30 Days of Night: How one graphic novel shapes the femicides of Juarez, Mexico

30 Days of Night: Bloodsucker Tales: Juarez or Lex Nova & the Case of the 400 Dead Mexican Girls written by Matt Fraction takes a true life horror story and puts a vampiric twist on it. The real life story involves the gang rapes, mutilations, and other atrocities that resulted in the violent deaths of over 400 girls and women in Juarez, Mexico between 1993 and 2005 (Diana Washington Valdez, Deaths That Cry Out, 2006).

Do I think that this novel was sensitive to the true life story: hell no! First of all, the artist, Ben Templesmith, did an interview with UGO.com in which he states that his continuing work on this arc involves "pinups" of the clown ladies but he has to figure out "what they would have on their nipples." When asked what he would do if he did not have to work, Templesmith replied, "Just sit around painting pictures of nude women." Was it his intention to bring light to this massacre and bring some dignity back to its victims? Based on the fact that his time could be better spent painting nude women than getting justice for dead ones, probably not. Was it the writer's intention to do the same? If you gauge it by what critics got out of the story...maybe. "Honestly, there isn’t much to the plot and it’s a little drawn out. The mystery is solved without any fanfare and, in the end, those responsible aren’t really punished, but make amends. Of sorts." Soooo the case is "solved" in order to get those who are left behind off the backs of those responsible for finding the killers. That is like saying it is okay to violently murder women as long as you "repent." "Except, the case is solved...in the shadows with hints that it’s never over — and all that’s happened really is that a lot of girls have died and a family has been broken..." Oh, so the murderers are never found or brought to justice, great. We'll just cover it up and brush it off. After all, it is only a bunch of prostitutes, right? It will probably keep happening anyway, so why make a concerted effort for such lowlifes. In their thin, and I mean VERY thin defense, as one critic who panned the movie adaptation about the Juarez murders writes, "You can't make a thriller about indifference." Essentially you have to throw vampires in to make things sexy enough for people to read them, but f*ck the real story. You gotta make things spicy, I get it, but to whose detriment? Clearly the victims in this case have not been given their due by the government, by the law, or by the media that profits from them.

There is little criticism on the novel with reference to the real life killings and what I did find made no connection to women's rights. This parallels the Mexican Federal Attorney General's report that was largely viewed by human rights groups as a whitewash. In both cases, the murders were "solved" and nothing was accomplished with respect to women's rights. I say "boo" to the writers and pretty much everyone who collaborated on this project. Whether or not they had good intentions when starting out, the end product did little to shed light on a disgusting oversight by the Mexican government.

P.S. I am going to be taking a break from writing for a lil' bit sooooo see you next year!

X-Women, not Sex-Women please.

I enjoy reading about the X-Men and I love the characters. What is unsettling to me is how the title "X-Men" underscores the position of women on the team and in the Marvel universe. Though there are women in X-Men and in X-Force and in other X-team that exists, the fact remains that the team is ultimately about the Men. Up until recently the women of X-Men had no book of their own. That is until X-Women #1 was released in June of this year. And I cannot say that I like the looks of this book with relevance to how the women are portrayed. Yes, women (and men) are exaggerated in comics but this new title is downright porn. I will let this video by Brutally Honest do some of the talking for me on this issue.

Literature is a medium that has long been controlled by men. The literary canon that any English major reads from is saturated with literature written by men. Only in recent history has any attempt been made to balance the disparity of women’s contributions. In that respect, what is considered admissible to the literary canon is up for debate as well as what is considered literature. The graphic novel is a perfect example. Just as in the literary canon, the medium of the comic book and its offspring the graphic novel has largely been influenced, controlled by, and catered to men. And in the realm of culture, comics and graphic novels are considered to be on the “low” end of the spectrum, settling within the sphere of pop culture. I believe that graphic novels can be more than just pop culture amusement; in fact they are a perfect medium for postfeminist writing.

Essentially postfeminist writing describes women who are fallible yet capable and accept responsibility for who they have become. This type of writing is exemplified by Kiriko Nananan’s graphic novel Blue. The novel is a story about young girls discovering who they are and who they love. The characters definitely march to the beat of their own drummer which makes them a good example of an independent woman, but at the same time they are flawed which shows the side of their human weakness.

Blue is not characteristic of most comics and graphic novels. The overwhelmingly large majority of comics are written, lettered, drawn, and colored by men. The popular titles still feature women with unrealistic body proportions; however the men are drawn the same way. There is an underground of women centric comics that is growing which gives promise of opportunity for the female in the comics industry. If this group continues to rise in power and talent, which I believe it will, the old boys club of the comic book world will give way to a gender equal industry. Equally disturbing to the current absence of women centric comics is the lack of representation of non- white and/or gay, lesbian, and transgendered characters. Right now comics represent the interest of the men that are in power and by writing these “other” characters in the stories would help to disassemble the “boys club.”

X-Women #1 is beautiful artwork and I can appreciate that. Yet the dearth of female-centric comic books should not be requited by sex. In that sense, I would say yes to Brutally Honest's question of whether or not the release of X-Women #1 is a back step for Marvel. Let's give our X-Women more credit, because right now Marvel is saying that women don't deserve their own title or team unless it emphasizes sex. I would also say that because pop culture represents those who are in power, this reflects what gender group is in power.

Personally, I am really sad and confused by Marvel putting this title out in this manner. I would really like to hear how you feel about this matter. And since I have my feminist train of thought at full steam, I will continue in my next post with reference to 30 Days of Night: Bloodsucker Tales: Juarez or Lex Nova & the Case of 400 Dead Mexican Girls. This title is based on a true story where the murders of over 400 women were left unsolved.

Jimmy Corrigan: What is a Superhero?

F.C. Ware's The Adventure of Jimmy Corrigan: the Smartest Kid on Earth destabilizes the common definition of a superhero. I am going to begin by taking a look at how the title character, Jimmy Corrigan defines a superhero. I would argue that Jimmy is the same person as an adult that he is as a child and in his mind that person is a superhero.

The boy who grows up without a father idolizes a television superhero called "The Super-Man" who gives Jimmy his mask. The idea of a superhero is important to Jimmy for many reasons. Since Jimmy has no traditional males to fill the father figure role, he supplants that role with that of the superhero. "The Super-Man" reinforces this for Jimmy when he spends the night with Jimmy's mother. In this way, Jimmy was able to bring home a father for his mother, retaining his innocence while creating a source of strength for himself. It is at this point that Jimmy puts the mask on and begins to fantasize that he is a superhero otherwise known as "The Smartest Kid on Earth."

Jimmy's idea of a superhero is someone who is constant, never changing, and easily accessible to children. As Jimmy's costume and persona never change, it accounts for the constancy that is required to be a superhero. Also, Jimmy's perpetual childlike state evidenced by his smothering relationship with his mother and his permanent view of himself as a child, we see the way in which Jimmy's superhero countenance is easily accessible to children.

The non-linear way in which this graphic novel is written underscores Jimmy's idea of what a superhero is as well as twisting the form of the graphic novel itself. Since the story is constantly jumping back and forth, the reader is hard pressed to feel any manner of stability. It is through the leading chapter illustrations that the reader is able to simulate any structure or coherency. This is very much like Jimmy's life. The illustrations at the beginning of each chapter feature the title and Jimmy as a superhero. In many of these illustrations he is in a perpetual childlike state and his "costume" never changes. It is as if Jimmy is trying to create a sense of permanence in his unwavering role as the "smartest kid on earth" in order to fill the void left by his absent father. So the reader, like Jimmy, can find stability in an otherwise chaotic novel through the superhero at the beginning of each chapter.

Essentially Jimmy Corrigan creates a superhero when there is none. He fills a large hole in his life with that of a superhero image and when he cannot find someone tangible to fulfill that role for him, he creates one for himself. That is a very good reason indeed, why he is able to call himself, "The Smartest Kid on Earth."

Grendel as a model for a global community: frightening fact or fiction?

Matt Wagner's Grendel: Devil's Reign is an eerily accurate example of our future world (with the literal exception of vampires). The world has truly become a global economy in this case, but clearly unified. It is remarkable that the United States has in fact become the world leader, something that we are accused of trying to attempt even now. In order for you to see the broad scope of things I am going to a give brief plot summary before I go into specific moments in the novel. And for those of you who are big Batman fans, I think Orion has some similarities to Batman. The similarities can be quite interesting so I will talk a little about those too.

Grendel: Devil's Reign is set in the far future in a world plagued by vampires and nuclear power. The vampires have been cordoned off into a casino in a defunct Las Vegas, strictly regulated by the government after the country has seen a massive infestation. An unstable government was quickly unified when Orion Assante came into power bringing together North America, South and Central America, and Australia. This was a move that was viewed warily by the other world powers including China, Japan, and Africa. Shortly thereafter Africa, the country with the world's only nuclear power, supposedly kidnaps Orion's wife (also his co-ruler). Orion then disarms and takes control of Africa in order to free his wife, only to learn that the kidnapping was backed by Japan. A cold war began in which China aligned itself with Japan, resulting in a global war. As things were not going well, Orion felt he was possessed by the devil and disappeared for a while. During this dark time he had an inspiration for a new weapon called the Sun-Disk which he then used to devastate Japan. China then surrendered and Orion became ruler of the world. It is at this point that he embraces the name of Grendel, elevating the status of Grendel to an honorable one. During all of this the vampires found a way to escape from Vegas, setting the scene for future concerns within Orion's newly unified empire.

What I find interesting is the relationship the new world order has to the vampires. Clearly there has to be some lateral representation going on, but who are the vampires in our world? It isn't like America hasn't created prison camps before and with the threat of terrorism on the rise there is little to keep us from doing it again. We, as a country, do not tend to see people in the Middle East as humans. In fact it is not uncommon to hear ignorant people say that we should just bomb the Middle East to hell. This highlights another similarity between the real world and Grendel's, only in the graphic novel Orion just bombed the shit out of Japan instead. Oh wait, we did that already in 1945. So what is this all saying? Is a unified global world a good or a bad thing? And how do the vampires complicate things? Are they really representative of another country or are they more like our collective evil consciousness? I personally feel that globalization is inevitable and that we need to start looking at people from other countries as just humans like your neighbor down the street. A child in Africa deserves no less than a child in Wisconsin. I do think that cultural preservation is important and heritage is something to be proud of. On the same note, I think that die hard nationalism is immature and a little bit like high school football. But enough of this, I want to talk about Batman. As the Joker would say, "Why so serious?"

As you may have garnered from previous posts, I find the twisted nature of Batman fascinating. So it is no surprise that I find a similar twist in my favorite character of all time, Grendel. Both Orion and Batman are conflicted in their roles. Batman is unsure of who is in control, he or the Bat. Orion is unsure of the dark side of Grendel, fearing it may take over his person. Both characters are in fear of a possession by their alter egos. Are they leaders or just men? Are they good or are they evil? Do they have autonomy or are they puppets? And then there is that whole parallel between the vampires of Grendel and the bat of Batman. So much to ponder. And so fun to ponder it. And in my next post we shall ponder one man's idea of what it takes to be a superhero in Jimmy Corrigan: the Smartest Kid on Earth.

The Stillness of Manga: Kiriko Nanan's Blue

I think that the title says most of what needs to be said concerning the pace of the book. When you answer the question of what it means to be blue, you can understand why the story lingers like it does. You can also understand why the book leaves you with that empty feeling at the end.

About.com's Deb Aoki writes, "There are some manga that are like Hollywood blockbuster movies, full of fast-paced action and rapid-fire humor. And then there's comics like Blue, which is more like a French art house film, where a quiet conversation and silent gestures move the plot along at a leisurely (some would say glacial) pace."

What it means to be blue is to adapt to a certain melancholy. Blue is beyond mere sadness, it evokes almost a tranquillity that emerges in the age between childhood and adulthood. I remember that age as a time where I wrote dismal poetry and languished over boys who did not know I was alive. I would spend hours in my room listening to depressing music, drawing, and writing. Hours passed by yet the days seemed to last forever. It would seem that I can really relate to the story in Blue. Which is why it surprised me that this is considered manga. Granted, I know as much about manga as I do the inside of a church which is to say, not at all.

Previous to researching this novel I thought that there was only one kind of manga and it was mainly about school age kids who have dragons for friends and they were all really hyper or some crap like that. Apparently the world of manga is much more diverse than that. There are different categories directed at boys, girls, women, and men as well as categories dealing with male/male or female/female relationships. And then there is "hentai," which focuses on things of a pornographic nature. Blue's category of manga is called "shojo-ai" which focuses on the spiritual or emotional aspects of a female/female relationship. There is some confusion associated with this term as it is a western adaptation. The term in Japan literally means "girl love" but refers to a relationship of a pedophilian nature. In any case, I understand a little bit more about manga than I did before.

So getting back to the idea of "blue," I want to share the opening text:

The sky that stretches out above the dark sea.

The school uniforms and our desperate awkwardness.

If those adornments of our youth

Held any color

It would have been deep blue.

This passage is so poignant and poetic. You can imagine the solitude of the girl contemplating her life while sitting on the beach. I love the terminology of "the adornments of our youth." Truly, this blueness is like a garment worn during that age. Something you can wrap yourself in, drape over your shoulders. Heavy and thick, very much like the story. I know it, I wore it well as a teenager. So forget what you know or don't know about manga. This story supersedes any category you want to put it in. Plainly, it is a beautiful and deeply resonating graphic novel.

Marvel 1602 and the Grey Owl Syndrome

Oddly enough, I could find NOTHING on the Internet as far as criticism of 1602 with regards to the Rojhaz/Steve Rogers/Captain America dude. Am I alone in finding this odd? Since I can find no other criticism I will have to go out on a limb and suggest that Rojhaz's character is indicative of the Grey Owl Syndrome. I first came upon this theory after reading Margaret Atwood's lecture Strange Things: The Malevolent North in Canadian Literature (I loooove me some Margaret Atwood) and don't worry, I'll explain what it is.

The Grey Owl Syndrome is a Canadian literary tradition which has factual roots. Grey Owl Syndrome is named for a Canadian emigre from Great Britain who so deeply immersed himself into the native culture that his imitation was only discovered upon his death. This syndrome extends to those who only adopt singular affectations of Native culture to those who wish to immerse themselves so deeply into the culture as to expel their previous cultural identity. In my opinion, the latter fits Steve Rogers to a tee. Rogers wants to keep his identity a secret when he is transported back in time. So when the Native Americans mistake Rogers for a member of another tribe he took that identity as his own by changing his name to Rojhaz ("Rogers" said a different way) and taking on their culture (Part 8, Pgs. 1-3). Hellooo Grey Owl.

Okay, now I have been googling like a madwoman while writing this and I finally found something meaty for criticism on this book. I had to google Rojhaz, not 1602 to find it, duhr. Anyway, the story begins with a comment made by Neil Gaiman in reference to his book, The Graveyard Book (which is a very nice book and I know because I eat up what Gaiman writes like candy). Instead of rehashing the whole story, I will post a link for it...here. In that link there is discussion of Rojhaz and 1602. If you want to see where the argument began, go...here. I am sure all Neil Gaimanites will be interested in that but in reference to this post, it has nothing to do with Rojhaz.

Instead, the first link offers this for criticism: "There is no other native voice offering a dissenting opinion, or any opinion at all-there is only Rojhaz, a white totem to colonization acting as your mouthpiece." (Chris Kientz) At this point I would agree that it is very weird to have a white guy posing as a Native American. Add to that the fact that he is there just waiting to keep Democracy on the straight and narrow. That's right, he's not there to help the Natives keep their land, he's there to keep the "New World" from spiraling into "the dark times." That does not bode well for the Natives that fed, clothed, and protected him when he first arrived. I am not sure what this means at this point.

I guess I am going to think about for a while and do some more research. I think the Grey Owl syndrome theory holds pretty true, but I would like to hear some feedback about that as well. For the next post I will be talking about a really beautiful piece by Kiriko Nananan called Blue. For those who would say that Japanese manga is hypersexualized and sexist, this book is anything but.

Maus: The Accessibility of Trauma

Maus by Art Spiegelman has been one of the major starting points for people to begin looking at graphic novels as literature and it is largely because of its subject matter. The Holocaust is serious subject and for so long, comics and graphic novels have been considered "low-art," a medium not to be taken seriously. So why the combination? What purpose, if any, does it serve to recount such a horrific historical event in simply drawn pictures of mice, cats, and pigs?

The fact that Maus is in comic book form has caused confusion in that many do not how to categorize it. But why categorize it at all? As Marianne Hirsch says in a 2005 interview with Indy Magazine, "I think it's an enormous advantage to have it be not solidly in a category because it's open to readers and writers from a number of different disciplines." Further in the interview Hirsch recounts a moment when a professor of history "felt that this was a very irresponsible way" to present history since it made it "too easily accessible to the students." Funny, but I think that's the point of the thing...to make it accessible. In Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech the author of Night says, "...if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices." So the book's accessibility is fundamental in not forgetting the horrors of the Holocaust. Is there a chance that like the crime and violence we see everyday on television we will become desensitized to events such as the Holocaust? Is the medium of the graphic novel responsible for that?

I feel that Maus has done its best work in paving the way for other authors to tell their stories in this medium. Look at Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis and Raymond Briggs' Ethel and Ernest. Both books have varying degrees of historical trauma but they both offer readers an unintimidating historical perspective.

In addition to the outright narration, there are other ways of telling the story beyond just text. The pictures tell a story in their own right and I think that is what is so great about Maus. You have these text bubbles and narration that is telling you the story of Vladek Spiegelman in Nazi occupied Poland, but you also have this understory expressed in moments like page 125 of book one. In this particular panel we see the Jews trying to leave the town but there were many paths to choose from. Art Spiegelman drew the paths in such a way that they appear to be a swastika. It is like saying that all roads lead to death. In another panel on page 136 of book one the Jews (represented by mice) were wearing Polish masks (represented by pigs). Yet even with the disguise Anja's tail was sticking out of her coat. It was as Vladek said, "It was nowhere we had to hide." (125) So no matter where they went, or what they tried to do to disguise themselves, Anja and Vladek knew that they would be found out sooner or later.

To wrap it up, I think ultimately the form of the graphic novel offers an accessible avenue to an otherwise difficult story to tell. I do not believe that the form does anything to make light of the subject, it merely brings it to us in a way that we can easily recognize and understand...more palatable perhaps.

Next up is Neil Gaiman's Marvel 1602 in which we find an American Indian who is also Captain America. What can of worms might that open up for you?

Batman Part II: Bat vs. Man

I have been talking to some friends who seem to know a thing or two about Batman and I have heard something very interesting. Apparently there is a point where Batman dies and Superman puts on the Batsuit. Someone cries out that Superman has to take it off because it is like wearing Batman's skin. The same person also told me that Bruce Wayne is the costume and that batman is the real "person." I just thought those were interesting things to ponder in the whole scheme of Bat vs. Man. I tend to agree with the idea that Bruce Wayne is just a mask so that Batman can go out into society and be accepted as "human." Please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts and ideas.

Getting back to the texts, this post I have promised to unearth the batly secrets from Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum and Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Night Returns.

I would just like to say that Arkham Asylum is a beautiful book. The shading and blending of the images do well to accentuate the madness of the characters. The variety of techniques like black and white pencil drawings, images so real they look like photographs, and all of them juxtaposed with one another draw the reader into the insanity of the asylum. It is beautiful there and I begin to wonder if Batman finds it so. Upon opening the book we find an image of a fossilized bat. That is to say that the bat's presence is set in stone. It has always been that way.

All of Batman's friends are in the asylum and they miss him. No one knows him as Bruce Wayne here. The Joker tells Batman,"We want you in here. With us. In the madhouse. Where you belong." In this moment Batman is crazy and needs to be locked up with all of the other crazies. We have pretty much thrown Bruce Wayne out of the proverbial window. There is no "Bruce Wayne" at this point. What exists is a Batman who lives as a sort of prisoner. Imprisoned by insanity? Lets look at the images and ideas that would suggest this imprisonment.

Throughout Arkham Asylum we see images of lines and bars and a lot of times Batman is overshadowed or incorporated into those lines and bars which visually suggests that he is imprisoned. These images are very much like those we find in The Dark Knight Returns.
Page 26 takes us though a series of panels where various images are overshadowed by bars. The first image is a bat, not Batman, but a bat. The next image is Bruce Wayne covered by the bars followed by an image of bars over complete darkness. Finally we see the bat (NOT Batman or Bruce) breaking through the bars. I think this series of panels tells us that the bat and the man are one in the same and that there is so much hidden in the darkness neither the reader nor Batman can discern what lies there. In the final panel I think that it becomes clear that the bat side is the victor seeing as it breaks free from the imprisoning bars. I know a lot of these ideas are overlapping and may be confusing, but I think that if it were crystal clear, then we would no longer need to read Batman comics because we would have it all figured out. That's why this is all in fun.

And speaking of fun, Joker gets to have a lot of fun at Batman's expense in Arkham Asylum. A couple of the other patients decide that they want to take off Batman's mask to see his real face. The Joker denies them by saying, "That is his real face." Oh boy, I think the Joker really nails it for us there. So in the end, I really don't have a clear idea of how or who Batman is, only that the bat side of the whole mess is really the one in charge. To me, that side is just as crazy as the rest of the lunatics in Arkham and that is why I will always love to read Batman.

For the next post I would like to switch gears and talk about Maus by Art Spiegelman. A lot of people are familiar with this graphic novel because it has become a staple for many college literature courses. It has become an alternate medium to learn about the horrors of the holocaust and I would like to discuss why that is.

Batman: which side, man or bat, is in the driver's seat?

For my first discussion I will be taking a look at Bruce Wayne and Batman and their struggle for control. The specific texts I will be looking at in this post are Matt Wagner's Batman/Grendel crossovers, Devil's Riddle, Devils' Masque, Devil's Bones, and Devil's Dance.

Beginning with Bruce Wayne in the Devil's Riddle, right away we see a character that is very out of touch with emotions and thoughts. This is going on the assumption that Bruce Wayne is the human and Batman is the "other," non-human or animal. The text bubbles of Bruce Wayne's thoughts are much like that of a computer as if to say Bruce's mind is robotic in nature, not very human. The sentences are very short, two to three words on average. In stark contrast are the thought patterns of Hunter Rose, the alter ego of Grendel. His thoughts are written in a script font and are long and flowing. They are clearly the thoughts of a human.

Visually, (for a perfect example of this see page 2) we cannot view Bruce Wayne as whole person. His images are distorted or are in pieces which is to suggest that he is not a whole person. On the off chance that his entire body is in the frame, he is presented in shadow (like on page 3).

Two very interesting moments occur in Devil's Masque. On pages 26-27 Batman is forced to fight Grendel in a gallery exhibiting animals. In the closeup Batman is framed by birds, suggesting that he is an animal as he is part of the exhibit. Later he fights Grendel in a different setting only to be injured by his foe's blade. In the two panels (pages 41-42) that show Batman with his injury the bat symbol on his chest is obscured. That is to say that the bat/animal side is unable to be harmed while the non-bat or human side is mortal.

In Devil's Bones Batman faces a new version of Grendel, Grendel Prime. Grendel Prime is bigger and badder and manages to shoot a hole in Batman's costume which obliterates the bat symbol for roughly half of this entire book. What does it mean that when Batman gets shot, it is only his bat symbol that receives the damage? Is it like a bullet proof vest, or is it a target?

Finally, in Devil's Dance, Bruce Wayne only appears twice throughout the entire book. First he appears in four panels on page 6, only to be masked by another apparatus while he angrily tries to find a way to beat Grendel Prime. His humanity is still hidden from us. Then he appears on page 27. The text reads, "In his roost. The uncloaked bat sleeps through the day." Even though Bruce is not in his bat costume, the text refers to him as a bat.

So far we have seen the inhuman side, or the bat side, dominate. In the next post I would like to continue this discussion focusing on the imprisonment of the man within the bat as evidenced by Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum.