'The Golden
Age of Comics is Twelve' is a well known tropism I’m freely borrowing from
Science Fiction. Its origin, an article by fan Peter Graham, states that it is
about that age that most SF enthusiasts discover SF for the first time. And I
guess that’s true of comics as well. I started reading Disney’s comic-books
when I was about seven or eight, some assorted Superman, Wonder Woman and
Superboy DC titles around ten, and although I’d progressed to teen novels and
adult novels in my preteen years, it was only when I was fifteen that I finally
graduated into a regular reading of Marvel and DC comic-books. About that time,
I had the fortunate pleasure of coincide with Crisis on Infinite Earths
from DC, the magnificent run of Frank Miller on DAREDEVIL and the all-time best Claremont’s run of runs on X-MEN, all of them then being published in translation in my native country.
I was a
weekly avid reader of all things Marvel and DC from the mid-80s to the early
90s. Then came the infamous and gratuitous DEATH
OF SUPERMAN event, the dreadful sequence of events leading to his eventual resurrection,
and the overall change in style from the gorgeous pencils of Byrne and Perez to
the sharp-angled hyper-muscled body-archetype of the nineties (Jim Lee and the
entire Image school of comics) and I simply lost all interest in comic books.
I was
hooked back only recently by Bendis’s reign on the Ultimate Marvel Universe –
something that happened with some delay in early 2009 – and have been trying to
catch up with both Marvel and DC ever since, steadily braving the deep oceans of fabulous
art and dismal plots being served today. For now, the few pearls found have
been satisfactory, but not fulfilling. One feels that superheroes are being
knocked down the ladder of the Imagination, downgraded from the modern pantheon
of serviceable myths and archetypes (and no one can deny that the stories of
Superman, Batman, or Spiderman have achieved worldwide recognition as modern
exemplar myths in the vein of the classic Greek gods) to mere sound-boxes of
contemporary angst. The politically correct thought-police keeps a shrill and
obsessive vigilance over every aspect of the comic books that could have them
remotely aspiring to a deserved place on the great Western Heritage of Artistic
Endeavour. And when comics try to grow,
to free themselves from the castrating ties of strict realism, hysterical
feminists and reason-challenged on-line pseudo-critics raise up such a storm of opprobrium
that immediately grounds any and all such daring.
They want
to castrate the imagination, to bring the comics down to an eternal infancy from
which they were struggling to get free. No sex, no violence, no dialogue that
can sound the least offensive to the smallest minority one can think of. And remember,
don’t look at the quality of the books, just make sure that there is “gender”
parity in the table of contents.
Well, comic
books do look infantile. Come on, why waste time reading books that sit between
the full text-only work, and painting? Shouldn’t text satisfy
your need? Obviously, one can argue that comic-books developed on a par with
cinema. So their panels are a lot more akin to film-frames than to literature or
painting. Their technical effects – perspective, dialogue, sound and silence,
color or lack thereof, are taken from film techniques. The aesthetic of comic
books, its narrative rhythm, are those of cinema, are those of freeze frames, at
the same time ready to burst with action and presenting themselves to the eye
like single-panel paintings in the tradition of the Plastic Arts. They are
that, and they are more.
Now, before
start blogging here, I must admit that I don’t know much about comics. I don’t
have a “theory” that I intend to illustrate with the comics that I’ll discuss
here, in the vein of what Tom Wolfe used to say about post-modern art critics. I read comics for pleasure. For fun. I
read comics for themselves, believing like I do, that each book has to suffice
in itself. That its merit must be intrinsic, born out of the concerted dynamic
of its plot, art and storytelling technique; from the confluence of mastery and
affect. A book to which one finds only meaning in extrinsic or implied factors,
can never be a worthy work of art, and if you force into the comic-book
meanings that are not there, you’re making it a disservice. Fortunately, people
like our good neighbor Gene Phillips can honestly navigate the intrinsic value
of each text, and extract illuminating readings that – WITHOUT FORCING THEMSELVES
INTO THE TEXT – show how a determined work adheres to or breaks from a
continuous structure of meaning. It was to such a reading, that this blog owes
its existence. Not that I will try here to follow his footsteps – I would if I
could – but his enthusiasm for the medium is highly contagious and – something rarer
each day – invite you to seek out the books he’s writing about. He sent me back in a trip of discovery of old classics from the Golden Age – books, heroes and stories I hadn’t
even heard of – to explore forgotten books of the Silver Age, to reread my favorites
from the Bronze Age, and thanks to that, to understand better where comic books
are today. (I don’t know if I should thank him, as I had a lot more to do then
spend a couple hours every day reading and writing about comics, before he came in…).
So, let this be a site to share some reading experiences, to vent some frustration over this or that book, this or that author, and a forum to exchange ideas about comics with other readers that prefer their comics untortured and untwisted by post-modern cant. They say everything is political, than let our policy be: to read comics like they are meant to be read. In the words of Joseph, Bishop Butler (in a rare instance when – contrary to Thomas Henry Huxley – a bishop’s indeed right), “everything is what it is, and not another thing”.
Thanks for giving me a mention. I like your idea of a link to the "pc police" of the comics-world. If nothing else it can keep the blogger furnished with a lot of windmills agsinst which to tilt.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you came into comics at a particularly propitious time. I'd kind of hate to start as a new reader these days. I know that new readers in all periods enjoy lots of stuff that doesn't stand the test of time, but these days it seems really hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff. Maybe I should give Bendis another try, though I was rather underwhelmed by "Winter Soldier."
Looking forward to more insights,
Gene
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think I would like this. I have similar thoughts - I haven't bought a superhero comic in years because the modern take is too full of dreadful writers who can't get away from tired 'self-righteous heroes vs. pantomime villains', or are too concerned with shoehorning in token characters, or characters who feel like they've stepped out of that 'Adventure Time' cartoon, and are walking on eggshells lest the hordes descend from their dens on Tumblr to rip them to shreds for some tiny or imagined slight.
ReplyDeleteBut then I read your few blog posts where you, as per your manifesto here, rail against the 'infantilisation' of comics, and immediately I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I actually agree that the comics of the 70s and 80s (before my time) are a more interesting read than most since the 90's, but straining to break through to the status of 'adult', 'mature' literature? Oh no, buddy. Not even close. At least, for the superhero lines.
Not to say they can't be enjoyable, or touch on wider themes, but escapist power-fantasies they were, escapist power-fantasies they are, and escapist power-fantasies they'll remain. Maybe one day they'll be well-written escapist power-fantasies again, but I'm not holding my breath. I've moved away from the titles and characters that once held my interest, perhaps even outgrown them in ways (making no claims of maturity, though) and to be frank, watching you blow hot air about how comics have changed since you were young, I think you maybe need to realise that you have, too. All this used to be fields, but it ain't no more.
So your whole reason for this blog seems to crumble right from the start, and that's before getting into your more distasteful rants. As said, I've little time for the social justice warrior phenomenon, exploding over every 'microaggression'; but that's not to say I'm not for equity of treatment or that there aren't a few salient points made among the shrill uproar. I see you spit bile about feminists (which can have a couple of definitions), politically-correct police, and multiculturalism; and while I'm not about to condemn you outright, just for that, it gives me another indication that your problems might not really be about superhero comics.
Although it gets better when I see you snarling about feminist arguments being deluded and plain wrong, without offering too much about what those arguments are, let alone offering many counterpoints to said arguments. One counterpoint you did give, I had to laugh at. In a blog set up to complain about the infantilisation of superhero comics, and without a degree of irony that I could detect, in rebutting a 'feminist' point, you argue that the male heroes should be pubescent power fantasies, and the women should be sex objects!
If you can't fathom how at least part of that statement could be considered offensive, I'm not sure if I can explain it to you.
But that won't stop me banging on some more.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing about objectified women, their costumes, etc. does seem to whiff right over your head. Your costume argument is an old one - "well how practical is it against superpowers hyuk hyuk" - and fairly spurious, even after you wrap it up in half a thesaurus worth of verbiage. I'll give you that 'practical' is perhaps the wrong term to use, but it sure takes less time to type than 'doesn't make her look like a fucking fetish stripper when she's supposed to be taken seriously'. Remember that concept? Taking superhero comics and their characters seriously?
And male vs. female characters... well, you said it yourself. It's about power fantasies vs. sex fantasies. Most male costumes may be form-fitting (and I've seen Joe Mad draw some disturbing moose-knuckles) but that's the thing - they generally fit, or cover, the form. It's about showing off their physicality - what the gawky teenage boys want to be - but neutered by bright blue, or cherry red, or lime green. With female characters, traditionally, it's about showing off their flesh. What the gawky teenage boys want to be with. It's tangentially related to the definitions of nude vs. naked. Look to the pictorial example you use in one of your posts: Sue Richards' notorious boob-window swimsuit. For a character who started out with basically the same costume as her boyfriend and brother in the early 60's, what exactly was the need to stick her in that, while the others remained the same, except to titillate and reinforce an infantile readership? If you want something more, go look at pictures from the Hawkeye initiative. See how 'empowering' it is when male characters are exposed in the same way as female characters.
Oh, and if you can point out all those women who're ogling Cyclops' six-pack to the extent of the guys who ogle Emma Frost's cleavage, that's be dandy, thanks.
Since you bring them up, it's the same thing with Conan (the ultimate male power fantasy) and Red Sonja. One's machismo in a loincloth, the other's a big pair of tits in a chainmail bikini. Any offered sops of sword-swinging and ball-breaking with the latter barely cover that up. No pun intended. And yeah, I'm one who thinks the whole 'bare-chested barbarian in snowy wastes' trope is fairly ridiculous, too.
And when I stumbled across this blog I was immediately faced with your rape article. That alone gave me one doozy of a WTF moment, and should've made me back away slowly, and shut the door. Alas.
That one boiled down to 'comics should have more rape to make them grown-up and if you disagree you're an idiot'. Like your costume argument, also spurious, and... do I need to go into why this is a myopic viewpoint? If everything I've already typed out doesn't offer half a clue: with this, you may think you know how to steer superhero comics towards literary 'maturity', but as far as I can see you're calling for more of the adolescent 'grim 'n' gritty' darkness that screwed comics up in the 90's and continues to screw them up to this day. No flow chart, for serious comics or whatever, needs a box with the suggestion 'add more rape'.
You end this particular blog post with an invitation to exchange ideas about comics. To be frank, with the 'ideas' that you want to exchange - dismissive, reactionary, misogynistic, and very pretentious - I'm not too surprised that the only commenter you managed to attract in just over a year is Gene Phillips here.
Let me try to be plain and direct, eschewing all the verbiage that so hampers you, as it wouldn’t be polite to make you waste precious time and have you scurrying up to a dictionary at every three words, although politeness was something you didn’t offer in your rant. So I’ll try to go straight to the point, although, this being a blog and not Twitter, some verbiage is needed. And, as I think the better shortcut is to go straight to the finish, I’ll begin by the way you end your comment as it clearly illustrates your stand: the exchange of ideas. I’ll grant immediately that you find my ideas ‘myopic’, ‘dismissive, reactionary, misogynistic, and very pretentious’, as that being totally subjective to your worldview, there’s little I can do to help. However, as a common definition among civilized people, the exchange of ideas implies the debate of *different* ideas, of *opposing* opinions, of *clashing* points of view, of *uncomfortable* concepts. From that debate, there may or may not result a clarification, a common ground, a learning process for any of the involved and even a change of ideas from the ones one held before. That is the aim I’m proposing. Not to reunite a congregation of converted souls that will sing hosanna in praise of their guru, be it Laura Mulvey or Roger Kimball. Obviously, in that context, terms like *reactionary*, which imply a fixed and preordained course to the progress of society or the individual, looses meaning and marks the one that uses it as averse to feedom of thought.
ReplyDeleteAnd, that said, I again concur with you when you deduce that my “problems might not really be about superhero comics”. How right you are. I have no problem with superhero comics. My problems are with the politically correct thought police, with each and every intended limitation on the freedom of thought, speech or fantasy, whether it comes from leftist feminists or right-wing religious zealots (inasmuch as we can differentiate the former from the latter). My problems are with the attempt to conform cultural or popular entertainment to the so called progressive politically correct left (as I always have had problems with the same attempts from religious conservatives, be them Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Scientologist). But I can never have problems with superhero comics as, contrary to the above mentioned self-proclaimed guardians of righteousness, I understand the work of the market, I respect the freedom of ideas, and when I see comic books going on unwanted directions, I stop reading them (I haven’t touched a single Marvel comic book since Secret Invasion, and I practically skipped The New 52 altogether). That, however, does not stop me from ranting, not against left or right-wing ideas, but against: a) the hypocrisy inherent in the arguments put forward by both; b) the lack of respect for facts or scientific knowledge in general that I find in both.
(...)
(...)
ReplyDeleteAnd your comment, as interesting as it sometimes strives to be, is full of examples from both cases. Let’s start with hypocrisy: “The whole thing about objectified women, their costumes, etc. does seem to whiff right over your head. Your costume argument is an old one - "well how practical is it against superpowers hyuk hyuk" - and fairly spurious, even after you wrap it up in half a thesaurus worth of verbiage. I'll give you that 'practical' is perhaps the wrong term to use, but it sure takes less time to type than 'doesn't make her look like a fucking fetish stripper when she's supposed to be taken seriously'” .
Well, I can see why you don’t like the boob-window uniform of Sue Storm; I can also see why someone would like it. In what you and I differ, is that you think the original uniform is better than the boob-window one, and I know they’re both contingent. Neither one is better than the other. It’s just a matter of taste. I’m not repulsed by the boob-window, but I do favor the original look, because that was the Susan Storm I first met. And I knew that the boob-window would go away, just as I knew that Wonder-Woman’s trousers of the New-52 would go away, because they were not Susan Storm or Wonder Woman without their original uniforms. Other uniforms got changed, in minor characters, where familiarity holds not that much sway on taste, and sometimes I went for the more skimpy outfits (Power-Girl) or the more conservative (She-Hulk), always as a matter of personal preference.
The trouble with your argument here, is that “practical” not only is easier to type than 'doesn't make her look like a fucking fetish stripper when she's supposed to be taken seriously,' but is a totally distinct assertion, calling for a totally distinct argumentative fame. As this – the hypocrisy of the politically correct thought police – is the theme of the final installment of my ‘Notes on Comic Book Logic’ I’ll not dwell on it here through a long exposition, but since it is unlikely that you’ll come back to the blog to read it, I’ll give you the gist of it: to say that it 'doesn't make her look like a fucking fetish stripper when she's supposed to be taken seriously' is an aesthetic argument, pertaining to writing technique, technical artistry and comics-mode traditions; to say that a costume should be ‘practical’ calls merely for story-logic, as the meaning of practical is defined by the contextual circumstances. That’s why it is not spurious to counter-argue the practicality argument with the kind of damage such costume would have to stand in the superhero line of duty. Although it would be indeed spurious to present that same counter-argument to the stance that a given female character cannot be taken seriously if she is dressed as a stripper while saving the world/universe (talk about objectification: you are what you wear). As it would be spurious to offer that same counter-argument to any Imam claiming women should completely cover their bodies so not to look as fetish strippers.
(...)
(...)
DeleteHowever, as you yourself admit in a different passage of your comment, it’s not even the story suspension-of-disbelieve that concerns such feminist proponents. That’s neither aesthetic or practical considerations that moves them, but *moral* ones (you can call them political if you want to keep faithful to their cant, but moral they are): “If you can't fathom how at least part of that statement could be considered offensive, I'm not sure if I can explain it to you.” (…)The whole thing about objectified women, their costumes, etc. does seem to whiff right over your head”. Yes, it does. It does because I don’t find any substantial support for the assertion that women are objectified by being presented as attractive outside of Mulvey’s ( themselves unsubstantiated) writings. Form-fitting or flesh-revealing costumes (either for male or female – see Big Barda for form-fitting or the already mentioned Conan for flesh-revealing) are inherent to the superhero comic mode. They’re part of the form tradition, and they have never added to nor detracted from the storytelling. Byrne with Wonder Woman, and Claremont with Emma Frost, showed time and again that you can have great comics, with stories full of deep psychological resonance, with characters dressed in skimpy outfits. Emma’s cleavage never hindered good storytelling, and never a badly written story became so because of it.
Even if we concede that superhero comics abide by the assertion that “escapist power-fantasies they were, escapist power-fantasies they are, and escapist power-fantasies they'll remain” (although I fail to see how WATCHMEN, BATMAN: YEAR ONE, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, or Miller’s run on DAREDEVIL could be cast onto a so narrow and limiting category), the most infantile elements of the comics language (including the garish, outlandish, revealing costumes) do not hinder the storytelling potential. Elektra’s death is not less touching because she is dressed in a sexy skimpy Ninja fantasy-costume; the machinations of the Hellfire Club are not less menacing because the Black/White Queen is dressed in an about-to-burst sexy corset. Comics drink not only from the great tradition of Western Art (from the classic nudes of Helenic Greece to the aggressive nudes of Mapplethorpe), Oriental Culture (from the Japanese kokutai to the elaborate Geisha makeup, for example), but also from the underground currents of pulp fiction, B-Movie serials, and the sublimated erotic-fetishes of popular culture and advertising (after all, most comics are written by grown-ups, trying to tone down the mode for adolescents and children).
(...)
ReplyDeleteWhich takes us to the offense to be taken. And here lies the crux of the matter, as I do not feel that I have to fathom if any of my statements can be offensive to anyone, for no one has the right not to be offended by other’s ideas. Ideas can be rebutted, discussed, dismissed or ignored, but they cannot be silenced on the grounds that they are offensive, as there will always be, in every time and every place, someone that will be offended by any idea, good or bad. Not long ago, millions of Americans felt offended by the single idea that blacks should have equal rights to whites, or that women should be entitled to vote.
Well, I don’t like hypocrisy, but I tolerate it better than outright lying. And when you sum up my rape post, as you so ably put it, as amounting to no more than that “comics should have more rape to make them grown-up and if you disagree you're an idiot”, you surely aren’t on the side of honesty. As I extend to you the courtesy of believing you can read and write, I’m forced to conclude that you are being purposefully dishonest, as in no instance on my post do I demand more rape on comic books – more so, when in that post, as in all other posts on this blog, I try to be descriptive, never normative, and as I believe you can fully read a given text, even one so undemanding as my humble rumbling, you surely apprehended that I was using a polemic instance of rape in a very popular comic book to once again expose the hypocrisy of those that want to conform comic-books to the realist or neo-realist modes so dear to the leftist heart, and as an example of something separating comic books from reality, thus reaffirming their natural role as fantasy.
And that is something you don’t seem to grasp: that fiction, be it novels, films, comic-books, videogames, whatever, from the sublimely ethereal heights of Tolstoi or Maugham, to the down and dirty gritty world of pulp fiction, is just that: fantasy. Some of them with pretensions to influence collective thought, others to drive their author’s political points through, others yet to interpret the social zeitgeist, or just to entertain (lightly or thoughtfully), but all of themin the end are fantasies. Some are popular fantasies, others are dark fantasies, others are even repugnant or criminal fantasies (even discounting degrees of subjectivity on the former), but fantasies they are. Outlets for our deepest repressed biological/psychological drives, and to our most elating aspirations. And in fantasy everything is permissible and should be permitted. That’s why even agreeing when you say that “No flow chart, for serious comics or whatever, needs a box with the suggestion 'add more rape”, I would also agree with anyone telling me the exact opposite, as I don’t think that the presence of rape hinders the seriousness of any narrative. To each their own tastes. To each story its own appropriate tone.
(...)
(...)
ReplyDeleteAnd this leads me to the end of this already too-long rant, addressing the lack of respect for knowledge and truth as we can grasp it, and the willing use of thought fallacies in an attempt to twist the facts. One excellent example of this is your calling upon the Hawkeye Initiative, an ill-conceived, dishonestly executed and plain factually wrong exercise in cultural politics. [I tried very hard to use expletives like idiotic, moronic and stupid (hope you noticed that)]. Now, I have to allow it some leeway as a feeble rhetoric exercise – I myself used it when I inverted the terms of Misfit Tamara’s quote on my so-called rape post. It is well known that were I to change any name in a given statement it would still be of perfectly sound logic, although it may not correspond to reality. And that’s what happens with the Hawkeye Initiative when it eschews the biological (and mere anatomical reality) in order to make a moot political point. I guess it would be useless to point out that natural selection has shaped the human male’s sexual attraction drive in relatively simple criteria: sexually attractive physical characteristics (betraying youthfulness and fertility) and sexual fidelity (assuring the male that he is the father of her offspring) in the woman. From this derives half the inspiration for art, culture and – to a degree, indeed – what feminist cant likes to call gender politics (that for far too long have kept women in a subordinate role).
Women's sexual criteria are different from men’s, and not less important, as they are half of our ancestors that have had reproductive success. However, where male reproductive success is achieved through the simple criteria listed above in a simplistic fashion, female’s need something more: spermatozoids are cheap and come by the millions, as are males willing to mate with a moderately attractive female; what women need to assure is the resources to ensure the survival of her offspring and maximize their children’s future reproductive success – that means good genes from the father, which implies the evaluation not only of physical characteristics like shoulder-breadth, muscular tonus, facial symmetry, but also more complex attributes like sense of humor, dexterity, personality, courage, and so on. It’s harder to choose e good father than to choose a fuckable mother, and that is why placing male characters in female poses is as ridiculous as it is wrong (However, the Hawkeye Initiative has a very disturbing effect that I would think you’d find objectionable – in the female pose, Hawkeye almost always conform to the most abject caricature portrayal of gay men). Men and women look at men and women in radically different ways. Women won’t be as simply satisfied with ogling Cyclop’s pectorals, as the average male will be ogling Emma’s cleavage. It’s a natural biological drive. So your quip just made you sound silly. It surely didn’t help in making me take your other comments, some of which could be the base for further debate, seriously.
But what the heck, your poor rhetorical skills were as evident as your lack of care for the facts. But where you really went overboard was in your parting quip: having decided that my ideas were “dismissive, reactionary, misogynistic, and very pretentious” (that is, ticked all the boxes in the progressive cant dislikes chart), you further decide that’s the reason why in over a year only Gene Phillips has commented in my blog (let’s forget that I published only six posts in that period, and attribute that to the reactionary tendencies of the posts; and let’s not be too modest, after all both Gene and YOU commented here and you now account for a full 25% of all comments, bar mine). Be as it may, in trying to slight Gene or aggrandize me (I sincerely can’t fathom this wonderful non sequitur of yours), you sounded just like one of those dimwit villains from the comics of yore when Superman appears to foil their plans: “Come on, gang, he’s just one guy with a cape!”