On Reverence

So over at Postmodernbarney, I was being terribly irreverent about the Bible, and maybe offended some people (I don't know), but it got me to thinking about how much I actually do respect the Bible as an important work of literature. We can laugh at outdated bits that are funny to us without disrespecting a body of work as a whole, right?

This is a comics blog, so let's take the Fantastic Four as an example. That's a huge body of work as well, a long story that's been going on for decades. It's been written by a plethora of different hands, and most of that story is canon. In spite of continuity clean-ups over the years, there are no doubt conflicting -- even contradictory -- plot points within the accepted canon. Human error demands it. Fans will find them, point them out, and choose to accept them, reject them, or explain them away. It's par for the course.

Fans will also find lots of goofy, dated material to laugh at. The humor may or may not be intentional, but in the end, it really doesn't matter because the people who take the time to read and find the goofy stuff probably have at least some respect for the work as a whole. They know that they'll read stories that are perplexing, pulse-pounding, poignant, even downright poetic*, and it's all worth it. (Well, most of it.)

The Bible is kind of like that. The multitude of writers; the contradictions; the cool stories; the poetry; and the laws about stoning oxen. Yes, the Bible is a million times more important than the Fantastic Four, but it seems to me this mindset works, or can work, whether you're tackling King James or King Kirby.

Seeing as it comes down to the ability to laugh at things, it might even be healthy!

Peace.

*And they won't agree about the designations.

On Innocence

A coworker of mine (a fellow student until she finds a "real" job) and I were talking one day about our unseasonably warm weather. It was in the 40s, maybe, and sunny. Not exactly normal for mid-Michigan in January. (You know you're from Michigan when it's 40 degrees F. and you think that's warm.)

This naturally led to thoughts of global warming and half jokes about the impending apocalypse. We're both students of environmental science (her more than me, technically), so this was a natural place for the conversation to go. With me so far?

At this point, I was immediately thinking of DC Vertigo's THE EXTERMINATORS, which had just come out. The whole Man versus Nature theme. It really made sense in the context of our chat. Really, it did. The next day or so, I brought it in for my coworker to read.

THE EXTERMINATORS centers around a reasonably bright ex-con who is starting fresh with a job at his step-father's pest extermination business: Bug-Bee-Gone. Throughout this first issue, Henry muses about Man's place in the world, about fighting nature in a battle (a war, even) that humankind will inevitably lose. He also eviscerates a raccoon, much to his horror and the admiration of his coworkers.

My own coworker's reaction was, essentially, "And I thought you were so innocent." Between the language and the graphic violence (which I had prepared her for), I guess I was surprised at her surprise.

It's kind of funny. Not about the book, though that's funny too. About me. Most people aren't completely innocent. Babies, little kids, some mentally impaired people... They're innocent yes, but most of us? Not particularly innocent. Thing is, I may be more innocent than most. I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, date, even go to parties that don't involve family. By American standards, I really have no life. But we all do have our things, don't we, with which we escape innocence?

And comic books? What a good, safe way to not be totally innocent.

On Accidents of Circumstance

RUNAWAYS Vol. 2, Issue 10. Cloak transports the Runaways from California to the Big Apple, in order that they might assist him in identifying the person who attacked Cloak's partner, Dagger, injuring her and sending her into a coma. Cloak is falsely accused, and the Runaways are resourceful and good at working under the radar. They partner up, Gertrude, Old Lace (in the form of a dog), and Victor go one way, Nico and Chase another. Nico and Chase catch a glimpse of the coolest superheroine ever to grace the pages of Marvel comics, and Nico gets excited. Chase, on the other hand, is not so impressed.



--or get born into a family of mad scientists, Chase?

This one panel really did get me to thinking, though. Just how much of one's life path is dictated purely by chance? We always have a choice, yes, but choice tends to be limited by ability, and ability, to a large degree, is random. Personality. Physical ability. Intelligence. These things are shaped in large part by nature. Genetics, upbringing. I'm leaving the nature versus nurture debate out of this because, frankly, it doesn't apply. It's random any way you slice it. If it's not your family's genes that form the basis of who you are, it's how they brought (or are bringing) you up. And upbringing is a factor of your caregivers' personalities and experiences, which for them is also fairly random. Besides, who chooses one's caregivers?

Confused, yet? Don't worry. I'm kind of confused, too.

So, as far as I'm concerned, Chase didn't choose to be born to evil mad scientist parents any more than, say, Jennifer Walters chose to be born into the same family as Bruce Banner and eventually exposed to gamma radiation. Both characters were provided with what they (personally) needed to become heroes. They didn't have to use what they were given to that end. But they did, didn't they? They both worked to get where they got, and that's not chance. That's choice.

Well, they chose their path with the materials provided them, unless you don't believe in free will at all, in which case they're still on equal footing. Aren't they?