Could Lex Luthor Really Save the Economy?
Last week, I wrote a piece about both Mark Millar’s thoroughly entertaining alternate-universe graphic novel, Superman: Red Son and and Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski’s equally compelling Rising Stars series. Both stories concern heroes and villains who change the world not merely through violent super-powered bash-em-ups (although thankfully, there’s plenty of that), but by manipulating the world’s politics and economy.
Both are better than average superhero yarns that play to the strengths of their creators: Millar’s graphic novel is an effective, if somewhat crude, guilty pleasure, while Straczynski’s twenty-four issue series is a smartly told, character-driven genre soap that nearly achieves the epic quality to which it clearly aspires. Problem is, as I noted in the piece, both are hilariously naive when it comes to politics.
Rising Stars, for example, tells of a world in which a comet created just over 100 superheroes who, after squabbling for a while, decide to “change the world.” So one of the heroes “solves” the middle east peace problem by making all of the area’s land fertile. Another decides to dispose of nearly all the world’s nukes, leaving only one for each nuclear power (on the theory that they’ll then work together toward dearmament). Others fight joblessness by “renovating abandoned factories in the Midwestern communities like Flint, Michigan, offering state of the art facilities to overseas investors.”
It’s pretty silly stuff, but it’s nothing compared to the absurdity on display in Red Son. In that story, Superman’s long-time arch nemesis, Lex Luthor — who in Millar’s telling is not merely a scheming villain but the smartest human alive — gets himself elected president and then takes a failed economy and reenergizes it by… well, I’ll just quote the book’s narration:
President Luthor ceased trading with the rest of the world in January 2001 and created a strict internal market where he had absolute control of every dollar bill. By February he had doubled the standard of living for every American, and he doubled it again in March. April saw a return to full employment. By May he had eradicated unemployment in the thirty-four states still under White House control.
OK, so it’s ridiculous. More than that, it’s obviously ridiculous, even giving the Luthor-as-smartest-man-ever ploy — a ploy borrowed directly from the far smarter Watchmen — far more credit that it really deserves. But should it distract from my enjoyment of the story, especially given that major plot points in both stories hinge on false assumptions about the world? As readers, how much political and economic realism should we require from stories, and how much should we let authors and creators get away with flagrant disregard for political and economic realities?
On one hand, these are pulpy superhero stories, and they hardly merit worrying about a few inaccuracies. Superman, to take the most obvious example, doesn’t exist, and neither do any of the lesser-knowns in Rising Stars. If we’re going to accept the existence of a flying, tights-wearing, super-strong alien humanoid in one of the medium’s foundational texts, why not add a few bad political assumptions as well? On the other hand, we do expect stories, even fantastic stories, to adhere to some recognizable reality. If, for example, a character solved a major problem by driving from NY to DC in under an hour, even in a Lamborghini, I think it would be reasonable to be annoyed. But how is that really any more fantastic than turning the U.S. economy around through evil-genius authoritarianism?
What level of political sophistication, then, is it reasonable to expect from a comic book? Perhaps it’s a cop out, but to a large extent, I suspect the answer will just have to vary according to the reader. Personally, I enjoyed both Red Son and Rising Stars quite a bit, but I was still frustrated by the simplistic portrayals of world affairs, not so much because I demand accuracy for its own sake, but because they took me out of the story each time they appeared. So I suppose my advice would be that anyone who can tolerate or ignore these sorts of problems should do so; there’s no sense in refusing to enjoy the real, if uncomplicated and often repetitive, pleasures stories like these provide. But I can’t help but wish I could count on obviously capable genre storytellers like Millar and Straczynski to work a little harder, to expect a little more, to assume that, given a choice, its audience wouldn’t rather read something smarter, more complicated — and maybe even a little more real.
Sure, it may be unlikely, but it’s only ideological conservatives that find this obviously impossible, since they’re the only people who – absent any evidence whatsoever – adhere rigorously to the position that top-down influence of a society is always a net negative.
— Chet · Mar 9, 02:21 AM · #
Chet, I think it’s safe to say that this is silly stuff regardless of your ideology. The stuff in Rising Stars wasn’t top down — those actions were performed by motivated individuals outside the law in what you might almost call a libertarian spirit. But factory refurbishing has been tried with little success, the Middle East would be changed but not made peaceful by additional arable land, and the idea that shuttering the borders and having one guy centrally planning every dollar of the economy would make things better is just total nonsense whether you’re a diehard socialist or a raging anarchist.
Either way, though, I’m not actually all that concerned with the politics of these acts: My question is how much leeway we ought to give these sorts of stories when they deal with politics and economics in silly and simplistic ways.
— Peter Suderman · Mar 9, 02:42 AM · #
They may be silly assumptions, but one has to remember that they’re fantasies. One of the reason people love fantasies in general, and superhero comics in specific, is because they allow us to escape from the troubles of the real world for a while. Sure, the assumptions in these examples — I’m sure you could provide many more — are simplistic and likely unworkable under the best of conditions. But part of the point is that they offer at least a temporary fantasy that allows readers to, for a brief moment, escape into a world where vastly complex and seemingly insolvable can, indeed, be dealt with. It’s a means of manufacturing, even fleetingly, a sense of hope. Of course, the trouble comes when people start believing these fantasies can be applied to the real world.
— Lamar · Mar 9, 01:15 PM · #
Again – no. It’s far-fetched, to be sure – but it’s only “total nonsense” to people like you, who, again, have an ideological commitment to believing it to be total nonsense.
In point of fact, most organizations attempt to exercise total central planning of every dollar of their “economy” – for instance every American family works this way – and most are quite successful at it. There’s really no reason, on the face of it, to believe that “the smartest man on Earth” couldn’t run a nation based on the same principle, in a comic book fantasy land at least.
I think it’s telling, Peter, that you’re unable to even conceive of a human being who doesn’t find it laughable nonsense on its face. I think it speaks to my point about ideological commitments. Obviously someone had to find it not absurd, because it was written and published in a comic book.
It’s like you’re saying “but it’s absurd for the Hulk to be able to punch through a battleship! He’d have to exert a force of more than 2,000,000 Newtons!“ Yeah, but he’s the Hulk. By definition he’s sufficiently strong to do so.
By definition Lex Luthor is sufficiently smart to manage the nation’s economy single-handedly. You only think it’s absurd because you take it as a given that economies can’t be managed from the top. I see people do it every day. What you’re really saying here is that only conservativism makes any sense, and that people should restrain themselves from political fantasy that stems from any other perspective.
— Chet · Mar 9, 01:44 PM · #
(It seems like this system ocassionally eats comments.)
I think it depends on what the genre is for. Lots of people look at superhero comics as power fantasies. The (unsophisticated) reader presumably gets enjoyment for vicarious participation in the story. Or at least that’s how the genre began, as something for youhg boys to fantasise over. And once the genre is set, then the conventions are always there. So you want the characters to be as powerful as possible for maximal pleasure. The villians they defeat need to be superpowerful so that the heros can demonstrate themselves even more powerful. Maximal risk for maximal gain.
In sci-fi, for instance, the purpose is different. Sci-fi is about alternative or potential worlds. To be alternet or potential they have to reference the real world. That’s where the fun is, the comparing the difference between the potential and the real world. It’s fun seeing how Ken Mcloeod’s anarco-capitalist society on mars evolved from his vision of our current society (and it’s really fun to see those arrogant bastards get their deserved come-uppance in the end). So for sci-fi to work it has to be a plausible extension of the real world.
— cw · Mar 9, 04:35 PM · #
I do not agree that The Hulk is by definition strong enough to do anything. He is a character with limitations, who happens to be stronger than the average human by several orders of magnitude.
Similarly, Lex Luthor may be the smartest man on Earth, but there is a leap that needs to be made to state that it is enough to be the smartest in order to control the US economy single-handedly. After all, “smartest” is a relative measure rather than an absolute one.
— Evgeny · Mar 9, 05:24 PM · #
It can be fun to include alternate models of human nature and/or economics in fantasy. There’s a nice bit in Miracleman where the title character, upon assuming absolute power, undoes Thatcherism by outlawing money, resulting in mass celebrations on the streets.
Fantasy? Sure, but not the most fantastic thing in Miracleman by a long shot.
— J Mann · Mar 9, 05:43 PM · #
Chet, you’re the one who is inserting ideology into this. To deny that complete economic control is impossible, even in a comic book setting, does not make that person a conservative troll. It simply means that in their opinion Luthor could never achieve such omnipotence. Peter is not denying liberalism. He’s merely stating that one man economic control is untenable, even in a fantasy world.
What is ideological is your criticism.
And take off that ‘Chewie Was A Commie’ shirt. It needs to get washed at least once a month, damnit!
— Michael Brett · Mar 9, 06:23 PM · #
Then I submit that you are not familiar with the character. No, according to Stan Lee himself, the point of the Hulk is that he is by definition strong enough to do anything you can do with strength.
Whatever the task is, if it can be accomplished by application of physical strength, the Hulk is strong enough to do it. It’s written into the character. (He just has to get angry enough.)
It’s similar to how the Flash is always fast enough, because the Flash is the embodiment of speed, and therefore – if speed can get it done, the Flash can do it. (I’m mixing DC and Marvel but you get the idea.)
I would think Christians could grasp the basic truth of these points, since it’s basically what they say about their cherished fictional character.
I know he’s stating it. The reason he’s stating it without argument or support, but simply as an assertion that is “obviously true”, is because as a function of his ideology it is obviously true. And he can’t conceive of any person to whom it would not be obviously true, because ideologies for the most part are transparent to the people within them.
— Chet · Mar 9, 07:23 PM · #
Okay, Chet, who are the people for whom it would not be obviously true, as a real-world proposition, that one-man economic control of a U.S.-sized economy is untenable? Is that something you yourself see as within the realm of possibility?
Can I state without argument or support that Elvis and Tupac are dead, or would you say my ideology was showing?
This was a non-ideological post about the level of complexity/nuance/plausibility one expects from comic books. I can’t really comment on that, because I don’t read comic books. But I agree with Michael Brett that your criticism of Peter’s “reading” is itself ideological.
— Kate Marie · Mar 9, 07:41 PM · #
You wrote: “As readers, how much political and economic realism should we require from stories, and how much should we let authors and creators get away with flagrant disregard for political and economic realities?”
It would depend on the story; sometimes you don’t need realism and can disregard what life is really like. Thats part of what made a lot of Silver Age comics fun. And if you do decide to take reality into effect its not always necessary to go all the way; Spider-man is set in NYC but aside from that the real life rules of NYC don’t apply. In real life he’d have been hounded into retirement or caught by the cops since he is a vigilante. But if you decide to tell a story like Rising Stars, where its supposed to be the real world but suddenly all these fantastical beings show up then I expect a very large amount of realism. If your story is about a hero interfering in the economy then you should have some grasp of economics to explain what this character is doing, how/why its changing things, and whether it would be good or bad.
Watchmen went for the realism aspect for a very large extent in certain way – i.e. Dr. Manhattan winning Vietnam and also allowing for the creation of Electric Cars which if it happened in the late 60s/early 70s would definitely have had major political effects – but at the same time Moore allowed his own biases to shine through too easily. I mean, Nixon managing to change the Constitution and get into a fifth term? Is that at all a realistic idea to figure would happen just because he asked the sole superpowered being on Earth to fight in a war, especially when a big part of the reporting around Dr. Manhattan is that he is specifically an American asset? Wouldn’t the public have expected him to be sent into Vietnam sooner rather than later and wouldn’t it have been more realistic for Johnson to have sent him rather than Nixon?
Rising Stars had this problem too; take the last issue I flipped through, the one where the hero “solves” the problems of the Middle East by making the entire area fertile. Put aside the non-political issues this would cause (trapping water in the Mideast to keep it fertile would change weather patterns and end up “moving” the desert from there to the south of France) and that probably were never explored; does it sound realistic that making the area fertile would end all war there, that the sole issue is lack of resources, that Israel versus the Arabs (which was the issue the “hero” was trying to really address) or the Sunni versus Shia and so on and so forth would be realistically solved by the actions of the hero? Now if the story had been that this is what the hero thought would happen and the results were something else, that she died to make the area fertile but it didn’t change anything at all – that would be a realistic story. But otherwise its just idealistic nonsense being masked by marketing the story as “realistic”.
And as for Red Son, I enjoyed it but had major problems with the story. A Cold War where the Soviet Union was led by Superman wouldn’t have been as clean and easy the story seems to imply it would be. But on the issue of Lex Luthor singlehandedly fixing the American economy in two months following about thirty years of breakdown and civil war, the thing is that the story kind of implies that Lex helped to cause all of that so that he could push his plan to crush Superman forward while establishing himself as ruler of the world. In fact his election seems to have been more to dictator than to just President. So his quickly fixing damage is more like him quickly repairing something that he broke apart more than his actually creating anything new. But even if we put all that aside, is it realistic for one person, super-genius or not, to be able to radically change society with his actions if put in a position of power? Maybe not in a two month period but sure. What if it wasn’t Lex Luthor? What if it was John Galt? :-)
— MZ · Mar 9, 10:18 PM · #
In the realm of possibility for the world’s smartest and most immoral man? Yes, I see it as “within the realm of possibility” much as it’s “within the realm of possibility” that the Hulk could throw the USS Nimitz into orbit around the moon. As these characters are written, yes, by definition these are things they’re able to do.
Try to keep in mind we’re talking about fictional characters in a comic book, please. Peter can’t seem to remember, and frankly, I don’t think you’ll be smart enough to, either.
We’re in a period now where about one thousand individuals, theoretically the best and brightest in their field, have all but completely destroyed a multi-trillion world economy in the space of two years. I don’t find the plot point as described by Peter all that unreasonable in the same universe where a man can leap tall buildings, outrun a bullet, and stop a speeding locomotive simply because he’s on a planet where the sun is yellow.
— Chet · Mar 9, 11:49 PM · #
Listen, Chet, I’m happy to provide you with my GRE scores in both the general and subject (English) examinations, if you’re worried about wasting your time with a moron like me. I’m also happy to tell you where I went to school (let’s just say Ross Douthat and I have more than just our sub-sapient socon tendencies in common). You wanna put your credentials to discuss works of fiction up against mine? Fine, bring it. Otherwise, put a lid on it. It’s obnoxious, and it doesn’t make you appear more intelligent.
If your brilliant point is that within the comic book universe the plot points that Peter describes are not implausible, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to me. That doesn’t mean other readers of comic books are required to agree with you, nor is the fact of their disagreement evidence of some sort of ideological distortion. As MZ has pointed out above, different readers have different expectations about plausibility, depending on the particular story they are reading. His point also seems entirely reasonable and non-ideological.
— Kate Marie · Mar 10, 01:17 AM · #
Sure, that doesn’t strike me as wrong. The problem is, Peter can’t even conceive of the person who finds it plausible – he’s adamant that the scenario of the comic book is not just ludicrous, but obviously so – and the reason he has that inability is ideology. I really don’t see how that can be denied in the face of the evidence. Plenty of people are telling me that Peter isn’t blinded by ideology; but it’s obvious that he’s blinded by something in this regard, and they refuse to explain what. In fact they don’t even seem to think he’s blind in any way.
Telling me I’m not reading what I’m reading isn’t an especially compelling argument.
— Chet · Mar 10, 04:05 PM · #
Hey, everyone – let’s start a pool on the interlocutor’s age. I’m guessing “Chet” is about nineteen years old. Any takers?
— timber · Mar 11, 01:38 AM · #
I guess the bottom line is that it’s up to Peter where to suspend his disbelief. For me, I’m more likely to get stuck on physics than on economics. IMHO, it’s conceivable, albiet fantastically unlikely, that Luthor might discover some method of economic organization that has so far escaped humanity. (Fantastially unlikely on the order of a time machine or perpetual motion device, both of which Luthor has probably also invented in some story or other).
On the other hand, I don’t see any way that Mr. Fantastic can defeat the problem of leverage when he lifts something 50 feet away from him, or any way that Wolverine can actually push his claws through a solid object like a wall, notwithstanding the infinite sharpness of the points and blades. (He could scratch it, but he can’t be strong enough to push apart the car engine, or brick wall, or what have you. As a thought experiment, make a two dimensional cut the length and depth of his claws through a brick wall. Place the edge of his claws against that two dimensional cut. What will it take to push them all the way through?). Alternately, if you alter physics enough to make Mr. Fantastic’s distance lifting or Wolverine’s slashing possible, then those changes have so many other implications for the universe that the story breaks down.
This used to come up in Deep Space Nine all the time. Lots of fans got very upset that according to the DS9 writers, the Federation was a productive, innovative, but non-capitalist society where people were forbidden by law from making voluntary trades with each other based on a medium of exchange. I agree that such a society is almost inconceivable, but once I grant faster than light travel, time travel, and transporters, it doesn’t seem that great a leap to assume the possibility of some unforeseeable advance in economics or human nature.
— J Mann · Mar 11, 02:54 PM · #
Peter, I’d say that part of the pleasure of stories like Rising Stars is seeing how obviously impossible events would play out in a world very much like our own. This kind of story is most interesting when the obvious intrusions have a kind of ripple effect, changing only what they touch. Rising Stars was obviously aiming at something like this. But then the world the heroes inhabit turns out to be one where political problems already have some fairly simple solutions that nobody has the will or power to try. To that end, the book probably would have been slightly better if it had tried to ground these minor bits of politics-related narration in real-world conditions, though, to be honest, it wouldn’t really make a difference to me.
I’d put Red Son in a different category, though. Red Son was about changing the already weird-and-wacky DC universe, not our own world, and so having Lex (a dude who in main continuity transferred his mind to a cloned body, became president despite heinous crimes against humanity, and much much more) be an impossible super-genius didn’t seem to be such a problem to me. (If it were meant to be about our world—why Batman?) The worlds of DC and Marvel are very different from our own, and touch it through allegory and symbol, not through the ripple-effect sort of thing that Rising Stars, Watchmen, and other stand-alone stories can do.
— william randolph · Mar 12, 12:39 AM · #