David Fiore continues his immensely interesting Watchmenblogging with an analysis of Rorschach. “[A]t a certain point, Kovacs the man became indistinguishable from his moral judgements of the world”–naturally, sez Dave, this would eventually put him at odds with Dr. Manhattan, who refuses to pass judgement on anything. I’d never thought of the contrast between the two characters in those terms before.
I’d also never thought of Spider-Man/Peter Parker the way Dave breaks it down in that same post:
When we first meet him he’s an ostracized nerd–a nonentity. In more realistic fiction, this type of character only has two options open to him: either he continues to endure social oppression, or he becomes a “somebody” by “standing up for himself”, thus altering the power dynamic in his community. In the actual event–he does neither, thanks to the spider bite. Throughout Ditko’s run, at least, Parker remains the same bookish nerd he’s always been….Web-swinging is more like meditation, or an exorcism–it’s not Peter’s “true self” unleashed.
I think Dave’s hitting upon a unique feature of fantastic fiction–the fantasy, or the spectacle if you prefer, can be used formally to stand in for, transform, or replace traditional/realist psychological motivations and development. Why this unique and liberatory aspect is seen by anti-genre snobs as a bug and not a feature is something I’ll never understand! (However, I wonder if Spider-Man’s creative team–if not Lee & Ditko, then certainly some of their successors–see things quite this way. Watching the film, for example, do you not think we’re meant to believe that Spider-Man is Peter Parker’s true self, or at least the “true self” he wants to have? Spider-Man is clever, physically fit, creative, brave, a babe magnet, a protector of the innocent, and a seeker of justice. It’s worth noting that over the years (witness the current J. Michael Straczynski Amazing Spider-Man, for example), Peter Parker himself has become all these things as well….