Comic Books As Literature College Course
Jonas Grumby
a university. How would you approach the course? What would you use
for a text book? What would be the required reading assignments
(keeping in mind the stuff has to be currently in print or easily
available at reasonable prices)? What types of projects would you
assign for the class? Keep in mind that you would be dealing with an
average of about 18 weeks for the semester.
I think you would have to start the course with an overview of comic
book history. This would have to include both superhero comics and
other genres. I'm not sure what text you would use for an authoritive
source on this, but I'm sure something exists.
After the history I think you have to discuss the comic book form. I
believe Will Eisner created a few books that covered this subject.
Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics would have to be assigned.
The books for the course would likely end up costing a great deal,
considering that tradepaperbacks are around $20 a piece and you could
cover at least one a week throughout the semester. A cheaper route
would be to teach using brand new comics, which would be useful in
discussing the comic book form in general.
As for reading assignments, I think you need to cover Action Comics #1
and Amazing Fantasy #15. These could be obtained through a variety of
low cost reprints. I think you would also need to cover stories by
certain legendary creators (Jack Kirby, Will Eisner, Stan Lee, etc.),
certain time periods (Golden Age, Silver Age, 1970s social relevance,
etc.), certain genres (superheroes, humor, underground comics, war,
westerns, horror, etc.) and certain classic comic book stories (The
Watchmen, The Dark Phoenix Saga, The Dark Knight Returns, etc.).
You would probably want to assign Seduction of the Innocent as a
reading assignment due to it's impact on the industry. I would also
want to leave some freedom for students to be able to select their own
comics for certain discussions.
For assignments, I think requiring response papers for each reading
assignment would be a good way to stimulate discussion of the
material. Some sort of research project where students research a
particular character, creator, genre, etc. would be good. I'm not
sure if there would be much of a point in giving exams. Grades could
be determined using the term papers, research project, and attendence,
but if the university required exams it would be easy enough to create
them.
Guest speakers would be nice, but probably not realistic. There are
several comic book documentaries that could be used to cover this.
So how would you approach this? Are there currently any such courses
being offered at universities? Even if you weren't being paid to do
this at a university, you could probably teach such a course in your
local area at a public library, Boys or Girls Club, or maybe even a
discussion group at your local comic book shop. It might take some
work to make it happen, but it's certainly possible!
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Suppose you were going to teach a Comic Books as Literature course at
: a university. How would you approach the course?
Turn it into an "exemplary reading" course -- pick fifteen or so well-regarded, available
comics that are as different from each other as possible, and take a session each to
discuss them.
Starting out with a comprehensive history of comics would probably bog things down too
much. Just show the goods, and go from there.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Walking in the comfortable shoes of Warren Ellis.
--
[Please note: This is a Usenet message, originally posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.
If you see it in a moderated or censored forum, it was copied there without my consent.]
Loren Di Iorio
year I graduated. ;I )
Check 'em out - they sound amazing:
http://www.arts.yorku.ca/english/calendar/courseTemplate.php?id=3498
http://www.arts.yorku.ca/english/calendar/courseTemplate.php?id=3499
Praise be to Canada for such wonderful academia. :)
...Loren
http://www.geocities.com/gcpdguy/
Mike Ward
news:e128c4e9.03072...@posting.google.com:
I can't imagine a serious course on comic books as literature. You
mentioned Action #1 and Amazing Fantasy #15. Both are comic book
classics to be sure, but as literature they are merely pulp tales. Very
entertaining, but hardly literature. Even a literate comic book story
like the Watchmen which is easily on par with most written SF isn't the
the sort of work I would expect to study in college. I can imagine a
serious study of comics as a pop culture phenominon though.
Mike
niteowlned
"Jonas Grumby" <skippe...@elvis.com> wrote in message
news:e128c4e9.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Suppose you were going to teach a Comic Books as Literature course at
> a university. How would you approach the course? What would you use
> for a text book? What would be the required reading assignments
> (keeping in mind the stuff has to be currently in print or easily
> available at reasonable prices)?
Why I took plenty of courses in college where the material was either
xeroxed bits and pieces of the professors choice of out of print stuff put
together by Kinkos. (I know that some actually got publishers permissoin and
others just made copies of books they owned so that can go either way). And
have you seen the price of college textbooks? I'm going back 10-15 years and
remember paying through the nose. I don't think they got any cheaper!
What types of projects would you assign for the class?
Depends on the objectives of the class and what 'major' it fell under.
It could be American History and you would right how comics effected society
via Wertham, Printing practices, whatrever. If it's a literature class you
compare Batman to the Scarlet Pimpernel or Superman to Achilles. If it's a
writing course you get the students to create their own comics, same
scenario if it's an arts class. (Of course when the professor pirates the
student works for his own comic does he get sued by the university claiming
he was under a work for pay contract or he claims he was a hired freelance
producer)
I think you are trying to cover too much in one class. You need
to narrow the scope to a developed curriculum. What is the classes aim. You
can't do a whole overview of comic books like you showed it's just too hard
to cover it all. (I think you would actually have to start with cartoons,
Sunday funnies, mythology and other sources to show their effect on the
development of comic books. That adds a whole lot more to be covered.)
Dave Hearn
I think the mistake would be the desire to elevate super-hero comics as
serious works of literature. With the possible exception of Watchmen, I
can't think of any super-hero comics I would consider. That aside -
-Stuck Rubber Baby
-Maus (only comic to win Pulitzer)
-Fax from Sarajevo
-Palestine
-Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth (brilliant)
-All of Will Eisner's graphic novels
-you could include some of the western historicals by Jacky Jackson
-American Splendor
That's just what I could think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there is
more and better out there that I don't even know about. I haven't even
touched on European or Japanese work.
Super-heroes don't make for great literature. When I think of great
characters in literature I think of a finite story of which they were a
part. Characters like Superman are more of a template for stories. I think
we have to catagorize them in a different fashion.
But I'm probably wrong....
Jason Michael
"Mike Ward" <m...@place.here> wrote in message
news:PcCUa.75696$0v4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I can't imagine a serious course on comic books as literature. You
> mentioned Action #1 and Amazing Fantasy #15. Both are comic book
> classics to be sure, but as literature they are merely pulp tales. Very
> entertaining, but hardly literature. Even a literate comic book story
> like the Watchmen which is easily on par with most written SF isn't the
> the sort of work I would expect to study in college. I can imagine a
> serious study of comics as a pop culture phenominon though.
>
> Mike
I think you're right about studying the superhero genre as
literature.Despite my love of those books, I have to admit there's just not
that much to study. But what about books such as art spiegelman's Maus,
Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan, Lynda Barry's books, Ben Katchor's Julius Knipl
and Jew of New York, Eddie Campbell's Alec stories, Dan Clowes' Caricature
and Eightball # 22 (I know most people prefer his Ghost World and David
Boring books, but I find them a little too glib) , Harvey Pekar's American
Splendor and My Cancer Year, Joe Sacco's Safe Area Gorazde, or the collected
works of Los Bros Hernandez from Love & Rockets. I'm sure there are many
other titles that people can think of outside the
superhero/action/adventure/fantasy genres.
Jason
Jason Michael
"Dave Hearn" <dhe...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%oEUa.5920$hc....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
I think you're right! I forgot Howard Cruse's Stuck Rubber Baby and Jaxon's
work, both of which I love. Jaxon's "The Alamo" is excellent.
I'm only slowly getting into Japanese manga (the threads about it recently
have been a great help) so I don't really have any recommendations in that
vein. My European collection is pretty small,but a few works I've read that
might warrant study are Jose Munoz and Carlos Sampayo's "Joe's Bar",
"Sinner", and "Billie Holiday" and Marti's "The Cabbie".
Jason
Jonas Grumby
>
> I think the mistake would be the desire to elevate super-hero comics as
> serious works of literature. With the possible exception of Watchmen, I
> can't think of any super-hero comics I would consider. That aside -
I'm not suggesting that any certain comics are or are not "serious
works of literature. One could argue that any text is literture that
can be studied and critiqued by a class as a learning experiment.
When I was in college I took a "Readings in Literature: Science
Fiction" course that spent a lot of time discussing Joesph Campbell
and featured a reading list that included a number of fairly recent
sci-fi novels and anthologies. The course was simple covering the
genre of science fiction and presented a sampling of work that could
be read and discussed. The individual works may not have been
literary classics, but they each did include elements associated with
the science fiction genre. I can't recall all the assignments, but I
know "Stranger in a Strange Land", "Millenium", and "2001" were some
of the novels covered.
A course on comics would be an important way to educate people on one
of the few art forms to originate in the United States. It would most
likely be the type of course that would attract students just looking
to fulfill a basic humanities elective requirement.
However, what I was suggesting was a course that studied the art form
of comic books. You hit the history and you cover a sampling of work
in the medium which would include a few comics. It wouldn't dwell on
superhero comics any more than an introductory film class would dwell
on a particular genre of film.
In the world of literature, Stan Lee may not be considered in the same
company as Mark Twain and Shakespeare or even lesser writers, but he
is an important comic book writer since he did introduce the idea of
using more sophisticated language for mor educated readers while using
complex characterizations.
The medium of comics may have gone on to produce more sophisticated
stuff than the stories of Stan Lee, but I think you need to spend a
little time covering the pioneers of the industry.
>
> -Stuck Rubber Baby
> -Maus (only comic to win Pulitzer)
> -Fax from Sarajevo
> -Palestine
> -Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth (brilliant)
> -All of Will Eisner's graphic novels
> -you could include some of the western historicals by Jacky Jackson
> -American Splendor
Certainly some of those would be covered, but you also have to cover
superhero comics, war comics, funny animal comics, romance comics,
horror comics, etc. just to look at the various genres. Most
individual issues of comics can be read fairly quickly, so you could
do a quick and broad overview of the artform and genres early in the
semester in order to lay the groundwork necessary to understand and
appreciate the more complex material you mentioned.
I say you would need to assign at least the Superman story from Action
Comics #1, Amazing Fantasy #15 (perhaps Stan Lee's greatest single
story), I would go with a Jack Cole Plastic Man story, a Golden Age
Batman tale, a Carl Bark's Donald Duck, an issue of Archie, some of
the EC horror stuff, a fairly standard war comic (Sgt. Rock?), and
other single issues that represent genres. You could incorporate some
contemporary comics since you are just looking at genres.
>
> That's just what I could think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there is
> more and better out there that I don't even know about. I haven't even
> touched on European or Japanese work.
Certainly some manga would need to be covered, perhaps a little Lone
Wolf & Cub.
>
> Super-heroes don't make for great literature. When I think of great
> characters in literature I think of a finite story of which they were a
> part. Characters like Superman are more of a template for stories. I think
> we have to catagorize them in a different fashion.
It's not necessarily that they are great literature, although many
will argue that there are certain superhero comics that are, it's more
that superhero comics do play an important role in the history of
comics. My suggestion was for a literature course that studied the
comic book art form with an overview of the history of the industry
and selected readings.
>
> But I'm probably wrong....
>
CSPAN recently ran a series of programs taped at a college that had a
history course on the Clinton presidency. If that can be a college
course, then certainly we could have a comic book course.
I think it would be really cool if one of the greats of the industry
such as Denny O'Neil or Marv Wolfman, would teach such a course at a
university as a adjuct professor. Those guys certainly have the
knowledge of the industry to really be able to properly educate people
on the fundementals.
Weird Kid
"Dave Hearn" <dhe...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%oEUa.5920$hc....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>
> I think the mistake would be the desire to elevate super-hero comics as
> serious works of literature. With the possible exception of Watchmen, I
> can't think of any super-hero comics I would consider. That aside -
>
> -Stuck Rubber Baby
> -Maus (only comic to win Pulitzer)
> -Fax from Sarajevo
> -Palestine
> -Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth (brilliant)
> -All of Will Eisner's graphic novels
> -you could include some of the western historicals by Jacky Jackson
> -American Splendor
I would add the Amazing Fantasy 15 AND a current Spidey book to contrast the
growth/maturation of comic writing; maybe ASM v2, #36.
100 Bullets might be a fine additino, and in fact there are already English
Lit courses teaching it.
Watchmen gets a common mention.
John C. Baker
"niteowlned" <ne...@infionline.net> wrote:
> Why I took plenty of courses in college where the material was either
> xeroxed bits and pieces of the professors choice of out of print stuff put
> together by Kinkos. (I know that some actually got publishers permissoin and
> others just made copies of books they owned so that can go either way).
My wife actually is in charge of custom publishing at San Francisco
State, and the teachers who do stuff at Kinkos themselves are committing
serious copyright violations and exposing the UNIVERSITY to serious
liability, so the brass are really cracking down on that. She works with
the publishers, and they're generally reasonable -- something like 10
cents a page per copy. That's why a "reader" filled with nothing but
copied pages can cost you 40-50 bucks. Still cheaper than buying the
individual books though.
> have you seen the price of college textbooks? I'm going back 10-15 years and
> remember paying through the nose. I don't think they got any cheaper!
I can't believe that the original poster thought a 20-buck trade
paperback would make a college student blink (her bookstore sells both
Watchmen and Maus for classes). Even if you bought eight paperbacks for
the course, that's still typical for some courses. Ever seen an art
history book? $80 (lots of glossy, color pictures). Certain engineering
books -- $125. $160 for a class's worth of books is not out of the
ordinary.
John C. Baker
<PcCUa.75696$0v4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Mike Ward <m...@place.here> wrote:
> Even a literate comic book story
> like the Watchmen which is easily on par with most written SF isn't the
> the sort of work I would expect to study in college.
Au contraire. Humanities 225 (something like "Values in American Life")
at San Francisco State University uses Watchmen as a text (also reads
Huck Finn, Civil Disobediance and other essays, Maus, Whitman's Leaves
of Grass, among other titles). Maus I and II are used in something like
10 classes, ranging from humanities, English and history.
> I can imagine a serious study of comics as a pop culture phenominon
> though.
Heck, Berkeley has offered a Simpsons as a reflection of modern values
class.
Paul....@sunlife.com
Well, since comics are extensions of classic mythology, I can't see
why they can't be referred to in a literary context, especially if the
course is, say, about archetypal theories of literary criticism.
Comics are heavily influenced by archetypal patterns.
In addition, I took a semiotics class in university and we actually
took a quick look at the semiological phenomenon of comics throughout
the span of its sixty-five years. We studied how our cultural
expectations are deep-rooted in comics and that they can be seen in
everything from the comic's art to its narration and dialogue to its
characters.
Paul....@sunlife.com
> What types of projects would you assign for the class?
>
> Depends on the objectives of the class and what 'major' it fell under.
> It could be American History and you would right how comics effected society
> via Wertham, Printing practices, whatrever. If it's a literature class you
> compare Batman to the Scarlet Pimpernel or Superman to Achilles.
I always thought the parallels between Superman and Jesus Christ were
quite blatant yet interesting.
Mike Ward
Jason Michael
"Mike Ward" <m...@place.here> wrote in message
> Paul....@sunlife.com wrote in
> >
> > I always thought the parallels between Superman and Jesus Christ were
> > quite blatant yet interesting.
> >
>
> What parallels ?!
Krypto. And Jimmy Olsen, Turtle Boy.
Jason
M.O.R
Superman, who Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster would have the most knowledge of
as they were both Jewish, and would be familiar with the old testament, but
not so with the New Testament.
MOR
<Paul....@sunlife.com> wrote in message
news:83042d02.03072...@posting.google.com...
Brent McKee
"M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:bg0roh$8ok$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie...
> I think the parallels are not with Jesus and Superman, but Moses
and
> Superman, who Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster would have the most
knowledge of
> as they were both Jewish, and would be familiar with the old
testament, but
> not so with the New Testament.
>
> MOR
While the similarities between Moses and Superman are reasonably
clear, the similarities between Jesus and Superman are also reasonably
clear, particularly in the Christopher Reeves movies, but also in the
original material. I do think you are under-estimating the exposure
that Siegel and Shuster would have to at least the basics of the life
of Jesus. The were after all living in Cleveland, in a society which
while nominally secular maintains the supposed birthday of Christ and
the period of his death and resurrection as statutory holidays. The
story of the birth of Christ would have been available on the radio,
in magazines, in supplements to the newspapers. Indeed it would be
hard for them _not_ to be exposed to the basics contained in the four
books of the Gospels.
--
Brent McKee
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from
the email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of
openness to novelty. "
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
Mike Ward
@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:
>
> "M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:bg0roh$8ok$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie...
>> I think the parallels are not with Jesus and Superman, but Moses
> and
>> Superman, who Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster would have the most
> knowledge of
>> as they were both Jewish, and would be familiar with the old
> testament, but
>> not so with the New Testament.
>>
>> MOR
>
> While the similarities between Moses and Superman are reasonably
> clear, the similarities between Jesus and Superman are also reasonably
> clear, particularly in the Christopher Reeves movies, but also in the
> original material. I do think you are under-estimating the exposure
> that Siegel and Shuster would have to at least the basics of the life
> of Jesus. The were after all living in Cleveland, in a society which
> while nominally secular maintains the supposed birthday of Christ and
> the period of his death and resurrection as statutory holidays. The
> story of the birth of Christ would have been available on the radio,
> in magazines, in supplements to the newspapers. Indeed it would be
> hard for them _not_ to be exposed to the basics contained in the four
> books of the Gospels.
>
Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman and
Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity yet.
Mike
M.O.R
>
> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman and
> Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity yet.
>
> Mike
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/superman.htm
Here's a link to an article comparing the two and also including references
to his jewish origins too.
MOR
George Grattan
>
> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman and
> Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity yet.
>
Sent by a heavenly/otherwordly father to Earth to be a savior for all
regardless of their race, beliefs, nationalities, etc. Gifted with supreme
power that he wields with great love and great restraint, willing to
sacrifice himself for the good of others. A mild-mannered god. In more
recent years: resurrection.
I always kinda thought all that went without saying.... :-)
--
Shalom, Peace, Salaam
George Grattan
(This post is intended for a Usenet newsgroup only. Its appearance in any
other forum that does not clearly identify it as originally posted to Usenet
is therefore a misrepresentation, is done against my wishes, and may
indicate other unauthorized distortions of content and/or context. Correctly
attributed and/or unedited copies of this post in other forums do not
necessarily indicate my willing participation in them.)
Jonas Grumby
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman and
> > Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity yet.
> >
>
> http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/superman.htm
>
> Here's a link to an article comparing the two and also including references
> to his jewish origins too.
>
Superman is to Jesus Christ as Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is to
The Book of Mormon.
Mike Ward
news:BB49E0A1.24088%gra...@rcn.com:
> on 7/27/03 6:39 PM, Mike Ward at m...@place.here wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman
>> and Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity
>> yet.
>>
>
> Sent by a heavenly/otherwordly father to Earth to be a savior for all
> regardless of their race, beliefs, nationalities, etc. Gifted with
> supreme power that he wields with great love and great restraint,
> willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others. A mild-mannered
> god. In more recent years: resurrection.
>
These are all extremely vague tenuous similarites: "otherworldly
fathers", "mild mannered" etc.
They are the sort of general "parallels" that can be made between
countless numbers of unrelated things using the same method frequently
employed to try and make Nostradomus predictions fit current events.
Mike
Mike Ward
news:bg1ont$jpc$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie:
Thanks for the link.
But I have to say the writer of that page hardly makes a convincing
arguemnt.
In fact the length he goes to find "parallels" between Christ and
Superman shows just how hard they are to come by.
Consider:
"
In the above scene Jor-El blesses his son with words that sound very
Biblical: "We will never leave you...All that I have, I bequeath you, my
son...You'll carry me inside you all the days of your life...the son
becomes the father, and the father the...the son."
"
Even if Jor-El's quote sounded biblical this would not be a parallel.
"
Superman is "virgin-born" out of a womb-like cave (stable) created by
the "birth-star" space ship
"
This works if we define "virgin-born" as "stood in a crater as a child".
And the most bizare comparison of all:
"
Superman works with writers at the Daily Planet newspaper. Jesus, also,
associated with Matthew and John the Good News (Gospel) writers.
"
The writer connects Jesus and Superman through the use of the word
"news"! And the fact that Jesus associate with men who would later
record his life making them reporters of a sort.
There are of course many other comparisons, and I've only quoted some of
the worst ones to make my point. But none of the others were much
better.
I still apreciate the link. It was after all what I asked for.
Mike
George Grattan
> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in
> news:BB49E0A1.24088%gra...@rcn.com:
>
>> on 7/27/03 6:39 PM, Mike Ward at m...@place.here wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman
>>> and Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity
>>> yet.
>>>
>>
>> Sent by a heavenly/otherwordly father to Earth to be a savior for all
>> regardless of their race, beliefs, nationalities, etc. Gifted with
>> supreme power that he wields with great love and great restraint,
>> willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others. A mild-mannered
>> god. In more recent years: resurrection.
>>
>
> These are all extremely vague tenuous similarites: "otherworldly
> fathers", "mild mannered" etc.
Well, sure: if you're looking for a one-to-one correlation, you're looking
in the wrong place. That's why we call such things similarities, parallels,
or resonances--not duplications or correspondences. It helps to have a
somewhat flexible and analogic mind when pondering such things, so that (for
example) "mild-mannered" connects to "meek," or so that "otherwordly" can
encompass both the divine and the extraterrestrial.
>
> They are the sort of general "parallels" that can be made between
> countless numbers of unrelated things using the same method frequently
> employed to try and make Nostradomus predictions fit current events.
If you say so.
The Superman/Christ parallels aren't as strong as the Superman/Moses
parallels, no--but that wasn't at issue. (Nor was however many *other*
characters might also have parallels to Christ. Given the influence of
Christianity on world culture, and especially Western culture, it's
reasonable to expect that *lots* of Christian parallels are going to show up
in lots of different places, some stronger than others, of course.) At any
rate, the Christ/Superman connection has been long noted both in pop culture
academia and in pop culture itself: most productions of "Godspell" *still*
dress Jesus in a Superman shirt, despite the many other changes that have
been made to the original production over the yeaers. That's not accidental.
--
Shalom, Peace, Salaam
George Grattan
(This post is intended for a Usenet newsgroup only. Its appearance in any
other forum that does not clearly identify it as originally posted to Usenet
is therefore a misrepresentation, is done against my wishes, and may
indicate other unauthorized distortions of content and/or context. Correctly
attributed and/or unedited copies of this post in other forums do not
necessarily indicate my willing participation in them.)
>
George Grattan
> "M.O.R" <pred...@esatclear.ie> wrote in
> news:bg1ont$jpc$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman
>>> and Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity
>>> yet.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/superman.htm
>>
>> Here's a link to an article comparing the two and also including
>> references to his jewish origins too.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> But I have to say the writer of that page hardly makes a convincing
> arguemnt.
>
> In fact the length he goes to find "parallels" between Christ and
> Superman shows just how hard they are to come by.
>
> Consider:
> "
> In the above scene Jor-El blesses his son with words that sound very
> Biblical: "We will never leave you...All that I have, I bequeath you, my
> son...You'll carry me inside you all the days of your life...the son
> becomes the father, and the father the...the son."
> "
>
> Even if Jor-El's quote sounded biblical this would not be a parallel.
The last line of that quote *is* quite Biblical, in fact, in its sentence
structure. (The other lines are fairly good Biblical pastiches, as
well--bequeathing, a presence beyond death/separation, much like the words
Christ gives the Apostles at Pentecost.) The King James version of the the
three synpotic Gospels are full of such reversals and paradoxes. And, of
course, the idea of the father and the son being one being is explicitly
Christian.
>
> "
> Superman is "virgin-born" out of a womb-like cave (stable) created by
> the "birth-star" space ship
> "
>
> This works if we define "virgin-born" as "stood in a crater as a child".
That's a silly stretch, yes. (Though it's worth noting that in the current,
post-1986 version of his origin, the ship that brings him to Earth is
referred to as a "birth matrix," since John Byrne wanted to go to great
lengths to say that Superman was conceived on Krypton but "born" on Earth
when Martha opens the ship.)
>
> And the most bizare comparison of all:
> "
> Superman works with writers at the Daily Planet newspaper. Jesus, also,
> associated with Matthew and John the Good News (Gospel) writers.
That's just silly, you're right.
Mike Ward
> on 7/27/03 9:13 PM, Mike Ward at m...@place.here wrote:
>
>> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in
>> news:BB49E0A1.24088%gra...@rcn.com:
>>
>>> on 7/27/03 6:39 PM, Mike Ward at m...@place.here wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman
>>>> and Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity
>>>> yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sent by a heavenly/otherwordly father to Earth to be a savior for
>>> all regardless of their race, beliefs, nationalities, etc. Gifted
>>> with supreme power that he wields with great love and great
>>> restraint, willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others. A
>>> mild-mannered god. In more recent years: resurrection.
>>>
>>
>> These are all extremely vague tenuous similarites: "otherworldly
>> fathers", "mild mannered" etc.
>
> Well, sure: if you're looking for a one-to-one correlation, you're
> looking in the wrong place. That's why we call such things
> similarities, parallels, or resonances--not duplications or
> correspondences. It helps to have a somewhat flexible and analogic
> mind when pondering such things,
Before the parallels were so obvious that trey "went without saying", and
now it takes a "flexible and analogic mind" to comprehend them.
> so that (for example) "mild-mannered"
> connects to "meek," or so that "otherwordly" can encompass both the
> divine and the extraterrestrial.
These aren't parallels. If you make a list of every word used to describe
Jesus and every word used to describe Superman, you are going to get some
similar words on both list. If the best you can come up with is "mild-
mannered" is sort of like "meek" and "divine "is sort of like
"extraterrestrial" then the two people in question probablly are less alike
than most pairs chosen at random.
(BTW I've never heard Jesus described as meek.)
>>
>> They are the sort of general "parallels" that can be made between
>> countless numbers of unrelated things using the same method
>> frequently employed to try and make Nostradomus predictions fit
>> current events.
>
> If you say so.
>
> The Superman/Christ parallels aren't as strong as the Superman/Moses
> parallels, no--but that wasn't at issue. (Nor was however many *other*
> characters might also have parallels to Christ. Given the influence of
> Christianity on world culture, and especially Western culture, it's
> reasonable to expect that *lots* of Christian parallels are going to
> show up in lots of different places, some stronger than others, of
> course.)
The fact that countless characters have just as many so called parallels
with Jesus is relavent. It demonstrates that these "parallels" can be
found by anyone taking the time to look for them whether they are really
there are not.
> At any rate, the Christ/Superman connection has been long
> noted both in pop culture academia and in pop culture itself: most
> productions of "Godspell" *still* dress Jesus in a Superman shirt,
> despite the many other changes that have been made to the original
> production over the yeaers. That's not accidental.
>
It also doesn't make any of the so called parallels between Superman and
Jesus reasonable. Look at any "parallel" that has been sited in this
thread so far and judge it on its own merits and it does not stand up.
Mike
Mike Ward
>
> (BTW I've never heard Jesus described as meek.)
>
Correction. He describes himself as meek in Matthew 11 (KJV, the NIV uses
gentle instead of meek).
Carl Henderson
> I think the mistake would be the desire to elevate super-hero comics as
> serious works of literature. With the possible exception of Watchmen,
> I can't think of any super-hero comics I would consider.
The trouble here is that you all are talking about a course on comics. But
comics as a medium cover many genres. Imagine a professor talking about
assembling a course called "Novels as Literature," and the problems with
Jonas Grumby's proposal become evident.
As for superhero comics not qualifying as "serious works of literature"--
well, I feel strongly that contemporary academic standards for serious
works of literature are completely and totally fucked up (strongly enough
that, as an undergraduate, I switched majors away from English at the end
of my sophmore year).
To me, literature is what endures. And as such, there's really no good way
of judging what's literature and what is not without the distance of
history.
However, given that people are still reading about (and watching) Superman
and Batman over sixty years after their creations, I give those superheroes
a lot better odds of being around for generations than JIMMY CORRIGAN or
STUCK RUBBER BABY.
--
Carl Henderson © 2003 by Carl Henderson
j...@carlhenderson.net
This post is intended solely for the Usenet rec.arts.comics* newsgroups.
If you are reading it on the "Comics-N-Such" message boards, you should
know that it has been copied onto that forum without my permission.
Jonas Grumby
> > I think the mistake would be the desire to elevate super-hero comics as
> > serious works of literature. With the possible exception of Watchmen,
> > I can't think of any super-hero comics I would consider.
>
> comics as a medium cover many genres. Imagine a professor talking about
> assembling a course called "Novels as Literature," and the problems with
> Jonas Grumby's proposal become evident.
The course title could be altered, but there are courses at colleges
devoted to the short story, poetry, and other literary formats. I had
a course titled "The British Novel" and there are others that specify
specific types of novels or even focus on one author. There is no
reason why there could not be a course on comics, even if the title
and the department that would offer the course (Art department?
History?) could vary.
>
> As for superhero comics not qualifying as "serious works of literature"--
> well, I feel strongly that contemporary academic standards for serious
> works of literature are completely and totally fucked up (strongly enough
> that, as an undergraduate, I switched majors away from English at the end
> of my sophmore year).
Most english professor's at colleges have a little freedom when it
comes to some assigned novels. Comp I reading requirements at the
same university often differ from professor to professor. In many
instances a good professor could take almost ANY novel and be able to
teach the essential elements of literature to students. A bad novel
is just as educational as a good novel as long as you are studying the
literary elements (pacing, plot, setting, characterization, mood,
etc.).
>
> To me, literature is what endures. And as such, there's really no good way
> of judging what's literature and what is not without the distance of
> history.
I don't think the passage of time determines what is literature. Any
text is technically literature from Shakespeare to Harry Potter to
romance novels to magazines, newspapers, and comic books. Now what is
GOOD literature is a matter of opinion.
>
> However, given that people are still reading about (and watching) Superman
> and Batman over sixty years after their creations, I give those superheroes
> a lot better odds of being around for generations than JIMMY CORRIGAN or
> STUCK RUBBER BABY.
>
Superman and Batman have both been around over 60 years. How long
does a text have to exist before it is considered a piece of
literature worthy of being studied? I personally think you could take
a book hot off the presses and study it. You have to ask yourself
what it is you are trying to learn with the text. In most instances
you are learning the literary elements or truths about human nature,
which you could do just as easily with new books or comics as you
could with Shakespeare and Twain.
But I want to point out that I was suggesting a course devoted to
comics. I'm not suggesting that a literature class include comic
books among their reading selections, although there would be nothing
wrong with that. I just think that sicne the comic format is one of
the few art forms to originate in the United States, that it merits a
course. The course doesn't have to be taught frequently or at every
university, but it would be nice to see comics be considered as worthy
of academia as novels, short stories, poetry, movies, paintings,
sculpture, music, photography, and other expressive mediums.
Scott Dubin
>
> It also doesn't make any of the so called parallels between Superman and
> Jesus reasonable. Look at any "parallel" that has been sited in this
> thread so far and judge it on its own merits and it does not stand up.
>
> Mike
Superman and Jesus are both Messianic figures. Jesus is the Christian
version of the messiah, whereas Superman is much closer to the Jewish
version, the warrior hero blessed by God who brings about world peace.
Grant Morrison draws similarity between Jesus and Superman in that
Superman is pure good and wants to save us all, and Jesus is pure good
and wants to save us all. He considers the pure good savior aspect to
make him Christ-like.
Jason Michael
"Jonas Grumby" <skippe...@elvis.com> wrote in message
news:e128c4e9.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > To me, literature is what endures. And as such, there's really no good
way
> > of judging what's literature and what is not without the distance of
> > history.
>
> I don't think the passage of time determines what is literature. Any
> text is technically literature from Shakespeare to Harry Potter to
> romance novels to magazines, newspapers, and comic books. Now what is
> GOOD literature is a matter of opinion.
>
Would wordless comics qualify as literature? The woodcut novels of Lynd Ward
and the pantomime works of Peter Kuper and Eric Drooker qualify (at least in
my mind) as excellent comics. Does the absence of words disqualify them from
being discussed as literature?
Jason
George Grattan
> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in
> news:BB4A00FF.240F5%gra...@rcn.com:
>
>> on 7/27/03 9:13 PM, Mike Ward at m...@place.here wrote:
>>
>>> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in
>>> news:BB49E0A1.24088%gra...@rcn.com:
>>>
>>>> on 7/27/03 6:39 PM, Mike Ward at m...@place.here wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that's now two people who say the parallels between Superman
>>>>> and Jesus are clear, but no one has pointed out a single similarity
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent by a heavenly/otherwordly father to Earth to be a savior for
>>>> all regardless of their race, beliefs, nationalities, etc. Gifted
>>>> with supreme power that he wields with great love and great
>>>> restraint, willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others. A
>>>> mild-mannered god. In more recent years: resurrection.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are all extremely vague tenuous similarites: "otherworldly
>>> fathers", "mild mannered" etc.
>>
>> Well, sure: if you're looking for a one-to-one correlation, you're
>> looking in the wrong place. That's why we call such things
>> similarities, parallels, or resonances--not duplications or
>> correspondences. It helps to have a somewhat flexible and analogic
>> mind when pondering such things,
>
> Before the parallels were so obvious that trey "went without saying", and
> now it takes a "flexible and analogic mind" to comprehend them.
Those two thinks aren't mutually exclusive, Mike. Perhaps I assumed that
anyone entering into a discussion about Christian aspects of Superman would
already have a flexible and analogic mindset, since that's the nature of
literary parallels of any type.
>
>> so that (for example) "mild-mannered"
>> connects to "meek," or so that "otherwordly" can encompass both the
>> divine and the extraterrestrial.
>
> These aren't parallels. If you make a list of every word used to describe
> Jesus and every word used to describe Superman, you are going to get some
> similar words on both list. If the best you can come up with is "mild-
> mannered" is sort of like "meek" and "divine "is sort of like
> "extraterrestrial" then the two people in question probablly are less alike
> than most pairs chosen at random.
Again: this isn't a formula. Matching word lists isn't the way any kinds of
thematic parallels are established in literary interpretation. You're
looking for a kind of correspondence that simply doesn't exist. I could well
make an argument for the thematic similarities between, say, Batman and
Dracula--but doing so wouldn't involve plotting them out on chart, nor would
it mean that there aren't also differences between the two (as with Superman
and Christ), nor would it mean that there aren't more present similarities
between Batman and Zorro (as with Superman and Moses). You're looking for
exactitude, it seems, when what's involved here is nuance.
>
> (BTW I've never heard Jesus described as meek.)
Perhaps you'd see more of the parallels if you were more familiar with one
branch of the literature in question, then: the Old Testament prophets
(notably Elijah) routine speek of the gentleness of the Savior, who is often
figured as both shepherd and lamb. In the the snypotic Gospels, Jesus is
called the sacrificial lamb, advises loving one's enemies and turning the
other cheek, and advises Peter to put away the sword when he is captured,
allowing himself to be crucified despite the temporal injustice of it: the
Christian paradox is that strength comes *through* meekness. (Remember the
language of the Beatitudes and who's going to inherit the earth, after
all...). Yes: Jesus notably got angry and threw the money-changers out of
the temple, but that's notable because of it's exceptional nature in the
narratives in question.
>
>>>
>>> They are the sort of general "parallels" that can be made between
>>> countless numbers of unrelated things using the same method
>>> frequently employed to try and make Nostradomus predictions fit
>>> current events.
>>
>> If you say so.
>>
>> The Superman/Christ parallels aren't as strong as the Superman/Moses
>> parallels, no--but that wasn't at issue. (Nor was however many *other*
>> characters might also have parallels to Christ. Given the influence of
>> Christianity on world culture, and especially Western culture, it's
>> reasonable to expect that *lots* of Christian parallels are going to
>> show up in lots of different places, some stronger than others, of
>> course.)
>
> The fact that countless characters have just as many so called parallels
> with Jesus is relavent. It demonstrates that these "parallels" can be
> found by anyone taking the time to look for them whether they are really
> there are not.
No, you asked whether there were parallels between Christ and
Superman--they've been pointed out to you. The fact that parallels to other
character also exist isn't germane in this case. You either find the
parallels at hand persuasive or you don't--just as you do with any other
given set.
>
>> At any rate, the Christ/Superman connection has been long
>> noted both in pop culture academia and in pop culture itself: most
>> productions of "Godspell" *still* dress Jesus in a Superman shirt,
>> despite the many other changes that have been made to the original
>> production over the yeaers. That's not accidental.
>>
>
> It also doesn't make any of the so called parallels between Superman and
> Jesus reasonable. Look at any "parallel" that has been sited in this
> thread so far and judge it on its own merits and it does not stand up.
Well, obviously, I disagree. Probably best to leave it at that.
Paul....@sunlife.com
> > I always thought the parallels between Superman and Jesus Christ were
> > quite blatant yet interesting.
>
> What parallels ?!
Superman - A babe from the stars comes to Earth, raised by humble
farmer parents, to grow up to be a champion of good will and human
values.
Christ - A babe from the almighty Creator comes to Earth, raised by
humble carpenter parents, to grow up to be an ambassador of good will
and human values.
The comparison works on so many levels, if you really give it some
profound thought. Heck, even God being the Quintessence (the 5th
Element) -- and that all things derive from this -- is comparable to
Krypton and Kryptonite.
But here's something I just found today doing a Web search:
[from www.supermanhomepage.com]
God in a Cape?
By Gary D. Robinson
April 1, 2003
The Story behind the Story
Though televised and computerized superheroes still hold some allure
for children, their printed adventures have all but disappeared from
view. Were it not for comics specialty shops, it seems certain that
the colorful pamphlets would have already gone the way of the dime
novel. In postmodern America, the brawny brainchild of two boys barely
out of high school may seem a relic. Surely kids have abandoned
Superman for Harry Potter.
But who can destroy an icon? His comics may not sell as well as they
used to, yet Superman himself seems incapable of dying. His famous
S-shield can be seen on everything from book bags to ball caps.
Smallville, the most recent television interpretation, soars in the
ratings. Rock groups like Five for Fighting put their spin on the
legend. And, in the wake of his younger rival Spider-Man's success, a
return to the Big Screen is rumbling again. Superman keeps coming back
from the dead.
If the metaphor seems messianic, there may be a reason. Though it's
doubtful this was what his young Jewish creators (Jerry Siegel and Joe
Shuster) had in mind, the subtext was there from the beginning.
Superman was the mysterious outsider, using his powers and abilities
to redeem mankind from its folly - and not waiting around for thanks
Compare his satisfaction upon reading a news story written in the
aftermath of one of his marvelous deeds - "Good! I'm not mentioned!" -
with Jesus' frequent instruction to those He healed, "Tell no one."
Not that the earliest Superman was a "gentle Jesus, meek and mild."
While far from Nietzche's ubermench, the being beyond good and evil,
his ruthless pursuit of justice was terrifying in its own right. In
the first comic to bear his name, Superman hurls a wife beater against
the wall, grabs a spy by the leg - leaping upwards with the terrified
man in tow - and pitches a wailing warmonger over a stand of trees.
Considering the times from which he sprang, however, this is hardly
surprising. Superman is the product of the down and dirty days of the
Great Depression. It was an era darkened by the shadows of war, a day
of strongmen with mighty strong ideas about government. Desperate
times called for desperate measures. Superman was the little guy
backed into a corner; the stoop-shouldered victim who suddenly whipped
off his round-rimmed glasses, jerked open his shirt, straightened up,
and took charge.
Strong as he was, however, the 1930s Superman wasn't invincible. He
certainly wasn't immune to the Law of Diminishing Returns. After a
while, a mere leap across town, a knife broken on "tough skin" didn't
amount to much. His costumed competitors (a lot by 1940) could do as
much. So Superman became more super.
As the decades passed, the Man of Steel evolved into something akin to
God in blue longies and a red cape. He could see across the universe
and hear a cough on the other side of the earth. He could bathe in the
heart of the sun.
Of course, it's hard to sustain interest in a hero who can neither
fail nor fall. For many years, then, comics writers have played with
Superman's power - reducing it, increasing it, stripping him of it.
Their efforts have created a more vulnerable, more human hero, and
opened doors into previously unexplored rooms. We shouldn't be
surprised, then, that biblical themes began to surface openly.
Take for example the long series "The Death of Superman" (1992).
Battling Doomsday, a mindless aberration whose only means of
expression are wanton violence and destruction, Superman dies from
exhaustion and loss of blood. He is laid in a tomb. And then -
silence, as DC Comics ceased publishing its flagship title. Many held
their breath. Was this the End?
There was faith in his return, albeit a cynical faith. Despite
shrinking sales of Superman comics, few longtime fans believed that
Time-Warner, DC's owner, would allow the annihilation of a
still-viable licensing property. And yet, along with the cynics, there
stood on tiptoe a sizeable group with childlike trust.
That faith was rewarded in the spring of 1993. First there were
rumors, then sightings. Then three Supermen and a Superboy appeared,
each claiming to be the Genuine Article. Readers were tantalized. At
last he appeared, weakened, long-haired (although beardless), but
still able to command the love and devotion he always had.
How did he beat death? The writers spun a long strand of
science-fictional gobbledygook. The fans couldn't have cared less.
Superman, like Sherlock Holmes, like Mr. Spock - like Jesus Himself -
had risen. That's all that mattered.
With characteristic modesty, Superman himself has remained oblivious
to the Christ-parallel. Nevertheless, with frustration and
embarrassment, the Man from Krypton has dealt with those who would
worship him. The cover of a 1988 Action Comics Weekly shows the
startled hero in the midst of a throng of adoring cultists. "Superman
. . . a GOD?" the caption blares. In the book, Superman saves the life
of a young man who promptly kneels before him. "Bob . . . you credit
me with too much! Yes, I help people to the best of my abilities . . .
but despite all my power, I'm not God."
"B-but Superman . . . !" pleads Bob. "Yes, Bob, Superman! Remember
that!" responds our hero - appearing not to notice, as he utters his
parting shot, that he's literally ascending into the sky.
Probably the most overt, if brief, depiction of Superman as messiah
came in the Batman graphic novel Holy Terror (1991). The story
imagines a world in which America has become a church-state, demanding
rigid conformity of all its citizens. Bible scholars might recognize
the Pharisaic motif, brought into sharp focus by the religious
authorities' violent reaction to Superman. The full-page panel showing
him crucified upon a green, glowing cross is disturbing. Though
unnamed, he is undeniably Superman - and considered too great a threat
to survive.
A more subtle, but quite powerful, Christ-parallel runs throughout a
2000 graphic novel, Mann and Superman. The story, rendered simply and
energetically in bold colors, is a delightful throwback to the Golden
Age of Superman. The plot is simple: Small-time crook Marty Mann
heists a priceless gem with the power to grant a man's fondest wish.
Marty wishes to be Superman. A magical body-switch occurs, and
Superman finds he has become a loser with unpaid bills and a
contemptuous son. He first struggles with his predicament, then
decides to turn Marty's life around from within his own body.
Meanwhile, beneath the Man of Steel's muscles, Marty himself is
learning that being Superman is not all it's cracked up to be. He has
the power and exaltation he's always wanted - but remains a failure.
Superman, however, has made Marty a man worthy of his son's respect.
The tale ends with a chastened Marty renouncing power in favor of a
new life, a life made possible only by Superman's efforts in Marty's
own weak flesh.
The suggestion that Superman represents Christ got up in spandex and a
cape is anathema to some believers. Yet some have suggested that there
is really only one Story, of which everything from "Cinderella" to
Star Wars is a shadowy replica: the Story of Redemption. If this is
true, then the Man of Steel is not to be regarded as a mere gaudy
relic of misspent youth, still less a figure of blasphemy - any more
than Herman Melville's Billy Budd is blasphemous. Rather, Superman is
an archetype. He takes his place among storybook redeemers from Robin
Hood to Tarzan to the wolf-killing hunter from "Little Red Riding
Hood."
The human experience is that of being fallen and in need of
redemption. At some level, all storytellers, including comics writers
and artists, understand this.
Christians "love to tell the story . . . the old, old story" of One
who came from above to redeem us. Many others tell that story, too.
They water it down, wrap it in fantasy; they spread its elements over
plots, subplots, and vast casts of characters. They swath redemption
in red and blue swaddling clothes, place it in a rocket, and send it
hurtling to the earth. Nevertheless, we can still catch within these
tales a glimpse of the One True Story. "For of Him and through Him and
to Him are all things."
Mike Ward
So you do understand by point!
> You're looking for a kind of correspondence that
> simply doesn't exist.
No, that's what you've been doing. I've simply been pointing it out.
You're the one claiming that there are parellels between Jesus and
Superman, remember.
> I could well make an argument for the thematic
> similarities between, say, Batman and Dracula--but doing so wouldn't
> involve plotting them out on chart, nor would it mean that there
> aren't also differences between the two (as with Superman and Christ),
> nor would it mean that there aren't more present similarities between
> Batman and Zorro (as with Superman and Moses). You're looking for
> exactitude, it seems, when what's involved here is nuance.
>
>>
>> (BTW I've never heard Jesus described as meek.)
>
> Perhaps you'd see more of the parallels if you were more familiar with
> one branch of the literature in question, then: the Old Testament
> prophets (notably Elijah) routine speek of the gentleness of the
> Savior, who is often figured as both shepherd and lamb. In the the
> snypotic Gospels, Jesus is called the sacrificial lamb, advises loving
> one's enemies and turning the other cheek, and advises Peter to put
> away the sword when he is captured, allowing himself to be crucified
> despite the temporal injustice of it: the Christian paradox is that
> strength comes *through* meekness. (Remember the language of the
> Beatitudes and who's going to inherit the earth, after all...). Yes:
> Jesus notably got angry and threw the money-changers out of the
> temple, but that's notable because of it's exceptional nature in the
> narratives in question.
I've already corrected myself on this issue in a follow-up post pointing
out that Jesus refered to himself as meek. If you were so much more
familiar with the Bible than I am as you seem think you are, you might
have pointed this fact out rather than the irrelevant argument above.
>>
>>>>
>>>> They are the sort of general "parallels" that can be made between
>>>> countless numbers of unrelated things using the same method
>>>> frequently employed to try and make Nostradomus predictions fit
>>>> current events.
>>>
>>> If you say so.
>>>
>>> The Superman/Christ parallels aren't as strong as the Superman/Moses
>>> parallels, no--but that wasn't at issue. (Nor was however many
>>> *other* characters might also have parallels to Christ. Given the
>>> influence of Christianity on world culture, and especially Western
>>> culture, it's reasonable to expect that *lots* of Christian
>>> parallels are going to show up in lots of different places, some
>>> stronger than others, of course.)
>>
>> The fact that countless characters have just as many so called
>> parallels with Jesus is relavent. It demonstrates that these
>> "parallels" can be found by anyone taking the time to look for them
>> whether they are really there are not.
>
> No, you asked whether there were parallels between Christ and
> Superman--they've been pointed out to you. The fact that parallels to
> other character also exist isn't germane in this case. You either find
> the parallels at hand persuasive or you don't--just as you do with any
> other given set.
>
If any similarity between Jesus and Superman is a literary parallel
regardless of how many others share the similarity than why not say the
following are also parallels: both are men, both have two arms and two
legs, both have been written about in books, both wear clothes. The
fact that both are gentle is only marginally more meaningful than any of
these.
Paul....@sunlife.com
> > They are the sort of general "parallels" that can be made between
> > countless numbers of unrelated things using the same method frequently
> > employed to try and make Nostradomus predictions fit current events.
>
> If you say so.
>
> The Superman/Christ parallels aren't as strong as the Superman/Moses
> parallels, no--but that wasn't at issue.
Exactly, but even the Moses-Superman comparison is similar to a
Christ-Superman comparison because I find there to be underlying
similarities between both Moses and Christ. Moses and Christ, after
all, are messianic.
Mike Ward
> Mike Ward <m...@place.here> wrote in message
> news:<jiQUa.76347$0v4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>> > I always thought the parallels between Superman and Jesus Christ
>> > were quite blatant yet interesting.
>>
>> What parallels ?!
>
> Superman - A babe from the stars comes to Earth, raised by humble
> farmer parents, to grow up to be a champion of good will and human
> values.
>
> Christ - A babe
Both start out as children. A very strong parallel I must admit.
> from the almighty Creator
And Superman came from another planet. If Superman came from Cleveland
would this still be a parallel.
> comes to Earth, raised by
Both came to earth and both were rasied. Another strong parallel!
> humble carpenter parents,
They had humble parents. How could I have missed such an obvious and
overwhelming parallel.
And farmer/carpenter what's the difference?
> to grow up
The both grew up. The amazing parallels continue.
> to be an ambassador
Now some people might say that you've merely inserted the word
ambassador into both descriptions because it's a vague enough word that
could seem apropriate in either context, but after seeing the startling
parallels that you've already given how could I not be further convinced
by this one?
> of good will
> and human values.
There you go. The icing on the cake: Both are pro-values.
>
> The comparison works on so many levels,
> if you really give it some
> profound thought.
Well, someone else has already been pointed out that I'm not smart
enough to see the parallels so I'll have leave the deep thinking to you.
> Heck, even God being the Quintessence (the 5th
> Element) -- and that all things derive from this -- is comparable to
> Krypton and Kryptonite.
I had forgotten that everyting in the DCU was derived from Krypton and
Kryptonite. Thanks for the reminder.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > I think the mistake would be the desire to elevate super-hero comics as
: > serious works of literature. With the possible exception of Watchmen,
: > I can't think of any super-hero comics I would consider.
:
: The trouble here is that you all are talking about a course on comics. But
: comics as a medium cover many genres. Imagine a professor talking about
: assembling a course called "Novels as Literature," and the problems with
: Jonas Grumby's proposal become evident.
That's true, without a doubt.
Then again, you can't really compare comics and novels, at this stage. The former is a
fringe medium that's smiled upon or used as a derogatory term more often than not, while
the latter is an established, accepted medium of literature.
Since, I guess, a college course on comics would have to serve as an introduction and an
"eye-opener" in 90% of the cases, I think it would make sense to start out with a broad
overview of what that medium has to offer.
If there's enough interest as a result of such an initial course, you can still branch out
and get more specific.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Walking in the comfortable shoes of Warren Ellis.
--
[Please note: This is a Usenet message, originally posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.
If you see it in a moderated or censored forum, it was copied there without my consent.]
George Grattan
wrote:
I agree--they're both part of the same large cultural traditions, after all,
and they both in many ways hearken back to earlier Hebraic, Arabic, and
Hellenic traditions, so you can see traces of many different
characters/concepts in each other throughout the region.
~consul
> I can't believe that the original poster thought a 20-buck trade
> paperback would make a college student blink (her bookstore sells both
> Watchmen and Maus for classes). Even if you bought eight paperbacks for
> the course, that's still typical for some courses. Ever seen an art
> history book? $80 (lots of glossy, color pictures). Certain engineering
> books -- $125. $160 for a class's worth of books is not out of the
> ordinary.
"And what was that $10,000 lab fee was for?" Otto the Busman.
--
"When the darkness comes, those who once lived in the shadows will need
to guide the lost ones."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- dolphins-cove.com
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID))
Andrew Stephenson
arro...@violet.rahul.net "Ken Arromdee" writes:
> [...] I
> believe Krypton was actually named after Helium from the Edgar Rice
> Burroughs novels, which started with an Earthman having great powers on Mars
> because of the lesser gravity of the planet...)
IIRC, helium was named for the Greek word "helios" (sun) because
it was first discovered by spectral analysis of the Sun's light,
when They found evidence of a hitherto unknown element. Later it
was found on Earth too.
Krypton (the actual gas) is another rare, "noble" element. Again
IIRC, the root Greek word means "secret" and turns up in English
words like "cryptography" (secret writing) and "crypt" (a secret
place to stash bodies).
FWIW, krypton-the-real-gas was/is a player in the international
length standard: X wavelengths of a particular colour found in
the spectrum of the ionised gas. I may be out of date on this.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Brent McKee
"Mike Ward" <m...@place.here> wrote in message
Actually that wasn't what I said at all. I found that when MOR said
"the parallels are not with Jesus and Superman, but Moses and
Superman" -- because of course Siegel and Shuster were both Jewish and
therefore not so familiar with the New Testament -- he was drawing an
incorrect conclusion. Siegel and Shuster were in fact living in a
society where knowledge of the basic elements of the life of Christ
were not merely available but ubiquitous.
As I said the parallels between the story of Christ and Superman are
most clear in the Christopher Reeves films. Jor-el sends his only
begotten son to live among the humans and to be raised as one. At a
certain point in his life Kal-el, like Christ, spends time in a
wilderness (in Kal-el's case the Arctic) during which time their
mission becomes clear (in Kal-el's case by learning of it from Jor-el)
and after which they are changed. Both carry out acts which would be
considered miraculous (and please don't say well that's just because
Superman is an alien). The first movie culminates with Superman
raising Lazarus -- or rather Lois -- from the dead.
As for the comic books, the material is much thinner -- as I said --
but probably better than the Mosaic connection. Moses, you may recall
was set adrift by his mother and followed by his sister to the point
where he was found by Pharaoh's daughter. Not only were Moses parents
still alive, but Pharaoh's daughter gave Moses back to his mother who
served as his nurse. Because of this he had more than a passing
knowledge of the traditions of his birth, which Superman did not.
Jesus manifested his powers at a young age, which was true both before
and after the Byrne reboot, albeit in different ways. In the
post-Byrne reboot era we've also had young Clark Kent spending time in
the wilderness -- travelling the world -- to discover his role.
Superman did not spend time as an oppressor of his own people as Moses
had, nor did he lead his people out of slavery. Superman did however
emerge publicly performing what for ordinary humans would be miracles.
That said I have to mention that the parallels between Superman and
Jesus are scarcely complete. Indeed as another poster has mentioned
Superman is closer to an Old Testament notion of what the messiah
would be than Jesus was. Superman isn't a teacher -- beyond of course
setting the standard for other heroes with his code of not killing --
he is more of a warrior when needed. Many societies have had versions
of this -- David in the Jewish tradition, and Cincinnatus in the
Roman. The big point is that you can't dismiss the Superman-Christ
parallels simply because Siegel and Shuster were Jewish, anymore than
you can dismiss any of the (admittedly limited) Superman-Cincinnatus
similarities because Siegel and Shuster weren't Romans.
Paul....@sunlife.com
> > Superman - A babe from the stars comes to Earth, raised by humble
> > farmer parents, to grow up to be a champion of good will and human
> > values.
> >
> > Christ - A babe
>
> Both start out as children. A very strong parallel I must admit.
>
> > from the almighty Creator
>
> And Superman came from another planet. If Superman came from Cleveland
> would this still be a parallel.
That's not the comparison I'm drawing from. How many times have you
heard space referred to as "the heavens"? How many times have your
heard angels referred to as "celestial"? Jesus coming from Heaven and
Superman coming from a planet in outer space is similar only if you
see that there's an underlying comparison between Heaven and outer
space, and that they both came to Earth to help humanity.
[snipping your obnoxious deconstruction of my points -- re: Superman
is an ambassador/champion of good will, like Jesus]
> Now some people might say that you've merely inserted the word
> ambassador into both descriptions because it's a vague enough word that
> could seem apropriate in either context, but after seeing the startling
> parallels that you've already given how could I not be further convinced
> by this one?
Read the following [snipped from a post on racdcu]:
Ambassador Superman
By Joshua Elder
Throughout most of the Islamic world, truth and justice are not
synonymous with the American way. This should not be surprising. After
all, a biased Arab press disseminates a steady stream of lies about
American war atrocities. And when the typical Arab is not reading
slanted editorials, he's seeing America reflected through the funhouse
mirror of popular culture -- an America that seems to embrace
gratuitous violence, permissive sexual mores and conspicuous material
consumption. Against this backdrop, how can America expect to win the
battle for "hearts and minds" of the Arab world?
This looks like a job for Superman.
The Man of Steel and his spandex-clad cohorts are known around the
world thanks to their successful movies, TV shows and comic books. But
unlike most other popular U.S. entertainment exports, superheroes are
actually positive (not to mention wholesome) role models for children
everywhere. They embody the values of an America that is rarely, if
ever, seen in the Islamic world; the same America that President Bush
said "will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are
right and true for all people everywhere" in his 2002 State of the
Union address.
Sharad Devarajan, president & CEO of Gotham Comics -- a periodical
distribution company with products reaching an estimated 2.5 million
readers a month in countries like India, Pakistan, Singapore and the
United Arab Emirates -- echoes those sentiments: "Characters such as
Superman, Batman and Spider-Man don't just represent truth, justice
and the 'American way,' rather their morals and compassion define the
'human way' regardless of race, religion or culture."
America has been using popular culture to undermine tyrannical and
repressive regimes for years. The Voice of America broadcast rock 'n
roll into Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for decades, feeding the
people's desire for the freedoms of the West. Now the VOA is
attempting to do the same thing in the Middle East. This is a tall
order. To the citizens of those countries -- especially the parents --
modern American entertainment is the sick product of a diseased
culture. If that's the inevitable result of embracing freedom and
liberalization, then they want no part of it.
Of course American social critics have been calling pop culture vulgar
and soulless for decades. To a degree, they're right. Even a
relatively benign program like "Friends" does little to promote
socially beneficial values. It may be an entertaining diversion, but
its cast of vacuous urbanites isn't going to inspire a child to
believe in a better world, nor is it going to convince her that
America genuinely wants to help her build it.
But Devajaran believes that the larger-than-life morality plays found
in the pages of comic books truly do inspire children, and that they
can be an important component in a larger media campaign designed to
educate the Arab world's youth, change negative attitudes and foster a
sense of hope.
"Unlike adults, children's views and opinions are not firmly
established," Devarajan argues. "They naturally question the world and
are open to new ideas… such as the values portrayed by many
superheroes… including bravery, courage, responsibility, helping and
protecting the innocent and most of all, the belief that one man can
make a difference."
Superman could rule the world if he so desired. Spider-Man could have
used his powers to make himself rich. Yet both characters instead
devote their lives to helping others -- often at great personal cost
to themselves and their loved ones. With great power comes great
responsibility.
That simple truth is taken for granted in the United States, but it's
a revelation for children growing up in a culture shaped by terrorists
and tyrants. And it's not a lesson they're going to learn from MTV.
For every little boy or girl whose heart has yet to surrender to
despair and whose mind hasn't been poisoned by hate, the example set
by Superman and his fellow heroes can give them the courage to dream
of a brighter future. And that's how we'll win the battle of ideas --
one heart and one mind at a time.
> > The comparison works on so many levels,
> > if you really give it some
> > profound thought.
>
> Well, someone else has already been pointed out that I'm not smart
> enough to see the parallels so I'll have leave the deep thinking to you.
You know, I'm really not sure why you're lashing out. Either you see
the comparison or you don't. Or better yet, either you accept that
there's is a comparison or you don't, but there is grounds to make a
comparison. Heck, there are essays on archetypal theory that make
this comparison, so it's not like it's some isolated sentiment coming
from me.
Who's Superman's arch-enemy? Don't you think that if you break down
"Lex Luthor" syllabically and phonetically that it's interesting to
see the similarity with "Lucifer"? Or are you too stubborn to open
your mind and accept such an archetypal analysis.
> > Heck, even God being the Quintessence (the 5th
> > Element) -- and that all things derive from this -- is comparable to
> > Krypton and Kryptonite.
>
> I had forgotten that everyting in the DCU was derived from Krypton and
> Kryptonite. Thanks for the reminder.
Your sarcasm just makes you look immature.
Jesus is the personification of the Quintessence. Superman is the
sole survivor of Krypton, which makes him the personification of his
home planet in a sense. Kryptonite, which can be seen as the
complementary opposite of Superman, is a reminder that both Kryptonite
and Superman come from a greater whole.
Mike Ward
<snip a lot of stuff that we are simply never going to agree on>
>
> Jesus is the personification of the Quintessence. Superman is the
> sole survivor of Krypton, which makes him the personification of his
> home planet in a sense. Kryptonite, which can be seen as the
> complementary opposite of Superman, is a reminder that both Kryptonite
> and Superman come from a greater whole.
>
This conclusion is meaningless. It's big words written in a style that
sounds scholarly, but when you look at what it actually says there isn't
much there:
"Superman is ... the personification of [Krypton]"
"Kryptonite [is] the ... opposite of Superman"
"[B]oth Kryptonite and Superman come from a greater whole." (or
was that supposed be "[B]oth Jesus and Superman come from a great
whole"? Either way my following point holds.)
Dress these statements up a bit by filling in the elipses and replacing
the words in brackets with some longer phrases and you get a statement
which a first glance sounds intelligent.
But distill it back down to these component ideas and the silliness of
these points is clearer.
The similarities between Jesus and Superman are scattered and vague and
generally the result of coincedence.
Some specific Superman stories have made use of biblical allusions (to
both Christ and other biblical figures), and some no doubt contain a
certain amount of religious symbolism.
However, Superman and Jesus are not similar in any significant way and
there are no meaningful parallels in their "lives".
And yes, I was overly sarcastic in my previous reply. Usually I try to
avoid that sort of response online because I know some people are
offended by it. I'll try to do better.
Mike
Paul....@sunlife.com
> "[B]oth Kryptonite and Superman come from a greater whole." (or
> was that supposed be "[B]oth Jesus and Superman come from a great
> whole"? Either way my following point holds.)
It's parallelism, and no one is contesting that it's congruent.
Christ comes from a greater whole -- the Quintessence, the purest,
most perfect form of matter that resides in heaven. Kryptonite, too,
comes from a greater whole -- Krypton, a planet of highly advanced and
sometimes portrayed as utopian people, that resides deep in outer
space. Kryptonite simply reminds us (or me at least) that Superman
comes from Krypton also.
> The similarities between Jesus and Superman are scattered and vague and
> generally the result of coincedence.
Or the result of archetypal influence.
> Some specific Superman stories have made use of biblical allusions (to
> both Christ and other biblical figures), and some no doubt contain a
> certain amount of religious symbolism.
Because the writers see the archetypal influence.
> However, Superman and Jesus are not similar in any significant way and
> there are no meaningful parallels in their "lives".
You're more than free to assume that there isn't. But, like I've
already pointed out, it's not like my sentiments on this matter are
isolated. There are many who can appreciate the influence of
archetypes in literature, such as the Christ archetype in Superman.
me
> Suppose you were going to teach a Comic Books as Literature course at
> a university. How would you approach the course? What would you use
> for a text book? What would be the required reading assignments
> (keeping in mind the stuff has to be currently in print or easily
> available at reasonable prices)? What types of projects would you
> assign for the class? Keep in mind that you would be dealing with an
> average of about 18 weeks for the semester.
>
> I think you would have to start the course with an overview of comic
> book history. This would have to include both superhero comics and
> other genres. I'm not sure what text you would use for an authoritive
> source on this, but I'm sure something exists.
>
> After the history I think you have to discuss the comic book form. I
> believe Will Eisner created a few books that covered this subject.
> Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics would have to be assigned.
>
> The books for the course would likely end up costing a great deal,
> considering that tradepaperbacks are around $20 a piece and you could
> cover at least one a week throughout the semester. A cheaper route
> would be to teach using brand new comics, which would be useful in
> discussing the comic book form in general.
>
> As for reading assignments, I think you need to cover Action Comics #1
> and Amazing Fantasy #15. These could be obtained through a variety of
> low cost reprints. I think you would also need to cover stories by
> certain legendary creators (Jack Kirby, Will Eisner, Stan Lee, etc.),
> certain time periods (Golden Age, Silver Age, 1970s social relevance,
> etc.), certain genres (superheroes, humor, underground comics, war,
> westerns, horror, etc.) and certain classic comic book stories (The
> Watchmen, The Dark Phoenix Saga, The Dark Knight Returns, etc.).
>
> You would probably want to assign Seduction of the Innocent as a
> reading assignment due to it's impact on the industry. I would also
> want to leave some freedom for students to be able to select their own
> comics for certain discussions.
>
> For assignments, I think requiring response papers for each reading
> assignment would be a good way to stimulate discussion of the
> material. Some sort of research project where students research a
> particular character, creator, genre, etc. would be good. I'm not
> sure if there would be much of a point in giving exams. Grades could
> be determined using the term papers, research project, and attendence,
> but if the university required exams it would be easy enough to create
> them.
>
> Guest speakers would be nice, but probably not realistic. There are
> several comic book documentaries that could be used to cover this.
>
> So how would you approach this? Are there currently any such courses
> being offered at universities? Even if you weren't being paid to do
> this at a university, you could probably teach such a course in your
> local area at a public library, Boys or Girls Club, or maybe even a
> discussion group at your local comic book shop. It might take some
> work to make it happen, but it's certainly possible!
Really most of the main topics from Superman to EC could be covered by "The
Smithsonian Book of Comic Book Comics" which looks to be pretty readily
available on amazon.
Michael Wood
Michael Wood
Just to muddy the water. There has been some suggestion that Superman is
more the Moses story since apparently his creators were Jewish (well
Superman and Moses I suppose). But certainly most people can appreciate a
Superman/Christ analogy and I have actually seen a Christian poster that
alluded to that thing. I may actually have read a Christian book using the
parallel.
--
"There is right and wrong in the Universe and it is not too hard to tell the
difference"
Michael Wood
Reply to: BLOCKm...@hotmail.com (remove BLOCK to reply)
Michael Wood
news:%oEUa.5920$hc....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> >
[snip]
>
> In the world of literature, Stan Lee may not be considered in the same
> company as Mark Twain and Shakespeare or even lesser writers, but he
> is an important comic book writer since he did introduce the idea of
> using more sophisticated language for mor educated readers while using
> complex characterizations.
>
[snip]
I think you are wrong to dismiss Stan so quickly. How many people ACTUALLY
think Shakespeare is a great writer aside from literature professors and
teachers. He produced the equivalent of movies - not novels. He did
comedies, romances and action pieces. He is often considered great because
people have been told he was great. Frankly, I think there are many authors
much better than Shakespeare. He has the advantage of having become a legend
rather than a writer.
Much of Stan's work I would put on a par with Shakespeare both in
characterisation and innovation, as well as adhering to archetypes.
My pet peeve is Wuthering Heights. When I read it, it was obvious to me that
the author had little or no experience of the world. I found it adolescent
with poor characterisation. Mind you, I also found A Brief History of Time
rather sophomoric.
~consul
> But certainly most people can appreciate a Superman/Christ analogy and I have
actually seen a Christian poster that
> alluded to that thing. I may actually have read a Christian book using the parallel.
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and then
died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra terestrial. I
loved that little guy." -- Reverand Lovejoy
jberger
news:dWMXa.14491$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Jonas Grumby" <skippe...@elvis.com> wrote in message
> news:e128c4e9.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dave Hearn" <dhe...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:%oEUa.5920$hc....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> > >
> [snip]
> >
> > In the world of literature, Stan Lee may not be considered in the same
> > company as Mark Twain and Shakespeare or even lesser writers, but he
> > is an important comic book writer since he did introduce the idea of
> > using more sophisticated language for mor educated readers while using
> > complex characterizations.
> >
> [snip]
>
> I think you are wrong to dismiss Stan so quickly. How many people ACTUALLY
> think Shakespeare is a great writer aside from literature professors and
> teachers. He produced the equivalent of movies - not novels. He did
> comedies, romances and action pieces. He is often considered great because
> people have been told he was great. Frankly, I think there are many
authors
> much better than Shakespeare. He has the advantage of having become a
legend
> rather than a writer.
Quite clear that you don't know much about Shakespeare's work.
> Much of Stan's work I would put on a par with Shakespeare both in
> characterisation and innovation, as well as adhering to archetypes.
Stan drew much of his work from what had gone before in literature, but I
sincerely doubt he is capable of writing a novel in the traditional sense.
The nature of comic book writing -- at least with Marvel in the 60's -- was
to try to fit in a series of word balloons dialog consistent with the
original concept of the storyline initially presented to the artist. True,
Stan's work was very, very good... but it was more akin to stage
improvisation than actually sitting down and plotting story arcs from start
to finish.
> My pet peeve is Wuthering Heights. When I read it, it was obvious to me
that
> the author had little or no experience of the world. I found it adolescent
> with poor characterisation. Mind you, I also found A Brief History of Time
> rather sophomoric.
I have a similar problem with Bram Stoker's Dracula. The writing is poor and
continuity/consistency is haphazard. I found it particularly ludicrous the
sections dealing with Mina spending an inordinate amount of time typing the
same set of facts over and over again.
Mike Ward
news:bgol6m$ra7nb$1...@ID-165095.news.uni-berlin.de:
I liked dracula a lot but I don't remember the section you describe with
Mina so maybe I've just forgotten the bad parts. (I like Wuthering
Heights a lot too.)
Mike
jberger
> > poor and continuity/consistency is haphazard. I found it particularly
> > ludicrous the sections dealing with Mina spending an inordinate amount
> > of time typing the same set of facts over and over again.
> >
> >
>
> I liked dracula a lot but I don't remember the section you describe with
> Mina so maybe I've just forgotten the bad parts. (I like Wuthering
> Heights a lot too.)
>
> Mike
Check out Chapters 14 and 17, for example (might be a lot more instances)
http://www.literature.org/authors/stoker-bram/dracula/
Chapter 14:
"...That fearful Count was coming to London. If it should be, and he came to
London, with its teeming millions . . . There may be a solemn duty, and if
it come we must not shrink from it. I shall be prepared. I shall get my
typewriter this very hour and begin transcribing. Then we shall be ready for
other eyes if required...."
and
"...By this time my little joke was over, and I was almost ashamed. So I
took the typewritten copy from my work basket and handed it to him.
"Forgive me," I said. "I could not help it, but I had been thinking that it
was of dear Lucy that you wished to ask, and so that you might not have time
to wait, not on my account, but because I know your time must be precious, I
have written it out on the typewriter for you."
He took it and his eyes glistened. "You are so good," he said. "And may I
read it now? I may want to ask you some things when I have read."
"By all means," I said. "read it over whilst I order lunch, and then you can
ask me questions whilst we eat." ..."
----
Chapter 17:
"...By this time my mind was made up that the diary of a doctor who attended
Lucy might have something to add to the sum of our knowledge of that
terrible Being, and I said boldly, "Then, Dr. Seward, you had better let me
copy it out for you on my typewriter." ..."
and
"...See, I have tried to be useful. I have copied out the words on my
typewriter, and none other need now hear your heart beat, as I did." ..."
"... I took the cover off my typewriter, and said to Dr. Seward,
"Let me write this all out now. We must be ready for Dr. Van Helsing when he
comes. I have sent a telegram to Jonathan to come on here when he arrives in
London from Whitby. In this matter dates are everything, and I think that if
we get all of our material ready, and have every item put in chronological
order, we shall have done much. ..."
Jay and Diane Rudin
> Suppose you were going to teach a Comic Books as Literature course at
> a university. How would you approach the course? What would you use
> for a text book? What would be the required reading assignments
> (keeping in mind the stuff has to be currently in print or easily
> available at reasonable prices)? What types of projects would you
> assign for the class? Keep in mind that you would be dealing with an
> average of about 18 weeks for the semester.
It would be a straightforward literature course, not sociology.
I would discuss genres to start with. Stan Lee's monster stories were
usually fables, and a few of them stand up favorably to Aesop.
The heroic saga would be discussed, using Beowulf, Arthur and Herakles as
examples. Then we would discuss:
Superman as heroic saga with a veneer of science fiction,
Batman as heroic saga with a veneer of film noir,
Wonder Woman as heroic saga with a veneer of mythology,
Spider-Man as heroic fiction with a veneer of anti-hero alienation.
I would use some 60s Imaginary Tales, probably "The Death of Superman" and
Lois's marriage to Luthor as examples of tragedy. (Also perhaps the death
of Gwen Stacy)
I would end with Aristotle's literary schemes and tropes, finding examples
of irony, metaphor, simile, chiasmus, parallelism, isocolon, etc. Also, I'd
use the Greek structure of thesis, antithesis, synthesis to explain why two
Marvel heroes fight (representing thesis and antithesis) before they
co-operate (representing synthesis).
No, I don't think comics are great literature. But because they are simple,
short stories, they are good tools for exploring the machinery of great
literature.
Jay Rudin