Review - Scarlet #3 and #4 by Brian Michael Bendis and Alex Maleev

A double dose of review for this post as I've been slack on the Scarlet front. Issue three has been sitting on my desk just pleading to be reviewed but over Christmas, well, y'know... before you know it issue four has hit the stands. So here's a recap of the events in the last two issues.

Scarlet #3
cover image

Issue three sees Scarlet set out her philosophy (more on that in a bit) and recruit Brandon, her killed boyfriend's best friend, into her vigilante web. Brandon is reluctant at first but what can he do? Once Scarlet confesses what she's done he's basically in. Introduced into the story is the female police officer, Detective Going, who discovers Dunes' body (whom Scarlet killed in issue two and stole - or 'took' as she explains - his $700, 000 in dirty money).

Rather than hide from the responsibility of the murder, Scarlet confesses directly to the chief of police who also happens to be Dunes's uncle. The Chief is incredulous and skeptical but it matters not. Scarlet knocks him off too.

With Brandon's help she's videoed the whole killing and confession of the police chief with the intention of releasing it to the general public so they know she's not some crazed sniper/lunatic and there's something they can do put a stop to police corruption. Thus Scarlet's grass roots revolution begins. It also sees Scarlet enter the FBI's most wanted list.

Scarlet  #4
cover image

In issue four Detective Going returns as the head of the investigation into Scarlet's exploits finding that she's being stymied at every turn to try and bring Scarlet in. And it's not like Scarlet is really hiding out. Hey, even her mother finds her and she's not too pleased. Going's explanation can only be that "the powers that be" don't want Scarlet caught; they want her killed because she knows too much about the city's corruption. Interestingly Going also breaks the fourth wall in this issue, talking directly to us. Is there something in that only women are speaking to us readers?

Scarlet's life becomes much more dangerous but she doesn't shirk the responsibility and as her supporters gather in protest she ventures out to join them.

Now let's quickly investigate Scarlet's philosophy behind her actions. In issue three she says -

'Everyone in this world should have what's coming to them by the natural order of things. And the natural order of things does not include corrupt fucks destroying your life! And other fucks letting them get away with it. Everyone deserves their life to unfold uninterrupted by greed and and and just... selfishness.'

But in invoking the 'natural order' we have to remember that not long ago the 'natural order of things' saw racial and sexual minorities deemed inferior and deficient, and women not as capable as men. This natural order is one which Scarlet has created. It includes - 'Happiness. Love. That's it. That's everything... Everyone in the world should have the possibility for this. Everyone. Shouldn't they?' 'Everyone' should be able to live uninterrupted by greed and selfishness, but does this include 'corrupt fucks'? No. Scarlet's natural order of things excludes 'corrupt fucks' because by definition they're not part of her natural order and therefore unnatural. Her view of the natural order is influenced by her uninterrupted life, basically her world, before Gabriel's death. An uninterrupted life and a natural order of things imply the concept of determinism - 'that all events including human actions are predetermined' (Flew 125).

To illustrate how Scarlet experiences her life, her "world" is shown in the series of life event "snapshots" of  Scarlet's life (issue one) and Gabriel and Brandon's friendship (issue3). We're positioned to accept these experiences as ones that everyone has or at least can relate to (even would like to experience). They're expected, in a sense inevitable, and thus predetermined. Scarlet has experienced these events unfolding in a logical manner and thus would expect future events to also 'unfold' in a logical manner. Gabriel's murder is an unpredictable event defying the deterministic causal chain which had characterised Scarlet's life. She is thrust into, or made aware of, another reality, another world, one that she deems 'broken'. In fact, it is Scarlet's world that has been broken. 

It's hard to argue against wanting a world where everyone has the possibility of love. It's a utopic vision and altruistic but somewhat selfish. People should live according to her 'natural order'. And there's no compromise. If you don't believe in Scarlet's natural order then you're 'trapped in this world of compromise for so long you can't even tell how much you're being taken advantage of'. Thus if you're not with her, you're against her. Indeed as Guzman (Dunes's ex-partner) pointed out, Scarlet nor himself didn't know of this unjust sphere. They were both unaware of the 'broken' world until their predictable lives, their knowledge of their worlds was changed.

The 'world' of  'everyone' and 'everything', (which really are only limited to Portland) is Scarlet's world - the one which included Gabriel before he was killed; of simple, uncomplicated love where they had lived together for a whole year and 'never left each other's sight'.

Scarlet doesn't accept entry into a broken world instead trying to recreate her world  To do this she has to eliminate  unnatural elements and also make people aware of the broken world they're living in. In Plato's The Republic he writes that just actions produce justice, and unjust actions injustice. Injustice is produced by establishing an unnatural relation of control and subordination among its constituents. Scarlet simply positions her actions as justice. Eliminating the unnatural injustice "cures" society.

In Scarlet's moral world of natural law - 'a basic system of moral norms, the necessity of obedience being moral' (Himma) - the two worlds of justice and injustice should never meet.

Scarlet #1
cover image

This divisive moral quandary of not just vigilantism but what constitutes the toleration of injustice is what elevates Scarlet as a narrative. Scarlet's actions question what we as readers will tolerate. If we're against her, we stop reading and the story finishes. We continue to read and we are interested in seeing her revolution succeed; we're "with her".

I can see how a proportion of readers may well be lost, and/or confused by now. The cover of issue one isn't really indicative of how the story is panning out - less sexy vigilante vs. more social revolutionary. In fact, apart from that first cover there's really no sexy, tough talking, "bad girl" vigilante action to be found. Those who've stayed so far, will I think like me, be in it for the long haul.

Bendis is a great writer and Scarlet is indicative that comics right now are the richest source of ideas going around. This is storytelling with depth and once the whole thing plays out, I believe Scarlet will be regarded as a classic.

This: Two months is a decent time between comics but Scarlet is worth the wait.
Forthcoming: Got a time machine? I'd like to jump two months into the future to see the next issue now.


Reference

Flew, Antony. (ed). A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Macmillan Press, 1984.

Himma, Kenneth Einar. 'Natural Law' Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource. May 2005.

Plato. The Republic. London: Penguin Books, 1987.

Review - Wonder Girl #1 by J.T. Krul (writer), Adriana Melo (penciller), and Mariah Benes (inker)

Thought I'd post a quick review of Wonder Girl #1 to keep things moving along. Why Wonder Girl?  First off the series of DC Covers with white backgrounds were intriguing me and it's a first issue so it's easy to get in on the ground floor story-wise. And, y'know, every now and again it's worth dipping into mainstream superhero titles just to see what's happening.

So the first thing that struck me was the, obviously, the cover and how well proportioned Wonder Girl looked. This can only be attributed Australian artist Nicola Scott. In case you're not sure what I'm getting at: she's a woman so she knows how women are put together, i.e.: they're not drawn like men with boobs stuck on. Likewise Adriana Melo's artwork throughout is suitably comic but knows how to draw a female's proportions. In fact she  needs to because there's no men in the comic! Unlike the way some female comic characters are drawn, those in Wonder Girl #1 have waists, hips, and thighs in the right positions and proportions. And staying on this theme, Melo's artwork is noticeably devoid of gratuitous pseudo-porn poses and panel-busting boob shots that normally populate the pages of superhero titles. This in itself is excellent work and shows how a male artist's gaze and interpretation of character is so blatantly different to a woman's.

So, that brings us to the story and... hmmm...

Cassie (aka Wonder Girl) is having a break from the Titans and goes to visit her mother in London who works in a museum. There's an archeological conference happening so there's lots of people around. We can tell that Cassie's mother is cold-hearted because she wears glasses. Okay, okay, Cassie also tells us that her mother doesn't care for her being a Titan, and a derogatory comment from her about Cassie being too muscular reinforces that. So it's all really clear that Cassie's mother - who Zeus (Cassie's father) must have seen something in  -  is disapproving. But I mean really, what did she expect if she gonna do the wild thing with a god? You'd have to think you might get some sort of superpowered offspring - and you know the pill isn't going to keep you safe from pregnancy. Zeus is a god. Okay, so maybe Zeus didn't fully explain this at the time, I hear he's a bit like that. It looks to me that Cassie's bearing the brunt of a little misdirected mother anger.

Pretty soon Cassie is befriended by an Indian girl, Kiran, and before you know it there's an attack on the museum by some stone men who come up through the floor. Looks like some obligatory punching has to be done. But guess what? Kiran is a super person too! She goes by the name Solstice and has some kind of heat/light controlling ability. Well, how about that? She does some punching on the stone men too. Then Cassie recognises Land Zand, 'the psychotic ruler of Zandia' who is in control of the stone men. Seems she's stealing back an artifact that was stolen from Zandia 'by a greedy thief'. Those greedy thieves! They're the worst kind! I much prefer those self-restrained thieves that only take what they really need.

Anyway not sure why Lady Zand is stealing back the artifact herself as you'd think she might be better served back at home ruling Zandia and not acting like a criminal. She is psychotic, I guess, and if a job needs doing, you may as well do it yourself. Then there's a bit more punching on with Lady Zand, but she gets away. Cassie then thinks that her and Kiran should head off and 'stay below radar', y'know, because nobody has noticed the stone men... and the two of them punching on with them... in the middle of the British Museum.... Too late! Cassie's mother has witnessed the whole thing. Cassie offers to get changed out of her fighting gear/costume because she knows her mother doesn't like the attention it draws. No. Because punching on with stone men in the British Museum doesn't draw any attention now, does it? However the whole episode has changed Cassie's mother's mind about Cassie. Big hug. The End.

Yep.

Because this is a self-contained story I'm assuming (unless there's a huge fan reaction for an ongoing series) that this is a one-off. Thank goodness. Sorry to be harsh, but this type of by-the-numbers story was a reason I stopped reading a lot of superhero comics. This shows just how good writers like Morrison, Ellis, and Bendis really are. I'm not familiar with Krul's work and this may be an anomaly because of any number of factors.

At the moment DC are 'Drawing a line at $2.99'. Going by Wonder Girl #1 I think they should be focusing on drawing the line somewhere else, like right through a bad script. It's disappointing because the superhero landscape can always do with more female titles.

This: Ho-hum. What does internal logic mean again?
Forthcoming: Doesn't look like it and I will shield my eyes if there is.

It's Elemental: Portrayals of Metamorpho and Element Girl

As Julie D. O’Reilly succinctly points out in her article ‘The Wonder Woman Precedent: Female (Super)Heroism on Trial’, most superheroines, especially true of Golden and Silver Age characters are mere extensions of their male counterparts (273). Apart from Wonder Woman, many of the female characters’ monikers are suffixed with the adolescent title of girl – Supergirl, Batgirl, Element Girl, for example – as opposed to the male characters’ man. While the male hero graduates from boy to man, the female hero remains stuck in a kind of permanent adolescence. For example, while Peter Parker is still a teenager his rise to the level of superhero sees him becoming Spiderman. In contrast Jean Grey of the X-Men was still only Marvel Girl when Professor Xavier deemed the X-Men worthy of hero status. For the male readership (of all ages), the male superhero is to be idealised and aspired to, while the female superheroine, the girl, is to be gazed at, dominated, and acquired. If the superheroine is merely an extension of the superhero, then becoming a superhero also means “getting the girl” – the male superhero naturally attracts his female counterpart, and in doing so reinforces his own status as the primary hero. As Elizabeth Grosz states:

male self-definitions require and produce definitions of the female as their inverted or complementary counterparts. This implies… an analysis of the ways in which masculine or phallocentric discourses and knowledges rely on images, metaphors and figures of woman and femininity to support and justify their definitions. It also… implies an exploration of the disavowed corporeal and psychic dependence of the masculine, with its necessary foundation in women’s bodies, on the female corporeality it cannot claim as its own territory (the maternal body) (74).

Element Girl is one of these female others to the male hero’s one. Element Girl, a.k.a. Urania Blackwell, first appeared as a counterpart to Metamorpho in Metamorpho #10 (1967). Treasure hunter Rex Mason became Metamorpho, the Element Man, after exposure to the Orb of Ra in an Egyptian pyramid. He gained the ability to change into any element or compound contained in the human body allowing him to turn parts or the whole of his body into a variety of gases or objects such as blades, springs, or hammers. Rex’s dashing good looks were ruined during the transformation as were his intentions of marrying his beautiful girlfriend, Sapphire. However Rex takes to using rubber masks to cover his face. Element Girl volunteered to be exposed to the Orb of Ra and received a coloured body, disfigured face, and abilities, similar to Metamorpho. After a number of adventures together, Element Girl fell in love with Metamorpho, pursuing him vigorously, becoming a rival to Sapphire. While the last issue of Metamorpho (#17 March/April 1968) has Rex and Element Girl together, the storyline is clearly not complete. Element Girl was not seen again until an appearance in Neil Gaiman’s Sandman (‘Facade’ #20 October 1990). By this time she has become unable to leave her apartment because of her hideous appearance. Like Rex once did, Urania now uses masks to cover her face, which is in contrast to her initial portrayal where she appeared quite proud to accept her freakish appearance. But it seems that without Metamorpho around, everything is different. Urania produces silicate masks using her elemental ability, but they fall off after a short period and flesh masks composed of her own elemental makeup quickly rot. Terribly depressed without virtually any human contact, she had failed to commit suicide on several occasions due to her body’s natural defences (Wallace 104). 

A minor comic character at best, Element Girl’s story in the Metamorpho and Sandman titles provides contrasting portrayals of men and women’s personal appearance. In the original Metamorpho series Element Girl is a headstrong, confident, intelligent, and resourceful woman. As rival to Sapphire for Rex’s affections (citing their similarities as freaks would make them a perfect couple) she provides a stark contrast to the spoiled, rich, and passive, Sapphire. In her coloured and changing body Element Girl is definitely presented as other, and in her desire for Rex’s affection she can also be seen as an interloper who tries to break up the potential family unit. Rex had always planned to marry Sapphire before becoming the disfigured Metamorpho and it is Sapphire who continually re-emerges as Rex’s true love, even though she remains a continually passive character. Interestingly Metamorpho’s appearance becomes more comely over the years meaning the rubber masks he uses are eventually discarded. He is never hideous enough to shut himself away like Element Girl eventually does. Rex is concerned with his looks but this is not the sum total of his identity. This wouldn’t be the actions of a hero. Nor does he lose Sapphire’s love after his transformation. Indeed Rex ends up with two women fighting over his disfigured form and affections, a situation which would rarely occur if the genders were reversed.

Element Girl has a confident nature in her superhero role, though when fighting alongside Rex she constantly tries to convince him of her worth. By the time the Metamorpho series was cancelled, Metamorpho and Element Girl’s relationship seemed to be in the ascendency. In Sandman #20 her circumstances are quite different. Unwanted as an operative at her former government agency, unable to procure other ongoing work due to her disfigured appearance, and with Rex nowhere to be seen, she has essentially become a shut-in. Element Girl’s appearance has become the be all and end all of her life. With her self-esteem seriously low, she is certainly no hero, and the story shows the reality/absurdity of a “pensioned-off” hero. When she finds that her own body prevents her from committing suicide, Gaiman introduces the character, Death, to help dispatch her. Gaiman is determined to get rid of Element Girl one way or another. Death simply tells Urania to ask Ra to help take her life, which he does.

While Gaiman’s story comments on the abundance of pneumatically enhanced female characters that populated (and to an extent still continue to populate) contemporary superhero comics, there is a more disturbing subtext playing out. Gaiman’s depiction of Element Girl reads that once a woman’s youthful looks, and therefore her usefulness, are gone, she will effectively be abandoned by society. However Gaiman doesn’t address how this problem can be overcome. His solution to her predicament is to make her suicidal. This other female presence must be dispatched. Without looks, a job, or a male superheroic counterpart, it seems there is little else left except suicide for Element Girl.

Reference

Gaiman, N. (w), Doran, C. (p), and Jones III, M. (i). 'Facade' Sandman. v1 #20 (Oct. 1990). New York: DC Comics,1990.

Grosz, E. Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction. London and New York: Routledge,1990.

O’Reilly, J.D. ‘The Wonder Woman Precedent: Female (Super)Heroism on Trial’ in The Journal of American Culture. 28, 3, 2005.

Wallace, D. ‘Element Girl’ in Dougall, A. (ed.) The DC Comics Encyclopedia. New York: DC Comics, Dorling Kindersley Ltd, 2004.

Review - Superior #4 by Mark Millar and Leinil Yu

Millar and Yu's Superior rolls on in issue four continuing the story of multiple sclerosis sufferer Simon Pooni's transformation into the superhero, Superior.

The good thing is that issue four is where Millar seems gets going in his stories and, like Nemesis, there's a bit more meat to this issue.

Egotistic television reporter Madeline Knox finally gets her exclusive interview with Superior by the only way she thinks she can get his attention: getting rescued after driving her car into Manhattan Bay. It works. Not surprisingly Superior reveals little in answering Madeline's barrage of questions. Superior/Simon is simply here to help.

A few loose threads are seen to in this issue such as actor Tad Scott's reaction to the character he's played in movies for twenty-five years coming to life, and Simon reassuring his worried parents (in a letter) that he's fine and will be home soon to explain everything. There's also a short account of the creation and history of Superior as a comic book character. This is essentially a retelling of Superman's comic origins. Okay so we pretty much already knew Superior was a Superman analogue, and this account make's it crystal clear even going so far as to call Superior a 'big, red boy scout'.

The story however takes an, I don't know whether you'd call it a dark or weird turn, in that Simon decides that he can make a larger difference in the world. Those familiar with Millar's work (especially The Authority) will recognise the theme of superheroes making change on a global scale and the problems that go with that. But in the next sentence Superior/Simon tells his best friend Chris (with both of them symbolically sitting on the Statue of Liberty's torch) that he asked if he can work for the US president. He's keen on winning the war in Afghanistan and catching Osama Bin Laden while he's at it. This turn of events takes us into the territory of that other Miller- The Dark Knight Returns - where Superman works for the US government.

Not to go too analytical here, but as Umberto Eco states in his essay 'The Myth of Superman', Superman is 'a perfect example of civic consciousness, completely split from political consciousness' (22). The superheroic action in helping people for the sake of doing good is therefore represented as charity. Up to this point Superior has been doing his civic duty. He's the big, red boy scout, here to help.

If as Millar says in the letter to readers at the back of issue one that 'Superior is a big, old-fashioned hero from a gentler and more innocent time' then having Superior work for the president, in my opinion, doesn't particularly gel. Simon is perfect to carry out the old-fashioned hero role of Superior because he is uncomplicated, or perhaps even uncorrupted, by politics (and also sexual relationships for that matter). However by asking to work for the US president (effectively, the US government) he actively politicises himself. His actions are no longer charitable, but aggressive. For me this runs counter to the spirit of the comic. A crippled teenager, one who has been extensively bullied, granted extraordinary powers, is now heading off to kill foreign troops... hmmm... Who's beating up who now? Are we about to see scenes like those in Watchmen of Dr Manhattan helping the US win the Vietnam War? The cover of Superior issue one says 'One Magic Wish'. Is the wish about winning in Afghanistan?

Sure Captain America fought the Nazis, but he was created as a super soldier. Superman was likewise often portrayed combating the Nazis but this was actually more prevalent on comic covers than actual stories-

it was actually rare that the action went further than the cover. By and large, the stories inside the comics remained morality plays and confrontations with villains like Luthor, The Prankster, Toyman and the Insect Master, not battles with the German army. Many stories mentioned the war in passing, but the actual number of stories that dealt directly with the war effort was rather small by comparison (Harrington)

 And as added emphasis when referring to DC storylines during World War II-

The stories involving the majority of their characters were not epic battles of good versus evil (read Allies vs. Axis) but were more about them helping soldiers, catching spies, or delivering supplies to the front to assist the war effort, but not take it over. Very rarely would they show their more powerful characters, (Superman, Green Lantern, Starman, Wonder Woman or the Flash) actually destroying the weapons of the Axis powers in force to bring a lasting peace (Harrington).

Is a 'gentler more innocent time' a euphemism for complex problems being remedied in a overly simplistic manner? I'd have to lean towards agreement. Simon/Superior doesn't ask questions about why crime is committed, he simply knows old-fashioned "right from wrong". The president asks: 'The war is a very complex and dangerous situation, Superior. Are you sure you can handle this?' 'No problem', is the steely-eyed reply. For an old-fashioned hero who knows who the bad guys are, it's not complex at all.

How Millar deals with how Superior tackles Afghanistan and Bin Laden will be most interesting. Even Frank Miller has abandoned his idea of Batman taking on Bin Laden.Superior offering to 'win' the war in Afghanistan rather than 'stop' it leaves me a bit uncomfortable.

Is this just an example of Simon's naivety? Upcoming issues will no doubt shed some light on Simon's actions - and I'm looking forward to it. This "twist" if you like, of Superior's actions does indeed deliver an extra dimension to the narrative.

As I've previously indicated (review Superior #3) one of the Superior's flaws I think is the lack of depth to Simon's character and how his thoughts work; why he's making his decisions. 'Good evening, Miss Knox' doesn't sound like the greeting of a teenager, but I'm also willing to be convinced that Simon is actually taking his cues from the comic/movie character, Superior. A little something to indicate how he's grappling with being Superior could help. It all seems to come a bit too naturally to Simon.

Finally, as is usual in superhero narratives, the hero summons forth his own nemesis and Superior "fixing" the bullying problem that his friend Chris is still experiencing is a genesis for this. Our talking monkey in a spacesuit, Ormon, offers resident bully, Sharpie a deal that we know he's not going to refuse. The emergence of a supervillain is imminent.

This: Interesting meat in the sandwich.
Forthcoming: Ready to finish off the meal.

Read reviews of Superior #2, #3
Read reviews of Nemesis - #1 and 2, #3, #4


Reference


Eco, Umberto. 'The Myth of Superman' in Diacritics. 2.1. The Johns Hopkins University Press,1972. 


Harrington, Wallace. 'Superman and the War Years: The Battle of Europe Within the Pages Of Superman Comics'. Superman Homepage: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Man of Steel and More. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/supes-war, (2002-11).

How I Should Feel – Fetishism and Feminine Power in Witchblade

What it says -
the Witchblade

Psychoanalytically fetishism is the substitution of an object (or objects) for the penis that the mother is found to be lacking, thereby allaying the young boy’s shock of this realisation. Jean Baudrillard theorises that the fetishised female body is produced as a phallic body, a phallic effigy (substituting the body or body parts of the female for the penis) that reflects a male narcissistic desire to revel in what he knows to be true – that he is possessor of the phallus, of power. Baudrillard theorises that the body has become a representation, a sign that is constructed via a structuralist mode that posits the phallic effigy/body fragment as signifier and sexuality as signified. In this system, the phallus becomes the general equivalent against which everything is defined –‘everything is resolved into a phallic equivalent, even the female genitals, or any gaping organ or object traditionally listed as a symbol of the feminine’ (Baudrillard 102). This theory leaves little room for female bodies to have any other meaning than phallic, however Sara in Witchblade and her union with the Witchblade itself, I believe actually subverts this phallic model and phallocentric ideology by forming a positive, distinctive model of feminine power that does not rely on a concept of the masculine to define itself.

Witchblade (Vol. 1 #1-8, 1998) is the story of New York detective Sara Pezzini, who through fateful coincidence becomes the wielder of the Witchblade. Ken resolves to befriend Sara and then erode her confidence and spirit so she will transfer the Witchblade’s power to him. The Witchblade is a sentient symbiote that bonds to the wearer’s body, mind, and soul. Its primary form is a gauntlet, but can reduce in size to a bracelet or expand to armour the body in a spiky exoskeleton. At times it has an organic, plant-like appearance. When ‘activated’ by the wielder (or of its own accord) the Witchblade can create deadly whip-like tendrils, and fire blasts of energy. The Witchblade is a source of feminine power because it can only ever be wielded by a woman. Anyone who tries to don the Witchblade, but is not the rightful recipient, receives terrible injuries from the Witchblade itself. Sara is pursued by Ken Irons, a wealthy businessman who has researched the history of the Witchblade and wants its power for himself.

Ken Irons as a totality
(and looking quite grumpy)

Witchblade’s opening pages provide a stark contrast between representations of men and women. Ken Irons is shown from a distance in his high-rise apartment, then in a medium shot (head to knees), and finally in a close-up of his face. This sequence of images presents him as a totality, a "whole" person. Our introduction to Sara is quite different. Sara is shown dressing–putting on lipstick, a tight, short dress that fixes around her neck, knee high stiletto boots, elbow length gloves, and G-string underwear with the accompanying display of buttocks, legs, breast, arms, and lips. This attire makes Sara’s body parts closed and smooth, a pre-requisite in Baudrillardian theory for them to be produced as phallic effigies (1993:104). In contrast to Ken, who is shown as a totality, Sara is presented as dismembered, a “cut-up” of highly sexualised body parts exhibiting all the attire – ‘Ankle boots and thigh boots… over the elbow gloves and stocking top on the thigh, hair over the eyes or the stripper’s G-string’ (1993:101) –which Baudrillard cites in Symbolic Exchange and Death that demarcate the body, establishing the foot, leg, arm, neck, and waist as erectile parts. This imagery is what Naomi Wolf describes as the pornography of beauty where the most sexually central parts of women, breasts, thighs, buttocks, bellies are fetishised (Wolf 1990:119). As many comic readers would agree, depictions of females in comics often employ imagery that borders on the pornographic.

Sara as dismembered body parts

Sara thus begins Witchblade embedded in the Symbolic Order, conforming to a stereotypical image of a woman in order to achieve results in her job. The Symbolic Order (or simply the Symbolic) designates the ‘objective order of language, law, morality, religion, and all social existence which is held to constitute the identity of any human subject who enters it’ (Baldick 327). It is in opposition to the Imaginary. In Lacanian psychoanalysis the pre-Oedipal (as Freud describes it) or Imaginary phase of development consists basically of two terms: the child and the image of the other, which is usually the mother (Eagleton 165). Elisabeth Grosz states that as the child develops, this dyadic structure is disrupted by the father who represents ‘law, order and authority for the child’ (1990 68). The father is a ‘Symbolic or imaginary father’, a representative of the Name-of-the-Father that stands for patriarchal ownership. Taking on the Name-of-the-Father positions the child beyond the structure of dual imaginary relations (Grosz 1990 47). Recognition of this ‘paternal metaphor’ charts the child’s entry into the Symbolic Order and the social world beyond the family structure (Grosz 1990 104). Therefore, the Name-of-the-Father signifies the ‘Law’ or Law-of-the-Father that is the wider set of social and sexual roles rules upon which the Symbolic Order rests and relies. What this means for Sara is that she has taken on the wider set of social and sexual roles that are designated “female”. This is how Sara (and indeed women in general) is “forced” to conform to a feminine ideal. Indeed as a police officer Sara enforces the law and is also an agent of the Law-of-the-Father. From an early age Sara conditioned herself to be an agent of the Law knowing that she wanted to be a cop and imitating the male cops on the 1970s television show, Starsky & Hutch. Thus she has for along identified with male roles and ideals.

However the clothes Sara is wearing are for an undercover police operation in order to right an injustice perpetrated in an earlier case. She comments ‘Starsky never had to do this to make a bust’ (Wohl et at 1998:5). Later, after being told she is ‘dressed like a slut’ she retorts, ‘Hey! You think I like wearing this?’ (Wohl et al 1998:10). That Sara doesn’t actually like wearing this apparel is an indication that something is “wrong” (because don’t all women like dressing this way?). It is a semi-conscious realisation of her knowing she is conforming to a male ideal of a woman and that she’d rather resist than accept this ideal.

The first time Sara wears the Witchblade, when it crawls and attaches itself to her and in the process saves her life, she unleashes the Witchblade’s power and suddenly feels ecstatic: I am power. This is freedom. I am... insane!’ (Wohl et al 1998:22-3). In accessing the Witchblade’s purely feminine power Sara becomes free from the Symbolic Order, yet this freedom seemingly comes (at least for a moment) at the cost of her sanity. The insane feeling is her experiencing a new paradigm of real power, one that grants her control, which is so overwhelming it feels like insanity. Later when she tries to take the Witchblade off it resists, cognisant of Sara opting to, and trying to stop her, returning to her “safe” and “sane” position in the Symbolic Order. All indications point to the Witchblade trying to wrench Sara from the Name-of-the-Father.

The second time Sara dons the Witchblade she has similar feelings of freedom, feeling ‘Unbound... she should be afraid, now she’s never been more confident’ (Wohl et al 1998: 66). This time she chooses to accept the feeling, the insanity – ‘That was the trouble while she was fighting it. But now... she’s strangely at peace with it. Connected to it’ (Wohl et al 1998: 67). The Witchblade’s power brings Sara peace, becoming more comfortable with feminine power free from patriarchal constraints. The Witchblade facilitates her realising what she already seems to unconsciously recognise–which is why the Witchblade chooses her.

Sara covered by the organic-looking Witchblade
while she sleeps

Sara takes the Witchblade off to sleep but while sleeping it sentiently reattaches to her body and covers her completely. In the morning in a full page illustration she lies asleep in a foetal position which is at once an image of rebirth and a voyeuristic tour de force, she recounts ‘I felt it on me, like some protective shell... it felt right on me. And I didn’t want to wake up because it felt so good... so safe’ (Wohl et al 1998: 98). This is in contrast to a coat Ken had loaned her the night before, which she wished would make her feel safe but doesn’t. This is another indication that Sara recognises something is “wrong” and acknowledges (albeit unconsciously) the protection of the Symbolic Order of which Ken’s coat is a sign is simply a ruse. The idea of safety and comfort is paramount for Sara but this male/patriarchal safety is a false consciousness. True safety and comfort for Sara can only come from embracing the Witchblade’s feminine power which enables real freedom. When fellow cop Jake intrudes into Sara and the Witchblade’s privacy the Witchblade suddenly feels ‘bulky. Alien’ (Wohl et al 1998:99). Jake’s intrusion breaks Sara and the Witchblade’s utopic bond. Female power suddenly becomes alien and discomforting as Jake’s male presence reminds Sara of her place in the Symbolic Order.

Sara in her 'wedding' dress
(and with impossibly long legs)

Bonding with the Witchblade however doesn’t stop Sara from further interpellation into the Symbolic Order, invoked in a scene reminiscent of a marriage. To garner the Witchblade, Ken romances Sara and she eventually falls for his extravagant lifestyle (he’s a Fortune 500 member), culminating with them attending a charity function at the ‘Prosperite Church’. Sara arrives in what could easily be mistaken for a wedding dress. Harking back to Sara’s dislike of her undercover clothes, she reflects on this dress:

This is how I should look… how I should feel. It just seems so right to be wearing something so soft… so caressing to my skin. It makes me feel… so beautiful. It doesn't confine my body like the Witchblade does. It’s not bruising me. Nor do I believe that when I take it off, will it resist like the Witchblade did… I feel safe. I feel good (Wohl et al 1998:155).

Marriage, especially for women, is invariably linked to the Name-of-the-Father (being renamed, becoming the “property” of the husband) and the submission with which it is traditionally associated. Sara is bowing to gender stereotypes, believing that soft, caressing things are feminine; that a woman’s appearance being the centre of attention is what being a woman is all about. She positions herself in the comforting symbolic. This is the final gambit to keep Sara in her “place” and prevent her accessing the full feminine power of the Witchblade, indeed acknowledging the genuine threat that the Witchblade represents. After the function, Ken and Sara argue, and Ken reveals his diabolical plans. In response the Witchblade activates, tearing Sara’s dress to shreds. After some hesitation and self-doubt, Sara rediscovers her willpower and realises she doesn’t want to be annexed to a phallic order that condemns her to a non-existence (Baudrillard 104). Sara finally accepts the legacy of the Witchblade and defeats Ken in battle. She has rejected the things that the Symbolic Order and gender stereotypes position as feminine in favour of the Witchblade’s true feminine power.

Sara and the Witchblade triumphant

Sara’s evolution from Baudrillard’s phallic fetish, a body in parts, to her (symbolic) rejection of the Name-of-the-Father, to her final acceptance as wielder of the symbiotic Witchblade, something that cannot (at least in Baudrillard’s terms) be classified as phallic is indeed a remarkable one even for comics. Most indicative of her transformation is her representation in the final pages. In two splash pages Sara is covered by the Witchblade resisting phallic fetishism. On the final page Sara is shown as a totality. The Witchblade’s spiky, organic, bony appearance resists closure making Sara’s body neither smooth nor closed off (it doesn’t completely cover her like armour). The exoskeleton could not in any way be construed as bracelets, necklaces, rings or a belt that would establish the accompanying body parts as erectile. The Witchblade is also labile, never assuming the same form twice, and are thus not contained by any fixed category. Sara becomes:

not the oppositional other safely fenced off within […] boundaries, but the otherness of possible worlds, or possible versions of ourselves, not yet realized (Shildrick 8).

Sara’s “other” version of herself, one with the Witchblade as a part of her being, enables her to evolve as an autonomous owner of feminine power and resist and transgress patriarchal phallocentric society. The Witchblade enables Sara to operate outside the boundaries of phallocentric culture, while not deforming or transforming her natural body, i.e.: becoming a monster. It is an extension of herself specifically highlighted by the fact that the Witchblade has been, and can only ever be, wielded by a woman. Sara with the Witchblade embodies a mode of difference that isn’t produced through a concept of oppositional otherness. Nor can it be co-opted back by being based on the concept of the phallus. Sara Pezzini and the Witchblade entity in the comic Witchblade provide a model of feminine power that is positive, distinctive, original and does not define itself against any masculine concepts. This is not to say that the actual narrative that surrounds and involves Sara, and the way she is portrayed at certain stages when compared with men, is not without its problems, but it does to a large extent overshadow these problems by concluding with a positive definition and direction for Sara. Metaphorically the Witchblade coincides with the feminist belief of women in general–their power may be thought to be “owned” by men but it can never be possessed.


Reference

Baldick, Chris. Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Baudrillard, Jean. Symbolic Exchange and Death. London: Sage, 1993.

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.

Grosz, Elisabeth. Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 1990.

Shildrick, Margaret. “Posthumanism and the Monstrous Body.” Body & Society 2.1, 1996.

Wohl, David. & Z, Christina. (w), Turner, Michael. (p), and D-Tron (i). Witchblade Deluxe Collected Edition. Fullerton: Image Comics (Top Cow), 1998. [Collecting Witchblade v1 #1-8, 1995-6].

Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth. Routledge, 1990.

Review - Nemesis #4 by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven

Millar gives us the final installment (for now) of his twisted supervillain comic Nemesis.

WARNING: Some Spoilers Ahead

With supercop Blake Morrow believing he's found out the identity of the despicable Nemesis, he closes in. Unfortunately it's just another trap in a long line of traps. Morrow finds himself captured alongside his wife and the President of the United States and forced to choose which one to kill. The reason why he's doing all this? Nemesis provides no in-depth reasons. No big statements. No revenge tale. He’s just rich and bored.

Fed up, the President volunteers his life and ends up as human meat all over Nemesis. A knock-down, kick-out the jams fight ensues between Nemesis and Morrow with Morrow coming out the winner. Or does he? As with each issue of this macabre and dirty tale (sometimes dirty enough to make you want to wash your hands after reading) Millar has a wicked sting in the tail.

The Nemesis saga is far from finished.

 

Unlike the previous three issues there’s actually a bit of meat (not just human) to this issue, which for a climax issue there should be. The story is far-fetched, that’s hardly worth saying, but it is done very well. The time frame and planning of the events in the story would be impossible to carry out successfully, but who cares? We’re on a wild ride, we paid our ticket, so let’s scream till we’re hoarse. As usual McNiven’s artwork is outstanding. There’s not much more I can say than what I already have in previous reviews (#1, #2, #3). His depiction of action and carnage is quite stunning. Only familiar with his previous work on Civil War McNiven has become one of my favourite artists.

I mentioned in my review of Nemesis #1 that the trick would be in how Millar would handle who the reader would be cheering for. In other words who holds the moral centre? Initially it’s family man Morrow but as Nemesis extracts his secrets we find Morrow isn’t as pure as we might believe. In fact he’s really just a fallible man who’s made mistakes albeit one who is very good at his job. Nemesis is the bringer of chaos of almost unstoppable force. His attraction lies is in the pure escapist power fantasy he represents.

Cleverly Millar gives both up and downbeat endings to satisfy both parties. Morrow 'wins' in the sense that he defeats and kills Nemesis and unlike normal superhero comics he’s promised he won't be targeted again. He also wins in the idea that he now values his family over his career (a hard lesson taught by Nemesis). Yet he loses as Nemesis managed to kill him - 'flatline still counts'. Nemesis loses - he's killed, but 'wins' because he did manage to kill Morrow. Ultimately it is Morrow who is the hero as he opts to (finally) choose family over career and good-heartedly deal with the lifelong consequences of Nemesis’ actions against his family. Morrow's conundrum is does he go up against the 'next batch of supervillains' armed with the knowledge he's been given? Or is this just further bait? A little knowledge can be dangerous. Let’s wait and see…

This: Most excellent.

Forthcoming: Don’t know when, but I’m in.

Review - Superior #3 by Mark Millar and Leinil Yu

Superior #3 sees Superior/Simon Pooni save the crashing space station that was hurtling towards New York in issue two and then begin dramatically rescuing people in life-threatening situations across America.

Introduced in this issue is TV anchor-person, Madeline Knox who for an unexplained reason looks dressed to go partying rather than to work. She mentions in her voice over that when she was the highest paid television personality she wasn’t a very nice person. Held up in traffic she complains aloud that the stoppage must be because of ‘some kind of retard convention'. Hmmm... seems she’s not so much of a nice person now either! However she vows to find out who Superior is. I smell mismatched relationship happening, where Simon and Madeline learning something special from each other...ooh, won't that be nice. Millar referenced the movie Big in issue one and Superior, I dare say, is going to draw some close parallels.

This issue also sees the return of Ormon the talking monkey in a space suit, albeit minimally and it seems that he may not be the benevolent simian we were led to believe! Millar, you scoundrel! All talking monkeys, especially those in spacesuits should be working for the forces of good! This is an unwritten comic law!

What is excellent in this issue is the scale of heroics presented. This issue is mainly an onlooker's view of Superior’s actions. Really well done is the sense of wonder (which Millar has said he wanted to show) in how a man can pick up a space station. Superior is dwarfed and hidden by the space station so to an onlooker it looks as if the thing is hovering on its own. Yu's artwork and use of scope is excellent. He uses the widescreen format that Millar likes so much to great effect. His cityscapes are quite remarkable and the scenes of the space station using an array of worm's eye and bird's eye view angles are especially brilliant.

One criticism of Yu’s artwork is the somewhat gratuitous use of boob and crotch shots. Is this Yu ad-libbing or directions from Millar’s script? Either way, is there really a need for Ms Knox to have such a low cut dress, or a female train passengers' dress to ride up in a crash to reveal her panties, or… yeah, I think you get the idea. From the promo art for issue four it looks like it’s going to continue.

As I stated in my review of Superior #2 I’m not a fan of the colouring and in that regard for issue three my stance hasn't changed. It looks harsh and takes away from Yu's artwork.

Now, would a pre-teenager with massive power go straight to heroic actions? Would he even have an idea of how to stop a nuclear meltdown in a power station (as he does)? We’re not privy to Simon’s thoughts in this issue about what he's going through apart from the fact her likes the attention. It seems Simon just knows what to do. But I'm not really supposed to ask these questions, am I? I mean Superman and all those Golden Age heroes never had any other thoughts than to use their abilities for forces of good, did they? It was straight to work as the good guy! No doubts, no hesitation. This is what Superior is all about and it's working a treat.

The question is - why am I enjoying this, a fairly straight forward superhero comic? Well, unlike Grant Morrison's stuff, it's not taxing on the brain nor does it come burdened with years of comic continuity which means it can just be enjoyed on its own. And to Millar's credit, he knows how to pace a story to keep you interested.

This: Entertaining (portrayal of superheroics) and mildly annoying (sexist art) at the same time.
Forthcoming: I've come this far, I can't go back.

Read review of Superior #2.