THE INAUTHENTICITY OF PEANUT BUTTER, Part 1

A couple of months ago Steve Duin, a writer for the Oregonian, put together an article based on parts of a 1988 AMAZING HEROES tirade by Gary Groth against the Superman icon. Of the various reflections printed in that issue of AH, Duin calls Groth's screed "the only one that stands the test of time."

If one means that the Groth essay makes it onto a hypothetical list of "Worst Essays about Superman Ever," I would certainly agree.

I write the folliowing in the sure and certain knowledge that no matter how thoroughly I destroy Gary Groth's arguments, he would never deign to attempt refuting me anywhere but in a place conducive to the JOURNAL's good fortunes. I am sure that this reticence is merely a practical business decision and not an indication of Groth's lack of courage. I--

Ah, excuse me, I've a cold and think I'm going to--

***cccchhhiikkknnnshttttt!*

That's better. Where was I?

Ah, yes. First let me say that the aspect of Groth's essay I'll be debating here makes use of the word "icon," with the result that I too must use the term in my rebuttal. I should note that in semiotics this word has assorted special usages but I'll be using it only in its colloquial sense here, even as Groth did. The passage in question says:

"[Superman's] the ultimate American icon--he can be sold, marketed and merchandised, whose image can be replicated on everything from pillowcases to beach balls to underwear."

I don't doubt that this is the only significance Groth sees, or is capable of seeing, in the Superman character. (I think I'm safe in assuming equivalence between Groth's views on this subject today and his views back in 1988.) But by calling Superman "the ultimate icon" of marketability, Groth opens himself to an obvious question. In what way is the marketable image of Superman more "ultimate"-- that is, more fundamental, more elemental-- than that of, say, the "Golden Arches" of a certain fast-food restaurant to which Groth makes passing reference?

Though Groth does not offer any organized criteria to prove that Superman is an "ultimate icon" of American marketing, logic would dictate his main criterion is one of quantity: that Superman's iconic image is associated with far more commodities than comparable icons. I for one would like to see how the Man of Steel stacks up against Charles Schulz's PEANUTS for sheer preponderance of tie-ins, but I'll agree that Superman's image is indeed affixed to many commodities that have nothing directly to do with telling stories about the character (that is, excluding not only comic books but all other narrative media).

Since Groth's essay scorns one fan's association of Superman and Socrates, it seems appropriate that I should use a little Socratic "definition by division" to sort out Groth's problematic anti-Superman rhetoric.

First, aside from quantity, in what way is Superman's usage on pillowcases, beach balls, and underwear distinctive from the uses made of other marketing icons, like the Golden Arches? I assert that the greatest difference between the two is that the latter was conceived for no purpose but to advertise McDonalds, while Superman's use as a marketing icon was after the fact of his having appeared as a serial character whose adventures could be purchased on newstands.

Thus, McDonald's arches are a "primary icon of marketing," since they began as advertisements conceived primarily to sell McDonalds' food.

Superman, however, was primarily conceived to sell the serial adventures of a fictional character. Without the character's becoming popular through those fictional adventures, the character would never have been of consequence to the makers of beach balls, peanut butter, et al, and so would never have become a marketing icon. Since the etiology of the two icons is distinct I wil label Superman's marketing status as that of a "secondary icon of marketing."

Therefore, if as Groth says Superman is the "ultimate American icon" of marketing,being a secondary icon of marketability must count for more than being a primary one.

Having made this distinction, my second point is if Groth's notion of "ultimacy" is indeed linked to sheer preponderance, then within his proposition there is no contradiction in the above. Observation would suggest that the icons that most often lend themselves to being attached to many different products are indeed those of a secondary nature. McDonalds' Golden Arches may appear on T-shirts and a few other items, but they can't compete with such secondary-icon examples of marketing as Superman Peanut Butter, Peanuts Met-Life commercials, LOVE AND ROCKETS lighters or R. Crumb's DEVIL GIRL candy.

However, Groth's imputation of "ultimacy" to Superman fails because there is no meaningful correlation between quantity and the act of marketing itself. A LOVE AND ROCKETS lighter will not sell as widely as Superman Peanut Butter, but the former is still an attempt to use a secondary icon to market an unrelated commodity.

More about finding authenticity in primary and secondary versions of various products-- such as the titular peanut butter-- to come.