On the evils of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
April 11th, 2007 
Doug Wilson is terribly infuriating. Few other writers share his ability to say so many profound things and so many silly things in juxtaposition.
A few days ago I posted a quote from Wilson’s book, “Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning,” that was one of his profundities. Sure enough, several pages later in the same book, I came across this little gem:
“What are parents to do when their children are caught up in the general excitement over Ninja turtles? If the peer pressure at a school is to immorality, then of course the disciplinary standards of the school should be applied. If the school cannot, or will not, apply them, then the parents should certainly remove their children. But if the pressure involves things that are not morally objectionable in themselves, then the parents should have a wonderful opportunity to teach leadership and independence to their child. My wife and I have been able to teach our children not to allow the group to dictate what they like and don’t like.”
I’m not sure if Wilson is referring to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as immoral or as an example of things that “are not morally objectionable in themselves,” but I couldn’t help but chuckle at it whatever the case. As I read this line, my son was undoubtedly playing with his Donatello and Leonardo action figures gleaned from recent Happy Meals. He hopes to collect all four.
There’s something to be said for picking one’s battles. The major complaint I’ve heard is that TMNT leads kids to pretending they’re sword-fighting, but so does Star Wars — and so surely did Zorro and Errol Flynn movies. If Wilson’s complaint is the herd mentality of children, that’s probably been a reality that predates civilization. Parents should probably encourage a wide exposure to the arts — classic children’s literature like Narnia and The Wind in the Willows, musicals like The Music Man and The Sound of Music, even genuinely innocuous pop music like the Monkees — but using the Ninja Turtles as a “teaching moment” about leadership and independence seems like overkill.
Make sure one’s kids can make a stand for a good cause — *and* make sure they can distinguish between principled opposition and the contrarian behavior that can be just as childish as following the heard — but let kids be kids.
Now, if the kid starts liking Pokemon or Elmo — that little red twirp that’s ruined Sesame Street — well, that’s a whole ‘nother story…
They are Turtles. That talk. And have big muscles. And do amazing acrobatic moves. My son is 4. Yet he can discern this is merely a cartoon.
As long as my son always answers correctly when I ask who the ultimate Super Hero is, he can watch some cartoons.
Batman, obviously.
Batman? Try Vince Young
Vince Young is not a credible threat to Superman. Q.E.D.
I think Doug Wilson fails to recognize the lessons about leadership and teamwork inherent in the Turtles. Leonardo may lead, but all the Turtles use their giftings to contribute to the team’s overall unity and success.
Why are they still called “Teenage” Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Since they debuted in 1984, by now they have to be in their mid-30s!
Did their mutation result in the inability to age?
Try Jesus. That’s the answer.
I figured that’s who you meant, Zoner; personally, while I believe that no single word captures all of Who Jesus is, I believe I’ll be loathe to call Him a superhero to the kids my wife and I are planning to have.
For one thing, while I have absolutely no problem with exposing kids to fiction — including fantasy, science fiction, and the specific superhero genre so frequently found in comic books — I think their ought to be a clear separation between fiction and history. Calling Jesus a superhero needlessly blurs that line.
But more than that, it would probably be more fitting to call Jesus a prophet — after all, much of what He said was predictive in nature, about the fall of Jerusalem, the death of Peter, and the end of history — but Jesus is so much *more* than a prophet that He really doesn’t belong in the same category as Isaiah and John the Baptist, and I think John the Baptist would agree that they don’t really belong in the same category. (See Mt 3:11.)
So, if Jesus really doesn’t in the group of Biblical prophets alongside Isaiah and John the Baptist — even to say that He is the greatest among the prophets — how much more jarring is it to suggest that He belongs in the group of superheroes alongside Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and Wolverine?
Those terms that best suit Jesus seem — to me at least — to be terms that don’t merely describe Him as superlative, but as unique: THE Son of God, THE Lamb of God, THE Savior, THE Lord, THE Word. To describe Him as the greatest prophet or the ultimate superhero seems to miss the point.
At least to me.
Brett, the Turtles’ age depends on which continuity you’re referring to: the Mirage comics (Volumes 1, 2, and 4); the original cartoon; the new cartoon; the movies, etc. It suffices to say that, because the franchise has been around for twenty years doesn’t mean that two decades have necessarily passed within any continuity.
Neither Batman nor Superman is pushing 70 just because they’ve been around since the late Thirties.
Returning to the subject of who’s the greatest, I would exclude God Incarnate from the discussion if — for no other reason — doing otherwise makes for a boring discussion, like recognizing that God is more powerful than both the Q Continuum and the Bajor system’s wormhole aliens.
Making that exclusion, Batman is the greatest of superheroes, and I will take on all comers who disagree.
Bubba, thanks for pointing out the continuity aspect. Makes sense to me.
Also, I’m with you on the Batman thing:
http://sempereformanda.blogspot.com/2006/07/batman-is-better-than-superman.html
I’m glad this discussion came up because I’ve been after Tim for a long time now to take fictional characters like Batman and the Turtles and have us argue about who is better, who would win in a fight, etc.
It was a blast arguing about who belonged on an all-time baseball team. Now we need to argue about who would win if Jedis and turtles and super-heroes and Transformers all went at it.
I know that’s what you were getting at Zoner but I would agree with what Bubba said.
Luke Skywalker could take the League of Justice on without breaking a sweat, well maybe not Aquaman…
Great link, Brett. I also think that Batman could defeat Superman, if one subscribes to the Argument from Luthor.
Lex Luthor is, inarguably, Superman’s nemesis, even though he’s a mere human. Why is he so dangerous? He’s extremely rich, extremely intelligent, and extremely driven.
The above perfectly describes Bruce Wayne; if Batman ever decided that Superman was a threat, he would be *at least* as dangerous an enemy as Lex Luthor.
Responding to the article, it’s not just that Batman is human and is one of us in a biological sense, he’s experienced the violent loss of his family, which is probably one of man’s most primal fears.
In the sense that he has directed his mind, his body, and his wealth to achieving his ends, he is a truer expression of Nietzsche’s ubermensch than Superman is, but he transcends Nietzsche’s immorality because Batman fights for a just cause using just means: he fights crime but refuses to kill.
Add to that the echoes of Dracula, Zorro, Sherlock Holmes, and even James Bond, and you have a truly great literary figure. Pit him against villains like the Joker (chaos personified), Two-Face (Jekyll/Hyde), and his own Bond villain in Ra’s al-Ghul; put him in the urban nightmare of a New York on its worst night; and give him allies like the tough cop, the loyal butler, and his surrogate sons — what more could you possibly want?
So, you’re telling me that you think this guy could take superman?
j razz
No, this guy.
The most critically acclaimed story within the DC Universe, The Dark Knight Returns establishes that Batman can indeed defeat Superman.
“I want you to remember, Clark… in all the years to come… in your most private moments… I want you to remember my hand at your throat… I want you to remember the one man who beat you…”
Another story — JLA’s Tower of Babel — reveals that Batman has figured (and has in place) methods of taking out *everyone* in the Justice League.
Look what you’re doing, though, J. You’re saying that a very intelligent, very wealthy, very driven human can’t take on the Man of Steel.
That means that Lex Luthor is not a credible threat to Superman.
And *that* means that a very large number of Superman’s stories are dramatically moot, each a fait accompli because Superman is facing an opponent who cannot possibly beat him.
Batman can credibly defeat Superman, or — logically, inevitably — much of Superman as a literary figure is rendered as exciting as watching grass grow.
(To be clear, I’m actually ambivalent about Frank Miller’s work with Batman. Year One is an unquestioned triumph, but The Dark Knight Returns is great only in the first of its four chapters, and it quickly jumps off the rails. Miller’s take on Batman is generally too dark; the camp of the 50’s and the TV show was generally too light. For my money, the best — to the point of being archetypal — representation of Batman is Paul Dini and Bruce Timm’s work in Batman: the Animated Series. Which is one reason I’m so enjoying Dini’s recent work in Detective Comics.)
You’re saying that a very intelligent, very wealthy, very driven human can’t take on the Man of Steel.
No, they can take him on, but they just can’t defeat him… if they could, superman would have long ago met his match and faded away into oblivion. Batman can’t fly.
Superman can.
Batman can’t see through walls.
Superman can.
Batman can’t take a bullet to the eye.
Superman can.
Batman can’t throw someone into space.
Superman can.
Batman can’t stop a moving train by sheer force.
Superman can.
Batman can’t shoot lasers out of his eyes.
Superman can.
Batman can’t… well, you get the point.
There is no way Batman could ever defeat Superman as Batman relies on technology and Superman relies on his own strength and gifts. If Batman could, Luther would have already finished him off.
That’s all I’m saying about it. Besides, there was an episode of Batman and Robin where Batman became drunk off orange juice. Any man who can get drunk off orange juice could never defeat Superman.
Although, with all that being said, Batman does have a way cooler suite than Superman.
j razz
You’ll notice, J, that I’m not arguing that Batman-as-presented-on-William-Dozier’s-TV-seires could beat Superman; I’m arguing for the Batman that is both more traditional and more modern: the Dark Knight, the world’s greatest detective.
“Besides, there was an episode of Batman and Robin where Batman became drunk off orange juice. Any man who can get drunk off orange juice could never defeat Superman.”
BATMAN DID DEFEAT SUPERMAN, in The Dark Knight Returns.
It goes without saying that Batman has been presented in more divergent ways than most other fictional characters, with Dozier’s 1960’s TV show and Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns being the two extremes between camp and dark drama. But I see no reason to give greater emphasis to the former than to the latter — ESPECIALLY because the latter is more influential in both contemporary comics and in the public mind, thanks especially to Tim Burton, Dini/Timm, and now Christopher Nolan.
And if you want to invoke different incarnations, I will remind you that, in the very beginning, Superman could NOT fly.
Yes, Lex Luthor could defeat Superman; if he couldn’t, there’s no dramatic tension. Saying he hasn’t yet defeated him and believing that he probably won’t defeat him *this* time is one thing: saying that he CAN’T removes all dramatic tension.
A hero is only as great as the villain he defeats.
And you write, “There is no way Batman could ever defeat Superman as Batman relies on technology and Superman relies on his own strength and gifts.”
The argument doesn’t follow: you would need to demonstrate that technology can never defeat Superman’s strength and gifts. To that I have two words for you: synthetic Kryptonite.
If anyone can synthesize (or find) Kryptonite, Wayne or Luthor could.
And let’s be clear that there’s an obvious retort to “Batman relies on technology”: Superman relies on the power of Earth’s yellow sun.
Even the odds. Let’s put the two on an Earth-like planet orbiting a red sun, a planet like Kal-El’s own Krypton, and let’s remove Batman’s utility belt. Guess who wins. Obviously, Batman wipes the floor with Superman, because beyond the technology, he is the world’s greatest detective and has mastered all the martial arts. Batman’s honed mind and body can easily take down a depowered Superman, belt or no belt.
And you act like the technology’s a detriment. Unlike Superman, Green Lantern, Spiderman, or the X-Men, Batman wasn’t given the abilities that made this mere human an elite superhero.
He earned them. He is just about the only superhero who has.
I hold that Superman would still wipe the floor with Batman anyday. But what is more, I hold that Darth Vader could take them both simultaneously, see below:
http://www.timellsworth.com/?p=1054
BATMAN DID DEFEAT SUPERMAN, in The Dark Knight Returns.
To that I say I could write a short on Batman being defeated by Superman, but that doesn’t make it the defacto standard. In the world of Superman comics, Superman went on without reference to ever meeting Batman. So, in the real comic world, Batman never beat Superman as they never met in the official world of Superman.
Given what we know about Superman and what we know about Batman, Batman would lose hands down. The hypothetical situations that you speak of do not hold weight in this argument as they are indeed just that, hypothetical. Batman could not survive on a journey through space to a solar system that has a red sun. Luthor has had many years to find out how to synthesize kryptonite and has yet to do so. These are all based off of “well if…” statements which hold no weight.
You say Batman’s honed mind and body can easily take down a depowered Superman, belt or no belt.
That is all well and good except for one fact. Superman is not depowered.
You say Lex Luthor could defeat Superman; if he couldn’t, there’s no dramatic tension.
I find this statement false. The false sense that Luthor could defeat him gives all the dramatic tension needed. It does not have to be a real possibility, just a percieved thought woven throughout the story line. If Luthor could actually defeat Superman this dramatic tension would be lost forever as there would be no more Superman. I say that if he could beat Superman, then you would lose the tension. Therefore, Superman can never be beaten by Luthor or anyone else in the Superman world of comics else this tension of which you speak would be lost forever.
j razz
First things first: just where in the world do you get the idea that Superman and Batman “never met in the official world of Superman”?
“In the world of Superman comics, Superman went on without reference to ever meeting Batman.”
“Went on” for how long? You certainly can’t mean into contemporary comics, because the two appear in each others’ series (Batman, Detective Comics; Superman, Action Comics) quite frequently. They currently appear together in a series titled Superman/Batman (which continues a half-century tradition that began with the comic called World’s Finest Comics), and they are both senior members of the Justice League in JLA.
Since at least the 1950’s — officially and in continuity — Batman and Superman have inhabited the same universe and indeed have met frequently.
(Anyway, if you want to argue that they have never met, then your argument that Batman cannot beat Superman IS JUST AS HYPOTHETICAL as my contention to the contrary.)
I would urge you to consider more carefully the word “could.” “Could” does not imply “must”, so the fact that Luthor has not yet defeated Superman in no way proves that he couldn’t.
Oh, and synthetic kryptonite has already been developed in the DC Universe, by Lex Luthor and some obscure orphaned billionaire named Bruce Wayne.
Okay, I give up; you win. Good thing we weren’t talking about an issue that mattered such as salvation or else I would prove myself to be lost. I hope you don’t take this stuff seriously.
j razz
Although, I still hold to my argument that Darth Vader would take both of them.
j razz
poppa smurf could defeat them all!
Captain Planet can defeat anybody on earth, just not outside of the realm of earth or else he loses his powers and will be bottled back up in those rings worn by the holders of elements: earth, wind, fire, & water.
That was a long passive voice sentence.
j razz
Nah, I try not to take these sorts of discussions too seriously, and I do have much to say about more serious topics, as I hope the occasional comment here demonstrates. But I don’t think the relative unimportance of pop art like comic books forbids me from applying my (probably over-)analytical mind to Batman just as I do to topics like theology.
Anyway, even though I believe Vader to be one of the all-time best villains, I’m not sure the differences between the Star Wars galaxy and the DC Universe don’t make such analysis extraordinarily difficult. For instance, Vader’s power comes largely from the Force; who’s to say that, in a universe where Vader could meet Batman, that part of Bruce Wayne’s training involved strengthening whatever Force sensitivity he had?
All that said, I do believe A) that the Death Star could defeat a Borg cube, because there’s no way to adapt to that kind of firepower; B) that it’s not clear that the military strength of the Galactic Empire could nevertheless repel a full-scale Borg assault; and C) Darth Vader could defeat the Borg all by himself.
All that would have to happen is for the Borg to make the mistake (or Vader to allow them) to try to assimiliate the Sith Lord. Already part machine, he would be a perfect candidate for assimilation, but his Force power and the sheer might of his will could arguably overcome the collective consciousness of the Borg. The Borg would try to assimilate Vader, but Vader would ultimately subjugate the entire Collective to his will and thus conquer the Borg rather than destroy them.
j razz upon further review of captain planets powers, i believe that you are getting the power of heart –
that would be FORgetting — typo