Comic Book Scholars:A top-notch political science journal is putting together an issue that will examine super-heroes over a variety of issues. For example: the impact of real-world events on comic book story lines, vigilantism vs conventional notions of law and order, the treatment of class, sex, race in superhero comics. You get the drift. We had no idea these issues were treated seriously in comic books or graphic novels.
Which superhero series addresses issues like this most eloquently or adequately? What superhero would you choose to focus on?
Here is a very interesting piece by Jay Stringer on superheroes.
15 comments:
Well, I understand that Captain America becomes the President this month. For real.
Despite their personal angst issues, most superheroes live in a black/white world; I really would not want any of them solve real-world issues. One possible exception: Wonder Warthog should take on Congress. They deserve it.
The six-gun justice of the western can be read similarly.
Salem Press publications has been dealing with some of these issues for quite a long time. I did a number of articles on comic books and characters for them. Several just recently came out.
I always considered BATMAN as a response to mundane police functions. Sure, Bruce Wayne is a vigilante, but how can the police hope to deal with a criminal like The Joker?
Comics have dealt with social issues since the 1960s, at least (when we were all looking for "relevance" everywhere), and -- I'm sure it could be argued -- have dealt with them even before that.
In the 1960s, partly in response to the enormous success of Marvel's Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Hulk, etc. (the "superheroes with problems," as folks dubbed them), DC comics started to alter its approach to superheroes. Green Lantern and Green Arrow teamed up in a series of adventures dealing with "real-life" issues. (One famous cover showed Green Arrow's sidekick, Speedy--the equivalent of Batman's Robin--shooting up: GA discovers that the young man is a heroin addict.)
For the past 25 years or so, DC has been emphasizing the "dark" aspects of Batman and confronting the issue of vigilante justice vs. adherence to the rule of law. Superman usually represents this latter position, and he and Batman have sometimes clashed over this dichotomy. (Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT -- not necessarily to be confused with the movie of the same name -- takes this difference to epic levels in a graphic novel from, I believe, the late 1980s or early 1990s.)
One could argue that Wonder Woman, by her very nature -- a female superhero -- raised political issues. (She wears those bracelets to remind her of when women were enslaved by men.) Then there's the whole psychological nature of comic-book characters. (Wonder Woman came under scrutiny for its women-in-bondage aspect and a certain amount of whipping and spanking. But I digress.)
What's-his-name's SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT, which came out in the 1950s, was an indictment of comics (but mostly for their "unhealthy aspects" in turning kids into juvenile delinquents); that made comics in general "political," as they were the subject of congressional hearings (which led to the institution of the Comics Code). Books by historians like Les Daniels have traced the chronology of comics and commented on these issues better than I could.
Sorry to sound pedantic.
Not at all. This is precisely the sort of response that is helpful. Jay Stringer over at DO SOME DAMAGES, recommended the WATCHMAN series, which we will look into. Our only comic book store without 20 miles is gone which makes it more difficult.
Interesting theory. Patti, politics and political events are often the central theme in comic-books. DC, for instance, has come out with issues where Superman interacts with the US President and Capitol Hill during a particular crisis. Likewise, one can't help get the feeling that Justice League of America, another DC output, might have been loosely fashioned on the League of Nations post-WWII. The S.H.I.E.L.D. led by Nick Fury of the Avengers, from the Marvel stable, is yet another instance of a secret intel organisation that takes on global crime and terrorism. The one superhero who has probably addressed geopolitical issues, at least during the 1960s-1990s period is Superman. Batman, on the other hand, is a vigilante who has largely been confined to fighting crime in Gotham but his role as the keeper of peace at home cannot be overlooked. Batman and Superman have joined hands in World's Finest Comics and together they have fought all kinds of foes including aliens.
Comics are like everything else. Some are fluff. Some are entertaining. Some are depressing. Some are just bad. Some are entertaining, but about larger issues.
If this sort of thing interests you, read Grant Morrison's "Supergods: What Masked Vigilantes, Miraculous Mutants, and A Sun God from Smallville Teach Us About Being Human".
I was deeply into comics in the late sixties and early seventies. My favorite character was Spiderman precisely because he had a lot of personal problems and angst. Sure, so did all of the Marvel characters at the time, but his seemed more genuine, perhaps because of his age.
DC tried a series called The Hawk and the Dove in an attempt to reflect the society of the day, but it was preachy and didn't last long. Many years later the vigilantism was used as a springboard to attack superheroes, a la The Expendables, and have them declared outlaws. Worse, they were hounded by lawyers trying to collect for wrecked cars, buildings, and lamp posts that had been destroyed during battles with super villains.
Here's what you find in Venn diagram of crime fiction + superhero awesome-ness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Ultimate_Evil
Patti...I'm late to this party, as with many of your posts, but this is a bit like saying, I wasn't aware that these matters were treated seriously in film, or television, or crime fiction. OK...what did you think they were talking about instead? Particularly when, say, Joe Lansdale or Rachel Pollack were writing 'em, and others of us were reading them, whom you know to be not the most unsophisticated of audiences?
Particularly as one moves away from superheroes and into more realistic or otherwise less, well, heroic comics, such matters are dealt with at least as frequently, but yes, well, the matters you describe have been at least occasional meat for even the more conventional and kidsy hero comics for a half-century, now...the pertinent heights scaled by the Hernandez Brothers in LOVE AND ROCKETS or by Alan Moore in WATCHMEN and many others (V FOR VENDETTA, etc.) or Ed Brubaker...or look back to Jules Feiffer and Ron Goulart and Richard Lupoff writing about these matters, and certainly Feiffer doing strips about them...
Wow. Amazon and other online booksellers (and actual bookstores) can hook you up with Moore and the Hernandezes and much else...
(part 1 of 3)
Looking at the majority of superheroes, it would seem that of The Big Two, the Marvel Universe is better suited towards linking superheroes and politics than DC.
Like most fiction, superhero comics have been shaped by the socio-political views of their writers practically since their inception. It's how Captain America can be a pure-hearted champion of the righteous in World War II, and then turn around and become a right-wing "Commie-Smasher!" in the 50s, before the 70s retcon THAT Cap away in favor of Steve Rogers, Proto-Social Justice Warrior (a term I use in the most complimentary fashion).
Even his current (2016-present) turn as a literal magically-retconned agent of HYDRA -- as in, the Red Skull used a cosmically-powered artifact to change Cap's history so that he was always secretly a Neo-Nazi, because COMIC BOOKS, Y'ALL -- feels largely like a political commentary on revisionist history and the lengths to which governments will go to use political power to reinforce and push their personal worldviews.
But if you want to talk superheroes and politics, look no further than the X-Men.
(part 2 of 3)
The X-Men have dipped their toes in and out of political stories since at least the debut of the "All-New, All-Different" team in 1975 -- indeed, by the very nature of their character, as mutants born with inherent powers and characteristics that set them apart from ordinary people, they can't help but be politicized. In the 70s and 80s, they were stand-ins for racial minorities -- they were an international team, one of their most prominent leaders was a black woman (Storm), and some of their characters had noticeable physical differences from the 'norm', like Nightcrawler (blue skin, yellow eyes, demonic features, and a tail), Beast (blue fur, a simian-like appearance, monstrous musculature), or Angel (big honking wings). While they played at the 'secret identity' bit by trying to blend in through various means, eventually all of these characters made conscious decisions to 'come out' and wear their differences with pride -- making mutants an easy-access metaphor for LGBT individuals as well, come the 1990s, with the introduction of the mutant-killing Legacy Virus, an almost painful metaphor for the AIDS crisis.
The two-part "Days of Future Past" is considered one of the seminal X-Men stories, as it portrays a future where the X-Men have failed in their quest for acceptance, and Sentinels -- giant hunter-killer robots built by the US government -- have overrun the entire country, killing not only the X-Mne, but nearly every major Marvel hero of note, and enslaving not only mutants, but all of humanity. The message isn't subtle, but it works BECAUSE of that unsubtlety.
In addition, longtime X-Men writer Chris Claremont became known for a propensity to write a certain strong-willed brand of female character, affectionately called the "Claremazon", which gave his books a feminist feel. Under his pen, the female characters already extant in the X-Men -- Marvel Girl, Lorna Dane, and Storm, created just prior to his landing the writing gig -- would undergo massive transformations. Marvel Girl would nearly die in a shuttle accident and rise from the crash as Phoenix, one of the Marvel Universe's most powerful entities. Storm would gain a past as a child thief in Cairo, become leader of the team, then lose her powers and go through an almost anarchic 'punk' phase as one of the X-Men's premier hand-to-hand combatants before getting her powers back and remaining on top as one of the X-Men's power players to this day. Finally, though she wasn't in the books very much, Lorna Dane would get the codename Polaris, be ramped up in power to rival longtime X-Men archfoe Magneto, and be repeatedly mind-controlled (by one bad guy or another) into one of the X-Men's most dangerous recurring foes, before switching sides back to good permanently just in time for a power change that rendered her huge, muscular, and one of the main physical powerhouses of the team. This transformation would be undone following Claremont's departure, but Polaris' character would remain fundamentally altered by Claremont's work on her.
(part 3 of 3)
In addition, Claremont would add numerous powerful female characters to the team, who would eventually overshadow most (but not all) of their male counterparts. Kitty Pryde, Dazzler, Rogue, Psylocke, and Jubilee would all become mainstays of the team, attain massive popularity for varying periods of time Of particular note are Dazzler, who was a VERY hot property for Marvel in the early-to-mid 80s, and Psylocke, whose popularity skyrocketed in 1990 when she transformed from a relatively demure British 'Princess Di' facade into an Asian ninja assassin with a penchant for one-piece swimsuits as costumes. The only feature to remain recognizable afterward was her purple hair, and even that was darkened to almost black from its previous lilac color. She's still ridiculously popular to this day, even as people question the racial sensitivity of a character changing races to gain cultural sterotype sex appeal points.
Lastly, in the modern era, we havr the character of Cyclops, who has been HEAVILY politicized since 2005's "House of M" event, in which Marvel, by way of the Scarlet Witch, gutted their X-Men books by depowering about 98% of the world's mutants. Between 2006 and 2012, nearly every major X-Men storyline has been based around that highly controversial decision. Cyclops himself became something of a polarizing character in the wake of that, the former Boy Scout taking a harder, more proactive stance towards threats to what was left of mutantkind. In particular, his formation of groups like the black-ops squad "X-Force" (the third group to hold the name) has been likened to gang warfare or acts of terrorism by threatened minorities. The height of his controversy crested in 2012's "Avengers vs. X-Men" company-wide crossover where Cyclops, possessed by the power of the Phoenix (the gender politics of which alone are a whole other essay), fought against, and eventually murdered, Professor Charles Xavier, the founder of the X-Men and a surrogate father to Cyclops himself.
Currently, the X-Men are facing a third extinction-level threat, in the form of the globally released Terrigen Mists, which empower 'ordinary' people with Inhuman abilities while killing any mutant who breathes them (something the Mists did not do before, it should be noted). It's a bit muddy, but I feel this may be an unintentional parallel to the current state of affairs between the left and right wings of American politics today.
Post a Comment