Tumblr Cross Post: Why I Love Captain America

So once again I am up later than I want to be, and I want to write something.

I'd like this something to be a story, a poem, something fictional and striking and beautiful. Sadly, whatever angry and bitter muse I got stuck with at birth doesn't feel like letting me do what I want, and seems to will that I suffer writing some thing else. Anything else, really.

So I'm going to write about responsibility and what it means to me. I'm going to write about why I so love both Captain America and Steve Rogers.

Heh, you weren't hoping this would be more serious, were you?

Alright, about Cap—if you didn't already know Captain America's mild-mannered alter ego is known as Steve Rogers—I love him more deeply and more personally than I've ever loved another human being (wow, that doesn't sound creepy at all). But, I don't mean that in a if-he-were-real-I-would-throw-myself-at-him-he-is-sexy-personified kind of way. I mean it in a you-are-the-hero-that-I-most-relate-to-and-so-I-feel-a-personal-connection-to-you-that-I-rarely-feel-for-anything way.

Captain America is pure, noble, brave, strong, the American Ideal made flesh. Steve Rogers is an asthmatic art student from Brooklyn who believes in his country. I hope you've all at least seen the movie and know how those two are connected. Steve's choice to become the super soldier was also the choice to sacrifice the right to assert his personal agendas over the agendas of Captain America. While Cap and Steve are the same man, they are not at all the same person. And this is what causes what is commonly known as conflict.

I've heard it said that people dislike Cap because he is self-righteous, stupidly idealistic, has no compelling personal conflict, is boring or is just plain unlikable. That he is a tool of the government and what he does means nothing because he is what he was created for, or worse, is nothing more than patriotic propaganda. I mean, yes he's a patriot, I mean you'd have to be to undergo huge needles and radiation treatments in the name of serving your country, but patriotism isn't all he is, not in the least. Usually I swear at such people who express these opinions, then proceed to extoll the virtues of Steve Rogers as the freaking perfection that he is. I try not to be a rabid fangirl, but I fear I don't always succeed.

The thing about Steve is that he's not a hero because the government made him one, he's not a hero because the rest of the country viewed him as one, he's not even a hero because he goes around thwarting villainous plots or saving innocent lives. He's a hero because he has the courage to own the label that was placed on him.

Getting a label put on you by another, as I'm sure many of you would agree, is not often a good thing. And the worst thing about it is not that this label might hurt your feelings or make you feel self-conscious or bad about yourself; the worst thing about a label is the obligation to live up to it. It's a stressful process, whether you're just known around tow as a “good guy” or if you are called the “successful one” out of a group, or whether you're the good sibling. Unfortunately, the way other people see us has tremendous influence over us, because one thing each and every person (barring maybe sociopaths and axe-murderers [who are probably sociopaths]) hates to do is to disappoint those he or she loves and respects.

It's not that what people think of you actually matters, it's that what people you care about think of you does matter. And we will spend our entire lives trying to unify what these people think and what we think of ourselves into a single at peace individual, with very little success. I know in my life I've yet to unify anything more significant than butter and toast.

Steve Rogers has the wisdom to realize that the people of his country think a great many things about Captain America.

I've read many of the comics, and there are several points at which Steve considers retiring Cap, considers living his life as Steve. But each and every time he realizes that Captain America is more than a mask and shield. Steve recognizes that Captain America has never been a man. He's always been a symbol that means many things to many different people. Captain America is Steve Rogers' label.

Living up to what others think of us is probably the hardest thing anyone can do. It is hard because we are human. We have flaws, and we are never as good as others think we are.

Steve Rogers has time and again made every personal sacrifice so that Captain America can be as good as the people need him to be.

I use the word sacrifice a lot, not because I lack vocabulary or access to a thesaurus, but because it is the only word that really describes the choice that Steve is always facing. Let me tell you, Steve Rogers is not exactly a happy camper in his everyday life.

He's woken up 70 years (or less depending on your medium) in the future, has lost his dearest friend, lot his love, lost everything that made him Steve Rogers. To simplify an issue, Steve is a little bit depressed.

But despite the fact that being Captain America has been the cause of his greatest pains and losses, every time the question come up, Steve acknowledges the duty and responsibility that Cap has and picks up his shield, puts on that costume. He makes the choice to embrace his label.

Unlike some heroes in this day and age, I don't think Cap and Steve are one and the same. I think that Steve is not Cap, but perhaps Cap is a conscious decision made by Steve.

And that's why I love and respect both Cap and Steve so much. I confidently say that is there is one character I would most want to be like, it's Steve Rogers.

So yeah. This fan opinion/rant/sales pitch thing is over now.  

Warning: What Follows is a Rant--Proceed with Caution

So my internet connection is lagging, and my outraged crusader personality is rising and my sleep is just not doing, so I'm gonna just take a moment to rant about a little “thing” that really bothers me.

While I was performing my daily quota of obsessive cyber-stalking the blog of one of my favorite authors (http://www.ilona-andrews.com/news/publishing-news/librarians-vs-bloggers) I was alerted to a subject that I guess in making the rounds of book-oriented blogs around the web. It's a whole whole blogger vs. librarians thing that is quite interesting and that I have lots of thoughts on, but is not actually what this post is written about.

Now, I love my blog and I love other peoples' blogs. And heck, I love librarians. I've had good and bad experiences with both sources. BUT I DON'T RELY ON ANYONE TO TELL ME WHAT TO READ AND WHAT NOT TO. I don't pay any attention to recommendations when I look for new books to read. I don't really know why. If you buy me a book, I'll read it. Give me a book, I'll read that too. That just manners. But I buy books based on personal interest and individual discovery and research. Book s are the only thing I'm like this with. Just know this so that you might understand that I am utterly and totally nonplussed by this whole thing. If there was a box marked N/A I would be checking it right about now. The following is as close to being objective as I can get. I want everyone reading this to know that I am absolutely not intending to actually talk about this bloggers vs. librarians debate. THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT. I only use this as an example.

Anywho, as I was perusing the comments and searching out more information on the matter (see, I'm sane and not creepy at all, I'm so cas' using big words my obsession isn't unhealthy...) I noticed that there seemed to exist an opinion or rather a trend really in the responses and arguments; that one side was better than the other. Both people and sides were being subjected to what I have come to think of as “quantification.”

Quantification is a name I have given to phenomena that I have observed as a grown up member of a society, where judgment and jockeying for a scrap of superiority is an accepted, and sometimes encouraged, practice. It usually goes like this:

Person A: This is this and it is good because of reasons.

Person B: I have a this, too, and it is more good because of these better reasons.

It can also go like this:

Person A: This is this.

Person B: Your this is so much good because of these reasons I don't have.

The sort of root of the argument discussed in the above blog post on author(s) Ilona Adrews site, not the root of the issue that started the argument, is that recommendations for what to read come from two different sources—blogger or librarians and that one side is the superior and deserves more.... something. I admit, I got more and more sidetracked by my brain than by the actual post and detail on what was going down. As I read I realized that what was really getting my goose about the whole issue was the need for the arguers or quantify their book recommendation source with a title and thus assign a certain amount of merit to it.

I think the end of Ilona Andrews' blog post says it all “I am so tired of this mentality of bloggers vs authors vs booksellers vs librarians vs readers. Can it just be about books?”

Why do you need to argue about which source is more valid? When did reading books become some sort of competition. Honestly, I think that behavior suggests more about your own need to be validated than the slighted honor of what you are so violently defending.

I mean, you sound like you discuss books like “I got this book recommended to me by an industry professional the librarian/an acclaimed internet book reviewer so you know it must be a superb piece of literature, regardless of whether or not I really enjoyed it”

I feel real bad for your friends if you talk to them about books like this. I have devoted two years of my life and many thousands of dollars to studying and reading books and even I don't talk about books like this. If I do, I should wonder why someone hasn't performed an act of charity and smacked me in the face by now, or checked for an alien mind control device.

Why can't you just walk up to your book buddy and say “Hey, I got this recommendation for this cool book. It was really good, you might enjoy it.”

Because honestly, where you got the recommendation doesn't matter, so long as it was a book you read and were able to form an opinion about or derive some amount of enjoyment from. Read your books, and share your joy if you feel like it.

I see this issue of quantification jump up in a lot of different areas of life. The whole “Strong Female Character” issue is another bug example of it.

Every time I see this term thrown around I think to myself—Hey, character creators, how about you stop worrying about writing a strong “female” character and just write strong characters? Why does gender need to dictate the need for strength to be emphasized or contrived? Shouldn't everyone be strong, regardless of gender? Aren't there all kinds of ways of being strong? Because I'm a girl, does that mean that I have to be “female strong?” I can't just be strong?

Or when you talk terms of success. I've been told several times in my life that I should be so proud of my accomplishments because of where I come from. Usually this is uttered in contrast to the accomplishments of another individual. It feels like a slap in the face every time.

First of all, why is someone other than myself passing judgment upon what I have done? It is or for me and me alone to determine what things in my life are worthy of pride and what are worthy for shame. I don't need you comparing my latest report card to yours or anyone else to feel good or bad about it. Do my accomplishments mean more because I'm poor? Do they mean more because I've battle my demons for them? Hasn't everyone had to battle to get what the want and need? Haven't the fought just as hard for their successes, had to suffer his or her own adversities?

Why are you telling me that my suffering makes me somehow more worthy than another? Suffering is suffering, and success is success. My business is mine, go mind yours.

Why does our society feel the need to label each and every little thing into an hierarchy of value? It is or it isn't.

If you go to a professor and hand in an assignment that's only half done and tell them “Considering my background, this is a really big accomplishment,” you are still going to be a big fat F, and probably some wired looks next class.

Or if you go to work with a presentation that is only half complete, but tell your boss that it doesn't matter that it's only half complete because the sources you drew from were really accomplished and popular personalities, so they are twice as effective as a complete presentation ever could be, you are probably going to end the day cleaning out your desk or at least taking some time off to go talk to a nice doctor who specializes in mid-life crises.

Quantification has no practical value, and really is usually a feeble and ham-handed attempt at interpersonal communication at best or a thinly veiled bullying tactic to make someone feel better than someone else.

The in-betweens do nothing, they just allow fat-headed douchebags to feel better about their own mediocrity so that they can have happy little dreams when they go to sleep at night. Assigning merit or superiority to another doesn't matter at all in the real world. Your quantification of me and my quantification of you only really matter to the person doing the quantifying and that is really kinda sad.

So yeah.

This rant is over I think. Sorry about how little sense this probably makes.