Who Watches Them Piss on the Watchmen?

WATCHMEN_2012_OZY_Cvr

This piece first ran at Slate.
_____

Even by the wretched standards of the entertainment industry, superhero comics are known for their dreadful labor practices. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the creators of Superman, famously sold the rights to the character to DC Comics for $130, and spent the latter part of their lives, and virtually all their money, fighting unsuccessfully to regain control of him. Similarly, Jack Kirby, the artist who co-created almost the entire roster of Marvel characters, was systematically stiffed by the company whose fortunes he made. Though most of the heroes in the Avengers film were Kirby creations, for example, his estate won’t receive a dime of the film’s $1 billion (and counting) in box office earnings.

In keeping with this depressing tradition, DC will, next week, begin releasing new comics based on Watchmen, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s seminal 1986-87 series. Before Watchmen will include not one, not two, but seven new limited series, written and drawn by some of DC’s most popular creators, including Brian Azzarello, Darwyn Cooke, Amanda Conner, and Joe Kubert. Watchmen demonstrated to a mainstream audience that comics could be art, and became one of the most popular and critically acclaimed comics of the last 25 years. Up to now, it had also been one of the most sacrosanct. For over two decades, DC has resisted the urge to publish new material featuring Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, or the Comedian.

You’ll notice the list of writers and artists involved with Before Watchmen includes neither Moore nor Gibbons. This is not unusual in superhero comics. Most work for DC and Marvel is created on a work-for-hire basis. Thus, the original creator of, say, Walrus Man will usually go into a deal with one of the big two comics publishers knowing that the Titan of Tusk will become the company’s property—his aquatic adventures to be written and drawn by whomever the corporate overlords deem fit.

What is unusual, though, is the vehemence with which the original creator has denounced Before Watchmen. It’s true that back in the ’80s, DC tried to get Moore and Gibbons on board for a sequel. That didn’t pan out, though, and in the ensuing decades, Moore’s relationship with DC has soured, to put it mildly. Among (many) other things, Moore became increasingly angry with the company over the handling of the rights to Watchmen itself. In the original contract, DC had written a provision stating that the comic and the characters would revert to Moore and Gibbons once the series went out of print. Moore had assumed that, as with all comics in those pre-“graphic novel” days, this would happen within a few years. Instead, of course, Watchmen was a massive hit—so massive that the trade paperback collection of Watchmen has been in constant publication, and probably always will be.

Gibbons has largely seemed content with DC’s perpetual ownership of Watchmen. Moore, though, is a different story. He refused to accept recompense for the 2009 Watchmen film, which he referred to (sight unseen) as “more regurgitated worms.” As for Before Watchmen, he made his position painfully clear in an interview: “I don’t want money. What I want is for this not to happen.”

Watchmen‘s canonical status, combined with Moore’s dissent, has led to an unusually vocal backlash against DC. Chris Roberson, a sometime DC writer, decided to stop accepting work from the company because of its record on creator’s rights. Cartoonist Roger Langridge, who wrote the acclaimed series Thor: The Mighty Avenger for Marvel, followed suit, explaining that “Marvel and DC are turning out to be quite problematic from an ethical point of view to continue working with.” And Bergen Street Comics in Brooklyn will not be carrying the Before Watchmen titles; in explanation, Bergen Street’s manager, the comics critic Tucker Stone, said, “This is just gross, and we don’t want to be part of this one.”

It would be nice to say that Roberson, Langridge, and Stone are at the forefront of an all-out revolt against DC and Marvel’s business practices. That’s not really the case, though. For the most part, DC and Marvel’s writers and artists are still writing and arting as they always have; comics stores are still carrying the comics; and fans are still buying. Yes, if you go stumbling about in the comments of mainstream comics blogs (here for instance), you’ll find some outrage on Moore’s behalf. But you’ll also find a significant number of folks who don’t care, and who are actively irritated that anyone thinks that maybe they should care: As one fan said, “Alan Moore is a very arrogant guy that really hasn’t done anything relevant in a very long time and should really spend more time creating and less being a cranky old guy in a pub.”

J. Michael Straczynski, one of the writers on Before Watchmen, summed things up for many when he asked rhetorically, “Did Alan Moore get screwed on his contract? Of course. Lots of people get screwed, but we still have Spider-Man and lots of other heroes.”

Straczynski’s contrast between Alan Moore (screwed!) and Spider-Man (still ours!) nicely sums up the fandom dynamics of superhero comics. Creators are there to churn out marketable, exploitable properties … and then disappear. And because the comics companies own the characters, and because they have substantial marketing departments, they’re in a position to make that disappearance stick. Who knows who created all those different Avengers? Who knows who created Wonder Woman? Who cares? We want our modern myths packaged and available at our corner store and on our movie screens. Also … toasters.

Why is Moore complaining? It’s not about the money, as he’s said. (That’s probably a big part of the reason people call him a crank.) But Moore created a group of characters and the world they live in; those characters still mean something to him. Now a company he believes has screwed him over gets to colonize and even define that world. For example: Moore’s comics have often been concerned with feminism, and one theme of Watchmen is that the superhero genre is built in part on retrograde sexual politics and thuggish rape fantasies.

And how does Before Watchmen address these issues? Like so.

If this were some piece of fan fiction detritus—naked Dr. Manhattan, porn-faced Silk Spectre!—it would be funny. But given that this is an “official” product, it starts to be harder to laugh it off.

Of course, this is one of the things that always happens with art. If you create a beloved character or story, others are going to honor it, parody it, use it, and abuse it. That’s why there’s fan fiction. Indeed, Moore and artist Melinda Gebbie literally defiled Dorothy Gale, Alice (of Wonderland), and Wendy Darling in their exuberantly pornographic Lost Girls. Given that, what does Moore have to complain about exactly?

What he has to complain about is that he doesn’t own his own characters … and the company that does own them is free to pursue any version of the characters it likes, whether honoring Moore’s original vision (as DC has been careful to assert) or turning it into bland, infinitely reproducible genre product (as many suspect they will). And DC has the marketing might to ensure that, in the end, its version will be the one that’s remembered. After the third or fourth Before Watchmen movie, which iteration of the characters will be most familiar to the public? Rorschach and Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan have been raised from their resting place, and Moore—and the rest of us—now get to watch them stagger around, dripping bits of themselves across the decades, until everyone has utterly forgotten that they ever had souls.

Utilitarian Review 10/24/15

News

I’m running a Patreon in the hopes of creating a weekly column focusing on stuff I don’t get to write about in mainstream venues. So, if you like my writing, consider contributing.

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Meg Worley on Wilfred Santiago.

Chris Gavaler on George W. Bush’s favorite cowboy artist.

I started a Patreon.

Kim O’Connor on Adrian Tomine’s poor record on female characters.

Me on Watchmen, Daredevil, and using crime grit to validate superheroes.

Robert Stanley Martin with on sale dates of comics from mid 1949.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

My first piece for Pitchfork! I wrote about Tarantino, Johnny Cash, and the white fantasy of the black outlaw.

At Playboy I wrote about why James Bond’s violence is more troubling than Quentin Tarantino’s.

At Quarts I wrote about how remembering the Holocaust is used to justify violence.

At the Guardian I wrote about the limitations of Star Wars diversity.

At the Chicago Reader I had brief reviews of

—pop math rock trio Tricot

—weirdo death metal grandpas Autopsy.

At Splice Today I wrote about

—why America should admit it doesn’t care about AFghanistan

—the heartbreak of not writing that Back to the Future thinkpiece.

Other Links

The greatest moment in comics history.

Yasmin Nair on why Clinton won’t reign in Wall Street.

Selena Kitt on Amazon’s efforts to make writers of self-published erotica miserable.

Ted Gioia on the case for musical universality.
 

bond_2312061b

No Trenchcoat for the Giant Squid

So, as some of you probably know, I’m currently working on a Patreon to fund one column a week about topics I can’t get mainstream sites to publish. (The column will be called Twisted Mass of Heterotopia, by the by — or it is called that, since this is the first one!)

This piece is a kind of sample of the sorts of things I might write about. I initially placed it at a lovely little crime fiction site called The Life Sentence. But before it could get published, the site shut down. Because there’s no business model that makes printing things like this affordable.

So, since it was homeless, I figured I would run it here. If you’d like to see essays like this on a regular basis, please consider contributing.

Thanks also to Lisa Levy, my editor, who offered a bunch of suggestions that made the piece better.

__________
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s 1987 graphic novel Watchmen famously opens with a murder mystery: the Comedian, superhero and government operative, has been thrown to his death from his upper-story apartment. The detective investigating the crime, trench coat and all, is the brutal, deadly superhero Rorschach. After the police leaves he invades the Comedian’s apartment in a grid of light and shadow, his body leached of color as a semi-silhouette against dramatic squares of black and yellow. In this context, Rorschach’s masked face, with its shifting globs of black on white, becomes a genre reference. The superhero’s secret identity in Watchmen is noir — at least until Moore and Gibbons undermine that, as they undermine most everything else.
 

Watchmen-0108

 
Watchmen is probably the most critically acclaimed superhero comic ever ;,regularly appearing high up on best of comics lists, and even garnering a spot on Time’s list of 100 Best Novels,. It is perceived as, and presents itself as, serious art . And part of the way that it presents itself as serious art is by using the tropes of tough pulp crime .

Compared to highbrow lit, crime fiction can seem declassé. But superhero comics have long been aimed at children, and have a tradition of whimsical goofiness — Captain Marvel fighting an evil sentient worm, or Wonder Woman bouncing off to the stars on the back of a giant space kangaroo, In comparison, Raymond Chandler and Jim Thompson come across as relatively validating and adult. Crime lends superheroes grit, seriousness, and realism.
 

monsters-mind3

 
And so Rorschach’s origin story involves the true-crime 1964 Kitty Genovese rape . In a case early on in his career Rorschach investigates a child’s murder, and ends up killing her killers in bloody fashion. He later breaks a man’s fingers for information, and tracks down a crime boss in a shadowy prison saturated with enough blood and tough talk to fit neatly into the lineage stretching from Assault on Precinct 13 to Oz.

Watchmen created a whole slew of adult, gritty violent superhero narratives in its wake. One of the most notorious was a 1994 Green Lantern story in which GL”s girlfriend was murdered and stuffed into a refrigerator. Another was the 2004 series Identity Crisis in which Sue Dibny, the wife of that silly character, the Elongated Man, was brutally murdered. These comics were not necessarily highly thought of, but they show the trend towards using crime and pulp violence as a way to signal adult fare, and separate superheroes from their infantile past. There’s nothing like a murdered superspouse to demonstrate that comics aren’t for kids any more.

The most recent high-proifle example of superhero crime as validation is the highly aclaimed Daredevil Netflix series. Daredevil is the most ground-level, grimy, street-level-crime focused Marvel franchise since 1998’s Blade.  The series is loosely based on the also much-admired Frank Miller/Dave Mazzucchelli graphic novel Born Again  — not so much in its plot as in its vision of Matt Murdock fighting alone against the Kingpin and his tangled web of organized villainy. Daredevil’s origin story (in both comic and television) involves his boxer dad enmeshed in a price- fixing scheme. On Netflix, his first episode battle is against human traffickers. These familiar genre narratives signify realism because they ooze a familiar corruption and sleaze.
 

720x405-marve_pds_007_h

 
The fact that the Kingpin is involved in a complicated gentrification scheme seems like meta-commentary . The upscale skyscraping jauntiness of Iron Man or Thor or even Ant-Man has no place here in these grim, rent-controlled, crime-ridden streets. Daredevil is tougher and truer because he’s fighting street-level dealers and pimps and local-news-headline scum. The hero has supersenses (not very realistic that) but he usually uses them to figure out whether people are lying so he can torture them in classic tough guy style. The interdimensional alien invasion which closes out the Avengers film serves as the backdrop for the Daredevil series — the evil Loki’s monster army destroyed all the buildings that the Kingpin plans to rebuild.  But that decidedly un-gritty invasion backstory serves as a foil. Those silly things fly around up there in someone else’s superhero narrative. Here (for the most part) our superpowers are dark, serious, and earth-bound.

An alien of sorts also whooshes in at the conclusion of Watchmen — and not coincidentally, that ending has often been seen as one of the series’ weakest moments. All the grim darkness and dark grimness, and this is the end? Rorschach’s pulp investigation turns out to be a preposterous red herring set up by super-villain/hero Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. No one was out there murdering superheroes, as Rorschach thought. Instead, it was all a distraction from Veidt’s plan to build a giant Cthulhu-analog complete with broadcasting psychic-brain and explode it in New York, thus uniting the world against the alien invaders. The whole thing is utterly preposterous sci-fi goofiness. And Rorschach, our intrepid detective, is disintegrated by Dr. Manhattan with an energy blast. So much for realism.
 

latest

 
I remember reading Watchmen when I was in high school and being hugely disappointed by the goofy conclusion (did I mention Ozymandias catches a bullet? He’s got Tibetan mystical skills or something, so he catches a bullet.). But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate the ruthless silliness with which Moore undercuts his own pulp validation.  Rorschach thinks that crime and the brutal law of the streets is reality. As a ground-level detective, he figures that the problems he faces are ground-level problems that he can work out. Solve a murder, find the killer, break a few fingers —maybe it won’t save the world, but it’s doing good by inches in the muck of Real Life.

But what if Real Life isn’t particularly real? What if all that local-news-panic crime doesn’t actually matter? Veidt saves the world in one big rush by dropping a gigantic alien bomb — or possibly he doesn’t save anything, and just kills a whole mess of people, like George Bush rushing into Iraq. Either way, he and his ridiculous megalomaniacal schemes are a lot more real, in the sense of real consequences, than Rorschach wandering around looking for some cape-killer who seems small-scale enough to exist but actually doesn’t. Pulp conspiracy theories are too small; the people at the top have bigger plans. There are supervillains, and they always win. All the time.

Watchmen is often credited with deconstructing, or undermining, superhero tropes — with showing how naive and silly the caped saviors are. That’s a reasonable way to read the comic. But I think, by the end, you could see it not as a deconstruction of supeheroes, but as a way to use superhero tropes to deconstruct, and undermine, the grim gritty myth of pulp noir crime realism. At the end of Watchmen, Rorschach is dead, and the debris and blood is being washed and cleansed away from the New York streets. The future is gleaming and shining and new. and littered with dead bodies. The small scale cop solving just one murder at a time seems almost too cheerful—an exercise in Nostalgia, which, not coincidentally, is the name of the perfume line Ozymandias’ company abandons at the conclusion of the comic. A fake alien is more real in the end than a fake gumshoe. And compared to the machinations of the superpowers, crime looks less like reality, and more like a distraction.
_______

If you’re interested in seeing more columns like this, consider supporting my patreon.

Patronize Me!

Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 6.41.34 AM

Hey, folks. So, I have finally gotten with all the hip kids, and posted a Patreon account. The hope is that folks will donate to have me write a weekly column here at HU, where I will write about all those cultural things that are too unpopular, or old, or weird to write about on mainstream sites.

The name of the column will be Twisted Mass of Heterotopia; the exciting page where you can patronize me and all I stand for is here.

Some longtime (or even not so longtime) readers will be saying, hey, you write about this sort of thing on HU for free all the time! Why do you suddenly need money? A good question! There are two answers:

1. I’d like to start getting paid for what I do here, rather than putting all the work in for free;

2. As I get more freelance work, I’ve had less and less time for the blog, and especially less and less time to put in to in-depth posts on topics I’m not poking at elsewhere for other reasons.

Folks may also be curious how or whether this will change the rest of the blog, outside my writing. The short answer is, I”m not sure. Obviously, if no one throws money my way, nothing will change…though the blog has been in something of a lull for a few months, as my attention has been elsewhere, and I’ve been less engaged in getting new contributors.

If I do manage to get a paying column going, that would mean I would be getting paid here and others would not. I do hope, if I make some of my stretch goals, to pay a guest poster every month…but that may be pie in the sky, and in any case obviously wouldn’t fund paying for every post. I will still be doing volunteer posts here, and hope others would as well, but if people aren’t comfortable doing that given the changed circumstances (if they do change) I’d certainly understand that, and HU might transition to more of a place for my column and musings rather than a group site…but again, that would really be up to what contributors want to do.

This is all getting ahead of myself though. It’s entirely possible this won’t work. But! If you’d like to make it happen, and boldly go where some have gone before but not me, please consider contributing.

Here’s my exciting marketing statement explaining what I think I’m doing. Be swayed by the marketing!

Point your internet to the cultural arbiter of your choice, and chances are you will stumble upon a Game of Thrones think piece. Or a Taylor Swift think piece. Or a Marvel supeheroes think piece. Or maybe on a think piece about Taylor Swift being bitten by a radioactive fantasy novel. With great power, winter is coming. Shake it off.

The point is that mainstream sites tend to write about the same popular things, because popular things are popular. And that’s fine; I’ve written my share of Game of Thrones and Taylor Swift and Avengers think pieces. But I’d also like to write about Nora Olsen’s YA LGBT thriller “Maxine Wore Black”, or how Chuck Berry invented rap, or how D.M. Thomas’ The White Hotel is that rare thing, Holocaust art that does not suck.

That’s where this column comes shambling in. Twisted Mass of Heterotopia will focus on art you don’t usually get to see covered in mainstream venues. The lens will sometimes be feminist, sometimes formalist, and sometimes something else. But the goal is a column once a week at my site, the Hooded Utilitarian. Stretch goals include guest posts from other awesome writers.

All backers will get early notification of column topics and the secret explanation of the column title. Backers higher levels can get ebooks, a chance to commission a column, and other goodies.

As a writer, it is enormously exciting to have the chance to get paid to write about what interests or fascinates or disgusts me, without having to worry about clicks or the brutal tyranny of the news hook. Thank you so much for supporting me. I really appreciate it.

 
There are various goodies if you contribute, including free ebooks which do not exist yet but which I will figure out how to create if anyone actually puts in money at that level. And my wife pointed out that if no one contributes, I can at least write an article about my failed Patreon campaign…which oddly didn’t comfort me quite as she seemed to think it would. But I’ll take what consolation I can, I suppose.

Utilitarian Review 10/17/15

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Ng Suat Tong on Joe Sacco’s Journalism.

Robert Stanley Martin with on sale dates of comics from late 1948

Me on the visual crappiness of the Marvel movies.

Chris Gavaler on the Golem as first superhero.

Anthony Easton on Sholem Kristalka’s Berlin Diaries and how comics are not defined by juxtaposition.

Me on Numero Group’s Lonesome Heroes comp of fey male folk against the war.

Robert Stanley Martin with on sale dates for comics from early 1949—including Barks’ Lost in the Andes.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At Playboy I wrote about the Richard Glossip case, race, and the arbitrariness of the death penalty.

At Quartz I wrote about Tarantino and the sadness of white directors.

At Ravishly I wrote about how everyone needs diverse books (also Delany’s Trouble With Triton.

At Splice Today I wrote about

—the apocalypse kitsch of Jonathan Jones.

—how discussions of privilege and race have energized the anti-prison movement.

how Joe Biden is running for President. No, really!

I worked on this Shmoop study guide for Helen Prejean’s Dead Man Walking.
 
Other Links

Pauline Gagnon on the famous astronomer who resigned over multiple sexual harassment charges.

Elizabeth Bruenig on why Sanders is far better than Clinton on poverty issues.

On how U.S. financial crises result when we go to war without paying for it.
 

41oOM0KH51L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

Are We Not Men We Are Fey

wayfaring-strangers-lonesome-heroes-1

This first ran on Metropulse.

The subtitle of this heavenly collection of 70s and early 80s singer-songwriter folk is a misnomer. The singers on these tracks aren’t weather-beaten Clint-Eastwoodesque fighters. The Vietnam War and the draft do hang over the album like a grey, dreamy shroud, but the response they elicit isn’t defiant so much as resigned, and vulnerable. When George Cromarty insists with a light Donovan quaver, “There’s always someone to pick up your toys…at the end of the day, little children,” it’s less reassurance than prayer. The performers here cling to childhood because they know that adulthood means an immediate confrontation with mortality — as in Jack Hardy’s “The Tailor,” where the titular seamster asserts “I am not a tailor, I’m a man,” before being dragged off to the gallows. More typical is John Villemonte’s “I Am the Moonlight,” where the singer sloughs off masculinity altogether in favor of a fey retreat into unbodied sensuality: “I am the watcher…I see both your bodies/your hands in her hair/I shine through your windows/silhouetting your forms/I’m soft and I’m fragile/to echo the warm.” This is Peter Pan music if Peter forswore fighting to play on his pipes while Hook bore down on him. It’s lilting and eerie and sad — and perhaps a little brave after all in the way it quietly trades heroism for beauty.

(Non) Super (Non) Direction

Superheroes are supposed to be amazing. They can leap tall buildings, run faster than a speeding whoosh, and see sights that no sighter has ever sighted.

And yet, on film, superheroes are, visually, banal.
 

 
That’s a little documentary about Kurosawa’s use of movement. At about 4:30, the video compares scenes from Joss Whedon’s the Avengers —and shows pretty definitively that Whedon does basically nothing with the camera, with his actors, or with his composition. The Avengers might be the world’s most powerful mortals, but Whedon films them with the dynamism of grey, flatulent paint (though I’m sure Kurosawa would film flatulent paint with panache, if he felt like it.)

Whedon is an unusually blah director, but superhero films in general aren’t known for their visual distinctiveness. Look at this sequence from Peyton Reed’s Ant-Man.
 

 
There’s some effort to promote visual interest there. The camera beings moving away from Ant-Man, and then flips so you’re moving towards Henry Pym and Hope. Once your close to Pym and Hope, the door slams, and then there’s a zoom towards the keyhole, followed by a shot back to Ant-Man, who races towards the door. The back and forth of the camera, from Scott to Pym to Scott to Pym, could be seen as mirroring the (humorously) repetitious failed attempts. And there’s a nice comic moment when you see him racing towards the door, and then the shot on the other side as he smashes against it, leaving his impact to your imagination.

But while the sequence is workmanlike enough, it’s not exactly impressive or memorable. The back and forth of the camera doesn’t feel especially regulated or meaningful. Notice the last shot of Ant-Man before we switch back to the door closing, for example. The camera is stationary; it’s no longer pulling away from him. the sense of motion is frittered away; the shot doesn’t add to the tension or the sense of motion. It just reminds you that Ant-Man is still standing there. Similarly, the first run at the door doesn’t really use the camera pacing to create suspense. Instead, after all the build-up, there are just a bunch of shots: moving in on the keyhole, cut to Ant-Man closing his mask with a flourish, then running, then watching him run through the keyhole, then a flash of blue, then the sound of impact. It’s haphazard and disjointed; there isn’t a clear rhythm or build, which means that there isn’t a sense of anticipation or failure. As a result, most of the work of the scene is up to the Foley artist, for the thud-into-the-door sound effect.
 

 
In contrast, the scene from Hitchock’s The Birds uses orchestrates shot/reverse shot movement to build suspense throughout. The cuts come quicker and quicker throughout the scene as the inevitable disaster looms, culminating in what are essentially freeze frame snapshots of Tippi Hedren’s horrified face as the explosion rips through Bodega Bay. And then of course there’s that marvelous move upwards to the bird’s eye view, looking down on the flames forming a slash across the city, with the bird’s squawking in triumph before they swoosh down to do more damage.

It’s kind of cruel to compare a couple of random big-budget hacks to Kurosawa and Hitchcock, obviously. But, on the other hand, Hitchcock, at least, was a Hollywood hack too; The Birds was a suspense picture that was meant for box office success (and did fairly well at that.) Given the buckets of money the studios throw at the Marvel films, it seems like they could find a director with rudimentary visual skill, if they wanted to.
 

 
Guy Ritchie’s not one of the all time greats of cinema or anything, but The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has some visual flair. I like the sequence at about :45 where the camera rushes in for a close up at the first car, then pulls back and in the same (presumably digitally enhanced take) rushes forward for a close up of the trailing car. It provides a nice sense of speed and urgency—again, not breathtaking, but fun—which is more than can be said for the direction in Avengers or Ant-Man.

Of course, Man From U.N.C.L.E. bombed, while Avengers and Ant-Man were mega-hits. The sameness of the Marvel films (and the fact that Daredevil, on television, is somewhat more visually adventurous) suggests deliberation. Marvel could have hired Guy Ritchie to direct one of their properties; they haven’t bothered because they figure boring is best. The direction is meant to be bland, because they figure (rightly or wrongly) that audiences wants superheroes who are bland. We want heroes, apparently, who are not too interesting, or surprising, or exciting. We want superadventures that keep to the superconventions.