The comic book series I chose to read was Rat Queens, a comic fantasy, written by Kurtis J. Wiebe and published by Image Comics. This comic follows four main, female characters: Hannah, Violet, Dee, and Betty. They are all rambunctious, raw, and quite funny. It takes place in a type of medieval setting. So far in the issue that I have read, I have gathered that they fight off evil assassins in order to protect themselves and the lives of others.
Something that I noticed quite quickly was how unconventional these women characters are, if I am comparing the female characters in the other comics that we have read. Besides the fact that they are not actually human, they all represent different body images. One of the characters is quite short, and all of them appear to be more curvy and realistic of what real women look like. Some of them are a bit sexualized by their clothing attire, but it is a refreshing difference between the previous Lois Lane we have read in the All-Star Superman. Their bodies also seem to celebrate their curves rather than objectify them. It feels as if they are owning their bodies rather than the reader owning them. They also all curse, drink, and seem to poke fun at the campiness that is usually presented in mainstream comic book series that we have read so far in class. One of the characters, Hannah, makes a comment to the group and says, “We can sit around and bitch or we can make some monsters bleed. And my sword is hungry for blood.” Betty then turns to her and asks, “Really?” Hannah responds, “I’ve been sitting on that one for a week. It’s terrible isn’t it?” Something else that I noticed in this issue was the raunchy humor that is presented, particularly through the exchanges of the women. It is much more adult humor, and to be quite honest can be a bit excessive at times. In talking with one of the workers at the comic book store, she informed me there was more of a realistic take on these women. I do agree with that partly, but the sexual humor feels forced, and at times, completely unnecessary. However, it is more refreshing to see female characters represented in a more realistic fashion. Aesthetically, the artwork is fantastic. Roc Upchurch does a fantastic job at really capturing the facial expressions of these characters on the pages. Referring back to the exchange between Hannah and Betty, the look that Betty gives Hannah is something I actually felt after Hannah delivers her cheesy joke. Due to the fact these facial expressions are so clearly displayed, it almost makes me feel that I was in the comic book with these characters rather than being an outsider just reading about them. Something else humorous to note is the character of Betty. She fulfills the stereotypes of a hippy like figure, who constantly wants to take drugs and eat candy. When her friends ask her to take out dinner, she displays a bunch of candy and drugs. Also something to note, Dee refuses to lead them in prayer because of her atheist beliefs. The overall rebellion of these women is something we deserve to see more often.
1 Comment
Already opening up the first page of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, it appears to be vastly different than the previous Batman we have been reading. The pages for the most part are in black and white, with very little color. The art itself is more defined, bold, and gives the overall story of Batman more of an eerie feeling. I actually felt that this art was more appropriate than the previous Batman. Batman, in my eyes, is pretty different than Superman, and deserves this attention to difference. Both the original Superman and Batman comics felt the same in the way they were presented (not entirely) and I appreciated this art more.
Something also different is the way the story is presented. In a number of ways, but what stuck out to me was the tale being narrated at times by a news reporter. Geoff Klock in “The Revisionary Superhero Narrative” tells us that Miller makes this Batman tale more realistic in the sense that he gets older and other various traits. What also makes this perhaps more realistic is the story being told through a news reporter. Not only did this keep up with contemporary times of how we received the news, but it also makes Batman feel more real. Instead of letting the readers be the interpreter, there is a news reporter (with really terrible hair) bringing us into the story. It was a little reminiscent of when Batman and Superman used to directly speak to us through the panels, but this time, it feels a little more contemporary. Another aspect that Klock points out is the intense sexuality that the female Robin has. I definitely rolled my eyes in the panel where her legs are wrapped around Batman in a straddling motion. However, I never really thought about the male Robin and Batman in any homoerotic ways. Perhaps this is my heteronormative reading, alas! Something that struck me when I read Will Brooker’s article was when he points out that many people may have had qualms about Batman regarding his origin story. The fact that his parents were killed by a criminal, and he vows to avenge the death of his parents because of this, does have a sense of selfishness to it. Of course as Batman, he does save many lives within the comics that I have seen, but his main motivation is based upon revenge, not necessarily the good of humanity.
I put on these lenses while reading the comic, “There Is No Hope in Crime Alley.” While many of these Batman comics have had darker undertones than Superman I would argue, there is something even more frightening about this particular comic. Batman aims to find Leslie Thompkins, the woman who helped him after the death of his parents. When he finally does find her after shutting out Alfred, he realizes that two criminals are trying to rob her. He starts to beat one of them up until near death when Leslie begs Batman to stop. Leslie and Batman then reflect on Batman visiting her at the same time each year and she recounts helping a little boy many years ago, who was Batman. This is something different than many of the other superheroes that I am accustomed to reading about. Altogether, there is something different about Batman. Just as Brooker points out that he does not have supernatural powers, but he is also not the average man. As Bruce Wayne, his life seems sad and lonely. Alfred and Robin accompany him, but he appears to be more of a twisted soul, if we are comparing him to Superman. Perhaps this ominous figure of Batman has a lot more issues that are overlooked by some. In “There Is No Hope in Crime Alley” and even “Robin Dies at Dawn” Batman is more of a loose cannon. He is not the previous Batman read from 1939 who is more logical and thinks things through. In this comic, he is impulsive, unpredictable, and acts on his emotions. It makes me wonder though, does that make him any less super? In “Robin Dies at Dawn” we see more of Batman’s vulnerable side. I also felt that Robin was the stronger one of the two in this comic, emotionally as well. Batman begs for Robin to help him, and he crumbles when he thinks Robin is dead. I think it goes without saying that a part of being a superhero is having mental strength too. Due to the fact that Batman’s motivations are based on revenge, could this be making him weaker? With this being said, does the motivation really matter, and instead, should we just be focusing on what he is actually doing right for his own community? As we bring Superman to a close, we now enter the superhero that is Batman. As mentioned in my previous blogs, there are certainly dark undertones within many of these stories. However in the Batman Chronicles it seems more overt compared with the Superman Chronicles that was only made a year earlier.
From an aesthetic point of view, Batman himself is much darker and mysterious. The way he slinks behind dark corners, and the masking of his face, allows him to be more of a complex, brooding character as opposed to Superman. Something that I just could not get into with Superman was the campy vibe he exuded. On paper, he was everything what we would expect in a superhero. Or at least, what our ideology of a superhero generally is. I am a bigger fan of Batman because he is unconventional, misunderstood, and plays by his own rules. This also could be a prime example of a young, giddy girl yearning for the bad boy. I think there is something to be said about Batman and his vigilante nature. He discourages Robin from going to the police after his parents are killed, (which by the way, I had no idea that Robin was a little boy. I just thought he was a mini, strong man, a little body builder of sorts I suppose. What!) and tells him to stay with him because the police cannot protect him like he can. There are a few other incidents that mirror this message. When we hear Batman’s origin story, his parents too were killed by a criminal, so he makes a vow to avenge their death by going after all criminals. Even with the Joker, it seems as if none of the law enforcement can protect the numerous men that the Joker promises to kill the way that Batman can. Perhaps these creators/writers did not believe in the justice system at the time. Just a hunch. In my girlish, and very problematic dreams, I am rooting for the superhero Batman. Arguably, he breaks the mold of what a superhero is often socially constructed to be. Or, maybe this is more of my own, personal construction. Not to mention, I do not have the urge to roll my eyes when I turn each page to see what other cheesy, ridiculous poses that Batman has in store for us as Superman did. Well, Batman does feed into the cheese at some points, but he does so in a more ominous, kind of way. *Blushes* All-Star Superman is definitely a rapid change from what we have been reading. From an aesthetic perspective, the pictures look a lot more detailed and influenced more by technology. Turning from page to page, the expressions of the characters appear more detailed and readable. The content too, is more advanced and adult. Lois Lane is a lot more sexualized than the previous comics. The curves of her body are a lot more prominent, and it even shows her in a shower.
Something else that struck me too is how much more hyper masculine Superman appears, along with the other men. In one scene when Lois Lane and Superman encounter Samson and Atlas, they try to win the affections of Lois by bragging about their many masculine traits. In moments, Lois falls for it and Superman becomes jealous and angry. Soon, Lois becomes the object of their affections, or a prize to be won. Although Samson and Atlas were tricking Superman into this scheme, it just demonstrates that not only are the females in these comics hyper sexualized, so are the men. It seems completely unnecessary the shots that they have of Lois. When she is running around in her little dress, her body is completely revealed. She has greatly evolved too in her appearance. Although she always fit the beauty ideology of women, she starts from a manipulative, untrustworthy woman, to more of an object for Superman. I would actually argue that she had more agency in the earlier comics that we read from her. At least in the previous comics she was more of a force to be reckoned with. In All-Star Superman she not only is the cliché damsel in distress, but the sex object as well. A little frightening to observe that this has backtracked rather than progressed. One of the most interesting aspects of reading these comics in order, was seeing the evolution of Superman, or rather, seeing how his stories changed from one comic to the next. I really enjoyed reading about how he grew up and exactly what happened to him before he actually became Superman.
In Superman #146, it really gives many details and descriptions of who he was as a child, and even a teenager. Although he still had super strength and was abnormal as an adolescent, reading about his childhood humanized him. Instead of seeing him directly as Superman, it could perhaps make him more relatable to a reader. Except for the whole super strength as a little baby though. I have also never seen the approach that they took in this comic, they were teaching history! Superman goes throughout time to try and rewrite it. What struck me in particular was when he goes back to the Battle of Little Big Horn to fight against the Native Americans. Again, this incident is completely one sided and depicts them as “savages” as many of our American history books do. With this being said, I thought this was a very clever idea to implement into comics, especially considering that a lot of children were reading them at the time. I would be curious to research what erupted this sudden change in the Superman comics. In Superman #149, I think this was one of the first times I have seen Superman vulnerable. Luthor took advantage of his kindness, and going back to what I said previously, I think this humanizes Superman as well. Seeing a superhero imperfect at times, or vulnerable, can actually make readers a bigger fan. Again, I would be curious to research why this evolution happened, because compared with the first comic we read, Superman always appeared perfect. The child in me had a qualm about Silver Streak in the other half of Supermen! I was with him as a superhero until I found out about his shoes. On page 134, it explains his shoes are a “special invention” that allow him to run up and down buildings and allow him to have “super speed.” It’s interesting because the many superheroes we read about have some type of scientific power or a freak accident happened to them which allowed them to acquire these super powers. But with Silver Streak, it is almost as if he went to his local mall, bought some jazzed up shoes, and became a superhero.
But then it got me thinking about what we have been reading for the past couple of weeks, putting into question of what makes a superhero. Surely he has the courage which is evident in this particular story. He even saves a small child from some thugs! But obviously if he did not have these shoes, he wouldn’t have these certain “powers.” But would that mean the courage would not come with it? Is the courage and bravery attached with the shoes, or could these qualities be independent without these shoes? Perhaps I am thinking about these shoes far too closely. Of course in the episode of “The Claw” we see white people talking about how peaceful America is, but this will soon be interrupted by The Claw. And of course, The Claw is a character who looks “different” or “othered”, childhood propaganda! When I read this particular story, it made me think of Looney Tunes and how badly it was flooded with propaganda. I do not know much about childhood TV shows today, but I am sure that still exists. An adult version of this is our news, of course. In this episode of “The Claw”, the couple are discussing how fortunate and lucky they are to be in America because of how peaceful it is. Then The Claw, an outsider, comes in and invades them. Subliminal messages? I would say so. Sorry kids, America is not as spectacular as we make it out to be. Something that struck me right away in reading Supermen was that it was slightly darker than Superman Chronicles. Of course there were real and intense issues in the first comic book we read, but even the pictures in Supermen did not strike me as something childlike compared with the first comic. In this comic, the darker undertones were more overt. On page 38 for example, the Flame is being whipped and tortured in a few pictures, and it actually shows this happening. In Superman Chronicles when Lois and Superman kissed, it did not even show this but implied it. Even in the vulture episode with Stardust, the large birds have more of an evil feeling to them. Of course there was evil in the first comic, but this did not feel quite as playful.
In The Superhero Reader it was really interesting reading about the history of the comic book. In particular, I liked reading about the psychiatrist Fredric Wertham when he talked about the superhero “often embodied noxious notions of white supremacy” (5). Considering that he became more notable in the late 1940s, this is a bit surprising that this was noticed during this time. I also liked reading “Comics Predecessors” because it talks about how there were superheroes even before Superman. Maybe they were not labeled as a superhero, but they had inherent super powers. However, Peter Coogan concludes with saying that although there were many of these traits, Siegel and Shuster were the first to connect these all together and put a label to it. Jules Feiffer discusses the spirit of the superhero and the comic book. Feiffer really brought to life what this meant during the time and how much work everyone put into these. Feiffer describes it as a “generation” and how this was very reminiscent of the culture of the time. I really enjoyed reading this as well because it made me fully understand and appreciate what these comics meant for not only the audience, but the people that put work into them. I think at times, they can be underappreciated. Lastly, reading about the evolution of comic to comic books also made me appreciate the art of it all. I never stopped to realize how evolved this art has become. |
AuthorI am taking my first journey through the comic book world. ArchivesCategories |