A defence of the comic book hero

Since its birth, the comic book as a genre has been disregarded as kids' stuff. However, for a long time, there have been very important pieces of literature that happen to take the form of the comic or graphic novel. E.g. Watchmen, Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum, The Killing Joke, The Sandman series and Maus. These novels feature some of the most in depth exploration of philosophy, human psychology and morality I have ever read. Watchmen asks the ultimate question of morality: do you kill millions to save billions?
It is a genre that combines art and language. Beautiful language and stunning artwork. Arkham Asylum is stunningly beautiful. The first thing you notice about it is the aesthetic quality of every page. And at the same time it is able to tell a fantastic story and explore characters in astonishing psychological detail. What's not to like?
A lot has been written about this. The case has been made, if not won. I have, however, a more specific defence of this genre.

I was very down-heartened when reading Sebastian Faulks' book On Fiction. In his discussion of heroes, he stated that the true hero has all but disappeared from literature, and has been gone a long time. The word hero now only means protagonist, and they rarely feature heroic qualities. The character who observes injustice and strives to defeat it is all but gone from our culture. The Lord of the Rings is likely the latest true work of literature that features valiant heroes, and simple folk doing decent things (that I can think of). Personally, I feel that there are two areas where the true hero persists to this day: child/teen novels and comic books.
The child/teen novel is very important in conveying ideas of heroism into young people, and can sometimes include great storytelling (Harry Potter, The Hunger Games). However, they rarely have a nuanced exploration of the topic. It is also true that many comic books only offer this primitive presentation of the hero. The bad guy robs a bank and the hero stops him.
There is, however, a breed of comic book that is able to explore the hero properly: adult graphic novels that still feature true heroism.
Yes, these are often anti-heroes with darker aspects to them, but that is what it is to explore a real character in a real world:
What would it take for somebody to really go out and fight crime or save the world? For Bruce Wayne, it took the trauma of his parents' murder. He is a broken man, and yet he is one of the most moral characters in all of fiction - one who never kills and always seeks justice. Rorschach is very clearly mentally ill - and yet he shows uncompromising determination that evil is punished.
But often, graphic novels do not feature dark heroes. As a DC fan I will only mention Superman (the ultimate archetypal 'hero'), Wonder Woman (an icon of feminine empowerment) and Green Lantern (protector of the galaxy, striving for justice). These characters seek 'the good' and show definitive examples of virtuous lives that make a difference. The graphic novel is now the only place where a grown-up can explore true heroes and do-gooders, which is why I feel it is a very important genre to maintain.

There's a TV show called Luther that, at least in the second series, did something very important. It glorified the hero and debased the villain. Now, this is not to say that the 'hero', John Luther, is not a dark, psychological tormented individual - he is. However, he always strives to do good, and obey the law. He becomes someone unwilling to do solve problems outside of the methods of the police, despite killing an enemy in the very first episode. Most importantly, though, the show presents the psychopaths and killers as pathetic failures. The danger of a character like the Joker is that people start to idolise the villain, as we have seen in the James Holmes Aurora shooting, in a screening of The Dark Knight Rises. Luther presents its villains as pathetic wimps desperately trying to seek attention, that ultimately fail. All villains should fail - just like Iago, the greatest villain of them all. Joker fails repeatedly, but somehow always seems to have the last laugh, which is what makes him appealing as a character, but a dangerous villain, in more ways than one.

Batman is the ultimate character for exploring profound questions, where the answer is heroism. It features a man with no superpowers (unlike may of his allies), living a life more worthy than virtually any other could be. It asks the most deep moral questions.
However, the character of The Joker allows it to also explore the boundaries between sanity and insanity. The Killing Joke: "All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy" - for the Joker it did, but for Commissioner Gordon, it didn't. Thus asking the question: Is Bruce Wayne sane or insane? Did his bad day drive him to insanity, or turn him into a hero. The answer, of course, is both.

Heroes are necessary, and fiction should be the optimal place for virtue, morality and heroism to be explored, in order to inspire people. The graphic novel seems to be the only option if we want an interesting exploration of the hero.

An Atheist's Disclaimer

The atheist sometimes appears to be 100% certain that God does not exist. This is wrong (in the majority of cases!) The atheist position is: one should not believe in things for which there is no evidence, and God is included in that category. Certainly, you must not have faith in the existence of something without evidence. The atheist upholds the principles of doubt and scepticism, where everything is up-for-grabs if alternative evidence can be provided. The atheist can theorise, hypothesise and even believe in things for which there is not 100% evidence, but they must not have unfaltering faith. For example, I believe in the multi-verse, however, I fully accept the possibility of my being wrong and am ready to be proved or disproved either way. I also believe that liberty is fundamental to human cultural and social progress along with democracy and secular humanism. I believe these strongly. The atheist position, is not one of agnosticism. The agnostic position must perceive there to be a roughly 50:50 chance of God's existence. The atheist says it is around 80-90% likely God does not exist. I am in the 90s. It seems more possible to me that there is some kind of Aristotelian first cause or prime mover, but this does not lead to any of today's religions of theism. Let it be said one more time: We do not have faith in God's non-existence. We do not have faith in science. We do not have any type of faith. We create beliefs that must be constantly subjected to doubt and scepticism.

Everything is Obvious, Duncan J. Watts

Lots of interesting examples with some unusual conclusions. Essentially, it is questioning and debating the role of common sense in society.

Fairly good bit about creating a just society, discussing Nozick, Rawls, and then Michael Sandel.

My own conclusion from the book was that common sense can lead as to false assumptions that are taken for granted. while common sense is a very useful tool in everyday society, we must enhance it through reason and critical thinking about what is really going on.

Ended with this :
The internet will allow for large scale sociological experiments, thus creating a revolution in sociology, allowing the subject to catch up with other disciplines. the six degrees of separation are shrinking.

'The Lucifer Effect'

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a famous example of how situational effects can make good people do evil things. Some average middle-class university students were given roles as either prisoners or guards in a mock-prison. These normal people quickly transform into monsters. I knew little about the experiment before reading this book, and was interested to find out more. I soon discovered a fascinating, eye-opening and shocking story.

The book contained a gripping story of the experiment itself. I was intrigued and wanted to find out how the experiment developed, since the book simply tells the story, hinting at the messages we can take from it, thus allowing the reader to think it through. However, the book then became wordy and long-winded, exploring various real-life case studies such as Abu Ghraib and other psychological experiments in order to extract social and political messages and lessons. The result is half a book saying in every possible way 'Bad situations make good people do bad things'. It is a very interesting and important book, but unnecessarily drawn-out.

The book had some dodgy ethical philosophy when referring to absolute and relative ethics, but it was mostly on the right lines.