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.