Batman Unmasked

Batman Unmasked
By Will Brooker
(Continuum Books, 2001)

Right from the start, the title of this book was misleading. I picked it up thinking it was an analysis of what kind of man would put on a cape and cowl and fight crime to avenge his parent’s death. Instead, what I got was a love letter to all the worst stereotypes of Batman.

In his book, author Will Brooker offers up the history of Batman’s creation and development in comics, film and television. It may not have been what I was hoping for, but it’s a good subject all the same. Unfortunately, Brooker seems to champion two of the worst aspects of Batman’s history: the 1960s TV series and the idea that Batman might actually be gay.

Let’s start with the TV series. 

The 1960s Batman was a lot of fun … in the 1960s, when comics had become watered down, campy versions of their former self, courtesy of Dr. Fredric Wertham and the Comics Code Authority (see my review of The Ten Cent Plague for more on that subject). Today, the series is synonymous with camp. As Brooker points out in his book, the TV series was an attempt at pop art, which was very popular at the time.

This representation of Batman — typically called “The Caped Crusader” — is one of two almost contradictory persona’s adopted by the character; the other is known as “The Dark Knight.”

The former is a bright, friendly, smiling guy who gets along swell with the other members of the Justice League and always carries bat-shaped cookies in his utility belt just in case he and Robin bump in to Scooby and the gang. Again, this is the watered down, happy-shiny Batman created in the post-Wertham world of comics. His other person, as featured in this summer’s coming film by the same name, is a dark, scary, brooding creature of the night hell-bent on making up for his own inability to save his parents by adopting a terrifying iconography and spending his nights shoving his Bat-boots 3-feet up some criminal’s colon! 

Both are fine representations from different points in times, and both have very strong and faithful followings today.
 
Me? I sit in the Dark Knight’s corner. I just see it as a more faithful telling of the original story created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. So Brooker and I split on this issue, but if you fancy the Adam West-Batusi-POW-BIFF Batman of the 60s, then this is right up your alley.

Secondly, let’s talk about the concept that Batman might be gay.

This idea was widely popularized by Wertham in the 1950s. He claimed it was so obvious that it sent deviant messages to impressionable young minds. The irony is: it was probably not something most people noticed until he himself brought it up, as if to feed his own thesis and sell more books. Furthermore, it wasn’t until after Wertham’s watering down of comics in the 1950s that this image of a bright, campy, sometimes homoerotic Batman came to be. In a strange way, he’s responsible for creating the very thing he was fighting against. 

Most of the arguments today continue as jokes, double-entendres and people reading more into things than they should. Brooker not only lines up these moments in his book, but he does so as if to say, “hey, maybe Batman really is gay.”  

There are certainly gay readings that can be taken from the stories. I’d be lying and ignorant to say there were none, but readings and intention can often be two different things. Some people can read Shakespeare and find lessons and allegories to today’s world … that doesn’t mean it was ever the author’s intention. I personally don’t think that Batman is gay. I think there have been times when the creators were throwing out silly jokes or jabs at the reader, but I don’t think there’s ever been an editorial decision to declare that Batman is gay. 

Without that editorial decision, it simply cannot be true. Batman exists only in the form that his creators and editors allow.
 
Brooker does present a thorough and interesting look at the creation and development of Batman over the years. His historical documentation is impressive, but it’s his social commentaries that bother me most. I understand how a fan might recognize and appreciate these elements of the character through their historical and social contexts, but to champion them as dominant just doesn’t make sense to me. 

I’d give this book only one-star! 

FUN FACTS: Adam West rose a ruckus when the 1989 Batman movie was released, because (at then-age 51) he thought he should have been given the part of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Our Gods Wear Spandex

Our Gods Wear Spandex
By Chris Knowles
(Weiser Books, 2007)

In OUR GODS WEAR SPANDEX, author Christopher Knowles examines comics as a form of modern storytelling passing down achetypes from the most ancient of civilizations, societies and religions.

But was the book any good? Quite honestly, I think it fell just a little short of what I was hoping for.

It opens with a very detailed history of religion and mythology, and how it gave rise to occultism and mysticism. Then it follows that into the involvement of literary figures (Poe, Lovecraft, Doyle, etc.) which then begat the pulps and then eventually begat the comics. It’s a solid evolution, but it suffers greatly in its segregation of topics. The first half of the book is all about religion, with very little to do about comics. The middle is about literature and social trends, and then in its third act it picks up about comics, with little to do with religion, reaching for connections to stories told in the first half of the book.

I think the author is 100 percent right in his claims that comics are an ancient form of storytelling and modern mythology, and I think the examples he uses are generally spot on. I just think they suffer in this book from being separated and isolated from one another. It seems like he felt he had to give us the background on religion first, and then show us how comics have translated it.

A better outline, I think, would have been to jump right into the history of comics, told chronologically and pulling aside at times to expand on how the characters represent religious aspects. By separating them as he’s done, the author separates also the characters from the religions to which he’s trying to tie them. It was all so separated that at times it felt like I was reading two — sometimes even three –- different books. There didn’t seem to be a strong connectivity between the themes, but they were certainly there if you were willing to look hard for them and remember every word and statement about everything he wrote from page one. I personally don’t have that kind of memory, and I envy and fear the relatively few people in the world who do.

I also think he suffers from Intentional Fallacy — applying critical readings to stories that may not have intended it. A good example of this is Superman.

The author claims Superman is a Messiah figure, like Christ. Certainly it’s easy enough to see, but what he fails to recognize (or at least, he spends too little time on) is that Superman was created by Jewish creators. If religion played any role in Superman’s creation, it’s more likely that he was created as Moses figure (which the author does touch upon), and later down the road adopted the more recognizable traits of Christianity for which he’s known today. Yes, Superman is a Jesus-Christ-figure today, but that doesn’t mean it was the intention of his creators 70 years ago. In fact, it seems highly unlikely that it would have been.

(NOTE: You can expect to read more about the Judeo-Christian allegories in Superman in a number of upcoming reviews. Stay tuned!)

To be fair, however, literary critics have applied the very same interpretations to everything from Chaucer to Crichton since the dawn of criticisms. It’s what they do, and while they’re often interesting and valid parallels, they are rarely the intended meaning.

In all, I think the author almost nails it. It’s a great book with great analysis and revealing comparisons. It’s only major fault is that it fails to combine the two aspects of comics and religion at once, choosing instead a “this and that” format.

I’d give this book a rating of two-and-a-half out of four stars.

FUN FACTS: Legendary DC Comics editor, Julius Schwartz, was once a literary agent for horror writer, H.P. Lovecraft.

About Ryan

>> Back to The UnGraphic Novel

RYAN SCOTT OTTNEY is a writer and journalist, from New Boston, Ohio, who has written for news media, comic books, public relations and more. He has written comic books for pay and/or print, for publishers such as Marvel Comics, Digital Webbing, Blue Water Productions, Alias Comics, Gyro Worldwide, and others.

Presently, Ryan works as a staff writer for The Portsmouth Daily Times, in Portsmouth, Ohio. He has also worked with the Huntington (W.Va.) Herald-Dispatch, The Associated Press, and Edison-Mitofsky Media — who supply polling data to CNN, NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS and the AP — and he’s reported local news on-the-air for CNN and MSNBC.

Ryan writes a lot of reviews (books, comics, movies, games, music, etc) for a variety of media publications and web sites. Topics of books which he frequently reads and reviews include comics, politics, media, writing, screenwriting, animation and any handful of other random topics that catches his attention.

If you’re an author or a publisher, and would like for Ryan to consider your book to review, you can send it to him at:

Ryan Scott Ottney
4259 Oak Street
New Boston, Ohio 45662

… Or you can simply e-mail Ryan at wizard (at) ryanscottottney (dot) com!

You can also find Ryan on the following Web sites:
* http://www.ryanscottottney.com
* http://www.myspace.com/ryanscottottney
* http://www.comicspace.com/ryanscottottney
* http://www.librarything.com/catalog/rsottney

ABOUT THE RATINGS
Books are reviewed on a scale of one-half stars (worst) to four stars (best), and can be defined as such …

One-Half Star: The absolute worst rating I can give. I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone … ever!

One Star: A poor book, but still very few redeemable qualities.

One-and-a-Half Stars: Not great. Just slightly below average.

Two Stars: An average book. Not great, but not horrible. Meh!

Two-and-a-Half Stars: Slightly above average. At least halfway enjoyable, if not a little flawed.

Three Stars: A good book. Very few problems and a fun read.

Three-and-a-Half Stars: Nearly perfect. I’d definitely recommend this book!

Four Stars: A great book! Drop whatever you’re reading and find this book now!

ABOUT THE FUN FACTS
The “Fun Facts” are interesting bits of trivia pulled right out of the book being reviewed. If you dispute any of the “facts” or wonder where I heard it, don’t blame me … it’s all in the book. I don’t make up rumors, I just help spread ‘em!

The Ten-Cent Plague

The Ten-Cent Plague
By David Hajdu
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008)

Most of us already know of the crusade against comics waged by Fredric Wertham in the first half of the 20th century, but how many people know about Sterling North, Anthony Comstock, or Estes Kefauver? The sad truth is, Wertham was not alone.

Hajdu’s book follows the creation of EC Comics by Max Gaines, who today is credited as the man who invented comic books. The company published biblical stories and educational comics (hence: “EC”) until Gaines’ death and succession by his son, Bill Gaines, who steered the company into its legendary path with titles like Tales from the Crypt, Two-Fisted Tales, and Shock SuspenStories. Of course, as any casual comic historian knows, the story didn’t end there. The new line of books being published at EC earned the ire of politicians whose legislations were supported by church and parent groups fearing comics were too graphic and disturbing for children, pushing them into delinquencies and unruliness.

EC wasn’t the only publisher targeted by these social groups, even Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman were charged with promoting ideals of fascism, homosexuality and sexual dominance, respectively — but EC by far paid the greatest price.

As is evident throughout history, no form of youth culture has ever gone without attempts to censor or otherwise eliminate it. In the 1800s, even Grimm’s Fairy Tales were considered unsuitable for children, and of course music has always been a popular and misunderstood form of youth culture — from the swing-inspired Zoot Suit Riots of the 1940s to Elvis Presley’s gyrating hips in the 1950s. History has proven that comics are not alone in their persecution, and neither will they be the last.

Hajdu’s book pokes holes in the testimonies and “research” presented in the argument against comics, and the senate subcommittee hearing to follow. While I’d like to think that these attempts to censor comics were only successful because the 1950s was an age of innocence and wholesome American values not yet ready for this bold new medium, I know that just wasn’t the case. The 1950s wasn’t nearly as white bread as Nick-At-Nite would have you remember it — it’s ills either forgotten or suppressed in order to hold it up as a golden age of morality. Neither do I feel that this is no longer possible in our day and age. In fact, given the events of the past seven years, I think we’re in more danger today of acquiescing to will of the state in attempts to homogenize our culture and pour out from the melting pot into a single mold of moral conformity.

I neither agree with nor support such an effort, and I think Hajdu’s book offers a scholarly and entertaining telling of the dangers which can occur when adults clash with youth culture in attempts to “protect” children.

Even if you have no interest in comics whatsoever, Hajdu’s book is a must read for anyone who still doesn’t recognize the harm caused by censorship and attempts at legislating morality. This is a book about the freedoms of man, creativity and individuality … and a little about comics, too.

I’d give this book a complete four stars (my highest rating)!

FUN FACTS: Mad Magazine began at EC Comics and was the only publication they kept after shutting down their comic books division; moving Mad to the magazine stands to avoid adhering to the Comics Code — which EC themselves helped create.

Chapter One

Welcome to the newest column at Wizard Universe (as of this writing), called The UnGraphic Novel! I’m your host, Ryan Scott Ottney, and each week I’ll be sharing my reviews of books about comics. Books that explore comics through a serious criticism, such as religion, philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, mythology, and all those other -ologies!

I’ll try to keep up in my reading so I can post my reviews as quickly as possible, and whenever I fall behind, I’ll try to post news or interviews related to comic book literature. If you have a book you’d like for me to review (a request from either a fan or a publisher/author), you can contact me in the ABOUT RYAN link found in the rightside menu. There you’ll also find a little bit more about me, and what makes me qualified to review books.

I’m looking forward to having a lot of fun here, and hopefully you’ll enjoy my thoughts and opinions. Watch for my first review to be posted this evening, following which we’ll fall into a weekly schedule.

See you there!