The Man from Krypton

June 7, 2008 on 11:30 pm | In 2.5 Stars | No Comments

The Man from Krypton
Edited by Glenn Yeffeth
(BenBella Books, 2006)

MFK (abbreviated because I’m lazy) is a collection of essays, examining Superman through the lens of romance, politics, sociology, psychology and all those other -ologies. As with any collection of essays, I found it rather hit-or-miss. Some of the essays were fun and interesting, others … not so much.

I really enjoyed “You Will Believe a Man Can Walk,” by Sarah Zettel – a heartfelt look at Superman-actor Christopher Reeve and what he brought to the character. I think it was the best essay in the entire book.

Other essays explored the evolution of Krypton, the differences between two orphans: Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, and the makeup of a hero. All of them were cute, if not a little forgettable.

Sadly what I’ll remember most about this book are the two essays that I hated the most.

The first was “God, Communism and the WB,” by Gustav Peebles. I’ll admit, I didn’t even read it all the way through. I just couldn’t. I tried, God help me, I did … but it was so dry and boring that I almost put the whole book down. Instead, I just abandoned this essay and left it for dead, as it surely would have done me. Maybe I just don’t understand it because I’m stupid, I don’t know. But it seemed to me at times as if Peebles – an anthropology professor at Columbia University in NYC, who studies the history of monetary reform (whatever that is) – was perhaps just a bit over my head. I wondered how many people can really connect with this essay.

I would say more about it, but I’m bored even writing about Peebles’ essay.

The second was Larry Niven’s supposedly classic essay, “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex,” which was originally published in 1971. It’s become kind of a cult favorite for its sci-fi comedy, I’m told, but I just found it ridiculous. It wasn’t comically absurd; as I’m also told it was supposed to be. It was just absurdly absurd. In his essay, Niven explores the “real world” consequences of Superman’s sex life.

“Superman would literally crush LL’s body in his arms, while simultaneously
ripping her open from crotch to sternum, gutting her like a trout.” (Niven, 53).

One potential ending Niven theorizes is that millions of Kryptonian sperm eat through LL’s body and fly through the air, impregnating unsuspecting women everywhere. And of course, carrying a superbaby poses its own set of deadly problems. I absolutely found it indulgent, sickening and ridiculous. I certainly won’t be seeking out anything else that Niven – an award winning sci-fi writer – has published.

While you’re writing your hate mail now, I’ll just wrap things up here.

Just as I wrote in the beginning: the problem with collected editions is that some essays work, and others don’t. In the end, it just depends which side ends up with more lines on the chalkboard. For this book, it had more good essays than bad, but the bad ones cast a large shadow that makes it almost impossible to remember the things that made it enjoyable.

If you’re already a hardcore fan of the Man of Steel, as I am, or if you appreciate pop culture analysis, as I also do, you’ll enjoy this book. Without those pre-programmed measures to attract the reader, however, I don’t see anyone getting too excited about it.

In a future volume (and I certainly hope there is one) I would rather read essays written not just by random writers, but instead by people who can be credited as a real authority on the Man of Steel – maybe former writers and editors, or filmmakers. At least those people know what they’re talking about.

I’d give this book two and one-half stars.

FUN FACTS: Superman — often compared to Judeo-Christian figures like Moses, Samson, or Christ — can also be analogous to the Sumerian god, Gilgamesh.

Our Gods Wear Spandex

May 18, 2008 on 1:15 am | In 2.5 Stars | No Comments

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.