Steve Rogers. Shot dead.
People have been asking me to comment.
Understand that, if I were a fan, my reaction would be, “Yeah. Sh’right.”
As someone working for Marvel, you have to realize that I knew this was coming months ago. And I know what’s going to be happening over the next months.
So I can’t say anything.
What I will say is, “Dang. It HAD to be the same week as the latest issue of Friendly Neighborood Spider-Man…?”
PAD
• 
As far as Christ is the Messiah, and we are not, Christianity does not homogenize existence as the other religions and philosophies I’ve cited for comparison do.
But is it accurate to say that Buddhists truly believe in the homogeniety of existance? Thousands are flocking to see the supposed “Buddha Boy” who is said to have lived without food or water for months at a time and is called by some the reincarnation of Buddha.
Or is it that anyone canbe called a reincarnation of Buddha and what is special about this boy (if the stories are true) is that he has reached a greater degfree of potential than the rest of us? Osme of the accounts satate that he is being worshipped, which seems different from the philosophy you describe. Of course there are the possibilities that A-the press has it all wrong or B-not all Buddhists follow the religion the same way. Or any combinations of teh above.
Regarding Joseph Campbell in general, I highly recommend anyone interested in him and his contribution to the study of mythology read The Hero With a Thousand Faces, The Transformation of Myths Through Time, and his four volume series, The Masks of God. They are subtitled Primative Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology and Creative Mytology.
I also recommend the PBS series Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers, which is available on DVD, as well as a fascinating (at least to me) biography of Campbell called A Fire in the Mind.
Rick
On the other hand, isn’t it then ironic, given how unpopular Bush is today, that the side in Civil War that prevailed was the side that kowtowed to the president and was lead by a former member of Bush’s cabinet?
On the contrary. The pro-registration side, despite Stark’s and Richards’… ummm… questionable methods, was the side that acceded to the will of the American people.
Also, somebody more intimately familiar with the law can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but vigilantism is not a Constiturional right. I believe it is, in fact, illegal. It had been tolerated, by and large, for as long as it had because, as Johnny Storm put it, who else is going to save the world from Galactus?
Without getting into the debate of whether Cap was written “correctly” or not, he chose the wrong side for dubious reasons, and realized it at the end. Sadly, if he had followed orders from the start, he probably could have at least partially reined in Stark, Richards and Pym.
On another note, count me as another who has always been less than impressed with Wolverine. Probably my favorite recent treatment of the character is Joss Whedon’s in Astonishing X-Men.
-Rex Hondo-
“Anyone who’s read the book he made his breakthough with, Hero with a Thousand Faces, knows he said about as much about the grail there as he said in the Moyers interview.”
I believe the Masks of God is the work that will place the grai myth in a comparative antropological context.
——————————
“Nature is dependant on the forms.
And in what circumstance would a Buddhist agree with this statement?”
OK, quick glance about buddhism in wikipedia, and I think I understand where you’re coming from. Although if you’ve explained things yourself it more elaboratly it might have helped. After reading this I really don’t feel comfortable talking about this religion without much more study. Again, a religion with many faces. Here are a bunch of relevant quotes. I hope I understood them correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
“There are different views of reality in Buddhism. Some teachers (e.g., the mahasiddha Tilopa) even discouraged any intellectual activity, including philosophy. See also Buddha Shakyamuni’s position on some philosophical questions and his famous arrow parable.
Some views of reality in Buddhism are relevant to the issue of dependent origination and some to teachings beyond cause and effect. Examples are discussed below.
Some consider that the concept of the unreality of “reality” is confusing and not truly accurate. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma, part of the process of impermanence, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya.
Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: “In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream […]”.[1] In this context, the term ‘visions’ denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations.
Different schools and traditions in Tibetan Buddhism give different explanations of the mechanism producing the illusion usually called “reality”.[2][3]”
The first teaching mentioned above, is the one I think you’re thinking of. while the second reminds me of Plato’s ideas. Especially this:
“Contrasting with some forms of Buddhism, the Buddha’s teaching on ‘reality’ in the Tathagatagarbha Mahayana scriptures – which the Buddha states constitute the ultimate manifestation of the Mahayana Dharma – insists that there truly is a sphere or realm of ultimate truth – not just a repetitious cycle of interconnected elements, each dependent on the others. That suffering-filled cycle of x-generating-y-and-y-generating-z-and-z-generating-a, etc., is Samsara, the prison-house of the reincarnating non-self; whereas liberation from dependency, enforced rebirth and bondage is nirvana or reality / spiritual essence (tattva / dharmata). This sphere also bears the name Tathagatagarbha (Matrix of the Buddha). It is the deathless realm where dependent origination holds no sway, where non-self is supplanted by the everlasting, sovereign (aishvarya) self (atman) (as a trans-historical, unconditioned, ultimate, liberating, supra-worldly yet boundless and immanent awakened mind). Of this real truth, called nirvana – which, while salvationally infused into samsara, is not bound or imprisoned in it – the Buddha states in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
“What is the Real (tattva)? Knowledge of the true attributes of Nirvana; the Tathagata, the Dharma, the Sangha, and the attributes of space … is the Real. What is knowledge of the attributes of Nirvana? The attributes of Nirvana are eightfold. What are these eight? Cessation [of ignorance and suffering]; loveliness/ wholesomeness; Truth; Reality; Eternity, Bliss, the Self [atman], and complete Purity: that is Nirvana.”
He further comments: ” … that which is endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and Purity is stated to be the meaning of ‘Real Truth’ … Moreover, the Real is the Tathagata [i.e., the Buddha]; the Tathagata is the Real … The Tathagata is not conditioned and not tainted, but utterly blissful: this is the Real …”.
Thus, in such doctrines, a very positive goal is envisioned, which is said to lie beyond the grasp of the five senses and the ordinary, restless mind, and only attainable through direct meditative perception and when all inner pollutants (twisted modes of view, and all moral contaminants) are purged, and the inherently deathless, spotless, radiantly shining mind of Buddha stands revealed. This is the realm of the Buddha-dhatu (popularly known as buddha nature) – inconceivable, beginning-less, endless, omniscient truth, the Dharmakaya (quintessential body-and-mind) of the Buddha. This reality is empty of all falsehood, impermanence, ignorance, afflictions, and pain, but filled with enduring happiness, purity, knowingness (jnana), and omni-radiant loving-kindness (maitri).”
Which seems to me a little like this:
“Plato’s Theory of Forms indicates that the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm. In this higher realm, Plato assures us that there exist the Forms that embody the true nature of the pale shadows. What we know as sweet is only an afterimage of the Form of Sweetness. The luminous brightness of the sun is only a corporeal display of the Form of Brightness.
The Forms should be understood as a unity amidst disparate things. The disparate things are the things of the sense world, the forms are our intellectual apprehension of the true meaning of those things; and even the lifeblood of the empirical things themselves. The Forms are static, perfect and unchanging: necessary characteristics if they are going to be used to make sense of the empirical world. Following this logic, then, Plato infers a unity to the forms themselves that could be considered the Ultimate Form, or the Form of Form. This is one quality which all Forms share. This is the Form of the Good. Later Christian thinkers influenced by Neo-Platonists would identify this Ultimate Form with God; though certainly famous pagan Neo-Platonists such as Plotinus would do the same.”
And this:
“When used in a generic sense, a buddha is generally considered to be a person who discovers the true nature of reality through lifetimes of spiritual cultivation.”
Is a little like this:
“”the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent” is none other than Plato’s world of forms–illuminated by the highest of the forms, that of the Good. Since true being resides in the world of the forms, we must direct our intellect there to have knowledge; otherwise, we are stuck with mere opinion of what may be likened to passing shadows.”
———————————–
“In Christianity, Jesus Christ was the only man who was divine, Christians taking the practice from Christ’s persecutors of denying the inherent divinity of man.
My understanding is that if you do not accept Christ as the Messiah, you are not Christian.
As far as Christ is the Messiah, and we are not, Christianity does not homogenize existence as the other religions and philosophies I’ve cited for comparison do.”
It seems to me (I could be wrong) that you are doing what medieval christians did, who tried to think of Muhammad in their terms — namely that they believed in Muhammad like Christiand believe in Jesus. You are looking on the messiah and expect to find something like Buddha, and you are critical when it doesn’t fit.
Now in Buddhism, buddha is any human being who acheived a state of enlightenment. ‘The Buddha’ is a guy who acheived this state and passed on his teachings. so not everyone is Buddha, but (I think) every man can be one if he tries (this is probably an oversimplification). Also, Buddhism doesn’t have a god in the sense that Christianity does, so is Buddha divine? Perhaps in a different sense — I’m not sure.
In Christianity you have a teacher who is god himself, which is not an attainable state for mere humans. However, Christianity has a lot of mystical writing (probably influenced by Neo-Platonism) of man acheiving spiritual union with Jesus, the soul returning to Jesus, the soul as the bride of Jesus and so on. So to say that Christianity denies the divinity of man is misleading.
A point about Messiah: Christians believe that Jesus is god and/or the son of god incarnate as man. They also think he is the messiah the Jews were (and stil are) waiting for. In Hebrew Messiah means annoyted, and originally refered to any of the annoyted human Jewish kings of the line of David. But, as I understand it, ‘the Messiah’ the Jews are waiting for is more than just a king. However, he is human, not a son of god or a god himself. the greek word for annoyted is Christos.
———————–
“The archetypes in the movies I’ve cited are consistant with the grail myth. You haven’t said how that isn’t the case, so I don’t know what cause you have to disagree with anything I’ve said.”
When you watch a movie like Searching for Bobbie Fischer or Matrix or Silence of the Lambs, or Captain America, and you find in them a king-like character, you tend to assume that he is the grail-King. And if you find a hero in the story, you tend to assume he is the grail champion. And if he is searching for something you assume it’s the grail. But, since heroes and kings and searching appear in many different stories, then without establishing that these movies are directly influenced or refering to the grail story, it seems safer to assume that all you have in these movies are just kings and heroes, not grail-kings and grail-heroes, and that the grail aspects you find in these movies are the result of them sharing a more basic archetype, unless you can establish more strongly that these stories are grail stories (which in some cases is quite possible).
Furthermore, because in your system the hero is always defined by the archetype of the grail champion, this archetype, in my humble opinion, at present (pending further development) is not helpful enough in distinguishing between a hero like Josh (in Bobbie Fischer), Neo (Matrix), and Clarice (Silence of the Lambs), nor their relationship to the story and to other characters.
“The grail champion completes his quest by deviating from all convention. The idea of following as detailed a formula as you’ve transcribed to complete a grail quest completely disregards the meaning of the myth.”
It would have been helpful if you have added to this sentence a sentence describing what is the meaning of the grail myth in your opinion. It might have strengthened your point, and clarified what you mean.
I did not describe a detailed formula that needs to be followed in order to complete the grail quest. I didn’t say anything about a grail quest. what I did say about the archetype of the fool/messiah is similar to what you are saying about the grail champion — deviating from convention. The thing with McConnell’s system as opposed to yours is that deviating from convention is not just a characteristic of the grail champion, it is also a characteristic of other fool/messiahs, like Borat, for example.
“Also, somebody more intimately familiar with the law can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but vigilantism is not a Constiturional right. I believe it is, in fact, illegal. “
In or own world or in the Marvel universe?
I think we would be less tolerant of the idea of super heroes acting on their own in our own real world. But the idea that people with special abilities are to be conscripted and work for the government is somewhat problematic too.
“Without getting into the debate of whether Cap was written “correctly” or not, he chose the wrong side for dubious reasons, and realized it at the end.”
I haven’t read the end yet, but what I’ve seen left me feeling the Cap may not have been wrong on the principle, but he was wrong on the method. In a democratic society if you don’t agree with a law you can campaign against it or practice civiil disobedience before you go underground and start fighting. a man of Cap’s public profile could campaign against this law quite easily.
I think we would be less tolerant of the idea of super heroes acting on their own in our own real world. But the idea that people with special abilities are to be conscripted and work for the government is somewhat problematic too.
I think this is one of the points that didn’t get addressed properly in the series (which, even if it had tried to present both sides as equally as it claimed, failed to take into account that on paper, when their own lives aren’t affected, people tend to sympathize with freedom over security–at least, that’s the side popular fiction tends to come down on).
The problem is that it wasn’t clear at first whether the act affected people who were active as superheroes, or anyone with superhuman powers. If it’s the former, then it comes off as a great deal more reasonable–it’s a body that makes laws determining who’s allowed to enforce them. (In fact, if one sees the series as being an analogy for the US in Iraq, Captain America’s side could easily have been presented as the heavies rather than Iron Man’s; they’re the ones who believe that might makes right and doesn’t have to be answerable to duly-constituted authority. The fact that the Punisher was on Cap’s side gives some indication of where this can lead; if Marvel had a character along the lines of Hooded Justice from Watchmen, it would have been even clearer.)
That’s not the direction the series took, however, which made it a great deal harder to see both sides’ views as equally valid. The imbalance was increased because Iron Man’s side was taken closer to the logical extreme of their position, while Cap’s wasn’t–the position of Cap’s side is the sort that gets labelled as “freedom fighter” or “terrorist” depending in part on who writes the history books.
On the contrary. The pro-registration side, despite Stark’s and Richards’… ummm… questionable methods, was the side that acceded to the will of the American people.
Perhaps. Another way of looking at it is that the administration took advantage of a tragedy to push through a controversial measure. Not that such a thing could ever happen in the real world. (cough, cough)
Also, somebody more intimately familiar with the law can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but vigilantism is not a Constiturional right.
Yes and no. It’s not in the Constitution, but there is the common law doctrine of citizen’s arrest. Not to mention self-defense or defense of another. In practice, there are all kinds of problems such as preserving evidence.
It had been tolerated, by and large, for as long as it had because, as Johnny Storm put it, who else is going to save the world from Galactus?
It’s not illegal to save people from being murdered. Plus, in the MU, both the FF and the Avengers have traditionally enjoyed government endorsement. The Avengers, despite several members have criminal records, have also enjoyed high level security clearance and even exemption from things like air traffic control laws.
Without getting into the debate of whether Cap was written “correctly” or not, he chose the wrong side for dubious reasons, and realized it at the end.
I talk for hours about what was wrong with Civil War. Suffice it to say that I think it was idiotic that the anti-registration hero was the one for whom a secret ID was never a big deal while the pro-registration hero was the one who has in the past gone to extreme measures to protect his.
Sadly, if he had followed orders from the start, he probably could have at least partially reined in Stark, Richards and Pym.
And we would have been spared Richards whistling while comparing himself to von Braun. But then, we likely would have never had a Civil War had both Cap and Iron Fascist supported registration. This entire event was contrived from the beginning as primarily a Cap vs. Tony.
On another note, count me as another who has always been less than impressed with Wolverine. Probably my favorite recent treatment of the character is Joss Whedon’s in Astonishing X-Men.
I admit I got a chuckle out of seeing him turned into a wuss until he drank a beer. What is he, Popeye now?
It’s also one of the problems I had with Iron Man once Tony Stark started overdrinking. I like the characters to be realistic, have realistic problems, but for a while the book just seemed to be about THAT. I don’t know.
While it may have been overplayed at times, at least Tony’s alcoholism was about a hero struggling to overcome his flaws. Wolverine stopped being about that decades ago. Now, the character is all about revelling in his flaws. It doesn’t help that his major “flaw” is being a homicidal maniac.
There’s a heavy Taoist influence on much of Buddhism, and as the Tao is everywhere, like water, I think it’s fair to say (admittedly as a non-Buddhist) that Buddhists see reality as homogenized. Consider this Alan Watts anecdote:
A westerner visiting a Buddhist temple in Japan, I even think he said it was someone he knew, observered the priests praying to the Buddha. He asks one of them what the deal is with all of these Buddhists priests — whose Nirvana comes from the Sanskrit word for nothing, and the consequence of whose lives result in the same void as none-believers — bowing to anything. “I’d just as soon spit on the Buddha as bow to him.”
The priest replied, “You spits, I bows.”
The Buddhist accepts his or her helplessness, and addresses it through prayer to the Buddha. It seems analogous to the “Either/Or” angst of the Christian Kierkegaard over the omnipresence of uncertainty, in joy and in despair.
There are Buddhists who practice the fundamentalism all religions are vulnerable to, but as far as I know there is no inherent inconsistency in bowing to the Buddha boy as a reincarnation of the Buddha.
That’s 4 volumes I have to hunt down and review for the grail references, but ok.
What do you mean by enlightment? Two Zen priests arguing over whether the wind moved the flag or the flag moved the wind were said to be enlightened by a third priest saying it was their minds that moved.
I cited no one adopting the role of the grail king in Silence of the Lambs. And Captain America is a grail champion, not a grail king — what grail-king-like flaw prevented him from acheiving anything?
This thread is full of my hot air on the issue:
And so on and so forth.
“I talk for hours about what was wrong with Civil War. Suffice it to say that I think it was idiotic that the anti-registration hero was the one for whom a secret ID was never a big deal while the pro-registration hero was the one who has in the past gone to extreme measures to protect his.”
I’m not that familiar with Captain America. Isn’t it appropriate for him to gight for a principle he has no personal stake in?
I only read Avengers during this whole Civil War event. But in it Captain America presented a view of super heroes as an independant force that acts as a kind of checks and balances. He was afraid of the idea of the government controlling the power of super heroes. I thought it was an interesting idea which is unique to a world in which super heroes exist.
There’s a certain similarity between Captaín America’s views and some of the arguments against gun control.
“That’s 4 volumes I have to hunt down and review for the grail references, but ok.”
That’s what the index is for. It would probably be in the book about occidental mythology. Of course, you don’t have to read it. I’m not giving you homework. Ít’s your hobby.
“What do you mean by enlightment?”
What I mean is irrelevant. What Buddhist mean by enlightment is the relevant question.
“This thread is full of my hot air on the issue”
Don’t be too hard on yourself. Your thoughts are quite interesting. But if you want your ideas to be understood you have to present them more clearly, if for no other reason than because not everybody is familiar with the details of the grail story, and you have to establish your terminology before you can use it.
It isn’t irrelevant as far as you refer to the word.
As the grail myth challenges the dependence of Nature on Forms, the first line of the Tao Te Ching says that the Tao (way) that can be spoken is not the true Tao — and then it goes on to speak of the Tao for 81 section.
In effect, opening by saying the way that can be spoken is not the true way, the Tao Te Ching is opening by saying what it has to say is a lot of hot air.
I can’t read your mind. What is there to clarify that you don’t cite as confusing?
Notes on various points: 1)Luke Cage wasn’t created to test a super-soldier serum–it was simply an experiment in making people more resistant to disease. A sadistic guard tried tinkering to kill Cage and instead made him the man of steel-hard skin he is today.
2)Back in CHAMPIONS, a scientist did try replicating the super-soldier formula in the seventies. He used inmates in his mental hospital as guinea pigs.
3)The grail isn’t as much a Christian legend as a Christian literary creation–it originated in the works of Chretien, and it appears he pretty much created it.
4)I agree with what Doug said about the ridiculousness of Civil War and take it several degrees further. This plotline suffered from the same assumption as several similar ones, the assumption that super-hero means the same thing in the MU or DCU as it does here.
As near as I can figure it out, people with no powers (Shang Chi) were affected by the act, and so were people who did have powers but weren’t actively superheroing. Unless they’re using a Bush-style “enemy combatant is whoever the president designates” approach, there’s no way it would hold up in court. Even a simple sign ordinance needs two or three pages of definitions to be legally defensible.
As for Cap, I’m not surprised they ducked the idea of passive resistance–which would have made much more sense if he’d done it from the start (I think having Cap go to jail in defiance would rally 10 times more opposition to the law than anything else). In the Marvel Universe, it’s not even an option: While we know nonviolent protest got results in the real world, the Xmen prefer passivity (“If we sit at that no-mutants lunch counter, we’ll only inflame their hatred! We have to wait until someday, humans realize we’re no different and invite us to their lunch counters!”) or Magneto’s approach (launch the diner into outer space).
5)I agree the Red Skull would never let Cap die without knowing who’d done him in. But I also think in any story where there’s a Cosmic Cube in play, the idea of permanent death is a joke.
“What do you mean by [enlightenment]?
What I mean is irrelevant. What Buddhist mean by enlightment is the relevant question.
It isn’t irrelevant as far as you refer to the word.”
I see you’re a fan of word games. Fortunatly, so am I. You are also a fan of using terminology of famous thinkers, so you’ll enjoy this. In this case we have what philosopher Hilary Putnam calls Division of Linguistic Labor. [And now I’ll explain] when I’m using the word ‘enlightment’ in this context it is synonymous with: ‘the term used by Buhddists and translated by English speaking experts of Buddihsdm as enlightenment.’ Whereas if I were talking about ‘the age of enlightenment’ the word would be synonymous with: ‘the term historians of ideas use in order to refer to the intellectual developments of a certain age era in European history circa the 18th century. Since we are talking about Buddhism, and not my own ideas about enlightenment, and since I’m neither a Buddhist nor an expert on it, I must rely on the experts for the meaning of the definition enlightenment. [I’ll further explain] Putnam uses Division of Linguistic Labor to explain how, although a lay person may not be able to distinguish between say an oak tree and a beech tree, he means different things when he uses each word, because he is refering to the expertise of others. Enlightment is not like a tree, so here the context (Buhdism or 18th century Eurpe) is also significant.
—————————-
“I can’t read your mind.”
When you write for others to read you have to do a little mind reading in order to anticipate whether or not your ideas are clear to them. It’s very frustrating sometimes, especially if you’re writing a paper and a professor puts a red question mark next to a sentence you thought was perfectly clear. But that’s life. If he didn’t understand it, others probably won’t too. You can’t satisfy everybody always, but striving for clarity is a good idea. Unless you are a very big shot academic, and you want to seem obscure, or a mystic, and you want to seem mysterious, or a writer/poet and you’re trying to acheive a feeling of confusion.
“What is there to clarify that you don’t cite as confusing?”
I’ll give you two examples:
1)”As the grail myth challenges the dependence of Nature on Forms.”
– Why do you say that the grail myth challenges the dependence on the nature of forms?
– What aspect of the myth constitutes a challenge (keeping in mind that we don’t have instant recollection of the myth)? You also have to define the what you consider the basic essentials of the myth so we won’t be confused between all the different writers who developed it).
– How does the myth challenge the dependence on the nature of forms?
2) “The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle.”
– Who are the grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender?
– What are their characteristic?
– In what way do different characters/aspects in Red White and Black display these characteristics?
I’m not that familiar with Captain America. Isn’t it appropriate for him to gight for a principle he has no personal stake in?
Sure it is. I just didn’t buy the arguments he put forth for he reasons for being against registration.
There’s a certain similarity between Captaín America’s views and some of the arguments against gun control.
Sure. On the other hand, most states require private detectives (probably the best real world analogy to a superhero) to be licensed, so it’s not inconceivable that a government would require licensing of superheroes.
2)Back in CHAMPIONS, a scientist did try replicating the super-soldier formula in the seventies. He used inmates in his mental hospital as guinea pigs.
There were a number of attempts over the decades to replicate the super-soldier serum. At least one attempt produced one of the stand-in Captain Americas and Buckys from the 1950s, driving them insane. That particular Bucky later became Nomad. Another resulting in the creation of the Man-Thing.
3)The grail isn’t as much a Christian legend as a Christian literary creation–it originated in the works of Chretien, and it appears he pretty much created it.
Actually, a lot of what Chretien wrote was heavily borrowed from Celtic mythology, which has a number of tales of cups or cauldrons with healing properties, the ability to raise the dead, or create food. The Mabinogian contains an incomplete grail story featuring Peredur. Both the author of that tale and Chretien de Troyes probably drew their stories from an earlier and now lost common source.
As for Cap, I’m not surprised they ducked the idea of passive resistance–which would have made much more sense if he’d done it from the start (I think having Cap go to jail in defiance would rally 10 times more opposition to the law than anything else). In the Marvel Universe, it’s not even an option: While we know nonviolent protest got results in the real world, the Xmen prefer passivity (“If we sit at that no-mutants lunch counter, we’ll only inflame their hatred! We have to wait until someday, humans realize we’re no different and invite us to their lunch counters!”) or Magneto’s approach (launch the diner into outer space).
They would probably say that passive resistance would not sell in a visual, action-oriented medium like comics. I, on the other hand, would have found it a much better story if Captain America would have gone to jail while some one a little more militant (Too bad Thor is dead) would lead the violent rebellion. The battle would end with Cap being let out to appeal to both sides to end the fighting.
I, on the other hand, would have found it a much better story if Captain America would have gone to jail while some one a little more militant (Too bad Thor is dead) would lead the violent rebellion
Well, this might be your wish, albiet a little late for the main storyline:
http://www.newsarama.com/movies/Hellboy/Iron/889new_storyimage3793928_full.jpg
Please, just pluck out my eyes now.
Oh, yes, I know. As soon as news about Cap broke, speculation began on who would replace Rogers as Captain America.
Pretty quickly, that image above sprang to mind in the minds of many. And, just like us, those same people wanted to claw their eyes out.
1)Luke Cage wasn’t created to test a super-soldier serum–it was simply an experiment in making people more resistant to disease. A sadistic guard tried tinkering to kill Cage and instead made him the man of steel-hard skin he is today.
Fair enough; I had the impression that it had been retconned to be a Super-Soldier variant, and Wikipedia seemed to back that up, but information’s only as good as your sources… (If it has been retconned, then the problem’s with the retcon, not the original story, then.)
As you cite the confusing sentences, I will attempt to address them
It’s the grail-king’s diefication of intellect, abstraction, Form, that causes him to lose the grail.
To behold the grail and indulge in its glory is to be unworthy of it. The grail tolerates no fixation to Form.
That’s how a movie making no explicit reference the the grail is truer to the grail myth than “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.”
It isn’t unlike the commandment objecting to idolatry. It also isn’t unlike the Islamic portrayal of Satan, who disobeyed the order to bow to man and was cast into hëll — not because he considered himself in no way inferior to man as he’s portrayed in Christianity — but because of his refusal to slacken his single-minded devotion to god.
I was not referring to behavior, but roles. Your question makes as much sense as asking “Who are the child and the father and mother?”
“Well, Mr Spock, Sarek, and Amanda fit the child/father/mother triangle where in Mr Spock is joined genetic material from Sarek and Amanda.”
To this statement would you then ask who the child/father/mother are? What their characteristics are? In the ways different characters/aspects in star trek display these characteristics?
As Den said, the foundation of the grail is not Christian. It’s meaning was applied to Adam as the grail king, and Jesus as the champion who redeems Adam.
With no obvious pagan contender, it’s not surprising you keep asking what the hëll I’m talking about. Christianity doesn’t fill the role of the pagan grail contender so you keep asking me about it as if its absence is my fault. All that’s left are a few casual references by Campbell that complete the meaning like the pain of a phantom limb.
But without a pagan grail contender, you’ve arbitrarily removed your solution to recovering the grail. Where then is the sense of leaving his role out of the model?
Disclaimer, that last quote was not by Micha.
“It’s the grail-king’s diefication of intellect, abstraction, Form, that causes him to lose the grail.
To behold the grail and indulge in its glory is to be unworthy of it. The grail tolerates no fixation to Form.”
What’s the basis of these two statements? Usually you’re very careful when it comes to citation and quotation.
“That’s how a movie making no explicit reference the the grail is truer to the grail myth than “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.””
That’s rather convenient.
“I was not referring to behavior, but roles. Your question makes as much sense as asking “Who are the child and the father and mother?”
“Well, Mr Spock, Sarek, and Amanda fit the child/father/mother triangle where in Mr Spock is joined genetic material from Sarek and Amanda.”
To this statement would you then ask who the child/father/mother are? What their characteristics are? In the ways different characters/aspects in star trek display these characteristics?”
I don’t think this is a good analogy. You wish to apply the grail relationships metaphorically to the Captain America story. If you say for example that Captain america is the metaphorical father of the Avenger’s family, you have to demonstrate that. This is even more true in the case of the grail relationship/roles, since they are not as self-evident as familial relationships/roles, especially since they depend on a specific story.
King, Knight, Detective, Fool/messiah are relatively more evident roles, yet they still require an explanation before you can use them to explain stories.
“As Den said, the foundation of the grail is not Christian. It’s meaning was applied to Adam as the grail king, and Jesus as the champion who redeems Adam.”
What’s the origin of the application to Adam?
Den was refering to the story of the grail written by Chretien having influences that some scholars trace to Celtic legends. Although he should also have mentioned that scholars don’t agree as to the level of that influence.
“Christianity doesn’t fill the role of the pagan grail contender so you keep asking me about it as if its absence is my fault.”
It’s your terminology and your theory so you have to take responsibility to its historical and literary basis, how well it works, and when it doesn’t completely work you have to explain why.
“But without a pagan grail contender, you’ve arbitrarily removed your solution to recovering the grail. Where then is the sense of leaving his role out of the model?”
It’s your model, and I stil don’t understand how it works. You have to define the roles of the components, and (if you are not using them simply as metaphors) you have to give them a historical-literary basis.
I answered your question.
Maybe I picked this image up from the Penguin classics edition of the grail quest I read 12 years ago. Maybe I picked this up from the Hero with a thousand Faces. Maybe I picked this up from the Moyers interview. Maybe I picked this up from the Robin Williams movie. Maybe some combination of the above, with or without overlap. It fits all of them, and all the other examples I cited.
If I’m usually very careful when it comes to citation and quotation, why are you questioning everything that comes from my keyboard?
I didn’t say Captain america is the metaphorical father of the Avengers.
If you have a question that can be answered, I will try to answer it.
Micha, in your Borat-style consent-form replies to my posts, you keep citing detectives, fools, and messiahs. What detective did Percival or Galahad encounter? What fool? What Son of God?
1. It isn’t my model — nothing I’ve said is original to me.
2. What part of non-Christian contender to the grail is unfathomable? Am I not using English words?
The Holy Grail? No, thanks. I’ve already got one.
Can we come up and have a look?
Of course not, you are Bloggish types!
Well, what are you, then?
Actually, I think Frank Castle as Captain America could work.
No, hear me out!
If I were the guy in charge, I’d go the opposite direction of what the “Is this the new Captain America?” picture would lead us to fear. Instead of going the Azrael or Eradicator route, I would make it a redemption story, with Castle struggling to become a better man in order to live up to the legacy he’s inherited, probably stumbling along the way, but ultimately becoming worthy of the shield, probably just in time to hand it back to Rogers when he comes back from the dead to promote the new movie.
-Rex Hondo-
Mike, until recently I belonged to the academic world. It this world scrutinizing and criticizing even the ideas, interpretation, and the method of presentation of ideas is the norm, even itr is the ideas of esteemed scholars. In this world you cannot present a broad overarching interpretation of a complex text as indisputable fact and expect people to accept it without question simply because you said it fits. You have to establish and demonstrate in a methodical way what you say, and still people will question it. But of course, if you find this kind of scrutiny distressing, you are free to ignore it. This is only a blog, you can say whatever you want. And anyway, I don’t have any stake in this. You also don’t have to concern yourself that I am somehow offended by your burst of anger. I understand that this is difficult for you to see your ideas and your presentation of these ideas scrutinized in this way.
I must say that if I were you I would be more hesitant to present an interpretation of a myth and several movies constructed soley by myself as indisputable fact based only on a Classics book read years ago, a passing remark in a documentry, and a movie, and all this without presenting the interpretation in a methodical way. But that’s me.
“you keep citing detectives, fools, and messiahs. What detective did Percival or Galahad encounter? What fool? What Son of God?”
It would seem that in your haste to present your ideas you ignores some of the things I wrote. Or maybe I did not present them clearly enough for you, in which case I’ll be happy to clarify. I mentioned and briefly described the interpretational methodology developed by a man named Frank McConnel, who like you is a literary interpreter — in my opinion much more skilled than you in his craft. I thought you’d be interested in a different approach to interpreting texts and movies, but perhaps you feel your interpretation needs no other. In any case, fools, detectives etc. are archetypical characters in his interpretational system. In his pretty good book he demonstrates how these archetypes appear in a variety of different stories, and this helps to understand the nature of these stories better. Unlike you, he feels the need to actually demonstrate his archetypes in detail, and does not present it as indisputable fact. I personaly found his approach very illuminating, and his interpretations sounded very convincing to me, while yours do not. I don’t know if this is because of a difference in your systems or just a diffeence in the way you present your concepts.
You also seemed to have missed the post in which I explained that messiah is not synonymous with son of god. But that’s not important.
Since it seems this discussion upsets you to the point of rudeness, I think we should stop it so as not to distress you further.
“It isn’t my model — nothing I’ve said is original to me.”
Based on your words it seems to be yours since you do not attribute it to anybody else. You say you were influenced by a passing statement spoken by Joseph Campbell in an interview, and a book you read 12 years ago + the movie Fisher King. Combining all this and applying it movies like Searching for Bobie Fischer is your work, don’t deny yourself the credit.
We’re Irish, why do you think we have these outRAGEous accents?
(C’mon, it’s St. Paddy’s Day! Allow a LITTLE interpretation!).
Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 16, 2007 10:35 PM
Instead of going the Azrael or Eradicator route, I would make it a redemption story, with Castle struggling to become a better man in order to live up to the legacy he’s inherited, probably stumbling along the way, but ultimately becoming worthy of the shield, probably just in time to hand it back to Rogers when he comes back from the dead to promote the new movie.
That’s pretty much the story of John Walker, Super-Patriot turned Captain America turned USAgent, from Mark Gruenwald’s run as writer of Captain America. Ironically, however, just as Walker began growing into the role of being Cap his parents were murdered, causing him to become unhinged and go all “Punisher” on their murderers’ áššëš.
Micha,
As far as you are denying statements by me with replies that in no way disprove what I am saying, the aggression is yours.
Mike, if the mere word No, and not accepting a statement you make, is perceived by you as aggression, I will certainly not offend you by daring to discuss with you in a serious manner any statement you make, no matter how strange I find it. Our focus should be first your calmness of spirit and only secondly understanding of philosophical ideas. Although, others might not be aware of your sensitivity the way I do and might challenge your proclamations, so maybe you should be more careful about making such statements or at least offere a warning that you do not seek to discuss them seriously.
Micha… seriously, it’s time to walk away from this.
Yes, that’s what I’m doing. It was interesting for a while. Now that it isn’t I’d rather discuss civil war and captain america.
Are you suggesting that shields migrate?
Are you suggesting that shields migrate?
Are you suggesting that shields migrate?
You denied “Plato portrayed Forms as [independent] of Nature” and “Nature is [dependent] on the forms” are compatible statements, and you referred to aggression in my replies. Now you’ve demonstrated your persistence in portraying compatible statements as mutually exclusive of each other.
As this non-sensical denial epitomizes every challenge to what I say you issue, it used to baffle me. I’ve issued a paradigm to reconcile the behavior that baffles me with my ability to form a model of reality.
As it would be hypocritical of me to offended by Bill Myer’s drive to ambush me, responding to no particular post here with:
to reconcile for himself my behavior that baffles him and his ability to form a cogent model of reality, it would be hypocritical of me to be offended by your aggression. As such, if you have a question for me that can be answered, I will try to answer it.
I said I wouldn’t retaliate against his ambushes, and I have no intention of retaliating against your aggression. But I haven’t waived the privilege of calling aggression what it is.
As the menu is not the dinner, the model is not my application of it.
Micha, don’t fall into the trap of Platonism, starving yourself by eating the dollar bills.
Not at all. They could be carried. A swallow could grip it by the strap.
“But I haven’t waived the privilege of calling aggression what it is.”
And you call me counselor? bwahahahahaha. I doubt I’ve ever used the phrase “waived the privilege” before, and I’m pretty sure I should at some point.
Perhaps the swallows could rig the shield up on a piece of twine?
It’s not a question of where they grip it, it’s a question of air speed velocity. A swallow has to beat it’s wings 53 times per minute to stay aloft, am I right?
An African or European swallow?
I’m pretty sure your girlfriend would agree.
Held under the dorsal guidance feathers?