SPECIAL “WITH CONTEXT” EDITION

Most people who are familiar with Akira only know it via the movie and “KANEEEEEEDAAAA!” “TETSUUUUUOOOOOO!”, which is a shame because the movie, while visually spectacular, doesn’t do the complex plot of the manga justice: Otomo basically kept in the first third of the book and the final sixth, and tried to glue them together to create a coherent whole, and, bluntly, failed utterly to do so. I mean, the movie doesn’t even really have Akira in it, whereas in the manga he is a terrifying godlike force whose presence drives the story in the second half.

Anyhow, Akira the manga is about the results of scientists trying to cheat their way through human evolution and then the characters having to deal with (or be) the consequences of that. It’s pretty goddamned epic, but one of the reasons it remains great is because Otomo had the good sense to put Kaneda in: as the story progresses to the point where desperate soldiers are fighting demigods with space lasers, Kaneda grounds everything because he has next to no idea what’s really going on, and only gets involved because – at least at first – he’s trying to get with a girl. Watching him gradually become the hero of the piece, while never losing sight of the fact that he’s still kind of a big-mouthed jackass, is one of the reasons Akira’s scale is so effective.

Anyway, this all comes to a head when about three-quarters of the way through, Kei (the aforementioned girl) prepares to sacrifice herself against Tetsuo, taking the powers of the assorted good psychics within herself in an attempt to stop him once and for all – and, because she really does love the jackass, finally suggests to Kaneda that they spend a night together. Kaneda, after a double-take or three, loses it because he can’t accept her willingness to sacrifice her life, and storms off, saying he’ll kill Tetsuo himself (and believe me, he’s completely sincere about committing what you know has to be suicide).

And then this, one of my favorite bits in the entire series, when he storms back a second later:

The first thing to look at, before getting down to the strengths and weaknesses of any specific candidates, is just how terrible the 2012 field is for the Republicans overall. When it comes to the Presidency, successful candidates generally come out of sitting government officials (current governors, senators (but only first-term; the longer you spend in the Senate, the more your voting record gets diluted with compromises until your opponents can always find something to attack you with) vice-presidents, or military officials)…since McKinley, only two Presidents have gotten elected without being current office-holders when they started campaigning.

All the sitting Republican governors? They’re staying out of this. (Or at least, they are for now. There is quite a while between now and the election.) My strong suspicion is that they’re not particularly eager to tackle Obama; despite Republican claims that he’s a demonic entity from beyond our universe here to put our grandmothers to death and dragoon our children to study in madrassas, they’re actually lucid enough to realize he’s a popular, savvy campaigner with a good ground game and strong fundraising skills. So the Republican establishment, while they’d take a win if they got it, is not going to put up someone like Chris Christie up against Obama and wind up getting him tarred with the “loser” brush. They’ll save their big guns for 2016, and put a sacrificial candidate up in 2012.

Which means that there are exactly two kinds of people running; people who are too dumb to realize/don’t care that they are a sacrificial candidate, or people whose only chance at any kind of relevance is to run now. I don’t see any of them as having much luck against Obama (although again, there is a while between now and the elections.) But who will take the nomination? Well, let’s look at them one by one!

Mike Huckabee

Strengths: Background as an ordained minister puts him as the front-runner among the religious right; Deputy Dawg-esque appearance and folksy, homespun demeanor lulls people into not noticing what an asshole he is

Weaknesses: Gave clemency to a man who went on to kill four cops, which is a little bit out of step with the “Law and Order” party; looks like he’s about one pair of bib overalls away from a recurring role on “Hee-Haw”; nobody named “Huckabee” ever has a chance of being President ever

Chances: From the sound of things, Huckabee’s smart enough to realize he’s better off sitting this one out; he’s not making much of a move towards campaigning, and he certainly doesn’t need to run to stay in the public spotlight. But he might make a run at it, just to see if he can pick up momentum in Iowa, a state that likes him, and translate it into a strong showing elsewhere.

Mitt Romney

Strengths: Strong fundraising skills; desperately wants to be President; good hair

Weaknesses: Has to explain how his RomneyCare is completely and totally different from ObamaCare while explaining how Obama stole all his ideas; desperately wants to be President; religious affiliation with a group that has, on occasion, talked about how they will “dance on the ashes of our enemies” when they get a Mormon to the Presidency has made some people slightly leery; has difficulty door-knocking due to people pretending not to be home when he shows up, forcing him to just leave his literature for them to read later

Chances: Very good, actually. He’s not particularly well-liked by the Republican establishment, but he’s also not particularly disliked, and he has an aura of respectability to him that a lot of strategic-thinking primary voters will mistake for electability. He won’t win against Obama because he’s got the same problem Hilary Clinton had–his naked hunger for the office turns off voters, who at least like their potential President to pretend like they don’t ache for it.

Sarah Palin

Strengths: There are still a few Republicans dumb/sexist enough to believe that if they vote for her, there’s a chance she might sleep with them

Weaknesses: Most people are beginning to catch on to what a vapid, corrupt, petty, spiteful, intellectually incurious, vindictive, greedy, dimwitted, dishonest, crazy asshole she actually is

Chances: Zero. She’s going to make a token run, because she’s an utter fame-whore and she only has two ways to get on the media’s radar now that she’s no longer an actual politician, and criticizing Obama for everything he says or does is starting to get stale. Running for President extends the timer on her fifteen minutes of fame, but she doesn’t have the organizational skills, establishment connections, or real desire for a sustained run. Expect her to drop out the first time she loses a primary, citing negative remarks about her and a need to protect her children from the harshness of a political campaign.

Newt Gingrich

Strengths: Is as close to an intellectual as a Republican gets; has a Nixonian ability to go for the jugular; believes that like Nixon, he’s been out of politics long enough that people have forgotten why he wound up out of politics

Weaknesses: Has never stood for national office before; has spent so long exclusively in the company of people who agree with him that he doesn’t actually realize that most Americans wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire; is named “Newt” (see “Huckabee”, above)

Chances: Not great. He is popular among Republicans, and he does have a lot of favors he can cash in from the Republican establishment, but his habit of impulsive speech will get him into trouble at least once and remind primary voters of his downsides. Expect him to hang around for a while if he does go for it, though; Newt isn’t one to admit defeat easily.

Ron Paul

Strengths: Actually has strong convictions and an intellectually-coherent position, albeit one that supports child labor, the return of the gold standard and the right of Texas to secede from the United States

Weaknesses: Anti-war candidate in a party that might well beat him to death with a blunt instrument for it before realizing he’s on their side; among people that think of Rush Limbaugh as the Voice of Mainstream America, is kind of viewed as “a little bit out there”

Chances: None and then some. Among the people who love him, he’s very well loved; unfortunately, that’s a very vocal five percent of the Republican party. He tanked in 2008, and I really can’t see him doing better with four more years under his belt. It might not stop him, though; he’s the perfect definition of a sacrificial candidate, someone who runs just for the bigger soapbox and nothing more.

Tim Pawlenty

Strengths: Lack of charisma makes him seem deceptively reasonable; can claim he balanced the budget in Minnesota for eight years without raising taxes, knowing nobody cares enough about Minnesota to find out how he did it

Weaknesses: Couldn’t deliver Minnesota to McCain…in the Republican primary; best known to most Americans as “that guy who let the bridge collapse, right?”

Chances: Low, but not impossible. His habit of tacking hard-right to show his Tea Party credentials makes him seem more “craven and desperate” than “strongly conservative”, but he’s got enough legitimate conservative street cred to avoid seeming like an opportunist like Romney. Which, in a tie between the two “staid white guys with no charisma”, might be enough to pull him ahead.

Donald Trump

Strengths: …hahahahahahahahaha! Oh, you’re serious? Um, he’s rich enough to pay for his own attack ads instead of having to ask big corporations to do it

Weaknesses: The hair; the personality; has no political experience; has no campaigning experience; the hair; has donated as much money to Democrats as to Republicans; like most self-funded candidates, has a platform primarily geared towards restructuring the tax laws in a way that benefits him personally; Americans can’t shake the lingering suspicion that he’s only running so that he can rename the White House “The Trump House”; the hair

Chances: Less than none. I don’t actually expect him to run, to be honest; this is another publicity stunt, like “The Apprentice” or his appearance on WWF Raw or his naming everything after himself. Expect him to drop it after about six weeks.

And it probably isn’t the reason you think.

I’m currently temping at a Business Which Shall Not Be Named (Mostly Because It Isn’t Relevant) and they’re nice enough to have a couple of big-screen TVs scattered throughout the building, mainly because the work doesn’t actually engage the brain beyond the simple motor reflexes, and my particular duty stations me right next to one. This means I wind up watching CNN for the better part of eight hours each day while I work. (This may explain why the posts on my own blog have become somewhat more political lately. Sorry, but hearing Governor Walker explain why he raided the pension fund for Wisconsin’s teachers and gave it to his rich buddies, and why this means that he has to take away their right to negotiate contracts…it kinda gets to ya after a while.)

But that’s not what actually depresses me. (Actually, the Egypt stuff was pretty uplifting; it’s sort of how you imagine revolutions happening in the movies, with almost nobody getting hurt and the noble resistance triumphing simply through being Right and having Stick-To-It-Ive-Ness. At any moment, you expected Mubarak to suddenly remember, “Hey, I’ve got guns and tanks and shit!” And he never did.) Certainly, I’m not fond of CNN’s style of reporting, but it’s not so much that I feel like they’ve got a bias as it is that they seem so desperate to prove they don’t have a bias that they never challenge anyone on anything, ever. A CNN interview with Charles Manson would go something like this:

CNN Reporter: “Mr. Manson, your followers murdered seven people, including a woman who was almost nine months pregnant, and planned to murder others. Do you think that maybe this is something you should apologize for?”

Manson: “No.”

CNN Reporter: “I see. Now, regarding your relationship with Brian Wilson…”

But none of that is what depresses me. No, what depresses me are the ads. I’m not sure whether CNN just has unbelievably low standards, or whether the various advertisers have targeted CNN’s demographics with razor-sharp precision and realized that 99% of the people watching CNN at 1 in the afternoon are either gullible elderly folks or people out on workman’s comp, but watching the ads on CNN all day is like a non-stop bath in human misery. Easily half the ads feel like borderline scams (overpriced insurance, dubious financial advice, lawyers explaining to you how you can sue/outwit the IRS/get a free scooter, the occasional right-wing screed) and the rest drop the “borderline” part. One in particular, which apparently warns of the “END OF AMERICA” that this financial genius predicted, feels like it’s the work of someone about two steps ahead of the law.

And what’s most depressing is that all this is showing on a news network. In theory, at least, these people are devoted to the ideals of honesty. They have cultivated a reputation for trustworthiness, and these ads cloak themselves in that reputation in order to seem like they, too, can be trusted. But they so patently and obviously can’t that you find yourself pitying the poor soul who really does believe that they need term life insurance, or that they can make money by investing in gold, or that the Health Care Reform Bill is unconstitutional and Mike Huckabee really needs their help in repealing it before it’s Too Late. Because you know there are people like that out there, people who believe these ads because they’re on CNN and CNN wouldn’t lie to them. And that, my friends, is why I get depressed watching CNN.

Well, that and trying to imagine how inadequate Wolf Blitzer must feel that he needs to name his news show, “THE SITUATION ROOM”.

I’m currently in overdrive studying for my bar exams, so posting here is going to be a bit more perfunctory than usual and consist primarily of bits from comics I think are cool for the next couple of weeks.

Will Huston recently wrote me an email asking me to write about the appeal of Superman:

You’ve already done insightful pieces on Lois Lane and Lex Luthor, but I need something to sell people on reading Superman. A lot of my friends think he’s boring, or overpowered, which I don’t get, but I’m having trouble articulating my argument.

The appeal of Superman is quite simple and one that is frequently misunderstood by most people because they automatically want to turn him into a Jesus analogue. Admittedly, the reasons for Superman being cast in people’s minds as a Jesus analogue are pretty obvious and straightforward: the combination of godly power1 with a seemingly bottomless well of compassion and grace. It’s something that just hits the switch in our literary-critic mode that says “hey! Jesus!”

And it’s wrong beyond the most obvious and superficial level. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t see use; of course it does. But it’s still far too simple to really do the character justice.

Superman isn’t a Jesus analogue because, unlike Jesus, his moral vision is not imposed. The word of Jesus is the word of God2 and therefore what he says goes, dictation straight from the Almighty. Superman is the exact opposite: a man whose moral vision comes not from a source exterior to humanity but from humanity itself, via Ma and Pa Kent, who are themselves immensely decent people. He ultimately isn’t a received savior, regardless of the origin of his powers; he’s Superman, the apotheosis of what human virtue can be. He’s an aspirational figure first and foremost.3 There’s a reason people get S-symbol tattoos; they have meaning in a way that other superhero images just don’t.

But that’s only the surface of why Superman is a compelling figure and an engaging source of story. See, once you get past him being the aspirational figure that he is, you have to start wondering how and why he is that figure, what it means to be. People like to talk about how villains are more interesting, but with rare exceptions (like Lex Luthor), they really aren’t – they’re a base desire manifested in human form without the usual limitation we expect, an inversion of the norms. Similarly most heroes are just confirmation of those norms. Geoff Johns’ reimagining of Barry Allen as someone who became a cop because his mother died is a good example, framing virtue in simple cause-and-effect terms that are ultimately kind of limiting. DC has gradually introduced backstories explaining why most of their characters are superheroes, usually framing it in this manner. Hawkman is a superhero because of an ancient curse. Green Lantern is a superhero because his father died when he was little. Batman – duh. And so forth. You can call it the Batmanification of superheroes or the Marvelization – since Marvel’s characters often fall into superheroism by accident or happenstance when you consider their origins, which is often limiting in an entirely different way – but it is creeping and increasingly omnipresent in superhero storytelling.

Not so with Superman. Superman isn’t Superman because of some tragedy which informed his growth. Pa Kent does not die because of a failure on Clark’s part – indeed in most versions of the story, Pa dies when Clark is already Superman.4 Clark’s knowledge of Krypton doesn’t make him a superhero either; again, this is something he finds out later, too late to traumatize him. Clark is Superman because he decides to be Superman without being prompted. That’s more complex and nuanced a story than “somebody did something to me.” Superman’s story, which informs his entire character, is one of someone who chooses to be good of his own free will and agency, with no influence other than moral upbringing. That’s both more compelling than the “somebody did something to me” origin most superheroes have and more difficult to work with.56

The better class of Superman Elseworlds tend to bear this out. As I said a while ago, Red Son doesn’t quite work for me as a story, but it does help show what Superman would be without that wellspring of grace.7 Speeding Bullets similarly demonstrates – and fairly eloquently at that – how Superman simply isn’t right as a bog-standard wronged vigilante.

That, for me, is what is ultimately compelling about the character. I accept that not everybody will agree with me and that some will consider Superman’s moral strength a source of boredom rather than interest – and to be fair, when he’s written poorly it is boring, since his morality can become trite or boring in untalented hands, or worse a writer can simply get it dramatically wrong.89 But in a good story, I personally think Superman’s morality doesn’t make him dull; I think it makes him be what we all strive for, or should.

And indeed, the point of Superman in a way is that he never stops striving to be that thing either; his morality isn’t something innate, but something he actively works to be. To quote from Tom de Haven’s It’s Superman! (a novel, incidentally, that you should read):

Somehow he got here. Somehow he did. And somehow Lois Lane got here, too. She has the loveliest eyes he will ever see and he wants to see those eyes every single day, forever. And if she won’t love him, love him, he will still love her, love her all the more. And because he will – he will go on out and do the best he can, like everybody else.

Just like everybody else.

1. Whatever Superman’s origin might be, for all intents and purposes he is a godly being and that’s all that matters. [↩]
2. This is by way of being analysis, not declaration, but you probably guessed that already. But if you didn’t, there you go. [↩]
3. Consider the ending of The Iron Giant. [↩]
4. Or at least Superboy. [↩]
5. The other major superhero who doesn’t fall into the “somebody did something to me” well is Spider-Man, who’s ultimately a superhero because of something he did to himself. See? There’s a reason he’s the most important character at Marvel. [↩]
6. Also, Dr. Strange, although he’s arguably not major. [↩]
7. Not that this was new, as Evil Superman, or Non-Virtuous Superman at least, is not a new idea and has not been for a very long time, but anyway. [↩]
8. See Straczynski, J. Michael. Which is a shame, because the idea of Superman undergoing a morality crisis after basically having a traumatic breakdown is not a bad one in and of itself, but “Grounded” was just executed so poorly that I think future writers will avoid the idea. [↩]
9. See also JLA: Act of God, wherein when Superman loses his powers it takes three issues of him moping like a loser to get over it and become a fireman – which, no, if Superman lost his powers he’d just shrug, accept it and move on, doing the best he can, because that’s who he is. [↩]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa1rLy7pj3E

God fucking dammit.

So the Amazing Race (also known as “The Only Reality Show I Like”) premiered again last night for its eighteenth season, also known as “Unfinished Business” due to its complement of returning racers. This time, we kicked off with a fairly serious bang; clearly, the producers’ attitude this time is, “You all know the rules, you all know how to play well enough to get fairly far along in the game the last time around, so we’re not going to mollycoddle you.” I’m trying to avoid spoilers, since it did air less than twenty-four hours ago, but suffice to say they had not one, not two, but three of the “shock twist” events that they usually space out over a whole season in the first episode.

Speaking of the returning racers, I figure I should go ahead and discuss them; for the most part, I like this group. I haven’t been watching the series since the beginning, so a few of them are “before my time”, but it’s for the most part a selection of sympathetic racers, and there’s very few people I’m rooting against. In greater detail…

Gary and Mallory: He seems nice but quiet, which does make you wonder how he raised such a vocal, chirpy, borderline insane daughter. Which isn’t to say she’s obnoxious (cue all the people telling me that no, no, she actually is very obnoxious) but she’s definitely a person who pummels you with the force of her personality. She’s hard to ignore, (I think) hard to dislike, and I’d like to see them go far. But I don’t think it’s going to happen; parent-child teams have a hard time, and they got flustered easily last time. (Incidentally, do you think that if a parent-child team wins this time, we’ll hear about how the teams were “stacked” with them and the Race just wanted one to win? Or does that only happen when both racers have XX chromosomes?)

Amanda and Kris: They weren’t memorable the first time, and they’re not memorable now. I honestly could not care less about them; I don’t like them, I don’t dislike them, they’re just sort of empty “Hi, we’re a couple!” filler. That said, I see them as middle-of-the-pack material, not an early exit. (And not Final Three material, either.)

Kisha and Jen: Oh, goodie. They’re back. I can’t quite say why they got on my nerves…they just seemed a little bit too prone to carp at the other teams (witness the “you’re a liar” moment in this season’s premiere, a totally uncalled for bit of rudeness), a little bit too whiny, a little bit too irritating. (It probably didn’t help that I was rooting for Margie and Luke, although I thought the production team made too much out of a minor scuffle and a minor verbal tantrum.) In any event, though, I think they’ll probably be on the Race much longer than I want them to be, and may even be Final Three material.

Zev and Justin: It’s very unfair of me, I know, to give in to the reaction to feel uncomfortable around people who are autistic simply because they’re not capable of giving the proper social cues and it’s hard not to be bothered by that because it’s hardwired into our hindbrains. But I’ll admit, I am. I wasn’t bothered when they were knocked off last time, I won’t be bothered if they get knocked off this time, and I suspect that’ll happen pretty quick because I don’t think that last time’s elimination was a fluke. But we shall see.

Flight Time and Big Easy: The exact opposite of Kisha and Jen for me; despite the fact that they played some pretty dirty pool last time out, I can’t get past how funny and charming they are. I’ll root for them until they go out, and I think that won’t be for a while. They’re smarter than they act, and they’re also fast and strong.

Jaime and Cara: Slightly less obnoxious than Kisha and Jen, but still not a team that I care much about. I think they’re a middle-of-the-pack finisher that will vaguely annoy me until they get eliminated, but not infuriate me. That said, that hair is amazing.

Margie and Luke: I like them, I’m rooting for them, I hope they’ll be the first parent-child team to win. Margie is a hell of a strong, determined woman, and Luke is smart and capable (and occasionally ruthless, but there’s nothing wrong with that when racing for a million bucks.) I definitely think they’ll be Final Three, and I hope they’ll win it all this time.

Ron and Christina: These two were “before my time”, and I have to say, they’re not making much of an impression now. They’re not doing anything particularly interesting, they’re not racing particularly well (or badly, it must be said) and I don’t think they’ll be around for long. But I have been surprised by “stealth racers” before; heck, I thought Nick and Vicki were going to be out in the second leg.

Mel and Mike: Awesome. These two are pure awesome, and I would love to have them as next-door neighbors and talk screenwriting with them for hours and let my wife bake them cookies…but he’s seventy. This is not a contest that caters to seventy year-olds. I don’t think they’ll last long, and I will be sad when they get Philiminated.

Kent and Vyxsin: Also before my time, but my wife has a huge, adorable, lascivious crush on Vyxsin (she likes Kent, too, but she lusts for Vyxsin) so I am duty-bound to root for them so that one day, they can appear at a con and we can kidnap her. (I really shouldn’t admit that, should I?) And actually, I think they can go pretty far; they made it to 5th last time, and I think they can do better on a retry.

Jet and Cord: I actually rooted for these two the first time out, but that was before I heard about some of the things they said about the sexual orientation of eventual winners Dan and Jordan. I realize they are from a very rural, very Southern area and are not usually exposed to cultural views other than their own, but this is the 21st century and that shit Does Not Fly. Unless I hear them saying something along the lines of, “Wow, we were homophobic assholes when we first started on this. We feel really bad about that,” I refuse to root for them. But we’ll see whether this is a problem for long…