To the Socratesmobile!

I should warn you, things are about to get a little meta here.

The Cape sucks.  This is inarguable fact.  If you liked it, you are a categorically bad person and I will bury you in six different countries (one of them will be Norway).

I just watched this and this idea just hit me so I won't waste a lot of time poetically leading up to the why it sucks (unless you count this sentence…and this one…and this one…and–you know, let's just do it.)

PHILOSOPHY.

Characters are defined by past and motive.  With heroes and villains, though, they require something a tad different than motive.  Motive is what guides a character from event to event, what shapes his reactions to other characters and what happens to him.  Philosophy is what guides a hero or villain through his life, what shapes his reactions to himself and to his actions.  That might sound a tad vague, but let's compare (briefly) the philosophies of THE CAPE.

In THE CAPE, the main character is a cop.  A cop who loves his family dearly.  A cop who is faithful and true to his duty.  A cop who sleeps in his son's bed when his son has a nightmare.  A cop who releases his anger by hitting a heavybag.  This cop is done wrong by a maniacal villain.  The villain takes over the city with his private army of policemen and banks!  The villain is the face of a shadowy corporation!  The villain wants nothing more than total power and control!  The villain is above no means to get what he wants!  Also, he's British, like all villains…ever.

Does this sound familiar?  Well, probably, because it's pretty well-worn.  Hero wants to maintain status quo, villain wants status quo shifted in his favor.  Either way, not a lot is changing, is there?  The city doesn't really suffer under the villain and we can see he actually runs it pretty efficiently.  We're just told to believe he's evil because he's cackling and he's British.  There's no real conflict in it for us, so not a tremendous amount of stake.

The philosophies don't really work, do they?

So let's look at something that does.

Batman's stories are, essentially, philosophical debates.  Nearly all his villains represent an ideology or philosophical point of view and none of them is more recognizable than the Joker.  He's gone through several iterations (several of which will undoubtedly be examples countering what I'm saying here, but that's the nature of comics), but there's been a few points that have remained largely the same about the Joker: he doesn't really want power, he doesn't really want money, he wants to prove a point.

That all machines, institutions and constructs of society are illusions, fragile things that can break and frequently do under pressure (usually applied by him).  Thus, the world is as crazy as he is, pretending it's something it isn't.  He's in on the joke.  It's everyone else that needs it explained to them, so he does.  Batman's viewpoint is that these are things that are real, that they have to be maintained and respected, even if they don't always make sense (hence why he does it himself rather than entrust it to police).

Every fight, every scheme foiled, every plot is a debate, point-counterpoint.

This is what makes a hero satisfying: his consideration of his own point of view against others.  This is what makes villains three-dimensional: their desire to see things done a certain way for the reason they think are right.  This is what makes a conflict interesting: the fact that you, the reader, can invest in a point of view and decide for yourself who is right.

But Sam!

Look, I was just about to wrap this up, so–

Aren't your characters lacking philosophy themselves?  Are they not in it purely for survival?  Is that not more instinct than philosophy?

Hm, you raise a good point, voice in my head.

I would justify my own characters by saying that "I'm not sure" is a valid philosophical point.  Many philosophical inquiries end in it and a character can experience the same.  A character can be a philosophy-in-progress, an argument unto themselves.  You see this frequently, in fact, from some of the most intriguing characters who are frequently pitted against themselves.  Sometimes, seeing the philosophy being created is as interesting as seeing the philosophy in action against someone else.

It occurs to me that this might be a tad heavy, perhaps something that will take a lot more thought on all our parts before we can apply it to our own writing.

But, whatever.  We've got time.

Those of us not on deadlines, anyway.