Friday, May 18, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Boys and reaching my limit
How far is too far? I ask that question after reading volumes 1-7 of The Boys. I picked them up from the library out of curiosity and I'm reasonably certain I only kept reading out of spite. I rarely hate something I read. I can react negatively but I almost never feel worsened by reading something. The Boys made me feel bad. It made me angry at having wasted my time and indulged this utter garbage. It offended me at my core. Kind of amazing given that I don't shock easily.
To be clear I have episodes of South Park memorized. I've seen (though I regret seeing the last of) the Jackass trilogy in theaters. I love George Carlin's work. I love the stand up of Patton Oswalt and Ricky Gervais, neither of which avoids sacred cows. But this was a tremendous revelation that I am writing this to discuss and eventually eviscerate.
The reason this work sickened me is simple: I truly think it came from a place of hate. That is a heavy charge but very easily proven in the very premise. The book centers around a team of people funded by the CIA to bring down the corrupt monsters known as superheroes. Writer Garth Ennis rather notoriously loathes the genre so this is his attack. Weirdly, the reason for his passionate hate doesn't bother me. I am just as far on the other side in my love of the genre but off the top of my head, I love Astro City, Watchmen, Squadron Supreme, the movies Kick-Ass, Super, and Unbreakable. (Astro City and Unbreakable are really love letters to the genre but they fit my point. I can take deconstruction.)
The issue is how Ennis goes about his wretched task. This book deals with multiple subjects that should be handled with caution or even better not handled at all! Most of these are used for little more than jokes. As I begin my list, keep that in mind. These subjects are treated as funny.
*Rape. Maybe the lone subject Ennis tries to at least address with some tact at one point. A main character is molested early on and then proceeds to stridently object to the idea rape would lead her to act sexier. He does attack a serious problem in comics. Too bad he thinks it's funny for a Batman analogue to be addicted to anal rape and has a scene where he ponders violating a Robin analogue. He also has a story depicting a Charles Xavier analogue as a serial child molester. This seems only in there for the joke of "hee hee, wouldn't it be funny if that was why Xavier had his school".
*Mental retardation. You want to know why I'm writing? Because Ennis conceived a team of mentally handicapped superheroes who are threatened with rape, torture, and murder. He includes a character with tourette's syndrome who constantly spouts obscenities. He very clearly condescends to the handicapped. Look, I love Ralph Wiggum but I never view Ralph as handicapped so much as his own insanity. This made me feel slimy.
*Homophobia: I cannot take this one. Homophobia runs through one arc in which we learn a character who is publicly gay friendly to the point of his own homosexuality being taken for granted is a closet homophobe who murdered a gay man for coming onto him. The unseemly element about this is the way he expresses his homophobia. Nothing wrong with homophobia as a subject but it...it feels a bit too close to the writer's own words. Especially given the aforementioned anal rapist, the constant equating gay sex with decadence, and the lone positive portrait of gay characters being flaming queens. Ennis also includes a ridiculous parody of a transsexual in the series. The trans people I know all tend towards androgyny, not overmuscled guy in a bad dress, wig and makeup. The truly sad part is the whole gay friendly character was a stab at Judd Winick, the talented writer who frequently puts gay characters in his work because he is passionate about gay rights due to knowing a good many gay individuals. He lost a good friend to AIDS. Support his work instead.
*Sexism. Man does this book hate women. Admittedly one of only two truly likable characters is a woman but the rest are sub-Frank Miller depictions of prostitutes, women who act like hookers, cold unfeeling creatures, and bad stereotypes of women. Having a character with a need for breast milk to survive also felt grotesque.
*Hatred for institutions. When you are in high school through early parts of college, it's ok to rant and rave against the major institutions of religion, government, the economy. Past that point, feel free to argue against such. But if you mock say religion, have a point! George Carlin's anti religion rants were superbly constructed. I don't agree with a lot of what he said but he had points! This argues that all religious people are idiots. That the government is full of idiots. That business is evil. Congratulations Ennis, you are no more bold than a college freshman. The truth is all might be flawed but you need to say more.
*Toilet humor. Done well, it's art. Look at the dress scene in Bridesmaids. It isn't done well here at all. I felt dirty reading the pervasive urine and other fluid drenched humor. I will leave it at this: if you can't, don't.
*Gore. Let me discuss one of the goriest films I have ever endured: Kill Bill vol. 1. Nonstop, unceasing blood and pretty much everything I've described above. I love it. Why? I cannot take a frame of it seriously. Quentin Tarantino took things far beyond plausibility and frankly it really isn't that realistic. It's gory but it's usually equally funny. The difference is context. Tarantino creates an absurdist, often hilarious world of "covert" assassins. This is just extra ugliness.
*Bestiality. There is an entry for this. That is all.
So what? So why should anyone care about such garbage? What larger point am I getting at? This: such utter trash is worthless because it serves no purpose. What is Ennis critiquing? Superhero comics. All that hate for the purpose of criticizing light entertainment! Were such violence and mistreatment of women used in a work on something like Stalin's purges, I would understand. But frankly it's a poor battle to fight, bringing unrelenting negativity to bear on escapism.
And that brings me to a broader point. Unrelenting nihilism is in its own way just as naive as unrelenting optimism. It serves as a shield against the pain of investing hope in something. The nihilists the world has tossed in my path often have wounds in their past. And they are constantly mocking those who dare to care or to feel something. They are smarter than everybody else. They are insufferable.
Nihilism is not the smarter way of living. It makes you hard to deal with. It alienates you. It robs you of the will to do anything.
What creates nihilism? I have a theory. It is just that. The saying goes there is no stronger believer than a convert. I buy that. The liberals and cynics I know who were raised in such environments (myself included) have an even tempered take on things. We might question the institutions but we ultimately take things with a casual view. Similarly, most of the neocons I knew who were raised as such are usually the most easy to talk to. I went to a very conservative school and met a lot of very right wing people and quickly found them rather likable. We didn't often agree but when you are firm enough in your values, it's easy to talk with someone else.
The new nihilist isn't. He's just discovered that what he grew up on isn't as safe as he thought it was. And the ones who usually endure are the ones who never recover from that shock. They are dealing with a profound sense of betrayal and loss. This actually tends to be a bit rare among the militant atheist writers oddly, many of whom weren't raised as adherents and who talk with great joy about science and who thus aren't nihilists. (I'm not much for his work but Richard Dawkins really conveys that sense of awe). What I'm talking about to be clear are the one time staunch believers in something who suddenly turn just as insufferable on the other end. They feel betrayed and nihilism is a guard against feeling in general. I have seen this drama play out rather often in staunchly conservative Arkansas. Disillusionment is something painful for anyone. I've been disillusioned certainly. Disillusionment means accepting that one misplaced their trust. The nihilist declares never again the armor goes up. But that's conjecture on my part.
Why should we care that some choose to wallow in negativity? Because it is a cancer. The works we read impact us. The movies we watch change us. I feel compelled to act after I watch a great movie. Nothing says a great work must be uplifting. Black Swan was a nauseating descent into the pit of a broken mind. But it made me think about worthy ideas. The tortuous pursuit of art is an idea that merits illumination. United 93 placed me on a doomed flight and depicted the sad events of 9/11 in all too real detail. That was history.
Indulging in our worst natures for a cruel joke is not a valuable use of our time. Just depicting atrocity serves little purpose. Doing it as a joke definitely fails.
To be clear I have episodes of South Park memorized. I've seen (though I regret seeing the last of) the Jackass trilogy in theaters. I love George Carlin's work. I love the stand up of Patton Oswalt and Ricky Gervais, neither of which avoids sacred cows. But this was a tremendous revelation that I am writing this to discuss and eventually eviscerate.
The reason this work sickened me is simple: I truly think it came from a place of hate. That is a heavy charge but very easily proven in the very premise. The book centers around a team of people funded by the CIA to bring down the corrupt monsters known as superheroes. Writer Garth Ennis rather notoriously loathes the genre so this is his attack. Weirdly, the reason for his passionate hate doesn't bother me. I am just as far on the other side in my love of the genre but off the top of my head, I love Astro City, Watchmen, Squadron Supreme, the movies Kick-Ass, Super, and Unbreakable. (Astro City and Unbreakable are really love letters to the genre but they fit my point. I can take deconstruction.)
The issue is how Ennis goes about his wretched task. This book deals with multiple subjects that should be handled with caution or even better not handled at all! Most of these are used for little more than jokes. As I begin my list, keep that in mind. These subjects are treated as funny.
*Rape. Maybe the lone subject Ennis tries to at least address with some tact at one point. A main character is molested early on and then proceeds to stridently object to the idea rape would lead her to act sexier. He does attack a serious problem in comics. Too bad he thinks it's funny for a Batman analogue to be addicted to anal rape and has a scene where he ponders violating a Robin analogue. He also has a story depicting a Charles Xavier analogue as a serial child molester. This seems only in there for the joke of "hee hee, wouldn't it be funny if that was why Xavier had his school".
*Mental retardation. You want to know why I'm writing? Because Ennis conceived a team of mentally handicapped superheroes who are threatened with rape, torture, and murder. He includes a character with tourette's syndrome who constantly spouts obscenities. He very clearly condescends to the handicapped. Look, I love Ralph Wiggum but I never view Ralph as handicapped so much as his own insanity. This made me feel slimy.
*Homophobia: I cannot take this one. Homophobia runs through one arc in which we learn a character who is publicly gay friendly to the point of his own homosexuality being taken for granted is a closet homophobe who murdered a gay man for coming onto him. The unseemly element about this is the way he expresses his homophobia. Nothing wrong with homophobia as a subject but it...it feels a bit too close to the writer's own words. Especially given the aforementioned anal rapist, the constant equating gay sex with decadence, and the lone positive portrait of gay characters being flaming queens. Ennis also includes a ridiculous parody of a transsexual in the series. The trans people I know all tend towards androgyny, not overmuscled guy in a bad dress, wig and makeup. The truly sad part is the whole gay friendly character was a stab at Judd Winick, the talented writer who frequently puts gay characters in his work because he is passionate about gay rights due to knowing a good many gay individuals. He lost a good friend to AIDS. Support his work instead.
*Sexism. Man does this book hate women. Admittedly one of only two truly likable characters is a woman but the rest are sub-Frank Miller depictions of prostitutes, women who act like hookers, cold unfeeling creatures, and bad stereotypes of women. Having a character with a need for breast milk to survive also felt grotesque.
*Hatred for institutions. When you are in high school through early parts of college, it's ok to rant and rave against the major institutions of religion, government, the economy. Past that point, feel free to argue against such. But if you mock say religion, have a point! George Carlin's anti religion rants were superbly constructed. I don't agree with a lot of what he said but he had points! This argues that all religious people are idiots. That the government is full of idiots. That business is evil. Congratulations Ennis, you are no more bold than a college freshman. The truth is all might be flawed but you need to say more.
*Toilet humor. Done well, it's art. Look at the dress scene in Bridesmaids. It isn't done well here at all. I felt dirty reading the pervasive urine and other fluid drenched humor. I will leave it at this: if you can't, don't.
*Gore. Let me discuss one of the goriest films I have ever endured: Kill Bill vol. 1. Nonstop, unceasing blood and pretty much everything I've described above. I love it. Why? I cannot take a frame of it seriously. Quentin Tarantino took things far beyond plausibility and frankly it really isn't that realistic. It's gory but it's usually equally funny. The difference is context. Tarantino creates an absurdist, often hilarious world of "covert" assassins. This is just extra ugliness.
*Bestiality. There is an entry for this. That is all.
So what? So why should anyone care about such garbage? What larger point am I getting at? This: such utter trash is worthless because it serves no purpose. What is Ennis critiquing? Superhero comics. All that hate for the purpose of criticizing light entertainment! Were such violence and mistreatment of women used in a work on something like Stalin's purges, I would understand. But frankly it's a poor battle to fight, bringing unrelenting negativity to bear on escapism.
And that brings me to a broader point. Unrelenting nihilism is in its own way just as naive as unrelenting optimism. It serves as a shield against the pain of investing hope in something. The nihilists the world has tossed in my path often have wounds in their past. And they are constantly mocking those who dare to care or to feel something. They are smarter than everybody else. They are insufferable.
Nihilism is not the smarter way of living. It makes you hard to deal with. It alienates you. It robs you of the will to do anything.
What creates nihilism? I have a theory. It is just that. The saying goes there is no stronger believer than a convert. I buy that. The liberals and cynics I know who were raised in such environments (myself included) have an even tempered take on things. We might question the institutions but we ultimately take things with a casual view. Similarly, most of the neocons I knew who were raised as such are usually the most easy to talk to. I went to a very conservative school and met a lot of very right wing people and quickly found them rather likable. We didn't often agree but when you are firm enough in your values, it's easy to talk with someone else.
The new nihilist isn't. He's just discovered that what he grew up on isn't as safe as he thought it was. And the ones who usually endure are the ones who never recover from that shock. They are dealing with a profound sense of betrayal and loss. This actually tends to be a bit rare among the militant atheist writers oddly, many of whom weren't raised as adherents and who talk with great joy about science and who thus aren't nihilists. (I'm not much for his work but Richard Dawkins really conveys that sense of awe). What I'm talking about to be clear are the one time staunch believers in something who suddenly turn just as insufferable on the other end. They feel betrayed and nihilism is a guard against feeling in general. I have seen this drama play out rather often in staunchly conservative Arkansas. Disillusionment is something painful for anyone. I've been disillusioned certainly. Disillusionment means accepting that one misplaced their trust. The nihilist declares never again the armor goes up. But that's conjecture on my part.
Why should we care that some choose to wallow in negativity? Because it is a cancer. The works we read impact us. The movies we watch change us. I feel compelled to act after I watch a great movie. Nothing says a great work must be uplifting. Black Swan was a nauseating descent into the pit of a broken mind. But it made me think about worthy ideas. The tortuous pursuit of art is an idea that merits illumination. United 93 placed me on a doomed flight and depicted the sad events of 9/11 in all too real detail. That was history.
Indulging in our worst natures for a cruel joke is not a valuable use of our time. Just depicting atrocity serves little purpose. Doing it as a joke definitely fails.
OK, back at it
Let me make this clear, the two of us are soon to have a big presence here. Big changes are coming for us. We want to make this our hub! (Aside from the fact that I'm writing as much as I can for BMMB) I have an essay on Garth Ennis' abysmal comic The Boys coming soon.
So our latest is here
So our latest is here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)