Review of Fun Home

I reviewed the book for TCJ when it came out. Ng Suat Tong says it’s more favorable in tone than my recent post. I know I didn’t bring up the business about Bechdel’s dad dropping out of grad school. But what strikes me is what a dreadful first sentence the piece has. I must have been paid by the preposition.

And now …
“Puzzle Palace”

Fun Home
is a set of seven essays about Bechdel’s memories of her father, a dominating but highly sissified man who led a secret life of chasing after boys while he raised his family and outfitted the family’s home as a sort of museum devoted to his particular aesthetic (cream settees, lilacs, “silk flowers, glass flowers, needlepoint flowers”). The book takes you inside a baffling childhood, one where not a whole lot could be counted on to hold steady, to match its official description. “My father began to seem mortally suspect to me long before I actually knew he  had a dark secret,” Bechdel writes above a picture of her young self watching Dad apply his bronzing stick. Bechdel herself was gay and didn’t know it until college. Until then, she lived with a sense that she and her father were misfits for their proper roles — “inverts” was the the term she adopted later, “the homosexual as a person whose gender expression is at odds with his or her sex.” While at Oberlin, she did some thinking and came out. Her mother then told her about Mr. Bechdel’s secret life and soon began talking about a divorce. A few months later Mr Bechdel was dead. He jumped in front of a truck, but he jumped backwards, so whether his death was a suicide is hard to say. Fun Home admits the question is open but states its preference: Bechdel thinks her father killed himself because she managed to tell the truth.

Fun Home puzzles over how Bechdel was cheated by the biggest figure in her life. Her father was an outsized personality, but to be around him was somehow to be in the presence of an absence. Fully as he lived it, his life was not really his, and everybody close to him felt the effects. “He really was there all those years,” Bechdel writes, ” a flesh-and-blood presence steaming off the wallpaper, digging up the dogwood, polishing the finials, smelling of sawdust and sweat and designer cologne. But I ached as if he were already gone.” Bechdel sees her father’s life as a slow retroactive suicide, and she says the beautiful mansion where he housed his family was tainted by his sexual self-hatred: “His shame inhabited our house as invisibly and pervasively as as the aromatic musk of aging mahogany.” In fact he turned his house into a kind of labyrinth. “Mirrors, distracting bronzes, multiple doorways. Visitors often got lost upstairs,” Fun Home says. Her father’s instinct was to baffle others and hide his real self. It’s no surprise that Fun Home is constructed as a set of riddles instead of a straightforward narrative.

     Bechdel kept her eyes open, and she has thought long and hard about what she saw. The book’s panels are full of painstaking physical detail (right down to headlines for newspapers, graffiti next to a dorm telephone and the dictionary entry for “queer cubbin”). More important, Fun Home is honest about painful moments and highly intelligent about tracing their roots. At points Bechdel seems to X-ray the life she and her family shared, to see it all right down to the bones. Not that the book is cold-blooded. It’s chilly, but it’s human. There’s humor and plenty of day-to-day detail about the family. Most of all, Bechdel seems to care a great deal about the lives she’s dissecting.

The approach is high-toned and literary, so expect allusions, symbols, hidden meanings, hidden jokes, obtrusive elegance. Each chapter in Fun Home wind its way about one aspect or another of the family situation: obsessiveness (“The Canary-Colored Caravan of Death”), the unspoken drive to hold back unwelcome secrets (“The Ideal Husband”), Alison’s creeping sense that she and her father are not what they’re supposed to be (the well-named “In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower”). The essays are so well constructed they snake you into their guts. The book is dense, but it’s a fast read and it locks the reader inside its atmosphere. The ink wash and the ever-present captions make the events feel like exhibits, and not in a bad way. It’s as if a person’s mind had been made into an ingeniously laid-out museum and we got to walk the halls. The tone of the place is hypnotically ruminative, grave, mordant. The narration is always at your elbow, and it’s silver-edged in the extreme. When it doesn’t connect, the writing gets a bit Bulwer-Lytton. (“It was a benign and well-lit underworld, admittedly, but Odysseus sailing to Hades could have not felt more trepidation than I did entering that room.”) But often enough it does connect, and either way the tone is set.

The drawing shows traces of Bechdel’s old Edward Gorey influence, which comes in handy. It’s childlike and also funereal, a good combination for the subject, but of course it doesn’t have anything like Gorey’s bizarre expressiveness. Bechdel’s figures are stiff, and their expressions don’t always rise to what’s demanded. Draw the smallest mouths in comicdom and you’ll get “elated” Mr. Bechdel, “manic” Mr. Bechdel, and young Alison (“limp with admiration”) all looking a lot the same, which is to say irate. The book’s greatest technical strength is its layout. Comics layout is a great craft for meshing, for guiding attention with interlocking sequences of forms and angles, and Fun Home does it well for page after page. The book has a certain suave command that prevails over any faults in the writing and drawing, and its source is the skill with which one subject is flipped into another. The layout is crucial to the effect.

In fact, Fun Home shows how useful comics can to be to the high-gloss literary approach of hidden meanings and look-at-me elegance. Using both words and pictures provides more crevices for sliding in implications and secret jokes (the cucumber in the upper left-hand panel of a page in “The Ideal Husband” is not only lined up suggestively with Mr. Bechdel’s profile, it mirrors the spread legs of the randy Dr. Gryglewicz in the page’s lower right-hand corner). Also, the illusion of coherence is deepened when you have two sets of signs to play with. Not only do the words chime together, but the pictures chime with the words. Bechdel writes “my father’s life was a solipsistic circle of self” and places the caption atop a circle highlighting the small area on the map where her father spent his life. There’s no real connection between the caption’s point (that her father centered his life on himself) and the image’s point (that he lived and died in one town). But it feels as if there were.

I mention the “illusion of coherence” because Fun Home has an odd sort of fault. The book has substance and it’s elegantly done, but the elegance has been brought about through a certain amount of fraud. Most of the book’s transitions are enabled by a network of allusions to Camus, Shakespeare, Wilde, Proust and others. The allusions do great work as a kind of trellis, a technical convenience for laying out the good stuff, the facts and feelings. But as statements they don’t always add up to much. Mr. Bechdel was reading Albert Camus’s A Happy Death before he died, he had a copy of The Myth of Sisyphus from college, a college photograph shows Mr. Bechdel smoking, and Camus smoked. And so what? “But in a way Gatsby’s pristine books and my father’s worn ones signify the same thing — the preference of a fiction to reality.” Yeah, all right, whichever. When Greek myth comes in, it turns out Mr. Bechdel managed to be Daedalus, Icarus and the Minotaur. Maybe he was also King Minos and the guy who sold tickets out front.

Any literary bafflement aside, Bechdel had the brains and honesty to analyze a painful situation and to be true to the feelings that came with it. Life piled some atmospheric details atop the Bechdel household’s basic plight. Mr. Bechdel was an undertaker on the side, and we see the Bechdel children polishing caskets and viewing bodies. The house was still unrenovated and moldering in Bechdel’s early childhood, so she has potent memories of looking at Charles Addams cartoons. But all of that’s incidental. The heart of Bechdel’s book is about growing up in a home where the family’s common ground has been poisoned. Her father addressed her mother as “you”; her mother claimed there was no story about how they met. “My parents seemed almost embarrassed by the fact of their marriage,” Bechdel says. To survive emotionally, she remembers, all the family members had to fend for themselves. They retreated into separate capsules of obsession: music, model airplanes, Bechdel’s drawing, her father’s refitting of the house. “Our selves were all we had,” she writes.

Fun Home is fine work and sometimes unbearably poignant. Several chapters manage a last panel in which drawing, writing and layout come together to hit a high note. A girl lies by her father’s tombstone and looks at the sky. Father and daughter are seen through separate windows, together in a room but oblivious to each other. Call the scenes greeting cards for isolation, but the effect is still overwhelming, and it’s typical of this somber, skillful and heartfelt memoir.

Why Batman Isn’t Green Lantern

Batman has a lot of will power, Green Lantern’s ring runs on will power, but Batman wasn’t chosen to be Green Lantern. Why not? I asked this question before and was told the DCU had coughed up some story establishing that Batman’s brand of will power had too much fear in its composition; Hal Jordan, by contrast, isn’t neurotic or fear-based or whatever the deal is. 

A better explanation has been put forward by Grace, girlfriend to Matthew Surridge. Matthew gives the lowdown: “As she put it, Batman scores a ten out of ten on the score of ‘willpower,’ but probably no better than a three of out of ten at best on the count of ‘doing whatever the Guardians of the Universe tell him to do, when they tell him, in the way they tell him.”
Note that Grace doesn’t even read comics. She got her theory from watching the Justice League animated cartoon series. Not bad! 

Helluva story!

Mayor of a small city in Texas (pop. 88,439) quits right after his landslide election to a third term. Reason: he’s in love with a Mexican illegal alien who had to leave the US. Twist: they’re both guys!

The mayor says he’ll stay with his lover in Mexico and try to get him a visa, at which point they’ll return “if the people of San Angelo will welcome me back.” A commenter at the Houston Chronicle says the mayor had already told everyone he was gay. Story, and comments, here.

Partially Congealed Pundit: Johnny Monomyth, Year One

Johnny Monomyth was mentioned in passing in comments this week. Johnny who? you might say. Well, yeah, that’s the name of the comic book I wrote in 1999 with art by Bert Stabler. Bert designed the comic as a giant mural, though it also came in a handy comic form which you could cut apart and stich back together. You can see some images from it at the link above…and here’s a photo of the original art from the finished piece. As you can see, it covered a whole wall.

Johnny Monomyth

Anyway, the way we did the piece is I wrote a draft using words and phrases from four books: Greil Marcus’ “Lipstick Traces”, Joseph Campbell’s “Hero With a Thousand Faces,” an issue of Fortune magazine, and Ian Fleming’s “Diamonds Are Forever.” Then Bert came up with his mural concept, and with that more or less in mind, I wrote out a complete script. Maybe someday I’ll post the art on here, but for the moment I thought I’d put up my original draft. So here it is, for both of my truly, truly diehard blog readers: Johnny Monomyth, Year One.

______________

Through the grafitti-covered halls of his secret corporate headquarters wanders our hero, Johnny Monomyth (“The Man with the Abstract Guitar,”) ruminating on the necessity of killing for one’s country and on the importance of being well-dressed. (He is dressed in suit, tie, and a leather jacket emblazoned with the words “Anarchist with Clout.”) When he gets to his office, he is contacted by Shadows from the Unfathomable Reaches Beyond, Inc. (a subdivision of the Gratuitous Dissipation Group,) through their emissary, Syd Lingam (a giant phallus covered with power-of-positive-thinking, anti-establishment grafitti and attended by several nude, nubile assistants of mixed gender who continually inject him with heroin.) Syd tells Johnny that the Womb Mob is attempting to wrap meaning and purpose around even prosaic postwar popular culture by smuggling dadaists into Las Vegas. If they succeed, intellectual hedonism will (via a culture of inclusion) come under the sway of the primordial Disney abyss, with the result that the radical reification of an immense increase in littering will no longer function as a negation of the government’s ever-tightening grip on American employers. Johnny promises to use the power of his abstract guitar to combat this nefarious theat to surrealist CEOs. Lingam and his retinue diappear, leaving the distinctive odor of half an avocado with French dressing and an Espresso mingled with the strains of Elvis Costello singing “Avril au Portugal.” Johnny then leaps through his office window, clutching his flaming guitar.

Johnny goes out to shake down his informants: the young prince Timothy Leary; James Taylor (Johnny has him up against the wall, the neck of his guitar under Taylor’s nose, screaming “I know you’ve seen fire and you’ve seen rain cockusucker! I want to know what else you’ve seen!”); cold, dedicated chess-playing Russians, and silent, deadly, anonymous men from Nike. After much violence and an interior monologue in which Johnny wonders if it’s worth investing in the idea of the insulating fascist or if he’d be better off putting his money in the late 1970s, he discovers that the dadaists are being shipped to Las Vegas from the Cosmogonic Cathouse, a grisly, ramshackle, somehow obscene center of world historical profit. Johnny confronts Brainpower Beretta, the owner of the Cathouse. At first she denies having the dadaists, but when Johnny plays the Marseillais backwards on his Abstract Guitar, she hears the secret words “bliss-yielding perpetual manifestation of the brass-knuckled domestic doyenne,” and, enlightened by the noise of the exploding syntax, she rejects the Womb Mob and its lavender agenda. Ravaged with CIA disinformation, she loses all control and attains to a virtual office solution of hopeless proportions. Thus converted, she explains to Johnny that once she was a Middle Eastern Diversity Deity till she gave up her immortality for love of situationist caviar and the riotous eclecticism of the World Savior — only to have her trust cruely betrayed by the Berkeley Bodhisattvas’ repeated denigration of her taste in both dresses and higher iconographies. Crushed, she renounced anabaptism and, after watching hours of Pepsi commercials, she vowed to serve the state as a mindless drone. Now, though, she has been released from her servitude and humility, and she not only admits to having the dadaists, but she agrees to hide Johnny in the next shipment. Accordingly, she disguises him as the terrifyingly obvious, sordidly powerful, divinely hygienic immaculate executive known to the customs men as Blood Clot Boy. She brings him to a room where hundreds of dadaists are milling about, some of whom look like well-dressed French intellectuals, others of whom are wearing costumes (like Johnny, who has a gigantic aorta stapled to his nose), others of whom are just dada art (an upside down toilet, various appliances) upon seeing which the Frenchmen-dadaists invariably make comments like “Revolutionary!” and “What a radical intrusion of ambiguous forms!” and “I guess every girl likes to come home and find a videoconferencing cybertechnician on her kitchen table.” In any case, Johnny fits in well enough, and is accepted as one of the dadaists both by the dadaists themselves and by the men who are raping them, hogtieing them, and shipping them to Las Vegas in crates. Johnny too is crated, and passes away his time in transit by imagining a muscular, craftsmanlike prose of a millenarian peasantry — a language of revolt so archetypal and immediate that it would, by its very existence, render frustrate the pettiness of left-wing youth-group politics.

When they arrive in Las Vegas, Johnny and the dadaists are placed in a glass case in a casino called “The Stalin,” and are dressed in skimpy uniforms of the Wild West. Passerbys place bets on which of them will say something witty, which of them will copulate, etc. Johnny now understands the full brand-name-intensified semiotics of the Womb Mob’s mystical quest. Economic prorities will deny the existence of paradoxical motifs, and will even seek to destroy them by personal analysis. Thus girded, Johny feels he now knows enough to bust a hole in the Womb Mob. Unfortunately, the cage the Womb Mob has constructed for the dadaists emits personal life balance initiatives which humiliate the bourgeoise tantras of Johnny’s abstract guitar. Unable to escape and subjected to the dadaists unending stream of mediocre puns and profound insights into industry, Johnny believes his herohood is up for good, when Brainpower Beretta appears in the early morning and leads him over the stacks of sleeping dadaists to safety in the empty casino.

Or so it appears. Just as Beretta gets Johnny outside the dada cage, they are accosted by two young roving hit men known only as Nietzsche and J.D. Salinger. They attempt to undermine Johnny by accessing his warp-speed narcissism. Johnny, however, knowing that homos make the best killers, is on guard, and cannot be easily swayed. He dodges in and out amidst the darkened casino paraphenalia until, finally, he makes a stand on a Tianananman Square themed slot machine and defiantly begins to play Robert Johnson’s “Gnostic Blues” on his abstract guitar. Fireworks explode, the Tiananman Square slots hit jackpot (three tanks,) all within earshot are covered in blackface (including Johnny, Beretta, the hit men, the dadaists, and the few casino personnell and players still about) and finally Salinger and Nietzsche are awakened to the synergy of soulless materialism, and pass into solipsistic superconsciousness.

Johnny stops playing and the sparks sputter out. Still in blackface, he grabs Beretta, who is gazing at him with her full red lips slightly parted, breathing as if the vitalizing image of the universal god-man has just seduced her organic network. She gasps, “I want it all, darling. Now. Quickly.” Johnny slaps her and growls, “Not till we’ve successfully vaguely considered concepts like ‘oblivion,’ and ‘Oedipal complex,’ baby.” He then pulls her outside the casino, barely ahead of the swarm of milling dadaists (also still in blackface and skimpy western attire) who have been stirred into a frenzy by the still-pumping slot machines — some of the dadaists are eating the money, some of them are snorting it or ingesting it rectally, while still others are merely cavorting among it screaming things like “The entrance to the zone of magnified power!” and “At last I will be financially capable of pursuing my strategy of continuous reinvention!”

Outside, Johnny and Beretta run away from the casino (outside of which is a huge neon picture of Uncle Joe wearing a cowboy hat with a gigantic dollar sign floating jovially above a diorama of dead peasants, all of who look cheerful and clutch money.) It’s just getting on to dawn — still dark out, but getting grey, and there are very few people on the streets. Still, Johnnny manages to satisfyingly straight-arm a few tourists (knocking at least one into a fountain) as he and Beretta keep one step ahead of the onrushing dada horde, which has been driven mad by its sudden acquisition of assets, and is busily trying to pay the assorted tourists (and/or the neon signs and/or early morning roaches) for sex, internet access, or punk singles.

Johnny, (who has been thinking as he runs about Las Vegas tourists, how they are conditioned by innovative mantra technology to dream like Pavlov’s dogs of the nipple inexhaustibble, how they bastardize the rock n’ roll uncreating of the uncreated Morningstar rating, and of how much he despises their smug inability to compose futurist manifestoes) drags Beretta up onto the roof of “Buddha, Buddha” (a casino with lots of splashy many-headed neon Buddhas, glowing Hindu gods in tantric position, etc, all vaguely Disneyfied) by scrambling up a large squatting neon Buddha which is wearing sunglasses and smoking a cigar. On the roof they look down on the dadaists running amok in the city (the dadaists are now being chased and clubbed by roving patrolmen who are also beating up random tourists, fires have started, people are looting, giant serpents slither down alleys, chaos reigns) and wonders if he’s witnessing the end of mainstream pop humanism as we know it. He asks Beretta if he is responsible for the anarchy below. She asks him if any man can be held responsible for anything, when the contradictions of one’s postiion inevitably resolve even acts of trendsetting into the void beyond all voids, from which unfold world-sustaining emanations, Sauce Bernaise-like, mysterious. He nods grimly, looks back at the chaos below, resolves that he must do something, and wonders if a bourbon and water would give him some ideas. Luckily, Beretta happens to have some, and the two of them sit down on the roof lotus style, drink, and chat about the Hebrew cabala’s discussion of the ideal wife (women shouldn’t paint their nails, should wear black velvet, and should be enjoyed as the encasement of eternity.) Johnny’s hand moves to her thigh, and the two gaze into each other’s eyes longingly, simultaneously thinking that when you gaze into the market, the market gazes also into you.

Just then they hear a dry laugh so empty and motionless that it might have been borrowed from a taxidermist. Turning, they see Syd Lingam and his retinue. Syd’s massive flesh is quivering with slimy laughter. He thanks Johnny ironically for planting the seeds of gender, race, and culture which will bear the fruits that inspire a vision of cultural symmetry. He says he knew Johnny would release the dadaists, allowing their brazen sexiness to balance and get feedback from Las Vegas’ insouciance. Soon, he says, this ghostly, ghastly crowd will vanish into its own unformed activities, and with the supernatural assisting force of Freedom, Home and Beauty thus neutralized, Syd will find a smart way to capture the whole financial universe. He laughs at Johnny’s efforts to save unretainable ecstasies. “The hero,” he fulminates, “is just a discourse of skeptical media buyers; a flaming fairy well in which the golden ball of integrity is drowned forever in the dank and foetid waters of latitudinarianism.” He then makes fun of Johnny’s attire, mocks his penchant for violence, suggests that his “bad-boy” image is merely a means of ensuring himself a beautiful secretary, and makes some lewd innuendoes about the fertile, gleaming intersection of Beretta’s new office towers and the angled thrust of her emerging capitalism.

Johnny, though, is unimpressed. He tells Syd that, as a hero, he is too shamelessy self-employed to be frightened by such ranting. “I am the secret agent-artist,” he says, “that curiously disinterested, almost diabolical human phenomena beyond the normal bounds of human judgment, dedicated to the morals not of my time, but of my art. When I kill, it is not murder, but gunslinging enterprise. When I rape, it is not rape, but the breathless passion of a spiritual obstetrician. And when I create anarchy by flushing the avant garde down the plugged drain of post-Fordist capitalism, I am not really creating anarchy, but am instead, like a wily shaman, orchestrating the lasting horse race in which my transcendent phallus will emerge victorious. You villain, may sport your menacing chromium as you will — your plots are for naught, for your devious history will soon be ritually erased by the spontaneous eruptions of my primal drumbeat.” So saying, he steps foward, pulls out a handgun, and shoots Syd, who falls over with a crash, killing most of his retinue (the remainder scatter making grunting noises which sound suspiciously like band names (i.e. “Mekooph!” “Cloosh!” “Eck! Istooph!” etc.) Beretta clutches Johnny, tells him she loves a man who can show the primacy of symbolization, and that she’d be as happy as a cricket to join him in an avucular confab. Johnny smiles his characteristic grin, blows the smoke off his pistol, briefly congratulates himself for performing the hero’s task of alchemizing a bad and stodgy society so that the life-redeeming glitter of the University of Paris may be made known to the Pinkerton force, and, holding Beretta’ hand, walks off into the desert dawn. Behind them, Las Vegas burns.

Kramers & Campbell

Kramers Ergot 7 opens with the denoument and ends with the descent. Sammy Harkham’s front cover shows an idyll after the apocalypse, while Shary Boyle’s back cover shows a leap into Hell. Or just a volcano’s less epic torments. So the book points to a narrative scale equalling its size. A few of the pieces inside (Ryan, Hernandez) can’t be asked, others just go for epic images (stunning works by Xavier Robel and Will Sweeney). The best mix grand stories with grand images.

Two in particular tell whole epics in their two or three pages. The first, a delightful sad myth by Shary Boyle, follows a bride cursed with a dead groom and an elephant mask. As these things go, she sets out to find a graveyard. Like leathery elephant skin, caves and nighttime enclose youth’s bright colors. There she finds an old Bavarian, blood-stained linens, and the crone of the moon. After a mere two pages, the final couple of panels are deeply moving. You’ve been somewhere. This is a old folktale, one with their full complexity, a myth with no dust. The title? “Grow Old.”

The second visits Kim Deitch’s America. Some years ago he met a man who’d known Louie Armstrong. The man was a counterculture visionary, aiming to create a whole new culture in the underground. His startup mixed LSD sodas until the Man put him down. He fled, only to be found years later mummified on a boat with his last disciple, still tripping. (This all has to be true.) Bottlecaps sprinkled in the margins tie the whole together. It hints at those quintessentially American stories: the Hardy Boys, Terrytoons, Horatio Alger. For all the graphic bravado in Kramers, Deitch’s piece left me the most slackjawed. It’s a creation myth with destruction besides for one generation of Americans. Its images burned into my eyes, and Deitch wraps it in layers and layers of tawdry pop culture whose meanings open up and out.

Both these stories strike me as myths in the best sense. They’re origin stories. The details of a character’s life get hoisted onto a larger stage and bleached by the lights. The song & dance tell us who we are. Compare Tom Gauld’s version of Noah’s Ark in Kramers, where myth’s emptied so that Shem and Ham can gripe about their crazy dad. Gauld’s story pits the grand scale of Noah’s project, drawn in huge tableaux, against smaller panels sized for his kids’ complaints. The entire hassle of listening to God, who knows who you are and what you should do, gets drawn as a Rube Goldberg contraption with animals two by two. Shem & Ham can’t be bothered. Once they’re surrounded by the flood, they can’t understand how Noah was right after all. Gauld’s vision is contemporary: even if there’s a miracle, it just won’t scan. Without seeming fusty, Boyle & Deitch tap into something primordial.

Of course, calling things myths can get out of hand. Some weeks ago, someone around here (me?) took a swipe at Joseph Campbell– a critic I haven’t read in some time as I feel I know him too well. He’s the guy whose ideas, a stew of Jungian archetypes and Perennialism, gave screenwriters a way to sound more important. The prime mover there is Star Wars, a Western I grew up on. I loved it; it’s vivid enough in my memory that I haven’t revisited it for years. To hear 1000 faces talk, though, it’s the Iliad teamed up with the Mahabharata.

I’ve never been comfortable with that reading. The film, along with its sequels, imitators and any other screenplay mainlining Campbell and Robert McKee, tells me all about the stuff George Lucas grew up on rather than the place he grew up. (You have to go to American Graffiti for that.) Star Wars reads as John Ford-via-Kurosawa, Errol Flynn, everything a middle-class kid or film student would know. He wouldn’t know the veins flowing beneath John Ford’s work, though, the details in the archetypes. I think of my parents’ generation, who spent very little time in front of a screen, but got Westerns in a way I can’t. Go out and tame the wild, bend nature, build dams and damned superhighways. They’re America’s creation myth.

My generation couldn’t be asked. Everything was built for us, so our stories often trade bleached-out details for no details at all. Fortunately, Joe Campbell’s there to give us a reason why. Yet his entire project differs considerably from the aesthetic shorthand it’s become. A poorly drawn character’s backstory becomes “mythos,” when “mythos” should refer just to the fundament Campbell believed was common to all. How odd that now creation myths like the Western have given way to Life After People, three dozen climate change movies, or the scrubbing bubbles of civilization-eating zombies. Destroy the foundations, then. Which is why I love the pieces by Deitch and Boyle so much. They’re small gestures, reminders of those delightful, sad ways of feeling human.

Gluey Tart: Otomen

otomen

otomen

Otomen, by Aya Kanno
2009, VIZ Media LLC

Otomen isn’t yaoi, but it does deal with some of my favorite themes, pretty boys and gender fuck. You can’t go wrong with that, right?

Yes, well, you obviously could. Not with this series, though. I’ve read the first two volumes (both out in 2009, with the third coming in August), and I find it charming and kind of clever. I love Aya Kanno’s art (I already wrote about her Blank Slate series) – something about her sharp noses and tired-looking eyes just sends me. And the pretty boys? Are pretty.

otomen

The gender fuck, then? I almost need a flow chart. The main character, Asuka, is a tall, cool, good-looking upperclassman who’s not just captain of the kendo team but the best in the country, as well as having a first-degree black belt in judo and a second-degree black belt in karate. His dark, painful secret is that inside, he’s Hello Kitty wearing a glittery tiara and a lavender unicorn t-shirt. He sews stupidly cute little animals and things. He knits scarves with bunnies on them. He creates outlandishly elaborate and adorable bentos for lunch every single day. And he lives for Love Chick, a shojo manga series. No one can know! It doesn’t matter that he can kick anyone’s ass (and often does). If people knew his shameful subtext, he’d be ruined! Ruined! (Note: There are spoilers ahead, but this part is all revealed in the first few pages.)

otomen

Asuka’s trauma is his parents’ fault, of course. His father left the family to become a woman, and his mother spent the rest of Asuka’s childhood trying to make sure her son wouldn’t follow in her ex’s mincing, high-heeled footsteps. To make his manipulative and borderline psychotic mother happy, Asuka must be utterly masculine, stoic, unromantic, and unexcited by stuffed pandas (and, for reasons that escape me, uninterested in sweets – by God, what a price to pay for filial devotion!).

Asuka has to hide who he is from everyone. He isn’t gay, mind you. In fact, that’s sort of his problem. He’s met a girl, Ryo, and fallen head over heels for her. And when you love someone – you make lacy crafts and fill your room with kawaii accessories! If you’re an ottomen, that is – a straight man who loves girly things and romance. (Wikipedia tells me Otomen is a multilingual pun, and that “otome” means “young lady.” “Men” means “men.”) (And by the way, if you need more pink and sparkle in your life, check out the official Web site for the series.)

Another main character, Juta, initially seems like he’s just going to play the experienced playboy sidekick part. He’s interested in Ryo, too. Or is he? Maybe he’s interested in Asuka? Turns out skirt-chaser Juta is secretly the famous shojo managa artist for Love Chick! Which he’s basing on Asuka and Ryo! Except he’s reversed them and made Asuka a girl in the managa, and Ryo a boy.

otomen

Ryo doesn’t get as much stage time as Asuka or Juta (at all), but she’s feisty and loyal and likeable, if somewhat lacking in explication as a character. She’s pretty, but – oh, you see it coming, don’t you? Kind of manly. She can’t sew or cook or make cute stuffed animals, and she isn’t interested. She’s also apparently clueless about relationships. Juta keeps trying to bring Asuka and Ryo closer (to advance the plot of his manga series), and it keeps not happening because of Asuka’s painful over-thinking of everything and Ryo’s complete obliviousness. The implication is that Ryo is like this because her mother died when she was young, and she was raised by her laughably manly father. She’s shown on the back of Volume 2 holding a cake she’s tried to make; it looks like a berry bush magically transmuted into the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and then melted in the afternoon sun.

otomen

(Spoilers ho!) There’s the setup. And wackiness ensues! Mild, soothing, cute wackiness. Kanno worries at the gender stereotypes like a mouthful of loose teeth, and Juta’s constant gaze feels palpable on Asuka’s skin. (All his manipulation is basically carried out through Asuka – I guess it would be creepy if he were stalking the girl.) In the second volume, Asuka gets entangled with a very girlie girl – who manipulates him and threatens to blackmail him and drugs him and kidnaps him. Ryo rides on a white horse to rescue him (literally).

otomen

So, let us recap briefly: Cute!!! I bought in because of the manga covers, which say it all, really. Otomen is an adorable exploration of pretty boys exploring their femininity. (In a perfectly safe, heterosexual context, of course. ) It’s sweet and fluffy, and the hero fights a bull. If you need more than that, you’re harder to please than I am.

otomen

Bound to Blog: Bonus Marston Crankery

As long as I’ve been blogging my way through the William Moulton Marston/Harry Peter original run on Wonder Woman, I thought I’d see if I could unearth some of Marston’s other writing as well. Thanks to my trusty University library, I managed to unearth what’s probably his best known essay: “Why 100,000,000 Americans Read Comics,” published in 1944 in the American Scholar, the magazine of Phi Beta Kappa.

As you’d expect from Marston, the essay is somewhat bizarre: a mix of unabashed hucksterism, earnest utopianism, insightful criticism, and what I can only assume was calculated subterfuge. He starts out by claiming that 70 million people read comics every month; a number he gets by taking 18 million (the number of comics magazines sold each month) and multiplying by 4 or 5, since that’s the number of readers who look at every magazine according to “competent surveys.” Then he adds in the figures for the number of kids who read comics…40, 600,000, according to other competent surveys, I guess. Loosely adding all those numbers together gives him something like the 100 million readers of the title — though since he gives no citations for any of his figures, I’m forced to assume that he may well just be pulling them out of his ass.

Be that as it may, Marston goes on to defend comics from their detractors. He does this, not on artistic grounds, but on the basis of popularity and what I think can be technically described as “pseudopsychological nonsense.”. “Eight or nine people out of ten get more emotional ‘kick’ out of seeing a beautiful girl on the stage, the screen, or the picture-magazine page displaying her charms in person, or via camera or artist’s pen, then they drive from verbal substitutes describing her compelling charms. It’s too bad for us ‘literary’ enthusiasts, but it’s the truth nevertheless — pictures tell any story more effectively than any words.” You have to admire the way he slips almost accidentally into the sex element…and then disavows his own interest almost instantly. Who me? I’m a literary enthusiast. You think I write picture stories about scantily clad women in bondage because I like that sort of thing? No, no. In my free time, I get all my kicks from E.B. White.

Anyway, Marston goes on to give a brief history of “picture stories,” starting with the ancients — he was the Scott McCloud of his day, I guess. He bolsters his theories here by gratuitously name-dropping an article by Mr. M. C. Gaines, Marston’s publisher on WW, and presumably a man not immune to flattery.

Marston’s historical arguments may be shaky, but his analysis of his contemporaries is quite astute:

The third comics period began definitely in 1938 with the advent of Superman and constitutes a radical departure from all previously accepted standards of story telling and drama. Comics continuities of the present period are not meant to be humorous, nor are they primarily concerned with dramatic adventure. Their emotional appeal is wish fulfillment. There is no drama in the ordinary sense, because Superman is invincible, invulnerable. he can leap over skyscrapers, fly through the air and catch air-planes, toss battleships around, or repel bullets with his bare skin. Superman never risks danger; he is always, and by definition superior to all menace.

Superman and his innumerable followers satisfy the universal human longing to be stronger than aall opposing obstacles and the equally universal desire to see good overcome evil, to see wrongs righted, underdogs nip the pants of their oppressors, and, withal to experience vicariously the supreme gratification of the deus ex machina who accomplishes these monthly miracles of right triumphing over not-so-mighty might….”

In short, Marston sees Superman as a Mary Sue; a character that gratuitously and obviously fulfills the desires of the young reader. But where Mary Sues these days are generally seen as immature aesthetic disasters, Marston sees in them an opportunity for, as he says, “moral educational benefits.” Marston argues that:

What life-desires to you wish to stimulate in your child? Do you want him (or her) to cultivate weakling’s aims, sissified attitudes. Your youngster may not inherit the muscles to do 100 yards in nine seconds flat, or make the full-back position on an All-American football team. But if not, all the more reason why he should cultivate the wish for power along constructive lines within the scope of his native abilities. The wish to be super-strong is a healthy wish, a vital, compelling, power-producing desire. the more the Superman-Wonder Woman picture stories build up this inner compulsion by stimulating the child’s natural longing to battle and overcome obstacles, particularly evil ones, the better chance your child has for self-advancement in the world.

Marston adds that kids don’t believe that good will triumph over evil, nor that God will make everything all right in the end…but they do understand a hero pounding a bad guy to pulp. Thus, heroes can teach morality — “The Superman-Wonder Woman school of picture-story telling emphatically insists upon heroism in the altruistic pattern. Superman never kills; Wonder Woman saves her worst enemies and reforms their characters.”

Marston admits that comics do have some faults…though none that he can’t fix:

It seemed to me, from a psychological angle, that the comics’ worst offense was their blood-curdling masculinity. A male hero, at best, lacks the qualities of maternal love and tenderness which are as essential to a normal child as the breath of life. Suppose your child’s ideal becomes a superman who uses his extraordinary powers to help the weak. The most important ingredient in the human happiness recipe still is missing — love. It’s smart to be strong. It’s big to be generous. But it’s sissified, according to exclusively masculine rules, to be tender, loving, affectionate, and alluring. “Aw, that’s girl stuff!” snorts our youn gcomics reader. “Who wants to be a girl? And that’s the point; not even girls want to girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, power. Not wanting to be girls they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peaceloving, as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weak ones. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of a Superman plu all the allure of a good and beautiful woman. This is what I recommended to the comics publisher.

My suggestion was met by a storm of mingled protests and guffaws. Didn’t I know that girl heroines had been tried in pulps and comics and, without exception, found failures? Yes, I pointed out, but they weren’t superwomenthey weren’t superior to men in strength as well as in feminine attraction and love-inspiring qualities. Well, asserted my masculine authorities, if a woman hero were stronger than a man, she would be even less appealing. Boys wouldn’t stand for that; they’d resent the strong gal’s superiority. No, I maintained, men actually submit to women now, they do it on the sly with a sheepish grin because theyr’e ashamed of being ruled by weaklings. Give them an alluring woman stronger than themselves to submit to and they’ll be proud to become her willing slaves!

Marston goes on to assert that Wonder Woman won a popularity contest over “seven rival men heroes,” a success he attributes not to the writing or drawing but rather to Wonder Woman herself, or rather to “the wonder which is really woman’s when she adds masculine strength to feminine tenderness and allure. The kids who rated Wonder Woman tops in an otherwise masculine galaxy of picture story stars…were saying by their votes, “We love a girl who is stronger than men, who uses her strength to help others and who allures us with the love appeal of a true woman!”

So there’s the latest formula in comics — super-strength, altruism, and feminine love allure, combined in a single character.”

There are several interesting things in all that, I think. First, Marston seems to view Wonder Woman as almost exclusively for boys. Wonder Woman was designed to help boys by legitimizing their desire to submit; Wonder Woman was voted tops because boys love to see a strong woman with, ahem, feminine allure and “love appeal.” It’s an odd argument for a couple of reasons. First, it seems really needlessly obtuse; after all, if Wonder Woman beat seven male heroes, might the reason not have been that the seven male heroes simply split the guy vote, while girls (with no one else to choose) voted overwhelmingly for the female hero? And second…it’s very hard to believe that Marston was in fact, this obtuse. The Wonder Woman stories are just not, by any stretch of the imagination, addressed exclusively to boys. They’re filled with exhortations to girls to be strong, to trust in themselves, to trust in their femininity, and to take control of men. In addition, they make extensive and quite clever use of traditionally female genres, especially fantasy adventure.

In short, Marston definitely wrote for girls as well as for boys — it’s part of the reason so many girls, from Gloria Steinem to Judy Collins, have testified to enjoying his work. So…why not say as much? That seems the more natural argument after all — emphasize that Wonder Woman is a role model for girls, and maybe stay away from the masochistic talk about how boys like to be slaves. Perhaps he just couldn’t help himself, I guess…or maybe he thought that to the American Scholar’s middle-brow readers, his feminism would actually be less acceptable than his (muted) fetish? In any case, I’m certainly curious to know if he ever talked about a female audience for his comic, or about what he hoped to teach girls. I do finally have that Les Daniels book, so perhaps there will be some hints in there….

One last thing: I was caught off guard by the use of “sissified.” Most of the other language here (“allure”” for instance) is familiar enough from the Wonder Woman comic. But I don’t remember ever seeing him call anyone a “sissy.” It’s a weird word for him to use, inasmuch as he seems to really like it when men are sissies — like the llittle girlie men in Wonder Woman #8 for example. Again, hopefully I’ll find some more of his prose and see if I can’t figure out more clearly what he thinks he’s doing, exactly. I mean, I guess my question is, does he really worry about men being sissies? Or is it more than he knows that men worry about being sissies, and they need to find an excuse not to do that? It sort of sounds like he believes the second; that women need to be strong so that men will no longer worry about being weak when they are loving. But then, are men not weak when they submit to a strong woman? Or is the whole appeal that they are weak?

Ah well. Who cares when the essay has…two Harry Peter drawings!

It’s fun to see them in black and white, actually. The first of them makes the explicit feminist statement that Marston was leery of:

wonder woman

The second is pretty hysterical:

wonder woman

The black and white makes this look more cartoony and less children’s-booky than the comics themselves. You can perhaps see Peter’s versatility even more clearly though. WW is stiff and iconic; elegant and posed. The editor, though, is an animated caricature, rushing up from behind the desk with motion lines and smoke out of his phallic pipe; limbs bents, clothes ruffled.

I just checked the Daniels book; it’s not going to tell me who did the coloring for the series I don’t think. Instead we’ve got lots of pictures of — Wonder Woman dolls! Fucking Chip Kidd….