Where Angels Fear to Tread: Constantine, Promethea, and the Fool

Part One: Constantine

1969 ends with a surprise—the seventies.

In its last three pages, Alan Moore and Kevin O’Neill’s Century: 1969 suddenly departs from the eponymous year and drops us, without warning, a decade further on.  The bright, LSD Technicolor has washed out of London, replaced with a heroin gray that never even fades to black, but only to darker and sootier grays.  The place seems desolate, desperate, depressed, a throwback to the Ingsoc years, but without a Big Brother to blame.  The Basement, a “Beat Club,” “where the Rutles first played London, apparently,” is now Debasement, a seedy punk bar where at closing time they probably don’t bother to sweep up the broken glass.  The sixties, so hopeful at the peak, seemed to promise the world.  The seventies promised nothing, and delivered.  Nihilism is all the rage.

Another change as well:  There’s an old man, who looks like a young man.  Or is he a young man, who looks old beyond his years?  He sits alone, slumped at a table, dejected.  He has short, slightly spiky hair—more Richard Hell than Billy Idol—and he hasn’t shaved in a couple of days.  He wears a suit that was probably pretty sharp when he put it on, but now looks like he slept in it—and, over that, a dingy trench coat.  We know he is Allan Quartermain, but there at the end, I would swear he is John Constantine.

He may well be both.

We’ve seen this trick before.  Warren Ellis and John Cassaday’s Planetary, chapter seven (“To be in England, in the Summertime”), begins by announcing the death of a Constantine stand-in named John Carter.  “Who’s John Carter?” Elijah Snow asks.

“Old friend of ours,” Jakita says.  “Had serious connections in the occult underground.  Real player in the eighties.”

“The word,” the Drummer cuts in, “. . . is scumbag.”

We turn the page and we see him, in Jakita’s memory, slightly unkempt hair, cynical expression, trench coat.  He is lighting a cigarette.  By the end, we learn that Carter/Constantine is not really dead.  He shows up, head shaved, the moon forming a halo behind him.  When he takes off the trench coat, we see that he’s wearing a black sports jacket and no shirt underneath.  Large, bold, black tattoos adorn his chest.  Suddenly Jack Carter isn’t John Constantine anymore; he’s Spider Jerusalem instead.

“The eighties are long over,” he says.  “Time to move on.  Time to be someone else.”

He walks away, into the darkness, leaving behind the smallest drift of smoke, twisting like a question mark.

Both of these stories are, in their way, stories about stories.  The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen began by assembling a Victorian superhero team—Quatermain, Wilhelmina Murray, Captain Nemo, Mr. Hyde, the Invisible Man—and filling their world with fictions borrowed from other fictions.  Subsequent volumes in the series have followed the key characters as the years progressed and they grew old—or, in some cases, thanks to a Fountain of Youth, did not.  Moore, then, does what he does best, simultaneously deploying adventure story tropes and commenting upon them.

Ellis does something similar in Planetary, where a team of “mystery archaeologists” tries to uncover “the secret history of the twentieth century,” and thus encounters alternate-world versions of superheroes, movie monsters, pulp adventurers, mad scientists, and other pop-culture figures.  Here, too, the stories are critiqued even as they are told.

Moore borrowed Quatermain, but invented Constantine; Ellis borrowed Constantine, but invented Jerusalem.  The transition—Quatermain, Constantine, Jerusalem—is interesting in several respects.  For one thing, it is broadly in keeping with important aspects of each’s character’s story.

Allan Quartermain, whom Alan Moore once dismissed as “just another white imperialist out to exploit the natives” becomes, in the League‘s story, something more and something else.  When we first find him he is a heroin addict, old and pathetic, strung out, filthy, and waiting to die.  It takes a woman in danger to bring him back to his old self.  And yet he doesn’t remain his old self.  He grows tender, broadens, changes.  He comes to respect Miss Murray as an equal, then to love her, then to love, also, the androgynous and immortal Orlando.  He travels to a magic pool and comes back a young man, posing as his own son.  He is no longer the “old” Quartermain at all.  Alan Moore thus reinvents Allan Quatermain.  And Allan Quatermain reinvents himself.

1873271-jack_4

Constantine, as a kind of magical con artist, lives by his wits.  He is constantly adapting, constantly improvising.  The central conflict of Hellblazer is that of the individual, a mere human, confronting powers much greater than himself—heaven, hell, and Margaret Thatcher.  The question the series poses, taken as a whole, is how much of a bastard can one be and remain a decent sort of guy?  Or, at times: How much of a bastard does one have to be?  Of course, the temptation—for John and for his writers—is always to push it too far.  The challenge for the writer is to stay true to the character; the challenge for John Constantine is to stay true to himself.

Jack_Carter_Planetary_004

Transmetropolitan poses many of the same questions, the same challenges.  Spider Jerusalem is a rogue journalist, a cyberpunk Hunter S. Thompson, determined to tell the truth and consequences be damned.  The story he’s pursuing, or a crucial part of it, concerns the persecution of the “Transient” community, a rather cultish group who alters their genetics to become part alien.  In other words, Transmetropolitan is about the relationship between integrity and autonomy, and in particular the defense of the second being required for the preservation of the first.

A theme uniting the two transitions—Quartermain to Constantine, Constantine to Jerusalem—is the idea that heroic characters are expressions of the cultural needs of their eras.  Thus Jakita’s explanation for the “faintly ridiculous” appearance of the Vertigo heroes:  “They’re eighties people.”  And furthermore, they’re English:  “England was a scary place.  No wonder it produced a scary culture.”  Thus, also, Alan Moore’s observation in his introduction to The Dark Knight Returns:  “[H]eroes are starting to become rather a problem.  They aren’t what they used to be. . . or rather they are, and therein lies the heart of the difficulty.”  He goes on to explain:  “The world about us has changed and is continually changing at an ever-accelerating pace.  So have we.”  However, despite advances in technical knowledge and social conscience, “comic books have largely had to plod along with the same old muscle-bound oafs spouting the same old muscle-bound platitudes while attempting to dismember each other.”  Changing times, he says, demand “new themes, new insights, new dramatic situations.”  Our heroes have to change.

The personal tension in 1969—between Mina, Allan, and Orlando—largely hinges on their different approaches to adapting to the new times.  Mina is somewhat desperately trying to adopt the most up-to-date dress and slang, an affectation that her teammates find ridiculous.  It’s easier for Allan, at least on the surface, as men’s fashions are more stable (witness the iconic trench coat) and the culture is more forgiving to men as they age—not that he ages, exactly.  But Mina, perhaps because of her earlier, less idyllic experiences with immortals, has picked up on something deeper.  She fears obsolescence, becoming “fossilised as a Victorian freak” in a world that will grow increasingly alien.  For Orlando it is different.  Orlando is always changing—names, sexes, allegiances; even her history is subject to revision—and Orlando is never changing.  He, or she, is a constant throughout history, always present where the drama unfolds, cynical and self-centered past the point of narcissism.  Whatever tragedy he may witness, we can be sure that he will be counted among the survivors.  Fashions change, ideas changes, and Orlando will take them up, or not, as it suits her.  His very mercurial nature is a kind of constancy; whatever else happens, Orlando will adapt and survive.  There is a stable center beneath the shifting appearances, the momentary attachments.  And so, in the  shadows and grime of the seventies, as they discuss Mina’s disappearance and the end of their League, it is naturally Orlando who gets up and leaves.  Quatermain remains, unsure what else he could do.

 

Part Two: The Fool

In Books of Magic, Neil Gaiman and Paul Johnson present Constantine as an archetype drawn from the Tarot.  Dressed as the Fool, he mocks, and riddles, and provokes.

RWS_Tarot_00_Fool

The occultist Arthur Edward Waite wrote of the Fool:

“With light step, as if earth and its trammels had little power to restrain him, a young man in gorgeous vestments pauses at the brink of a precipice among the great heights of the world; he surveys the blue distance before him – its expanse of sky rather than the prospect below. . . .  The edge which opens on the depth has no terror; it is as if angels were waiting to uphold him, if it came about that he leaped from the height.  His countenance is full of intelligence and expectant dream. . . .  He is the spirit in search of experience.”

Johannes Fiebig and Evelin Bürger add that the card’s number, Zero, “indicated a very personal bottom line, the self, the starting point from which everything else flows.  This is the beginning and the end of that which makes you a unique person.”  They advise: “You must have the courage to face the future, even if you cannot predict or determine the future in advance.  You must have the courage to walk your own path and to be open, even if your back isn’t covered, and even if conventional wisdom and common sense suggest otherwise.”

p2fool

In Promethea, Alan Moore, Constantine’s creator and a practicing magician himself, describes the Fool in verse:

“Indeed in blithe, uncaring bliss

The Fool steps o’er a precipice

As if he trusts the winds, so chill,

To bear him wheresoe’er they will.

 

Thus any venture is begun,

This reckless step from naught to one.

It’s magic’s foremost trick, I guess,

How something comes from nothingness.”

In some depictions, the Fool is accompanied by a bird (perhaps representing freedom) or a butterfly (transformation).  Moore’s Promethea and Gaiman’s Books of Magic—stories of quests, in which a novice is introduced into the world of magic—both show the butterfly in their versions, or in the first case, a Promethea moth.  Moore’s Fool seems to be following it over the edge.

Gaiman has made use of the Fool before.  In the Sandman series, Destruction, who has long ago abdicated his responsibilities, decides he cannot stay in the home he has made for himself since abandoning his realm.

“What will you do now?” Dream asks.

“I will make the most of what I’ve got. I shall live out my days doing what I have to do, one day at a time.  Life, like time, is a journey through darkness.”

A few pages later, Dream inquires again, “You are going now?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”

“Oh, out there, somewhere.  Up, out.”

We see him, carrying a stick with a bundle knotted at the end, walking up into space, until he is as small and as bright as a star.  It is the Fool, stepping over the edge at last, and rising rather than falling.

destruction6

Destruction, like the Fool, has a dog for a companion. “Barnabas can be a bit of a pain,” Destruction says, “and he has no poetry in his soul, but he means well.”  In the Tarot, the dog represents caution, prudence, and common sense; he sounds a warning as the Fool approaches the cliff.  It is fitting that Destruction, or the man who was once Destruction, when he steps into the sky, leaves the dog behind, on firm ground.

The theme of transformation—”time to be someone else”—is in fact the moral of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman series:  “One must change or die.”  Destruction decides to change; Morpheus, to die.

Constantine’s greatest trick was probably surviving for as long as he did.  He is after all, just a working-class bloke with a habit of getting in over his head.  If he could be said to have powers at all, they would consist chiefly of arrogance, recklessness, a certain rakish charm, and a large measure of pure blind luck, along with knowing a little of magic and a lot of people.  It is, in fact, precisely the same qualities that get him into trouble and get him out of it.

As William Blake wrote in his “Proverbs of Hell”:

“A fool who would persist in his folly becomes wise.

Folly is the cloak of knavery.”

The Fool is a knave by another name.  “Not John,” Constantine’s end-of-everything doppelganger tells Tim Hunter, “But Jack . . .   Jack Fool. . . .  A Jack-a-Napes when I tell riddles and merry tales; Jack Pudding, when I play my pranks. . . .”  And the jack in a deck of cards is sometimes also called the knave.

This knave, cloaked in folly, knows more than he says.  Moore writes:

“What magic shaped the way things fell?

The Fool smiles, knows, but does not tell.”

When young Tim Hunter asks the Constantine-Fool, “I’m meant to be learning about magic.  What have you got to tell me?”  The reply is a feint of ignorance:  “Me, good sir?  What do I know of magic?  Why, nothing, my masters.  Nothing at all.”  But as he speaks, as he tells them he has nothing to say, he is at the same moment creating and then juggling balls of white flame—literally playing with fire.  Is he brazenly lying, or is he hinting at a deeper truth—that there is daring but no wisdom, that magic is a question of will rather than knowledge?  Is it skill or is it luck?  Constantine’s brand of magical bluffing suggests that the two often amount to much the same thing.  The only trick is not losing your nerve until you see it through to the end, whatever that may be.

 

Part Three:  Promethea

In Snakes and Ladders, Alan Moore tells of seeing John Constantine in a sandwich shop: “He looks at me.  He nods, and smiles, and walks away.”  (He smiles, knows, and does not tell.)

“Years later,” Moore continues,”in another place, he steps out from the dark and speaks to me.  He whispers:  ‘I’ll tell you the ultimate secret of magic.'”  We see him, cigarette in hand, and a slight, mischievous smile.  Moore leans toward him, listening.

“‘Any cunt could do it’,” Constantine says.

The casual manner is a pose.  Constantine promises to tell us a secret—or more, the secret—then seems not to, but actually does.  It’s not just showmanship, it’s illustrative.  It is itself a part of the secret—the smiling, knowing, telling, not telling.  (“What do I know of magic?  Why, nothing….  Nothing at all.“)  It’s a coded language, a teasing performance full of double meanings.  The profanity is part of it as well.  “[The] profane and scared are both one,” Moore writes.  Cunt, you understand:  Is it literal or metaphorical?  And what is the difference?

Moore’s Promethea is another story of an artist conjuring a fictional character into reality.  A young student, Sophie Bangs, is researching a mythical figure who recurs in stories throughout the history of literature.  What she discovers is that

“Promethea was a real little girl who lived in 5th century Roman Egypt.  Her father was a hermetic scholar. . . sort of like a magician.  A Christian mob killed him. . . But the gods intervened, taking his daughter into their world of myth and fiction, The Immateria.  Promethea became a living story, growing up in the realm that all dreams and stories come from.  Sometimes, she’d wander into the imagination of mortals. . . .  Some of them, taken over by this powerful living idea, even physically became Promethea. . . .  See, anyone with imagination and enough enthusiasm for the character can bring her through from the Immateria, by thinking themselves or others into the role.”

Sophie becomes the latest incarnation of Promethea, leading her—and therefore, also, the reader—on a instructive quest to learn about magic, or at least the basics of Alan Moore’s theory of it.  Some of what she learns helps to elucidate the meaning of Constantine’s secret.

The magician Jack Faust instructs her:  “The vessel between woman’s thighs is the cup’s highest aspect.  The chalice.  The grail of divine compassion.”  Later, they have sex, and he continues:

“Magicians,  irrespective of their gender, are male.  Their symbol is the wand, the male member, because they are that which seeks to penetrate the mystery.  But once they succeed—then they become magic. They become the mystery, become that which is penetrated. They become female.”

This is all rather literal in the story.  Writers and artists, their pens and pencils serving as their wands, approach a woman who is not only mythic but myth itself, who is imaginary and who represents imagination.  Those who are most successful, at least one man included, then actually become her.

Later, Sophie encounters a female Aleister Crowley, who reiterates Faust’s point: “Here, magicians become magic itself.  The penetrator becomes the penetrated.  Male becomes female.”

Sex is magic, magic is creation.  Magic is about transformation, change.  But it is also about unity, and the unity of opposites in particular—illusion and reality, male and female, virgin and whore, sacred and profane.  Something doesn’t just come from nothing: the emptiness contains everything within it already.  Zero means nothing, but it is also the number of infinite potential.  Transformation is also a revelation, and the revelation transforms.  Magic is a system, a system of meanings, perhaps of essences—but it is an unstable system, a destabilizing system.  That is why it is transgressive.  That is why it is dangerous.

And in a sense it is dangerous whether it exists or not.  Magic may not be real in the way that toothbrushes and parking meters are.  But stories are real; symbols are real.  They may only exist in the mind, or in the culture, but they have real effects.  Tampering with the symbols, Moore argues repeatedly, changes consciousness, changes the meaning of things.  If this idea is even remotely correct—and for these purposes it makes no difference whether we conceive of the process as “magic,” as Moore does, or simply as “art”—then the project of re-imagining our heroes takes on new importance, and greater urgency.  It’s not just about having better comics, but about finding new ways of seeing the world, and new ways of being in it.  Changing ideas changes the world.  It’s just a matter of imagination, and having the nerve to take the first step.

When Sophie next encounters Crowley he is dressed as the Fool, sitting at the bottom of an ornate staircase reaching to the heavens.  At the top, he tells her, one can “behold the vision of God, face to face.” Crowley, the gloomy Fool, waits uncertainly, despondently.  “I’ve always been sitting undecidedly here,” he says.  But also, he says, “I’ve always been there,” up above.  “You go ahead,” he tells Sophie. “Good luck with God.”

God turns out to be the moment of creation:  “Something from nothing.  One from none. . . .  Always here. Always now. . . .  One perfect moment, when everything happens.”  Implicit in that moment is the unity of all Being.  “All one.  All God. . . .  We are each other.  And we are God. . . .  And God is one.  And one is next to nothing.”  There, in that bliss of oneness and that barely-there heaven, along with everything else, is (again) the Fool—the familiar image this time, the one taken from the Tarot.  Satchel over his shoulder, dog barking behind him, his next step will take him over the ledge.  Perhaps there is some slight resemblance to Crowley.

And from that ultimate height, one finds another edge.  Looking down one sees the universe, arrayed like the Kabbalah.  Sophie steps over, and falls back into our world.

 

Inside Gozilla’s Rotting Carcass

In 1999, Warren Ellis, John Cassaday and Laura DePuy explored the Godzilla imagery in the second issue of Planetary, “Island”. The series was still in the process of codifying its relationship to its readers and was very open about its objectives and methods. It sought to present the archeology of fiction by conflating the narratives of popular texts and their very existence as popular objects, and having the heroes of the series excavate and interpret these condensed remains.
 

mothra in planetary

The carcass of Mothra, in Planetary #2 (May 1999)

 
Thus, when the Planetary team meets Godzilla, they also encounter Godzilla, the cultural phenomenon. The history of the monster merges with the history of the monster genre and the demise of the latter mean the former have turned into rotting carcasses. In the series, these rotting carcasses are to be found on Island Zero, where the Planetary team is summoned in order to stop a sect, whose members intend to feast on the corpses of the Kaijus. By the time the team arrives, the members of the sect and the local Japanese soldiers have killed each others, positioning the heroes as spectators. Only at the end of the issue does the reader get a modicum of explanation, through a piece of expository dialogue:

Jakita Wagner: It all started the day after Hiroshima. […] We can’t say it was an atomic bomb. We can’t say these things are radioactive mutants. I mean, that’d be stupid. […] But five years later, island zero was populated by great monsters. They died off for some reason. They never left the island and they died.

The parallels are obvious, and even readers with a passing knowledge of the daikaiju genre are likely to notice the similarities between its history and Jakita’s story: the Japanese giant monsters movies appeared after World War 2, with Godzilla in 1954, and the giant pterodactyle Rodan (a stunning sight in the last page of the Planetary issue) in 1956, then spawned a popular series of films until the mid-70s before a prolonged eclipse; although the genre was very popular in Japan, it also remained profoundly insular, exotic imports in the rest of the world, it “never left the island”. The “five years later” reference does not quite match, though it could be a reference to 1948 Unknown Island, a little known RKO film by Jake Bernhard, in which a group of adventurers stumble a lots island populated by (giant) dinosaurs, in the form of cheap costume-wearing extras.
 

Unknown Island (1948) trailer

 
Planetary thus transmuted the history of the genre – a history shaped by Western perception, which means the 80s renaissance of Godzilla, which was barely distributed abroad, can be ignored – into a history of the dead monsters on Island Zero. This strategy, which the series applied to a variety of popular genres and cultural objets, has been since praised by critics and academics as a challenging, complex and satisfying bridge between meta-fiction and popular texts.

I suspect that in the last few years, this conflation of Godzilla and Godzilla has become the default mode of engagement with the character. This is at last what the two most recent film incarnations of the King of the monsters suggest. Indeed the most interesting sequences of both Godzilla Final Wars (Ryuhei Kitamura, 2004) – the final Japanese entry in the franchise – and Godzilla (Gareth Edwards, 2014) both introduce the history of the franchise in the diegetic world. In both cases, this insertion occurs during the opening credits, setting the tone for the whole film.

During the credits of Godzilla Final Wars, excerpts from previous films in the franchise are intertwined with rolling dates, from 1954 to the present. The status of these images is not made explicit, but the construction of the sequence connects the chosen excerpts to suggest a continuous narrative rather than a collage. The movies blend into each others, are presented out of chronology, accompanied by prominent dates (1960, etc.) which do not correspond to any film, and create an artificial continuity. Godzilla is thus presented as having been a continuous presence since 1954, a description which can only be applied to the cultural phenomenon it represents, and is incompatible with the premise of most of the movies compiled in these sequences. Godzilla’s death at the end of the first movie, but also the various reboots, are glossed over, the better to repurpose existing images. Plots, foes and stories are briefly cast aside in order to foreground the cultural icon trough its five decades of existence, archetypally stomping over cities and soldiers. Though the movie itself includes numerous homages – and even a match versus the 1998 Emmerich version – it never develops this idea explicitly.
 
In Gareth Edwards’s Godzilla, the process is slightly less overt. As in the case of Godzilla Final Wars, the credit sequence opens with images of an atomic blast footage, before inserting Godzilla into actual footage from the 1950’s atomic tests in the Bikini islands. 1954 is only mentioned later in the film, in a passage of blunt exposition. Nevertheless, popular-cultured spectators are expected to understand that the discovery of the creature roughly coincides with the date of Honda’s first film.

True, this is a revisionist reading of the origin of the creature and of the American role in particular. In Edwards’s films, based on a script by Max Borenstein the tests did not disturb Godzilla, they were an attempt to destroy the creature. However, this history again acknowledges the age of the franchise, its historical origin. Incidentally, this is also, as in the case of Planetary, an example of redacted, or secret history. We are invited to re-read what we thought we knew: we thought we were familiar with the Bikini tests, we thought we knew Godzilla, but a new light will be shed on both.
 


Godzilla (2014), opening credits

 
Although both films purport to be modern takes on the king of monsters, it is striking that they both emphasize the age of the franchise and its now removed point of origin. In doing so, they acknowledge the fact that the Godzilla franchise – a familiar series of cultural objects, with a well-established connection to the atomic trauma in Japan – is bigger than any specific movie. The success of both endeavors is predicated on the existence of an audience eager to connect with the franchise as a whole rather than with a specific film or series of films. The story of the Japanese Godzilla may have been rebooted in 2000, but it is hard to conceive of a spectator going to see Final Wars with no awareness of the previous films. Neither film is a period piece, though: Godzilla is at once current and historically grounded, as if some of Planetary’s erudition and esteem for its readership has seeped into both productions. Still, while Planetary made the exploration of the link between history and stories the center of its narrative, the movies contain it in a space where they can still claim plausible deniability. The ambiguous space of the opening credit seems perfectly appropriate to negotiate this tension.

The comparison with the 1998 Roland Emmerich version is enlightening. That film tried to imagine a modernized origin, one which would transpose the story of the original films with no respect for the film as film. It is hard not to see this as another expression of the changing conception of the audience among mass media producers. The subculture connoisseur may not be the target audience, but he or she is important enough to warrant the creation of these two opening sequences.

More generally, this embrace of history also sheds a light on the cultural status of various icons of popular culture. Godzilla is a 1954 creation and the movies acknowledge it, yet it seems unimaginable to have a major Superman or Batman film taking the thirties as a point of origin (Captain America is a somewhat complex exception here, since the character is both of the forties and the sixties). DC did produce a short film doing for Superman what the opening credit of Godzilla Final Wars tried to achieve, but crucially, it was distributed separately from Man of Steel, thus maintaining a clear distinction between the character in the story and the character in cultural history.
 

Superman at 75


 
It may be that Superman and the other superheroes have a less overt relation to their historical points of origin. It may also be that these characters haven’t been consistently used a mass-media franchise over the course of their existence – Superman Returns did touch on the tension between diegetic and non-diegetic time. It may be the fact that explaining a 50+ year-old Godzilla is more acceptable than a 70+ year-old Batman. Or it may be that a franchise with a history is less likely to be repurposed as entirely in a different setting as super-heroes have been over the last 16 years.

Super-Violence and Sexual Dysfunction

Many writers have, “that story”; the one where superheroes are taken to their logical conclusion in an orgy of tyranny and blood. Alan Moore did it in, “Miracleman/Marvelman,” Mark Millar has done it to varying degrees in, “The Authority,” and, “The Ultimates,” Frank Miller with, “The Dark Knight,” and the list goes on. “No Hero,” by Warren Ellis and Juan Jose Ryp is another take on this concept — with sexual dysfunction thrown in.

“No Hero,” was a mini-series published by Avatar comics and collected as both a trade and hardcover. It is set in an alternate universe where the world was exactly like ours until June 6th, 1966, when a man named Carrick Masterson announced he had created super humans through his discovery of a drug called FX7. The series is mostly set in the alternate present, and focuses on a superhero organization organized by Carrick called Frontline, made up of people who have taken the drug.

As the series begins, Frontline is in trouble; the heroes are getting killed off in oddly precise ways despite it supposedly being incredibly hard to kill them. To replenish their ranks, Frontline approaches a young vigilante named Joshua Carver. Carver takes the pill that makes him a hero — and at this point we get some of the most bizarre imagery ever put to paper in a superhero comic courtesy of artist Juan Jose Ryp who is really a beautiful illustrator (good enough that Marvel comics snatched him up to pencil a quite dreadful Wolverine comic).

Carver’s transformation leaves him a hideous mess. His skin is falling off to be replaced by some hard purple material and he’s become, “castrated.” Another hero named Ben/Redglare tries to comfort him but Carver starts to freak out and break everything before realizing he can do so because he has powers at which point he’s…happy. Either Carver was so desperate to achieve his ideal of a hero he was willing to sacrifice a huge aspect of it, or something else is up.

After rescuing people from a plane crash Carver is let in on the big secret, Frontline orchestrates a lot of problems and runs the world. Carrick admits that, “It does people good to have super-powered heroes. It makes them think they’re incapable of doing anything for themselves. That forms the basis of a society that’s useful to me. Yes Joshua, we do save people. It’s good for business.” For Ellis, a world with heroes is one where some jerks who are more powerful than us run everything.

It turns out that Joshua was a plant via the US Government, and he is working with a bunch of other world agencies to take out Carrick. In depicting the conflict, the comic becomes the most gory thing I have ever read. Perhaps the high point (or low point?) of the carnage is when Joshua literally rips a man apart, takes his spine, and wears it like a strap-on penis, declaring, “Now I look like a real fucking superhero.”

We learn later on that Carver had parents who were murdered by a serial killer and he was raised by this killer before the FBI found him and made him their own personal monster used to catch other monsters. Carver became a deformed and hideous creature because FX7 shows what is inside you, and what was inside him was hideous. His serial killer father “father” was someone who did terrible sexual things to him and this resulted in Carver being incredibly sexual dysfunctional—why would he want a penis when he saw one used to do so much harm?

The advertising tagline to “No Hero” asked “How much do you want to be a super human?” The phrasing is telling; “super human”, not “super hero.” The characters here aren’t heroes. In fact, Ellis pretty much concludes that only the completely fucked up would want to be superheroes in the first place. It isn’t that super powers corrupt; it’s that only the corrupted want super powers.

The super-hero as a representation is a male ideal; strong and muscular, able to beat up the villain and save the woman all by the end of the issue (or in this era of decompressed comics, multi-issue story-arc). Yes, there are some female heroes and this formula gets switched up, but you can still look at many heroes as the perfect man—strong, smart, and able to save the day.

In some contexts (like James Bond, for example) the perfect man would have perfect bits, enabling a perfect series (and perhaps even a perfect storm) of sexual conquest . But American comics has a strangely stunted development when it comes to sexuality —its perfectly fine to show as much violence as you want, but dare show an exposed breast and you’re looking at a Marvel Max rating or Vertigo label.

In “No Hero,” Ellis suggests that the sexlessness of the super-hero is a feature, not a bug. To want to be a super-hero is to want to gain powers…and to lose your penis. Superheroes — and those who want to be superheroes — replace their sex with violence.