Marvel Morality

The Subversion of the Folk Hero

Men have the eternal need for myth and folk heroes, and men in the 21st century are no exception. In an age where most legends and mythologies have been forgotten or sanitized, this is unchanged. We have only replaced our real myths with shams, real heroes with antiheroes. Heroism has not disappeared, but subversive undertones have worked their way into all our stories.

If you follow the trail of modern literature, you can see this begin to take shape in only the last hundred years or so with the explosion of popular science fiction and modern fantasy (which is often just sci-fi with a coat of Tolkien-paint).

There was nothing inherently wrong with these genres. In fact, they started off very strongly. But what happens when you start making up completely new stories as is that the new heroes are much more susceptible to ideological subversion, as they take on the ideology of the age. The new archetype isapplied even to retellings of older stories and characters. In 2022, we've reached a point where the modern hero looks very different from the normal heroic archetype. Our heroes all have a case of “Marvel morality”.

Here's my two main distinctions between the classic folk hero and the Marvel-morality superhero. There are others, but these are the most subversive:

1.) Classical heroes kill their enemies. This is really their most essential job. The role of the hero archetype is to slay dragons and evil kings. Their purpose is to root out evil. They may show mercy on occasion, but this is not their primary role. Mercy-giver is the role of the king. The Folk Hero’s job is a violent one for the sake of good.

However, your typical modern era hero story almost always includes a moment where the villain must be offered a chance for “rehabilitation”, or must stand trial, or where the hero does everything in his power to avoid using deadly force out of some moral reluctance. The modern hero is suspiciously full of reluctance to stamp out evil.

This “Marvel morality” is everywhere.

Try paying attention to this next time you watch a modern action movie. There is almost universally a moment in every film where the main character will show some reluctance to kill a truly evil villain (never mind the countless nameless villains the hero kills- this sentiment is reserved only for the main antagonist). This is a truly inexplicable trope. What is reveals is a reluctance on the part of modern Western culture to define actual evil. Everything must be nuanced. When we knew what evil was, heroes did not have to waste time on these silly moral dilemmas. There was no question on whether the heroes dead wife and children “would have wanted” him to take revenge on their killer, no question on whether the tyrant should be violently thrown down from the slain king’s throne. Questions like these would not have even been asked a couple generations ago, but in modern media a hero that kills evil without hesitation is unheard of. It would offend our modern sensibilities.

Think of Superman, or Batman. One of their defining traits is an unwillingness to kill. Even to kill evil, heinous villains. Its fine for Superman to destroy an entire city and likely countless civilians, but not to actually kill the main antagonist. Why? It is because they are products of a Neo-liberal marvel morality.

You could look to The Chronicles of Narnia as an example. In Prince Caspian, Peter duels the tyrannical king Miraz in a single combat. During the duel Miraz is traitorously slain by his own nobles, but there is never any question that King Peter is absolutely trying to kill Miraz. There is never any discussion between Peter and Caspian about sparing Miraz’s life- why would they?

However, the movie version of the story completely changes the this into a scene that could only have been written in the 21st century. Watch this clip (I could not find a clip with the whole scene, here it is in two short parts. Will only take you a couple minutes to view).

What is going on here? There is something very, very off about this scene.

No, Peter is not too “cowardly to take life”. This is a ridiculous question.

Peter saying Mira’s life is “not mine to take”. This is ridiculous. They are in a single combat to the death for the rule of Peter’s kingdom. Of course it is his to take. It is in fact his duty to do so.

Ok, he hands the sword to Caspian. This is fine I guess. Peter is not abandoning his duty, but letting the exiled prince avenge his father. Maybe the scene will turn out ok?

Nope.

Miraz then implies that Caspian killing him means “he has the makings of a Telmarine King”. This is ridiculous. Only a Telmarine King would slay a traitorous, fratricidal tryant? What?

Caspian says “not one like you”. As if avenging his father is comparable to his uncle’s crime of regicide and fratricide? This is ridiculous.

Then, Caspian inexplicably, ridiculously, spares his traitorous uncle in what appears to be some demonstration of high moral character.

Why even write this scene at all? Why show both Peter and Caspian spare Miraz when neither of them do in the book? Why not just have Mira’s nobles murder him during the duel?

Because in the eyes of the writers of this scene, this makes them noble. For some reason, the hero must be shown being merciful to the main antagonist. Because in our modern eyes, for them to single-mindedly seek his destruction would be apprehensible. Note that both Peter and Caspian kill numerous other Telmarines in this movie with no moral qualms, Telmarine soldiers that have all wronged them less than their Lord Miraz did. This scene is in the movie for no reason other than to shove 21st century Neo-Liberal values down the audience’s throats.

This scene is awful.

Mercy is not a bad thing. But it is almost always used inappropriately in modern media like this. It is used not as true mercy, but as nauseating moralizing.

As a result of this inability to define true evil and treat it as such, our heroes must also become less heroic. Our popular media is filled to the brim with antiheroes.

A real folk hero suffers none of these delusions. If Superman were a real hero, he would kill evil men, not let them live to murder another day.

Moving on to another point…

2.) Classical heroes are born for the job. They are demigods, or come from a long line of Kings, or are chosen by a higher power, or are a farm boy who is unaware that he actually comes from heroic stock. There is something actually heroic about them.

But in almost every modern superhero movie, the hero gets his powers through random chance. There is no divine call. No real heroic spirit. Just a glut of regular guys who get superpowers. Occasionally a character is shown to possess some great moral character before gaining power (like Steve Rogers), but more often than not there is nothing special about them. Compare these two statements, one from Aragorn in LOTR and one from the Captain America movie.

“'I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor”

“I’m just a kid from Brooklyn”.

There is nothing actually wrong with the Everyman-hero archetype, it has its place. But modern media does not just use this archetype, but has totally replaced the noble hero with the everyman. In the Marvel morality it is actually moral in itself to be an everyman, and almost immoral itself to be aristocratic.

The idea of the everyman-hero is not that everyone has a hero in them, as modern media likes to pretend, but that everyone could potentially turn out to be a hero. Sam Gamgee shows his heroic character through his humility and bravery. He does not just randomly obtain superpowers.

Very often in modern media, the villain is actually someone with the classic hero archetype. They are often nobility, or wealthy. They have all the makings of a normal folk hero- but they turn evil. You can see the subversion here. Modern media has turned the everyman against the classic hero. In a modern retelling, Sam would still be the hero, but Aragorn would turn out to be a pompous tyrant.

Think of the modern Thor marvel movies. Thor, a folk hero and folk-god, is turned into a joke of a character that decides to give up his throne. This is treated as a good moment in his character arc. It is deeply wrong- but anyone with the makings of the classic folk hero must be subverted.

Again, this is because the modern Marvel morality does not like actual heroes. They do not want nobles, or kings. They wants an everyman who reluctantly fights evil. They do not want a folk hero.

I want to make it clear that all of these tropes are ok in the correct context. Showing mercy to villains, everyman heroes, reluctance to take life, none of this is inherently bad. But these tropes are being used incorrectly, they are being used subversively.

Sure, modern heroes have their moments. They usually become more truly, traditionally heroic as their stories progress. There are good moments of heroism in even in the most subversive stories- there have to be, or else no one would watch them.

The consumers aren’t stupid. They watch the modern movies for the nuggets of real heroism. They do not watch them for the tedious moralizing being forced upon them and their heroes.

No one actually cares if Captain America is reluctant to kill the villain. They just roll their eyes and wait for the monologue to stop and the action to start.

Again, the issue is more that what would normally be an exception to the character of a hero is now the norm. The definition of a hero in the Marvel-morality era is one who is reluctant, unsure of himself, and forced into action. It is a shell of what the hero archetype once was. The norm has become a super-powered but less noble Sam Gamgee, and Aragorns are nowhere to be found.

I can only hope to see a return in popular media to heroes that are righteous, strong, and sure of themselves.