Month: December 2004


How I Spent Last Weekend, Part II

Hey! If you’re interested in the historiography of 19th century sectionalism (and its possible relevance to our current “blue state/red state problem”!), might I recommend From The Exception To Misrule:
Sectionalism and Synecdochic Strife in America
? The footnotes got wonked up by htmlization, but, apart from that, I think it’s a very readable paper!

Good Afternoon friends!


“TKO’d By The Decision”: Irresolution & Dependence in Squadron Supreme

“TKO’d By The Decision”:
Irresolution & Dependence in Squadron Supreme

I’m proud of this paper! I had to cut it down quite a bit in order to maintain a clear narrative line–to the point where there’s no theological content left at all. It’s pretty much all about Decisionism in the text–and I realize that this might bore a lot of people… When it comes to seminar papers, you really “had to be there”… But if you do happen make it all the way through, please let me know what you think! Obviously, there’s a lot more to be said about this series… Also–there’s a fair-sized chunk of Stieglerian french text down there, and I’d love to hear what babelfish thinks it all means!

Okay, we all get the picture that things are rotten. Now what are we gonna do about it?

Golden Archer, Squadron Supreme #1

Well, this curbing of power policy hasn’t worked.

Hyperion, Squadron Supreme #1

Every reformer is a magician, or at least desires to become one.

–Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Squadron Supreme opens in ferment: the eponymous metahumans, in their dual capacity as agents of the American government and an alien mesmerist known as “the Overmind”, have reduced the nation-state system to impotence, and the world is ripe for revolution–or reformation. It is a classic staging of what Carl Schmitt would call “The Exception”, on a global scale, and there is no mistaking, in this extremity, where de facto sovereignty resides. The Squadron, as the only agglomeration of power still operating at full strength, must decide–and the terms of “The Decision” are equally clear: will they press forward with a plan for “reconstruction”, or will they decide against themselves and disband? The series dramatizes the “undecidability” of this fundamental question.

Jacques Derrida would undoubtedly look upon this situation and exclaim: “the time is out of joint!” (when is it not?); and, indeed, the problem of time (or, perhaps, more accurately, timetables) is central to an understanding of Squadron Supreme. Of equal importance is the matter of technological innovation and its relationship to the eschatological. Together, these questions set the parameters for each of the secondary decisions that the actors in this drama are forced to make, and conspire to frustrate the unthinkable dream of a “final decision”.

In the book’s initial tableau, Hyperion struggles to prevent the Squadron’s space-borne ivory tower, badly damaged during the catastrophic backstory, from hurtling earthward and exacerbating an already dire situation. Upon completing his mission (by redirecting the unstoppable object’s trajectory of descent toward a designated “splashpoint” in the middle of the ocean) he declares:

There it is. The finest man-made object earth ever put into the sky… the satellite headquarters of the Squadron Supreme… Now a dilapidated hulk… Maybe it was meant to come crashing down on our heads…(SS #1, 4)

The satellite’s demise very quickly assumes symbolic importance for his teammates as well–it is roundly interpreted as a sign that the Squadron’s wonted method of “heroism” has done little to make the world a better place, and may in fact be the root cause of the current devastation. Golden Archer sums up the group’s concerns, when the members convene at their subterranean replacement headquarters: “Okay, we all get the picture that things are rotten. Now what are we gonna do about it?” (SS #1, 18).

This question prompts Power Princess to embark upon an encomium to her native isle of Utopia, a community which “knew no poverty, injustice, sexual discrimination, or crime” (SS #1, 19). (Power Princess is an analog of DC Comics’ Wonder Woman–just as each of the other Squadron members have counterparts in that corporate universe’s Justice League of America series–and it is refreshing that this version of the character is not an “Amazon” from an essentialist-feminist paradise, but a proponent of a non-gendered human capacity for “more perfect” social unions). Her monologue, which is destined to provide the foundation for what the group will call their “Utopia Plan”, is worth examining in detail:

Defeatist talk will get us nowhere Kyle! It is deeds not words that will restore our credibility, and save the world in the process… As you all know, I am from Utopia Isle, a small island in the Southern Sea whose civilization has remained isolated from humanity since its inception… We Utopians believe ourselves to be the result of genetic experimentation conducted upon the human species long ago by beings we know of only as the Kree. While the rest of humanity was making flint spearheads, we developed a culture based on peace, fellowship, and the acquisition of knowledge… Within our small island community, we knew no poverty, injustice, sexual discrimination, war, or crime. We truly created a Utopia. When the outside world developed the atom bomb, my people believed their way of life–their existence–was in jeopardy. Building a starcraft, the Utopians left this world to find a new home among the stars. I chose to remain behind as their emissary to the outside world, a role I had assumed some years before. I had believed it possible to spread the Utopian philosophy among greater humanity. But in decades past, first alongside the Golden Agency and then with the Squadron, it was all I could do to combat crime. I could never make anyone–not even you–believe that Utopia was attainable. Maybe now, in the wake of this mass chaos, people will want to believe (SS#1, 18-19).

Her plea speaks directly to the concerns of recent theorists, such as Slavoj Zizek and Bernard Stiegler, who strive to understand the relationship between scientific innovation and the social.

Zizek, a sort of Lacanian-Marxist, treats the technological marvels of the age as threats to the human which must be confronted and tamed:

The digitalization of our daily lives, in effect, makes possible a Big Brother control in comparison with which the old Communist secret police cannot but look like primitive child’s play. Here, therefore, more than ever, one should insist that the proper answer to this threat is not to retreat into islands of privacy, but an even stronger socialization of cyberspace. One should summon up the visionary strength to discern the emancipatory potential of cyberspace in what we (mis)perceive today as its “totalitarian” threat (Did Someone Say Totalitarianism?, 256).

The relevance of this Zizekian choice to Power Princess’ speech is apparent in the opposition between Utopia (where the reign of harmony is made possible by a commitment to the “acquisition of knowledge” for social purposes) and the rest of the world (where the the murderously anti-social trajectory of the sciences culminates in the development of nuclear technology). Zarda, like Zizek, maintains that the transformation of these threatening “lords of life” into social boons can be achieved through an act of public will.

However, this “faith-based” solution is undermined by Power Princess’ own admission that her people are themselves most likely the products of “genetic experimentation” by the Kree. This begs the question: did they make a Utopia, or were they made Utopians? Did they ever have a choice? Here we find ourselves in territory that Bernard Stiegler explores, with fruitful results, in La technique et le temps:

L’invention de l’homme: sans qui’il faille s’y complaire, l’ambiguïté génitive indique une question qui se dédouble” Qui ou quoi invente? Qui ou quoi est inventé? L’ambiguité du sujet, et du meme coup l’ambiguïte de l’objet du verbe (invente), ne traduit rien d’autre que l’ambiguïté du sens meme de ce verbe… Le rapport liant le qui et le quoi est l’invention. Apparemment, le qui et le quoi se nomment respectivement: l’homme, la technique. Pourtant, l’ambiguïté génitive impose au moins que l’on se demande: et si le qui etait la technique? et si le quoi etait l’homme? Ou bien faut-il s’acheminer en deça ou au-dela de toute différence entre un qui et un quoi? (145)

Is our understanding of what is humanly–and socially–possible so intimately bound up (in what Stiegler establishes as a “strange relationship”) with technics that it becomes impossible to take the Zizekian hope seriously? Can the engine of society take an unprecedented course without first being refitted with the proper human parts? And if not–where does the impetus for change come from? From humans? Or from technology itself? There may not be any answers to these last questions–certainly, there are none in Squadron Supreme, although they are constantly in play.

The debate leading up to the referendum on Power Princess’ call for the implementation of Utopia centers precisely upon the question of the imperative to act. Earlier in the issue, during a rescue mission, Tom Thumb–in many ways the key member of the team, and the focal point of the book–remarks that “anythin’ broken can be fixed” (SS #1, 9). His flight-companions, Golden Archer and Lady Lark, embellish upon the thought with the following exchange:

Archer: Says you Thumb!

Lark: Tom Thumb’s right. Things can be fixed, given time.

Archer: But does America have that kind of time, Lark? (SS #1, 9)

In a very real sense, this is “the Decision” that the Squadron must make. Is the world running out of time? Or is this time of crisis a chaotic welter of possibilities whose liminal properties ought to be husbanded, rather than foreclosed upon? If it is the former, then clearly any program is better than none at all. However, if it is the latter, then the only goal that makes sense is the preservation of instability!

In the realm of superhero comics, the classic example of a team dedicated to the second proposition is Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol, whose adventures in deconstruction invariably present them with the challenge of disabling aggressive epistemes and narrative structures. Their first mission is an assault upon the encroaching totality of Orqwith (Doom Patrol #19-22), a variation upon Borges’ Tlön, a figure of the perfect work of art qua work of art (or plan for social organization), which accounts for everything, stops time, and devours our communal reality in the process. According to Borges:

Contact with Tlön, the habit of Tlön, has disintegrated this world. Spellbound by Tlön’s rigor, humanity has forgotten, and continues to forget, that it is the rigor of chess masters, not of angels. Already Tlön’s (conjectural) primitive language has filtered into our schools; already the teaching of Tlön’s harmonious history (filled with moving episodes) has obliterated the history that governed my own childhood; already a fictitious past has supplanted in men’s memories that other past, of which we now know nothing certain–not even that it is false (Borges, 287)

The Squadron Supreme appear to choose against the Doom Patrol scenario by electing, without quite realizing it, to summon their own Tlön into existence. Their decision does most certainly pass through the realm of “undecidability”–after all, the random, telluric defense of neighborhood and planet against evil genius and space alien is the stock-in-trade of the American superhero–but, as Hyperion notes: “this curbing of power policy hasn’t worked” (SS #1, 20). The “Utopia Plan” represents an unprecedented departure for the group, which had hitherto always made it their policy to interfere in favor of the weaker term in asymmetrical power relationships between third parties. There is a certain logical continuity in this trajectory: the team’s evolution is analogous to the career of a “trust-buster” who decides that the only way to prosecute his/her mission is to deploy massive centralized power against her/his targets–becoming, in effect, an “anti-trust monopoly”.

Perhaps the most radical proposal to emerge from the meeting–and arguably the surest proof that we are indeed passing through “undecidability” in this scene–is Nighthawk’s implication that the Squadron ought to disband, which is couched in the observation: “the fate of the world–to be decided by a vote among the power elite. To think that it would come to this”(22). Is this a classic liberal attempt to evade the responsibilities of sovereignty, or is it a call for the use of the sovereign’s prerogative against itself? In view of the way Nighthawk’s subsequent actions contrast with Amphibian’s later abdication of responsibility (after committing a face-saving–but ineffective–act of sabotage, he retreats to an undersea realm populated by dolphins who “don’t understand” the affairs of the surface world), it seems clear that the ex-president does aspire to Decide, in a Schmittian sense. Upon decamping, he declares, simply: “you folks do as must do…and so will I” (SS #1, 23). This is an extremely important moment in the text, for if sovereignty is indivisible, and this series will eventually reveal itself to be the record of a struggle within the group-mind of the sovereign over precisely this question of implementation, then it could be argued that the Squadron Supreme never do Decide, because Squadron Supreme itself fails to emerge from the morass of the “Undecidable”.

Bearing this interpretation in mind, it is important to note that the surface triumphalism with which the first issue of the series concludes is haunted both by the rebel Nighthawk’s mere presence at the press conference (not to mention his inability to carry out his resolution to assassinate Hyperion) and the significant fact that, when the Squadron place their “Utopia Plan” into effect, it is revealed as a one-year plan (not coincidentally, the exact same duration as this limited comic book series). The very finitude of the measure undermines its total aspirations to such an extent that it begins to seem quite provisional indeed–more like a thought-experiment than a decisive act. Meanwhile, Nighthawk, with allusions to Lincoln fillingthe thought balloons above his head, is poised to play the role of John Wilkes Booth, vis-a-vis Hyperion.

Nighthawk’s relationship to his nineteenth century predecessor is crucial to an understanding of this scene. He memorializes Lincoln as “The Great Emancipator”; but Lincoln was also the great mobilizer, and the main beneficiary of the massive expansion of state power which occurred during the course of the Civil War. Perhaps the rebel’s failure to pull the trigger (like the Squadron’s failure to arrogate power to themselves for an indefinite period) signifies not a “lack of willpower”, but a desire to continue thinking through the ambiguities of this “Presidential différance” (the imperialist emancipator, who “forces the people to be free”), in dialogue with the other members of the sovereign Squadron, of which he remains a part, in spite of himself. In between the key scenes of the secret vote and the public decree, Hyperion remarks that “Kyle Richmond is an honorable man, his disagreements with us do not stem from vanity” (SS #1, 23), which does not explain why, if the debate is indeed concluded, he does nothing to prevent Nighthawk from “doing what he must”. It suggests, rather, that the conversation is just getting started, and that, moreover, it will be prosecuted, throughout the remaining eleven issues of the series, according to the conventions of a discourse proper to superhero comics–that is to say, in a “sign language” of hyperkinetic strife, punctuated by bombastic oaths.

Despite this instability at the heart of the Squadron (both the team and the series), the entity does present a united front to the world. Hyperion advances a will-based theory of “pure reform” that aspires to parallel Von Clausewitz’s description of “pure war”, a bogey-concept which the Prussian general ultimately fails to wrestle into the empirical arena:

…in the field of abstract thought the inquiring mind can never rest until it reaches the extreme, for here it is dealing with an extreme: a clash of forces freely operating and obedient to no law but their own. From a pure concept of war you might try to deduce absolute terms for the objective you should aim at and for the means of achieving it; but if you did so the continuous interaction would land you in extremes that represented nothing but a play of the imagination issuing from an almost invisible sequence of logical subtleties. If we were to think purely in absolute terms, we could avoid every difficulty by a stroke of the pen and proclaim with inflexible logic that, since the extreme must be the goal, the greatest effort must always be exerted(78).

This new commitment to “pure reform” (or at least to preserve the “perfect lab conditions” which would be essential to “pure reform”) manifests itself most impressively in the unprecedented vow that Hyperion makes to “hunt down and kill” (SS #2, 9) the Scarlet Centurion when he pops in for another of his ritualized invasions of the 20th century. Naturally, the stunned visitor retreats, grunting, “bah! you take all the pleasure out of conquest!” (10), and it is in this ideal space created by the liquidation of the supervillain from the superhero narrative that a phantasmagoric procession of “(techno)logical subtleties” issues from the mind of Tom Thumb. Proudhon wrote, somewhat disapprovingly, that “every reformer is a magician, or at least desires to become one” (What is Property?, 453), and this certainly describes the Squadron’s scientific wizard, whose twin quests to dispell the ills of the human body and the sources of social disharmony dominate the series from issue #2 to #9. (Proudhon’s own quest was founded upon the belief that humans could be persuaded, through the use of rational argument, to form “more perfect unions”. Clearly, the reform faction of the Squadron act upon a different assumption–i.e. that, in Stieglerian terms, human “species-being” is not a pure essence to be unearthed by a dialectician, but a dynamic thing that is, to a large–but not total–extent, determined by a “non-living” carapace of its own creation; a carapace which, moreover, must eternally be recreated, and embellished upon.)

Thumb’s efforts bring the problem of the relationship between time and technology into focus. The inventor’s fate is circumscribed by the mutually contradictory meanings of his maxim: “anythin’ is fixable”. Thumb seeks to “fix” (as in, to render operational–preferably optimally so–and, at least to some extent, autonomous; that is to say, powered by its own head of steam) the human condition, but every move he makes in this direction raises the specter of “fixing” (as in, to stop or render determinate, or, even, slangily, kill) this mercurial concept. His assault on the citadel of disease takes him on an errand into the future, where he eventually compromises his deontological value system by stealing the “panacea potion” from its owner, the Scarlet Centurion. This sacrifice, which pains Tom a great deal, ultimately comes to nothing, as he discovers that the potion has no effect upon twentieth century bodies. It is no “cure-all”, but rather a ceremonial balm that ratifies the impregnable constitutions of the Centurion’s fortieth century subjects. This suggests that, while techniques may indeed have the capacity to alter or extend human horizons, they must do so in time, and not by abrogating experienced duration, even in a world filled with time machines.

The Centurion’s world also raises a vital question that relates to Thumb’s most important invention–the “behavior modification” (or “b-mod”) machine. Society in the fortieth century appears “fixed” in both senses of the word. It is operating at full capacity; and yet, in keeping with a fairly common tradition of sci-fi speculation, it lacks that vital “spark” of unpredictability which characterizes our world. Is this the Centurion’s true “gift” to his people? A panacea that bears a family resemblance to Huxley’s “soma”, which robs human beings of their agency? Thumb’s “b-mod” device, introduced in issue #4, obviously contains many of these same terminal possibilities, and threatens to repatriate the “end of history” from the fortieth century to the twentieth.

The series explores, with equal intensity, the effects of this device upon those who use it and those who are incensed by its use (while delving only tangentially into the problems encountered by those who are ill-used by it). In Hyperion/Tom Thumb’s group, we see the beginnings of the formation of a caste of “unmodded modifiers”, who live only to see their alchemical experiment flourish. Nighthawk’s group, on the other hand, could be said to take a hard Proudhonian stance–i.e. if reform cannot be effected without “magic”, then reform is not an option. Trapped between them is the increasingly large group of “modified” characters, who show no ill-effects, so long as the environment into which they are placed does not contradict the imperatives of their “retraining”. Of course, this environment is never “lab-perfect” to begin with, and only becomes less so, as the faction of doubters acquires more leverage to conduct their “dialectical-interrogation-through-other-means” of “pure reform”.

The text demonstrates that what is truly abhorrent in the “b-mod” process is not any violation of an “intrinsic” human nature (or, as in A Clockwork Orange, some notion of the human aspiration toward the sublime–as represented by Alex de Large’s “redeeming” obsession with “Ludwig Van”), but the fact that no “hard training” of this type can possibly equip a human being for the complexities of social and political life. The process suits “Shape”, a developmentally-challenged individual, perfectly, because, in any case, he is trapped by his own biology in a childlike world in which the need to make decisions and to form adult attachments does not arise. It may even be said to have been effective in the case of Quagmire, who is presented with a chance to act upon the categorical imperative of ultimate devotion to the welfare of the group, and seizes it (although the moral status of this “forced march to sainthood” is certainly called into question by the eruption of an overwhelming tide of “dark matter” from this puppet of virtue’s body in issue #10).

The text’s most scathing critique of “pure reform” is enacted by the figures of Ape-X and Lady Lark. In the former, the categorical imperative is revealed to have multiple (and irreconcilable) meanings, thus reducing the unfortunate character to a catatonic state, reminiscent of a “computer crash”. The latter’s case is even more damning, and plays back into the dilemma of the “unmodded modifier”. Golden Archer “retrains” Lady Lark to “love him and only him for the rest of her life”, and then finds himself unable to reap any benefit from this situation, which quickly assumes the aspect, in his mind, of a one-sided “role playing game” that never ends. She is certainly disturbed by the information, conveyed to her later on, that the feelings she is experiencing have been implanted in her mind, but their pathological development into dysfunction doesn’t set in until Wyatt disappears, robbing her of the only object that she is now capable of cathecting them upon. This conduces to a defensible (if certainly not indisputable) anthropological statement: i.e. knowing why we feel a certain thing will not tend to diminish these feelings in the least (although it may certainly help us to understand why we might not want to act upon them), but knowing why others act as they do does impact materially upon experience. A case like this, in which the “programming” becomes more apparent than its content, exposes the (always precarious) romantic quest for “intimacy with otherness” as an unsatisfying sham.

Both of these examples serve to focus book’s critique of the social admixture of the “modded” and the “unmodded”. In Power Princess’ literal island of Utopia, the putative founders (the Kree), set the society in motion and disappeared, like the Deist’s “clockmaker God”. The Scarlet Centurion, a figure cut from the same cloth, does elect to stay amongst the “creatures of his brain”, with the result that he is periodically driven, by sheer boredom, to seek out, in fits of lust, the “spark” of the incalculable in other times and places. This would appear to be the Overmind’s motivation as well, and with that association to guide us, we are given to understand that the Squadron, who were dupes of this lust in the past, are on a collision course with a more authentic form of servitude to it in the future. The respective fates of Lady Lark and Ape-X demonstrate that “b-modification” cannot work if applied to only a part of society. It must truly be all or nothing–it is a question of “metahuman momentum”–which leaves the “pure reform” faction of the Squadron no logical option but to “renovate” society and then leave it immediately. Ironically then, the team’s effort to reinscribe themselves into the common life of their world forces them ever further out of its orbit.

The only other thinkable option is for the entire team to “b-mod” themselves–and this is precisely what places Nighthawk’s faction on the battlefield of undecidability. The group’s involvement (rather than mere opposition to) in the sovereign decision is dramatized most effectively by the scene in which its leader is forced to confront the same choice (whether to “b-mod” a fellow Squadroner in the name of expediency, or not) that his nominal opponents must ultimately face. Nighthawk’s acquiescence to the tactical abrogation of incalculability in the name of the same signifies the emergence of a potentially irreconcilable antagonism between technology and time in this text. The mere existence of the “b-mod” device (an “atom bomb of the spirit”) threatens to write finis to the human enterprise, as an open-ended process; and the only possible defense against this final solution may be irresolution–or hope–itself.

In order to sustain the possibility of justice, the sovereign must hold a portion of its decisive power in reserve for use against itself. Full implementation of any plan is just as unthinkable as “radical refusal”. Every refusal must be a rejection of something, the elimination of which causes the refusal itself to evaporate. Likewise, the decision to enact a program depends upon a certain amount of opposition. It makes no sense to act upon perfectly malleable material–which, by definition, would always already be so constituted as to render any further shaping of it unnecessary. In the absence of this opposition, there is nothing to do, and thus no real decision. On the other hand, if it is the case that every decision is shadowed by its own counter-decision, can it truly be said that any decision is ever made? Squadron Supreme suggests not–and that, furthermore, this may be a good thing.
Works Cited and Consulted

Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Daniel Heller-Roazen, trans. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1998.

Arendt, Hannah. Imperialism (Part Two of the Origins of Totalitarianism). New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968.

Ashley, Robert K. “The Powers of Anarchy: Theory, Seovereignty, and the Domestication of Global Life,” in International Theory: Critical Investigations. James Der Derian, ed. New York: New York UP, 1995.

Bannet, Eve Tavor. Structuralism and the Logic of Dissent: Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Beardsworth, Richard. Derrida and the Political. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Bell, Richard V. Sounding the Abyss: Readings Between Derrida and Cavell. New York: Lexington Books, 2004.

Benjamin, Walter. “Critique of Violence,” from Selected Writings, Volume I, 1913-1926. Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996.

Borges, Jorge Luis. Collected Fictions. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

Cavell, Stanley. Cities of Words: Pedagogical Letters on a Register of the Moral Life. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 2004.

—-. Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

—-. Emerson’s Transcendental Etudes. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2003.

Churchill, Ward. Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring, 1985.

Derrida, Jaques. “Declarations of Independence,” in Negotiations. Elizabeth Rottenberg, ed. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2002.

—- and Elisabeth Roudinesco. De quoi demain… Dialogue. Fayard, 2001.

—- and Bernard Stiegler. Echographies de la television: Entretiens filmes. Galilee, 1996.

—-. “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundations of Authority’,” in Drucilla Cornell, Michael Rosenfeld, and David Gray Carlson, eds., Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice. New York: Routledge, 1992.

—-. Politics of Friendship. George Collins, trans. New York: Verso, 1997.

—-. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, The Work of Mourning, and the New International. Peggy Kamuf, trans. New York: Routledge, 1994.

—-. Psyche: Inventions de l’autre. Galilee, 1987.

Farr, Anthony. Sartre’s Radicalism and Oakeshott’s Conservatism: The Duplicity of Freedom. Ipswich: Ipswich Book Company, 1998.

Foucault, Michel. “Two” and “Three” in “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-76. Mauro Bertani and Allesandro Fontana, eds. David Macey, trans. New York: Picador, 2003.

Gruenwald, Mark et al. Squadron Supreme #1-12. New York: Marvel Comics, 1985-86.

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernsim, or, the Cltural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.

Klock, Geoff. How to Read Superhero Comics and Why. New York: Continuum, 2002.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Elizabeth Rottenberg, trans. Stanford: Stanford, UP, 1994.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Russell Price, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988.

Moore, Alan and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. New York: DC Comics, 1986-87.

Morrison, Grant, Richard Case, et al. Doom Patrol #19-63. New York: DC Comics, 1989-93.

Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1975.

Politzotto, Lorenzo. The Elect Nation: The Savonarolan Movement in Florence 1494-1545. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Protevi, John. Political Physics: Deleuze, Derrida, and the Body Politic. London: Athlone Press, 2001.

Proudhon, P.J. Proudhon’s Solution to the Social Problem, including commentary and exposition by Charles A. Dana and William E. Greene. Henry Cohen, ed. New York: Vanguard Press, 1927.

—-. What is Property?: An Enquiry into the Principle of Right Government. Benjamin R. Tucker, trans. New York: Howard Fertig, 1966.

Sap, John W. Paving the Way for Revolution: Calvinism and the Struggle For a Democratic Constitutional State. Amsterdam: VU Uitgerij, 2001.

Savonarola, Girolamo. A Guide to Righteous Living and Other Works. Konrad Eisenbichler, trans. Toronto: Centre For Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2003.

Schmitt, Carl. “Theory of the Partisan,” A.C. Goodson, trans., in forthcoming CR: The New Centennial Review 4.3 (2004).

Sorel, George. “The Ethics of Violence,” from Reflections on Violence (1906). T.E. Hulme and J. Roth, trans. London: Collier, 1961.

Stiegler, Bernard. La Technique et le temps: 1. La faute d’epimethee. Paris: Galilee, 1994.

Trilling, Lionel. The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society. New York: Viking Press, 1950.

Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Virilio, Paul and Sylvere Lotringer. Pure War. Mark Polizzoni, trans. New York: Semiotext(e), 1997.

Von Clausewitz, Carl. On War (1832). Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984.

Waid, Mark and Alex Ross. Kingdom Come. New York: DC Comics, 1997.

Zizek, Slavoj. Did Someone Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)use of a Notion. New York: Verso, 2001.

—-. Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Good Afternoon friends!



“Doesn’t Every Woman Want Her Buttons Pushed?”; or, Fuck You Brad Meltzer
(Soundtrack: Sleater-Kinney —The Hot Rock)

Oh my. What an absolutely grotesque conclusion. (by the way: if you haven’t read Identity Crisis #7 yet, and you actually want to, look away! bay-eby look away!)

How the hell did we get from this:

Image Hosted by

And this:

Image Hosted by

to this:

Image Hosted by

So. Wrong.

I’m not even saying that Jean shouldn’t have been the killer–although I’ve always liked her (particularly Roger Stern’s version of the character in the late, lamented Power of the Atom) and, of course, I’m saddened by the news–but no way should this have been the explanation we got for it!

Even the facts of the case speak against Meltzer’s lame-assed “I want you back” (baa-ba-bum-bum!) dialogue… I ask you–if there was nothing more to it than that, why didn’t she just arrange for Ray to find her on the verge of choking to death? Come on! Couldn’t they have just allowed her to get on with her life and attempt to deal with her ex-husband in a manner befitting an intelligent, emotionally-sound, supremely competent professional woman? That’s how Roger Stern played it! Does every woman in a male protagonist’s life either have to love him or hate herself, or, usually, some combination of the two? (And no, don’t say it! This problem, like every other problem that people who whine about the genre complain about, goes way beyond superhero comics, my friends…)

Is this a good time to mention that Christine and I have decided to end our relationship, after nearly four years? There may never be a better chance for a segue, in the context of this blog. Yes, there’s a trail of tears running from here to Montreal and back again, but, for now, it’s the only move that makes sense, sadly. And you have my word that no killing sprees will result from the demise of this beautiful thing. That’s just how it is–as Strnad and Kane demonstrate in the first two jpegs above (the good ones!)

Anyway–whatever right? IC is a murder mystery, and someone’s gotta be the killer! As I say, it could even have been Jean–and with the exact same set of murders too–but not, I submit, for these reasons!

All Meltzer had to do was explore the possibility that this was one human being’s protest against the kind of self-centered messianism that a certain idea of the superhero represents, and I would’ve said: “okay, that’s sort of interesting”. This would be Jean saying: “keep it up you fuckers, and I’ll kill’em all!” But no, the author’s handling of the lobotomizing plot indicates that this was precisely the kind of question that he was unwilling to raise. Or, at least, not in an effective way. Superheroes must continue. And they must be able to count on villains that “don’t hit below the belt”–plus the unconditional support of their loved ones, who had better just grin n’ bear it, ’cause nothin’ else matters, see? Well fuck that. It’s not that simple Brad! Why don’t you go back and read Squadron Supreme–that’s THE superhero “identity crisis”. It’s the interrogation of messianism, in all of its forms! And it’s right up there with Animal Man and The Filth.

Tomorrow–my Squadron Supreme paper!

Good Night friends!


For the Luvva God, Please Stop Thinkin’ of the Children!

For the Luvva God, Please Stop Thinkin’ of the Children!

I know you can’t see me, but that’s pretty much irrelevant, because I’m not very tall, and I’m physically incapable of conveying to you how fed up I am with people like Johanna Draper Carlson’s new pal Greg. Thought experiment, okay? Pretend I’m Giant-Man. Right then–I’ve had it up to the motherfuckin’ antennae!

Listen, I’m no fan of Mark Millar or any of the other purveyors of “dark”, “evil” pap out there, but that doesn’t mean I’m concerned about them as threats to “childhood”. In fact, I’m fairly certain that the only useful service these dorks perform is to sneak a little nastiness into the lives of the youngsters that sickening American moralizers would seek to protect from “exposure”. What on earth do these innocence-worshipping prudes hope to accomplish, other than the manufacture of more innocence-worshipping prudes?

I ask you–do we really need any more of that?

Newsflash folks! The world is fucked! No need to pretend it isn’t. In fact, if you do, then I hold you personally responsible for the monstrous denial that lurks behind mantras like “support the troops” and “as long as it doesn’t look like an animal, I can eat it”.

You have to get ’em while they’re young, before they become part of the problem, and anything that forces kids to understand that justice and goodwill are things to be striven for rather than taken for granted or redefined until they fit snugly over this dank floor of Hell is a good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

So, uh, yeah, consider that my vote against “labelling for content”. How ’bout making sure that your kids’ heads have content! As much as their little crania can handle–and preferably more! Load ’em, but don’t lock ’em! Enough with the teflon guardianship!

“Next Stop, Santayana City!” Squadron Supreme fans! Soon as I present my seminar paper on the historiography of the Civil War and perform a few touch-ups later tonight!

Good Day friends!



What To Do Til The Essays Get Done!

Before I completely disappear into my essay-writing cocoon, I wanted to respond to this wonderful comment from Jason Kimble, a propos of Squadron Supreme:

Just a few nitpicks. I’m not sure if they’re of great detriment to your central argument or not, but having just finished the SS trade, I noticed these:

“In SS, certainly, the ‘b-mod victims’ do not suffer any actual averse effects…”

I’d suggest Lady Lark’s stalkerish infatuation was an adverse effect, but certainly it falls under the heading of “adverse” that Ape-X goes catatonic when she’s faced with a scenario in which her “programming parameters” are in direct conflict. Both scenarios point to the problem of mechanically chaining a mind: even if you discard the ethical questions, b-mod is flawed in that it forces adherence to the letter of the law without allowing for the very human (and, I’d argue, very necessary) ability to understand the intent of laws. It doesn’t just take away choice, it takes away the ability to evolve, as well (probably not an accident, then, that Gruenwald’s primary example of this is an ape).

“But no one is made to forget anything in SS–unlike in IC!–they are merely shown the ‘error of their ways’, ”

This one’s far more minor, but Nighthawk does have his people use the b-mod to make Blue Eagle forget he caught them undoing Shape’s b-modding. And oddly enough, he feels more remorse for that single act than he seems to feel at the bloodbath that his attempted coup incites. Not sure where I’d take that, but there it is.

Right then!


Suffice it to say, your comments on Ape-X are very relevant to the line of argument I’m pursuing–i.e. the problems that inhere in the concept of the categorical imperative(s) itself (themselves? Kant insists there’s only one–but I can’t say I agree with him!) To wit: even if you are determined to follow the letter of the law, what happens when the “laws” (this law!) trip over each other (or “trips over itself”, which is a much crazier problem to think!)? If you were a really consistent Kantian, you’d probably go catatonic until this situation goes away–and I submit that the only the way that it could go away, within the parameters set by Squadron Supreme, is if everyone underwent the b-mod process (which would eliminate the problem of becoming an accomplice to human deception!) It’s the old socialism problem-you simply cannot have “state socialism”–it’s either the whole world, and every single person in it, or it’s just the emergence of, as Hawthorne would say, a “new state of antagonism” with the rest of the planet… But, of course, the question then becomes: what if your shiny universal code failed to account for something? (and you know it did!) Are we ever justified in making “the final decision”? Who will assume the responsibility for “ending history”? Very very heady stuff–at least as far as I’m concerned, and not as cut and dried as it sounds either…

As for the “Blue Eagle situation”, you’re right, and I do plan to discuss this, but the important thing to remember, from my perspective, is that this is an “unofficial” act of “b-modification”! It has nothing to do with the official program instituted by Hyperion, Power Princess, etc. It’s a guerrilla tactic–and Gruenwald is very careful to distinguish between the problems of “revolution from below” and “revolution from above”! Frankly, I’m more interested in the latter–precisely because the former seems inevitably bound up with maintaining the status quo (or, at least, as with a lot of colonial insurgencies–or my own beloved home province’s gestures toward “freedom”–, an imagined status quo antebellum… i.e.: “if we can just get these fuckers off our backs, we’ll be livin’ the good life again!” But what if the “good life” was the freedom to oppress others? And it was–there’s no question about that, in my mind. Not a very noble cause, I’m afraid…)

Did you notice how similar the tableau in which Blue Eagle is overcome is to the “brainwashing” incidents in Identity Crisis? And both scenes are prompted by a desire to “keep the fight honest” (i.e. the JLA don’t want to have to worry about villains picking off their loved ones–Nighthawk’s group don’t want to kill Blue Eagle, but they can’t let him go, knowing what he knows, either…); both teams of “modifiers” want the “battle between good and evil” to be “decided on the playing field”, which has to make you wonder how much they really care about ethics in the first place, right? You can’t say the same thing about the statist modifiers in SS, who certainly do make an unprecedented decision to confront the problem of evil at its source… Thus provoking the further question: will they (or should they?) take the next step and eliminate thought itself, in their quest to “moralize” the world, and, if so, what would be the consequences of this act? (basically turning human beings into “angels”…What bearing does Quagmire’s sacrifice have on this question?)

And, yeah, how about Lady Lark–! Her situation poses the Clockwork Orange problem in a far more interesting way, as far as I’m concerned (can we separate aesthetics–the search for beauty, and our need to “fall in love” with art, and each other–from ethics? or are they inextricably bound together somehow?) I’ll be thinking about it all weekend! I’ll get back to ya!

thanks for the comments!

Good night friends!


What is this, the Bizarro Board?

What is this, the Bizarro Board?

Adrian Sanders’ TCJ Messageboard post has spawned some interesting tangents, from which we can discern that:

1. Fantagraphics is beyond criticism (what are you doing holding the company to higher ethical standards than DC/Marvel David? Just because they do it themselves, when it suits them? Not a good enough reason, it seems… Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, a true “art for art’s sake commitment” means you make your work available for free… anything less is just “branding” for (bourgeois) aesthetes… “We have the technology”–as they used to say on TV…)


2. Superhero comics (all of ’em!) are beneath contempt–and James Kochalka is just as representative of what’s wrong with the “comics scene” as the drooling fanboy in a basement near you.

Good afternoon friends!


Comics: Subject or Object?

Comics: Subject or Object?

From the Comics Journal Messageboard comes this post (re: a college intro. to comics course), by Adrian Sanders:

I know there are some glaring omissions (Crumb comes to mind, and maybe some suggestions for a collection of his short pieces would help) but I think this list ain’t half bad.

Using the other syllabi that are available at, I’ve decided that this list covers a good amount of ground for students being introduced to the medium.

I’m starting out with introductory theory (understanding comics, then Horrocks’ critique) and reading strips (Peanuts, Krazy Kat, Calvin and Hobbes, etc.)

then moving to short stories (Sturm, Woodring, Dart, Kramers Ergot 5, McSweeneys, Eisner, Barry)

then memoir, autobios (Doucet, Satrapi, Campbell, Spiegelman, Kochalka, Pekar, Lutes, Brown, Kominsky Crumb)

history/journalism (Brown, Sacco)

“Literature” (Clowes, Ware, Los Bros, Jason)

Manga (Tezuka, Nakazawa, Miyazaki)

Have read:

A Contract with God – Esiner

Maus – Spiegelman

Ghost World – Daniel Clowes

Persepolis I,II – Marjane Satrapi

Golems Mighty Swing – James Sturm

American Elf – James Kochalka

Barefoot Gen – Nakazawa

Jimmy Corrigan – Chris Ware

Frank Book – Woodring

My New York Diary – Julie Doucet

Louis Riel – Chester Brown

Safe Area Gorazde – Joe Sacco

Understanding Comics – McCloud

Barefoot Serpent – Scott Morse

Jason Lutes – Jar of Fools

Reading or will read:

A Passionate Journey – Masereel ?

Locas – Jaime Hernandez

Palomar –Gilbert Hernandez

Kramer’s Ergot 5 – Collaborative

B Krigstein Comics – Greg Sadowski ?

Phoenix (Tale of the future) – Tezuka

Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind – Miyazaki

Peanuts 1950-1954 –Charles Schulz ?

Hey Wait… – Jason

Rabbit Head – Dart

From Hell – Alan Moore, Eddie Campbell ?

How to be an artist – Eddie Campbell

I Never liked you – Chester Brown

McSweeny’s #13

Basically, I left out lots of European comics because I have no exposure (Jason aside) whatsoever, and hopefully as my education continues, so will my horizons.

comments, critiques? I’ll try to have the actual syllabus ready by next week.

I will have a supplementary list for the class as well. Keep in mind this is an introduction to comics for an undergraduate class. I feel that the selections are pretty broad, and that at least one of these works should appeal to anyone.

At Bennington College, many people don’t “get” comics, and have a really hard time connecting the more complex panel transitions. I think dailies and strips are a good way to see the immediate impact of pace, gutters and composition.

anyways, suggestions are clearly in order!

My response:

That looks like good stuff, Adrian… however, and this is just me trying to open up a conversation here, does anyone have any concerns about the whole idea of “introductions to (specific) media” (i.e. I have a similar problem with intro. to film, and I would have the same concerns about an intro. to “the novel” course, if such a thing exists… I KNOW that I did hate the intro. to “the short story” course that I took as an undergrad)?

What I’m trying to say is: does it make sense, outside of a creative workshop (not that I think creative workshops make any sense either, but that’s another topic!), to privilege the “technical” aspects of texts over their thematic content? I’m not saying that formal properties aren’t important–in fact I’m pretty much a formalist critic!–but what I’m interested in is narrative form (i.e. storytelling choices), rather than the kinds of nuts and bolts stuff that you would almost have to focus on in a course with this reading list. It’s like assigning Dickens, William Burroughs, Dashiell Hamett, Margaret Atwood, Tom Robbins and Toni Morrison and then spending the whole semester discussing word choices and sentence construction!

Am I wrong? Do people really have that much difficulty “understanding comics”? If I was forced to teach a class with that reading list (thankfully, I won’t be! I’m using comics next semester as well, but the selections are linked by a theme) I suppose I would–in exasperation!–consecrate the time toward developing an understanding of the kinds of stories that comics can tell, although I’m not sure what that would get me either.

Are you just gonna show them examples of “great comic art” and tell them why they should consider it great? Or will you expect them to engage the works in a more truly critical spirit?

Obviously, this plays into our recent discussions re: criticism vs. appreciation, don’t ya think?

And–just because I can’t resist!–don’t you think it’s just a little bit weird that there are no superhero comics on Adrian’s lists? Frankly, I don’t see how Grant Morrison’s best stuff is any less “essential” than the things that are up there, but, of course, that’s just me!

Oh yeah–as those of you that shared my disgust with the Colby Cosh piece from TCJ #263 may know, today is the 15th anniversary of the “Montreal Massacre”, and, sadly, I don’t think gender politics in North America have improved one whit since that time, despite the “sinister” ways in which “evil feminists” have “manipulated the issue to serve their ‘agenda'”… Anyone who thinks that Marc Lepine wasn’t just the tip of a very thick phallic iceberg just isn’t paying attention to popular culture, as far as I’m concerned…

Good night friends!