Showing posts with label Superman II. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Superman II. Show all posts

Monday, 9 December 2024

The Black Sheep




Genesis 25:29–34

29. Once when Jacob 
was cooking a stew, Esau 
came in from the field, and 
he was famished

30. Esau said to Jacob
“Let me eat some of that 
red stuff, for I am famished! 
(Therefore he was called Edom.) 

31. Jacob said, First sell 
Me your birthright.”

32. Esau said, “I am about to dieof 
what use is a birthright to Me?”

33. Jacob said, “Swear to Me 
first.” So he swore to him, and 
sold his birthright to Jacob. 

34. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and 
drank, and rose and went his way. 
Thus Esau despised his birthright.







The Black Sheep :


NO, NO,' said my mother, "Jacob was the good son :


But I preferred Esau. Is there a child who can hear 'Bless me, even me also, O My Father’ and does not groan for Esau? And what, after all had the poor Man  done? It is a bad thing to be hungry.


It's a good thing to a shed deathe pomp, the responsibility. the burden of setting a good example. What firstcomer, with a combative, ambitious brother at his heel, does not sometimes long to forget it all and settle for lentil soup?


Besides, there was that business of the goatskins. "Wasn't that cheating?" I asked my mother. And she, ever honest, squirmed and twisted, struggling with her sense of justice, her wish not to set herself up against authority and her natural irritation with an. argumentative child. She could not explain, if indeed she realized it, that Jacob was the great fox of history, the crafty turner of all moral tables, the man of paradox who by stealing a thing that was not his, came to consort with angels - those going up and those going down — and by struggling with one of them, made that thing his own.


She cast around in her pool of maxims and thankfully fished neup. 'Esau,' she said, as though settling the matter for ever, 'Esau was the black sheep of the family. Well, that was something I could accept - and without disloyalty. If Esau was a black sheep, so were all my best-loved friends - Ishmael and the Prodigal Son, Dan in Jo's Boys, Peter Rabbit, my Uncle Cecil and Major Battle.


Uncle Cecil's blackness was a grown-up secret, a thing of nods and becks and hints. All we really knew of it was that he had married — a last straw apparently - a lady whom my mother described as 'some sort of Hindoo. But we well understood Major Battle's weakness. 'Not before the children, said the gossips, tossing their heads and sipping the air in the manner of thirsty geese, And thehildren, neither shocked nor surprised, said to What wasa black sheep lao. mimatio brously, in the general view, one full of iniquity. If so, might I not be one myself, in spite of the tireless efforts of parents, teachers and friends? But wasthe general view the right one? Can leopard change his pots - and it he can, should he? Was a black sheep just a white sheep dirtied or black in his own right - accepting his colour, proud of it and his three bags full of wool? Did there exist another world where black sheep thought of their erring lambs as the white sheep of The Family?


No answer came. Perhaps the question was its own answer and would drop its truit when it ripened. was still many years away from discovering the Chinese symbol of the Great Ultimate, black fish with white eye, white fish with black, the opposites reconciled to themselves and to each other within the encompassing circle.


It was in my future, however, and because it was there it sent back messengers from time to time as a river at its sea-mouth sends back news to the source.


One thing seemed certain - even the nursery rhymes declared it - that for white to be truly white, lily and snow, it needed its dark opposite. Frost and jet between them - attraction, repulsion and interaction - brought forth the ten thousand colours. Good, it seemed, in life as in story, was pallid and colourless. It needed to be touched by bad to blush and know itself. Where would poor Cock Robin have been - an ordinary bird in an ordinary bush - if he had not met the sparrow? All unknown to history; and his funeral dirge - oh, the birds of the air a-sighing and a-sobbin - unwritten and unsung. Who cares about the goodness of Flopsy, Mopsy and Cottontail until it is contrasted with the behaviour of their brother Peter? It does not exist till then.


Indeed, Peter Rabbit in his own miniscule way is one of the true black sheep of literature. Like Alcott's Dan, he retains his integrity against all odds, refusing firmly to conform, withstanding every genteel effort to sickly him o'er with white. Poets are made of the same stuff. There is no easy way home for them, either. They must cut their own path through thorn and thicket, like Uncle Ceci and Major Battle.


No matter on how small a scale — Homer in a paragraph, the world in a grain of sand — the relation between the antagonists con date at the he inconcede on tend gentleman, lom Kitten merely a kitten till Samuel Whiskers and Anna Maria wrapped him up in the dough.


And when I came to the fairy tales there was no change in the established pattern, the landscape merely widened. 'I can't think; said my mother, 'what makes you so fond of Rumpelstiltzkin! The miller's daughter is so much nicer.'


Much nicer, but much less interesting. There were, however, certain maidens who were something more than comely ciphers, those like the Goose Girl and Little Two-Eyes, brave and defenceless as wounded hares; and the peerless, fearless Sleeping Beauty, grasping her fateful spindle. But I care for them and their lovely princes far more now than I did then. If I am true to my memory, the heroes and heroines have all one face, bland and featureless. It is the lineaments of the villains - dwarf, giant and stepmother, wicked fairy, dragon, witch - that leap to me now across the years. Each one is different, each is its own - pitted, grained and cicatriced, battered by passion and power.


Can I have been one of the Devil's party, as Blake said of Milton, finding Adam and Eve so tenuous, Satan so solid, in 'Paradise Lost'? Was I, like Blake's Black Boy, 'bereaved of light'?


It was possible. And if so it had to be borne. What hero - and I, too, was the hero of a story, my own - could do without a villain?

It was the dark ones, after all, on whom everything depended.

They awoke the virtues, imposed the conflict and, by strictly throwing the story forward, brought it to its strict end - the achievement of Happy Ever After. Their frightfulness, for me, had a kind of splendour, absolute and without spot, as it were. It was something one could completely count on, even, in a way, respect.


You, monsters who are about to die, I salute you!


This uncompromising black and white of the fairy tales was what I needed as a child. It gave me a kind of reassurance. Children, beneath their conforming skins, have aboriginal hearts, savage, untutored, magic-ridden. When the old drums beat below the surface, their feet cannot help stamping. It can be frightening, even appalling, to a child to meet in himself the ancestral ghosts. 'Who am I he will ask, in this situation - caught between the world of the sun and the dark corroboree? Am I alone, unique, eccentric, the only one of my kind?'


No, you are not, say the fairy tales. And they bring out their comforting brood of dragons, each with a paladin prince to match.


They put the thing in its proper perspective; for every inner insubstantial shadow they provide a palpable counterpart that will bear examination. Cut out the spectres from the tales — there are those I hear, who would gladly do this while sticking to Herod and the atom bomb - and you cut out their healing meaning.


When one knows that the outer world has dragons — a couple, perhaps, at every corner — it is easier to contemplate the ones within oneself.


Neither Grimm's stories nor any myth frightened me as a child

- not gorgon, Minotaur nor chimera, nor the terrible, beautiful

'Juniper Tree. But the sea-captain behind my door, limping on his left leg and tapping the wall with a pencil — he was another matter.


"You see, said my mother every night, grandly flinging the door wide, 'he's not there — and you know it! I did, indeed, but she was speaking of a real captain. Mine was, alas, inside my head, and that door she couldn't open.


But Grimm is so coarse and blood-bespattered - can you bear the cruelty?' people ask me. I can and could. These stories have grown and are not invented; they are old trees rooted in the folk, massive and monolithic. There is nothing in them that is subjective, or personal or neurotic. Simple, tribal crypto-grams, their cruelty is not for cruelty's sake but to show that life is cruel. 'This is how things are, they say — and how mellifluously they say it! 'The battle of black and white is joined and must be fought to the end. Sit under our shade or go your way, it is all the same to us.'


They make no requirements. One can choose. And how much rather would I see wicked stepmothers boiled in oil — all over in half a second - than bear the protracted agony of the Little Mermaid or the girl who wore the Red Shoes. There, if you like, is cruelty, sustained, deliberate, contrived. Hans Andersen lets no blood. But his tortures, disguised as piety, are subtle, often demoralizing. It is all subjectivity here, a great performer playing the organ, with emphasis on the Vox Humana. Ah, how pleasant to be manipulated, to feel one's heartstrings pulled this way and that - twang, twang, again and again, longing, self-pity, nostalgia, remorse — and to let fall the fullsome tear that would never be shed for Grimm.


I enjoyed it. I even wallowed in it, yet I never could quite understand why I felt no better for it. Perhaps I missed the pagan world with its fortitude and strong contrasts. I and my soul were one there, but Andersen seemed to separate us. He suggested instead - how coaxingly - that I should not try to fight with dragons but just be a dear good child. He reminded me, sweetly, of the rewards and what, alas, awaited me if I should happen to fail. But his characters were so enervating, I needed more bracing companionship - a giant, perhaps, and a witch or two. There were no black sheep in Andersen - he would have found the idea distasteful. (You can't count the Ugly Duckling, for he was really a swan.) They were all white sheep, some clean, some dirty, but a homogeneous flock.


Nor could Hans Andersen have invented, I thought - he wouldn't even have wanted to — a villain strong and dark and lovely and worthy to be loved. For me there was such a one in Grimm, the 13th Wise Woman in 'Little Briar Rose, or, as she is more popularly known, the Wicked Fairy in 'The Sleeping Beauty.' To begin with, she was a victim of chance. The King had only 12 gold plates. Someone had to be left out. It might have been any of the others but it happened to be she. And because of that, to the end of time, men would scorn and point at her and spit upon her shadow. None of them would stop to think that if she had not brought her gift of death, Beauty would neither have slept nor awakened. There had, I knew, to be instruments - things were made wrong that they might come right - and the lot had fallen to her. For this unluck I pitied her, and because I pitied her floved her, and because I loved her she had to be blameless.


'You love the Wicked Fairy?' said my parents, raising their eyebrows at each other. Had they a crow in a swan's nest? It seemed only too likely. I had to bear the opprobrium, since I couldn't deny what my heart said. And because I bore it, the Wicked Fairy - or so it seemed to me then - loosed for me many many secrets.


I saw that she and her 12 sisters, constantly exchanging roles, played every part there was. Myth, fairy-tale, life — it was all the same. The 13 wise women were nymph, mother, crone, goddess;

Kore, Demeter and Astarte, the Witches, the Fates and the Furies.


They birthed the babe, blessed the bride-bed and swaddled the corpse for its clay cradle.


Their business was the whole of life. And in another story on another day, the 13th would perhaps be the Good Fairy and another sister would turn the key that set the wheel in motion.

She did not need my love and pity, but I had to feed them both in myself in order to see her plain.


Plain? She was crystal! A tall, glass, shiny mountain from which I could see with a new eye the world of fairy tale Hero apositions. white sheep and black, there they stood in their fixed positions, opposite and separate and yet not unrelated. Rather, they were two ends of the stick, thrust away from and drawn to each other because of the stick itself.


And what of the stick, the space between, that divides and also connects? Here again was my old question and I carry it with me still. Somewhere, I thought, in my childishness, there is a place between North and South, where all opposing brothers meet, where black and white meet, where black and white sheep lie down together, where St George has no enmity to the dragon and the dragon agrees to be slain.


* What happened to Esau?' I asked my mother.

She smiled as one bringing good news.


* After Jacob wrestled with the angel, Esau came to him with his arms wide and fell on his neck and kissed him.' So - the wheel had turned. The story had run its full course, through discord to harmony, through conflict to Happy Ever After.


‘O my shadow, I said to myself, I will not let thee go except thou bless me'


First published in The New York Times: 1965.

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

The Incorrigibles

Superman 2 - Lex Luthor talking with Jor-El




LEX: 
It's unbelievable, but it's True. 
Kryptonian alpha waves, three sets of them.

MS. TESSMACHER: 
I didn't know Superman had relatives!


LEX: 
He doesn't! 
It's The Villains, The Incorrigibles!

[She nods.]

LEX: 
These three little sweethearts are 
on their way here. 

Do you realize what They're going to do? 
They're going to give me The World!

MS. TESSMACHER: 
But Lex, you don't even like The World.

LEX: 
The World, Ms. Tessmacher, 
is Real Estate. 
Lots and lots of Real Estate.

MS. TESSMACHER: 
Land, land, land, it's always land!

LEX: 
Which They'll Develop for Me
As soon as We take over, 
I'll get rid of Superman, 
I'll put Them to Work. 

Super-construction crew! 
...DE-struction crew! 

They'll Level Forests, Move Mountains, 
Create New Coastlines!

MS. TESSMACHER: 
Oh, here we go again...

LEX: 
...Thanks to The Help of Superman. 
He set Them free. 
Lex, baby, you're a hell of a fella... 
even when you lose, you win!

[They get back on the snowmoboat. Lex points to his left.]

LEX: 
South, Ms. Tessmacher. 
South... to Victory!

MS. TESSMACHER: 
Lex...

[She points to their right.]

MS. TESSMACHER: 
South.

LEX: 
Ms. Tessmacher? 
A mouth full of mink?

[He laughs, and she laughs nervously along with him.]

LEX: 
Right.

[We then get the shot of them on the snowmoboat used in the theatrical release, the lines for which are quoted above. Except here, all Lex says is...]

LEX: 
South, Ms. Tessmacher. South!

Wednesday, 20 May 2020

The Ongoing Pussification of The American Superhero


“We’d spent many enjoyable hours in conversation, working out how to restore our beloved Superman to his pre-eminent place as The World’s First and Best Superhero. 

Following the lead of the Lois and Clark TV show, the comic-book Superman had, at long last, put A Ring on his long-suffering girlfriend’s finger and carried her across the threshold to holy matrimony after six decades of dodging The Issue — although it was Clark Kent whom Lois married in public, while Superman had to conceal his wedding band every time he switched from his sober suit and tie. 
 


This newly domesticated Superman was a somehow diminished figure
 

 All but sleepwalking through a sequence of increasingly contrived “event” story lines, which tried in vain to hit the heights of 
The Death of Superman
seven years previously. 

Superman Now was to be a reaction against this often overemotional and ineffectual Man of Steel, reuniting him with his mythic potential, his archetypal purpose, but there was one fix we couldn’t seem to wrap our collective imagination around: The Marriage. 

The Clark-Lois-Superman Triangle — 
“Clark loves Lois. 
Lois loves Superman. 
Superman loves Clark,”

 as Elliot S. Maggin put it in his intelligent, charming Superman novel Miracle Monday — seemed intrinsic to the appeal of the stories, but none of us wanted to simply undo the relationship using sorcery, or “Memory Wipes,” or any other of the hundreds of cheap and unlikely magic-wand plot devices we could have dredged up from the bottom of the barrel.”

- Grant Morrison,
SuperGods


“Here’s another horrifying example, an aspect of American culture, The Continued Pussification of The American Male in the form of 
Harley Davidson Theme Restaurants. 

What the fuck is going on here? 
Harley Davidson used to mean something. 

It stood for biker attitude; grimy outlaws in their sweaty mamas full of beer and crank, rolling around on Harleys, looking for a Good Time – Destroying Property, Raping Teenagers, and Killing Policemen… 
All very necessary activities by the way. 
 
 
"And I wonder, too, like how much of the antipathy towards. . . 

These are dark musings. And I would say, how much of the antipathy towards men that’s being generated by, say, college-age women is deep repugnance for the role that they’ve been designed, and a disappointment with the men. . . You know, you think of those. . . I can’t remember the culture. 

The basic marital routine was to ride into The Village and grab the bride and run away with her on a horse. 

It’s like the motorcycle gang member who rips the too-naive girl out of the bosom of her family

Paglia: Yeah, there used to be Bride Stealing. It was quite widespread. 

Peterson: Right, so I kind of wonder if part of the reason that modern university women aren’t so angry is because that fundamental Feminine Role is actually being denied to them. 

And they’re objecting to that at a really, really fundamental level. 

Like a level of Primitive Outrage.
 



“There's Two Things that the Postmodern NeoMarxists are full-scale assaulting :

One is Categorisation, because They believe that 
The Only Function of Categorisation is POWER.

The other is,
There's a War on Competence -

Because, if you admit that there are hierarchical structures that are predicated upon Competence, 
then you have to grapple with the issue of Competence, 
and you have to grapple with the issue of Valid Hierarchy.

If All Hierarchy is Power
and
All Power is Corrupt
and
All Corrupt Power is Tyranny

then, you can't admit to Competence.

But the downside is, there's a terrible price to be paid for that, because 
Every Value System Produces a Hierarchy.

So if you dispense with the hierarchy, 
You dispense with The Value Systems.



“The rise of the new feminism, the protest movements of ethnic, national and sexual minorities, the anti-institutional ecology struggles waged by marginalized layers of the population, the anti-nuclear movement, the atypical forms of social struggle in countries on the capitalist periphery — all these imply an extension of social conflictuality to a wide range of areas, which creates the potential, but no more than the potential, for an advance towards more free, democratic and egalitarian societies.”


The Point is that these new Groups of People could be Useful.

Douglas Murray,
The Madness of Crowds










[We finally find Peter lying on a mat and doing sit-ups. Ned is holding his legs in place for him.]

Ned:
Hey, can I be your 
Guy in The Chair?

Peter:
What?

Ned:
Yeah. You know how there’s 
A Guy With a Headset
Telling The Other Guy Where to Go?

[Peter’s face contorts into a weird expression. He is still doing sit-ups faster than any other student.]

Ned:
Like, like if you’re stuck in a burning building, I could tell you where to go. 

Because there’d be screens around me, and I could, you know, swivel around, and... 

‘Cause I could be your 
Guy in The Chair.

Peter:
Ned, 

I don’t need a Guy in The Chair.

Coach Wilson: 
Looking good, Parker.

[The teacher points at Peter as he passes the mat that Peter and Ned are working out on. Peter glances at him, then frowns and takes a huffing breath, trying to look as if the exercise is really taking a toll on him.]



“That’s another issue I want to bring up, because one of the things I cannot figure out is the alliance between the postmodernists and the neo-Marxists. 

I can’t understand the causal relationship.
 
Tell me if you disagree with this, okay, because I’m a psychologist, not a sociologist. 
 
So I’m dabbling in things that are outside of my field of expertise. And there is some danger in that.

But The Central Postmodernist Claim seems to me that because there’s a near infinite number of ways to interpret a complex set of phenomena - which actually happens to be the case - you can’t make a case that any of those modes of interpretation are canonical
 
And so, if they’re not canonical, and if that canonical element isn’t based in some kind of Reality, then it serves some Other Master.


And so The Master that it hypothetically serves for The Postmodernists is  
Nothing but Power
because that seems to be Everything That They Believe in. 


They Don’t Believe in Competence. 

They Don’t Believe in Authority. 

They Don’t seem to Believe in 
An Objective World
because everything is language-mediated. 

So it’s an extraordinarily cynical
perspective: that because there’s an infinite number of interpretations, none of them
are canonical


You can attribute everything to 
Power and Dominance.

Does that seem like a reasonable summary of the postmodern. . .


Paglia:
Yes, exactly. 
It’s a Radical Relativism.


Peterson:
Okay, it’s a Radical Relativism. 
Now, but The Strange Thing is, despite. . .


Okay, and so what goes along with that is the demolition of Grand Narratives. 

So that would be associated, for example, with the rejection of thinkers like Jung and Erich Neumann, because of course they’re foundational thinkers in relationship to the idea that there are embodied Grand Narratives. 

That’s never touched.

But then, despite the fact that the Grand Narrative is rejected, there’s a neo-Marxism that’s tightly, tightly allied with postmodernism that also seems to shade into this strange Identity Politics. 

And I don’t. . . Two things. 
I don’t understand 
the causal relationship there. 

The Skeptical Part of me thinks that Postmodernism was an
intellectual. . . 

It’s intellectual camouflage for the continuation of the kind of pathological Marxism that produced the Soviet Union, and has no independent existence as an intellectual field whatsoever


But I still can’t understand how The Postmodernists can make the “no grand narrative” claim, but then immerse themselves in this Grand Narrative without anyone pointing out the self-evident contradictions. 

I don’t understand that. 

So What Do You Think About That?



Gamora: 
What was that story you once told me about Zardu Hasselfrau?

Quill: 
Who?

Gamora: 
He owned a magic boat?

Quill: [long pause] 
David Hasselhoff....?

Gamora: 
Right.

Quill: 
Not a Magic Boat — 
A Talking CAR.

Gamora: 
Why did The Car talk again...?

Quill: 
To help him FIGHT •CRIME•, 
and to be •supportive•!

Gamora: 
As a child, you would carry his picture in your pocket… and you would tell all the other children… that he was your father, but that he was out of town.....

Quill: 
...shooting Knight Rider or touring with his band in Germany. 

I told you that when I was drunk. 

Why are you bringing that up now?

Gamora: 
I •love• that story.

Quill: 
I •hate• that story. It’s so •sad•...!

As a kid, I used to see all the other kids off playing catch with their dad. 

And I wanted that, more than anything in The World!

Gamora: 
That’s my point, Peter. 
What if this man is your Hasselhoff? 

If he ends up being Evil… 
We will just kill him.