Many people always confuse the relationship between the two, with many believing that ability and talent are one and the same, but in psychology, their main distinction lies in mental drive and needs.
You use your ability to complete a task, this is called having the ability to complete something; you use your ability to perfectly, even exceedingly well complete something, that's called being very capable in a certain area.
You are passionate about something, can focus for a long period, don't follow the crowd, are innovative, and can achieve results that are different from and better than others in the same time frame, and you are deeply encouraged by this; that's called having talent in a certain area.
Your boss asks you to do something, you do it and accomplish it, then you have the ability for this job, and if you do it well, it means you have strong abilities.
But the driving force is the boss's assignment, and the reward might be a salary or the boss's praise; whether it's the driving force or the reward, both are indirect, external.
But if you do something yourself just because you want to, and after thinking it through you complete this task, and during the process you feel particularly satisfied, your spirit is comforted, your mood relaxed, and you also achieve quite remarkable results, it means you have talent in this area.
Whether it's the idea that drives you to complete the task or the joy of spiritual pleasure from the achievements, both are direct, internal.
Ability is more like a tool for social interaction with the outside world, while talent is more like a system anchoring one's own value.
Ability is usually a one-off transaction; you might have the ability to study and take exams, to conduct business or engage in politics, to persuade others, and to continually use these different abilities to establish yourself in society for your survival needs.
Talent is typically a complete system; your mental drive, recognition ability, thinking ability, execution ability, and feedback mechanism are all highly unified, and from this activity, you can meet all your needs, both material and spiritual.
From this, it can be seen that the editorial department only assigned ability to Laughing bat.
He had the ability to defeat powerful enemies, he had the ability to plot a grand conspiracy, he had the ability to obtain some powerful artifact.
But did he have the mental drive to do so? Did he possess the cognitive ability to recognize this event correctly from multiple perspectives? Did he have the ability to innovate the methods and approaches to complete this process? Did he have the execution ability to realize those inventive ideas? And did he have a feedback mechanism that satisfied his spiritual needs and the realization of his self-worth through completing this series of events?
Obviously, he did not.
What he wanted to do, what he did, what he gained, and what he felt; these four things were completely unrelated.
He wanted to destroy the cosmos, but he did not adopt the most efficient method; in fact, the method he chose could not even destroy the cosmos, he did not gain the destruction of the cosmos, nor did he feel any joy from his any of his actions, whether they led to the destruction of the cosmos or not.
This might seem a bit thin, but the gap becomes clear with a slight comparison.
Joker wanted to make Batman laugh, so he used every trick in the book, trying his utmost, constantly directing dramas that might make Batman laugh. He came close to making Batman laugh several times, and throughout this process, he experienced genuine joy.
Batman wanted to take revenge on criminals, so he honed his skills, improved his abilities, and built the deterrent force of the Dark Knight. He established a new order where the law could not reach, and during this process, he too felt satisfied.
Therefore, Joker in his efforts to make Batman laugh and Batman in his fight against crime are both talented.
Even if the editor added a line in Mad Laugh's story, "He finally approached his goal with his powerful wisdom, and at this moment he felt genuine joy," the character wouldn't be so lackluster.
The character's motivation lets the audience understand his pursuit; the character's methods let the audience understand his abilities; the character's gains make the audience resonate. Without these, what exactly are the audience watching?
Just as Mad Laugh used time skipping to completely obscure Spider Man and Jason's transformation process, the editorial department used various irrational abilities imposed on Mad Laugh to completely hide his motives, methods, and gains; what are the comic readers actually looking at?
While Shiller's actions in this play may not be as legendary and inspiring as the other Arkham crazies, they cut straight to the point, exposing the essential core of Laughing bat's actions—escapism and nihilism.
The way a country shapes characters within its cultural content can partially reflect the characteristics of that country, and the transformation in character-building styles can also reflect the changes of the era in that country.
American comics were for a long time quite pure propaganda of heroism, setting heroes apart from ordinary people and pitting them against one another, thereby sketching out various dramatic conflicts.
But back then, the heroes' values were still quite normal: to be brave, to be strong, to be proactive, to punish evil and promote good, also representing the pride and ambition of the glorious era's World beacon.
After that, a series of anti-heroes began to emerge. They were no longer wholly righteous but had their complexities, straddling the line between good and evil. Stories no longer solely emphasized the hero's righteousness and the criminal's wrongs. They stopped caring about whether they were right or not. Instead of lighthouses, they started moving towards becoming world police.
When characters like the Laughing bat appeared, they not only stopped pursuing theoretical victory but even stopped discussing methods for practical victory. Doesn't this sound a lot like "spiritual victory law"?
Even if I have no goals, no plans, do not realize my self-worth, and do not consider my own feelings, I'll still win.
This is a thorough form of escapism and nihilism. When they start to think that in a virtual world, I can do whatever I want, how strong this character is entirely up to my setting; you don't worry about whether I'm reasonable or not—this is comics, and if you take it seriously, you've already lost. This shows that they lack a theory to convince the audience and also lack the genuine ability to shut people up.
Is Superman's setting outlandish? In the era Superman appeared, his setting was off-the-charts outlandish, but the editors were able to showcase true heroism through Superman's story. These plots could embody ideologies, and ideologies could convince audiences, so Superman became immensely popular.
Is Batman's setting outlandish? Even in this day and age, people still relish how outlandish it is. Yet, they have enough ways to spread Batman's story worldwide, and once popular, it's been popular for decades. When it becomes a childhood memory, how outlandish it is doesn't matter so much; Batman remains a star superhero.
Moreover, these two's outlandish publications are no fewer than those of the Mad Laugh. In some little-known early publications, their outlandishness stands out starkly.
This indicates that the failure of the Mad Laugh is not entirely due to his outlandish setting, but rather because America's ability to persuade readers through comics to transmit values has weakened, and its control over global pop culture has also declined.
More importantly, the editorial department knows this, they, too, feel insecure. Therefore, the Mad Laugh must win because they no longer have the confidence to use superhero stories to explore deeper issues. They realize this is no longer an era where values can be used to reverse black and white. So, winning is the only way to prove they are right.
The editorial department can only take the essence and discard the dross, ignoring the exploration of values and various social issues in Batman and Superman stories, and just take their final victories, hoping to recreate glory through this method. Naturally, this turned out to be a mess.
Many people are puzzled by this, thinking it's a dive in the creative level of the editorial department. But they don't realize that it's not just a fall of the editorial department. It's obviously the entire country going through mean reversion.
Many might think, is it just an outlandish character in a comic book? How can one make such a big leap from this minor detail?
But in fact, history has no coincidences.
In September 2017, the comic "Dark Day: The Casting" was released, and the Laughing bat made his debut. An intense reaction followed his introduction and, subsequently, due to high expectations leading to greater disappointments, he became one of the most unsuccessful comic book characters in American history.
In May 2017, the overseas version of Tiktok went international, swiftly becoming a sensation across America. From then on, the collapse of traditional media as the mouthpieces of various American forces and the decline of America's global discourse power began.
At that time, the main content of this app was not to discuss American comics, and the fall in reputation of the Laughing bat might also have nothing to do with this little app.
But looking back on the river of history, a series of closely connected historical events can only mean that this moment was undoubtedly a historical turning point, where something astonishing happened.
And, likewise, looking to history as a guide, these small matters are not the last straw that breaks the camel's back. If we push the timeline further back, it's actually the aftermath of another giant wave that arose from the East.
Following this analysis, where does this nihilism and escapism and the obsession with winning come from?
Cultural conflicts always precede all yet lag everything. Intellectuals are always arrogantly prophetic but enjoy the vanity that comes from being a Monday morning quarterback. Cultural shifts sometimes foreshadow future events, but they often change after significant shifts in the situation.
If I have no opponents, I naturally don't have to win. If I can easily crush my opponents, I can certainly write a few essays on my methods of victory. If, in my evenly matched battle with my opponent, I effortlessly manage to win, I must maximize the art of rhetoric to depict my ease of victory.
If I intend to fight but lose, I must at least write from other angles why our efforts weren't in vain. Even just daring to fight, we must sing praises of courage and speak of justice.
If what ultimately emerges is only escapism and nihilism, what on earth is going on?
Shiller gazed at the Laughing bat. He had hoped that this character would never appear before him but wished from another perspective that he would appear soon.
It wasn't that Shiller was eager to kill him; rather, once he appeared, it signified that some of the issues that had long been unresolved in Shiller's mind finally had their answers.
Standing before the Laughing bat, Shiller gently closed his eyes.
Louder than the roar of airplane engines, the more deafening sound of bomb explosions made it impossible for him to hear anything else. While the tremor blurred his vision, his gaze lingered on the face of his watch, with the year on it stopping at "2016."