Comparisons of Life, Ethics, Morals, Concepts of Self, the “World” and Society:
Here, we have The Hopeful, The Romantic, and The Avoidant, encapsulated neatly in the character of three men: Clark Kent/Kal-El, Andrei D. Novokshonov, and Joel Farber.
We will also include a fourth runner, the Cynic, through Bruce Wayne/Batman.
What are the differences? Among these three men, we readily draw similarities, esp with the first two, with these two men almost being identical in their moral alignment and social behavior, as well personal processes of experiences.
With the last one, Mr. Farber proves to be the black horse running in the race, though, within the aspect of moral alignment, he draws some similarities with Mr. Kent and Col. Novokshonov.
We will explore the key traits of these three men, respectively.
We begin with Mr. Kent:
The Hopeful:
Clark Kent/Kal-El is driven by his obstinate belief and deeply embedded conviction. His moral compass is his grounding core in a life and society that seems awash in chaos and the temptation of corruption.
Clark remains hard-necked in his pursuit of standing up to those he can see abuse their power or exercise practices that harm the vulnerable in all levels of society, but most importantly, the working-class.
Clark is working-class himself, thus, not only does he align himself with the working-class, but he takes on the responsibility to champion for the working-class against the social slant of privilege, corruption and potential threats to the welfare and liberty of the working-class.
In Golden Age canon, Clark is far more stern, indignant, blunt, and not flinching from showing bolts of righteous anger, thundering down on the wrong-doers with an Old Testament force. Unlike the majority of Silver Age, Modern, or the New 52 (urgh), this Clark is also not afraid to strike with wit and some directness that you either take away as Yiddische wit or a midwestern farmer’s candor. (Honestly, both are so similar, they should form alliances.)
As Superman, Clark distances his sense of self as a moral arbiter, only seeing himself as an instrument to bring about the fruition of justice, and exposure of crimes/corruption to ensure the execution of justice against the exact trespassers.
As Clark, he is himself. While he argues the validity of ethical application, Clark doesn’t see the point of wasting time trying to persuade parties set in their way. He will work with others who show an openness, or the vulnerable willing to take a stance.
There is the most embedded sense of hope that fuels Clark’s drive, but it also serves as the nuclear core of his sense of self.
It derived heavily from his upbringing by his foster parents, Jonathan and Martha (originally John and Mary) Kent, who, though not intentionally, imbued Clark with this sense of hope, but also to right a wrong if he sees it’s happening on his watch.
What is The Hopeful?
The Hopeful person is not clouded in their own delusion of naivety. No, the Hopeful recognizes and knows well of the harsh reality of which he lives in, of which he is part of. However, the Hopeful fights an internal (at times, external) battle against the tide of a society that encourages conformity and resignation to the jaded apathy, or else tempts the person with reward for succumbing to corruption and “playing the system”, since, “everyone else does it!”
The Hopeful knows his battles, for the most part, are a Sisyphean duty. He knows for every corrupt bastard he brings to light (and knocks their own lights out) , there are a hundred, if not thousands, all established in their own principalities. (To use OT terminology.) But he continues to fight, because he knows it will be one less wrongdoer that contributes to the mess of society.
The Hopeful also seeks to enlighten and educate those around him. The Hopeful realizes why there are these conditions, he sees the cycle of which perpetuates these systems of corruption and oppression.
He realizes that Retribution is important, but so is Education. While many won’t change their minds, there will be the few who do, and it is these few who will alter the course of these cycles, leading to these cycles, hopefully, as The Hopeful hopes, of being dismantled in the future.
The Hopeful knows his efforts might be small, but he hopes that others will see this and take on the mantle to plant the seeds, however small, that will spread the hope and continue dismantling the wrongs of an apathetic world.
The Romantic:
The Romantic is the hot-headed brother of the Hopeful.
Impassioned by his own individualism, his own sense of self and direction, the Romantic is obstinate too, in his own moral compass. The Core of the Romantic only differs that the Romantic remains cynical of his own experience.
The Romantic is the burned child of the family, and the Romantic is not afraid to acknowledge the darkness and bitterness he lapses into time from time.
Being the individual he is, the Romantic is more selfish in his scope. He can only extend his passion, his protection and his overall effort to those whom he relates to. The concept of himself as an outsider is felt, and he considers those who are not, “his own” as outsiders.
But The Romantic is fierce in his own pursuit of right. He cannot readily call it Justice, but he is a firm believer and executor of “Retribution”.
In terms of love, the Romantic is like the Hopeful. He loves abundantly and freely. There is a striking rawness in his ferocity of love. However, the Romantic differs from the Hopeful, because the Hopeful views these in terms of light. The Romantic acknowledges the dark risk of loving too much, and Romantics like Col. Novokshonov, knows well of their own darkness that winds a thorn through the fiber of their love. They embrace this, accepting that Love, like many rewards of life, has its parts in pain as well as ecstasy.
The Romantic is more selfish, as we said. He will roar, rant, destroy things in the wake of his fury. He regrets, but he knows his own self is a juggernaut of force. The Hopeful beats himself up and attempts to control his own juggernaut, but the Romantic? He lets his fury take its own course.
In terms of innocence, the Romantic is both more jaded but also more “innocent” than the Hopeful.
The Hopeful humbles himself to see the bigger picture, he thinks for the group. The Romantic is a fierce individual. He is determined to shape the world in his brutal hands, to fit his own “right” alignment.
Thus, this creates a certain sense of innocence. The Romantic is frailer than his Hopeful Brother- the Hopeful has his humility, which protects him when he falls,when he realizes the error of his ways. (Golden Age Clark embodies this well, not so much for other canons!)
The Romantic is bare, almost savage when he goes forth. If he falls, if the world deals him a knocking blow, if he sees his folly, it is too late. The Romantic’s recovery rate is questionable, and if enacted, takes far longer than his Hopeful Brother. We see this clearly with the struggles of Col. Novokshonov in his post-Decossackification assimilation and social life.
The Hopeful wishes to embrace a changing world, he will ride the currents, see what the current is, and try to help direct the current in the right course if he can.
But the Romantic? He will fight against the current, and swimming upstream, he soon tires. He needs to learn from his Hopeful Brother, or else, the Romantic will be trapped in an eternal conflict.
The main difference of the Hopeful’s innocence and the Romantic’s innocence, lies in the fact that one knows he cannot mold the world. He must, as the Buddhist saying, “wear leather shoes, since he cannot cover the world in leather”.
On the other hand, The Romantic frantically tries to nail down leather fragments around himself. It’s futile. But he innocently believes he can obtain enough leather to cover his world.
The Romantic is the feral child who has to learn the compromise of becoming part of life, the fabric of humanity.
This rawer innocence also sets up the Romantic for more struggles, brokenness, and despair.
The Hopeful, while lapsing in despair of his own limitations and the failures of society, needs to recollect his core and those who nurture his core.
Likewise, the Romantic needs those who will nurture him, but he needs these individuals to also challenge his own nature and misconceptions. He needs the tougher love of equally burned (jaded) individuals. (Hence why only Tamara and a few others could be the only ones to handle the Col.’s own fury and wildness.)
Innocence leaves a glaring vulnerability for horror and suffering for the Hopeful and Romantic.
The opponent, The Cynic has his pain, but his jadedness serves as his ultimate armor, but he sacrifices most of his gentle innocence in the process.
For both the Hopeful and Romantic, the true definition of horror and terror is not so much in the external factor of the surrounding, but the intense personal experience of an individual.
Yes, the Hopeful too is an individual. Why else would he be Hopeful?
The true definition of genuine horror and terror lies in the individual experience- the more innocent the individual, the more terrifying it is.
For example, we explore with Col Novokshonov- his experience of war, prison and communism is terrifying because of his innocence.
Yes, the Col. is violent, hot-tempered, a rage machine, a sex-crazed bull. But he is essentially innocent in terms of his reasoning, his capacity of emotional attachment, his capacity of emotion-based compassion, the struggle of his ideals, his "foolish" romanticism, his innocent core of cheer and sweetness.
This makes him, in a world that thrives on jadedness, on apathy, on control/domination, on just being swallowed in the system, it renders our Andrei an outsider, an insubordinate, something of a freak.
This is similar to Clark’s own moral compass setting him at odds with the majority of society, but Clark’s powers also alienate himself, too.
The Col. is an outsider for similar reasons, both in terms of his own convictions, but being 6’4 and built like a tank in the 1920’s USSR does nothing to win instant trust. (Neither is being a Kryptonian with superpowers, either, in Clark’s case!)
In summary, Andrei's innocence is his real tragedy and horror, very much in the vein like Clark, since both are obstinate in their innocence and refuse to capitulate to a world that demands conformity of jadedness, apathy and the surrender to bitterness or corruption.
Clark faces his horrors and tragedies in various losses and failures, though in a different context to Andrei’s own tragedies.
The Hopeful will spring back with the help of close ones in his life. The Romantic is on a fork-road. He can either recover by accepting help from others, or go down a potential destructive path. If The Romantic can take note from his Hopeful Brother, the former path will reclaim him.
Now we come to a jolting contrast.
The Avoidant.
The Avoidant is the son, if you will, of the Cynic.
The Cynic scorns the potential reward of happiness in his life, because he questions the very definition and validity of happiness.
Thus, the Cynic rejects the potential of happiness. He prefers the cold, hardened armor of his own distrust and coldness. He will not light fires, because he doesn’t believe warmth will benefit him.
The Avoidant embraces all these beliefs, but he is the more warped of the two. The Avoidant realizes there is some merit in happiness. He cannot deny it altogether like his harsher father.
The Avoidant lives up to his name. He avoids any involvement that might draw forth an investment of himself.
Like the Romantic, he too knows the potential dark risk of attachment and effort in pursuing happiness. He knows, like his Romantic rival, the danger of loving well but not wisely.
That love, attachments, devotion of a cause, of devotion in general, is only joy that can easily flip, like a sheet of ice, into its own terror of which he controls all too well, because it will control him.
This becomes all the darker because unlike his Hopeful and Romantic competitors, the Avoidant knows he can master his love and what lengths he will pursue or destroy to validate his love, or justify why he loved in the first place.
The Cynic: (Bruce Wayne/Batman and Ravana)
The Cynic prefers to justify his love in an equally warped way. He wishes to be the ying to the yang of his hated Hopeful and Romantic opponents, thus, he too devotes himself to justifying his devotion.
The Avoidant avoids this. He rejects this potential, because the Cynic’s warped pursuit unsettles him.
The Cynic, despite his outward claims of selfishness, is not actually selfish in his devotion.
For example, Batman/Bruce Wayne claims his pursuit of vigilante justice is because of his parents’ murder. Bruce claims every dark action of his in the name of his parents, and has placed his parents on a pedestal of frightening devotion.
But Bruce is, despite the godfather of all Cynics, is the Avoidant, too.
He avoids the emptiness of his unsatisfying life on the surface. The cover of his filial devotion serves as a convenient mask for his destructive path.
He refuses to openly confront his empty life of excess wealth and materialism. It’s all easier and nobler to build a shrine to his parents through his undercover vigilantism while denouncing his Hopeful Rival, Superman, as naive and anarchistic.
Joel Farber hides behind the lie he tells others around him- that he is devoted to his parents. He claims a sort of love, an obligation based solely on the fact his parents provided for him. It is a deception Joel uses as a convenient mask. He knows well the pain and coldness his parents trapped him in. He knows well they are distant, and grow more distant, like Pluto’s trajectory from the planetary alignment courses.
Joel, like Bruce, refuses to openly declare his empty life. While Joel is not a billionaire like Bruce, and doesn’t lead a materialistic life, Joel does lead an equally isolated life trapped, not in empty wealth, but the barren landscape of his own mental state and thought experiments.
The true selfishness lies in avoidance and apathy, of which the Avoidant masters like the warped wisdom of Ravana, Rama's opponent in the Ramayana.
Like Ravana, the Avoidant has achieved ultimate clarity of realization. He is totally aware. And in this awareness, it is the downfall for the Avoidant, for this has equipped the Avoidant with his own sense of entitled superiority. He scorns the rest of his peers, for he considers them not his peers in reality. He opposes especially the Hopeful and Romantic. The Hopeful is foolish and the Romantic is savage, in his view.
Joel Farber embodies the Avoidant. Joel draws similarity with the nefarious ten-headed demon king of the Hindu epic.
Ravana began as a devoted brahmin, determined to meditate, and thus earn the rewards of total enlightenment from his lord Brahma. Brahma grants Ravana this enlightenment, but at a terrible cost- Ravana has also gained the insight of the darkness, and thus gains a new head. Wishing for more enlightenment, Ravana again throws him in the process of meditating and supplicating Brahma. Braham grants him a new head each time, only for the king to cut off his head to gain a new one.
In some ways, Joel has done this with his own pervasive and dogged self-denial. Joel engrosses himself in his thought experiments, believing himself to be wisest and clear-minded of all the people around him. He cuts off people, cuts off potential joys, like Ravana with his heads. Joel severs each potential course for a relationship, a new venture of emotional attachment, the same vein as Ravana. In the course of each severance, a new warped depth in Joel’s mind springs up, like a new head for Ravana.
Joel, to a degree, is not much an escapist, per se, but an avoidant. Joel wants to build barriers, make the world uglier than it needs to be, because he is a raging storm of anger and darkness. His pride shackles him in this dark prison, when he could easily step into the light and embrace the warmth and brightness of life, much like Andrei/Clark fight to keep up.
The Hopeful and Romantic, believe, despite the ugliness of the world, life can be beautiful.
Joel is like the Romantic he scorns. He too is a burned child. But unlike the Romantic who stubbornly grasps at, as the poet Mayakovsky describes, “fistfuls of priceless sunbeams”, the Avoidant questions if the sun really warms things up. He won’t deny its existence, but does the Sun actually warm the Earth and the living?
The Cynic will claim the grounds of exclusivity. He says, the Sun exists. The Sun warms all things, but not himself, for he is different, special. He cannot be warmed. The Avoidant believes this too, but wanting to claim an even playing field, he lies and questions the sun’s warmth. But The Avoidant has his share of hubris like his cold father.
“No one else can understand what I feel, what I go through!” Both the Cynic and Avoidant declare to themselves. They exclude themselves from the rest, thinking themselves above all.
Both Joel and Bruce trap themselves in this mentality, and thus further their isolation.
They realize they could be bound in their own constructed fallacies, but both Bruce and Joel will not let go of their hubris.
The Avoidant and The Cynic can either go on a journey of self-liberation, or they can remain stagnant. Chances are, the Avoidant will remain stagnant at a higher chance than the Cynic, because the Cynic wishes to rival the Hopeful. The Avoidant loathes his Romantic opponent, but may come to a truce with his Romantic rival. These small compromises may lead to a pivotal turning point for both The Cynic and Avoidant.
Juxtapose this with how the Hopeful regards the Cynic and the Romantic with the Avoidant. Initially, the Hopeful views the Cynic as his dire enemy- he is very anathema to what he lives for. Likewise, the Romantic balks at the life the Avoidant lives. However, the Hopeful can’t help but appreciate the clarity of the Cynic- the Hopeful isn’t naive, he sees the dark and ugliness too, just as clear as the Cynic. But he lets the sun warm him up, unlike the Cynic.
The Romantic too, appreciates the Avoidant’s perception, but the Romantic defies facts. If the sun cannot warm him up, the Romantic builds his own fire. He will offer his fire to the Avoidant, eventually.
In conclusion, all four men struggle with their own shortcomings, but also have their own defense mechanism, which by degree and form, work more or less. But all four men can learn lessons from one another.
It’s the balance of light and dark. Ying and Yang.
Powerfully written, Tete! I love how you showed the similarities and differences between these different character archetypes, especially between the Romantic and the Hopeful and the Cynic and the Avoidant! You're right, Bruce Wayne and Joel actually have quite a number of things in common. We need to have Joel vs Clark like Batman vs Superman!