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.