Letters to the Editor
-
Is EVERYTHING political?
Maybe I'm guilty of too little navel-gazing, but I kinda thought the popularity of a show about superheroes with younger audiences was pretty straightforward. Turns out it's actually a complex reaction to the socio-political atmosphere since September 11. Not at all because many young people like comic books and action and fantasy in their entertainment.
Jaun, may I suggest your next article be a 500-word essay on which Tekken character Condoleezza Rice would be least likely to choose? Or an in-depth analysis of the parallels between Iraq and the east/west coast rap feuds? (Jumping off point: Suge Knight = Moqtada al-Sadr.)
Not everything is politics, people. "Heroes" barely even touched on anything overtly political until the last three episodes. I feel sorry for anyone who can't just enjoy entertainment without dragging their whole steamer trunk full of ideology into it.
This article reminds me of the awful crap Arianna Huffington used to write (maybe she still does; I stopped reading), throwing in pop-culture references that were about three weeks out of date to show how "in touch" she is. If you've got a good point, you should be able to make it without dragging "American Idol" into it, that's all I'm saying.
-
Not so much
"These things are noticeably, beautifully different from what we're used to seeing on TV. They are subversive because they are accepted. They require no explanation; they are a reflection of a world I would like to see."
While it might be different than what "we" are used to seeing on TV, I think they are accepted without explanation because the focus is on the issues surrounding their superpowers as opposed to the color of the people boinking each other. It's not like they are giving you the life story of a interracial couple who have a mixed race kid. They are giving you the story of an ex-con hustler who can dematerialize at will who is married to a ex-stripper with superhuman strength and agility who have a kid that can control any eletronic device.
-
the Daily Show
Dickless Chinstrap's least favorite show has to be the Daily Show, where he is (properly) mocked constantly. Mothercheney doesn't have the stones to watch it. His daughter might.
-
The Politics of Science Fiction
Juan makes some interesting observations about the subtext in Heroes, but after reading it feel like tipping my hat to the revived Doctor Who, particularly the first season starring Christopher Eccleston--who played Claude the invisible man on Heroes. I dare anyone to watch "World War Three" and "The Long Game" without seeing some very pointed comments on the Iraq War and the atmosphere in America and Britain post-9/11.
-
Sylar Had No Powers
Note that Sylar was actually not a "mutant" until he started taking the brains of others. He was desperate to be different and found no powers of his own, although Dr. Suresh the Elder HAD contacted him.
-
I decided Heroes was unabashedly political when
Micah messed with the electronic voting machines.
I am in an interracial marriage and it is nice to see a relationship "like" my own, such as it is, on a network television show.
But in contrast to the other diverse and well-drawn characters on "Heroes," my husband and I both find the character of D.L. to be insultingly stereotypical and underdeveloped. Why is he the only character unable to hold down a job? (Clearly the man would be eligible for modeling work at the very least.) And while D.L. has one of the coolest abilities on the show, he rarely gets to use it in any interesting way.
-
But what about the fallout...?
I love "Heroes," too. I think Dick Cheney could learn a lot from it.
But I was troubled by the solution Nathan brought. Up they go into the sky. I was hoping maybe it would be so cold up there that they would freeze before Peter exploded, but no, they explode in the atmosphere. And I sat there thinking, yes, it's great that Peter didn't detonate in NYC, but what about the fallout from that explosion? Given what we know now about the effects of fallout from the 1950s atmospheric tests (you can even calculate your own risk of thyroid cancer on the National Cancer Institute's website if you lived here in the '50s), was that really the most moral choice?
It would have been harder to watch Claire shoot Peter, but it might have been the better choice (or, of course, Nathan could have spared her the choice and shot Peter himself).
I do love "Heroes" and its complexities enough to hope that this question will be confronted next year.
-
Everything is political. But it doesn't have to be overt.
If Mr. Kring had decided, "Hey, I'll write a series that criticizes the Bush Administration," it'd last maybe five episodes. (How long did Commander in Chief last?)
A good work of fiction builds from story, characters and their interaction. Political attitudes and viewpoints will naturally develop in such a work over time, assuming a human being is writing it and isn't restricted by a producer or studio. But politics imposed from the start feel awkward and unnatural, and audiences generally reject them.
And in all honesty, some genres tend to have political biases. Science fiction is fairly conservative. In the 1960's, the only mainstream magazine that reviewed science fiction was National Review, and many SF writers like Jerry Pournelle and John W. Campbell are/were libertarians of the "F*** Everybody But Me" school. Superhero writers like Peter David and Dennis O'Neil are old-school liberals, and most superhero stories are modestly liberal. There are exceptions, but those are the general trends of those genres.
And when was the last time you read a techno-thriller that advocated equal rights, international cooperation or not lynching gays on sight? 24 and Heroes are bound to reflect the attitudes imposed by their genres.
-
Boiling the frog.
I guess y'all hadn't noticed that, except for the cool vehicles, the "consumotechno" world that Stephenson predicted is about 3 years from fullfillment.
-
GOOD VS EVIL
Even though I'm a member of the not-so-sought-after 60-something, I have watched Heroes religiously and have urged my 40-something children to also do so. Juan Cole's article made me think about why I watch the show. My conclusion - it's the old comic book hero thing - good vs evil - where good triumphs. And the hope embodied in Hiro that the individual CAN vanquish the powerful.
As someone brought up with an idealistic view of a "peace corps" America that works to improve life for its citizens and peoples around the globe, the last 6 years have been devastating to me. MY AMERICA has been turned into this ogre trampling over peoples' rights and disregarding international law. And, as someone brought up on the news reports of Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley, and Pauline Fredericks, the lack of truth in reporting by most of our news media is appalling.
I think everyone should watch Heroes - maybe it will spawn some Heroes who will restore the United States to its previous nobility.