Identity Crisis is not misogynist. (I’m assuming somebody actually claimed it is. I’m sure somebody did. I said [in “Brief Reviews of Comics”] it was stupid that all the characters are obsessed with supervillains raping and murdering their girlfriends or wives (or ex-wives, although the Atom keeps referring to Jean Loring simply as his “wife” for some reason) (including Green Arrow worrying about Black Canary) but nobody is even a little worried that supervillains might rape and murder the women superheroes’ boyfriends or husbands. Well, I’m sure everybody’s very worried about the boyfriends and husbands as well, probably even about Ma and Pa Kent, but somehow nobody mentions these other people while blathering on about how supervillains are targeting their wives [or ex-wives, but nobody in the story ever remembers Jean Loring is an ex-wife].) Identity Crisis is not misogynist. It’s exploitative. It exploits every male comics reader who think it’s his duty as a man to protect women. It exploits the sort of man whose response to learning of a female friend’s assault is to want to injure or kill the attacker. It exploits the sort of man who believes women shouldn’t serve in the military because the male soldiers will be too worried about protecting the women to do their own jobs right.
Not every story that deals with these themes is exploitative—take Animal Man. Grant Morrison deals with the exploitative nature of the themes. I don’t have access to Animal Man right now so I can’t quote directly, but in issue #26, Morrison admits to Buddy Baker that he only killed off Buddy’s wife and children because he’d run out of good ideas and hoped to pump some excitement into the series. (Not that I believe Morrison had really run out of ideas, but he claimed to have for the sake of a good story.) Buddy and Ellen were an ideal couple for producing gripping narrative: their relationship was taut with tensions waiting to blow up into engaging conflict, mostly about Buddy’s idealistic and self-absorbed twin hobbies of superheroing and animal-rights activism. When Buddy finds Ellen and their children dead on the kitchen floor, all the possibilities of those conflicts are cut off, to be replaced by the narrow conflict of the revenge fantasy.
The revenge plot is easy to churn out: hero has a loved one, villain kills loved on, hero (kills villain / brings villain to justice / beats villain to a pulp before bring him [or, less often, her] to justice). There are nuances and opportunities for more interesting stories, but writers who’ve yoked themselves to the revenge plot rarely use them—it’s so much easier to stick to the basic formula. Loved ones of the hero killed off too soon to be defined beyond their relationships to the hero are an early warning sign of a creatively bankrupt story.
David Fiore says:
“Loved ones of the hero killed off too soon to be defined beyond their relationships to the hero are an early warning sign of a creatively bankrupt story”
I agree Steven! And I think this is why the Gwen Stacy Clone Saga should be required reading for superhero scribes… the series means many different things to me–but at its most basic level, it’s Gerry Conway’s statement you can’t resolve an impasse in a relationship between two characters with a death… forget about misogyny–or exploitation (although I think you are right to bring this term in!)–as an artist, you are really selling your narrative (and yourself!) short if you flinch from dealing with a situation in which your characters just can’t seem to understand each other–that’s exactly the kind of scenario that has always generated the most exalted drama!
Dave
— 16 September 2004 at 5:36 pm (Permalink)
Kitty says:
“Creatively bankrupt story” - seconded! On the opposite side of the gender spectrum, I had some of the same feelings about *Kill Bill*, which I don’t necessarily consider misogynist. It frustrates me to see these protagonists go on vengeance sprees without seeing any character development for the loved ones whose murder/violation inspire them. I feel more for characters when I see *why* this victim is so important to them beyond being just “life furniture.”
— 16 September 2004 at 6:17 pm (Permalink)
Shane says:
It’s mainly usenet and messageboard posters that claimed mysogyny, but there were a few bloggers too. Just do a google search and they pop up all over. For the most part it wasn’t bloggers though. There was actually a pretty honest discussion on most blogs. I wasn’t speaking of just Identity Crisis on my site, I was talking about all entertainment.
— 16 September 2004 at 6:22 pm (Permalink)
Shane says:
And I was being sarcastic in talking about misandry.
— 16 September 2004 at 6:37 pm (Permalink)
Rose says:
Shane, I don’t think the charges of bias are as ludicrous as you seem to imply in your post. Are female characters being harmed at a greater rate than male characters in Identity Crisis? Certainly, at least so far, and there are even more male than female characters shown. But I’m not sure what you mean by “all entertainment,” that none of it shows bias or is sexist? I don’t understand.
I really just don’t know whether “misogynistic” or “misandristic” are words that can be accurately applied to texts because they’re attitudes that people have. I assume that people are claiming that by extension the texts express misogynistic/misandristic perspectives of their authors, but either don’t want to call the author names or think that it might be a fictional biased persona the author has also created, or something like that.
But yes, I do think that stories about rampaging men whose women have been wronged are annoying and targeting an awfully low denominator. There are ways to do this successfully, like by showing what the outcome is or giving the characters some nuance, but that isn’t something I’ve seen in Identity Crisis either. In fact, the only reason I’m reading it is to be able to keep up with the hysterical (and occasionally reasonable) reactions of readers. I just wish all the fanboys who are so outraged by Sue Dibny’s death would move on to be as active and vocal about the unacceptability of violence against nonfictional women (or anyone, obviously) and I don’t get a sense that that’s happening.
And I don’t think there’s much more I can say about Kill Bill than what I’ve already said, that I find it frustrating and annoying and in no way liberating.
— 16 September 2004 at 6:52 pm (Permalink)
Shane says:
Excellent point on wanting fanboys to move on to being so vocal about the unacceptability of violence against real women. I don’t get that sense either, but I don’t think they would mention it on a comic site anyway.
On the “all entertainment” quote, what I meant was a lot of people are quick to call mysogyny the moment a fictitious women gets hurt in a movie, story, video game, etc. Neither of you are one of those people. I don’t think mysogyny or misandry can apply to texts as they aren’t about real people. They can be signs of an authors viewpoint, but when someone writes they don’t always write their opinions. They write their character’s opinions (sometimes, but not all the time, with reflections of their own). There are works out there that are sexist or biased. I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m just saying a lot of people are quick to jump to conclusions without evidence. Hence the subjective validation quotes at the end of the post.
I wasn’t disagreeing with Steven’s point above that stories about rampaging men whose women have been wrong is bad, but would it change anything if it was a guy? I truthfully don’t know. I’m still enjoying the story, but I can read and enjoy a comic about characters whose actions I don’t agree with, but thats just me.
One last thing. Every time I talk to you two about anything I always come away thinking about things a little clearer than I did previously or learning something new. I thank you for that.
— 16 September 2004 at 8:03 pm (Permalink)
Jamesmith3 says:
This is something I wanted to ask earlier. You all seem to agree on it, so now I feel odd asking it, but: can a text not be “misogynistic” independent of its author? Why not, if it can be “exploitative”? How and where do we draw the line regarding the adjectives we can apply to a book?
This may be a tangent, as I’m not all that interested in exactly what IC is; but I’ve got to imagine you should be able to disect a work while not getting caught up in discussions of who what kind of man the author is.
— 16 September 2004 at 8:20 pm (Permalink)
Steven says:
David,
Somehow I knew you were going to mention Gwen Stacy. OK, not really, but it doesn’t surprise me! I don’t think the Gwen Stacy clone saga is collected, so there’s no chance of my reading, but it certainly sounds like an interesting read.
I think Rose said just about everything else that I might have…
By the way, I’m finding Identity Crisis bizarre attempt to accomplish the impossibility of a locked-room mystery in the DC Universe much more interesting (in a rather masochistic way, admittedly) than its exploitative use of gender politics, and I’m working on a post about that as well.
As for flipping the gender roles in the standard revenge plot—well, Kitty mentions Kill Bill, which is a good example. I’m reluctant to get into another discussion of that movie (I still get nasty comments from irate Tarantino fans, months after writing about the movie), but I think it’s worth noting that the object which must be avenged in Kill Bill is always the child, while the husband is mostly ignored.
— 16 September 2004 at 8:40 pm (Permalink)
Rose says:
I guess I should have said that I basically just don’t say things are “misogynistic” in general, except in conversations like this, and I did worry about saying that a text can’t be “misogynistic” because of the problems. I’m not trying to do biographical criticism. I think people can write books about all kinds of depravity and be perfectly nice people themselves, and persona certainly comes into play. I don’t think everyone who’s ever written about a serial killer has killed, but problems arise when you’re dealing with a text like this where it’s not the characters themselves but the very situation that seems somehow exploitative.
I have no idea what kind of a person Melzer is, though I don’t see any evidence from Identity Crisis that he’s a skilled writer. That really doesn’t matter to me. I’m more interested in the responses bloggers and message board participants are having to the work, but I’m not trying to make generalizations about them and their beliefs either. So I’m at least as uncomfortable with some of the discourse that’s been flying around in discussions of Identity Crisis than I am by the book, which still has several issues to redeem itself, though I doubt it will.
Shane gets at something that makes sexism (and let’s talk about this as sexism, because that’s a clearer concept to me than misogyny) difficult to discuss. How many women have to get killed in Identity Crisis to make outrage about it legitimate? For many readers it’s not a quota system but that they read this as being part of a larger pattern of writing unique women out of superhero books to somehow strengthen or deepen male characters. It doesn’t mean that any individual writer/editor who says, “Hey, let’s kill off his wife/girlfriend to get some press and make him darker!” is being sexist, but the repetition of this occurrence again and again and again at Marvel and DC is what makes some readers annoyed each time it comes up again. It’s the fact that there’s an editorial policy where this is not only encouraged but is the public face of DC for summer 2005 that’s disturbing to a lot of people who want to see more active roles for women in comics.
And I realize I’m not giving a good answer, but I’m in a major hurry right now and should be able to write more later tonight when I actually have time.
— 16 September 2004 at 8:46 pm (Permalink)
Shane says:
Jamesmith3- I think a character in a book can be mysogynystic and be independent of the author yes. There have been female characters that have been misandristic (Is that how you say it?)
Rose- I think some sexism is ingrained into comics since it has been a male dominated medium since it’s inception. I don’t think outrage about a death in comics is bad. Hell, I’m mad about someone that seems to be going to die in Avengers. I think the whole policy of “death=event” is screwed up. This may touch upon something Ed said to me earlier. He told me he doesn’t understand Western society’s preoccupation with death. I think he may have a point. Death in general is a massive event in comics be it male or female. I think that has more to do with culture and religious views.
I would love to see more female oriented comics and more female creators, but you’re right in saying that the attitude in both Marvel and DC over the years, through repitition of certain policies, helps prevent that from happening. I think this is more about fear of change and is evident of a larger problem in the industry than it is about sexism.
I thought it was a very good answer. It’s funny that your quick answers are more reasoned than the ones I think about for a while. I’m sorry I can’t quite articulate my thoughts as well. I’m getting better though. (I hope.)
— 16 September 2004 at 9:06 pm (Permalink)
Jamesmith3 says:
Rose: you’re making sense, sure. But please write more if you get the notion. As I said, I guess I’m more interested in how people are reading books than in precisely what people think about IDENTITY CRISIS.
Shane: I was thinking more along the lines of the *book* itself, rather than a specific character. Can IC be exploitative, while Meltzer is not?
— 17 September 2004 at 12:45 am (Permalink)
Steven says:
Yeah, I’d say Identity Crisis can be exploitative while Meltzer isn’t. I mean, saying a person is exploitative carries a different connotation than saying one story is exploitative. I would certainly say Meltzer was exploitative in writing Identity Crisis, but I don’t have enough information to establish a general pattern of exploitation by Meltzer, which I would need to say that Meltzer is generally exploitative. (This is basically the same point Rose made about sexism.)
— 17 September 2004 at 1:03 am (Permalink)
John Jakala says:
I’ve probably said at some point that IC is misogynistic, but I’ve never tried to extend that characterization to any of the creators. My reasons for thinking the story is misogynistic are pretty obvious, I would think. I can see why Rose is troubled by the use of the term — if misogyny is hatred of women, how does a comic book hate? — but I see the story as indicative of ugly societal attitudes towards women. Perhaps a better term would be “sexism,” but that doesn’t really seem to capture the nastiness of the troubling elements in IC.
And, Shane, to respond to your post, what makes IC different from stories where abuse is heaped on male characters is the discrepancy between the way female and male characters are portrayed in IC. In IC, we have yet to hear a female heroes’ “thoughts” on events, but we’ve been treated to the droning narration of many male heroes: Elongated Man, Atom, Green Arrow, Superman, Robin, Nightwing, Black Lightning — even Batman, the brooding loner, weighs in with his narrative thoughts in issue #4. Lois’ thoughts at the end are the closest we’ve gotten to any female’s reaction to events in this story. Even when a female character such as Wonder Woman does appear, she’s there mainly to further the actions of a male character. (”Hey, Wonder Chick - we don’t really need to hear what you think about your ’sisters’ being savagely attacked. We just need you to make with the magic lasso trick, OK?”)
If IC is really a story about how superheroes respond to horrible events, why aren’t they showing the reactions of female superheroes? I guess it’s because only the male heroes matter. And I don’t really care if you call it “misogyny,” “sexism,” or “lazy, exploitative, pandering storytelling,” but I find it disturbing all the same.
— 17 September 2004 at 2:20 am (Permalink)
Rose says:
I was just trying to use Identity Crisis to try to do two things at once, and I’m not sure how useful it was. Hmm. Drawing on Steven’s last response, I’m going to give you my views of the adjective question. For something to be misogynistic it needs to hate women, and while I certainly personify texts a lot more than they might deserve, I don’t go so far as to say that they have emotional drives or desires. (Or if I do, someone should notify me so I can stop being so abstract.) So when I said a text can’t be misogynistic I meant it in a literalistic way, that a text can express (see, I’m personifying again!) a perspective of hatred or disdain toward women, but I wouldn’t then say that that book hates women, because that would make no sense. I think “misogyny” is a heavy enough term to warrant saving it for special occasions where it clearly applies. Like I said when talking about sexism, some people may feel driven to cries of misogyny when Identity Crisis comes after Graduation Day and Kyle Raynor’s run-ins with dead women he loves in kitchen appliances, but I think this is because the larger context doesn’t lend itself to having one clear bad guy (and I’m talking DC employee here, not a supervillain) who can take responsibility for all these women’s bodies and so this book is becoming something of a scapegoat.
“Exploitative,” however, isn’t just about what the text is but about what it does to the reader, and I’m not sure it’s exactly the right word to use here, but I can’t think of a better one. Identity Crisis (and I know you didn’t want more of that text, but it makes it easier for me to just give a name rather than a generic) is exploitative both because it expects and urges (personifying again, but in this case I assume it was in some way the author’s intention) the reader to say, “She was murdered AND pregnant? Hardcore!” and because it is so outrageous that the backlash it receives is entirely expected. Really most works are exploitative, because they’re calculatingly created to engage the reader/consumer, and this is politically advantageous in works like Nicholas Nickleby that drive readers into a frenzy of positive activism, but that’s not what’s going on here. I commented here that what bothers me is that Identity Crisis is pushing the Ideal Fanboy Reader to stay exactly the way he is, easily manipulated by superhero tragedies, keeping women in their place (even if that’s a pedestal) and buying into hype and hysteria.
I’m trying not to say too much and just lay out my definitions, but I don’t really think we commenters are all working with the same understanding of the terms, so it’s a useful exercize and anyone is welcome to question or correct me.
— 17 September 2004 at 2:29 am (Permalink)
Rose says:
John,
Don’t you know better than to post a comment while I’m commenting? Anyway, I think the reason I’m unwilling to say that the story is sexist is because it’s not over yet and there’s still time for a stunning ending that will indict the callous, manipulated superheroes and turn the tables on the fanboys on both sides of the aisle. I’m certainly not getting my hopes up, and I think it’s quite likely that it will still plumb greater depths of awfulness, but I’m willing to admit that something like that is at least possible.
So far, as you were saying, we get plenty of pictures of how thoughtlessly egotistical the men of the JLA are and how little the related women seem to protest about this, but I’m interested in the women and what they think about putting up with that. Was death a release for Sue Dibny after her life in a cage? How would she raise a child who couldn’t have friends who hadn’t been scanned with all the JLA technology to make sure they’re not evil shapeshifters or something? There are lots of interesting issues that could have been raised by this series, but instead it seems intent on focusing on what one villain might have known a totally common knot, or which hero has the best set of villain trading cards.
And I wonder about the sexual assault and what its repercussions will be throughout the rest of the story, because right now most readers seem to be letting it just inflate the Sue Dibny hagiography. I’m not so sure, though. I wonder if her husband’s friends wiped her mind, too, to keep her happy all these years, because I can’t help placing myself in her shoes and thinking that their revenge on Dr. Light would be the worst betrayal possible. How could she live with the guilt, since superheroes seem immune to guilt? That’s why all that gets to them is their own selfish suffering for women taken “before their time.” I’m really interested in this because it brings together so many concepts I find repulsive and makes it the publishing event of the season, and I’m just fascinated to find out where it will go. In Identity Crisis, women are being treated badly, yes, but perhaps they should just be happy they’re being spared the fate of being written badly.
— 17 September 2004 at 2:40 am (Permalink)
John Jakala says:
Rose,
I’d love to see a series that explored some of the ideas you’ve mentioned here, but I don’t think IC is going to be that series. The notion that Sue was similarly mind-wiped would raise all kinds of interesting issues. Based on how IC has gone so far, though, I’m not going to hold out much hope that any of the topics you suggest will be covered.
And, yes, the story could still surprise us towards the end, but, again, not holding out much hope for that. I’m reacting midstream after being emboldened by Paul O’Brien’s column this week.
— 17 September 2004 at 3:12 am (Permalink)
Rose says:
I think you’re right about Identity Crisis, but I guess we’ll see. Alas. I probably shouldn’t pretend I’m actually optimistic, because I don’t have much real hope that it will turn into anything I’d like or consider insightful and meaningful. I’m just talking about a series in which Meltzer gets fired and they hire me to finish the story, really, because I don’t really want to get involved in placing bets on which death will be next and whose pain matters most.
I’m glad you’ve taken Paul’s exhortations to heart, but I’ve made some kind of masochistic commitment to Identity Crisis, so I’ll be sticking with it while talking about at least some of its many flaws, and apparently I’m dragging Steven down with me. If it were just murder and not sexual assault at the core of the story, I could let it go, but now I feel I have to somehow put my background and training in related issues to work to counteract some of the badness. I’m not expecting much if any success.
— 17 September 2004 at 3:30 am (Permalink)
Jamesmith3 says:
“Personification.” Yeah. Why couldn’t I think of that word? You’re right though: I, at least, haven’t been aligned with everyone’s definitions before. So, yeah. I see where you’re coming from now. Thanks.
— 17 September 2004 at 4:04 am (Permalink)
Shane says:
Interesting, now we have John in as well. :)
Ok let me see.
Steven- “By the way, I????????m finding Identity Crisis bizarre attempt to accomplish the impossibility of a locked-room mystery in the DC Universe much more interesting (in a rather masochistic way, admittedly) than its exploitative use of gender politics, and I????????m working on a post about that as well.”
I’m enjoying the mystery as well.
Jamesmith3-
“I was thinking more along the lines of the *book* itself, rather than a specific character. Can IC be exploitative, while Meltzer is not?”
I think it can, but like Rose says below most stories exploit the reader in some way. The goal is to play on the readers emotions. I would say pandering to someones lowest emotions isn’t necessarily a good thing. For instance inciting hatred in others etc. A text could do this without the author intending it sure.
Steven-
Yeah, I????????d say Identity Crisis can be exploitative while Meltzer isn????????t. I mean, saying a person is exploitative carries a different connotation than saying one story is exploitative. I would certainly say Meltzer was exploitative in writing Identity Crisis, but I don????????t have enough information to establish a general pattern of exploitation by Meltzer, which I would need to say that Meltzer is generally exploitative. (This is basically the same point Rose made about sexism.)
Agreed.
John Jakala-
“but I see the story as indicative of ugly societal attitudes towards women.”
I guess I’m just going to have to agree to disagree. I would think it would reflect the writers views more than it would society as a whole. The reaction to and marketing of the story is indicative of society not the story itself.
“If IC is really a story about how superheroes respond to horrible events, why aren????????t they showing the reactions of female superheroes?”
You have a point.
“Like I said when talking about sexism, some people may feel driven to cries of misogyny when Identity Crisis comes after Graduation Day and Kyle Raynor????????s run-ins with dead women he loves in kitchen appliances, but I think this is because the larger context doesn????????t lend itself to having one clear bad guy (and I????????m talking DC employee here, not a supervillain) who can take responsibility for all these women????????s bodies and so this book is becoming something of a scapegoat.”
So it’s not the actual events themselves, but the timing or the person? If Ron Marz wrote most of these then people would be talking about him instead of the text?
“IC is pushing the Ideal Fanboy Reader to stay exactly the way he is”
I would say that’s the mainstream (superhero based) comic book industry as a whole with a few exceptions.
Keep in mind with all this, I’m a relentless optimist when it comes to comics (and most things in general) so it’s really hard for me not to expect IC to pull something suprising at the end and finish on a high note. Sure I’m dissapointed more times than my optimism has been proven right, but if it hasn’t changed me yet IC isn’t going to do it either.
I did have a question that involves comic book history that I’m curious about. I guess John would probably know more than others, but did any of the books focus on Black Canary’s reaction when Green Arrow died or Carol Ferris’ reaction to Hal’s. Just something I’m curious about.
I would like to see more female characters reactions in the book though. We had a little from Jean Loring, but not enough to speak of. Maybe Lois will be a little more vocal next issue. Hopefully she doesn’t just panic and go into hysterics. Then I’ll be on the sexist side of the argument for sure. :)
Anyway hopefully we’ll see something other than Zatana saying something like, “Em llik ton nac reztlem.” as the only female reaction.
— 17 September 2004 at 5:27 am (Permalink)
Rose says:
“You????????re right though: I, at least, haven????????t been aligned with everyone????????s definitions before.”
I’d like to hear what you were thinking and what you’re thinking now, especially because I’m going to shift things a little bit. I said that all texts are exploitative, which is maybe a little strong. It’s better, I think, to say most text are manipulative, and that texts that are created to (or just have the result of, regardless of intention) really play on the reader’s emotions in a way that go beyond just the story are exploitative. That’s not anything like a good definition, but it’s probably the closest I can get now. So the music swelling as the little kid’s huge eyes brim with tears is a manipulative moment, but that doesn’t suffice for most superhero comics because they need to keep stepping up the emotional investment to get readers to continue their monthly financial investments, so we get this bizarre arms race of who-suffers-most that leads to things like Identity Crisis and the Avengers Disassembled destructo-chart because anything else just couldn’t be earth-shakingly gripping enough to outdo what has come before.
And Shane, man, I don’t know when I’ll have time to answer that. I know you’re sort of joking about Lois, but how much would it really take for you to say, “Hey, there’s a weird pattern of really negative treatment of women in this book?” As has been pointed out, the men get to speak for themselves to defend the negative things they’ve done, or whitewash them or whatever, and so we’re already not really getting the women as subjects, at least as far as I can tell. Do you think there’s a bad imbalance now, and if so does it not bother you because, as you say, there’s still more to come?
— 17 September 2004 at 11:24 am (Permalink)
Shane says:
I think it doesn’t bother me now because there’s more to come. If this was all their was and they were just put in danger and the heroes just run off then yes, there’s a serious imbalance.
This book had a lot of potential to say something that so far has been squandered in order to promote the mystery. I’m enjoying the mystery, but I’m hoping thats not all it is. I do think we should get Canary, Zatana, Lois and other’s reactions in the book. If another woman is put in danger/killed/raped, etc. then yes I’ll accept there is a pattern, but so far it’s just been Sue and then Jean Loring’s attempted murder. If something as bad happens to Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Robin’s dad, etc. then no there isn’t a pattern in IC itself. Outside of it viewed a whole with other titles like Green Lantern, and other examples you’ve mentioned there could be. In other words, I don’t think as of now there is a pattern in IC itself, but in DC/Marvel as a whole then yes there may be a pattern of violence against women.
— 17 September 2004 at 4:12 pm (Permalink)
Jamesmith3 says:
Rose: I guess I’ve allowed “this book is misogynist” to equal “this book could be interpreted as an expression of misogynist views, if you want to approach it like that.” Which, obviously, are two very different ways of reading.
— 17 September 2004 at 7:32 pm (Permalink)
Rose says:
James, I think it’s fair to have that reading, and it’s a fair reading. I just personally prefer to hold “misogynist” as a term in play for an unequivocally damning situation, and Identity Crisis might not quite make it there. I think there’s an awfully good chance that it is going to continue to display utterly fucked-up (at least from my perspective) gender politics throughout. I was just trying to stick with Steven’s terms from his original post, and I’m not sure I did entirely, but he’s free to come in and correct or elucidate at will.
Shane, yeah, there isn’t enough time in the world for me to respond! Maybe eventually. I’m sure the story has potential that might not be realized, and I think you’re right that fans jumping to the conclusion (although it may turn out to be correct) that Identity Crisis is a misogynist story are working on as little evidence as the superheroes who know there’s a serial killer on the loose after he’s (and will it be a he?) offed his first victim, but I fear both will turn out to be correct, after a fashion. I guess we’ll keep having some iteration of this discussion every month until it finally ends.
— 18 September 2004 at 3:15 am (Permalink)
Shane says:
Well take your time. I’ll read it whenever you guys find the time to update the site.
It would be interesting if the killer wasn’t a he wouldn’t it? Sue getting mind wiped would be an interesting take as well. I didn’t even think of either of those possibilities (well I thought of some of the female Suicide Squad members, but I think that’s a red herring).
I’m always open for discussions. If not about this I’m sure we’ll all find something else to talk about. Thanks for the chat.
— 18 September 2004 at 5:49 am (Permalink)
Robby Karol says:
“Well, I????????m sure everybody????????s very worried about the boyfriends and husbands as well, probably even about Ma and Pa Kent, but somehow nobody mentions these other people while blathering on about how supervillains are targeting their wives…”
Except in issue 3 there’s that comment by Perry White about “Why do you think no one will target ‘Superman’s Pal’?” to Jimmy Olsen. And look at who Superman spends most of his time with after the murder. Ma and Pa Kent, which seems to suggest his concern with them. And while I’m not sure that Tim Drake feels his father is in danger, the events of the series push him closer to his father. Finally, during the whole Dr. Light mindwiping debate, one of deaths used to justify this “security procedure” was the death of Black Canary’s husband. Yes, the male superheroes are mostly obsessed with their significant others, but there are exceptions. And though I doubt this would happen, wouldn’t it be interesting if Meltzer had consciously given the male heroes this attitude which might impede their investigation/protection?
— 18 September 2004 at 4:36 pm (Permalink)
Steven says:
Rose said:
The main reason I said “Identity Crisis isn’t misogynist” is that “misogyny” implies some genuine sentiment, of which I have seen none yet in Identity Crisis. Considering the way the text has used gender politics, along with the metatextual issue of the list of characters Meltzer is allowed to kill off, I think the series is simply too cynical and calculated to be honestly anything.
Robby,
Yeah, there are exceptions to the focus on wife-killing in the text. I think the emphasis on women as targets, which seems to me to loom larger in the text than worry about anybody else, comes largely from Green Arrow being the primary narrator so far. His patronizing (particularly toward the women of the JLA) and narrow-minded perspective has been privileged. I remember the scene with Perry White and Jimmy Olsen (why does the Daily Planet still use a little dark room like that?), which I think is possibly foreshadowing a “shocking” plot twist. The expression on Jimmy’s face, when Perry White says maybe the killer will go after superheroes’ pals too, is the best thing yet in Identity Crisis. He looks like a kid and Perry White just told him Santa Claus isn’t real.
— 18 September 2004 at 6:45 pm (Permalink)
Marc says:
Or that Santa Claus is real and will be coming down his chimney to rape and kill him.
— 20 September 2004 at 11:16 pm (Permalink)