On The Species of Origin

I decided to move this one up a day since I had so many great comments and responses and I kept having to allude in my reactions to them about "the answer I'll blog about later."

Well, it's LATER!

So I think I may have figured some things out about both how I see superheroes and how the public at large sees them.

I think for superheroes (in the broad sense of them as cultural artifacts), origins are a merely a vehicle. Take Marvel's mutants as an example. The whole point of mutants was so we could get to superhero action without any origin nonsense. "They were born that way! Suit up and shoot eye lasers at living islands already!"

The way Stan Lee thought of mutants is how I tend to think of existing characters, like Batman or Captain America. But broader audiences want character more than plot. As a guy who loves superheroes on their own merits, it doesn't bother me that they're generally much more plot than character. A wider audience is not that forgiving to the concept. This explains shows like Alphas, Heroes, and (some of) Smallville.

This is also probably why the tone of the Lord of the Rings movies felt so different from the books even thought there was almost no plot deviation.  A broader base of fantasy watchers need it grounded in people. It is grounded in people in the books, but in a VERY different way.

So, my guy Ajax Steward, Engineer of the Impossible, born to a long line of pulp or superheroic people, raised by his dad to be the ultimate science hero and problem solver, he needs no origin story. Drop the guy into a fight with, I don't know, mystic Nazis and werewolves.

But a currently unnamed character (I have two names, but I'm waffling between them) who starts out a totally entitled, spoiled douche bag, has tragedy strike to show him what's really important, becomes a better person, which thereby opens him up to super powers... that's a guy who needs a bloated, overwrought origin story.

Take my other great love: Pulp. Pulp is plot transcendent. What's happening? Who is it happening to? Where's the square-jawed hero? How will he stop the cackling villain?

Superheroes are much more plot focused. The focus is so heavy that the character stuff happens during the plot most of the time. So often, in fact, that you could almost make the mistake of considering it plot transcendent. But it isn't, not quite. It's just the conflicts are literalized. I have an argument with my wife, of course she throws an invisible force field up at me. I'm worried about my kids, of course a grown up version of them comes from the future and I hate how they turned out. I'm a planner and a total type A who wants to save everyone's life, of course my arch nemesis is a chaotic homicidal clown.

But those are all still character arcs, they're just worked out in plot. Steve Rogers has a good heart and a crap body, but the good heart turns him into exactly who his people need. Peter Parker makes one bad decision, and it haunts him forever into doing the right thing even when it sucks the hardest. Tony Stark is an entitled jerk who gets hoisted on his own petard and, instead of just getting angry, realizes it's a pretty crap petard in the first place. That's storytelling GOLD.

Some don't need it. Thor has power and believes the weaker deserve protection by the stronger. Superman sees the good in everyone and then reflects it back to them with his selfless actions. Batman creates a crime fighting family because crime steals families. Obviously there could be explanations for all this, but they'd be explanations and not stories.

When it comes to the question of "is a long origin story necessary?" I guess my answer purely in the realm of theory is "sometimes." Practically speaking, I'd probably entirely solve all my problems with the power of flashbacks. But DAMN those are hard to write well!