Free Comic Book Day

Tomorrow is the happiest day of the year.

Speaking of which, I keep meaning to mention Mark Waid's Empire -- it's cool. In particular, I think it puts two interesting twists on the cliché dystopia genre. One is that it seems to me to endorse Richard Rorty's interesting, but deeply unpopular, reading of 1984 -- namely that Truth and Justice do not prevail. In a world where Golgoth prevails and imposes his will on the entire world, there's no realm of "goodness" outside the world to condemn him. He is either opposed or he isn't, and by the end of the book it appears that he isn't. Might has made right.

The other thing is that by blending the dystopia genre with the superhero genre Waid nicely, I think, demonstrates the essential absurdity of much dystopian literature. He's provided the most plausible account I've ever seen of how a dystopian system could remain stable for the long term and it involves . . . superpowers. In the real world, totalitarian systems are intrinsically subject to collapse due to falling-outs among the leadership clique.

Comments

I think Yglesias readers would probably like Dinosaur Comics, over at http://www.qwantz.com

They're always free.

Posted by minderbender | May 4, 2007 1:04 PM

Shouldn't that be that Rorty thinks that truth and justice do prevail in 1984? I doubt that the claim that the end of 1984 has the bad guys winning is an unpopular reading.

Posted by Patrick | May 4, 2007 1:22 PM

I've not read Rorty on 1984 (though I'm intrigued and will seek it out), but...given MY's description, I thought that was the normal reading of the book.

Also: Green Arrow, bitches!

Posted by justin | May 4, 2007 1:25 PM

Yeah, can we get a link (at least an amazon one) to Rorty's writing? Looks interesting

Posted by Dan Miller | May 4, 2007 1:27 PM

"In the real world, totalitarian systems are intrinsically subject to collapse due to falling-outs among the leadership clique."

It has happened, I'm sure, but not all that frequently. Certainly, in modern history, totalitarian systems, which are inherently subject to corruption and sclerosis, have proven most vulnerable to self-destructive wars with other states.

Squabbles within the ruling circle have been the one thing totalitarian regimes have managed to suppress readily in most circumstances. And, that shouldn't surprise. That's what such regimes are best equipped to deal with.

Totalitarian regimes concentrate decision-making among the necessarily least-informed, so they tend to be very stupid and unable to adapt dynamically. Stupid aggression tends to be self-destructive, for obvious reasons. If the totalitarian regime can work out a way to tame the impulse toward stupid aggressivity, it, generally, achieves long life. Stupidity typically requires policies of autarky and stultification, in the place of aggression, and thus totalitarian regimes are vulnerable to impoverishment. In the absence of competition from states, which are not impoverished, it is hard to say why a totalitarian regime would not go on indefinitely.

In modern history, Myanamar and North Korea and Cuba have persevered through great impoverishment.

The Roman Empire went on, for over 400 years, from the institution of the Empire under Augustus. In-fighting sometimes weakened the Empire, but did not de-stabilize it. Economic decline, to the point of regional depopulation, eventually made the Empire vulnerable to barbarian incursions.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 4, 2007 1:49 PM

Jeez, Matthew: you're such a geek (said with love).

Personally, I think Watchmen would make a better point of comparison for your point, but that's just me.

Posted by pastordan | May 4, 2007 1:55 PM

"Tomorrow is the happiest day of the year."

Happy Cinco de Mayo!!

Posted by Njorl | May 4, 2007 3:34 PM

"In the real world, totalitarian systems are intrinsically subject to collapse due to falling-outs among the leadership clique. "

What you need is a system where the masses oppress themselves. It would be hard to develop an advanced civilization with such timid subjects, but once you got there, you could genetically engineer the self-oppressing peasant. Even after the hierarchy deystroys itself, they would be too afraid to buck the system.

Posted by Njorl | May 4, 2007 3:44 PM

Rorty's reading of 1984, at least in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is that Orwell wrote both descriptively and prospectively.

Orwell sensitizes us, in Rorty's reading, to the excuses for cruelty made on behalf of intellectual movements for human equality. He sees Orwell as redescribing the Soviet Union by demonstrating what the "Communist oligarchs were really doing."

He also sees, and this is I think the unpopular bit, Orwell as shifting gears at the moment when Winston brings Julia back to his apartment. Here, Rorty says, Orwell becomes "prospective." At this point the story is no longer about Winston or even totalitarianism. Now, it's solely about O'Brien: Orwell creates a character that is a response to the question of how intellectuals might otherwise conceive of themselves once it "became clear that liberal ideals had no relation to a possible human future." Once it was possible to have Oceania, O'Brien became a possible image of intellectualism.

He convinced us that there was a perfectly good chance that the same developments which had made human equality technically possible might make endless slavery possible. He did so by convincing us that nothing in the nature of truth, or man, or history was going to block that scenario...He convinced us that all the intellectual and poetic gifts which had made Greek philosophy, modern science, and Romantic poetry possible might someday find employment in the Ministry of Truth.

So, sure, Truth and Justice don't prevail. But moreover, Rorty sees no reason why they should.

Posted by Brian Radzinsky | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM

So, sure, Truth and Justice don't prevail. But moreover, Rorty sees no reason why they should.

Is this reading unpopular, then, because Rorty ascribes this intention to Orwell? Who (other than Christopher Hitchens) would be especially discomfited by this?

Posted by Eric Scharf | May 4, 2007 4:45 PM

"Tomorrow, after my death, some men may decide to establish Fascism, and the others may be so cowardly or so slack as to let them do so. If so, Fascism will then be the truth of man, and so much the worse for us." Sartre, 1946

Posted by Freddie | May 4, 2007 4:56 PM

I'm not sure how popular or unpopular it is. Rorty's political/philosophical readings of Orwell are looked at with some skepticism because Rorty's a big fan of denying the utility of metaphysics and truth seeking. He thinks there is no non-contingent truth, so naturally there is no reason for "truth" to prevail as such. But I've heard that his reading O'Brien, and not Winston, as Orwell's protagonist is somewhat unpopular.

Posted by Brian Radzinsky | May 4, 2007 5:11 PM

Two causes for hope in the real world:
1. All tyrants are mortal and they die (and mnoreover all regiemes are sort of mortal and they ultimately decay and become weak and foolish)
2. There is in life an irreducible element of randomness, what the ancients called Fortune, which no one can control and which surprise even the most powerful and most successful.

Posted by Jonf | May 4, 2007 7:34 PM

Hey, it's nice to see another geek who liked "Empire." Do you remember in the last series where Golgoth kills his daughter after learning that she is a sociopath who killed her mother?

I always hoped that there would be another series to explain Golgoth's origins and if he ultimately succeeds in realizing his conquest

Posted by brad | May 5, 2007 10:21 AM

are you really going to trek out to Georgetown today for a free comic? DC is certainly bereft of comic shops.

Posted by looj | May 5, 2007 2:44 PM