Today's plugs! Manly Guys Doing Manly Things, and Wayward Sons!

by AstralFire - 07 June

This comic is... well, I'll quote Gez on the Giant in the Playground boards. "The premise is, as the main character puts it, "a temp agency for ludicrously macho guys", where the badass heroes of video games learn to adapt (with more or less success) to a honest job in everyday society now that their adventures are over."

With a once-a-week update schedule, MGDMT is something that I personally recommend you all check out regularly. It is hilarious.

Another item is Wayward Sons. It's space fantasy, near as I can tell, and is only six pages in. And my god, the pages are glorious - it's got a full professional writing and art team, and is updating 5 days a week for now. Not sure how it's going to end up, but I'm guessing it'll be worth a look or three, however it goes.

TheAnteheroes.com - Plugging other people's webcomics since 2009.

Work is under way for an Anteheroes Video Game.

by AstralFire - 08 June

No, I am not kidding you. More information as the situation develops. (This isn't a major developer or anything, but still...)

How Magic Works in the Anteheroes (Part I - Overview and Wizard Magic)

by AstralFire - 08 June

So I thought I'd start detailing this. This is just part I of a multi-part series.

What is magic? The Avalon Council's Codex Principia Magicae defines it as "a fundamental alteration of reality powered by an apeironic source; typically a ley line." The apeiron is believed by scholars of magic to be a relic of the creation of the universe, and those which study multiple fields have blamed the accelerating expansion of the universe on residual apeironic energies. Whatever it is, it can act upon standard energy and matter without being acted upon in return, except in a few very rare cases. This essentially allows magic to break traditional conservation of mass and energy as it is usually understood.

Generally, there are two types of magic available to a person: innate magic, and learned magic.

Those with access to innate magic – fey, as well as a rare few humans, animals and monsters known as arcanists – have a direct inner connection to a source of apeiron energy, and can train themselves to control the flux of power. However, because this connection is severed within minutes of someone being deceased, the exact nature of the connection is unknown. Some scholars have conducted unanesthetized vivisections in pursuit of this knowledge, but the practice is considered extremely cruel, and all magical organizations officially frown on the practice. Many self-regulate members on this point.

The other path, one which anyone can follow if they only have a teacher, is learned magic. A variety of human institutions over the ages have picked up the path, calling themselves Wizards, psychics, mediums, magicians, sorcerers, tantrists, mystics, enchanters, and various and sundry other things depending on the exact nature of their teachings. Learned magic operates on the principle of manipulating environmental magic (usually ley lines) to produce desired effects. Inner connections to magic produce magic of too unrefined and unpredictable nature to develop a unified system of casting around.

Innate magic tends to be more directly powerful than learned, often conjuring matter or effects, but is considerably more limited. A pyrokinetic arcanist can be extremely clever in the application of their fire, but they are still limited to fire. By contrast, learned magic is often subtle, working with what is already present. There are three foremost societies dedicated solely to the study of magic; all three have been operating continuously for more than a millenia, and represent the three major extant learned traditions: the Wizard, the Medium, and the Tantrist. For now, we shall only cover the Wizard.

The masters of this type of magic are often considered to be - in traditional circles - Britain's ancient Avalon Council, headed by High Lord Theophilus (Ted) Pendragon. Wizard (often called Geomancy, Logomancy, or Druidic) magic is typically concerned with the direct but subtle manipulation of the outside – weather magic and magic wards are perennial favorites. Wizards need a focusing symbol to use their powers most effectively; it is possible for an expert wizard to cast most spells without a symbol, but it will take longer and/or be weaker than if she had used a focus. The more mass that a symbol has, the more power which can be channeled through it. The more complicated the shape of that symbol - with a very rough correspondence to the ratio of surface area to volume - the more intricate and precise the spell effect.

Wizard magic always includes a verbal component; traditionally, complicated and archaic Latin, Arabic or Greek phrases were favored, but more recent wizards have begun to use trigger phrases in their own languages for simplicity. Advanced wizards can drop the spoken portion of this component, but they still must envision the word in their minds. The preferred English trigger phrase goes along the formula, "This is the Word of X: Y," where 'X' is the lexicon of magic from which you are drawing your definition of the word 'Y'. However, it is rare for a combat wizard to use this long-hand format; instead, they will develop custom lexicons of a few words - more experienced wizards can have larger lexicons - and switch between these lexicons as needed. (Preferred English command phrase: "Invoke the Lexicon of X.") Only one Lexicon may be active at a time; no wizards are known to be able to circumvent this issue. While a Lexicon is active, a Spell within it may be activated simply by speaking its name.

Super or Otherwise, Still Just a Man - Saving Clark Kent

by AstralFire - 08 June

This video has been the basis for a lot of the discussion here, so I'll link it. There are other segments from the various and sundry Superman media that I think represent the man of steel more - but they usually require more context that I don't want to spoil for people still unfamiliar with Superman, and this one just has a lot of really good, resonating lines. Without further ado, the World of Cardboard speech. And now back to the article!

Time and time again, people say that Superman is 'too perfect' to be written in an interesting manner. He's 'too powerful,' 'too good,' 'too iconic,' and to all of that I say: rubbish. Superman got iconic for a reason. He's got massive star power just from the name alone. Yet these complaints are commonly echoed, and they're not groundless. I enjoyed Superman Returns, and Bryan Singer is a fantastic director, but it still fell short, if you ask me - and Warner Bros. agrees, deciding that the next Superman film would reboot the series. Here's one little black duck's take on the situation.

He's a Man, Not a Boy
Many comic superhero media open up with their hero at the start of their adult life. In some cases (Spider-man), this coincides with the beginning of the hero career. In other cases (Nolan's Batman Begins), it serves as the prelude. Suggestion: Nix this. Superman's origin story is an explanation of his powers, and not much of an explanation for who he is. Superman is Kryptonian in mind even less than I am Korean in mind. Superman has never been to Krypton, the best he can get are a bunch of museum clips from there. As anyone who has been a fan of a culture can tell you, there is a disconnect between what you see and read, and what you finally experience. Until you've been there, you're not even a visitor; until you've lived there, you're not a part of that nation. Avoid this idea.

Now, some of you may be saying, "Why not show him growing up in Smallville?" The answer is, that that does not work. While Michael Rosenberg did an absolutely brilliant portrayal of Lex Luthor, the idea of a deep friendship betrayed does not resonate with me as well as this very... professional, distanced hatred. Luthor himself - particularly in his businessman representation - is more important as a symbol of what Superman is up against. Luthor needs Superman to be Luthor, for he resents the Man of Steel; Superman does not need Luthor to be Superman, however. This also means that we should poke at the rest of Superman's rogues galley, including making new ones, rather than just relying on Luthor every time.

The interesting part of Superman's story is about a series of experiences where he is part of a world, and yet different. He is not human, yet he is more human than all of us. He is a competent country boy in a big city. As is said of Discworld's Captain Carrot, he is a definite linear mover in a world that likes to go in curves. A previous, personal connection to a human villain undermines that.

Ditch the Goddamn Kryptonite
You can't write an interesting story about an invincible being. "Superspeed, superstrength, superdurable, all he fears is a green rock! We need the kryptonite!"

You're missing the bigger picture.

The definition of a god is directly dependent on what that god is being measured to. We are as gods to ants, every single one of us. Yet, humans make for pretty good characters - or so I heard. If one had a story wherein the protagonist was a man, and the antagonist was a perfectly normal ant colony - yes, the story would be boring. That's because you decided to make the antagonists a bunch of things you could stomp on. Ditch the Kryptonite, roll out the mad science, the aliens, the monsters. Hollywood, you've got a fear of movies with more than one superpowered character - it's time to drop that notion. It's okay to have a testosterone fueled fight and big explosions in a thoughtful movie. (Let's not get into the occasional hard-on for trying to make superhero movies so far from what they are that they lose the base audience.) It's a question of keeping it in control relative to everything else, and not a question of 'should we have it at all or not.'

I know kryptonite is traditional and all - but ultimately, 90% of the time it succeeds in either making Superman look like he's so over the top that it's the only way to stop him (and we just discussed why it's not), or like he's actually pretty pathetic. This owes a lot more to ubiquity of the stuff than it does to the actual conceit - there have been good uses. But if we go an entire movie series without using it, we are in good shape.

Will the Real Clark Kent Please Stand Up?
Clark Kent is mild-mannered. Clark Kent is not, however, a pushover or a dork or a weakling. Or at least, he shouldn't be - alternate identities are something that deserve to be played with in terms of how they subtly alter the character, and yet, almost no one's done it. Iron Man has done so well in part because they didn't even try (which was something rather unique, and I applaud how it was done.) Peter Parker and Spider-Man didn't really act different much, either. Once again, Batman Begins nailed this - when we see Bruce in and out of costume, we eventually see three different people. One is the brooding, angry, vengeful young man who is still somewhat at the helm in the suit - just mellowed by discipline. One is the easy-going, light-hearted face he presents to the world. And the third is the realization that somewhere between these two extremes is the real Bruce Wayne.

Clark Kent as presented in the movies tends to be, on the other hand, something almost entirely disposable from Superman. He's presented as sort of annoying conscience in one film, but that just really makes the audience resent him. We're laughing at Bruce Wayne being a jerk because we know why he's doing it. Why do we feel the need to make Superman go beyond humble? The audience should grow to love a real Clark Kent - a Clark who is still just as dedicated to doing the right thing as he is in costume, while also a Clark who is honestly more comfortable behind glasses than he is in a big red cloak screaming 'HIT ME!' A Clark Kent who likes to read, talk with friends, and really just loves the farm. We see hints of this in Singer's take in Returns at the beginning of the film, but ultimately, we spent most of that movie cringing at Clark outdorking us (outdorking, not outnerding) - and we're professional nerds, so. Uh. Wow.

And then we spend the other parts of the movie being unable to relate to him in any way.

Superman is an Inspiration
...Not an impossible goal. When you make him without temptation, without a temper, he becomes an impossible goal. When you don't give him individual wants and desires outside of saving the world, he becomes an impossible goal. A real hero does not need pathos to begin their journey. No dead parents or parent-figures are necessary, even if they do certainly add a nice sense of resonance. That doesn't mean that they still don't have all the little fallibilities of life. I'm sure there are some days that Clark just wants to laze about in his room and read good books. Watch a sports game. And there are times he likely really should enforce, "Unless it's a national emergency, I need this time to keep my sanity."

Some versions of Superman keep Superman robots around for this purpose. Frankly, those are really dumb and I don't like them. Being able to depend on other people to draw on the slack now and then - be it a Justice League or special government agency or just not having the world in absolute peril every five seconds so the police can do their job dealing with the mundanes - would fulfill the purpose well enough.

Let me reiterate: Superman does not need a tragic past to get him started. He does, however, need to be shown struggling with the morale to keep this job up much as Batman has to struggle with keeping from going over the edge and Tony has to struggle with Mr. Jack Daniels. Think of Superman as a big policeman. I don't think a decorated Detective Johnson down at the precinct had his parents gunned down in front of him because of something he did, and odds are he's not corrupt, he's not going over the edge, and his life would still make a great story. CSI, NCIS, and Law & Order are some of the top-rated shows for a reason.

Superman is Not A Tool
This one goes out to Frank Miller. Dark Knight Returns was a horrible derailing of just about everyone involved, including Batman. Good story, but it's not canonical and never will be - for a lot of very good reasons. As Clark quips in the start of Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, "It is called investigative journalism, Batman." Clark is smart (but not supersmart; inhuman intelligence was phased out of his power set for a reason), Clark has a drive of his own, and Clark has an inner need to do good - even if it kills him. You can pull the wool over his eyes for a bit from time to time - like all of us - but you need a genre shift to a second Watchmen to get away with making a main character a patsy 100% of their whole story. It's not heroic.

One of the reasons I think Superman: Red Son is so acclaimed is because Superman turns into a well-intentioned monster after having been raised to believe a set of ideals that he could not enforce in an effective and humane manner. He's not a tool, though - it's his motivations, and he ends up saving the world in the end nonetheless. He is still Clark Kent, he is still Superman, he is still a leader. He is a catalyst.

A Word from Yulian
There are plenty of reasons [why Superman is moral].

Currently, in the mythos, his powers developed gradually. You know Spider-Man's mantra, now imagine a good young man, one whose parents have kept an awesome secret from, slowly developing inhumanly powerful abilities. All his life he's been taught right from wrong by two of the most loving, caring, and fundamentally decent people ever.

They never knew this day would come, but they worried it might. And when young Clark is at a loss, wondering at gifts that just keep growing and expanding and expanding, he turns to his parents, desperate for guidance.

Against all odds, they have the answer.

This is a hugely seminal moment in the Superman mythos that many overlook. He learns the incredible secret of who and what he is, of Krypton, or Jor-El, of the indescribable power he will wield - and his parents, his Ma and Pa, they tell him that they know, that they have always known, and that it changed nothing. They raised him as their own, never caring that he was an alien, they gave him love and guidance, and all the things he would need. In that moment, knowing that no matter what, he was their boy, he learned that the first act towards him from any human was that of two decent people reaching out to him when he was helpless, their fear utterly dispelled by compassion, that they took this strange gift from the stars, and with barely a second thought, took him in and made him their own because he needed them.

This grounds him. This is what makes him "Clark". This is what convinces him, beyond any ability to doubt, that human beings are fundamentally good, strong, compassionate beings. The Kents really are the unsung heroes of the mythos. Their fundamental goodness, the sense of responsibility they instilled in him, those things guide and strengthen their son.

He is a beacon of justice because two people taught him right from wrong and he learned that they acted to do the right thing when he fell from the sky. Human fears, prejudices towards "the other", justifiable caution - all of those things paled before the power of their compassion and love. They are the ones who encouraged him to use his gifts to benefit all humanity, because they felt, deeply and truly, that he had been sent to them for a reason.

That is why he is righteous. Because of Jonathan and Martha Kent.

A Word from Catch
"Me, I've got a different problem."

Listen to the frustration in his voice as Superman explains his burden. It sounds disgusted, almost bitter and resentful, but more importantly, the fact he addresses it at all illuminates a facet of his character. Superman is not only intensely aware of how incredibly strong he is, but he judges the world by his strength, which is an important distinction. It's not just that he's strong, the world is breakably weaker, and that viewpoint informs his decisions.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that Superman draws any sort of arrogance from that judgement. In fact, it makes him more responsible - because people are so fragile, Superman feels obligated to protect them. It's a task, though self-appointed, for Superman to be the custodian of humanity, which is distinct from strength. A hero with powers has the realization that "I'm strong, so I can help people," where Superman believes, "The world is weak, so I've got to protect it."

This imbues in the hero a measure of self-importance and the authority to interfere, because for Superman, there's not an option for retirement. Compare to Batman's duty to Gotham. Both heroes believe their respective jurisdictions would be consumed without them (although it tends to be actually be true more often for Batman), and it isn't so much their strength that empowers them to heroics, but the perception of the world's unending need. It's a subtle difference, but shouldn't be downplayed.

Apropos of that but irrelevant to the point I've been arguing, Superman is sometimes characterized as not feeling strong enough to solve the world's problems, because despite his godlike powers, he's not the god people think or expect him to be. He can't be everywhere at once, and he can only fight one battle at a time. Simultaneously, Superman is so strong he's dangerous, but not powerful enough to save everyone, all the time, everywhere. That psychological turmoil is one of the reasons why I've warmed to him over the years, but still I prefer most other heroes.

In a Nutshell
Super or otherwise, Clark Kent is still just a man. He is a great man. Last I checked, those were easy to write good stories about. What he needs from a writer is a willingness to examine each and every part of his mythos and ask why it is there, and how it really relates to who he is - a great man. There is no problem with Superman, there is a problem with a fanbase that vacillates between starstruck and scornful.