So sorry im late again i think im losing my mind...

I dont think that that it is based entirely on gender in terms of an outcast falling into supervilliany i think that it can be based on race as well. THe whole idea behind supervilliany is revenge on those that outcasted that person. There might different levels of revenge based on the difficulties that were presented to that particular person which could come off saying that "black homosexual women supervillains" might have more anger and pain to inflict. Is a super hero ever contempt? Will they ever forgive, it doesnt matter what was or wasnt availbale to them as a child if they nrever forgive then they will always be a supervillian

Supervillains And Privilege

So what? Arguments metaphorically mapping superheroes and supervillains to society’s morals and our quest to be human abound, but the 800 pound elephant that we all choose to ignore still remains undiscussed: the dominant hetero-middleclass-white-male narrative that underlies the superhero genre.

Must we use the word “his” when talking about superheroes? Certainly the genre’s cast and audience is composed mainly of males, so how does that affect our reading of the book? If being an outcast sows the seeds for a white male to fall into supervillainy (a cynical and bitter response to not fitting in) how does this compare to the experience of someone who does not fit in because of their genitalia or the color of their skin? A white male supervillain does not have as many problems to overcome as say, a black homosexual woman supervillain—how can a supervillain justify their contempt when they have access to so many more privileges than people of other races, sex, genders, etc.

Ultimately good and evil then become contrived notions that are a function of a society’s current sense of morality. All that is good then becomes those whom defend current morality. This completely disregards the individual or the hero himself. The individual and his beliefs become irrelevant when all that matters is that his actions continue to protect the current standard morality. Thus, the heroes within Invincible are often compared with actors in movies playing a role. Since their real selves are such hidden aspects of their lives, when Fatale secretly sees their human sides, it almost seems as if both she and the reader are intruding upon their privacy. In that aspect, these heroes are merely images or roles with the qualities that make them human unknown and perhaps to a certain extent, undesired within the public sphere.

With villains however, what defines them as such is that they rebel against current morality. Doctor Impossible not only seeks power, but seeks it as an individual. While heroes merely reinforce and respond to a society’s current morality, villains act upon unrestrained free will in an attempt to mold the world to their views. As such, villains often embody more aspects of what we define to be human, such as Doctor Impossible’s attempt for recognition from the world that abandoned him and Corefire, the friend whom forgot him, than the heroes whom may or may not even have a worldview of how they perceive the future. Villains are the rebels whom when successful, become heroes in history. When their goals and worldview for the future succeed and impact society’s views yet they die, these so-called individuals then become named as martyrs. It is only when their worldview fails to cause an impact in altering societal morality or the individual fails to predict a future change in morality that the individual becomes named a villain.

So then...

Good and evil may depend on one another, but essentially they're also the same. They're extremities on opposite sides, but they have the same amount of intensity, weight, ethical magnitude and all that great philosophical stuff, except one is just viewed as being positive while the other is viewed as being negative. Yes, they're both labels, but technically we all embody the two, not just one or the other. What makes us unique individuals is the mixture of how good and how evil we really are. For example, everyone has those moments of outstanding saintliness and those times when revenge is the sweetest thing. Good and evil can not be separated. For example, Doctor Impossible's taking-over-the-world scheme isn't completely evil. He merely wanted to lower the temperature of the earth by several degrees, bringing about a perpetual winter wonderland. And he even says himself that, "I can always swing the Earth's orbit in a bit for the occasional sunny day. It's not like I'm going to be a jerk about it" (262). There's some inherent good in Doctor Impossible, being that he also toyed around the idea of the what-ifs of being a hero instead of a villain. He knows that he had the potential to become a hero, he just decided to take the more negatively-viewed approach to power.

I think Oscar Wilde once said "There's no such thing as good and evil; only the mind makes them so, " or somewhere along the lines of that train of thought (I really should find that quote). In any case, good and evil depend upon each other, not only to keep the balance of the universe but for logical reasons. The world depends on comparisons, and without comparisons, life would have neither high points or low points. Life would be a line. Maybe life wouldn't even be a line but nothingness. As discussed in Tiffany's blog entry, labels are a necessity, even though they take away from our individuality. Labels have their drawbacks, but they are also used to distinguish ourselves. Just as Theory Toolbox explains in one of its many wondrous chapters, to have community, one must inevitably exclude others. Conformity comes into play. But if we're all conformists, then who's an original? Was there ever an original? We have idols and gods and what have you, but there isn't a way to prove that Jesus wasn't a conformist, that he wasn't just one of fifty men created in the image of God. People say we're unique, each and every one of us. Yet we're also conformists--each and every one of us. So does that mean each and every one of us is unique but based off of someone else? For instance, if Bubba conforms to everything Chet stands for, but indubitably fails to be Chet, and if Chet strives to be Chuck, and Chuck Belinda, then are we all imperfect replicas of an in-name-only one-of-a-kind?

So if heroism and villainy are intrinsically dependent on each other in order to have a defined existence, then it appears that beyond the scope of their own little world that is in constant struggle to be in balance, they have no real impact on the world. True, the world is basically the golden egg that each is fighting for (although for completely different reasons). However, in terms of being something beyond the scope of "hero" or "villain," there we draw a blank. Even the heroes admit that they really have nothing going for them without linking themselves to the label of "hero." This should make you wonder and question the practicality of having such a dynamic; honestly, it serves no purpose in the world as one cancels the other out. In the end, the labels of "hero" and "villain" only serve as new way of categorizing those who inhabit Earth. After all, in the world described in the novel, there seems to be a rising amount of beings gifted with talents that are beyond human. As humans are creatures that have a need to label, distinguish, and rank, the status of hero or villain is just a way to accomplish this desire. Accordingly, those filed under these categories have assimilated into their labels so well they have lost sight of what their own individual identities are apart from this label, as often occurs with the myraid of other labels we have in the world (religion, race, ideology, social/financial class, etc.). We all conform in one way or another, even if it's conforming to nonconformity, and in the end accepting this categorization implies the we sacrifice a bit of personal identity in the process.

In a circular kind of reasoning, villains are heroes: villains knowingly fight a battle they cannot win, subsequently creating situations for heroes to shine. There is a very fine line that separates villains from heroes. They seem to both share the same want for power and thrive off attention from the media. The separating factor is intention: heroes intentionally save the public from villains while villains intentionally try to attack the public. Does the opportunity to save the public as a byproduct of their evil intentions constitute heroism? From the public’s view, probably not, but in the world that only involves villains and heroes, their co-existence depends on it. As nerdy as this may sound, it kind of makes me think of Le Chatelier’s principle. Villainy and heroism can be in equilibrium with one another. Add more villainy into the world and you magically (or not so magically) create more heroism until they’ve equilibrated again. If that’s the case, though, why not have neither villains nor heroes? Society needs good guys and bad guys so that they can define their own morality. It wouldn’t make much sense to call both heroes and villains the “good guys”. People can’t be fans of villains, because the villain's more conspicuous goal to destroy the world overrides a possible underlying goal to create opportunities for heroes to define "good".

If the Champions are the selfish, ego-inflated youngsters of the time, than the world must have a false illusion of the true concept of heroism. The Champions are very connected to the media and work hard to maintain the image of a hero. They are constantly busy selling their image on commercial ads, television, and magazine covers. This new generation of heroes are engrossed with dating movie stars and attending celebrity charity events. Flashy and bright-colored , their costumes are designed not to protect them in battle, but to depict the illusion of glamour and irresistible charm while smashing villains into bloody pulp. Through their close relationship with the media, the Champions send out to the world that being a hero is all about being good-looking, sexy, and having a charming disposition.

Doctor impossible, is a hero who does not receive the credit or acclaim that he deserves. Since doctor impossible is on the good side, what does it make the Champions? Well the bad guys of course. The champions are just a group of punks who do not benefit society in anyway. They take up a lot of resources so that they can have fancy computers, chairs, and nice headquarters. But more importantly, they feed off of the despair of others. They want people to be in danger and trouble, because if they aren’t in trouble, then the heroes are out of a job. Not to mention that being in the limelight constantly inflates their ego and pride. Guaranteed, if there were not any villains, the heroes would make villains so that they can continue to be in the spotlight and receive credit for saving the world. Heroes do not care for the welfare of society but their own egos and reputations. Every act that they do, is motivated somewhere down the line by their own pride and they should be done away with. Society should move in favor of villains rather than of heroes.

The heroism of villainy

(I meant to post this this morning but I overslept. Sorry! I hope 9 hours is enough time for everyone to post...)

I'd like to argue that Doctor Impossible is the book's real hero, and not just in the sense of being its main protagonist. (Fatale's character never really comes together.) No, Doctor Impossible is, whether intentionally or not, a heroic figure. Time and again he sacrifices everything and winds up behind bars (albeit briefly). Why does he do this? He's the world's smartest man and fourth most notorious supervillain. Of course he sees the holes in his plans--he freely admits that he's doomed to fail just by virtue of being a supervillain. He's part of a system, a script, and he has a fixed part to play. He's the bad guy, and the bad guy can't ever win. Those are the rules and he accepted them at the start of his career. He doesn't take over the world or even kill anyone (not even CoreFire!). So what makes him a villain? The petty thefts? The delusions of grandeur? Not quite; he's a villain because he's not a hero. Much as Europeans can only really unite around the fact that they aren't Americans, the only common thread in villainy is the conviction that one isn't a hero.

So what's a hero? A hero, it seems, is someone who helps people without hope of reward, someone who puts her life on the line for others' wellbeing. But it's simpler than that, and more complex. Heroes can only define themselves as such if there are villains as well. Accepting the conceit that there is no absolute measure of good and evil, good must necessarily be defined in terms of evil, and vice-versa. So villains endanger innocents with their schemes and thereby create endless opportunities for heroism. Heroes foil said schemes and beget further villainy. Villains don't save people from calamity, but by producing calamity allow people to be saved. If not for such scenarios, no one would praise heroes and hate villains. (And heroes almost never fail; supervillains seem to actually kill fewer people than bees do.) So villains fall into a role, but that role is absolutely essential to the continued existence of heroism. Every great superhero survives not in spite of but because of his foes; without them, he's just a kook in mask. Therefore Doctor Impossible is far more selfless than any hero because he exists only to maintain the heroes' legitimacy; when they foil him and send him to jail, they're left with little to do but hold benefit auctions and endorse herbal teas. There is no Doctor Impossible lunchbox because he has resigned himself to a life of being a bad example. Surely the smartest man in the world realizes all this. If so, then his continued acceptance of his role is heroic indeed.