back of a book. All that Sub-Genreing is perfectly viable, but seems a bit extravagant to me. Why would you want to classify something as "Coyboy-Romance"? What if there's an epilogue where the character reminisces about the adventures he had while eating in a diner in his twilight years?
A lot of this probably comes from a few passages in King's The Dark Tower that basically point out how silly the whole concept of genre is. What would you call those books? Fantasy-Western-Sci-Fi-Non-Fiction? The overarching thematic intent of that work is Dramatic. It's not about the Expansion Of The Human Spirit (Western) or The Pros And Cons Of Human Advancement (Sci-Fi). You could potentially make the same type of summary for Superhero Comics, I guess, and I suppose that torpedoes my whole argument. But I stand behind it. I think it's a flimsy genre classification. You can tell a sci-fi story without robots. You can tell a western story without cowboys. The only thing that qualifies the Superhero "genre" is their outfits and that they have powers. That, to me, is flimsy.
It's not about perception or prejudice, I suppose. It's just a question of semantics to me. |
|
|