Why Captain America Should Not Be a Jerk (or, Why Captain America Should Stay Just as He Is)

I love Captain America. I never thought I would, but I do.

I didn't grow up reading his comics or watching him on TV (was he even on TV in the 90s?), and quite honestly, when "Captain America: The First Avenger" was being released, I thought he sounded cheesy and ridiculous (not in a good way, either). I went to see the film out of nothing more than sheer curiosity - how silly could he really be? - and because I wanted to see Richard Armitage on the big screen in the US*. (He wasn't Thorin Oakenshield yet, see.)

And then Captain America turned out to be the most awesome combination of totally badass and almost painfully adorable, that he became my favorite.

So when I saw a Vulture article, shared on Facebook by a friend of mine, entitled "Why Captain America is Only Interesting if He's a Prick," my initial reaction was surprise, to say the least. But I was also intrigued, so I clicked on the article and read through it. I thought it might present an interesting differing opinion from my own.

Which it did - so interesting, in fact, that what was originally going to be just a reply to my friend's Facebook post, has turned (months later, because I take forever to write these things) into this blog entry. My response was getting a bit longer than is socially acceptable on a Facebook wall...

The argument in the article, as I read it, is that the character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), specifically, is bland. Captain America, as a concept, can be interesting, and there's nothing terribly wrong with his plot lines (in fact, the author writes that "there have been countless great comic stories either starring or featuring" Captain America and calls The Winter Soldier film "decent") - but the way he is characterized in the films, is boring.

And honestly, that's totally fine. I take no issue with that. As much as I love Captain America, I'm not going to argue here about whether or not he actually is an interesting character. That's a quality completely in the eye of the beholder, and any opinion on the matter is equally valid.

My issue with this article, instead, is the author's claim that "Captain America has the potential to be much more interesting - but only if he's a jerk," and his suggestion that a "flawlessly nice" character provides no "artistic good" to a story for today's world. I entirely disagree that Captain America "should" be a jerk; in fact, from both an in-universe/plot-based standpoint and from the outside perspective of a viewer/reader, I believe quite the opposite.

The author writes that, "Being a bit of a prick fits perfectly with the Captain America origin story," but I think it completely contradicts his origin story - especially the one we see in the MCU (which is the author's focus, and so will be mine here as well). Steve Rogers is chosen for the super soldier program precisely because he is through-and-through a good man; they needed someone who "knows the value of strength, and knows compassion," as the serum's creator, Dr. Erskine, said. Wouldn't writing Captain America as a jerk then erase the exact qualities that made Steve the perfect candidate - really, the only viable candidate shown in the first Captain America film - to begin with?

It's not that I don't think a scrawny kid like Steve Rogers, when suddenly granted superpowers, may very well turn into a bully, simply because he now has the ability to do so. Actually, I think that's a perfectly logical character progression; power corrupts, and all that. And I'm sure that the Ultimates comics - which, from what I understand, take Cap down that path (I've never read them, myself), and which the author uses in this article as an example of Cap-as-jerk - are a fascinating look into a "What if...?" alternate reality. But I think it's an alternate reality for a reason. Dr. Erskine chose Steve specifically because he felt Steve wouldn't be corrupted; writing post-serum Steve Rogers as a jerk, instead, would make all of that a moot point - Dr. Erskine was wrong, and Steve was not special after all - so I have trouble seeing how a rude Captain America would "fit perfectly" with his origin story.

Still, I think it's perfectly valid for someone to find Captain America to be a "boring" character. It's a matter of personal interests, and I can even understand the arguments against him. He's a sweetheart, but in a universe as full of huge personalities as the MCU is, that simple quality can fade into the background. (I think that's a shame, but it's true.) But I absolutely don't think that's a reason why he needs to be a jerk instead - on the contrary, I think it's a reason why he needs to stay the sweet-natured character that he is. Genuinely kind characters like Steve Rogers/Captain America are, in my opinion, extremely important, for so many reasons.

At the very least, the "artistic good [of] a flawlessly nice" character like him, which the author of this article questions, is to provide contrast. Not to say that the rest of the MCU characters aren't perfectly nice people (the Good Guys, anyway), but humility, warmth, etc, aren't really the strong suits of any of the major players. If Captain America were to be the jerk the author of this article says he should be, he'd be just another cocky superhero, too. His quiet kindness may make him less conspicuous than the others, but it also sets him apart from them; it helps him serve as a foil to the world around him.

But Steve Rogers' demeanor isn't solely a breath of fresh air in a universe chock-full of big egos. Much more significantly, he demonstrates that awesomeness doesn't need to go hand-in-hand with arrogance, and proves that kindness should not be mistaken for weakness - or for a weakness. After all, anyone can slide down the slippery slope to becoming a bully (or even just to becoming a master of snark and sarcasm like Tony Stark) when they're the most powerful person in the room. Plenty of people have, both in fiction and in our own real world. It takes a special kind of person - a special kind of inner strength that all the super solider serum in the world can't provide - to resist that outcome; to remain gentle and kind despite the power to treat others as if they're somehow lesser than you. Steve Rogers has that inner strength, and that's important. To have an unabashedly, unashamedly kind character like Steve at the forefront of his own film franchise (and of course the comics, well before that) shows that being powerful and being nice are not at all mutually exclusive.

Frankly, with all the messages out there about "nice guys (and girls) finishing last," about the only path to success being a ruthless drive to the top, about frenemies and cheating spouses and political corruption... I think we, as viewers (and readers), need to see a superhero like Captain America. We need to see a gentleman winning the day; we need to see a man whose kindness is one of his defining features - and that it doesn't hold him back. I love that we can admire and look up to Captain America not only because he's brave and strong and fast and all of the other things a superhero should be - but also because Steve Rogers is a good man, and that's the very best reason to look up to someone. He is genuinely, through-and-through, nice, without looking for anything in return for that kindness. That's all too rare - in fiction and real life - and that's exactly why Captain America matters, "even" in 2014.

Actually, that's why he's always mattered, and why he always will: he's not just a comic book superhero, he's a real superhero. (Bear with me here.) There is no super soldier serum in the real world; no gamma radiation, no radioactive spiders, no... anything. But there is kindness. In the real world, heroes are those who do good, who do the right thing, simply out of the goodness of their hearts. (Some say that to truly be considered a "hero," there has to be some level of self-sacrifice or self-endangerment involved - think firefighters, rescue workers, etc - but I respectfully disagree; a person can save a life with a kind word, or even just a smile, if it's delivered at the right moment, and I bet that person looks like a hero to the person they affected.) We all have that kindness in us - and if that was enough to make scrawny little Steve Rogers a hero, it ought to be enough for us. And we really ought to try.

So yes, maybe Captain America can sometimes fade into the background when compared to his fellow Marvel Cinematic Universe residents. Sure, he lacks the rock-star swagger of Iron Man, the regal might of Thor, the brazen resourcefulness of Black Widow. But that's who Captain America is: he's a good man, a humble man; one who goes in and gets the job done without pomp and circumstance, because that isn't the point, is it? The point is helping people, so that's what he does. He's powerful without being pompous; skilled without being smug; confident without being cocky. He's no less effective than the other Avengers, he just didn't let his abilities affect his personality quite as much.

To write Captain America as a jerk, then, is not a simple, minor adjustment. It would completely overhaul his character and undo his origin story. Beyond even the canon of the story, though, writing Cap as a jerk would rob him of his most important job of all: reminding us, his viewers (and readers), that goodness and kindness can make a hero long before any superpowers come into play. Just ask Dr. Erskine about Steve Rogers.






*Spoilery side note, for those who care how that particular point of interest played out: Mr. Armitage was in "The First Avenger" as that guy who pretends to be a reporter covering the super soldier serum procedure, but is actually a Hydra operative. So he's there for about 10 minutes, then he's caught by the newly-empowered Steve Rogers (not even Captain America yet!), eats some poison, and dies. ... Hail Hydra.

My blog has a direction!?

Because I am so determined not to fail at my New Year’s Resolution to write here once a month (at least), I've been working on three different entries simultaneously, in an attempt to catch up on the posts I've missed. (... This one makes four, actually.) All three of those entries are related to geekiness, in some way, as are the entries I've previously posted.

There’s that old saying/cliche, “Write what you know” - and I probably should have guessed, when I decided I wanted to keep a blog, that geeky topics would be “what I know.” But at the time, I didn't want to limit my blog to just one topic; I was wary of needing everything I would write to fit the “this is me talking about geeky things!” mold. Not only did I want more room to maneuver than that would afford, I honestly didn't think that there would be that much for me to say on the subject. Geekiness seemed to be entering the mainstream - as much as it ever can/will - and plenty of other people were handling any reviews, commentary, etc that I could think of to write.

But lately, as I think about what I've been writing for this blog now that I’m, you know, actually writing for it (... a bit), it seems that my blog has developed a direction on its own, whether I wanted one or not. And the more I think about it, if I keep feeling as if I have something to say on the subject of All Things Geeky - which apparently I do, since that’s what I keep sitting down to write! - and if I keep having the most fun writing on those kinds of topics… maybe it isn't as limiting as I feared, after all. Maybe there’s more for me to say than I thought!

I imagine there may well still be the occasional posts that have nothing to do with geekery - say, if I want to write about somewhere I've traveled recently, or about something I've read that wouldn't “qualify” as a geeky piece of literature, or… etc. I’m just not going to go out of my way to write about anything and everything. I have fun writing about life as a geek - probably because I have fun living life as a geek - and life as a geek is what I know best.

So that’s what you can come to expect from this blog, regardless of anything I may have said in my first entries. (I will update the “About this blog” section, though.) I hope you’ll still come along for the ride!

There's More to D&D Than Meets the Eye

Well, apparently writing here every two weeks is harder than I thought… Maybe going from posting twice a year, to posting twice a month, was a bit too ambitious. I think I’ll aim for once a month instead, at least for now. Adjusting a New Year’s Resolution is totally different to failing at it, right?!

Ah, well. Onward!

I’m about to start a new D&D campaign, and it’s gotten me thinking about the way I've seen the game characterized, and the perceptions of it I've heard from friends who don’t play - and about the many ways in which my experience with D&D paints a very different picture from the one I've often seen presented. Of course, I’m sure there are some players and campaigns living up to the image - it has to come from somewhere - but it’s certainly not inherent to the game.

So, I wanted to share my experience with D&D. I do fully admit that this is simply an opinion piece - an attempt to get people seeing RPGs in a different light, yes, but hardly an attempt based on research and statistics and stuff. I’m just talking about things I like! :)

A note before I begin: I’m going to just keep calling all such RPGs, “D&D” in this post, for the sake of ease. I have also played Pathfinder, though - my upcoming campaign, in fact, is Pathfinder - and I know there are even more options out there. But… I like synecdoche I guess? Haha, no, honestly, it’s just that D&D is (I think) the most generally recognizable of the type of RPG I have the most experience with am focusing this post on. So D&D it is!

And my experience with D&D has taught me the following...

It’s not a boys’ club - or at least, it doesn't have to be. 

D&D is not (necessarily) the male-dominated world it’s often painted to be - really! I have been part of three campaigns (well, two campaigns and one mini-adventure), and will be starting my fourth campaign in a couple of weeks - and only once have I been vastly outnumbered as a female. My first campaign and my upcoming campaign involve different groups of friends, but have the exact same ratio: 6 players total, with 3 women and 3 men. In both campaigns, one of the men is the DM - the narrator of our “choose-your-own-adventure” story - so the adventuring party itself (the characters in the story) actually has more women than men, at 3-to-2.

My second campaign officially had more men than women: 5-to-3, counting the DM; 4-to-3 without him. But, two of our players did not come to every session; of the regular players, we were back to that 3-to-3 ratio, with female party members outnumbering male party members 3-to-2.

Yes, there was the mini-adventure I took part in, and there I was well and truly outnumbered: out of 7 total players (DM-inclusive), I was the only girl, making it a 6-to-1 party in favor of the men. But I’d hesitate to call even that group a “boys’ club” situation - it’s not like I was ever singled out for being the single female in the party. (Then again, I never expected for a moment that I would be, since my friends are, you know, nice people… So nice that I wrote a whole post about it!)

So, at least in my experience, there’s certainly no rule that a group of D&D players will be made up of mostly men - and even when the group demographically matches that stereotype, that doesn't mean there’s a no-girls-allowed attitude. Everyone can get involved!

And when I say “everyone…”

It’s not just for your stereotypical fantasy-loving geek.

Not a “gamer”? Not a problem! For example, as someone who has done some acting herself, I strongly believe that actors should play D&D: not only is it an amazing improv game (given that players must behave as their characters without any script to follow or any foreknowledge of plot developments), it’s also a brilliant character study exercise. D&D players have to accurately represent their character at all times: all decisions made by a player, for their character, must be something the character they created would actually decide to do. A player needs to understand how their character’s past experiences, areas of expertise, family values, etc - their backstory - would inform and affect the choices they make. I think this is great training for actors, as understanding why a character makes the choices they do is very important to portraying that character convincingly (in my acting experience, at least).

Not to mention it affords actor-players the opportunity to practice all other aspects of getting into character… But more on that later!

Writers should get in on this, too, as a character creation exercise. It’s a great way for writers to delve into the psychology of characters they create, as they’ll need to know how their character would behave even in situations they, the writer/player, haven’t invented. And personally, I've often found that, as my characters navigate the unexpected twists and turns of the plot, they grow and develop all on their own - sometimes in ways I never expected (despite the fact that I created them!). I imagine that watching characters come to life in this way could be a good experience for writers, as a reminder that just because they think they have a firm grasp of who the characters in their novel should be, doesn't mean all of the characters will agree as the story progresses. (Though I admit that I’m hardly a fiction writer, so hey, I could be wrong…)

Very brave writers can even try a hand at DM-ing a campaign - where they’ll get to write and lead the plot! (I say “very brave” simply because the idea of DM-ing seems overwhelming to me, to be honest - but plenty of people love it, obviously, so maybe I’m just a chicken.)

You don’t have to be a method actor*.

I know I just said that D&D is great practice for actors, but players don’t need to be great actors. As long as they make decisions their character would make, they’re good to go - beyond that, their “performance” can be as simple or as theatrical as they’d like.

More to the point, players are not required to be constantly in character; at least, that’s never been the case in campaigns I've played. While the game is on, players are in character; when the game is not on, they are not. And “not on” doesn't only mean “between sessions” - it includes short breaks during the session, and yes, even real-world conversations during the game. So, when the game takes a break, players don’t need to continue calling each other by their character names; even during gameplay, if player A just wants to ask player B to pass the soda, real names can certainly be used. (In fact, in the campaigns I've played, we all expected to use real names outside of gameplay… In fact I think we’d have gotten very strange looks if we didn't.)

And no - costumes are not required, either!

It’s not just for kids, or people who still act like kids.

I do wish I didn't need to point this out, because I wish it were obvious… But my post would be remiss if I don’t mention what I think might be the most common, pervasive stereotype of D&D players.

It’s absolutely inaccurate to assume that D&D players are childish or immature; that they’re adults trying desperately to cling to some final vestiges of youth as they live out their fantasies in a make-believe world of, well, dungeons and dragons. In my experience - and that of friends I've spoken to - most of us are, honestly, self-sufficient, mature, totally integrated members of society, and not living in our parents’ basements. I promise. :)

That said, I will be the first to admit that D&D has a lot in common with the games of make-believe I played as a child: getting together with a group of friends to create and play in an imagined world of magic and monsters is childhood in a nutshell (well, at least it was for me). But I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all. Who says imaginative play ceases to be important after your 18th birthday? (Or as the Doctor once said, “What’s the point of being grown up if you can’t be childish sometimes?”)

It’s not called an adventuring “party” for nothing.

I've seen D&D portrayed as extremely Serious Business at times; almost as if the players really believe that it’s a life-and-death situation. And to be fair, depending on the campaign (and the people playing), it often is the case that if a character dies in combat… Yeah, they’re dead. There are chances for a player to try and save their character (ranging from magical options to medical triage), but those rely on lucky dice rolls - and if luck isn't on their side, they’re, well, out of luck. (Never fear; the player can always create another character. But that original character is properly gone.)

But that kind of in-game gravity shouldn't be confused with the same atmosphere outside of the game. Because D&D is, in the end, exactly that: a game. A party game, at that; one that involves spending time - often many hours - with a group of close friends. There’s food! There are drinks! There are jokes! There are absurd situations! There are laughs! There are wonderful memories of friendship and joy created! It’s great!

Yes, when it comes down to it, D&D is a chance to hang out with friends, eat, drink, and be merry. Oh yeah, and to collaborate with them on an epic story, while performing a role written just for you, by you, where you get to play in a world so much bigger, crazier, and more fantastic (in every sense of the word) than could exist in reality**, where you can do almost anything you ever dreamed was possible.

And if you can put aside the common conceptions of the game for a moment, and give it a fair chance, I think that the reality is something a lot of people can support.

*Author’s note: I’m using this term the way it is popularly understood; not, strictly, for its correct definition. As far as I know - though anyone with more acting training than I have should please feel free to correct me! - the whole idea of “never-ever break character ever until the play/film/project is done,” isn't actually taught as part of the Method. It’s something that grew out of the Method’s core concepts, but it is not part of the training itself.

**Author’s note: Well, hey, you never know… I believe in dreaming :)

2014 Goal - A Post Every-Other Week!

I’ve had this blog for nearly a year now (my first post was January 9th, 2013) - and I’ve written all of 3 things in that time. That’s not very many at all! 

So, one of my goals for 2014 is to post something here on a bi-weekly basis, for the entire year. I’m currently thinking I’ll post on Saturday afternoons (like today), but that may change as the year goes on, if I find a different day more convenient. But for the foreseeable future - there should be a new post here every-other week around this time! (I may even up that to once every week if the bi-weekly plan goes well... I'll see how much I have to say :P)

Sometimes, these will be the kind of posts I’ve been writing (you know, all three of them) - whatever is on my mind at the moment; probably something fairly timely. But, because I’m trying to do this every-other week, and I may not always have something interesting milling about in my head, some of the upcoming entries will be taken from journal prompts, too. I may even try some creative writing, if I feel very brave! 

Wish me luck…! :)