Today we’re going to talk about this video here.
Well recently I discovered that John Green released a video titled, “I Kind of Hate Batman,” which is admittedly a title that’s obviously designed to be flame bait. And while I’ll admit that I’ve certainly done things for the sole purpose of attracting attention like that, I’ll point out that I’m a guy who writes angry sporks on the Internet, rather than an international best-selling writer lauded as one of the greatest authors of our time who helps to lead a rather sizable worldwide Internet following.
Also, it’s a terrible video. It is an analysis of Batman by someone who knows jack shit about Batman (which usually wouldn’t be so much of an issue if it weren’t for the fact that this is a guy who teens listen to and look up and critics have hailed as one of the greatest literary minds of our time). More than that, the reasoning put in it is nonsensical and reeks of someone trying to preach a moral lesson rather than anything close to analysis of a fictional character. Now to be fair his brother Hank posted a response to the video which can be viewed here and addresses several of his points. But I thought I’d do more coverage because I have no life, the TFIOS spork hasn’t been updated in a while, and I felt like it.
First, a disclaimer: I am not writing this to make you like Batman. I don’t care whether or not you like Batman. You’re not obligated to like the character, and it’s not my business. My purpose in writing this essay is to illustrate that John Green’s arguments in his video are awful, considering how brilliant he supposedly is, and hopefully prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
And before I go on I should point out, as I have on comments before, that John Green is an advocate for a popular literary criticism theory referred to as “Death of the Author.” It basically states that the author’s intentions or ideas outside of the text itself don’t matter. And it’s not without merit—I mean, if Jim Butcher were to stand up and say, “Actually Dresden Files is about the negative effects of industrialization,” we’d all laugh and say he was wrong, because there’s no indication in any of the books that it’s actually the case.
John Green, in his take on this theory, tends to pick and choose what bits of author information he feels like. So for example, he makes a point to say that Hufflepuff isn’t so bad because Tonks was in it (a fact not revealed in any of the Harry Potter books but by Rowling herself), but when Rowling came out and said in hindsight that Hermione and Ron weren’t such a great couple, he posted “BOOKS BELONG TO THEIR READERS” in big letters on his Tumblr blog. Despite this “book belonging to their readers” business, he’s always been quick to point out what he meant and didn’t mean in writing his own books. Which isn’t wrong, but like I said, by saying that’s what the book definitively meant then it kind of negates the point of books not being the author’s, doesn’t it?
His video on Batman embodies the worst aspects of this criticism movement—that is, bending the material to fit your already preconceived notions. It’s the reason why the idea of Satan being the hero of Paradise Lost still persists—people keep saying he is, so when they finally get around to reading it that’s what they mold the text into, despite the fact that Satan is a lying douchenozzle throughout the poem. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “Almost anything can be read into any book if you are determined enough.”
Adding to this confusion is the reality (or is it the fiction?) that Batman is an incredibly difficult character to pin down under a specific set of traits. Yes, there are elements that stick in every version of the character, but Batman over the years has changed an incredible amount. Just check out this chart for an example. John Green doesn’t specify which version of Batman he is talking about; something that his brother Hank makes sure to do in his rebuttal. So already the analysis is somewhat problematic and lacking in weight, because the parameters aren’t set.
So on to the debate itself! What is Green’s first argument?
Like Hank, if I were a billionaire the first thing I would do is pledge ninety percent of my money to charity…
Point being, Hank, I don’t think I’d be a particularly good or generous billionaire, but one thing I wouldn’t do is spend a gajillion dollars developing a Batmobile that only I am allowed to drive.
This is actually not an awful argument on the face of it. I mean, assuming that before Batman showed up the only criminals in Gotham were for the most part regular people instead of psychos like the Joker or Killer Croc, that city could do with a lot of charity work. However, some things to point out:
A) Almost every piece of Batman media I have ever seen, whether it be comic, animated series, live-action movie or video game, at least references Bruce Wayne’s charity work in some form or another. You could definitely argue that Batman doesn’t give enough to charity, but Green doesn’t do that. Which is a problem. One of the things I’ve had drilled into my head for every persuasive speech I’ve had to do for school is that you have got to acknowledge the opposition in some way, if only to refute it. This isn’t doing that at all. It’s ignoring anything that can be used as opposition.
B) This statement implies that he’s not talking about the Nolan movies. We don’t always get a good origin story for Batman’s car, but in Batman Begins we do, and we know that Bruce didn’t spend a gajillion dollars on it, because in that film the Batmobile was already built before Wayne returned to Gotham. He may have spent money upgrading it or painting it black, but he didn’t really develop it.
But like I said, it’s a fair enough point. It’s why I like shows like Justice League Unlimited and Batman: The Brave and the Bold for occasionally showing superheroes do something besides punching bad guys in the face. People with these privileges, gifts and abilities using them to help others is a great idea, and I’m sad it’s not as investigated more with this genre—
Look, Spider-Man got bitten by a radioactive spider. He has to be Spider-Man. He doesn’t have a choice, he can’t stop shooting webs so you might as well use that skill to aid the police.
…So let me get this straight: you’re saying that Batman shouldn’t fight crime but instead donate most of his money to charity, but because Spider-Man has powers, he has no choice but to punch bad guys in the face?
What?
No, Peter Parker does not have the financial status to be able to give that much money to charity. But let’s look at his skill set—he’s an amazing scientist, is super strong and agile, and can travel around the city faster that an ordinary person. So why doesn’t he work the fire department? Or rebuilding places hit with disasters like tsunamis or hurricanes or earthquakes? I’m certain his skill set can be used in that regard. He definitely does have a choice.
And John Green’s assertion that if he were Bruce Wayne he’d give most of his money to charity opens all kinds of questions. Like, “Why doesn’t Spider-Man use his powers for disaster relief?” Or, “Why doesn’t Harry Potter use his magic to fix as many problems of the Muggle world as he can?” Or, “Why doesn’t Percy Jackson just go to places where there’s droughts and fix it?” And usually it wouldn’t be hard for writers to answer these questions, but they don’t always do that. Yet John Green applies this question specifically to Batman because his special privilege is money, as if money were the only solution to the problems of the world.
But Batman is just a rich guy with an affinity for bats who is playing out his insane fantasy of single-handedly ridding Gotham of crime; how is that heroic?
I’m tempted to just leave this quote from Batman: The Brave and the Bold : Someone’s gotta stand up to all this sin. But I also realize that it’s probably not enough. Please do enjoy that clip though.
Back on-topic, that is quite possibly one of the most simplistic character interpretation I’ve ever seen. I know that Batman’s often seen as a one-note character, and sometimes he’s written like that. And this idea that Batman is just a fantasy Bruce Wayne cooked up to make himself feel better, it isn’t new. The question of “Is Batman actually insane?” has been asked again and again. So no, this isn’t an original idea.
But the way the question is phrased… like I said, we can apply this to any character. “Harry Potter is just some nerdy kid who is playing out his crazy hope of standing up to an evil genocidal maniac who is nigh-unkillable; how is that heroic?”
Or, “Why do I care about Hamlet? He’s just some emo guy who plays out this elaborate plan of avenging his father’s death and might actually be insane?”
This level of scrutiny isn’t bad, but he’s applying it to just one character on the basis that he has money, so therefore he shouldn’t be a superhero. I’m not saying Bruce Wayne deserves to be uber-wealthy, more so than anyone else, fictional or otherwise. But that seems to be Green’s main accusation: he’s rich, so he should be doing more to help people.
[There’s also the question of whether not Batman works alone; yes, that’s the popular image of him, but in reality he’s got one of the largest extended “families” of any superhero. Check it out here. ]
Now Hank, I know what you’re saying: Iron Man. And fair enough, Tony Stark is a billionaire who could use his wealth a little bit better….But at least Iron Man has that weird bomb nuclear heart thing built with the token good and therefore doomed Arab guy. And he’s like, “Oh, I should use my nuclear heart for good.” It’s not much but it’s something!
Look guys, I’ve tried avoiding using gifs in this essay but…
THIS IS THE AUTHOR THAT IS “DAMN NEAR GENIUS” I SAY
You catch that? The reason Tony Stark doesn’t fall under these exact same criticisms, that he should be donating to charity instead of punching villains in the face, is because he’s got a “nuclear heart.”
Hey, you’re allowed to like Iron Man more than Batman. Plenty of people do, I’m sure. But the fact is, that argument makes no sense. If I’m trying my hardest, what I think Green’s saying is that once you have superpowers or bodily enhancement of any sort, you absolutely must become a superhero; if you just have money, then being a superhero means you’re indulging your fantasies (of being shot at, exploded, and having your friends and family targeted). Or something.
Also, slightly off-topic, I would argue that Catwoman, despite her jewelry-thieving, et cetera, is by almost any measure much more heroic than Batman.
…he doesn’t elaborate more than that, which is a shame because I’d really like to see how he argues that a person who steals from other people for a living is more heroic than Batman. I mean, if he argued that Barbara Gordon/Batgirl was more heroic than Batman, then yeah, I could definitely see that point and I’d be hard-pressed to come with any rational argument against it.
But Catwoman, more heroic? When she’s written at her best, she’s like the Han Solo of the cast; possibly more identifiable and charming than the main character, but not more heroic in any classic sense. At worst, she’s written just to be fanservice.
Crime is not actually caused by evil, it’s caused by systemic disenfranchisement and poverty and lack of access to job opportunities and education. And yet Batman goes on not funding police departments or schools or building low income housing but tearing up the infrastructure of the city he claims to love while fighting villains who are only powerful because that city is already so blighted and dysfunctional!
Oh Christ, okay… once again, this level of scrutiny and criticism is apparently not fair to aim at Spider-Man or Iron Man on the basis that their bodies are enhanced somehow. It’s aimed squarely at Batman, for whatever reason. If John Green applied this much criticism to every fictional hero, I wouldn’t have much to say here. But he explicitly has it out for Batman and excuses others on nonsensical grounds.
Never mind that in most adaptations the company Bruce Wayne runs, Wayne Tech, builds inventions that are used by everyone in the city to improve the quality of life, but since Bruce isn’t personally throwing money at those who need it he’s actually a monster who is an awful role model and we should all hate Batman along with John Green.
Also, why does no one ever call Batman out for devoting all of his resources to fighting crime in Gotham? When he could also be fighting, oh, I don’t know, global poverty or habitat destruction or climate change?
Why doesn’t the Wizarding World send some aurors to take care of world dictators? Why doesn’t Tony Stark fix the energy crisis? Why doesn’t Spider-Man mass produce his web shooters for more mundane uses? Why doesn’t that fictional character that everyone likes help my cause?!
Holy Father Francis, this guy’s like a broken record. And I know I sound like a scratched record too, but I can’t think of anything else to say because most of what Green is saying boils down to the same point: that this fictional character isn’t solving the world problems he wants him to.
But Hank, the question at the core of the Batman story still bothers me: why do we celebrate the vigilantic ambitions of individual billionaires? Surely we understand that the real work among humans is done not in isolation, but in collaboration. We do understand that, right?
As I’ve said above, Batman is usually not alone. Yeah, he’s often painted that way, but he’s far from it.
But even if we carry on with the idea that Batman is not alone, the fact remains that he’s not exactly the only one. The idea of the loner hero is one that’s got a significant amount of history in fiction. It’s one that sticks—the man or woman who has built up his or her own status by him or herself. And even if it’s unrealistic, it’s an image that’s stuck in our minds, far beyond the American icon of Batman.
And to see this criticism from an author whose own crowning achievement is a novel about two teenagers with cancer who think that they’re better than everyone else around them… well, you know. Pot calling kettle black and all.
This entire thing reminded me of an article about an article about Frozen that Lindsey Ellis/Nostalgia Chick wrote. The original article claimed that the film was un-feminist by virtue of it having its female leads being flawed, which Ellis made a point to refute thoroughly. Towards the end of her response, Ellis said this:
The era of Tumblr has brought social justice to the masses, but it has also ushered in a tendency for people to appropriate communications theories to justify why they didn’t like some Disney movie. It’s no longer “I didn’t like it”, it’s “it was a failure of [progressive thing]”, and all too often, as in the case with this article, the reasoning is just absurd.
And that’s pretty much what John Green did here. He could have easily said, “I don’t like Batman” for good reasons or no reason at all. You’re allowed to do that. Instead, he has to come up with an ideological reason for why he hates Batman which bends any sort of logic or rhetorical sense, so that he can preach about how we should all be working together. It’s not a bad message, mind you, but you don’t need to do a faux-analysis of a pop culture icon to do it.
This is the problem with people who take “Death of the Author” too seriously. Too often it turns into twisting things to make sure they fit the reader/analyst’s point of view, regardless of whether or not it’s true to what is actually on page/screen. And now everyone’s doing it, including best-selling authors/leaders of Internet nerd movements.
I need a freaking drink.
The Smith of Lie on 19 October 2014, 14:29 said:
Real world crime, sure. Comics crime? Well, I just fail to see how Joker, Killer Crock or Riddler are result of disenfranchisment or poor chances to succeed in life. Or Bane – he has all he needs to become a respectable military contractor, doing legitimate business with any army in the world. Or League of Shadows. Those guys don’t fall under the criminalistic patterns used in reality.
Not to mention that many if not most of Batman rouges are out of the league of “mortal” police, either due to superpowers or due to scale they are operating on.
We should instead root for vigilantic ambitions of proletariat masses! Oh, wait, no. Those are called “lynching” and seem to be frowned upon…
But let us assume for a minute that Green’s interpretation is 100% correct (though it is not). Batman is an escapist fantasy of a rich man, who is incapable of coping with death of his parents. He is wasting large sums of money on his crusade against crime, that vengence quest, that is in long run futile fight with shadows. He is deeply flawed person with questionable morality.
How is the above not a great character? Is he a role model? No. Is he a clear-cut heroic figure? No! Is there potential for interesting, tragic even, stories about him? Hell yes!
Even at his worst, least heroic and most selfish, Batman remains a character with incredible potential. I am only casual audience for Batman media, but I’m pretty sure there are enough stories out there, that explore the implications of character traits that Green ascribes to him. Even Nolan’s movies dip into this a little at times, questioning wheather Batman is the hero Gotham needs. And this is what makes him such a great character, there are some pretty poignant themes that can be explored with him.
By the way, it seems that Green pretty much wipes our faces in his ignorance of comic books, by referencing facts about characters that are explicitly true for their movie incarnations, but not necceserily in the original canon. I can see that despite the fact that my knowledge of superhero lore comes in 99% from Atop the Fourth Wall…
Apep on 19 October 2014, 18:03 said:
Apparently Green totally missed the bit where Peter used his new powers for personal gain and it was only after the murder of his uncle/surrogate father-figure that he actually started fighting crime. And no, he doesn’t “have” to be Spider-Man – that’s where the whole “great power = great responsibility” thing comes in.
Admittedly, I’m not all that familiar with Batman as presented in the comics, but I always got the impression that the Gotham City legal system (cops, DAs, judges, etc.) was pretty damn corrupt (at least before Bats showed up). Everyone was either on the take or too afraid of the consequences of sticking their neck out to do anything. So while Bruce Wayne could dump all his money into stuff like that, there’d be no guarantee that said money would be going to the right people.
Minor correction – Bruce Wayne’s company is Wayne Enterprises.
Okay, then why doesn’t Reed Richards use any of his amazing tech to help the world? Or better yet, why do all those supervillains use their skills/powers to commit crime, rather than using legal means of making money? What is your point, Green?
All this really demonstrates is that Green knows next to nothing about Batman the character in pretty much any incarnation, and probably isn’t all that interested in learning anything in the first place.
swenson on 19 October 2014, 20:49 said:
Pretty much. As with all comic book things, it depends on what story you’re reading, but it’s generally pretty clear that pre-Bats, Jim Gordon was one of the only decent cops in the entire police force, and Harvey Dent was one of the only decent DAs. (Batman: Year One and The Long Halloween, both quite highly-regarded Batman stories, explore this nicely.)
At any rate, it’s all moot because his argument seems to be “Batman doesn’t help people financially”, and Batman totally does. Sure, back in the old days, they didn’t worry so much about things like helping society, superheroes were just supposed to punch bad guys and that was enough, but virtually every modern depiction of Batman I can think of makes it quite clear that he’s a philanthropist in addition to a superhero, and he passes those traits on to his adopted sons.
But John Green probably doesn’t even know about the whole Batfamily and all the random people Batman has taken in and helped raise over the years, so I’m not surprised he doesn’t realize this.
Organiclead on 19 October 2014, 21:04 said:
Sadly I am only a millionaire, so I ask other people to pledge their money to charity for me.
pug on 19 October 2014, 21:15 said:
John Green says (and, for that matter, writes) whatever he thinks his rabid, cranially hollow tumblr fangirls will devour in droves.
So of course Catwoman strong and independent and don’t need no man while Batman sucks.
swenson on 19 October 2014, 21:39 said:
Catwoman is awesome, but there is no possible reasonable interpretation under which she’s more of a hero than Batman is.
Juracan on 19 October 2014, 21:59 said:
True. And I DID say, assuming that before Batman showed up it was mostly just normal people in the mob and corruption, then maybe I can see that thought pattern working. But Gotham is usually depicted as being SO full of corruption and crime that usual methods of combating wouldn’t work.
True that. More than any adaptations, Green seems to be dealing with the pop cultural depiction of Batman (which, understandably, might be more worthy of these criticisms). But like I said, he doesn’t specify. It’d be as if I ranted about how Harry Potter is a spoiled brat who everyone gives special treatment to, because that’s how many critics depict the stories in popular culture— despite the fact that it’s not how the books go at all.
My references on the subject right now are: – The DC Animated Universe
-The live-action films – Brave and the Bold animated series – Young Justice – The Arkham games
-Several of the animated movies
-A few notable comics like Year One and Hush
I… probably should have gone with that in my essay….
Spider-Man’s not really my forte.
Well yeah. In Year One (which is broadly canon story in the franchise), it’s shown just how corrupt the place is and how no one is ever held accountable. It’s just a hive of scum and villainy. The mayor, the police, and the legal system is almost completely corrupt. Mostly the decent people are with the corrupt system because they’re too terrified to not go along with it all. It’s not until Batman appears that people like Harvey Dent, James Gordon, and Selina Kyle start challenging the status quo more boldly and have a shot at… well, not getting shot.
So basically, what Swenson said.
Sorry ‘bout that. WayneTech is a part of Wayne Enterprises. I get the two mixed up sometimes.
There’s a TV Trope page for that: “Reed Richards is Useless.” I didn’t cite it in the actual essay because it was growing long as it was.
But yeah; I’m wondering why he’s not giving that level of scrutiny to every other piece of speculative fiction. If he was, I’d say he was a killjoy, but I wouldn’t have as much an issue because he was being fair. In this video he’s just picking on a popular character to preach about social justice.
I’m not saying he can’t promote charity and social justice; just don’t do pseudo-intellectual analysis to do so.
Yeah. And like I said, he could argue, if he so desired, that he Bruce Wayne doesn’t give enough to society, but he doesn’t even address the philanthropist aspect of the character. I know that he’s trying to fit everything in under four minutes (it’s part of John and Hank’s rules for videos), but he could at least deal with that. Outright ignoring anything that can be used as opposition is just bad rhetoric.
Like I said, he only seems to be talking about the pop culture depiction of the character; but he doesn’t specify that, so from what I can tell he seems like that is exactly what the character is like. It’d be like if I started an essay about how Hunger Games sucks based on what I’ve heard rather than watching/analyzing the movies or reading the books.
I would disagree, but I follow him on Tumblr, so I really can’t argue with it. Explains why he wrote Augustus Waters the way he did: a super hot guy who thinks himself an intellectual and spouts pseudo-philosophical ideas while rejecting his past as an athlete and talks about how he and his girlfriend are better than everyone around them? Yeah, sounds like a Tumblr fangirls’ wet dream.
And I get that you’ve got to appeal to a fanbase, and it’s entirely possible that Green really does believe all this, but it really gets across like he’s trying to please someone. The entire video really does sound like one of those text posts on Tumblr where someone just posted a gifset from a show they like and someone comes up and does a thesis on why they like/dislike it for ideological reasons.
^Exactly. What makes Selina Kyle such an interesting character is that she isn’t heroic.
Epke on 20 October 2014, 12:26 said:
Well, it is John Green: the man whose Tumblr posts induce headaches in anyone capable of basic reasoning.
Uh… right, I know it’s a hyperbole, but I am fairly certain that the Batmobile is just a pimped out car in most representations, while in the Nolan films it was developed for the military, then just painted black and given some fancy wings. A most, it would have cost some X amount of million dollars to design, develop and create: it is, in essence, a small, powerful car with a powerful hydraulic system for boosting those jumps.
Uuuuuuuh, movie Spider-man starts shooting webs, yes. Comic Spider-man builds web shooters: hell, there are toys made to look like them from the animated series! And no, he doesn’t have to be Spider-man: he can just be Peter Parker, who happens to never drop stuff. It’s a pretty big leap in reasoning too, on Green’s part, to assume that a person with superpowers would do the right thing. If human nature is any clue, it’s unusual for Peter Parker to actually help others, and it is only his upbringing and influence of his uncle that goes against nature.
The fact that Spider-man didn’t become a master thief is pretty exceptional in its own right.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but how isn’t that heroic? He’s standing up to a city with extreme corruption and saying “No, I won’t let you do this”. He’s putting himself in danger, lethal danger, and giving his life to this fight… because someone has to. He has the means, the brains and the motivation to do so. That’s pretty damn heroic to me.
We have to define “crime” first, then. In Gotham, there are all kinds of crime, ranging from theft to murder. Ted Bundy wasn’t lacking in education or wealth. Seung-Hiu Cho was mentally unstable, but came from a good background. Frank Abagnale was just very good at tricking others, but most certainly didn’t do it because he couldn’t find a job. And the there are criminals who just wants free stuff.
The list goes on, but you cannot generalise the criminals in Gotham like that and say they do it because of lack of jobs or education. The Scarecrow was very highly educated, for one.
Do tell us, Mr Green, what would happen if Batman devoted all of his resources to your examples? His money won’t fix the ozone layer: sure, it can help develop a more green industry, but that will still take years upon years. Global poverty? Sure, but then he needs to change individual countries’ finances to allow more jobs to be available so that poor people can stop, you know, being poor. I’m sure that any third world country would love to a have a meddling American in their finances.
I suspect that John Green just sat down and thought about Batman one day and realised that how Batman does it, is not how Green would do it: unless Batman was a male, white teenager from a vaguely Christian middle class family with a love interest that will come into his life, change him for the better, and then die, all the while angsting horribly and looking down on everyone else for not being as witty or thesaurus-abusing as he/she is. Did I just spoil all of Green’s books?
Why yes, yes I did. And what is the main difference between Batman in all of his incarnations and every protagonist in Green’s books? Batman is a relatable, mortal and human hero that we see ourselves in: all his flaws and cracks that makes him… him. Green’s are a bunch of whiny sissies that look down on people and wallow in their own misery: exactly the kind of person no one wants to be (except most teenagers, who are in this state by default).
Tim on 20 October 2014, 16:34 said:
This very much reminds me of David Brin’s incredibly stupid article about Star Wars and Star Trek.
Behold
Juracan on 21 October 2014, 11:07 said:
Well yes. I decided I’d focus more on his Batman arguments because I had enough on my plate making sense of those. You are correct though— in most adaptations/incarnations of the character, the webshooters are indeed mechanical. It wasn’t until the Raimi movies that it was changed to organic webshooters for the comics, but it was switched back.
That…. sounds kind of awesome. I actually really want to see that now. If that’s not a comic book already, someone should get on it. NOW
If I had to guess, it’s Green’s assertion that cleaning up Gotham by himself is an obviously impossible task, so to pursue that instead of more conventional forms of help (charity and the like) is more villainous. That is, he’s going against society rather than working through legal means. Which isn’t a completely out there argument (I’d disagree, but it’s an okay argument), it’s just that he seems to excuse other superheroes for similar behavior on the basis of physical enhancement.
Well, he should also define “evil” too, because the things he lists certainly could be considered evils of the world. But defining his terms isn’t something that Green bothers to do in this video.
You can’t generalize criminals anywhere. Yeah, helping in education and eliminating poverty would be good, and they’re certainly worthy goals, but they won’t eliminate crime. Human beings will find something to screw each other over for.
^Hadn’t thought about that, actually. But yes. The fact is, the world isn’t so simple that one person can step up and change everything for the better. Yes, he could make a difference, but he can’t just make everything better by just throwing money at it. And like I said, the company that Wayne runs does do stuff to try to help the world. Well, usually.
pug on 27 October 2014, 19:16 said:
Spiderman wouldn’t make a good thief because unless he went back and cleaned up all those webs, everyone would know who committed the crime from the overwhelming physical evidence left behind.
Epke on 27 October 2014, 19:57 said:
That’s irrelevant to his skills as a thief. Someone who can climb buildings and completely smooth surfaces, without equipment, with superstrength and a sixth sense when danger lurks, is like the very design for a perfect thief.
As for leaving the webs behind? Only an issue if it’s movieverse: then there’s probably DNA in the webs, but then they’d have to pin it on a scholarship, white kid in a poor neighbourhood who hasn’t had any prior convictions of crime. In comicverse, the webs melt away after a while: there’d be no evidence left.
Apep on 27 October 2014, 19:59 said:
Only if he became a thief after being a hero for so long.
The implication (at least to me) was that it’s kind of amazing that Peter Parker decided to fight crime instead of committing it. Think about it – he can scale virtually any surface with his bare hands, is super strong, can sense approaching danger, and his webshooters are the perfect means of escape. Those look like the makings of a master thief to me.
Apep on 27 October 2014, 20:00 said:
Ah, ninja’d.
pug on 27 October 2014, 21:24 said:
And there’s this thing people (and, actually, all living organisms) do, called “adapt.”
Once Spiderman succeeds a few times, people are going to start designing walls made out of bathtubs so he can’t grip them.
SarahSyna on 27 October 2014, 21:38 said:
…just imagining that right now. Spiderman slipsliding down the walls with a D= face, and really hoping it doesn’t rain.
Epke on 27 October 2014, 23:30 said:
Pug, don’t try the sass on me. I’ll sass you five ways to Sunday.
Now tell me how people will find out that the thief has superhuman abilities. How many leaps in logic and reasoning does the investigators have to make before they discard theories of advanced climbing equipment, inside jobs, CIA, a magic show or an insurance scam, in favour of a thief with spiderlike abilities?
Unless Spiderman is getting caught on cameras (unlikely, as he can blind them with web) or being seen (which a thief shouldn’t be), no one will know hos he does it. You assume that Spiderman is leaving messages to the cops; “Hi, I’m a genetically altered human with spider-esque superpowers that I use to rob people with! xoxo spider man”?
Also spiders can climb bathtubs: ordinary house spiders can’t, but quite few can grip on glass and porcelain: it’s all about the hair on the tersai and how the spider directs the centre of mass, ensuring that there’s friction (more complicated than this, but I’m tired atm). So those bathtub walls? Won’t work.
I’m sneaky like that :D
Organiclead on 28 October 2014, 00:07 said:
Not to mention most places just plain don’t have the funding to completely redo their walls every two years for one robber who is probably smart enough not to rob the same place multiple times. There are some local businesses here that don’t even have security cameras despite the fact they’re nearly constantly robbed.
Tim on 28 October 2014, 12:07 said:
Well, he does live in a world where “maybe it’s some guy with superpowers” is a relatively valid line of reasoning, given they’ve had mutants, supermen and aliens all turn up in the world just during Peter’s own lifetime. I bet in the Marvel and DC universes they’d reject most of our conspiracy theories for being too unambitious.
“No, look, the attack on Pearl Harbor was clearly caused by Churchill hiring Illuson the Marvellous and Pyro Man to stage the whole thing, there were never any Japanese fighters. And then Mind Master hypnotised the Japanese high command into thinking they’d ordered it!”
pug on 28 October 2014, 12:46 said:
I already addressed this:
Apep on 28 October 2014, 13:59 said:
Which has also been addressed:
“A while” in this case being about an hour. So unless the victims came back within that time period, there’s be no physical evidence.
The Smith of Lie on 28 October 2014, 14:47 said:
Even with webs to indicate it was “The Spider Burglar”, that does not make it any easier to catch him or prevent him. Look at DC’s Catwoman – she is an accomplished thief, despite lacking superpowers (at least in some iterations). Now imagine the same skills, but bolstered by Spider-Man’s power set.
Yes, you can say that Peter Parker does not have the skills comparable. Those can be acquired though and having pretty impressive powers to fall back on would only make it easier not to get caught while grinding experience points.
And the whole discussion is pretty stupid anyway, since it misses the original point of argument. Green somehow got the idea that Peter Parker had no choice but use his powers to become a masked vigilante, cause there is nothing else to do with them. Becoming a master thief is just an example. He could just as well have went and become an olympic athlete or an assasin or a private military contractor or some kind of specialist high altitude worker. It does not matter if there’d be any drawbacks to any of those choices, it just matters that his powers would give him an advantage over normal people working in the same field and thus the choice would be an appealing one.
Or considering he has a science background in most incarnations, he could have bought an RV and open a meth lab.
Juracan on 29 October 2014, 09:06 said:
But there would be some sort of residue, wouldn’t there? It might not be recognizable to someone unfamiliar with the substance, but it might be there.
Really, the question of whether or not Spider-Man made a good thief or not would really depend on how law enforcement adapted to his crime spree and how Parker himself adapted to their adaptations. In his situation, I’d just move to a different town once people started building adequate security measures.
Perhaps, but it is an amusing discussion.
And yes. My main point was that those abilities can pretty much be applied to anything, and yet Green insists that Parker has no choice but to be a superhero. It’s as if Green assumes the only thing strong physical attributes are for is fighting.
Also, given how much movies and cartoons also show Spider-Man helping people escape fires and falling buildings, it’s kind of weird.
You could very well make the argument that Spider-Man doesn’t give enough to charity— after all, when do we see him do any fundraisers or the like? I’m not going to say it never happens— I mean it’s comics, statistically everything happens— but it’s certainly not a part of his character that’s hyped up a lot. You see Bruce Wayne doing charity events in almost every bit of media he’s in. Peter Parker? Not so much.
Organiclead on 29 October 2014, 09:44 said:
I don’t think Spidey has much to give to charity. He’s always shown as being kind of poor.
Apep on 29 October 2014, 09:47 said:
It is, isn’t it?
Apep on 29 October 2014, 09:47 said:
It is, isn’t it?
Epke on 29 October 2014, 10:14 said:
I don’t know how much residue would be left though, as it’s never discussed: it might be little enough to be confused with dust, or enough to warrant a sample. Though most sources say it either evaporates (disappearing completely, which makes the most sense) or becoming a fine powder. And even if the forensics get hold of the residue, all they’d find would be a nylon derivative.
Well, Parker is pretty damn smart…
It shows what a limited mind he has, imho.