So I’m reading this week’s Comics Buyer’s Guide, an article on the post-“Civil War” world in the Marvel Universe, and it mentions in passing:
Pym is working with various talented marvel scientists, including Baron Von Blitzschlag (whose surname translates as “thunderbolt”), who used to be a Nazi super-villain in World War II …
Which cause me to read it twice. A “Nazi super-villain“? All right, traditionally, metahumans working for the government of Nazi Germany have been referred to as “super-villains.” But is that a fair labeling? Villain implies (to me) an outlaw, an evil-doer, a criminal. All right, then — during the war, as government agents, they wouldn’t be outlaws (any more than Amercian supers would be). They might be war criminals, but not necessarily; by the same token, they might be evil-doers, but only to the extent that they actually do evil, not per se. (Is a police officer in Germany in 1943 a villain? Is a Wehrmacht soldier?)
Now, true, most Nazi supers portrayed are, in fact, evil and nasty and moustache-twirling (male and female alike) racist lunatic psychopaths. One could argue it would difficult to be a prominent German metahuman and not be. But it’s not something that would necessarily be automatic (the “noble German, struggling as they put patriotism and duty and love of the Fatherland beyond what they personally know is right” is as much an established cliche as the Jew-hating Aryan brute).
“Nazi super-hero,” though, sounds wrong.
It also raises some interesting “Civil War” issues. If there was a right side or a wrong side in the conflict, were the supers that were on the wrong side, in fact, “villains?” Certainly (if they were on the anti-Registration side) they were outlaws and criminals. But … Captain America, a super-villain? Mister Fantastic, a super-villain? Black Pather, a super-villain? Iron Man, a super-villain? Spider-Man, a super-villain (part of the time)? (Okay, yeah, J. Jonah Jaimeson would have no problem calling Spidey a super-villain, but that doesn’t count.)
Perhaps such labels are too simplistic — but that, too, seems to be a simplistic conceit as well (“The world is too complex for heroes”).
Maybe, though, that’s one of the reasons why it’s only in extreme circumstances that we use the word “hero” in real life — in cases of conspicuous, above-and-beyond gallantry and self-sacrifice. If we really did have metahumans around, I doubt we’d use the word “super-hero” (or “super-villain”) very much as a generic label.
Just thinking out loud here …
Seems to me that what you’re doing here is philosophical analysis of the word “villain.”
As a proposed definition, you suggest something along the lines of: “a person is a villian if and only if that person is an outlaw, evil-doer, or criminal.”
Then, you suggest that this definition isn’t correct because Nazi supers who are called super-villains don’t fit the definition and they can’t be called super-heroes.
Your claim is that they don’t fit the definition because as government-sponsored agents they are neither outlaws nor criminals and (at least hypothetically) they might not actually do anything evil.
Have I got it right so far?
One could argue that by supporting the Nazi regime they are doing evil even if in another context their actions would not be considered evil.
But I think you need a different definition of villain. The one you proposed has a difficulty closely related to the one you put forward, but one that I think makes it clear that the problem is with the definition of villian, not with the issue of Nazism: on that definition, Robin Hood is a villian, but I think he’s clearly not a villian.
I think it will be hard to come up with a good simple definition of villian, but my first thought is that it needs to say something about the kinds of motivations that guide the person’s actions, and what kind of effect the person has on those who observe the actions. In other words, I don’t think it’s the immediate consequences of one’s actions that make one a hero or a villian. I think it has more to do with the nobility of one’s goals in performing those actions and whether they inspire revulsion or respect by those who observe them.
It also occurs to me that if “villian” is the opposite of “hero” as you seem to suggest, then perhaps Joseph Campbell’s work on the mythology of heroes is a good place to start.
Gah. I do know how to spell “villain”, really I do. It’s just that my fingers don’t seem to know how to spell it!
Interesting. He’s certainly an *outlaw*. He commits crimes — but crimes for a higher cause, and based on unjust law. He is motivated by justice and a desire to do good, not simply line his own pockets or seize power himself (on that latter point, there’s always a sort of odd overlay in Robin’s motives, both to protect the local people — Saxons, for the most part — and to protect the crown for the Norman king, Richard). He’s a hero and a villain (and a dessert topping and a floor wax). He’s an anti-hero — someone who does immediately bad things (robbery, killing) for a good cause.
But that doesn’t quite provide an objective answer, either. Is it noble (since I already raised the Nazi question) to protect the pure Aryan race from the mongrelization of Jews and the Slavs and all that rot? Would someone who did that inspire respect from at least some of those who observed their actions?
I do agree that I set up something of a straw man — Law does not necessarily equal Good, nor Chaos necessarily equal Evil (as anyone who plays D&D knows) — you can have forces of Legal Order that are fighting for what I would consider evil ends, and those who are fighting for good ends. From a dramatic standpoint, the former are villains and the latter are heroes.
Interestingly, based on the premise that the Soviet system was at least as brutal and evil as the Nazi one, the role that Soviet (Russian or Chinese) metahumans have played in comics has been interesting. Roundly seen as villains in the 60s, by the 80s the “We have to respect them (except for the xenophobic rhetoric-spouting ones) as being noble defenders of their Motherland, as they see it” motif was seen.
The DC Universe has done some interesting things with internationalizing the metahuman population in the last four or five years. Currently there’s a group of Chinese national “heroes” who show a remarkable gamut of emotions and temperments and “heroic” natures.
Whoops, I meant to say that I thought Robin Hood was an outlaw but not a villain. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be a counterexample to the definition.
Perhaps being a hero isn’t objective. I think that heroism has something to do with the fact that the heroes inspire others to emulate them in some way. I don’t believe that moral concepts are relative though, so perhaps this is wrong.
More later, gotta go.
Copycat killers would complicate that in some ways (the “Klebold & Harris are my heroes” crowd).
Maybe the bottom line is that one man’s hero (or saint or role model) is another man’s villain (or fiend or counter-example).
I agree that morals are not, ultimately, relative — but in execution, often are, given our finite knowledge and perspective.
Perhaps being a hero or a villain is a social status or position (or perhaps an individual gesture of respect or disdain) rather than an absolute moral judgment. If so, then it could be relative without contradicting the claim that morality is absolute.
This seems to fit with the notion of a “hero of the USSR” which I seem to recall was an award that the USSR used to bestow on some people. It also fits with the common usage “my hero!”
In this way of interpreting the words “hero” and “villain”, saying “Robin Hood is a hero” can be paraphrased as “I honor Robin Hood and think he did good things.” Saying someone is a viiain can be paraphrased as “I distdain that person and the things he or she does”. Or, in the more social interpretation, put “society” in place of “I” in each paraphrase.
If that’s right, then your proposed definition “outlaw, evil-doer, or criminal” is too objective — it doesn’t take into account the idea that heroism or villainy are based on attitudes about the hero or villain rather than acts that the hero or villain performs.
Would it be reasonable to say that someone is a hero even if they never did anything heroic, but were widely thought to have done heroic things? (Similarly for villain, of course.) If so, that would support this interpretation.
You are likely correct (and that’s in keeping with what I was originally driving at, I think).