Holy Superheroes!
--Book Index
--Comix Index
One of the great joys of searching for truth in unlikely places is that every once in a while you turn up a gem. Having already read and reviewed two “okay� books—Who Needs a Superhero? and Comic Book Character—that sought to extract spiritual insights from the world of comic books, I had pretty much given up on finding anything substantial on the topic. Then someone handed me a copy of Holy Superheroes! by Greg Garrett, co-author of The Gospel Reloaded.
The book sat on my desk for about a month before I finally picked it up, certain it was going to be “more of the same.� But twenty-six pages in, I began to suspect I had finally hit the jackpot. As it turns out, the world of books is not much different than the world of superheroes: Things are not always as they seem. Just as Lois Lane had no idea that behind Clark Kent’s mild-mannered visage lurked the greatest superhero of all time, I had no idea that Holy Superheroes! would turn out to be not just a great book about the spirituality of comic books. For me at least, it also turned out to be one of the most insightful books I have read on any topic in a long time.
Perhaps part of the appeal for me was that Holy Superheroes! also turned out to be the right book at the right time. The day before I read it, I had written a lengthy reflection on the film Kingdom of Heaven, wherein I discussed the futility of responding to violence with more violence. Seeing as taking such a stance has left me bruised and battered at the hands of my fellow believers in the past, I was feeling somewhat apprehensive, like a disobedient child waiting anxiously for his father to return home from work, not sure if he was going to be swatted or not. However, rather than upbraid me for my audacity, Holy Superheroes! actually affirmed and expanded upon what I had written—pretty surprising considering superhero comics are some of the most violent forms of entertainment around. Lest you think I only liked this book because it agrees with me though, let me share a few other things Holy Superheroes! has going for it.
What Garrett attempts in this book is a “philosophical reading� of comic books, a study of comics to see if they can offer wisdom on how to live our lives. Why comic books? Because they and the superheroes that populate them have become the primary mythology of our society, Garrett says. Even though not all of us read comics, we all know the stories and characters. Our society has chosen reason and empirical data as its primary source of truth, but the power of myth cannot be ignored. And if we do ignore it, it is to our peril. As Garrett says in the foreword, “We’ve gotten in the bad habit of thinking of myth as something false, or at best, untrue—like those old Greek gods and snake-headed monsters—rather than something that is supremely true; we’ve made the mistake of thinking that myth is untrue because it can’t be proven, rather than something that is supremely true because it’s a story that has to be accepted.�
Even though we have turned our back on myth, a part of us keeps reaching out for something to fill the gap that reason has left behind. Where this need used to be satisfied by reading the lives of saints, apostles, and other heroes of the faith, we now read about men and women who have secret identities and run around in skin-tight costumes doing battle with the forces of evil. These are the stories that move us, Garrett says, “the ones we most need to hear to be whole.� How and why these stories lead us closer to the sacred and inspire us in our own quest to do good is the main subject of this book.
Garrett starts by looking at the connection between comics and religion. In this chapter, he shows how comics are really the latest manifestation of the “American monomyth,� which goes something like this: “A community in a harmonious paradise is threatened by evil; normal institutions fail to contend with this thread; a selfless hero emerges to renounce temptations and carry out the redemptive task; aided by fate, his decisive victory restores the community to its paradisiacal condition; the superhero then recedes into obscurity.� He goes on to show how the American monomyth is actually a retelling of the Judeo-Christian story of redemption, a.k.a “the gospel.� Thus, Garrett argues, superhero comics are to be taken seriously, “as seriously as we ought to take every kind of storytelling,� because they can teach us about what it means to be human. Comic books can actually change our lives, for good or ill. Remember that the next time you’re tempted to poke fun at the comic store owner on The Simpsons. Perhaps those seemingly trivial distinctions between Captain Kirk and Captain Picard are more important than you think.
Garrett moves on to discuss our need for heroes and the archetypal shape of the hero’s journey, as it is replicated across time, culture, and religion. The ongoing appeal of superhero stories, Garrett says, is that they are merely the most recent manifestation of this archetype, which seems to be hardwired into our systems. At the same time, he warns that even though these stories may tap into archetypal figures—such as Christ—we should not mistake metaphor for reality. Thus, while we can notice correspondences between Christ and Superman, for example, we should not seek to equate the two. Instead, we should merely ask how these correspondences can instruct and inspire us.
After these introductory chapters, Garrett turns his attention to a number of topics that are front and center in the world of superheroes. First up is the relationship between power and responsibility, a link made clear through the life of Spiderman in particular. Garrett concludes his study by pointing out how even though we aren’t superheroes; we all have power—especially those of us wealthy enough to afford such luxury items as comic books. The question is, are we using our power responsibly?
Truth is the next topic of discussion. Why Garrett failed to bring in Wonder Woman’s magic lasso I’m not sure (her lasso forced whoever was caught in it to tell the truth), but his discussion still bears much fruit. Most notably, he talks about the danger of certainty. “Oftentimes surety can be more dangerous than any enemy you face,� says Garrett. Shocking words, no doubt, for those who still believe in such things as "evidence that demands a verdict." By way of example, he talks about the Nazis and the Japanese militarists of World War II. Both groups were certain that what they believed was right—and the entire world is still trying to recover from the outcome of those beliefs. He shows how certainty inevitably leads to fundamentalism, which, if not checked, leads to holy war in defense of one’s doctrine or beliefs. Truth is far more complex than fundamentalists of any stripe would have us believe, argues Garrett, and our world would be a much safer place if more of us woke up to that fact.
From truth, Garrett turns to justice. In this section, he seeks to expand our definition of justice beyond retribution. While retribution may bring a temporary halt to crime or some other social problem, it fails to deal with the root causes of evil, and it offers no vision of the just society. Using Batman as a model of retributive justice, Garrett describes the price of going down such a path: “Batman’s success as a crime-fighter has come at the expense of his success as a well-rounded human being.� Instead of conceptualizing justice as punishment, a response to a negative action, far better, says Garrett, to adopt the view of the ancient Hebrews, who saw justice as, “an ongoing movement toward equal opportunities for all people, and support for the less privileged, aged, or infirm.�
Garrett’s take on patriotism is perhaps the most subversive section of this book. He describes the concept of “benevolent fascism,� which dominates superhero stories, saying, “The traditional superhero myth suggests that power in one set of capable hands is the surest way to achieve justice, that democratic systems can’t be trusted to perform their tasks alone, that anyway, the hero would never take advantage of those he serves, and that that the world requires American superheroism.� Sounds like something you might see scrawled on the bathroom wall at CIA headquarters—or on the doorplate to the Oval Office. Garrett goes on to offer a critique of American foreign policy, chastising the government and the American people in general for being so narrow-minded as to believe that Americans have a monopoly on truth and justice, that America is not only the last of the superpowers, it is also the most heroic. “Unquestioning acceptance of a truth—any truth—is dangerous,� says Garrett. He urges people not to swallow everything they’re told by the government, even it if means they are branded as unpatriotic or disloyal.
From here, Garrett moves on to only slightly less controversial ground by confronting the problem of evil. He considers what role evil plays in God’s redemptive story, where evil comes from, and how all of us share responsibility for the “evil that men do.� But Garrett doesn’t abandon us to the Dark Side. He also offers a way out, showing that all religious faiths agree that the only way to overcome evil is through unselfishness, compassion, and love.
As an addendum to his discussion of benevolent or “pop fascism,� Garrett also weighs in on vigilantism. After all, virtually every superhero is a vigilante on some level, because they take the law into their own hands. In this sense, heroes are often seen as outlaws as well, as the Batman knows all too well. One of the main reasons for this blurring of lines, Garrett points out, is that vigilantism involves a blend of “extralegal violence and personal vengeance.� Thus, vigilante justice is rarely selfless and, hence, open to suspicion. After all, if the heroes are using the same methods as the villains and are motivated by the same feelings of anger and retribution, are they really all that different? As Garrett says in relation to an incident from Alan Moore's quintessential 1980s classic, The Watchmen, “If you have to stop being a hero to accomplish your ends, then maybe they’re not worth accomplishing.� Or, to put it in terms of Kingdom of Heaven, if you feel tempted to commit a little bit of evil for the sake of the greater good, perhaps you should reconsider whether that “good� really is all that great.
Delving deeper into the root cause of evil, Garrett turns to superheroes like the Incredible Hulk, Wolverine, and Batman to show how the war against evil may often be a symbolic war against the self. He also wonders about our tendency to fear those who are not like us. “Is it part of our nature to try to destroy people who are different from us?� Garrett wonders. “How can we be aware of these feelings and stop genocide from happening again on such a grand scale?� He believes the answers to these questions can be found in, you guessed it, comic books!
Next, Garrett looks at what comics have to say about the apocalypse and how we should live our lives in light of this reality. Despair is always a temptation, but Garrett argues in favor of hope, which is much more than a vague desire for things to turn out right. True hope gives birth to action. “How the world ends up is not up to us,� says Garrett. “But what we do while we’re in it? That part most certainly is.�
Garrett concludes the book with a lengthy discussion on how to bring an end to violence. Garrett argues that, “we love violence as much as we love hatred.� However, even though retribution feels good at the time, it only leads to more suffering. “Violence can shock and awe someone, but it will never change an opinion, right a wrong, or save a soul.� Fair enough, but how are we to respond to our enemies then? Compassion is the answer, says Garrett. “We have to… see even our enemies—maybe especially our enemies—as human beings.� Compassion destroys any false sense of dichotomy between our enemies and us, making it much more difficult for us to hate and destroy. Thus begins the long, hard road to healing and reconciliation. It also turns our attention toward those whom Christ sent us to serve: the victims. Using Alan Moore’s short story "This Is Information" to illustrate this fact, Garrett shows that “the choice between good and evil, between us and them, may be satisfying, but it’s a false choice. Our hands need to be extended to those who are suffering, whoever they may be. But that can be a hard lesson for us to hold.�
Hard indeed, but this is the path that all of us must walk if we hope to be heroes in our world.
23 Comments:
Hey Kevin,
Thanks so much for your thorough, insightful review of Garrett's book. Much like your picking it up had a serendipitous connection with your reviewing of 'Kingdom of Heaven', so my reading of your review is timely in another way. I'm in the process of developing a new lecture on Superheroes at the Cineplex for my CBC course on faith and film, and hadn't yet come across this book. I am now very excited to read it and probe its depths for myself and for my students.
Thanks again!
Nelson
Thanks, Nelson. Hey, if you ever need a "serendipitous guest lecturer," I'm your man.
I was just (serendipitously) thinking of asking you about that. I'll call you right now.
Kevin, I'm well frustrated. I have just been, finally, to see: "Revenge of the Sith", basically enjoyed it, wrote a long review, posted it - it said that it had been posted and would take a few seconds to come out and that I should close the window - I did, refreshed the page again and again - and it's STILL NOT THERE!! IS it like that time again, when I tried posting something a million times because it didn't look like it was coming out, and then it did, but with bits chopped off the end... Oh!!! I only posted this once...
I will be really furious if the system has lost it!
Why - was it because I put as the username: darth vader lord of the sith? Was that too long or something??
Anyway, with regard to the actual subject of this, your latest review - yes, this thing by Greg Garrett about superheroes sounds interesting... But DOES he, AGAIN, does he, devote enough time to villains?? Is there a WHOLE chapter devoted to them, at the very least?!!
THAT would be the ONLY thing that would convince me that a Christian writer would be taking the ENTIRE moral compass of comics, their ENTIRE morality and mythology, and very single implication of theirs, SERIOUSLY....
No listen! It's very important! I think that the
thing about conventional Christians, is that they can't see "the other point of view", and by that, I don't just, or necessarily, mean the point of view of other human beings who simply disagree with them, but literally, of the Dark Side, of what we call the Devil.... Completely the Other! Not merely of someone who worships God in a different way, but who might like to kill Him - like Mr Karl Marx!! Or Mr Friedrich Nietzsche!
(Not that I say that I applaud the above people's aims! Necessarily.)
John Milton was one of the very few Christians who managed this: and therefore he wrote one of the greatest masterpieces of all TIME, in Paradise Lost, and recreated one of the greatest literary characters with his interpretation of Lucifer, the fallen angel, Satan.
(I would like to be the Milton of comic books, given a chance. THAT is my wish and my will.)
The interesting thing about Lucifer, is that he represents all that is rebellious in US - and for good REASON, I might add! Why do you think some of the French revolutionaries took Lucifer as their symbol, and why did William Blake say that "Milton took the devil's part without knowing it"??
The "devil" in us all, is something we NEED, desperately! That is MY thesis!
I don't mean what Quentin Tarantino or some nitwit would define as that in mankind, either... They just write rubbishy violence which is essentially unserious in nature - NOBODY rebels or takes a stand in his films.
I mean - WHAT would all the mythologies BE, without their dissenters/wicked people/troublemakers??? What the Batman, without his Joker?? What Thor and Odin, without Loki?? What Osiris, without Set? What God, without Satan?
Most mythologies ARE dualistic, you know! It seems to all go back, if not to ancient Egypt, then to Persia, with Ahriman (devil) and Ahura Mazda (good guy). That's where Christianity gets that part of its ideology from.
It's all for good reason, I think.
A Christian writer would have to be as obsessed with villains as I am, or John Milton was - plus he'd have to have the mind of C S Lewis - a great critic - before I'd REALLY be minded to take him seriously as a comic book critic, I must admit. But you know me, I'm demanding! I might find more in this here book, than I at first think...
Yes, Garrett is QUITE right that "our hands need to be extended to those who are suffering, whoever they may be." Bang on! "But that can be a hard lesson for us to hold."
Not necessarily! Not for either the true Christian or the Christian/neopagan socialist!
(It would be EASIER than you might think! But, but... a) imagination is required, b) frank honesty, too, and c)... a willingness to break with all forms of "legalistic" remedies favoured by traditional liberals...)
Ie, a complete break with TRADITION - the kind of tradition that has been PROVED not to work!! The idea of punishment, basically.
(But it would be HARD, if not impossible, for "liberal" society to break with this idea - for this is one of the notions it is founded on!! Individual, not social, responsibility.)
One very GOOD way of doing this, would be to make more superheroes simply DO this in comic books... Instead of them ALL saying like: "Well, I won't kill you, bad guy, but I'm going to beat you up and hand you over to the law so that they can put you in a really nasty prison... which as we all know, won't do you a blind bit of good, because you'll be here again, a few issues down the road.." Shouldn't they be trying to reform the criminals?!
Doc Savage damn well did! Wonder Woman used to, by all accounts... I haven't read a comic with her in for absolute decades, so I don't know WHAT they're putting in the stories now... I suppose, more often than not, that she's some butch vindictive lesbian, along the lines of a cross between those of Frank Miller's imagination and Camille Paglia, yuck! Tell me if I'm wrong!! I always liked the idea of the lasso of truth, though....
SEE, see, the superheroes aren't really the PROBLEM... Only LIBERALS, wishy-washy creatures, would ever think that they were! Why this is... well, have you got a week?? (And see above!)
Socialists, now, a) don't - when the chips are down, my dear - have many scruples about force b) they think that the ends justify the means - we REALLY do, basically, but it's a case of getting both the ends and the means right, isn't it...
(I've got a BRILLIANT quote on the subject that I'm going to give you these days...)
Sure, we're bad! But in a good way! Liberals just pussyfoot everywhere and argy bargy about "rights" which never exist in practice and... Oh, anyway, they mean well, some of them, but a pox on the parcel of them! Is what I really think!!
The Left is rougher than it looks! But we're not inhumane. Just decisive! That's the difference between us and the fascists! We have a better sense of humour, too. Which is why you'll never find an F M in our midst!
Yes, you COULD have a socialist vigilante superhero! I reckon! We're not scared to get our hands dirty!! I think they tried doing an anarchist one once, but I don't think he was much cop...
Fascist vigilantes are narrow and meanminded. Socialist ones are broadminded and goodnatured. THUS never the twain shall meet, ideologically!!
I don't know about "pop fascism", though I don't doubt that there is such a thing - viz. Miller (the other one!) and his obsession with vengeance against cliched "pedophiles" etc... A usual right-wing target, by the way. Sigh. The next comic he writes is going to be a thinly-veiled racist diatribe about a transsexual, transrace Michael Jackson type, as the villain, I just know it!!
Yes, you see. The thing with fascists is that they are basically stupid, have no theories - whereas we lefties have all the answers!! Thought Plus Action, for us commie superheroes!
(Yes, we're arrogant - yes, we can be wrong... but if you get the theory right, everything else will follow! Stalin didn't. He was a twerp!!)
Yes, the villains, as well as the heroes, are the key to everything.... This is going to take an entire BOOK to explain, this thesis, I can see that.
I think that CURRENT American writers, of comics and nearly everything else, are TOO OBSESSED with the heroes, at the total expense of the villains... They DO, you and Garrett are right, unconsciously identify "themselves" and the US with the "heroes" and the "villains" with all that is "foreign", "not us"!!
Evil aliens from elsewhere! Not part of the society...
THIS WAS HOWEVER NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, IN COMICS OR ANYTHING ELSE, I DO MAINTAIN....
Whereas, if you go back to an earlier discussion of ours, I think that Americans during the Depression, the 1930s, and the years immediately following it, the war and all that... well, they IDENTIFIED more with the criminals - movie and comics writers certainly did! I SENSE IT - THEREFORE IT WAS SO!! Gangsters were combined heroes and anti-heroes; there wasn't all this guff about "mindless serial killers"... and... Well, all you've got to DO is to watch a Bogart or a Cagney or an Edward G Robinson performance, to see that the characters played by these actors were regarded, by their more LEFT-wing writers AND audience, as both human and in a way, justified.
THAT is the idea we - you - all need to get back to!! Such a perception which is rooted in economic and social reality, and not just middle class insularity - YOU need more of a sense of There but for the grace of, that's what you all need!!
Working class people know what I mean! Middle class guys live in cloud cuckoo land - ie, they think: "It'll never happen to me!" Even if they've visited prisons, they write in a very "above it all" patronising manner, as in one article I just read about the possibility of Michael Jackson going to jail... (I hope he doesn't.)
I've got news for you...
It's not just blacks/Michael Jacksons who go to jail!!
Look at what happened to that poor woman who offended the Clinton prosecutor... I've got her book, but as per usual, the name is slow to trip off the tongue..
I don't really give a toss about Alan Moore's misgivings, whatever they may be... About superheroes, or anything else - I had a look at "Watchmen" during the 80s, and thought that like "Maus", another over-fussed-over piece of nonsense, it was written by a middleclass madman who didn't know his arse from his elbow...
When writers hit the nail on the head, I know it! When they don't, they just bore me!
Oh dear, oh dear, this would indeed make a book, this whole multifaceted topic I have raised in reaction to your welcome inspiration!
Anyway, look: I think that the modern-day portrayal of the Batman in particular, is FAR too punitive and vindictive - this needs to change - (Well, look, Spiderman in the movies, isn't: the X-men aren't - so why should poor old Bats be made a monster??)
Actually, there was ONE story in 1940, where he actually DOES discuss reforming the Joker - and not only THAT - he, like Doc Savage, is prepared to take dogooding matters into his hands SO entirely as to completely go above and disregard the law... (Whereas he COULDN'T, in later comics, because he had already made his choice - he had "signed up" with Commissioner Gordon, and practically sworn fealty to the police... Well, in a way he HAD to, to prevent getting arrested... But it DID limit his range of action... and he should STILL be kicking himself for it!)
Do you know what he DID, in that story? I forget the comic no but I could look it up... He breaks the Joker OUT of jail, out of a prison hospital... He wants, not to kill or maim the Joker, but to take him to a specialist doctor, who is supposed to be able to do a brain operation on him, that will change his personality back!
THAT'S WHAT'S IN THAT PARTICULAR STORY... Bet you didn't know that!
Of course, knowing the rather primitive state of (one assumes) even pulp ficiton brain surgery in the 1940s, maybe it's a good job that plan came to nothing... The Joker might object to being made a vegetable!!
(But anyway, originally the Batman is a socialist - in that he doesn't give a f"ck what laws made by liberals say - and not because he wants to kill people, either!! For the OPPOSITE reason - ie, that the laws are stupid and result in nothing but unhappy people!)
I know the facts!!
Yeah, this is long, all right, but I had to say it - because NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW IT!!
AND, not only a change of heart does the modern version of the hero need, he needs to, not just fuss and fret in a pretentious middle-class manner, over the fate of whichever of his enemies... but he needs to make a plan of action to DO something.
Alan Moore, like in "Killing Joke", thinks that the Batman would find it SO hard, to even TALK frankly to the Joker, to say something that would make sense, to change his heart, to offer the Joker a possible way out... to have really THOUGHT it through... Moore's Batman certainly hasn't: he is a prat, from Alpha to Omega of that story!! So is his Joker! Everybody Moore writes about, seems to be some kind of prat!! Unsurprisingly - fiction mirrors the author!
The Batman and the Joker that inhabit MY heart are a lot different! The Batman, now, he is much more matter-of-fact, more practical, less timewasting, and more wryly humourous and optimistic... Like my own sainted father (long gone to his reward!) now I come to think of it.....!!!
WELL, it all depends on the kind of "father archetypes" one has to CALL upon! I have always finally concluded! Now, if yours, like mine, really WAS a bit of a hero.....
Then you know!
If you had really bad parents, as I suspect that most of this comics "new school" generation did - then you're stuffed! In this regard!!
IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO REALLY BASIC AND SIMPLE THINGS! Far simpler than the usual angsty liberal would make it, I can tell you!!
Anyway. I know something else the Batman needs. Just briefly, he needs help. (How can he do it all on his own?) A woman's help. And not the USUAL kind of woman you find in the stories. There needs to be a VERY specific, new kind of female character in this story - to finally RESOLVE the hero/villain tension; she needs to be a mater to his pater, basically... And more I SHALL not say on this particular theme, only rest assured, I have it all worked out, if no-one else does...
Oh, and I'm not sure about the villains of all the other superhero comics, but the Batman villains I know oh so very well - they talk to me ALL the time, I can't get rid of them, I can't even try... this is what happens when you invite archetypes and spirits into your life - they take up residence!! They never leave! They make you pay for ever for Their assistance... No wonder you guys prefer God... but he didn't help me, so I called in the "demons"! They do what it says on the tin!
Anyway, look! THEY don't MIND the Batman, all right? Anyone who thinks they do, is again, barking up the wrong tree... Most modern comic book scripters do!!
They HATE prison, all right; they only marginally prefer the asylum... But the Batman himself... they actually LIKE.. They WELCOME his attention, more than anything; they are SO desperate for it; without it, they would die, or they feel they would....
Do people really not see this??
How do I know? Because I was one, in a previous incarnation, because I am a witch and know everything, because... OH, just because!!
This needs a website, all right, it needs a BOOK, it needs a, I don't know what it needs!
I'm going to bed!!
It's your fault, you set me off!!
You could never live with what I have been living with in my head for so long... It would drive you insane for sure!
hey Kevin
agreed with your assessment of Holy Heroes. Have also read the other two books (who needs a super hero and i forget the other!) and thought this one was probably the best. Hopefully those who love comics but don't know about Jesus will check them out. Ordered Batman Year One last night...I eagerly await it!
Thanks, Jacob. Despite what Liz the Brit says, I know you're going to enjoy Year One. I used to own all the original issues but sold them off and bought the collected versions so I could actually read them again without worrying about fingerprints.
Oh Kevin, no comments....?
I thought you'd either delete my above, or leave a comment on it!
Well thanks for not doing the former (I saved it anyway)... but... NO comment?
Anyway, you needn't go around telling Jacob Sahms and Neil Boschman and various people that I HATED "Batman Year One"...
Because, you didn't review it (I don't think!!! Must go and recheck.) Maurice Broaddus did, chaps on this blog, and he was thinking too, that I might "lay into it", seeing as it was by the author of "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Sin City", both of which I LOATHE!
But - he was wrong - as I explained to him underneath, because all I felt about "Batman Year One", was that it was fairly inoffensive, really quite innocuous (in comparison with the REST of what F M writes - he seems to leave his REAL sleaze for his graphic novels, ie his more "wayout" works, and their adaptations), whereas this little story of which I think I have two of the original parts - well, the most that could be said in its prosecution is that it's rather BORING... For me!
But THEN, I regard every Batman comic without at least ONE weird, costumed supervillain as rather a waste of TIME - considering how ENAMOURED I am of said villains!!
They were what attracted me to the whole thing! From the beginning was it ever so!!! Miller disses them - and I'm going to duff him up for that. If there was ever a big yellow sleazebag pervert, it's certainly not Two-Face or Joker or imaginary pedophiles. It's you-know-who!!!
But if he'd just stuck to bloomin' "Batman: Year One", he'd have been all right!! (However, he and I were already diametrically opposed by the time that came out, because I'd seen DKR and hadn't liked it one bit! I'm going to explain about all that on my new journal site, anyway... Basically, I was so wondering about it, at the time, being young and unsure of myself, that I wondered, that because the Guardian newspaper or the NYT or whoever liked it - could it be me that was wrong??
I however had recourse to one human resource available to me at the time. I asked two of the a) cleverest b) most wise, informed or (popular) culturally sophisticated people I knew at the time. (So that means not my mum, OK?! Because while she may have been wise, pop culture was NOT her forte!) One older woman and one young guy. The latter I might even have classed then as a science fiction expert, and he was a writer in his own right. Talented, but unpublished; a prolific composer too... I only can wonder what has happened to the poor lad by now... So many of my friends have just drifted away, into oblivion... That's another sad thing about my life! And, sadly, none of the people I've known have ever turned out particularly "successful", though I thought that at least that one I've just mentioned, he deserved it...)
They neither of them liked it. At all.)
So there!
Frank Miller didn't deserve his success. He's a sleazebag, as I shall say once and say a million times; and my old schoolboy pal deserved it far more; he could write brilliantly thrilling stories when he wanted to - and he could have written the score, too!! Something Miller'll never manage - thankfully, as he might succeed in ruining popular music as well!!
But, you see, these sleazebag writers only generally let themselves go in something that isn't a "normal" comic; and correct me if I'm wrong, (I can go and check!) but "Year One" in its parts, appeared as part of the REGULAR (numbered) Batman/DC title, didn't it??
Anyway, as I told Maurice, it had one good idea at least in it, that of the theme of "corruption", as I said on his blog.
(Though how I and F M define corruption, are probably different!)
I'm going looking for Maurice and his feedback, for now! You're proving a tad disappointing right now, Kevin!
And yes, I'll diss liberals/liberalism, if I like! You never told me even, whether you CONSIDERED yourself one or not! You only said you resented being called wishy-washy, and referred me to your favoured lefty Christian site...
So don't blame me if I jab too near! If I don't even know where you are on the target!!
I'll be starting that site, soon, as I said - so I'll have an address to publicize at the end of posts - and hopefully signing up as a reviewer here, too - so soon you'll ALL know my REAL name!!
Liz: I'm sorry for not responding to your comments on Sith, but I just look at the length of that comment and get tired. Remember that 500-word limit I mentioned a while back? Comments that stick to that length are much more likely to get a response.
As for BM Yr. 1, I was just having a bit of fun with you. I should have said "Despite Liz the Brit's stance on Frank Miller..."
Anyway, I'm beginning to become suspicious of your tastes, Liz. Not only did you like Sith, but you also thought "Shark Tale"--one of the most derided animated films ever--was "not bad."
As for whether or not I am a liberal, I'll invoke the response of Tony Campolo: Name the issue! In the eyes of many evangelicals, the very fact that I would go see a movie like "Sin City," for example, makes me a liberal. If, like Maurice, I had found some lines of redemption in the film, I would have been branded an outright heretic. Meanwhile, other Christians see absolutely no conflict between their faith and viewing films like "Sin City" as entertainment. So the fact that I called it a piece of moral filth would probably make me sound conservative in their eyes. So, am I a liberal? It all depends on who you ask. It really doesn't matter to me though, because I don't like labels like that anyway. If I brand myself as a liberal, no card-carrying conservative will want to talk to me, and vice versa. Rather than descend into tribalism, I'd much rather take what is good from both sides of this artificial divide so I can dialogue with people of all stripes.
OK, OK... point taken. You don't want labels.
I've actually forgotten how to count words. You're going to have to teach me. As my tutor.
And why would "Shark Tale" be the "most derided" - by whom? I don't think Maurice thought it was that bad, either.
(Actually I haven't looked on Yahoo Movies!)
But, you see Kevin, you can't GO by critics, ESPECIALLY not the paid sort, on "respected, mainstream" publications, PARTICULARLY, because they are a lot of crooks - the American ones are - and they just say whatever, I think, suits the viewpoint of their paper's owners..
Ebert being a case in point! He liked "Sin City", and it wasn't because he could "read" any liberal Christian message into it!!
Conservative critic Michael Medved (well, even I learn some things from SOME conservatives!) made this point ages ago, anyway, in his book. He said that basically these people were all sold out - to, whatever, he made out that it was to "liberal" Hollywood, whatever that is... But whatever it is, it's right out of touch with the masses, both conservative and otherwise. (Liberal, socialist.)
You CAN'T go by what they say, most of the time, because it
a) often doesn't make sense, like Ebert
b) it never reflects the box office!
Eg, with the Batman movies: "Batman Forever" a) had a plot that made sense, more-or-less, unlike its two predecessors
b) had some very good performances and sympathetic characters, both heroes and villains - AGAIN, unlike its two Burton predecessors, which were all "style" and no emotional depth
c) The public liked it, and it had very good takings
BUT, from the critics, it had mixed reviews. And Ebert, that stupid herbert, resurrected that "it's got homosexual undertones" crap, which was brought up in the same way with the Sixties series, by a Jules Feiffer, who was another gay bloke, who... oh, it's all too complicated, but suffice it to say he wasn't doing anybody a favour!
And THEN the idiot right wing latch onto this, and this is why you see reviews of this movie on Yahoo! Movies which vilify it left right and center... But the fact is, that the majority of the public liked it. TOUGH, if SOME "diehard" Frank Miller fans, and/or slasher superhero fans, didn't! TOUGH, if Val Kilmer's Batman wasn't a soulless murderer who bullied petty criminals and liked burning people up in his car exhaust!
TOUGH! TOUGH! TOUGH! Fascist slobs, it's all too tough, for you!!
And the MAJORITY of cinemagoers ALSO liked "Batman and Robin", which was roundly panned by critics, but did very well at the box office, again - so what do THEY know?
I agree that it had a much stupider script than the previous one, and some truly cringeworthy double entendres - but its message was in the right place, and push comes to shove, I'll have that over a flashy script, any day.
As for Shark Tale, I have no idea what the box office figures were! I might go and look them up!
But what was so bad about it? Maurice admitted that it was like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, in one way. But he felt that all the "Mafia spoof" bit would be well over the heads of a kid audience... But it had a good message, and plenty of plot, really...
But I'LL tell you what was REALLY wrong with Shark Tale! SHALL I TELL YOU?
It was, that like almost all American movies, including cartoons, the protagonists THOUGHT that the answer to a large threat involving a whole community was, you can guess it, INDIVIDUAL action, on the part of ONE individual, a hero, that fish, whatever his name was. Albeit a spoof hero!
Whereas - if they REALLY were menaced by a bunch of sharks - what that reef community SHOULD have done, was to band ALL TOGETHER, and drive off the sharks in that manner!
But, not only would that have not fitted the basic outline of the cartoon, it would have been - unAmerican!! Oh dear! Though I'm sure they could have got away with it a couple of decades ago.
I fancy a cartoon based on Berthold Brecht's "Haifische", a short story, about guess what... sharks!
THEN we'll see what Mr Pantsmouth Ebert has to say about THAT! And I'll see what you have to say, too!
Liz: You make a good point here regarding the problem with Shark Tale and its reliance on the American myth of individual action (vigilantism) as the solution to any problem, local or global.
It makes me think about our mutual abhorrence of serial killer movies and why they are so popular. Perhaps the reason they are so popular is... Are you ready for this? Serial killers are the inversion of the superhero myth. Just like a superhero, a serial killer sees a problem in society that no one is dealing with. Then he/she takes it upon himself to solve it, perhaps even adopting an alternate persona to do it. Like superheroes, serial killers have a secret identity as ordinary people. They also see themselves as extraordinarily gifted, even super, as it were. As such, they feel they it is their right - their duty even - to operate above the law, unfettered by the constraints of due process. Now that would make an interesting article: Looking at superheroes and serial killers as mirror images of each other. I will definitely pursue this.
Incidentally, we've just had a case like that here in Vancouver. A local farmer is accused of abducting, murdering, and dismembering 27 prostitutes. Think of his actions as as "social culling." He took his agricultural notions to the darkest level imaginable.
But is this really so much different than someone like the Batman? He's a culler of society as well, is he not? He doesn't kill or mutilate his "victims," but he's still doing a clean-up job, and we're meant to cheer for him. Somehow I think we're also meant to cheer for the serial killers as well. It's a dark thought, but perhaps they represent our own repressed desire to take drastic, violent action against the social pariahs of our day. They personify our fear response.
But is there and upside? Perhaps in this way serial killer movies don't lead people to emulate such acts, they actually prevent people from doing them by providing them with a simulated, cathartic emotional experience. When we watch a serial killer movie, we are able to expunge our fears of the "other," of those who are radically different from us. It brings that fearful/hateful part of our soul out into the open so we can face it and deal with it. So maybe serial killer films are the cure rather than the cause of social ills. I realize this could all be bullocks, but I'm just writing the ideas as they occur to me.
At any rate, we have the heroes and the villains, both of whom think the only solution to society's ills is individual action. The only thing that differentiates them is that society agrees with the goals (and most of the means) of the hero, whereas they usually disagree with the goals (and most of the tactics) of the villain. Never mind that the hero and the villain often use exactly the same tactics.
Let's take this to the next level: individual state action as the only way to solve a global problem. Case in point? The United States and the "War on Terror." The US was upset at Saddam for killing and torturing his people and starting unprovoked wars with his neighbours. They couldn't get the rest of the world on board with them, so what did they do? Took it on themselves to start an unprovoked war with Iraq, during which they killed, tortured, and maimed thousands of Iraqis! Problem solved, right? Hmm...
This looks VERY interesting. I have only recently gotten back into american comics after building up a fairly respectable collection of volumes of japanese comics - I kind of got frustrated with the same old story telling techniques, and consistent destruction of the characters I love (DC just offed my favorite second stringer ever - Blue Beetle. And they didn't even do him justice.). Thankfully, humorous spins on the superhero genre - like 'I can't believe its not the justice league' and 'The GLA' has allowed me to dive back in, carefully picking which titles to follow - Marvel's 'Ultimate' line being a must have.
That said, I've always loved comics. They've been a building block of my life. I would pick up stories of superman, spider-man, and delight in these great battles, beating up (But NEVER killing) the likes of Doc Ock and Lex Luthor.
Even when I was just 6 years old, though, it always interested me more when there was more to the story than go find the bad guy and beat him up. When Spider-Man had to juggle a marriage to Mary Jane Watson, a photo job, and so many internal conflicts while trying to do the right thing. And he would make mistakes. He was and is not infallible.
Now? I see more heroes forced to make tough decisions. And I actually like it that way. Ultimate X-Men, the world threatening mutant proteus gets put in check by the body he is possessing - But Xavier can't bring himself to use his powers to save the entire world by causing a heart attack or the like, especially since proteus happens to be his own son. Colossus is forced to take the ball, and end a life. It was the only way, but the question of 'Is it the right way?' still has ramifications on the comic. They aren't perfect, and make mistakes, and have to deal with the consequences of those mistakes.
Connecting Super-Heroes to religion is an excellent idea. What I would have loved to see in this book (I'm still going to pick it up, though) is an interesting bit about the religious bits actually plain in sight. For example, go back to early marvel - there are 'Christmas Special' issues EVERYWHERE. What is really interesting about that is that many of the writiers - Including Stan 'The Man' Lee himself - are jewish. What is the result of such work? A fear to put their own religion in a book? A willingness to write characters that are not representative of themselves? A bridge between two religions?
The book sounds great. I'll have to give it a read.
Colin Meyer, great post!
I haven't read enough (modern) Spiderman comics to tell... But I LOVED Doc Ock in the Spiderman II movie... I thought the way they rendered his "enhancement" was so perfect... how would you like to end up like that? With modern technology getting ever more sophisticated, it MAY be possible... I recently read an article, a bit exaggerated, about people being able to have "superhero kids" because of genetic engineering... of course it won't happen just YET... but if humanity doesn't blow itself up, it WILL happen!!
(And as a socialist, I'm excited!! We DO believe in "The perfectibility of humankind", after all... Just with the caveat on my part, that we don't annoy Mother Gaia too much while we're at it... Or create TOO many divisions among ourselves... if genetic engineering is available, it must become available to all!)
But yes, anyway, I loved Doc Ock in that movie, and the actor who played him... I can't remember! He was so.. good at heart, really! Just a scientist in an impossible situation!
(I didn't want him to get killed!)
Anyway, DON'T these comics just recycle those ANCIENT (Grecian) themes of hubris and nemesis??
Sam Ewing, if you're anywhere around on here....
Yes, Kevin, VERY thought-provoking post...
There's nothing WRONG with individual action per se; it's just that it's not always appropriate, especially not when a COMMUNITY faces a COLLECTIVE threat...
Then banding together is the best way to tackle it! I have always felt! Only, ironically, for most of my life I've felt like a wolf without a pack, howling around alone...
(A terrible fate for one of my nature, I assure you! I have suffered HORRIBLY because of it, for almost my entire life. Of course, I'm not just being melodramatic, because everything I choose to share and say is true.... you do know that? Yes, I think you guys do and that's why you appreciate my contributions I think... even when they become handfullish...)
Yes, back to the subject at hand. I personally appreciate and find the individual character of the American private eye type, of 30s and 40s movies and novels, particularly appealing... never mind all the stuff about the soulful lone male; it's fine as long as someone like Frank Miller doesn't get hold of it...
But I like the idea of the "private eye" kind of individualist; because he's always in there; STIRRING the mix; not actually really DOING anything to anybody, but using his intelligence and enterprise to find all sorts of things out about people and their evil secrets.... Linking together things and bringing forth knowledge that otherwise would be hidden!! Knowledge that is needed to get at "the truth" of anything - from the Kennedy assassination to Watergate to some kind of corrupt mob of people running a town.
I think that we can draw useful parallels between all such characters; the classic detective, the private eye, the investigative journalist, the superhero, and the SCIENTIST (who I think is the 18th/19th-century ur-archetype of all this group; because don't forget, all old-world scientists USED to work alone, and indeed, MANY vital discoveries WERE made by "lone heroes"... rather than the research teams of today! Which also do great work but don't usually make any paradigm-shattering discoveries.... THAT is what the figure of the "lone intellectual hero" is for, I do believe. Inspiration is probably easier on the part of individuals than in groups, which tend to conform more, don't they?)
(Maurice for one may not realise it - but the argument about individualism v. collectivism, and WHAT proportion to have/encourage of each.... that's one of the OLDEST and best arguments of socialism!!!)
And of course dear Mr Bat, as a detective and a scientist as well as a superhero, is part of the above picture too.
Interesting thoughts, Liz. I especially like how you've isolated various "avatars" of this lone wolf archetype: the classic detective, the private eye, the investigative journalist, the superhero, and the SCIENTIST. To this list, I would also add the serial killer, the gunslinger, the revolutionary, the terrorist, the pirate, and anyone else who is striking out against the system. There's a book idea for you: Write an introductory essay about the conflict between individual action and collective action. Then look at why Americans in particular tend to celebrate individual action over collective action. Show how this manifests itself through film using an example of each of these avatars.
Kevin: I dislike pretty much all serial killer movies; except for the ones based on the books by Thomas Harris; because they're so.... literate, and I can't RESIST the character of Hannibal Lecter especially not as played by Anthony Hopkins... He MADE that character, really... and I think he greatly influenced the sympathetic portrayal of Hannibal in Harris' next novel of the same name... I've just Wiki'd "Hannibal Lecter", and I've found that a) the people who wrote the article, they never say who they are, compare him to the greatest literary/fictional villains of all time: namely, Moriarty, Darth Vader, and Milton's Satan. (Yes! Yes!!)
And apparently there's going to be ANOTHER book, THIS YEAR, bloody hell... 'scuse me, I didn't know and just found out and am in transports!! (To match my down in the dumps because a mail order firm didn't deliver my "Half Blood Prince" - see - I'm as great a fan of J K Rowling as T H Harris, which should prove to all my tastes are "catholic"!!)
It's going to be called: "Behind the Mask", and is about his early years. Great idea... but the movie version is going to be called "Young Hannibal", oh, what??
Anyway, I love the Harris books even better than the movies. But think about it - a GENTLEMAN serial killer (like a gentleman burglar) - WHAT a creation!
And I'm glad that Harris turned against the orthodox ideology of the FBI in the end, and that he "stiffed" them; it's just what they deserve... still, you know I WOULD say that!
And as long as Hannibal Lecter goes around eating people like Mason Verger and CIA men he's all right by ME!!
But then you probably suspected I'd think that too, Kevin...
And I used to like Patricia Cornwell's novels too, Kevin (but that was before she turned towards the Graham family (euch) and started seeing everything in black and white...) She used to be a pretty good feminist writer; and I liked her novels from just the scientific/detective point of view... they were well written. I liked all the mystery at first, but I don't like the way in which she's making Dr Kay Scarpetta and friends turn out now.
(That woman author and her heroine were ATHEISTS - and now they're both in the clutches of the religious Right! The religious right (wrong) have their claws in everything these days; and are so poisonous... I would do ANYTHING to escape them, were I American!!)
IS the Batman - on one of your other points - a "culler" of society, though, Kevin??
He only sticks them in Arkham - which is PRECISELY what the Joker wants, as I think I've said on another post... and I think I even went into why? Didn't I?!?
Well, anyway, the way I think about the Joker is that I think he is very much like me as a teenager/young woman... DYING for treatment; for some kind of... sorting out, for all his OVERWHELMING emotions... only he's also very proud and he won't give his soul away... which is why it would be no point trying any a) authoritarian style of psychoanalysis b) some kind of quasi-religious or cultish treatment, among which the "AA" model falls, interestingly enough! c) behavioural treatment designed to reinforce or discourage behaviours in such as him by mechanical reward/punishment systems - he won't have ANY of them, and to this date he probably hasn't found a psychiatrist who is his EQUAL... which is why he always escapes and goes back to the Batman, because he LOVES to fight his equals!!
But no! Mr J WANTS to be recognised as insane! He WANTS to inhabit a loony bin (I think he'd like a co-ed one though.... know what I mean? Specially now he's got Harley, in so many of the stories!)
And he WANTS psychiatric treatment... in fact, he likes all sorts of attention, the more the better!
The Joker LIKES Arkham - on the WHOLE (he won't like it if they get a chief shrink, say, who tries to order him around... THAT guy would be on the morgue list pretty soon I should think!)...
Yeah, but he WANTS to be there!! He likes to be a celebrity criminal and he likes to get away with things as a nut and a kind of cosmic court jester! He wants everybody to look at him and wonder what he's going to do next... and if you ask him, he'll say.... "Well actually I never know..."
BELIEVE ME - HE LIKES ALL THOSE THINGS - FOR I KNOW THAT I DAMN WELL WOULD!!
(He's very fun-loving - the original "fun-loving criminal"! Before that rap group thought of it!)
It's the BATMAN who has every reason to be discontent in the situation - because, HOWEVER we view the Joker, as evil, dangerous or whatever (and he can't be THAT dangerous otherwise I think cops etc would just kill him)...
Well, however we see the Joker, it is the Batman who never seems to get what he wants in this scenario... d'you see what I mean... and the Joker, though he is ever defeated, always does, in a way, I think... Get what he is after!
(NOW who is the fool in this situation!!)
Well, the Batman may win, but he always ends up getting a) defied b) laughed at!! c) challenged again!
So if he were the headmaster of my school and the Joker etc his most troublesome pupils, he would always have been discontent, I think!
But SUCH is the nature of dealing with society's msifits!! And such is the nature of the clash between "authority" and its opposite!
Don't worry: it's all very dialectic as the Marxists say!
(At least in THIS case, all involved have SOME kind of affection for one another... very much like it would have been in my old primary school, as well!)
Anyway. I think that the villains really DO get what they want in Batman comics; and it is the hero who doesn't. But I always had a subversive interpretation of it anyway!!
The following is what you said, Kevin:-
"At any rate, we have the heroes and the villains, both of whom think the only solution to society's ills is individual action. The only thing that differentiates them is that society agrees with the goals (and most of the means) of the hero, whereas they usually disagree with the goals (and most of the tactics) of the villain. Never mind that the hero and the villain often use exactly the same tactics." [BUT SHOULD THEY? - is the logical question to the last statement! They do NOWADAYS... that seems to be the IDEAL SOLUTION POSTULATED BY OUR OWN AUTHORITIES, NOWADAYS....]
Which is why I was WONDERING, why at least the 1998 movie "Batman and Robin", whatEVER its acting performances were like (most were OK, I thought!), and whatever the silliness of its script and double entendres.. and yes, it had too many for comfort, whether or NOT you liked "Sixties Batman"!!!
But *I* thought, that B&R should at least have got some credit, for the "positive" approach advanced at the end of the story... Freeze's wife WASN'T dead, because Batman had saved her from defrosting and all that... The Batman agreed to work together with Freeze; he would be in the asylum but would get to use its laboratory (apparently, they sometimes DO do such an arrangement, in the case of scientists who get locked up in real life!)... for which favour, the chance to continue to work on a cure for his wife, Freeze is naturally delighted to part with the serum he has already developed, which is able to cure Alfred, who has a milder form of this disease; this "McGregors"....
I thought that was A DAMN SENSIBLE CONCLUSION!!!
And, I also thought to myself, it's an ending the studio would only have felt comfortable with, with a DEMOCRAT in the White House... (You DO have your uses, you liberals!!)
Well, you don't see movies like that any more, with the Bushes fighting their foreign wars, do you? Even in the Spiderman movies the villains got killed... The Green Goblin was a nasty nuisance; but I liked Doc Ock, as I've said!!
But DID it get any credit for that constructiveness, Schumacher's second Batman effort? No, not from any newspaper critic I've read, and not on Yahoo! Movies, either! (Haven't checked it on IMDB yet.)
No: instead we got incessant moans and groans about how the actors had ruined their careers by acting on it; and stuff like that.... Even the people who liked it a bit, said that the "Alfred falling sick and getting rescued" bit was "sentimental" - or something - whereas I thought it was one of the neatest bits of the whole thing - AND A good way in which to bring hero and villain, Batman and Freeze together - because they both have a loved one who is suffering from a variant of the same terrible disease...
I mean, come on: Kevin, Maurice, Colin, Sam... anyone who might be on here reading this! IF there WERE some kind of a "mad scientist", who could cure, say, Alzheimer's - or Parkinson's - at least in its early stages - TOMORROW - don't you think that the government, or some rich powerful guy, say Bill Gates, whoever these days has any influence... wouldn't be doing the RIGHT thing to come to some kind of arrangement with this scientist guy, to further the lifesaving research, no matter if he had robbed Fort Knox?? Sold weapons to terrorists?? Whatever, whatever??
Mind you, I BET a lot of today's (right-wing, superstitious, ignorant, Southern, Xtian politicians wouldn't see it that way, even if the situation came up!!)
BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID. And BACKWARD.
And you, me and a few people we know are progressives. And that's about it.
(And the American working class has yet to wake from its slumber....)
Anyway, I WANTED "Batman and Robin", at least to get credit for positive thinking and working towards positive (social) outcomes... and I haven't heard it yet get such credit, from anybody but MYSELF!!
And I can't see THAT much of positive messages in most of the superhero and similar movies I view nowadays, actually....
Which is why I'm always going to LAUGH, if someone tells me something like they can see "spiritual" messages in a movie such as "Bin City"! (My new name for it since seeing it.)
So that's why I'm fed up with all you Americans. I love you, but I'm fed up with you. (I suppose Canadians have to count as OK!!)
Because I KNOW that if such technically wonderful movies, which make all types of actions look possible on screen.. I know that if they COULD have made such superhero movies in the 30s, 40s, 50s... they would have... And some of the Hollywood Left (the REAL left - well, until McCarthy got to it!) would have weighed in with the scripts, and have made them much more socially concerned, much more interested in POSITIVE outcomes, rather than the relentless negativity, which is all we find in most serial killer and "dark" movies, another reason why I don't tend to like them, Kevin...
Oh - and I had ANOTHER idea, confided only to my computer diary (I WAS going to mail parts of it to Max Allan Collins - I know him well enough to speak to on the phone, you guys do KNOW that? We've just lost touch for a while...)
Well never mind that. Anyway, when I read "Child of Dreams", by Kia Asamiya, which the above writer (had) translated and adapted into graphic novel form, something came to me: it was when the main villain (who is a Japanese superhero collector and mad scientist!) goes on about the Batman being mortal... and how it was better for the Batman to come to a heroic end, and all this, and for the Japanese "fan" to take his place, as a kind of "nastier" version of the Batman... (Sound like that flippin' Azrael thing, I remarked to myself. Oh yer - the Jap fan said that he'd "do terrible things" to all the villains... bet they would have been pleased...)
But then I thought to myself: this is STOOOPID!! (NO offence to M.A.C.)
NO. WHAT the Batman SHOULD be doing, to fend off the advances of old age - is to APPROACH those of his adversaries with TALENTS/powers/discoveries in this arena - LIKE Viktor Fries; LIKE Rh'as al Ghul (the original, comic book version, the immortal with the Lazarus Pit!)...
And swap some of what THEY want... pardons or summink! for some of what HE will need...
NAMELY, life extension and the chance NOT to look as Frank Miller draws him!!
THEM's all what I think, medears!!!
Over and out.
"There's a book idea for you: Write an introductory essay about the conflict between individual action and collective action. Then look at why Americans in particular tend to celebrate individual action over collective action. Show how this manifests itself through film using an example of each of these avatars"..
GREAT idea, Kevin!
Shows you're reading...
(I suppose I went all over the place with my post above this one, didn't I? But I had already clicked on the post button when I saw your contribution.)
Yes. And now I am going to have to go away and make the effort; and write just that sort of book!
(Though it's much more in my heart to write one insulting the American/British comics industry!! Why Alan Moore is Such a Dope; and Frank Miller is Deranged... something like that! Did you get my post about him and Ayn Rand, though? It's on Maurice's Sin City blog...)
Still I was talking about being constructive....
Kevin? Perhaps I'd better summarize:
1) What do you think about my daffy idea that the Joker actually LIKES Arkham... and WANTS to inhabit a loony bin, feels at home there... (because apart from hideouts, as an outlaw he's got nowhere else to go!!)
Anyway, he LOVES the notoriety... and it's not a BIT like what "Arkham Asylum" (what a stupid GN - agree or disagree?) portrayed, anyway... the villains are like ME, resigned to their fates and endeavour to be happy in them... Bet they'll dance to a jig any day of the week... same as I would if I had THEIR fitness! Ah... I'm right now listening to Grada on www.folkalley.com, since my usual British net radio folk station is off air... If a guy with a fiddle is all it takes to make ME happy... well. I do rest my case!
1a) And what DO you think of my pointing out the SUBTLE ways in which the Joker (always USED to, anyway) get back at the Batman... ie, whatever the Batman DOES, however many successful captures of badguys he achieves, the Joker is still laughing at him... whether he's in the nuthatch or out!!
And the way he walks around Arkham in those Dini cartoons (that was the best bit!) in pointy dress shoes with SPATS on - under a nuthatch uniform, very fetching - well I just thought it was SO arrogant! In a mischievous, campy Joker way - of course!! (And I know why else he wears them - I formulated two other good reasons!)
I enjoy arrogant people. The world needs MORE of them - as long as they are not in authority.
2) What did you think of my contentions as to the really pretty commendably constructive nature of the ending of the movie "Batman and Robin"??
Do you think more (movie) fans would have preferred a DESTRUCTIVE ending - where Mr Freeze got killed, or Alfred got killed, or - somebody got killed, anyway?!
But wasn't the - shall we call it a "Clintonian" ending - better??
Than a Bushite one?
Kevin? Perhaps I'd better summarize: GREAT IDEA, LIZ, BECAUSE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I CAN KEEP TRACK OF NEVER MIND READ ALL OF WHAT YOU'VE POSTED!
1) What do you think about my daffy idea that the Joker actually LIKES Arkham... and WANTS to inhabit a loony bin, feels at home there... (because apart from hideouts, as an outlaw he's got nowhere else to go!!) I THINK YOU MAY HAVE SOMETHING HERE, LIZ, BUT OBVIOUSLY I HAVEN'T PUT NEARLY AS MUCH THOUGHT INTO THIS AS YOU HAVE.
Anyway, he LOVES the notoriety... and it's not a BIT like what "Arkham Asylum" (what a stupid GN - agree or disagree?) portrayed, anyway... the villains are like ME, resigned to their fates and endeavour to be happy in them... Bet they'll dance to a jig any day of the week... same as I would if I had THEIR fitness! Ah... I'm right now listening to Grada on www.folkalley.com, since my usual British net radio folk station is off air... If a guy with a fiddle is all it takes to make ME happy... well. I do rest my case!
1a) And what DO you think of my pointing out the SUBTLE ways in which the Joker (always USED to, anyway) get back at the Batman... ie, whatever the Batman DOES, however many successful captures of badguys he achieves, the Joker is still laughing at him... whether he's in the nuthatch or out!! YES, THE JOKER SEEMS TO BE LIKE THE PROVERBIAL BEE IN THE BONNET FOR BATMAN--OR COWL, AS IT WERE. HE'S THE ARCHETYPAL TRICKSTER, THE GUY WHO HELPS THE BATMAN NOT BE SO SERIOUS.
And the way he walks around Arkham in those Dini cartoons (that was the best bit!) DIDN'T SEE THEM. in pointy dress shoes with SPATS on - under a nuthatch uniform, very fetching - well I just thought it was SO arrogant! In a mischievous, campy Joker way - of course!! (And I know why else he wears them - I formulated two other good reasons!)
I enjoy arrogant people. The world needs MORE of them - as long as they are not in authority. HA.
2) What did you think of my contentions as to the really pretty commendably constructive nature of the ending of the movie "Batman and Robin"?? NOT SURE, LIZ. I WOULD HAVE TO RE-WATCH THE FILM. I CAN'T REALLY RECALL MUCH OF WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT. SORRY TO BE SO DISAPPOINTING, BUT MY HEAD AS BEEN IN OTHER THINGS LATELY, AS YOU WILL NOTE FROM MY MOST RECENT POSTS TO HJ.COM.
Do you think more (movie) fans would have preferred a DESTRUCTIVE ending - where Mr Freeze got killed, or Alfred got killed, or - somebody got killed, anyway?!
But wasn't the - shall we call it a "Clintonian" ending - better??
Than a Bushite one?
Nice to know you're at least keeping one eye on your blogs, Kevin!
"YES, THE JOKER SEEMS TO BE LIKE THE PROVERBIAL BEE IN THE BONNET FOR BATMAN--OR COWL, AS IT WERE. HE'S THE ARCHETYPAL TRICKSTER, THE GUY WHO HELPS THE BATMAN NOT BE SO SERIOUS."
And I LOVE it when he's the trickster; when he "helps the Batman not be so serious"... I'm SURE that's the reason the character was invented. And I think it VERY ironic that this superhero who is supposed to be so "dark" and who is so "serious" (well, after ALL, he always WAS a detective after the manner of Sherlock Holmes) should have, of ALL things, basically someone who is an ANNOYING, irreverent CLOWN as his chief adversary!! Conan Doyle would have NEVER thought of such! The liberty of comics!
I WANT MORE OF THE TRICKSTER JOKER!! Frank Miller all but killed him off - which is not fair - you can see that Frank most certainly has NO interest in archetypes... But the guys who are supposed to be IN TO such things, Moore and Morrison, etc, just followed fascist Miller's lead!! You'da thought they'd have known better... but they didn't, which tells me EVERYTHING...
Another nota bene: Tricksters CAN sometimes be nasty - there IS sometimes a trickster/devil correspondence, as in Lucifer/Loki (this is sterling research, I made it my task as a teenager!)... But I feel he's more like the (original) Devil of the Old Testament; the one who tempted Job, who is MEANT to be, who is "part of God's plan", if you believe in a God per se, not external to it, like the modern fundie belief... which is WHY I've always wondered whether F.M. had some redneck fundamentalist influence in his (apparently working-class) upbringing - it might explain why he doesn't have time for religion now - but some of their beliefs, such as a "demon" devil responsible for ALL the evil in the world, who is evil without rhyme nor reason... that I think comes from that strain of thought, and has taken its toll on Miller's portrayal of that formerly GREAT trickster, The Joker. That might be something you want to think about as you write your DKR review, Kevin!
(Anyway, the folks at Wikipedia, and them doing reviews of things LIKE "The Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told" (that's my book recommend for you, Kevin, if you want Joker stories, as I said!) on amazon.co.uk ... they don't seem to GET it: some of them think that the stories where the Joker IS portrayed as the trickster, not as the demon/serial killer, are the "odd ones out" - but they're NOT - they're the CORRECT ones! And in fact the 1940s comics where he is BOTH fool and occasional murderer: they are the correctest of all!! Naturally! Anyone who thinks some 1980s upstarts can beat the original ideas of 40s comics scripters - is off their trolley... I mean, if Miller/Moore WERE so great... why didn't they make up their OWN characters, from the start, instead of relying on revisions of well-known "names" to make their own names!! Bah!)
Anyway: with reference to the Joker/Loki analogy (I HATE giving away my best ideas; but I have to, it would seem, in order to have any chance of discussing them... anyway, Sam gave away some STARTLINGLY original idea, so he has emboldened me!)
With reference to THAT... In Norse mythology, which I note in your newer reviews above you don't really make mention of, you only say "Greek and Roman", with reference to comics, but I'd like to make a case that the Batman comics are in fact to an extent, a mixture of aspects of Greek and Norse mythological thought... and that Gotham itself is more Nordic than Mediterranean, of course... Perhaps even more so, GERMANIC, because that is of course where Gothicism comes from!!
But anyway, in Norse mythology, the gods take in the outsider, Loki, and in the end, he proves their downfall, because he murders Baldur; and brings on the Ragnarok; and in the Wagnerian version, he burns down Valhalla.
So THAT'S a case in which the Trickster turns and BITES - quite unlike the Greek version, Hermes, who Zeus seems to have tamed quite nicely...
But Loki pays a TERRIBLE price, for his dreadful transgressions. He is cast out from among the Gods to live in Hell (I don't think he is in fact dead), and he is tortured with snake venom, and his shuddering causes earthquakes... so the sagas say!!
He's also a Promethean figure then. (Do you KNOW this stuff, then, Kevin? I'm not the first to point out the Loki/Lucifer/Prometheus interconnections... though I'm the first who's bothered to relate them to comics!!)
And there are all sorts of (usually modern) tales, by various writers (including the Japanese webcomics, I found out the other day!) who work out some way to give Loki again a modicum of freedom... (As one or two of the later Greek playwrights took pity on Prometheus, and "let him out"!) They feel sorry for him (Loki) you see, as do I!! THAT was the basic plot of Diana Wynne Jones' "Eight Days of Luke" - only an older children's book, but a good one!
Yeah, and I felt sorry for him... but I knew that what happened in the sagas, HAD to be... because ONCE he took it upon himself to murder someone the gods loved, namely Baldur, who I didn't think was much of a Christ figure, but more of a self-absorbed glamorous snot (rather like Gilderoy Lockhart as played by Kenneth Branagh in HPII, if you saw that!)..
But ONCE he did that, and he HAD a good motive, it was INSANE JEALOUSY, you see, he didn't want to be supplanted in Odin's favour; Odin was God and Dad to him... (Again, very Luciferian: just look at the similarity to Paradise Lost!)
Once he did that, something so unforgiveable, so irreversible, with such horrible fallout on everybody else, including his patsy, Hodur... I KNEW, as a child even, that Loki HAD to take the consequences; that there had to BE consequences!!
Whereas, in the modern, late Eighties, Batman, where the Joker did something that was pretty similar... only more reprehensible because it amounted to the brutal slaughter of a minor on the verge of manhood... and I MEAN brutal; you won't find J K Rowling putting anything like THAT in the "darkest" of her works, but DC Comics thought it was OK to publish for the possible perusal of six-year-olds!! How DID they get it past the Comics Code??
But the WORST thing about it was - that there WAS no justice in the stories, or in any that followed it. (It was the same as, JUST as bad as what followed the Barbara Gordon affair... ie, nothing, much... which is WHY all such comics are such crap, MAURICE, if you are reading!!)
The Batman SWORE revenge on the Joker - but then did NOTHING about it! Absolutely nothing. Joker disappeared from the comics for a few months and that was that... Then he came back as if nothing had happened. And the Batman never did get "a piece of the Joker". Unless, of COURSE, we are supposed to (be so stupid as to) believe that he would wait until "twenty years after" for his revenge; as in the case of Miller's nonsense.
THAT shouldn't have happened, of course: what SHOULD have happened, assuming that modern-day comics writers HAD any sense, which they didn't and still don't, was that the storyline should have been taken care of by a Justice League special.
DON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME, KEVIN?? Maurice, what about you? But I bet Kevin has some agreement with what I'm saying here.
The Joker should have been captured by the Batman and brought for judgement in front of the Justice League. For his crimes against Barbara and Jason. The Justice League should have concluded that mad or not, the Joker was simply too destructive and dangerous to have in the DC Universe any more, so what they should have done, to ensure SOME level of consistent continuity, was to PUNISH THE JOKER BY MEANS OF EXILE AND EXCLUSION... to some far-off dimension somewhere... probably somewhere pretty unpleasant; for either a term of years, or for ever!!
And we should have heard NO MORE OF HIM IN COMICS FOR that term of years... unless it was made clear that it was an "Elsewheres" novel, or that it was in a variant of the DC Universe IN WHICH THE KILLING JOKE AND D.I.F. EVENTS NEVER HAPPENED.
But, DC writers, being very LAZY, of course, and not being able to DO WITHOUT the luxury of their "Chief Demon" villain, the Joker... no, they COULDN'T even banish him from comics for a year or two!! They HAD to keep him in, even just as a bit part player... it was pathetic.
You see... it just shows you, how USELESS comics writers are these days, as a breed.. how they REFUSE TO take on the dramatic and psychological consequences, of the "crisis" situations they set up... Well, anyway: neither Norse Edda poets nor J K Rowling would be so pathetic and so lackadaisical with regard to their own characters.
And, in addition, there was NO MOTIVE for the Joker's rampaging behaviour... I mean, there was NEVER any suggestion in the comics that Robin (Jason Todd) was supplanting the Joker in the Batman's favour, or that the Joker was getting ANY less attention because of him... In fact, there is a pocketbook plot (not one of the "main" numbered title comics, then) where the Joker fears that the Batman's developing and reciprocated love for the Catwoman (this was only as far back as 1987, I think!!) is taking attention away from him, the Joker... but he doesn't try killing the Catwoman because of it; instead he commits the likewise pretty thoughtless sin of breaking the two of them up, by some evil brainwashing shenanigans on Ms. C! (She would kill him! But she doesn't, at the end of the plot she says she doesn't want to be mentally enslaved to Batman any more! A clean breakup! It's the BATMAN who then wants to murder the Joker... and ironically, Jason who stops him!! Literally holds his arm back! This, in a comics world that made any SENSE, should be a motive for the Joker to cut Jason SLACK in any subsequent continuity... let's imagine that there IS indeed an alternate DC dimension in which that DID happen, shall we?)
But ANYWAY, he doesn't have ANY motive to go after Jason like that in the FIRST place... without just using him as bait to trap the Batman or something, which is the traditional approach!! I mean, there IS no "Jason is stealing my limelight" plotline... as there was between Loki and Baldur!! Therefore, Jim Starlin is a stupid fascist, firstly because he makes the Joker motiveless, and secondly because he ludicrously makes him out to be a pawn of - sigh - Iranian interests... yes, we can see the anti-Arab imperialism developing in American culture already at that date!!
So there was absolutely NO motive for the Joker to do what he did in "A Death in the Family", is what I am saying! And I'm sure you can admit that's a correct observation.
(Anyway, you CAN'T have stories like that in MYTHOLOGY, without motive on the part of the wicked person!!)
Ergo: God, modern comics writers are such rank AMATEURS!!!
Sorry for the above rant... But... I LOVE the Joker (he's after my very own pet archetype, after all!) and it breaks my heart to see what a MESS modern comics writers have made of this character... so little of what they write about him makes any sense, or could even be reconciled to any proper continuity! It's all SILLY... and not funny.
It would have been better if (if they HAD to have "GRIM" comics) they'd have punished the Joker in the stories, in a way that made meaningful sense... Once one of the gods fatally attacks another of the GODS, you see... rather than just the common folk, or other tribes (elves, giants - in Norse mythology) - THAT is what the other "gods" = superheroes, in the story, will always find UNFORGIVEABLE - or will demand quite a fair bit of atonement... So I think my Justice League plot would have been the "most likely" outcome...
Yeah. Still makes me droop with depression to think of it all...
That's why it's FAR better you should get into the cartoons, Kevin! Why - didn't you watch ANY of them... suppose you didn't have kids in the earlier 90s!! I used to watch Saturday morning cartoons until quite recently. I made a habit of it most (but not all) years.
Do you not like cartoons, then? Or do you?
Yeah. The Dini cartoons made from 1992-1995, are really the ones I'm talking about. Maurice knows them!! People on IMDb.com like them. Apparently, he and Bruce Timm made another set from 1997 onwards - but I don't know them!! (Except for some feature-lengths. Most of which I don't in fact like all that much!)
They're very distinctive, in their own way. (And they're nothing to do with this "The Batman" cartoon which has recently come out, done by the Jackie Chan animators, and which has already raised my ire on one of Maurice's blogs!) Apparently, all of the issues of the 90s Batman cartoons have now come out on disk and are available in America. But you can't get them on Amazon. You can get a selection though; on Amazon.com or co.uk, they sell videocassettes (mainly) for about £5 each - some DVDs too - of "highlight" episodes of this TV cartoon, which are obviously marketed with kids in mind... Well worth buying all you can find on there: such as "The Joker at Christmas"... stupid story in one way, quite "pointed" in another!! (It's one of the ones where he wears the spats in the asylum - and wears the asylum staff quite out at the season of goodwill, I think... Still, tricksters just wanna have FUN!!)
These cartoons are NOT without their flaws; but they ARE in fact, TRUER to the Golden Age comics - and to the basic ARCHETYPES of the whole Batman thing - than are the modern graphic novels - and THAT is something that neither Maurice nor Wikipedia seem to have grasped; our friends go on about "the sixties version" all the time - and that in fact has NOTHING TO DO with the 90s cartoons!!
Dini has a basic but very secure grasp of the ARCHETYPES; which is what makes me respect him more than a little! THAT is why he was capable of inventing a NEW character - and a pretty unlikely one when you think about it on face - Harley Quinn, who FITS into the stories like she was there, or always was meant to be, from the beginning!!
Moore and Morrison can't do that, because they're stoopid, morally corrupt, and, oh, just don't have that INSTINCTIVE GRASP... however flawed. (Because if Dini were capable of putting his money where his corporate mouth is - Harley and Joker would have been wedded before now!! And instead, the creators balked - so now I've got a grouse against Dini, TOO! I grouse against EVERYBODY!!)
Yeah, I don't like anybody! 'Cept you, Kevin, when you're being masterful and deleting me off your blog... you Odin, you!! ;-)
As for the movie "Batman and Robin"... you're telling me you can't remember the ending, AT ALL, Kevin?? With Arnee in it?!?!
You really don't like ANY of the Batman movies, before "Batman Begins", DO YOU??
But Batman Begins is... worthy but a bit boring. Bit LIKE Batman Year One.
DID "Batman Forever" make no impression on your mind, Kevin??
I can't resist Jim Carrey. My friend's 20-year-old son idolizes him as well.
Try this summary, Kevin!
1) The Trickster. Oh Kevin. I LOVE it when you admit the truth... as *I* see it; when you and I just see eye to eye on something dear to me!
I could have kissed you when you ADMITTED that the Joker WAS in fact the Trickster; and that his true function in the stories was "to help the Batman not be so serious".
But... why don't we see MORE like that of him in the MODERN versions, then? The cartoons by Paul Dini seem to be one of the few versions that get it RIGHT. (Interestingly, they don't mention Norse Gods at all... but you know Maxie Zeus? Mad gangster who believes himself to be king of the Greek gods?? Well, there is ONE episode where he features in the Dini cartoon; at the end, in the throes of madness, in Arkham, he identifies the Joker as Hermes, Poison Ivy as Demeter... etc!)
I think they would LIKE that actually. But I'm not sure if Dini is capable of portraying his asylum inmates as knowing all about the archetypes! They WOULD - if the shrinks decided to make them the basis of group therapy sessions! Then, you see, Maxie Zeus could prove USEFUL! But I've YET to SEE any enlightened, Jungian psychiatrists, in Arkham!! Bet they're all Freudians!
Hmm. That's more an elaboration than a summarization! Anyway, I want my trickster god Joker back!! I miss a trickster in comics. Ideally, I must see my archetype before my eyes often... or I get VERY out of sorts!
Only when the Joker is hitting the spot for me do I feel GOOD! (Like I did about him in my teens! I didn't have to be dreadful then, he did it all for me!)
Do I think Frank Miller is REALLY a fascist, BTW? Answer: Yes. Why? Because he hates tricksters! He wants the Batman to kill them! He wants the "criminal version of the Batman" - as YOU put it - to kill all that is dear to me!!
I ALREADY pointed out to one "influential" guy, the chairman of the CCG in Britain, who I told you about, that Miller was here showing GENOCIDAL impulses, by having his Batman wipe out all criminals... PARTICULARLY the talented, INDEPENDENT-minded guys; all the ones who would not be willing recruits to his "cult"... Nazism all over again!
But this guy back in the 90s didn't take me seriously either. So - I'm used to it, Kevin! (Well you're nicer than him.)
Blokes like to brush seriously oppositional ideas, particularly those thought up by women, off! I know that...
2) Do you not know ANY Norse mythology, Kevin??
So - are you able to say what you think about my comparison of Loki's (albeit subtler - he uses a patsy as I've said) slaying of Baldur (the Beautiful!), with the Joker's slaying of Jason Todd, as Starlin portrayed in D.I.F.??
2a) And don't you think that the comics - back then and in subsequent years - treated this "event" and its surely DEVASTATING effect on the comics characters and the stories' continuity... well, just so AMATEURISHLY?? As just so much fluff? Don't you think this proves that they are unserious fiction authors?
2b) Don't you think it WOULD have been better if the Joker HAD "paid the price" for his unforgivable sin against another member of the "pantheon", Kevin?? Oh but of course, they would have had to have written this within one or two years of that story coming out... it's no point them doing it NOW, I don't even know if those events are really supposed to have HAPPENED, in the modern continuity, such as it is...
Don't you think it would have been a better STORY, if like Loki before him, he would have been dragged by Batman (who I suppose in this context is Thor! And Odin; mixed!) in front of a TRIBUNAL of "the great and the good", namely the Justice League? Don't you think it would have been RIGHT if they had said: right you, you're banished to the Hel dimension, or something like that??
(Because that's what they actually DID in old Teutonic societies, BTW, when they had someone who had committed an offence, he was judged by committee; they were all very democratic, and in fact on the laws of the old Germans is the idea of English "common law" based - bet you didn't know that! ... Actually, actually, I've had another idea: maybe the COSTUMED VILLAINS should be invited to join them; maybe the tribunal should take place in Arkham... for I'm sure that if his fellow Gotham villains were given a chance to consider all that the Joker'd been up to, they would conclude, at that time, that he was NOW working against THEIR, the CCs, best interests! And therefore they would join in his condemnation! He would REALLY get it then!! Or have "got" it rather: all this speculation now has to be regarded in past tense. "The Downfall of the Joker"... it was a good, well a BETTER, story that was NEVER written!! )
Don't you think that MOST fans would have PREFERRED THAT though, identified morally and emotionally with such an outcome... apart from a few Robin-hating fanboys (it was largely THEIR fault that DC tried to get rid of Robin as a character, you see... but they couldn't in the end, so WHAT was the point?? All they ended up doing was wiping out one of the most interesting and INDEPENDENT-MINDED, rebellious "avatars" of the sidekick; namely Jason Todd, the son of criminals... And all HIS rebelliousness was subsequently transferred onto Dick Grayson/Nightwing... which made ZERO sense!!)
Oh, DC, how I HATE you!!
Oh Kevin, BTW, *I* can't count words: I USED to be able to do it, after a while I could judge by eye, for my old journalistic training... I could show you my portfolio! But not on this software, it's not like wordprocessing/DTP software anyway, doesn't have the features! And it puts in columns which don't resemble newspaper ones... no, I have no idea. But my ideas never cease! I've never had a good editor to work with. Oh how I would like one.
(You do realize that if you agreed to be that person... you would probably make some bleeping money out of it!)
3) And neither Jim Starlin nor Frank Miller - nor Alan Moore - have yet proved capable of giving the Joker one essential element of all good villains, from Loki to Satan to Lord Voldemort....
MOTIVE, KEVIN, MOTIVE.
Kevin? Let me reprise one of my ideas!
1) - You see... it just shows you, how USELESS comics writers are these days, as a breed.. how they REFUSE TO take on the dramatic and psychological consequences, of the "crisis" situations they set up... Well, anyway: neither Norse Edda poets nor J K Rowling would be so pathetic and so lackadaisical with regard to their own characters.
Kevin? You don't seem very responsive, to any of my literary theories, regarding comics. I thought you were just getting back heavily into the medium. I thought you believed in the medium. I thought you want to make it better... and you don't want to discuss ideas as to how it could have, should have gone - and will go??
2) How about the issue of CONTINUITY, Kevin? Don't you believe, that for all logical intents and purposes, in the modern Batman, for a start, it is NON-EXISTENT? There are all these people out there, each writing their own version of DC's character, it seems to me... and hardly ANY of them really have ANYTHING to do with any of the other stories!
The only thing that links them is a general grinding morbidity, more or less severe...
THAT is not enough for a binding agent! DC and its authors all are collectively CRAZY. But then I have long since concluded that!
3) Even if the stories I hate the most are now well in the past, Kevin... well, they're still exercising their baleful influence, aren't they?
If they WEREN'T - and I've made this argument before to one or two people in correspondence - then AFTER the year 2000, at least, the company would have taken the opportunity to put comics on an entirely DIFFERENT - and more populist - track; to chime in with the more "entertainment-oriented" policies of television! Maybe we would have even had "reality comics", perish the thought! But whatever we would have had if comics had been ready to move on into the 21st century, it would have been better than all the rubbish that fizzled out at the end of the 20th.
4) Anyway, a good writer should ALWAYS be able to do thought experiments, Kevin. Like: "What would have happened if the comics had taken this different tack?" Or similar.
But I still don't think that without a REAL attempt to sort out the problem of CONTINUITY, DC can go anywhere... at all. To interest the literate! Like I said: they're being outstripped in quality by children's books, by Rowling and others, which are now 'crossover'... which means that adults and teenagers read them in droves, OK?
Which is not to say that I CELEBRATE this situation! I HATE it, the discrepancy: because I strongly believe in comics as a form! That is what is so painful to me, which you don't seem to be able to really understand...
Nobody understands! Nobody at all!
5) But for the last "peep"... I would like to know how it is that you can SEE the true archetypal significance of a character such as the Joker... and yet you don't say, it's a pity that the modern DC don't!!
The thing to do, Kevin, with modern culture, is NOT to accept it, blindly, but to attempt to INFLUENCE it; or to criticise it if it goes badly wrong!
The only person on these blogs who seems thus far to have grasped that is Sam Ewing... which is why I admire many of his posts, even though I don't agree with a lot of his ideas! But at least he doesn't think you can get anywhere by "appeasing" DC!
Hello Kevin,
It has been awhile. As before, when you proposed that serial killers and others are the inverse, mirror images of superheroes I agreed you are on the right track. The correlations, parallels and contrasts between the two types is because originally they were acknowledged as being types of the Superman. The two main categories being Superman-Benevolent and Superman-Malevolent.
Also, in regards to Superman-Benevolent the field of study should be expanded beyond the typical crime-fighting vigilante. Let's focus the study to include the artists, inventors, writers, intellectuals and innovators etc. who benefit society as well. Perhaps, a diverse approach as far as what these particular Supermen-Benevolents could mean in the American Comicbook could prove interesting.
Sam Ewing
Post a Comment
<< Home