Slashdot Mirror
Holy Men in Tights! Academic Superhero Conference
Malfourmed writes "The University of Melbourne's Cinema Studies Program, School of Art History, Cinema, Classics & Archaeology is hosting a four day conference (and fancy dress ball and movie programme) on superhoeroes and supervillains. The interdisciplinary conference will address the varying roles, identities, and social functions that these superheroes serve. Topics include censorship; industry and franchise differentiation (eg DC vs Marvel); mythology; the female superhero ("It has been a very much male-centred universe," co-convener Saige Walton said. "They need some more chicks."); ethnicity, class and race; diverse media formats (cinema, comics, computer games, television) ; the resurgence in the cult of superpowers in recent cinema; super-auteurs (eg Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Tezuka Osamu, Grant Morrison); fan culture; the science and physics of the superhero; ancient superheroes; and the 'hero' who isn't 'super'."
What always makes me laugh is how otakus try to justify their objectification of women in comics as somehow empowering to women. By cladding the female characters in skin-tight suits that leave nothing to the imagination and giving them powers, they are somehow less objectified than you'd assume at first glance. Oh no, they are totally powerful, according to the geeks.
Of course, at no point are they ever in charge, in normal clothes, homely, or out of the control of some male superhero.
I've jacked off to Rogue in her undies many times, so I ought to know a thing or two about objectifying comic book women. That doesn't excuse the industry for its blatant subjection of women, though, it only reinforces the stereotype of geeks as misogynists.
So he says to me he says, "Do you want to be baaaaaad?" And I say, "Yeah baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! We're making gravy WITHOUT THE LUMPS!!! AAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahaHAAAAAA!!!"
History tells us that many of the Celts went into battle naked. This was disconcerting to their foes. I wonder how popular That comic would be?
On another note, "Holy Men in Tights!" sounds like the next scandal.
The King
Rural Alaska nuclear power gets legislative backing
When I saw "Holy men in tights", I thought it was about another Catholic sex abuse scandal.
http://www.superdickery.com/
Superheroes being dicks.
And other stuff so amazing it... sucks.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Wolverine wasn't irradiated, and except for the Adamantium in his bones, and his mutant healing power, and highly developed senses, he's probably one of the more "human" superheroes.
I can't count Daredevil since he was irradiated - although later it was revealed that actually had nothing to do with his supersenses.
There are probably hundreds of non-irradiated superheroes, and probably hundreds of strictly human ones as well.
But you're probably right that Batman was the FIRST (or nearly so) of the strictly human ones (if you don't count myths and legends, but only comics.)
But to pick a superhero because he is most human is to underestimate the importance of the genre. The genre is nothing more than a modern manifestation of the human desire for a Transhuman existence. Therefore it is necessary that even the most human of superheroes be so superior to the average human (even Captain America can press 800 lbs which very few real humans can do) that they stand as a symbol of divinity. Even your Batman is not strictly human, both because of his technology and because of his vast experience - and that apparent inhuman nature is something he specifically trades on to intimidate his enemies.
OTOH, Superman, although a godlike entity, is represented in the comics as almost absurdly human, even to the point of being absurdly AMERICAN. I haven't read the stories in recent years, so they may have changed him, but I doubt it. His superpowers still make him a divinity, but DC went to great lengths to make him acceptable to humans.
Marvel did the same thing with their "teenage-angst superheroes" like Spiderman - which is why I never was as attracted to Spiderman as I was many other Marvel characters. Fortunately, they also provided seriously powerful entities as well - the success of the character Thanos - who is truly a demi-god and has actually BEEN a genuine divinity at least twice - and has been converted from a pure villain to an ambiguous character - is an example.
Even many of the Marvel supervillains have been altered to make them almost superheroes - Doctor Doom (my main man!) and Magneto, as well as Thanos, are examples. These characters tend to exaggerate human failings to a degree that makes them almost divine - but still understandable to humans, just like the gods of human myth such as Zeus or Odin (not to forget that even those gods are part of the Marvel pantheon.)
Superheroes and supervillains are about being "super" - which means more than human. And that is the bottom line to the literary genre.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
...its to do with time when most of the famous characters were created I think, there was a great deal of interest, and post 1945, collosal anxiety about radiation. I expect to see more modern creations having something to do with genetic modification and perhaps nanotechnology in their origin stories. These things don't necessarily happen by accident, I understand Stan Lee was thinking of issues of race and prejudice when he came up with idea of the X-men as being mutants persecuted for being who and what they were born as. Professor Xavier can be seen as a sort of Martin Luther King to Mangento's Malcolm X. In more recent times I've had the suspicion that this form has been reworked slightly to have more resonances with regard to society's treatment of homosexuality (I definitely got that feeling in the second film in the scene where, was it Iceman(?), goes home and his parents get upset when they find out what he is. Would appear to mirror many a "coming out" story).
This reflection of anxieties in popular art forms as a way of exploring or dealing with them is fairly well noted; for example, Bram Stoker's Dracula has an underlying theme of fear of supressed female sexuality, whereas Frankenstein is clearly all about fear of science. Its all the same thing really.
As an aside another reason Batman wins over his only DC rival, Superman, for readers internationally is that Superman is a little overly wrapped in the stars and stripes (of course "Red Son" had much fun playing with that aspect the strip) to the extent where his popularity waxes and wanes with regard to how people feel about the USA. He was big in the 1980s when American culture was at its zenith of being "cool" in Europe. Right now nobody wants to know really. He's always been and still is popular in countries that target the USA as a migration destination.
On closer examination though I think Superman is very symbolic but I think that Bruce Wayne/Batman is probably nearer the American dream ultimately. By day he's an enlightened capitalist in the modern American mould (rigorous businessman but very charitable etc) who still finds time to be a 'self made man' and act in a sort of "Wild West" state of mind by night.
Hang on, inherited wealth, wild west mentality, hangs out in a technologically advanced underground bunker...Batman=GWB? Holy known unknowns and unknown unknowns Batman! Makes you wonder if Wayne Industries had the contract for repairing the damage to Gotham done by the Batmobile and the Joker blowing stuff up. Meh, politics.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
Rumiko Takahashi.
But in the US and Europe, there appear to be no good female comic writers.
I think this is because if a man wants to be a cartoonist, he learns to draw and design and lay out panels, while if a woman wants to be a cartoonist she networks with her art college freinds and produces a strip in which stick figures talk about Iraq and Men.
I must note that the above theory is based on a single visit to Forbidden Planet and there may be some cases it doesn't address
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.