Eccentric Flower:200907/Why Mutants Dont Help

From Eccentric Flower

«July 2009 «Eccentric Flower

Why Mutants Don't Help

Every so often someone notices that almost every story of this-world-plus-metahumans tends to ignore their socioeconomic possibilities:

Each mutant possesses a special skill which has its own inherent value. Because of this, a mutant can be viewed as a craftsman or a skilled laborer. Mutants with enhanced strength can work in construction, demolition, or even transportation. Storm could irrigate the crops of all the suffering farmers in the midwest and California when the droughts of summer are destroying their crops. Quicksilver could sort the daily mail output of the United States in 3 hours. And the extraordinary power of these abilities would only make the economic effect of using mutant powers that much more extraordinary itself. Time, labor, and machinery costs would all be cut dramatically.

Tragically, most mutants use their powers to either save the world or terrorize it. At least this is the popular depiction in Marvel Comics. Imagine what Magneto could do if he worked in construction. For one thing, all of those New York City public works project would have their completion dates moved up from 2018 to roughly five minutes from now. But instead, he spends his time sinking Russian submarines and making asteroid bases to live in. For the love of God, the man has the power to build himself a high-tech home in space. He could repair the Hubbell telescope with no trouble whatsoever.

(In addition to that link, see also Reed Richards is Useless.)

I have for some years been mentally constructing a set of stories in my head where an organization on Earth trains and nurtures - and eventually, learns how to create - metahuman abilities. Although they do use this ability for economic gain and world improvement, they tend to be required to do it in a really subtle, secretive way, simply because the bias in the rest of the people against metahumans is so strong. (Marvel has tapped this vein in many of its mutant stories; it's hardly a new idea.) The public will accept the "rising tide" benefits of the organization's works, but only if they can remain nominally unaware that it was metahumans who did them.

This fits what I believe about human nature. I believe that if you can do something most people can't, or you can do something better than most people can, you will not be hailed as a hero. We claim to love our achievers, but it is actually a lie. We hate them and envy them, and we are constantly looking for any cracks in the armor to tear them down - thus we have phenomena such as people trying to ruin Michael Phelps' life just because he hit the bong a few times, or the continued career of Perez Hilton (and his predecessors, such as Louella Parsons).

I'm never going to write these stories, and this is not a market-based decision; it's personal. I'm saving them for myself, as Captain Miller said. But I will tell you that there is a similar treatment - powers used for a slightly different and to me less believable purpose, but nonetheless sharing the same sort of mental territory, in Anne McCaffrey's Talent universe, particularly the five books beginning with The Rowan and ending with The Tower and the Hive.

When I first read The Rowan I thought it was a pretty simplistic treatment of the ideas I wanted to see stressed, but I realized later that McCaffrey was just building toward things. By the time we get to the point where Talents have to coexist with non-Talents in the closed environment of a military spacecraft, the point becomes explicit: The Talents are forever working against a handicap; normal humans dislike, envy, and fear them. And even then, these difficulties are too easily overcome, because McCaffrey is basically of a sunny cheery disposition. There are no riots in McCaffrey's universe. There are no petitions to ban metahumans. There are no people boycotting goods which have been transported by Talents.

And even if there were, it would to me still miss the most important point, a point which no one in the top article linked above has seen, a point which McCaffrey won't go near, but which my stories, were I to write them, could not avoid.

The fundamental weirdness is not that metahumans don't use their skills to improve the world and advance commerce; the fundamental weirdness, the flawed assumption, is that metahumans would want to play in the rule set of the "normal human" universe at all.


Seriously. Give it some thought. Let's say I grow up a metahuman, and let's say I find an environment where my friends are metahuman, my mentors are metahuman - an enclave where we have a chance to realize just how messed up the human world is. Never mind why we don't help with your petty fights and your inefficiencies, such as your perpetual inability to do something as simple as getting surplus food capacity efficiently distributed around the globe - why should we help at all? Why should we care? Why should we solve your mistakes?

If I grow up a metahuman, I grow up realizing that I am the next evolution - that I am the next attempt at a solution to a problem humans failed to solve, that I am the next set of bug fixes to the design. I am probably not perfect but I'm a hell of a lot closer to it than the normal humans are. And if I am among a critical mass of people like me (as is the case in my theoretical stories, the X-Men comics, and McCaffrey's Talent universe), I will come to feel that we metahumans, as a group, have two choices:

1. Take over the world so we can sweep it clean of all the previous mistakes and try to start over better, or

2. Work as fast as we can on getting the hell off the planet so we can start fresh somewhere else, and leave you to stew in your juices.

And the latter, in that universe, will seem like far less work. If we have a Reed Richards or a Charles Xavier on our side, he can figure out how to terraform Mars and build a ship big enough to get us all there on his coffee break.


The only character in any story about metahumans I have ever seen whom I felt was accurately depicted, on this topic, is Jon Osterman in Watchmen. Dr. Manhattan has, effectively, become a god. The fallacy that everyone else has toward him is they expect him to care one way or another on what happens to life on this planet. They never ask why on earth he would. At one point he leaves; only a few remaining loose ends bring him back. When those are squared away, it is clear he will never be back again. He will start over somewhere else.

Veidt: I thought you said you'd become interested in life again.
Osterman: I have. I think I'll create some.

It is utter hubris to expect the new gods to be concerned with the sewage of mankind.

Of course, as a writer, the problem is that all the best stories deal with the friction between the metahumans and the normals; once the metahumans take their marbles and go play somewhere else, the stories become less interesting. (Although there is a rich vein to be tapped in stories of bringing up metahuman children. Can you imagine the problems of raising a telepathic infant? Or the playground interactions between telepathic and telekinetic children who haven't quite learned the rigid control of their tempers they will need yet?)

Anyway, the point is, asking, "How come stories of metahumans don't have them improving the world in concrete ways?" is asking the wrong question. The real question is, "How come stories of metahumans have them interacting with non-metahumans at all?" It is ridiculous to think of Magneto doing construction projects; for a man with his personality, conquest and subjugation is the only option that is believable, in that fictional framework.


<< older | © 2009 columbina | newer >>




ProfRobert:

I think the writers also got it right with Khan from Star Trek. He behaved exactly as you might expect someone like him to behave. As for superkids, Bewitched dealt with that when Tabitha was born, and Harry Potter dealt with it, too.

-- 16:55, 23 July 2009 (BST)


Columbina:

Yup. Those two are in some ways more superficial treatments of the ideas I'd like to go into, but they're definitely in that territory, as are the better bits of King's Firestarter.

-- 17:25, 23 July 2009 (BST)


Danima:

(let's see if I can get the quote syntax right this time:)

Can you imagine the problems of raising a telepathic infant?

Yes. So did Octavia Butler, back in (thirty-second pause for research) 1976 -- along with virtually every issue that you raise here, and without McCaffery's addiction to everything working out for the good. I know you have issues with her, WRT Dawn, and I respect that. But as long as you keep saying that no one has addressed ideas that she explored in the Patternist books, I'm going to keep recommending them to you.

I think you'll especially like Mind of My Mind. Everyone's really fucked up and abusive in that one, in ways that are congruent with your observations here.

-- 18:13, 23 July 2009 (BST)


Settsimaksimin:

i think one big assumption you're making about the hypothetical group of mutants is that they'd have a cooperative group motivation that's stronger than us plain old humans have! they might have reason to get along if they're at a level where they're still easily controlled by a military force, but beyond that all bets are off. they could end up being squabbling superpowered versions of your average internet denizen. ;)

i'm still partial to Alan Moore's look at metahuman implications in Miracleman; both the ending situation where he sets up humanity like an endangered species in a zoo exhibit, and wife Liz Moran's terror over her beautiful but inhuman infant.

have you looked at the webcomic Freakangels? it looks at some of the same issues.

(Danima: any recommendations for a first Butler book? she's been on my radar but i've never taken the plunge.)

-- 20:26, 23 July 2009 (BST)


Columbina:

Settsimaksimin: That occurred to me. I was operating on the idea that the commonality of the metahumans (i.e. "at least we're not those guys") and their shared desire to be rid of/away from the normal world would override any intramural squabbling.

But once they took over the world, or left it, all bets would then be off.

-- 20:35, 23 July 2009 (BST)


Danima:

Settsimaksimin: It kind of depends on whether you want an intro to all of her work, just the Patternist series, or if you only want to read one book of hers.

Even though she considered herself a novelist who had also written some short stories, I think that the collection Blood Child gives a good introduction to her interests as a writer.

Other than that, it depends on what you're looking for. Drop a note on the discussion tab of my (currently-blank) user page, and I'll take it from there.

-- 18:42, 27 July 2009 (BST)


Ysabel:

Have you read The Terrillian by Sharon Green?

It's out of print, I believe, but see if you can find a used copy of the five-book series. It would both appeal to you for reasons relevant to this post as well as for other reasons entirely.

-- 21:52, 29 July 2009 (BST)


Settsimaksimin:

i don't know what your Warren Ellis Tolerance Level is, but he's doing something coming up called 'Supergod' that seems to look at these themes:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/09/03/preview-of-supergod-by-warren-ellis-and-garrie-gastonny/

-- 18:33, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Comment:

<< older | © 2009 columbina | newer >>

Personal tools
eccentric flower
fiction