Comics Misread by Conservatives

[ouroboros]

Since the days of Frederic Wertham, with his comment on Superman's "S" ("we should be glad, I suppose, that it does not read 'SS'"), there have been any number of dumb readings of comic books by persons with a liberal or quasi-liberal agenda (however you want to define that).

But are there examples of comics that have been actively misread by conservatives-so-called? I'm not thinking so much of reviews that complain about sex and violence-- you get those in liberal quarters too-- but instances where someone says, "X stands for good conservative values" and the artist comes back with, "That was not what I meant at all."

Obviously there have been creators who actively courted conservatives, like the troika of Capp, Caniff and Gould, but that wouldn't be a misreading.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Since the days of Frederic Wertham, with his comment on Superman's "S" ("we should be glad, I suppose, that it does not read 'SS'"), there have been any number of dumb readings of comic books by persons with a liberal or quasi-liberal agenda (however you want to define that).

But are there examples of comics that have been actively misread by conservatives-so-called? I'm not thinking so much of reviews that complain about sex and violence-- you get those in liberal quarters too-- but instances where someone says, "X stands for good conservative values" and the artist comes back with, "That was not what I meant at all."

Obviously there have been creators who actively courted conservatives, like the troika of Capp, Caniff and Gould, but that wouldn't be a misreading.

I've seen Watchmen interpreted as pro-conservative with Rorschach as the hero, which is as insane as he is.

[ouroboros]

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant.

[ed2962]

The first thing I thought of was the recent issue of Sam Wilson: Captain America where conservatives thought that the Sons of the Serpent where supposed to represent people who believe in national security/strong borders.

[Trey Strain]

There are not many artists who are conservative, and it seems that conservative readers sometimes grasp at straws to find support in the arts when it really isn't there.

We had a discussion about this on the Green Lantern Corps message board a while back, and I came to the conclusion that the arts tend to be about the opposition to power, which usually doesn't jibe with conservative thinking.

When conservatives do produce art, it tends to be about righteous revenge or the triumph of a strong leader. Or maybe religious in nature.

[Trey Strain]

I can give you one example of a great work of art that came from a conservative viewpoint, and most people didn't even realize it. It was the film On The Waterfront, which was an allegory for the leftist orthodoxy of that era. I think it works as art because it's about the opposition to power.

[codystarbuck]

Since the days of Frederic Wertham, with his comment on Superman's "S" ("we should be glad, I suppose, that it does not read 'SS'"), there have been any number of dumb readings of comic books by persons with a liberal or quasi-liberal agenda (however you want to define that).

But are there examples of comics that have been actively misread by conservatives-so-called? I'm not thinking so much of reviews that complain about sex and violence-- you get those in liberal quarters too-- but instances where someone says, "X stands for good conservative values" and the artist comes back with, "That was not what I meant at all."

Obviously there have been creators who actively courted conservatives, like the troika of Capp, Caniff and Gould, but that wouldn't be a misreading.

Certainly, the self-same attack on comics you mentioned at the start. Wertham was only one quarter of that. At the heart of it was the very conservative Catholic League of Decency and similar groups. The attacks on comics mirrored the same conservative attack on comic strips a generation or so before, which was both an attack on immigrants, for whom the comics were favored reading, as well as an elitist attack on the aethetics of comics. Both had conservative and pseudo-liberal facets. In recent years there have been several conservative efforts at censorship, mostly aimed at "adult comics", for which the label was a blanket statement. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was kept very busy in the 90s, by conservative DAs and other politicians who were on "anti-porn" crusades, not to mention the fiasco that is the Michael Diana case, where he was convicted of obscenity for producing line drawings, when there has been no precedent for obscenity being applied to anything other than that captured on film, since it is real actions, not artistic interpretation. Personally, I thought his work was pretty amateurish and indicative of someone who could use some counselling; but, hardly qualified as obscenity.

As far as Watchmen goes, Moore does portray Rorschach as an ultra-conservative nutcase, who sees everything in black & white. It was a criticism of Ditko's heroes which professed the ultra-conservative viewpoint of Ayn Rand. The entire work is hardly a political attack; but, he does have characters making the statements, which have been made in real life quarters, that the idea of superheroes and vigilantes is a very conservative viewpoint; taking the law into ones own hands. That ignores a lot of history, such as the beginnings of Superman, where he was a champion of the underdog, fighting corrupt commercial forces; a very liberal outlook (and a popular one in the Great depression). Moore does a pretty decent job of presenting characters who fall on either end of the political spectrum.

[dancj]

I can give you one example of a great work of art that came from a conservative viewpoint, and most people didn't even realize it. It was the film On The Waterfront, which was an allegory for the leftist orthodoxy of that era. I think it works as art because it's about the opposition to power.

And of course Invasion of the Body Snatchers which is about communism.

My dad (very much not conservative) insists that The Dark Knight Returns is about why superheroes don't work, whereas I've seen people on these boards insist that it is pro-superheroes.

I'm not convinced either interpretation is correct, but clearly someone is wrong.

[codystarbuck]

And of course Invasion of the Body Snatchers which is about communism.

My dad (very much not conservative) insists that The Dark Knight Returns is about why superheroes don't work, whereas I've seen people on these boards insist that it is pro-superheroes.

I'm not convinced either interpretation is correct, but clearly someone is wrong.

Superheroes don't work in the real world because punching criminals doesn't do anything to solve the social conditions that breed crime and complacency, which feeds corruption. Batman chasing down street thugs doesn't affect poverty. When the whole Wayne Foundation thing was added, that gave an avenue for Bruce Wayne to attack the root causes of crime more than anything Batman did. Superheroes have to have threats beyond the normal or else you have a world like Watchmen, where some psychologically imbalanced people are beating up minor criminals, while society remains unchanged. It's why I laugh every time some comic creator or filmmaker talks about making superheroes more realistic. The reality of a guy who dons bat ears to fight crime is pretty pathetic, as witnessed by the nutjobs who are doing that in real cities. They end up as pathetic fantasists in search of attention and glory and end up being a nuisance or commit criminal acts of their own. Superheroes live in a very simplistic fantasy world, just as pulp heroes and cinematic action heroes do. At best, they can be used for allegory; but, at the heart, they are escapist adventure.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Certainly, the self-same attack on comics you mentioned at the start. Wertham was only one quarter of that. At the heart of it was the very conservative Catholic League of Decency and similar groups. The attacks on comics mirrored the same conservative attack on comic strips a generation or so before, which was both an attack on immigrants, for whom the comics were favored reading, as well as an elitist attack on the aethetics of comics. Both had conservative and pseudo-liberal facets. In recent years there have been several conservative efforts at censorship, mostly aimed at "adult comics", for which the label was a blanket statement. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was kept very busy in the 90s, by conservative DAs and other politicians who were on "anti-porn" crusades, not to mention the fiasco that is the Michael Diana case, where he was convicted of obscenity for producing line drawings, when there has been no precedent for obscenity being applied to anything other than that captured on film, since it is real actions, not artistic interpretation. Personally, I thought his work was pretty amateurish and indicative of someone who could use some counselling; but, hardly qualified as obscenity.

As far as Watchmen goes, Moore does portray Rorschach as an ultra-conservative nutcase, who sees everything in black & white. It was a criticism of Ditko's heroes which professed the ultra-conservative viewpoint of Ayn Rand. The entire work is hardly a political attack; but, he does have characters making the statements, which have been made in real life quarters, that the idea of superheroes and vigilantes is a very conservative viewpoint; taking the law into ones own hands. That ignores a lot of history, such as the beginnings of Superman, where he was a champion of the underdog, fighting corrupt commercial forces; a very liberal outlook (and a popular one in the Great depression). Moore does a pretty decent job of presenting characters who fall on either end of the political spectrum.

Let's not pretend it's a balanced approach, though. It has a definite liberal viewpoint. The conservatives are monsters, freaks and objects of pity. Although I guess the liberals are variously impotent, detached and cold and dangerous idealists. But they win. The whole plot is basically a failed conservative attempt to stop a spooky liberal conspiracy that'd make the ghost of Breitbart cry.

[Shawn Hopkins]

And of course Invasion of the Body Snatchers which is about communism.

My dad (very much not conservative) insists that The Dark Knight Returns is about why superheroes don't work, whereas I've seen people on these boards insist that it is pro-superheroes.

I'm not convinced either interpretation is correct, but clearly someone is wrong.

I don't think it's your dad. Batman gives up playing Superhero at the end to become a revolutionary. And Superman's attempts to play by the rules just make him a government stooge.

[ouroboros]

Certainly, the self-same attack on comics you mentioned at the start. Wertham was only one quarter of that. At the heart of it was the very conservative Catholic League of Decency and similar groups. The attacks on comics mirrored the same conservative attack on comic strips a generation or so before, which was both an attack on immigrants, for whom the comics were favored reading, as well as an elitist attack on the aethetics of comics. Both had conservative and pseudo-liberal facets. In recent years there have been several conservative efforts at censorship, mostly aimed at "adult comics", for which the label was a blanket statement. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was kept very busy in the 90s, by conservative DAs and other politicians who were on "anti-porn" crusades, not to mention the fiasco that is the Michael Diana case, where he was convicted of obscenity for producing line drawings, when there has been no precedent for obscenity being applied to anything other than that captured on film, since it is real actions, not artistic interpretation. Personally, I thought his work was pretty amateurish and indicative of someone who could use some counselling; but, hardly qualified as obscenity.

As far as Watchmen goes, Moore does portray Rorschach as an ultra-conservative nutcase, who sees everything in black & white. It was a criticism of Ditko's heroes which professed the ultra-conservative viewpoint of Ayn Rand. The entire work is hardly a political attack; but, he does have characters making the statements, which have been made in real life quarters, that the idea of superheroes and vigilantes is a very conservative viewpoint; taking the law into ones own hands. That ignores a lot of history, such as the beginnings of Superman, where he was a champion of the underdog, fighting corrupt commercial forces; a very liberal outlook (and a popular one in the Great depression). Moore does a pretty decent job of presenting characters who fall on either end of the political spectrum.

I've always wondered if any conservative readers have championed Ditko along the lines of the far right's cherry-picking of Ayn Rand.

In one respect-- the enshrinement of capitalism-- Rand is probably more conservative than Ditko. I say that not having read all of Rand by any means, but I did read FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL, which bends over backwards to situate the upper class as the source of potential moral value. (To be sure, as I recall Rand doesn't say that the rich people are already the source of all morality, since they have yet to embrace Objectivism.) Ditko doesn't seem to show any preference for any class; rich thieves are just as bad as poor thieves. I think of Ditko less as a conservative than as an ethical absolutist, and Moore's critique seems to focus less on what Ditko wrote and more upon the anti-crime attitudes seen in crimefighters like Mike Hammer and Dirty Harry. It doesn't help that halfway through the story Rorschach suddenly turns into a Nietzschean superman, either.

I think the critiques of conservatism and of liberalism often have the same basic effect: "Stop doing whatever you're doing because it conflicts with our values." What I'm trying to isolate is what separates their orientations.

For instance, conservatives and liberals can be equally puritanical: Frederic Wertham could justify his jeremiads in terms of protecting the children, and it's not hard to picture the Catholic Legion of Decency making the same justification. The closest I can come to differentiating the two is that the Legion is trying to "conserve" some set of values that's already been encoded in some societal structure. When Wertham fulminates against comics showing breasts and so on, however, he apparently thinks he's trying to "liberate" audiences from being chained to their base desires, so that they can advance to his exalted level, being a freethinker of some sort.

[ouroboros]

I don't think it's your dad. Batman gives up playing Superhero at the end to become a revolutionary. And Superman's attempts to play by the rules just make him a government stooge.

And yet, even if Batman has decided that it's more important to lead a movement than to have a "good death," he's instructing his minions to carry out what looks like an early version of Batman Inc. New Robin-- note that she's still costumed in that last panel-- and the Sons of the Bat will still be superheroes in essence. They will simply be Zorro-style individualists owing nothing to the government, keeping law and order without being compromised by societal corruption.

[Shawn Hopkins]

And yet, even if Batman has decided that it's more important to lead a movement than to have a "good death," he's instructing his minions to carry out what looks like an early version of Batman Inc. New Robin-- note that she's still costumed in that last panel-- and the Sons of the Bat will still be superheroes in essence. They will simply be Zorro-style individualists owing nothing to the government, keeping law and order without being compromised by societal corruption.

I didn't get the impression they were going to be vigilantes or that they gave a **** about order. They were gonna **** **** up and change things. Maybe that misconception is why people didn't like Dark Knight Strikes. Batman is a change agent in that one, not an agent of order.

[ouroboros]

I didn't get the impression they were going to be vigilantes or that they gave a **** about order. They were gonna **** **** up and change things.

Here's an interesting take on the ending of TDKR (because it accords with my own view, naturally):

The whole purpose of the fight was ultimately to make the powers-that-be—as well as Superman himself—think that Batman was dead, so he could pursue a secret agenda without further interference. However, Superman realizes the deception during the funeral, upon hearing Batman’s heart re-start. The man of steel allows the deception to go on, finally realizing what Batman was really up to. At the end of the book, Batman states, “He’ll leave me alone now, and in return, I’ll stay quiet.” That was what the whole thing was about. The point of the fight was not to take down Superman, but rather for Batman to be able to disappear permanently.