What
do comic books and animals have in common? They are both dismissed as
having nothing intelligent to say. Perhaps that is why comics are one
of the most prolific sources of animal representations in popular
culture. Or it could be that illustrating an animal is a lot easier
than trying to get a real one to perform in front of a camera or
audience. It is certainly easier to draw an animal talking than to
get a real one to do it. This essay will discuss the use of
anthropomorphism (animals with human traits) and reverse
anthropomorphism (humans with animal traits) in comics1.
Murray Ball's Footrot
Flats will
provide an example of anthropomorphism which succeeds in giving the
animal a voice. While Grant Morrison's Animal
Man provides
insight into why reverse anthropomorphism innately silences the
animal. To successfully gauge whether such portrayals speak about the
non-human animal rather than just the human we must look at how
animals are given 'agency'. This essay will, as Armstrong writes2,
'locate the "tracks" left by animals in texts' (Armstrong
3) or as Philo and Wilbert write3,
'give credence to the practices that are folded into the making of
representations, and to ask how animals themselves may figure into
these practices' (Philo and Wilbert 5). The results of this analysis
will show that anthropomorphism has the potential to portray the
animal as possessing agency due to the use of a discourse of agency
and the formulation of beastly places within the text, while reverse
anthropomorphism uses a discourse of theory that confines animals to
human constructed categories thus silencing the animal.
When
analysing animal agency in comics the first step is to ask why animal
representations are so prolific in comics. Animal icons represent
stereotypes which allow the quick and easy communication of concepts.
Generally
icons are more effective than realistic drawings because they are
more easily received due to what comic creator Scott McCloud in
Understanding Comics
calls 'amplification
through simplification'. 'When
we abstract an image through cartooning we're not so much eliminating
details as we are focusing on specific details. By stripping down an
image to its essential "meaning," an artist can amplify
that meaning in a way that realistic art can't' (McCloud 30).
Animals are frequently used in comics because they are universally
understood icons4.
As Will Eisner explains in Graphic
Storytelling and Visual Narrative
'While words are a vital component, the major dependence for
description and narration is on universally understood images,
crafted with intention of imitating or exaggerating reality' (Eisner
1-2). Comics rely
on stereotypes
to convey concepts quickly and easily. Comics 'depend on the reader's
stored memory of experience to visualize an idea or process quickly.
This makes necessary the simplification of images into repeatable
symbols. Ergo, stereotypes5'
(17). Stereotypical images of animals are culturally coded to
represent ready-made concepts such as the lazy cat, the loyal dog or
the crafty fox. They 'evoke
a viewer's reflexive
response... the use of animal-based stereotypes speeds the reader
into the plot and gives the teller reader-acceptance for the action
of his characters'
(20).
But stereotyping is also known as a way to establish and reinforce
prejudiced attitudes; in the case of animals it tends to generalise
them into categories. Although this may be true in general there is a
noticeable degree of difference between anthropomorphic and reverse
anthropomorphic portrayals.
Animal
characters must be portrayed anthropomorphically to some degree in
order to participate significantly in a narrative. The degree of
personification varies. This can be shown on an anthropomorphic
scale6;
at one end is the animal and at the other the human. In the graphic
novel Laika, the
dog Laika or Kudryavka is only minimally anthropomorphous. For the
most part she behaves as a dog only. Other human characters imagine
her talking but there are no direct speech or thought bubbles. The
next step in the anthropomorphic scale is talking animals, such as
Dog from Footrot
Flats.
Dog does not talk directly to humans instead the reader is privy to
his thoughts expressed in thought bubbles. As the scale advances the
shape of the animal's body begins to become more human. The third
anthropomorphic level is that of the bipedal animal character such as
Bugs Bunny or Donald Duck who stand upright, wear human clothing and
speak out loud often directly to human characters. The fourth level
is the hybrid animal character whose body is much closer to that of a
human. Examples are Goofy or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Hybrid
characters tend to be more human or at least as human as animal. The
fifth level is the beastly character who is human in almost all ways
except for cosmetic features such as a tail, animal ears or fur
covering. The
far end of this scale is the human animal. The more human-like the
animal the more anthropocentric it is. But anthropomorphic characters
are still better equipped to show animal agency than their reverse
anthropomorphic cousins.
Beyond the point of human is reverse anthropomorphism
where the human takes on animal characteristics. For the most part
this is apparent in superhero comic books. The first level of reverse
anthropomorphism is that of the fetish whereby the character does not
really posses any actual animal traits but chooses to identify with
animals through a costume, name or insignia. Catwoman wears a cat
suit which is sometimes portrayed with animal claws. She does not
take her name because of any actual cat powers but because she
identifies with cats and she is a cat burglar. At the next level are
those characters with augmented animal powers such as Batman who uses
technology or gadgets to simulate traits of the animal. He uses a
cape to glide, spends much of his time in a cave and on occasion uses
sonar devices. Much of his identification with the animal is on the
level of a fetish or a 'bat' theme such as his use of the iconic
Batmobile or Batarangs. The final level of reverse anthropomorphism
are those characters with intrinsic animal powers such as mutants.
Wolverine has real animal claws, enhanced tracking abilities due to
his heightened olfactory senses and the ferocity of a wolverine.
Other means of acquiring animal powers may come from magical sources
such as the Black Panther who has a mystical connection to a Panther
God or Spider-Man who is created by a scientific experiment gone
awry. This essay will demonstrate that reverse anthropomorphic
representations do not show animal agency.
For
an animal to transcend beyond an purely anthropocentric icon, which
says little about the actual animal and more about the human, it must
show some kind of agency. One way in which we can measure animal
agency is through the degree to which the animal resists and / or
transgresses the human-made animal spaces and creates their own
beastly places. Chris
Philo and Chris Wilbert in Animal
Spaces, Beastly Spaces: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations
defines
these terms. Animal spaces are constructed by humans and work to
categorise animals.
One of the most common is the zoo which functions as 'a space (or set
of spaces) specifically put aside for wild animals no longer ‘in
the wild’, thereby leading many people to ‘naturalise’ the zoo
in the sense of accepting it unproblematically as an appropriate
location for many animals' (Philo and Wilbert 12). The farm too is an
animal space in which animals are positioned in 'special, enclosed
and policed enclaves' (12). The animal is expected to conform to
human classifications because
the 'emphasis
is on the setting up of classificatory schemes wherein each
identified thing
has its own "proper place" relative to all other things,
and can be neatly identified, delimited and positioned in the
relevant conceptual space so as to be separate from, and not
overlapping with, other things there identified, delimited and
positioned... The result of such classifications, systems and tables
is to fix animals in a series of abstract spaces, ‘animal spaces’
(6). Beastly Places are created when it is the 'animals
themselves who inject what might be termed their own agency into the
scene, thereby transgressing, perhaps even resisting, the human
placements of them. It might be said that in so doing the animals
begin to forge their own "other spaces", countering the
proper places stipulated for them by humans, thus creating their own
"beastly places" reflective of their own "beastly"
ways, ends, doings, joys and sufferings' (13). Animals create beastly
places by either transgressing or resisting. Transgression may occur
when animals end up 'evading the places to which humans seek to allot
them, whether the basket in the kitchen, the garden, the paddock, the
field, the cage or whatever. Such evasions can occur at an individual
level' (13). Transgression is a more mild form of animal agency while
'resistance is generally taken to entail the presence of conscious
intentionality, seemingly only a property of human
agency
in that only humans are widely recognised to possess
selfconsciousness and the facility for acting on intentions with a
view to converting plans
into outcomes' (14).
The
animal characters is Footrot
Flats actively
resist rather then simply transgress the animal spaces allocated to
them because they do so with 'conscious intentionality'. Dog's
allotted animal spaces are his kennel and at his owner's side, but he
also wanders around the farm doing as he pleases. He often wanders
out of the farm to visit neighbours or the township. A common
scenario in Footrot
Flats is for Dog to
try to meet with Jess when she is on heat. In order to do this he
must resist his own enclosure in the farm and the attempts of Coach
to lock Jess away. In Footrot
Flats 22 (fig
1.1) we see Dog
wants to cross a river to Jess but he is stopped by a 'dog eating
pig' (Ball 26). Dog, Jess and the Pig are all resisting their animal
spaces. Dog is trying to escape the farm, Jess has evaded her dog box
and the pig is living in a river. Dog then decides that he must
cross a bridge outside the farm. On his way he spies another pack of
dogs who are all evading their animal spaces in an attempt to get to
Jess. When Dog finally completes his journey Coach has locked Jess
away in her dog box. Although it is 'natural' for male dogs to be
attracted to a female on heat the lengths they have gone to shows how
animals actively resist their animal spaces and possess their own
agency. It may be said that this scene is still allocating dogs to a
category of beasts unable to resist their urges to mate. But what
makes this scene operate as an example of resistance is that Dog is
not frustrated when he cannot reach Jess rather his is happy that the
other dogs were unable to reach her. On page 29 Dog has almost
reached Jess and cries, 'I'm coming Jess, don't let that bag of rat
bags have their way with you!!'.'When Dog finally reaches her and
sees that she is safely locked away he jumps with happiness and says,
'Thank Heavens!' 'Victory is in the opposition not winning!!'. There
is more to this relationship than an urge to mate. Dog would rather
Jess was locked away than be taken by the other dogs. They care about
each other in a way that goes beyond mere human theoretical
categorisation of animal relations. Jess in turn looks back lovingly
at Dog with love heart icons surrounding her to represent her own
emotion for him. This scenario allow us to explore the notion that
animals do not operate solely on base instinct but have similar
emotions to humans. In another scene (fig 1.2) we see a rabbit who
decides to shelter from the rain by running into Coach's house and
jumping in his bed. Coach says, 'Look I an't soft on noxious animals
mate! Only one night, right?' In his bedroom we see a tree growing
out of the floor with a magpie sitting on a branch. Both the animals
and the tree have transgressed from the spaces allocated to them.
Coach's willingness to let these non-human others share his space
shows that it is humans who decide what is the 'proper' place for
both animals and nature. Animal spaces are not 'natural' they are
human constructs which may be subverted by either the animal or the
human. Footrot Flats
presents a discourse that accepts animals have their own agency by
portraying them as consciously resisting their prescribed animal
spaces.
Animal
agency can be measured by the type of discourse employed within a
text. In 'The
Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)' Derrida
identifies two types of discourse regarding the animal. The first and
most common discourse, which I shall call the theoretical discourse,
is by those who see
the animal but deny that they are seen
by the animal. The
animal is reduced to a theorem or passive object of theoretical
knowledge and his or her own perspective is ignored:
In
the first place there are those texts signed by people
who have no doubt seen, observed, analysed, reflected on the animal,
but who have never been seen
seen by
the animal. Their gaze has never intersected with that of an animal
directed at them...
They
have taken no account of the fact that what they call animal could
look
at them
and address
them
from down there, from a wholly other origin... everything goes on as
though this troubling experience [being seen by the animal] had not
been theoretically registered, supposing that they had experienced it
at all, at the precise moment when they made of the animal a theorem,
something
seen and not seeing' (Derrida 382-383).
Derrida believes at some level humans do recognise that
they too are seen by animals but ' they have denied it as much as
misunderstood it' and the logic of this immense disavowal 'traverses
the whole history of humanity' (383). Because humans cannot ever
fully understand the animal's perspective; because it exceeds the
systems of knowledge many simply ignore or deny it. Derrida claims
the entire concept of what it means to be human is founded on this
disavowal. 'This figure could not be the figure of just one disavowal
among others. It institutes what is proper to man, the relation to
itself of a humanity that is above all careful to guard, and jealous
of, what is proper to it' (383). The human is able to maintain its
perceived superiority by denying the animal looks back . A
theoretical discourse justifies the use of the animal as a tool or
resource and means the human does not have to engage the animal as an
equal being or fellow 'earthling'.
The
second type of discourse, which I shall call a discourse of agency,
accepts that the animal looks back, that the human is seen by the
animal.
'As
for
the other category of discourse, found among ...those men and women
who admit taking upon themselves the address of an animal that
addresses them, before even having the time or the power to take
themselves off' (383). The animal is not merely a tool or a resource
but a being with its own perception and agency. This
discourse of agency shows an alteration in humanity's perspective of
the animal 'in the being-with shared by man and by what man calls the
animal' (393). A discourse of agency does not create a dichotomy by
focusing on our differences from the animal. Instead it reveals our
shared modes of consciousness.
As
Rowe summarises in 'No Human Hand?': 'epitomes are formed by vision
and the experience of being in a world with
these non-human others... recognizing that modes of consciousness,
desire and suffering transcend species boundaries' (Rowe 125). This
discourse shows an understanding of the active
role animals play in the
shaping of our shared space and presents
the animal as possessing agency.
Footrot
Flats actively
employs a discourse of agency; ideas
are formed by being in the world with
non-human
animals. The stereotype of a farm dog is as a working animal. In
Footrot
Flats Wal
works with
Dog to complete jobs around the farm; all activities are shared. In
figure 2.1 Wal is trying to move a goat he tells Dog, 'Look, I want
to move the goat - you go and attract his attention while I undo the
chain...' There is an acceptance in this portrayal that human and
animal must co-operate to achieve tasks; the task cannot be completed
without shared agency. Dog has his own agency; he obeys the commands
of Wal not because he is a passive object but because he too is a
caretaker of the farm. In the final panel we see that the goat too
has his own agency. After Wal unchains the him, he chases Wal and Dog
who cries 'He seems to be ignoring me, Wal'...'. The goat is not an
'it', the goat is a 'he'. He is not a passive object but shows the
emotion of annoyance as would many earthlings upon being barked at
and shifted against their will. A discourse of agency accepts modes
of consciousness, desire, and suffering
transcend species boundaries. In Footrot
Flats
#22 there is a sequence of cartoons which deal with animal courtship
between ewes and rams. In the first cartoon (fig 2.2) Wal explains
animal courtship to his niece (Janice 'Pongo' Footrot) using a
theoretical discourse. 'It's pretty basic really... The ram is put
to the ewe and makes her pregnant... she cares for the baby until
it's big enough to look after itself... then the ram makes her
pregnant again' (39). This discourse labels the animal as an 'it'. A
passive object that mates in order to reproduce with little room for
emotion. After hearing this explanation Janice replies 'It all sounds
very 1950-ish!'. There is an awareness in the text that this
discourse both objectifies the animal and promotes a wider ideology
of sexism (or at least essentialism) in which the female (both human
and non-human) is a passive object whose main role is domestic - to
care for children and be impregnated. In the next two sequences we
see that the ram Cecil is having trouble finding a mate because he
desires love. Dog tries to console him, 'No Cec', I don't think it
is too much to expect some show of mutual respect and affection from
ewes... I'm sure you'll find some nice sensitive female who'll
understand and respect your delicate sensibilities...' (40). To
further stress the point that such desires and longings transcend
species boundaries Dog takes Cecil to talk to Coach for advice. But
Coach suffers from the same longings as the ram, he too is sensitive
in matters of love. As Coach explains 'Look I don't know that I'm the
best person to ask about this... I'm not married you know... My
knowledge of sexual matters is pretty limited... Well... I understand
mutual trust and respect come into it - I believe there is an element
of foreplay...' (40). After this Coach becomes embarrassed and cries
'Why bring the ram to me?!!' The awkwardness about love and finding a
partner is shared by both the ram and the man; it transcends species
boundaries. Finally Dog becomes frustrated with Cecil and resorts to
a theoretical discourse, 'Cmon Cec' Rams don't fall in love with
ewes! Rams flit from ewe to ewe sipping here, sipping there. Ewes
aren't that fussy either...' (41). But as we see at the end of this
sequence Cecil has found a partner who loves him. A theoretical
discourse would say that love is not important to animals. But in
this sequence we see Cecil and a ewe rubbing each other tenderly and
walking together. Love heart symbols also add to the notion that
there is more to their relationship than an urge to mate. These
animal characters have their own agency which is no different than a
humans. Undeniably there is an element of anthropocentrism in this
portrayal. But the degree to which this portrayal is true or false
depends on the ideology of the reader. If the reader follows a
theoretical discourse and believes animals merely mate without
emotion then this portrayal would seem totally anthropocentric. But
if the reader approaches it as someone who has shared space with the
animal, accepts that the animal looks back, has their own agency and
individual characteristics, then this behaviour would not seem
improbable.
Reverse
anthropomorphism,
in contrast, cannot help but adopt a theoretical discourse. It shows
little in the way of animal agency because the animal is not present.
Even when the story is sympathetic towards the plight of animals a
theoretical discourse permeates the text which causes the animal to
become no more than a symbol which signifies a set of conventions. In
order to understand how reverse anthropomorphism operates we must
first investigate its use of the animal totem. Almost every superhero
sports a logo of some description; a symbol which defines them and
establishes their 'brand'. Reverse anthropomorphic characters have
animal symbols such as Batman's bat insignia or Spider-Man's webbed
costume or they may simply dress like an animal such as Catwoman. The
animal becomes a totem which defines the character in some way. In
Totemism
Claude Lévi-Strauss
writes that animal symbols are used to organize clans; to define one
group as separate from another. The
totem represents a 'mode of thought. The connection between the
relation of man to nature and the characterization of social groups'
(Lévi-Strauss
13). The tribe who adopts an animal symbol is adopting the perceived
characteristics of that animal. Lévi-Strauss
notes that 'the
idea of totemism made possible differentiation of societies... if not
by regulating certain of them into
nature, at least by classing them according to their attitude toward
nature, as expressed by the place assigned to man in the animal
kingdom' (2). Totemism can be used to classify a people as lower in
the 'chain of being' or less than a civilized human and closer to an
animal. The use of totemism in superhero portrayals tends to do the
opposite. The superhero adopts the totem to show that they are
different from the ordinary human; they are 'super', they possess
abilities and characteristics that go beyond the norm. Through the
adoption of the totem the superhero become a post-human possessing
abilities or characteristics of the animal which allows him or her to
transcend the average human and become closer to a god. The focus of
such portrayals is rarely on the actual animal but on the (often
imagined) 'animal powers'.
Animal Man
by Grant Morrison provides a specific example of totemism. Animal Man
is a superhero who has the ability to call upon the 'powers' of any
animal. Morrison portrays Animal Man or Buddy Baker as a vegetarian
and champion of animal rights. But even with these intentions the
innate nature of reverse anthropomorphism means the actual animal
lacks concreteness and individuality. In Animal
Man
#18 (fig 3.1) Buddy meets his totem, a fox, during an out of body
experience in the desert induced by a hallucinogenic drug (peyote)
and learns that his animal powers come from the morphogenetic field.
'"This is where your animal powers come from! From the field
itself!" "The Field is a mesh of countless smaller
fields..." "Every species is represented by its own field.
Its own ideal form! It's like Plato's archetypal reality, only more
subtle. " "This is where the idea of totem spirits derives
from! And you're connected to the essence of every creature that has
ever existed. You don't need
to be near an animal to absorb its power! The power comes from here!
From the life field itself!"' (Morrison 17). The problem with
totemism is that the animal becomes regulated to a classification,
and indexical symbol which points to generalised abilities rather
than individuality. 'At the same time as the nature of the animal
seems to be concentrated into a unique quality, we might say that its
individuality is dissolved in a genus. To recognise an animal is
normally to decide what species it belongs to... An animal lacks
concreteness and individuality, it appears essentially as a quality,
and thus essentially as a class' (Lévi-Strauss
93). Under
reverse anthropomorphism the
animal is not present only its powers remain. A discourse of theory
is adopted which portrays the animal as a passive object
or a resource. A
metaphysical vivisection occurs:
the human imagination becomes a laboratory where the animal is mined
for symbolic meaning. The animal is broken into parts which are
assigned a use value. The useful traits of the animal are kept while
the rest is discarded. An animal space remains but it is hidden deep
in the non-conscious. I say non-conscious because even in the
unconscious the animal is reduced to a symbol or metaphor. The
animal’s individuality is forgotten or deemed irrelevant.
Non-presence
means no beastly place is created. The animal is restricted to
an non-conscious animal space with no chance of transgressing or
resisting.
The
use of animals as symbols or totems means the actual animal does not
have a chance to speak instead the human puts words in their mouth.
As Jean Baudrillard explains in ‘The
Animals: Territory and Metamorphoses’: They, the animals, do not
speak... Certainly,
one makes them speak... They spoke the moral discourse of man in
fables. They supported structural discourse in the theory of
totemism. Every day they deliver their "objective"...
message in laboratories. They served in turns as metaphors for virtue
and vice... In all this - metaphor, guinea pig, model, allegory -
animals maintain a compulsory discourse’ (Baudrillard 90). Under
reverse anthropomorphism the animal is a human construct; a set of
conventions or ‘powers’ which are used to augment the human
subject. The human turns the animal into a symbol which represents
qualities the animal may not even posses. In Animal Man #21 (fig 3.2)
Buddy absorbs the powers of a fly which allows him to slow down time.
The explanation Morrison gives for how this works is as follows:
‘Time! All animals experience time at different rates. The smaller
the animal the shorter its life, the more slowly it experiences the
passage of time. Reach into the field. Absorb the time perception of
a fly. And the world goes into slow motion. Like a film running down.
My reaction time is multiplied by ten’ (Morrison 21). A compulsory
discourse is forced upon the animal. The animal does not speak or
share its own experience rather one is made up for it by a human; the
human speaks for the animal. As Baudrillard explains: ‘Nowhere
do they [animals] really speak, because they only furnish the
responses one asks for. It is their way of sending the Human back to
his circular codes, behind which their silence analyzes us’
(Baudrillard 90). Reverse anthropomorphism has no real interest in
understanding the perception of the animal. The animal is a part of a
circular code. The human wishes to find a pre-determined meaning and
so constructs the animal as a symbol of that meaning; the signified
comes before the signifier. Under reverse anthropomorphism the animal
lacks both presence and a voice.
Reverse
anthropomorphism silences the animal, if a text is to show animal
agency then it must employ (anthropomorphic) animals. It would not be
fair to describe Animal
Man
as a harmful form of animal representation. Morrison did attempt to
make the reader aware of many animal issues such as the plight of
laboratory animals, the senseless slaughter of dolphins for
recreation and the general support of vegetarianism. But the reverse
anthropomorphic character Animal Man cannot speak as
an animal he can only speak about
animals.
A final analysis of Animal
Man
supports the thesis that anthropomorphism allows animal agency while
reverse anthropomorphism does not. Issue
#5 of Animal Man called ‘The Coyote Gospel’ examines the use of
anthropomorphism in popular culture. At the beginning of this issue
Buddy is throwing out his households supply of meat because he is
turning vegetarian. This is a clear example of speaking about
the animal. ‘“Buddy
what are you doing?” “I’m getting rid of all this meat and
stuff. I think its time we went vegetarian... Ellen, these are dead
animals! Have you any idea of the kind of terrible conditions these
animals live in before they get dragged down to the slaughter house
and turned into somebody’s “groceries”’ (Morrison 8). Buddy’s
concern for the suffering of animals in contrasted with the suffering
of an anthropomorphic coyote, called Crafty, who is analogous to
Wiley coyote from the cartoon Road
Runner (1949).
In this cartoon the Wiley frequently suffers for the amusement of the
audience (mainly children) by being run over, blown up with sticks of
dynamite, and dropped of cliffs. All these tortures are inflicted
upon Crafty in Animal
Man
but, unlike Wiley in Road
Runner,
this coyote feels the pain and is miserable. His ability to resurrect
after each ‘death’ only brings him more anguish. As Crafty
explains in his ‘gospel’ he comes from a world filled with
anthropomorphic beasts who continually fight each other. ‘No one in
those days could remember a time when the world was free from strife.
A time when beast was not set against beast in an endless round of
violence
and cruelty. With bodies that renewed themselves instantly, following
each wound, no one thought to challenge the futile brutality of
existence. Until Crafty’ (18). One day Crafty ‘wept at last and
said “no more”’ (19) and decided to visit God (who is a
cartoonist with a paintbrush). God is angry that he has questioned
him but offers to let the other animals live in peace if Crafty will
agree to ‘spend eternity in the hell above [the human world]...
while you live and bear the suffering of the world, I will make peace
among the beasts’ (20). Crafty is then teleported to the human
world where he is immediately run over by a truck and has his
entrails eaten by vultures until he resurrects again to suffer more
punishment. Although the driver feels guilt he drives on without
stopping saying to a hitch hiker, ‘”Forget it. Don’t look
back.” “Keep your eyes on the road and don’t look back”’
(3). Since this incident the driver suffers a string of bad luck; his
best friend is run over, he loses his job, his mother dies of cancer
and finally he discovers that the hitch hiker he picked up became a
prostitute and was killed. The driver blames the Crafty for this bad
luck and returns to the desert a year later determined to kill him.
Like the Road
Runner
cartoons, the driver shoots Crafty, causes him to fall off a cliff,
drops a boulder on him and blows him up with dynamite before finally
killing him forever with a silver bullet. All Crafty wants to do is
return to his home world and ‘overthrow the tyrant God’ (21) but
instead he dies in Animal Man’s arms. Crafty desires agency to act,
he wishes to escape his animal space; his category of an animal who
is tortured for amusement. Through this portrayal Morrison is showing
that the animal looks back even from the cartoon; he is not simply a
passive object but has his own perception. Baudrillard compares the
treatment of animals to the torturers of the Inquisition who demanded
that their victims admitted they acted evilly. But more importantly
the victims had to admit they were ‘not guilty except by accident,
through the incidence of the principle of Evil in the divine order.
(Baudrillard 85). In this way evil was exterminated through torture.
Baudrillard then asks: ‘when we use and abuse animals in
laboratories, in rockets, with experimental ferocity [or in cartoons]
… what confessions are we hoping to extort’? (82). His answer is
that ‘Animals must be made to say they are not animals’ p. By
this he means that ‘Bestiality, and its principle of uncertainty,
must be killed in animals’ (82). This uncertainty arises when we
admit that animals look back, that they have a perspective we cannot
understand. Rather than admitting an animal’s perspective is as
valid as our own, we reduce the animal to ‘physiological
mechanisms’ that do not work as well as our own. We force animals
to confess that they are not a fellow earthling but a lower and less
intelligent resource which justifies our treatment of them. The same
dynamic happens in many anthropomorphic portrays of animals. Wiley
Coyote, from Road
Runner,
is stupid and his suffering is the result of his lack of
intelligence, his lack of foresight and his inability to resist his
category of ‘victim’ and this means his suffering is both
justified and amusing. In Morrison’s story, Crafty the coyote is
not stupid, he is noble, self aware and filled with emotion. This
story shows animal agency, the coyote resists his animal space and
creates a beastly place that resonates with the reader. A discourse
of agency is used in which the animal looks back and questions our
justification of his torture. Reverse anthropomorphic characters can
only speak about
the animal, but, as the example of Crafty shows, anthropomorphic
characters can show animal agency by speaking as
an animal.
This
essay has analysed the use of anthropomorphism and reverse
anthropomorphism in comics. Animal icons are used in comics because
they allow quick identification through stereotyping. Although this
may lock the animal into a predetermined category the closer the
representation is to the animal end of the anthropomorphic scale the
more potential it has to speak as
an
animal. Although
this analysis is limited to two texts, Footrot
Flats and Animal
Man, I would argue
that all anthropomorphic representations must show animal agency to
some degree. Because the animal protagonist must act in order to move
the narrative forward an element of agency must accompany his or her
representation. To
measure agency we need to look at how the animal is categorised and
more importantly how he or she consciously resists animal spaces to
create their own beastly places. A discourse of agency accepts that
the animal looks back and has his or her own perspective in contrast
to a discourse of theory which only sees the animal as a passive
object. Once
we move into reverse anthropomorphism the animal as an individual is
lost and becomes a symbol or totem which signifies a set of
conventions or powers. Although the intentions of the author may be
sympathetic towards real animals the innate nature of reverse
anthropomorphism means the animal is not present. This silencing
ignores the animal's own perspective and supplants a human one in its
place. The reverse anthropomorphic character may champion animal
rights but he or she can only ever hope to speak about
animals. Only anthropomorphic characters can speak as animals and
show agency. Although anthropocentrism is almost impossible to avoid,
by adopting a discourse of agency traces of the individual animal do
exist. As Lisa Brown explains in Antennae
#16 'By providing other animals an outlet for their voices, artists
simultaneously allow them a forum to air their grievances, and
provide humans an arena to hear
what they might say' (Brown 3).
Bibliography
Armstrong,
Philip. What
Animals Mean in the Fiction of Modernity.
Routledge (2008)
Ball,
Murray.
Footrot Flats 22. Hodder
Moa Beckett. 1991.
Baudrillard,
Jean. 'The
Animals: Territory and Metamorphoses',
Simulacra
and Simulation.
The
University of Michigan, 1994.
Berger,
John. Why
Look at Animals?
Penguin. 2009.
Brown,
Lisa. 'Lisa Brown - An Introduction to the Illustrated Animal'.
Antennae.
Issue
16. (Spring 2011). 3-6.
Brown,
Lisa. 'The Speaking Animal Nonhuman Voices in Comics'. Speaking
for Animals: Animal Autobiographical Writing. Routledge.
2012.
Carmack,
Betty J. 'Realistic representations of companion animals in comic
art in the USA.' Anthrozoos
10(2/3): 108-120.
Chaney,
Michael. 'Animal Subjects of the Graphic Novel'. College
Literature.
Vol. 38. No. 3. (Summer 2011). 129-149. West Chest University.
Derrida,
Jacques. Wills, David (trans). 'The Animal That Therefore I Am (More
to Follow)'. Critical
Inquiry, Vol.
28, No. 2. (Winter, 2002). 369-418.
Eisner,Will.
Graphic
Storytelling and Visual Narrative. Poorhouse
Press. 2006
Lévi-Strauss,
Claude. Totemism.Beacon
Press. 1973
McCloud,
Scott. Understanding
Comics The Invisible Art. HarperCollins,
1993.
Morrison,
Grant.
Animal Man. DC
Comics. 1988.
Philo,
Chris and Wilbert, Chris. Animal
Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of
Human-Animal Relations. Routledge.
2000.
Rowe,
Stephanie.
'No
Human Hand? The Ourang-Outang in Poe's "The Murders in the Rue
Morgue"',
Animals and Agency. Brill.
2009.
Shapiro,
Kenneth (ed.) Animals
and Agency.
Brill. 2009.
1The
word 'comics' will be used because as McCloud explains in
Understanding
Comics 'comics...
refers to the medium itself. Not a specific object as "comic
book" or "comic strip" [or graphic novel] do.' p4.
Comics are 'juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate
sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an
aesthetic response in the viewer.' p9
2What
Animals Mean in the Fiction of Modernity.
4At
this stage is is important to make a distinction between the real
embodied animal and the constructed concept or stereotype of the
animal to which icons tend to represent.
5
Eisner believes stereotypes evoke a viewer's reflexive response due
to retained instincts developed as primordials but I would argue
these responses are learned when the subject enters the pre-existing
means of signification or langue.
6The
anthropomorphic scale I described is a refined version of that
presented in 'Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism' from the website
tvtropes.org.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfAnthropomorphism