Thinking Out Loud: Why the Encore Matters

Back in 2019, in the wake of Avengers Endgame, I wrote an article called "Why the Endgame Matters" about the cultural impact of the film and why a silly superhero adventure was one of the most important moments in the decade. Like most of the insightful, thoughtful and passionate stuff I write on here, no one read it. My review of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter however, still gets regular hits. Media literacy was already dying before AI folks, AI is just the cowhammer to the skull of an entire generation of readers. Anyway, I went to see Avengers Endgame Encore the day after it dropped (that was a soon as I could get there) and, once again, I have a lot of thoughts and feelings. So let's do this again. Whatever it takes. For starters, the "additional content" in the Encore is a series of post-credit scenes that tie into Doomsday (which I'll go over later) and an introduction from Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. There are no AI-replaced actors, or changed lines or anything like that. There's been a bit of cleanup and some ADR, but otherwise, Encore is the film that's been burnt into my soul for seven years and counting. 

Watching Earth's Mightiest Heroes battle Thanos and travel through time again, the main feeling I found myself sitting with (aside from unmitigated glee) was one that I have become increasingly familiar with as I approach my 40th birthday; nostalgia. Given my time spent researching online Far-Right radicalisation, nostalgia is something I tend to wary of in general, so it took me a fair chunk of Encore before it occurred to me that the time I was being whistful for wasn't some mythical time of my childhood when I had an incomplete understanding of the world; it was for less than 10 years ago. I missed 2019. Acutely. The obvious reason behind this feeling was clearly that I miss the MCU films being good, right? No, actually. Though the "Superhero Media" will take a while to come through the backlog, I have enjoyed much of Wave 4 and think that after nearly 20 years, expecting every film to be the same quality is a little silly. Nor was I more than reasonably melancholy to see Chadwick Boseman in his iconic role again; rest in power, king. No, as I sat there positively rapt with joy, I found I wanted to return to a world before COVID. 

Now this isn't just some "the last decade has been shit" rant (though it has), but rather, I believe Avengers Endgame was the last big cultural moment the Global North shared before the pandemic started and that by watching again with all that behind us, not to mention the wars, genocide and climate collapse due to AI ahead of us is a genuinely uplifting experience. And one we can learn from. The tech bros, governments and billionaires they all work for and aspire to be are Thanos. They aren't just winning, they won a long time ago, before most of us were born. We may not be able to pull off a time heist, we may not save the world, but we can sure as hell Avenge it. If this is the end of everything we've known then I want to drag the ones who caused it with us. Whatever it takes. We lost so much during the pandemic because the few didn't want to make less money and it never changed. We don't have super powers but we can vote, march, join unions, write letters, shoplift, engage with the community, punch a cop, bomb a pipeline, delete Facebook, use public transport, help each other. Assemble. We are Groot. 

Five Video Game Genre Conventions that need challenging

Regular readers will know that I'm not really a big player of video games. I enjoy them and put some time in on the Switch or PlayStation most weeks, but I don't keep up with new releases, don't follow the culture, and probably couldn't pick between a picture of DOTA and League of Legends. I grew up with Zelda and Mario and Tetris like most of my generation, but as I hit adolescence, my interest tapered off, not because I wasn't interested in Video Games, but Video Games became increasingly less interested in me.

Back in the day (read: My Day, you ungrateful kids), titles like Commander Keen and Day of the Tentacle tried to be fun and innovative; taking risks and trying new directions for the still-emerging Video Game market. With the exceptions of Nintendo and Sega, Video Game software wasn't a market that one could expect to make a great deal of money in, people did it (partially) because they loved it. This view may seem nostalgic in the extreme, but have a look at companies like Midway or Rare back before they hit it big; I'll wager the "CEO" was living off instant ramen and really cheap coffee until Mortal Kombat or Goldeneye hit the shelves for the first time.

These days, Games are big business, which is (typically) a good thing for the industry; developers get the funding to put out some amazing titles and the boundaries are really being pushed as to whether Games can be considered Art or 'read' as 'text' in the same manner as Film and Television (in an academic sense, of course). However, success has always bred imitation, and the Video Games industry is feeling this trend hard at the moment. Take a good hard look at your favourite game and you'll probably find that it "borrows heavily" (or steals directly) from another popular game before it. The problem with this trend is not only the obvious stagnation of experimentation within games development, but also half the games you get to play seem exactly the same.

So, without further ado, here's a shortlist of five common features of Video Games that have shown themselves to be problematic, at least according to me in my grumpy and stagnant corner of the internet. 

1. Time Limits

As with most of the things on this list, I'm not saying that Video Games need to do away with Time Limits entirely, just that it proves to be an unnecessary crutch for poor storytelling. Back in the misty, far-off days of Super Mario Brothers on the Nintendo Entertainment System, there were no Continues, no Save Points and only so many 1-UP Mushrooms, so the only reason not to take a painfully long time agonising over every jump was the timer counting down from 300 in the corner of the screen. The original The Prince Of Persia also made good use of this mechanic, docking time from the Game Clock for each death. So it's not a big conceit to admit that a timer on a game can ratchet up the tension and aid in the suspension of disbelief.

However, when every second level (or mission or whatever) throws a timer up on the screen and screams at me to get out of the burning building (or away from the bomb or get to the hostage), the sense of tension is replaced by a sense of irritation. I'm in a freaking burning building, how is my natural intention to do anything but run for my life? In a film or television programme, dramatic tension can be added with music or other, less melodious, background noise; only in 24 and one episode of M*A*S*H can one see a clock up on the screen to increase tension. There are many films where a bomb is counting down to a climax, but it is only in video games, where the player is directly linked to the narrative, that a ticking clock is a common device to keep the protagonist under the pump. If only this technique was not included in almost every game, it wouldn't be so bothersome.

 

2. Boss Fights

Back when games were made with a resplendent 8 bits of graphics, the occasional fight against a fire-breathing turtle was an important signpost of progression amongst dozens of same-looking levels. What is interesting is that, in today's world of Quick Time Events and complex interactive storytelling, at least one Boss Fight can be found in every game. Certainly, a climatic and thematically appropriate battle against a worthy opponent at the end of a game can be satisfactory, but not every game can make this formula work. Think back to Red Faction for a moment, did the boss there really add anything to the game? Shooters are particularly bad at boss fights, a game that has primarily featured goons with a variety of guns and body armour throughout has its tone shattered when the head Mafioso turns up in a walking tank with jets and lasers.

As with my complaint against time limits, it is not the concept of Boss Fights that I find disagreement with, the Metal Gear Solid franchise has always made its Boss Fights engaging and story driven. Instead, it is the seeming necessity of repeated Boss Fights in games where they simply do not fit. Personally I think that because video games have always had Boss Fights, that they continue to do so, gamers expect and accept them as part of the gaming experience, regardless of their suitability in any given game. Once again I point to cinema as a proof that conflict is not the only climax that a story can utilise.

3. Downloadable Content (DLC)

With increasing profits in the Games Industry comes an increased drive to create successful titles and release them to the public. When a highly anticipated game is pushed back due to unforseen circumstances, the furore released is akin to that evoked by the Nuremberg trials. To combat this, many developers leave parts of a game unfinished, making "patches" or even whole levels and characters into little downloadable packets so that people won't call them out for putting the game out a few weeks late. In some ways this is a good thing; games are released in reasonable time and overly long delays are avoided. However, is it just me, or does this seem like a little bit of a cop out? If a game is not finished, why is it being put into stores? It's not like a film is put into the cinema with some of the post-production remaining to be done. Perhaps it is too much to assume that the gaming public could be expected to wait patiently for the whole game to be ready, but honestly, is it that much to ask? Think about it this way, if you wait a little bit longer for a game, you could play it straight away, no patch downloading, no wait to play the bonus missions, just the whole game, in the box.

Of course, it is not merely a lack of completion that causes DLC, there is the ever-present driving force of money to consider. If someone is willing to pay $100 for a game, what are the chances that the same person will pay a few dollars for an extra mission or a new character to play? When a story is continued through extras like this, it evokes in me the same feeling as the "Extended Universe" novels associated with various Television and Film franchises. If someone is so engaged with a text as to pursue every permeation of it, it always seems that the makers of that programme/game/film are right there with an open till. That's my real problem with DLC, I guess, it's a cheap cash-in and unabashedly so; like "Collector's Edition" DVDs and fake Master Swords to hang on the wall.

 

4. Chase Sequences

When playing a game like GTA or Need for Speed, one expects to chase another vehicle down a hazardous road a few times, it's part of the experience of the game and an accepted part of game play. When one is tasked with chasing someone down in a First-Person Shooter however, something feels amiss. Much like Boss Fights and Time Limits, chases have become a common element of most games from Platformers to Shooters. Once again, the odd chase that works within the narrative of the game is fine, but far too often a chase can be used to bridge an obvious gap. If travel needs to take place to link up the various narrative strands of a game, there are more options than a chase, if nothing particularly interesting is going to happen during the journey from A to B, perhaps it doesn't need to be covered. Too often the length of a game is padded out with unnecessary sequences that distract from the story and the chase scene is one of the worst culprits.

5. Push Start to Play

This may be a bit of a petty complaint, but why is the Start Screen different from the Menu Screen? The time and effort of programmers, designers and artists has been wasted on a screen that is seen for seconds at most. What difference would it make to have a game load up straight into the menu? In the worst cases, after pressing Start, more time is spend loading before one can access the menu and actually start playing the damn game. Admittedly, I'm not a programmer, and perhaps there is something important about pressing Start that I'm missing, but it really seems like a convention of games that is only still around because almost every game in history has had it. I understand that sometimes a demo or cut scene is visible before the menu appears, but again, is this really necessary? Also coming into this category are the self-promotional ads that games start up with, Gamers seem far more astute about production than one would expect, so many would know exactly the origin of a new game. The fact that a handful of game creators are becoming as well known as Film Directors (in the right circles) makes the self-promotion seem a little unnecessary.

 

That's all for today, hope you enjoyed the read.

Thinking Out Loud: Public Image Unlimited

Launched at the height of the Speculator Boom, Image comics, a creator-owned alternative to the big boys Marvel and DC, set out to be a unique and fresh voice in the comics industry. Famously, they did so with a lack of quality control, lawsuit generating disagreements and a great many missed deadlines, but despite a rough start and nearly collapsing several times, Image is still around today and is considered a purveyor of quality product. As well as producing the wildly-successful The Walking Dead and Invincible series, Image has become a home for smaller works like Empowered and Madman as well. Just what is and isn't part of the Image "universe" can be tricky to discern, as they don't have separate divisions like DC with Veritgo, but much like Marvel, quite a bit happens in the main Universe. If you've taken my advice and read Invincible, for example, during the "Invincible War" story, we see Youngblood, Spawn, Madman, Cyberforce and more fighting to save the Earth.

Actually, it goes beyond that, because an evil version of Invincible jokes that he thought Cyberforce broke up, a reference to the fact that the comic was canceled mid-run and had an excuse retconned in later. It's interesting, because back in the '90s, in order to have the appearance of having an actual continuity, Image comics did their own take on the New Gods that was pretty poorly received and way overblown to the point that they hired Alan Moore to write the wrap-up that buried the damn thing forever. No really. But, like the greats they strove to be, all that nonsense happened in the broader continuity still. I've been reading the series Local Man, about a former '90s heyday character being disgraced and having to move back to his tiny home town; it does a great job of capturing the mood of classic Image, whilst playing like a riff on Fraction Hawkeye combined with the early seasons of Smallville. In one part Jack, the protagonist, tells a priest about the time he met god during a massive crossover event and he was massive golden robot. That event happened in the comics, but Jack wasn't there as he was invented for Local Man.

What's the point of mentioning all this? Well, the willingness of Image to acknowledge and even celebrate their awkward adolescence, combined with Frew comics having unbroken continuity since Thor knows when has kind of got me thinking about my own work and the stuff I've jettisoned Vs what I kept. I've often said that I'll never bother posting my Dragon Ball Z fan-fiction, and I still probably won't, as it's really badly written, but maybe I can have those characters return in some way. Hell, I posted that Danton stuff as an exercise in preservation, but who's to say that having a Tri-Colour Dynamo or humanoid Badger wouldn't be fun in a game sometime? I mean, I love that Spider-Man had a Spider Buggy and an antagonist called "Turner D. Century", so why not embrace the times that what I did was a little cringy and silly? I never really delete old documents or throw out old notebooks (seriously, I found hand-written 3rd Edition 40k army lists the other day), so maybe some of my abandoned ideas have some merit I'm missing out on or have just ignored? Let's find out.

Thinking Out Loud: Inhale the State

Is Nindendo's Kirby an anti-capitalist icon? Well, no. I mean, it makes no sense that he would be, or that Sakurai and Hal have spent decades making entry-level games for children that indoctrinate them into agrarian Anarchism, but it's kind of hard to shake the idea once you see it. I covered this a little back in my Kirby Planet Robobot article, but I wanted to explore the idea more as it's just a bit of fun and very much in my wheelhouse. When not battling elder gods and manifestations of esoteric concepts, Kirby tends to find himself taking on petty dictators, mostly royalty or would-be conquerors, like King Dedede or Queen Sectonia. Now, there is more than one way to resist feudalism, but I don't see Kirby building industry and using economic power to force a governmental change to a capitalist model, so when he returns to a rural and naturalist existence, I'm thinking of the movements that inspired Bakunin more than anything.

As Kirby is, quite deliberately, something of a blank slate, we can never really know what he is thinking, beyond "I'm hungry", so any motivation to his actions has to be discerned in who he takes action against. In the original Kirby's Dream Land, King Dedede, an absolute monarch, has horded all of the food, and we have to assume the proletariat of Dream Land are left to starve whilst the King gorges himself. They work, he eats. Comrade Kirby defeats the King and redistributes the food while the credits roll. Of course, people will point out, not all of Kirby's enemies are royalty, there's Nightmare, Marx and Dark Matter, who are essentially eldritch gods, and, of course, Star Dream. Let's start with the godlings, who, aside from Marx (and that's just kind of an unfortunate coincidence on the name, really) are certainly not strictly Capitalist antagonists, but the extreme-Left does tend to be anti-religion, or at least anti-organised religion, so what's more radical than killing the gods? Outside of Kirby Right Back At Ya!, there is no demonstrated religion in Dream Land, though there is magic, so I wouldn't really assume anything more than a basic pantheism for most inhabitants. Trees have faces after all.

And Star Dream? Well, as I've said in regards to Planet Robobot before, I think it is one of the most blatantly anti-capitalist video games available, especially to children. Star Dream's plan is to monetise the entire universe so that it can control all wealth and capital, a universal monopoly controlled by one entity. If that's not capitalism as reductio ad absurdam, I don't know what is. What I didn't mention about Planet Robobot is that Susie, and later Star Dream itself, are modifying the landscapes and inhabitants of Dream Land in order to make them more "productive". Even King Dedede and Meta Knight are modified to be more efficient workers, losing their, for lack of a better word, "humanity" in the process. Susie offers Kirby several chances to join the corporation, which feature indoctrinating songs and propaganda, but as Kirby refuses (or perhaps simply fails to understand what is happening), Susie becomes increasingly frustrated and eventually decides to discard Kirby, as he won't fit into her profit-making machine. I'll say it again, I don't believe the Kirby games are anti-capitalist propaganda of any kind, but they can be read with that lens and I think doing so is an interesting thought experiment if you enjoy that kind of thing.

Superhero Media: Birdman

I first watched Birdman Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) a few years ago with the intent of reviewing it here, but I found I didn't have much to say, so let it slip by. Sometimes this happens with some of the media I view for the purposes of "Superhero Media" articles; I just end up with nothing much to say so I don't bother. However, after thinking on it and giving Birdman another go, I do have a few things I can talk about. First of all, Birdman is a very well made film with an excellent cast, and it's a joy to watch, so I do recommend it if you're into American independent film or want to give it a go. That said, Birdman has one fatal flaw that really undermines the entire film, essentially rendering the entire point, or one of them at least, meaningless and really robbing it of any residual impact. A big part of Birdman, which flows through the narrative, is the idea that traditional Broadway and theatre in general, is being overrun by Hollywood figures trying to use the legacy of the boards to create a false legitimacy for themselves. You know what? Completely agree. I think it fails to address the whole Andrew Lloyd Weber being simultaneously ubiquitous and shit thing, but a good start.

No, the idea espoused by Birdman is that Superhero cinema is destroying Hollywood the same way Hollywood is destroying Broadway. Ok, so there's a bit to unpack there. Although particular aim is taken at the MCU (Jeremy Renner is singled out because he's also won Oscars?) it's pretty difficult to get away from Keaton's own legacy as Batman; shifted from subtext to text by the "Birdman" framing device. Keaton was an accomplished actor before Batman, though known mostly for comedy, but his career floundered after Batman Returns, only recovering in recent years. This, oddly, was a pretty standard occurrence in the pre-MCU days, with Val Kilmer, Chris O'Donnell and even Famke Janssen kind of dropping off the radar for years after being in middling Superhero efforts. But the whole targeting the MCU thing? Aside from Edward Norton having been in an MCU film (and Keaton would be in the near future), one thing Marvel Studios has always done well is platform creators and talent. Look at Renner, I've seen his two award-winning turns, but how many people have seen The Hurt Locker and The Town compared to anything where he appears as Hawkeye?

I really don't even feel like tackling the whole "are these films valid?" question, as it really feels like a misdirect, and anyone who's still saying that Black Panther, Superman The Movie and The Incredibles have nothing valid to say as films must either be misinformed or outright dishonest. I can see that if one where a struggling filmmaker or actor, the success of the, admitted rather homogeneous, MCU series could well look like corporate moneymaking killing your "art", but as a frustrated novelist myself, I have to live with the knowledge that whatever I publish will end up read by fewer people than whatever Tom Clancy shat out over the weekend. That's the sacrifice talent makes to mediocrity, and it was felt at least as far back as the playwrights of Athens. For all the brilliance and moments of cleverness to be had in Birdman, and there are many, it gets undercut by the sheer pettiness of the premise and how it plays out. Superhero cinema isn't the bad guy, or the end of the industry or whatever panic is happening in the film press this week. Superhero stories are just as valid as any other genre, even if you don't like them yourself.

Thinking Out Loud: Light Claws

I was watching Violent Night, which I probably won't review here because it kind of barely scrapes the edge of relevance, even by my broad standards for "Superhero Media", and a thought occurred. Is Father Christmas a reasonable idea for a super hero? There's a few times that this idea has been explored, from a terrible episode of Doctor Who, one of The Venture Bros. Christmas specials and, my personal favourite, "Maul Santa" from webcomic Edison Rex. It makes sense in an odd way, as the modern version of Father Christmas is a Capitalist rebranding of Odin by way of Christian Terrorist St Nicholas. Odin himself appears in a lot of comics and superhero settings, so it's not a stretch by any means, though the comparative mythology is a little more complex between Odin and Father Christmas that a quick Google would indicate. Add to that the past 100+ years of popular culture and the very Americanised "Santa Claus" and perhaps that jolly old elf isn't terribly suited for the cape and tights sets after all.

Before we go too much further on, Edison Rex is a fun read if you've never bothered, but the character that embedded itself best in my memory is certainly Maul Santa, essentially a Christmas-themed Green Goblin riff, complete a holly wreath hoverboard and bauble bombs. I love this idea and have been searching for the perfect miniature for a couple of years now. If you have a lead, please let me know in the comments. Anywho, most interpretations of the character demonstrate some level of power[s] that could be called superhuman, or at least super, to some degree. Notably even St Nicholas, being a Saint and all, could do some fun stuff, when he wasn't beating the living shit out of people for failing to convert. In a superhero setting, where gods, science gone wrong and mythology live side-by-side, some version of Father Christmas isn't too far-fetched in the grand scheme of things.

Should a character like this be a hero, though? It kind of worked in Legend of the Guardians, if you remember that, and Violent Night works with the Father Christmas character having some minor powers but mostly just being an immortal Viking with some hammer skills. For my own time and money, I doubt I'll be exploring this idea beyond making a Maul Santa at some stage, as it's a little too twee for me and I don't celebrate Christmas at all. However, if someone ran with this concept, and did a decent job of it, I could see myself enjoying it, or at least appreciating the effort. Hell, my Equalisers setting has an entire super team based on a sing Beastie Boys music video, complete with miniatures and stats for SuperSystem, so who am I to judge? If Father Christmas is destined to grace a gaming table near me, I won't be too bothered, not matter if they're wielding bauble bombs, magic powers or just a big, bloody hammer.

Thinking Out Loud: Insane Clown Removal

I both watched and read Under the Red Hood again recently and found myself musing a particular question; why hasn't Batman killed The Joker? Putting aside metafictional reasons like wanting to keep popular characters around and general thoughts about content, the idea that Batman has so much blood on his hands for letting Joker continue to run around is pretty hard to escape. Now, I think it's pretty clear that Batman can't just kill Joker himself; there's the whole moral code thing, and the fact that he is invested to the point where he wants to torture and maim the Clown Prince of Crime kind of means that it's generally a bad idea for him, but that shouldn't be the end of the conversation, right? Undergraduate arguments about utilitarian maths being put aside, (because we're pure postgrad here baby!) even a strident humanist would be hard-pressed to argue that Joker being dead wouldn't be a net gain for society.

In a world where Batman decided he needed to kill Joker, for whatever reason, is there a way he could feasibly get it done? Now, he could just do the job himself, and has in some interpretations, but if he's so concerned about the "slippery slope", then why take the risk? Though his time as a superhero, Batman has connections with plenty of assassins, vigilantes and bounty hunters, from allies like Vigilante (not the cowboy one), Peacekeeper and Huntress though to outright antagonists like Lady Shiva, Deadshot and Bane that could probably take the job on, a few I feel would even have a decent chance against the Smiling Psychopath, or even rival his body count. But Batman can't just ask a friend, colleague or enemy to kill Joker for him, it would wound his credibility pretty badly and remove the moral high ground that enables him to be such a jerk to everyone. Though if Batman can't, maybe Bruce Wayne can?

So I guess this was a "The Pitch" all along, but this is kind of where I ended up with this question. If Joker isn't a problem that can be ended by Batman, why not have Bruce Wayne try? Say Bruce put himself somewhere where he could be potentially be harmed by Joker deliberately, though of course gives himself a decent out and minimises the risk. After surviving the 'attack', Bruce plays up being shaken and works to get Joker put away properly whilst "secretly" putting a reward out for his death. There's no reason Bruce couldn't be genuine in wanting to put Joker away more securely, but if an assassin actually manages to claim the bounty, hey, why not? In most media, the circle of people who know Batman's identity is pretty small, so whilst there would be major personal fallout for him, professionally as a hero, he would still be held in high regard. Being comics of course, any story like this would only last until the next writer wanted Joker back, but I still think it would be a fun story for a little while, and certainly nothing much like your traditional Batman fare.

Thinking Out Loud: Do Cyborgs Dream of Electric Lesbians?

Following on from my watching of the 2019 Ghost In The Shell film, I was discussing the franchise with friends and one of them was surprised when I mentioned that, canonically, Mokoto is a Lesbian. Is this something that people are not aware of? I'll admit that most versions don't cover Mokoto's sexuality as explicitly as the original Manga, with that one page I'm sure you found pretty quick, but even Stand Alone Complex has pretty obvious elements hinting at what's going on, or did you not notice that all of Mokoto's friends are women and they like to all sleep in her four-poster bed? I think the problem of "Queer Invisibility" is down to two reasons with Ghost In The Shell, one being that a hetronormative societal lens tends to minimalise queer behaviour; "oh they're just gal-pals!". Secondly, elements of Japanese Queer culture are not often translated over to the West and can be missed. Even with all my broad reading and viewing, I've found scant little available in English, though I highly recommend the novel Forbidden Colours if you can find it.

Anyway, let's discuss that infamous page in the manga, the one with all the naked women. There's some translation issues, but what is essentially happening is a group of women are using cyberwear to link their brains together and trigger a shared orgasm. Now, that's not strictly sex as we currently understand it, but it's pretty damn sapphic behaviour, especially for a high-ranking member of the Japanese Military. And here's were we finally get to the point I have to make about Scarlett Johanssen playing Mokoto. In Stand Alone Complex and S.A.C. 2nd Gig, it is pretty strongly hinted that Mokoto defected to Japan during "the war" (in-setting there was a third World War, but the details are pretty sketchy), most probably from Europe, as she's dismissive of Americans pretty often. But why bother with this character element? Well, even today, Queer persons and culture tend to be marginalised in Japan, so a Japanese creator wanting to make a queer character might be expected to find a way around criticism by, just for example, making her European rather than native-born Japanese.

Now, the 2017 Ghost In The Shell kind of wimps out on what could have been an interesting premise around Mokoto's origins and sexuality, but how much of that is down to backlash against Johanssen playing a character many assume to be Asian is pretty difficult to determine. I recall getting into a pretty fierce argument with a Chinese-Australian acquaintance who was adamant that Johanssen was "stealing" the role from an East Asian actor, and whilst I can see her perspective, Mokoto is, in a sense, a European woman wearing the "shell" of a Japanese woman. Of course, the 2017 version did nothing with this premise, which could have been really interesting, instead making Mokoto a Japanese woman in a European cyborg shell. I tend to believe that particular script element was due to backlash against Johanssen in the press, but of course I can never prove it. Hopefully any future adaptations of the story and characters for Western audiences do something interesting with Mokoto and her complexities.

Thinking Out Loud: Conspiring to Have Fun

As a teen, I was a big fan of Conspiracy Theories. I was never a believer, but I enjoyed the absurdity and mental gymnastics of the process of convincing oneself that the moon landings were faked or that aliens ran the US government. Sometime in the past decade though, Conspiracy Theories have shifted to be a recruiting tool for the Alt-Right. This really put me off the whole thing and I kind of left it alone for a while, but then two things happened. The first was that I completed my masters thesis "A systematic review of extant Psychotherapeutic interventions for combating Far-Right youth radicalisation through social media and comparable digital platforms", and the second was the Netflix series Inside Job. After both of those settled in my head, I was like "you know what? Fuck the fascists, I want to start enjoying conspiracies again as dumb fun"; so I did. If you can access the free streaming service, Tubi, there are thousands of hours worth of 'documentaries' from which you can draw inspiration or just laugh at while you paint.

Superhero comics have flirted with Conspiracies for years, with characters like Sasquatch and Wendigo being straight out of cryptozoology and plenty of hidden alien research and secret government departments galore. Pretty much no established setting doesn't have some kind of secret society, be it The Court of Owls or Secret Empire, and whilst these aren't always the best handled, they have become major aspects of the genre. Anyway, I'm kind of just hedging around things to fill out word length, what I really want to talk about is the Secret Space Program. If you haven't come across the SSP, then you are in for one hell of a ride, as it combines elements of Roswell, Stargate, Starship Troopers, Warhammer 40,000 and even deals a lot with Tom Delonge of Blink 182. There's moon Nazis, cloned super soldiers, hyperspace travel and alien sex orgies, like some glorious bricolage of entertaining nonsense and the best roleplaying game the 1990s never spawned. Of course, this turns out to just be a lead-in for Q-Anon and similar diet-Nazi shit best avoided, but while you stay in the SSP space, there is a lot of fun to be had.

The obvious question is, of course, can I game the Secret Space Program somehow? Superhuman soldiers cloned from great heroes of history fighting Nazis on the moon is so bang-on my Venn diagram of interests that I can't not at least try, right? Chopping the Alt-Right shit out is actually pretty easy, once you know what to look for, and even reversing that is more than possible, just add in plenty of women, queer people and people of colour as you go. Instead of a SSP soldier being the "clone" of Beowulf or King Arthur, try Fred Hampton or Harriet Tubman, for example. A bunch of black soldiers in power armour raiding a Nazi space station would be a hell of a thing and I'm already just brimming with other ideas that actively resist the conspiracy mindset. One of the best ways we can combat this recruitment tool for the Alt-Right is to drag it into the open and look at it for the nonsense it is. So get out there and put some of this shit in your games. Alien stargates to lost human colonies and flying u-boats? How can you not want to play around with that?

Superhero Media: Tron Legacy

I remember when I first saw Tron Legacy at the cinema; it was opening day, I went to the first showing and I don't remember more than one other person being in the cinema. It was magic. I have a bit of a soft spot for Tron to begin with, but Tron Legacy was everything I could have asked for. When the Daft Punk soundtrack started up, when the Recogniser landed, when Flynn's Arcade lit up, I was transported. A few days later, I took my then girlfriend to see the film, she hadn't seen Tron and was a few years younger than me, but I thought she would enjoy it. She did not. When I asked around as to who among my friends had seen Tron Legacy and what they thought about it, the response was also pretty negative. Not to be "that guy", but I really think most people don't get Tron Legacy; it's a story of gods and mortals, of faith and religion, of fathers and sons, and, perhaps most of all, about the power of belief in dictatorships. Tron Legacy is a masterwork of Science Fiction, but it seems no one will ever know. 

Years after the disappearance of Flynn, his son, Sam receives a clue to to his possible whereabouts which leads him to an old Tron machine at Flynn's Arcade. Before you can say "iconic sequence", Sam is sucked into The Grid and is soon fighting for his life in a nightmare dystopia ruled over by Clu, the dark, digital reflection of Flynn. The Grid is beautiful, in high-contrast gloss colours like a neo-noir fever dream, with sleek edges and hard lines to evoke the look of the original Tron whilst still remaining something entirely new; visually, Tron Legacy is a feast, better even that Avatar in my opinion. Then there's the overarching narrative, whilst Sam isn't all that interesting in of himself, the ongoing conflict between Flynn and Clu holds deep meaning. The most obvious comparison would be Paradise Lost, with Clu in the Lucifer role, but it is Flynn who is cast into the wilderness and the Isos are spawned from nowhere, so the text I'd be inclined to consider would be William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Clu is the Urizen aspect of God, measuring out the world and not accepting of chaos and emotion interfering with his good works. 

Flynn, the true creator, retreats from his creation, while his greatest champion, Tron, is slain and resurrected to serve the Antagonist, not dissimilar to Blake's take on the Archangel Michael. Am I saying Tron Legacy is a postmodernist, digitalist take on the works of William Blake? Probably not, especially when the writer's other works are considered in the context, but the reading is there to be made and there's a decent Thesis in it for anyone who cares to try. Oh and the conflict between the spontaneously-generating Isos and the Programs made by Flynn is a whole other thing that we'll have to discuss in the next one of these. Yes, there will be a next one, as I've found one more piece of Tron media, and it explores the Isos better, so watch out for that somewhere down the track. Tron Legacy is amazing, and with any justice and a sliver of hope, it will become a cult classic for future generations. 

Thinking Out Loud: Big Hero Sex

So this article is about the theoretical sex lives of characters in a children's cartoon. Not because that's the kind of thing really interests me, or turns me on, but because I've had this idea in my brain for years and need to get it down to get it out to make space for something useful. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too skeevy or pornographic, as that isn't what I'm going for, a healthy sex life is an important part of personal development and given that the older members of Big Hero Six (Fred, Go-Go, Honey Lemon and Wasabi) are probably somewhere in their early-to-mid twenties, it just kind of makes sense that they're engaging in this kind of thing, even if it's never on-screen. First big bombshell, I think Fred has had sex with everyone in the group. Yes, Fred is an eternal man-child, but he's demonstrated as having an irresistible charisma and I think he's just charming enough that he does alright. Is Fred bi- or pansexual? I doubt he really knows what he is, he just follows along with what he likes and doesn't bother with much self-examination.

The other big claim I have is that Honey Lemon is trans-feminine. This one is pretty tenuous, but throughout the animated series, Honey is referred to as "Tall Girl" repeatedly, which she chafes at. It's not universal, but within the trans community, trans-femmes can use the moniker "Tall Girls" to identify, and Honey does have moments where the "girly-girl" mask slips a little, such as when she gets really into professional wrestling or finds a boy band insufferable. I don't, for a minute, think that this reading is intentional on the part of the authors, just an odd coincidence of trying to write the character similar to how she was portrayed in the film. I also tend to think that if Honey has particular feelings for any other member of the group, it's Fred; though she recognises that he has a lot of growing to do and doesn't actively pursue the relationship. This frustrates Go-Go though, who has a huge gay crush on Honey Lemon. Yeah, sporty girl is a lesbian is a pretty obvious trope to fall back on, but Go-Go really only seems to have close relationships with other women in the series (Wendy Wower) and Hiro, a child.

Probably the least subtle in the series is Wasabi No-Ginger being gay, which, again, doesn't feel so much deliberate as plainly obvious. The one time he really seems to get into someone in the series, it's a genetically "perfected" male assistant who is a great cook and ideal host. Wasabi is certainly only just figuring out his sexuality and probably edges towards being ACE, but it is there to see if you're looking for it. I think the reason this stuff has been on my mind has more to do with my wanting the characters in the media I'm watching to have a little more depth without resorting to the typical grimdark nonsense. The majority of the Big Hero 6 team are in their twenties, so naturally would be likely to be engaging in sexuality and relationships, and nothing here is intended to be overly salacious or out of reasonable possibility for the setting. What these characters would be like if they were a little more "real" is fun to consider, and I don't feel much guilt thinking about them as adults with adult relationships.

Thinking Out Loud: The Hero of Time

Hey there! This is another one of those entries that's not even tangentially about superheroes, just something that's been on my mind that I had to get down somewhere. So sorry, come back next time for something involving capes and tights.

I'm of the age that I owned a Nintendo 64 at the time it was the current generation of console, and would occasionally get games as gifts or whathaveyou. Like many of that age, I fell in love with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, finishing it many times over; it was actually my first Zelda game, and even to this day the series doesn't feel "right" to me in the classic 2D-style. Sadly, I couldn't afford to do more than borrow a copy of Majora's Mask back in the day, but I made up for it with the 3DS version as an adult. Even now, if I'm sick, or even on holiday, running through Ocarina and Majora is a good way to spend my time.

Oddly, these games have actually gotten better as I've gotten older. I mean, I don't think there was stuff there that only came to light later, more that, having done degrees in English Literature and Film Studies, my critical faculties have greatly increased and I can see more in the narratives than I could when I was a literal child. Themes like loss of childhood, inevitability and the need to find closure permeate Ocarina of Time, which is part of the reason it still resonates with players decades on.

Majora's Mask is about trauma and grief, right? I don't know if it was a deliberate choice by the makers of the game (given general Japanese cultural attitudes towards Mental Health, I doubt it), but every element of the game is steeped in loss and the pain it brings. The antagonist has been so hurt by the world that he lashes out in an apocalyptic manner as soon as he has the power to do so, the cartoon fantasy equivalent of a school shooter. The game even starts with the bullying victim bullying the next person down the chain (Link, yes that was a pun) because it's the only power dynamic Skull Kid can relate to. Ah, but I hear you say, aren't the majority of school shooters racially motivated? Well, what does Skull Kid do to Link after stealing his horse for a joy ride? He forces a new, "lesser" racial identity on Link, which causes the people of Clock Town to vilify him, refuse him service in shops and basically treat him as a second-class citizen. With the Business Scrubs and the fact that only the local Banker is keen to talk to Deku Link, there's probably an allegorical reading of the European Jewish experience to be had, but we'll leave it at that.

And what of Link? Well, he starts the game running. From what? Here the "nebulous" nature of Zelda cannon can be easy to trip up on, but I tend to see Majora's Mask as the direct sequel to Ocarina of Time. At the end of Ocarina, Link is forced to return to childhood, despite having spent a not-insignificant amount of time as an adult, putting his life on the line to defeat a mad wizard whose evil has literally twisted his childhood home into a place of nightmares. Of course, the world where Ganon has been defeated has no need for Link, and Zelda seems to be working from a framework of compassion in sending him back, but Link has been forever changed and cannot go back to his life of the most bullied Kokuri. How do the Ocarina credits end? With Link running into Zelda's courtyard as a child once more. Whilst there is a perfectly fair romantic reading of Link and Zelda's relationship, I tend to feel that the connection they share through the Triforce is probably deeper than that, given that the three are continually reincarnated to act out the same struggle throughout history. Naturally, the child Zelda is unable to relate to the Link who has been an adult, seen the future and felt the blood of evil men on his hands, so he has lost even that connection and flees Hyrule entirely, searching, perhaps unconsciously, for someone who can relate to his experience.

Meanwhile, back in Termina, Link is stuck in a "Groundhog Day" three-day loop where he can watch those around him go from disbelief to panic to horrific fiery death knowing that he will survive and have to do it all again. And how does Link combat the end of the world? By putting on masks that literally change him into someone equipped to fix the problem, a process that is clearly painful and traumatic, but which Link puts himself through repeatedly to save others. There's probably a D-I-D reading there, but that's way above my Psychotherapist pay grade. Depending on how familiar with Majora's Mask you are, it may take quite a few runs through the last three days of the world for you, though Link, to save it, so just how many times does this poor child who has seen and lived through way too much already see the world end because he failed? Once all the titans are awakened, Link can prevent the moon from hitting Termina and save the world, pretty standard fantasy stuff, really. However, is this allegorical? Is Link really accessing an inner strength, or perhaps building his Maslow's Pyramid? Link leaves Termina at the end of the game, his belongings restored, but how is he psychologically? Is he stronger for what he has gone through, or has this adventure broken him even more?

And where could this lead next? That's a question that has been floating around my brain for years, off and on. Yes, I know about the "Split Timeline" and all that, and I've played other Zelda games, but I want to know what happens to this Link, the one who defeated Ganon and then Majora before wandering off into the dark areas of the map. Well, sorry to say, all this was a lead-in to another one of these speculating on a possible final installment of a trilogy. So keep an eye out for that, sooner rather than later.

Thinking Out Loud: Anarchist Super Heroes

So having covered some of the quagmire of what politics superheroes tend to represent previously, let's take a look at something closer to my home; Anarchist Superheroes. Are there any? Well, that's a little tricky, if I'm being honest, because Anarchism, as an ethos and political stance, can be a bit nebulous. Part of that is the "Left" just not being super intersectional, in that two people can call themselves Anarchists, but have different views on a couple of things and end up fighting. So let's consider the broader implications of contemporary Anarchism on this one, rather than breaking out the Bakunin. If I limit myself to wanting to eliminate nations and abolish government as we know it, I can actually find a character or two that fits the bill. First of all, characters that are merely anti-police or pro-socialism, like Alison Green or Invincible, are clearly not Anarchists, despite their Leftness, as they wish to reform the system, not demolish it. No we need someone who likes to smash, some kind of Hulk, perhaps?

Yeah, Immortal Hulk is our first stop, as he's probably the best example of both a character and a comic with a radical bent to it. Hell, Devil Hulk's (love the irony) main antagonist is the Roxxon corporation, run by a literal inhuman monster capitalist, like, it's not even subtext, it's just text that this billionaire is a monster that eats people and wants to destroy the world. And Hulk openly states that he wants to end human civilisation, though not humanity, to save the planet before it's too late; it's a far cry from Iron Man thinking that getting cell phones into Africa will solve any of the world's problems. Of course, the other name everyone is going to think of is V, the masked revolutionary of V for Vendetta, an avowed anarchist who's sign is an inverted Anarchy symbol. V is actually a great example of the problems with contemporary Anarchism, especially in the graphic novel, where V undertakes his crusade with no consideration for how the people of England will react or be affected by his actions. Certainly not an intersectional Leftist.

V is problematic because he is also out for specific revenge and isn't really particularly humanist whilst he's going about destroying the system. Even in the film, V performs some pretty dark acts in order to achieve his goals which are, arguably, not redeemed by his death. My favouite at the moment is Karli Morganthau and the Flag-Smashers from The Falcon and The Winter Solider, who are not only intersectional Anarchists, but, during "The Blip", actually got to live in a border-less society with universal housing, healthcare and support; no wonder they're prepared to fight to get that back. And the programme doesn't frame them as outright villains! That's amazing, given that a good 150+ years of propaganda has made the word Anarchy synonymous with 'lawlessness', which, you know, it just isn't, Anarchism just has different methods of law-keeping. Yes, Karli turns to violence and murder as she escalates, but that is responsive behaviour to the arrival of Captain America and her friends being attacked. She's not perfect, but just seeing an Anarchist be presented as a reasonable and logical person is pretty unique, and I really enjoyed it.

Thinking Out Loud: The Overton Phantom-Zone Viewer

An interesting little discussion I get into occasionally is "where do superheroes sit politically"? Now, this is kind of a dumb question on its face, as individual characters would have different political leanings, not to mention that different writers will put their own spin on things. Also there is the Overton window, which shifts over time, further muddying the already fraught notions of the "Right" and "Left" in politics. For example, your average American may consider the Democratic party as "Liberal", though by the standards of Australian politics, the Democrats would still be considered fairly "Conservative". Also, our Liberal party is pretty damn conservative and our Conservative party are a bunch of religious nutbags that no one takes seriously, just to be extra confusing. For myself, being an anarchist, pretty much no political party at home or abroad represents what I want or stands for the same thing I do, so the notion of democratic "Left" and "Right" parties is kind of nonsensical from where I sit, and I honestly consider the "Leftist" parties of Australia to be closer to the "Centre" for the most part.

The argument is, and it's not a bad one, truth be told, that because Superheroes maintain "order", they must be Conservative, as there is the assumption that the society they're helping to protect is worthwhile. Ok, so, yes? You rarely see superheroes raging against the government, and even when you do, in say Civil War or The Dark Knight Returns, there isn't really anyone agitating for the end of capitalism, as I would in their place. Then again, comics, especially Marvel Comics, have a history of being an "outsider" medium, with the Silver Age being replete with support for the Civil Rights, Environmental and Spiritualist movements, all of which are still considered outside of the mainstream, to some degree. Most superheroes are humanist, at least to a certain degree, being against killing their foes and trying to avoid fights, and I tend to place Conservatism and Capitalism as non-humanist, what with the whole letting people die of exposure and starvation rather than pay for them to have housing and food thing. I think if you exist only in the false and inaccurate Liberal/Conservative dualism of politics that is common in Western Democracies, then reading Superheroes as predominantly "leftist" is fair, though not the whole story.

As the internet provides more access to information outside of what is deemed "acceptable" by the mainstream politics and media in your country, (Australian media is weirdly conservative compared to our culture, for example) young people are finally able to learn what terms like "Anarchist", "Fascist" and "Socialist" actually mean, rather than how they are framed by those already in power. I have to admit, I used to have very incorrect assumptions about all of them, and I actually only realised I was an Anarchist when I was actively seeking out a label to help explain my political views to others. Even now, when I tell people I am an Anarchist, there are plenty of assumptions that I find I have to fight, but thankfully, most of my peers are at least willing to consider what I have to say. In the past few years, as the people writing comics get to be of my generation and younger, the politics of heroes are shifting. Be it the MCU Flag-Smashers, Alison Green or even the Immortal Hulk, some heroes are getting more radical in their politics and approach to the status-quo that they once safeguarded. I don't know if this is indicative of a bigger shift in how Superheroes are written, or if it's just a case of companies "going woke" to make more money, but you can be sure that I'll be keeping an eye on it and hoping.

Thinking Out Loud: Serial Killer "Heroes"

After the success of serial killers as villains in 1980s and '90s comics, where was there left to go? Naturally, make some of them into heroes. Now, I'm not talking about The Punisher here, Frank is pretty much never represented as a sociopath or psychopath and his approach is pragmatic, not psychosexual in any way. What about Venom? Certainly some publications featuring the character as a protagonist lean in heavy on the murder and mayhem, but I want to go even deeper. I was actually watching the second season of Hannibal, when a man in a pneumatically-powered, cave bear-themed murder suit was jumping through a window, and my first thought was, "Wait, shouldn't this guy be fighting Spider-Man instead?" After doing some quick thinking about how to make an appropriate miniature, I went to considering the titular Hannibal's plan to create a "team" of serial killers and how that may work in comics. After a minute or two, I dismissed the idea as being pretty terrible and generally the kind of thing an adolescent would think up. 

Thankfully, I'm not one of those Psych graduates who has an intense interest in psychopaths, sociopaths and serial killers (despite The Silence of the Lambs being my favourite film), so I'm not likely to look at a murderous antihero like Kaine or Red Hood (Jason Todd) and be instantly enthralled. However, if I was the only kind of comics fan, basically the entire industry would be Invincible, Marvel NOW! Hawkeye and Atomic Robo, so maybe that's a good thing? Anyway, thanks to the "success" of the Venom film, as well as people misinterpreting why the Deadpool[s] and Logan were so good, a resurgence of the "Killer" superhero is happening in comics, television and film, leaving me sighing quite a bit as supposedly grown men get excited about Carnage being on the big screen. Hell, don't get me started on Joker, I'm actually glad that the COVID-19 pandemic canceled PAX Melbourne 2020 just so I didn't have to see 200 guys dressed like sad clowns while they complained about Captain Marvel not having a masculine narrative structure. Ok, this one's getting a bit off-topic, sorry. 

The serial killer is a fascinating bogeyman for audiences because they look so much like us but are so different in many ways. Pretty much everyone has indulged in a brief fantasy of murdering an overbearing manager, frustrating customer or significant other of our object of desire, but killing as a sexual release is utterly alien to us. Hannibal Lecter, Zodiac and Joker are fascinating and engaging villains because they are unknowable in terms of motivation (Joker less so as writers keep going back to the well of diminishing returns that is his origin). Heroes, on the other hand, even antiheroes, have pretty clear motivations, be they guilt (Spider-Man), duty (Captain America), altruism (Superman) or even revenge (Batman); but turning that to "getting my rocks off with violence" only worked in Watchmen. And Watchmen, just to reiterate for those still in denial about this, is not intended to glorify its characters. As interesting as they are to think about, Hooded Justice, The Comedian and Rorschach aren't heroes for the ages, and don't really need their own series or films to "fill out", as there's not that much there to begin with.

Thinking Out Loud: Serial Killer Villians

In the grim and dark reality of 1990s comics, a new kind of villain emerged, edgier and more dangerous that what had come before it; the Serial Killer. Murderous villains had been a thing since the Golden Age, of course, with even The Owl and Egghead racking up the odd kill, but with the change in tone and market that came with the Dark/Iron Age, things changed. Suddenly, rather than taking on costumed criminals or mob bosses, Daredevil and Batman were fighting The Surgeon General and Mr Zsasz. Now, a superhero fighting a murderer isn't the worst thing in the world, especially for the more detective style characters like Batman and Daredevil, but how about someone more lighthearted in tone, like Spider-Man? So I, personally, find Venom to be a pretty uninteresting villain, but much of his original run is good and as the "glass darkly" version of Spider-Man, he does well enough. Naturally, Venom wasn't hardcore enough for the 1990s, so along came Carnage. 

Not only was Carnage even "worse" than Venom, his first host was a serial killer (Cletus Cassidy), he was red, and his super powers let him make nasty bladed weapons. Yawn. Sure, there have been a couple of decent Carnage stories, I remember one where the symbiote was hopping people to escape attention that was a fun mystery, but "edgier Venom" can never be that interesting when Venom is just "edgier Spider-Man". But back to Mister Zsasz, who immediately gets points for having a palindrome name, he's enjoyed something of an upswell in fans thanks to his appearances in Arkham City and Birds of Prey, and I actually don't mind him as an antagonist; most of the time. In the tie-in issues for Batman: No Man's Land, there's a story where Dr Leslie Thompson elects to treat an injured and unconscious Zsasz despite the danger; it's an interesting story with some ethical dilemma and is a nice break from the main story. That is, unit Zsasz starts killing people in his sleep. Yes, he's so deadly, he murders people whilst unconscious. Odin's beard is that dumb. 

So what am I getting at will all this complaining? Well, the 1990s were not a great time for comics, though I maintain there was plenty of gold if you looked, but it's still pretty much all stuff that happened, and comics love keeping track of stuff that has happened. So now, when we look back and go, "man, Maximum Carnage is really pretty bad", it kind of doesn't matter because Carnage is still here, he never went away. In fact, pretty much all of the Serial Killer Super Villains are still with us, and will now be forever. What's bugging me about that is how much I see the trope pop up in indy comics, even when it doesn't really fit. Hell, as great as it is, Invincible is already pretty violent, so did Conquest really add anything as a character or was it just a fun fight? I know when we homebrew our settings, we want a Joker or a Venom, but does that really fit? Hell, is it at least interesting? What does Zodiac or BTK in a colourful costume add to your story other than an excuse for buckets of blood? Think on that and we'll examine the flip-side of the coin later down the track.

Thinking Out Loud: The Ditko Effect

More and more I've noticed that Steve Ditko's name is on a lot of films and television, especially those put out by Marvel. Mostly this takes the form of little credits like "Spider-Man created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko", and mostly this is a good thing, with many creators having been denied credit for their work in the past; even if they're dead, like Ditko, they deserve to be known for what they did. There is something about Steve Ditko getting more and more press however, that gets my hackles up. Firstly, I love Ditko's work, I have plenty of Silver Age Spider-Man, The Question and Doctor Strange in my collection and have even tracked down some Mr A here and there, so I'm not knocking his contribution to the medium or saying he's not entitled to the posthumous accolades he's been belatedly awarded. What I'm having more and more issue with, is the Dikto apologists and the impact, deliberate or no, that they are having on the discourse around superheroes. Sorry, this is another politics one, see most of you next week. 

That Steve Ditko was an Objectivist is no secret, and should not shock anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Comics history. For the uninitiated, Objectivism is sect of hardcore, right-wing, Libertarian thought, pioneered by the terrible novels of Ayn Rand and still a popular school of "thought" among conservatives. Put briefly, Objectivism posits that the bulk of human society should support the work of the extraordinary individuals among us and place no restrictions on their unbridled genius. Not a terrible idea on the surface, but if you dig down you find that every proponent of this idea thinks they're the special ones, and we have enough trouble with keeping the powerful to any ethical code already. Yes, I'm pretty far astray from Objectivism on the political spectrum, so call this sour grapes if you will, but touting Ditko's genius without also pointing out the unfortunate elements of his thinking can be pretty dangerous. You see, whilst Objectivist thinking isn't inherently bigoted, it is very attractive to those looking to justify their already racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/bigoted worldview. 

Was Ditko himself a bigoted person? Well, the evidence is mixed there, and a lot of publications offer contrary opinions, but at best, he was difficult to work and live with, often treating people around him, especially fans of his, poorly. Ditko's beliefs, however, are pretty plain to see in a lot of his work, from unbridled scientific research in Spider-Man through to The Question literally vanquishing opponents with his righteous dedication to the truth. Yes, in Silver Age issues of The Question, he "eviscerates" his foes with "facts and logic". To my mind, if these works were allowed to stand on their own, there wouldn't be too much of an issue, as I trust readers to be discerning and only a handful of morons will get their philosophical and political beliefs from superhero comics. Due to Ditko's legendary status in the industry, however, a comment on an online forum or in a crowded comic store along the lines of "I love classic Doctor Strange comics, but Ditko's politics kind of grate after a while", is an invitation to be dog-piled. 

So what am I asking for here? Basically, I'd like us to treat Steve Ditko the same way we started treating Stan Lee before his death; like a human with flaws. Lee has copped a lot of blame, some of it fair, for the way many artists and writers had credit stolen from their work in the Silver Age by publishers and he had to account for that publicly and professionally. As Ditko never really chased the spotlight, he didn't have that same period of accountability for his less admirable traits, and since his death, people, especially fans, don't wish to speak ill of a great talent. All I'm asking is, can we admit that Ditko had some toxic beliefs? Don't throw away his comics, don't stop reading his work and don't stop showing it to the next generations of fans, but as you do so, point out what's wrong and why. Hell, I like to assume we're already doing that with some of racism, sexism and other assorted bigotry of classic comics, so just add in something about "Ayn Rand was a moron, don't take this seriously" as you go. Oh, and read some Mr A, it's a fucking trip.