I must confess I like the big crossovers. It's a guilty pleasure I indulge only occasionally, because I'd much rather curl up with a handful of trade paperbacks than wait the months and years it takes the major comics industry to shamble through a story arc. I realize it's the folks who buy the weeklies who keep the whole thing going, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to support the medium while those who are actually creating the stuff act like it's still the golden age.
Maybe it all made sense way back in the day when it was just Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and a Gutenberg, but this is the post Al Gore era, and we've got some fairly sophisticated technology that is not really being utilized by Marvel and the others.
Come on, guys. Haven't you heard of webcomics? It's embarrassing to watch your multi-million dollar operations struggle to match the output of one dude in a basement with Adobe Creative Suite and a stolen wireless signal.
I didn't grow up with a favorite series or publisher. It was later in life, reading DC's Kingdom Come and its fat, inbred cousins on the Marvel side -- Earth X, Paradise X, and Universe X -- that I was introduced to the world of the ludicrously complicated serialized comic book universe. While the former sparked very little interest, for some reason Marvel's complex milieu was weirdly compelling, and I set out to explore further. I think one should be awarded a master's degree in the Marvel Universe if you manage to complete the X Series and have any idea what the hell happened. I didn't want to see all that research go to waste.
Obviously I didn't read everything, but I ended up taking in all the crossovers and most of the major stories involving the X-Men between Grant Morrison's New X-Men (which began in 2001) and the more recent Secret Invasion (which ended January of this year). After mentioning that last one, I feel I have to revise the statement I made earlier.
I like the idea of big crossovers.
The reason I prefer Marvel is that DC's characters are almost all loners. Most of them acquired their powers through accident or determination, and most of them are just different versions of the tired old superhero double life meme. Now, I wasn't around when X-Men began, so it could have been different before, but Marvel's characters are more likely to be part of a community of some kind. They don't observe the world from orbit, thinking important thoughts and punching monsters, they're part of the world. They influence society and society influences them.
In theory, the Marvel universe is well-suited for crossover stories. Indeed, some very entertaining titles were spawned in this current crossover-heavy era. House of M was good, but I feel obligated to state that I probably enjoy alternate universe stories and the X-Men series more than average. Brian Michael Bendis even went so far as to retcon crossovers into Marvel's history with New Avengers Illuminati. In this limited series, it is revealed that the leaders of various superhuman communities had been meeting in secret for decades, pulling the strings behind the scenes. I recommend it highly.
It's clear that Bendis has quite an affinity for crime, conspiracy, and mystery storytelling because he's been setting up -- or at least has convinced everyone that he has -- the Secret Invasion plot since 2004's Secret War at least. He sends Nick Fury underground and hints that something is rotten, at any rate.
I enjoyed Civil War for the most part. I especially admired the willingness it showed to introduce a world-shattering event and not simply reset everything after it was over. However, you can start to see problems with the crossover-reliant system. While the big-budget limited series is typically put together by a talented writer with above-average art and they're given authority to play with the entire setting, it starts to strain under the weight of Marvel's bloated continuity.
Not only is the central storyline burdened with at least nodding to each and every title and character, but all those other little stories get steamrolled at the same time. I've read a few of the sideline titles that were released during Civil War and you can almost hear the conversation between Joe Quesada and the less important writers in which they're instructed to change the backdrop of their comics for six months.
Don't get me started on World War Hulk.
One shining beacon of awesome in this mess takes place directly prior to the events of Secret Invasion, and that is the New Avengers series written by Bendis and penciled by Leinil Francis Yu. This one is still ongoing, but I'm talking specifically about the period between the two crossovers. After the civil war ends, a secret Avengers group is formed by the few remaining heroes who are still willing to resist registration. Led by Luke Cage, they are all traditionally loners. They don't trust each other, but they have no one left to rely upon. Bendis expertly captures the tension and isolation they experience, and Yu's pencils are unique -- gritty and stylized without descending into Chris Bachalo-esque undecipherable madness.
Last year all the drama, the conspiracies, the role-reversals, and mysteries culminated in Secret Invasion -- an infuriating cop-out that not only sucked as a stand-alone, but went back in time to inject stupid into the good stuff that happened before.
As it turns out, the interesting conflicts and power dynamics of the last decade or se were not the result of Marvel trying to add some depth to their world and characters, but were engineered by the shape-shifting Skrulls, now re-worked as religious space zealots.
What gives, Marvel? Did you go back on your stupid pills? I was interested for a while there. I thought maybe you wanted to, I don't know, actually explore the consequences of a world full of super-beings rather than just invent monsters and punch them while destroying a few blocks of Manhattan month after month after month?
I'll try to be brief. After the events of Civil War, Tony Stark is made director of S.H.I.E.L.D. He also helps to establish a nationwide superhero police force with a team in every state and a brand new all-registered Avengers in charge. While Luke Cage's Secret Avengers are in Japan fighting The Hand, they kill Electra. To their surprise, she was a Skrull agent. It turns out they had been operating in secret for some time to destabilize Earth's defenses -- especially the super-powered variety-- by infiltrating and compromising S.H.I.E.L.D., the Fifty State Initiative and basically everything else.
Over the course of the series, half the major characters are revealed as Skrulls and betray the others. Both Avengers teams are sidelined in the Savage Land when the invasion begins, and the second-stringers are easily overrun by armies of Skrulls outfitted with the stolen powers of Earth's heroes. (un)Fortunately, the Avengers get back into the game and save the day with the help of a new Captain Marvel, a new Captain America, a resurfaced Nick Fury, and a resurrected Thor.
Sadly, it was all a big, flashy reset button. This is exactly why I was hesitant to read the long-running, big name comics for so long. The stakes are set so low, it's impossible to take anything seriously. It's the same old bait-and-switch routine of the old Batman TV series. At the end of every other episode, Batman would be in some kind of deadly trap from which he would easily escape the following week. Bendis was just working the long con.
Look at the House of M series. The Scarlet Witch, completely insane and fresh from murdering her husband and half of her teammates, changes the entire world into one created by the hopes and dreams of her family and friends. Magneto rules a rather peaceful and progressive world in which mutants are dominant and humans are dying out. It was a fresh take on the old eyepatch-wearing, obviously terrible alternate universe theme which I enjoyed immensely.
Civil War was good because it put the characters into a moral quandary the likes of which is seldom seen in mainstream comics. The conflict over registration forced the characters to reflect upon their perceived roles in the power structure. We got to see which characters would stick to their convictions even if it meant sacrificing friends, family, and reputation.
Aside from a rather half-hearted attempt to discuss religious extremism, Secret Invasion does not go farther than "aliens bad, humans good" in the philosophy department. The previous crossovers were interesting because they subverted my expectations, but by Secret Invasion the Marvel universe got scared and ran back into the warm, comforting embrace of its half-century-old conventions.
It's possible I've set the bar too high. I let a few outliers adjust my expectations for a medium that is renowned for pulling this kind of crap year after boring, unimaginative year. I guess the real issue is whether it was worth all the effort. I read through a lot of garbage to discover the titles I actually liked. In the end I suppose it was worthwhile, but for the next ten years' worth of material, I think I'll let someone else do the heavy lifting. Any takers?
Nuclear Weapons
I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, listen up. Whoever "they" are, they do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our fast food, our rock and roll music, or our apple pie. They hate us because of our insipid yet casual hegemonic behavior with regard to everyone else.
This week, The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea conducted an underground test of a nuclear weapon which may have yielded up to 20 kilotons -- the rough equivalent of the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II.
Naturally, this action has been almost unanimously condemned by the international community with practically identical rhetoric. It's the same old jeopardizing-peace-and-stability routine. I won't bore you with the details, because I'm sure you've heard it all before.
In fact, we've been going through this for years now with North Korea and others and I'd just like to stop for a moment and ask why. Why bother? I don't actually think North Korea is going to try to nuke the White House or even deploy their weapons against their neighbors. They don't want to use them, they just want to sit at the big kid's table.
Would that be so bad? The way I see it, North Korea could use the geopolitical equivalent of a hug right now. It was the Cold War, people. They bet on the wrong horse and now they're scared and alone in a world full of enemies. Of course they want nuclear weapons, because the way they see it, that's their only path to legitimacy.
Well, now they have them. We could continue to pretend we can force them to unlearn their creation, or we can face reality and focus on how to keep them in their silos. What's the best way to keep them in their silos? Stop antagonizing North Korea.
Am I saying we should sanction the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Fuck no. I'm just trying to point out that our skewed perception of the issue is going to preclude reaching any kind of resolution everyone can live with, and our sanctimonious attitude is only going to foster more resentment.
We use terms like "rogue state," and assign them to the Axis of Evil. We treat them like comic book villains because that's a lot easier than trying to understand where they're coming from, or -- even worse -- acknowledging our own role in the situation.
After all, they're only playing the game we created.
When we invented the atom bomb, we could not drop those motherfuckers fast enough. Now here we are, the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on another and we're on top of the world -- we were at least. We tell ourselves it's because we're somehow better, that we're capable and responsible enough to have them. What they see in places like North Korea and Iran is rather different.
Whoever has the bombs makes the rules.
They see a juvenile club, complete with decoder rings and "No Girls Allowed" sign. They watch us invade sovereign states without provocation while insisting they are the dangerous ones. They see us sign nonproliferation treaties and then turn a blind eye when our friends want to break the rules.
This is the primary reason we will never be free of terrorist cells, violent religious zealots, and dick-waving contests with other countries.
Just to be clear, I think governance on the country/state level in general is madness, I don't care if its a benevolent democracy or an iron-fisted authoritarian situation. Far be it for me to try and tell you how all how to talk between your crazy selves. Where I come from, however, if you patronize and belittle everyone around you, you're not allowed to act surprised when they resent you for it.
This week, The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea conducted an underground test of a nuclear weapon which may have yielded up to 20 kilotons -- the rough equivalent of the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II.
Naturally, this action has been almost unanimously condemned by the international community with practically identical rhetoric. It's the same old jeopardizing-peace-and-stability routine. I won't bore you with the details, because I'm sure you've heard it all before.
In fact, we've been going through this for years now with North Korea and others and I'd just like to stop for a moment and ask why. Why bother? I don't actually think North Korea is going to try to nuke the White House or even deploy their weapons against their neighbors. They don't want to use them, they just want to sit at the big kid's table.
Would that be so bad? The way I see it, North Korea could use the geopolitical equivalent of a hug right now. It was the Cold War, people. They bet on the wrong horse and now they're scared and alone in a world full of enemies. Of course they want nuclear weapons, because the way they see it, that's their only path to legitimacy.
Well, now they have them. We could continue to pretend we can force them to unlearn their creation, or we can face reality and focus on how to keep them in their silos. What's the best way to keep them in their silos? Stop antagonizing North Korea.
Am I saying we should sanction the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Fuck no. I'm just trying to point out that our skewed perception of the issue is going to preclude reaching any kind of resolution everyone can live with, and our sanctimonious attitude is only going to foster more resentment.
We use terms like "rogue state," and assign them to the Axis of Evil. We treat them like comic book villains because that's a lot easier than trying to understand where they're coming from, or -- even worse -- acknowledging our own role in the situation.
After all, they're only playing the game we created.
When we invented the atom bomb, we could not drop those motherfuckers fast enough. Now here we are, the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on another and we're on top of the world -- we were at least. We tell ourselves it's because we're somehow better, that we're capable and responsible enough to have them. What they see in places like North Korea and Iran is rather different.
Whoever has the bombs makes the rules.
They see a juvenile club, complete with decoder rings and "No Girls Allowed" sign. They watch us invade sovereign states without provocation while insisting they are the dangerous ones. They see us sign nonproliferation treaties and then turn a blind eye when our friends want to break the rules.
This is the primary reason we will never be free of terrorist cells, violent religious zealots, and dick-waving contests with other countries.
Just to be clear, I think governance on the country/state level in general is madness, I don't care if its a benevolent democracy or an iron-fisted authoritarian situation. Far be it for me to try and tell you how all how to talk between your crazy selves. Where I come from, however, if you patronize and belittle everyone around you, you're not allowed to act surprised when they resent you for it.
State Sovereignty
Imagine my surprise. I'm watching clips from Fox News posted to the media watchdog websites I typically peruse with my morning coffee and I see the likes of Glen Beck and Sean Hannity calling for dissent, secession and revolution. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for conservatives of all kinds to take up the banner of anti-establishment once they were ousted from positions of power.
And I have to give them credit. If nothing else, the right wing of the American political spectrum is a worthy adversary. During the Bush administration, the Democratic party basically rolled over and did as it was told, but now, riding high and full of energy from President Obama's landslide victory, they still can't manage to get anything done.
The Republicans under Bush and Cheney took full advantage of the nation's fear and anger to realize a seriously heinous agenda and when anyone complained, they more or less just told them to shut up. But they went too far. They screwed the pooch and now many of their pasty, bloated Republican faces no longer spew their xenophobic nonsense in the halls of power. They are not, however, taking it laying down, and this revolution is being televised.
Just like their favorite political party, the Fox News folks have made the astonishing transition from nationalist patriots to anti-authority rabble rousers. The whole charade has some traction with the more extreme elements of the party, but it's off to a rocky start. They repeat -- without irony -- the same rhetoric of the left-minded protesters they mocked for the last eight years. Not to mention they accidentally associated their first big protest event with the taste of scrotum.
I'd like to take a moment to ask you to visualize this role-reversal. Imagine Rush Limbaugh in anarchist riot black with a face full of pepper spray, Sean Hannity wrestled to the ground pleading, "don't taze me, bro!" to no avail. I want you to picture Glen Beck doing his fake weeping routine not for an audience, but for a judge about to send him away for conspiracy.
It's hard to do, right? That's because these guys are full of shit.
This is hardly breaking news, I know. The right is hilariously bad at this whole opposition thing and it shows. There is, however, one realistic and interesting point floating around in the whole mess; state sovereignty. It's a real shame this idea is starting to gain momentum now and with this gang of jackasses because it will likely be dismissed as the blatant power play that it is.
So before it is flushed down the toilet next week when Fox's precious hysteria reserves are committed to some other scandal, I'd like to take a moment to examine it from a perspective other than that of the paranoid conservative flash-in-the-pan populist.
You know, the paranoid anarchist perspective.
Fortunately, since I am not an elected representative nor am I a major media figure, I don't have to go through the rote platitudes required whenever one wants to criticize an aspect of our governance. You know, the "This is a great nation. I love my country, but..." nonsense. I care about our government as much as my last bowel movement, but here's how we might actually make it work.
As an anarchist, I believe that the most effective and least oppressive form of society is small -- the size of a band or tribe. Although customs and rules will vary from group to group, they ought to be voluntary gatherings of individuals. I think that organization on this level is far fairer to people than the bloated, faceless entities which currently control our lives, whose only real purpose is to gain more power which they use to justify their continued existence.
As a realist, I understand that this notion of being part of a large group, having support at high echelons, and generally not being forced to worry about some things is comforting to most people. I also realize that our culture has done a thorough job of convincing most people that if we consider decentralizing our government today, the bombs will fall tomorrow and there will be radioactive zombies by next Monday.
What I'm proposing is something far more gradual. Although I'd rather see a more drastic shift, why don't we start allowing the states more authority? That's right. I propose we try something out that lets you keep your big government that protects you from the communist space aliens.
You will immediately see a lifting of a great deal of the apathy that so characterizes our political system, It's easy to feel small and insignificant when all the real action is taking place in an arena as large as the entire country, but on the state level, one person can influence the system in far more profound ways.
It might even make a dent in the rampant corruption and nepotism we tolerate in our power structure for some reason. If the most powerful positions are many and have smaller constituencies, lobbyists and special interests of all kinds will have more trouble keeping them all in line. Aided by a more personal relationship to their voters, independent and third party candidates will have an easier time surmounting the challenges presented by the funding and support networks fielded by the major political parties. Even if the system is abused, it will be far easier to throw a wrench into it when there are so many parts.
It would give us all the chance to put our ideas to the test without subjecting everyone else to them. Life as a social experiment. Isn't that at all tempting? People and prosperity will find their way to those places with good, working ideas. We will be able to see what works and what doesn't, re-work it, try again. if something is a total failure, well we've still got a support system there because we didn't dismantle the federal government entirely. Not yet anyway.
Keep in mind that this is not what is being suggested by the windbags I mentioned before. They're posturing, bluffing, using wedge issues and tough talk to try to regain some of their lost influence. They are not interested in any kind of social experiment because their white asses are kept plump by the system as it is. They just want their guy back on the throne.
I'll be honest, I think this proposal will ultimately lead people to question this new apparatus of authority, to perhaps break it down even further, but even if I'm wrong, it will still have a positive impact on what I think is the biggest problem we face right now, the diffused responsibility for our actions.
The burdens of intolerance, of a lack of consideration for our environment, of overpopulation, of concentrated wealth, of dubious sustainability... It's hard not to look at these as abstract problems. They're too huge. "Someone should save the condor," "someone should save the Everglades", "someone should do something about degrading topsoil." If we can empower people in the way that I am proposing, we can change the way we approach these problems.
You can protect and cherish the natural wonders in your own back yard. You can do something about sustainability and inequity in your own community. That seems considerably more effective than electing someone else to congress, doesn't it?
And I have to give them credit. If nothing else, the right wing of the American political spectrum is a worthy adversary. During the Bush administration, the Democratic party basically rolled over and did as it was told, but now, riding high and full of energy from President Obama's landslide victory, they still can't manage to get anything done.
The Republicans under Bush and Cheney took full advantage of the nation's fear and anger to realize a seriously heinous agenda and when anyone complained, they more or less just told them to shut up. But they went too far. They screwed the pooch and now many of their pasty, bloated Republican faces no longer spew their xenophobic nonsense in the halls of power. They are not, however, taking it laying down, and this revolution is being televised.
Just like their favorite political party, the Fox News folks have made the astonishing transition from nationalist patriots to anti-authority rabble rousers. The whole charade has some traction with the more extreme elements of the party, but it's off to a rocky start. They repeat -- without irony -- the same rhetoric of the left-minded protesters they mocked for the last eight years. Not to mention they accidentally associated their first big protest event with the taste of scrotum.
I'd like to take a moment to ask you to visualize this role-reversal. Imagine Rush Limbaugh in anarchist riot black with a face full of pepper spray, Sean Hannity wrestled to the ground pleading, "don't taze me, bro!" to no avail. I want you to picture Glen Beck doing his fake weeping routine not for an audience, but for a judge about to send him away for conspiracy.
It's hard to do, right? That's because these guys are full of shit.
This is hardly breaking news, I know. The right is hilariously bad at this whole opposition thing and it shows. There is, however, one realistic and interesting point floating around in the whole mess; state sovereignty. It's a real shame this idea is starting to gain momentum now and with this gang of jackasses because it will likely be dismissed as the blatant power play that it is.
So before it is flushed down the toilet next week when Fox's precious hysteria reserves are committed to some other scandal, I'd like to take a moment to examine it from a perspective other than that of the paranoid conservative flash-in-the-pan populist.
You know, the paranoid anarchist perspective.
Fortunately, since I am not an elected representative nor am I a major media figure, I don't have to go through the rote platitudes required whenever one wants to criticize an aspect of our governance. You know, the "This is a great nation. I love my country, but..." nonsense. I care about our government as much as my last bowel movement, but here's how we might actually make it work.
As an anarchist, I believe that the most effective and least oppressive form of society is small -- the size of a band or tribe. Although customs and rules will vary from group to group, they ought to be voluntary gatherings of individuals. I think that organization on this level is far fairer to people than the bloated, faceless entities which currently control our lives, whose only real purpose is to gain more power which they use to justify their continued existence.
As a realist, I understand that this notion of being part of a large group, having support at high echelons, and generally not being forced to worry about some things is comforting to most people. I also realize that our culture has done a thorough job of convincing most people that if we consider decentralizing our government today, the bombs will fall tomorrow and there will be radioactive zombies by next Monday.
What I'm proposing is something far more gradual. Although I'd rather see a more drastic shift, why don't we start allowing the states more authority? That's right. I propose we try something out that lets you keep your big government that protects you from the communist space aliens.
You will immediately see a lifting of a great deal of the apathy that so characterizes our political system, It's easy to feel small and insignificant when all the real action is taking place in an arena as large as the entire country, but on the state level, one person can influence the system in far more profound ways.
It might even make a dent in the rampant corruption and nepotism we tolerate in our power structure for some reason. If the most powerful positions are many and have smaller constituencies, lobbyists and special interests of all kinds will have more trouble keeping them all in line. Aided by a more personal relationship to their voters, independent and third party candidates will have an easier time surmounting the challenges presented by the funding and support networks fielded by the major political parties. Even if the system is abused, it will be far easier to throw a wrench into it when there are so many parts.
It would give us all the chance to put our ideas to the test without subjecting everyone else to them. Life as a social experiment. Isn't that at all tempting? People and prosperity will find their way to those places with good, working ideas. We will be able to see what works and what doesn't, re-work it, try again. if something is a total failure, well we've still got a support system there because we didn't dismantle the federal government entirely. Not yet anyway.
Keep in mind that this is not what is being suggested by the windbags I mentioned before. They're posturing, bluffing, using wedge issues and tough talk to try to regain some of their lost influence. They are not interested in any kind of social experiment because their white asses are kept plump by the system as it is. They just want their guy back on the throne.
I'll be honest, I think this proposal will ultimately lead people to question this new apparatus of authority, to perhaps break it down even further, but even if I'm wrong, it will still have a positive impact on what I think is the biggest problem we face right now, the diffused responsibility for our actions.
The burdens of intolerance, of a lack of consideration for our environment, of overpopulation, of concentrated wealth, of dubious sustainability... It's hard not to look at these as abstract problems. They're too huge. "Someone should save the condor," "someone should save the Everglades", "someone should do something about degrading topsoil." If we can empower people in the way that I am proposing, we can change the way we approach these problems.
You can protect and cherish the natural wonders in your own back yard. You can do something about sustainability and inequity in your own community. That seems considerably more effective than electing someone else to congress, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
