Not sure if any of you know of them, but there are two cartoonists, Cox and Forkum, who have a daily cartoon blog that's fueled by the objectivist perspective. The majority of the cartoons are visual commentary on the War on Terror and I think most of you will appreciate them.
They also have a book, 'Black and White World' that has a collection of their cartoons. Their link:
Linda has offered DICK TRACY as an outstanding comics hero -- a sort of proto- and de facto Objectivist hero. Linda's analysis of the character, available elsewhere in this forum, is illuminating.
A comic story reacting to Rand (and Ditko, I'm pretty sure)was Bill Widener's GO-MAN -- published in the '80s at first in a primitive-looking book called NERVE, then as a title feature by Caliber and then occasionally in CALIBER PRESENTS.
Go-Man himself was a quasi-hero, a character in a sort of superhero reality show, the product of of a TV marketing program. His nemesis was the quasi-villain Ms. N (Ms. Ayn?) whose battle cry was "N is N!!"
GO-MAN was completely amateur-looking, yet I found it fascinating.
Frank Miller? I don't know. I admit I'm still not totally clear on all of this objectivist stuff, but
it seems to be closer to conservatism to me. And
both DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and DARK KNIGHT STRIKES
BACK seemed to be a bit of an indictment against
conservative politicians, certainly DKR with the
way Reagan was portrayed. Of course I could be
totally off-base here, maybe Linda could speak on this a bit more.
I also don't know as much about Dick Tracy, I saw
the Warren Beatty movie when I was a kid, but from
what I do know I think he might qualify as an objectivist hero. So would The Shadow. Heroes back
in those days were much more black and white, and
wouldn't hesitate to kill their enemies, so I guess
that fits.
Sheesh. I finally get this guy to participate, &
then everyone (except Mike & Luthor) just ignores his thread...
Sorry I don't really have anything to add, I'm
not familiar with Lash or Pope, and I can't say
I see any Randian influence in Frank Miller's
work, but I can't say that I don't see either.
...in one regard, the Punisher fits. He's not just killing "people" and hes no longer about revenge, purely. He's doing a duty, in a way, that is, eliminating those who cannot peacefully cooperate in a society, by eliminating them from it. They cannot help themselves, but to become predators on the others in their group, and thus need consume any more of our resources and time.
When brought up, many are skeptical about the Rand/Miller connection, and I think that's due to Miller's mixed up messages about where he lies both politically philosophically through both his stories and his interviews. But if you've read any of Ayn Rand's fiction books, you'd Know it's been a clear influence on Frank Miller's work.
But being influenced by Rand's work and being a devotee of Objectivism are two very different things, and I think, while Miller's work is obviously influenced by Rand, he is not an Objectivist.
His clear Rand influence ranges from the simple:
To Miller naming character's in his stories after Rand characters, (naming the villain, Taggart, in Ronin after a villain, James Taggart from Atlas Shrugged, naming the villainess Roark's in Sin City after the Hero of the Fountainhead, Howard Roark)
To having Matt Murdock, in 'Man Without Fear' laughing about being fired atop a building, just as the opening of the Fountainhead has Howard Roark laughing about being expelled from school atop a cliff....
To the blatant, when Miller used the Entire plot/theme of Atlas Shrugged for Martha Washington Goes To War. It's all there to see. Miller even talked about her influence on his work in The Comics Journal, which you can research in the recent TCJ collection of interviews on Miller, and in a handful of of other interviews over the years.
Now, allow me to vent a little when it comes to Rand and her many detractors......
It would help to have people who have actually read Rand to dismiss Rand, since in my experience there've been people who have seemingly strong opinions about her work until you realize they haven't read any of it, making their uninformed opinions as worthless as a rob Lie-feld comic.
I've never seen a writer discussed more by people who haven't had the decency, the intellectual honesty, of actually reading the work and forming their Own opinion on it.
The below is from Miller himself in the first printing of 'Martha Washington Goes to War.-
'We all borrow from the classics from time to time, and my story for this chapter in the life of Martha Washington is no exception.
Forced with the question of how to present Martha's rite of passage, and how to describe the fundamental changes in Martha's world, I was drawn again and again to the ideas presented by Ayn Rand in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged.
Eschewing the easy, and much used totalitarian menace made popular by George Orwell, Rand focused instead on issues of competence and incompetence, courage and cowardice, and took the fate of humanity out of the hands of a convenient 'Big Brother' and placed it in the hands of individuals, with individual strengths and individual choices made for good and evil.
I gratefully and humbly acknowledge the creative debt.'
-Frank Miller
DAD, I admit it has been over a decade since I read a Punisher story.
I knew him to be a judge, jury and quite literally executioner -- not driven to bring criminals to civil justice but to his own brand of justice.
Mr.A used viloence against those who initiated violence. He was not an executioner. He simply withheld aid to those violent criminals when their actions got them into mortal trouble. As an Objectivist, Mr.A knows he is ethically free to withhold aid to anyone if he chooses, even if it means the bad guy plunge to his death.
But Mr.A cannot initiate violence. Neither can he use mortal force except against another mortal threat.
( Linda, I bow to your superior authority regarding Mr.A, of course. )
Mr.A's brand of heroism, which does occasionally allow criminals to become the mortal victims of their own foolishness, is very different from the Punisher I remember. An Objectivist cannot go shooting people except to stop a violent crime.
It distresses me if we can't distinguish a difference.
I haven't read a punisher story in at least ten years that I can think of. Maybe almost twenty.
As I said, its the only regard with which the Punisher can be regarded as Objectivist.
I love ya, Daddio, and hate to prolong any disagreement between us, but this one seems to be more than just semantic.
The Punisher's homicidal ways are specifically NOT Objectivist. They are unethical by Objectivist black/white standards.
Objectivists are free to use whatever violent force necessary after a criminal initiates violence in order to stop that specific act of violence. Mr.A may let criminals and fools die -- when, by their crimes and foolishness, they put themselves at risk; he may let them hang themselves, but he never simply goes to town shooting bad guys!
The only similarity between The Punisher and Mr.A is that neither of them minds when a bad guy dies. That doesn't make Frank an Objectivist. Heck, my boyfriend loves it when bad guys die, and he's a Democrat! (long story)
This message has been edited by HadjiWannabe on Mar 31, 2004 1:55 PM
"Objectivists are free to use whatever violent force necessary after a criminal initiates violence in order to stop that specific act of violence."
Can we assume that at least the majority of Frank's kills are people who have initiated violence or are ready to any moment? While he's not always preventing a specific act, society is safer without these people around. I haven't read every Punisher story, but I don't recall him ever killing car thieves or embezzlers, but gun-toting drug dealers, armed robbers, home invaders, etc. as well as plain murderers.
I agree, Mike, that the Punisher is not an Objectivist, but I think it's his motivations that make him that way, not his actions. The main thing that keeps him from being one is that he's irrational.
I prefer to judge actions rather than motives, but okay.
While trying to distinguish Objectivist heroism from renegade vigilantism, I wonder whether Mr.A would ever say, "Society is safer without these people around."
But, really the regard to Castle, Chaz summarized what I was going for quite well. I am not saying he is objectivist, but that act, the elimination of murderous cancers from society that seem to be escaping justice, TRUE justice, well, thats objectivist, to me.
I'm not nearly as familiar with Mr. A as I am with the Punisher. (By the way, are there any collections of Ditko's Mr. A work? I haven't had any luck finding The Avenging World either.)
We've seen countless stories where the Punisher and Daredevil or other ideologically different characters meet up when chasing the same criminals and then end up fighting. For those of you who are more familiar with Mr. A, what would happen if he met the Punisher? Would he actively try to bring him down, or just look down at him disapprovingly?
I was standing in the shower this morning reading the new Comics Journal featuring Ditko. I forget which article in specific, but its writer referred to Ditko quoting Rand ("A is A") and how funny it is to think a thing is what it is.
(Yes, the summary I just made does include a level of contempt for the article.)
If A is A -- if a thing is what it is -- and if we may fairly use language to represent things that occur in reality -- then we may use reason to make rational, truthful choices.* Yet we may also misuse language and reason, thus making messed-up choices. It is possible to introduce terms that defy objectivity by representing un-real things as facts. "Original sin," for example, is not an objective term; it's a symbol representing nothing that exists in reality. It defies objectivity. And then there are words we treat as facts although they have no accurate definition {"punk rock," for example, or "the American way"). When you introduce words like that, which represent nothing objectively, you cannot use reason to draw objective conclusions.
"Society's sake" is such a term.
"Society" has no sake. "Society" has no rights. To say society does is to introduce a slightly cockeyed term when really we mean "the sake of all law-abiding individuals" or "the rights of all people."
If a criminal initiates violence against a law-abiding victim, then another person may intercede for the sake of that innocent person. That's Objectivist.
But said "intercessor" must not say to himself "For the sake of society, I will seek out criminals and use violence against them. Even if they haven't initiated a violent act, you can just tell who the criminals are, to hell with civil justice, I'm gonna clean up this town." That is NOT Objectivist. That's vigilante crime.
It's frustrating that The Vigilante Criminal is easy to mix up with The Objectivist Hero! I suppose comics have succeeded so well in depicting The Romantic Altruist Hero that all other crimefighters seem alike.
I don't wanna bore you guys. Can you assure me my point is clear, regardless of whether you agree, so we can agree to disagree and call the topic quits? I'd be grateful. Otherwise, you know me: blah blah blah.
(That's how they pronounced my name at The Kubert School, by the way: Mike Blahblahblah)
*Let me admit I an not an Objectivist. I do NOT find language to represent objective reality perfectly. I believe mathmatical logic (a tautology) may produce perfect results if you do it right, but I think language may have only accuracy (the word "dog" is not equal to a real dog, for example, and the word "accellerate" bears nuance and implication that is not perfectly consistent with the physical fact of accelleration).
In other words, I think judgment inevitably loses accuracy due to the nature of language, making error inevitable. I strive toward Objectivism, and is so doing hope to be maximally accurate.
This should be outrageous to an Objectivist. I am not an Objectivist, alas.
Chaz asks: "For those of you who are more familiar with Mr. A, what would happen if he met the Punisher?"
I hope Linda can find an example where a Ditko Objectivist Hero faces a vigilante who initiates violence. That would save so much debate.
If The Punisher was obeying the law when he met up with Mr.A, they would interact peaceably. I imagine Mr.A would ignore The Punisher.
If The Punisher initiated violence against some blackhearted cancer of society who was not actively abusing an innocent person, I imagine The Punisher would die.
On a "blessed" day, maybe The Punisher in the midst of getting his ass kicked would see the error of his ways, learn from Mr.A, and become a real hero instead of a nutjob badguy.
Although I really like his work, Frank Miller always struck me as being more glib than anything else. But the Cox and Forkum material is very pungeant and makes quite a wry case for the Right--the Condi Rice cartoon is dead on the mark.
Unfortunately I can only go on my perception of the Punsher, not my exposure, since I've never read any of his titles or stories with him, but from what I think I know, Mr. A would have problems with the Punisher.
