Pullin' for the Underdog

I was listening to my normal lineup of podcasts through my work day. I had finally gotten to the third part of the marathon known as the Bendis Tapes on the Wordballoon podcast. Brian Bendis is one of my favorite current writers. He's one of the master minds behind the re-thinking of the Marvel universe referred to as the "Ultimate" line. He's also done some fantastic work in a universe of his (and Michael Avon Oeming's) creation in Powers. Basically, anything that he writes, I recommend picking up. It's also a lot of fun to get a peek in to the thinking behind his writing through the Q&A session that he does with John Siuntres on a semi-regular basis. Check both of them out if you get the chance. Here's what Mr. Bendis had to say:

"We as a society - particularly Marvel readers as a group - tend to always root for the underdog. Spider-Man is the perpetual underdog and he is the...poster boy for the Marvel universe. That is who we are as readers. That is what we like." Brian Michael Bendis - Wordballoon, The Bendis Tapes, Feb '07, Pt. 3 34:31. (You can also find more Wordballoon episodes here.)

I didn't think much of it at the time, but it was one of those things that started percolating in my head.

There are many things in life that people try to break down, ad nauseam, into two groups: red vs blue, butter vs margarine, DH vs pitcher batting, etc. The one that I'm going to focus on, though, is the underdog vs those with advantages. The two major comics publishers are a good example of the dichotomy. Marvel has characters like Spider-man where Peter is a kid who lost his parents at a young age along with his uncle several years later and is raised by his poor aunt. DC has Batman who also lost his parents at a very young age and, like Spider-Man, the death of loved ones is a major driving force. However, for Bruce Wayne, he has the advantage of an enormous personal fortune along with his own personal butler to raise him. Bruce Banner is incredibly smart and the leader in his field of research, but he's haunted by the demons of an abusive father and an abused mother along with the very real monster inside that gives him the ability to right wrongs through his incredible strength but comes at the cost of any sort of self control. Superman also has incredible strength and the ability to champion justice in the world. However, unlike Bruce Banner, Clark Kent is the epitome of sentient life and is revered by the populace where the Hulk is feared and reviled. This is one the reasons that I've been more of a fan of Marvel comics as opposed the DC comics: The fact that I can identify more with the characters in Marvel stories. No, I haven't been caught in the explosion of an experimental explosive device or been bitten by a radioactive spider (though there was the case of a really nasty bee bite a few years ago), but the people behind the mask/transformation had real-life problems and struck me as real people. I knew what Peter felt like to be a bit of a geek (imagine that) and to have the issues of having a job and school and a girlfriend to all be making demands on his time. Not to mention the fact that I'm a masked crime fighter during the night that is constantly cracking wise at my adversaries, but that's not important right now.

I've always been one that appreciates the underdog. I prefer the Marvel heroes. I pull for anyone that's playing against the Yankees, the Lakers, the Cowboys, the Giants (football), and Duke. They're the ones that always have an advantage of money/prestige/officiating/cheating. Part of this comes from the fact that I was raised in a "flyover" state by a man who was a third generation farmer (i.e. not rich).

One of the things that struck me as interesting is that we as a culture are being strongly encouraged to be pulling for the underdog. Our movies have many examples of those that have the circumstances against them but are able to move forward and excel at something. Little Hickory High playing the Hilliard Gates basketball powerhouse. Rudy trying to get on the Notre Dame football team. The hapless Indians vs the powerhouse Yankees in Major League. We're encouraged by the media to be cheering for those that shouldn't win. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself. However, this mentality can get annoying. I'm weary of having to listen to every team that wins some form of championship get in front of the first camera/microphone they see and immediately start talking about how no one believed in them and that everyone was picking the other guys. I can almost guarantee you that the other team would have been saying the exact same things had they been on the winning side. Coaches just feed this mentality of "us against the world" to keep the reporters from getting any information because "they might be out to get us."

We carry this mentality as a society as a whole when we talk about how Europe and many other places in the world "hate America." We're one of the strongest and most influential nations in the world and we're supposed to view ourselves as underdogs? Really? Part of this comes from the strong Christian heritage in the US which traces its roots back to a time when Christians were strongly persecuted by the Roman Empire, specifically the emperor Nero. Also, there's the fact that the US was a huge underdog in the War for Independence because of the strength, funding and training of the British forces.

Here's the point: In competitions, it's at the least acceptable to have an us against them mentality. I just don't want to hear you spout the "no one believed in us" drivel when you were "underdogs" by three points. That said, the world is not a competition. Today more than ever, we have a global community. Don't believe me? Look at the ratio of things in your home that are made in the US and those that are made overseas (specifically China). We're all the same team. We might not always have the same goals or ambitions, but when it comes right down to it, we have to work together and there is no underdog. Wow. I got serious there. Crap.