Making a short segue from the OUR BODIES series--
As noted earlier, I find queer-theory readings of any text (not just superheroes) highly problematic when they attempt to elide or paper over the text's actual representations of heterosexuality. Sigmund Freud, one of the greatest modern contributors to current notions of the hermeneutics of deceit, answered all attempts to problematize resistance to his theories as proof that they were true anyway. You resisted them because they made you uncomfortable, which was ipso facto proof that they were true.
Nevertheless, while I don't plan to devote a lot more space to refuting the overzealousness of queer theorists, I will suggest that they might hone their craft on some text that isn't nearly as problematic as stories about why Superman doesn't bone Lois Lane.
As sacrificial lamb, then, I give them-- CAPTAIN AZRAE-- er, AMERICA!
The above cover heralds from the early years of the Captain as articulated by his creators Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. I'm not going to make any salacious comments about the cover-- they'll probably write themselves--but I will note that in contrast to the oeuvres of SUPERMAN and BATMAN, the early years of the Captain-- collected in two 1998 paperbacks, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE CLASSIC YEARS-- are pretty well summed up by this cover in terms of gender function.
In these collections (which I believe reprint most if not all of the work from the Simon & Kirby studio before the two artists left the feature), women are dominantly damsels in distress. Captain America and Bucky have one female opponent, a minor Nazi operative named Countess Mara ("Spy Ambush," CA #10), but almost every other female here is a distressed damsel of one kind or another.
The closest thing the feature to giving the reader a Lois Lane is one Betty Ross, who appears in the second story in CAPTAIN AMERICA #1. She's some sort of spy for American intelligence, and on a couple of occasions she shows a little spunk, firing a gun or clouting a bad guy. However, she exists to be rescued more often than not, which solidifies her likeness to Lois. One suspects that the only reason the creators made her a spy was to justify her traveling to a lot of different places to be rescued, which jibes with Siegel and Schuster's reasons for making Lois a reporter.
However, while the two characters have a similar function, Betty is in no way as central to the stories of Captain America as Lois is to Superman's. Moreover, a queer reading of CAPTAIN AMERICA would at least be justified insofar as these stories are concerned, for the lead hero never shows the slightest interest in the lady fair. Indeed, the only one to even comment on the fact that she is fair is Bucky ("Ain't she pretty, Cap?"), but maybe he hadn't been fully converted at the time.
Here's the relevant scene from CA #9 (scans provided by A. Sherman Barros):
In "The Man Who Could Not Die," Captain America saves Betty from the usual menace. Having tried in earlier stories to than
k the hero, only to have him run off into the night with Bucky, Betty gets a little more grabby. She flings her arms around his neck, demanding that he let her thank him: "You can't run away this time! I won't let you!" But she gets distracted when ever-faithful Bucky runs in and yells about some new peril or other, and Cap escapes.
Now this nutshell description is similar to those scenes in Superman tales where the hero disengages himself from an affectionate female. But unlike the Superman stories, there's no indication in the Cap stories that the hero has any liking for the hot babe whatsoever; just that she likes him.
Is it gay in the intent of the creators? Surely not.
Can it be construed as gay, or indicative of some "masculine incoherence?" Well, I prefer to say "ultramasculine" rather than "masculine," so as to indicate that we're not talking about a dominantly-normative state. But here, the answer is, "Possibly."
Additional factors that recommend Cap for the fuschia couch would include the fact that when the two heroes go out beating up criminals, the violence may be "clean" but the bashing of bodies is pursued by great gusto. Is said violence gay? Well, at least there's some strong emotion attached to these male-on-male encounters, in contradistinction to the rather businesslike way Superman shows in his crook-clobberings.
Intellectually I know that queer theorists won't *stop* going after Superman and Batman. Those two are, after all, the "big guns" (augh, more phallicisms!) But said theorists should ever want a substitute victim for their Procrustean beds, they wouldn't have to do nearly as much cutting with the Captain.
As noted earlier, I find queer-theory readings of any text (not just superheroes) highly problematic when they attempt to elide or paper over the text's actual representations of heterosexuality. Sigmund Freud, one of the greatest modern contributors to current notions of the hermeneutics of deceit, answered all attempts to problematize resistance to his theories as proof that they were true anyway. You resisted them because they made you uncomfortable, which was ipso facto proof that they were true.
Nevertheless, while I don't plan to devote a lot more space to refuting the overzealousness of queer theorists, I will suggest that they might hone their craft on some text that isn't nearly as problematic as stories about why Superman doesn't bone Lois Lane.
As sacrificial lamb, then, I give them-- CAPTAIN AZRAE-- er, AMERICA!
The above cover heralds from the early years of the Captain as articulated by his creators Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. I'm not going to make any salacious comments about the cover-- they'll probably write themselves--but I will note that in contrast to the oeuvres of SUPERMAN and BATMAN, the early years of the Captain-- collected in two 1998 paperbacks, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE CLASSIC YEARS-- are pretty well summed up by this cover in terms of gender function.
In these collections (which I believe reprint most if not all of the work from the Simon & Kirby studio before the two artists left the feature), women are dominantly damsels in distress. Captain America and Bucky have one female opponent, a minor Nazi operative named Countess Mara ("Spy Ambush," CA #10), but almost every other female here is a distressed damsel of one kind or another.
The closest thing the feature to giving the reader a Lois Lane is one Betty Ross, who appears in the second story in CAPTAIN AMERICA #1. She's some sort of spy for American intelligence, and on a couple of occasions she shows a little spunk, firing a gun or clouting a bad guy. However, she exists to be rescued more often than not, which solidifies her likeness to Lois. One suspects that the only reason the creators made her a spy was to justify her traveling to a lot of different places to be rescued, which jibes with Siegel and Schuster's reasons for making Lois a reporter.
However, while the two characters have a similar function, Betty is in no way as central to the stories of Captain America as Lois is to Superman's. Moreover, a queer reading of CAPTAIN AMERICA would at least be justified insofar as these stories are concerned, for the lead hero never shows the slightest interest in the lady fair. Indeed, the only one to even comment on the fact that she is fair is Bucky ("Ain't she pretty, Cap?"), but maybe he hadn't been fully converted at the time.
Here's the relevant scene from CA #9 (scans provided by A. Sherman Barros):
In "The Man Who Could Not Die," Captain America saves Betty from the usual menace. Having tried in earlier stories to than
k the hero, only to have him run off into the night with Bucky, Betty gets a little more grabby. She flings her arms around his neck, demanding that he let her thank him: "You can't run away this time! I won't let you!" But she gets distracted when ever-faithful Bucky runs in and yells about some new peril or other, and Cap escapes.Now this nutshell description is similar to those scenes in Superman tales where the hero disengages himself from an affectionate female. But unlike the Superman stories, there's no indication in the Cap stories that the hero has any liking for the hot babe whatsoever; just that she likes him.
Is it gay in the intent of the creators? Surely not.
Can it be construed as gay, or indicative of some "masculine incoherence?" Well, I prefer to say "ultramasculine" rather than "masculine," so as to indicate that we're not talking about a dominantly-normative state. But here, the answer is, "Possibly."
Additional factors that recommend Cap for the fuschia couch would include the fact that when the two heroes go out beating up criminals, the violence may be "clean" but the bashing of bodies is pursued by great gusto. Is said violence gay? Well, at least there's some strong emotion attached to these male-on-male encounters, in contradistinction to the rather businesslike way Superman shows in his crook-clobberings.
Intellectually I know that queer theorists won't *stop* going after Superman and Batman. Those two are, after all, the "big guns" (augh, more phallicisms!) But said theorists should ever want a substitute victim for their Procrustean beds, they wouldn't have to do nearly as much cutting with the Captain.
"Hermeneutics of deceit" is a nice line; that made me laugh. (Though, of course, Freud wasn't intending to deceive, so to accuse him of bad faith is to suggest unintentional or subconscious motivations on his part.)
ReplyDeleteI understand (though don't agree with, obviously) your objections to gay readings of Sperman. I'm confused as to why you think Batman is more problematic than Cap. Bruce Wayne engages in intense heterosexuality, obviously — but that's pretty easy to read as the secret heterosexual cover for the closet, I'd think. Batman doesn't do a lot of romancing in costume overall in the early days, I don't think, does he? I know Catwoman is around later, of course.
The television Batman is a bit different; with all the female guest stars and a much less firm line between Bruce and Batman in general. Despite the campiness, it's hard to argue that West's Batman isn't focused fairly seriously on women (as well as the relationship with Robin.)
"I understand (though don't agree with, obviously) your objections to gay readings of Sperman."
ReplyDeleteNever a typo could be so prone to puns on deep meanings and hidden intentions as this one, so I'll abstain from it.
But I couldn't resist pointing it. Sorry.
As to the Captain theme, I think it goes in line with all the other super-masculine characters of that period. I distinctively remember how Kenneth Robeson kept pressing the point that Doc Savage had - and couldn't have - any interest in women (who kept falling at his feet) for his was a mission of greater import - to serve justice and save the world.
The lack of a love interest by these characters is more likened to that of saints or ascets than to any closeted queer urges. We all know how the fair sex can be distracting when one's trying to pursue "higher" goals. Maybe that's one reason I always like to keep an eye on the gutter.
"...point that Doc Savage had - and couldn't have - any..."
ReplyDeleteSorry. We all fail. I had written "hadn't - and couldn't have" but it somehow got truncated.
Noah,
ReplyDeleteI believe I swiped "h.o.d" from the author of a book called MYTHOGRAPHY, though I can't find his name at present.
However, as I understand it, the idea isn't to say that the interpreter is the deceiver; in theory, he's the revealer. Back when "hermeneutics" meant figuring out the meaning of Biblical texts, the "deceit" was built into the elusive/allusive symbolism of those texts. Freud's idea was to study the deceits/displacements camoflagued in dreams and the like.
Bruce Wayne picks up a girlfriend-- possibly even a fiancee, I misremember-- in the "Monk" adventure in his first year. His reputation as a Don Juan probably develops a little later. Catwoman (aka "The Cat") presents a new "bad girl" romantic interest in BATMAN #1 (1940). Batman's taken with her to the extent that he lets her escape justice, though I don't think the editors ever allowed him to do that again.
For me, these are textual declarations of heterosexuality. I suppose Bruce could be "bi," though, but one still needs lotsa corroboration even to make it a good joke.
I confess I've been amused by the notion that Batwoman and Bat-Girl were introduced in Silver Age Batman as "beards" to distract from Wertham's accusations of gayplay between the Dynamic Ones.
Good catch, Sherman.
ReplyDeleteDoc Savage is a good example of the non-sexual use of a "missionary position," which is what I was also getting at in Part 2 of OUR BODIES. If one wants to look for bits of odd symbolism that seem to contradict the stated themes, that's not a problem in itself. But if the stated theme makes a certain psychological sense (Superman will never be an ordinary human and so must dedicate himself to justice) then that can't be ignored.
In Doc's case, the excuse reads a little more like the publishers coming up with a reason to keep Doc in a monastic, never-changing status. Nevertheless, I don't think one can judge these type of idealized figures by purely realistic standards, the way (for instance) Philip Farmer had his Doc-clone go a little nuts from lack of sex (in A FEAST UNKNOWN). The symbolism of self-sacrifice shouldn't be overlooked or sneered at.
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and what fond memories I have of reading A FEAST UNKNKOWN for the first time.
Anyway, I got to scan the two pages from Captain America #9 that you've mentioned in your post. If you care to use them to update your text you're very welcome to them. I see you don't have a public e-mail address or I would have sent them to you already. But just e-mail me and I'll be glad to e-mail them back to you.
Thanks Sherman; that should work out well.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to leave the impression I didn't like FEAST UNKNOWN. Farmer's work has a lot in common with the evolution of the "grim and gritty" mode in comic books, in which some concept that was (apparently) simple and innocent is subjected to realistic scrutiny. As I said, I'm sometimes suspicious of the agenda behind such proponents of "realism." However, I respect much of Farmer's ouevre insofar as he's trying to re-mythologize the heroes he loved as a kid, in contrast to those who are simply out to de-mythologize them.