We can’t all be heroes

Because, with that one big exception, DC’s heroes are from a different era. They’re from the era when they were creating gods. And the thing that made Marvel extraordinary was that they created people. Their characters didn’t living in mythical cities, they lived in New York. They absolutely were a part of the world. Peter Parker’s character was a tortured adolescent. DC’s characters, like Wonder Woman and Superman and Green Lantern, were all very much removed from humanity. Batman was the only character they had who was so rooted in pain, that had that same gift that the Marvel characters had, which was that gift of humanity that we can relate to. – Joss Whedon

I’ve been thinking a lot about antiheroes lately, ever since reading Noel Murray’s AV Club post, TV’s Antihero Era Enters Its Second Decade. Murray traces the recent upswing in television antiheroes — flawed characters, some even deeply and irredeemably amoral — to The Sopranos, and he’s actually a little tired of it. Writing of the new Showtime half-hour Nurse Jackie, Murray says:

…I hope the creators don’t feel obliged to make the heroine’s addiction and infidelity the driving dramatic force of the show. I gave up on TNT’s Saving Grace when I realized that no matter how incredible Holly Hunter’s performance may be as a cop on the verge of a breakdown, the show’s combination of rote procedural plots and gratuitous grimness was going to continue to be a turnoff. Complex heroes are fine — appreciated even. But tortured, amoral TV heroes? That’s just about been done to death.

Which is funny, because my one problem with Nurse Jackie, of which I’ve only seen the first two episodes so far, is that it’s maybe not quite tortured enough. It’s a half-hour dramedy, and that format all too often leads it into broad sitcom territory. It’s a problem that recurs to a lesser degree with House, another antihero-driven medical show; no matter how good the writing or acting is — and I think both are usually excellent on both of these shows — things can be a little campy when you too often play an antihero’s transgressions for laughs. (As Stan Lee jokes here, “The world is so crazy that if you present things as they really are, it comes across as broad satire.”)

I’m not a big fan of uncomplicated characters, righteous crusaders who always make the right decisions for the right reasons, characters who are essentially ciphers around which the problem (or monster) of the week happens. As Murray’s fellow AV Club writer Zack Handlen says in his comments to Murray’s post:

We all like watching somebody be impossibly cool and good at his job, but when it comes to the long haul, I’m much more interested in somebody who has to pretend how to be normal.

I like The Mentalist, for instance, but I can easily go weeks or months without seeing an episode, and I often wish they would play up the darker edges of the main character. (As I’ve noted before, they do tend to soft-pedal it at times, and the show gets by mostly on Simon Baker’s charm and a pretty decent supporting cast.) The only sitcom I watch with any regularity is How I Met Your Mother, which, despite its sometimes absurd touches, is firmly grounded in real and honest characters. (In many ways it’s like Friends, if Friends had developed characters instead of just comic types.)

But, like Murray, I don’t need everything dark and gloomy and antihero-y. All I want are stories that are honest and entertaining, characters who are real and reflect the flaws that real human beings actually have. Which is why I prefer antiheroes to superheroes. As another AV Club writer, Todd VanDerWerff, puts it:

All of this just plays up exactly why shows where it seems like it would make just as much sense to make the hero superpowered, like The Mentalist or Psych, choose not to go that route. Any time you give the hero powers, you have to figure out a way to believably limit them, and believable limitations on something like all-encompassing telepathic abilities are hard to come by.

Zombies on the brain

Here are three zombie-inspired links: Zombie Neurobiology [via], Zombie Legos [via], and China Mieville’s proposed literary movement, “Zombiefail ’09-ism” [via]:

…this will be the movement for those tired of the unrelenting imperialism of zombies in horror–and now other–fiction. The writers’ position will be that what started as an invigoration (one hesitates to say ‘revivification’, in this context) of an antique trope has viralled to the point where its ubiquity makes it ambulonecrotophile kitsch. Zombies that once stalked the cultural unconscious like baleful rebukes are now cuddly toys, dead metaphors (ba-boom) at which we can’t stay mad. Paradoxically, out of very respect for increasingly degraded zombies, Zombiefail ’09-ist writers will either explicitly undermine their banalisation by melancholy mockery of them, or refuse to write about them at all, instead plundering various mythoi for more neglected monsters with which to end the world.

I’m not sure I can jump on the “fewer zombies” bandwagon, however tongue-in-cheek, and even if we maybe are reaching a saturation point. Books like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies are supposed to be surprisingly good, Plants vs. Zombies is great and addictive fun, and there’s no end of intelligent discourse on zombies to be had. Just because there are zombie toys, that doesn’t mean that zombies can’t also be scary. (I’d maintain that those zombie Legos are pretty darn creepy in their own right.)

Still, Mieville isn’t wrong; their ubiquity maybe has undermined some of what made zombies so frightening in the first place. Certainly it’s happened with other boogeymen, notably vampires. As Zach Handlen writes in his reivew of Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan’s new novel The Strain:

Vampires aren’t scary anymore. Blame Anne Rice, Stephenie Meyer, Hot Topic, whoever; whatever the reason, blood-sucking fiends lurking in the shadows no longer carry the same old skin-crawling cultural cachet. Which presents a problem for writers who still want to use them.

But every problem is a challenge if you look at it in the right light. I have no doubt there are still new and inventive takes on the zombie still waiting to be created. Even 28 Days Later, which Mieville includes among the “negative influences” his movement will shun, can be seen as a reaction against the sort of campy Romero knockoffs that dominated zombie pop culture for most of the’70s and ’80s. No doubt something — or many different things — will come along to react against the camp that’s since followed it.

Then again, even in Romero’s movies, it’s rarely the zombies who are the most frightening people.

That’s one way of putting it

Joss Whedon on working on Wonder Woman:

They didn’t tell me to leave, but they showed me the door and how pretty it was. Would I like to touch the knob and maybe make it swing?

I also like how he calls his upcoming movie, Cabin in the Woods, “old school horror with grad school sensibilities.”

Via Whedonesque. It’s not a new interview with Whedon by any means, but there’s still some interesting stuff in there, mostly about comics and Dollhouse.