Deconstruct a Hero

[GenericGuy]

In order to prevent another thread from derailing, I decided to make this one in which commenters deconstruct any hero from any medium (note: I say deconstruct not complain about a hero from some work you don’t like)

I’ll start; I’ve always felt there aren’t enough stories that deal with the true purpose of the Batman persona for Bruce Wayne or at least question it. Most Batman fans take it at face value that Batman was created by Bruce to combat the injustice in Gotham that the system could not due to corruption or escalation supervillains bring to the table. But, how much of Batman’s actions are “self-sacrifice” vs. combating his personal demons?

One of my favorite Batman stories comes from the “Tales of the Dark Knight” animated feature that came out before the Dark Knight. In it Bruce is still on his trek through Asia learning combat techniques, and he seeks a master in India to teach him. In the end the master won’t teach him her techniques because what Bruce seeks isn’t enlightenment and inner peace, but tools for his war on crime, he doesn’t actually want to get better.

Likewise I’ve always wanted to write (probably an elseworlds story, since DC probably wouldn't let it be cannon) where its revealed that the Joker always knew who Batman was, and in fact the Joker’s obsession with him is because he believes Batman enjoys these games as much as he does. And that’s the real reason Batman doesn’t kill, or use his wealth and social connections to actually fix and solve Gotham’s problems, it’s because he would no longer have an outlet to direct his anger issues from his personal tragedy.

Is Batman a selfless figure, or in the end a selfish one?

[ChaosLord29]

He is selfless in many ways, and on multiple occasions comes close or proves himself willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his adopted family and Gotham. He doesn't crave fame or personal glory, and uses his personal wealth not only to fight crime as Batman but is one of the biggest philanthropists in the DC universe.

I suppose you could say that he is selfish in that their is one sacrifice he is not willing to make in order to combat crime. Killing the Joker or Killer Croc or any number of other villains would save more lives in the long run and go a long way to nullifying Gotham's criminal element, but Batman doesn't. I believe Jason Todd as Red Hood is the one to point out that killing does work, and is more effective than simply trying to scare street punks straight.

So, Batman is not willing to sacrifice his personal moral code for the sake of others, which is essentially a selfish action. Still, it would hardly be considered evil.

Also, I'd say Batman makes a lot of progress in the form of his every expanding adoptive family and network of fellow crime fighters. His demons are a bit darker than most DC superheroes, but he also deals with them in a much more constructive way than say Orion, and perhaps even better than supposed boy scouts like Superman.

[An Enemy Spy]

Why does everybody always have to be deconstructed these days? Why can't we just let some of our heroes be the shining beacons of pure good they were supposed to be? Does Superman really need to turned into a heartless dictator ruling the people of metropolis with fear?

[Dienekes]

In order to prevent another thread from derailing, I decided to make this one in which commenters deconstruct any hero from any medium (note: I say deconstruct not complain about a hero from some work you don’t like)

I’ll start; I’ve always felt there aren’t enough stories that deal with the true purpose of the Batman persona for Bruce Wayne or at least question it. Most Batman fans take it at face value that Batman was created by Bruce to combat the injustice in Gotham that the system could not due to corruption or escalation supervillains bring to the table. But, how much of Batman’s actions are “self-sacrifice” vs. combating his personal demons?

One of my favorite Batman stories comes from the “Tales of the Dark Knight” animated feature that came out before the Dark Knight. In it Bruce is still on his trek through Asia learning combat techniques, and he seeks a master in India to teach him. In the end the master won’t teach him her techniques because what Bruce seeks isn’t enlightenment and inner peace, but tools for his war on crime, he doesn’t actually want to get better.

Likewise I’ve always wanted to write (probably an elseworlds story, since DC probably wouldn't let it be cannon) where its revealed that the Joker always knew who Batman was, and in fact the Joker’s obsession with him is because he believes Batman enjoys these games as much as he does. And that’s the real reason Batman doesn’t kill, or use his wealth and social connections to actually fix and solve Gotham’s problems, it’s because he would no longer have an outlet to direct his anger issues from his personal tragedy.

Is Batman a selfless figure, or in the end a selfish one?

For the record, numerous Bat-tales do show or tell the reader that Bruce is using his wealth and connections to fix the world. This does however, make for very boring reads when you could be out reading how he took down the Falcone Crime Family, or win a battle of wits with the Riddler, ect.

And some Joker stories imply that he knows who Bruce is, or, more often that he just doesn't care.

[TheLaughingMan]

Does Superman really need to turned into a heartless dictator ruling the people of metropolis with fear?

That's not deconstruction, that's just jerkifying. Heroes can be deconstructive and be good guys. I mean, look at post-TDNR Batman.

And to contest with the OP, I'm not sure if Batman is much of a good choice, as you can't deconstruct him much further without making him pants-on-head crazy, and the public has already voiced their hatred for that direction. Comics in general are a hard medium to deconstruct, because they're deconstructing and reconstructing themselves so often that actually playing any particular trait straight would be immensely more subversive. I'd suggest shifting the topic into a different medium.

[GenericGuy]

He is selfless in many ways, and on multiple occasions comes close or proves himself willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his adopted family and Gotham. He doesn't crave fame or personal glory, and uses his personal wealth not only to fight crime as Batman but is one of the biggest philanthropists in the DC universe.
Killing oneself does not a selfless act make, sucide is one of the most selfish acts someone can make. Seeking glory or fame are also not the only reasons someone act selfishly, my point is that the Batman persona is far more about Bruce Wayne having an excuse to inflect pain on targets he deems "deserve it," to sate his feeling of impotence and rage of not being able to protect his family.


I suppose you could say that he is selfish in that their is one sacrifice he is not willing to make in order to combat crime. Killing the Joker or Killer Croc or any number of other villains would save more lives in the long run and go a long way to nullifying Gotham's criminal element, but Batman doesn't. I believe Jason Todd as Red Hood is the one to point out that killing does work, and is more effective than simply trying to scare street punks straight.

So, Batman is not willing to sacrifice his personal moral code for the sake of others, which is essentially a selfish action. Still, it would hardly be considered evil.


who said anything of Batman being evil, I only think that at least entertaining the notion that Batman isn't the Ultimate man/hero, and that he has flaws with more depth than "I don't have powers" in setting with lots of superpowered people.


Also, I'd say Batman makes a lot of progress in the form of his every expanding adoptive family and network of fellow crime fighters. His demons are a bit darker than most DC superheroes, but he also deals with them in a much more constructive way than say Orion, and perhaps even better than supposed boy scouts like Superman.
You mean abducting children and teaching them they don't need thearpy to deal with loss, but combat training and channeling their anger into physical violence?

Look I like Batman and yeah in most stories I would prefer for it to end with Batman knowing he's a hero and that all he wants to do is help the helpless, but having a character deconstructed can be good for them and I find it fun.

[Lord Raziere]

Yea, comic book heroes are overdone deconstruction wise.

Of course, you could argue for that about everything, I'm actually starting to sense there might be backlash coming, and recommend actually to start reconstructing. technically it might already be beginning.

and that if you want to do the deconstruction thing, I'd be a little subtle with it, make it less "Watchmen" and more like something where when you add it all up, it makes people treat it as a puzzle and when they finally figure it out, they have made themselves deconstruct it, like solving a mystery and finding out the horrible truth.
and to balance out the seriousness of the deconstruction with a little humor and other stuff too. a work is more than its tropes y'know?

[Dienekes]

who said anything of Batman being evil, I only think that at least entertaining the notion that Batman isn't the Ultimate man/hero, and that he has flaws with more depth than "I don't have powers" in setting with lots of superpowered people.

More flawed than continuously pushing everyone who is remotely close to him away, ultimately and inevitably ending life alone, friendless, and stuck by his own hubris to keep going despite it all? Batman already is a mess, I really don't see what your point is here. He is a dark man whose vendetta against crime is fueled by anger.


You mean abducting children and teaching them they don't need thearpy to deal with loss, but combat training and channeling their anger into physical violence?

He only abducts them in All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. And that thing is crap. Hilarious. But crap.

Also Batman is a trained psychologist, and in most stories tries to talk them out of becoming Robin. **** disregards Bruce's attempts to help him deal with his issues and strikes out on his own, until Bat decides to train him so he doesn't get himself killed (in one origin story anyway). I don't remember Jason Todd's admittedly. But Timm Drake just goes out as Robin on his own accord more or less forcing Bruce to accept him as Robin.

[Devonix]

Yeah the Robin characters usually are people that are already on the path to taking justice into their own hands. Bruce trains them to try and at least give them the tools to survive their paths. A path he had help taking as well.

And Joker knows who Bruce is, he just doesn't care. Hell he's fought Batman without his mask on several times.

If society would decide to have Joker executed Bruce would gladly escort him to the electric chair. He's just not making the decision himself. And if it comes to killing the Joker to save innocent lives, he's got no problem letting doing so. In fact Joker's died a few times because of such things.

[Soras Teva Gee]

For the record, numerous Bat-tales do show or tell the reader that Bruce is using his wealth and connections to fix the world.

Also it should probably be pointed out that any one man can only have so much charity. Even the richest men in the world can only give away so much and remain the richest men in the world.

Let's say Bruce Wayne's makes 1 billion a year pure profit he can give away. Now Gotham mirrors NYC which has a current population of 8.2 million. This means that if Bruce Wayne decide to literally just throw money at the problem he and write everyone in Gotham a check for financial aid it would only come to $121.95. So Bruce can once a year buy everyone in Gotham... a full load of groceries.

Okay but lets say Bruce manages to give away 2 billion a year (lets say by not being Batman, not funding the League, or any charity outside Gotham) and Gotham only has 5 million residents being somewhat smaller then NYC. It works out to $400 dollars a year per capita.

Now no things aren't that simple by a long shot and spending smartly can maximize the effect over just throwing money around but when you run the numbers you get a sense of the scale involved in "saving" a major metropolis.

(Remembering also that Bruce has to spend sustainably, ensuring his net worth at least holds steady if he wants to keep it up)

[darkblade]

Since the opening post said to deconstruct any hero from any medium I'll take this opportunity to seriously deconstruct some heroes that while often looked at have rarely been examined in any serious light. The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers.

Let's start with the morality of the status quo to begin with. We have Zordon, an incredibly powerful but not very direct "wizard" living in a tube with his robotic companion Alpha. We are lead to believe he is a force for good in the universe and much of the show supports this. He is supported by the other good beings we see, Rita, Lord Z and the other villains are most certainly evil and working to destroy or conquer the Earth.

This all seems pretty black and white, except for the iconic line in the opening. "Recruit me teenagers with attitude", as anyone who ever watched the show can tell you the closest the teenagers who would become rangers had to any attitude was laughing at Bulk and Skull when they made fools of themselves. Now in the pilot itself he says a different line, later episodes all the way to Dino Thunder would refer to them by the line from the opening.

These kids did constant charity work, got good grades, and were all around model young men and women. They almost never acted with any selfish intention, anytime they ever disappointed or let down any kind acquaintance was when the minor charity work conflicted with the need to stop a monster from destroying the city. These are what Zordon considers to be teenagers with attitude, the very best that humanity can put forward as moral figures are not good enough for him. To him these kids are essentially Anti-heroes who are better able to fight these monsters on a level closer to their own but requiring strict rules to keep them in line (the whole deal about keeping secret identities, and not escalating fights).

As the show went on, it came to light that Zordon and other similar ancient beings have imposed their morality on various "evil" races and had them locked away both on Earth and on other assorted worlds across the universe. Since what he considers to be rough Anti-Heroes are among the best and brightest humanity has to offer, the vast majority of us don't even come close to matching that kind of criteria we would logically fall under the umbrella of "evil". As a whole humanity is considered to be necessary evil by these supreme beings, we serve as both bait and poison to these evil races. Zordon does not care about the fate of Earth or humanity but about keeping the various evil races contained to a minor back water world filled with insignificant amoral beings.

[Omergideon]

Pshaw, that's not a deconstruction of Power Rangers (especially as, as you said, the line is hardly in the real episodes, just the intro).

The real deconstruction begins with MMPR and the fact that he specifically chooses Teenagers as his soldiers in the war against evil. And this is a real war. They actively destroy/kill sentient beings ranging from Clap Golemesque critters to aliens visiting from another world with families, emotions and the like. Teenagers. Forced to fight daily/weekly in battles to the death with monstrous aliens. Kill or be killed. And we do not fully consider the effect this may have on them and their psyches? At it's simplest the line "Once a Ranger, Always a Ranger" can become a dark warning about the severe psychological trauma of such a secretive and dangerous lifestyle, that includes being mind controlled multiple times, facing nightmares come to life and worse. Even as kind and soft a person as Billy, Nerd Extreme, becomes a battle hardened warrior who lives to do nothing more than make new and better weapons for the team in their war.

This is not quite so bad in later series when the rangers tend to be volunteers, adults or chosen by accident and having to make do. But in MMPR or Mystic Force say.........yeah. This is a big deal.

[MLai]

Um, what does deconstruction mean when you guys say the word in this thread? :smalleek:

[Omergideon]

I am going by the normal version (AFAIK), which is to take the implications of a series or setting and run with them to logical extremes.

Not twist an existing fact around to have different ideas.

[Salbazier]

Pshaw, that's not a deconstruction of Power Rangers (especially as, as you said, the line is hardly in the real episodes, just the intro).

The real deconstruction begins with MMPR and the fact that he specifically chooses Teenagers as his soldiers in the war against evil. And this is a real war. They actively destroy/kill sentient beings ranging from Clap Golemesque critters to aliens visiting from another world with families, emotions and the like. Teenagers. Forced to fight daily/weekly in battles to the death with monstrous aliens. Kill or be killed. And we do not fully consider the effect this may have on them and their psyches? At it's simplest the line "Once a Ranger, Always a Ranger" can become a dark warning about the severe psychological trauma of such a secretive and dangerous lifestyle, that includes being mind controlled multiple times, facing nightmares come to life and worse. Even as kind and soft a person as Billy, Nerd Extreme, becomes a battle hardened warrior who lives to do nothing more than make new and better weapons for the team in their war.

This is not quite so bad in later series when the rangers tend to be volunteers, adults or chosen by accident and having to make do. But in MMPR or Mystic Force say.........yeah. This is a big deal.

To be more extreme, they are teenagers killing sentient beings for daily activity. It did not cause any trauma at all for them because they are either a)never truly consider the enemies as 'people' to the point of deluding themselves (Exception for few cases) or b)already have mental problems from the beginning.

A bit overdone and silly, I admit.

Anyway, why it have to be teenagers anyway? I didn't remember if there's ever any specific reason for it. Why did Zordon, supposedly a foremost leader of Good choose a number of inexperienced teenagers to shoulder the burden of fighting for a whole planet of lives?

[Omergideon]

And not only this, but as soon as they reach the age of leaving High School (18/19 years old) they were replaced with younger teenagers. And one injured ranger had been replaced by a 12 year old boy! He seems to pathologically avoid using fully grown adults and instead focus on child soldiers.

The only real reason I could possibly think of (beside ratings!) is that older people would be more likely to question Zordon. They would have their own opinions and feelings contrary to his orders. And he could not allow this. Supported by the fact that it wasn't until we got older rangers that people began to confront, question or go against their mentors. He chooses them young because they are malleable and controllable. Older people might question their role in a war and rebel against having to kill daily with no real support mechanisms.

Even a more charitable alternative is that he uses them as proxy children that he cannot otherwise have. This is less evil, but still potentially creepy.


Either way it seems that the use only of young teenagers as soldiers is the great issue of early power rangers.

[darkblade]

Supporting that idea the teams in the post Zordon Era that have adult rangers are mostly military or government based.

Lost Galaxy had personnel on a space colony.
Lightspeed Rescue was a essentially FEMA with mecha.
Time Force were cops from the future.

Wild Force were Gaia's Champion style teenagers except for the Sixth Ranger who was the boyfriend of their magical immortal mentor.
Ninja Storm were teenage ninjas (not to be confused with Naruto).
Dino Thunder were teenagers working directly under one of Zordon's original rangers.

SPD were not quite as far as in the future as Time Force cops.

Mystic Force had teenage wizards (not to be confused with Harry Potter) with the exception of the extra rangers again who are all adults but previously involved with both the good and bad forces of magic.

Operation Overdrive was Warehouse 13 as Power Rangers. Which had adults once again.

Jungle Fury was teenagers again (and an ambiguously stoned adult) with magical martial arts.

RPM had adults in a bad future where the bad guys had pretty much already won. They worked closely with what is left of the military and ironically had a teenager for a mentor.

Samurai has oddly racially diverse Samurai descendents who just so happen to be teenagers.

Although it's hard to tell sometimes since the actors are always in their twenties, any time the military or government has ties to the team it has adults but otherwise it is teenagers. The magical forces are intentionally recruiting children to fight their wars.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Um, what does deconstruction mean when you guys say the word in this thread? :smalleek:
In this context, it means:


taking apart all the elements that make up a character (or a story, or an entire genre)
examining them closely while refusing to suspend your disbelief (meaning, if something doesn't make sense, you don't say "aw, never mind, the character's cool anyway")
identifying flaws in the concept, such as things that defy reason, or things that contradict themselves, or things that disprove the supposed main quality of the character


Usually, the result is that the character won't seem as cool and/or well-written as he did before you sat down and thought about it. Or, at least, that's what deconstruction is mostly used for these days.

But it's entirely possible to use this method and end up full of praise for the character. Except that you'll have more solid arguments than "he's so cool", you'll have a proper process of critical thinking.

The most famous example of deconstruction is what Alan Moore did in Watchmen. He noted the fundamental conventions of the superhero genre, he put them in the context of reality (albeit an alternate one), and broke them to pieces one by one.

A vigilante is more likely to be a disturbed human being than a balanced person, even if he has good intentions - and that's not a given. An absolutist vigilante is more likely to be a completely unhinged, self-deluded menace. "Heroes" who fight for a country that commits war crimes will inevitably commit war crimes, too. If there were really people with Superhuman intelligence and the desire to do Good for humanity, they wouldn't bother with thieves in their hometown, they'd go for the long run and try to change mankind forever, doing away with war and hunger for starters. With questionable means, probably.

And finally, if someone as powerful as Superman did indeed exist, and if he chose to take sides with a specific country instead of humanity as a whole, the world wouldn't be the same. The scales would come crashing down, and his chosen country would prevail in a matter of days. And if, incidentally, he was so unrestricted by human biology and time and matter itself, he couldn't possibly keep identifying with human morality and values for long. He'd become something different, alien, and unfathomable for the lot of us.