« October 2009 | Main | December 2009 »
The history of superhero comics has always, in the usual fable, seemed quite straight-forward. Jerry Siegel and his drawing partner Joe Shuster created Superman, which they finally got into print with the first issue of Action Comics, cover-dated June 1938. Nothing much happened right away until the next spring, when Bob Kane and Bill Finger concocted Batman in Detective Comics No. 27, cover-dated May 1939. Like Superman, Batman wore a costume and had a secret civilian identity, but Batman had no superpowers; his considerable physical and mental prowess he acquired through constant training. With the arrival of Batman, in the customary rehearsal of subsequent events, the floodgates opened, and a host of long underwear characters began cavorting across the four-color pages of comic book after comic book as other publishers sought financial benefits from the new recipe.
As I said in my book, The Art of the Comic Book, roughly in
order of appearance came Fantom of the Fair, Masked Marvel, the Flame, Green
Mask, Blue Beetle, Amazing Man, Cat Man, the Sandman, Hourman, the Human Torch,
Submariner, Dollman, Captain Marvel, Flash, Hawkman, the Spectre, Ultra Man,
Plastic Man, Green Lantern, and on and on.
Of the lot, perhaps the only distinctive creations were Quality's
Plastic Man and Fawcett's Captain Marvel, about whom, more in a trice.
But
shorthand history can be deceiving. The aforementioned caped and spandexed
crime-fighting athletes came along after Superman, that’s true. What’s
typically left out of the ritual recital are numerous others of the breed who
came along after mild-mannered Clark
The rest of Sadowski’s roll call commences after Superman’s June 1938 debut, starting with Bill Everett’s Dirk the Demon in November 1938 and proceeding through the Flame by Will Eisner and Lou Fine, Eisner’s Yarko the Great, Rex Dexter of Mars, Cosmic Carson by Jack Kirby, Stardust the Super Wizard by the incomparably wooden renderer Fletcher Hanks, the Shield, the Comet by Jack Cole, Eisner’s Flint Baker, Fero (Planet Detective), Fantomah by Hanks, Marvelo, the Face, Skyman (by Ogden Whitney, the cleanest line then in comics), the Claw and Silver Streak and Daredevil all by Cole, Spacehawk by Basil Wolverton, Everett’s Sub Zero, the Blue Bolt by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. An impressive line-up of names that echo only faintly today.
This is a valuable historical document and a superlative publishing achievement. The pages are shot directly from their first printed appearance in comic books, a practice that I’ve been touting for nearly thirty years, and DC has yet to take my advice with its Archive books. Shooting from the original published comic book pages preserves all the blemishes of that initial publication, but those, judging from the pages at hand, are remarkably few (and many of them have been removed when these pages were scanned), and the benefit is worth the cost: we see the artwork as it first appeared in public. And it’s better than we’ve been led to believe.
Comic books have always carried the stigma of being cheaply published on newsprint, a porous pulp paper, but the quality of the printing was actually remarkably high, belying the rotten reputation.
Jonathan Lethem’s Foreword is appropriately appreciative of the genre, but Sadowski’s notes at the end of the book are encyclopedic, a veritable capsule history of the early comic book. I also applaud his selection of material throughout. He’s included a few covers and some advertising from the interior pages of his sources, which enhances the value of the volume as history.
(I suppose I should confess that my celebrated objectivity as a reviewer may be compromised by Sadowski’s having quoted me in his notes and by his being associate editor and designer of the interior of my book, Meanwhile: A Biography of Milton Caniff. But now, having ’fessed up, I don’t feel any better, and you’re probably none the wiser however better informed you may be.) Sadowski hopes a second volume will be published, permitting him to visit superheroes he had to overlook this time.
From the University Press of Mississippi (one of my
publishers) comes Alan Moore: Comics as
Performance, Fiction as Scalpel (212 6x9-inch pages, b/w illos; paperback,
$22; unjacketed cloth, $50), the Italy-based Annalisa DiLiddo argues, as the press release explains, “that Moore
employs the comics form to dissect the literary canon, the tradition of comics,
contemporary society, and our understanding of history. ... The book considers
Moore’s narrative strategies and pinpoints the main thematic threads in his
works: the subversion of genre and pulp fiction; the interrogation of superhero
tropes; the manipulation of space and time; the uses of magic and mythology;
the instability of gender and ethnic identity; and satire that is build on
allusive, dense imagery that comments on politics and art history.” If you can
fathom the meaning of such terms as “chronotopes,” a beribboned word
encompassing comics’ capacity to use space as a way of pacing, or timing,
events in a narrative, then you’ll doubtless enjoy revisiting such Moore
classics as Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta,
Watchmen, From Hell, Promethea, and
Lost Girls as well as some of Moore’s lesser lights, Halo Jones, Skizz, and Big
Numbers.
DiLiddo quotes
Every writer dreams of having an impact upon the culture
around him, so I must confess to an insidious sense of gratification brought on
by the realization that my ranting recently about the declining number of
cartoons in Playboy has had an
impact: to make up for the neglect of the last several issues, the new
management has put a cartoon character on the cover of the November issue. A
first. Drawn by Julius Preite, Marge
Simpson, the matriarch of the first family of Springfield, is on display — seated
on a bunny-headed chair that coyly nearly obscures the fact that she’s sitting
there unencumbered by any raiment whatsoever except the ever-present blue hair
arising from her scalp in a cascading pile. (The pose and cover composition
echo the October 1971 cover on which an African American pin-up sat on the same
chair, her Afro hair-do being the most conspicuous of her attributes.) And
Marge is inside the magazine, too, “gracing” (as they say there) the gatefold
spread, encumbered by the usual Playmate bio and mock interview. Although the advance publicity about the
November issue said the gatefold wouldn’t “bare all” — the nudity, the magazine
said, was only “implied” — not much of Marge is left to the imagination: she’s
wearing a see-through nightie, and we can tell that she has nipples.
The attendant publicity failed to mention that the Marge cover is but one of two November covers: the other one, depicting lingerie model Alina Puscau in her underwear, is on the magazines sent to Playboy subscribers (which account for about 40 percent of the magazine’s circulation); Marge appears on the newsstand edition, seductively tagged “Collector’s Edition” in the expectation that it will be purchased by swarms of new, young, heavy-breathing readers.
The Marge
stunt is "obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek," said Playboy
Enterprises’ new CEO, Scott Flanders, interviewed by Sandra Guy at the
It’s this
kind of so-called reasoning that sends shivers up my erstwhile spine. woman on the cover? Don’t I wish.
Where did this guy grow up? Red-blooded hormone-infected young American males always
opt for barenekidwimmin. Always. And Marge’s blue hair doesn’t help: blue hair
is the badge of the elderly femme. I don’t care how many nipples she displays:
Marge is an old woman, a pin-up for senior citizens. Or, we must allow, cartoon
fans.
But before we abandon Marge to her fate, here’s a new book, arriving just in time to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Matt Groening’s creation: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History is John Ortved’s round-up of witnesses, each telling their tales about how Groening and his crew created one of the most successful tv shows in the history of the medium. Reviewing it in Entertainment Weekly, Ken Tucker applauds this “gloriously windy oral history crammed with behind-the-scenes squabbles and power grabs” while also warning the reader against accepting too readily some of the negative stuff, “particularly when sources assert that Groening is little more than an affable frontman for the show.” Says Tucker about the victims of such back-stabbing: “These guys aren’t there to defend themselves [Groening and some other key players didn’t testify]. ... In most cases though, Ortved amasses quotes from many sources to establish such points so the negative stuff doesn’t seem gratuitous.”
Archie Andrews’ matrimonial adventure, a patently obvious
publicity stunt from the get-go, has developed some much less obvious aspects
than the initial blasts of publicity had us expecting. Archie proposes to
Veronica in Archie No. 600 and
marries her in No. 601, and the series has four more issues to run. What’s
next? Plenty, as it turns out. Bigamy. Yup: next, Archie will marry
girl-next-door Betty, who, until now, we’d thought had lost out to that
sloe-eyed vixen, Veronica. To see how this is all possible, you’ll have to buy
all the issues in the 6-issue series. Or you can consult the
The
storytelling in this Archie series, except for the visual staging by Stan Goldberg, is vacuous enough, but
writer Michael Uslan’s plot is
commendably ingenious. Two issues of jejune comedy careening headlong, page
after unrelenting page, was more than I can usually stomach, but Uslan managed
a couple of turns that kept me from throwing up. No. 601, for instance, opens
on the wedding day with Archie, Jug, Reggie, Moose and the rest of the groom’s
gang donning tuxedos, and when Archie complains about his collar being too
stiff, Reggie blurts out what seems a lame joke but is the issue’s best albeit
entirely subversive gag: “From now on, we’re gonna call you ‘Starchie,’” he
says, invoking the name of Mad’s Archie
parody and, thereby, alluding to the infamous humorlessness of Archie Comics,
which eventually succeeded in enjoining Harvey
Kurtzman and Will Elder from
ever again publishing the most exasperating of their Archie spoofs, the Goodman
Beaver story that was actually ribbing Hugh
Hefner and Playboy, not Archie.
In it, the “Archie” character was an unalloyed pill-popping dope-smoking
hedonist — a circumstance casting so many aspersions on the Archie iconography
that John Goldwater, the company’s last patriarch, couldn’t take it and resorted
to the courts to stifle such malfeasance in all our futures forevermore. I’m
surprised Uslan managed to sneak that joke through so straitlaced and rigid an
editorial review, but he did, and I was delighted to encounter it. (The Comics Journal, daringly enough,
reprinted the verboten story in No. 262.)
For my exploration of how Uslan manages to get Archie married to two women without divorcing either, beam up to Opus 249 of the online magazine, Rants & Raves, where, until December 9, we have proclaimed “Open Sesame”: whenever you run into a Subscriber/Member wall, behave as if you are a member, then use Jingle as your ID, and Jangle as your Password. That will give you access to current and archived Rants & Raves, plus all of Harv’s Hindsights, the history and biography department.
The Comics Journal
is changing. Again. It is always changing. It has never stood still for more
than a year or so. Every change over the years aimed at meeting new
circumstances in the evolving comics market place. A couple years ago, the
magazine abandoned saddle-stitch binding in favor of a square-back spine and
reduced its trim size to 6x9 inches — book-size — and, as we mentioned here soon
thereafter, it put the magazine’s name and issue contents on a 3x4-inch sticker
on the cover; the sticker could be peeled off, and you might then think you
were holding a paperback book in your hands instead of a square-spine magazine.
The object was to make The Comics Journal
viable in bookstore settings: on the shelf, if you peeled off the sticker,
it would look pretty much like a paperback book, not a magazine. And to some
extent, the strategy worked: publisher Gary Groth reported that the magazine
experienced in increase of a thousand or so issues every month.
And now the
Journal is taking yet another step in
the same direction. As soon as issue No. 300 is out (not long now), the
“magazine” will shift to semi-annual publication in print while simultaneously
ramping up the TCJ.com website. The print version of the Journal will be variable in
design, its shape and format changing to fit its content, which will continue
to be interviews, essays, and “objets d’art” (vintage comics and cartoons), but
the writing will be longer and meatier and aimed at archival permanence. Like a
book, in other words. The digital Journal,
on the other hand, will take advantage of the Web’s immediacy: online, the
magazine will change daily, constantly up-dating itself with breaking news
coverage, new and established bloggers, plus interviews, columns, and criticism
in text and videos, slide shows, audio files, and galleries of original-art.
Summarizing
the print plan during an interview, Groth said: “If we can assemble the
magazine at a more leisurely pace — rather than the breakneck pace that we've
worked at for 33 years (that's the royal we; i.e., mostly me and a succession
of poor, burnt-out editors) — we'll put out a better magazine. I hesitate to call
it a magazine, too: it'll be distributed to the book trade by W.W. Norton and
will retail for a minimum of $20.” It’ll be a book.
When they told me and other regular contributors a few weeks ago of the impending change, I remarked that I thought it ironic in a mildly amusing way that a magazine that has established itself with criticism and commentary on a print medium, comic books, is now investing heavily in a non-print edition on the Web. Okay, everyone’s doing it. But that doesn’t make the maneuver any the less ironic. Ironic but, probably, ultimately, canny. And successful: I’ve been around the Journal through almost all of its changes over the years, and most of them, it seems to me, have worked to the magazine’s advantage. In any case, it’s been challenging and deeply gratifying to work for a periodical that has never been content to sit back on its laurels.
In October a week of comic strips about volunteerism was instigated by the National Cartoonists Society (NCS) at the prompting of Luann’s Greg Evans, who afterwards wrote to thank everyone who participated, passing along the heartfelt thanks of Bill Hoogterp (a volunteerism honcho, I guess), who coordinated the effort and, afterwards, said: "Please, please, please pass on our tremendous thanks to the members of NCS. We have gotten so much positive response! Millions of people are talking about volunteering. NCS did the impossible, you made volunteering more cool! People are calling and signing up to make a difference at countless local agencies. All because of you guys. The world is a little better place today because the world’s greatest cartoonists gave of their talent and touched people in a way that only you can. And your gags were great! Just heard from J.J. Abrams also, who sends his regards and thanks as well!"
Then Evans appended a strange footnote: “I'd just like to add something here. I want to apologize to any of you who got the kind of irate email I got last week. It never occurred to me that this effort would be viewed with a political skew and that it would be perceived as ‘kowtowing to Big Government.’ I just thought we were doing a good thing, not being ‘commies.’ So sorry.”
Is there to be no end to the bellyaching being performed from sea to shining sea by the Gripy Old Pachyderm and its many malcontented minions? What next?
Cartoonists’ good deeds are not confined to the funnies
page. Recently, Stars & Stripes
reported, some of
Several of
the cartoonists with blogs —
For the Whole Story of how the cartooner club came into being, visit Harv’s Hindsight at the Usual Place and look for “Rube Goldberg and the NCS.”
The love
affair of his life began early and lasted long. Born July 5, 1933, Shel Dorf
said he was “born again” when he saw his first comic strips at about the age of
six — a book of Katzenjammer Kids reprints. When he was seven, he bought his
first comic book — Sure Fire, No. 1,
cover-dated June 1940. Hooked, he spent his 25-cent weekly allowance on the
four-color pulps — Superman, Action, Blue
Beetle, Super Comics, Disney titles, Captain
Marvel, Bullet Man, Doll Man, Batman — or on movies. By the time he was ten,
he was clipping comic strips out of the newspapers in his hometown,
Shel went
to the nation’s first comic-con, staged in downtown
As Entertainment Weekly’s cryptic 2009 history of the event notes: “In the last decade, Comic-Con has exploded into the most important pop culture event on Hollywood’s calendar — a frenzied marketing free-for-all where, each July, major studios and networks flaunt their coolest new projects, trying to woo an audience of 125,000 sci-fi, fantasy, and horror fans.”
Shel
watched it and wasn’t entirely thrilled: “
The supreme
irony of Shel’s last years is that what happened to him echoed the original sin
in the comics industry. The industry’s continued prosperity has been built upon
the four-color fantasies of do-gooders in brightly colored costumes, all
inspired, at first, by the startling newsstand success of Superman, invented by
two
Like Siegel
and Shuster and scores of syndicated comic strip cartoonists (whose syndicates,
until recently, owned their creations), Shel was not able to enjoy a reward
commensurate with his creation. The Comic-Con had fostered the careers of
scores of cartoonists, writers, movie producers and actors. But not Shel. Like
Siegel and Shuster in the years before Warner granted them pensions, Shel was
virtually penniless. And ill, suffering from diabetes. You’d think (wouldn’t
you?) that Comic-Con officials, fans enough of the medium to know the shameful
treatment that Siegel and Shuster endured before the pensions — you’d think those
Comic-Con officials wouldn’t want to be guilty of the same original sin and
would award the founder a pension. And, indeed, they tried. But Shel was a
proud and stubborn man, and he resisted attempts to alleviate his situation.
At the end, though, he knew he was loved. One of Shel’s earliest cohorts, Mike Towry, who was publicity chairman for the first Cons while 15 and 16 years old, said when he heard Shel had died: “He was a completely generous person who was wholly devoted to furthering the comic arts, bringing the fans and the professionals together. He never made a dime off Comic-Con.” Mark Evanier, a comedy and comics writer who was involved in the Con variously from almost its beginning, saw the truth about the Comic-Con and its founder: “The guy just lived and breathed comics his whole life. The Con was built on his passion and his cheerleading.”
For
the Whole Story of the founding of the Con and Shel Dorf’s life (with lots of
pictures of the comic strip we worked on together), consult the
Another production of the University Press of Mississippi
(one of my publishers) that I look forward to perusing is God of Comics: Osamu Tezuka and
the Creation of Post-World War II Manga (218 6x9-inch pages, some b/w
illos; paperback, $25; unjacketed cloth, $50) in which Natsu Onoda Power, a visiting assistant professor at Georgetown
University, chronicles the life and work of the man who unquestionably created
modern comics in Japan. In this, one of the first English-language studies of
the famed cartoonist’s entire body of work, Power emphasizes Tezuka’s use of
“intertextuality,” the practice of employing other cultural products (such as
film, theater, opera and literature) to enrich a narrative. In “The Monster on
the 38th Parallel,” for example, Tezuka duplicates exactly the final
scene of the Orson Welles-Joseph Cotton film, “The Third Man,” in which the
hero’s presumed love interest walks by him without acknowledging him, thereby
destroying his hopes for a future with her. By mimicking this scene (“a film
quotation,” Power says), Tezuka presumably imparts to his story some of the
emotion of the Welles film’s conclusion; but even if his readers have never
seen the earlier live-action movie, that icy last sequence speaks volumes
in itself. Tezuka also enabled readers
to develop “intimate relationships” with his world by the habitual use of stock
characters and recurrent visual jokes that created “a coherent world that
encompasses all of this works.” One chapter is provocatively entitled “Low
Humor/High Drama: The Two Faces of Adult Comics.” Can’t wait to get into that.
By the way, but not at all incidentally, the FCC has recently ruled that bloggers must disclose any payola with which they are showered. Many of the books I review hereabouts, I purchase out of my own hard-earned lucre, but I frequently review books by various of my publishers (and I usually indicate that relationship, as I have here), and while no publisher is gifting me with new muscle cars or vacations in exotic lands — or outright money — many of the books I review have been sent to me as review copies, without charge. Payola, no doubt. In the spirit of the FCC ruling and in the interest of purity and simplicity, I think you should assume that all books I review were sent to me gratis, as review copies. There. Having confessed my taint, I am henceforth pure.
The fourth book in the Wimpy
series, Dog Days, was released
October 12 with a first printing of 4 million copies, up from the previously
announced 3 million. I haven’t read any of these phenomena at any length yet.
I’ve read a few pages, though, enough to know they aren’t comic books or
graphic novels: they’re illustrated text stories, and to call them graphic
novels is to insult graphic novelists like, f’instance, Jeff Smith. His Bone: Crown
of Horns, the final volume in the Bone saga, stood at thirteenth on PW Comics Week’s list last May.
Nexus: As It Happened,
Volume One (206 6x9-inch pages, b/w; paperback, $9.99) begins reprinting an
early phenomena of comics fandom and the ground-level fan press, Steve Rude and Mike Baron’s driven superhero, Nexus, whose inner demons make him
judge, jury and executioner of vile criminals who appear in his dreams. A
compelling concept beautifully executed in the original, here Rude’s finer
visual points are lost, regrettably, on pages too small to showcase the art in
these stories, from the first in 1981 through the seventh in 1983. Other
reprint volumes are in the offing, I suppose; but they, if they adhere to the
mold of the first in the series, will likewise disappoint.
For the
next few decades, he produced more comic strips about the three potheads,
denominated, for all time, “the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers,” a trio
consisting of Phineas Freakears, Freewheelin’ Franklin, and Fat Freddy, who,
eventually, had a cat. The Brothers made their comic book debut in Feds ’n’ Heads (wherein Wonder Wart-Hog
also appears) in the spring of 1968, just about the time Robert Crumb produced Zap
Comix No. 1. Underground comix were officially off and running. In order to
sell some of the comic books,
Some of
this tale is rehearsed in a book of mine, The
Art of the Comic Book, which is copiously described and simultaneously
offered for sale at the
All of the pages of this book are numbered, one number to each page, but I
can’t imagine why: there’s no table of contents and the page numbers are never,
otherwise, referred to. So why number them? Because, as any pothead knows,
books have page numbers, and this production, kimo sabe, is a book, a fat
stubby 7x10x1-inch door-stopper of a tome, which I bought (for $35 list price)
so I’ll have a Freak Brothers source at hand, should I ever need one. You may
want it for the same purpose or to enjoy
A book I can’t wait to get into is The Art of Harvey Kurtzman: The Mad Genius of Comics by Denis Kitchen and Paul Buhle from Abrams Comicarts (254 giant 10.5x11-inch landscape
pages, color where necessary; hardcover, $40). A biography of the stylistic
wunderkind and protean comedic genius as well as a copious scrapbook sampling
Kurtzman’s oeuvre from early to late — including much that has never seen
publication before — this tome is the book I have probably been waiting for since
1952, when Mad first appeared in the
magazine rack at the corner drugstore at 25th and Sheridan in the
holy city of Old Edgewater. No, I haven’t actually read any of the text in the
book, but Kitchen is involved, and if we are to judge from his exhaustive and
exact work in previous books (like Playboy’s
Little Annie Fanny in two annotated volumes), we’ll find many treasures
herein — such as, bless me, the hitherto unpublished three-page Little Annie Fanny origin story in which
Our Heroine reminisces about her life, her
recollections taking visual form in
panels drawn in the manner of Al Capp,
Harold Gray (if you can’t imagine him drawing a buxom Annie, you need this
book for the evidence), Charles Schulz,
Mort Walker’s Beetle Bailey, and Lee Falk’s Mandrake. In addition to samples of the usual array of Kurtzman
productions — Mad, Trump, Help, Humbug
(another treat, Fantagraphics’ reprinting of the entire run of this classic
magazine) — we get glimpses of his advertising art, his army cartoons, the work
of Louis Ferstadt, an artist and
packager of comic book stories (the Ferstadt sample so rare that it wasn’t
listed in Overstreet until the Price
Guide’s 6th edition — see what I mean about Kitchen’s vacuuming
research?), John Severin’s picture
of the chaos at the Charles William Harvey Commercial Art Studio, some of
Kurtzman’s “serious” comic book art, his layouts for other EC artists to follow
exactly in drawing stories for Two-Fisted
Tales and Frontline Combat, and
plenty of funny pages rendered in his best manic manner. A delection. I can’t
wait.
Here’s a fresh look at comix from Abrams ComicArts, Underground Classics: The Transformation of
Comics into Comix (9x12-inch pages, many in color; hardback, $29.95). At
just 144 pages, the book is scarcely a comprehensive over-view published for
its own sake; it is, rather, the catalogue for an exhibition of original
underground comix art at the Chazen Museum of Art in
Jay
Lynch, reviewing his own pioneering engagement with the movement, waxes
nicely nostalgic, dwelling on the early history of the genre with a view from
inside (but slipping momentarily to misstate the date of Zap Comix No. 1, citing 1967 instead of 1968). Trina Robbins does a similar inside job but with an emphasis on the
struggle of women cartoonists to impinge upon what was then (and to a large
extent still is) a male-dominated art form in which women, when depicted, are
degraded and abused. Denis Kitchen teams
with journalism professor James Danky,
his co-editor for the book, reflecting on the license ug cartoonists enjoyed,
expressing themselves and their unconventional attitudes in their art, as they
developed a business acumen while the burgeoning comix phenomenon exploded
around them. Patrick Rozenkranz, who
has spent 40 years admiring underground comix and writing about them while
earning his living in sundry film appreciation endeavors, is more analytical:
he attempts to credit the iconoclastic impulses of underground comix for
subsequent societal changes, but by telescoping history to create direct
cause-and-effect links, he leaves out many contributing factors.
In his
essay, the longest in the book, Paul
Buhle, a senior lecturer in history at And in trying often to realize a psychedelic LSD vision, comix
contributed innovative visuals to match their revolutionary content. Buhle’s
ringing conclusion is only slightly marred by his mistaken belief in the
worn-out tradition that Mad adopted a
magazine format in order to escape censorship. In the last analysis, Buhle
concludes roundly, comix “were the artistic outpourings of a lost generation,
able to achieve only a portion of what the comix revolution of 1969 had
promised and would have delivered, in other circumstances, on talent alone.
There were so many large losses in those years — the receding waves of social
transformation, the transfer of ‘sexual freedom’ into license, the vogue of LSD
into cocaine, the reconsolidation of corporate prestige in Ronald Reagan and
the restart of the Cold War — that a tragedy in the vernacular art world (or any
art world) cannot be taken too seriously.” But for those who pored over these
artifacts “with enthusiasm and an adult awareness that the vernacular was
reaching up toward a reconciliation of the artists’ hand and the intellectuals’
vision,” the loss “was a blow not to be underestimated.” But there’s hope:
“Just now — beyond midlife, thirty years on, with the Web at full cruising speed
and the promise of a new graphic novel art on the horizon — we may be
recovering.”
For the first two weeks in August, Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury
focused on the deliberations of an assortment of unknown white males gathered
at the clubhouse of “the Family” on
Founded in
1935 by an itinerant immigrant preacher named Abraham Vereide, the Family has
grown into a “veritable underground of Christ’s men all through government,” I
learned from the helpful explanation published in The Week magazine, July 31, which reached me on the eve of the
Family’s appearance in Doonesbury.(but
I didn’t get around to reading it until after puzzling over Trudeau’s take on
it). “The Washington-based group counts many prominent politicians, mostly
conservative Republicans, among its flock, and several members of Congress pay
$600 a month to rent rooms in the group’s townhouse. ... The Family tries to
maintain a low profile, but was thrust into the headlines in recent weeks when
it emerged that three politicians embroiled in sex scandals — South Carolina
Governor Mark Sanford, Nevada Senator John Ensign, and former Mississippi
Representative Chip Pickering — are longtime members.
The
existence of the Family, it seems, explains a lot. The tenets of the religion
the members of this bizarre cabal appear to embrace are “vague, elastic, and
focused on power.” While the Family doesn’t exactly “excuse” adultery and other
sins, “it considers the powerful to be accountable only to God and their peers,
not to their constituents or to the Constitution.” The presence of such a
power-mad, self-delusional bunch of fanatics at the heart of American
government is terrifying. Jeff Sharlet, who wrote a book about these crazies, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the
Heart of American Power, considers their “disregard for conventional
morality ‘potentially very dangerous’ because it ‘leads you away from
accountability to the public.’”
In my Rancid Raves online magazine, Opus 247, I’ve posted the entire horrifying article from The Week just next to the Doonesbury strips, which leap from the Family’s condoning adultery to its sponsorship of birther legislation, a sure sign of the secret society’s dementia.
