Week 15
For my final post I've decided to revise my blog post from week 6:
"Mr. Natural is a comic created by Robert Crumb. The comic centers around a character that is sort of poking fun at the idea of god. He is depicted in his likeness and goes on wild, sometimes offensive adventures. The passages I read, I could see why they were banned. The first revolved around Mr. Natural attempting to bother a monk like character who was on the street panning for money, he screws it up for him allowing a poor black family (depicted in minstrel style) to take advantage of him. In the end he has to leave and is put into an asylum because Mr. Natural drove him crazy. Another I recall is the comic where he adopts a woman-bodied infant & has sex with her multiple times. Personally, I'm all for underground comics...but in my opinion they should be underground for a more productive reason. I read some other underground comics listed, like the ones revolving around gay experience and I can see why they were banned but they also had some substance to them haha. I feel that Mr. Natural is a lot of shock value humor that isn't necessarily acceptable today. It's very strange and I guess kind of pointless to read unless you're entertained by that kind of humor. I am to an extent but at the same time I just wonder what the point of it all is."
After class that day I remember the professor pointing out that Mr. Natural dealt with themes of hypermasculinity/toxic masculinity or it was a critique of it. In a way I can see this through the kind of senseless ignorance the comic displays, however, I feel if the author truly would liked to critique these aspects of society in a comedic way he should do so in a way that this kind of trait is not seen as funny or entertaining. If he wants to critique this, he should satirize it. These comics actually normalize it and make it seem like theres an attempt to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. If I'm reading Mr. Natural and my reaction was "Ok but what was the point and that was gross" then I'm not sure if thats the most successful approach for him. I'm not saying he should approach the subject that isn't him, however there is no character in the story or dialogue in the story that challenges the toxic masculinity or addresses it. It doesn't have to be preachy obviously, or even that significant. Just something to point out that what is happening is abnormal.
"Mr. Natural is a comic created by Robert Crumb. The comic centers around a character that is sort of poking fun at the idea of god. He is depicted in his likeness and goes on wild, sometimes offensive adventures. The passages I read, I could see why they were banned. The first revolved around Mr. Natural attempting to bother a monk like character who was on the street panning for money, he screws it up for him allowing a poor black family (depicted in minstrel style) to take advantage of him. In the end he has to leave and is put into an asylum because Mr. Natural drove him crazy. Another I recall is the comic where he adopts a woman-bodied infant & has sex with her multiple times. Personally, I'm all for underground comics...but in my opinion they should be underground for a more productive reason. I read some other underground comics listed, like the ones revolving around gay experience and I can see why they were banned but they also had some substance to them haha. I feel that Mr. Natural is a lot of shock value humor that isn't necessarily acceptable today. It's very strange and I guess kind of pointless to read unless you're entertained by that kind of humor. I am to an extent but at the same time I just wonder what the point of it all is."
After class that day I remember the professor pointing out that Mr. Natural dealt with themes of hypermasculinity/toxic masculinity or it was a critique of it. In a way I can see this through the kind of senseless ignorance the comic displays, however, I feel if the author truly would liked to critique these aspects of society in a comedic way he should do so in a way that this kind of trait is not seen as funny or entertaining. If he wants to critique this, he should satirize it. These comics actually normalize it and make it seem like theres an attempt to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. If I'm reading Mr. Natural and my reaction was "Ok but what was the point and that was gross" then I'm not sure if thats the most successful approach for him. I'm not saying he should approach the subject that isn't him, however there is no character in the story or dialogue in the story that challenges the toxic masculinity or addresses it. It doesn't have to be preachy obviously, or even that significant. Just something to point out that what is happening is abnormal.
Comments
Post a Comment