Follow-Up to Batman Villains and Cooperation Post

Thank you all for your comments on our post analyzing the Joker's decision of whether or not to cooperate with other villains. It seems as though many of you have taken issue with a few assumptions that I have made. I want to address those issues here.

1) The probability of killing Batman given that three villains attack him separately should be equivalent to adding the probabilities--or 6%.

I never actually said this--in fact, I did not mention the probability of them working separately at all. Suppose the Joker attacks Batman on Monday, Two-Face on Tuesday, and the Riddler on Wednesday. In effect, this means the three villains would be attacking Batman separately. The probability of killing Batman in this case would actually be 5.88%. It would be a geometric series of probabilities. In other words, the probability of killing Batman on the third day (by the third villain) would be equal to:

sum(1-p)^(k-1)*p, where p=probability of killing Batman that day and k=the day #
--> (1-0.02)^(1-1)*0.02 + (1-0.02)^(2-1)*0.02 + (1-0.02)^(3-1)*0.02
==0.0588 --> 5.88%

2) Diminished returns does not apply in this situation.

Upon reevaluation, I concede that the probability equation I offered for cooperation does not work for this scenario. The probability of killing Batman given cooperation among Batman villains should exceed the probability of killing Batman if they were to attack him separately. So if instead of attacking on separate days, the Joker, Two-Face and the Riddler were to plan a coordinated, simultaneous attack, the probability should exceed 5.88%, as dictated by the concept of synergy (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts).

However, this should only be the case up to a point. I am surprised to see that so many commentators seemed to ardently deny the theory that as you add more villains, the marginal effectiveness would diminish. If adding more villains to the plot increased the probability exponentially (or even linearly), then this means that eventually there is a number such that the probability of killing Batman is 100%, or that death is certain. This cannot be the case for Batman--who survived an attack by OMACS, who lived through an attack by the Black Glove, and who survived Darkseid's Omega Sanction. Further, this means that if the battle hits this point of absolute insurmountable odds, then adding more villains could not possibly increase the probability of death (being that it is already 100%).

Instead, the graph should be convex (increasing returns) up to a certain point and then switch to being a concave graph (diminishing returns). That is, cooperating up to a certain number of villains should increase the marginal probability of killing Batman, but after that point the marginal probability should start decreasing. This would be an "S" curve, similar to a learning curve or a logistic function. It should look like the following shape:

As an example, suppose that Batman is fighting the Joker and Two-Face. If the Scarecrow suddenly joined the party then Batman would have a significantly harder time fighting the three of them simultaneously. But now imagine Batman fighting 100 villains. If one more villain joins the party (making it 101), does this last villain induce the same marginal probability increase as the Scarecrow did? I certainly don't think so. In a battle with 100 villains, there are two outcomes. The first is that Batman withstands the 100 villains by himself, in which case adding one more would increase the probability of killing him, albeit not by much. The second is that Batman loses the fight against 100 villains, meaning that the 101st villain would have been ineffective.

Finally, this is, after all, the Batman universe we are discussing here. Cooperation means not only that the villains have to forgo their already significant hostility towards one another (which would involve a cost), but hatch a plan predicated on compromise. And as many commentators pointed out, compromise is not particularly easy for these villains. These are the sort of people who each want to play a prominent role in the demise of Batman. Yet they all have different talents and different means of achieving that goal, all of which cannot be fulfilled in a cooperative plan. The Scarecrow, who prefers psychological means of destruction, would not be able to poison Batman with fear gas and let him destroy himself, while letting Deadshot shoot him in the head from a distance. The group would have to sustain the interest of each individual member (who have short attention spans) and keep close monitor of these villains as their numbers increase. As the group surpasses a certain point, there becomes a huge potential for villains to become contentious, get in each others ways, foil the plan, or weigh the group down. It is not unlike working on a school project with a group who, though having equally effective means of achieving a goal, cannot agree on the particular method.

All in all, eventually we should be seeing some diminishing marginal probability increases with respect to the probability of killing Batman.

3) This sort of analysis should not be applied to Batman villains since it assumes they are rational actors, when they are in fact, irrational.

First: I already mentioned this in the previous post.

One of the distinguishing features about most of the notable Batman villains is that they all have distinct neuroses and pathologies that render most of them utterly incapable of working together. It is not a rational decision, rather that most of these rogues have deep-rooted psychological afflictions, many of which mirror some aspect of the Batman. As such, they have different motivations and goals, different means to achieve those goals, and different reasons to kill Batman.

As such, the analysis is purely academic. We know that the Joker is not actually making utility calculations in his head when he is deciding. The post was designed for fun and to engage the readers in debate. In no way am I actually prescribing that writers start figuring these calculations into the books or start having the characters engage in mathematical debates.

Secondly, by extension, arguing that this sort of analysis should not be applied to Batman given the nature of their villains' irrationality also implies that economics should not be applied to real-world, human decisions. Human beings are also irrational. Our preferences do not always make sense and our decisions are not always exercised with rational caution. If every human being acted rationally, nobody would have ever won a tic-tac-toe game in the history of human civilization. Yet, we still apply economic theory, as we do political theory, social theory, psychological theory, etc. as a guidance in an attempt to explain the world with the means and evidence available to us.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Should Batman Villains Betray Each Other? (Analysis using the Prisoner's Dilemma)

(This is the second part of a post that will include some very light and simple algebra and game theoretic concepts. Not to worry--it is pretty crude and easy to follow along with. Also, please note that the assumptions made are rudimentary and based off of my own view of Batman and his villains. I welcome everyone to debate them with me).


We've discussed the decision of whether or not Batman villains should cooperate. Now consider another fun issue: lets suppose some of them do, in fact, work together and somehow manage to capture the Batman. There is now another decision that has to be made by each: whether or not to betray the partner.

Let's talk about Two-Face this time. As discussed in the previous post, the benefits of betrayal are obvious. Two-Face could claim full credit for killing Batman, could win the respect of the Gotham underworld, could elicit fear from the elite, and could potentially acquire some wealth and technology from the Batcave that he would not have to share with, say, Mr. Freeze (I can't think of a conceivable reason for that pair to team up, but I haven't used Mr. Freeze anywhere yet).

This situation is a nice example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. So, let's do a really quick summation of this two-player (Two-Face, Mr. Freeze), two-choice (Cooperate, Betray) game in Batman terms to show that it would actually make sense for the two of them to continue to cooperate, even though neither will. We must again assign some utilities for each player. I have done so, as the following normal-form game matrix represents:

Mr. Freeze -->> Two-Face ↓	Cooperate	Betray
Cooperate	(5,5)	(0,10)
Betray	(10,0)	(3,3)

In this matrix, Two-Face is the player on the left and Mr. Freeze is the player on the top. Each has the choice of either cooperating after capturing Batman or of betraying the other. In each cell, the numbers represent the utilities awarded to the respective players given their choice of action.

If both villains cooperate with one another, they each enjoy a utility of 5 from killing Batman and ruling Gotham (5,5). If Two-Face cooperates but Mr. Freeze betrays, then we will assume that Freeze will eliminate Two-Face, thereby winning all of his utility. In this case, Two-Face would get 0 utility and Mr. Freeze would get a utility of 10 (0,10). If Two-Face betrays but Mr. Freeze cooperates, then the opposite happens: Two-Face gets a utility of 10 and Freeze gets 0 (10,0). If they both betray each other, I'm going to assume that they'll either kill each other (in which case they'd both get 0) or they'll both walk away alive, but each would get less utility than they would have if they had cooperated (obviously they'd prefer not to engage in a near-death battle with one another, so they would lose something). Lets award each a utility of 3 in this situation (3,3).

If this is the scenario, each player would rationally want to betray the other. To see this, we must note that Two-Face and Mr. Freeze are hopelessly self-interested. They only care about their own utilities and not that of the other player. Now assume Mr. Freeze decides to cooperate. So we are restricted to the "cooperate" column of the table above. Looking at Two-Face's utilities in that column, it is clearly a better decision for him to betray, as he would be receiving a utility of 10 as opposed to 5. Let's say Mr. Freeze decides to betray, so we are now in the "betray" column. The best decision for Two-Face is still to betray, as he would receive a utility of 3 instead of 0. Hence regardless of what Mr. Freeze does, Two-Face would still want to betray him. The same is true for Mr. Freeze given Two-Face's actions.

Both players will choose to betray each other and (3,3) is the Nash equilibrium outcome. This means that neither Two-Face nor Mr. Freeze can benefit by deviating from his course of action alone. The dilemma, however, is that there exists an outcome in which both players are strictly better off. If both choose to cooperate, then each receive a utility of 5, which is greater than 3. Thus the outcome (5,5) is the Pareto Optimal point. It is the outcome of the game in which one player deviating would necessarily mean that somebody else is worse off.

So, what we have is a scenario in which Two-Face and Mr. Freeze teamed up and were successful (for some reason). Now it would benefit both of them to continue working together, but neither of them will actually do so. Hence they'll walk away with less than what they could have. As the Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrates, Nash Equilibria are not necessarily Pareto Optima. It's sort of funny to think about, actually. Batman can still claim a small victory even in his death.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Batman Villains and Cooperation: A Utility Analysis

(This is the first part of a post that will include some very light and simple algebra and game theoretic concepts. Not to worry--it is pretty crude and easy to follow along with. Also, please note that the assumptions made are rudimentary and based off of my own view of Batman and his villains. I welcome everyone to debate them with me).

Jeph Loeb has a tendency to depict Batman villains in a strange way. In The Long Halloween and Dark Victory, we see the bulk of his rogues gallery actually working together to achieve a common goal. In fact, the latter has Two-Face actually conducting a sort of mock trail in his lair with all of the villains (including the Joker) in attendance, watching and participating as Two-Face prosecutes witnesses as part of his deranged scheme.

Of course, this is ludicrous. One of the distinguishing features about most of the notable Batman villains is that they all have distinct neuroses and pathologies that render most of them utterly incapable of working together. It is not a rational decision, rather that most of these rogues have deep-rooted psychological afflictions, many of which mirror some aspect of the Batman. As such, they have different motivations and goals, different means to achieve those goals, and different reasons to kill Batman. In fact, it's been argued ad nauseum that the Joker may not even want to kill Batman, for this act would extinguish his very nature of being. The one truth is that, barring certain less-insane villains like the Penguin, most Batman villains have a burning desire to find, identify and kill the Batman on their own.

Most people would intuitively argue that it would make more sense for these villains to pool their skills and cooperate in order to finally rid the world of Batman. However, the decision to work alone is not entirely irrational. In fact, we can use very basic tools of utility and game theory in order to work out such a decision for a Batman villain (let's say the Joker, being the most insane and distinguished) and show that cooperation is not necessarily the optimal choice.

First, we have to make certain assumptions. Specifically, we need to assign probabilities of capturing Batman and figure out how much these probabilities increase due to the addition of a new cooperating villain. We also need to assign utility values for the Joker for each scenario. Let's start with utilities.

For not killing Batman, we can obviously assign the Joker a utility of 0.
For capturing Batman on his own, let's assign the Joker a utility of 10.
For capturing Batman with the help of x other villains, the utility would be 10/x.

The last one is sort of tricky. This means that if the Joker cooperates with one other villain (say Two-Face) and together they manage to kill Batman, then the utility for each would be 5. In effect, this means that the villains "split" the utility of 10.

Many of you might be wondering why it is that the more villains there are, the less utility one of them receives from killing Batman. Well, consider the pathology argument above. Obviously, if we factor in the Joker pathology, his utility for killing Batman with cooperation would be less than that of capturing Batman on his own, but greater than 0 as Batman would still be out of the picture. The thing is, as more and more villains enter the party, the Joker will feel less and less accomplished if they wind up killing Batman. Again, it is his very essence of being. He wants nothing more than to kill the Batman on his own, so it should make sense that the satisfaction he derives diminishes as more rogues are brought on board for the mission.

Aside from pathology, there are other reasons why the Joker's utility would diminish as such. One is that the villain who finally achieves victory would be held in the highest esteem among the criminal underworld and feared the most by the Gotham elite. Victory over Batman is largely a symbolic projection of status to the rest of Gotham City--and this is something the villains all desire. Therefore, if the Joker were to finally kill Batman, he would effectively "rule" Gotham.

Consider an even more tangible reason. The villain who kills Batman would gain access to his identity. He could therefore do with this identity anything he pleases. Assuming Nightwing and Robin won't be a problem to neutralize, the Joker could gain access to the batcave: a goldmine of wealth and technology. He could further auction off Batman's identity to the highest bidder. Even though he would be dead, I have no doubt that most of the villains would want to purchase this information to exact revenge on Alfred, Dick, Tim, etc.

For all the reasons then, it makes sense for the Joker's utility to diminish as more villains are added. The more rogues that take party to the death of Batman, the less the Joker will feel satisfied, the less influence he will have over Gotham City, and the less actual benefits he will reap after his death. For simplicity's sake, I assume that the villains "split" the utility of 10.

Now, let's assign the probabilities. I'm going to assume that each Batman rogue has a 2% chance of killing Batman alone (and this is being very, very generous and neglecting the individual skills of each rogue for simplicity). You would then think that adding villains to the scheme would increase the probability of killing Batman by 2% with each new rogue. Except, this ignores the economics law of diminishing returns, which states that as you increase the factors of production, the marginal benefit of those factors decreases. Usually, this applies to outcomes which are continuous (such as production of goods) rather than binary (to kill or not to kill Batman), but we can apply diminishing returns in this case to the probabilities. The theory is that as you add villains, working together will prove more difficult and planning more arduous. Therefore, the probability of getting Batman will increase, but by a marginally smaller amount with each villain added.

Thinking of probability as output, let's assume that in each state,
p = 2*y^0.9, where
p = probability of killing batman and
y = number of villains involved in the scheme.

Hence, we have a diminishing returns function. If there is only one villain involved in the scheme, the probability of killing Batman is 2%.

If there are 2 villains involved in the scheme, the probability becomes:
p = 2*(2)^0.9 = 3.73% (the probability increased by 1.73 percentage points)

If there are three villains involved, then:
p = 2*(3)^0.9 = 5.38% (probability increased by 1.65 percentage points)

And so on and so forth. Now armed with the knowledge of probabilities and utilities, let's conduct an analysis of whether it makes sense for the Joker to team up with Two-Face and the Scarecrow. We must analyze the expected utility of each scenario (teaming up and working alone).

First let's calculate the expected utility of working alone for the Joker. The equation is:
EU = p * (Uk) + (1-p)*(Unk) where
EU = expected utility
p = probability of killing Batman
Uk = utility of killing Batman.
Unk = utility of not killing Batman

We know that for the Joker, the utility of killing Batman alone is 10 and the probability of killing Batman by himself is 0.02. Hence:
EU = 0.02*(10) + (0.98)*0 = 0.2
Hence the expected utility of the Joker killing Batman on his own is 0.2.

Now, we analyze the expected utility of the team-up. We know that the probability of the Joker, Two-Face and the Scarecrow killing Batman is 0.0538. The utility would be 3.33 each. Hence:
EU = 0.0538*(3.33) + (0.9462)*0 = 0.179
Hence the expected utility for the Joker of the trio killing Batman is 0.179.

Since the expected utility of the trio killing Batman is less than the expected utility of the Joker doing it by himself, the Joker should prefer to work alone. Hence using simple economics, we have shown that it makes perfect sense for the Joker not to cooperate with other villains. Of course, this is incredibly simple and there are many other issues to consider. One of these issues is whether it would make sense for the Joker to cooperate, but then backstab the other villains. This issue will be considered in a subsequent post.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Wolverine: Several Lifetimes of Money Management

Wolverine is the ultimate badass. Any man who routinely is shot in the face and regards chopping someone in half as part of a standard work day is pretty damn badass. When faced with an unstoppable army of thousands of undead ninjas, there is no man I would rather have by my side (actually in front of me) than Wolverine.

But he's not a man I would want managing my 401k.

Throughout his long, long life Wolverine has shown very little interest in matters of an economic nature. He's spent most of his time living in cabins, hovels, and sleeping in the beds and houses of others. His worldly possessions seldom exceed the clothes on his back (usually a jumpsuit made of spandex or leather), a cache of cheap cigars, a motorcycle, and a six-pack of beer. This is the sum of the worldly possessions he has accrued in over 100 years of life. Granted, a large part of this life was spent being mind controlled and experimented on, but in the years since he's escaped from Weapon X, Wolverine has made a series of life decisions which placed him in financial jeopardy.

First, he left employment with Department K and Alpha Flight to become a member of the X-Men. This provided Wolverine with food, shelter, and access to Jean Grey but denied him the benefits of being a government employee. That is, of course, assuming that government secret weapons have access to excellent health care and a pension program. But since his time with the X-Men Wolverine has consistently shown he's just not interested in money. He became involved in the criminal syndicates of Madripoor, but only did so out of loyalty to the guys who ran his favorite bar and because he was attracted to the local boss, Tyger Tiger. At nearly all opportunities he avoided any financial gain through these criminal activities. He even became a mob enforcer later in life. But this was only so he could reorganize the structure of the mafia family to his personal liking. He became an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and left shortly after the purpose of his membership changed. He never saves money and doesn't place himself in a position to acquire assets.

But despite all this, Wolverine has stayed afloat. He's been able to purchase the things he wants when he needs to purchase them. It seems like beer, gasoline for a Harley, and plane tickets to Japan are always within his budget. Of course it's possible that he purchases everything with credit. And then when AIG sends him a bill, he mails it back with a picture of his claws covered in blood. All debts would be subsequently cleared.

But regardless, Wolverine's spartan lifestyle seems to be enough to sustain him. He has plenty of free time to right random wrongs, save the world with 3-4 teams of heroes, and sleep with the dozens of women who have shacked up with him over the years. Though Wolverine may not be very rich in the traditional sense, if he maintains his current lifestyle, it seems like he is managing his money quite well. He doesn't spend frivolously, he knows what he wants, and he makes sure that he gets it.

Of course if Wolverine ever tries to settle down and lead a normal life, his lack of assets could be disastrous. See "Old Man Logan" for the consequences of not saving enough to pay your rent money.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Question for Readers: Who is the Richest Comic Book Character?

When most people think of "rich" comic book characters, they naturally flock to two notable superheroes: Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark.

The former, owner of Wayne Enterprises, uses much of the revenues gained through the many branches of the company (Wayne Steel, Wayne Shipping, Wayne Industries, Wayne Technologies, Wayne Medical, etc.) in order to fund his double life as Batman, equipping himself with an arsenal of bat-shaped gadgets, a utility belt, a kevlar (or somewhat stronger than kevlar) batsuit, a batplane, batsub, batmobile, and perhaps the most advanced supercomputer the world has ever seen ("Computer: cross reference this screeching sound with 'brown bat.'")

The latter owns Stark Industries, a multi-billion dollar company most known for its weapons manufacturing (an extremely lucrative market), but also having a strong international presence (Stark Industries has offices in Japan, Europe, etc.) and several subsidiaries (such as Fujikawa Industries and Stane International). Stark is of course famous for creating the Iron Man armor, which by far is the most advanced suit of armor in all comic book universes.

Naturally, it is easy to think of these two heroes, especially considering the recent motion pictures. However, there are several other wealthy comic book characters: Professor Xavier was a former nuclear scientist who inherited a fortune and owns an entire academy; Danny Rand (the new Immortal Iron Fist) owns Rand International; Oliver Queen was a billionaire and mayor of Star City; Lex Luthor owns Lexcorp, a heavy competitor of Wayne Industries in the DC Universe (Luthor has even managed to harness and channel some Brainiac technology, which he used towards gaining revenues for the company); Normal Osbourn owns Oscorp, and so on and so forth.

I will post my views either in the comments or a later post, but I'd love to hear from the readers the answers to several questions. Given your knowledge of these characters as well as the real-world performance of their respective industries (and assuming all the characters live in the same universe):

1) Who is the richest comic book character in terms of net worth? (You can answer pre-Dark Reign and Batman RIP and post-Dark Reign and Batman RIP)
2) What do you think is this character's net worth in today's dollars?
3) If you answer is not Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark, who of the two is wealthier?
4) Whose company do you think the recession is affecting the most (positively or negatively)?

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Point/Counterpoint II: Establishing an Intergalactic Union and Monetary Fund

(Guest Post from Metropolis. This post is the follow-up and counter-argument to establishing an Intergalactic Union)

Rann-Thanagar Holy War #8. Cover by Jim Starlin

Shadowbanker provides insights into the potential benefits of an intergalactic union with the Galacto as a common currency. However, I feel that most of the benefits mentioned would already come about from simply opening up the galaxy to increased interplanetary trade, without the additional burden of monetary integration and encroachment on planets’ political and economic sovereignty.

Let’s begin the analysis at the same place Shadowbanker did: an IU role in reducing interplanetary conflict. Using the EU as a case-study, it is true that war between France and Germany seems nearly unthinkable in the 21st century, but my guess is sentiment was much the same back in the 1980’s. European integration began almost immediately after the Second World War, but amounted to little more than a customs union until the 1990’s. One of the key motivations behind reducing tariffs and encouraging increased financial and other flows was to prevent future conflict, and by many estimates this goal has been achieved. Would a supranational governing body and common currency be able to do any more than that? So, if Thanagar started trading some of its Nth metal (anti-gravity substance) for some of Rann’s Zeta Beam technology (essentially a teleportation device which has an extremely long-range capacity and can even transport humans light-years away), then they would already have an interest in playing nice. It seems to me that the benefits of anti-gravity belts and teleportation devices would prevail over jingoism, regardless of whether or not the two planets shared the same currency.

If anything, it can be argued that national tensions have been on the rise since the EU began integration requiring the transference of some national sovereignty by each member nation. One can look at Britain and Italy’s currency crises in 1992, caused primarily by a monetary mechanism requiring exchange rate regulation. Differing economic realities across Europe meant that while Germany was raising interest rates to counter inflation caused by the reunification of East and West, Britain and Italy were forced to expend reserves to prop up their currencies when investment rushed out of their economies and into Germany.

Add the extreme xenophobia and unwillingness to relinquish sovereignty of many planets in the DC universe and you have an even bigger problem. Convincing Rann, Thanagar, New Krypton, Argo, and other planets to trade might be possible (after all, who wouldn’t want to teleport?). Convincing New Krypton that it would have to waste some crystals on account of Earth’s policies would be unthinkable. General Zod nearly had a stroke when the Green Lanterns suggested that he give up his jurisdiction over a prisoner to the Guardians of the Universe. Imagine if they had asked him for some money instead. It would have sparked Final Crisis II.

Aside from worrying about shocks to an existing system, we need to examine the feasibility of integration in the first place. In the EU alone there is a wide range of economic development in terms of GDP, business cycle patterns, and a multitude of other indicators. They are finding it very hard to integrate these pieces into a working whole without marginalizing some groups and disproportionately benefiting others. Uneven bargaining power means countries like France and Germany have far more influence over EU policies than smaller or newer members. Integration also means high adjustment costs for newly accepted member states (inflation in Hungary, Czech Republic and others). Current attempts to correct these issues and balance growth throughout the union means rich countries are paying for poor ones (see EU Structural Fund). Countries like Great Britain are again starting to raise their voices that the ostensible benefits of such a union are being outweighed by their costs.

This means that IU policies will likely be developed by the big guns – New Krypton, Rann, Thanagar, Earth, Daxam, etc. But what about the smaller, less developed planets? Will nobody consider the opinions of the poor residents of Bizarro World? Say the member planets hold a summit to craft policy and the major players decide to lower interest rates. The Bizzaros, of course, will want nothing more than to raise interest rates every time! And so it goes that the Bizarros never quite get what they want.

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su

Should Comic Books Incorporate Real World Economics?

We've discussed how the economic recession has been affecting characters and lifestyles in different comic book universes. Evidence of the recession's impact is prevalent both in DC and Marvel. Batman's absence since Grant Morrison's Batman RIP storyline has left Wayne Enterprises in a bit of a rough spot (though I'm not sure that Bruce really had anything to do with keeping company afloat aside from acting as a figurehead--maybe this is actually important to encourage investors in the company). Elsewhere, Tony Stark's recent "failure' during Marvel's Secret Invasion has led to the dismantling of S.H.I.E.L.D, the creation of a new homeland security organization, H.A.M.M.E.R., and the government freezing all of Tony assets at Stark Industries (including the Iron Man armor).

As this NY Daily News article points out, however, there is considerable debate among comic fans, creators, and even academics as to whether such a focus on the economy is good for readers. On the one hand, here is Dan Dido, executive editor at DC Comics:

I don't see how it doesn't work into our storytelling if not only our readers are feeling it, but our creators are feeling it

True that the readers might feel more attached the story if it reflected real world circumstances that they could connect with. But consider the comments of Mark White, Professor at the College of Staten Island:

Comic books are a way for people to get away from the real world. They don't want to be reminded of wars or tragedies or economic catastrophes.

This raises an interesting point as well. Although comic books have incorporated real-world since their inception (World War II, the Cold War, nuclear waste, the Red Scare, etc.), they have always been the medium to consistently portray characters that are "larger-than-life" and are able to overcome these obstacles with minimal attrition.

I would love to get some reader opinions on this. Should the comic book medium continue to evoke these harsh realities through their stories or should their primary purpose be to help the public escape these realities?

share on: del.icio.us digg reditt su