Supervillain's come in second

[whitefire]

I come bearing a question, oh fellow forum goers.

While gearing up for the dreaded NaNoWriMo I was considering the structure of various stories, most notably those involving superhero’s, when a curious realization seemed to strike me:

I cannot think of any story in the superhero genre in which the supervillain appears before the superhero. Certainly there are bad-guys around before the superhero, but they’re usually street thugs and mobsters, or in some instances large corporations. The creation of the superhero usually precedes or coincides that of the supervillain, but I cannot think of a single instances when the villain is created first.(Note: I am talking about the superhero genre here. If we look at fantasy then the existance of the oppressive 'dark lord' before the hero arises has crossed from 'common' into the realms of true cliche)

For the purposes of this I am dismissing the “ancient evil” villains that have technically been around for centuries but aren’t active until the superhero appears (such as Apocalypse, the ‘first mutant’). In things such as Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, even the X-men, the hero’s are always created first, and then the villains followed.

I was interested if any of you bright young things could think of an incidence in a super-hero/villain based story where the villain was created and active before the hero came along.

[fauvem]

The movie Unbreakable however he was only revealed to be a villain at the end of the movie. The subgenre where there are heroes only varying levels of villiany with powers springs to mind but that doesn't technically count. As a general rule, they introduce the protagonist first before the antagonist.

[whitefire]

humm, unbreakable is a bit of an exception. But as a general rule the villains just aren't around before the hero. It's usually not even a matter of them not being introduced until after the hero, but that they actually aren't around.
Joker wasn't strutting around before Batman, or Doc Oc before Spiderman. These villains literally didn't exist before the hero's got their costumed identities off the ground.

I just find it interesting that in such an "out there" medium as comics, nobody seems to have had supervillains running around before superhero's.
The story of the teenager who gets his super powers, decides to become a hero and then gets supervillains is a basic comic plot outline, yet the story of a boy living in a city that's being plagued by fear of the world's first supervillain, developing powers and going to fight said villain doesn't appear to have been told.

Supervillains appear to be created second, as a byproduct of superhero's. That's a topic that's been well discussed before (especially in terms of batman. that guy just can't stop making villains for himself), and while the common story for superhero's is "criminals hurt my family, never again!" it's rare that a supervillain was involved in that incident, and rarer still that the supervillain appeared before the superhero.

I could be wrong on this, but I just see it as an interesting sort of structure that's present in almost every superhero genre comic, movie, book or game that i've seen or read.

[fauvem]

Its more applicable to Sidekicks. Some of them tend to be byproducts of Super VS Super Confrontation E.G. Robin.

[dominusfuji]

I would have to say the same. That in America atlest it is that way. I partake of a large number of asian media, and in Japanese manga and anime it is usually the oppisite. Where some super powered Titan enslaves a race for a hundred years and someone finds a proto "bla bla" from the first invasion for a massive one on one. Or a demon rips its way into reality and mortally wounds a pregnant woman whos offspring become infused with demonic cooties.

[coriolis]

I think we are confusing "supervillains in general" with "superhero's personal nemesis". That can naturally only come with experience.

It doesn't always happen that way; for example, when a new hero is being added to an existing group (like when Kitty Pride joined the X-Men) she "inherits" villains who oppose the team, who existed in print before her. Later of course, come nemeses tailored to combat her.

Captain America was devised to fight Nazis, who existed first. The Red Skull was created later as a "fantasy" extension of that.

In terms of conventional poltline/story arc development, since heros are usually only given battles they can win, a newly-created hero is allowed to "level up" on non-powered thugs (bank robbers, Nazis, muggers, etc) before being thrown at evil supers. At least, that's the way it was back when the "universes" were being first created and developed. Where you have established continuities, new heros just get plugged in.

Also, bear in mind that we, the readers, are only seeing things from the hero's perspective -- a 2010 comic book doesn't show us Captain Evil trying to capture Fermilabs back in 2005, part of a plan to use their cyclotron to create a few molecules of Unbelievium to power his Death Ray that will enable him to Take Over The World...because it's not relevant to the current story (except maybe as a flashback, later) of our point-of-view character, call him "The Capetastic Avenger", who not only wasn't involved, but hadn't had his toxic waste accident (yet), decided to become a hero, or start telling us, the readers, about it.

And a hero's nemeses, having been constructed to fight *that* hero, doesn't necessarily work, in terms of superpower or plot, against other heros. "Brain-Buster", a nightmare-causing villain created to oppose The Capetastic Avenger, is not going to be an appropriate (or balanced) foil for the heroine "Photonne", so a new set of more appropriate villains have to be created for each hero.

You can't build an opponent until you've got a good idea of what you're opposing. So really, it can go either way, but since the hero is usually created (by the author) first...

Not all comics follow this; if you venture outside of the Big Two Publishers in American comics, you will find full-fledged villains existing from the get-go, and heroes confronting them. Image comics had well-developed backstories (including villains) for most of their books when they started up (and I am of an age to remember such...)

[faerieknight]

For my usual Supers rpg setting, I have an alternate timeline storyline. In this one one of THE greatest heroes falls. And he falls hardcore. He'd been active since the late 40's. Knew the strengths and weaknesses of every hero. So when he pulled a Face-Heal turn he knew exactly how to stop each hero. And with the heroes out of the picture, took over. Then some years later a new crop of young heroes arises and have to pick up the fight the previous generation lost.

But that's not exactly what the OP is talking about. And I know it. So why is it in the superhero genre the villain always comes about after the heroes? Well, one reason is because they don't exist yet. Superman was the first DC super hero. Before him, no one had powers. Or at least, no one who had powers bothered to dress up in a costume and fight crime. He inspired others who had powers to take up the mantle of Hero.

Would Batman have donned the cape and cowl if Superman hadn't been in the news papers? Would Jay Garret have thought to wear a costume? Without that first meta human donning a costume, would others have done so at all? Probably not. They wouldn't have had someone who inspires the idea.

But once there is a super hero, the criminal element has to step up. Normal thugs can't handle Superman. So what do they do? They turn to Lex Luther for super tech. Now suddenly there's several tech based villains. Now, Lex had been around long before Superman showed up. But he wasn't a super villain then. He was a corrupt business man. A genius too. But he wasn't a Villain. He was driven to become a Villain because there's someone he couldn't control via money.

In short, the hero creates the villains because normal criminals can't handle him. And sometimes the hero's actions create the villain. Such as how Joker was some shmuck tricked into wearing the original Red Hood costume, and knocked into the goop by Batman.

But this isn't always true. Batman fought Count Dracula in issue 3. And Dracula is definitely a super villain time threat. He'd been doing his thing for a long time. And it took a super hero to finally stop him. Iron Fist becoming a hero is a direct result of a super villain's actions. If it hadn't been for Demogoblin, Nighthawk (marvel char) wouldn't have become a hero. Danny Ketch wouldn't have become Ghost Rider if it wasn't for the actions of Blackout. Professor X founded his X-Men specifically because he knew the world had no defense against Magneto.

I personally think the reason villains so rarely predate the existence of heroes is because there's no need of a super villain. If normal criminals aren't running up against a hero, why would they need to become super villains? Take Captain Cold for example. He devised his cold gun specifically to stand a chance if Flash showed up.

In a world where the villain does come first it would be a really dark world. So dark, I have trouble imagining why someone would dare risk fighting the Villain. Without a symbol that good can triumph, wouldn't the would be hero think it's impossible?

[coriolis]

I would disagree, the *heroes* do not "create" the villains. My real contention, which may have gotten lost in my verbiage, is that the *artist/author* generally can't create the villain until the hero is created first. The Batman example was retroactive continuity invented by artists decades after Batman's (and Joe Chill's!) original creations. Or, in one case, the Joker trying to rationalize his atrocities and guilt-trip Bats.

Frankly, if a mysterious asteroid crash-landed in the real world tomorrow and caused superpowers to spontaneously spring up in totally random selections of the world populace, there would be superpowered bank robbers, rapists, berserk drunks, Ponzi-scammers etc. as well as police, soldiers, altruists, and Good Samaritans all appearing at the same time. Because that's what you'd find in a large enough random sample of humanity.

What the OP is bemoaning is an unavoidable artifact of the *storytelling* process, not something that should be somehow construed as a real natural law...

[faerieknight]

Give a random cross section of people super powers, and yes some would be criminals. But would they be Super Villains? Probably not. Without someone donning a costume first and fighting crime, they probably wouldn't even consider wearing a costume. They would stick to their petty crime and keep a low profile. If you have abilities that make you the perfect thief... What makes more sense, staying low key and not advertising what you can do? Or does it make more sense to don a flashy costume and advertise to the world "Hey, I'm a criminal with abilities beyond normal people"?

If some super villain did crop up before any heroes, I stand by my belief that it's unlikely a young would be hero would step up. Why would they? It's already 'known' no one can stop Uberbad the Invincible. If anything, I'd imagine that the hero would emerge during the villain's first outing. Someone who has these new abilities gets caught up in an Empowered robbery and for some unknown reason acts.

If the villain is tech based, why did he feel the need to build the super tech? He was doing just fine using normal tech. So what caused him to upgrade? Probably realizing "My normal tech isn't good enough anymore" after some hero came onto the scene.

But really, in part it's because the super hero genre reverses the classic mythology of heroism. The hero is no longer the driving force. They are the thing preventing the plan. Capeman doesn't have any great plans or goals. His focus is on stopping crime. It's Uberbad that has the goals. Without Capeman, Uberbad has no challenge. Uberbad needs a Capeman. Where as Capeman doesn't 'need' a super villain. He can go out and trounce gang bangers and car thieves.

Why does the villain wait until after a hero surfaces? Because now he has an actual challenge. He has something to strive against.

[whitefire]

faerieknight I LOVE where you've taken this. The idea that villains surface due to the war of escalation is one that I can totally understand. Seeing some dude in spandex strutting about with perfect hair and a smile just asking to be punched would be excellent motivation to break out the physics textbooks and figure out how to bust up his pretty face. However, your points leave me with some interesting concepts.

You say that without a hero the villain would continue on as usual in the low profile, that the hero gives the villain a meaning, a purpose. But isn't it the nature of humans, good, evil, or in between, to desire a purpose anyway? Could not a villain arise and reveal himself in hopes that a hero would take up arms and provide him with a challenge worthy of his new abilities? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a villain might go so far as to create hero's himself so as to have some 'sport' rather than suffer the endless drudgery of constant anonymous success. Even winning all the time gets boring, after all.
Also, would they continue as normal? If you could do something extraordinary, wouldn't the temptation to show off be too great? But of course ripping a bank vault apart with your bare hands isn't very subtle, so you put on a mask so that they can all see you're the big bad without you getting caught. BOOM! supervillain

As for the world where the villain comes first, you make a very good point that a young hero would most likely not arise to fight Uberbad. But isn't arrogance innate in villains (or at least a VERY common trait)? Thus, in such a world, would it not be that a villain could arise to oppose Uberbad? Certainly it would not be a world which follows the standard mythology formula, but rather one more akin to our own world, where evil is most commonly opposed not by good, but by a different kind of evil.

To adress Coriolis' comment, I'm less certain that this is an unavoidable artifact of the storytelling process. In storytelling I don't believe there are any unavoidable artifacts, which is one of the things I love about it; anything goes provided you can justify it. For example: a thief who is bored and restless with life stages a raid on a top secret military testing area and makes off with the plans and prototypes of a number of funky gadgets. In his bored state he decides to use them to 'play' caped super-dude, like he did when he was a kid. The news suddenly snatches up the story of the first super-villain thief and runs with it. Our young hero, though a series of petty meaningless coincidences then stumbles on the villain's hideout while he's pulling a job. Thinking it's cool he tries out a few of the gadgets and when the villain returns and tries to take them back he fights him off. Thus you have the beginnings of a story where the villain came first, thus avoiding this 'unavoidable artifact'.

Personally, at the crux of the matter, lies the fact that it's easy to make the heroes arise first. In terms of storytelling it's much more complex to communicate a world in which a villain is operating before the hero, especially when the hero is the main character. Of course it could be done relatively easily if the villain were the main character, but their motivations would have to be carefully considered and understandable, which, as we've covered, would be rather complex. Thus in terms of the storytelling it's easier to take the path well traveled, especially when the market is dominated by Marvel and DC, worlds which have been going on too long to explore the concept of villains arising first.

also, faerieknight, that rpg setting sounds really cool if you don't know "Irredeemable" the comic series, I suggest you look it up. Follows the same kind of 'paragon of virtue goes evil' storyline, and does it quite well in my opinion.

[faerieknight]

In truth, the 'unavoidable' artifact has been avoided multiple times. In the first Superman movie Lex was already a super criminal. Abit a little known one. He was little known because he stayed under the radar for the most part. His real estate plot was already in the works when Superman made his first appearance. In that movie, it was Superman's existence that sparked Lex into revealing himself. A mistake that ruined his plan. It might have worked otherwise.

Yeah, villains do have huge egos. But few are stupid. The villains that predate heroes oft times either were already established foes of other heroes, or they didn't decide to reveal them self until a hero shows up. But more often, they don't actually get their powers till after the hero does. For some reason, meta origins usually begin with a single individual. And this individual tends to be heroic for one reason or another.

In DC the meta origin wasn't really explained very well. But after Superman showed up, more and more people started getting powers. Or those who had powers started to decide to use them. At which point criminals started developing tech to deal with the heroes. Or they would find a way to give them self powers. Why did Solomon Grundy (born on a Monday) first crawl out of the swamp when he did? Why not earlier? Maybe the existence of the first Green Lantern somehow triggered it. He was throwing around a lot of magic. Maybe that inadvertently revived Grundy?

Marvel's meta origin isn't really explained either. Just all of a sudden flaming androids, fish men, and so forth started cropping up in world war two.

From a reader perspective, this can be traced back to the time period super heroes were created in. It was the 1930's, and life pretty much sucked. Comics were a medium to bring some small joy to the people. They wanted stories that gave hope. That showed something better then they had. So heroes were created. It wasn't until later that the stories started to become more complex. Heroes needed valid challenges. So the first faceless villains cropped up. Usually super genius types since there was a bit of fear regarding technology.

Did you guys know that Joker is probably the first 'named' villain? Before that comics tended to have generic villains. Hugo Strange, Ultra-Humanite, and so forth were at the time highly generic. In fact, Ultra-Humanite was the proto-Lex Luther.

[davidj]

Nov 22, 2010 2:59:12 GMT -5 coriolis said:

What the OP is bemoaning is an unavoidable artifact of the *storytelling* process, not something that should be somehow construed as a real natural law...

It would be avoidable if the origin story of the first superhero in a universe involved having one of the earliest supervillains do something that motivated and empowered someone to become the first superhero. In fact that's exactly what happened with No Ordinary Family. Their origin comes from having been exposed to the same stuff that Ebil Corporation is using to create super villains. .

Come to think of it, before Magneto appears and announces his desire to take over the world, the X-Men are a school, not a team of superheros. Unlike other superheroes they never fought conventional crime. While in the marvel universe they were predated by other heroes and villains, in the movie continuity they weren't.

[faerieknight]

Nov 25, 2010 13:40:32 GMT -5 davidj said:

Come to think of it, before Magneto appears and announces his desire to take over the world, the X-Men are a school, not a team of superheros. Unlike other superheroes they never fought conventional crime. While in the marvel universe they were predated by other heroes and villains, in the movie continuity they weren't.

Not quite. Xavier mentions in the very first issue of X-Men when magneto first attacks that this is what they had been training for. He'd known Magneto would one day attack, and had been training the X-Men to stop him. Which didn't go very well I might add. In fact, many of their first battles were only won due to Xavier mind wiping the foe.

Although it is interesting to note that Donald Blake might not have found the hammer of Thor if the alien invasion hadn't happened. He'd have recovered it eventually, true. But would he have become a superhero? Maybe not.

It's also interesting to note that if it wasn't for J. J. Jamison, Spiderman wouldn't have many of his rogues. Scorpion, Rhino, and Smythe all were hired by Jamison originally to kill spiderman. Scorpion and Rhino even got their powers thanks to him. Spiderman wouldn't have gone after Vulture in issue 1 of Spiderman if it hadn't been a taunt published by Jamison. In all almost half of Spiderman's usual foes have their origin linked to J.J.J's need to take down Spiderman. And oft times Spidy ends up having to save J.J.J's bum.

[davidj]

Nov 25, 2010 20:29:59 GMT -5 faerieknight said:

Not quite. Xavier mentions in the very first issue of X-Men when magneto first attacks that this is what they had been training for. He'd known Magneto would one day attack, and had been training the X-Men to stop him.

But that still makes the X-Men a response to a pre-existing super-villain; taking the field in response to the villain, rather than the Golden Agers who start out slapping around mundane criminals and then have the villains rise up to oppose them.

[faerieknight]

Why yes, yes it does. It's just a minor difference of "We go to a school and now must become heroes" as opposed to "We have been training for the eventual attack by a Big Bad". In both cases it's a reactionary origin. Just slightly different flavor.

Even the Fantastic Four are predated by their first villain. They have their accident, and vow to be heroes. But meanwhile Mole Man was already starting up his first plot. I'd imagine his first attack was in preparation even before the accident that gave them their powers. Doctor Doom also was doing his super villain thing before they got powers. Just not to the world's knowledge. Marvel has a long history of villains predating their heroes.