Particularly Poker And Such

[woodwardiocom]

I recently picked up DC Comics' Action Heroes Archives, Volume 2, which contains the first appearance of the Question. His creator, Steve Ditko, was apparently an Objectivist, and the Question was his first take on an Objectivist superhero.

Aside from "Objectivist superhero" being inherently contradictory in my eyes, if the Question (Vic Sage) is meant to be an Objectivist, he stinks at it. In his very first appearance he rails against the evils of gambling (he's a TV reporter), and blames his entire listening audience for allowing it to flourish in his city. While I imagine an Objectivist would find "house always wins" forms of gambling to be something intelligent people don't involve themselves in, I can't see one objecting to skill-based forms like poker, and I certainly can't see one thinking anti-gambling laws are the appropriate function of a government. I also can't see an Objectivist laying blame on an entire group rather than on the actual individuals responsible. (In a later issue Sage makes an explicit point about rights belonging to individuals, not groups. Surely responsibility works the same way.)

On the other hand, Sage doesn't care what people think of him, and is hated by the masses for petty reasons, which fits pretty well with how Ayn Rand's heroes are portrayed, so Ditko got that bit right.

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Wasn't Ragnar Danneskjold an Objectivist superhero?

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Wasn't he a pirate?

(If the Question had gone around seizing money from the bad guys he thwarted, I might see the parallel.)

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to draw a formal parallel. I'm just asking about the category of "Objectivist superhero." Superheroes who are outlaws, and wanted by the authorities, have several examples: The Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, even some version of Batman, V . . . Several of them had political agendas, too. I don't see that being a pirate is any less valid a form of heroism than being a spy, a highwayman, a vigilante, or a terrorist.

And we're told that the other people in Galt's Gulch don't approve of Danneskjold's career of piracy, but that he's driven to it by an implacable sense of justice.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

"Outlaw" has nothing to do with it either way. Danneskjold in particular, and Objectivists in general, do things for their own personal gain. The only reason Danneskjold gives any of his plunder away is because he believes having more rich Strikers around will help when it comes time to rebuild civilization.

"Altruism" and "give" are portrayed as dirty words in Shrugged. Superheroes, for my purposes, help people without expectation of personal gain.

(A quick scan through the Am. Heritage definitions of "hero" and "superhero" yields "nobility of purpose" and "fights evil or crime". Except for the "crime" clause, those are entirely relative, and Rand would certainly apply them to her protagonists. By contrast, they would commit whatever "crimes" they felt necessary.)

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

This is not a suitable place to get into the subtleties of Rand's views on giving, or into the technical definition of altruism. If your conception of a superhero is one that excludes nonaltruistic motives, then of course none of Rand's characters will fit that conception. But I don't think Ragnar's being a pirate is really relevant to that, is it? It seems a bit of a diversion.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Well, I didn't start a discussion on Objectivism with the expectation no one would disagree with me.

On the other hand, in my original post I said "in my eyes" quite deliberately. Subjectivity may make this moot.

Third hand, I would be interested in your comments on the "gambling" part of my post. I value you as a source of good info on this subject.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Well, you shouldn't take me as an "Objectivist": I make a point of disavowing that name, even though Ayn Rand's ideas are one of the great influences on my worldview and values, because as an admirer of Ayn Rand I place my own independent judgment above agreement with Ayn Rand, and in fact I think she got a number of things wrong.

That said, my own attitude toward gambling, at least, is almost exactly the one you describe. I learned from Heinlein when I was young and impressionable that the person who gets rich off of gambling is the casino owner, since the odds favor the house, and the financial transaction doesn't tempt me. (I do enjoy the occasion session of penny ante poker.) But I can't see any justification for stopping two people who want to bet on something from doing so. I believe that people ought to be free to do all sorts of things that I don't approve of. I just don't think of expressing moral disapproval as being a desirable activity for a government.

I would be inclined to guess that Steve Ditko was more attracted to the dramatic imagery of Objectivism than to the actual substance of Objectivist ideas.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Well, you shouldn't take me as an "Objectivist"

That might make you a better source of good info on the topic, frankly. You know way more than me about it, but you have perspective on it as well.

I would be inclined to guess that Steve Ditko was more attracted to the dramatic imagery of Objectivism than to the actual substance of Objectivist ideas.

I've heard a story that backs that up. Artist contracts in the 60s did not guarantee that artists got their art back, so Ditko did not get most of his Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, etc. art back. After assorted protests from various quarters, he got some of it back in the 70s or 80s. A friend of his found that he was using them as cutting boards, destroying them, and when the friend offered to buy him a $5 reusable cutting board, he refused. I can think of little so opposed to Objectivist ideals than deliberately destroying things of beauty and value, out of spite.

In the period

[drwex]

I believe that house-neutral games did not exist in the US at the time the Question came about. Chemin de fer, which Bond used to play, was house-neutral as all the players played against each other and paid a fixed fee for the seat; the version played in US casinos (which I always called baccarat but Wikipedia says is called Punto Banco) also has a house edge built in.

Casino games always had a house percentage built in until, I believe, Texas Hold 'em became popular. Casinos have gone to great lengths to neutralize all attempts by players to introduce skill - for example card counting or statistical analyses of number generation on roulette wheels are usually forbidden.

All of which is only tangentially relevant, in that it more or less sets the stage for The Question's complaint and doesn't negate that fact that he flat-out sucked as a hero and as a character concept.