I really don't think it is a paradox. There's nothing paradoxical about taking these larger than life characters and putting them into no-win scenarios. It might be bad continuity if the writer ignores an aspect of that universe that would allow for a different outcome, but if they cover their bases then how is it a paradox for a character like Superman or Spider-Man or Wonder Woman to be in a situation where, whatever choice they make, something bad is going to happen?
Well, I think I've dissectied this idea of the 'no-win' scenario in superhero fiction to show that is kind of a paradox in and of itself, but that's not what I meant.
It's paradoxical to try and apply all this level of realistic logic and mulling into a universe where it doesn't work. What I was trying to get out with the Legion issue I mentioned before was that 'real world' logic simply doesn't work. Like with BW was trying to compare these superheroes killing to cops killing. That example doesn't hold weight, because ultimately, they aren't cops. They're superheroes from a fantastical place, filled with strange things like resurrections and Gods walking freely among men, that isn't
our world, or a real one (at least not real in the flesh and blood sense). What I was mostly talking about was all this 'Well, what should you do if someone is a killer', 'What would you do to stop a war', 'What would you do to...' etc. Like the cop example, you can't really apply because it doesn't work, for one, and when you do you run into a lot of paradoxes and flaws that renders the question more or less meaningless.
For example, killing Max Lord was the right way to go because it was no other choice, but with the right imagination, there was at least 2 or 3 different options that Wonder Woman had instead of killing him. Of course, it's justified to kill Maxwell Lord because he's a monster, and he'll just kill again. Of course, he just came back to life and is running amok. Would it have been any different to have him locked away with psychic damping powers, only to have him be able to escape during
Blackest Night instead of being resurrected. So, then, what the hell does it matter at all? That's what I was trying to get at with my whole 'death is meaningless', because it is in their world. You see the paradox here? The killing debate is the big time when this comes up, but it's always there when you try to apply real world logic to a superhero logic. Like, not too long ago, someone asked how it was that Mr. Fantastic can invent so much, but still not find a cure for cancer or figure out how to stop aging. And it's a valid point, because realistically he could, and the whole thing falls out and out apart. Of course, that leads to the rationalizations that 'Well, he is smart, but he's just not that smart in that area...', which okay, is a neat little way to BS out of the situation, but of all the geniuses that greatly succeeded anyone in the real world, there's no way one of them couldn't.
It's a paradox. Of course, that's not to say no bit of our world can't come into their world, which leads me to this....
Ignoring real world morality and laws in a superhero universe is just as bad an idea as ignoring that these are superpowered heroes having fantastical adventures. The best stories have always been the ones that have been able to balance the two, the ones that make fantasy applicable and recognizable to our own lives. The more outlandish your fantasy, the more important it is to make it understandable in realistic terms. Push it too far in terms of always letting anything happen simply because these are superhero characters, and you tear suspension of disbelief to shreds; "That would never happen." "That's lame." And of course, make it too "photorealistic" and at some point you end up in an entirely different -- and probably much more boring -- genre.
Watchmen isn't the first or only story that ever examined morality in a superhero universe, after all. The notion that these stories somehow become less superheroic when you apply real world elements simply isn't true. From Superman to Spider-Man to the X-Men, superheroes have always been examinations of the real world in some form or another.
I've never said anything about 'ignoring' the real world. Like The Question earlier, you're twisting what I'm saying of
too much real world weight into
no real world weight. Of course, parts of our world will come into it, where else would these idealism I've been taking about come from? X-Men as an analogy for outsiders, Superman as the best of the best, Wonder Woman coming from a society of pure equity, and etc. But no, I think there is a cutoff point when the two worlds just don't intersect properly. The best way I can think to describe it is their universe is an image of ours. There is things at the core that make them both root to on another, but the image is fantastical and fictionalized. The more and more you try to inject this realism and rationalization, the more and more the paradoxical nature of it begins to display itself, unless ultimately, the only option you have is to strip it down to the basics of the basics, and try to create something that does resemble the real world.
And of course, there have been other books besides
Watchmen to do what I was talking about, but it was really the first to do it so well and so mainstream. That's why I refer to it as the Pandora's Box and not, say,
The Authority or
Superfolk.
And any negative impact Watchmen had on the industry had nothing to do with the story having it's characters with varried moral outlooks in a tough ethical situation. It's that other writers saw Watchmen's success and assumed that it was because it was grimdark, so we got a sea of comics with completely pointless violence and moodiness, wheras what mad Watchmen great is that it had a very thoughtful and nuanced analysis of morals with really well developed characters that you cared about, or at least found very interesting.
Oh, I agree, and I don't mean anything as a slight against the book itself.
