R5105S18

Last night I had a conversation with a friend about the merits of the Comics Journal, which in my opinion is a fine magazine and the only one in it's field that is critical and celebatory at the same time. My friend, who I consider to be the most knowledgable person on comics, pointed out that the Journal does not focus on superheroes, or rather levels its gaze on 60's - 70's pop comics. Well, yes, I replied while I wiped my sweaty palm on my leg, they are interested in the subtext, like all those huge groins they drew on Captain America. . .and then it kinda dawned on me that yes, the Journal seems to be excluding an intergal part of comic book history. Granted, some of the first comics were not only superheroes, but also westerns, thrillers (true crime), science fiction (you could argue that sci-fi and superheroes walked hand and hand together in a field of wildflowers) and what not, but my initial assumption was that the superhero genre is the meat of the medium. My evidence? Ask a friend, preferably someone who doesn't read the funny books, and mention the word comic book. This is a simple word association game, anyone can do it. I will wager that the answer will be Superman, Spider-Man, etc. I know this can be a tenuous correlation, but my point is that superheroes had in fact sculpted the medium with their mighty hands. Most kids who read comics for the first time will buy a superhero comic. A large reason the underground comic scene flourished is because it was a response to the dominant superhero genre, and the underground felt as though the Big Two were not telling stories real people could relate to (how can folks appreciate the plight of Bruce Wayne, millionare?)

It seems to me that the Comics Journal, to a degree, are embarassed by their roots, like those who are ashamed of bringing their cousin from the Ozarks to a party. Yes, superheroes still dominate the comics market, and yes the Big Two has royally screwed distribution, and yes most marketing goes to superheroes than to indies, and yes in some ways the superhero genre distorts public perception of what comics really are and what comics can be; holding back an "evolution" of the medium. What is important though, (my dad would say: "what you don't understand is, son. . .") is to be careful on how history is constructed. From the Comics Journal perspective, the superhero genre was unsophisticated, perpetuated stereotypes and damaged the market (which is true) but that's all it was, nothing more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not a balanced representation of history. When historical facts are ignored or modified, it changes the reality of the subject supported by those facts. The result? New social meanings are assigned to the subject, meanings that can repluse or attract. In the case of the Comics Journal, the goal is to repluse. Please don't interpet this an anti-Journal tract, I still read and enjoy the Journal (just lower your price a bit, *nudge nudge wink wink*) at every opportunity, but caution must be taken if the Journal wishes to keep an elitist, oligarchical hold on the medium.