the artist formerly known as krusca. my fandom scribbles+wips+musings (lots o stevetony but also other ships too)
Cap Is Disappointed In You (But Is It Really A Bad Thing): ramblings of morality in the superhero genre
ok so i commented on this tumblr post abt "would Steve Rogers give me the eyebrows of disappointment for this?β and if the answer is yes, i absolutely donβt do it"
and my comment was a pretty shitposty comment i wasnt thinkin much abt it i was just foolin mostly but now im thinking about it
and man the idea of "captain america as the morality litmus test" sits... very uncomfortabley with me??? (but i feel a lot of my feelings come from the fact the genre and storytelling of marvel comics (and stories in general) have shifted so much in the past few decades)
steve rogers as a character is "just a kid from brookyln" he doesnt like bullies, and i suppose the whole down to earth genuine "for the people" ideal without wanting power or prestige is inspirational, its what we think of a "good" being able to resist power when it is handed on a platter. back when steve was punching nazis in the 40s, the stories were prety black and white, good vs bad. and then we get to modern day stories, where theres all sorts of moral condumdrums, modern day stories are painted with shades of gray, and we still have this pervasive idea of "captain america is always right"
lots of fans (and in-universe marvel characters) DO buy into this holy tenant of "Steve Rogers Moral Compass" and i mean its each individuals perogative, some ppl long for the simper times of good vs bad that steve represent, people dont wanna compromise bcose of ethics, slippery slopes, etc. ppl want that bastion of goodness to emulate and be inspired by, and that means steve needs to be a virtuous charcter who always has his heart in the right place who has that firm resolve to do what is "right" and thats a suspension of disbelief ppl are entitled to have when consuming media. like i can't tell ppl how to enjoy their media its a free world
but i personally cant buy into that suspense of disbelief. I like my fictional characters as human as they come, and steve rogers is a good guy, but i honestly dont see him somehow MORE good or pure than most of the other heroes. What makes him really stand out from other charcters is his resolve (stubborness) in doing whats right (or what he thinks is right) and i see it as a double edged sword. It is pretty superhuman how firm he is in his beliefs, insisting that hes "just another guy" while having the ability to rally the troops into the jaws of death (a power that Steve honestly need to accept, like at this point humbleness is a bad thing, he should be more aware of the kind of power he wields over people) . At the best of times its enough to save the world/universe. At the worst of times it kinda reminds me of the whole entitled idea of "i dont have white privelege" (not a 1 to 1 comparison, since what steve has isnt a socially systematic structure he benefits from, and its not him denying a systematic social inequality either)
why does this resolve/stubborness somehow mean he's more virtuous or better than the other heroes? just because you can yell the loudest and hold out the longest doesnt mean you're right.
steve doesnt think of himself as perfect, but some readers sure think he is, at least on the morality front, and as someone who likes analyizing charcters, seeing them in all their glorious flawed 3 dimensions, it really irks me.
even tony, steves no1 fanboy who believes in steves innate goodness, can and will fight him on issues thats bigger than both of them, no matter how much tony hates himself, he'll do it for the people, just as steve will do it for the people.
i think this divisiveness in stuff like civil war boils down to what the individual believes heroes are suppose to be. Some people think its "doing whats right no matter the cost, never compromising esp on beliefs and morals" Some people think its "making the decisions others wouldnt be able to, bearing the weight of consequences, compromising when absolutely needed" Both paths have consequences, and both paths can and will get people hurt/killed. "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"- is #iconic and relevant. its about slippery slopes, and heroes making hard choices, and how far can a hero make the hard choices before they're no longer a hero.
if the entirety of marvel universe was like, 5 issues of comics or a movie, id be more inclined to accept steve as the deus ex virtus (that makes no sense go along with it tho) but ... this is a huage universe with many stories, decades of material, and marvels always prided themselves on the theme of "realism" in their heroes, as heroes who struggle and have lives, and after the sheer amount of shit marvels put steve through, i cant buy into a hackneyed excuse of "Captain America Is Always Right"
it is the argument of deontological vs ultilitarian ethics, and if there was a gun to my head and i had to choose one, i'd probably go with the latter, but i also believe that one without the other is a broken useless system. and thats why while steve IS a good man, hes not the ultimate be-all morality compass everyone makes him out to be. life is about balance and compromise, and imo steve and tony tbh are literally 1 person split into the two sides that we all have in us. thats why as much as they argue, they also need & complete each other to be a cohesive fuctioning unit. One isn't morally better than the other, they're both wrong and right, and what im saying is, steve and tony need to fuse like Ruby and Sapphire to become Garnet
*of course this is all based on the comics writing that HAVE had steve be increidbly well rounded and insightful at times, but like all the big events had had him (and tony to a degree) be kinda... not as well written (and uh lbr mcu literally has no charac development for steve, everything we love about him we've had to eke out with headcanons and meta in fandom the canons shallow af)
ok but tldr; steve rogers beign disappointed in you is a broken system of worth. a better system to judge would be is Kamala Khan Disappointed in you? since she is an actual complete human being who is pretty well adjusted as far as superheroes go




Oh man, I completely agree with you.
Like, Steve Rogers is no doubt a good man, but I feel like the fandom has just turned it into GOOD man = RIGHT man. They completely ignore/gloss over the fact that his determination, his drive to do good, is actually one of the things that has sometimes become such a big flaw. That rigidity and uncompromisingness that comes in handy so often can also be a NOT good thing.
So yeah, it baffles me (and also pisses me off sometimes, 'cause I'm petty like that hahhaa) when people set him up as the standard of ultimate good. Isn't it just so much better to see him as what they've always made him up to be: a good MAN??? I feel like you could get so much more satisfaction out of it, in the end.
(Sorry if this makes no sense lmao. I'm awful with taking my thoughts into written words, but your post is sO GOOD! All the kudos and thumbs up and π―π―π―π―π―π―π―π―!)
LOL ty im glad my rambling makes sense i wasnt sure if it was coherent enough;;;; and yea like if we handwave any awful writing aside, all of the avengers want to do good, and treating steve as someone whos so selfless and morally pure is not only inaccurate, its boring af??? like mcu steve- hes a good guy, and hes ready to throw down for justice, but at the same time people acting like him wanting to join the army was such a Pure and Noble Action of Sacrifice when thats just stripping steve of the other half of the reasons why he wanted to join (ie. steves big fat ego thats on par with tony or thor lbr) like steve IS egotisical, and thats not a bad thing, his ego is what drives him to action, the need to be useful and prove himself he's worth something. Always being overlooked esp because of his physical limitations in a time where men, especially poor mens worth, were judged based on physical abilities, thats a HUGE chip on steves shoulder. Noble selfless intentions to punch down bullies aside, he kept applying for the most alpha male physically demanding position in helping out the war, and wanting the position you're not qualified for and continuing to do so, like it isnt inherently bad or wrong, but theres no denying he embodies the western model of thinking aka individualism or ego, that one person matters, a single person can make a difference. There's lots of other jobs he couldve gone for in contributing to the war effort esp if he's a good artist, if hes intelligent, he couldve gone into propaganda or data/espionage fields but he believed that the best way to fight the enemy was to lay down his life for it, and honestly in 2007, 2016 its no different, the idea tony is somehow lesser because he genuinely thought his weapons helping soldiers, its a double standard???
steve thought to fight and protect by actively fighting & killing on the front lines, and tony thought to fight and protect by arming the people going out to the front lines, and as much as im against warfare in general, its not an entirely unbelievable idea that tony who grew up with a dad who armed the soldiers of WW2 and with a BFF in the military, would think making arms genuninely helps the soldiers deployed to dangerous warzones??? honestly ppl act like warfare was Justified and Right in WW2 and im here like.... the USA govmnt allowed trade & business with nazi germany right up until it didnt suit them.. like it wasnt a fight for rights and freedom that was just a nice propaganda bonus just like war on iraq and afghanistan warfare is warfare, and both steve and tony actively contributed to it lol
idk i mean some ppl DO want to enjoy "cap is always right and iron man is sometimes right but mostly wrong" narrative Just Because and to each their own but man i personally am sick of a such a bland narrative