Monster Eating...

What a way to end the semester – truly, this war of ideologies exemplifies just how complex the issue of heroism vs monstrousness really is. At no point in this comic is there a moment where I can safely say who is right and who is wrong. So, I won’t do that. What I will say, is that Daredevil is the hero of this story.

I think his role is made clear not only be his willingness to see people as generally good – I feel that sort of optimism is central to the character of a hero these days, and heroes that don’t possess a similar mindset are few and far between – but also where he ends up at the end of this six-part series. That is to say, he continues on his merry way doing Daredevil-things. But what about Frank?

Well, The Punisher ends up in prison – which is extremely fitting. To be frank, pun intended, The Punisher is a monster. A wild animal. And wild animals get put into cages for the safety of others. However, doing good or doing what is right is not solely within the purview of heroes. Monsters like Frank do “good” on a few levels:

First of all, within the context of the comic there’s no denying that “the system” is highly flawed, and Frank helps remedy that issue by working outside of the system. He serves to cross the line other heroes are not willing to cross in order to get the job done, and permanently removes threats to society from its confines – the only thing protecting them from punishment is plot-armor. Here’s an analogy: Biologically speaking, a “good” cell is programmed to kill itself if it ever becomes unviable for the good of the macro-organism. Cancerous cells, however, typically lack this property, and continue to wreak havoc and propagate until they’re dealt with or the body can no longer function. Additionally, the body doesn’t always recognize them as threats. So, like a really good white blood cell, Frank hunts these cancers down and ends them in an effort to remove the cause of the degradation of his society. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior is regarded as more or less intolerable by society – the sliding gray-scale of society also makes it impractical – and Frank’s an unstable person that makes mistakes.  

Additionally, and let me jump back to number five of those seven theses from Monster Culture for this one, The Punisher and characters like him serve as a call-to-arms for the heroes of their stories. They unveil the ugliness of their settings, and challenge the righteous to step up their game, lest their more merciful methods be left by the wayside.

In short, Frank’s a monster that eats monsters. He’s not acceptable by society’s standards – and wouldn’t the world be bleak if he was – and he’s not really a hero, regardless of the good he sometimes does. However, he does keep the line between the common folk and the other monsters in check, and offers heroes a look at just how bad it can really get…

Y’know, I think Nietzsche had a quote about hunting monsters.

Resources:

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. "Monster Culture: Seven Theses." From Monster Theory: Reading Culture.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. 3-25.

Lapham, David. Daredevil VS Punisher: Means and Ends. Marvel Comics.

Jekyll and Drug Addiction

One of the things The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde deals with that interests me is the process by which Dr. Jekyll becomes Mr. Hyde - the consumption of a curious, chemical concoction. In Dr. Lanyon’s narrative, he recounts that the mixture he obtained from Dr. Jekyll’s abode was comprised of a powdery substance and some red liquid. To me, that already rings a few bells, but coupled with his description of Mr. Hyde, who always appeared to be swallowed up by his clothes, and who anxiously awaited his next ‘fix,’ I was led to see a tale of drug abuse.

The animated film, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, is apparently a pretty good movie,
albeit not exactly faithful to the original text.

Now, drug abuse is a bit of a personal topic to me, if not others as well. I’m almost certain that everyone knows someone, or knows someone who knows someone that has been on the unfortunate end of this particular ailment. We all know the signs, and they’re not pretty.

To me, Dr. Jekyll represents someone at the peak of a drug addiction, who is rapidly spiraling towards the rock-hard bottom. His time as Hyde increases as the story continues, his behavior shifts toward the horrid, he’s made contingencies to ensure that he receives his next dosage, and he doesn’t care for anything but the ‘high’ while as Hyde. Worse, he tries to hide it from his friends. Ultimately, this leads to him breaking off from society, and eventually to his death. To be frank, the parallel is uncanny.

Now, we can look at how Hyde’s interactions with others are monstrous – at how callous his becomes to anything but his own satisfaction – but I would rather look at how Dr. Jekyll interacts with him. Of course, this interaction is largely implicit, and so I look to Dr. Jekyll’s conversation with Mr. Utterson regarding his will – and I believe exact wording is important here:

“… I will tell you one thing: the moment I choose, I can be rid of Mr. Hyde” (Stevenson 33).

Have you ever heard someone with an addiction tell you that they can quit anytime they please? Yeah… That hardly ever works out, and Dr. Jekyll understands that on a conscious level – not just a subconscious level, mind you. This is evident in the way he makes provisions for his disappearance in his last will, and how he pleads that Mr. Utterson aid Hyde when he is no longer around.

This leads me to believe that Dr. Jekyll understands what he’s doing to himself, as well as the potential impact it could have on others – his fear confirms that to me – yet he intends to follow this destructive path regardless. Is that sort of selfishness and self-destructive behavior monstrous? It is certainly out-of-bounds, but does it elicit pity or contempt, or both? Should it?

Source

Stevenson, Robert. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886. Digitized by Google.

Measure Up to the Monster

Rather than examining this article in light of the monster, I was drawn toward looking at it in consideration of the hero. What does it mean to be a hero? Why must we have them? It has never been so clear to me, as it was upon reading, “When fear is at a fever pitch, they always move onto the hero phase… Life and art seek to mutually conquer vulnerability” (Asma 5). As monsters serve to highlight our collective fears, heroes serve as a resolution to both external and internal conflict.

Monsters spring forth from both superstition and the exaggeration of fact in a myriad of shapes and sizes, and are often framed as obstacles – the hoard of gold is always guarded by a dragon. Regardless of their form, however, facing them is, “… an illuminating exercise in hypothetical reasoning and hypothetical feeling” (Asma 3). In contrast, the job of the hero is to confront and ideally overcome these obstacles. Externally, monsters can represent threats against life, limb, loved ones, or even something such as wealth. Using their wit, guile, bravery, and whatever other weapon deemed appropriate, heroes face the odds and surmount these challenges – they serve to let audiences experience a potential method of coming out of a harrowing event minimally-scathed. The external component of this age-old battle begs the question of whether we are physically prepared for whatever life might throw at us. On the other hand, the hero must usually prepare for their encounter with the monster, or otherwise face some sort of moral decision. Do you save the damsel, or the school bus full of children? To kill or not to kill? Do you possess the resolve to accomplish whatever task is at hand? This internal struggle on the part of the hero asks whether we are morally equipped to handle the stressors of life. Granted, these decisions may be as simple as deciding to attend class on any given day, but they are no less impactful.

Original Image © Crowsmack

By this logic, monsters are a method by which we assess our own preparedness for everyday life – which can only be the case when they reflect our real fears. Similarly, heroes are the ideal measure of competence – the hero always saves the day, which is the metric we aspire to. The monsters that thrive in our imaginations allow us to test ourselves in a safe environment, in order to breed self-assuredness. After all, if we cannot conquer the terrors in our heads, then how can we do so in reality?

Reference:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009): 1-6.

Light and Shadow

An artist’s work is deliberate. I knew this as a fact… At least, as it applied to writing and painting. In regards to comics? Well, I knew this subconsciously. However, despite reading comics for years, it wasn’t until after reading McCloud that I truly understood on a conscious level the kind of deliberation and thought that goes into planning and creating a comic.

Case in point: In the our most recent reading (Astonishing X-Men, issues 1-3), there were a few pages that really popped to me, but the most salient page was this:

As you can see, the page is depicting a conversation between the X-Men over the advent of a “cure” for the X-gene. In particular, panels featuring Kitty, Logan, and McCoy have fairly light backgrounds, whereas the panel with Emma has a dark background. Additionally, in the panel featuring the four of them, hers is the only face covered in shadow.

I feel this is suggestive not only of Ms. Frost’s past as a villain – one of Magneto’s followers – but also of her attitude in general. This is supported by the cynicism of her dialogue on this page. She remains on the darker side of the mutant debate.

Alternatively, the others – shrouded as they are in a dim light – maintain a comparatively positive outlook on things. Which is to say that their reactions aren’t quite as extreme and dark as Emma’s.

On the whole, the lighting in this scene says as much about the characters’ personalities as the text: Kitty, as upbeat and morally good as she is wont to be, remains primarily un-shadowed; Emma, ruined by her experiences, remains thoroughly in the dark; Logan, jaded by his past, tends to be partially obfuscated by slivers of shadow; and McCoy, contemplative as he is, is bathed in a neutral light.

But then there’s Scott.

Scott is all alone on the last panel, with a sort of yin and yang balance going on with both the shading of his face and the background of the panel. This design choice represents a crossroads. As the new leader of the X-Men pushed into such a chaotic scenario, Scott finds himself having to make a grand decision regarding the future of not only Xavier’s School for the Gifted, but also for mutant-kind as a whole. In the face of potential “cure” and all that entails, does he take on Emma’s darker outlook and rise to murder? Or does he keep the teachings of Professor X and try to remain hopeful that humanity will grow to accept them?

Reference:

[Whedon, Joss (w), Cassaday, John (a).] "Astonishing X-Men: Gifted." X-Men v1 #1-6 (2011), Marvel Entertainment.

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.