Where the evil villain will go on a rant about how society is cruel and needs to change and that they’re going to change it. The hero opposes this for like zero reasons and somehow we’re supposed to be on the hero’s side.

Are we really supposed to believe that our society doesn’t need to change? Are we supposed to cheer for the status quo even when it’s shown to be terrible?

I also hate the sympathetic villain trope where it’s shown that the villain is the product of abuse and yet their want for revenge is still treated as unjustified.

  • KiaKaha [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    Graeber has you covered.

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s going on here. These “heroes” are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent, Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane’s pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the money in the world can’t seem to think of anything to do with it other than to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains.

    Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and ideas. Clearly, we are supposed to first, without consciously realizing it, identify with the villains. After all, they’re having all the fun. Then of course we feel guilty for it, re-identify with the hero, and have even more fun watching the superego clubbing the errant Id back into submission.