From: [r--el--y] at [carina.unm.edu] (Robert Kelly) Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc Subject: UberChrist and Super Anti-Christ (Part 3 of 4) Date: 3 Apr 1993 20:15:57 GMT This is part two of my thesis. (B) Bobware: I own all the rights and then some. Feel free to use as long as you don't publish without my consent. It is slack-less for you to do so otherwise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Who is the target audience? Why? Primarily young males (age 8 to 18) are comic books' largest consumers. In the last ten years, seeing how comics are marketed in places like Japan--called manga-- American comics are beginning to market different comics to different demographic groups. To this date, however, the only market which has opened up are college-aged and some women interested in "more serious" books such as DC's Sandman. Imagine yourself in a world where you can fly, where problems such as parents and teachers are secondary to problems of rampant crime and injustice, where bullets bounce off your chest and there is a concise morality between right and wrong. You don't have to worry about emotions because you always have a job to do and emotions aren't needed--except anger--and you have plenty of victims ne villains at which to direct your anger. Now take this imaginary world a step further--in this fantasy world, you can kill these targets without remorse, without worrying about their widowed families, and you are a hero for doing so. Much of the men's movement literature I've experienced deals with how men beat their wives or their children because they are unable to control their anger. Villains are not only street criminals and racists, but heads of state, senators in congress, corporate execs--especially corporate execs. In Starhawk's essay, "A Men's Movement I Can Trust", she argues that in a patriarchal society, men develop armies so that they can kill off up-and-coming competitors to protect the established status quo. This argument can be extended that comics are educating young men to prepare for the eminent battle ahead, and masquerading this battle as a struggle for justice. The Myth of Truth, Justice, Democracy and the American Way The superhero is a vigilante: one who takes up the role of the police officer without government-granted authority. Lately, in the last twelve years, the superhero has become judge, jury and executioner -- a role, in it's own way, that is granted to all heroes. This "violence solves problems" attitude is shared with cultural greats such as John Wayne, Capt. Kirk and James Bond. But ideals such as truth, justice and democracy are all meaningless when a single entity defines them. For example, my definition of justice does not agree with others' definition of justice, and for me to enforce my version would be akin to Bernard Goetz shooting three people in a subway. Unfortunately, Goetz got away. But the superhero masquerades with this ideology: one corporate- owned icon translates "his" or "her" feelings -- which are created and determined by a design team -- to decide what is right or wrong. These "character ideals" then become icon for that form of behavior. Spiderman assumes the role of "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman." Superman assumes the ideal of the American male. The audience who share in the comic book experience then relate the superhero to the ideal. A good example is how Superman is used to promote Americanism such as "truth, justice and the American way"-- statistics even show that the Superman icon is more recognizable than any president. To quote Frank Miller's award-winning comic, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman "was always a sucker for a man draped in a flag." This is taken even further, to quote the "Newstime" magazine, a promotional hype to report the Death of Superman: Originally based in California, this particular cult worships the fallen hero (Superman) as the avatar of a living god and has definite ideas about his adversary. "Doomsday (the killer of Superman) was the Great Beast, the ultimate evil," said Robert Tierra, a cult spokesman. "Superman was forced to sacrifice his life to save this world from its sins... it was the only way the Beast could be defeated. But our great protector has not forsaken us. Superman shall return from beyond the grave to save us all!" (Newstime, 18) With this "quote" and this "news magazine", the design team is directly relating Superman to Jesus Christ. Having the religious overtones is also inherent in other comics as well: Batman, Superman, several X-Men (Marvel Comics) have been nailed to crosses -- interestingly enough, in the phenomena of superhero crucifixion, many more men -- some even with monikers of "Angel" -- have been crucified as opposed to women. [This statistic, however, may have to deal with there being more male super heroes to female superheroes. More statistical research is needed.] The superhero exists not only as judicial authority but as a religious authority as well. So why does is chill me that a single icon--such as Superman--not only represents government authority, societal "norms" of morality, religious sanctity and is owned by the corporate giant Time-Warner? I am not so naive to think of conspiracy or that all people are duped into thinking Superman is a real being. During the USA-Iraqi Conflict, comics published stories that uniformly criticized Middle-Eastern thought and ideology--further, a certain "mythical" country named Qurac has been involved with many terrorist and "boarder" conflicts. The fact the Qurac signifies any Moslem-dominated nation in the Middle East ranging from Libya to Iran is only one demonstration how comics exist in a fantasy world while perpetuating the dominant American ideology at the same time. The Myth of Impenetrability From their very inception, the superhero has had to deal with one common factor: the firearm. "Can the character be penetrated by a bullet? If so, how does he or she prevent penetration?" It is easy to look at the "gun" as a symbol of the "great equalizer"--no one can survive a shot to the heart--yet, superheroes do so on a regular basis. I propose that guns in comics, originally--and thus before the advent of the nuclear bomb--were not only are a symbol of our fear of death, but weakness and vulnerability of all kinds: emotional and physical. To emulate these heroes, a viewer will want to assume the meanings of being "bullet-proof": real men have no weaknesses, no emotions, do not cry when hurt. Other villainous weapons that are connected to the effeminate are "mystical powers"--and in many instances, these powers are directly linked with the villain's connection with the earth. Such a common evocation of the connection between mysticism and the earth indicates that the superhero icon is burdened with a cultural psychosis about sexuality and gender. If the fantasy world of comics could be said to be Freudian, then this fantasy separation between the "rational" superhero and the mystical earth goddess is an old tale in new clothes-- again, reiterating Richard Campbell's Hero of a Thousand Faces. Working with bullets and wounds as metaphors for weakness: emotionally, sexually and physically--and combining this definition of weakness with comics' target audience, male youth are receiving an incredible push to emulate being "bullet-proof". I call this "bullet- proof-ness" the myth of impenetrability and as a myth, each hero sets an example of emulation for coping with weakness. HE is impenetrable and has been since HIS very conception. Bullets bounce off HIS chest, HIS arms, HIS face--and not even damage HIS uniform. HE is Superman. The original 1938 Superman is not weak in any way, shape or form. Bullets are useless against the Superman. Even throwing the gun doesn't help. But times have changed since 1938--sometime after World War II the fabled "kryptonite" was discovered as his only weakness--an easy correlation to nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. Now, the current day Superman has a series of weaknesses that his villains can exploit in their endeavors to defeat him. In fact, during the month of October 1992, Superman has been killed during a media blitz. Superman, as a role-model, is an impossibly perfect role to emulate. But we know who is emulating him: men who are not hurt, men who do not show emotions, men who do not cry. Tin men without hearts are the emulators of Supermen. Both feminists and proponents of the men's movement alike are saying that men need the ability to show emotion if there is to be peace between the sexes. The Superman, not only being the original archetype for other heroes, is also the archetype for masculinity as we know in the U.S.A. today. Batman, the original anti-Superman archetype, was portrayed instead of impenetrable but untargetable: too agile, too quick and too "able" to be shot at. Instead of being a weak human, he has devoted himself to years of training--being super-capable instead of impenetrable. Over the years, this has changed: playboy Bruce "Batman" Wayne has been shot, stabbed and otherwise "penetrated." His uniform now provides Kevlar-like protection. In the shadow of the Batman, the impenetrable myth takes on a new flavor: to become impenetrable, you must have the resources of the upper class and cunning to use it correctly. The only time when Batman is wounded is either when he makes a mistake--choosing the wrong time or the wrong techniques to fight his enemy-- or when being wounded serves a dramatic purpose within a story--such as to prove that he can endure the pain of a bullet wound and still defeat the enemy. He endures his wounds in the name of duty for the society at large. Even though we see Batman swinging from tall buildings, rarely, if ever, does Batman go to the hospital for falling off one of those buildings--that would be the confession of inability, another weakness. Yet, the change from impenetrable to penetrable is a signifier that things have changed and are changing. Wonder Woman copes with the impenetrability myth by deflecting bullets (and other projectiles) with her jewelry. In fact, her strength originally came from a "girdle." It is specifically noted that she can be penetrated--shot and killed. Thus our male icon Superman is presented as completely impenetrable--never to be hurt--whereas the female icon can defeat the villain by the use of jewelry. The target audience is now being informed that the possession of jewelry is a good quality for women--it also should be noted that in the last forty years, while Superman's and Batman's impenetrability myth has changed and weakened, Wonder Woman's has not--she still uses bracelets to deflect bullets. I am currently perplexed by the in progressions as opposed to her stagnation of character. Could it be all along that the men have needed to change? Anti-heroes do not have such clean impenetrability myths. Lobo, a current popular anti-hero, once possessed a specific ability of that "If he bled, each drop will grow into another Lobo." So Lobo's own enemies (the heroes) couldn't hit him less they make more villains. In his re-creation, Lobo happens to become "neutered" and has to relate on a lesser-hyped power: the ability to regenerate tissue. Graphically, what this allows is full carnage that would kill "ordinary humans" (read the audience) but can be forgotten about before the next issue comes out next month. The impenetrability myth is different for Lobo (and many other anti- heroes of the 1980's). Wounds, similar to Batman, are to be endured-- but not similar to Batman, they are always present. Thus, icon Lobo is superior to other's because he can look more violent (endure pain) and still defeat the enemy. So over the last sixty years of superheroes, those heroes who were once impenetrable are no longer, and to cope with the more violent 90's, super heroes have developed better powers--almost as if the survival of the fittest sells the best. Supposedly, we are now living in a more violent world under the postmodern banner than "we" were sixty years ago under modernism. The result by this perception is that our heroes become fantasy mirror opposites of what we need to survive for the future: thus in the thirties, men needed to be impenetrable or too fast and women needed tools to prevent penetration. Today, our heroes and us just need to heal fast because it is inevitable we are going to get hurt in our day-to-day world we live. So one answer to our world is to adapt to the pain around us which we experience.