Utilitarian Review 5/30/15

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Nora Olsen on the history of YA novels.

Robert Stanley Martin begins his series on comic on sale dates, first post from 1906-1939.

Phillip Smith wonders if Fury Road is all that feminist.

Michael Carson on how HBO killed art.

Chris Gavaler on his new novel, which features art by a Ditko impersonator (contact Chris if you want to be the artist in question!)

Me on N.K. Jemisin and race in fantasy vs. race in superhero comics.

Me on the meta-awfulness of Dollhouse.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Guardian I talked about how Fury Road borrows from and mainstreams women in prison films.

At Ravishly I wrote about Ex Machina and AI as femme fatale.

At Splice Today I argued, contra Conor Friedersdorf, that police brutality against white people is still based in systemic racism.
 
Other Links

Katie Kilkenny on whether action heroines can be too masculine.

Lydia Kokkola on Twilight and virginity.

Bert Stabler did an amazing piece of art on Obama’s death threats.

Great interview with Judith Butler on trans issues.
 

fgqe7dwbvrsvsw2iaveb

 

Meta-Crap

Dollhouse-tv-17

For God’s sake don’t make me watch any more.

 
We’re doing a Joss Whedon roundtable hopefully week after next. In preparation, I thought I would watch Dollhouse…but it’s so crappy I don’t think I’ll actually make it all the way through. I like Eliza Dushku; she’s charming, if not exactly talented. But charm can only take you so far.

Anyway, what’s interesting to me in the first few episodes is how they work as self-parody of television writ large. Echo (that’s Dushku) is a mind-wiped young woman who gets some new personality transferred into her in each episode, at the behest of some paying client who wants a customized toy human to play with. Each of the scenarios is basically a clichéd and indifferently realized genre exercise: Echo becomes a profiler and deals with kidnappers; echo goes into the woods with an outdoorsman and then it turns out he’s a psychopath and she’s in a slasher movie; Echo is programmed as a swaggering art thief in a caper gone wrong. The blips in echo’s program function as a kind of wink at televisions myriad plot-holes. In one episode Echo is programmed to protect a pop singer, and keeps protecting her because the programming/plot demands that she should, even when, as far as character consistency goes, it makes no sense. In that art thief ep, Echo is mind-wiped half way through, becoming completely useless—echoing, again, the erratic competence of tv characters, who are as hapless or as effective as the plot requires. The fact that Dollhouse is itself wretched television only makes its meta-commentary on the wretchedness of television more perfect. It is itself the slipshod awfulness it mimics; Whedon is a fool performing a perfectly brainless imitation of a fool.

Dollhouse isn’t just a parody of television, though; it’s a parody of Whedon himself—and particularly of his feminism. Each of the personalities injected into Echo is resourceful, intelligent, determined. They’re strong female characters all. But they’re strong female characters that are made up, and visibly hollow. More, they’re strong female characters who just about all seem designed to be raped. Echo is often programmed to have romantic and sexual encounters—and such encounters are of course not consented to by Echo’s original personality, wherever that may be. For that matter, the insertion of the personalities into a unwitting body is itself a kind of assault. The creation of strong female characters is conflated with skeevy, snickering, and generally horrible abuse. This juxtaposition fits rather too neatly onto, for example, Buffy, where the strong female lead is frequently punished and shamed for her strength, almost as if the whole point of creating strong women is to run them through a sadomasochistic fever dream.

I only made it through episode 5, and in theory 6 is where things start to somewhat improve. I don’t know if I’ll ever get there…but I guess I do grudgingly admire the start of the series for its unremittingly self-accusatory awfulness. It’s hard to think of another series that so self-consciously uses its own crappiness to indict its medium and its creator.

Can There Be a Black Fantasy Hero?

hundred-thousand-kingdoms-e1336862036505

The most famous black sf/fantasy writers, Samuel Delany and Octavia Butler, are both on the high art end of the genre, leaning towards literary fiction, feminist utopia, and high art bona fides. Their peers are people like Joanna Russ, Urusla Le Guin, and Philip K. Dick, rather than, say, the solidly middle-brow Neil Gaiman or page turning sci-fi young adult fare like the Hunger Games.

N.K. Jemisin’s novel The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms is more in the Gaiman/Hunger Games camp; there is plot, there is a heroine, there is little in the way of complicated semiotic play, body horror, or high concept. To the extent that there is genre drift, it’s not towards literary fiction, but towards romance. You don’t have to squint much to see that, Nahodeth, the Night Lord, the most powerful being in the universe, is a dead ringer for Edward, and Christian Grey, and all those other wounded, violent, seductive super-patriarchs who hold out the promise of apocalyptically violent, yet mystically safe, romps/relationships. There’s even a bed-breaking scene a la the one in the last volume of Twilight (Jemisin might even have been directly inspired by Twilight; the timing seems about right.)

This isn’t to denigrate Jemisin’s book; I like Twilight quite well, as regular readers know, and while this isn’t as weird as Meyer’s book, its substantally better prose makes up for that to a good degree. The bed-breaking scene is cute, and in general the novel does what it sets out to do—which is to say, it bounces along at a readable clip, providing an enjoyably imagined world and a suitably fleshed out and determined heroine.

The novel is also concerned, in various ways with race. As we’ve mentioned a time or two on the blog, race in some genres, like superheroes, can be an extremely thorny issue to navigate.Even black creators often have a very difficult time incorporating black heroes in a meaningful way into superhero comics, as James Lamb has argued. Category fantasy has been perhaps even more overwhelmingly white in terms of creators and protagonists than the superhero genre has been. Given that history, and given Jemisin’s determination to write a category fantasy, rather than (like Butler or Delany) a meditation and subversion of the genre, you might expect some strain. Black superheroes are a mess; why should black fantasy heroes be any different?

But, at least in Jemisin’s handling, they are. Fantasy allows you of course to build entirely new worlds and cosmologies, and Jemisin uses that freedom to create an a reality in which race functions differently than, but with meaningful parallels to, our globe. Yeine Darr, the heroine, is from a backwater; she’s the child of the heir to the throne who gave up her legacy to marry a barbarian. Since she’s from the periphery, and because of her mother’s betrayal, Yeine is stigmatized. She’s also black—and while being black doesn’t function exactly the way it does in the modern U.S., it is still part of why she’s marginalized among the ruling Arameri, who are pale-skinned. Without much fuss, then, Jemisin manages to do what has so often eluded X-Men writers; she metaphorically references a history of anti-blackness without whitewashing it.

So what about fantasy’s white supremacist take on good and evil. Creators like Tolkien and C.S. Lewis linked virtue to a white British identity, casting the enemy as dark-skinned and/or, in Lewis’ case, as Muslim in all but name. Defenders of order and light fight the chaos of the dark; that’s how fantasy works — much like, not coincidentally, superhero stories.

Superhero stories have an awful lot of trouble switching around that law and order logic. But Jemisin inverts it almost casually. In her world, the evil is the white god of order, Itempas, who has enslaved his dark sibling, Nahadoth, god of chaos, and therefore of creation. The link between whiteness and enslavers is certainly not accidental. Nor is Yeine’s rumination, upon witnessing a particularly painful piece of hypocrisy:

This was the sort of thing that made people hate the Arameri—truly hate them, not just resent their power or their willingness to use it. They found so many ways to lie about the things they did. It mocked the suffering of their victims.

That’s pretty obviously a quote not just about bone-white Arameri self-delusions, but about Anglo-white American-European self-delusions. And again, those self-delusions are not necessarily the same, but are parallel enough to resonate—and not to themselves mock the suffering of victims by, for example, making a fantasy in which the bone-white ones are the main victims of slavery.

Again, Jemisin makes this all seem easy; why not have a black protagonist? Why not have a fantasy world very different from ours in which black historical experience, rather than white supremacist fantasy, remains recognizable? Part of the deftness is certainly due to Jemisin’s skill. But I think the fantasy genre itself deserves at least a bit of the credit. Imagining another world gives you more flexibility in dealing with race than the demand to imagine heroes operating in a world similar to ours, which they are not allowed to change.
______
Update: I actually talked to N.K. Jemisin for a separate interview, and she very kindly and gently told me I had misidentified the races here. The sun God is black; the god of darkness is white, and Yeine is half white and half Incan, or something close to Incan.

It doesn’t really change the thesis here very much I don’t think, but interesting for the way reader responses or visualizations can differ. Especially since a number of people who have read the books talked to me about this piece, but nobody else seems to have caught the errors either.

New Ditko-Lee Collaboration?

Two pages from the original artwork for the Spiderman comic.

 
The final issue of Amazing Fantasy (No. 15) featured not only Spider-Man’s debut but three shorter Steve Ditko and Stan Lee collaborations, including “The One and Only,” a five-page tale made in the late 1950s and dropped into Amazing Fantasy as back filler. Ditko is credited for the art, but comics collector James Horvath, grandson of Golden Age artist Lydia Horvath, believes his grandmother actually drew it. Ms. Horvath was renowned for her ability to imitate other artists, including Joe Shuster for whom she ghosted as a member of his studio before leaving Cleveland in 1940 to begin her freelancing career with Timely and Paragon Comics.

The script for “The One and Only” was assumed lost, until Horvath recently discovered it in his late grandmother’s private papers. It is a parody of Golden Age knock-offs of Superman and features a Jimmy Olson-like character losing his newspaper job and searching for his beloved hero “Singulus” who went inexplicably missing during the 1950s. It has a dark twist ending which I won’t spoil, but here is an excerpt:
 

PAGE THREE, “The One and Only”

Script: Stan Lee

Row 1, Panel 1: Plane flying over the Himalayas. Caption: “Before vanishing, Singulus told Little Jim that he had gained his powers from a guru in the Himalaya Mountains. With nothing left to lose, Little Jim splurges on a one-way ticket to Tibet!”

Row 1, Panel 2: Close-up of Jim’s extremely foreshortened, rock-gouged hand reaching through a mist of mountain cloud for a ledge hold. Zoom in for the crosshatch of cuts and ragged nail edges.

Row 1, Panel 3: When Jimmy’s gritting face struggles over the ledge, he’s now has a scraggly beard and a few gray wires of hair over his still adolescently-round head.

Row 2, Panel 1: Jim now fully on the ledge pulls out a flashlight from his removed backpack before entering the cave mouth.

Row 2, Panel 2: Jim’s round white eyes above the flashlight eye as he stumbles into the black of the secret cavern, with the cave opening now behind him.

Row 2, Panel 3: Jim’s POV, flashlight finds Singulus’ abandoned costume on the cave floor. Jim: “Singulus?”

Row 2, Panel 4: Jim’s POV, flashlight reveals the ancient guru Onlyone sitting cross-legged next to the costume. Onlyone: “At last the next heir to the Power Singulus has answered the calling!”

Row 3, Panel 1: Onlyone stretches out his arm, hand open with a ring in his palm. Jim reaches for the ring. Jim: “Me?” Onlyone: “I, Onlyone the Lonely One, Holy Keeper of the Power Singular, have been waiting to bestow this gift upon you.”

Row 3, Panel 2: Jim’s POV, as Onlyone watches him slide the ring onto his finger. Close up of finger and the ring with the letter “S” on it. Jim: “But I’m just Little Jim. How can I ever be—”

Row 3, Panel 3: Jim transforms into the new Singulus. His body mushrooms, newly superheroic shoulders shoving through the frame edges. The new Singulus leotard has bolder lines and darker colors than the discarded one shown earlier on the ground. Jim: “SINGULUS!!”

Row 3, Panel 4: Onlyone stands behind the new Singulus. Onlyone in spike-edged talk balloon, words in bold: “But remember!! The Power Singular is singular!! The cosmic charm was forged in secrecy and so in secrecy must remain!! The chosen one must stand alone or free his Secret Rival!!”

Sadly none of this is true. Lydia Horvath does not exist. Her grandson, James Horvath, is the fictional narrator of the novel The Patron Saint of Superheroes, which my agent is pitching to acquisition editors in New York publishing houses. The story is about Horvath’s attempts to preserve his dying grandmother by collecting her lost artwork—a mission that leads him to stealing the original printer pages for Amazing Fantasy No. 15 from a millionaire’s wall and later donating them anonymously to the Library of Congress. That actually did happen in 2008, and my novel is, among other things, the story behind that story.

My agent thinks the novel should also include the art for “The One and Only.” But that’s a little hard to do since the Ditko knock-off story doesn’t actually exist. At least not yet.

I’m looking for an artist interested in being Steve Ditko. Or rather an artist interested in pretending to be Lydia Horvath pretending to be Steve Ditko. If/when some wonderful editor buys the manuscript, the project will expand, but for the current pitching stage, we’re looking for one drawing. The page scripted above.

There’s plenty more to tell (the complete letter-like script was published as a short story in The Pinch in 2011, and the description of another Horvath comic as a prose poem last year in Drawn to Marvel), but these are the essentials. If you’re an artist interested in collaborating, contact me at chris@gavaler.com.

Image result for steve ditko art library of congress 2008

How HBO Killed Art

band_of_brothers_tv_series-3200x1200

 
For many years, HBO has made money using a simple formula: one part full frontal nudity plus one part excessive gore plus one part family sentimentality = wildly successful drama. They have applied it to many different locations and historical time periods, from California, to World War Two, to Ancient Rome, to Depression-era New Jersey, to present-day New Jersey. Nothing much changes except for the set pieces and accents.  Other networks are trying to cash in but have struggled because HBO continues to up the ante – the prudish FCC still being uncomfortable with eviscerations, incest, rape and any combination of the three. Yet this is in itself uninteresting. TV entertains because it excites the senses and sex and death are very exciting. What is interesting is how this formula has garnered so much critical acclaim. At what point did the mere display of sex and violence become the equivalent of aesthetic sophistication?

Much of daily life in the modern world involves the denial of the fact of sex and death. When Leave It to Beaver aired, people were having sex in America and people were being murdered; therefore the show was false, for it ignored the reality of violence and desire.  It logically followed that to be true shows should not be afraid to show sex and death on screen. The more skin and guts exhibited, the more real it became. This is a valid critique, especially as concealment often helps control women’s bodies and obviates institutional injustices, but over the last twenty years this logic has snowballed dangerously. Today’s sophisticated viewers, those who want quality TV, who consider themselves well-informed, sensible, cultured, people, now assume violence and sex to be aesthetic criteria of the first order. In other words, a show is often considered artful in so far as it is willing to transgress taboos.

This is not to say HBO shows do not have other aesthetic qualities, that they do not have interesting plots, engaging characters and fine acting. They often do. These elaborate soap operas are packaged for demanding audiences who expect twists, ironic dialogue and calibrated tension. But so are many other shows, including traditional soap operas. Nor is this to say that violence and sex should not be on TV. There are plenty of programs that use both effectively. What sets HBO shows apart is how they have made violence and sex central to their appeal. Whether the public wants to admit it or not, this is what makes Rome and Iwo Jima alive to them, not the characters’ lives but how they die and what they look like naked. Many see this as an evolution for television on par with Lady Chatterley’s Lover, a brave artistic achievement, when in fact it takes hackneyed assumptions about family, friendship and personal growth and glosses them with meticulously rendered brutality, vulgarity and debauchery.

Some will protest that they are drawn to the shows not for this gloss at all, but the opposite, for the exquisite family tensions and dramatic pathos behind the blood and boobs. They like the way that the shows let us sympathize with ever-proliferating anti-heroes in new and provocative ways. The sex and violence simply provide a more honest and engaging backdrop. This is true. Nothing pleasantly surprises viewers more than the fact that people who kill also have sex and families except perhaps for watching people with families have sex and kill. It makes their own family life feel more authentic while simultaneously making that of killers and ne’er do wells more relatable. Generally this might be a good thing, to appreciate how someone might turn to crime or kill to save a loved one; unfortunately, this apparent empathy is predicated on violence, specifically on the idea that what unites is sex and violence alone, and elides the plot’s trope-ridden sentimentality.

Band of Brothers, beloved by most everyone in the early aughts, exemplifies this formulaic blend of sentimentality and violence. The producers of that show did what they could do be historically authentic, relying on period costumes and up to date staging like any other period movie. The plot too was little different than work that came out in the 1950s, or even propaganda from the 1940s, replete with neatly-packaged assumptions about different officer types, friendships and personal growth. Audie Murphy’s To Hell and Back pretty much told the same story. The only difference was the supposed realism in Band of Brothers, the way in which the producers were unafraid to show violence, and how this violence, the havoc of war, both intensified and obscured the schmaltzy and predictable plotting. Viewers could feel mature and jaded while simultaneously indulging in kitsch and sentimentality. The show seems quaint now, not because HBO has given up on a formula that equates realism with violence but because they have made their shows exponentially more debauched, and, according to their logic, exponentially more real.

HBO’s most recent locale is Westeros, a land that is not real in the physical sense but has been made so through violence, and if major web publications are any evidence, many viewers find this fantasy world more real than the war in Afghanistan. This is not especially surprising. Ewoks are more real to Americans than Afghans. What is unique is the way in which over-the-top sex and violence dictate the show’s plot and popularity. Critics anticipate the next slaughter and rape with relish, judging each episode for its audacity, and gauge its success by the number of children killed and sisters slept with. People do not tune in for the dragons and dwarves. That wouldn’t be real enough for them.

George Martin, the author of the original Game of Thrones, has defended his story’s excess by appealing to Sumerian history, essentially arguing that they did it first. He also claims to be informed by his experiences growing up during Vietnam, when atrocities committed in that war pushed him to represent the brutality that comes with war. Others have sought similar solace from British history in attempting to rationalize or justify the show as being authentic. All this is true: war is brutal. Women (and men) are raped. We would be remiss to obscure this. But we are a long way from John Wayne when it comes to art about war. Such a defense conveniently misses not only the fact that this brutality is part of the appeal of war, and is often the reason people go to war and line up to watch war on TV, but the way in this turns real off-screen violence into the only possible human reality. Those who protest are told that this is the way the world works. To shy away and watch anything else is to be inauthentic – to be a coward or a prude.

No matter that this is a fantasy. No matter that there is plenty of literature, movies and shows that honestly attempt to explore these cycles of violence in the modern world without making shocking violence so essential to their artistry. In the end, the titillating carnage in this show and others like it functions as violence does outside of television: as a mind-numbing spectacle that effectively mutes out all other considerations of life and art in the name of a supposedly undeniable and inviolable truth, an ultimate reality that justifies the barbarity we crave by making it impossible to imagine a world without barbarism.
_____

Michael Carson deployed to Iraq in 2006. He now writes criticism at the Wrath-Bearing Tree. Follow him @WrathBT on Twitter.

Is Fury Road Really All That Feminist?

furyroad1

 
I read a few reviews of Fury Road, then, with my expectations set suitably high, I went to watch it. The main point that struck me as I sought to reconcile what I had read with what I was seeing, was how readily some seem to be to award the title ‘feminist’. Men’s rights activist Aaron Clarey called the film ‘Feminist Propaganda’ (I am not linking to his review because I don’t want to give him the hits, but go ahead and google him if you must). Kyle Pinion of The Beat described the film as a ‘feminist blockbuster’. His review went on:

[I]t’s one of the most feminist action films in recent memory. Fury Road centers on a group of women taking their own agency and pushing against patriarchal rule. While this franchise has always had an undercurrent of pacifist themes, Miller has laser-focused his message, to a point where one interaction at the midway point of the film ends up stating the obvious: this is what happens when old white men run the world unchecked. That may rankle some feathers in the audience, but this is an action movie that isn’t just empty spectacle or aiming for the lowest common denominator. This is a motion picture that’s actually about something with a strong point of view, and that’s worth standing up and applauding for. It’s basically the film equivalent of an album by The Clash dropping in the middle of a sea of bad arena rock.

Furiosa (Theron) is, indeed, a strong female character leading freed female slaves (who we see symbolically stepping out from the jagged chastity belt of male power) to what she heavily implies will be an Amazon-style eco-feminist utopia. She shoots better than Max, is as tough as he is, and makes many of the major decisions in the film. Even her apparent breakdown is brief and expressed not through uncontrollable sobbing but by falling to the knees Platoon-style. She does not become embroiled in a romance plot and, at the end of the film, appears set to lead a large group of people.

The film does, further, suggest that patriarchal dictatorships are a bad thing – Furiosa has liberated the harem of an altogether despicable warlord named Joe. The all-female group who the characters later encounter are Amazon warriors in the sense that they are competent, comparatively democratic, mutually-supportive, and (perhaps) ecologically-minded. So far, so laudable.

The feminist reading collapses there, however. The mcguffin of the film is a group of five women (what NY Daily News calls ‘the beauties’) who spend the majority of the story being beautiful, inept, and providing reaction shots for explosive spectacle. Rescuing the women (and the death of one of the women) serve as the primary motivation for the male characters and one female outlier. These women are not people in any meaningful sense – they are in equal parts prop and chorus for the main actors in the story. The first time we see them proper they are hosing one another with water. They are pictured in parts rather than as a whole, scantily-clad, nipples erect, and apparently unaware of the camera’s presence. The sequence is a depressingly textbook example of Mulvey’s male gaze theory. This is disappointing but hardly surprising. It is, if anything, par for the course for a blockbuster action film.
 

furyroad

 
What concerns me is that one is presented as though it excuses the other – that once the film has established its feminist credentials it feels that it has a free pass to indulge the male gaze and present certain female characters as the prize in a wholly phallic contest between male agents.

The central slogan of the women’s escape is that women should not be kept as slaves. They make sure we get this point by painting it on the walls of their cell before they depart. Female slavery is, of course, a very real problem. Even if we set aside imprisonment through economic and social systems, there are women today who are literally kept as slaves. I am not sure that Fury Road is quite the venue to address this issue, though. The majority of the audience for this film, I would hope, are not in a position where they are undecided whether or not the trafficking of women is a bad thing. As a feminist assertion, therefore, the statement that women are people and that people are not property is something of a low bar, and an argument, one would hope, that only has relevance to human traffickers and wavering sociopaths.

An argument could be made, however, that raising awareness of these issues (albeit very indirectly) is important and if this were the central message of the film, even as a relatively uncontroversial assertion, I would still read it as largely positive. The presence of a group of women, however, who lack agency and, to all intents and purposes, are treated as objects in the context of the film, undermines the message. What we are left with is a movie which alternately gestures toward a feminist message while simultaneously offering the female body as erotic spectacle. It tells us that women are people while simultaneously treating the majority of the female cast as objects.

Utilitarian Review 5/23/15

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Joy DeLyria on long fictions.

Me on slow, cheerful doom.

Me on whose gender is artificial.

Phillip Smith on Darna, the Filipino Wonder Woman.

Chris Gavaler on Raskolnikov and the problem with Hollywood super dudes.

Kim O’Connor on why we need to take the sexual harassment allegations against Louis CK seriously.

Me on Game of Thrones and comics to change your gender.

Kate Polak on sexual violence and implicating the viewer in Game of Thrones.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the New Republic I wrote about Game of Thrones and how critics write about all the same things all the time.

At Playboy I

—wrote about why B.B. King is the King of Rock, not just blues.

—interviewed Dianna E. Anderson about purity culture and creating a better Christian sexual ethics. .

—wrote about Game of Thrones and the complimentary media portrayals of sexual violence against women and violence against men.

8 Minutes and why sex workers don’t need to be saved.

At Ravishly I wrote about how erasing male victims of domestic violence hurts both men and women.

At Splice Today I wrote about books for white guys.
 
Other Links

Chris Blattman on that faked gay marriage study.

Barry Ritholtz on how the minimum wage doesn’t kill jobs; it just reduces corporate profits.

Rex Huppke on how the Mad Max movie is a feminist trick.
 

bb-king-1