Film Adaptation:

Also by Bret Easton Ellis:

American Psycho
The Rules of Attraction
The Informers
Glamorama
Lunar Park
Imperial Bedrooms

Suggested Readings:

Mysteries of Pittsburgh by Michael Chabon

The Idea

At sexy gypsy, we love books¹ just as much as we love film and music. This is why we started a words section, where we could share a bit about what we’re reading. This year, we’ve decided to take it a step further—the sexy gypsy Book of the Monthish.

Most blogs with projects like this have regular book of the month posts, with scheduled discussions and reflections and deadlines. But this is not how we get down with the get down when we get down. sexy gypsy’s Book of The Monthish will be a semi-regular event. It may last a few days, a week or a month. It won’t force you to read this many pages in that many days². It will be simple, painless, fun. Here’s how it’s going to work:

We’ll choose a book and give you a little background—who wrote it, what it’s about and why we picked it. Then we read. While everyone is going through the book, I’ll sticky the post to our front page. If you have something to say, just leave a comment in the post³. After we’ve finished reading the book, we’ll post a follow-up with our thoughts and there’ll (hopefully) be a discussion in the comments⁴. Simple, right?

So let’s get it started. Our first Book of The Monthish is Jim Thompson’s The Killer Inside Me

The Book

Jim Thompson’s 1952 novel, The Killer Inside Me was one of the first books to come up in our discussions for this project. It tells the captivating story of Lou Ford, a deputy sheriff in Texas, who happens to be one crazy motherfucker—kind of like Dexter, but without Harry’s code or a conscience. The first-person account follows Lou as he starts a destructive relationship with a prostitute, helplessly submits to his dark urges and commits a string of murders to cover his tracks.

In 1976, the booked spawned a Burt Kennedy directed film. More than 30 years later, it is being remade by sexy gypsy favorite Michael Winterbottom.

Winterbottom’s remake stars Casey Affleck in the lead role, along with Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson, Elias Koteas and Bill Pullman. Based on this cast and Wintterbottom’s name alone, we have high hopes for the film. The trailer is embedded at the bottom of the post if you want to check it out for yourself, but beware it is kinda spoiler-y. It premiered at Sundance this year to much controversy. Drawing comparisons to films such as Antichrist and Irreversible, The Killer Inside Me shocked audiences with its unapologetic violence, specifically towards women.

But we love controversy (and violence), so we figure The Killer Inside Me would be the perfect book to start our Book of The Monthish series. So please join us and leave a comment or two.

Sweet.
Deliberate.
Silent.

It wasn’t even sharp.
The dull, blunted edge of reality, slowly sinking deep within his bones.

It’s over.
I’m done.
I don’t want this.

Each word cut him deeper.

His pain spilled out of his eyes.

Were his words too soft?
Too sweet his touch?
His love too much??

Where did he fail?
Where did he slip?
Why now?

The cold slid up his spine.
The ice from her gaze was more than he could bear.
Eyes that once lit the world, now stared through the core of him.

Blank.
Empty.
Indifferent.

She didn’t even care.
She wasn’t even there.

To stay, was to endure death.

But to leave…
To leave meant forsaking beauty, perfection, a love designed by GOD himself.

Indecision paralyzed him.

It was quiet now.
The silence tore him in two.

His soul caught in his throat.
Fighting valiantly to escape.
He choked on it.

I am a David Foster Wallace groupie.

There, I said it.  The man has a fairly small body of work; aside from magazine articles, he only wrote two novels and four short story/essay collections before committing suicide in 2008.  Even so, he had already established himself as a genius of our time.

I had just finished The Broom of the System after a failed attempt at completing Infinite Jest when I got my hands on a copy of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, the film adaptation written and directed by John Krasinski (The Office, Away We Go).  I was excited to see a filmmaker tackle the disturbed genius of Wallace’s prose and story.  The book had been sitting on my shelf for a while, but I never cracked it.  Immediately after watching the movie, I dropped what I was reading and blazed through it.  And I had mixed feelings.  Not specifically about the film, or the book independently.  More a hesitant opinion of how the two complimented each other.  So I decided to watch the movie again, and realized I couldn’t bring myself to review one without including the other.

THE BOOK:

“Victory for the forces of democratic freedom!”

This phrase is a source of extreme embarrassment for the first subject in Wallace’s story.  Not politically, or ideologically; he is embarrassed because even though he is not a political person, he screams this phrase every time he orgasms.  “…only much louder…”  This is the kind of humor David Foster Wallace loves to lead with.  Descriptive enough to be taken seriously, but strange enough to make you laugh out loud (or LOL for those of you opposed to speaking english).

There isn’t much of a description necessary for the story.  Men are being interviewed, we’re not quite sure why, but personality-wise most of them are kind of…are you ready?  Hideous.  However, as the story builds, we are shown the other side of the coin, and what started out as a feminist undertone broadens into a universal portrait of human suffering and loneliness.

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men is actually broken into four parts and split up throughout the collection.  At one hundred pages, total, it’s a breeze by itself.  Wallace is like a metaphor ninja.  He starts out light, humorous, and eloquent.  Then you start to see parallels, points, the first hint of the thread Wallace is pulling on, and before you know it, the funny-ha-ha moments have unravelled and you’re staring the dark side of life in the face.

First and foremost, Wallace seems to pride himself on carrying on complete conversations through only one character.  You get half of the dialogue, but you still get a holistic picture of the scene.  BIWHM is no different.  Each “interview” is laid out like the transcript of an actual interview, complete with parenthetical notes, with only the interviewee being audible.  For example:

“I don’t ever know what to say.  What do you say if you just shouted ‘Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom!’ right when you came?”

The downside to this format is that it sometimes becomes difficult to discern which conversations are taking place in a personal setting, and which are done in a clinical research capacity.  There are upsides, though.  Not only do we get to draw our own conclusions, fill in our own gaps, but it definitely sets a tone of scrutiny towards these men.

This cross-sectioning of male characters is basically what makes the story arc.  From the guy who blurts out political propaganda during sex to the loner who based his childhood masturbatory fantasies on Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched.  From a one-armed factory worker whose missing limb (AKA “The Asset”) gets him “more pussy than a toilet bowel”, to an aging pot connoisseur who knows the secret to being the world’s greatest lover.

I refer you to the aforementioned art of “ninja metaphor”.  It is among these characters with their humorous-yet-transparent honesty and insecurities that Wallace inserts the meat of the story.  The man who recalls his father’s profession as a men’s room attendant, saying, “Imagine not existing until a man needs you.  Being there and yet not there.  A willed translucence.”  The man who, while relating a rape story, compares the victim to Victor Frankl, essentially making the claim that without the Holocaust, we would not have “Man’s Search for Meaning”, and out of that torture and rape, a woman (or a person) will live through the worst they ever thought possible, and know themselves better.  And finally, the psychopathic sex offender who chooses his victims much like a man surveys a bar for the easiest one-night prospect.

THE FILM:

If you’ve ever read any David Foster Wallace, you can imagine how difficult it would be to harness the layers, the subtext, the dialogue, and the characters and fit them into a two-hour film.  John Krasinski may not have succeeded 100%, but I honestly don’t know of anyone I’d trust to do it better.

Krasinski saw that BIWHM is essentially about feminism, but not the way you think of the word.  What Wallace started as a broad, objective analysis, Krasinki finished as a very personal view on the effect of feminism on men, as well as the presuppositions of post-feminism women and the similarities we can all share as human understanding.  Krasinski gave a face and a context to an otherwise ambiguous story.  But that’s not all good.

Direction, acting, editing, music were all cohesive to the point of liquidity.  However, cumbersome dialogue aside, I think the film was over personalized.  Several scenes in the movie show the interviewer (who is now the main character with a name, a face, and an agenda) by herself in her apartment, or passing by a one-sided conversation, or overhearing two chauvinists in a coffee shop.  By personalizing the subject matter, I feel the film took some of the power away from the book.

There are some interesting added scenes.  A very brief one in a college classroom, where a professor is discussing Nanook of the North, telling his class to pay attention to the documenter, not the documented.  The rape story turns into a student hounding the main character concerning his grade (a very well edited scene), the bathroom attendant’s son focuses more on the literal relationship between father and son, rather than the parallel between his job and a submissive female.  What were subtle layers and puzzle-piece subtexts in the book are now beating the audience over the head without building to it.

Probably one of the most impressive and simultaneously damaging scenes is the finale, when Krasinski’s character gears up for one of the longest single-sided conversations I’ve ever read.  As long winded as it was in the book, it still held my attention for 20 pages.  Again, Krasinski gives it a face and a context, and he pulls it off as well as anyone could.  However, like most people, I get a case of A.D.D. when faced with a ten minute continuous shot of some dude talking.  I found myself getting distracted, and having to rewind the speech several times.  I suggest reading it first; both versions - when absorbed in their entirety - are truly thought-provoking.

If you’ve read the book, you will enjoy this film.  Some great lines, funny characters, and the main themes of universal empathy, insecurity, and subjective interpretation are all intact.  It is harder to watch Wallace’s prose than it is to read them, but after this “artsy” undertaking, I’m amped to see Peter Jackson direct an Infinite Jest Trilogy (I’m really just kidding, please don’t do that Mr. Jackson).  And as amazing as the end of the story is, John Krasinski might win the day with his final line in the film:

“I stand here naked before you.  Judge me, you bitch!”

Final Grade for the Book: A

I first picked up David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest in the summer before my freshman year of college. I had dropped out of high school at 15, spent a year or so living in Nepal and experiencing the world¹, got my GED at 16, murdered my SATs and was ready start college younger (and presumably, smarter) than the rest of my class.

I decided to read Wallace’s massive masterwork because I was in the habit of reading the likes Kundera, Pynchon and Nietzsche just to say that I had, and to laud my intellectualism over my simple-minded peers.²

Unfortunately, like my college career itself, my quest to read Infinite Jest died about two-thirds of the way through. The giant, cloud-covered book sat on my shelf, collected dust and eventually got lost in the shuffle of life.³

I never gave the book another thought. That is, until I read about Infinite Summer. Their challenge intrigued me. I figured it would be the perfect opportunity to break free from the monotony of my existence, exercise my mind and experience a great piece of American literature. I immediately Amazoned myself a fresh copy.

So last week, I began my Infinite Summer—this time with significantly less pretense. And it has been fanfuckingtastic. Beyond his awe inspiring prose, David Foster Wallace is extremely quotable.⁴ Armed with my Moleskine and various other supplies⁵, I’ve taken copious notes, scribbled quotes and discussed the book with friends.⁶ But most of all, it’s forced me to end my cycle of work, XBOX, sleep, repeat.⁷

I know it’s only been a week. But I’m loving every second of this, so far. Let’s hope I make it through this time. I think I will. It’s gonna be a good summer…

Notes and Errata

Summer is in full swing. The sun’s coming out more, people are busting out the shorts and flip-flops, the girls are rocking the sundresses. Summer is great. And if you’re anything like me, no matter how much time you spend outside, you need a good book with you while you’re getting a tan and pretending not to gawk at the hotty across the way. Well, this last Sunday, June 21, Infinite Summer began. No, this is not Endless Summer (put your board shorts away there, Billabong). Infinite summer is a one time, nationwide reading of David Foster Wallace’s epic cult-classic Infinite Jest. Many musicians, authors, and other recognizable names are participating in this summer-long book club, and at a whopping 1000 pages (plus 100 pages of footnotes), there should be plenty to discuss until September. There will be discussions (starting Friday) on so many sites it’s ridiculous. Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Amazon, wherever. Here at Sexy Gypsy, we’re riding the wave with everyone. BIG got his copy yesterday, mine is waiting at the bookstore as we speak. So in a few days, with enough pages under our belts, we will begin a regular blogging/discussion of what some say is one of the greatest novels of all time. I encourage all of you to grab your copy, or someone else’s, and keep up for the next three months. At 15 pages a day, it’ll be worth it, I promise.

-GW

Check out the main site here.

Also by Benjamin Anastas: The Faithful Narrative of a Pastor’s Disappearance (2001)

Suggested Readings: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers (2000)

Yeah, I know, you can’t hear that title without singing Tenacious D’s catchy song. It’s all I heard in my head for the week I was reading this book, though I tried not to let it detract from the story.

As with most of his novels, Michael Chabon’s story in Wonder Boys is immediately personal and broad. The protagonist, Grady Tripp, is a college English professor in Pittsburgh who is experiencing writer’s block (7 years of it, to be exact) on his latest novel, entitled Wonder Boys. Grady’s fourth marriage is falling apart, primarily due to his affair with the Sarah Gaskell, the married Chancellor of the college. His editor, Terry Crabtree, is visiting for the week, attempting to read Grady’s “almost completed” novel. James Leer, a strange student of Grady’s, is attempting to find approval and answers after finishing his first as-yet-unpublished novel. Throw in prescription pills, transvestites, theft, dog murder, Marilyn Monroe, and a ton of weed, and you have a fun, heartfelt novel about dealing with life, defining yourself, and learning your lessons.

Written from the perspective of Grady (first person), the story almost forces you to sympathize with him. He goes through so much in a short time, but most of it is his fault. It’s not easy to write a character that doesn’t learn from most of his mistakes, and still earns the encouragement and fondness of the reader. But Chabon does this very well. The characters are all very different on the surface, but very similar when their layers are pealed away. They are all looking for an escape. Crabtree’s drugs and questionable sexual practices, Grady’s weed and affairs, even James Leer’s compulsive lying, suicidal tendencies, and sexual ambiguousness are all ways to get out of a rut that we all find ourselves in without knowing how we got there.

Chabon’s prose is consistent with most of his other works: Sometimes dry, sometimes engaging, but generally even-flowing and readable. I usually have few complaints, but there were parts of this one that didn’t feel right to me. There were many places in the novel where the dialogue and prose didn’t match up quite right. It’s like Chabon was trying really hard to maintain an intellectual, vocabulary-laden narrative, but every now and then he’d lapse into a simpler form of writing that didn’t have any relevance to the story or character. His dialogue is generally good, but not his strong point. A lot of it comes across as too breezy, too casual, to the point of contrived and awkward.

There are also several places in the story where the author spends ten pages rambling about something that isn’t necessarily related to the narrative or the plotline. For example, when Grady, recovering from a dog bite, a joint, and a filing Seder, sneaks a peek at James Leer’s novel, it seems like a random bird walk that – for me personally – detracted from and bogged down that part of the story.

Wonder Boys is not Michael Chabon’s best work, but I like him overall. I think his style is well-developed and intelligent, with more direction than Dave Eggers, and bigger words than Chuck Klosterman. If you’re a fan, I’d definitely recommend it. If you haven’t read any Chabon yet, I’d start with The Mysteries of Pittsburgh.

Final Grade: B-

Film Adaptation:

Also by Michael Chabon:

The Mysteries of Pittsburgh

A Model World and Other Stories

Werewolves in Their Youth

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay

Summerland

The Final Solution: A Story of Detection

The Yiddish Policemen’s Union

Gentlemen of the Road: A Tale of Adventure

I never really got into comic books. I’ve always loved superheroes, I know most of the back-stories and storylines, but I only actually read them for a few years, and I stopped when I was 11. I’ve seen all of the big comic movies the last few years, and most of them were awesome (the most evil super villains in the films are still Joel Schumacher and Ang Lee). But none of them made me want to run to the store and grab the latest issue of Action Comics. Until Watchmen.

As a writer and a fan of literature, I don’t pay attention to comic books. Graphic novels, however, are an underappreciated medium, and there is a difference. Comic books are generally between twenty and thirty pages, an ongoing plot with silly dialog, at least one fight, and its pretty much fluff. Graphic novels, however, are between one hundred and three hundred pages, much more intellectual, violent, and in depth. The writing is the best part of a graphic novel, and the really good ones have amazing artwork to match. For those of you who love Frank Miller’s films, I have news for you: he is a graphic novel writer, and he’s even done work on comic books. Though Miller is probably my favorite, a close second now is Alan Moore, writer of Watchmen.

Allan Moore

A big name in comics for decades, he’s penned some amazing novels that have been turned into films. V for Vendetta, From Hell, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were all Moore’s creations. He has a broad career as a writer, and an impressive resume. His books are always dark, profound, multilayered, and entertaining. There is no question, however, that Watchmen is his seminal masterpiece. It was originally released in twelve separate chapters, each around forty pages long. Excerpts from fictional memoirs, scientific papers, and news clippings, adding an element or realism to the story, separate the chapters in the complete novel. This makes reading it a challenge, but his ability to make readers relate and feel comfortable in such an outlandish story is commendable.

The Story

Watchmen is one of the most complex and well-rounded stories I’ve ever read, involving a complete alternate history of America starting in the late ‘20’s. With the emergence of several masked heroes, the government decides to sanction groups of heroes as minutemen, only operating in times of crisis. None of these people have superpowers; no radioactive spiders, space anomalies, or mutations. They are normal people who dress up to protect society. In 1959, a scientist named Jon Osterman is trapped in an atomic experiment, and vaporized. Days later, he reappears as a being of pure energy, with the ability to move things with his mind, teleport, and experience time omnisciently. His presence in America fuels the nuclear program, he is used by the government in Vietnam, and this stirs up the Russians, bringing them to the brink of nuclear war with the U.S. President Nixon, in his fourth presidential term, allows a bill to be passed effectively disbanding the Watchmen, due to public fear and outrage. In 1985 (Nixon’s fifth term), after eight years in retirement, one of the Watchmen, The Comedian, is murdered. This causes the rest of them to once again don their cowls and uncover an evil plot.

The Characters

Dr. Manhattan is the name given to Jon Osterman after his transformation. He has amazing powers that he generally uses to aide humanity (via the U.S. government), but he is detached. His ability to see the future, to understand existence and the universe on another level alienates him from the rest of mankind, causing him trouble in relationships as well as in the public eye.

Rorschach is pretty psychotic. He was raised by a prostitute, who kept him in the brothel with her. This and the absence of his father resulted in the inability to connect with people on a meaningful level. He sees the world as a horrible place, full of vice and crime, and the people as childish sheep. The most interesting part of Rorschach’s story, though left out of the film, is that his mask is a piece of fabric he cut from a dress made by Dr. Manhattan with fluid woven into the fabric that is constantly changing shapes. Dr. Manhattan originally designed this dress for a woman named Kitty Genovese. For those of you unfamiliar with history and psychology, Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her apartment in 1964. Thirty-eight people watched out their windows, but no one called the police, allowing the mugger to come back and finish her off. This gave birth to the psychological term, “the bystander effect”. Hence Rorschach’s mask being constantly changing, but always black and white; never gray. He swears he will always be a vigilante, no matter what the government says, and he will never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.

Ozymandias is rich, powerful, and his body extends to the outer limits of human physical prowess. He started the last chapter of The Watchmen, and was sort of their leader. He works with Dr. Manhattan on several nuclear projects, and is the only Watchmen to reveal his secret identity after retirement. He is the quintessential superhero, and he uses different methods to accomplish the same goals.

The Comedian is one of the Watchmen veterans. He went back and forth between being a hero and a government spy/assassin (the film implies more that The Comedian shot JFK). He has a fatalistic view of humanity, even feels himself superior to them. He’s pretty much an asshole with a gun, but there’s always something under his scowl that you can’t quite put your finger on. He attempts to rape Silk Spectre, he shoots a Vietnamese woman pregnant with his child. This is all seen in flashbacks, as The Comedian is the one murdered at the beginning of the book.

Silk Spectre II was bred to be a hero. Daughter of Silk Spectre, a Watchmen in the forties, Silk II was forced into heroing by her mother. As a character, the only overtly interesting thing about her is that she is Dr. Manhattan’s girlfriend, and she chain-smokes. What’s more intriguing than her as a person is her past. Her mother, the mystery of her father, and her friendship with Night Owl II make her thought provoking, but not sympathetic.

Night Owl II is a one-dimensional character. He’s like the Superman of the group, but without the superpowers. Gadgets are his strong suit, relationships are not. His only contribution to the story is his connection to Hollis Mason, the first Night Owl and author of Behind the Hood, a memoir of his hero days. This connection to the past, the purity of the Watchmen, is the only thing he’s got going.

Good vs Evil

Unlike most other comic books, Watchmen doesn’t really focus on the bad guys. Sure, they mention their foes from time to time, but since these heroes had no superpowers, neither did their counterparts. The main theme of this book is ideological: good vs evil. It’s actually very deep, and well developed in the novel, and it’s different for every character, but there are basically three sides: Black, white, and grey in the name of white. Obedience to the government, bonds of brotherhood, responsibility to humanity as a whole, and responsibility to people as individuals are all elements in the ideologies. It has some big questions in it. Is doing evil things in the name of good still good, or is it actually evil? Is apathy even worse then evil acts? Does one act of contrition clearly establish your moral lines and forgive your past? Or is the act of contrition itself an admission of wrongdoing that should never be made? I won’t ruin the ending (the mechanics are different than the movie, but the basics are the same), but the turning point for all these characters is when a grey area is introduced, and they all must take sides. Do the ends justify the means? Can you operate in this grey area while still claiming the white side? The conclusions they come to are unpredictable and complex.

Man as God

Jon Osterman walks into a room in 1959, and comes out an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. “God is real, and he is American.” He experiences time all at once, instead of linearly, so he is always telling other characters what is about to happen, how things will turn out. They complain that they have a choice, that it doesn’t have to be that way, but he is right every time.

Even more interesting, as a god figure, he tries to help in human affairs, working mainly with the U.S. He fights in Vietnam, does his duty in the cold war, and is America’s secret weapon against deflecting a possible Russian nuclear strike. Yet he slowly drifts away from humanity, and takes a stance of fatigued indifference. One great part of the book is when the Comedian shoots his “baby mama”. Dr. Manhattan is standing right there, and tells him not to shoot. After she is dead, he tries to condemn The Comedian, but he argues, “You could’ve stopped the bullet, took apart my gun, frozen time, but you didn’t.” He is accusing Manhattan of being out of touch, apathetic, and cold. When he is on Mars, talking to Silk Spectre II about the fate of the world, he asks her, “Why would I save a world I no longer have any stake in?”

Chapter IV was, to me, the best in the novel, for the way it handled time, Manhattan’s flashbacks and flash forwards, and gave you a window into the psyche of a god. He feels isolated from everyone. Its not that he doesn’t care, he does. It’s that he’s not sure why he cares, if he cares for the right things or reasons, and if his responsibility is to directly help people, or to sit back and let them determine their own futures. This theme, though profound, is not overdone or overcomplicated. Good job Moore.

The Black Freighter

Another interesting part of Watchmen was the parallel story The Black Freighter. This is a comic strip that an incidental character is reading periodically throughout the graphic novel. In the panels, the internal dialogue from this comic book is run alongside actual dialog from Watchmen characters. It is the story of a ship captain whose entire crew is killed, and he is stranded on an island. He forms a raft out of the dead bodies around him, and sails home to warn his family of the approaching Black Freighter. This may seem unimportant, but this narrative was inserted into Watchmen at key plot points, and if you read the novel through, in the end you understand another parallel of Watchmen morality. (This was actually turned into a short animated film by Zack Snyder featuring Gerard Butler and a great song by Nina Simone.)

Novel vs Film

The film was condensed, entertaining, and a little more realistic at the end. The novel was extensive, elaborate, and included elements that, though their absence didn’t detract from the movie, would’ve made things a little clearer, and a lot cooler. Overall, I would say that the two are different halves of the same whole, and the best way to understand either is to enjoy both.

Final Review

I thoroughly enjoyed this novel. The art was fantastic, the narrative was amazingly deep without being cumbersome, and the flow was smooth. All the major elements of a great book are here, and so many minor elements are added that the realism and cohesiveness are almost perfect. Some of the panels actually look like a well-developed storyboard for a film, and the writing is so flushed out that Ayn Rand and Dave Eggers would both be proud. Though my exposure is limited, this is my favorite graphic novel so far, and one of the best stories (as far as material and character development) that I’ve ever read. My only criticism is that the ending in the novel was a bit ridiculous and underdeveloped. Objectively, it could have been better, but the film made up for it, so I’m happy.

Final Grade: A

No, this isn’t one of those “who would win in a fight” questions, or “whose tights are less gay”. This is a study in archetypes. The hero, since the days of ancient mythology, has been a figure of human perseverance. Overcoming external adversities and internal weaknesses is what we all strive for in our lives, even if we’re not going to put on boots and a cape to do it.

There are hundreds of superheroes in the comic world; too many to list here. However, I believe that these masked crusaders can be put into two distinct categories: The Idealist and the Vigilante. As far as longevity and popularity, no two characters can epitomize these distinctions better than Superman and Batman.

Superman is an alien. He came from a planet far, far away, and was raised in small-town America. He grew up having the values of this country’s culture engrained in him. So when he moved to the big city and became a superhero, he also became the embodiment of American idealism. Other superheroes, as well as his nemeses, refer to him as a “boy scout”. This is because he firmly believes in a simply morality. Innocent people must be protected. Bad guys must be punished, but not by Superman. Instead, he displays unwavering faith in the justice system, refusing to kill wrongdoers, and turning them over to authorities in full view of the public and media. Captain America was a blatant manifestation of U.S. propaganda against Russia during the cold war. Superman differs in only one color: instead of red, white, and blue, he is red, blue, and yellow. Primary colors. This implies that the convictions of Superman are universal, primary, inherent to the fabric of all human life, and America exemplifies all of them. Superman is real, and he is American.

Batman is human. He is the son of billionaires, who are killed by a simple mugger while wandering back from the opera through a bad neighborhood. The shooter was acquitted, proving to Bruce Wayne that the system doesn’t work the way it should. Rather than living off his inheritance and becoming a spineless socialite, he spent money on charities, and time honing his mind and body to become the ultimate vigilante. Half the people in the city support him, and half condemn him. Oddly enough, it’s mostly the upper class and politicians who consider him a menace. He is the voice of the downtrodden and the only one willing to get his hands dirty in the pursuit of justice and morality, whether it’s a simple purse snatching or a diabolical scheme by The Joker.

I won’t pick a side here, as this is applicable to myriad religious, ethical, political, and personal aspects of modern culture. But I will say that the main question in this battle of ethics is this: is it more important to stay within the law and defend justice as a human institution, or stain your hands with blood defending justice as an objective concept?

The paradox of both ideologies, however, is that the supervillains constantly attacking these respective cities probably wouldn’t exist if not for the appearance of the heroes. A hero is only a hero if he has a reasonably equal counterpart, and it isn’t always as simple as black and white. Is the Punisher a vigilante or a mass murderer? Is Magneto a civil rights advocate or a dangerous militant leader? Who was really warped, Rorschach or Ozymandias?

I could discuss (at great length and tedium) Hinduism’s polytheistic dualities, the partisanship in American government, or Spiritual morality. The point is that these make believe characters aren’t just silly stories for kids and nerds. They are as much engrained in our society and our psychology as sports, finance, politics, and philosophy. Every culture has their Hercules, their Thor, their Spider-Man. They give us something to aspire to; an idea to relate to our own lives. Because, though none of us are going to jump in our invisible jet and lasso evildoers, we all want to believe that our strengths outweigh our vices, and that we can overcome any problem that may arise.