If you read a lot of superhero comics, then you may have noticed that science rarely goes right. There's radioactive spiders running amok, hazardous chemicals placed dangerously near non-lightning-proof windows, and extremely flimsy security around gamma bomb test sites -- and that's just on the hero side of things.
Whenever some ahead-of-his-time genius invents a freeze-ray or weather-control machine, he never seems to use it to benefit mankind, or even just get filthy rich from the profits. No, he tries and takes over the world, kill a superhero, or even just rob banks for much, much less money than his discovery is worth.
So why is it that superheroes are so closely tied to the "science gone wrong" sub-genre? What is it that makes characters like Spider-Man and The Hulk more popular than mystical heroes like Captain Marvel or Dr. Strange? Why do we like to see science fail and everything go wrong? Hopefully, before I get bored and just click "Publish", I will answer this conundrum.
The Silver Age is usually recognised as the beginning of the "science hero" archetype in comics, starting, appropriately, with the Flash in 1956. Although the first Flash, Jay Garrick (created in 1940), did have a science-based origin, it was his successor Barry Allen that endured the cataclysmic laboratory mishap that defined a genre.
Characters like the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and the Atom soon followed with various accidents of their own, not all of them necessarily scientists themselves, but all victims of some careless white-coat nevertheless. Before these poor saps, most superheroes seemed to be the beneficiary of science gone right -- Captain America, Hourman, Starman. So what was it about the 1950's that changed everything?
The Bomb. And just in case that's the name of some obscure Silver Age character,* let me clarify by saying that I mean the atomic bomb. Not only were people living in fear of total annihilation, but sci-fi movies were becoming more popular too, perhaps not coincidentally.
With these semi-parables on the threat of nuclear power -- and how it could change ants into giant ants, or men into giant men, or lizards into giant lizards (I don't think they really understood their subject matter) -- pulling in large audience numbers, comics were sure to follow. Except that they seemed to present both sides of the irradiated coin.
For every Doctor Doom, using science to spread fear and destruction, there was a Mr. Fantastic, using both his science-gifted abilities and his scientific knowledge to save the day and make the world a better place. And this pattern has continued ever since, with one big change.
In Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen, we see the origin of Dr. Manhattan, a.k.a. Dr. Jon Osterman. It follows the basic outline of the "science accident" story, as defined by the Flash. Osterman is even drawn to look very similar to Barry Allen, and the accident itself is said to occur in the late 50's. But, like with all things in Watchmen, this concept is played with and dialled up to eleven.
Osterman's transformation is neither swift nor painless, like most such tales at that point. Instead, we see him frightened at what will happen to him, then in agonising pain, and finally his slow recovery into Dr. Manhattan. Again, as with all things Watchmen, this seems to have set the trend for superheroes.
With the exception of maybe the Hulk (off the top of my head), most science-heroes got over their little snafus fairly quickly and with little non-awesome consequences. Now, whenever their origins are retold, it is with Moore-like qualities of panic, tension and gravitas.
But the central question remains: Even after all these years, why do we still like a good allegory of the failures of science? Considering it has been some time since the last big-name superhero was introduced, we haven't seen a lot of new origin stories crop up. Issues about creativity and character longevity that that raises aside, does this mean that we no longer need our paranoia and insecurity satisfied, or are we all just waiting for the first genetically-modified superhero? Or villain?
(*I know all about the Human Bomb. I mean, other than him.)
No comments:
Post a Comment