monica41

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 9 months ago

    Do you feel that the goals of this comic are different than that of Ms. Marvel’s and America’s? All three comics deal with race and feeling out of place in a world of white superheroes. However, what makes these stories different for you?
    Excellent analysis Jose, I think besides from the obvious race aspects, these comics differ from the com…[Read more]

  • In the article, “Making and Breaking the Superhero Quotidian: How All-Star Superman Embodies and Revises the Everyday,” Frank Bramlett argues “How Morrison and Quitely use the extraordinary, the remarkable, and t […]

    • Ian Gordon says, “Superman’s immense power could readily defeat all challenges in the real world.” This argument seems to align with Echo’s regarding his inability to evolve as a character. Do you consider Morrison and Quitely’s version of Superman an evidence that it is possible for Superman to have character development? if so, please show textual evidence in the comic.

      It is a bit difficult for me to identify what is unusual/outside the norm for Superman because I am only familiar with a very small number of his stories. That being said, after I read Gordon’s article, I was expecting to be very surprised with the Superman I was about to discover in All-Star Superman. Gordon states that Superman’s life “shift[s] because he knows the end of his life is coming” and that this “disruption” would be an “impetus for mobilization.” It’s true that Superman does make moves to prepare for his death; most notably, he tells Lois Lane the truth about his identity and does his best to prepare Earth for life without him. There are some very compelling moments (it was very touching to see him put Lois Lane to bed, and also very emotional when he questions the significance of his powers after the death of his father – this, for me, was reminiscent of when Phil Sheldon sees Gwen Stacy die) but by and large this read to me as another collection of Superhero-esque adventures set in the context of a Superhero who is allegedly going to die, even though we all know he won’t (of course the sun needs its heart fixed, or whatever. Of COURSE it does!). Fighting against a Supervillain? Check! Visiting other worlds? Check! Engaging in a dual identity? Check! Yes, he does, as Gordon points out, “adapt to his new reality by temporarily wearing a different costume,” but was he not still wearing a cape with a large letter S on it? Gordon also identifies as a shift that Superman “creates life” to “see what kind of world humans would live in if there were no Superman.” However, we see Superman problem-solving in the face of every challenge he’s been given, so this did not strike me as particularly unusual. I’m willing to accept that, because I know very little about Superman, I have less of a mental “bank” of expectations; it is harder to surprise me with Superman’s shifts away from the quotidian because my expectations of/for him are not as well established. However, after reading Gordon’s article I was expecting to be very surprised with the Superman I met in the pages of All-Star Superman, but really I found I was just meeting up with an old acquaintance.

    • I think Coogan statement “that the superhero mission is prosocial and selfless” in regards to Superman’s last task in helping kyrptonians and humans transition after his death does fit into his statement because in the conclusion it explains “Superman is a super man who represents the best achievements of humanity”. In this way both Kyrptonian and Humans alike should be able to defend themselves and their version of humanity. As a result, superman achieved his main goal which in a sense would be selfless because he has done what he can in keeping both sides safe in one way or another.

    • Hi Monica! Good job summarizing the article for this week.

      With regard to your question about Superman’s “selflessness” as a Kryptonian and his desire to help mankind after his death, I would personally answer both “yes” and “no.”

      I was really glad to see Bramlett return to Coogan’s ideas in this essay. It helps us, as students, to recognize the development of superheroism as a scholastic study, and it’s also cool to see how the ideas overlap and develop upon one another. In his definition of the “quotidian,” Bramlett references Coogan’s formula of “mission, powers, and identity” being integral to the superhero’s definition. He expounds upon this notion further with regard to Superman’s mission in paragraph 6. “In the case of Superman, his day-to-day actions and behaviors involve helping others, to the point that he expects to be needed.”

      For Superman, his identity and mission are conflated. I know Bramlett talks a lot about his ability to “escape” as Clark Kent, but “being helpful” is who he is. Therefore, it’s not surprising that he would spend his last moments on earth trying to prepare a way to continue helping mankind after he’s gone. The nature of his response is selfess; however, simultaneously, it’s congruent with who he is as a person and his mission as a superhero. Which begins to beg the question: why is he helping people? Is it to assuage his overzealous sense of purpose, or is it to genuinely help people? While I couldn’t really argue that Superman is ever “selfish,” as the act of helping others really contradicts the notion of “selfishness,” I think we can conjecture whether or not the act is “self-centered.”

      In episode six, Pa Kent makes the statement, “you’re destined for great things Clark,” and I think this concept helps us understand the “self-conceptualization” that goes into being Superman. He’s good, but it’s almost been ordained that he would be this servant of humanity. In many film adaptations, Jor-el sends Kal-el to earth with the hope that he will be a redemption for mankind. (He’s a messianic figure, and even though Morrison and Quitely’s adaptation of the character ISN’T Shuster and Siegel’s, he still maintains this role.) If we consider that his impetus for goodness is established from this concept of divine goodness, it provokes us to wonder if he would really be this benevolent and self-less if it wasn’t his appointed calling.

    • Do you consider Morrison and Quitely’s version of Superman an evidence that it is possible for Superman to have character development? if so, please show textual evidence in the comic.
      I believe that Morrison and Quitely’s version of Superman, depicts Superman as an emotional individual compared to Shuster and Siegel’s original Superman. For instance, in the scene, where the girl wants to commit suicide, Superman hugs her and states that, “It’s never as bad as it seems” (236). He is comforting her which reveals his own mortality and closeness to the humans. Morrison and Quitely dedicated a whole page for this emotional scene. So, the audience can relate more to him in this version. Whereas, in the original Superman, a page would be illustrated to depict him in action. He was not portrayed as compassionate towards for example, Lois Lane.

    • Great job, Monica!
      Bramlett defines Superman exposure to solar radiation as “life-changing trauma” (5). By following Bramlett’s logic, why do you think Superman maintains his standard quotidian the same except him telling Lois his connection with his alter-ego? If that is considered a trauma, why didn’t Superman tell Lois that he is dying?
      Based off of Bramlett’s reasoning, I think Superman maintains his standard quotidian although he faces a “life-changing trauma” by not telling anyone that he is dying. Death is a burden. Superman’s role can be broken down to lessening the burden on people in their daily lives – handling the villains so they can go about their business. If Superman were to tell the world he is dying, he would have had to help the world grieve before his death, rather than quietly plan for the fallout. Superman chose to go through this knowledge of his death alone, which in some ways is more of a trauma than death itself. He does this because he is a superhero, his job is not to worry the people he protects. As Mark suggested it very well could of been Superman’s ego and pride preventing him from speaking out because it would force him to face his own mortality, but I think he made his decision because he is a superhero.

    • Well written piece Monica. I’m going to try to address the question you posed,

      “Bramlett defines Superman exposure to solar radiation as “life-changing trauma” (5). By following Bramlett’s logic, why do you think Superman maintains his standard quotidian the same except him telling Lois his connection with his alter-ego? If that is considered a trauma, why didn’t Superman tell Lois that he is dying”

      This is a very difficult question and that’s why I like it. While unable to reach a definitive rationale for Superman’s decision regarding not divulging his terminal condition, I have some assumptions.

      In my copy of All Star Superman, the sleeve reads “Not an origin story, modernization, or reinvention – but instead a timeless and iconic presentation..”. I see this as a reminder of the quotidian elements that a Superman story comprises of.
      On page 94 of part 2, Lois admits to knowing Superman is dying. They share a tender moment in which Lois wants reassurance from Superman he will find a solution. it follows with a juxtaposition of Superman explaining the negative physical implications of if they were to ever consummate their union, while listening with his super hearing, to the cries of distress coming from the streets of Metropolis. Bramlett says “In the case of Superman, his day-to-day actions and behaviors involve helping others, to the point that he expects to be needed” (6). Superman tells her, “I have to go Lois. Someone needs me”. He then stops a teenage girl from jumping off a building. It was a reminder of the Superman Chronicles in which his quotidian activities revolved around saving women from wife beaters and saving a wrongly convicted felon on death row. Superman’s handling of his trauma is perplexing as he tells Lois he is Clark Kent but won’t tell her he is dying, only to tell her when she knows the truth that they cannot procreate and that this is all they can ever have. It made me wonder..what if he were not dying? Then would he carry on his relationship with Lois this way? He is dealing with his trauma by himself and perhaps is ego driven to handle his death alone as well. Grant Morrison appears to want to keep the quotidian narrative of Superman as a person intact by having him deal with his problems by himself and not trouble or worry Lois with this news. As Bramlett rightly says, “It is the use of these traditional elements that helps establish and maintain the quotidian existence that Superman lives, and it is the introduction of new characters and novel situations that help readers see the revision of Superman’s quotidian”(7).

    • Bramlett defines Superman exposure to solar radiation as “life-changing trauma” (5). By following Bramlett’s logic, why do you think Superman maintains his standard quotidian the same except him telling Lois his connection with his alter-ego? If that is considered a trauma, why didn’t Superman tell Lois that he is dying?

      I think that the trauma of his impending death gives his quotidian more impact and in that way it has essentially changed. Superman is now not only doing his actions for the greater good, but also is putting a plan into place to make sure that humanity is taken care of after he is gone. I think that he didn’t tell Lois Lane that he is dying simply because she wouldn’t believe him. Considering how hard it is to believe that he is Clark Kent (which seriously? I honestly don’t get that…Superman must be a master class actor…or he surrounds himself with easily manipulated people which bring up a question of ethics) trying to tell her that he is dying would have a catastrophic effect on their relationship.

    • Marc Singer says, “that Morrison’s Superman resists the ‘realistic’ Superman of earlier time periods” (3). However, at the end of the comic Superman is presented as a golden-godly figure that helps the machinery to keep the sun running. Do you consider that a proper realistic transition? Or do you think Morrison’s view of Superman transcends the superhero realm?

      I think it fits in line with Singer’s comments. By the end he becomes a living God who’s strength is multiplied and is constantly aware of subatomic worlds. The fact that Lex himself is unable to cope with the reality of living like Superman, it’s inline with how Singer describes how “realism” to him is if Superman’s existence fits in the scheme of how we imagine he would exist in our world. Luthor is in awe of how Superman perceives the world and it’s somewhat beyond his understanding. The fact that All-Star Superman presents Superman as a living God in a slice of life format, his trials and his permanent existence, also means that he was presenting Superman as being somewhat timeless. So yes, beyond Superheroism as well.

    • “Marc Singer says, “that Morrison’s Superman resists the ‘realistic’ Superman of earlier time periods” (3). However, at the end of the comic Superman is presented as a golden-godly figure that helps the machinery to keep the sun running. Do you consider that a proper realistic transition? Or do you think Morrison’s view of Superman transcends the superhero realm?”

      I think All-Star Superman is Morrison’s re-imagining the monomyth of all superheroes set in place by Superman as its prototype. The mythic references abound in the story. The contest with Samson and Atlas, the romance with a mortal, stealing fire from the sun and being punished for it-these are all tropes associated with classical mythology given new skeins. The parallels with Hercules are rampant-Superman is submitted to 12 impossible tasks that culminate in his seeming death only to have his mortality burned away as his true self ascends to the heavens where he holds them on his shoulders. Morrison is redacting the Superman legendarium to its barest elements to show how he is not just an archetypal superhero but a mythic figure who will stand the test of time.

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 10 months ago

    This isn’t a part of my presentation, but I think it is an interesting and important question to pose: Did Ozymandias do the right thing? Is there such thing as the right thing in a gritty narrative like Watchmen?
    Mackenzie, your analysis of Hoberek’s article is really good and insightful. I, too was intrigued by Ozymandias motives. P…[Read more]

  • monica41's profile was updated 10 months ago

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 10 months, 1 week ago

    Charles Hatfield states that “the study of comics must be truly multidisciplinary.” How can we as readers analyze Watchmen according to this statement?
    Hey Aylar, your analysis is really good. After reading the article and your blog post, I have the opportunity to understand and comprehend certain aspects of Watchmen. Comics are a con…[Read more]

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 10 months, 2 weeks ago

    How did you feel about the “realistic” elements that are intertwined into the plot of The Dark Knight Returns? For this topic, feel free to blog about the brilliant, albeit controversial, decision to age Batman, the politics involved in superheroism, or the presence of the Cold War and the Reagan administration. (Also, if you’d like to blog about…[Read more]

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 11 months ago

    Can you compare the Hellfire Club’s meaningless concerns in regards to the “potential immortality of manipulating Jean Grey…[the] disloyalty of exploiting fellow mutants for financial gain” to current society (Fawaz, 221)?
    Well prof. Orchard that is a tough cookie to crack. I will go with my gut and say that the Hellfire Club is doing what Be…[Read more]

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 11 months, 1 week ago

    Does Wonder Woman successfully promote the idea that there is freedom in submission? Is this a valid claim, or did we just step out of Wonder Woman and into 1984?
    Jacky you did a remarkable analysis regarding Ben Sander’s article. After I studied your questions I couldn’t help but remember an article that I read concerning bondage and the…[Read more]

  • monica41 commented on the page, on the site Superhero 11 months, 2 weeks ago

    Mary, your last question made me laugh because I have been asking myself the same thing. What is it about Superman that lures so many fans? I think, it has to do with the approachability that this character has concerning his origins. Simply put, Superman is the epitome of drags to riches kind of story. He is an orphan alien that found himself in…[Read more]

  • monica41 became a registered member 11 months, 3 weeks ago