Deconstructing Charley

A short paper written for my first-year Anthropology class. The assignment was to find a picture of an early hominid and do a critical evaluation of it based on what we learned this term.

Deconstructing Charley: Early Hominid Identity in "Tom the Dancing Bug"

Ruben Bolling's bizarre surrealist comic strip, “Tom the Dancing Bug,” presents readers with thought-provoking and mind-bending diversions into strange realities. One of these diversions is a series of strips featuring Charley the Australopithecine (see Appendix figure 1 and 2). These comics chronicle the adventures of an early hominid in a world of modern humans. While Bolling does identify Charley as an australopithecine, he does not specify which particular species. The reason for this is likely that Bolling does not feel that his readers need such specific information to appreciate the humour and satire of the strip. The aim of this paper, then, is twofold: first, by examining certain traits in the illustration (Fig. 1), to identify Charley's species, and second, to determine whether or not the depiction is an accurate one.

When attempting to identify Charley's species, there are ample physical characteristics in the illustration from which to draw evidence. Charley exhibits copious body hair, a large brow ridge, and pronounced upper canines. His legs are short, his arms are long, and the big toes do not appear to be quite as divergent as on an ape. Charley grasps in his hands a knife and a glass, ostensibly a humorous depiction, but demonstrating that he is capable of holding, and using, tools. Overall, his morphology appears gracile. Since this is a satirical illustration, the problem of which characteristics to lend credence to, as will be discussed in the next section of this paper, is troubling. From Charley's build, such species as A. aethiopicus and A. robustus can be ruled out. He does not appear to exhibit the “increas[ed] cranial and dental robusticity” (Larsen, 2008, p.297) associated with the later species of australopithecus, and the pronounced sagittal crest of these types is nowhere apparent in the picture. The body hair can also be discounted as an indicator of species, as there is no evidence in the fossil record to indicate the amount of hair that would have covered an australopithecine's body. The short legs in the picture could point towards A. afarensis. As is common in this genus, “the upper part of the...face is small, while the lower part is large and protruding” (Lewin, 2004, p.132). So which characteristics are the key to Charley's identity? Ironically, it is probably the most humorous aspect of the picture (leaving aside for the moment the fact that Charley is wearing clothes!) that reveals Charley's species: he is holding tools. Of all the varieties of autralopithecines, only A. garhi has been associated with tool use. “[A]ntelope bones that showed signs of having been cut and broken with sharp stone implements” (Lewin, 2004, p.138) were discovered along with the fossils of this species. While the tools Charley holds may be modern, the fact that they are tools shows his species to be A. garhi. But is he an effective depiction of this early tool-using hominid?

One of the clearest illustrations of Bolling's depiction being inaccurate is that Charley is wearing clothes. While over the course of millions of years fabrics would have deteriorated, there is no evidence that any of the australopithecines wore clothes. Manufacturing clothing requires a very specific and complex skill set, and the A. garhi, with their 450 cc. brains (Larson, 2008, p.294), would likely not have had this ability. Following on from this, it appears in the picture that Charley's head is the same size as those of the other patrons in the restaurant. Considering the difference in brain size between A. garhi and modern Homo sapiens, Charley's head should be somewhat smaller. Another troubling part of the depiction, at least at first glance, is that Charley is speaking. While the formation of English words is patently ridiculous, “Ralph Holloway... argues that language capacity began to develop...among australopithecine species” (Lewin, 2004, p.222). Charley may not have asked for his “Bucka-Roaster” (Bolling, 2004, p.11), but there exists a possibility that he may have had some linguistic capacity. As Charley is opening his mouth to call for the waitress, his upper teeth are visible and yet another mistake in the depiction of A. garhi is revealed. The large canines in his mouth call more to mind apes and monkeys, rather than the “small canines, large premolars, and large molars” (Larsen, 2008, p.286) of early hominids. His dentition is clearly meant to make him seem menacing, but it detracts from the accuracy of the picture.

The only positive indicator of his species is that Charley is holding tools. The grip he places on the glass and knife in the picture show “the finer precision use of the thumb and other fingers [necessary] for tool production and tool use” (Larsen, 2008, p.296). The illustration of Charley also shows that “beneath the nose the face [has] a primitive projection” (Larsen, 2008, p.294), however this is a characteristic not only of A. garhi, but of all australopithecines, and as such cannot be included as clear indication of species.

While there is little in the illustration that links Charley to A. garhi, his tool use is really all that is needed. Bolling appears to have drawn attributes from the australopithecines as a whole, meshing their characteristics together to depict an individual who can perhaps be seen as representative of the entire genus. Once again, his reason for doing this, rather than picking one particular species, probably relies on his audience needing only superficial details to appreciate the humour of the comic. Bolling does appear to have treated the subject fairly, if satirically. While perhaps exhibiting a more modern intelligence than his real life counterparts, Charley does act very much as an early, tool-using hominid might. Especially if one found itself the winner of a free dinner at “Bucka-Roosters.”

Appendix: Charley the Australopithecine

Fig. 1 Charley the Australopithecine from Bolling, Thrilling Tom the Dancing Bug Stories (Kansas City: Andrews McMeel, 2004) 11.

Fig 2. “Australopithecine's Night Out” from Bolling Thrilling Tom the Dancing Bug Stories (Kansas City: Andrews McMeel, 2004) 11.

Works Cited

Bolling, Ruben. (2004) Thrilling Tom the Dancing Bug Stories. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel.

Larsen, Clark Spenser. (2008) Our Origins. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Lewin, Roger. (2004) Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Available from http://www.mcmu.eblib.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/EBLWeb/patron/

Crisis on Earth H: Superheroes, Fruit Pies, and Iterations of Myth

A short paper written for my Contemporary Popular Culture course. With thanks to Dr. Julian Holland for making this abstract topic seem....well....not necessarily clear, but a little less abstract, perhaps. Ahhh, cultural studies ;D.

Crisis on Earth-H: Superheroes, Fruit Pies, and Iterations of Myth

In the mid- to late seventies, a parallel world, affectionately dubbed “Earth-H” or "Earth-Hostess" by comic fans, appeared in the form of one-page advertisements in many popular comics (see examples in Appendix). Each ad reads like a comic story, but instead of defeating the villain through ingenuity or super-powers, the hero is victorious by judicious application of Hostess products, be it fruit pies or Twinkies. Analysis of these texts shows that the contemporary way of engaging with our myths involves the need for repeated tellings in different forms and for tangible evidence of those myths.

The adoption of the comic book format to sell these products is a form of commodification, though one with some interesting attributes. The comic book itself was commodified in its early years, the first actual magazine format comics being "free" with the weekend newspaper. Once it was realized that children were willing to pay for their comics, publishers birthed the modern periodical medium. If commodification is indeed "[r]endering any artifact, action, object, or idea into something that can be bought,"(O'Brien 354) the Hostess ads would seem to have commodified a commodity. Or rather, they have commodified the art that constitutes the commodity. However, rather than assuming "that through commodification things lose their implicit value," (354) the comic community has embraced the "Earth-Hostess" comics as a valid, if somewhat ridiculous, part of the accepted comic book lore. While the use of sequential art to sell snack foods is commodification, the very fantastical nature of the medium, this concept of parallel worlds where anything can happen, envelopes and legitimates all uses of comic book concepts.

The Hostess ads illustrate a somewhat less-positive aspect of popular culture, the inclination to standardization. A look at the two examples in the appendix reveals a striking number of similarities. In figure 1, "The Spider-Man and the Fly!", Spider-Man has been captured by a villain, just awakening in chains. Figure 2 shows Daredevil swinging through the city, musing on "all these problems [that] are the work of one man"(“Daredevil”). The stories begin in media res, as if the ad is a continuation of some longer story, functioning to insert the ads into the ongoing narrative of the characters. This enables, as will be discussed later, the use of the characters mythological resonances to lend credence to the advertisement. Further into the "story," each character seems to gain the upper hand, only to have their respective advantages stolen away at the last moment. In a standard comic book story, this might be the moment when something fundamental goes wrong with the villain's plan, or when the hero calls on previously unknown reserves to triumph. Following this seeming defeat, of course, is the denouement of the piece, the defeat of villain by the use of Hostess brand desserts. These tropes are standard throughout the Hostess snack ads; all that is really changed from ad to ad is the super-hero and super-villain involved. While the artwork for each piece is unique, the stories are standardized, giving the parallel world of "Earth -Hostess" a predictable series of stories.

The super-hero is, it may be argued, a modern Western interpretation of such figures as the Native American trickster gods, or the Greek demi-god heroes, or even, in the case of someone like Superman, the messianic figures of Christian mythology. While the advertisements do use standard comic book devices to lure in unwary readers, it is not solely the use of the comic book format that makes the ads effective. One must also consider the content of the narratives, most especially their use of super-heroes. While the surface of a character like Spider-Man portrays his wise-cracking personality and fantastic powers, he also represents ideas, or ideals, that the Hostess ads rely upon for veracity. Myths come about "in response to a great many different social and psychological needs"(Grant vii). Spider-Man has long be thought of as the everyman with a heart of gold, the tragic hero who knows that "[w]ith great power there must also come -- great responsibility"(Lee 11), and it is these ideas that his depictions in any form carry with them. Thus it can be argued that, while defeating the dastardly Fly with Hostess Twinkies, Spider-Man is demonstrating this responsibility, and that someone who wants to emulate Spider-Man's noble qualities must necessarily use Twinkies as a means to his or her ends too. Patently ridiculous, perhaps, but definitely what the company paying for the advertising is counting on.

These three meditations on aspects of the Hostess snack ads point to some interesting facets of contemporary culture. While many decry commodification as a denigration of "authentic cultural forms" (O'Brien 354), there is, in our consumer-driven society, a desire to somehow be attached to the heroes we revere. In this case, it involves eating the same snack foods that Daredevil and his enemies just can't resist, but it could as easily be a pair of costume glasses that look just like Harry Potter's. Commodification helps us to make concrete links with our ephemeral mythologies. These links then, these concrete proofs of our heroes, become representative of the ideals that lie behind those heroes. In our contemporary setting, we like to be able to hold onto our myths. For this reason, it seems, many of our myths are interchangeable. The stories that are told of modern morals have standard pieces that parallel one another. While this is apparent in the two examples of the Hostess ads, one can apply these tropes to any popular cultural myth, and to any advertising that co-opts these myths. In “The Production and Reproduction of Legitimate Language,” Pierre Bourdieu draws the distinction between “competence adequate to produce sentences that are understood...[and ones] that are listened to” (55). Successful advertisers are adept at gaining this mythological linguistic capital. Could Hostess have anticipated the envelopment of the world of their ads into the canon of comic book lore? It seems unlikely, but the Hostess ads demonstrate a company that not only understands the technical language of the comic book, but the mythological language that underlies it. While the argument can be made that these pieces are simply iterations of the course of myth through society, when myth is being commodified and standardized by a company trying to turn a profit, caution and criticism must be exercised in the stories we consume.

The examples of the Hostess snack comic book ads demonstrate a shift in the relationship the modern consumer has with myth. No longer is it acceptable to simply hear a story; we must now hold it in our hands. However, the standardization of these myths is not solely the realm of advertising. The sitcom always has a moment when the hero is at a low point, only to be rescued by some freak circumstance. The same goes for the crime drama. Many cherished cultural heroes share the same values of loyalty, selflessness, and wit. This interchangeability perhaps suggests that there really is only one myth, and we tell it over and over with different versions of the same pieces. And hold onto it with different versions of the same concrete proofs.

Appendix: Adventures from Earth-H!

Fig. 1 “The Spider-Man and the Fly.” from Omega the Unknown #5 (Marvel Comics, 1976).

Fig. 2. “McBrain's Brain Drain” from The Avengers #177 (Marvel Comics, 1978).

Works Cited

Note: The citations for individual comic books are based on an article online found at http://www.comicsresearch.org/CAC/cite.html. It is a work in progress, as there is no official MLA guide for citing comic books.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press, 1995.

“Daredevil in McBrain's Brain Drain.” The Avengers #177 (November 1978), Marvel Comics.

Grant, Michael and John Hazel. “Introduction.” Who's Who in Classical Mythology. London: Routledge, 1999. vii – x.

Lee, Stan (w), and Steve Ditko (p). “Spider-Man!” The 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time (December 2001), Marvel Comics.

O'Brien, Susie and Imre Szeman. Popular Culture: A User's Guide. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd., 2010.

“Spider-Man! in The Spider-Man and the Fly!” Omega the Unknown #5 (November 1976), Marvel Comics.

A very brief, but very urgent recommendation...

If anything good has come out of the extended mess that is the Marvel Comics crossovers of the last 5 to 6 years, that entangled mesh of Avengers Disassembled, House of M, Civil War, Secret Invasion, World War Hulk, Dark Reign and countless other lesser stories in countless other titles, if we can pull from this morass (which, to be fair, has included some decent stories, but far, far too many tie-ins and crossovers) a lump of coal that has turned into a diamond under the enormous pressure of the mountain of stories, it is "Secret Warriors." You know all those things that you always loved about James Bond that were in the older movies, and to a certain extent the newer movies, but were never all in the same movie at the same time? Do you know what I'm talking about? 'Cause "Secret Warriors," the latest venue for that Bond of Bonds, Nick Fury, has all of it, and super powers. And it sparkles with every issue.

Johnathan Hickman, who writes (along with the ubiquitous Bendis for the first 6 issues) has made it onto that list of writers I will keep my hungry-for-more eyes on.

To sum, "Secret Warriors" has my seal of desperate approval. Here's what you need to know:

During the "Secret Invasion," Fury assembles a group of what he calls "caterpillars," superhumans that no one on earth knew about but him. Then he fashions them into a unit to pull the heroes collective asses out of the fire during the Skrull invasion. That's all you need. Go find issue #1.

Reveiw of Batman and Robin #1

From Comic Book Resources, this review says all the things I wish I'd said about that comic.

Up In The Sky: Moses, Jesus, and Superman

This is an essay I wrote for my Biblical Traditions in Literature course this summer. It appears with many thanks to Jeffery Donaldson, my professor, who introduced me to the writings of Northrop Frye.

Up In The Sky: Moses, Jesus, and Superman

In The Great Code Northrop Frye states that “[f]or Judaism [one of] the chief antitypes of Old Testament prophecy [is], as in Christianity, the coming of the Messiah” (Great Code 83). Of course, for Judaism, the first coming is still being awaited, while the Christians await the second coming. From outside of these two viewpoints, one might be inclined to pose the question of how long these two faiths will wait for a saviour or, perhaps, has a saviour come already? In typology, a “type” prophesies and an “antitype” fulfills. Biblically, the best example is that of Moses and Christ. Where Moses is a saviour figure for Israel, Christ is a saviour figure for all of humanity. The promise of Moses is borne out by the actions of Christ. The awaiting of the second coming by Christians supposes that Christ is the type, and that the coming saviour will be the antitype. What one must bear in mind, however, is that these types and antitypes are illustrated through stories. While there are some who take the Bible as literal truth, there are many who take it as metaphor, as teachings and morals written as fiction, myths that concentrate “on the primary concerns that human beings share” (Frye, Words with Power 136). And if this is the case, does the next Messiah (or the first one, depending on your faith) necessarily have to be real, or can he or she be fictional? Further, are the distinctions between a fictional and a real Messiah necessarily mutually exclusive? As a test case, we will consider the recent series All-Star Superman. A comparison of Superman to both Moses and Christ, and a consideration of his qualities as fiction teaching primary concerns, will show that he is an antitype of the Biblical saviour, perhaps only one of many.

D.C. Comics' “All-Star” line debuted in 2005 with All-Star Batman & Robin. The “All-Star” moniker serves two functions, highlighting both the featured characters and the well-known creators producing the series. The mandate of the series is to tell iconic stories of the greatest superheroes without being constrained by the volumes of history and continuity those heroes carry with them. As such, All-Star Superman kicks off with a one-page synopsis of Superman's origin, a story firmly entrenched in the Western imagination, and drops the reader in media res, with Lex Luthor having finally succeeded in his plan to destroy Superman. The series itself, which ran from 2005 to 2008 and lasted 12 issues, chronicles Superman's final weeks as he sets his affairs in order and takes care of last-minute tasks. Of course, for Superman, those last minute tasks involve renegade Kryptonians, dinosaur invasions from the center of the Earth, and living planets from the “Underverse.” The stripping away, or rather the subsuming, of the previous seventy years of Superman's history allows the story told in All-Star Superman to achieve a more mythological tone. What is important in the stories is left in, that Superman never kills, that he cares about each and every person on the planet, regardless of colour or creed, and that he will always do his best to help when it is required. While the bulk of the series deals with super-powered adversaries, there are interspersed amongst these titanic tales brief glimpses of everyday people, of commuters and suicides, of reporters and cancer victims, all of whom Superman goes out of his way to help. He is here to save us.

In establishing Superman's credentials as an antitype of Moses, one need look no further than the birth stories (or “origin stories” in comic book parlance) of the two characters. The correlation, as Northrop Frye states about typological interpretation of the Christian Testament, “conforms to the intentionality of the book itself” (Great Code 80); the parallel is so obvious that to ignore it would be to ignore a fundamental part of the story. Faced with the destruction of all male Hebrew children, Moses' mother makes an “ark of bulrushes...daubed with slime and pitch” (Holy Bible, Exod. 1.3), and sets it adrift. It is eventually discovered by the Pharaoh's daughter. Moses, then, who becomes leader and saviour of the nation of Israel, begins life escaping a destructive force and being raised by foster parents. In Superman's case, the same story is rather beautifully summarized on the first page of All-Star Superman #1 (see Appendix Fig. 1). “[A]s the doomed planet shuddered and rumbled in its dying moments....Jor-El and...Lara placed their infant son in an experimental rocket ship and launched him into the void” (Fleisher 130). While the rocketship is hardly held together by “slime and pitch,” the imagery of an infant being placed in a small craft in order to escape death draws a definite parallel between Moses and Superman. That both men go on to be leaders and teachers (Moses of Israel, Superman of the human race) strengthens the bond. The ends of their stories are also close parallels. Moses, once shown the Promised Land, is told “I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither” (Holy Bible, Deut. 34:4). Moses has led his people to their new home, but cannot enter it. Similarly, by the end of All-Star Superman, having defeated Luthor, and delivering humankind to its “promised land” (discussed below), Superman is exiled to the center of the sun in order to keep it running properly, never being able to see the future he has worked all his life to create.

A typological link between Superman and Christ is revealed, ironically, by Lex Luthor (whose identity as an Antichrist antitype is fodder for a whole other essay) in the final climactic moments of All-Star Superman #12. Luthor takes on Superman's powers, assuming the totalitarian aspect of the royal metaphor, the individual who forces his identity on his society. He fulfills his earlier claim that “[i]f it wasn't for Superman, [he]'d be in charge on this planet” (Morrison, “The Gospel According to Lex Luthor” 22). What Lex fails to realize is the extent of Superman's powers, an extent that bears out Frye's assertion that, when the royal metaphor is applied to a saviour figure, “the notion of a socially detached individual is an illusion” (The Great Code 100). Frye says that the reformulation of the royal metaphor into the Christian metaphor “unites without subordinating,” that it “achieves identity with and identity as on equal terms” (The Great Code 101) (emphasis in original). This idea is borne out by Paul's words “not I, but Christ liveth within me” (Holy Bible Gal. 2.20), and also affirmed by the ritual of the Eucharist. This is the saviour whose individuality teaches unity, whose personality helps a community become compassionate persons. And so Lex realizes this about Superman: “It's all just us, in here, together” he cries. “This is how he sees all the time, every day” (Morrison, “Superman in Excelsis” 15). Much like Christ, when Superman realizes he is dying, he finds a way to impart this knowledge of unity to humankind before he departs. This knowledge takes the form of a serum that can “combine Human and Kryptonian [DNA] strands” (Morrison, “Neverending” 19), fulfilling the type of the Eucharist with a super-powered antitype. Similarly, after the Last Supper and his resurrection, Christ tells his disciples that those who believe in what he preached will be able to “cast out devils” (Holy Bible, Mark 16:17) and “drink any deadly thing [and], it shall not hurt them” (Mark 16:18). Believers will even be able to “lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” (Mark 16:18). These amazing feats, if put into contemporary language, could easily be called super powers, making both Christ's and Superman's legacies amazing abilities that will foster peace amongst humankind.

Having, if somewhat briefly, established Superman as an antitype of both Moses and Jesus, one must consider why this is significant. The beginning of an answer presents itself once again in the pages of All-Star Superman. In issue #10, the typological reading takes on an aspect much like Frye's pronouncement about the Hebrew Testament, that “[t]here are...events in the Old Testament that are types of later events recorded also within the Old Testament” (The Great Code 83). In seeking to find what will happen to the world once he is gone, Superman institutes a minute creation that he dubs “Earth-Q” (perhaps here becoming an antitype for the J Creation “Lord God”), in which there is an Earth that evolves without his presence. This world, of course, is revealed to be our own, and its historical development is chronicled in brief views, from Australian aboriginals making cave paintings (Morrison, “Neverending” 14) to Nietzsche's composition of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (“Neverending” 19). Significantly, the glimpses revealed of the so-called “Earth-Q” all show varying stages of humankind's spiritual and philosophical development. The importance of this comes in the last scene from Earth-Q to be revealed, an old-time apartment building in an unnamed city. The view closes in until a drawing on a table is revealed, a drawing of Superman in his earliest incarnation (“Neverending” 21). Here, then, is a world without the super-powered saviour, one that goes through all the revolutions of thought that Superman's world did, but was left without the benefit of a benign alien crashing to the planet and saving everyone. This world, our world, created a saviour, a Superman, through fiction.

So comes the crux of the matter: the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian Testaments, teach moral lessons, lessons of the primary human concerns, through stories of individuals with remarkable powers. Moses wields a rod that, when dipped into the waters of the Nile, turns the river to blood (Holy Bible, Exodus 7:20). Christ demonstrates his unearthly power by reviving the four-days dead Lazarus (John 12:43-44) in front of a crowd of people. Neither man is shy of using his gifts in public and in service of the greater good. For Moses, the greater good is primarily the welfare of the nation of Israel; for Christ, it is the welfare of humankind's immortal souls. How, then, is the case of Superman any different from these stories? He demonstrates remarkable powers of flight and strength, but also acts of wisdom and compassion. Where an everyday person might turn from suffering (and how many of us flip quickly past the channel that is showing famine victims in Africa?), Superman uses all the gifts at his disposal for its alleviation. The question then becomes, does it matter that Superman is fictional? For all intents and purposes, the Bible is a fictional work. Regardless of whether the events within the Bible actually happened, they are so far removed temporally for them to be nothing more than stories to contemporary audiences. This is not to say that they are not important, even necessary, stories, but they are stories nonetheless. So is it reasonable to say that, seventy years ago, when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created the “Man of Steel”, they created a saviour? Is Superman a saviour whose deeds and words can be read as teachings on the proper behaviour of a human society? Is he the fulfillment of the Christian metaphor, the individual who enriches and teaches the community, who embodies the primary concerns that join all humans? And is this all significant, even though he is “just a story”?

While the popularity of the the Bible as a moral text can in part be attributed to its treatment of primary human concerns, one must also consider that it was also one of the first books to be printed in a popular edition. As such, it was a work that could be read over and over, and did not suffer from the kind of competition that modern works do. In considering All-Star Superman as a moral text, perhaps even a kerygmatic one, the argument can be made that the second coming, the new Messiah, comes again and again in our fiction. This goes against Frye's assertion that “the doctrines of Christian theology form the antitypes of which the stories and maxims in the Bible...are types” (The Great Code 85), and claims that fictions, most especially moralistic ones, provide new saviours all the time. The stumbling block for these saviours is that there are so many to choose from in our media-saturated environment that no one saviour gets the same kind of attention that the Bible and it's attendant saviours did when Gutenberg began printing. In order to assess the power, and the potential, of these saviours, one must look to their longevity and continued fictional treatment. Superman debuted in Action Comics #1 in 1938, and has been continuously in print for the last seventy years. He has become one of the most popular characters in Western popular culture. All-Star Superman has taken that seventy years of history and turned it into mythology, into a text by which lessons may be taught and, more importantly, learned. It is unlikely that the same can be said of many other popular characters of the last 100 years or so. For this reason Superman deserves a far closer look, and his attributes and teachings a far closer consideration, than just a brightly coloured costume in the pages of a disposable periodical.

Is Superman the new Messiah? He certainly evokes the qualities of the saviour types chronicled in both the Hebrew and Christian Testaments. He has also, through the volumes of his stories distilled down to their essence in All-Star Superman, taught moral lessons through the tool of fiction. One can easily imagine that, had his stories somehow been the first to roll from Gutenberg's press, that there might be temples in some corners of the world flying the iconic “S” shield that he proudly bears upon his chest. The teachings of Moses and Christ come down through the ages to contemporary times as a series of stories, stories that are given great importance by virtue of the lessons they teach. Superman hasn't been around quite as long as Moses or Christ, but to have survived seventy years in a culture that embraces new fads seemingly every few seconds speaks of the power and significance of the character, of the lessons he teaches, and of fiction itself.

Appendix: Selected Images

Fig. 1. The Origin of Superman from Morrison and Quitely, All-Star Superman #1 (DC Comics 2006)

Fig. 2. The Origin of Superman from Morrison and Quietly, All-Star Superman #10 (DC Comics 2008)

Works Cited

Note: The citations for comic books on this page use a format found here: http://www.comicsresearch.org/CAC/cite.html. There is no standardized MLA formatting for citing comic books.

Fleisher, Michael L. The Original Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes volume 3. New York: DC Comics, 2007.

Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. Academic Press Canada, 1982.

---. Words with Power. Toronto: Penguin, 2007.

Holy Bible. New York: New York Bible Society.

Morrison, Grant (w) and Frank Quitely (a). “The Gospel According to Lex Luthor.” All-Star Superman #5 (Sept. 2006), DC Comics.

---,---. “Neverending.” All-Star Superman #10 (May 2008), DC Comics.

---,---. “Superman in Excelsis.” All-Star Superman #12 (Oct. 2008), DC Comics.

This Week's Picks

The New Avengers #52 - Okay, bar none, this is the best title Marvel is publishing right now. Bendis' magical grasp of dialogue is put to great use in this title. The team is great, the fugitive angle they've been playing for the last year and a bit is still working, and the stories are top notch. If you aren't reading New Avengers, go grab the "Breakout" trade and get started. This is the title that's defining what's happening in the Marvel Universe.

Batman: Battle for the Cowl - Arkham Asylum #1 - In my new quest to give the Bat-titles a try I'm starting off with the specials surrounding the search for a new Batman. This one was the creepiest, but it was a nice little stroll down memory lane. Maybe it's time to read Morrison and McKean's "Arkham Asylum" again. That book is a trip. As for this special, the new (are they new?) villains are neat. I'm excited to see where the Bat-universe is going, especially with Morrison and Quitely doing their thing in the coming months.

Skrull Kill Krew #1 - Throwback to one of the few bits of Grant Morrison's ouvre that I would label "mediocre." I probably won't pick up the second issue of this one. But with a name like "Skrull Kill Krew," I had to pick up at least the first one.

Fall of Cthulhu: Nemesis #1 - I will not be able to read this comic until I've tracked down 3 of the 20-some odd issues that preceded it. Thoroughly annoying.

The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft - When I last read a comic story about Lovecraft, it was the Necronauts. This one is somewhat different, and the story (of a young HPL haunted by dreams that seem to come true) hasn't quite grabbed me yet. However, Tony Salmons can draw a stunningly beautiful 20's flapper.

Pride & Prejudice #1 - I was so hopeful for this one. The cover by Sonny Liew is great. The source material is classic. Unfortunately, the contents don't measure up. Sure, it's a faithful adaptation, but the interior art reminds me of Grimm Fairy Tales from Zenescape. All the women are beautiful, but it's like they're wax dummies set in poses. There's no life to the art. Add to that the stilted language of the 19th century, and it spells failure. Shame.

Detective Comics #853 - Whenever Neil Gaiman ventures back into comics, it's a big deal. That said, I wasn't a big fan of "1602," and I never even looked at "The Eternals" (though I really should). So, when it was revealed that he was writing a 2-parter after the death of Batman, I had to pick it up. I just had to. It's Gaiman. And in this, I was not disappointed. I had a pretty good look at the first part here. The second part eschews the form of the Canterbury Tales, but tells a brilliant story about Batman and his death. If Gaiman came back to comics and wrote stories like this all the time, we'd have another Sandman on our hands. It's a shame he's left comics behind. We miss him.

That's it this week. One other item I have to point out is The Freedom Collective #1. I haven't read it yet, but I grabbed it last week. The premise is "What if Jack Kirby and Stan Lee were living in the Cold War-era U.S.S.R. when they decided to create The Avengers?" Inspired. I looked into Communist comics when I was researching Batman vs. Mighty Wing, but it turns out that comics were strictly forbidden under party rule. Which makes Freedom Collective that much more interesting.

Some dates for your calendar.

Some interesting comic book-related events for this year.

April 18 - 19 Toronto Comicon Fan Appreciation

May 2 Free Comic Book Day
(Seriously, this is one of my favourite days of the year. Do yourself a favour and get out to the local comic store on this day and see what's out there.)

August 28 - 30 Fan Expo Canada

September 27 Word on the Street
Not specifically a comic book event, but Drawn & Quarterly are often there, as well as some independent comic publishers.