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.