Superhero Babylon

ATLAS SHRUGGED, The Movie: Would the REAL Francisco D'Anconia Please Stand Up?

2011-12-19T17:05:00.000-05:00

As per my normal viewing habits, I've finally watched the Atlas Shrugged movie, now that it's out on DVD, and now own a copy. For the sake of this review, I'm going to assume you've read the book. I have to admit that, when I first bought it, I skimmed the whole movie for the "Francisco" scenes and wasn't much impressed with what I saw. I loved the set design and visual effects. I didn't like the particular tint used to represent Reardon metal, but I have to admit the sight of the inaugural run of the John Galt line passing over a paper thin bridge was breathtaking.

With all that being said, did the movie look any different when I watched it all the way through? To that I have to answer, yes and no. The news reports made for a great narrative device to sum up the "state of the world," and move from one event to the next. At first, I thought this may date the movie, but I think it did a good job at packing in some dense exposition in an engaging way.

But the exposition isn't really the problem in this movie, is it? In all, the supporting material states how important the ideas in the novel are, and, as an Objectivist writing on an Objectivist-leaning blog, I can't really disagree. The problem is that there are several volumes of non-fiction available on the philosophical theories of Ayn Rand, and though Atlas Shrugged's narrative is dependent on these theories, it is, first and foremost, a narrative.

By most indications, the filmmakers were not Objectivists themselves, so I have to wonder why the story was consistently sacrificed to the ideas in the film version. I know everyone complains about the length and frequency of the philosophical speeches within the text, but they also complain about some of the best dialogue in the book. I personally almost stopped reading Atlas the first time around pretty early into the book. The only thing that kept me reading was Francisco's first appearance and his exchange with Jim Taggart that ended with "See, I told you that you didn't want to talk to me."

It hurt me watching Jsu Garcia in this role, not because he was a bad actor, but because I could see the potential for how he could've done this role justice. On my first, and even second, reading of the book I never picked up on the angst of Francisco; all I remembered him for was his clever wit and his tendency to say things I'd never heard anyone say before. Most of this was gutted from the character for the movie, and the movie's all the worse for it.

But Frisco's treatment is just symptomatic of bigger problems. The movie jumps right from the ultimatum of the railroad union to the first running of the John Galt line, cutting moments like every Taggart employee volunteering, and the initial press conference where Reardon and Dagny both say that they'll be riding the first run and tell the press "You should make sure to have cameras set up to watch us plummeting to our deaths when the bridge collapses." Plus something should be said about the fact that the book was written as a mystery, and I was genuinely surprised when I found out what was going on in part three of the book, whereas the film just advertises it.

In all honesty, I think most people were bracing for a two-to-three hour movie. The text is long and dense, so I don't think anyone would've complained if the movie went a full two hours if it meant more actual "story" being told. As a final take-home statement to the filmmakers, I'll just say this: it's ok if you leave the bulk of the philosophical education to groups like ARI and TAS (they're still around, right?); what you're being counted on is doing justice to a great story.

Penn State: No Heroes

2011-11-10T19:02:00.007-05:00

"That boy didn't need an out and out hero that night. Neither did the victims after him. What they needed was a leader. Hell, what they needed was a human being.

Instead, they got Mike McQueary."

-Pete Lieber

"Mike McQueary Will Have to Publicly Live with His Cowardice: A Fan’s Perspective"

I can only hope that the victims get some justice, now.

SUPERMAN: GROUNDED: Is THIS the "American Way?"

2011-07-18T21:27:00.011-04:00

Ok, we've all heard how Superman renounced his citizenship, and "The American Way," in a one-shot, out-of-continuity story in issue of Action Comics 900 ("The Incident", a story which D.C. has emphasized is not canon.) But did you know that meanwhile, in continuity, he's been walking the country, for about a year now, trying to reconnect with America?

For all the ruckus in the mainstream media over Superman's supposed betrayal, there's been little, in comparison, over the "Grounded" storyline, which started in June of 2010. (It doesn't help that the story's been delayed by creative setbacks, which have held the story up.) It features a Superman who feels so disconnected from his country that he decides to walk, not fly, in order to reconnect. Now, the story may have started last summer, but you'd have to be blind not to see how the latest controversy has steered the direction; in Superman #713, "Clark Kent Abandons Superman!", Superman announces to Superboy and Supergirl that he is giving up the mantle:

Supergirl: "What about 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way'? You giving up on that, too?"

Superman: "No, those are good ideas, and worth defending. I just won't be doing it as Superman."

After this, Clark Kent begins to write an article, "Must There Be a Superman?", and his answer is "No." (This title is an allusion to a previous story of the same name, in which aliens put the idea in his head that maybe he's done more harm than good by playing "big brother" to the human race, making us too reliant on him.) A Superman fan gets wind of this, and has Clark speak with different people who answer all his objections, and reaffirms his mission as Superman. It's written almost as if in apology to the "The Incident."

What's most notable about the "Grounded" storyline is that, like the Action 900 story, it, too, has not been well-received; in the comics community, it was claimed to be the "Worst Comic of 2010" on the Comics Alliance website, in an article by Jason Michelitch, but for different reasons. In contrast to the Action Comics 900 story, the author of the story is criticized for his simplistic jingoism.

Instead of being some grand statement on heroism and America, "Grounded" is just one introductory issue bloated with preposterous ego, two mediocre and forgettable Superman stories in #702 and #703, and then #705, a rushed piece of mechanical hackwork featuring a child abuse story made up of half-remembered garbage cliches from network television specials 20 years ago.

One might be tempted to claim that the writer of this piece is simply "Anti-American" when he writes that 'I have no idea what [writer] Straczynski ultimately intended to say with "Grounded," and since he isn't finishing the story, I'll never know. But Superman #701 reads like a mini-thesis of its own, and it has a very clear message: Anyone who criticizes this comic is stupid and shallow and should shut the hell up."

While that is a crack at the story's writer, it could be taken as a criticism of the jingoism throughout the comic. I have no idea who Michelitch is, or his politics, but that doesn't matter, because, unfortunately, my own reading of #713 corresponds with his; it's simply warmed-over, contradictory platitudes about what it means to be "American." Half of it reads like a threat, with Superman as the stand-in for "Big Brother" government, who only those who have something to hide don't trust ("Look, the only people who are afraid of Superman, I think, are people who've done something wrong"), and the other half promotes the altruistic saviour that people have come to count on, and love...without fear...like good little sycophants ("He helps everyone who needs him. That's the American Way.") Put the two together, and you get the bi-partisan hybrid-child of fascist authority and "New Deal" style-communism.

That brings me to the real issue: Why is it so hard, nowadays, for people to write pro-American stories that aren't shallow, jingoistic, and ham-fisted? And if this is, in fact, a good pro-American story, then why isn't it being embraced from the rooftops by the very people who decried "The Incident"?

The answer, I believe, was suggested by Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto, in her analysis of "good" Naturalism versus "bad" Romanticism. The Superman story shares characteristics with the popular literature of Rand's day, and her critique could apply today:

The highest function of Romanticism--the projection of moral values--is an extremely difficult task under any moral code, rational or not, and, in literary history, only the top rank of Romanticists were able to attempt it. Given the added burden of an irrational code, such as altruism, the majority of Romantic writers had to avoid that task--which led to the weakness and neglect of the element of characterization in their writing....Thus, the emphasis on action, the neglect of human psychology, the lack of convincing motivation were progressively dissociating Romanticism from reality..."

She also writes that "There were several reasons why Naturalism outlasted Romanticism, even if not for long. Chief among them is the fact that Naturalism's standards are much less demanding. A third-rate naturalist may still have some perceptive observations to offer; a third-rate Romanticist has nothing."

The problems that Rand spells out for Romanticism are a mirror to the problematic side of "pro-American" Superman. The contradiction of Superman's altruism and his fantastical nature mirror the view of America as founded on Christian principles that contradict its history of capitalism and individualism. Combine that with poor storytelling and appeals to an insipid, anemic morality, and you get good, wholesome shlock that simply doesn't convince. The Comics Alliance article spells out this problem with the "Grounded" story by pointing to Superman's discussion of Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience:

The problem with making Thoreau a generic patron of holier-than-thouness, though, is that it ignores that his principles weren't generic. He wasn't. Superman isn't the principled outsider in these comics. He's the roving monitor of the status quo.

And:

"Grounded" is full of this kind of ponderous, pretentious gobbledygook, meant to show the reader how important and thoughtful it all is. Over and over, Straczynski inserts shrill arguments for how seriously the reader should take this pointless exercise in Superman solving "real" problems through glib assertions of nonsense axioms and generous application of brute force and intimidation. It's made all the more ludicrous, then, by Straczynski leaving mid-thought, before delivering any of the intellectual meat promised by the self-important build-up.

Now, I'd ask you to determine, yourself, if the charges hold, but the theme of the charges, if true, make me believe that the reason why Superman's anti-American stories get more attention than the pro-American ones, is, sadly, that the anti-American ones are more perceptive in their observations, and that much more effective. And if that's the case, then, to quote the my blogging partner's last post, "That's it. I'm officially done with mainstream superhero comics."

My Thoughts on the DCnU.

2011-07-11T17:09:00.018-04:00

"That's it. I'm officially done with mainstream superhero comics."

That's what I thought when I originally heard about the DC reboot. And it wasn't one of those comedic overreactions that fanboys are known to be prone to. I haven't bought a Marvel comic in about two years now. I've watched the movies, but that's been the only money Marvel's gotten from me. I don't plan to read anything else from Marvel until there's a changing of the guard at editorial.

This didn't really bother me much, however. For the most part, I'd been very happy in the directions DC had been going. The last continuity reboot with Infinite Crisis, leading into the 52 worlds, was probably their best yet. There were certain things which were changed with Crisis on Infinite Earths which I never liked, but many were changed back (most notably Wonder Woman was reinstated as a founding Justice Leaguer).

Geoff Johns was also doing a great job reviving a number of franchises, most notably Green Lantern and Hawkman. He also managed to give some extra attention to my favorite team, Young Justice, which came at the price of shoe-horning them into being a new version of the Teen Titans.

Since then, there have been dozens of crossovers that made major changes to many of the franchises. When I first heard about the reboot, much of the initial leaked information bothered me, to the point where I thought of the whole situation with the line I started this article with. Frankly, some of it still does, but with that in mind I'll be doing separate posts on the many facets of this event.

I'm not "HAPPY" with the bulk of the changes they've made public, but I think a workable version of the DC Universe can go on for several years with this version. I'm hoping a lot of it gets reversed eventually, but I'll likely be along for the ride in the interim.

That said, I have a number of complicated thoughts on most of the aspects of this event, all the way from the specific choices they're making as far as the changes go to what makes each of these franchises "work." Lately, I've heard too many fans who, admittedly, do not understand the basic draw of these iconic characters try to dictate how they should be handled, and that's bothered me. I want to be one voice out there contradicting the general flow and, hopefully, bringing both intelligence and heart to the discussion. I admittedly have my own prejudices on the subject, but I will try to wear them on my sleeve at all times.

Green Lantern: The Choice of Courage

2011-06-21T17:30:00.023-04:00

Green Lantern has been getting ripped by the critics, and it doesn't surprise me one bit. Why? Because it gets everything that's good and true about the genre, all the things the critics hate.

I admit that I, too was a bit skeptical about this movie, but for different reasons; I thought it looked a little goofy, as if it were going to make fun of the genre. Having Ryan Reynolds, known for his comedy roles, in the role of fearless Hal Jordan didn't reassure me, either.

I was wrong.

Green Lantern is an example of romanticism, presenting people not as averages, but as heroes. It's a movie that knows what it is, a comic book movie, and furthermore, doesn't apologize for it. That means that the CGI is well-employed in bringing to life the wild, colorful else-worlds and aliens. But more than that, for those who are concerned with "the human element": well, that's there, too. Green Lantern finds the right balance between art and entertainment; the heroes don't wallow in angst or despair, and don't wallow in unnecessary white-middle-class guilt, while the story asks philosophical questions about the nature of courage and heroism. (For those who prefer more philosophy than entertainment, I direct to to Green Lantern and Philosophy: No Evil Shall Escape This Book.)

One recurring criticism I've read is that the movie lacks a "self-deprecating" humor...as if that's a bad thing. In the comics, Hal Jordan is selected because he is "without fear." Rather simplistic, especially in the context of a jet pilot, as Hal Jordon is supposed to be, when you consider the old saying that "there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." If the movie had been that simple, it truly would have sucked, and Ryan Reynolds' brand of humor would have been obnoxious. However, his humor is put to good use. Contra the critics who celebrate the denigration of the self, Reynold's Jordan uses humor as part of his brash brand of "fearlessness," which, in reality, is a mask for what he does fear. This mirrors the situation with the Green Lantern corp, for which he is, seemingly at first, a mistaken choice by the ring. But it turns out that the fearless corp are simply repressing and evading, and thus, vulnerable to fear. Jordan is different, and his story illustrated the idea that courage is not the absence of fear, but the willingness to face that fear. This, despite the critic's claims that the story is thin, is a much-needed improvement to the original comic origin. To quote another sci-fi epic, Dune:

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.

Now, this brings us to an interesting philosophical issue, and that is the question of why Jordan is chosen. In the comics origin, it's because he's fearless. But the movie version does, indeed have fear, he just chooses to overcome it. It can be asked, then, was there no one else equally worthy? It does present a plot hole, but it is somewhat addressed by way of the film's human villain, Hector Hammond. Hammond, whose life choices are dominated by fear, infected with an alien presence, manifests powers that work on the fear of others. When Jordan offers Hammond the ring, in exchange for the life of Carol Ferris, he tells Hammond that anyway can be a hero. When Hammond seems to agree and accepts, he says that he lied, prompting Jordan to say that he also lied, that to wield the ring, one must be "chosen." Hammond cannot hurt Jordan with the ring, because Hammond's choice to use fear renders it null. On the surface, this may seem similar to many classic hero stories of "the chosen one" (a recent example being Harry Potter, who, at birth, was "the one who lived,"), but it's crucial to note that, to be chosen by the ring, one must be ready to make the right choice. So, getting to the question of "Why Hal?"; anyone, potentially, can be chosen, but it won't choose just anyone, either.

By choosing courage instead of fear, Jordan doesn't have the need for self-deprecating humor. One doesn't mock what is considered virtuous, and this movie is about virtue. But when the critics talk of self-deprecation, it brings to mind the contrast of career choices between Hammond and Jordan. Jordan has taken risks, while Hammond, who, ironically, is a brilliant scientist, turns down lucrative opportunities out of the belief that he is not worthy. Jordan, by contrast, when praised for his work, notes that it's people like Hammond, the idea guys, who make the men of action possible. This is not presented as self-deprecation, but as honest recognition. But it's also a reminder that the thought and action are not false dichotomies, but enable each other. This movie runs the risk of repeating the "mad scientist" as cliche shtick, but this scene is a welcome antidote to all that.

Yes, there is the self-sacrifice trope to deal with. Although I'd have to see it again to be sure, I felt that it was presented as it was not a self-sacrifice at all, but rather, as "I value this world, and would rather die than to sacrifice it without a fight." A rationally-selfish value, to be protected and defended.

Just like this movie. Instead of re-inventing the same-ol' Superman-Messiah trope, the future of superheroic characters is better served by the lesser-known heroes like Green Lantern, who don't have the same religious baggage, and, therefore, and despite the alien presence, can truly represent humanity as something to be respected, not pitied.

Saying Goodbye to SMALLVILLE

2011-05-13T23:14:00.028-04:00

"You will believe that a man can fly."

The final episode of Smallville has aired, It was an epic sendoff to a show that's brought me much more than entertainment, so I'd like to offer my tribute and thank you to all those heroes, real and otherwise, with my thoughts on the future, if they are to survive.

Although my childhood favorite was Spiderman, perhaps no character in the 20th century has garnered so much recognition than Superman. It's fitting that so much recognition has been paid to him, and Smallville in particular, here at Superhero Babylon, both positive and negative. But the negative was always in the constructive spirit of what could be; as one of the greatest heroes in the popular imagination, we all want our vision to be the vision. No matter what version of him, Superman inspires in so many the same thing: the idea that we, in our own way, can fly. Even his enemies know this; as Lex Luthor quotes in the finale, villains are defined by their heroes, a reversal of the cliche that heroes are defined by their villains. Despite my philosophical differences with the explicit religious overtones, this one line made it all worth it.

The very existence of Superhero Babylon was a reaction to the hate towards heroism and values in general, as characterized by the "grim and gritty" school of comics. With the return of heroes in the popular media, however, the tone shifted toward the fight between conflicting claims over the ideas that make a hero, and Smallville has led the way. I had my disagreements with the show's philosophical premises. I take my disagreements seriously, but at its most antagonistic, I found it a worthy adversary. At its best, however, I found it an ally in its spirit. If this seems strange, especially in regards to cartoon characters, consider how Ayn Rand felt about the work of the Romantic writers, especially Victor Hugo:

The distinguishing characteristic of this top rank (apart from their purely literary genius) is their full commitment to the premise of volition in both of its fundamental areas: in regard to consciousness and to existence, in regard to man’s character and to his actions in the physical world. Maintaining a perfect integration of these two aspects, unmatched in the brilliant ingenuity of their plot structures, these writers are enormously concerned with man’s soul (i.e., his consciousness). They are moralists in the most profound sense of the word; their concern is not merely with values, but specifically with moral values and with the power of moral values in shaping human character. Their characters are “larger than life,” i.e., they are abstract projections in terms of essentials (not always successful projections, as we shall discuss later). In their stories, one will never find action for action’s sake, unrelated to moral values. The events of their plots are shaped, determined and motivated by the characters’ values (or treason to values), by their struggle in pursuit of spiritual goals and by profound value-conflicts. Their themes are fundamental, universal, timeless issues of man’s existence—and they are the only consistent creators of the rarest attribute of literature: the perfect integration of theme and plot, which they achieve with superlative virtuosity.

If philosophical significance is the criterion of what is to be taken seriously, then these are the most serious writers in world literature.

She also writes that

The Romanticists were far from Aristotelian in their avowed beliefs; but their sense of life was the beneficiary of his liberating power. The nineteenth century saw both the start and the culmination of an illustrious line of great Romantic novelists.

And the greatest of these was Victor Hugo.

Of his characters, Rand writes:

Do not say that the actions of these giants are "impossible" because they are heroic, noble, intelligent, beautiful–remember that the cowardly, the depraved, the mindless, the ugly are not all that is possible to man.

Of the charge of escapism:

Do not say that this glowing new universe is an "escape"–you will witness harder, more demanding, more tragic battle than you have seen on poolroom street corners; the difference is only this: these battles are not fought for penny ante.

Do not say that "life is not like that"–ask yourself: whose life?

That is how I feel about Superman, and superheroes, and, well, heroes in general.

Superman does not make people believe that they will fall, but fly. And when I criticize, it's because I know their importance; if they were simply kid's stuff, as many would have you believe, I wouldn't be outraged when they are forced to espouse ideas antithetical to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You see, it's not the literal stories and characters, that matter, but the ideas they represent, not the powers and the primary colors, but the vision of what life might or ought to be. That antagonism is, again, paralleled by Rand's analysis of Hugo's contradictions:

"Grandeur" is the one word that names the leitmotif of Ninety-Three and of all of Hugo's novels–and of his sense of life. And perhaps his most tragic conflict is not in his novels, but in their author. With so magnificent a view of man and of existence, Hugo never discovered how to implement it in reality.

He never translated his sense of life into conceptual terms, he did not ask himself what ideas, premises, or psychological conditions were necessary to enable men to achieve the spiritual stature of his heroes....It is as if the wide emotional abstractions he handled as an artist made him too impatient for the task of rigorous defining and of identifying that which he sensed rather than knew–and so he reached for any available theories that seemed to connote, rather than denote, his values.

When I think of the Superman as the "Man of Tomorrow", I can't help but think that his ideals were full of contradictions of good and bad from the past. Rand noted a similar contradiction in Hugo that sums up the current "Superhero Babylon":

Hugo the thinker was archetypal of the virtues and the fatal errors of the nineteenth century. He believed in an unlimited, automatic human progress....Feeling an enormous, incoherent benevolence, he was impatiently eager to abolish any form of human suffering and he proclaimed ends, without thinking of means: he wanted to abolish poverty, with no idea of the source of wealth; he wanted the people to be free, with no idea of what is necessary to secure political freedom; he wanted to establish universal brotherhood, with no idea of what is necessary to secure political freedom, he wanted to establish universal brotherhood, with no idea that force and terror will not establish it. He took reason for granted and did not see the disastrous contradiction of attempting to combine it with faith–though his particular form of mysticism was...closer to the proud legends of the Greeks, and his God was a symbol of human perfection, whom he worshipped with a certain arrogant confidence, almost like an equal of a personal friend.

Gee, that sounds a lot like how generations viewed Superman, doesn't it? And that is why I write this tribute today; Superman, despite being an alien, inspires the same hope in this world that Hugo inspired in Rand:

A professed mystic in his conscious convictions, he was passionately in love with this earth; a professed altruist, he worshiped man's greatness, not his suffering, weaknesses or evils; a professed advocate of socialism, he was a fiercely intransigent individualist...he achieved the grandeur of his characters by making them all superbly conscious, fully aware of their motives and desires, fully focused on reality and acting accordingly....And this is the secret of their peculiar cleanliness, this is what gives a beggar the stature of a giant...this is the hallmark of all of Hugo's characters; it is also the hallmark of human self-esteem.

And that, above all else, is the value, and the danger, of the Superman mythos, and of heroism in general. A hero, by definition, is one who "defends" and "protects." A hero can be a blessing, but a curse, if allowed to become a crutch. The best heroes don't just save the day, they inspire and enable us to become our own heroes, so as not to require others to need to sacrifice themselves. Then and now, the idea of Superman has, time and time again, promised to unite America Babylon. That may be a job too big even for Superman, but should it ever come to be, his message that the greatness comes from within us, should we choose it, will have played no small part.

Perhaps the most important theme throughout Smallville has been the lesson for Clark to become a hero without sacrificing his own needs, to embrace his community, his humanity, without sacrificing his self. To say "I love you," someone must first say "I." The best thank-you one could offer a hero, a Superman, would be this engraving over the Fortress of Solitude:

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

For those heroes among you, thank you, and shine on.

ACTION COMICS 900: A Closer Look

2011-05-13T19:32:00.017-04:00

(Originally Published at Superhero Babylon)

In my previous post I discussed a story in Action Comics 900 (entitled "The Incident,"), which has Superman renouncing his citizenship in an out-of-continuity scenario, was vague enough to be read, in true Babylonian fashion, in different ways by different people. My own take, after an initial reading, was that it was pseudo-Libertarian:

If read out of focus, combined with the vagueness, different people can read and project different things into it, which only highlights how undivided we really stand. My personal take is that it could be seen as quasi-Libertarian, as Superman stands with the Iranian protesters against a theocratic government. But, again, that’s read out-of-focus. By its own internal logic, it seems to make sense, given that Superman, who has visited many worlds (and in this continuity, can see micro-universes, apparently), would see a "bigger picture" than us mere mortals. But as for the writers, they're bound by the same earth-bound, human philosophies, so it's presumptuous for them to inject their own politics into a god-like figure. In short, they limit Superman's metaphysical view to "Democracy." In one way, this is important, because it suggests a universal principle that guides Superman (and it is admirable that he stood on the side of the Iranian protesters when the U.S. Government did not); on the other hand, the "multiculturalism" extends beyond countries to planets and dimensions, and his "American Way is not enough" limits his understanding of America the idea to America as mob rules. (Never mind that America was not meant to be a democracy, but "a republic, if you can keep it...")

But what can we objectively gleam from it, based on the actual content? In concrete essentials, Superman stands with the Iranian protesters, in an act of passive civil disobedience. (It's important to note that he could have taken out the Iranian soldiers single-handedly, but didn't.) The U.S. government takes offense, and arranges a meeting with Superman (complete with snipers armed with Kryptonite bullets). The government is concerned that Superman has gone "rogue." Superman explains that he had been following the news, and the threats of violence against the protesters by the Iranian government, and yet, the protesters were ready to risk their lives for their freedom. Superman talks of all the tyrants he's fought, human and alien, and remarks that he's never been any good at fighting ideological battles, like "dying of thirst, hunger, and people being denied their basic human rights," but that he wants to be. His act of nonviolent resistance against an oppressive authority was an act of solidarity with the protesters. This, in turn, inspires others to join in. He details the varied reactions of the people, ranging from adoration to animosity.

Notably, the Iranian soldiers never fire a shot. As the rally peacefully ended, Superman wonders if his presence helped, noting that the regime did not institute democratic reform. The U.S. agent laments that his actions created an "international incident," and that the Iranian government considered it an "act of war." Superman concedes, and then withdraws his sanction…from the U.S. government, leading to the renunciation of his citizenship, and the now-infamous claim that truth, justice, and the American Way is "not enough anymore." He claims that the world is "too small, too connected," and that his alien origin and abilities help him see the "bigger picture." As a result, he believes that his actions, while not effective on a large scale, did make some small difference. He relates that, as he flew away, he witnessed a protester offer a flower to one of the soldiers, a gesture meant to mirror the famous incident of the Vietnam protests in the sixties. The soldier accepts the flower, suggesting that there is, indeed, hope.

"Moral" of the story?

• "Democracy" is offered as the answer. It is not defined, but it is associated here with the notion of freedom and representative government (incorrectly, I state, but this is a common misnomer promoted by our own statesmen.)

• Superman is presented as a "citizen of the world." It is unclear if his "American way" comment is meant literally or ironically, meaning that it's unclear whether or not he is acknowledging that the ideals are not enough, or that the ideals have been betrayed.

• The U.S. government is presented as being more concerned with politics and appearances, while Superman is presented as being concerned with truth and justice, and the American way, not just for American, but for the entire world.

Your ideological mileage may vary, but, despite the political lack of sophistication and the resulting contradictions, on a sense-of-life level, I have to sympathize with Superman here. If anyone is guilty of abandoning the American way, it's the government that chastises him for his actions.

I can offer two avenues to explore for further understanding of both the vagueness, and the specifics. I think that the seeming mix of political readings can be attributed to the way the story links the Iranian protests to the Summer of Love. In order to understand this, consider that the protests of the sixties, despite being commonly conceived as led by radical leftists, had a libertarian strain, as detailed in Jeff Riggenbach's In Praise of Decadence, which was informed by the Libertarian and Objectivist movements, and claims that the true American spirit is not to be found in the patriotic flag-waving of Father Knows Best-era jingoism, but in the radical spirit to "question authority." On this, many Objectivists and libertarians have found common cause with those on the left on social freedoms that many Conservatives and the Religious Right would claim are "anti-American." (While I don't accept all of Riggenbach's arguments, this aspect of his thesis goes a long way to understanding the current contradictions and schisms.)

The second, related avenue is the topic of civil disobedience and passive, non-violent resistance, which Superman practices before both the Iranian and American government. (I've already discussed this in relation to Captain America's own troubles with "the American Way.") Gandhi and Martin Luthor King, Jr. come immediately to mind, but it's an idea that has a history in early American politics, most notably in the writings of Henry David Thoreau. This passive resistance is at odds with the violence of the founding of the nation itself, and that is essential to understanding Superman's use of it, while rejecting "the American Way." It is said that America was the first nation founded not by conquest, but on an ideal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," yet those principles were betrayed by the government, not only in the continuation of slavery or the exile and genocide of native Americans, but in the actions towards Americans via taxation and imprisonment that resulted in battles like the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions. This goes back to the Federalist/Anti Federalist debates, and the centralization of power that replaced the Bill of Rights with the Constitution. Bringing this back around to Superman, his actions in this story have roots in the ideas of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and Lysander Spooner's No Treason. This debate tears apart, to this day, those would-be-allies of Libertarians, Objectivists, and Conservatives, who all would claim the path to the true "American Way."

I must stress that my take is certainly not meant to be definitive; not only do I not know the author's personal intent, but I also cannot ignore the recent trend in DC Comics to cater to Muslims, as anti-Jihadist comic book artist Bosch Fawstin has already discussed. (And, I have to wonder if the same writers would have Superman make a similar stand with the Tea Party protesters in our own country, in contrast to what happened with Captain America 603.) I only hope to explain the "Babylonian" aspect by explaining the history that makes such different interpretations of this standalone story possible. Like Superman, I don't know if my post will have an effect on the macro-scale. But hopefully, I've offered a flowering of knowledge to at least make things a little less vague.

Of course, it's always best to see for yourself:

(click images for larger view)

"The United States of Babylon," or, Truth and Justice, Hold the American Way

2011-05-11T22:14:00.020-04:00

Whatever happened to "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"? With Action Comics 900, the answer is all-too-clear…

Superman is considered one of the most iconic America characters ever created, known all over the world. So, then, when the Man of Tomorrow renounces his citizenship, the phrase "United, We Stand" threatens to become anachronistic, highlighting what I call “America Babylon,” the scattering of American ideals through the speaking of different ideological tongues…

As mentioned, the incident appeared in the 900th anniversary issue of Action Comics. For those living under a rock (or, who still think that the death of bin Laden has healed all wounds), here’s the synopsis:

When Superman drops in on an Iranian protest to stand with demonstrators in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience, the U.S. government takes him to task for acting as an instrument of national policy. Superman responds by renouncing his American citizenship and proclaiming himself a citizen of the universe.

It’s a short story, in itself, so there’s a lot either left out, or inferred. That vagueness, in true “Babylonian” fashion, allows for a few different readings, not just of the story, but of Superman himself, since he’s been written by many writers with disparate viewpoints throughout the years. (And although the Seduction of the Innocent scare created the Comics Code Authority and "sanitized" superheroes into "wholesome" all-Americans, the Superman comics of the seventies were already exploring controversial issues like this, too.) But more than that, it illustrates the “Babylonian” nature of America itself, the conflict of values that no longer allow for a monolithic definition of just what it means to be “American.” The story’s description has some worthy causes listed, and those worthy causes are what allow liberals to get away with a lot...and the Superman as “alien immigrant" angle can be a double-edged sword; an affirmation of the "melting pot," that America was an idea for all, or a warning against importing contradictory ideals into the mix in the name of "multiculturalism.” The outcry over the change in the Justice League cartoon (“Truth and Justice, not just for America, but for the whole world), or in Superman Returns of the phrase “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” to “Truth, Justice, and all that stuff” reveals the belief that Superman has always said that, and has always been a Reagan-esque puppet (well, if Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns is any indication). But a closer look reveals the opposite, and that the seed for today's news was there from the beginning...

To begin with, the phrase, as associated with Superman, did not originate in the comics, but on the television show. As detailed in a New York Times article after the Superman Returns movie:

In the first screen incarnation of Superman, the Max Fleischer cartoons that ran from 1941 to 1943, each episode's preamble informs us not only of the origin and powers of this relatively new creation (Krypton, speeding bullet, etc.), but also the kinds of things he fights for. It's a shorter list than you think. Before World War II, Superman fought "a never-ending battle for truth and justice." Back then, that was enough.
By the time the first live-action Superman hit the screen - Kirk Alyn, in a 1948 serial - the lessons of World War II, particularly in the gas chambers of Europe, were obvious. That's why Pa Kent tells young Clark he must always use his powers "in the interests of truth, tolerance and justice."

It wasn't until Superman came to television in the 1950s that the phrase became codified in the form most of us remember it: "a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

The original phrase “truth and justice,” without the American Way, leaves the field wide-open, without context. To get the full context, consider the motives of the original writers, Siegel and Shuster:

(From Wikipedia): An influence on early Superman stories is the context of the Great Depression. The left-leaning perspective of creators Shuster and Siegel is reflected in early storylines. Superman took on the role of social activist..., fighting crooked businessmen and politicians and demolishing run-down tenements. This is seen by comics scholar Roger Sabin as a reflection of "the liberal idealism of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal", with Shuster and Siegel initially portraying Superman as champion to a variety of social causes. In later Superman radio programs the character continued to take on such issues, tackling a version of the KKK in a 1946 broadcast. Siegel and Shuster's status as children of Jewish immigrants is also thought to have influenced their work. Timothy Aaron Pevey has argued that they crafted "an immigrant figure whose desire was to fit into American culture as an American", something which Pevey feels taps into an important aspect of American identity.

It is important to note the “Progressive” strain of politics here, and how they were at odds at what we know as “the American Way.” Franklin’s New Deal is associated, then and now, with the infiltration of communism into American life. Despite some worthy issues like fighting the KKK and women beaters, the “social causes” of the time were also associated with unions, trust-busting, you know…all that “stuff.” Tied up in “all that stuff” is the idea that America was a “democracy,” which does not mean “equality,” but mob rule, or the submission of one’s rights, if enough people vote on it.

Ok, then, but Superman eventually came to stand for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” so we should leave it at that, right? Well, not so fast there, speeding bullet…Let’s turn the x-ray vision to the intent behind that phrase:

(From Wikipedia): The American Way of life is individualistic, dynamic, pragmatic. It affirms the supreme value and dignity of the individual; it stresses incessant activity on his part, for he is never to rest but is always to be striving to "get ahead"; it defines an ethic of self-reliance, merit, and character, and judges by achievement: "deeds, not creeds" are what count. The "American Way of Life" is humanitarian, "forward-looking", optimistic. Americans are easily the most generous and philanthropic people in the world, in terms of their ready and unstinting response to suffering anywhere on the globe. The American believes in progress, in self-improvement, and quite fanatically in education. But above all, the American is idealistic. Americans cannot go on making money or achieving worldly success simply on its own merits; such "materialistic" things must, in the American mind, be justified in "higher" terms, in terms of "service" or "stewardship" or "general welfare"... And because they are so idealistic, Americans tend to be moralistic; they are inclined to see all issues as plain and simple, black and white, issues of morality.

You don’t need x-ray vision to see the contradiction there: “Individualism” versus the “General Welfare”; Spiritualism versus capitalism. Business versus religion. Profit versus service. “Idealism” versus “materialism”. (Hell, that one goes back to Plato versus Aristotle.) In other words, this world versus the afterlife…This goes to the root of American Babylon: the contradiction between the idea of “certain inalienable rights” being given by God, which resulted in the idea of Utilitarianism (capitalism is moral because it creates the greatest good for the greatest number) versus the notion, as identified by Ayn Rand, that rights come from the nature of man’s mind (and therefore, the good is what’s best for the individual), without the supernatural aspect (which, right there, defines the struggle between Superman as a Christ-figure and Lex Luthor as the Promethean scientist stealing fire from the gods.) These conflicting notions, then, have defined and divided the nation from the beginning, and, so, are found throughout the history of Superman, up and to the current incarnation on Smallville, which frequently highlights Clark’s quest for personal happiness versus his “duty” to mankind. With contradictions like that, even a man of steel can bend... (For Landon’s take, see his recent post, “E Tu, Lois?”.)

Back to the present, and to the Action Comics 900: If read out of focus, combined with the vagueness, different people can read and project different things into it, which only highlights how undivided we really stand. My personal take is that it could be seen as quasi-Libertarian, as Superman stands with the Iranian protesters against a theocratic government. But, again, that’s read out-of-focus. By its own internal logic, it seems to make sense, given that Superman, who has visited many worlds (and in this continuity, can see micro-universes, apparently), would see a "bigger picture" than us mere mortals. But as for the writers, they're bound by the same earth-bound, human philosophies, so it's presumptuous for them to inject their own politics into a god-like figure. In short, they limit Superman's metaphysical view to "Democracy." In one way, this is important, because it suggests a universal principle that guides Superman (and it is admirable that he stood on the side of the Iranian protesters when the U.S. Government did not); on the other hand, the "multiculturalism" extends beyond countries to planets and dimensions, and his "American Way is not enough" limits his understanding of America the idea to America as mob rules. (Never mind that America was not meant to be a democracy, but "a republic, if you can keep it...")

A libertarian-minded person, at that, could find common cause with the idea of not being associated with the U.S. government as it currently is, which is currently demanding its citizens give up more of their rights, with its "Patriot Acts," "mandatory" insurance requirements, and TSA screenings of children and babies, and now, unlawful police entry into one's home, while some opponents of that defense are stressing the distinction of the American ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" versus the American statist government, and that Superman is renouncing the baby with the bathwater. Here, I'd submit that this issue is not a recent trend, but another built-in contradiction of our founding father's doing; witness the original debates by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding the Bill of Rights versus the Constitution (it usually begins with Alexander Hamilton). In addition to all that, a libertarian-minded person, tempted to read their politics into the Iranian stand, would have to confront the fact that many of these protesters, despite the cries for "freedom," would potentially just as soon vote for another Islamic theocracy in some countries.

But among the warring factions over the meaning of America, there is still a large percent who stand for the “American Way” as conventionally understood, enough for DC Comics to “backtrack” on the premise:"This short story is just that, it will not be followed up upon. Superman will remain as American as Apple pie."

DC is known for their “Elseworlds” stories, alternate versions of characters that have no bearing on current continuity. I initially thought it was a stand-alone story, anyway, given that it was buried in the middle of the book among other stories, with no indication of continuity. This was not labeled as such, however, so it’s only fair to speculate that they were “testing the waters,” so to speak. And, for now, the appearance of Superman as the embodiment of all things American is maintained…at least, to those who haven’t read this blog posting…

Et Tu, Lois?

2011-05-07T15:21:00.011-04:00

Watching the second-to-last episode of Smallville ("Prophecy"), something about it just hit me that I have to comment on. There was a lot of interesting things going on, such as the primitive version of an Injustice League/Legion of Doom, Supergirl joining the Legion, and a final set-up of what Ollie's probable role will be in the finale, but the bulk of the episode focused on one of Jor-El's trials, which involved giving Lois Clark's powers for one day.

It's been done before (most recently in the DC Animated feature All Star Superman), but this time around it served an important narrative purpose. The first time Lois goes to use her super hearing, she hears dozens of cries for help and wants to answer every one. Clark is very calm as he explains to her how one has to prioritize. It's still clear that it's overwhelming to her all that Clark has to go through every single minute of every single day.

This leads to a moment at the end of the episode that frustrated me. Lois tells Clark that every minute he spends with her is a minute he could be saving someone, so she cannot allow him to marry her. There are a number of reasons this statement bothers me. First being the fact that Lois was often the voice of selfishness (at least before learning the secret) and that he shouldn't be afraid to occasionally take something just because he wants it. The second, and more frustrating reason, is thanks to a bit of applied logic. She sees herself as the obstacle between Clark and a life of almost slave-like devotion to saving people, and even the promise of one good thing waiting at home for him every night after he finishes his patrols is something that he simply cannot have. Clark cannot be allowed one thing that is only his to enjoy and cherish that the whole world doesn't somehow have a claim on. He shouldn't be allowed one moment to himself to only spend on the things that he wants.

All I'm going to say is that there's benevolence, there's altruism, and there's flat-out slavery. What does the situation Lois has just plunged Clark into strike you as?

The Death of Bin Laden

2011-05-01T23:42:00.002-04:00

The Silent Age ("Superman Renounces Citizenship" Reprise)

2011-04-28T15:00:00.008-04:00

(Reprised for today's headline: "Superman Renounces Citizenship" . I beat 'em to it, it seems...)

The Silent Age is a companion piece to A Show Of Hands: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile. Whereas A Show of Hands was a future-take on the cynicism towards heroism via the Marvel Universe, The Silent Age is a retro parody of the over-reliance and "god-like" worship of DC's "strange visitor from another planet." (A theme addressed in Elliot S. Maggin's "Must There Be A Superman?" story (also the impetus for Kingdom Come.)

The basis for this story has been in my head for at least ten years now, inspired by my initial encounter with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which got me thinking: "what if Superman went on strike?" Though seemingly simple, illustrated in the spirit of Siegel and Shuster's "Golden Age" Superman, there are a few compressed ideas within The Silent Age that challenge the innocence of that era. But, in the spirit of the theme of Superhero Babylon (that heroism is spoken in many divisive tongues), rather than explain them all, I'm presenting it as a "Rorschach test," so to speak. What the reader takes away from it will depend on their own viewpoints of heroism, philosophy, religion, etc...

And now...The Silent Age. (Click on thumbnails for larger images. Also available in pdf form.)

Real-Life Heroes: A Salute to the Fukushima 50

2011-03-31T23:09:00.004-04:00

Japan's Nuclear Rescuers: 'Inevitable Some of Them May Die Within Weeks'

This is an example of the the saddest, yet the bravest, kind of heroism. When a singer tells you that "we don't need another hero," someone says that they've "personally never had any time for heroes," or a movie asks you "what's a hero, anyway?", think of the Fukushima 50.

The End of SMALLVILLE and the beginning of THE SILENT AGE

2011-03-03T11:53:00.003-05:00

Had enough of the self-sacrificial altruism of Smallville yet? Not impressed by the subtle jabs at Atlas Shrugged? Are you one of the few that is not looking forward to the series finale of Clark embracing his inevitable fate as a failed Christ symbol? Well, then; Superhero Babylon has an "elseworlds" tale for you: The Silent Age.

And now...The Silent Age. (Click on thumbnails for larger images. Also available in pdf form.)

Bosch Fawstin's THE INFIDEL #1

2011-02-27T19:41:00.016-05:00

And now, for a hero of Babylonian proportions... We've discussed Bosch Fawstin's work here before, from his debut graphic novel Table For One, his Infidel preview ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, to his take on Jihad in DC Comic's The 99. Now, we finally get Pigman's proper debut in the long-awaited anti-Jihadist epic The Infidel. Fawstin describes the story:

"The Infidel is about twin brothers Killian Duke and Salaam Duka whose Muslim background comes to the forefront of their lives on 9/11. Killian responds to the atrocity by creating a counter-jihad superhero comic book called Pigman, as Salaam fully surrenders to Islam. Pigman's battle against his archenemy SuperJihad is echoed by the escalating conflict between the twins."

This, as you can probably guess, is a story that is guaranteed to polarize; Pigman doesn't hold his punches, and Fawstin doesn't hold his tongue. It calls out Islam for what it is, with no PC apologies. Heroes and villains are clearly defined with the romantic spirit of Ayn Rand, and there is none of the second-guessing that plagued mainstream characters like Captain America in the stories that came after 9/11. In other words, this makes Fawstin's heroes the villains in the Babylonian tongues of our culture's ethic of self-sacrifice. It's a concept not lost on Fawstin, evidenced in his recent interview with Capitalism Magazine:

CAPITALISM MAGAZINE: If you could describe Pigman in one or two words what would you call him?

BOSCH: Jihadists' Terrorist.

This "confusion of tongues" is on display in one review in particular; as Fawstin describes it: "A liberal review finds that he can't dismiss The Infidel." From the review:

"The Infidel is a comic by Bosch Fawstin that’s been in the works for a number of years. And this week, just as it is to feature on The Daily Show, it’s gone live.

I have mocked this comic book a number of times, on Lying In The Gutters at CBR and recently on Bleeding Cool, as some kind of poorly dashed off, one sided polemic, based on a series of cartoons, posters and teasers by Bosch which have been lazy, repetitive, boring and dull. And I thought the comic book would be just the same.
I was wrong.
I mean it is a polemic. It is bigoted. But its not quite the Jack Chick caricature his promotional work have suggested it is. And artistically, in terms of storytelling, it’s rather accomplished, certainly to what I was expecting."

Bigoted? Or just pointing out that the Jihadist emperor wears no clothes? Decide for yourself; Chapter one of The Infidel graphic novel is now available as a pdf download for $2.50; The comic is 25 pgs and in full color. Available now at fawstin.blogspot.com.

Babylon (up)Rising and Falling...

2011-02-23T11:18:00.014-05:00

Over a year ago or so, we witnessed heroic actions in the form of protests in Iran. In America, the right to protest is a given; in the Middle East, it's practically a deathwish. (Remember Neda, the "brave Iranian Lioness?) The protests there eventually died down, but the seeds were sown, and Neda has not died in vain; now, we are seeing the crops being harvested throughout the entire region, starting with Egypt, and currently focused on Libya.

Why is this happening? As one CNN article aptly stated, "the fear wall broke."

I've been waiting to comment on this, despite its importance, because, frankly...I'm overwhelmed; it's all happening so fast, and on such a vast scale, with so many repercussions that I don't know where to begin. The fact that this is happening in the historical setting of the Babylonian tale makes it that much grander. (I do find the Facebook connection interesting, considering that in the original tale, the downfall was brought about by differing tongues, whereas the social networking revolution is speeding up communication.) The fact that some of the dictator's own soldiers are defecting, refusing to fire upon the protesters, is also relevant to Babylonian theme of "one man's hero is another man's enemy."

I do have my concerns, of course, that without a solid philosophical basis, the freedom being fought for will give way to the "mob rule" which differentiates democracy from our original republic. (Contrast the American Revolution with the bloody French Revolution.) Who the hell knows what will replace these dictators? The Caliphate? The Muslim Brotherhood? Lady Gaga?

Still, I have to admire the heroic courage and willingness of the protesters to put their very lives on the line. Ultimately, I am heartened at the prospect that the centralized Babylonian dictatorships and their attempts to unite all under their heel are falling under the united banner of freedom. The fear wall has, indeed, broke.

May it never be rebuilt.

Superhero Babylon Presents: THE SILENT AGE

2011-02-14T20:41:00.020-05:00

The Silent Age is a companion piece to A Show Of Hands: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile. Whereas A Show of Hands was a future-take on the cynicism towards heroism via the Marvel Universe, The Silent Age is a retro parody of the over-reliance and "god-like" worship of DC's "strange visitor from another planet." (A theme addressed in Elliot S. Maggin's "Must There Be A Superman?" story (also the impetus for Kingdom Come.)

The basis for this story has been in my head for at least ten years now, inspired by my initial encounter with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which got me thinking: "what if Superman went on strike?" Though seemingly simple, illustrated in the spirit of Siegel and Shuster's "Golden Age" Superman, there are a few compressed ideas within The Silent Age that challenge the innocence of that era. But, in the spirit of the theme of Superhero Babylon (that heroism is spoken in many divisive tongues), rather than explain them all, I'm presenting it as a "Rorschach test," so to speak. What the reader takes away from it will depend on their own viewpoints of heroism, philosophy, religion, etc...

And now...The Silent Age. (Click on thumbnails for larger images. Also available in pdf form.)

Babylonian of the Year: Julian Assange

2010-12-26T15:06:00.016-05:00

By now, most people are aware of "whistleblower" Julian Assange and Wikileaks; he was even the runner-up to be Time magazine's Person of the Year (losing out to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg). Assange may not have met Time's criteria, he certainly meets ours; no one else this year so clearly illustrates the division in the cultural landscape of values that makes one a hero and a villain at the same time. Free speech advocate or terrorist? Capitalist or socialist? Libertarian or anarchist? Assange's actions have divided everyone, and has earned him entry into the company of such "criminal" outlaw-heroes like Robin Hood or the heroine of The Legend of Billy Jean ("Fair is Fair!"). It's not simply a question of whether he's seen as a hero or villain, either; many people who disapprove of Assange the man approve of the idea of Wikileaks and the act of "leaking" itself as heroic...

Headlines such as Democracy Now's "Is Assange a Hero?" prove the Babylonian theme for us; depending on where one's values are usually answers the question. But in this case...with so many different factions over the matter...Going strictly by etymology, a hero is a "protector" or "defender." But to know what he is claiming to "protect" or "defend," we'd have to know more about the man and his values and beliefs. That, however, has been the sticky wicket; for someone who fights for transparency, not a lot is know about that aspect of him. His political views seem, to me, an eclectic hodgepodge and his words about freedom and ethics seem to be "floating abstractions":

... I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

He also is considered an anarchist, a crypto-anarchist, and who knows what other labels...

It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free....WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

He may not be openly communist, but based on the above, he's no "radical for capitalism", either...

So, with that kind of contradictory philosophical base, it came to me as no surprise when, upon being granted release on bail, Assange had requested that his address be kept "private." This one act alone put his status as hero into question; for his defenders, it is a practical, tactical maneuver, while for his detractors, for an advocate of transparency to make this request could only be seen as hypocrisy. (For the record: while I don't approve of the emphasis on "self-sacrifice" usually associated with heroism, in this case, I do question this supposed hero's integrity,given the particular cause...)

Whatever his true character, he has certainly divided not just a nation, but the world, demonstrating that the language of heroism has many tongues. And that makes Assange the "Babylonian" of the Year.

Bosch Fawstin: "DC Comics Throws Wonder Woman to the Islamic Wolves"

2010-11-04T08:58:00.019-04:00

"Super-powered Muslims wouldn't stone Wonder Woman," writes anti-Jihadist graphic artist Bosch Fawstin. "They'd boulder her."

Fawstin is referring to Wonder Woman's recent costume change, which is rumored to be a concession to Islam. More specifically, to the recent comics crossover between the iconic American heroes of DC Comics and the Muslim heroes known as "The 99." Is it a concession? I don't know for sure; characters are often given new looks to update them, and Wonder Woman has been no exception. It's something that's been attempted in the past, with less-than-wondrous results. But Wonder Woman is a different case, because of her costume, or, more accurately, because she's the first iconic female superhero, and it's demonstrative of the "Babylonian" tendency to communicate iconic figures through various idealistic "tongues." The risque nature of her costume (not to mention the practicality of it), the Betty Page pin-up aspect, and the feminist tone all mean that when there's a costume change, it's usually going to generate social controversy. (One particular change from 1972 got feminists like Gloria Steinem all worked up, ironically enough, because they felt that the de-powered, Mod-clad version was inferior to the bikini-clad version. Steinem is apparently not a fan of the new version, either.)

The more things change...this new change is no exception. What's interesting, though, is that if one looks close enough, the seeds for this can be seen in Paul Dini and Alex Ross's prestige-format Wonder Woman: Spirit of Truth book. Published in November of 2001, it was 9/11 conscious, with our heroine's overtures of friendship met with fear and mistrust, and, yes, she is stoned. She goes undercover in several different scenes, in order to blend in, and in one instance wears a burka. She rips it off in a dramatic confrontation with soldiers and frees other burka-clad women, but knowing that they will fear her, and expects no gratitude. Still, the image is one of defiance against Islamic oppression, when such a thing was not so controversial in America. With that explained, the sequence below should become quiet clear...

Now, as mentioned, the Ross painting was done in 2001, but, as we know, "9/11 changed everything." Can you imagine, in the wake of death-threats against Danish cartoonists for drawings of Mohammad, the outrage if that was published today? So what's next? If Fawstin has it right, probably something like this:

Chilean Miners Coming Out Like Champs

2010-10-13T18:45:00.004-04:00

The Chilean miners, trapped for over two months, are coming home...in style.

The media keeps talking about how the miners will be dealing with "severe emotional trauma" for some time. They most likely will have trauma, and who would blame them? But from what I've seen, these are pretty hardy guys, and they're coming out like champs. (One guy they call "the rock star"; instead of crying, he was passing out rocks from the mine.)

That's awesome.

(Apparently the media assumed these guys were raised in some suburban day-care center with Barney...)

Kudos to the rescue workers, from the creative and technical minds who devised the escape, to the workers who helped sustain the miners, and to the Chilean miner's spirit. Considering that no one has every survived this long in such an incident, this has to be recognized as truly heroic.

SMALLVILLE: Clark's Dark Side=Pride?

2010-10-10T22:47:00.016-04:00

Smallville's final season premiere has Jor-El and a Lex Luthor clone telling Clark that he has a "darkseid" just like his enemies. His sin? Oh, no...Pride!

Clark: "You may not see me as a hero, but the rest of the world does, and I decide my fate!"

Luthor clone: "The only reason anyone ever calls you a hero is because you clean up the disasters you unleash…"

Wait...is Clark the one blowing up buildings, or unleashing Doomsday plots? Oh, what's that? He's dark because he was proud of saving people, and leaping a tall building in a single bound? Because he took pride in his accomplishment? Please, let it not be that. Sorry, Luthor, sorry Jor-El. Clark may buy into that, but I don't. Compare and contrast:

The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term: “moral ambitiousness.” It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one’s own highest value by achieving one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics"

You see, heroism doesn't have to be a dichotomy between selfishness and protecting the ones you love. Enough of the damn "Jesus Christ Pose" already, enough of this "original sin."

With that, what more can I say about this show that hasn't been said? I don't want to not like it, but despite all the entertainment value, and the "sense of heroism," I stand by my original assessment: the sooner this show is off the air, the better.

Burning the Koran: Is Terry Jones a Hero?

2010-09-09T13:00:00.008-04:00

Is Terry Jones "heroic?"

Well, he's not my hero, but...

I am not a Christian, and I view this fight the religious aspect as a fight two gangs, the Christian and Islamic churches. As a homosexual, I view Jones as my enemy for his support of the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the "God Hates Fags" church of the holy bastard Fred Phelps). He and they illustrate the reason why we are to separate Church and State; to the extent that they use the force of the government to infringe on the freedoms of homosexuals or any other offender of their faith, they are hypocrites in the battle for free speech. (But then, do we really need "The State?").

Well, then, why do I defend Jones's Koran-burning? "Sticks and stones...". They are entitled to their views and opinions, as long as they keep their hands to themselves. Yet, by standing up to the threat of Islamic terrorism, putting himself on the line to defend his right to free speech, Jones meets the etymology of hero: "protector/defender," in this case, standing up for a larger issue: freedom of speech. In a limited aspect: Yes, by definition, Jones is acting heroically...for his cause, when it suits his purposes. He is putting his own life on the line to defend his right, even if his actions and preaching continue to undermine the rights of homosexuals like myself. It just so happens that, on this one particular matter of free speech, our paths align...in this limited context.

Here's where I'd like to leave this: the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend...I am not defending Jones, but the larger principle involved. If the worst among us can defend their rights to free speech, the best of us better sure as hell do the same. So, Pastor, enjoy my support against Islamic oppression while it lasts...because I, as well, will defend myself from your own brand of religious tyranny.

A Most Un-Heroic President and General

2010-09-09T12:32:00.014-04:00

Reprised for Pastor Terry Jones's Koran-burning on the anniversary of 9/11...From A Show of Hands: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...Did I call it, or did I call it? (click images to enlarge.)

Blow up American buildings and lives, you get to build a mosque on the grave site. Speak up against it, and you're suddenly an enemy of the State. As an American, I say that Obama, General Petraeus, and anyone else asking us to cave in to Islam can suck it. Seriously, to say that exercising one's free speech will endanger the troops is paramount to treason, IMHO. And most un-heroic; soldiers are there for that very reason, to defend our freedoms. Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

Jones is not my ally (more on that in my next post), but on this, I have to defend his right to free speech, and I will. People in the Middle East burn American flags and presidential effigies at will. The President is attacking this Christian pastor, yet "artists" here are tax-payer funded for exhibits like Piss Christ...I, an atheist, am offended at such blatant hypocrisy. I have to hold my nose to do so, mind you.

Free speech applies to all, like it or not. And if America wont' defend it at home, then it's all over.

...Well, Then, The Critics Are Wrong

2010-09-07T12:05:00.015-04:00

Saw this article today on philly.com (I just wanted to check the weather, damnit): "Superheroes Are Selfish, Violent Pop-Cult Models, Critics Say." Ok, what are the critics saying? (Like I don't already know, from the puke-inducing opening line...)

Your little boy is damaged.

He's been traumatized by violence, oversexualized, and indoctrinated to believe that to be a real man he must be aggressive, narcissistic, manipulative, and misogynistic.

The perpetrators, the people behind such evil victimization, are - superheroes.

So says Boston psychologist Sharon Lamb, a University of Massachusetts scholar who claims that superheroes - once role models who inspired confidence - today are laying to waste America's boys by teaching them a perverted image of masculinity.

Uh, oh...I see where this is going...

Lamb asserts that today's heroes are motivated by selfish desires, including the desire for vengeance, and not justice and the common good.

Lamb is joined in her sheepish bleatings by John Arcudi, author of the comic A God Somewhere:

Philadelphia comic-book writer John Arcudi agrees that movie superheroes are too aggressive, cocky, and narcissistic....Arcudi says this is part of an overall tone of triumphalism that he believes predominates in American culture. If defeat isn't an option, he asks, then how are we to teach kids how to deal with failure?

He also worries that the traditional superhero just seems too naive to today's media-savvy kids. "Today's audiences have a lot of difficulty swallowing the idea that the hero is totally committed to an ideal" and not to personal desires, he says. Being cool and kicking derriere, he notes, always trump social justice in the movies.

Well, Mr. Arcudi, I hope you've learned how to deal with defeat, because your comments are an "epic fail."

The "common good"? Well, spank my ass and call me Stalin. There's nothing new in these criticisms, and nothing that hasn't been addressed over and over throughout this blog already (especially in my posts regarding romanticism versus naturalism, which would make short work of the "triumphalism" complaint.) And yes, there are a few valid criticisms, such as the misogynistic traits in some characters, and I've had plenty to say about movies like Kick-Ass. The problem is in the continuing package-deal of equating those things with "selfishness," as identified by Ayn Rand:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage
to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating
intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single
factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word
“selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous
brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for
no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims
of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and
dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own
interests.

This concept does not include a
moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests
is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It
is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

So, with the Trojan Horse of violent misogyny comes the call to self-sacrifice, but I see right though it. They'll be more Trojan Horse dung to clean up for some time, so here's a really big shovel to clean up after those who continue to force the false dichotomy between rational selfishness and "the greater good":

The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This god, this one word:

"I."
— Ayn Rand, Anthem

Now, there's a "god somewhere" for you.

FUTURAMA Nails It, or, Leela Kicks Ass

2010-08-28T20:03:00.010-04:00

Just heard on the lastest new episode of Futurama:

Fry: What you want to hear is that I fixed my comic book! Now the hero is more relatable because he has no ridiculous powers."

Lrrr: "Let's watch."

(In Fry's comic:)

Monster: "One more step and Little-Ms.-Constructive-Criticism here gets it!"

Fry "Oh yeah? I may be just a simple delivery boy with no superpowers, so there's nothing I can do."

Monster: "Ok!" (Vaporizes Leela, hero cries.)

Fry: "So? Give me your honest praise..."

Leela: "I've now seen two comic books, so listen to me. Why should I care about the hero when all he does is cry?"

(Fry cries.)
-Futurama' Season 6 Episode 12 'Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences'

UNDER THE RED HOOD, or Jason Todd's answer to KICK-ASS

2010-08-24T00:04:00.005-04:00

I just recently saw Batman: Under The Red Hood.* I went in with pretty high hopes and wasn't really disappointed; by and large, it's a solid piece of work. The voice cast is great, and even though I have some complaints best left unsaid, I still think Neil Patrick Harris did a good job with Nightwing, (but I just wish the context was different.) He's used very infrequently and could be cut completely with limited effect on the plot. John DiMaggio plays a very interesting Joker, who I'd say is one-half Mark Hamill-animated Joker and one-half Heath Ledger-Dark Knight Joker. His voice is a little lower and gruffer than I expect the Joker to be, but his philosophical dilemmas seem almost straight out of The Dark Knight. Bruce Greenwood plays a good tortured and brooding Batman, who is given much to brood over. Wade Williams plays a darkly hilarious Black Mask, a deformed criminal overboss who makes you forget how brutal he can actually be by delivering a wisecrack with each act of violence, though not in the same sense as a character like the Joker or Freddy Kreuger. Jensen Ackles of both Supernatural and Smallville fame rounds out the cast as the titular Red Hood/Jason Todd.

This story is very continuity heavy, but pulls it off well. You can watch this with no prior knowledge of the history of Batman and Robin and still follow along very easily. Conversely, you'll spot even more nods to important stories if you are familiar. In fact, continuity plays such a big part in this film that I'm likely going to do a second review just on the continuity issues within this story. By that, I mean issues as in things mentioned, as opposed to problems or headaches.

The main storyline is the one with the greatest philosophical significance. A new crime boss comes into town. His approach is setting the rules by which criminals are to act, to serve as their protection if they stay loyal, and kill anyone who gets in his way. His initial goal is to undercut the authority of the standing crime boss, The Black Mask, who is the first to ever unite all the gangs of Gotham under one umbrella.

Batman crosses paths with the new crime boss, conveniently, after having run into Nightwing and going out for a team-up. Seconds after giving up the first information about the Red Hood, three of his men are killed by the man himself. What follows is the first of a handful of chases, by which Batman and Nightwing notice the amazing set of physical skills the Red Hood employs racing across rooftops, a skill set which should look very familiar if you're watching the other end of the chase. After a short period of investigation, it's made clear that the crime boss/vigilante being called the Red Hood is the former and presumed-dead Robin, Jason Todd.

In the middle of all this is the Joker. The Red Hood was the identity he took on in his first criminal job, the one which lead to his disfigurement (and subsequent insanity) at the hands of Batman via a vat of chemicals. With this in mind, he is a major person of interest throughout the story to all involved. Also, he is the person who killed Jason Todd all those years ago. During one of his stays at Arkham Asylum at the beginning of the story, Batman and Nightwing go to interrogate him to see if he knows about why anyone would be taking his old identity. His only response is to bait the Batman about all the crimes he's committed, most notably the murder of Robin. When Batman falls for it and strikes out, attacking the Joker, he responds with "Are you going to do it this time, or just put me in another full body cast for six months?" Hearing that makes Batman relent, though he does seem close to killing him before that happens.

After this, a second encounter happens with the Red Hood, far more directly this time, kind of a repeat of the first that ends in a subway station. Nightwing gets injured, so Batman has to tend to him. With this distraction, the Red Hood decides to make a very Batman-like exit using the noise of a passing train. He gives Batman a parting comment as he goes, however. It's not audible at the time, so Batman has to use his computer to eliminate the sound of the passing train, but the Red Hood's parting comment is "You haven't lost your touch, Bruce." The middle portion of the movie is Batman testing and ultimately confirming the theory that the Red Hood is Jason.

The rest of the movie is the escalating war between Black Mask and Red Hood, and how Bruce and Jason react to all the cards being on the table. In his first major counter-strike, the Black Mask sends a group of armored mercenaries after the Red Hood. When this happens, Batman arrives on the scene, and most of the fight comes off as a heartfelt reunion and reliving good times. That is of course until Jason kills one of the mercenaries and tells Bruce that "[He] should be happy I only killed one of them." Frustrated, the Black Mask makes the proverbial deal with the devil, and breaks the Joker out of Arkham.

The Joker immediately turns the whole thing around on Black Mask by subduing all of Black Mask's men as well as the Red Hood's men, threatening to burn all of them alive if the Red Hood doesn't show himself. When the Red Hood finally does show himself, he tells the Joker to go ahead and do it because everything he did was for a chance to get the Joker alone with him.

The Red Hood takes the Joker to an abandoned building as a means of drawing Batman in. Here, we find the best philosophical discussions in the movie. Now, I have to preface this by making it clear that both of the primary characters arguments could easily be demolished if The Question happened to walk in. I'm going to go as far as to say that possibly even the Renee Montoya version could accomplish this, provided she took her lessons well. But, for the sake of this argument, Jason Todd/Red Hood is a pure pragmatist, and Bruce Wayne/Batman is a dogmatist.

Earlier in the film ,Red Hood draws Batman into the chemical plant where the original Red Hood became the Joker. Red Hood ominously calls this Batman's first and biggest failure. This is important because Batman considers Jason's death (and he did die, but explaining it is a bit too complicated for the moment) his greatest failure. Jason follows up on this comment once Bruce arrives by saying that he knows Bruce considers that his biggest failure, but that he's forgiven him for it long ago. What Jason has not forgiven him for is the fact that the Joker is still alive.

Jason has regularly stated by this point that, as the Red Hood, he was a better Batman than the real one. Batman is trying to stop crime, the Red Hood simply tries to control it by taking over. Batman thinks taking a life is never justified, but the Red Hood doesn't bat a eyelash at the thought of taking a life. The Red Hood's mentality is that since the villains are the only ones allowed to be truly efficacious, it stands to reason that in order to combat them you must first become the worst among them.

Batman gives a somewhat satisfying answer in that he wants to kill the Joker, but that's a line that once crossed he could never come back from. It's pretty standard, but heartfelt. In the last moments of the story, Jason holds one gun to the Joker's head and hands a second gun to Bruce, stating that the only way he'll be stopped from shooting the Joker is if Bruce kills him. In a powerful moment, especially from an Objectivist viewpoint, Bruce simply puts the gun down and walks away. He isn't going to be a pawn in a game like this and isn't going to allow himself to accept unearned guilt from either death. This leads to an action climax and Bruce being left with a lot to think about, and a number of regrets.

*My co-workers are so awesome for loaning me stuff.

Who Needs CGI When There's...PREMAKES!

2010-08-18T23:10:00.008-04:00

These are too freakin' cool. I discovered these on the Comic Book Resources site: "Premakes":

Ivan Guerrero has caught a lot of attention on YouTube for his "premakes" series, where he makes 1950s-style trailers for various movies. Following up on trailers for Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Ghostbusters, his latest one is for the Avengers. And apparently even Stan Lee has watched the video.

What I found interesting is how the soundtrack made a difference; the retro-version of The Empire Strikes Back certainly benefitted from the John Williams score. (Of course, the idea was to harken back to the old-styled Korngold scores of the Golden Age...). When I consider how much impact it had on the original Star Wars film (early trailers of it did not contain the store, and it is a lesser experience for it), I'd hope that filmmakers today would realize that a great score is just as important as the CGI (looking at you, Clash of the Titans remake...).

Overall, these come off as more heroic than some of the more recent CGI spectacles...hmmm...Way to go, Ivan.

Steve Slater, Hero?

2010-08-10T23:10:00.010-04:00

Really?

"Move over, Sully Sullenberger, there's a new folk hero in the skies. OK, maybe not a universally acclaimed hero. And not a 'hero' in the sense of, like, saving lives, or stopping a terrorist, or really doing anything traditionally considered 'heroic.' Still, Steven Slater—the JetBlue flight attendant who reportedly had an altercation with a passenger who injured him in the head, cursed her out over the PA, then deplaned, with a beer, via the emergency slide—is the talk of the country today."

That, from TIME.com: Steven Slater, Road Warrior: JetBlue Mints a Folk Hero Or, from TMZ: Steve Slater is our Frickin' Hero!

Or, from PEOPLE.com: Is JetBlue Flight Attendant Steven Slater A Hero of Felon? And so on...

Again, a real-life demonstration of why this blog is called Superhero Babylon; the language of different values make's one man's hero another man's disgruntled employee. His story is nothing new, of course; Johnny Paycheck already cashed in on this theme years ago with "Take This Job and Shove It." His story is interesting because of the unusual exit strategy, but the theme is as old as employment itself. Is he really a hero, though? Well, let's think about it; what's a hero? A "defender" or "protecter." Who was Slater defending?

Well, the "pro" side would say: First and foremost, himself, by standing up to a rude passenger. What about the airline? He was enforcing the airline's rules as part of his job; whether or not he did it well is another matter (though I'd be pissed to if I were hit in the head because of a passenger's defiance...) Then there's the case that he was, implicitly or explicitly, standing up for the "working man," the "serving class," if you will. That's where the "folk hero" aspect comes in.

The naysayers might say that the "folk hero" label can be a double-edge sword; think Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, The Legend of Billy Jean, where the "hero" label is attached to actions where heroism was not the intent. (And remember that episode of The Brady Bunch where Bobby had nightmares about his hero, Jesse James, killing his family?). Ok, Slater is no Jesse James, but I think you get the point...He might be more reasonably compared to someone like Howard Stern, the kind of person who gets away with "saying what everyone else would like to say." There's a fine line between being heroic and simply being pissed off...and why, if this was building over a long time, didn't Slater take a more practical approach, in the long run, by changing jobs or finding something less demeaning? Or, if the "pro-hero" side objects to his being forced out by rude customers, why didn't he work to change the landscape internally?

Having been on both sides of this kind of situation, I can see valid points on both sides; nothing trumps personal responsibility, but close quarters create pressure-cookers as well...Hero? Villain? What do you think?

Superhero Babylon: The (quick) Heather Langenkamp interview

2010-08-08T16:14:00.000-04:00

A condition of the interview (and the potential legal ramifications of posting it) was that I would only be allowed a verbatim text recap of it. Which is more or less what this is. (I edited out the "Ums," etc...). I appreciate the fact that Mrs. Langenkamp took the time to answer the questions of the co-owner of a blog with 10 subscribers and was so kind and gracious with a first time interviewer (well, second, counting the other one I did that day, but that's another story).

I will, however, mention a couple things which I didn't get time to ask her about. What can be called the definitive documentary on the Nightmare on Elm Street series was released this year entitled Never Sleep Again, with Mrs. Langenkamp both hosting and being interviewed. Also, Mrs. Langenkamp has a documentary of her own coming out soon, entitled I Am Nancy. Without further ado, onto the interview.

Heather Langenkamp: I’ve got you on the clock here.

Superhero Babylon: Is there anything you were drawing on the first time around to fill out the character of Nancy, inspiration-wise?

HL: I think my first inspiration was probably someone like my grandmother, who was, I thought...was a really strong woman and was very inspirational. And then I loved, believe it or not, I loved nature movies when I was little, where someone was in the woods and they would have to survive, like Grizzly Adams, like those kinds of movies. And in a lot of ways, if anything, Nancy is like a girl Grizzly Adams, the way she has to survive in this really hostile environment.

SB: I’d definitely agree with that. What do you think makes the "final girl" so strong within the Nightmare series itself? Because it’s stronger there than it is anywhere else.

HL: I believe that Wes Craven [Nightmare on Elm Street creator] just wanted to have a strong girl figure, as the lead in this movie. And he had a daughter of his own, and knew that there were a lack of positive role models at that time. So, those two things and he just hired a girl like me who was really interested in portraying a strong person like that.

SB: When I saw the recent documentary Never Sleep Again, I remember that you specifically mentioned that you kept your pajamas from Nightmare 1.

HL: Yes.

SB: Was it a conscious decision on your part to create to create your own iconography, like the same way Freddy has the sweater, the hat, and the glove?

HL: I knew that those were going to be important, you know, parts of my own personal history. So I think when I had the opportunity to keep them, I just stowed them away. But, at the time, I did not know that this movie was going to be a success. I mean, I don’t even know, I think it was just more of a sentimental gesture. I just asked the wardrobe lady “Do you mind if I take these home?” and she didn’t think it would be important because they would NEVER let me take them today. None of us had any idea that something like her pajamas would be important.

SB: Ok, Your character had three very distinct permutations over the three different movies. You had scared little girl Nancy, surviving elder Professor X Nancy, and then Heather Langenkamp. Do you have a favorite out of those three versions and are there any things you like better or worse about any of them? Because they’re very different.

HL: Well to have the opportunity in a movie to play those three phases of life, where you’re growing into an adult, becoming a woman and then having a child is so rare, just to me the opportunity to do that is so fantastic. Because she’s most like me, I probably like the “Heather Langenkamp” Nancy the best, but I have the fondest nostalgia for the young girl Nancy.

SB: Thank you so much for your time.

HL: Oh you guys are so sweet.

On Meeting My "Cyrus"

2010-08-06T00:51:00.003-04:00

Most people who know about Ayn Rand have heard the story of Cyrus. He was the lead character in a pulp magazine she read as a child which later became the model from which she would later mold all of her heroes. Because of the theme of this blog in particular, we’ve had a number of discussions of how this relates to us personally. We always ask each other “who was your Cyrus?”

Well, last weekend, I met mine. I’ve spent a lot of time writing about an amazing character she helped create through through her portrayal of her. Seeing this character for the first time changed the whole way I thought about heroes, and heroines, specifically. The movie was A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: the Dream Master, and the character was Alice Johnson, the eponymous "Dream Master."

It had a major impact on me at the time I saw it. I was about 11 or 12 and watching my first Nightmare on Elm Street movie. It was on network television so it was pretty heavily edited. I found it very fascinating; the dream element was an interesting angle, and, in all honesty, I was already well aware of Freddy Kreuger, who at the time was one of the biggest “horror heroes” in a new subgenre of "slasher" film that had developed in this time frame.

But back then, and even more so now, what caught my eye was Alice Johnson. She seems like a fairly minor character at first (as is often the case in slasher films), very mousy, too shy to let her crush know that she likes him, suffering silently the abuses of an alcoholic father. But, over the course of the film, she slowly develops into a genuine heroine whose crowning moment is when she does the unthinkable in a Nightmare film.

There are always subplots in Nightmare movies about the lengths to which people go to avoid sleep: caffine pills, coffee, cola, loud music, etc. But Alice? After all her friends have been killed and the only one left is the boy she had a crush on who is now at Freddy’s mercy, what does she do? She races home, she suits up for a fight, does some other really cool things, and takes SLEEPING PILLS! She is so tough and so brave that she intentionally takes sleeping pills in a Nightmare on Elm Street movie. This leads to her fighting Freddy on his terms, in his world, and winning.

She would go on to star in one more movie, which dealt with themes of entering adulthood and taking the responsibility that implies. Between the two films where she’s entered a relationship with her crush, Freddy finally gets him, but not before the boyfriend leaves her a gift.

There’s an idea that the "final girl" of horror movies has to be very chaste, drug free, and virginal, but, in this story, Alice gets pregnant. She keeps the baby and defeats Freddy one more time.

This story and this character just resonated with me, then and now. I went through a phase early after discovering Objectivism where I tried denying my love of horror at its best. In the long run I realized that this is a very personal decision, and the gyst of Ayn Rand’s dismissal of horror ultimately amounts to “Horror is vile, repugnant, anti-mind, and anti-life, except when it isn’t.” And just because I want to write characters like Francisco D’Anconia doesn’t mean that now I don’t want to write characters like Alice Johnson.

All that being said, I had the opportunity to meet Miss Wilcox last weekend. There’s an inherent problem when you’re a fan of genre fiction, especially films, that your heroes will often disappoint you, simply because they don’t place as much importance on certain aspects of their work that you do. I don’t necessarily think that it’s something you can blame on the performer, but it doesn’t make your heart sink any less when it does happen. But at the same time, it’s all the more impressive and fulfilling when, even if they don’t share your level of enthusiasm, they understand it, they respect it, and they appreciate it. When they can see through the jitters, and the gushing, and the trivia you recite, and understand that there is a meaning behind all. “Your work means something very special to me. Something sacred, something that defines a big part of who I am. I know that even if it was the job that defined your career, it was just a job to you at the time. What you helped create was something wonderful, thank you.”

Keeping in mind that I had a much less sophisticated version of this going through my head for the interview she granted me, enjoy her basically carrying me through this interview.

When a Nightmarish Summer is a Good Thing.

2010-08-04T19:48:00.013-04:00

I went to a couple of horror conventions this summer, one in my once and soon to be hometown of Indianapolis and another in a town that advertised as Louisville Kentucky to look more impressive on the flyer/website. The main things which attracted me to these conventions were the abundance of A Nightmare on Elm Street alumni. I've written a lot here about that series, and I'm about to start a full-on review of the entire series at my re-dedicated sister-blog Dissecting the Machine.

The thing is that, around the second convention, I decided that I'd try to see if I could talk some of favorite horror icons into interviews, and, surprise, it worked!

In hindsight, I'm kind of wishing I would've thought of this idea earlier. I came up with some good questions for Ken Sagoes (who played Kincaid in Nightmare 3 and 4). I'll have to settle for the fact that he liked my X-men analogy for Nightmare 3, where I basically said the Dream Warriors were like the X-men and that made him Wolverine.

I might not have had anything too insightful to ask Mark Patton, but I'm still glad I got to meet him. This guy is a real life hero to a generation of gay horror fans (myself not included, but I can definitely sympathize).

(Also on an un-Nightmare related note, Tony Todd was there and it would've been interesting to hear his thoughts on living up to the legacy of Ben in the Night of the Living Dead remake.)

But at the other convention I did have the idea and I managed to net interviews with Nightmare 4 & 5's "Alice" (Lisa Wilcox), as well as Nightmare 1,3 and New Nightmare's Heather Langenkamp.
Once I learn the ins and outs of video editing software, I'll have the Lisa Wilcox interview up, but I'm not allowed to show the video of the Langenkamp interview, so I should have a text recap up by tomorrow.

This was literally a dream come true for me (I don't even care about the pun, it was so awesome). And I'm looking forward to having this content posted as soon as possible. -Landon Erp

DC Animated is Giving Me a Great Birthday Present

2010-07-31T12:36:00.007-04:00

Coming September 28 from DC Animated: Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. An adaptation of the excellent Supergirl arc from Superman/Batman. Batman, Superman, Supergirl and Darkseid; what more could a DC fanboy want?* And with a Green Arrow short feature attached, it looks for this release to be tying into the final season of Smallville on top of everything else. Life is good!

*except for perhaps the Amazon/Wonder Woman subplot to stay intact and not be gutted by licensing issues, which hopefully it won't.

The Boys.

2010-07-27T01:49:00.006-04:00

I borrowed this comic from a co-worker; to be honest. I would've felt dirty if I'd paid money to read it. The Boys is a series by Garth Ennis that makes you long for the "pure of heart" hero worship of the original comic version of Wanted.

The premise is fairly simple. "Who watches the Watchmen? The Boys do." Superheroes have become a liability, and a small CIA group is formed to keep them in check by any means necessary. This includes blackmail, threats of violence and even murder. I have to say that I honestly lost count of all the problems I had with the series, but I'll try to keep as good of an inventory as possible.

The first introduction to superheroes in this world (called "supes" as a derogatory) is a shot of the leader of the group looking up in the sky to say "I'm gonna get you." The second is a tender moment between a young couple interrupted by a Flash-wannabe slamming the girl of said couple into a wall, with her boyfriend still holding her dismembered hands. He's given the runaround by the "supes'" lawyers. Soon after, the young man who just lost his girlfriend is approached by the leader of "The Boys," Billy Butcher.

What follows is an epic depiction of evil vs. slightly-less evil. The lead superhero team, "The Seven," are seen putting a new, doe-eyed young female recruit through an initiation more suited to a porn starlet than a defender of liberty. A young edgy superteam is caught on tape doing things which would make Caligula blush and given the ultimatium to throw one of their own to the press.

You see, The Boys monitor every superteam. They know everything that goes on behind closed doors, and they're not above using it for purposes of blackmail. There's an implied theme among the group that all of them have suffered losses at the hands of careless superhumans, but it really just feels like window dressing for the real issue.

The leader of The Boys, Billy Butcher, makes several telling statements over the course of the story. They are all along the theme that some superhumans need to be watched, some need to controlled, and some just need to be taken out. And all of this is because someday they might realize that they have something better to do than save people. This seems to imply that they would become rulers and tyrants if not closely monitored. This may be a valid case, if not for the fact that there seem to be no supervillains in this world. No one with powers who just openly attempts to take control by force.

Along with some stray lines about corporate sponsorship and the pampered lives of "bloody yanks," it paints a pretty clear picture. Personally, I can think of nothing better for a world such as this, than the few who have yet to be corrupted really learning that they do in fact have something better to do than save people

Entertainment Weekly: "Are Superheroes Still Super?"

2010-07-24T21:43:00.011-04:00

It's been a pretty slow summer blockbuster season, superhero-wise. The Iron Man sequel was ok, but not great, and there wasn't really anything else to fill the void (and Harry Potter won't show until November) until the next batch. (I was so underwhelmed by Inception...that's right, I said it...) So I was exited to see the EW arrive with the first glimpses of Green Lantern and Thor. I wasn't too keen on the cover; it looks like Hal Jordan was skinned alive. But I'll reserve judgement for now, and I'm glad they're going with the more recent version of Thor for the movie.

But I was also intrigued by the essay after all that: "Are Superheroes Still Super?" by Jeff Jensen. The main premise of the piece that "when any movie genre starts toying with parody, it's a sign that the genre may be played out. Is the superhero movie past its prime?" Well, off the bat, I'd say "no." There are parodies of every genre, yet we still have romantic comedies, vampire movies, and action flicks, so it's a non-sequiter to say that parodies signal the end (hell, what would the good people at MAD magazine do, if that were the case?). As long as life is a struggle, there will always be a need for heroism.

But there are a few interesting points in the essay that seem to answer the title's question in the positive (and connects to the core of what this blog is all about, which was a response to the idea that heroism was a bad thing, something to be overcome.) Comic books were not immune, but all the "moral dubiousness" of the anti-hero trend began to work against the genre; as Jensen puts it, "[all] that edge and irony made comics cool again, but over time it actually narrowed the appeal of the medium to just the geekiest geeks." This has translated into less-than-stellar box office for the movie adaptions for Kick-Ass, Jonah Hex, and even the venerable Watchmen. Jensen seems to take this as a bad sign for comic book movie in general, but one can only do that by ignoring (or critically maligning) the unexpected phenomenon of 300, which affirmed the idea of heroism.

Jensen is not unhopeful, however, and continues by speculating on the next wave, including Green Lantern, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers: "If they succeed, the next decade of superhero cinema could be as fertile as the last, and, one hopes, marked by greater diversity (Cut to Wonder Woman, impatiently tapping her her red leather boot.)

This is something that crossed my mind; it seems that the movie versions are best suited for the origin story, or with the trilogy taking on the "hero's journey" motif of classical mythology; it's less suited nowadays for the "serialization" approach of the comic books. This seems odd, at first, considering that the golden age of cinema featured popular serials like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. I don't know if it's a change in the audience, the cost of production, or that the epic nature of movies now compared to then simply call for a bigger story than what was featured in the shorter serials of yesteryear. In any case, if, by diversity, Jensen simply means more female or ethnic characters, that would only be a surface-level change to the the above, it would still focus on the origin and trilogy approach, whereas the serialization approach of the comics allows for character development over a longer timespan. And that brings us back to the parody aspect, it's easy to parody a formula, and the more epic, the better, so it may be more accurate to say that the parody is less around the idea of heroism and more about the formula. But the side-effect is that the idea of heroism gets attacked by-proxy.

Jensen concludes by noting the "repackaging" of unused or even recently-used characters like the X-Men and Spider-Man: "the same heroes who ignited the current superhero boom...may be burdened with the great responsibility of revitalizing the very genre they started. Hopefully, there's a superpower for that." This is to miss the point; it focuses too much on the "super" and not enough on the "hero." It is a start to point out the fatal flaw of the anti-hero approach, but we don't define a positive by its negative. Incidentally, no "superpower is needed," it's a power available to any who stand up for their values. It's not superpowers or costumes, but integrity and courage, which, by the way, are the best defense against parody.

Lest We Forget: Geert Wilders Rides On...

2010-07-11T01:01:00.005-04:00

[I'm on something of a "summer vacation" from blogging (i.e., working my butt off). It's not always easy to keep up when keeping one's own affairs in order, but the world does goes on...so I'm reprising this story in light of Facebook's recent removal of the official Geert Wilder page. (Hat tip to Damien for the head's up.) I do respect the fact that Facebook is a free service, and that the owner's have the right to pull it. But I respect Wilders even more. So lest we forget, here's a reprise on the Trial of Geert Wilders. And please find the time to speak up on Facebook to restore his page.]

I've been pretty focused on "the war at home," but today, I'd like to focus attention "across the pond" and lend my support to an international "hero in exile," Geert Wilders.

(Image by Bosch Fawstin.)

From The Trial of Geert Wilders: A Symposium:

"Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders goes on trial in Amsterdam on Wednesday, January 20, on charges related to his political campaign to stop and reverse the Islamization of the Netherlands. The International Free Press Society has asked an array of legal experts, authors and journalists to reflect on this momentous event, and we present their comments below."

Who is Geert Wilders? You can get the full story at Wiki and elsewhere, but briefly stated, Wilders is a Dutch politician (and an atheist Libertarian) who has come under intense scrutiny and persecution for his opposition to Islam. Not "moderate Islam." Not "Islamic Terrorism." No, simply Islam, for what it is at its core.

So why is Wilders a hero? For having the courage to call Islam for what it is, at its core. And he's not been shy about it; Wilders has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf, stating: "The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order." If only more people had stated the same about Hitler before the Holocaust. It's easy to denounce after the crime, it takes real courage to speak up against a popular atrocity.

Wilders is a hero who has put himself on the front lines, which has gotten him not only banned from entering the U.K. for a time, he is also on trial for "hate speech," referring to his movie Fitna (Arabic for "disagreement and division among people.) Wilders describes the short film as "a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization". Reactions ranged from boycotts to YouTube bans, as well as the aforementioned U.K. ban and current trial. (And let us not forget the violence, both threatened and real, over the "Mohammad cartoon" controversy.)

Wilders is a hero for putting his own life on the line to protect not just Dutch values, but American values, which are universal values. This is not just a free speech issue, it is a fight for individual rights against not just religious tyranny, but tyranny in general. This trial is an important one, and the outcome will set the tone of that fight for years to come. (For a more personal account, I invite you to visit someone with first-hand experience: Bosch Fawstin's The Infidel, not only for his comic book work, but for his essays like "Calling Islam 'Islam'")

Geert Wilders is the "hero of the day" in support of him at his trial tomorrow. If you ever wanted proof of a "hero in exile," this is it. If you support Geert Wilders and our fight (and if you value freedom, then this is your fight, too), you can make a donation to the Geert Wilders defense fund. Give what you can, if you can. But money is not the only option; you, like Wilders, can speak up and make a stand.

Fitna by Geert Wilders

Independence Day Art: A SHOW OF HANDS (3 of 3)

2010-07-04T13:05:00.000-04:00

(Click image for full-size)

(Back to 1 and 2)

Independence Day Art: A SHOW OF HANDS (2 of 3

2010-07-04T13:04:00.000-04:00

(Click image for full-size)

(Continue to part 3 of 3)

Back to 1 and 2)

Independence Day Art: A SHOW OF HANDS (1 of 3)

2010-07-04T13:00:00.003-04:00

Because it's not just the "Fourth of July," but Independence Day...And to remind us of that, here is some of my artwork from my story A Show of Hands: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes In Exile. The full story is available in pdf. The following images summarize wordlessly not just the story, but the past and present, though hopefully, not the future. Dedicated to those heroes of truth, justice, and, yes, the American Way...Without further ado...

(Click images to see full-size.)

(Continue to Part 2 of 3)

Iran Reprise, pt. 2: One Year Later, and Remembering the Brave Lioness

2010-06-24T19:31:00.003-04:00

(Reprised for the anniversary of last year's uprising; it's interesting to compare my comments about American apathy then to the growing unrest now...)

...the situation in Iran demands acknowledgement.

I hesitate to say too much, because I really don't know much about Iran beyond the immediate fact that it's a theocratic state that is usually depicted as being anti-American whose people are usually depicted burning American flags while the leader vows "Death to Israel." I'm not rushing in to comment on the goals and motives of the protesters beyond the immediate surface level motive of dissatisfaction with the election results; I find it hard to believe that suddenly Iranians are "pro-freedom," given the strong Islamic tradition there. There is also the question of Mir-Hossein Mousavi's past involvement with the Islamic fundamentalists. I know nothing about him, but I am hearing a lot of contradictory information, that he is a hardliner and a reformist, that he had to say what they wanted to hear in order to get this far, etc..

I am not going to theorize on what I don't know, or pretend to be able to infer anything to make any real meaningful commentary beyond a personal statement. That said, to the extent that the protesters are putting their own lives on the line for what they believe in, and the readiness of Mousavi to accept martyrdom, I can't help but feel admiration. When you compare the fire and spirit of the Iranians versus the apathy and complacency of too many Americans towards the government advance into outright fascism, it's hard not to feel a little bit that we've entered the Bizarro world. While American "tea party" protesters" are afraid to violate a permit law, Iranians, whatever their motives, are standing up and telling their government just who is in charge, giving life to the Colonial American phrase "Live free or die."

I'd like to say that "we are all Iranians now," except that too many Americans still don't understand what's happening at home. Hopefully, the situation in Iran will remind everyone that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If the protesters in Iran are truly fighting for freedom (and not just another form of tyranny), they have my utmost support and are true heroes. And if the picture above is an accurate reflection, then I, too, am an Iranian now.

Iran: One Year Later, and Remembering Neda, the "Brave Lioness"

2010-06-24T19:24:00.005-04:00

(It's been a few days to the year since last summer's Iranian revolution. I wish this was a happy anniversay, but it's not; so instead, in honor of their bravery, I'm reprising our tribute to their bravery.)

A special note has to be made for the brave women protesters in Iran, who are even more oppressed under the Islamic theocracy. A Iranian commentator on CNN used the word

shirzan, meaning"lioness," to describe them. What an apt

word.

Check out this video of one such lioness taking on an armed soldier. I wish more American men had her spirit.

And many have taken the death of a young woman named

Neda as a rallying moment; reminiscent of Spartacus, many are claiming "I am Neda."