speaking of jewish exceptionalism….

… I don’t think there’s a book called The Irish Catholic Graphic Novel, do you?

I drew an essay for this book, which came out last month from Rutgers University Press (on amazon here). (I also did the painting for the cover but I did not do the overall design or add the balloons.)

The essay is a much-abbreviated history of American autobio comics and their Jewish influences (Freud is clearly an influence on all of the early stuff, and I argue that creators in the early ’70s, like R. Crumb, Harvey Pekar, & Justin Green, were influenced by Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint), what defines the genre, a theoretical exploration of how confessional comics are an expression of American-Jewish thought, and a bit of “how I got started in comics” as well.

If those sorts of things interest you, and if scholarship about Jewish-themed comic books (which is the rest of the book) interests you, you should check it out. If my essay sounds interesting but not scholarship about Jewish-themed comic books, I’ll be printing just the essay as a zine in the next couple of months. I’ll post when I have them. meanwhile, here is the first page (click to enlarge):

(Disclaimer which I kind of can’t believe I’d ever need to make: No, I don’t believe i’m superior to anybody because i’m Jewish. And I’m not really interested in discussing whether the Jews control all the world’s money or whatever.)

Happy New Year!

I just confessed to Noah by e-mail that I’m socially retarded. To continue my coming out, I’ll share what I did a few years ago, the first New Year’s Eve when I didn’t try to pretend I had a social life. What I did was spend a couple of enjoyable hours reading this material right here.

UPDATE: And what I was reading last night, among other things. To care about this controversy, it probably helps to be a copy editor, or what the Brits call “subeditors.”

vindication of the rights of nebbishes (to your underpants)

I’m trying to expand some thoughts I expressed in the comments of this old entry. I watch a fair amount of romantic comedies (I wouldn’t be surprised if I watch more than any of my co-utilitarians), especially the male-aimed kind (of the Kevin Smith/Judd Apatow schools) but also the female-aimed kind. A trend that has proliferated in the last several years is what some have termed “the slacker-striver romance,” where the slacker is always the man and the striver is the woman (I don’t know any LGBT instances of this trend, but I’d be fascinated to hear about them). It ranges from ridiculous male-wish-fulfillment (Knocked Up) to preposterous female-wish-fulfillment (in Failure to Launch, the guy lives with his parents, yes, but also just happens to be a wealthy yacht salesman played by Matthew McConaughey). You could even see WALL-E as a version of this (they both have important jobs that they are good at, but which has to learn to loosen up and have fun? Which is more human?).

I guess part of this comes from a real-life North American phenomenon of extended adolescence, but I think the trend’s biggest cultural precursor are nebbish-vindication stories, which many people trace back to Woody Allen. The geeky introvert, with embarrassingly big ethnic features, usually smarter than everyone around him but appreciated by no one, lusts after the perfect, successful, well-adjusted beautiful WASP. He gets her in the end, even though they have nothing in common, usually because he is a “nice guy,” unlike her brutish handsome WASP boyfriend (how exactly he is “nice” can be little more than notional… sometimes being nebbishy is enough to establish him as the one who should win, and he doesn’t ever have to do anything altruistic). In stories where he doesn’t get the girl, she is a symbol of everything that is bad and shallow about the world which constantly dumps on the poor nebbish.

This can be dismissed as obvious wish-fulfillment/power fantasy stuff, but it’s so pervasive that I can’t help but feel it influences real-world human relations in a significant way. I was exposed to probably more than my fair share of it, growing up consuming especially geeky culture (comic books, science fiction), and thinking that if I grew up pretty, I would be some downtrodden nerd’s salvation. Never, of course, that some otherworldly hunk was gonna reward my introversion and self-pity. I got started small, on Charlie Brown and Opus the penguin, and all the cruel, cruel hot girls who apparently had other interests beside them. I knew that if I only went for guys I found attractive, I was shallow and blind (whereas, if a guy only goes for hot chicks, well, that’s just evolution, don’t you know).

The counter-parable that’s been most in my head, as I think about this, is, ironically (and as also noted by Jon Hastings) another Judd Apatow joint. Freaks and Geeks was a one-season mid-nineties (I think. I just watched the season all at once this summer) show about a sister and brother and their respective circles of friends. Their high school experiences (she’s in grade eleven, I think, he’s in grade nine or maybe even eight) are parallel storylines in most episodes. At different times over the course of the season, they each enact nebbish-vindication narratives, but the show stays with each story long enough to see it fall apart. The sister gives in to peer pressure and dates the sweet loser in her circle of friends even though she’s not attracted to him. She ends up dumping him painfully a couple of episodes after, because she’s still not attracted to him, she’s a lot more intelligent than he is, and you know, he’s kind of a loser. He’s hurt badly, she feels guilty, and they unsuccessfully try to stay friends for the rest of the show.

The little brother is an ideal sympathetic nebbish: he is smart, studious, a big sci-fi geek, and actually sensitive and courteous to others. He of course lusts after the head cheerleader, she of course dates brutish jocks and thinks of him as just a friend, and we presumably are supposed to be rooting for her to notice the great guy right in front of her eyes. The unrequited bit carries on for most of the season, until she sees the light about three episodes before the end. Then it quickly goes south because, duh, they have nothing in common. It’s great.

You can see a couple of the seeds of the squickier Judd Apatow tropes in the show, like about how dating girls is totally less fun than hanging out with your buds. But like a lot of other people who half-like Apatow stuff, I’m still waiting for the best parts of Freaks and Geeks to show up in his movies.

The Jew in George Lucas’s Soup

UPDATE: In Comments, Noah favors the pulp explanation for Lucas’s racial, ah, infelicities:

Lucas has all sorts of weird racial stereotypes in his movies. There’s a bunch of semi-Chinese speaking/looking Asian characters if I remember. And Jar-Jar Binks is egregious …

I don’t think it’s necessarily because Lucas is some sort of closet racist. I think it’s about his debt to/obsession with old pulp sources, which are all pretty racist. And about being dumb. Being dumb is important here, I think.

According to my rough estimate of prevailing racial mores, I can see ’30s-style Chinese stereotypes showing up as movie aliens. I can also believe, just, that Jar-Jar Binks is anti-black, since he’s such a bizarre hodgepodge and the Steppin Fetchit element is just one of many ingredients heaped together; it’s possible that Lucas never thought too hard about every element of what he had wrought. But Watto the Jew Slave Trader is a note-by-note recreation and his source would be anti-Semitic propaganda presented as such, not pulp magazines or old serials. I’ve seen old adventure movies and read Doc Savage and you don’t find hairy, big-nosed Jews wearing yarmulkes. The worst I’ve seen, and this was in more genteel, middle-class light lit, was pushy types who littered and who spoke with odd spellings.

All of which is to say that I don’t know what to make of Watto. The obvious explanation — he’s a Jew! — just doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t believe anyone would knowingly stick a stereotype like that into a film. But Watto doesn’t look like anything else.

Now the original post:

Miriam just commented on watching The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. There’s a scene where Aslan, the Christ figure, is humiliated and then killed, and Miriam says the tormentors look a lot like their counterparts in medieval representations of the Passion. Which means, one would expect, that they look like medieval Christians’ idea of Jews.

Now, I didn’t spot that, but it’s possible I had fallen asleep. What I did notice was a character in The Phantom Menace, a freaky alien with wings and trunk and so on, all of it somehow configured so that the freak came out looking like a caricature of a bulbous-nosed, conniving Jew trader. In fact the character trafficked in slaves, which reinforced the impression. Just now I googled “phantom menace anti-semitic” and found out his name is Watto. And here he is. The hat! The stubble! You tell me that’s not a Jew, Der Sturmer style.

Googling “watto anti-semitic,” I find this controversy has been kicking around a bit, kind of a second-string Jar-Jar-Binks-is-racist deal. The defenses are terribly unconvincing: Watto’s accent is kind of Italian or kind of Greek, so therefore … Yeah, like that would make a difference. On the other hand, what the hell would an anti-Semitic stereotype be doing in the middle of a big-money Hollywood summer film? And why on earth would George Lucas be gunning for the Jews? He’s friends with Spielberg.

To tell the truth, I wasn’t offended by Watto. I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I couldn’t believe it was a coincidence and I couldn’t believe it was intentional. I couldn’t believe the damn thing was there. Yet there it was.

So I took my quandary to experts, people who would know about Star Wars production lore and any urban legends concerning the lore. Alex Robinson (Box Office Poison et al) is a Star Wars freak and back then he ran a message board. I went there and lay my confusion before the board’s adherents. What did they know about all this?, I asked.

So of course they all (not Robinson, everyone else) called me an asshole and made fun of me. Jerks. One even pushed my argument over into absurdity by saying, yeah, and maybe CP30 was gay. The thing is, CP30 is prissy, mincing, and high-pitched, so maybe he’s not gay but he’s definitely a ’30s pulp version of an Englishman. He has an English accent, damn it. He’s a butler! So if Lucas’s movies have an homage to old-style stereotypes of the English, why not a pastiche of anti-Semitic caricature? Well, for lots of reasons, actually. The whole thing is kind of fucked up: a contest between my lying eyes and my lying sense of probability.

Googling “george lucas anti-semitic anti-semitism” doesn’t establish much except that the New Internationalist is on the case and they’re quite sure Watto had a “coarse gravelly Yiddish accent.” Which I don’t think it was. I’ve heard Yiddish accents and that was something else.

A couple of years ago I saw Phantom Menace again, this time with my tv buddy, Henri. He’s a drunken anti-Semite, so I raised my concerns and asked what he thought. He lifted a sardonic eyebrow and nodded heavily; the message was that I had stumbled across the obvious. I asked for an explanation. “The Jews love to make fun of themselves,” he intoned. It turned out that he thought the Star Wars movies had been made by Steven Spielberg. So as of now I must consider the case unresolved.

Batman and Robin: The Critical Principle

Noah asked me why I didn’t like the LOTR films, then added that he didn’t see the Narnia films because they sounded bad. For me that raises the question of how the Narnia films sound different than the LOTR films, aside from having little English kids in the cast. It’s still a lot of fantasy and swords and an epic clash between the deformed and the comely.

I get the same thing sometimes when I see a big Hollywood film that’s meant to be a blockbuster but flops. Sometimes you can tell they won’t make it, either because no one was on their game or because somebody with power made exceptionally strange decisions (Hudson Hawk, the magnificent Wild Wild West). Other times I don’t really get why the movie is singled out as being so bad. Ishtar, for example, strikes me as unusually good; I love Elaine May, and Warren Beatty gave one of his few decent performances. The Deep Blue Sea, which is about supersmart giant sharks, seemed like all the other big-monster action films. Maybe it was so run of the mill that people made it a scapegoat for the tons of other product they had sat through.

Then there’s Batman and Robin. I really can’t tell why it’s worse than the other Batman movies, by which I mean the ones that started with the Tim Burton film and ended, I guess, with Batman and Robin. I saw Batman and was pretty indifferent, tried to watch the second film and walked out, missed the third one. Then I saw Batman and Robin and was again indifferent, except that it had Uma Thurman in it and she was funny and looked great. Otherwise the movie seemed like all the other body-armored, black-metaled, big-shot-supporting-cast Batman footage I had seen.

I’m told Batman’s armors had nipples that time around and that it made a difference. Still doesn’t seem like much, though.

So the critical principle mentioned in this post’s title would be: If you liked all that other shit, what’s the matter with this shit?