Brendan Riley, Warren Ellis is the Future of Superhero Comics: How to Write Superhero Stories That Aren't Superhero Stories

(In The Amazing Transforming Superhero)

I've got to read some of Ellis' comics. Between this article and a presentation I saw by Steven Shaviro about Doktor Sleepless. But I digress.

Riley, as indicated by the title, basically argues that Ellis' work is consistently and effectively engaged with the mythology, form and function of the superhero in the post-revisionist era begun by Frank Miller and Alan Moore which, according to Riley, Ellis helped to end with Transmetropolitan, Planetary and The Authority.

What I find particularly interesting about the argument is that Ellis' reconfigurations exist alongside very traditional, very mainstream superhero narratives - including some written by Ellis himself. Riley discusses the "anxiety of influence" and suggests that creators in franchises and genres (particularly large, long-running ones) cannot but be influenced by the mainstream history of the franchise/genre. Therefore comic book creators, even when not explicitly working within the superhero mode, are inevitably engaged in the discourse of superheroes - a fact which is apparently embraced by Ellis in his work.

He also quoted somebody quoted by somebody else, who said: "There are no texts, but only relationships between texts." Obviously I need to track down that person and read their stuff, because that's a key point for my thesis.

I'm totally going to quote somebody, quoted in somebody, quoted in somebody. Is that allowed?

Lorrie Palmer, "Le Western Noir": The Punisher as Revisionist Superhero Western

(In The Amazing Transforming Superhero)

This chapter convincingly argues that superheroes are the descendants of the male heroes of westerns and films noir, using the 2004 The Punisher film as an example. In this case, we're dealing with revision/reintroduction in a broad sense, in terms of the reintroduction of an archetype. (An archetype which is also manifest in action hero films, naturally.) My work is more concerned with the internal process of reintroduction, but evidently my primary texts are engaged in a larger reintroduction of a certain kind of action hero (along with new additions to the genre, such as Crank and Shoot 'Em Up).

What's interesting is that The Punisher, that most cinematic of superheroes, sort of comes full circle by returning to the screen (after the earlier Dolph Lundgren incarnation). Heavily influenced not only by westerns and films noir but also by the 1970s vigilante action hero, it seems only fitting that he be given a very similar filmic treatment.

One thing that Palmer doesn't discuss in enough depth is how in The Punisher, the civilization/savagery dichotomy is inverted, because the rich, gentrified villains are in fact savage and the rough-edged tenement building dwellers represent civility, not unlike revisionist western films which attempt to elevate native culture and condemn Manifest Destiny.

The article also made me consider that action films as a formal genre don't really emerge until the 1980s - prior to that action-oriented films tend to operate within other genres, such as the police procedural, the gangster film, the western and so on. It is only in the high concept era that there begins to exist a concept of what "an action film" is. Interesting.

Dan O'Rourke & Pravin A. Rodrigues,The "Transcreation" of a Mediated Myth: Spider-Man in India

(In The Amazing Transforming Superhero)

This was a good one. Discussing the 2004 "transcreation" of Spider-Man as an Indian teen in Mumbai from a communications perspective, the authors raise some very useful questions. The concept of "transcreation" is apparently industry rhetoric, but can be effectively used critically to describe a common feature of almost all franchises (and especially superhero franchises), the simultaneous existence of many different versions, adapting over time.

The authors suggest that modern audiences who cross media (from comics to films to video games, etc.) are more accepting of multiple instances of a franchise, but I'm not sure that's true - fans can be extremely rabid if new versions are unsuccesful in reintroducing the conventions and characters of the franchise.

One thing I found fascinating (not so much about the article, but about Spider-Man India), was the degree to which traditional Indian mythology is integrated into the comic in place of the technological elements in the classical Spider-Man mythology. My initial thought was that this was strange - the authors note that India is in a technology-driven economic renaissance, and it seemed to me that a high-tech Indian Spider-Man would tap into that Zeitgeist in the same manner that the original Spider-Man captured cold war ambivalence towards technology.

The authors also indicated, however, that Spider-Man India is intended not only to reintroduce the Spider-Man character to Indian audiences (after a record response to the Spider-Man films), but also to introduce Indian culture to American audiences - in a bid to emulate the popularity of Japanese cultural products such as mang and anime among American youth. Therefore, by presenting a version of traditional Indian mythology mediated through the familiar archetype of Spider-Man, Marvel's Indian counterpart hopes to create new audiences for marketing indigenous Indian cultural products which are not so mediated in the future. (A youth-culture/fantasy version of the American market for all things Bollywood, I suppose.) It's brilliant, really.

Another compelling point made in the article, as little more than a side note, is that comic book audiences are somewhat transient - for many people, faithful comics fandom lasts only for a short amount of time (say, from the age of 8 or so to the age of 17 or so) before it transitions into a more casual sort of fandom. This, the authors argue, greatly enables the revision of comic book characters over time, as each generation presents a relatively new audience. I'm not sure if I agree with that argument, as for many fans comic books are a lifetime obsession (or a childhood obsession which returns to stay later in life), but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

Terrence Wandtke, Frank Miller Strikes Again and Batman Becomes a Postmodern Anti-Hero: The Tragi(Comic) Reformulation of the Dark Knight

(In The Amazing Transforming Superhero)

Ye gods, Wandtke loves his long titles. I think I'm just going to call my thesis "Reintroduction," and be done with it. No overlong subtitles, no contrived academic puns, just one word.

Anyway.

I don't actually have much to say about this chapter. It was an interesting comparison between the original Dark Knight Returns and the more recent Dark Knight Strikes Again from a Žižek-Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective, but didn't really offer much for my purposes unfortunately, and seemed strangely out of line with the theme of the book, especially considering Wandtke is the editor.

There was a handful of dubious statements such as the suggestion that most superheroes other than the Miller's version of Batman never consider life without an alter-ego. Really? I'm having a hard time thinking of any superhero who never considered dropping the tights (figuratively speaking) and leading a normal life. That's practically Spider-Man's defining feature!

The best point made in the article was that DKR is best viewed as a modernist text, while DKSA is post-modern to the core, which is a very accurate assessment that could have used more development.

Jeff McClelland, From Jimmy Durante to Michael Chiklis: The Thing Comes Full Circle

(In The Amazing Transforming Superhero)

What a facile article... especially compared to the Captain America chapter. It starts well, with McClelland acknowledging the problem of "revision" as a term, and the importance of reaffirmation and attempts at consistency in the legitimizing process of reintroduction. However, suggests that The Thing's relative unchangedness is the exception which proves the rule - rather, I would argue that it's an key element in all franchises.

Otherwise, the article is decidedly un-academic and reveals very little analysis, with the author constantly deferring to the opinions of journalists and industry workers - hardly the best sources. Comic book creators say stupid things like "The Thing doesn't need to be reinvented," which evidently is not true. McClelland takes everything at face value.

He also has an annoying habit of talking about The Thing as though he's a real person rather than a character, which is fine in fan discourse (I certainly do it all the time) but very out of place in a collection of essays: "For better or for worse, The Thing is who he is," indeed. Come on.

Jason Dittmer, Retconning America: Captain America in the Wake of WWII and the McCarthy Hearings

(In The Amazing Transforming Superhero)

This was a very interesting article, treating questions of nation - Dittmer examines nation as a serial narrative not unlike weekly comic books. There was a huge retcon (retroactive continuity) of the 1950s commie-smashing Captain America, which turned him into a wannabe version of the hero, and reintroduced that version as a villain for the "real" Captain to contend with in the 1970s. Dittmer argues that this allowed America (as embodied by Captain America) to remain innocent and with the times in the liberal-leaning 60s and 70s, disavowing the McCarthyite 1950s version entirely. Crazy.

Franchises can be seen as "archives of discourse," much as the Bond franchise is viewed by many theorists. This is a good thought: texts do not passively reflect culture, but actively respond to them. They are culture. This is a good way of countering Bordwell's arguments.

Cites Reynolds' different kinds of continuity: serial (causal, issue to issue), hierarchical (internal coherency of powers, character, etc.) and structural (overall universe). Franchises as a whole are held together by all three, according to the logic of reintroduction.

"Elision" means "omission." Why do the words I need to look up always mean the same thing? Last time it was "lacuna." Weird.

Terrence Wandtke, Introduction: Once Upon a Time Once Again

Wandtke's book is one of the few which deals directly with my topic, so I'll be reading pretty extensively from it in the coming week or two. Which isn't to say I agree with his stuff completely, but it's very useful.

His notion of a public which is willing to see superheroes constantly change with the times is an example of the reception aspect of franchises - franchises as a reading strategy which allows for and even expects change, in other words.

Wandtke uses revision, I use reintroduction. Revision (like evolution) is too limited and linear a term for my purposes: reintroduction comprises revision and reiteration.

Wandtke notes that the newest version of a superhero is always privileged. I wouldn't say privileged, but it is always presented as a legitimate instance of the hero... whether or not it is recieved as such is another matter entirely. Additionally, privileged implies that there cannot be multiple legitimate versions co-existing simultaneously, which is certainly not true in comics (although it often is the case in film franchises).

The notion that past versions of superheroes (and thus all past franchise texts) are never completely lost and continue to inform current versions is a good one, and is pretty fundamental to my thesis. Omnia mutantur, nihil interit, Neil Gaiman's Dream might say; everything changes, but nothing is ever truly lost. Franchises are in many ways precisely the sum of their parts, a big, interconnected network of different (and same) meanings.


Luckily, superheros are vastly more complicated to discuss than action heroes.

Son of Rambow

I saw this last week and really enjoyed it. Although I liked Be Kind Rewind, Rambow sort of beats it at its own game. In any case, it inspired me to start my primary-text-watching with the Rambo series. I need to watch 21 films for the thesis this summer... I guess I'll have to double up some weeks.

I'll start next week.

MA Thesis Abstract

HE’LL BE BACK: THE LOGIC OF REINTRODUCTION IN ACTION HERO FRANCHISE FILMS

In my thesis research, I will examine how franchise films can be seen as a distinct form of text, governed by a logic of reintroduction. All such texts are fundamentally informed by a larger franchise, a pre-existing network of texts, products, meanings, conventions and expectations. Each text can therefore be seen as a reintroduction to the franchise, attempting to legitimize both the text and the franchise at large. Specifically, I will analyze four recent films which reintroduce an iconic action hero franchise. In order to understand the process of reintroduction, I will consider these films in context of each franchise as a whole, integrating textual analysis into industrial and socio-cultural approaches to popular media. These case studies will highlight the logic of reintroduction in franchise texts, and serve to illustrate how this logic is a defining feature of all franchises.

In the Beginning

As indicated on the sidebar, I've started this blog as an experiment in keeping myself on top of my research. Independent research, especially reading, can get pretty scattered, and I hope that with this blog I can post short notes on what I'm currently reading, as well as thoughts on my primary texts and other projects.

My main concern this summer is doing as much background research for my MA thesis as possible, which means reading a wide variety of books on the Hollywood film industry, genre studies, and other related subjects, and also re-watching the films of my primary texts - the Rambo, Indiana Jones, Terminator and Die Hard franchises.

My summer research officially starts next week. We'll see what happens.


Full disclosure: I stole this idea from a PhD candidate at Queen's who I met at a conference: check out Dan Trottier's blog here.