Maus was one of my favorite book that we have read in class. It was interesting to have a different type of literature. I remember we had a disscussion with Austin about cominc books being real literature and in the poll i said that comics could not be real literature. After reading Maus i have changed my mind. Maus was able to capture the seriousness of the Holocaust despite the cartoon images. I also think that the images in Maus helped display the emotion expereinced. You were able to feel the characters pain. I felt a lot more involved in the Story than any other Holocaust story i have read.

blog post post-haste!

Sorry I didn't post yesterday as is customary, Talissa. I thought I could get a freebie for the week since I did an extra blog posting last Wednesday. Anyway, I feel very weird about writing recently, even more so than I have before. It must be the ultra-cool progressive essays we did recently. My mind's rather divergent, which is mostly a curse when it comes to me trying to piece a paper together, but I still had trouble wrapping my paper up. However, that may have been for other reasons, such as staying up on Halloween, fueled by Twix and turtle ice cream. It was delicious and I was surrounded by my awesome friend and her roommates, who are, might I add, also awesome, yet I always lose steam when I'm about to finish a paper. This time will be different. I know, it's a little late for making resolutions/early since it's nearing the end of the year. In any case, I'm going to do my best at working on this final paper as often as possible until the afternoon it's due.

And to work on that paper, I first need to find an argument I'm not ashamed of. I was thinking of writing about the dysfunctional-family aspect of Maus, but that has been done. --In every single article I looked at. It's all about Richieu being the one perfect child in Vladek's life and Art doesn't measure up to the perfect memory of that dear little boy. It's just that every scene with Vladek and Art talking reminded me of my mom and how she and Vladek are pretty much kindred spirits. I doubt they'd actually get along, though. They'd kill each other first. Now, I'm leaning towards immigrant parents and growing up in a household as first generation American-born. In high school, I used to talk to my club adviser about how screwed up my family is, and she, being used to--as much as humanly possible--her crazy Asian mom, knew that although my mom moved to the United States, she was still intractably an Asian immigrant in the worst way possible. But I'll leave the details for my paper.

So late the party has ended and I've spent all this time dressing up for nothing.

So I'm not sure what I should be saying. I'm not a brilliant conversationalist when it comes to blogging. However, I do wonder what direction this daunting final paper of mine will head. No offense to Equiano, but I am adamantly opposed to devoting an 8-10 page paper to narrative that seems often to cater more to the masses than telling the story how it is. Then again, the trouble with Maus is just... where to begin? It's at times difficult enough just working words, but pictures are another story. Like the old saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words," and boy I hope so, what with an 8 page paper (minimum) staring at me in the face. But in these thousand words, what am I to say? Actually, back up. What point am I even going for? Looking through the criticisms of Maus, they all eventually seem to end up saying the same things over and over: Holocaust and the aftermath, the past vs. the present, and the funky relationship between Art and Vladek. Honestly, that's the best I could probably come up with as well, much less something that is interesting and refreshing. I suppose the fact that Maus is a comic book makes it that much harder to begin; words, I'm used to when writing a paper since that's what my paper consists of. But pictures? And extracting an exact meaning from something so expansive and full of possibilities? Now that's just tricky... tricky indeed. I'm wondering if a picture is acceptable for the abstract then. What about a comic strip response to Maus? I promise it'll be 8-10 pages long!

Fashionably late

Ack! I forgot again! Sorry Talissa! I work Wednesday nights but given the nature of my job (cardswipe), that's hardly an excuse. So, onto my thoughts for this week. (I promise they're the same ones I had last night.)

I'm finding it hard to come up with an argument based on a graphic novel. It's strange that a medium that was so dear to me when I was younger now strikes me as foreign and critically impenetrable. I confess that I don't know how to close-read a comic book—I've never learned how. I don't even know what's fair game for analysis in Maus. I can't decide whether Spiegelman's visual style is deceptively simple or just simple. There's rarely very much to look at, which forces me to analyze the words—his father's story. But critically? Wouldn't that make me kind of a dick? OK, that was facetious, but still, my point is that since neither the drawings nor the text have much meat beyond their obvious meanings, then my last resort is to look at the interaction between word and image. I could trot out a lot of academic vocabulary at this point, but I don't want to tread water. The fact is that the relationship between the text and the pictures is pretty linear. Art's drawings are loyal to his father's narration; he never tries for ironic juxtapositions between what his father recounts and what he himself thinks. It is, after all, his father's story. Art is just the medium. Polysemy like whoa! But by God, I'm going to find something to write about. I'd sooner write ten pages about the significance of the scene with the rat in the basement than five pages on Equiano. Really.

When I read a comic book, I sort of read at a fast pace because I feel like the action is non-stop. The action flows from one panel to another, and I have to read fast in order to keep up with the pace of the comic (or the pace I set for myself actually). However, this is a different type of comic that I have never read before. I used to read Sailor Moon, and most of the story is told through the pictures, with the occasional outbursts of dialogue and action words (i.e. POW). So it's kind of hard for me to keep up because there is so much information to absorb.

I found it interesting how Vladek disguised himself as a Pole by wearing a pig mask. I find it ironic because in reality, humans are the same species, yet people find differences and divide us into more categories. Just a thought.

Oh, and at the end of chapter 4, it was nice to hear a bit from Mala's story after hearing Vladek complain about her all the time. I can't wait to discover how they met and why they got married.

It seems that Vladek is not proud of Artie. Vladek lived through so much, and he barely escaped death so many times by using his resources. Later on, Artie had a better life in America, where he didn't have to go through suck evils as the Holocaust.

Yup, random thoughts for the week.

--tran

SO... I was thinking about the whole story-within-a-story bit and it reminded me (unfortunately) about the whole story-within-stories in Frankenstein. However, I think the two serve totally different purposes. In Frankenstein, I personally think that it was set up that way simply so that the reader could see the creature's reaction to Frankenstein's death, and give his agonizing 10-page monologue on how he has resolved to kill himself. However, in Maus, I think that Artie's story is just as important as Vladek's account, not matter how nearly non-existent it is.

Between Vladek's survivorship tale, we get little snippets of Artie's story, which are mostly about his awkward relationship with his father. Even the little into-comic before the first chapter tells us a little about their relationship: Vladek doesn't seem to really care that his son is crying, and asks him to hold the board tighter. He then teaches young Artie that the world is friendless, and that you can't put your trust in such "friends." Now that's what I call a healthy father-son bond.

Anyways, I think that Vladek is greatly neurotic towards Artie, as if as much as Artie succeeds it could never amount to all the Vladek had to endure (and I'm not saying that's not a bad thing), but also that anything Artie does, Vladek thinks that he can do it better. For example, he won't let him count his pills, being so stubborn that he does it himself saying, "You don't know counting pills...I'm an expert for this" (30). And then Vladek decides that Artie's jacket is just "Such an old shabby coat" and not to his tastes, and proceeds to throw it away. Vladek's controlling parenting screams for Artie to be able to break free from it, although he can only express himself through his relation to his father. Thus, this whole story-within-a-story is the only way that Artie can get his voice through, not just his father's controlling narrative.

As a kid I hated reading. I always would rather "read," or rather "look", at a picture book than read a novel. I think reading a bunch of words was tiring while looking at pictures was simple. As i read Maus, I tend to think the other way now. I would rather read straight text than read some dialogue and look at pictures. I find graphic novels harder because the flow is interrupted everytime i spend some time looking at the pictures. Rather than reading text and letting my imagination play it all out as I read, I have to read the text, look at the pictures, and tie the two together. But there are many advantages to graphic novels. They're easier to read, much less draining on the eyes, and shorter. Yet there is something valuable in reading novels and allowing your imagination to run wild with the words you read.

I feel as if words can better convey the situation than a graphic novel. With graphic novels, it is primarily dialogue with a few narratives here and there. The rest of the situation you are suppose to get from the pictures. In the case of Maus, the pictures dont tell me too much. So far, I feel like the pictures havent enhanced my understanding of the story except for a few frames. It could be his style of drawing though.

I wonder what Maus would be like if it was a novel...surely Art Spiegelman would have to directly say the species of animals that represents whatever ethnicity. Doing that could detract and result in an awkward novel. i.e. when vladik sneaks onto the train. it would be weird to say that the mouse took off a fake pig mask.

Equiano isnt the greatest mind of our time but of his own time. I think it was revolultionary to stand up against the idea of slavery. Slavery was the norm of that time, and to have a man stand against it is huge. Its big to suggest another idea...the idea of labor in africa. though this isnt the best idea due to the fact of possible exploitation of labor but its definetly a step up from slavery. But at the same time if you want to suggest a higher form of larbor, then why suggest the that you would put your ear to a book in hopes of learning something. Equiano seems to contradicy himself.
Heather

Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to finish the Equiano reading until recently. I know Equiano is known for playing a leading role in the abolition of the British slave trade, but I feel as if his intentions shifted by the end of the narrative. The moral issues surrounding slavery involve the idea that the slave owner possesses the individual and has the right to impose his own beliefs, unquestioned, onto that person. Free Equiano in the beginning of the book – a simplistic life in Africa, dependent on the earth and governed by superstition- stands in stark contrast to free Equiano at the conclusion of the book- a European civilian devoted to Christianity. It seems that Equiano’s freedom was dependent on the condition that he was converted into European religion. While Equiano appears to have whole-heartedly accepted the teachings of Christianity, he has lost the freedom of thought he once possessed. Even though Equiano fights for the physical release of the Africans, he shares the same sense of moral superiority that the Europeans used to justify enslaving the Africans in the first place. Granted, accepting Christianity humanized the Africans according to Europeans standards. For a white reader, Equiano’s narrative is convincing of a proper and moral individual, deserving of freedom. However, if I were a member of Equiano’s native village, his fight for freedom would still seem a betrayal to his origins.

Equinano: giving V 2.0 of the truth

Is Equiano the greatest possibility of our time? I want to go into more depth about the final idea Equiano had regarding slave trade, as discussed in class, I understand he wanted, instead of people trading people it would be people trading the things people were forced to make. I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea. It would not solve the problem of slavery but make it different in a way that would eliminate chances of improvement. Europeans would keep it out of sight and thus out of mind also now since its not "slavery" there would be no moral objections to it, when it is in fact morally object. Now Africans would be stuck in this place with hardly a chance for change and in an only slightly better place than before. Another reason for my disagreement would be because Equiano, as his main point of argument uses economics and money to solve the problem, when the problem isn't monetary it's moral. Europeans should not ban slaves because it is economically smart, which would not change the views of Africans as inferior, but be persuaded to do so by showing how morally unacceptable it is. So is Equiano the greatest possibility of our time? No. Equiano's muddled version of the truth is written so intently for the English that I can't tell whether it's the truth or the exaggeration that I'm reading. Back then, however I understand this narrative made a big impact on the direction of the abolitionist movement, but reading it now to gain understanding of that time seems hard to do with so many clear untruths. Who has heard of Equiano anyway?

I was kind of late in starting the Equiano reading, but as I was reading through the chapters, especially the first two or three, it felt more like an ethnography from an anthropologist, rather than some exciting narrative/autobiography-that-isn't-really-autobiographical (assuming he wasn't originally from Africa). The whole thing seemed too structured, too matter-of-fact-ly. Plus, assuming he was born in Africa like he supposedly said he was, his English seemed incredibly immaculate. The whole thing gave off a sense of being very objective and scientific... well, as scientific-ly sounding as anthropology can get.

So he's not really African born...? So he really didn't experience his sister getting torn from his arms, he didn't really suffer the exchange from one master to the next? Then it just makes his whole story seem even MORE objective. Keeping his origin in mind, I couldn't get a sense of truth behind his supposed emotions, his gaining and losing of friendships, his dumbstruck fear of a painting that seemed to always watch him, his paranoia of being eaten by the white folks. It seemed to kind of mock the trials and tribulations of the slaves that were pillaged from their villages and put to agonizing work against their will. Yes, his descriptions of the treatment of slaves was horrific, and yes, it was shocking, but it was more like from the eyes of a witness rather than a participator. I just didn't get a sense of legitimacy, and it's probably because an autobiography that isn't autobiographical just loses its credibility with me.

I TOTALLY don't mean that the whole slavery ordeal is nonsensical. I just feel like his story was falsely advertised.

So... I'm just here, in my friend's suite alone. I don't even live in this city, and I'm watching The X-Files and Alias and listening to KALX and also doing anything but my physics homework, which includes blogging. Good stuff. Other good stuff: Equiano being the "grandest possibility of our time." I still do not understand how that could be so. While it is certainly noble that Equiano was able to make a name for himself through pure ingenuity, gain freedom, though it was threatened many times, and even rise up to be a person with enough authority to join the abolitionsit cause, he seems to be taking on a purely white European stance. Even on my edition of the book (I don't have the Classic Slave Narratives-- only Equiano's story), he has a powdered wig (only slightly gray) and he's wearing the English dress. But, that's only superficial. Clothes don't make the man, of course. It's Equiano's actions that count. He did go against the popular opinion by attempting to trade slavery with nonhuman trade, and I do admire him for promoting complete freedom for all people, but the "grandest possibility of our time" is one mighty title. For all that he did for the abolitionist movement, I feel he should have done something more than write a book of his life. Galvanizing more people to achieve a wider slavery ban would probably do it. But, at that time, he still didn't have enough authority to successfully motivate those who were entirely in agreement with slave owners and those involved with the slave trade. In any case, anyone who has been through hell only to come back alive, and on top, truly deserves recognition. Just making it against all odds merits grandness.

BLOG!

I feel like Equiano was not as great of a figure as many of the writings about him make him appear to be. I just wonder how effect he is able to communicate the argument for the emancipation of slaves when much of his writings seems to cater to his British audience. Though his work can be interpreted in many different ways and arguments can be made both for and against his writings as a valid and definitive piece for "Afro-Futurism," Equiano may have tried too hard or been even too naive in his arguments for it to do slaves justice. The whole argument that we went over in class in which he suggests viewing Africans more as consumers than commodities seemed just a tad too ideal. Given that he is indeed and master stylist, he must have had enough smarts to know the improbability of such a drastic change occurring. People generally don't like changing something that is bringing benefits to them, especially if it means an effort on their part to make the new adjustment. Overall though, I get the feeling that this is all leading back to a giant question mark just like Androids. Are we to assume that everything Equiano wrote, including the more ridiculous or romanticized portions are all intentional? Or did he write it in an seriousness, which would greatly affect the argument for his work as a true champion for the cause of slavery since some of it seems to play directly into supporting the opposing side. With so many dimensions and possibilities, it seems like Equiano's work in the end is more like a work that is left unfinished, leaving the final message to be taken away up to the reader's own interpretation of the book. Or maybe I'm just confused. Either seems to be a strong argument.

haha...it seems like a good majority of us forgot to blog because we're too busy revising...i'm guilty as well since i'm posting after the deadline.

For the sake of argument...
If Equiano is truly not born from Africa, then his whole narrative is discredited which means that there is no reason to read his book.

Equiano states that the narrative is essentially his autobiography. He claims that he experienced everything written in the book. Therefore we expect the story to be his own story. But if he was not from Africa, then he could not have possibly experienced all that he claimed since he claims to have been born in Africa. This would make him a liar.

Now if he didn't really experience all that, then what did he experience? Also, is there any validity in saying that some other African slave experienced what he described? If he does not try to preserve the integrity of his story then everything should be disregarded because how can you divide actual first hand experience from second hand or perhaps even fabricated experiences?

If he said that it was a compilation of slave stories woven together into the life a of a fictional African then great, lets keep reading. But if he claims first hand experience yet puts in other accounts then he is actively deceiving the reader and there is no point in reading it for the sake of truth and history. If we want to read it with our fiction/entertainment lenses, then go for it...you can read just about anything with that perspective.

I mentioned a fraud Native American novel previously during class, that was nominated for a variety of literary awards. I have now found the Time article regarding how an actual Native American writer feels about this fake autobiography: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1154221,00.html

Perhaps I feel that this is such a personal issue since throughout my entire life, I've been bombarded with various Asian actors being used to represent any Asian role in American cinema and TV. Whether it's Zhang ZiYi and Gong Li speaking their painfully Chinese-accented Japanese and English while playing the leads of Memoirs of a Geisha, or James Kyson Lee speaking his poor Japanese in the popular TV show, Heroes, what it comes down to is simply an insult to those whom are from that background and speak the language. Not only is it heavily inaccurate, the message people are left with is that as long as Americans can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter which Asian or Asian American is used to tell the story. They're all the same.

In that aspect, I'm somewhat happy that novels are taken on a more critical level regarding authenticity. Though you can't hear the wrong accents that you do in film or TV, there's definitely an innate accent in terms of how the story is told. Without authenticity, the story is fake and insulting to those whom actually experienced it. As stated by Alexie in the Time article, the fake writer has never experienced the real suffering, the real injustices committed against the real people. Without having personally experienced such a traumatic event, one can only imagine based upon what they know. Can imagination then be treated on par with another's account of true suffering? I couldn't possibly imagine someone attempting to claim to have written an autobiography of being a Holocaust surviver and never having stepped foot out of America. Apart from how insulting that is to real survivors, the experience just can't be truthfully conveyed and it's doubtful anyone would take it seriously. Just because Equiano's text is older, I don't see why the same standards shouldn't be held.


-Kathy

This year, everyone gets "trick."

I have to confess that I don't feel fully qualified to write about The Life of Gustavus Vassa until I finish it, but if I have to write the words "Doctor Impossible" ever again, I'm going to go crazy. So here goes.

Paul Youngquist's essay on Gustavus Vassa's (interesting) narrative raises a good point, namely that most of us take for granted that we assess the truth of things—or at least their claims to genre—based on European protocols. But Youngquist pitches this as an ideological battle between Western imperialism and its casualties, in this case the (black) Atlantic laborer. As far as I know, where you're from (as in where you were born) is an even more important determinant of identity in other cultures. No matter how far you've come, or how little time you spent in your hometown, people will judge you by what they know of it. America has the greatest possible mobility, the greatest possible hybridity (bonus points for using the "h" word?) in the world in this respect. If you want to renounce your birthplace because of a spiritual connection to your ancestral homeland, that's OK. But regardless of your spiritual connection to a place, if you weren't born there then you weren't born there.

It's tempting to take Youngquist to task for the awkward juxtaposition of an art form defined by its vernacular roots and a writing style defined by its remoteness from the vernacular, but that would be missing the point. Youngquist definitely tries in this essay, but I'm still not convinced of his argument's validity. His hip hop references aren't especially surefooted and most of them feel a bit contrived. A case in point: Kool Keith, who allegedly "acknowledges identity to be an effect of practices like hip hop rather than their origin." Actually, he's just a really creative surrealistic rapper who likes themed albums. I don't deny KK his intellectual chops, but I don't think it's quite honest of Youngquist to conflate the idea of the heteronym with Vassa's biographic liberties. Kool Keith doesn't mix identities; he's either Black Elvis or Dr. Octagon (or one of his dozen or so other mic personalities), but never both. And at the end of the day he admits that he's Keith Thornton from New York. In other words, pretending to be Dr. Dooom or Black Elvis (and thereby forming an openly fictional heteronym) isn't the same thing as claiming to be from Africa. Youngquist wants to let Vassa have it both ways, which is fine as long as Vassa's narrative is no longer categorized as biography or, gasp, nonfiction, because it clearly isn't.

And let's define our terms. Hip hop isn't just mixing and remixing—it's not only an art form that recombines (to use Youngquist's favorite verb) existing elements to make new ones. Youngquist cites rappers when he should be talking about DJs—the two split years ago and have since pursued radically different paths. Rappers have taken over the mainstream because mainstream tastes need a catchy chorus (think 50 or Kanye or anyone popular) and can't deal with the challenging, not-quite-musical sounds of modern turntablism (as practiced by Cut Chemist and Prefuse 73, to name two).

Remixed music is a useful metaphor to have at hand when discussing identity production, but let's please not take it too far, or worse, strip it of its own complexities and subdivisions to make an academic argument. Hip hop—either rapping or scratching—is not primarily concerned with subverting the Western protocols of Western identity-production. Regardless of its diasporic origins, it's basically a Western genre and, as Youngquist admits, subject to Western values, particularly capitalism. Rappers want to make money so badly that most of their songs are about making money (Lumbajack, anybody?) and DJs want to make people dance. Hip hop's global reach can't and shouldn't be disassociated from the global reach of the American empire where hip hop emerged. Hip hop is an American export and it's bigger and more important than the European Romantic Review. Fact.

I hope he can at least smile at the irony of writing about "recombinant mixology" and "the counter-esthetics of hip hop" in the European Romantic Review, sure to be read by exactly 0 people engaged in said counter-esthetics. That's academia for you... (No offense intended, Talissa.)

P.S. Happy Halloween everyone!
P.P.S. KitKats are like crack.

Reading for the Cynics

I love how interconnected my classes become. Over the summer, I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and got uber excited because Philip K. Dick named his freaking mood organ after Mr. W. Penfield. (Oh, MCB 61, I miss you.) And just yesterday, I was going to interject on the subject of the (in)significance of Equiano lying about his "identity" because we talked about reliable sources in my history class. The general consensus in America is that museums are the most reliable source when it comes to history, followed by a grandparent or relative who was there. Rounding out the bottom of the totem pole are someone/anyone who was there, a high school teacher, college professor, and movies! Except for movies, Americans' opinion on who to trust is utterly incredible. While I can see why museums would be thought of as more reliable since they seem to be unbiased, many artifacts can be omitted or left out of displays; evidence can easily be hidden. As for professors and high school teachers, they rely on multiple sources and their research must at least try to be trustworthy to gain support in the academic world. As for first-person narratives, people must be very wary. When it comes to one person's memory, there's inherent fallibility on the narrator's part. So my first thought on the matter of Equiano's identity was that his origin made no difference to the story since his narration should be read with a bit of skepticism because of the innately false recollections of incidences, no matter how soon after the event is written about. Plus, his ultimate goal was to abolish slavery. Then, I thought about whether or not the text would be read differently if he said he was born in Africa versus America. In my opinion, the text would still retain most of the meat of what people in England would take away from it. Really, would anyone think Equiano any less black if he were born in South Carolina? We established that his "African" identity was born in America, not Africa. And if he had never landed in America, than he wouldn't be qualified as "African." In Africa he was not categorized as such, so in any matter, he would have had to be connected to the United States somehow. In this twisted mess, Africanism depends on American labels. Consequently, Equiano could have been born anywhere without affecting his "identity."

I'm blogging before I forget

Hi all. I am making an attempt at this blog now before I completely forget once the day begins anew. Honestly, the more I was attempting to analyze Grossman's novel for this paper (due in a day or so), the more I found a pattern similar to that in Dick's novel: there's this cyclic blur of distinction between superhero and supervillain, just as there is between android and human. It seems as though the more you think you know about them, the less you truly do, especially in the case of the supervillains (and their reasoning for being such villainous individuals). I found it a headache and a half to make that clear cut distinction anymore besides the fact that they were slapped with a label that they eventually followed through with. It's as if they were evil because they were told they were supposed to be, and therefore were committing crimes in order to fulfill the role assigned to them.

Anyways, back to the current novel at hand. When reading Equiano's account of his "home country," it definitely did feel romanticized. Everything was so perfect, so right, as if bathed in a pool of glorious ideality... the utopia of Africa. I now change my vote (kind of late I know) to the side that the authenticity of his story matters. Although there is the tradeoff between interpreting the story of the silent masses in order to actually even get the story out there, I feel like the fact he concealed the origin of his stories somewhat negates any positive impact he may have had on his audience. There's always emphasis placed on the legitimacy of a text, and to go so far as to claim it to be true without any disclaimers may even have the opposite effect that Equiano was aiming for: his dishonesty may lead any readers who would have otherwise been moved to change their views based on reading his story to see himself and everyone he is representing (the slave population) in an even more negative light: as liars who will use any means necessary, even dishonesty (which is a big no-no in the Christian/Puritan world) to achieve their ultimate goal. In the end, it may hurt the cause of the slaves.

My apologies if you actually read this probably incoherent rambling. Good luck to all on the papers!

AHHH!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TALISSA!! Hope it was an amazing day for you!!

:)

Happy birthday, Talissa!

That's pretty much all I've got for this week.

Happy Birthday Talissa!
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.

So... our first draft of our second paper is due tomorrow. And I have nothing. I like this blogging thing we have going on, though. It's informal, so I don't get freaked out if what I type is completely idiotic or boring or simple-minded. I mostly concerned about simple-minded thoughts. And brief, insignificant comments. I know many escape me.

I like Demetri Martin. He has short, random stories. I write short, random sentences. But I don't have a law degree.

What the hell? Just to check up on Demetri Martin trivia, I went to imdb.com, and since I was there, I looked at today's birthdays. In any case, I come across this Dave Callaham and click on his name since his profile picture is of a really cute baby. Who can resist, right? But the thing is is this guy's thirty years old. And one of the two bits of info on him is "College roommate of Magoo." "Magoo" is, of course, a link to another guy's page. And it's a dog--the masturbating dog in Garden State. Again, I think, what the hell? And this, mostly due to my own frustration/procrastination/undying wish to find inspiration concerning my paper, is the state I am in presently.

On a lighter note, happy birthday, Talissa! I hope you're having a fantastic birthday extravaganza! In celebration of this special occasion, a little comedy with pictures: an excerpt from "Person" because "Material Enhancers" is unavailable : ( (JUST KIDDING! P.S. People should speak in full words and not acronyms, unless you're talking about radar, laser or scuba.)

"Blade Runner"

Although I'm sure there are far more interesting things that I could be writing about right now, I can't get past that movie. Half the time, I was completely lost and the other half, I was hiding behind a piece of paper (I really don't like blood and violence). All I can say is: WHAT HAPPENED?! There seems to be a disconnect between the book and the movie because the main messages that I was interpreting from each seemed to be extremely different. While the book seriously seemed to have a legitimate question to pose (what IS humanity?), the movie apparently cut that out when they cut out Mercerism. I keep thinking that I missed out on part of the movie and that's when they went into Mercerism with depth and vigor. But no. Instead, I was exposed to a lot of screaming and shooting and strange, animalistic fight scenes in the dark and rain. It seems as the though the movie completely went off on a tangent from the book and literally MADE it into an action film. The book seemed to focus more on the internal struggle of Deckard while the movie managed to strip it down to... what else? sex and violence. Maybe I'm being a little critical, but the movie seemed to get the whole "mind-boggling" part of Dick's novel down, but not for the same reasons. It was more of a general confusion as to why things were happening rather than specific debatable points (ie THE GOAT!). Honestly, I think the movie might have just been a little too commercialized and trying to appeal too much to a broad audience, as done so by... sex and action/violence. It was one of those movies that made me appreciate the book that much more!

P.S. What was up with all the Asian people as street vendors? It felt like Harrison Ford was chilling out in a major Chinese metropolitan or something. I couldn't help but wonder if there was some type of racism hidden in there or at the very least the perpetuation of a stereotype that is somewhat unappreciated...

ny times review

Enough with the diversity criticism. Has anyone taken the time to wikipedia Austin grossman? It seems that the creative juices are flowing in that family, every one in his family has a page about their work, but surprisingly not his mother… shall we claim sexism/etc./etc.? Whatever.

What interested me was Austin’s comment about the review of Soon I will be Invincible in the New York Times. He seemed to grumble a bit when mentioning it. I went home, forgot about it for a day or two, soon remembered, and decided to check it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/books/review/Itzkoff2-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1193285087-c6/rQckJyfe50n/xW45lQQ

To be honest, some of the critiques reflect a lot of my feelings when reading the book. I totally sympathized with Dr. Impossible, wading through the Champions drama only to get to the next chapter. And it’s hard to believe that Austin didn’t feel the same way. Dr. Impossible is just so damn lovable. What I didn’t like about the review was the final paragraph where Itzkoff denounces Invincible by comparing it to similar works in other mediums (ie. Spider man films, heroes tv show, etc.). But Austin’s book seems to be the first novel portraying the seemingly 2-d characters as having substance. Maybe this is why he so adamantly kept talking about literature the whole time he spoke to us. He doesn’t seem to like the comparison being made between his novel and films/comics/tv shows.

Since we're on the topic of author/ity and representation and inclusion of various peoples in literature...

Why is it necessary for authors to make characters homosexual or ethnic?
Do they really have a social responsibility to make it representative of actual society?

I found it a bit disturbing that Austin Grossman was considering rewriting the characters to please a few opinionated readers. Granted that I assume authors do revise and revise based off of feedback from peers, I don't think an author should have to rewrite his novel because someone said it doesn't represent society well enough. I feel as if the author has complete rights (ignoring publishers and editors rights) to do what s/he wants with his work.

In the case of Invincible and the online blogger. I feel like you can't really say that the novel isnt representative because after all it is a fiction world. A world where there are aliens, human animals mixes, robots, etc. Since it is a world outside of the world we live in, can you really try to mix in our idea of reality into a different world?

Would the blogger be pleased if Austin made Dr. Impossible African American? That is what she asked for isnt it? more ethnic diversity. Yet I don't think the blogger would be happy about that because if the villain was African American, then Austin would just be contributing to the stigma that african americans are more likely to commit a crime. The only way for the blogger to be pleased is if Austin diversified the characters in such a way that agreed with the blogger's views on breaking stigmas.

So in the end....authors should retain full authority in making characters how they choose based on their own beliefs.

In Response

I apologize in advance for the Harry Potter final book spoilers. I just couldn't resist after seeing Tran's post.

Since I've already somewhat gone over my thoughts of the film, yet have a strong desire to respond to Tran's post below mine, and we don't have a particular topic to blog about, I hope this isn't too out of line? I actually came across the same information regarding Dumbledore a few days ago and also thought it coincidentally enough, paralleled Grossman's lecture regarding Feral and Elphin completely. Though I think there is a slight difference. When J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore's one true love was Grindelwald, everything regarding Dumbledore's past in the final book just clicked for me. Prior to that revelation, though though their relationship was somewhat implied in the novel, since it wasn't directly stated, Dumbledore's actions seemed unclear. Friendship just doesn't sufficiently justify a complete reversal in ideology that we see in Dumbledore's character and neither does foolish youthfulness. The alteration of philosophy is just too extreme for it to be believable. Yet by having Dumbledore be in love with Grindelwald, not only does Dumbledore's past become significantly more complex and tragic, his "evil" ideology of youth as he went along with Grindelwald is seemingly more justified in that love does blind us. Thus, it becomes a necessary component to his character and an overall comprehension of the novel that I believe should have been blatantly stated within the text.

However, with Invincible, I don't see the same necessity. Inclusion of Feral or Elphin's sexual orientation, though socially more representative, just doesn't seem plot relevant, nor does it significantly add any further complexity to either characters. It just doesn't build upon the interpretation of the novel and therefore though I see a social necessity to be inclusive of all individuals, information that doesn't add to a deeper understanding of the work just seems superfluous and would be taken more as a side note rather than as a major plot point like is the case in the final book of the Harry Potter series.


-Kathy

When J. K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore is a homosexual, it reminded me of when Mr. Grossman mentioned that Feral and Elphin are also gay. When I found out, I felt even more admiration for Dumbledore and excited at the same time. Admiration because culturally, I know the troubles and hatred that homosexuals have gone through to be comfortable with who they are. I know most of you don't agree with the idea that race and sexual orientation doesn't matter, but the way I see things, it does. I come from a very diverse city, but when I came to Berkeley, I encountered people who are very conservative who argues that homosexuals are sinners (i.e. that loud crazy guy in Upper Sproul). As much as we hate to admit it, we have been weened to judge others.My point is...So it's kind of like everyone's fallen in love with Dumbledore, and now that his secret is revealed, what are those people who aren't as open-minded going to think? Do they suddenly ignore all of Dumbledore's great traits and hate him because he's gay? Or are they going to accept it? If Rowling never made that comment, then readers would keep on going around believing that their great hero is heterosexual and never had kids because he never found love, and blah blah blah. So by revealing it, she challenges your beliefs. She retains her authority. Now I'm rambling and I don't even know if I make sense anymore, but mooo.

So my point is, I kind of like the idea of the author telling us what certain things are supposed to mean. Call me whatever you want, but I'm just straight out of high school, and I still need people telling me what to do. By discussing the book Invincible, we came up with a lot of ideas and interpretations. But what is correct? We'd have a never-ending debate. I talked to Talissa about that Mister Mystic scene, and she suggested that magic is an area that Dr. I hates and stuff, but I felt like there was something more about that scene and the importance of Mister Mystic. Then Mr. Grossman said that Mister Mystic was so lame in that scene because he already knew Dr. I was going to lose. That made so much more sense to me.

Rambling with no sense of direction and not being judged on is great =]

--tran

"He kept using the word literature, I can't stop using the word hilarious..."

I don't know any other way of putting this but having the opportunity
to meet and see the author - put his work in a completely different
context for me. I started this book thinking it was going to be a
story of some naive kid as he matured through life and watched his
goal of becoming "invincible" transcend the boundary between what he
thought he could expect out of life and what he actually got. Yeah,
that was what I thought this book was going to be about...To a point,
that "kid" ends up being Dr. Impossible, but the hoops Grossman puts
him through were, for lack of a better word, hilarious.

Seeing Grossman in person you can definitely see why this book is as
funny as it is. It's sort of akin to hearing the funniest joke in the
world and waiting for the punchline, but the telling of "it" is so
funny that the whole process makes the punchline irrelevant. It's
almost impossible to put it in terms of a compliment even though
that's what I'm trying to do because I can't even come close to
defining it. Some people are just f'ing hilarious standing around,
and they get even funnier if their sense of humor matches up with
yours, or vice versa. Mr. Grossman is a perfect example of that case.

He's a diabolical genius. He is a genius, and probably left to his
own devices (like any of us), very diabolical. I can't imagine anyone
having a hard time thinking that if he decided to take over the world
that it would be a bad idea. At the very least it would be a funnier
place to live. Sure, he'd ask for ransom money but we wouldn't pay
him because we'd all be waiting to see what would happen next...

But back to the academic critique...I think we can only hope that his
"personality" doesn't get lost between the book and the movie. I
watched Blade Runner and Minority Report, again, after reading Sheep
and Philip K. Dick's short about Building a Universe, and both films
take on a whole new meaning once you realize how many oars short of a
crew Dick really is. I think they all jumped ship and went over to
the S.S. Grossman, but that's a personal opinion.

Anyway, thank you Mr. Grossman! The content of what we were talking
about was interesting and I especially appreciated the reference to
Scott McCloud because that's all I could think about while reading
through Invincible. But the awkward pauses, the ticks, pretty much
everything, brought the book to life, the situations into focus, and
my appreciation for authors that can fill a "gutter" to a whole new
level.

PS - use the 10% to add in a politically correct metahuman named
Ambiguous. Non gender specified, non affiliated, and to a point,
completely ineffectual but always involved somehow. That way readers
can imprint/project whatever they want that character to be without it
being defined for them, and yes, I understand that not having things
spelled out was part of the problem but it's funny how seriously a
play on the genre is being critiqued which makes the process itself an
exercise in transcending/blurring the line between what defines
literature. Besides, my impression of who these characters were is
going to be different from someone else's impression of who these
characters were. For instance, aside from reading the general
descriptions of the characters I saw Dr. Impossible as a cross between
mini me and magneto, fatale was janine garofalo as the terminator,
blackwolf was a modern day beowulf, and Feral being gay, well, tigers
are dramatic but wolves are scary. Installment two can introduce a
Dog/Human that ends up being a total mysoginistic and chauvanist
dinosaur. Then installment three can include a meeting of the two
where allegiances to one or the other spell out the metaphor that
everyone seems to need to have stamped into the pages.

-- jason

The roles have reversed. Humans, with their flaws, are the ones who dream up of diabolical plans to conquer the earth, their home planet. The non-humans are the ones who end up saving the rest of the humans from their own species. But since we’re going along with the idea that Dr. Impossible is the hero and the Champions are the villains, then Dr. Impossible is, in a sense, trying to save the world from the non-humans who have gained a vast amount of power, brainwashing people’s perception of what is good and what is evil. So the point is… the so-called “villains” are the underdogs... so... I'm just repeating Tony's original point. haha

Going off of Heather's argument, We never hear of villains who’re minorities. Is it because they don’t have the resources, but if they’re smart, then they should be able to come up with the things they need, like Dr. Impossible did. Or does stereotypes come into play about genders and races, and that society place so much belief into those stereotypes that it's unbelievable for an Asian guy with glasses to be a cool hero? Or does the stereotype of the Asian guy being nerdy make it unbelievable so that stories won't sell, so it's all just an economic thing? gah? o_O

--tran

Forgive me. I know this entry is very late and I don't have an excuse (except that I just forgot to do it), but I'd still like to post my thoughts about Grossman's book. At first sight, I was very surprised at how accurate the author's photograph in the book was. I have this belief that authors put up pictures of themselves when they eight years younger. Besides listening to him, I admit I was also studying his gestures, movements, and facial expressions (yeah, I know it sounds creepy but I do it to everyone). He seems like the kind of guy who would exist in the pages of a book or someone you'd like to write a book about, someone with a lot of character.

I think it's exciting that his book will be made into a movie. To transfer the plot of a book to the screen of a movie brings the book to an entirely different dimension. A book is constructed solely of words while film contains words, visuals, movement, and sound. Because film has the freedom of all of these mediums, a movie is more physically real to our human senses because there are simply more things that mimic our reality (I don't even want to define reality. So... reality = toothpaste). However I think that whether a book or movie is real in the sense of its connection and impact on the viewer or reader depends on the craft of the art form. Just because a movie has visual and sound elements that a book lacks does not automatically make it more real or true. I think that the current technology of film is a chance for all art (including literature, visual art, dance performance.. etc.) to leap to new heights.

I really enjoyed Austin Grossman's Lecture. I thought that he had a lot of intersting views about comics being literature. I personally thinkthat comics are literature. I dont think that literature is based on the scholars opinion, or the popularity or a certain piece. Just becuase there are a series of pictures that describe the actions, there is still dialoge. Shakesphere plays are almost all dialect. So if comics arent literature then neither is Shakesphere.

:-[

I apologize for completely forgetting to post last night—it slipped my mind as I prepared for the two back-to-back tests I had today. Whoops. Anyway, I hope you'll agree that blog posts are better late than never, so here's mine:

It was a strange feeling for me yesterday to have direct access to the author of a book I've read. That's never happened before. Maybe because of this lack of precedent, I didn't really know what to do with it. I really wanted to know what the Hammer of Ra is, but I realized that having someone—even the author—tell me kind of ruins the magic because it exposes the book's world as a fantasy. When the real world intrudes on a fictional one, the fictional world falls apart. Of course there's no such thing as a magic hammer, we realize (with massive disappointment). But it's hard to articulate just how this sort of feeling works. After all, it should be pretty obvious that the world described in a sci-fi/fantasy (the superhero genre pulls from both) book is just a bunch of words on paper. No matter how evocative or exciting that world is, or how much we might wish it were real, we know that it isn't—it's just something dreamed up by a particularly creative person from our superhero-less world. So meeting the mind behind the world—its unseen god—should be exciting for the reader. It should be an unparalleled opportunity to get closer to the text. But somehow it didn't work out that way for me. I was actually relieved that he spent so little time talking about his book. If he had decided to dissect and explain his characters, it would've robbed them of the believability that made the book such a compelling read in the first place. In other words, when I like a book I want to believe it to be real. Maybe not in the objective sense, but I think a book should be its own kingdom, its own logic, and I resent when a book's sovereignty is threatened. As likable as I found Mr. Grossman, yesterday was the first time that I really felt like I understood the importance of the death of the author. It seemed he wasn't much more able to shed light on the book's world than any one of us (notwithstanding his revelation of Feral and Elphin's sexuality), and that was hugely empowering. The book's world has taken on a life of its own (especially once the movie comes out), and I think it's pretty well out of his hands at this point. Still, it must be nice that the frustration of waning authorial control is counterweighted by ever bigger paychecks—I don't think anyone can accuse a grad student of selling out. Big ups to him.

Zeta Energy

How does Dr. Impossible find this zeta energy? Seemingly, it could cure most all of the world’s energy woes. At first glance, we think it is just some crackpot effect made up for the purpose of the book. But is it? There are three basic types of scientific discovery:
1) Change, a discovery that solves a problem that is quite obvious, ie. Cure heart disease, but the way in which to solve the problem is not clear. 2)Challenge, is a response to know facts that don’t mesh with scientific theory of the time to create a better holistic understanding. And 3) Chance a serendipitous discovery such as penicillin or Plunkett’s Teflon. Dr. Impossible’s discovery clearly lies in the change category. He did not create this effect, he simply was able to see it when no one else could. It is in this way that Dr. Impossible is more like the greatest thinkers of or time rather than some superhero. Dr. Impossible is some sort of super-(evil/misunderstood?)-academic. Yet, due to some unfortunate circumstances, his discoveries aren’t accepted by the world. Does this lessen his great accomplishments? Perhaps. His discovery, akin to Oppenhiemer’s atomic energy and Newton’s gravity, could have great implications for mankind. Yet it is played off as nothing more than a crackpot theory and perpetuates Dr. Impossible’s loathsome and evil state.

Shaunt

Sorry for the truancy, the internet at my house crapped out last night.

The Space Between

During the talk with Austin Grossman there were some ideas that he brought up that really interested me, one of which where he talks about the space between each strip, the "gutter," was especially thought-provoking. The idea that it's what you don't see that is what makes it great is very smart. Through my movie watching career I've seen that the best/most scary movies are the ones that leave things to your imagination. And it seems to me that with your imagination there is something that you can connect with and enjoy. Another interesting point he brought up was changing the characters to make them more racially and sexually correct. Personally, I don't think that a person's character should depend on what race they are or which way they are oriented sexually. A few of the previous blogs mention that if they knew that Feral and Elphin were gay it would change their picture of who they are, which is why I am against giving the characters races or sexual preferences. I think it's better for the reader to decide for themselves in which way the characters are different so that we aren't swayed to think differently about characters just because they are black or homosexual. That is unless race or orientation plays a large part in their characters personality, which in the case of the book it doesn't.

Ok, I know I'm going to end up missing this by a few minutes, but oh well.

I thought Grossman's talk was quite interesting, especially that part about how all of the story and all of the action takes place in the invisible space. It's genius, albeit he didn't actually come up with it himself, but still an awesome philosophical insight. Also, when he mentioned that Feral and Elphin were gay, I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not. Elphin, maybe I could see that happening, but Feral? Isn't he like a stereotypical embodiment of everything masculine ever? I mean, he's explosive, purely strength-based, etc etc... well, maybe except for the cat part. Guys never seem to be cat-people.

I also thought it was interesting how he wrote the book completely out of order, and yet it still came together. Especially since nearly every passage ends with a witty sentence or incredible statement. Maybe we should start writing papers like that? Eh eh?

I truly enjoyed Grossman’s lecture/discussion. He brought up points I’ve yet to previously consider, such as the classification of literature being relevant in terms of institutionalization and the history of the form. Prior to that, I’d considered defining literature as a pointless objective given how subjective the classification is. However, I now see that by classifying a work as literature, it now has a considerably older history of form to contend with. Though I initially answered without a doubt that comics should be classified as literature, his argument has made me rethink that a bit. I have read through a handful of comics that I find to be really great. In Maki Kusumoto’s tribute to Andy Warhol, Die Todliche Dolis, she takes up not only a color scheme but also an overall book layout resembling Warhol’s work. She then proceeds to argue Warhol’s concept of the multi-faceted individual, with one never truly knowing another, and redesigns it into the comic form. In terms of comics, this I found to be particularly well written and designed. I’ve also come across other manga that delves into the subject of religion or utilizes religious imagery as well as allusions to literary works such as Kafka’s Metamorphosis in forming its own arguments. However, if I were to compare these works to all of literature, then the significance of finding such an in-depth argument in the work becomes somewhat trivial given that most prose given the categorization of literature are just as thought provoking if not more so. Therefore, I found his lecture and overall argument to be not only thought provoking, but enlightening as well. I had actually anticipated more of a discussion revolving around his work and potential intentions. Yet even so, I found this discussion to be even more intriguing in the long run.

-Kathy

Animals and Humans

So last week we had an exciting discussion about animals, PETA, hunting, and etc.

Some ideas that came up was, is it "wrong" to hunt out of pure enjoyment? Is it "wrong" to hunt for sustenance?
Eventually, out of these question came the idea that there's a difference between eating domesticated farmed animals versus wild natural animals.
For the sake of argument, let's say that, morally, there IS a difference between eating domestic and wild animals. In terms of the animal, i think that the only difference would be in the upbringing of the animals since whether a chicken lives between a fence or in a field, it is still a chicken. The only factor that distinguishes the two is that one was meant to live its natural life and one was meant to be sold and consumed.

So then let's say that there were humans bred solely to kill and fight. like a super soldier. All they knew was to kill and they are programmed to not be morally afflicted by it. Would the weight of their death be diminished since their purpose is to kill and be killed?

Now taking the flip side of this idea where the same object can be different based on their circumstances, can 2 different objects become the same if taken through the same consequences?

Tying in to "Androids," what about androids vs. real humans? Would you consider those androids such as Rachel Rosen who thought that she was a human and was raised as a human to be more human? She clearly thought of herself as a human and lived like a human but did that make her human?

GROSS MAN!

Contrary to what my title seems to imply, I loved Austin Grossman and his hilarious presentation. A for awesome! However, before I go on a random tangent vaguely related to the books we've read, I have to say that the man instantly reminded me of Dr. Impossible in that bookish, semi-awkward (in a good sense!) way. I can't help but wonder if the book stems from Grossman's own attempt at materializing his very own comic world but in a style more comfortable/familiar to him: as a novel! If Grossman is the comic fanatic I assume he is, then what greater way to show your appreciation for the comic world than to bring into another realm of printed material? True, you could argue it the other way, but there's a time and place for that (which is neither now nor here).

Like Brittany, I now also wonder how I would have read the book had I known that Feral and Elphin were homosexuals. Maybe I didn't read deeply enough, but I had no idea! For a second, I thought he was just throwing it out there for shock appeal. But you do have to wonder what difference it would have made. Racism, sexism, etc.-ism, I think that the critic had a point, but in way, it's hard to judge how something OUGHT to be when it is such a subjective and personal piece of work. If it wasn't included, it wasn't included. To do so now might be playing to a type of tokenism, which might just exacerbate the situation. Honestly, the book was like warm porridge... just right.

:)

After Mr. Grossman’s talk yesterday, I was wondering how, or if, I would have read the book differently if I had thought Feral and Elphin were gay. What did the reviewer think ethnic and racial diversity would add to the book? Having a more diverse super hero group in the story would better represent the modern population. When we start thinking about how the Champions could be more diverse, though, we unconsciously default to characters that are “gay” or “African American”. If the intent is to have characters represent American society, then there should also be some angsty emo kid or an overweight middle-aged man. The idea of promoting acceptance and stirring controversy by having characters with different backgrounds can only work by using extremes, but it would not serve as a representation of modern society.

So what IF a super hero was gay. How would that change our perception of him/her as a hero? Super heroes are supposedly loved because they fight for Freedom and Justice. That sounds grand and all, but both values are highly subjective. What if Feral decided to fight for his “Freedom and Justice” in a gay pride parade? I doubt a Jehovah’s Witness would consider him a hero then. Our measurement of a hero is not based on how well they do their job as a super hero, but how their lifestyle agrees with our own morals (kind of like celebrities). A sad truth. Then again, Dr. Impossible could argue likewise: he’s fighting for his freedom to take over the world and find justice in ruling a society that rejected him. The definition of a hero is then simply someone who defends our own personal morals, not necessarily for the good of society as a whole.

It's that time of month again...
I have no idea what to write my paper on. How about you guys?

Anyway, I really enjoyed Austin Grossman's lecture yesterday. I just wish his talk had inspired me to think of a claim about his book. I wish I could steal the argument that that one guy came up with-- the one that said that comics are literature because the action happens in blank spaces, the same space that literature's plot takes place in. This paper should be fun, but how can I make it awesome? I wish I had super writing abilities. It's really hard at this point not to rant. I'm trying to treat this as a freewrite but I can't loosen my thinking up. All I think about is, "this paper's first draft is due in a week." A week gives plenty of time to mash somethig tgether, but what can I make it into an "oooh, that's interesting," topic that is also provable? I was thinking of arguing that every superhero in Soon I Will Be Invincible is a unique but imperfect replica of someone else, but where do I begin without going outside of the text? Is there solid evidence to hold up that claim? Someone, help. Please? Spider-Man?

So sorry im late again i think im losing my mind...

I dont think that that it is based entirely on gender in terms of an outcast falling into supervilliany i think that it can be based on race as well. THe whole idea behind supervilliany is revenge on those that outcasted that person. There might different levels of revenge based on the difficulties that were presented to that particular person which could come off saying that "black homosexual women supervillains" might have more anger and pain to inflict. Is a super hero ever contempt? Will they ever forgive, it doesnt matter what was or wasnt availbale to them as a child if they nrever forgive then they will always be a supervillian

Supervillains And Privilege

So what? Arguments metaphorically mapping superheroes and supervillains to society’s morals and our quest to be human abound, but the 800 pound elephant that we all choose to ignore still remains undiscussed: the dominant hetero-middleclass-white-male narrative that underlies the superhero genre.

Must we use the word “his” when talking about superheroes? Certainly the genre’s cast and audience is composed mainly of males, so how does that affect our reading of the book? If being an outcast sows the seeds for a white male to fall into supervillainy (a cynical and bitter response to not fitting in) how does this compare to the experience of someone who does not fit in because of their genitalia or the color of their skin? A white male supervillain does not have as many problems to overcome as say, a black homosexual woman supervillain—how can a supervillain justify their contempt when they have access to so many more privileges than people of other races, sex, genders, etc.

Ultimately good and evil then become contrived notions that are a function of a society’s current sense of morality. All that is good then becomes those whom defend current morality. This completely disregards the individual or the hero himself. The individual and his beliefs become irrelevant when all that matters is that his actions continue to protect the current standard morality. Thus, the heroes within Invincible are often compared with actors in movies playing a role. Since their real selves are such hidden aspects of their lives, when Fatale secretly sees their human sides, it almost seems as if both she and the reader are intruding upon their privacy. In that aspect, these heroes are merely images or roles with the qualities that make them human unknown and perhaps to a certain extent, undesired within the public sphere.

With villains however, what defines them as such is that they rebel against current morality. Doctor Impossible not only seeks power, but seeks it as an individual. While heroes merely reinforce and respond to a society’s current morality, villains act upon unrestrained free will in an attempt to mold the world to their views. As such, villains often embody more aspects of what we define to be human, such as Doctor Impossible’s attempt for recognition from the world that abandoned him and Corefire, the friend whom forgot him, than the heroes whom may or may not even have a worldview of how they perceive the future. Villains are the rebels whom when successful, become heroes in history. When their goals and worldview for the future succeed and impact society’s views yet they die, these so-called individuals then become named as martyrs. It is only when their worldview fails to cause an impact in altering societal morality or the individual fails to predict a future change in morality that the individual becomes named a villain.

So then...

Good and evil may depend on one another, but essentially they're also the same. They're extremities on opposite sides, but they have the same amount of intensity, weight, ethical magnitude and all that great philosophical stuff, except one is just viewed as being positive while the other is viewed as being negative. Yes, they're both labels, but technically we all embody the two, not just one or the other. What makes us unique individuals is the mixture of how good and how evil we really are. For example, everyone has those moments of outstanding saintliness and those times when revenge is the sweetest thing. Good and evil can not be separated. For example, Doctor Impossible's taking-over-the-world scheme isn't completely evil. He merely wanted to lower the temperature of the earth by several degrees, bringing about a perpetual winter wonderland. And he even says himself that, "I can always swing the Earth's orbit in a bit for the occasional sunny day. It's not like I'm going to be a jerk about it" (262). There's some inherent good in Doctor Impossible, being that he also toyed around the idea of the what-ifs of being a hero instead of a villain. He knows that he had the potential to become a hero, he just decided to take the more negatively-viewed approach to power.

I think Oscar Wilde once said "There's no such thing as good and evil; only the mind makes them so, " or somewhere along the lines of that train of thought (I really should find that quote). In any case, good and evil depend upon each other, not only to keep the balance of the universe but for logical reasons. The world depends on comparisons, and without comparisons, life would have neither high points or low points. Life would be a line. Maybe life wouldn't even be a line but nothingness. As discussed in Tiffany's blog entry, labels are a necessity, even though they take away from our individuality. Labels have their drawbacks, but they are also used to distinguish ourselves. Just as Theory Toolbox explains in one of its many wondrous chapters, to have community, one must inevitably exclude others. Conformity comes into play. But if we're all conformists, then who's an original? Was there ever an original? We have idols and gods and what have you, but there isn't a way to prove that Jesus wasn't a conformist, that he wasn't just one of fifty men created in the image of God. People say we're unique, each and every one of us. Yet we're also conformists--each and every one of us. So does that mean each and every one of us is unique but based off of someone else? For instance, if Bubba conforms to everything Chet stands for, but indubitably fails to be Chet, and if Chet strives to be Chuck, and Chuck Belinda, then are we all imperfect replicas of an in-name-only one-of-a-kind?

So if heroism and villainy are intrinsically dependent on each other in order to have a defined existence, then it appears that beyond the scope of their own little world that is in constant struggle to be in balance, they have no real impact on the world. True, the world is basically the golden egg that each is fighting for (although for completely different reasons). However, in terms of being something beyond the scope of "hero" or "villain," there we draw a blank. Even the heroes admit that they really have nothing going for them without linking themselves to the label of "hero." This should make you wonder and question the practicality of having such a dynamic; honestly, it serves no purpose in the world as one cancels the other out. In the end, the labels of "hero" and "villain" only serve as new way of categorizing those who inhabit Earth. After all, in the world described in the novel, there seems to be a rising amount of beings gifted with talents that are beyond human. As humans are creatures that have a need to label, distinguish, and rank, the status of hero or villain is just a way to accomplish this desire. Accordingly, those filed under these categories have assimilated into their labels so well they have lost sight of what their own individual identities are apart from this label, as often occurs with the myraid of other labels we have in the world (religion, race, ideology, social/financial class, etc.). We all conform in one way or another, even if it's conforming to nonconformity, and in the end accepting this categorization implies the we sacrifice a bit of personal identity in the process.

In a circular kind of reasoning, villains are heroes: villains knowingly fight a battle they cannot win, subsequently creating situations for heroes to shine. There is a very fine line that separates villains from heroes. They seem to both share the same want for power and thrive off attention from the media. The separating factor is intention: heroes intentionally save the public from villains while villains intentionally try to attack the public. Does the opportunity to save the public as a byproduct of their evil intentions constitute heroism? From the public’s view, probably not, but in the world that only involves villains and heroes, their co-existence depends on it. As nerdy as this may sound, it kind of makes me think of Le Chatelier’s principle. Villainy and heroism can be in equilibrium with one another. Add more villainy into the world and you magically (or not so magically) create more heroism until they’ve equilibrated again. If that’s the case, though, why not have neither villains nor heroes? Society needs good guys and bad guys so that they can define their own morality. It wouldn’t make much sense to call both heroes and villains the “good guys”. People can’t be fans of villains, because the villain's more conspicuous goal to destroy the world overrides a possible underlying goal to create opportunities for heroes to define "good".

If the Champions are the selfish, ego-inflated youngsters of the time, than the world must have a false illusion of the true concept of heroism. The Champions are very connected to the media and work hard to maintain the image of a hero. They are constantly busy selling their image on commercial ads, television, and magazine covers. This new generation of heroes are engrossed with dating movie stars and attending celebrity charity events. Flashy and bright-colored , their costumes are designed not to protect them in battle, but to depict the illusion of glamour and irresistible charm while smashing villains into bloody pulp. Through their close relationship with the media, the Champions send out to the world that being a hero is all about being good-looking, sexy, and having a charming disposition.

Doctor impossible, is a hero who does not receive the credit or acclaim that he deserves. Since doctor impossible is on the good side, what does it make the Champions? Well the bad guys of course. The champions are just a group of punks who do not benefit society in anyway. They take up a lot of resources so that they can have fancy computers, chairs, and nice headquarters. But more importantly, they feed off of the despair of others. They want people to be in danger and trouble, because if they aren’t in trouble, then the heroes are out of a job. Not to mention that being in the limelight constantly inflates their ego and pride. Guaranteed, if there were not any villains, the heroes would make villains so that they can continue to be in the spotlight and receive credit for saving the world. Heroes do not care for the welfare of society but their own egos and reputations. Every act that they do, is motivated somewhere down the line by their own pride and they should be done away with. Society should move in favor of villains rather than of heroes.

The heroism of villainy

(I meant to post this this morning but I overslept. Sorry! I hope 9 hours is enough time for everyone to post...)

I'd like to argue that Doctor Impossible is the book's real hero, and not just in the sense of being its main protagonist. (Fatale's character never really comes together.) No, Doctor Impossible is, whether intentionally or not, a heroic figure. Time and again he sacrifices everything and winds up behind bars (albeit briefly). Why does he do this? He's the world's smartest man and fourth most notorious supervillain. Of course he sees the holes in his plans--he freely admits that he's doomed to fail just by virtue of being a supervillain. He's part of a system, a script, and he has a fixed part to play. He's the bad guy, and the bad guy can't ever win. Those are the rules and he accepted them at the start of his career. He doesn't take over the world or even kill anyone (not even CoreFire!). So what makes him a villain? The petty thefts? The delusions of grandeur? Not quite; he's a villain because he's not a hero. Much as Europeans can only really unite around the fact that they aren't Americans, the only common thread in villainy is the conviction that one isn't a hero.

So what's a hero? A hero, it seems, is someone who helps people without hope of reward, someone who puts her life on the line for others' wellbeing. But it's simpler than that, and more complex. Heroes can only define themselves as such if there are villains as well. Accepting the conceit that there is no absolute measure of good and evil, good must necessarily be defined in terms of evil, and vice-versa. So villains endanger innocents with their schemes and thereby create endless opportunities for heroism. Heroes foil said schemes and beget further villainy. Villains don't save people from calamity, but by producing calamity allow people to be saved. If not for such scenarios, no one would praise heroes and hate villains. (And heroes almost never fail; supervillains seem to actually kill fewer people than bees do.) So villains fall into a role, but that role is absolutely essential to the continued existence of heroism. Every great superhero survives not in spite of but because of his foes; without them, he's just a kook in mask. Therefore Doctor Impossible is far more selfless than any hero because he exists only to maintain the heroes' legitimacy; when they foil him and send him to jail, they're left with little to do but hold benefit auctions and endorse herbal teas. There is no Doctor Impossible lunchbox because he has resigned himself to a life of being a bad example. Surely the smartest man in the world realizes all this. If so, then his continued acceptance of his role is heroic indeed.

Sorry that this is late

SO far im really enjoying the book So Soon i Will be Invincible. Its a little confusing in the sense that it jumps around alot but i like how fatale's and dr impossible storys are running together. Im kinda waiting to see whats going to happen when their paths cross. This book really reminds me of the movie the incredibles which i love. You have the public wanting superheroes and then rejecting them and then wanting them back. But i dont like that the superheroes dont have secret identities, that they are always super, i like more modest superheroes i guess. I wonder is dr impossible created confire as a challenge to himself. If he created him, as this perfect person with limitless power, in order to try and find a way to defeat him in order validify dr I's life. Beat the best superhero and prove that the most popular isnt always what counts.

Sorry this is late

SO far im really enjoying the book So Soon i Will be Invincible. Its a little confusing in the sense that it jumps around alot but i like how fatale's and dr impossible storys are running together. Im kinda waiting to see whats going to happen when their paths cross. This book really reminds me of the movie the incredibles which i love. You have the public wanting superheroes and then rejecting them and then wanting them back. But i dont like that the superheroes dont have secret identities, that they are always super, i like more modest superheroes i guess. I wonder is dr impossible created confire as a challenge to himself. If he created him, as this perfect person with limitless power, in order to try and find a way to defeat him in order validify dr I's life. Beat the best superhero and prove that the most popular isnt always what counts.

So here goes for last week’s post about androids.

I feel that I didn’t exactly have closure with the book. In the beginning, I was a bit lost. At the end, I became even more confused. If this is what the future holds, I’m kind of glad I won’t live that long to face such a bleak world. I had a whole list of questions, but I can’t seem to find it anymore. It’s frustrating how when I don’t need that stupid note paper, it’s always there in my book. But when I really need it now, I can’t find it! UGH! Anywho, I don’t understand why the Rosen Association would want to manufacture smarter and better robots that are hard to distinguish from humans. If the old androids were able to have feelings and question their purpose in life, why bother making them? I thought the purpose of androids were to assist the humans on Mars. Why program them so that they could think for themselves? I see no point of that. I don’t understand why Rachel killed the goat still. In the book, Rick seemed to understand perfectly, yet I had to reread that chapter five times, and I still don’t get it. Also what’s with the whole Mercerism? How was he there in Isidore’s place to assist Rick? Then later Rick became Mercer? GAHH science fiction is so hard to grasp and understand. Is there something I’m missing here? Did I read too fast and overlooked stuff or something? So if androids are metals and pieces, how is Rick able to have sex with Rachel? Sorry, but that whole sex scene baffles me. Another thing. Was it really Rick’s speed that allowed him to retired six androids in twenty four hours, a feat no other has done? That seemed a bit fishy to me. And so basically the lifespan of the plot was only twenty four hours too. That’s a pretty hectic life to live. At the end, I think Rick went a little psychotic. So was everything real? So many questions. So little time.

Now this week’s post about superheroes and such.

We never got to go around the class and find out which superhero character each person identified himself/herself with. It’s hard because I see a bit of myself in Spidey and Sailor Moon. Yes Sailor Moon. I found it odd that only the males participated in the discussion about superheroes and comic books. Would it be the same if we were to talk about fairytales and Disney princesses? Fairytales are older than comic books, yet they have similar moral lessons. While reading “Superheroes and Superreaders,” I noticed that comic books tend to start off innocently for adolescents then “matured” as the years went by. Fairytales started off as grim, “mature” stories for adults, then got watered down by Disney and such to teach young children some lessons. Did you know that the in the original story of Sleeping Beauty, she was impregnated by the Prince in her sleep, and she woke up because her twin babies sucked the thorn out of her finger. Back to my original point, why is there such a difference between genders and the type of stories they like? For instance, my nephew is in love with Spiderman. He cannot go to sleep without wearing his Spiderman shirt or else he claims to get nightmares. On the other hand, my little cousin never took a liking to superheroes. She is in love with pretty Princess dresses. What is it about comic books and superheroes that appeals to males and fairytale stuff appeals to females? And the topic in Theory Toolbox about Ideology is confusing me. So basically, "things are the way they are" ?

-- tran

Origin of Evil?

“It’s called Malign Hypercognition Disorder. He’s an evil genius. It’s a disease.” (56) Malign Hypercognition Disorder? I think it’s interesting that Grossman attributes Dr. Impossible’s supervillain nature to a psychiatric disorder. According to Dr. Impossible’s explanation, the trait of the disorder is an incredibly high intelligence that naturally leads to symptoms of being unreasonably evil. I don’t think it’s necessarily the intelligence itself that leads the smarties of the world to hold a bitter grudge against the world, more like society’s response to super intelligence. Society tends to value beauty, power, and money far above intelligence. The members of the Champions, celebrities in the public eye, are very wealthy, many are noted for their good looks, and all have super strength. Some are cunning, but none known for being geniuses. Impossible, on the other hand, was a social outcast growing up, with no real friends, “just a nerdy camaraderie” (11). Although strong, he has to rely primarily on his smarts to battle the superheroes. It seems only natural that he would want to destroy the society that shunned him and create a new one where he would be idolized. I don’t think that all geniuses will grow up wanting to destroy the world, only those that don’t feel like a part of it. Why should they follow the rules of a society that rejects them anyways? Evil isn’t a natural disposition, but one that society creates.
As a random note, since we’re talking about superheroes, my vote for coolest superhero goes to Stupendous Man. =) Babysitter Girl and Evil Bedtime Lady are worthy adversaries.

SEXY!!

So I guess started off reading this book expecting a somewhat typical storyline: supervillain that has a horrible grudge of some sort against the world (rejection, or just some kind of wrongdoing he/she couldn't get over). However, while reading, it seems like the whole superpower thing is almost secondary; they're just people and though not necessarily physically human, they are in the emotion/personal way. Despite all that fancy schmancy power stuff, they are still very much like those that they protect, vulnerable in a completely nonphysical way. And I wonder if that's not somewhat the whole point of the novel, a "so what" answer: that despite how we may typecast and segregate "beings," there is an underlying similarity between all of us (kind of like the androids too!). Grossman especially seems to delve into this whole contrast with Impossible, who possses ridiculous superhuman abilities but is still somehow a social failure.

But back to the whole reason why I put "SEXY" as my title. I noticed that Grossman liked to describe his superheroes especially as sexy: "They [the heroes] were younger and sexier than their predecessors" (p. 23). This just struck me as completely strange at first: what the heck is with all the sexiness?! Could it be all the skin-tight costumes? At this point, I saw a correlation between Hollywood celebrities of the real world (but what is real? -_- ) and superheroes: they live in the limelight, adored by all, seemingly perfect to the world, and can never seem to do wrong. The whole sexy thing starts to make sense if you think about the superheroes the way they are being portrayed: not as humble individuals seeking just to make the world a better place, but spinning into a nice little entrepreneurial occupation. They are "sexy" because it's part of the image they must uphold to keep the revenue coming in, just as the entertainment industry today is getting sexier (literally); the newer generations must continue to get sexier to maintain interest in them, with flashier costumes, names, gadgets, and enhancements (i.e. Phenom). And so it seems that the idealistic pedestal we hold superheroes on, as those who are selfless and all around do-gooders, has crumbled; in the end, the fame and desire to be praised overwhelms. SEXY.

P.S. What happened to good old-fashioned cartoons? None of them ever seem to make sense anymore, and are pretty superficial in what they convey. I guess it's that sexy appeal that wins out nowadays.

I apologize for posting 10 minutes late! My computer crashed and so I'm currently working on a friend's laptop.

Since I haven’t been interested in superheroes since childhood, I haven’t noticed the role superheroes played within their societies until reading this novel. What strikes me particularly is not only their role as celebrities with press conferences, agents and publicity representatives, but the overall definition of what it means to be a superhero or villain. As Blackwolf describes Doctor Impossible: “if he were a normal person, he’d be Einstein” (56). So then, why isn’t Einstein given the title of a super being, a superior humanoid? Is it merely the social construct of morality and law that defines whether one can be called a superhero or super villain? Does one have to forcefully support the law regardless of its implications to become a super hero or defy it to all ends in order to become a super villain? It’s particularly interesting due to how often the law changes based upon society’s changing views on what should be morally acceptable and what should not. Not only in the case of Blackwolf himself, who has no super powers and is merely a wealthy, brilliant athlete, but Batman as well. If taken in context with our current society’s definition of heroes as those whom help society function, such as firefighters, perhaps even doctors and such, then maybe these superheroes are defined as such by becoming heroes like those, but on a larger scale.

Then again, perhaps superheroes and villains are like celebrities in that they don their gaudy costumes and masks in the same way that celebrities take on roles and personalities as given by their publicity representatives. Regarding Blackwolf, Fatale remarks that “he still patrols in costume, part-time, but it’s mostly publicity for his corporate holdings” (26). The superhero outfit then becomes just that, as a role rather than an identity. In that sense, the superheroes here seem to be merely a large scale imitation of our society’s concept of a hero.

-Kathy

odds and ends

Just a couple comments on Androids first. Why does Rachel guzzle down bourbon like she's capable of getting drunk? And smoke cigarettes? Sorry it just bothered me. And I don't really understand why she killed the goat. Revenge for just sleeping with her and "using" her? ...But I thought androids don't feel emotions, especially something so "human" as jealousy?

Continuing onto Invincible, I was thinking about all the superheroes/villains and it thought, Wow I actually wish I could be Fatale (but Lily sounds equally awesome/mysterious/kick-ass). I mean, superhuman strength, lightning reflexes (proving that I'm NOT a bad driver), indestructible metal skeleton (like Wolverine!), and she even says she doesn't get her period anymore. No cramps. Sweet. And without having to remember to pop sugar pills every night at the same exact time.

Offensively trained, no fingerprints, no EEG signal... possibly a CSI's worst nightmare. So then you can't track her. So then you can't run lie-detector tests. Fatale is so built to be a villain, and I kind of hope she turns out to be one too. Evil is just way more interesting that good-doers, but I can't quite put my finger on it's appeal. But then again, I really enjoy pirates and vampires, so maybe I just have an affinity for anything badass. Ok now I'm just rambling.

The Dao of Batman

"Heroes don't concern themselves with things like libraries and research. Once they've had their origin, they don't try to think anymore, just fly around. Books, inventions, discovery—they leave that to us." (Grossman 126)

When I read this, I realized there's one very popular exception to Doctor Impossible's generalization—Batman. I think this is the first time I've realized the core of his appeal—he combines the most appealing aspects of hero and villain. He's brooding, lonely, and misunderstood—all classic villain traits. Yet he's also rich, movie-star handsome and more interested in helping civilians than hurting or conquering them. Most importantly, he uses sweet gadgets of his own design. That's usually the preserve of villains who, more often than not, are just super-intelligent humans with a bone to pick. Batman is a super-intelligent, super-privileged lost soul with a bone to pick. Genius.

But back to Soon I Will Be Invincible. The story definitely has a brains vs. brawn theme, but it's complicated by the fact that the tempting jocks and nerds analogy isn't perfect. There are sexy evildoers and lame defenders; Blackwolf is smarter than most villains and Doctor Impossible is stronger than most heroes.

Doctor Impossible isn't a tragic or even particularly sympathetic character; he's just a dick. I'm not sure whether it's common for geniuses to be socially abrasive, but if he can enjoy the company of a reporter who isn't—most likely—his intellectual equal, then he has no real excuse for being such a singular social failure. For a genius he seems unable to draw simple and vital conclusions about how to interact with others. His cliché monomania makes him unappealing company, and the resulting (and predictable) rejection makes him even more disgusted with others. I posit that he avoids others so that he can fall into a depressed state that inspires him. He's powered by social rejection. It doesn't seem that he gets much thinking done when happy, but then again, after 126 pages he still has yet to describe a single happy moment he's had. He's like mad-scientist Morrissey but far less cool.

P.S. Has anyone seen The Venture Brothers? Mister Mystic is totally Byron Orpheus. Also, I'm totally a nerd. :'(

I wonder what it's like being a superhero. In some ways, I think life would be easier. If I were like Doctor Impossible, I wouldn't have to worry about studying for Chemistry or Physics. Everything would come to me ever so quickly. However, being Spider-Man and all, I know "with great power comes great responsibility." But, really, I would totally help the world out. What else would I do with my time? Maybe I would be hyperactive, but I consider that a good thing since I can never manage to do what I'm supposed to do. If I accomplished more than the average person, at least I'd have a good chance of also accomplishing something worth while and also goof off. I blame my lack of a social life. I'm not evil, though. Shut-ins are stereotypically clumped with the goths and outcasts of the world. Why can't people just allow shut-ins to be preoccupied with saving the world instead of destroying it? That excerpt from Soon I Will Be Invincible continues to resonate in my mind (Damn resonance structures; I still have chemistry on the brain). The good guys are also smart. As Tony said, Blackwolf is much smarter than Doctor Impossible. It's just ironic since somewhere in the book, Grossman says he's borderline retarded, which reminds me of Anchorman. (Has anyone seen the new season of The Office? Sorry for being so off-topic today.) In any case, humans are complicated creatures and many are contradictions. When did the diabolical masterminds turn from on the good guys? Lots of geniuses are with the good guys. Come on now, Marshall Flinkman does calculus in his head. And he voluntarily works for the CIA. I still have faith in the geniuses of the world. I've come across plenty here at Berkeley.