Punisher vs. Punisher

Daredevil vs. Punisher: Means and Ends is basically a story about Punisher fighting himself. He is struggling with his demons and tries to fix himself through what he calls justice. During the first three issues, we experience Punisher struggle to maintain his control. He had to keep reminding himself to stay focus and forget about all the stuff that might jeopardize the mission. When he meets Mary, he can no longer stay focus. Once he sees Mary’s face he can no longer suppress the memories.

Of course what he is doing is not ethical. Killing people, even if they are scum, is still bad. Last class we discussed how Rick from The Walking Dead went from “You kill? You die” to “You kill--you live.” He did it out of necessity, he needed to commit those horrible acts in order to survive. In Bishop’s article there is a quote from Rick to Carl “I do things… a lot of bad things, to help you, to help you and all the other people in our group… That’s the world we live in now… but Carl, you need to never forget… when we do this things and we’re good people… they’re still bad things… You can never lose sight of that. If these things start becoming easy that’s when it’s all over. That’s when we become bad people.” (Bishop 83). There is no doubt that Rick is a good guy, we sympathize with him and we understand why he is doing it. We may even admire his courage and his dedication to his family.

Punisher on the other hand, he is a bit hard to sympathize with because he is not doing it out of survival. I don’t even think he is doing it just to protect the city and bring justice. He has selfish reasons. He is trying to fill the gap his family left. He is trying to bring justice for his own family.

Punisher is trying to release the pain and anger in him. He may not want to admit it, but he enjoys the killing. I think it scares him how much he likes it. It feels good to kill the bad guys. Does that make him a bad person? No it does not. It is very easy for him to kill them because he has a reason. Those criminals have lost all humanity according to Punisher. He is not going around killing people, he is killing monsters. He is killing people who deserve to be killed. He is in control about who he kills. If he loses control, tragedy will strike like it did here:

He starts firing… he is trying to control it… and then…

He lost it. Look at his face. Imagine all that pain being released from his body. Imagine how he must feel after all this time suppressing everything. Imagine how good it feels to pull that trigger and let those bullets flow. Imagine how it feels to lose control. But of course, that comes with a price.

Now look at his face. Look at his pain. He knows why he has been hiding this side. He knows why he cannot let go. Imagine how horrible it feels to pull that trigger and let a bullet hit an innocent man. Punisher did not enjoy that and it was not easy for him. He hated himself for shooting an innocent man. He sees himself becoming the type of person he hates. That is why he is not a bad guy. He is just a man who does bad things. Punisher is complex. He is not a bad guy, but I cannot say that he is a good guy. All I can say is that I sympathize with him, but I know that he will not be able to control himself forever. Eventually and unfortunately, he will be a bad guy. He will never be satisfied and he may not care about who he kills.

Sources:
Bishop, Kyle W. “Battling Monsters and Becoming Monstrous: Human Devolution in The Walking Dead." Ed. Marina Levina and Diem-My T. Bui. Monster Culture in the 21st Century: A Reader. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Plc, 2013. 73-85. Print.

Shambling Around the Ivory Tower

Monster Culture in the 21st Century truly is the gift that keeps on giving. A collection of 20 or so essays by various academic sources, the book consistently demonstrates the same approach to analyzing the world through popular culture - present arguments under a guise of concern for disenfranchised peoples while attempting to mask the smug contempt most of the contributors hold towards them. Often, the true feelings the authors hold bleed through into their essays, forcing the reader to question how genuine their arguments truly are.

In his essay for chapter 14, Michael S. Drake seemingly defends the poor and impoverished against what he considers typecasting by zombie fiction authors. Drawing back to older zombie movies and Haitian voodoo beliefs, he criticizes various facets of zombie fiction as power fantasies where the wealthy and privileged can wreak havoc on the lower classes without remorse. However, the comparisons he draws and language he uses suggests a complete disconnect with the working class. He directly compares recipients of welfare and the proletariat to mindless, shambling, flesh-eating zombies. He implies that they would not be aware of this without academics such as himself explaining the concept in great detail. Furthermore, he shows contempt for the upper classes by portraying them as violent brutes who would happily indulge in horrible acts of violence if there were no consequences for their actions. 

His attitude is that of superiority and disdain for anyone outside of his inner circle, which is shared by several other authors in the book. Mary and Carmen Lugo misconstrue the plot of Lakeview Terrace to reinforce their argument in chapter 15, showing either an indifference towards the audience or a lack of integrity on their end. The contributors of Monster Culture seem to, for the most part, thumb their noses and sneer at their own "Others," whether they be blue collar rural Americans or people with higher salaries than they have.

The entire affair reminded me of the Hamilton Boycott and backlash. On both ends, the controversy about the musical was silly, but the responses to the calls for a boycott were anything but. Celebrities and left-leaning figureheads mocked those who supported the boycott, making fun of their lower social standing, education, or inability to purchase tickets. The same people who claimed to stand for the working class in the election demonized those within that very class for not sharing their views.

This sense of superiority isolates people like Drake from the issues everyday people face. In their eyes, their "Other" is just too ignorant to help, and should be subjected to humiliation and shaming tactics. A similar issue plagued some mainstream news outlets during the election. Academics need to be willing to leave their ivory towers and try to understand ordinary people - even those who might not be near them on the political spectrum, or *gasp* did not vote for Hillary Clinton. Political tensions are high enough, so it might be time to drop the narcissism and the buzzwords for some respectful discussions.

Of course, people like Drake could go on living in echo chambers and getting their opinions bounced back to them by their colleagues. It's not like ignoring a changing political climate has ever backfired for people like him before, right?

WORKS CITED:

Levina, Marina, and Diem-My T. Bui. Monster Culture in the 21st Century: A Reader. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Plc, 2013. Print.

Metaphorical Zombies

First of all, my apologies, but I am very, very tired. 

The idea of the zombie as a representative of our national consciousness and ideology is an interesting one, but - to get this out right off the bat - I do wish that Drake would explain Beck's concept of the "second modernity" clearly and plainly. What, exactly, is that and what does it mean? Is it like the new tech boom, or a second industrial revolution? If he explained it further in the essay I couldn't find it, and because it's the crux of his argument, I think it bears some increased scrutiny and attention. Trying to read this article with "second modernity" in mind without knowing what it meant was frustrating. I don't... disagree with Drake, at least I don't think I do, but I felt slightly unprepared having not read Beck's essay to compare with Drake's. But maybe that's just me, and maybe I missed the "second modernity" (which sounds more and more like the second coming the more I think about it) or misread. Hey, it's late. 

Something that Drake does point out, and clearly explain, is the origin of the zombie in Haitian Vodou. He quotes David Inglis, who points out that "the Haitian fear is not of zombis... the fear is instead of becoming a zombie" (Drake 231). The zombie represents the enslaved condition of Haitians and of other West Indian countries/former colonies, a condition that they have a horror of returning to. This history of the zombie isn't entirely unfamiliar to me - an interesting way to experiment with Drake's ideas is with the text Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys. A postcolonial prequel (I know, I know) to Jane Eyre, it explores the life of Mr. Rochester's first wife, Antoinette (Cosway) Mason, in Jamaica, before she became the "madwoman in the attic." 

SPOILERS BELOW: 

After her marriage, Antoinette's husband renames her "Bertha" in an attempt to distance her from her mother's madness, which Antoinette/Bertha ultimately inherits despite his efforts. Over time, Antoinette/Bertha becomes increasingly paranoid that Rochester is trying to turn her into a "zombie" by taking her name - if he takes her name he controls her. If I remember correctly, this renaming is obeah, a term used to refer to West Indian folk beliefs, witchcraft, and sorcery. It's black magic, obviously not good. The point I'm ultimately trying to make is that the zombie does not necessarily need to represent national consciousness or national ideology, even though, in Wide Sargasso Sea, I think it does - in addition to several other metaphorical meanings. Zombies represent those stripped of power, the victims of institutional oppression. At their core, like everything else it seems, zombies are about power. I think a quote from Harry Potter is a nice closer/philosophical snack to munch on: "there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." 

The Monster Within

I am rapidly running out of things to talk about in our blogs, so I am going to venture into new territory with today's post.  In high school, I taught a course on how to survive the zombie apocalypse (I am being completely serious) in which I demonstrated the do's and don'ts of surviving when the dead rise from their graves.  Another part of the class was examining how "zombie culture" affects the world today, and the different ways in which the concept of the living dead could be applied to not only the literal sense of the term, but also how people conduct their lives on a daily basis.  The mission was to show that the living dead are not only found in the form of brain-eating zombies, but in everyday life.  For example, in one of the older zombie movies from the 1970s (I believe it was Dawn of the Dead but I may be wrong) the main characters enter a shopping mall infested with zombies.  As they observe the brainless automatons shuffle about through the stores, the main characters comment about why the zombies chose the mall to reside in.  One character suggests that the environment was familiar; that the zombies, when they were human, went there every week in life and thus returned in death.  There was a lot of symbolism in that scene, much of which I have forgotten, but I remember one key thought I had at the time: what defines the living dead?

I suppose I was trying to link the concept of the living dead who aimlessly wander around shopping malls to society today.  As I watch people fight over the best holiday deals (such as that Nike store in Washington that got trashed) I often wonder if the living dead already exist within us, in our innate nature to put self above others or aimlessly wander around shopping malls.  Sure, we're not yet reduced to eating each other's brains like real zombies, but if the fear irradiated by the concept of the zombie is the loss of consciousness to animalistic nature, what separates the characters in The Walking Dead, who are trying only to survive (and end up harming each other in the process) from the zombies?  In order to separate ourselves from the zombies, it would be wise for individuals to focus on what makes us human in times of crisis, such as helping others in need or being creative.   Yet, it always boils down to people just trying to survive another day in the zombie-world, which brings up the question: if the zombies rise from the grave, will it not drag down society's humanity with it?

Attack of the Social Media Zombies

Although I do not find gore-filled depictions of zombie apocalypses particularly scary, the idea of turning into just another member of a zombie horde is unsettling. Being human involves being an individual and having some sort of agency over our own decisions. A zombie, on the other hand, merely obeys its base instinctual drive to consume and spread. Even a small scratch from an infected host could lead to your undying allegiance to the undead horde, and the odds of surviving a zombie apocalypse decrease as the size of plague grows. The only hope you have left is for time to take its toll on the rotting carcasses and decay their flesh from the bone.

http://i.imgur.com/ms6iWay.jpg

The tragic reality of living in a zombie infested world is that you must become like the zombies themselves in order to survive. In The Walking Dead, the lead protagonist, Rick, learns this through his struggle to keep his family and himself alive. Rick learns the dangers of interacting with both the living and the un-living, rationalizing his problematic decisions with the axiom, “you kill, you die”. As Rick begins to fully comprehend the state of his world, his view changes to “you kill, you live”. Rick is becoming a zombie himself, not through infection, but by aligning his core motives with that of the undead. His zombification will be complete when he begins to believe ‘you live to kill’. At that point, there is no turning back.

http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/136/2016/07/11/181927_600.jpg

The parallels between zombie plagues and modern consumer culture are what I find truly terrifying. Commercial and ads are now constantly hiding away in our pockets. Aside from phones turning people into real world equivalents of zombies (ex. Pokemon Go zombie outbreak of 2016), phones provide a way of reinforcing mob behavior. Technology has allowed us to condense everything into a small package to be easily consumed through social media, and this ease of consumption is what makes social media addictive. Social media is built around virulent behavior through its use of likes, shares and retweets. A good example of virulent mob behavior produced by social media are ‘challenge videos’. This viral sensation causes the host to upload a video of themselves preforming a ‘challenge’, ranging from pouring ice water on their head to eating spoon-fulls of cinnamon for no apparent reason other than being part of the collective. The social media zombie functions similarly to the fiction zombie, obeying its base instinctual drive to consume and spread, but, in this case, consume and spread kitten videos, 'dank memes', and BuzzFeed articles.

http://www.zerotoalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/social_media_zombies.jpg

I believe our own society is reaching a point of no return, where our social media zombification will be complete. We are transitioning from ‘you consume, you live’ to ‘you live to consume’. Living without participating in social media is becoming more difficult. In order to survive in modern society, one must become a social media zombie. So share those hashtags, click on some ads, enjoy those ‘dank memes’, and join the rest of horde.

"Good Zombie Movies Show Us How Messed Up We Are"

Honestly and truly this class is the reason I became hooked to The Walking Dead. I definitely think that the comic is better than the show but the show keeps me watching just on the sole fact that I want to see what happens in the end. What are Rick and his whole group really fighting for? To survive, definitely, but we are at a point in human civilization that life isn't all about surviving anymore. I personally think that going backwards in how we live our lives is a life that isn't worth living.

Monster Culture really shed light on my thoughts about The Walking Dead and zombies in general. Zombies don't really seem to be the scariest part of the show or any show having to do with zombies but rather how monstrous the humans become in trying to survive. Throughout the show it becomes easier and easier for Rick to kill humans in his efforts to protect the group but you can see that as he continues to make excuses for why killing someone was okay, he starts to lose his humanity. I agree with the fact that zombies represent our fears and doubts. Although it may not be killing someone, our fears and doubts make us do crazy or unhealthy things. Even something as simple our fear of not doing well on an exam will force us to stay up all night or drink two or three energy drinks despite the fact that both aren't good for your health.

In any zombie situation, humans are the true monsters because we "become chaotic creatures if selfishness, violence, and unchecked aggression." But one of the quotes that really stood out to me was, "Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster." this quote reminds me of Star Wars in that those who continue to give in to the dark side becomes apart of the dark side. The fear of being bitten by a zombie but also the fear of losing your family would definitely drive any human to be monstrous because in reality we are selfish.

One of the things that I didn't understand the most about The Walking Dead was how many humans were killing each other. I thought that every time a human group would encounter another they would join forces and work together to survive but that wasn't the case. I feel like I would be so accepting and loving towards other people I came across because we are all fighting for the same thing. But behind the scenes, all the groups were plotting against each other which was really sad to see and understand. To what point does something that is "necessary" trumps something that is "right?"

The zombie doesn't seem to be the biggest problem like I expected because it reveals and warns us of something else which is humanity within humans slowly being destroyed as surviving becomes harder. Humans are unique in that their emotions get the best of us and are not always "composed, unflappable, and focused" like zombies are. Similar to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, zombies can be related to terrorism. As a country we seem to take more "dramatic actions" and become more savage in our fear of the unknown rather than coming together. Overall this book opened my eyes to some of the incomplete thoughts I had when watching The Walking Dead and I'm looking forward to see what else happens in the show that make these thoughts even clearer.

Sources:
1. Levina, Marina, and Diem-My T. Bui. Monster Culture in the 21st Century: A Reader. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Plc, 2013. Print.
2. http://theplaylist.net/zombies-keep-moving-amc-renews-walking-dead-season-8-20161017/

Choosing to be a Monster

Perhaps I've been reading The Walking Dead a bit too much, but every time I go grocery shopping or to run errands at the mall, I always picture myself in a zombie apocalypse and think, "What would I do?" I'd like to think that I would fight off the other zombies, protect my friends and family, and do everything I can to stay alive, but would I? We've finally found a few chapters in which the authors aren't afraid to say that humans can be monsters too (thank goodness) but what is it exactly that makes someone a monster? Perhaps it's the time Bishop discusses of when someone goes from doing what is right to what is necessary. At some point you have to throw the rules out the window of what society expects of you, and do what you can to survive. But what about when this divide isn't so clear? I'd like to think that I'm a good person and that I always do the right thing, but sometimes I don't (shocking, I know)! Does doing one bad thing make you a bad person, or worse, a monster? I don't think so. I think the distinction here lies in repetition. When you make the same silly decision over and over again, it's not a mistake anymore. At this point, you know it's wrong, you're completely and utterly aware of that, yet you do it anyway. So, you're actively choosing to do something that you know is wrong or perhaps that you've convinced yourself is necessary to make you happy. At that point, I think you've started to become a monster. At first, Rick and Shane are doing what they have to do to survive. So, what is considered "the right thing to do," isn't on the top of their priority list, which is completely understandable. But what about when they keep acting out of survival instincts, yet potentially hurt others? That's when I think they may turn into monsters.

Something I've been wondering about, which hasn't really been addressed yet (that I can remember) is whether or not you are ALWAYS a monster. Some of the characters in The Walking Dead become zombies, and some become their own form of human monsters, but are they always that way? Just thinking about these human monsters and not zombies, once you're considered a monster, can you ever become "un-monstered?" Can you ever be saved from this terrible state?