You know most of the stuff about the retrograde treatment of gender, race, and sexual orientation in most mainstream comic books, with outposts of “diversity.” The authors’ almost all-male interviewees were fairly explicit that they needed characters to be male to relate to them; female heroes seemed “unrealistic.” When they discussed Hank Pym’s violence against Janet, they were “most engaged” with Hank and the threats to his masculinity; they were “less focused” on discussing Janet and her victimization.

The authors don’t tie those topics deeply to crime, though clearly there’s a bunch of stuff about threatened white masculinity going on. The authors discuss villains’ “deathworthiness,” which leads to debates in the comics themselves about incapacitation versus retribution; their interviewees say that they enjoy the violence and retribution but clearly distinguish it from real life. In fact, they say that reading about superheroes’ ethical dilemmas helps them test their own morality. Also, their interviewees tend to judge deathworthiness by fit with the hero’s character (Superman doesn’t kill) rather than by the villain’s own acts. Some gleefully identify with the Joker—at least while they’re reading. Comics don’t show rehabilitation or anything beyond a sob story that “explains” either a deliberate choice to lead a life of crime or a disordered inability to control criminal impulses, and of course the comics show incapacitation failing on a regular basis. Visions of utopia require a constant rooting out of the evils of today, leading to an emphasis on crime, danger, and broken government institutions. But the presence of the possibility of redemptive violence seems satisfying to the comic readers they talked to—it doesn't need to end with a bloody death for the Joker as long as the potential is raised in the narrative. ( )