Recently I’ve been thinking about Green Lantern, & what an interesting concept that is. Just the very idea of a power ring that can create anything you can imagine is incredible. Whomever created him back in the 40’s was truly ahead of his time (although Alan Scott’s costume was atrocious). I was thinking about how I would write this character, what would be my take on him. With Hal the emphasis is that he’s fearless, with Kyle it’s that he’s a creative artist. Personally I’d prefer to write John Stewart (it’s a Black thing, you wouldn’t understand) but he doesn’t seem to have a “theme” like Hal & Kyle. Even Guy had the whole “conservative jerk” thing going for him, which worked well in the beginning of his series (before they took away his ring & did that stupid Warrior thing). John has just always been the temporary stand-in. He fits in well in the animated series & the Justice League Adventures title, but if he had his own series (let’s just pretend Mosiac never
happened, OK?) he would need something to make him stand out.

So I was thinking, the ring is powered by the brain, right? It can do anything the wielder can think of. The only limitation is the willpower of the user. That’s why I disagree with some fans who think they should bring back the yellow weakness in the ring. It’s really unnecessary if you think about it, because there’s already a potent weakness in the ring: concentration. I mean, think about it, how many random thoughts pass through your head everyday? Even when you’re working, or driving, or doing something else. So you’re Green Lantern, you’ve just blocked off a tornado & are waiting for it to die down when out of the corner of your eye you see this cat in
a tree that looks just like this cat you had when you were 7 that got hit by a car...oh $#*@! The tornado just broke though! Pay attention, you idiot!

So I’d have John looking for ways to keep his concentration. He’d try things like various meditation techniques in order to learn how to clear his thoughts. Maybe he’d start seeing a psychiatrist & drinking some of those “smart drinks’ they sell in
vitamin stores. Then someone hands him a copy of THE FOUNTAINHEAD & John is intrigued. He starts reading more of Ayn Rand & researching objectivism
(& stoicism). See, I think the whole wrong & right, black & white, no gray areas, no compromising philosophy of objectivism would be perfect for a Green Lantern. Imagine what Steve Ditko could do with a power ring!

Anyway, that was just an idea I had. So now the question is: What superhero would YOU think of that would fit well with objectivism? Discounting the Ditko characters, of course. I’m talking about an established hero that you think would be improved or
enhanced if the writer took an objectivist approach to him. Batman & Wonder Woman are my two next choices. What about y’all?

The Spectre.

~Bob

Is the Spectre a superhero?



DW

He certainly was in the 1940s, secret identity and all, but whether or not he was a "superhero" in the wonderful Ostrander/Mandrake series in the 1990s depends on how you define the term.

Reed Richards always had a very clear sense of right and wrong, and was always willing to take great risks in the service of what was right (and he was fortunate to have with him three partners who trusted his judgment, usually without question).

Peter Parker? Well, Peter was, during his most celebrated era, still a kid, and, although he was a nice boy and all that, could get awfully confused about moral behavior. "Why am I doing this?" he would ask himself in moments of doubt. He made mistakes, even when he meant well. Aunt May, though she was physically very week, was a very strong moral compass for the boy, and he sacrificed all for her benefit. So that part of his moral judgement was always "white."

Most superheroes have a strong streak of "good is good and bad is bad and I know the difference" in them. It seems many of them have some kind of personal motivation to do good -- i.e. revenge, guilt, etc. -- that means they are doing it more for themselves than any sense of altruism (though they are not doing it out of rational motives, either). So I'd have to say that traditional superheroes have a strong objectivist streak.

Ironic that you'd mention Green Lantern as a candidate since the most famous GL scene in comics history is Hal Jordan deciding that A is not always A. A different GL, of course ...

I've made this suggestion before, in a slightly different way:

Do we find it likely that Peter Parker is motivated still, after all these years, by feelings of guilt for Uncle Ben's death? I suggest not.

I suggest Peter recognized Ben's killer, recognized that his own neglect led to Ben's death, had a moment of realization that he had the power to fight further such injustices -- and has since been motivated by that realization, not by guilt. There is a difference between paying for one's sins (guilt) and using one's powers responsibly, isn't there?

Batman -- motivated by grief for his parents, still? seeking revenge for their murders, still? I suggest not.

I suggest Batman remembers something precious in his own childhood, and now fight crime to allow others to that innocent freedom from abuse. Robin represents the colorful child that Batman seeks to preserve. No?

In cases like these, are the heroes still motivated by pain? Or have they learned some positive value from the pain, and is that not what they now pursue?

From Marvel comics I'd have to go with Captain America & Daredevil. Cap's a hardcore "America, love it or leave it" kind of guy, which I think fits well with this objectivism philosophy. And Daredevil also seems like he would "see" the world in very black & white terms.

From DC I'd go with Hawkman, he seems very "eye for an eye." And maybe Nightwing. I think he's more like Bats than he wants to admit.

Spider-Man won't work as an objectivist. One of the things that I think people love about the character is that he is often unsure about what to do. He doesn't always know exactly what the right thing is, & sometimes when he does the right thing he still isn't happy about it. That's what's cool about him.

It seems to me Peter Parker is motivated by guilt through most of the early Spider-Man stories, definitely longer than the origin story. I thought JB's Chapter One did a good job of taking him from his initial feelings of guilt to a real resolve based on principles.

I’m still waiting to hear which superheroes LB would suggest make good
objectivists. . .

As for the points some of y’all raised about Spider-Man & Batman’s motivations
I feel the need to join in, since those 2 are forever tied as my all-time favorite
superhero. I can never decide which one I like better. In any case, I’ve often
thought about this aspect of their characters.

I see Batman as the one who is less motivated today by his parents murders.
Obviously this was the major turning point in his life, but that’s probably not
his primary motivation anymore. This is one of the reasons I disagreed when
they retconned Joe Chill out of continuity. Chuck Dixon (one of my favorite
Batman writers) said he did that since Batman would have no reason to keep
fighting crime after catching Joe Chill. I disagree. He doesn’t go out every
night in the hopes of catching his parent’s killer, he does it to prevent that from
happening to anyone else. In fact, Byrne in Generations, Frank Miller in DKR,
& Alex Ross in his War On Crime GN have all touched on the fact that Bruce
Wayne NEEDS to be Batman. That’s his purpose in life, to help others in this
way. That’s how I see it, too.

Spider-Man, however is probably still a bit more motivated by Uncle Ben’s
murder. I think the difference here is that Bruce Wayne couldn’t do anything
about his parents death, while Spider-Man could have prevented his uncle’s
death. So Spider-Man has a guilty conscience. See, I think Peter Parker would
rather NOT be Spider-Man. He doesn’t want to be a big hero, he just wants to
live a normal life, but that spider-bite took that option away from him,
because now he has great power, & with great power. . .well, y’all know the
rest. So in his mind he HAS to be Spider-Man, & use his powers for good because
the last time he didn’t, look what happened. Now, does he think about Ben’s
murder every time he puts on that costume? Probably not. But it’s always deep
in the back of his mind, especially when things get tough (as they often do
with him) & he starts thinking about quitting. That’s when he hears Ben’s voice &
gets back up on his feet.

At least that’s how I see it.

Well I'll go along with Bob and Luthor here, the only ones I can think of out of the "standard" superheroes are the Spectre and Hawkman. But even they would be compromising, sometimes. An objectivist approach wouldn't have been something publishers put out in the days that comics were for kids ~ and nowadays, in a market that favours "complexity" (read: psychobabble), Grey in the chosen flavour for superheroes far more often than Black & White.

The best objectivist heroes were created that way on purpose. Mr A being the purest, but also the Question, the Creeper to a lesser extent, and even Hawk & Dove's Daddy, Judge Whatisname.

"From Marvel comics I'd have to go with Captain America & Daredevil. Cap's a hardcore "America, love it or leave it" kind of guy, which I think fits well with this objectivism philosophy. And Daredevil also seems like he would "see" the world in very black & white terms."

Well, Cap (imho) would be closer than DD. At least as I remember him. This is from the perspective that Cap seeks justice and morality far more than DD; he's making people pay under the law, else he becomes an operative hypocrit. So, I can see Cap being a better objectivist.


DADDIO

Are we asking which hero serves as the best example of An Objectivist Hero now, as he or she stands?

Or are we asking which hero would make the most convincing or interesting shift over to Objectivism?

The examples so far raise some puzzles. Surely, if The Spectre is divine (and if divinity objectively exists in the DCU), then he must be an Objectivist. But then, if The Spectre is a perfect Objectivist, what does that say about the nature of the DCU?

It might have been interesting for Matt Murdock to have discovered Objectivism at some point, but I think the character has grown way to wrapped up in subjective and spiritual turmoil. The road to Objectivism would be long, and much of Matt's character would be lost.

Not Captain America.

What about Nomad? Is he dead? Back when Captain America felt conflicted over his mission and about the ethics of representing America, he briefly posed as Nomad, and wandered around getting his head together, maaan. How appropriate for a new guy in that Nomad costume to find Objectivism the ethical explanation for American free-market economics and civil liberties -- consistent with the Constitution and (most of) American history? He could be both Objectivist and patriotic -- not blindly patriotic, but patriotic because he finds American ideals to be consistent with Objectivist ideal.

Or are we asking which hero would make the most convincing or interesting shift over to Objectivism?
***************

Yes, my question was in regards to what previously established
non-objectivist superhero could be written as an objectivist & still
work as a viable character.

I think it could work with several characters, including most
mentioned here (definitely The Spectre) but as I’ve mentioned
on another thread, you couldn’t make someone like Superman an objectivist,
as he would basically cease to be Superman & essentially become an
all-new character. But in the case of my suggestions for GL John Stewart,
I think it could add more depth to the character, especially since I would actively
write his study of objectivist philosophy into the stories, as opposed to
simply having him suddenly acting differently without any explanation.
So I was just curious as to what y’all thought.

I like your idea. John Stewart's been on an opposite course to Oliver Queen since the late 1960s. Objectivism could work as the next logical course on his personal journey.

How about the Punisher?

(Quickly ducking behind my office chair...)



DW

I suggested Daredevil because I thought he would fit.
Think about it, he's a lawyer, so obstensibly he believes in the rule of law, but he's also a vigilante, so he knows that sometimes you have to go beyond the law to make things right. I kind of thought that would fit the Objectivist mold. But on the other hand, if he became a full-on Objectivist he would no longer have that Catholic guilt over what he does, &
maybe that is a part of his personality that is too interesting to give up. That was the one, & only, thing
I liked about the Daredevil movie, the scenes with the Priest. Seeing that inner turmoil adds a particular
dimension to his character, even if some people like Linda consider such things to be "psycho-babble."

And regarding Superman, isn't there already an Objectivist Superman? He's called Doc Savage.

In any case, HOW GREAT WOULD IT BE for John to discover Objectivism??

For years, conservative Green Lantern played Il Capitano to Green Arrow's Harlequin -- and always came off looking like a fascist. I would LOVE for a Green Lantern to gain the vocabulary to show that his decisions are conscious and purposeful and ethical, not ignorant or hateful or fascist.

In GL/GA Denny constructed arguments that, although didactic and unlikely, remain deeply moving. Certainly, certainly Ollie's "zingers" at Hal predicted and supported generations of comics stories that critically examine the concept of "heroism." Fair enough!

Objectivist John Stewart might actually provide effective rebuttal!! Great! Great idea.

Interesting.

I'd also like to see a clash of Green Lanternism with an Objectivist society.

~Bob

Bob,

Do you mean you'd like a story about Objectivist characters (competing, each in pursuit of his or her own happiness), and then see what happens when one of them receives a ring?

I think Bob was referring to the Guardians of the Universe philosophy as something that would not agree with Objectivism. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Bob).

The Guardians are all about peace and order for the universe, and I recall scenes where Hal wanted to take care of a problem on Earth (in somewhat Objectivist fashion), but the Guardians would order him somewhere else to do something they felt was more important to the universe as a whole.

Chaz beat me to it.

I think it could be interesting how the self-appointed Guardians of the Universe and their self-appointed "police force" would work when encountered with an issue involving an Objectivist society, as well as that society's reaction to the GLC...and the GLC's subsequent response.

If an Objectivist individual were somehow to acquire a ring (I don't theink the Guardians would have let it happen), that too would make for an interesting situation between the GLC philosophies and the Objectivist GL.


[to add:]

Imagine Mr.A confronting a GLC member. Also, imagine Mr. A having a power ring, as to how he would use it, and his response to the Guardians.

~Bob

I didn't beat you to it Bob, that was actually your point that I was re-phrasing and expanding on.

And I appreciate the significance of it much more now that you illustrate it with the idea of Mr. A with a power ring.

I only followed Green Lantern in the Gerard Jones era (1990-93), so some of you older readers might be able to help me out here. I remember there was a group of renegade Guardians called the Controllers, who wanted to totally eradicate evil, but I've never read an actual story with them in it. Would Mr. A be comparable to them in the eyes of the Guardians?