MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967105763 · doi:10.1353/rpc.2012.0035

Do the Gods Wear Capes? Spirituality, Fantasy and Superheroes (review)

2012· article· en· W1967105763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valentino L. Zullo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsSpiritualityMythologyFantasyConversationSupermanLiteratureArtArt historySociologyReligious studiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Do the Gods Wear Capes? Spirituality, Fantasy and Superheroes Valentino L. Zullo Saunders, Ben . Do the Gods Wear Capes? Spirituality, Fantasy and Superheroes. New York: Continuum, 2011. 187 + xi pp. hbk $90.00 (USD); pbk $24.95 (USD). ISBN: 978-0826441980. Saunders's book enters an ongoing discussion on superheroes and their relationship to studies in classical mythology as well as theology. In the past decade, numerous critical monographs have been published, ranging from Christopher Knowles's Our Gods Wear Spandex: The Secret History of Comic Book Heroes, to Wendy Haslem's Super/Heroes From Hercules to Superman, amongst others, examining the intersection between the study of the American superhero and religion. Entering into this ongoing conversation, Saunders's book transitions away from the comparison of superheroes to mythologies and instead approaches the superhero as an embodiment of a modern version of the perennial wish of humans, which Saunders describes as "the wish that things were otherwise" (3). While exploring the relationship between theology and the American superhero, Saunders works to elevate the perception of the superhero: "I admire and value the work of philosophy to such a degree that I am actually trying to elevate the status of the superhero comic by association" (6). Saunders attempts to demonstrate that superheroes are not just "hyperbolic, violent fantasies," but rather they are "in the same conceptual territory as, say Also Sprach Zarathustra, the Baghavad Gita, and the tragedies of Shakespeare" (7). Saunders posits that the overall lesson in the superhero genre is not about violence but to "try love, period. This is not astrophysics, or brain surgery. It's not Kant or Hegel or Lacan or Derrida or Jean-Luc Marion. It's more difficult than all of them. Be kind, you say? What . . . all day? Be Kind all day?" (14). Saunders's book is divided into five parts; each part of the book is based on a different superhero, and the last section is focused on comic studies. In the first chapter, Saunders ultimately argues that Superman teaches his readers that virtue is more difficult than seeing through walls and outracing a speeding bullet. The second chapter explores early representations of Wonder Woman, which, according to Saunders's argument, can be viewed not just as fetishistic, but as demonstrating a submission to divinity. Saunders then aligns Spider-Man with the "Knight of Faith," a term which Kierkagaard uses only for Abraham. Saunders argues, "In Kierkegaard's terms, in fact, Spider-Man might even be the greatest superhero of all" (94). Finally, through Iron Man, Saunders makes an interesting case for the relationship between humanism and technology by pursing the analogous relationship between alcohol dependency and technology dependency, ultimately demonstrating that Tony Stark must "let go" and open up to love and friendship. The last chapter notes the lack of comic scholarship and calls for more academic discussion of the medium. Saunders's text, while producing an impressive study of the superhero, suffers in its analysis of Wonder Woman. Though the chapter is intended to liberate Wonder Woman, the only person freed in this chapter is Wonder Woman's original creator, William Moulton Marston. The chapter is intended to focus on deconstruction; however, Saunders reifies the hierarchical binary of male and female by focusing on Marston throughout the chapter instead of [End Page 473] discovering why "Wonder Woman gets no respect" (36). Saunders produces a reading where Wonder Woman is relegated to the background. In previous chapters, Saunders would use the character's creator as a way to historicize the character, but in this case the reader learns more about Marston than Wonder Woman. Instead of an analysis of Wonder Woman, then, Saunders produces what could be considered a biographical study or even a historiography of Marston through Wonder Woman. As a text dedicated to the exploration of the intersection between theology and superhero studies, this book demonstrates through high theory that this intersection is productive and thus explores modern theology as well as furthers the current study of the superhero. Saunders explains the theory in an excellent manner, allowing it to open up discussion without distancing those unaware of the theories he cites. The strength of Saunders's...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207