The Second-Class Status of Comics

Having read the first two chapters of Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, one particular passage from the first chapter stuck out to me. "For much of this century," Scott writes, "the word 'comics' has had such a negative connotation that many of comics' most devoted practitioners have preferred to be known as 'illustrators,' 'commercial artists,' or, at best, 'cartoonists'!" (McCloud 18). It was a sad reminder that, no matter how deep or thoughtful a comic can be, it will always be seen as juvenile by society overall.

Two comics immediately came to mind when I finished that page - Will Eisner's The Plot, and Art Spiegelman's Maus. I read both comics in high school, during a time when I voraciously read through much of Archbishop Spalding's fiction library. Though I had to read Maus for my sophomore English class, I read The Plot on my own time. Nevertheless, I was captivated by the combination of art and prose in both comics.

The Plot, a detailed account of the fabrication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had a unique art style that combined detailed character designs with exaggerated expressions. It told a story that spanned centuries and involved disgruntled French authors and conniving Tsarist advisers desperate to hold onto power. It was a well-researched and tragic tale that kept my interest throughout its length. Why, then, is it never brought up in any way, shape, or form when high-quality non-fiction is discussed? Is it the "cartoonish" artwork that prevents critics from taking its contents seriously, no matter how thought-provoking it may be? Or did its black sheep status as a non-fiction comic keep it in obscurity? 

Of course, it is entirely possible to break free from the "ghetto" that most comics reside in, and establish a comic as serious reading material. Maus fits this idea to the T.

I remember my surprise at Maus being taught like the other books in my curriculum. While its subject matter was serious, it looked like any other comic sidelined for not fitting the standards of a "serious book." I enjoyed both volumes of Maus, as tragic as its depiction of the Holocaust was, but a question irked me throughout my reading of it: why this, and not The Plot? Both dealt with anti-antisemitism, historical events, and the depths of human depravity when dealing with "outcast" groups. Didn't both deserve credit for taking serious risks and presenting their material in an unorthodox, easier-to-consume format?

I do not think there is an easy answer to those questions. Sometimes, it might boil down to sheer, dumb luck. Critics in all fields are known for their bizarre tastes - the much-hated and generally-unfunny Ghostbusters reboot currently holds a higher Rotten Tomatoes rating than the moody, thought-provoking "Only God Forgives" and a near-equal rating with the uncompromising "Falling Down." Some practical elements may have factored into this discrepancy: Maus was published nearly three decades ago and had a stagnated release, while The Plot is only 11 years old. 

"What are you driving at, exactly?" You might ask. Well, it all comes down to this - like what McCloud said, anyone defending comics has the deck heavily stacked against them. Though the old-fashioned view of comics being for nerds and children no longer holds water today, it lingers in the backs of society's attitudes. We scoff at comics as being below us, yet we cannot put our fingers on why most people hold that view. 

Granted, for every Batman: The Long Halloween and Watchmen, there are dozens of disposable comics churned out by Marvel, DC, and other companies. But we should never allow our view of a medium to be tainted by its worst examples. Should all of literature be tossed aside because of Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey? Of course not, so why should comics be viewed as an inferior medium due to the existence of garbage like Nightcat?

Comics are undeserving of the second-class status society has lumped upon them. They deserve to be treated like any other piece of literature, not as a minor amusement.

Sources:

Eisner, Will, and Umberto Eco. The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics:. New York: HarperPerennial, 1994. 18. Print.

Spiegelman, Art. Maus: A Survivor's Tale. Vol. 2. New York: Pantheon, 1986. Print.

The Moral High Ground

I would like to look back at the scene from X-men, where, during the kidnapping of Rogue from the train station, Charles Xavier holds Magneto at his mercy. Knowing Charles as well as he does, Magneto calls his bluff by holding the surrounding police force hostage. Thus, Charles is left with two choices: release Magneto, or kill him.

Westchester Train Station Standoff

Now, at this point we’re fairly familiar with Magneto as a character. Experiencing the Holocaust as a child defined his life, and he’s very paranoid when it comes to seeing the worst in a government. As such, he easily jumps to the extreme in the grand debate of Mutants vs. Humans, and seems willing to do anything to “save” the mutants from the humans in power. In the case of the movie, this is evidenced by his decision to sacrifice a teenaged girl in cold blood to further his plot.

Additionally, in X-2, we see that Magneto is willing to escalate when he orders a brain-washed Charles to kill all of the humans. In a word, Magneto is genocidal. Therefore, the question remains: Should Charles have killed Magneto when he had the chance? More than that, how does the decision to not kill affect Charles as a hero figure? Should heroes be willing to kill their monsters – to kill one to save a hundred? Well, I’ll let you answer that. Although, during the assault on the school in X-2, Wolverine seems to think so.

That being said, I feel this question is a little harder to find an answer for within the context of X-men. After all, Charles and Magneto were once fast friends, and it’s also a matter of discrimination – which could make either choice justifiable. In X-men, I feel the line is blurred a bit more than it needs to be. So I now ask the same question in a different context: Batman vs. The Joker.

It is safe to say that The Joker is – in all of the DC continuities I can think of off the top of my head – an omnicidal maniac, who will do whatever he can to rile up Batman. The Joker possesses few, if any, redeeming qualities. Meanwhile, Batman “never” kills – he very rarely does, but let’s ignore that for now – because it’s against his moral fiber. Therefore, taking our definitions and discussions of what a hero is, should a hero be willing to kill in what is clearly the defense of others? How does making such a decision affect their being a hero in our eyes?

Personally, I’m of the opinion that a hero should – which is not to say that they should go on killing sprees – because a situation sometimes calls for it. For such an example, I jump back to Batman vs. The Joker. I feel like Gotham would be a much saner and safer place without The Clown Prince of Crime. But I am also of two minds when it comes to answering this question, because it does make me question Batman’s integrity as a hero. He’s already a frightening vigilante, and being willing to take that extra step would make him even easier to fear.

Sources:

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Joker_(DC_Animated_Universe)

X-Men. Dir. Bryan Singer. 20th Century Fox, 2000. DVD.

X2. Dir. Bryan Singer. 20th Century Fox, 2003. DVD.

Right or Wrong?

         Throughout X-Men and X-Men 2 there is a constant battle between right and wrong. The right and wrong battle is between humans and mutants. In each other’s eyes, the other is deemed evil. The main perspective both of the movies focus on is from the side of the mutants and their constant battle with the humans. In the beginning of X-Men 2, the war between the mutants and humans is in the process of building up. My question is, which side is the right side and which is wrong? In order to build an argument, both the human and mutant populations must be taken into account.

Let’s start with the human population. From their perspective, mutants are considered monsters. In X-Men 2 when Bobby came home, he decided to tell his parents that he was attending the gifted school for mutants instead of going to preparatory school. His own family did not accept him and his bother called that police on Billy and the other mutants. The belief in the society is that mutants are the monsters, the belief is so strong that Billy’s own family did not accept him.

Now for the mutant population. The mutants spend their days in isolation from the world around them. In Xavier’s School for the Gifted, mutants are surrounded by other mutants for both school and daily life. The reasoning behind the isolation is for mutants to avoid the wrath of humans. William Stryker dedicated his life to the annihilation of the mutant race. Many of the mutants, like Rouge, decided to run away from home in constant fear that she might be a monster.

This war between humans and mutants reminds me of any other war. No matter which side, that side believes it is correct. The idea of right or wrong in a society redirects back to the social norms of a society. Society attempts to formulate matters into right or wrong and good or evil. The problem with war in general is that good people exist on both sides.

Is it possible that the underlying message to the film is about acceptance? I know this could seem to be far-fetched and generalized, but at the end of X-Men 2 the good side of the mutants and the good side of the human population come together. The two differing groups paired up together and ended up saving the world. 

Blurred Lines

Grey areas. No matter how logical, how black and white you think you are, there is always some part of you that finds itself in a grey area. Right and wrong. Good and bad. Typically these are easy things to categorize, to separate and identify. But sometimes, those lines become less distinct and more blurred. The entire storyline of the X-Men movies is set in one giant cluster-fuck of a grey area that makes your head spin. 

The movie begins with the explanation of the new mutant population that has developed and the issues that have come with it. We immediately feel sympathy for these mutant people who are just struggling to live a normal life. They are really people, just like us, but with some difference that make them outcasted from their societies and homes. But its easy to feel sympathy from the comfort of your couch.

We see the evil Senator, hitched on the idea of making mutants identify themselves, perhaps even wear some sort of identifying marker that sets them apart (cue the gut-wrenching reminders from the treatment of the Jewish people in the Holocaust which was presented in the opening scene.) We hate this idea, this outright attack on personal freedom. We hear what he says and we identify it as wrong and bad.  It seems so far fetched to us that someone could think this narrow-mindedly and be so prejudiced. 

But then we meet Magneto and things begin to blur rather quickly. Here's a mutant just like the others, in fact very good friends with Xavier, but he does not seem to be so good and just. He too, fights for mutants' rights but he's also fighting for mutant superiority. He and his cronies are easily identified as the bad guys, the monsters, but the real issue is, are they?

I believe this goes back to the idea that monsters are not inherently bad just as heroes are not inherently good. They have a mixture of both, perhaps monsters have less good and heroes have less bad, but they still have both. Magneto was fighting for what he believed in, for his rights as a mutant and for the mutants to become the dominant power in society. The Senator was fighting for what he believed was best for the humans and their personal safety and to continue to ensure that the humans remained at the top. Magneto wanted to stop the discrimination; the Senator wanted to stop something that was a threat to his status-quo. It’s easy to say that discrimination is bad and that the Senator was evil but we also cannot forget that we are also humans. 

Like I said, it’s simple to be on the mutants' side when I'm sitting on a couch, in a society where mutants don't exist. But it does make me question what would society do if this were a real situation. Is there not an entire group of individuals in our country who want to stop other groups of people from entering our country based on their differences? Yet can this be equated to mutants?

I am, body and soul, against discrimination. It disgusts me and makes me sick to see what others do to each other in the name of their own perverted ideas of social norms. Mutants represent every past culture, society, religion, sub-culture, you name it, that has been discriminated against because of their differences. There are people who don’t agree with me on my ideas of acceptance and tolerance but these are people who raised me, who love me and whom I love. Do I think they are evil and wrong and unjust? Do I throw them into the same category as the Senator? Can we identify Magneto as the bad guy outright? What is right and what is wrong?

It’s a grey area. There is no right or wrong answer, no black and white. So how would we as a society react if a mutant population began to develop? Only time will tell.

Will Evolution Help Us, or Hurt Us?

X-Men and X2 are two excellent displays of how characters, and thus people, can be both heroes and monsters. In many movies, there is a clear hero who the audience is supposed to root for, and a clear monster or villain who the audience is supposed to be against. But in reality, and in these two X-Men movies, people are not so cut and dry. You must figure out characters’ or peoples’ motives; you don’t simply judge them based on appearances.

In the X-Men movies, the main characters are what we would consider “monsters” in the most general sense: some mutants are quite frightening in appearance, and all of them have powers which, if used appropriately (or inappropriately) could frighten and hurt non-mutants.

However, we discover that, at least for the X-Men, scaring and hurting is not their intention. In fact, most mutants just want to be accepted by society. Thus, simply by the appearance and characteristics of mutants, the X-Men movies blur the lines between hero and monster.

Additionally, the X-Men movies make the difference between hero and monster difficult to discern through the intentions of characters. In the first movie, the X-Men, Magneto is essentially the “villain.” He seeks to achieve mutant superiority by turning non-mutants into mutants. He turns Senator Robert Kelly, a senator who tries to pass a mutant registration act, into a mutant. At first glance, this may seem to be an evil and monstrous thing to do: turn someone into a mutant when they are not. However, when he was younger, Magneto, as Erik, was separated from his parents as he enters a concentration camp. Although Magneto’s actions might seem uncalled for, when you realize that his intentions are based off of growing up in a world where people had to register themselves for simply being Jewish, it makes sense why Magneto would want to avoid the same thing just because he is a mutant.  

A final way the X-Men movies blur the lines is through the use of characters. Although Magneto is a villain in the first movie, in X2 he joins the X-Men as they fight a human villain who seeks to destroy all mutants. Even though Magneto and his followers still want different things than the X-Men, we see a side of them that we did not get to see in the first movie: that he can stand for a cause which we can all relate to.

However, I thought the most interesting aspect of the X-Men movies was the emphasis on evolution, and the reality factor it conveyed. As a Biology major, I really honed in on this aspect of the movies. It certainly makes me think, because one day, the human species will mutate and will evolve. This is true because it has happened in the past: before us, there were apes. It makes me wonder whether or not people would exile those who were different, if those exiled beings would fight back like Magneto, or if they would just want equality like the X-Men.

The Origin of Magneto

In most forms of media regarding heroes and villains, origin stories of characters help to provide context and background. For people either watching or reading about the character, the origin story gives a glimpse into the reasons for the mission and actions that a character undertakes. In regards to the former X-Man and member of the Brotherhood of Mutants Magneto, the chilling images from the opening scene of the first X-Men movie reveals the heartbreaking events that created the anti hero. Without this context, the audience could not formulate a complete rendering of Magneto the individual. As a result of his origin story, Magneto becomes a more well-rounded character, enabling individuals to create a sense of understanding for the often misunderstood mutant.

At first glance, Magneto seems to be the one of the main antagonists of the X-Men storyline. However, as the first scene of the 2000 film X-Men shows, Magneto is not only a mutant, but also an individual of Jewish descent, suffering through the events of the Holocaust during the Second World War. This pivotal scene depicts the selection process at Auschwitz and continues to remain as an enduring image to the opening of the X-Men saga. A young Magneto discovers his mutant powers as a result of the traumatic moment involving the separation from his parents (X-Men). Certainly, such an experience would have a lasting effect on the psyche of the young boy, breeding traits of resiliency, self-reliance, and a desire for safety and control within himself.

For the second time in his life, due to his differences, Magneto has been designated as an outsider, someone who is feared, suppressed, and exploited. Sadly, Magneto lost his family in the events of the Holocaust and witnessed firsthand the lengths that humans will go in order to control perceived enemies. As Magneto himself states in the film X-Men, “Mankind has always feared what it doesn’t understand” (X-Men). Having seen the destruction and sorrow which mankind can enforce on minorities without power, one can empathize with Magneto’s approach to defend and protect his mutant family by any means necessary.

This context helps one to comprehend his actions in the movies X-Men and X2 when he attempts to thwart the Mutant Registration Act as well as join the X-Men in defeating Stryker (X-Men, X2). Interestingly, Magneto does not even view himself as the “bad guy” in the story. In X2, Magneto questions, “Is that what they call me?” when told by fellow mutant Pyro that he is referred to as such (X2). Despite the fact that some would consider him to be a monster, Magneto purely does whatever he feels is needed in order to save his mutant family from the fearful humans. Although one does not have to agree with his actions or methods, Magneto’s backstory aids in humanizing his character and establishing an explanation for his ruthless and often uncanny approach to mutant-human relations.

Sources:

X-Men. Dir. Bryan Singer. By David Hayter. 20th Century Fox, 2000. DVD.

X2. Dir. Bryan Singer. By Bryan Singer. 20th Century Fox, 2003. DVD.

I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment. Anthony King

Video URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsG5QZFQIO0

Monster or Mutant?

        When thinking of the term “monster,” many of us may think of a creature that disgusts, terrifies, and sometimes even fascinates.  Maybe it looks like something we’ve never seen before, or is capable of doing things that defy our understanding of physical nature.  In X-Men and X-2, we see these traits in characters like Jean, who looks "normal" but has telekinetic abilities, and Mystique, who is a shapeshifter with blue skin and yellow eyes.  If the definition of monster is only skin-deep, then all of the mutants in these movies are monsters.

            This is a simple conclusion that leads to very little conversation.  As an audience, we are granted the ability to choose who the monsters truly are.  If we define monsters as those that perform monstrous acts, then the members of the “monster” category change.  Non-mutant characters within the movies see mutants as monsters because of their inhuman abilities.  However, the audience is permitted into the mutant world, where we see their motivations, emotions, and everything that makes them human.

As a young Polish Jew, Magneto was made to feel like a monster even before his mutant abilities were known to exist in X-Men.  It is not explained in either film what happened to him after the Nazis discovered his abilities and the audience is left to ponder.  It is likely that Magneto underwent experimentation, given its known extensive usage by Nazis.  Due to his experiences, Magneto grows into a radical cynic that despises non-mutants.  In X-2, we see that this goes so far as to attempting to kill all non-mutants.  For non-mutants, he is a monster.

Although the reason for Magneto’s beliefs are understandable, they are not justifiable.  He generalizes Nazi attitude towards mutants to all of mankind, believing that all are hateful, aggressive monsters.  Opposite of this standpoint is Professor and his cohorts, who desire coexistence and see mutants and non-mutants as equals.  In X-Men, they protect non-mutants from transformation and ultimately death.  In X-2, they protect mutants, and then non-mutants, from total annihilation.  For mutants and non-mutants alike, they are heroes.

It is evident that society has the ability to transform people that are simply unique into monsters, such as Magneto.  However, people also have the ability to choose whether or not they become monsters.  Professor, Wolverine, Jean, and others act for peace despite being “othered” by society.  In X-2, we see this decision unfold when Pyro joins Magneto.  Although none of these characters had control over what society viewed them as, they could choose how they responded.  Stryker, the villain in X-2, is also a monster created by society.  Like many non-mutants, he believes that mutants are dangerous, and so they must be controlled or destroyed.  He allows himself to fall victim to this belief system despite his own son being a mutant.  Through this case, it is clear that it is the nature of the mind, not appearance or abilities, that defines the monster.