Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Of Nemeses and Archenemies

Some of you may have already heard me yabbering about this topic, but I think it warrants a post and some responses. I've been reading the book Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas on loan from Edward (tanks Eddy!), and I definitely recommend it to any and all of you. In the second half of the book - Things That Might Be True, he goes into his more exploratory essays about concepts and societal situations (leaving the first half - Things That Are True, which is composed of interviews with celebrities and musicians as well as other pretty cool crap), and one of them has to do with nemeses and archenemies.

It's kind of an interesting concept he brings up in that all anyone really needs for a compelling and successful life, he says, is a nemesis and an archrival. The differences between these two can often be hard to really see clearly, but one of the best defining statments he gave was, "you measure yourself against your nemesis, and you seek to destroy your archenemy." He also provides some guidelines that help:

"Recognizing your Nemesis:
- You kind of like your nemesis, despite the fact that you despise him
- You will always have drinks with your nemesis.
- You would attend the funeral of your nemesis and-privately-you might shed a tear over his or her passing
- At some point in the past, this person was (arguably) your best friend.
- You and this person once competed for the same woman (or man), and you both failed.
- You have punched this person in the face.
- If invited, you would go to this person's wedding and give them a spice rack, but you would secretly hope that their marriage ends in a bitter, public divorce.
- People who barely know the two of you assume you are close friends; people who know both of you intimately suspect you profoundly hate each other.
- If your archenemy tried to kill you, this person would attempt to stop him."

"Recognizing your Archenemy
- You would never choose to have a cocktail with your archenemy, unless you were attempting to spike the gin with arsenic.
- If you were to perish, your archenemy would dance on your grave, and then he'd burn down your house and molest your children.
- You hate your archenemy so much that you keep your hatred secret, because you do not want your archenemy to hate the satisfaction of being hated.
- Every time you talk to htis person, you lie.
- If you meet someone who has the same first name as this person, you immediately like them less.
- This person has done at least two (2) things that would be classified as "unforgivable".
- The satisfaction you feel from your own success pales in comparison to the despair you feel from this person's triumphs, even if those triumphs are completely unrelated to your life.
- If this person slept with your girlfriend, she would never be attractive to you again.
- Even if this person's girlfriend was a hateful bitch, you would sleep with her out of spite."

Now, I thought it would be interesting if people would pipe in and try to suggest some duos that are nemeses and some that are archenemies. One of the interesting aspects of this dynamic, as I've discussed with others, is should these relationships be reciprocated, as in if you are my nemesis then I am yours? Or is it possible for these relationships to be more one-sided where you could be my nemesis but Weird Al Yankovic is yours?

Klosterman gives some more interesting examples of who he sees as nemeses and archenemies:

Magic Johnson was Larry Bird's nemesis but Isiah Thomas was his archenemy - whenever Magic and Larry played it was an instant classic in match-ups, a beautiful battle of skill, talent, and hard work, but when Larry went against Isiah, it was a "train wreck", as in everything fell apart and was hard to watch. From this I think it should be noted that nemeses, when put against each other, often create something greater than themselves, while archenemies clashing usually result in destruction and bringing each other down to very basics of humanity.

Joker was Batman's nemesis but Superman was his archenemy - this may not be the best example, especially depending on interpretations of the concepts and which versions of these characters you refer to, but I think the idea of it is that Joker and Batman were often on the same level of head to head battling, each basically challenging they other to push them to the top of their game in order to prevail. With Superman (and again I don't know a whole lot about the relationship here), I think he's saying that Batman basically hated Superman because Superman rendered Batman "entirely mortal and generaly nonessential". I could also see him hate Superman because Superman was eternally clean cut and much more willing to side with the cops or government it seemed, while Batman pursued independence from such forces (at least later on in the Frank Miller and Nolan versions, where he might have an inside man - Gordon, but stay out of it for the most part).

Vince Neil of Motley Crue was Axl Rose of Guns n' Roses's nemesis, but Kurt Cobain was Axl's archenemy - I don't know a whole lot about these guys, but it sounds about right.

My own suggestions:

Michael Jordan was his own nemesis, and the Detroit Pistons were his archenemy - possibly cheap for taking the Pistons again, but I honestly didn't know much about Bird and the Pistons. Most of my knowledge about that team of the early 90's was that they would kick the shit out of Jordan, literally, fouling him so hard that he would just get furious while not allowing him to be the immortal basketball player he was. And he basically measured himself against himself, which proved to motivate him like crazy.

South Park are the Simpson's nemesis but Family Guy is their archenemy - South Park provides an experienced competitor that is honestly of a contrasting style, is more violent and crude, but still very intelligent in its execution. Family Guy has been accused of stealing all kinds of jokes from the Simpsons and seems to breed an even more sarcastic of an audience than the Simpsons or South Park ever did, which makes them even more snarky, irreverant, and basically an entity that is like an ungrateful successor who doesn't even seem to deserve that sort of title. Don't get me wrong, Family Guy is a hilarious show, but I could see how the Simpsons would want to destroy it and rather measure themselves against South Park. Feel free to debate.

The Beatles were nemeses with the Rolling Stones, but they were the archenemy of the Beach Boys. - I'm basically taking this from what I've heard from Edward (hopefully I interpreted this right, but he could tell you better than me).

Winter is Summer's nemesis, but Fall is Summer's archenemy - a little abstract I'll grant you, but it is Fall that ends Summer every year, while Summer and Winter compete more head to head in various types of activities (snowboarding vs. surfing, Olympics vs. Olympics, cold vs. hot - I mean come on!).

All right, let me know some of your own ideas for pairings of any kind, maybe even some of your own nemeses and archenemies.

3 comments:

  1. None of your posts warrant responses....

    ReplyDelete
  2. I woudln't say the Beatles are the archenemies of the Beach Boys. Just Brian Wilson was very competitive against them...but also I think he looked up to them and aspired to write that type of music (something I imagine archenemies wouldn't do).

    Ahahaha, I forgot about the hair metal analogy he used. That was great.

    The Family Guy analogy is very apt. I think the staffs of both Simpsons and SP hate Family Guy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No way can I be on board with Superman as Batman's archenemy. They could certainly be archrivals, but even when they fight each other, it is never because they wish the other ill, but because they believe they have somehow been compromised (see The Dark Knight Returns). Given enough time, I could see Batman taking on a Magneto-ish role (again, see The Dark Knight Returns), but even then, they would be nemeses, not archenemies. Superman can't render Batman "entirely mortal and generally non-essential" because Superman wasn't a better version of Batman - they shared next to no traits other than their commitment to their vision of justice. True, Superman was everything Batman wasn't: superpowered, all-but immortal, nobel, beloved, clean-cut; but Batman is equally everything that Superman isn't: willing to get his hands dirty, cognizant of men's capability for malice etc, crafty, unsympathetic, and probably most importantly, human. Superman and Batman are two very different styles, but they are working for the same thing. Rivals often, but never enemies.

    The best nemesis match-ups that come to mind (for my genre) are Superman/Lex Luther and Charles Xavier/Eric Lehnsherr a.k.a. Magneto. Both of these feature the used-to-be-friends quality of nemeses described by Klosterman, which I think is a shoe-in for nemesis-status, because you already understand this person as more than your opponent, but as your counterpart. I very much like the sum-being-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts factor of nemeses that Daniel pointed out.

    I'm not as good at examples in "real life," partly because I don't get as much information about the background relationship between a pair. For example, I'd guess that Britney Spears is the archenemy of Christina Aguilera, but I don't know if there's enough to make them nemeses. Democrats and Republicans seem to be moving quickly form nemeses (productive enemies) to archenemies (destructive enemies).

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.