#he thought robin was symbolically representative of child abuse

[roobylavender]

i missed that class what dont you like about starlins rendition of their relationship?

(and also like, DID you think he did something in particular well or was it all…meh

the crux of my issues in this regard stems from batman #416. in the post-crisis era you began to see this way more lopsided depiction of bruce and dick's relationship wherein the former was portrayed to be almost.. bitter that dick had moved on to establish his own life. and it stood in great, great contrast to the bruce of the pre-crisis era, who was certainly devastated at the realization that dick was growing up, but also very intent for him to find his own happiness and way in life. they would have their disagreements on occasion (e.g., bruce initially disapproving of dick dropping out of college, bruce immediately taking leadership of a situation where the titans were involved when dick was better equipped to handle it, etc.) but the outcome of those situations was never outright bad yknow. bruce was very much capable of recognizing where he might have overstepped and subsequently stepped back to let dick have his own space. and i think initially max allan collins expanded on that dynamic in the post-crisis era in interesting ways by juxtaposing bruce's desire to see dick flourish against his own constant fear for dick's life. so instead of mike w. barr's comedic and lighthearted backup stories in early 80s tec where bruce disguised himself to keep an eye on dick's shenanigans and assure himself everything was going alright, you got this more serious confrontation within bruce with regards to his position as a parent. i don't think a lot of people read it that deeply but i've always viewed batman #408 as one of the most sensible depictions of that dilemma. the general complaints tend to be that this issue robbed dick of his pre-crisis decision to retire robin on his own, and i'll concede that as a worthwhile concern. but i don't think it's esp damning what with the implication that bruce no longer wants to be the person indirectly making the decision for dick to continue to be in this line of work. their moment at dick's bedside is less about bruce robbing him of the decision and more about him saying, if i let you still be robin, that's a direct reflection on me, bc i'm the one who got you to do all of this originally. i'm the one who put you directly in harm's way. if you're going to do this from now on, you need to do it on your own terms. you need to decide for yourself that this is who you want to be, without your relationship with me even being a factor.

it's a moment contributive to that delicious dynamic between them wherein every decision bruce takes to service dick's agency is inevitably read the wrong way by the latter to imply that he's not valued or not worthy of being seen as bruce's equal (and before the hounds pounce on me this obv does not include the increasingly abusive depiction of their relationship as the 90s progressed). that is an unavoidable dilemma when you're simultaneously someone's ward/adopted son and also their partner-in-crime! dick wants to be bruce's son and to be entitled to all of the love and care and protection that that entails but he also wants to be bruce's brother, his equal, his confidante, the one person he trusts more than anyone else in the world, etc. it's a tough place to be! it is paradoxical! and i'm so, so open to seeing that explored and think the way collins attempted to approach it in #408 was marvelous. but the way starlin (and other writers as well) totally swerved right in #416 to create this sudden resentment in bruce that dick had grown out of needing him was.. so utterly bizarre. like completely out of left field in a way i don't understand why people don't question it anymore bc in light of everything in the immediate fifteen years prior to the crisis it makes so little sense. their relationship with each other was so valued, bruce was so anxious to see dick establish himself while nonetheless maintaining a protectiveness over him, but it was all very much in good will even if he could overstep on occasion. it had all of the potential to allow for a very nuanced, empathetic exploration into the dilemmas of parenthood and esp when you are someone like bruce who has to forever live and contend with the crime of taking kids with him out onto the streets. bc he has to feel guilty! there is no escaping it. this is history, done and dusted forever, can't go back in time, so on and so forth. whatever harm comes any robin's way he has to live with as in some part being traceable back to his own actions. and i frankly believe that would be far more likely to evoke grief and anxiousness and concern than it would be bitterness that his son is charting out his own life

#as to do i think starlin did anything well. hmm #i like that he was able to acknowledge that jason's parents were loving people despite their circumstances #it didn't matter that willis was a criminal. what mattered was that he loved his family and would've done anything for them #which was a rare concession from starlin bc his writing could be pretty classist elsewhere #but at the same time idk sometimes i read it back and it's like. i don't think he was actually as classist as winick was ultimately #like it's been a While since i reread the starlin issues #but you could tell he believed jason's demise was less about his social class and more about being unable to fully recover from #or process his trauma as a result of the life he'd lived and the things he'd experience. hence the garzonas saga #and even in a death in the family the question is never about whether jason is acting out bc he's criminally inclined #bruce explicitly says he doesn't think he's given jason enough time to mentally and emotionally recover and that's why #he suspends him. so even starlin knew it was about the trauma first and foremost #and i mean that somewhat goes in line with his reasons for wanting to kill robin to begin with #he thought robin was symbolically representative of child abuse #in that it wasn't the conduit through which a young boy should necessarily grow #and ideally? the way to explore that in a medium that Requires the existence of child vigilantes #would have been to make the distinction that while there is always going to be some danger to every robin at the end of the day #what made the danger to jason distinct was that robin didn't work to resolve His trauma specifically #what robin did for dick is never something it could have done for jason let alone tim. there were too many other factors at play #so if this dilemma had been approached that way rather than starlin pursuing a blanket robin is child abuse ideology #that was subsequently picked up by other writers. then i think we might have gotten somewhere quite interesting #but anyway yeah so he's not my most hated by any means. there are parts i love there are parts i hate #ultimately at the end of the day winick will always be a gazillion times worse #outbox

[lady-plantagenet]

What hasn’t already been said: The Spanish Princess 2

Episode 1: CamelNOT

[Lively Music Plays]

I shit you not... that’s what it said in the CCs.

Tower of London (?)

*Catherine looks at the array of crowns like a museum curator and the proceeds to strut down the halls*

Wolsey: *gives her this strange look which is a mixture between damn girl and the eagle is my spirit animal.

Then Catherine gets fake detained and taken to Henry in what must be a strange variation of the whole Robin Hood/Maid Marian roleplay they historically engaged in.

... did she just call his erhm manhood his kingship? Well that’s original, I’ll give them that. Also funny how Bessie Blount initially looks on in fright... don’t worry girl that will be you soon.

———————————————————————

*the four ladies have a brunch friendship moment together*

I see Blount is among them... I see they are setting her up as Catherine’s friend in order to play up the whole betrayal.

Alright. Jokes aside, I realised how much I’ve played myself. I was inspired by @melusineloriginale ‘s sporks (which if all this TSP episode posts got you in the mood for PG show mockery I urge you to check out here - you’ll thank me later). In truth, Henry VIII’s early reign is a bit too late from my main area of focus for me to make intelligent jokes.

I’ll content myself with just bullet-pointing random thoughts that came into my head, and if some intelligent thought gets through, well that would be the pinnacle. In any case I’ll aim to not parrot some of the stuff that’s already been said, repetition can get annoying.

This image embodies this post, but maybe not the show. I’ve noticed those Starz productions get better by the end.

First Scenes:

- The recap just reminded me how much I will miss Margaret Beaufort in the coming episodes. I know her portrayal was innacurate but Harriet Walter just made everything better.

- They are making such a big deal out of this whole ‘we were crowned together, we rule together’ thing in this episode - it makes no sense. Catherine was an influential Queen but she was definitely no more than a consort and never saw herself as more.

- Ruairi’s new haircut is pleasing to my eyes.

- When she says ‘Abuelo’ it’s super adorable awww

The Ferdinand and Charles V scene:

- Bessie Blount looks so much like Ursula Pole lmao. Also they totally got the Pole children’s birth order wrong and UGH WHERE IS GEOFFREY POLE???

- I like Mary Tudor’s actress and her facial expressions. However, this whole polyglot image they are representing is innacurate. I am fairly certain she knew no spanish and I recall reading a contemporary account which said that she was not very learned.

- I’m pretty sure it would be considered bad luck to prematurely crown your son ‘Henry IX’ while you’re still alive.

- I actually like the whole Grape motif in this episode. It’s probably the smartest thing they’ve come up with so far for this episode. I know a lot of you will be all like ‘there’s no record of Ferdinand being abusive’ but this choice sort of makes sense when you recall Joanna’s treatment. Also I appreciate them for not being tacky and showing flashbacks of more overt abuse eg physical. The sugared grape is also fairly symbolic (the sugar is like a gilding, the grape easily crushable)

- OMG the guy from Garrow’s law is playing Thomas More!

- AND PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME IM NOT SEEING THINGS? Margaret Pole x Thomas More is happening?? Please god that is a historical crackship I am getting behind. Yes. This is what I’m most invested about.

Margaret Tudor and Scotland Scene:

- The whole ironic cutaway to Margaret being all depressed after Charles Brandon’s statement about her charming Scottish king is such a cliché movie technique.

- If this were a more artsy film I would think the whole setup resembling a stereotypical middle-class family breakfast was done on purpose for humorous effects or to create a link with the past. But here I don’t have as much trust in the producers. I think they just failed to capture the time period accurately.

- The modernisms continue: ‘Negassi please stop playing’ idk, there just something so modern about this for some reason ahaha

- Also again, I’m getting tired of all this ‘Catherine is basically queen herself’, ‘Catherine is a political genius’, ‘Catherine Catherine Catherine’ ugh. I don’t think the producers understand that Henry VIII was a very autocratic and traditional ruler. He didn’t make any show of joint-rulership (correct me if I’m wrong).

- The teeth thing is funny, smart and I liked it.

Back to Westminster:

- I like Ferdinand’s actor!

- Also Catherine’s response to ‘who are you loyal to?’ was not that smart. I feel like the producers wanted us to be impressed. What if Spain and England’s interests conflict, ey??

The Joust:

- I care too much for the whole Margaret Pole plotline. I’m so invested.

- I could watch a series of More and Pole just exchanging lines. I love the actors too and this is my hope for this series. The whole frustrated parents is SO CUTE.

- I didn’t know More tutored Reggie, I would be curious to know more.

- The way compton says groom to queen’s stool is freaking hilarious. He looks like a pervert.

- Henry Pole is a darling and must be protected at all costs.

- Oh Christ oh Christ that eyeball shot was just... good job on the special effects guys. Don’t know what the point of that choice was.

- I found the whole armour mentions after interesting, it looked so set up as a PR campaign because Stafford speaking about the armour just sounded like a statement agreed on beforehand ‘should have worn the same’ and the Catherine with ‘steel in the bones’ and Ferdinand’s impressed face (it was him playing them?)

- Am I giving this show too much credit?

- Also whats up with “God save the Queen?”

War Counsel:

- Henry VIII’s actor is quite charismatic in this scene. It’s almost as if Catherine is the hothead and Henry the wise one that speaks less but more significantly. It almost feels like they gender-swapped them.

The Bedchamber:

- Did Catherine breastfeed the baby? I thought it was Anne Boleyn. Doubtful... I’m tired of the trope of ‘you’re a good woman if you insist on breastfeeding the child yourself despite social conventions’. For a feminist show, the writers seem very attached to some 1950s perceptions of motherhood.

- I feel like the age difference between Catherine and Henry is well conveyed.

Scotland Again:

- ‘All the sheep were pregnant’ 👀 oh touché Margaret. oh my. Did she just?

- I know they are playing out this disenfranchised Margaret arc to reinforce how great Catherine and Henry are (cheap technique) and to build up to her involvement in Flodden (innacurate historically but I know what the show will do). But I will say this: the humour is pretty good in the Scottish scenes! But I know it’s unintentionally so... (I highly doubt they wanted us to laugh at Margaret hitting James or calling Alexander a pig).

Westminster and the baby chamber:

- What’s are those red splotches on the babies face??

- Oh that shot of Margaret and silent Reginald :((( it makes me sad.

- And now the Poles are at church! I just love the look of them.

- That scene of Maggie and Catherine was needed, as we didn’t get the best friends vibe much in this episode. The whole thing looked a bit pagan though, but it was nice :)

The whole Ferdinand’s betrayal segment:

- The grape motif again was fitting, him snapping the fruit right before she gets to it even despite her knowing what he’s like and what he’ll do, was a good parrallel.

- I’m tired of hearing of this ‘Camelot’. Even in the novel, Camelot was Catherine and Arthur’s dream and... can we just live it up with Arthur?

- Ursula Pole’s, Bessie Blount’s and Mary Boleyn’s actresses look way too similar.

- I fail to see why Catherine thinks she’s turning into her father... she doesn’t strike me as much of a game-player or subtle two-facer.

- I’m intrigued what will happen with Oviedo and Lina... I feel like they won’t stay in England long.

- He was made knight bannaret... nice... but why does he thank Catherine publicly for this? It was in Henry’s gift that he was made a commoner Knight.. if this transpired irl Henry would have been gravely insulter.

Catherine’s Dead Baby and thereafter:

- Guys. In all seriousness, I don’t think the TV series is trying to imply that Catherine killed the baby with her negligence. I mean, they are so bent on us liking her they wouldn’t do that. It would be a bit too ballsy anyway. Remember the red splotches I mentioned earlier? Could those have been a sign that he was already ill but no one noticed/was in denial?

- The pebbles in hands would have had more emotional payoff if it had been established earlier if you know what I mean. Basically, this episode is too fast and entire arcs begin and end within it which extinguished any build-up.

- Oh man Henry is so sweet in this, how will they build him up as the tyrant he was historically if they keep this up?

Scotland Again:

- I must admit, I don’t like all those nicknames they keep using. But somehow James calling Margaret ‘Meg’ is nice and seems fitting.

- What’s a hermana sister?

England Last Mourning Scenes:

- YOU DID NOT BUILD CAMELOT ughhh

- Why is Catherine giving the speech and not Henry?? It turns out Catherine was more emotional historically then the whole perception of ‘perfect queen of stone’ to which some people hold her. However, I doubt it would have been proper of her to give a speech in such a emotional manner.

Conclusion:

6.5/10

Some of the dialogue was stilted, the costumes are confused as to which era they’re supposed to be (aesthetically distracting) and many other characterisation issues.

I don’t have high hopes for this series in terms of cinematography or art but I sure as hell expect it will be entertaining. So far, everything is just getting set up and I find some aspects promising. As you can tell I am truly excited over how the Margaret Pole plotline. I am also interested in how Henry will be portrayed, with Catherine being so OTT and pushy this episode Im starting to Stan him more. In this show he appears sensitive and serene and kinda... adorable. Kind of like a little brother hanging onto his sister’s skirts.

But in a way that is a disservice to the real historical figure which would not tolerate such a representation. I am very irritated by this whole ‘joint-rulers’ thing which is just sooo innacurate. These STARZ shows have an obsession with showing women turn into men for the purposes of feminism - I see.

Catherine overpowers Henry too often and it sometimes feels like he’s HER consort. Of course, the feminism in this show is schizophrenic as we get the overemphasis of Catherine as a 1950s motherly ideal with the whole breastfeeding angle (“you’re better than other noble woman who would find this beneath them”, “they’re not as motherly as you”).

So the relationship dynamic between Henry and Catherine is a bit off at the moment, but oh well.

Mary Tudor is a bit distracting with her dark hair but I find the actress extremely endearing and promising. I know there will be emphasis on her storyline too and I hope they’ll not be clichéd with it.

#the spanish princess #the spanish princess 2 #lady plantagenet's series reviews #not my best #but I've been ill for most of the week and wanted to get this out before episode 2 comes tommorow #feel free to send me an ask if you you have anything to say #I'd love to see if anyone else thought some of the same things

[pomegranate-salad]

Seeds of Thought : Wicdiv #27

I slightly rushed this this month because uni stuff is a bit all over the place lately. Feel free NOT to point out typos as I’m about to dive in 4 hours worth of administrative law notes and I really need to believe in myself right now. Thoughts and opinions on the new issue under the cut, not spoiler-free.

 KEEP POLITICS OUT OF US !

 “Roll credits !” would say one particular YouTube channel. After four issues, Wicdiv actually provided us for an in-universe explanation for the title of this arc : Imperial Phase (part I) isn’t just our intuitive understanding of it, it’s “a well-supported model” for any Pantheon that enters its second year. And while this information only shows up toward the end, this issue seems constructed like a pop-up book of that point, developing the variations of what this could mean for each character. The issue opens with Baal’s mission, ends with Cassandra’s obsession, and in the middle ? Anarchy in the UK.

 Now I’m not going to go and unpack everything this issue does and says about its characters, not only because I don’t have the time, but also because hovering over every loaded panel is something even more interesting : the nagging feeling that none of them, taken individually, really matters. I’m sure there will be much talk about the odd structuring at the core of the issue, but personally I found the actual disposition less meaningful than the effect it had on the reader. Because of the changing divisions between the different snippets, you cannot get into a page by focusing directly on one storyline : first, you have to seize it in its entirety, spot the junction lines and decide which block to read first. Before jumping into one, you have to catch a glimpse of the others, have your eyes drawn to every panel standing out because of a contrast in colour or close faces. When you read a block, you can’t help but deviate to an adjacent panel, read a word or two, get back on track. You get in and out of blocks, move on to the next one, try to draw meaning from their juxtaposition, to find alternative reading orders ; you wonder if the links between them are deliberate or just your own interpretation.

You are like an analyst starring at a data spreadsheet, trying to wrap their head around all the info, to find order in the apparent chaos, highlight common trends, spot outliers. Seize and interpret. A single panel means nothing, and there are no solitary ones in these pages. Out of sample size comes accuracy, on the sum of individualities you build meaning. And because we’re the analyst leaning over the page, and not one of the insignificant data lost on it, we can stamp our general understanding onto every individual story. We never come into one data fresh. Each exists and makes sense relatively to the others.

 This ties in to the permanent double layer of Wicdiv, which I’ve discussed here : there’s always a filter to our connexion with the gods. No matter how close we get as an audience, we’ll always be infinitely closer to the in-world audience, the adoring public, the reporters, the historians and the psychologists. Before we are the gods, we are the ones watching them. And while Fandemonium was about what it’s like to be a fan, Imperial Phase (part I) takes us to the world of scholars. In the kaleidoscope of what it means to be a public figure, we’ve left the stadiums and twitter accounts for the museums and the monographies. Another facet, another layer forced on your reading. The gods are not simply obsessed, they’re not simply losing it, they’re reproducing a well-supported model. Their teen angst bullshit doesn’t just have a body count, it has an archive section, a conference cycle and a study department.

I said in my previous SOT that despite the time we’ve spent around them we really do not know the gods that well. And this arc provides us with another shade of not getting to know them : through the glasses of historians, sociologists, scientists and theologians. The gods are never really just themselves. Never free of scope.

 And it seems like Wicdiv has mined this topic before, doesn’t it ? Yes, despite having Baphomet on the cover, if this issue has one figurehead, it’s none other than Tara. Tara was crushed by the impossibility to reconcile her self with the layers upon layers of significance that were thrown on her. She made clear in her letter that this crucible doesn’t start at godhood. Existing as a young woman of colour is a political act. You can never be free of the meaning that will be forced on who you are : it is impossible to dissociate yourself from the political signification of yourself, even when you try to create a public persona that will carry these layers for you.

This theme comes back in full force in this issue, as Cass helpfully spells out its subtext : the personal IS the political. Everything the gods do bathes in our political and sociological understanding of it.

When Baal, a young black man from suburban London, says he belongs in the House of Lords, it’s political. When Cass, a trans woman, is having fun in public, it’s political. When Woden uses a sex worker to symbolically assert his power over a woman he fears, it’s political as fuck.

The gods have no control over this double layer : this is something that is imposed on them, no matter how much they’re willing to accept it. Minerva cannot fall apart because if so she’ll just be “another teenage cautionary tale”, and indeed, before she even said it there were speculations on whether or not she’d follow the classic implosion road of the child star. Even when the gods refuse to see anything political in what they are, the audience will be there to imbue that meaning in them. Sakhmet’s quest for emotional impenetrability is something we immediately link to her being a probable abuse victim, despite her never even mentioning that fact. They are never just a teenager off the rails or a woman who has survived abuse, they have to be the flagship of their demographic.

 As public figures, the gods are especially vulnerable to this dispossession of their individuality. Exposition allows you to confound your own psychological needs and issues with actual politics. The gods are lost in the blurred lines between a personal research and a political statement. Baal takes a national security issue and makes it about whether he can maintain control, linking it to his personal insecurities. Reciprocally, Amaterasu takes her mysticism and egomania and turns it into a religion.

 But at its core, Wicdiv is more about youth than it is about celebrity. As stars, the gods can put a political meaning forward, but as youngsters they cannot push it out of their lives. This is after all the one constant characteristic of the reincarnations : they are young. I’m 23, which would make me one of the older gods in wicdiv ; but even so, this issue aligns perfectly with how I see my demographic treated in society at large. Young people are the single most objectified and objectifiable age segment : from denigrating articles about millennials, to politicians “catering” to us in the most improbable way, we are simultaneously a curious beast that needs to be seized up and a formless plague on society’s values. In a world that doesn’t belong to us yet, everymen and scholars alike are trying to appraise us using a language that wasn’t conceived to fit all of us. The language of oppressors. So we’re being chopped up in representative samples, aligned in databanks, made into statistics. It’s normal to talk of the young as a unified group because the world doesn’t know who we are outside of the political meaning it has stamped on us. We are young, and we are never just ourselves. And this can be draining. I’ve never seen anyone over 30 as hyperaware of how they make “their generation” look as any young person. Never seen any of them as self-conscious when it comes to talking about ourselves, how we can shape the future of language. I believe that there hasn’t been a single time in History in which young people weren’t the most political group of a given society. Being political is not, at first, a choice ; it’s something that has been done to us.

 Regarding this, just how special really are the gods ? Them too, them especially, carry at all times the burden of being simultaneously more and less than themselves. More because they cannot exist out of the political understanding of themselves ; less precisely because of that. They are part of a cycle : emerge, burn out, leave the world. A new generation emerges, at the same time completely cut out from the previous one and yet repeating without knowing it the same pattern. The gods are youth personified. In the last pages, David Blake’s speech is mirrored panel by panel to the gods going awry. What can they do, with all their might, to prove this mere human wrong ? Even if they turn out different, outliers, nothing more. Chosen ones, in a long line of chosen ones, a centre page and a footnote, exceptional and yet so, so banal. The gods have never looked more like icons than in these last pages : Batman and Robin in the storm, two lurking shadows, a sacrificial victim, a human sun over her temple – or is it just an illuminated statue ?

Case studies, all of them. David Blake holds the theory. He holds the meaning, he holds the power. And we, as an audience, can only go as far as he can see. Just like him, we are not trapped on the stage ; when the show is over, we’ll pack up and go home. We’ll blog about it and post pictures, until we get tired of it. Those of us who haven’t already will say goodbye to their youth, and will look with various degrees of understanding at the new generation, wondering just how much and how little has changed.

The gods of Wicdiv will never get to grow up. This power will never be theirs. Loved, hated, brilliant. For others to see.

  WHAT I THOUGHT OF THE ISSUE :

 Holy shit, you guys.

 Well if anything, after this people should stop complaining that I’m being too negative for a while.

 Because holy shit, you guys.

 I feel like those of you who’ve been reading me for a while know me enough to guess I loved this issue. And you’d be about as right as the word love can describe how much I adored this. My feeling might of course change, but as of right now there is no question for me that this is the best thing Wicdiv has ever done. It’s notoriously hard for me to connect with something on a pure emotional level, and while it does come handy to lay out themes and ideas, I always feel like I’m missing something by never being able to just be taken aback by a work of art and not know what to say. The last time it happened to me was when I went to see Mad Max : Fury Road and there was just so much beauty on the screen it sent my brain in overdrive and I wasn’t able to think again until we got out of the theatre. And this is what happened here. The thoughts I laid out above didn’t occur to me until this morning ; from Wednesday to Saturday, all I was able to do was pick up the issue and read it again with my mind completely blank.  Congratulations, Wicdiv team : you made something so good it finally got me to shut up about it.

 If I am to analyse, I think a good part of my appreciation comes from how little I expected this issue to turn out as it did. From the previous ones, there was no indication that Imperial Phase (part I) was going to be anything more than enjoyable and slightly more conceptual than the arcs before, which after the way-too-conventional-for-my-taste Rising Action felt a bit underwhelming. And if this issue has one flaw, it’s that it’s so good it makes me a bit harsher on the previous issues : #25 and #26 were perfect for what they were, but still a means to an end, and #24 almost feels like a throwaway prologue than could have been dealt with in a couple of pages. I’ve heard somewhere that a good song can make an album, but a great one can kill it. And yes, I’m a bit afraid for the structural integrity of Imperial Phase, but I’ll pass my judgment after the arc is good and done.

But despite my surprise, I think deep down this is the issue I’d been waiting for Wicdiv to make : something as offbeat, subtly sinister and anxiety-provoking as it had the potential of being despite always presenting as too “normal” for its own premise. More than the weird, I’m a lover of the uncanny, in the Freudian sense of the word ; the “disturbing strangeness”, as we say in French. Nothing in this issue is outwardly, consciously weird, yet everything feels slightly wrong, slightly worrisome, like the dark space between the neon lines linking the panels, a record that isn’t really broken but always seems to drag a little, in a way you can’t quite place. This issue caters to my tastes so much I imagine others are going to have a hard time getting behind it. The only thing that could make me love this more than I do is if they’d found a way to cram a Dodo bird in there somehow. I love Dodo birds.

 But yes, this is Wicdiv as I wish it always was : slick and messy, grim and bright, cynical and sincere, direct and twisted. Cracks on the marble columns. A dissonant symphony. Madness is looming, but it’s not quite there yet, just something in the air. Who knows what will happen in next issue. Who knows what happens on the first of May. Wicdiv has always thrived in this chiaroscuro, between the lights of the Shard and the shadows of Valhalla. But even if Wicdiv never goes down this rabbit hole again, I’ll always be grateful for this issue, as I am for everything that knocks me off my feet and reminds me just what you can do with Art. Sex and drugs and rock n’roll. Very good indeed.

#wicdiv #seeds of thought #thinkpiece time #i do like administrative law but the legal decisions are long and full of boredom #here in france we have an administration the entire world envies #they could come and take it but they don't

[superherostudentproject-blog]

Understanding Superheroes; Abilities, Weaponry, and Beyond.

          Superheroes and comic book characters alike have appealed to a wide range of audience members throughout time, and will most likely continue to do so. Characters like Batman, Aqua Man, Cat Woman, Wonder Woman, or Supergirl all come from very distinct backgrounds, hold a vibrancy of unique abilities, and some even are literally out of this world. Quite possibly what distinguishes one superhero from the next, is how they defend themselves and fight for justice in the rage of fury. Thor has his hammer, Captain America has an indestructible shield, while Wonder Woman wears a complete battle armor ensemble. So how do these weapons and abilities tie into what makes a superhero, a superhero?

           The first printed superhero comic book with a distinct costume and superhuman abilities was Action Comics #1, released in 1938; staring Superman himself. It arguably was the faint beginning of major franchises like DC and Marvel, and still to this day is the most valuable comic book in existence. ( An estimated $3.2 million at its peak) Since then, audiences have seen these characters have deal with deep seeded personal issues, politics, social issues, even times of war and terror. The ideas behind creating Superman originated during the Great Depression, when people sought after a new world, one to give hope and bring optimism. Soon after came a darker, but still determined Batman, and eventually sidekicks like Robin or Toro. After Wonder Woman joined the game, writers chose to represent current political reflections of groups like the Axis Powers and the Allies by creating different universes. Not everyone within the general public supported the age of Superheroes however, as it defied authority, in addition to highlighting provocative romance and bloody violence. Some advocated for superheroes to work alongside the police and detectives, as a way to truly represent unity. By the mid 50’s and early 60’s, powerful clans like the Justice League and Fantastic Four introduced a newer, more specialized set of guardians like Iron Man, Aquaman, Captain America, Spiderman, and Black Widow.

          By the time we had reached the late 80’s and early 90’s, writers with audience members alike felt it crucial to expand on character development as it may relate to the reader. We learn that Iron Man was once an alcoholic, Spiderman may have been molested as a child, Hulk was viciously abused as a youngster, and Batman’s parents were murdered point blank in front of him. Eventually as we all know, the superhero franchises went on to make billion dollar films with A-list talent, in addition to selling out on everything from trading cards to board games, t-shirts, dolls, Halloween costumes, even auctioning for props used in the films.

          With the immense and almost overwhelming amount of characters being developed on such a consistent basis, how can we distinguish good from evil, a hoax hero from a warrior? How does weaponry, sexuality, or appearance play into a role?

          For the last several decades the demigoddess Wonder Woman has been the face of feminism, furthermore representing appreciation of culture, strength of character, and dignity. Not to mention, her armor tells a story of its own.  Her royal tiara not only represents a physical symbol of her royalty and heritage, but its jagged edges are used as a throwing weapon with a boomerang effect frequently. Her Lasso of Truth not only has a pretty cool glow to it, it still was designed as an apparatus for pulling truths from villains in times of crisis. Her magical sword doesn’t have as much of a strong history as the rest of the ensemble, except that if needed, the sword could take down Superman and allegedly break through the smallest of atoms. The Sandals of Hermes give her abilities to fly, increase in speed and in strength. Her entity is a direct reflect reflection of the type of warrior she is.

          A common factor in deciphering men and women in comic books, is seduction. Rogue from X Men for example, harnesses the ability to absorb power over her enemy by a simple touch. She gains exclusive access to an archive of thoughts, emotions, and memories, in addition to being able to strip ones abilities if touched long enough. While a hero like Storm who also makes an appearance in X Men, holds a direct line to mother nature herself. Storm controls the elements; wind, fire, earth, sea, and sky.  Scarlet Witch who too is connected to the franchise, has the ability to manipulate reality in a number of ways, most notably with a single stare.

          On the opposite side of this superhero spectrum, we find heroes like Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man. Juxtapose to feminine ideals of holding integrity and pride, even celebrating sisterhood, more male dominated heroes are seen as protectors or providers. Superman was meant to represent the American Way in his farm boy roots, he cuts down on the war on crime, and without him, the world would basically fall apart. Masculinity is the driving force behind each of these men. Notice that more often than not, the majority of male figures grapple more so with each other than against the enemy. Batman vs. Superman for example is initially built upon misunderstanding, but ultimately becomes territorial. In the DC world more male figures hold strengths through physicality’s and less through weaponry, as seen in a Marvel World. While Batman and Spider-Man may hold sophisticated gadgets as accessories, characters like Iron Man and Captain America strictly rely on their suits to give them power in battle.

          Going a bit more in depth, perhaps the initial attraction to Captain America was his unique relatability to the audiences of the time. In the midst of war, Steve Rogers decides to enroll in the army by doing his part to give back to our great nation. When turned away for his frail figure, he joins an experimental program designed to make him the next super-soldier. Though the experiments increased his overall muscle mass, his star spangled shield makes him stand out from the rest. His arsenal is comprised of everything from assault rifles, to pistols, firearms, and bombs. And why not? He is Captain America. He’s normal just like everyone else but with his impressive gadgets, anyone could be the next guardian of our galaxy.  Once again, reinforcing principles of masculinity and power through physical actions, less through spoken word and emotion.

          If there is only a single concept both male and female superheroes share, it is calling to fight for a better world despite their original circumstances. Superheroes resonate with their audiences in a much deeper capacity then we may fully be able to comprehend; they ultimately represent the people we one day hope to be. 

Written By: Ashley Burton

Sources:

May, Cindi. "The Problem with Female Superheroes." Scientific American.       SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF NATURE AMERICA, 18 June 2015. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

Moore, Rose. "Wonder Woman's 12 Most Powerful Weapons." Screen Rant. Screen Rant, 11 Nov. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.

Casalena, Emily. "15 Most Powerful Female Superheroes Of All Time." Screen Rant. Screen Rant, 21 Nov. 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Parrish, Robin, and Skywalker Says. "10 Awesome Superhero Weapons." Forever Geek. Splashpress Media, 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.Rosenberg, Robin. "The Psychology Behind Superhero Origin Stories." Smithsonian.com. Smithsonian Institution, 01 Feb. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.

"Superheroes 101: A History." Review. Web log post. Hellblazer. Comic Vine, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.

Contributor, George Marston Newsarama. "10 BEST FEMALE Superheroes Of All Time." NewsaRama. Purch, 01 Dec. 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.

Newquist, Vadim. "Mindhut Ranks: The All Time Greatest Super Hero Weapons!" The Mindhut. SparkNotes, 12 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.