Fixed your (Critters)

Near Apocalpyse of '09 Logo

It’s still September 19, 1998, so nothing has changed in news or charts. In The New Batman Adventures, however, we have something new on a couple of fronts: a new episode, obviously, with a rare case of a more-or-less entirely new villain: Farmer Brown is original to the DCAU, and this is his only appearance.

Rather understandably so, as it turns out: the episode is basically an excuse for mediocre action sequences with giant animals and silly, not particularly funny gags. There are sight gags like a giant bull attacking a china shop or a stereotypical “farmer’s daughter” hefting giant sacks of feed or large men like they weigh nothing, dialogue gags like referring to said bull as “Ferdinand,” and (in the closest thing the episode has to a genuinely clever joke) even a joke courtesy of one of the DCAU’s unsung (pun intended) heroes, Shirley Jackson. The go-to composer for most of TNBA, she gave Brown a leitmotif of violin double-stops that sounds fiddle-like enough to fit his general American Gothic theme, but which actually comes from Camille Saint-Saens’ Dans Macabre. It is one of the composer’s most familiar works, rivaled only by his equally famous comedic chamber-music piece, The Carnival of the Animals.

Like most villain origin stories, there is at least a whiff of sympathetic villain here: we are told why Brown turns to crime, at least, and shown that he and his daughter do seem to have a bond. But his character as revealed in the recounting of his origin is a libertarian fantasy, a solitary genius and entrepreneur who developed an amazing new technology nipped in the bud by government regulators, so he sought vengeance using that same technology.

In this, he returns us to a familiar space for the DCAU: the equivalency of the grotesque and evil. His creations are monstrous because they are “unnatural,” familiar creatures distorted in size, in proportion, and by incorporating structures from other animals. But they are not the only “monsters” in this episode: Brown is as much a chimera as his toothy-mawed chickens, a hybrid of two stock characters almost never seen together, the “mad scientist” (who is almost always highly educated and from the upper class) and the “redneck farmer” (who is almost never either). Emmylou is likewise “distorted” by her superhuman strength, which is another product of her father’s work.

Emmylou is probably the more interesting of the two, because her generic Timm attractive-young-woman (blonde) design immediately recalls another recently introduced young woman who lives on a farm and has immense strength, Supergirl. Supergirl, however, is never framed as monstrous, her strength never framed as a joke; she is practically a pinup straight out of Timm’s Good Girl Art influences. Why the difference in treatment between the two characters?

The answer, simply, is that which underlies the concept of the grotesque, which we’ve also discussed before: abjection. The abject, the “unnatural,” is a violation of How Things Should Be, and therefore wrong, disturbing, frightening. Supergirl is not abject (or rather, since in a sexist society the female form is always treated as an abjection of a supposed masculine ideal, less abject), because she is natural; it is a “normal” and expected thing for a Kryptonian to have super strength in yellow sunlight. Her body is behaving as bodies like hers typically behave, which is to say that there are no reminders that it is a body, material, mundane, and malleable. By contrast, Emmylou is the product of “mad science,” an “unnatural” creation that was not conceived with the potential for super strength, but had it induced “artificially”–that being more or less the same argument the government regulators used against Brown’s creations.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, bupkis. There is reason to be leery of creations like Brown’s, not because they’re “unnatural,” but because they were clearly produced without safety precautions or any care for the well-being of the animals involved. Hubris is a myth invented by the powerful as an excuse to punish the powerless for trying to rebel; the problem is playing with complex, living systems incautiously and without compassion, not that it’s fundamentally wrong to “play God.” Nature, after all, invented pain, hunger, and death; it is our opportunity, and hence our duty, to improve upon it.

Which, ultimately, is why Brown is entirely unsympathetic, to the point of being boring: nature is evil enough as it is, and doesn’t need his or anyone else’s help being even worse.


Current status of the Patreon:

2 thoughts on “Fixed your (Critters)

  1. Jen, I’m going to have to disagree with you on a few points. Sorry.

    I don’t see hubris as a myth devised by the powerless to punish the powerful for daring to rebel. I always interpreted hubris stories as being about how nobody in the world is ALL-POWERFUL. That’s why in most world mythologies there are certain things even the mightiest gods are incapable of doing (such as breaking an oath on the River Styx or defying the Fates or stopping Ragnarok).
    The idea that the female body (or at least, the bodies of White Cisgendered Women) is typically seen as “an abjection of a supposed masculine ideal” outside of Aristotle’s works. I kind of see the way sexism manifests in our society as a kind of toxic idealisation that sees conventionally attractive (I.e. white, cisgendered, etc) women as objects of beauty rather than fully fledged people in their own right.

    • That is A way sexism manifests, but it’s not the only one. Julia Kristeva’s work on abjection and the grotesque (which is probably the most direct influence on my own thinking on the topic) gets into this in more detail, but some quick examples of the ways in which women’s bodies are treated as a deviation from a masculine norm and/or as grotesque:
      -Period blood is treated as somehow grosser than any other kind of blood
      -Masculine chests can be exposed in many contexts; exposure of women’s chests is taboo
      -Male health concerns are treated as part of a physician’s standard training; women’s health is a specialty
      -The Madonna/whore complex, which sees women’s sexuality as inherently unclean and degrading

      There are lots more. Also see my entry on Insexts vol. 2 for more on the connection between these two manifestations of sexism.

Leave a Reply