Anarchy unmasked

Posted on March 8, 2012 by Richard De Angelis

Tuesday, the FBI revealed the identity of Sabu, founder of the notorious computer hacking organization LulzSec. It turns out Hector Xavier Monsegur was tracked down last June through a carelessly uncloaked IP address, and has been working as an FBI informant ever since. Monsegur led authorities to five of his LulzSec partners, who are now facing charges of conspiracy to commit computer hacking. Monsegur formed LulzSec as a spin-off group from the computer “hacktivist” collective Anonymous, whose supporters/members live up to the name at Occupy movement protests and other demonstrations by wearing identical white-faced, black-Van Dyked masks. While the media is devoting all its attention on uncovering the details of Monsegur’s private life, I’m more interested in the face he and his alleged co-conspirators showed to the public.

Anonymous demonstrators

Anonymous demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street protest, Sept. 17, 2011.

Critical masses
The unofficial mask of Anonymous and the Occupy movement represents Guy Fawkes, a 17th century English folk-villain who took part in a 1605 conspiracy to blow up Parliament. The anniversary of Fawkes’ failure has since then been commemorated in the U.K. with fireworks and bonfires, onto which effigies wearing Guy Fawkes masks are tossed. This particular model mask was made famous by the title character of the 1982 graphic novel masterpiece, V for Vendetta, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd. The story is about an anarchist revolutionary attempting to single-handedly overthrow a fascist dictatorship that took power in Britain after a limited nuclear war obliterated most of the other first-world nations.

As Moore put it in a February 9 post on the BBC’s Web site, he began conceiving the plot of V for Vendetta during “a summer of anti-Thatcher riots across the UK coupled with a worrying surge from the far-right National Front.” Thirty years later, the goals of the Occupy movement are to end vast economic disparity, unchecked corporate greed and rampant financial fraud. Or as the movement’s tag line implies, to end the control of 99% of the world’s people, wealth and resources by the richest 1% of the population. The inspiration for the nationwide Occupy movement was the pro-democracy demonstrations that swept North Africa and the Middle East during last year’s Arab Spring uprisings. (Comic book coverage of recent acts of citizen unrest “from the Mid-East to the Mid-West” appears in the latest issue of the political anthology magazine, World War 3 Illustrated.)

As for the use of V’s Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous and the Occupy movement, that was apparently inspired by the final scene in the film version of the graphic novel, where (spoiler alert) throngs of defiant citizens wearing the masks fill the streets. In the same BBC post, Moore expressed displeasure—though not surprise—that the movie removed any reference to the original work’s radical politics:

If there truly was government unease about the mask and its associations back in the 1980s, these concerns had evidently evaporated by the first decade of the 21st century, when the movie industry apparently decided to re-imagine the original narrative as some sort of parable about the post-9/11 rise of American neo-conservatives, in which the words “fascism” or “anarchy” were nowhere mentioned.

Moore doesn’t mean “anarchy” as a synonym for “chaos.” He’s referring to the political philosophy of anarchism that promotes a stateless society in which all forms of coercive authority are abolished. With that meaning in mind, he also shared why he thought the Guy Fawkes mask was eventually taken up—and put on—by today’s real-life anti-capitalist and anti-globalization activists:

It also seems that our character’s charismatic grin has provided a ready-made identity for these highly motivated protesters, one embodying resonances of anarchy, romance, and theatre that are clearly well-suited to contemporary activism, from Madrid’s Indignados to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

This was the second time Moore had publicly spoken out in defense of Occupy protesters. The first time was back in December of last year when he responded to a vicious verbal attack on them by another comics legend.

Clash of the titans
Frank Miller and Alan Moore are both credited with revolutionizing superhero storytelling in 1986 with the near simultaneous releases of what most consider to be their magnum opuses, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, respectively. In Miller’s work since then on projects like Sin City and 300, many readers and critics have came to see disturbing endorsements of violent, misogynistic, and homophobic thought. His most recent graphic novel, Holy Terror, has largely been condemned as hackneyed, anti-Islamic hatemongering.

Frank Miller

Frank Miller

In a November 2011 statement titled “Anarchy” posted on his official Web site, Miller went on a hysterical tirade against members of the Occupy movement that laid to rest any questions about his personal political views at the same time that it raised some serious doubts about his grasp of reality.

“Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

Alan Moore

Alan Moore

Alan Moore was asked to comment on Miller’s rant in a December interview with Honest Publishing. Better read and far more rational, Moore clarified, as he saw it, the anarchist-like philosophy behind the Occupy movement, which Miller’s paranoia sees as potentially society-ending chaos.

As far as I can see, the Occupy movement is just ordinary people reclaiming rights which should always have been theirs. I can’t think of any reason why as a population we should be expected to stand by and see a gross reduction in the living standards of ourselves and our kids, possibly for generations, when the people who have got us into this have been rewarded for it; they’ve certainly not been punished in any way because they’re too big to fail. I think that the Occupy movement is, in one sense, the public saying that they should be the ones to decide who’s too big to fail. It’s a completely justified howl of moral outrage and it seems to be handled in a very intelligent, non-violent way, which is probably another reason why Frank Miller would be less than pleased with it. I’m sure if it had been a bunch of young, sociopathic vigilantes with Batman make-up on their faces, he’d be more in favour of it. We would definitely have to agree to differ on that one.

I’d like to think most people would side with Moore on this.

Posted in Activism, Non Fiction, Personal heroism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Taking credit (Part 3)

Posted on March 4, 2012 by Richard De Angelis

Full Series

Comic book writer Gary Friedrich isn’t as famous or acclaimed as Jack Kirby or Alan Moore, but his most well-known creation, Ghost Rider, has been the subject of two feature films. Unfortunately, it looks like Friedrich’s relative anonymity worked against him when he sued Marvel Comics for copyright infringement over the character, encouraging Marvel and parent company Disney to strike back at him in a way that it might not have against a more successful and popular creator.

Ghost in the machine
I still have the copy of Marvel Spotlight #5, in which Ghost Rider made his first appearance, that I bought in 1972 when I was 10 years old. It was one of the issues from my earliest years of reading comics that left a lasting impression on me. When I reread it in preparation for writing this post, I was surprised to see that the story was clearly credited as having been “conceived and written” by Gary Friedrich. I would have thought that would make settling the issue of creative ownership relatively easy, but it turns out to be a little more complicated than that.

Gary Friedrich

Gary Friedrich and the character he "conceived" for Marvel Comics, but the courts ruled he gave up for adoption.

Friedrich sued Marvel Comics for copyright infringement in 2007, coinciding with the release of the first Ghost Rider movie, which starred Nicolas Cage and grossed $228 million worldwide. Friedrich claimed that when Marvel failed to renew its original copyright on Ghost Rider when it expired in 2000, copyright reverted to him as the character’s creator. Marvel counter-sued Friedrich for damages from his sale of unlicensed Ghost Rider art and other merchandise at comic book conventions. Marvel claims that Friedrich a) co-created Ghost Rider with editor Roy Thomas and artist Mike Ploog; b) relinquished his rights to the character back in the 70s by cashing Marvel checks that were stamped on the back with an ownership-waving statement; and c) signed a 1978 agreement with Marvel granting it “forever all rights of any kind and nature” to the work he did for the company. Friedrich on the other hand claims full creative ownership of Ghost Rider—most compellingly corroborated by the credit Marvel itself bestowed exclusively on him in the character’s debut comic—and Friedrich’s lawyer maintains that the courts will eventually rule that he never transferred his renewal rights to the character. But that day has yet to come.

Shortly before the Feb. 17 release of the second Ghost Rider movie, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (again starring Nicolas Cage), the courts ruled in Marvel’s favor, ordering that Friedrich repay the company the $17,000 he has made over the years selling Ghost Rider merchandise. He will still be allowed to claim the title of Ghost Rider creator, and sell his autograph, but can only sign it on officially licensed Marvel products that he has bought at retail price.

Marvel’s supporters—and even some of Friedrich’s—point out that the publisher was legally obligated to go after Friedrich or risk losing its copyright on Ghost Rider. This has been a longstanding policy of Marvel’s parent company, Disney, which incited public outrage in 1989 when it famously sued a daycare center  over unauthorized murals of Mickey Mouse and other Disney characters. Public reaction to Disney’s latest aggressive defense of its property has been similarly negative, given that Friedrich is 78 years old, in poor health, and makes his living trading on his relatively small claim to fame at comic book conventions across the country. Friedrich has vowed to keep fighting the good fight. To raise the $17,000 Friedrich now owes Marvel, supporters have set up donation sites, sold artwork and written an open letter to Nicolas Cage asking the Ghost Rider star and lifelong comic book fan to foot the bill himself. The call by fans to boycott Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance were apparently unnecessary given the film’s poor box office performance (personally, I would have found it more of a hardship if I were asked to support Friedrich by actually going to see the movie).

Comics artist Stephen Bissette‘s legal adviser and contract consultant Jean-Marc Lofficier maintains that because Marvel never had Friedrich sign anything waving his rights (as is common practice today) to royalties from “other media to be invented in the future,” the company was not authorized to sell Ghost Rider licensing rights for DVDs and video games—which didn’t exist in the 70s. This means Friedrich would be entitled to at least a share of Marvel’s profits from these media. Lofficier’s post on the case also warns that the precedent Marvel/Disney has set by suing a comics professional for selling art and other merchandise featuring a character he created—an industry-wide and traditionally tolerated practice—it’s “only a matter of time until Disney, now aware of the issue, sends one of their young attorneys with a stash of blank [cease and desist] letters at conventions and start handing them out to everyone selling Marvel sketches without authorization.” This would have a huge negative impact on the livelihoods of countless comics artists already cut off from any share in the company revenues generated by characters they created and helped make famous.

But does that make the abusive, exploitative and vindictive actions of Marvel, or DC Comics, somehow more objectionable than those of any other huge corporation protecting its profits at all costs?

I think it does.

These companies have built their considerable fortunes and multi-media empires on the iconic stature of characters dedicated to promoting ideals of truth and justice. It’s not the raw power or amazing abilities of characters like Superman, Captain America and Wonder Woman that inspired generations of devoted followers. It’s the values superheroes represent that have made them both treasured cultural idols and merchandising gold mines. After all, how many supervillains get their own movies, video games and children’s sleepwear?

Marvel and DC aren’t just creating escapist entertainment, they’re creating role models. As Alan Moore put it in Stephen Bissette’s 1993 book of interviews, Comic Book Rebels:

Superman had a code of morals that was expressed repeatedly and quite clearly. It wasn’t very sophisticated; it more or less amounted to, “Don’t lie. Don’t kill anybody. And always try to help other people out if they’re in trouble.” Which is naive and simple, but as a basic code of morality, it’ll do until you can grow up and shade in some of the more subtle areas. So that was true of me, and I think it was true for a lot of people in our generation; that we learned our morality from these simple, silly ass superhero books.

But judging from the way DC Comics has treated Alan Moore, not to mention the way it treated Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, it might appear that the morality promoted by the publisher’s characters is nothing more than another gimmick used to sell comic books—like variant covers and holograms. Likewise, when it comes to crediting and compensating its creators according to their contributions, Marvel apparently considers itself exempt from the superhero code made famous by Stan Lee in the first appearance of Spider-Man (whose cover debut was drawn by Jack Kirby): “With great power there must also come great responsibility.”

That leaves it up to readers who actually believe in those “silly ass” values to let Marvel and DC know how we feel about their treatment of the writers and artists who helped teach them to us.

Because justice shouldn’t just be something you read about in comic books.

Posted in Creators' rights, Fiction, Superheroes | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Taking credit (Part 2)

Posted on February 25, 2012 by Richard De Angelis

Full Series

A reasonable case could be made that the works of Alan Moore have had as much of an impact on comic book writing as the works of Jack Kirby have had on comic book art. And like Kirby, Moore has been involved in a decades-long dispute with a comic book publishing giant over the rights to his creations. The primary difference is that his troubles aren’t with Marvel, but with their “distinguished competition,” DC Comics.

Watching out for number one
Alan Moore was part of a 1980s “British Invasion” of writers who changed the face of U.S. comic book storytelling (other “invaders” included Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Jamie Delano and Peter Milligan). In addition to receiving repeated comics industry recognition including multiple Jack Kirby Awards, Eagle Awards, Harvey Awards and Eisner Awards, his works have won literary honors such as a Hugo Award, World Fantasy Award, Bram Stoker Award and two International Horror Guild Awards. In addition, Watchmen, the work for which Moore is most famous, and which forever changed the superhero genre, is the only graphic novel included in Time Magazine‘s 2005 list of the 100 best English-language novels published since Time‘s founding in 1923. Ironically, it is the success of Watchmen that has come back to haunt Moore.

The 1986 contract Alan Moore signed with DC Comics prior to producing Watchmen stipulated that if DC ever allowed the series to remain out of print for a full year, the copyright for the work would revert to its creators, Moore and artist Dave Gibbons. Although it’s common practice today for publishers to keep trade paperback compilations of multiple-issue comic book stories perpetually in print, this was unheard of at the time. Moore agreed to the terms with every reasonable expectation that he would regain the rights to Watchmen about a year after the last issue of the 12-part series was published. Nobody (except Watchmen‘s Dr. Manhattan) could have foreseen just how successful Watchmen would be and that DC would decide to maximize its profits from this perennial moneymaker by keeping it in constant print for the next 25 years. Not only has DC issued countless editions of Watchmen—from $15 paperbacks to a $75 Absolute Edition hardback—it adapted it into a film (through its sister company Warner Bros.), a move it was well-known Moore utterly opposed. In response, Moore, a ceremonial magician, implied in a 2009 Los Angeles Times interview that he put a curse on the movie.

Who Watches the Industry?Still searching for more ways to make a profit from Moore’s magnum opus, DC Comics recently confirmed its long-rumored plans to publish a series of Watchmen prequels, produced by an assortment of talented writers and artists (none of them Moore or Gibbons). This time, the hostility of Moore’s reaction was largely matched by fans of his work, whose responses have been, as comic book artist Ty Templeton put it in his blog post on the subject, “mixed between complete revulsion and utter disgust.” Templeton also created a comic strip about the situation, the first four panels of which you can read at right (and the complete strip on his Web site).

In a DC Comics news release, company executives Dan DiDio and Jim Lee explained the solemn duty they felt to greenlight the “Before Watchmen” project: “It’s our responsibility as publishers to find new ways to keep all of our characters relevant.” Putting aside the questionable use of the term “our characters,” that sentence, in a nutshell, succinctly sums up the fatal flaw in the superhero comic book industry—no character is ever allowed to die, or story to be concluded, as long as there remains the slightest potential for publishers to make more money from them. Alan Moore already told the story he set out to tell 25 years ago, but because he has no more say in what happens to Watchmen than you or I do, he can only watch helplessly as his work is repeatedly exploited and capitalized on by others. In its never-ending pursuit of so-called “relevance,” if it wanted to, DC Comics could turn Watchmen into a Saturday morning cartoon. Under the circumstances, I don’t blame Moore if his tirades against DC sometimes seem extreme.

Some commentors on this controversy have accused Moore of hypocrisy, pointing out that he has similarly exploited other people’s intellectual property: The main characters in Watchmen were modeled after Charlton Comics superheroes (at the request of DC Comics, which had recently acquired them) and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is populated almost entirely with other writers’ characters. In the first case, Moore’s changes to his Charlton clones made them entirely original and uniquely his own (when DC learned what Moore intended to do with its newly acquired properties, the company asked him to change their identities to protect its future profits). In the second case, the original creators of The League‘s Victorian-era characters are long-dead and their creations long-since lapsed into the public domain (except for Sax Rhomer’s evil criminal genius, Dr. Fu Manchu, which is why he is only ever referred to as “the Doctor” in the first League series).

Moore, on the other hand, is very much alive and his objections to the continued exploitation of his work well-known and widely publicized. While DC Comics praised the merits of “collaborative storytelling” in its news release, this particular collaboration is less like Moore’s and Gibbons’ on the original work than it is like the “collaboration” of Seth Grahame-Smith and Jane Austen on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

Having said that, I can’t pretend that I haven’t crossed Moore’s picket line in the past. My wife kept teasing me before the Watchmen movie came out that I shouldn’t go see it out of solidarity with Moore. Not only did I see it in the theater twice, I bought the ultimate DVD release when it came out.

One reason I was willing to give the Watchmen movie a chance was that I knew director Zack Snyder was approaching the film with the utmost respect for the source work (which, to be fair, the writers and artists involved with the Before Watchmen project may share). More importantly, Snyder was trying to faithfully tell Moore’s story, not his own.

Although I have a rubbernecker’s morbid curiosity in seeing how these ill-conceived comics turn out, unlike the Avengers movie, I wont find it at all difficult to pass them by. And it’s not just to avoid further enriching DC Comics for such a crass exploitation of Moore’s work (more distasteful than even the Watchmen motion comic DVD). My main reason for boycotting them is more selfish. I’m anxiously waiting to read the real next “Watchmen“—the as yet unwritten great American graphic novel that will once again revolutionize the comics art form. And who’s going to want to spend their time and creative energy writing it if they know they’ll have no say in what happens to the finished product, or who profits from it?

In the conclusion to this three-part series, I look at Marvel’s vindictive persecution of Gary Friedrich, creator of Ghost Rider.

Posted in Creators' rights, Fiction, Superheroes | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Taking credit (Part 1)

Posted on February 24, 2012 by Richard De Angelis

Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk: cultural icons or corporate brands?

Watchmen: graphic literary masterpiece or cynical sellout?

Ghost Rider: spirit of vengeance or weapon of spite?

Each of these characters or works, although created and often made famous by the imagination and talents of individual artists, are owned, wholly and completely, by multibillion dollar corporations: TimeWarner/DC Comics in the case of Watchmen, and Disney/Marvel Comics in the case of all the rest. And both DC and Marvel are denying the men responsible for providing them with these still profit-making properties public credit, profit sharing or any control over their creations. This under-recognition of writers and artists has been the policy of publishers since the inception of the comic book industry, but some recent high profile cases have creators, their families, and their fans crying out for justice.

Avenging the King
I doubt anyone was anticipating the release of The Avengers, the world’s, first multi-franchise crossover movie, more than I was. Then graphic novelist James Sturm had to ruin it for me. He wrote a post in Slate Magazine announcing his intention to boycott The Avengers unless Disney/Marvel gives Jack Kirby’s family a share in the profits from the movie and its associated merchandise.

Jack Kirby

Jack Kirby self portrait with Marvel Comics characters, most of which he helped create.

Jack Kirby is one of the most significant and influential artists in the history of comics—so much so that he earned the nickname, “King of Comics.” Not only did his dynamic style of drawing come to be the standard by which all other superhero artists were judged for many years, he also helped create some of the world’s most famous superhero characters. With partner Joe Simon, Kirby created Captain America in 1941, and in the early Sixties, collaborating with Marvel Comics editor/writer Stan Lee, he created the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Thor, the X-Men and, of course, the Avengers (although he didn’t illustrate the origin story of founding Avenger Iron Man, he did help design his armor and draw the cover of the comic book in which it first appeared). Virtually everyone who’s familiar with comic book history agrees that without Kirby’s contributions to the earliest exploits of these characters, they—and Marvel Comics—would not have achieved the popularity and success that has sustained them for the last 50 years.

Everyone agrees that is, except Marvel Comics. The publisher has a long history of withholding not only profits from artists, but their own original artwork. In Kirby’s case, as a condition for returning thousands of pages of his artwork, Marvel asked him to sign a four-page legal agreement renouncing all rights of ownership to it. This meant he wouldn’t be allowed to sell or publicly display any of the pages. He didn’t sign that agreement, but did eventually come to an arrangement with Marvel through which 1,900 pages—of the 8,000 he drew for the company from 1960-70—were returned to him.

Jack Kirby died in 1994, without Marvel ever giving him the public recognition, respect or monetary compensation he deserved as co-creator of the company’s superhero universe. When Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion in 2009, Kirby’s heirs sued for the King’s rightful share in the sale of Marvel’s kingdom. Although federal judge Colleen McMahon ruled last July, as reported by Sturm, ”that all of Kirby’s work for Marvel was created as work-for-hire under the Copyright Act of 1909 and cannot be reclaimed,” she also made it clear what she thought of the corporate entity’s behavior:

“This case is not about whether Kirby (and other freelance artists who created culturally iconic comic book characters for Marvel and other publishers) were treated ‘fairly’ by companies that grew rich off the fruits of their labor. It is about whether Kirby’s work qualifies as work-for-hire. …”

In response to this decision, Stephen Bissette, former freelance artist for Marvel and DC, is calling for a boycott not just of The Avengers, but of all comics, merchandise and movies based on characters Kirby co-created for Marvel. A fan has created an online petition asking Marvel and Disney not only “to pay Kirby’s family royalties or other just compensation for the use of [his] characters and stories,” but “to acknowledge Jack Kirby’s authorship and primary role in the creation of these characters.”

Prior to the 1978 release of the first Superman movie, it was a campaign championed by fellow comics professionals Jerry Robinson and Neal Adams that led to Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster  receiving not only a relatively modest lifetime stipend from Warner Communications/DC Comics, but credit for their creation in all broadcast and published works in which the Man of Steel appears. Stan Lee’s name already appears in the opening credits of every Marvel Comics-based movie as “Executive Producer.” It’s long past time that credit is also given to Jack Kirby, whose influence is just as present in these films—from the cover of Captain America #1 briefly seen in Captain America: The First Avenger, to the otherworldly majesty of Asgard in Thor.

And if having fanboys and girls help make this happen by forgoing entirely the experience of seeing The Avengers is too much to ask or expect, there is a less drastic alternative. What if these millions of fans publicly made a solemn pledge not to go see the movie on its opening weekend when it’s released in the U.S. May 4? Even such a relatively painless gesture by those of us who owe Jack Kirby for years of entertainment—not to mention this film’s existence—would likely pose a threat to Marvel’s/Disney’s bottom line that the media giants couldn’t ignore.

In Part 2 of this three-part series, I share the latest battle in the ongoing war between Alan Moore and DC Comics.

Posted in Activism, Creators' rights, Fiction, Superheroes | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

SPX 2011: Justice, American style

Posted on October 1, 2011 by Richard De Angelis

SPX 2011 Banner

SPX 2011 animal posterSaturday, September 10, I attended my 14th consecutive Small Press Expo in North Bethesda, Maryland. As you’ll know if you read my post on last year’s Expo, this is North America’s premiere independent cartooning and comic arts festival. I haven’t missed an SPX since I first went in 1997, and it’s the only comic book convention I attend every year. This year, the hall was packed, with the SPX organizers reporting attendance up 10-15 percent from the 3,000 attendees and exhibitors who participated in 2010.

Although the selection of work was as varied as ever, a definite pattern emerged in my purchases, like it did last year when I bought animal rights-themed books including Adam Hines’ epic and amazing Duncan the Wonder Dog and an anthology by fellow vegan J.T. Yost featuring stories on vivisection, the abuse of elephants in circuses, and factory farming. This year, the dominant theme was America’s never-ending struggle between the inalienable rights of the individual and the coercive force used by the State to preserve its own interests.

CBLDF Uncle Sam "Defend Speech" T-ShirtFree speech
As I explained in last year’s post, a prominent presence at every SPX is the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund table. The CBLDF is a non-profit organization that defends the First Amendment rights of comic book creators, publishers, and store owners. The SPX is one of the CBLDF’s biggest annual fund-raising events, where the organization sells autographed graphic novels, posters and other merchandise to support its work. One of the items that caught my eye on this year’s CBLDF table was  a “Defend Speech” T-Shirt bearing the ominous image of a mouthless Uncle Sam drawn by talented comic book artist John Cassaday. Unfortunately, I couldn’t fit it in my budget because of the other purchases I’d already made.

SPX 2011 Seamus Heffernan

Seamus Heffernan displaying his Xeric Award-winning work at the 2011 Small Press Expo.

Give me liberty
Last year, the main focus of my independent comic quest was the Xeric Foundation grant-winning book, Duncan the Wonder Dog. This year, I had my sights set on another Xeric winner, the first installment in Seamus Heffernan‘s Freedom, a revisionist take on the American Revolution. Beginning in the year 1779, Freedom is set in an alternative history where the patriots lost to the British and now live under truly colonial occupation. The defiant Sons of Liberty continue to wage an insurgency war against their red-coated occupiers, using gunpowder kegs as improvised explosive devices and leaving Boston looking like a bombed out 18th century Fallujah.

The story follows a teen-aged Massachusetts boy named Adam Farr, who goes to Boston to apprentice with a Tory merchant and has a near fatal encounter with violent British soldiers at a crowded checkpoint going into the city. This scene (reminiscent of the Israeli border crossings Joe Sacco depicted in Palestine), also reveals that the innocuous-sounding title of this first chapter actually refers to a pivotal point in Adam’s life, leading to a series of events that sweeps him up into the dangerous world of the Sons of Liberty. The quill and ink art style and broadsheet-proportioned paper make the comic look like an artifact of the unreal time in which the story is set, as though it could have been written by Tom Paine and printed by Ben Franklin. I’m anxiously awaiting future installments in the series. (In addition to the book, I bought a poster of the menacing anthropomorphic mascot of the patriot cause, the Liberty Eagle, brandishing a bloody saber in one feathered hand and King George’s severed head in the other.)

Freed Man by Peter Quatch

Copyright Peter Quach.

Another comic I got at SPX dealing with the aftermath of an armed conflict on American soil is Freed Man by Peter Quach. This story is set after the Civil War and focuses on the quest of former slave Charlie Moses to track down a group of white men in Texas who lynched his wife for claiming her emancipation. The question Moses wrestles with is whether he will ever truly be free as long as he keeps himself bound in self-forged chains of hatred and obsession with vengeance that continue to make his only  hope for happiness dependent on others.

American Terrorist

Copyright, A Wave Blue World Publishing.

Don’t tread on me
One of the books I was most excited about at the Expo hasn’t even been released yet. The graphic novel  American Terrorist, by married writers Tyler and Wendy Chin-Tanner and artists Andy MacDonald and Matt Wilson, wont make its debut until the New York Comic Con October 13-16, but publisher A Wave Blue World did have copies of the American Terrorist Sketchbook for sale at SPX to whet my appetite. It’s the story of four people—an investigative journalist, public school teacher, civil rights lawyer, and EPA scientist—inciting a 21st century popular uprising. No less fed up with government abuse of power than current Tea Party rabble-rousers, from the publisher’s description, I get the sense that these revolutionaries are motivated by very different ideals:

A war has been waged against the American people. It’s a covert war, one that those in power hope will go unnoticed, but day by day, homes, pensions, health care coverage, quality of life, and civil liberties are taken away, while the gap between the haves and the have-nots grows wider and wider.

With no way out, four activists become fugitives from the law and go on the offensive against corruption and injustice. They share their story with the nation using social media to inspire their followers to rise up and reclaim their country.

I’ll be interested to learn more about the goals and strategies this group has for restoring our nation, but I was pleasantly surprised by one preview page in particular that showed the Internet headline, “Factory Farmers Get Taste of Their Own Medicine.”

Any Empire by Nate Powell

Copyright, Nate Powell.

I bought Any Empire, by Eisner Award-winning creator Nate Powell, based almost entirely on the description on the back cover by publisher Top  Shelf Productions:

Any Empire, is a vivid examination of war and violence, and their trickle-down effects on middle America. First, a group of small-town kids find themselves bound together by geography, boredom, and a string of mysterious turtle mutilations. Years later, with Army tanks rolling through the streets of their hometown, these young adults are forced to confront painful questions of privilege, duty, betrayal, and courage.

In hardback and more than 300 pages long, Any Empire was the most impressive and ambitious work I purchased at this year’s Expo.  In some ways, it was also the most emotionally engaging and beautifully illustrated, and its largely wordless story the most enigmatic. I’ll probably have to read it again to fully process it but, thinking about it as I write this, it occurs to me that unlike the other comics I’ve mentioned, this one doesn’t focus so much on the evils that governments do as it does on the way every day American life can condition citizens to carry out those evils on their government’s behalf. In this case, it shows how kids playing soldier can grow up to become actual soldiers unquestioningly following orders to occupy not a foreign nation, but their own hometown. One of my main reasons for wanting to read the story was the turtle mutilations, which speak to the way childhood acts of animal cruelty are often predictors of future violence toward humans (the subject of the Superman for the Animals comic book I worked on, as well as an article I wrote for Animal Guardian magazine).

As usual, this and the other works I saw and bought at the Small Press Expo restored my enthusiasm for the diversity of expression, both in terms of style and subject matter, that have kept me reading “comic books” for more than 40 years.

9-11 Emergency ReliefI didn’t attend the second day of the SPX this year, which marked not only the 10th anniversary of 9/11, but the anniversary of the only time in the Expo’s history that the event was ever canceled. In 2001, the Small Press Expo was scheduled to take place just four days after the terrorist attacks, and due to restrictions on travel and the nation’s state of shock and grief, the Expo was called off that year (otherwise, this would have been my 15th SPX). Many comic book anthologies came out in the aftermath of 9/11 to raise funds for various victim support charities, but the one that featured the highest concentration of contributions from SPX attendees was 9-11: Emergency Relief from Alternative Comics. In fact, the stories contributed by Jessica Abel, Eric Thériault and Nick Abadzis actually mention their plans to attend the Expo that year.
Posted in Activism, Events, Fiction, History, War | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Adding insult to injury

Posted on August 31, 2011 by Richard De Angelis

As a comic book character, Batgirl only really took flight once she became permanently grounded.  It wasn’t until a vicious attack by the Joker put her in a wheelchair that Barbara Gordon—daughter of Gotham City Police Commissioner James Gordon and part-time caped crusader—demonstrated the kind of courage seldom seen among costumed crime-fighters, and in the process, became one of the most compelling, interesting, and inspiring characters in the history of superhero comic books. But one week from today, DC Comics, her publisher and copyright holder, will restore the use of her legs by editorial edict, thereby setting back comic book diversity more than twenty years.

Barbara Gordon shot

Dramatic storytelling or violent misogyny? You decide. Panel from Batman: The Killing Joke. Copyright DC Comics.

Roll model
The Joker ended Barbara Gordon’s 20-year career as Batgirl, unaware of her dual identity, when he shot her through the spine  as part of a plan to drive Commissioner Gordon and Batman to the point of mental breakdown. When this tragic event took place in the 1988 one-shot comic, Batman: The Killing Joke, written by the legendary Alan Moore and drawn by Brian Bolland, it sparked immediate outrage among readers. Some of this reaction was due to the apparent misogyny of the act. It was seen by many as one more example of a disturbing tendency for comic book writers (almost exclusively male) to have female characters de-powered, brutalized, crippled, raped, or killed. This trend was dubbed the Women in Refrigerators syndrome, by comic book writer Gail Simone, after the kitchen appliance in which Green Lantern once found the body of his murdered girlfriend. (To his credit, Alan Moore later expressed his regret for having written The Killing Joke.)

But after that shocking moment when Barbara Gordon was paralyzed from the waist down, something extraordinary happened (at least for the world of superhero comic books). John Ostrander and the late Kim Yale took the character in a new and unprecedented direction. They and subsequent writers showed Barbara refusing to let a little thing like her inability to walk get in the way of her passion for justice. Like so many real-world people suddenly faced with such adversity, she rose to the challenge, persevered, and even thrived. Setting up a state-of-the-art computer network in a Gotham City clock tower, she reinvented herself as a new, and far more efficient crime-fighter geared for the 21st century. Hiding behind the code name Oracle and a computer-generated avatar, she offered intelligence gathering, communications and logistical support to Batman, the Justice League of America and other members of the superhero community. She also established a partnership with Black Canary and other female crime-fighters—as well as the occasional criminal—calling themselves the Birds of Prey, so she could pursue cases of personal interest.

Oracle

Oracle character design by Carlos D’Anda for the video game Batman: Arkham Asylum.

More than 22 years later, Oracle has become one of the most popular characters in the DC Comics universe. More importantly, she remains one of very few disabled characters portrayed in superhero comics.  And even among that minority, she is unique in that her disability is not offset by some super power. For example, although Daredevil is blind, his heightened superhuman senses effectively render sight unnecessary (whereas Daredevil’s former lover, the deaf superhero Echo, still faces the same challenges as anyone who is unable to hear). And even though comics’ most famous wheelchair-bound character, X-Men leader Prof. Charles Xavier, can’t walk, his powers of telepathy seem like they would more than make up for his lack of mobility. Barbara Gordon is one of the greatest superhero role models in comics, precisely because she has no super powers. Her character, her commitment, her courage and competency are things that any and every comic book reader could aspire to achieve themselves. (You can read more about Oracle’s impressive skill set, which includes a proficiency in armed and unarmed combat, in her bio from my previously posted list of women superheroes).

Unfortunately, DC Comics is putting an end to that with the latest reboot of their entire superhero franchise. This will include restoring  Barbara Gordon’s ability to walk and returning her to her less than groundbreaking role as a copycat caped crusader.

Yvonne Craig

Yvonne Craig, who played Barbara Gordon on television, reacts to Batgirl's first comic book appearance in 1966.

Two steps backwards
Although Batgirl made her first appearance in Detective Comics #359, on sale November 1966, the character was literally made for TV. When the popularity of the 1960s Batman television series began to diminish after the second season, producer William Dozier decided that the addition of a female crime-fighting character might help boost the show’s sagging ratings. To build some advance buzz around the character, Dozier asked DC Comics to first introduce her in comic books months before the role would be played on television by Yvonne Craig. Unfortunately, the origin story for Batgirl developed by veteran editor Julius Schwartz, popular artist Carmine Infantino and accomplished author Gardner Fox was as lackluster as it was implausible (even by comic book standards).

Detective Comics #371

Wardrobe malfunction takes precedence over crime-fighting. Detective Comics #371. Cover by Carmine Infantino and Murphy Anderson. Copyright DC Comics.

Barbara Gordon, the librarian daughter of Gotham City’s Police Commissioner, goes to a party in a Batman-inspired costume, ends up thwarting an attempted kidnapping of Bruce Wayne, and apparently decides her mastery of the Dewey decimal system  qualifies her to embark on a permanent career as a superhero. This uninspired origin established Batgirl as yet another in a long line of female spin-offs of popular male superheroes that also includes Batwoman, Supergirl, Mary Marvel, Ms. Marvel, Spider-Girl and She-Hulk. Usually created to draw in female readers and/or appeal to the pubescent fantasies of young male readers, the costumes of these super women (or “girls,” as they are frequently and condescendingly called) tend to be distinguished from those of their male namesakes by the amount of bare skin they leave exposed. Although Batgirl’s costume offered as much coverage as Batman’s, her femininity was reasserted by modifications such as her utility purse and impractically high-heeled boots, coupled with ample cheesecake poses and occasional “blond moments” (despite being a redhead). Although Batgirl built up quite a fan following over her two-decade career, unoriginal by design and unremarkable by her actions, she added very little of significance to the canon of superhero literature.

Oracle, on the other hand, is another story. As master comics writer Grant Morrison says of Barbara Gordon’s heroic evolution in his new book, Supergods, “A character born to camp in one medium was transplanted to richer soil where she grew into a fascinating and complex living fiction.”

At this point, Barbara Gordon has been Oracle longer than she was Batgirl. There is an entire generation of devoted fans who never knew her in her supporting roll as yin to the Dark Knight’s yang. As a result, DC Comics’ decision to cast Oracle out of her wheelchair and back into Batgirl’s bright yellow boots is causing just as much outrage among many loyal readers as paralyzing her once did. But there is an important difference this time. With her miraculous and yet-to-be explained recovery, Batgirl will be walking away from more than just a rich graphic literary legacy. She will also be abandoning thousands of real-world readers who will once again be left with no one to represent them in the world of superhero comics.

Walk of shame
When news of Barbara Gordon’s impending rehabilitation broke back in June, reaction from her fan base was as swift as it was severe. DC Comics tried to soften the blow by announcing that the new Batgirl series, which debuts September 7, will be written by none other than Gail Simone—identifier of the Women in Refrigerator syndrome and long-time writer of Oracle’s adventures in the Birds of Prey series.

In an interview with self-proclaimed Nerdy Bird blogger Jill Pantozzi, Simone shared her reasons for supporting Barbara Gordon’s recuperation. She points out that when Batman’s back was broken by the massively strong villain Bane in the 1993 “Knightfall” saga, “he was barely in the [wheel]chair long enough to keep the seat warm.” To me, this seems like an argument against rebooting Batgirl rather than for it.

Perhaps Bruce Wayne was so invested in his self-image, and unable to envision any other way of waging his one-man war on criminals, that he had no choice but to get back on his feet—that giving up the lifestyle that had sustained him for so many years seemed like a fate worse than death. On the other hand, when Barbara Gordon became a direct victim of violent crime—rather than just a witness to it—she was able to adapt to her devastating injury and invent a new paradigm for crime-fighting on a global scale that allowed her to apprehend far more evildoers and protect far more innocents than she ever could have by beating up one Gotham City psychopath at a time. (Of course, the real reason for Batman’s swift recovery was the multimillion dollar merchandising empire built around him—something that Oracle is unfortunately lacking.)

As much as I respect Simone as a writer, most of her reasons for endorsing Batgirl’s return ring hollow to me. All, in fact, except one.

. . . honestly, the thought of writing Babs-as-Batgirl stories is one of those dreams a writer holds in her heart, like the hope of writing the Marvel Family, or Plastic Man, or Spider-Man, or any of the other things I’m not sure I’ll ever really get the chance to do.

I believe nostalgia has clouded the minds of Simone and the editorial staff of DC Comics. They have been blinded to the larger ramifications of trying to recapture their own youthful experiences with favorite childhood characters. And while they may hope that regressing superheroes back to their infancy will appeal to like-minded readers (coincidentally leading to increased sales figures), they fail to see (or worse, don’t care) that they are setting back years of progress in the real world as well, resulting in far more than mere comic book casualties.

As blogger Andy Khouri put it in a ComicsAlliance post:

…Barbara Gordon is a beacon for the chronically ill, mobility impaired and disabled. Her adventures over the last 20 years, particularly in Birds of Prey (written primarily by Chuck Dixon and Gail Simone), have depicted a handicapped person–a handicapped woman–not only with basic human dignity, but also with a mental, emotional and indeed a physical capableness that’s made her the hero of her own stories as well as invaluable asset to other heroes in the DC Universe. Even more importantly, Oracle has developed deep friendships with able-bodied people of all types, some of which were even romantic and presumably sexual, demonstrating that people like her don’t have to be segregated to the unseen fringes of society.

Unsurprisingly, Khouri’s sentiments are echoed by many comic book readers with a personal stake in Oracle’s fate.

Paraplegic actress and disability rights activist Teal Sherer plays Barbara Gordon in a humorous but heartfelt two-minute video where she gives Oracle’s unhappy reaction to learning that she’s to be reinstated as the fully ambulatory yet wholly unnecessary Batgirl.

Neil Kapit, on his blog site, Handi-Capable, where he shares his “thoughts on comics, disability, and everything in between,” posted this, among other things, about Batgirl’s impending return:

It’s insulting to readers with physical and/or mental handicaps who can’t retcon away their challenges. It’s insulting to readers who enjoyed seeing the character progress into not only a prominent disabled character, but a genuinely interesting character thanks to the way the experience shaped her…

Jill Pantozzi, who’s spent the last fourteen years using a wheelchair due to Muscular Dystrophy, made her feelings about Oracle passionately clear in a post on Newsarama.com that led Gail Simone to request the chance to tell her side of the story in the above-quoted interview:

To say I’m disheartened and disappointed by DC Comics’ decision would be an understatement and only part of my feelings on the matter. To be honest, I’m furious. I’m hurt. For all their fictionality, we let characters become very important to us and Oracle was the most important to me. When I was told the news, I cried.

I feel the same way—even though the most serious disability I can rightfully claim is being a nearly 50-year-old comic book reader.

As Oracle, Barbara Gordon was more than just another superhero character apprehending imaginary criminals for committing pretend crimes. She represented the idea that every individual, no matter how unjustly marginalized by society, still has a right to justice—both to receive it and dispense it.

Oracle reminded readers that adversity isn’t the same as failure, and handicapped doesn’t mean helpless.

As Pantozzi put it, “Every hero has a defining moment that makes them who they are. Batgirl didn’t. Oracle did.”

Next week, when DC Comics makes Barbara Gordon walk again, they will finally accomplish what one of their vilest villains was unable to. They will cripple a great literary character and rob the comic book world of one of its most inspiring role models.

Posted in Disability rights, Fiction, Superheroes, Women | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

O Captain, My Captain (Part 4)

Posted on July 25, 2011 by Richard De Angelis

I started this series three weeks ago to examine the suspicions of blogger Bosch Fawstin that director Joe Johnston’s movie, Captain America: The First Avenger, would reveal the filmmaker’s lack of pride in his country and embarrassment over the title character’s patriotism. Having now seen the movie, which opened Friday, I can offer my firsthand testimony that it could not have possibly been more pro-American—in the best sense of the term. More than just being set during World War II, Captain America captures the same patriotic spirit of war movies that were actually made then. And it could not possibly show greater respect for the character whose story it tells. In some ways, it seemed less like a superhero movie than a History Channel bio pic or Ken Burns documentary about one of our nation’s greatest champions of freedom.

Chris Evans as Captain America

Chris Evans as Captain America. Photo: Paramount Pictures

Fighting the good fight
The primary source of the good will this movie generates for the U.S.A. is actor Chris Evans’ portrayal of Steve Rogers, the man behind the mask of Captain America. Evans’ performance had the exact combination of earnestness, determination, humility, guilelessness and unfaltering commitment to serving the greater good that I consider the defining traits of the character. It’s these attributes, and not the superheroic persona and outfit he eventually adopts, that make him a perfect embodiment of how Americans, and the rest of the world, once saw this country.  As Evans said in an interview, “The movie is about values, morals, and someone standing up for the right thing. It’s about someone fighting for justice who puts himself last and compassion first.” Once Steve Rogers is transformed from 98-lb. weakling to super-soldier by Dr. Abraham Erskine (wonderfully played by Stanley Tucci), as Captain America he uses his military might less like the world’s policeman than its big brother, coming to the rescue when other nations are getting pushed around by Bully States. And like a good neighbor, he never butts in where he isn’t invited or overstays his welcome.

As I see it, Captain America: The First Avenger is nothing short of a nostalgic love letter to our country: not so much the way it is, or even the way it was, as much as the way we’ve always wanted it to be. It celebrates everything good about America—from its desire to spread democracy to its scientific innovation—and ignores everything bad, like the racial segregation of the military or internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II (it even includes African-American Gabe Jones (Derek Luke) and Japanese-American Jim Morita (Kenneth Choi) among the Howling Commandos who join Captain America in his wartime escapades). But given the nature of this film, I don’t fault it for praising America’s achievements so highly, or for ignoring our misdeeds during WWII (see Part 2 for another example). Ironically (and unexpectedly), my only major criticism of the movie is that it ignores the misdeeds of our enemy.

Retro Captain America movie poster by Paolo Rivera

This retro movie poster by Paolo Rivera recreates the cover of the 1941 Captain America #1.

Captain America is defined as much by what he stands against as what he stands for. As I explained in Part 1 of this series, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby created him in response to the specific circumstances of their times. There’s a reason they chose Adolf Hitler to be on the receiving end of their character’s first blow for democracy on the 1941 cover of Captain America #1 (I was thrilled to see this iconic cover cleverly incorporated into the movie). The Third Reich and Nazi Party carried out evils unlike any the world had ever seen. As Jews, Simon and Kirby would have a very personal stake in showing Captain America symbolically destroy Hitler’s forces in the pages of a comic book that at its height was selling a million copies a month. It would be inconceivable to make a movie about Captain America’s earliest adventures, or any movie about World War II for that matter, without the Nazi’s playing a prominent part. And yet, director Joe Johnston pulled it off—for reasons I can’t begin to understand.

The evil empire Johnston pits Captain America against is Hydra, a fictional terrorist network in the Marvel Comics universe. This is no doubt to set the organization up as a recurring adversary in future Marvel Studios films.  Here it’s described as a Nazi research group that combined occult powers and advanced technology to create wonder weapons for Hitler’s stormtroopers. What I found disturbing was that the Nazi part of the organization was downplayed to the point of virtual invisibility. Although Hydra’s tentacled skull symbol got about as much screen time as the stars and stripes, I don’t recall ever seeing a swastika (although I’m sure the few that must have appeared in the movie just went by so fast I missed them*). I might understand, at least theoretically, choosing to minimize references to Germany out of a sensitivity to present-day Germans (although, as Dr. Erskine points out in the film, “the first country the Nazi’s invaded was their own”). But whose feelings could the filmmakers have been trying to spare by taking Nazis out of the picture? Even more incredible than the lack of swastikas in the movie, was the total absence of any mention of the Holocaust (as far as I can remember, it wasn’t even hinted at). Besides being a troubling distraction, this seemingly misguided attempt to sanitize history also diminishes the importance of Captain America’s conflict with the film’s main villain.

Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull

Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull. Photo: Paramount Pictures.

Hydra’s leader is the Red Skull (played menacingly by Hugo Weaving), a character who debuted in the same 1941 comic book as Captain America and has been the arch nemesis of the “Sentinel of Liberty” ever since. The Red Skull is the living embodiment of everything Hitler and Nazi Germany stood for—Aryan superiority, racism, antisemitism, homophobia and blind obedience to the State to name a few. The Third Reich personified, he excels at and revels in the practical application of Nazi theory—unprovoked military aggression, torture, political repression and mass murder. But in the movie, the Red Skull abandons Nazism for a more vague, generic super villain desire to rule the world. The problem I have with this is that he never explains why this is his goal, or how a world under his control would differ from the one he’s already living in. To put it in actor terms, I don’t understand his motivation. It’s clear that he is cruel and arrogant, which makes him Steve Roger’s opposite in terms of his basic character. But the Red Skull should also be Captain America’s opposite.

By removing any trace of Nazi philosophy from the Red Skull, his final battle with Captain America becomes nothing more than two comic book characters slugging it out. Instead, it should have been an allegorical clash of ideologies: totalitarianism, intolerance and brutality versus freedom, acceptance and compassion. This is not just a war over territory but an epic war of wills that has been waged since the dawn of civilization—the Will to Power versus the Will of the People. For me, the failure to make clear the moral high ground in this fight kept a merely good movie from being truly great.

* A case in point: Even though the movie poster above recreates the cover of Captain America #1, the swastika band that was originally on Hitler’s right arm has been moved to his left, thereby hiding the Nazi symbol from view.

Posted in Fiction, History, Reviews, Superheroes, War | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

O Captain, My Captain (Part 3)

Posted on July 18, 2011 by Richard De Angelis

“There’s no patriotism like American patriotism, and there’s no patriotic superhero like Captain America.” So proclaims Bosch Fawstin in his recent post on the conservative blog site FrontPageMagazine.com. My only problem with Fawstin’s statement is that he justifies it by quoting  Objectivist Ayn Rand, who described America as “…the greatest, the noblest and, in it’s founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.”

The United States is neither the first nor the only country founded on moral principles. According to the United Nations, which ranked the U.S. 12th in its 2010 inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, we aren’t even the greatest at living up to them. And there’s nothing noble about disparaging the shortcomings of other democratic nations when our own government is still struggling to keep its promise of equal justice for all. Rand’s arrogant, xenophobic, uninformed declaration reveals that patriotism is often just a word some people use to make their own nationalism seem acceptable—just as they use the word nationalism to discredit other people’s patriotism.

In his post, Fawstin says, “Whatever problems we may have as a country can usually be traced back to our not living up to our founding principles.” Considering primarily the Declaration of Independence, and putting aside for the moment that the original U.S. Constitution enshrined slavery as the law of the land, I would largely agree with this statement. But that rather glaring “problem” with the Constitution was only one of many substantial injustices perpetrated by our government over its history. A brief list would also include the disenfranchisement of women, the genocide of Native Americans, child labor, Jim Crow laws, the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t ask, don’t tell. Any U.S. citizen should be outraged by such shocking violations of our nation’s “founding principles,” including, and perhaps especially, someone like Captain America who stands as a living symbol of those principles.

If there is a difference between nationalists and patriots I think it’s in their perceived relationship toward their country. Nationalists act like obedient children who idolize their motherland or fatherland and believe it can do no wrong. Patriots behave more as parents—like our nation’s Founding Fathers—willing to use tough love when necessary to guide their country toward reaching its fullest potential. Sometimes, as Captain America has demonstrated on two occasions, this means being willing to walk away when your country goes astray despite every effort to keep it on the proper path.

Love it or leave it
Captain America #176During the months leading up to President Richard Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal on August 9, 1974, Marvel’s Captain America ran a story line about a secret organization plotting the overthrow of the U.S. government. In issue #175, which went on sale exactly four months before Nixon resigned, the leader of the Secret Empire is unmasked by Captain America in the Oval Office, with the implication being that he is none other than the President of the United States. Rather than go through the public humiliation of a trial, the leader (whose face is never shown) immediately takes his own life right before Captain America’s shocked eyes. Writer Steve Englehart had originally intended to reveal the leader to be Nixon, but censored himself, thinking that Marvel would not have Captain America #180allowed it (actually, the industry’s self-censoring agency, the Comics Code Authority, prohibited specific government officials from being cast in a negative light). In issue #176 (cover art by John Romita), disheartened by his discovery, with his faith in the American system shaken, Captain America abandons his patriotic name and costume. Several months later, in issue #180 (cover art by Gil Kane), Steve Rogers adopts a new superhero identity: Nomad, the Man Without a Country. But after just four issues, Rogers reclaims his original costume and name when he realizes his duty to keep fighting for the American Dream is more important than his personal disillusionment with the nation’s often disappointing political reality.

Captain America #332History repeated itself in 1987 when an ultimatum given to him by the U.S. government forces Steve Rogers to once again renounce his title and costume. In Captain America #332 (cover by Mike Zeck), he is informed that these, along with his indestructible shield, are government property, and that in order to keep them he will have to submit himself to military authority, becoming an official instrument of Defense Department policy. (The serum coursing through his veins that transformed frail Steve Rogers into a Super-Soldier is also U.S. property, but there’s no constitutional way of taking that back.) After much reflection, during which I could imagine recent government actions including the covert arming of the Nicaraguan Contras and support of paramilitary death squads around Captain America #337the world weighing heavily on his mind, he decides he’s unwilling to follow orders that might violate his own conscience and resigns as Captain America. But once again, unable to suppress his superheroic impulses, in issue #337 (cover also by Zeck) he reemerges wearing a modified costume of nation-neutral red, white and black calling himself simply, The Captain. This time he maintained his new identity for a full year before reclaiming the mantle of Captain America from the person the government had chosen to replace him—and whose intolerance and brutality had largely discredited him in the eyes of the public. (To learn about Captain America’s earlier run-in with another unstable impostor, see part two of my post on comic book depictions of the 1950s-60s.)

Sentinels of Liberty ad

A 1940s comic book ad for Captain America's Sentinels of Liberty fan club.

Since his first appearance in 1941, Captain America has been known throughout the Marvel Comics version of our world as the “Sentinel of Liberty.” This means he has a duty to remain eternally vigilant for any attempt, by enemies foreign or domestic, to chip away at the hard-won freedoms that are the right of every U.S. citizen, or to prevent the expansion of those rights to the still disenfranchised. But just as important, he must also be ready to sound the alarm whenever such threats arise, whether from hostile nations, fanatic terrorists, or hate mongering demagogues and corrupt politicians who try to disguise their self-serving agendas by wrapping them in the flag. And in our world—where he exists only in comic books, television cartoons and soon, the big screen—Captain America’s role is to inspire each one of us to do the same*.

In Part 4, I conclude this series with my review of Captain America: The First Avenger and my verdict as to whether the film contains anything that supports Bosch Fawstin’s concerns over its alleged un-Americanism.


*For another recent homage to Steve Rogers’ noble (and ennobling) qualities, read Andy Hunsaker’s post, “5 Reasons To Be Inspired By Captain America,” at CraveOnline.com.

Posted in Fiction, History, Superheroes | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

O Captain, My Captain (Part 2)

Posted on July 12, 2011 by Richard De Angelis

As I explained in Part 1 of this post, Captain America was very much a product of his times. He was created to oppose the tyranny, bigotry, and brutality of the original Axis of Evil: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. But after being accidentally frozen in ice at the end of World War II and eventually thawed out and revived in modern day America, he had to learn how to fight new kinds of evil, in very different kinds of war. In addition to his unwavering sense of right and wrong—which might seem quaint or naïve to 21st century sensibilities—what makes Cap uniquely suited for this task is his past battlefield experience, and firsthand knowledge of the atrocities that humans are capable of and the slippery slope to barbarism otherwise good people—and nations—can fall down in the name of just causes.

Captain America #2

Captain America #2. Cover art by John Cassaday. Copyright Marvel Comics.

Patriot acts
Immediately after 9/11, Marvel Comics relaunched Captain America’s comic book series, with a focus on the Sentinel of Liberty’s fight against an al-Qaida-like group of terrorists that had killed almost all the inhabitants of a Midwestern town using hi-tech landmines dropped from the sky. In the new series, written by John Ney Rieber and drawn by John Cassady, Captain America’s hunt for those supplying the terrorists leads him to Dresden, Germany. When he arrives in the city as Steve Rogers, his mind flashes back to the nights of Feb. 13-14, 1945,  during which U.S. Army Air Force and British Royal Air Force bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on Dresden. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles of the city. An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a maximum of 25,000 victims.

Page from Captain America #5

Steve Rogers compares two terror attacks. From Captain America #5. Written by John Ney Rieber and drawn by John Cassaday. Copyright Marvel Comics.

What caused public outrage among many readers when this story was published in 2002 was a scene where Captain America mentally compares the thousands of civilians who were killed in Dresden to those who had just been killed at the World Trade Center. Among the offended was movie critic and conservative columnist Michael Medved, who wrote an editorial essentially accusing Captain America, and by extension Marvel Comics, of treason. Bosch Fawstin echoed this accusation in his recent post, on the conservative blog site FrontPageMagazine.com, complaining about the un-American attitudes expressed by the director and star of the upcoming film, Captain America: The First Avenger. Fawstin implies that by showing Captain America “lamenting what America did to the city in World War II,” Rieber and Cassaday were “equating what we did in Dresden with the Jihadist attack on our country on 9/11.” Of course, the moral justification for the two attacks were not the same, and it seems clear to me that neither Captain America nor Marvel Comics were saying that they were. At the same time, history is also clear that the architects behind the attacks on Dresden and the World Trade Center had the same goal in mind.

The Allied bombing of Dresden was part of a campaign of terror bombing that was the official policy of the Royal Air Force at the time. As RAF Air Marshal Arthur “Bomber” Harris put it:

The aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany. It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy.  They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.

After the war, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated, “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed.” Having already used this strategy to help win the war, it was perhaps easier to denounce it in hindsight. The only reason the firebombings of Dresden—and Tokyo by the USAAF—weren’t prosecuted as war crimes is because the victims were on the losing side.

Even though the burning of Dresden, like that of the World Trade Center, was by admission of those who carried it out a terrorist attack, one passage in Captain America’s  reflection does strike me as unfair and inaccurate. Referencing history repeating itself, “like a machine gun,” he thinks, “a madman lights the spark . . . and the people pay the price.” Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler were madmen. It should be obvious that the Allied commanders who oversaw the bombing of Dresden do not fall into that same category. There are clear and meaningful differences between bin Laden’s terrorist attack of 9/11 and the Allies’ bombing campaign in response to Hitler’s unprovoked military aggression. But that doesn’t mean there was anything unpatriotic in Captain America pointing out the similar tactics and intentions, lapse in moral judgment, and Machiavellian rationalizations used in both attacks.

As I pointed out in my post on comics coverage of 9/11, since al-Qaida’s attack against the U.S., Captain America’s consistent message—and that of  most real world politicians and spiritual leaders—has been that the only way the terrorists can win is if we adopt their tactics and lose sight of what it truly means, or should mean, to be Americans. If we aren’t committed to holding ourselves to a higher moral standard than our enemies, what are we really fighting over?

In Part 3 of this series I examine a couple instances when Captain America’s disappointment in the U.S. government actually compelled him to become a conscientious objector.

Posted in Fiction, History, Superheroes, War | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

O Captain, My Captain (Part 1)

Posted on July 4, 2011 by Richard De Angelis

Captain America and Superman are pretty much universally recognized as the superheroes who best exemplify the values of justice and freedom that have been held up as our nation’s greatest achievements and still elusive goals since its birth 235 years ago today. Although their status as patriotic icons is at least partially responsible for making these characters among the most revered in popular culture (both have been favorites of mine since I started reading  comics more than 40 years ago), as I pointed out in my recent post on Superman, it also makes them lightning rods for controversy over exactly whose “American Way” it is that they’ve sworn to defend. In recognition of Independence Day, and the opening of Captain America: The First Avenger less than three weeks from now, this seems like the perfect time to discuss exactly what it is I believe this “Sentinel of Liberty” stands for—and what he doesn’t.

To help me with this, I will enlist the aid of a recent post on the conservative blog site FrontPageMagazine.com, in which Bosch Fawstin complains that the creators behind the soon-to-be-released Captain America movie seem to consider the character “too American.”

Fawstin quotes the film’s director, Joe Johnston, who said “…this is not about America so much as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing. . . . It’s about what makes America great and what make the rest of the world great, too.”

Chris Evans, who plays Captain America—and more importantly, his civilian alter ego Steve Rogers—is quoted as saying, “This isn’t a flag-waving movie. It is red, white and blue, but it just so happens that the character was created in America during wartime, when there was a common enemy. . . it feels more like he should just be called Captain Good. [Laughs]”

Fawstin interprets this as proof that the film’s director and star are “clearly uneasy about the patriotism of the character.” He sees it as some sort of politically correct attempt to “de-Americanize American superheroes for the sake of those who are not American, or who are even hostile to America.” I see this as a simple acknowledgment of the fact that, unlike the comic book character, Captain America’s cultural relationship with the real world has not remained frozen in time for the last 70 years.

Captain America #1

Captain America #1. Cover art by Jack Kirby. Copyright Marvel Comics.

Context is everything
Captain America’s origin and his mythic stature are inextricably linked with World War II and his namesake nation’s fight against the Axis Powers.  Created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby for Timely Comics (later Marvel), Captain America debuted in the first issue of his own comic book at the beginning of 1941. But from his first appearance, Captain America was already defying U.S. policy rather than defending it. Published nearly a full year before the United States entered the conflict overseas, thanks in part to the insistence of a vocal isolationist minority in the country, the cover of Captain America #1 showed the title character punching Hitler in the face (it’s worth noting that both Simon and Kirby were Jewish).

Of course, the world, and our nation’s enemies, are very different today. Although, like the Nazi’s, members of al-Qaida share a violent, intolerant, tyrannical ideology, they don’t share a national origin or even a uniform. Then again, there are many similarities in the reaction against Nazism during WWII and terrorism today. Just as many Germans opposed Hitler and his Final Solution (some—Deitrich Bonhoeffer,  the participants in Operation Valkyrie and members of the White Rose—at the cost of their lives), today many Arab and Muslim organizations—The Free Muslims Coalition, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims Against Terrorism—speak out against Islamofascism. The enemy combatants in the War on Terror come from many countries (including America), but even though they profess to follow the same religion, what truly unites them as enemies of humanity is a sociopathic commitment to bringing about a world that reflects their twisted, hateful vision of a “paradise” on earth devoid of free thought or creative expression.

Likewise, there is no single nationality or religion that identifies the enemies of terrorism. As uprisings throughout the Middle East and North Africa make clear, the desire to  create a government by and for the people is not unique to Americans. Downplaying the “America” in Captain America is simply a way of acknowledging that ours is not the only country with a thirst for freedom and the courage to fight for it. That’s why the idea of referring to Steve Rogers as “Captain Good” actually seems to me like an endorsement of patriotism, rather than a denouncement of it. It makes the point that Cap’s defining character trait, and by extension that of our national identity, is a commitment to the values this nation was created to uphold. It makes it clear that being an American, like having super powers (or being a superpower), brings a great responsibility to do good in the world.

Captain America international posterHaving said that, there is one criticism in Fawstin’s blog post that I agree with. He claims that in certain international markets, the plan is to remove “Captain America” from the title of the film and release it simply as The First Avenger. Although I haven’t seen any versions of the international poster (at right) that exclude Cap’s name, some of them do seem to put more emphasis on the subtitle. Removing Captain America from the title in an attempt to avoid any nationalistic connections would be as misguided as it would be futile. Captain America isn’t an icon of the U.S. government, or any particular administration or political party. He is a personification of America’s highest ideals, the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the never-ending struggle to achieve justice for all. Besides, I think the star-spangled red, white and blue uniform and shield are pretty much a giveaway of what country the “First Avenger” pledges his allegiance to.

In Part 2 of this post I talk about controversy surrounding Captain America’s part in the international War on Terrorism.

Posted in Events, Fiction, History, Superheroes, War | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments