I'm pretty sure that comic books had a not always recognized but probably powerful influence on me. I used to read great piles of them - this was between 1958/9 and 1966/7, roughly, a bit earlier than your comics heyday.
I remember reading comics that were mostly in the DC universe- Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman (this was back when she was the original Wonder Woman, not the martial-arts UN interpreter or whatever came after that), my all-time favourite Black Canary, and many of the other Justice League of America heroes. But I also read Marvel comics - including the Fantastic Four, Spidey, Thor, X-Men and Daredevil - but not quite as many of them.
I think that, at the time I was reading Marvel comics, their stock of female heroes was pretty lean - Sue Storm Richards really wasn't as powerful or as prominent as the boys were in F4, at least not in my comic-reading days. I gather that at some point after I stopped reading comics, Marvel got a lot better in this regard - certainly the modern X-Men seem to be crawling with strong female heroes, when in my day all they have was Marvel Girl, who, like Invisible Girl, didn't get as much face time as the boys.
But I'm pretty sure that the comics were one powerful source of my conviction that it is imperative that one stand up for what one believes is right - especially when it involves harm or injustice to others - even if no one else will stand up with you. It's possibly also a part of the beginnings of my very ambiguous feelings about vigilantism and sabotage. There's a part of me that sees these as neutral means, rather than intrinsically "evil," and I'm pretty sure that some of that has to do with very early images of all of these heroes working outside of the law to achieve good ends. And while my higher moral sense tells me that the ends do not justify the means, something inside me can accept these means if there are no others, and the ends are good enough.
For instance - I've never supported the invasion of Afghanistan, because it meant the death of too many civilians, who were in no way implicated in terrorism and were mostly just trying to survive under the Taliban, and because it was a declaration of war against a third party - Afghanistan did not attack the US, some people living in Afghanistan did. A big difference in law, in my eyes. But I could have accepted a covert mission directed against Bin Laden, assuming that all other diplomatic means had been tried and failed (which they were not, as far as we can tell based on information that was public) - if the mission was to capture for trial rather than to kill.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-08-20 08:06 pm (UTC)I remember reading comics that were mostly in the DC universe- Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman (this was back when she was the original Wonder Woman, not the martial-arts UN interpreter or whatever came after that), my all-time favourite Black Canary, and many of the other Justice League of America heroes. But I also read Marvel comics - including the Fantastic Four, Spidey, Thor, X-Men and Daredevil - but not quite as many of them.
I think that, at the time I was reading Marvel comics, their stock of female heroes was pretty lean - Sue Storm Richards really wasn't as powerful or as prominent as the boys were in F4, at least not in my comic-reading days. I gather that at some point after I stopped reading comics, Marvel got a lot better in this regard - certainly the modern X-Men seem to be crawling with strong female heroes, when in my day all they have was Marvel Girl, who, like Invisible Girl, didn't get as much face time as the boys.
But I'm pretty sure that the comics were one powerful source of my conviction that it is imperative that one stand up for what one believes is right - especially when it involves harm or injustice to others - even if no one else will stand up with you. It's possibly also a part of the beginnings of my very ambiguous feelings about vigilantism and sabotage. There's a part of me that sees these as neutral means, rather than intrinsically "evil," and I'm pretty sure that some of that has to do with very early images of all of these heroes working outside of the law to achieve good ends. And while my higher moral sense tells me that the ends do not justify the means, something inside me can accept these means if there are no others, and the ends are good enough.
For instance - I've never supported the invasion of Afghanistan, because it meant the death of too many civilians, who were in no way implicated in terrorism and were mostly just trying to survive under the Taliban, and because it was a declaration of war against a third party - Afghanistan did not attack the US, some people living in Afghanistan did. A big difference in law, in my eyes. But I could have accepted a covert mission directed against Bin Laden, assuming that all other diplomatic means had been tried and failed (which they were not, as far as we can tell based on information that was public) - if the mission was to capture for trial rather than to kill.