The [Spoilers] Subversion of Superversion
I.
The Super Friends...!
When I grew up in the 1970s, the networks were still dedicating their Saturday mornings to programming targeted towards children. For my part, I faithfully watched my Saturday morning superhero cartoons like The Super Friends. I know now that those shows were largely designed to put my eyeballs on the screen for the commercials selling the tasty-but-poisonous sugar-cereals that I craved. And, as you might remember, those commercials typically ended with a picture of a bowl of the stuff on a table surrounded by other, healthier food while the narrator said: "[It] is part of a nutritious breakfast!"
Children, studies show, are especially vulnerable to advertising. But, even now, as a fifty-something attorney, it's hard for me to argue with the definist fallacy: Yep, there it is, right there: Part of a nutritious breakfast. But I believe that same fallacy was(inadvertently) used while coining the phrase “superversive”, and is still being used to fuel the so-called “superversive literary movement” in genre (Fantasy/SciFi) fiction.
The initial logic of attempting superversion, as a concept designed to battle the soul-numbing effects of endless subversion, is sound: Yes, of course, the nihilism of the literati is to be decried-- both for its negative effects on our culture (a legitimate time to say 'think of the children') and because it results in bad art (“...and then they all died. The End.”).
However, as it stands now, the nutritious breakfast of superversion includes the toxic political agenda of its practitioners. And I wish it weren't so, because I think the movement is fundamentally correct. It has the potential to engender massive artistic and financial success, and more importantly, to be a positive force in society. Except that readers-at-large are being stopped, like Gandhi, at the church door. The poison pill of American conservatism (which, these days is just a particularly banal brand of christo-fascism) and their libertarian cominterns, turn people away until one is forced to paraphrase: 'I'd be a superversive, if it wasn't for all the superversives.'
In short, it's become a good idea gone awry.
“Superversive” was coined by author Tom Simon in his 2014 essay “The Art of Courage”. He has also, in other quite brilliant essays, extended his analysis through Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, right on through to fantasy movie-making, with Star Wars. They all truly make his point about superversive art being what fans want.
And I can't emphasize this enough—if you remove the politics from it, his critical analysis is 100% accurate. In fact, his 'superversive' construct holds true with other types of art.
For example, in music, there was probably no musical act more superversive than the Beatles. A 2004 documentary on BBC's Channel Four called "The Beatles- 20th Century Greats: A Musical Appreciation and Analysis by Composer, Howard Goodall CBE" is available on Youtube and it tells much the same story. The Beatles became the greatest, most influential music act of their (or maybe any) century by taking their virtuoso rock musicianship and bringing it to the masses by creating songs which transcended their peer music landscape. Notably, they did this by including such innovations as using, inter alia:more complex chord progressions, pre-renaissance Celtic folk modes instead of traditional keys in the first place, romantic mid-song modulation of keys, single note drones (in a pop song for the first time since the middle ages), cadences from church hymns to end songs, or even using Eastern music to inspire their decidedly Western music.
Mr. Goodall speaks out against the "Classical Avante Garde" in music in much the same way as Mr. Simon tilts against the subversive mandate of the literati. Then, as now, classical music had been taught, in academy, that it had to produce atonal nightmares of pretension in order to remain above popular understanding or consumption. Thus, it was legitimate.But the Beatles musical revolution meant that classical artists could once again make music that was recognizable as such.
Interestingly, in the end, the Beatles actually used some of the same avante-garde engineering techniques in the studio that the elitist classical teachers were experimenting with (think: "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Tomorrow Never Knows"). But the difference was: they weren't experimenting for experimenting sake, or setting themselves up as above their audience. Instead, they were using those techniques to portray what much of their audience was experiencing (in this case, a drug trip). In the end, we can see that there was no problem being a heretic if you understood what you were rebelling against. Or, touse Mr. Simon's framework, the Fab Four combined the exotic excellence of past epochs with the goal of giving people could relate to in their time. And today.
The first argument for superversion is that it is successful with the audience. Whether it's Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, or The Beatles--superversion works. In fact, I would posit that's part of the beauty of it. It is the masses claiming their own. Off the top of your head, can you think of four more successful artistic franchises than those four?
Second, aesthetically (as in 'the philosophy of Art', capital A), it also seems to make sense. If you follow superversive precepts, it should lead one towards better Art. To wit, whether it ticks towards “happily ever after”or not, stories do just seem to work better when they have meaning.
Finally, there is the sociological result: better outcomes for the culture at large. Indeed, the follow-up essay to 'The Art of Courage' by L. Jagi Lamplight Wright (explicitly called “The Goal of the Superversive”) dictates: “The goal of the Superversive is to bring hope, where there is no hope; to bring courage, where without courage, hope would never be manifested. The goal of the Superversive is to be light to a benighted world.” To which I would add: what could be more superversive than trying to champion the oppressed?
Entire websites and publishing houses are devoted to propagating superversive works. And so, we can read these superversive works and ask: Does it do that? Does it 'bring hope and courage'. Is it 'a light'? Or does it even create decent art?
II.
...versus Bizarro: “Must keep moral center.
So Bizarro ATTACK social justice warriors!”
The official foreword to the 2016 Superversive Press anthology “Forbidden Thoughts” was written by Milo Yiannopoulos. Yes, that guy: the gay former Steve Bannon acolyte. The same person who supports the Trump movement and who collaborates artistically and financially with various Neo-nazi organizations, but I repeat myself. Milo has unabashedly used social media to bash and incite harassment of minorities, including people of Islam, gays, and racial minorities; so much so that he has been banned from Twitter, Patreon, and Facebook, as well as any number of speaking gigs.
Provocation was his doing, and his undoing. But, throughout, Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) were always his foil. In short, to quote journalist Doryan Lynskey: ”Yiannopoulos preached the topsy-turvy gospel of the 'alt-right': liberals, feminists and people of colour were the oppressors and bigotry was a rebel yell.”
For good measure, Milo can also be seen promoting pedophilia in a couple of interviews, a couple of which can be found online (although he has since tried to walk back those comments, after they became bad for business). What is it about conservatives and pedophilia?
Anyway, that is the Superversive literary movement's spokesperson. What—wasn't Charles Manson available? Still, I might be engaging in ad hominem argument here. So, let's argue it on the merits: What did Milo's foreword actually say?
When you read it, it turns out to be largely a polemic of projection--claiming that SJWs, those most evil of hypocrites, care more about politics than science fiction and that they “produce terrible work”. But his main example of an artist who aligns themselves with SJWs is Joss Whedon, who he readily admits does not produce inferior work. In fact, he's a fan of Joss's. Nice powdered argument: just add cogency.
His primary example of a superversive 'win' in the culture wars was how gamergaters fought back in the video game industry to make it so that the SJWs 'games sell pitifully'. In the final analysis, if my goal is to 'bring light to a benighted world', I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on the video-game industry.
But that's as maybe, I suppose. Or as Glen sagely shares in Wayne's World: “...the world is a twisted place.”
Similarly, I decided to look at several samples of superversive science fiction works to see if they really occupy the 'moral high ground' (Mr.Simon's phrase), or if their fantasy literary universes were similarly mired with the Bizarro moral center as the modern alt-right.
First, as any good critic should, I admit my biases. To begin, I don't consider racism, misogyny, meaningless violence, oppression, or bullying the weaker or less fortunate as 'good'. I consider such things such things to be 'bad'. I hope everyone is following me so far.
SoNazis, as exemplars of all of the above...are, for example (and I ask that you pay special attention to this point):BAD.
I'll say it again: For example, NAZIS are BAD.And, the corollary to that is, those who align themselves with Nazis are BAD. Similarly, those who politically collaborate or are somehow sympathetic to Nazis, or their aims, are, similarly, BAD, And, likewise, those institutions and political movements that create environments where Nazis can flourish are BAD.
I really feel that these points needed to be made clear.
Furthermore, and now stay with me here as this is where some people seem to begetting tripped up: GOODTM is the opposite of BADTM.
I am a progressive and, respectfully, Mr. Simon is wrong about me, I don't 'sneer at the idea of good and evil'. I do indeed believe they exist (See, supra, the preceding paragraphs). Simply put, I believe that Evil is when humans act BAD towards other humans. And, unlike Mr. Simon in “The Art of Courage”, I don't believe 'nineteenth century capitalism','imperialism', 'theocracy', or other such evils as obsolete. A trivial perusal of any news feed seems to show that they are still very much relevant. That is, my views weren't inherited from my great-grandfather but by observing the realities of the world around me. Mr. Simon implies by his argument that Imperialism and Racism don't exist?
Really? Wow, that was easy.
Unfortunately, though, Mr. Simon's magical white-washing of modern history and the plain truth that is all around us, is small comfort to the millions who live with such evils every day.
That's my moral center. That my moral high ground. And so, superversive work should be, by its own definition trying to show us a way that is the opposite of those BAD things that I mentioned above.
Just wanted to make that clear.
Second, for a methodology, I decided to see how far I could get into each superversive story before the 'superversive' author's work was revealed to be either a splatter-porn orgy of violence (as a father of two grown children, this is something I look out for) or apolitical polemic.
The results? In all fairness, there was a lot of violence; but not that much more than mainstream genre fiction. And there was a wide-range of writing strengths-- all the way from practicably unreadable, to a majority of mediocrity, and a small minority of quite good writing. In other words, once again, pretty much what you'd expect. The Superversive Lit movement apparently must also follow Sturgeon's Law.
Really, the only thing that stood out was an unusually intense form of (what I've come to call) “despite signaling”. Apparently this is the right-wing equivalent of the “virtue signaling” that is so decried in current right-wing pop culture criticism. Within a few pages of each story there were various and sundry examples of despite signaling. A few examples included: Overt stereotyping of minorities, holster-sniffing or military worship, in general (especially with religious overtones), and clunkily-included examples of NRA talking points (one made of point of how it was legal for the character to own a flame thrower). But, beyond that, nothing to see here. At least, nothing new to see. This art follows the same male-centric, institution-centric model as mainstream works.
But look, I had already suspected the answer, since none of these so-called superversive works were, you know, 'best-sellers' or anything. But if I can be proven wrong, so be it: anyone should please feel free to show me the superversive mega-hit that expressly eschews negativism, nihilism, hopelessness, oppression and bullying of the weak and disadvantaged, and/or evil-- of the last half-dozen years. Show me the proud banner carrier.
Point of Order: a quick perusal of Amazon Kindle offerings reveals that Superversive Press's number one featured book is currently “MAGA 2020 & BEYOND”, an ‘audible audiobook (as opposed to the inaudible ones, I guess) about a better future...thanks to the election of President Donald Trump’.
So, yeah, like I was saying: Lacking any counter-example, however, I will continue to report upon the actual pattern. Superversion (at least the version in current practice) doesn't seem to be so much about creating something good (either morally or technically), but rather it is about being against traditional progressivism. In that way, at least, it does hew to Mr. Simon's original essay, which also sets progressives as the problem.
This prompts the question: is this BAD-ness (See please, definitions above. I don't know, maybe I should add a picture or something) inherent in the superversive philosophy itself ('bigotry as a rebel yell', was the phrase I believe)? Or is the Superversive movement a good idea that has, itself, been subverted.
III.
“...created from the cosmic legends of the universe.”
In The Art of Courage, Mr. Simon accurately points to a dynamic in progressive circles wherein he opines on (and I love his writing so I will just let it shine):
“...the insanity of the committee, where people who disagree about their destination have to agree which road to take.”
For anyone who has ever attended a meeting of progressives, this, my friends, is a “natural 20”.
I've seen countless so-called “activist” organizations, especially the far-left ones, eschew such things as internal hierarchy and yes, even the very concept of 'organization' itself, as inherently wrong. And, in doing so, they are of course rendered largely impotent. They settle, repeatedly, for “consciousness raising” in an orgy of moral superiority, rather than doing something of substance. Per Simon: “Ritual subversion satisfies the craving for activity without ever risking achievement.”
Again, up to that point, I completely agree with Mr. Simon.
But to take the practical immorality of inefficacy and to reverse it, and imbue anything that is efficient with some sort of inherent morality is the great libertarian lie. In fact, it seems to me to be the original sin of this entire Superversive movement. Authoritarianism (religious or oligarchic, pick your poison), makes the trains run on time, yes; and Democracy is messier and less efficient, indeed. But which is Good and which is Bad? To the modern superversive, the good seems to be the former and not the latter. Better to have oppression than chaos. Which is, of course, upon even the slightest reflection, quite absurd.
The clever reader by this point will have noticed that I am not doing anything but playing out the discussion that should take place in every middle-school Social Studies or History class. But being as our country's K-12 system isn't what it used to be, perhaps the “Nazis are Bad” units have all been removed in favor of some retrospective units on Moses or Noah's Ark, supplemented with a History Channel's Special Report on Ancient Aliens?
The American libertarian's demonization of all things governmental (you know, bravely calling out such evils as clean air and clean water regulations, or the taxation that actually is used for a favorite of Mr. Simon's...street lamps) basically just clears the field for corporate ascendancy, which is all the fascists ever wanted. The great Noam Chomsky is, of course, on point:
“Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special
U.S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit
in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination
but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed
to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic,
concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society.
Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example,
one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions
of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Well, we don’t
have to talk about that! That...that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in
the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny,
namely unaccountable private tyranny.”
I have seen dear friends who originally claimed to be Libertarian (and others who admitted to be ignorant of politics, which was more honest) who have evolved to a more progressive frame of mind. And in part I think it is because it's hard to maintain, without hypocrisy, an ideology that would simply let poor people who can't afford healthcare die, or to have kids whose families that can't afford food, starve. It may take a village to raise a child, but we would hope that only a trust fund baby could grow up to truly appreciate trickle-down economics.
But, fear not, true believers: not all ideologues are so weak. To the rescue comes Mr. Simon's muse and perhaps the patron saint of the superversive movement, the late G.K. Chesterton. Now, in his day, old G.K. didn't feel the need to mince words about it. Better to oppress those who don't believe in what we believe than to have this god-awful jumble of impractical mamby-pamby chaos we call moral relativism laying about. He puts it like this in his essay “Heretics”:
"Whether bondage be better than freedom may be discussed. But that
their bondage came to more than our freedom it will be difficult for any
one to deny."
And that is a truly beautiful turn of phrase for such an grotesque sentiment. Yes, I do suppose we can all agree on it. For sure; that is, as long as you don't ask any of the oppressed. But after all what's a little social injustice between friends?
IV.
“Their mission: To fight injustice; To right that which
is wrong; And to serve all mankind!”
In the end, I don't think it is possible (or even desirable) to fully separate art from artist. Our voice (if we can find it) includes our beliefs and our deepest, darkest desires, and all the mundanity in between. And so like the Ouroboros the superversive movement contains its own truth, or at least chokes on it. To put it plainly, if racists write something superversive, it's still going to come out racist.
Oh dear. So, what if the effect is tautological? Well then, why is this superversion thing even a topic worthy of assayance? Is superversion less a movement than an illusion? And what about Naomi? (Yes, I include the public television reference just to poke all the libertarians out there).
Well, I feel it is a concept worth accurately defining because words matter. And ideas matter. And the ultimate goal of the fascist is for good-meaning people to start to believe that, as a co-worker of mine horrifically said: “Politics is like Religion. People can just believe whatever they believe. It is all the same.”
No.No, No, No and NO!
Believe what you want. Pray to whom you like, sure. Fine. But politics, on the other hand, should be tethered to facts.Politics lives and breathes with ideas, and laws, and policies, and yes, results. So in politics, for example, bleeding hearts will pine for the next New Deal while trust fund babies will preach the holy gospel of The Free Market. But only one of those things actually, provably ever existed. And it had actual, provable, positive results. Herein endeth the lesson.
Thus, it is important that superversion doesn't end up being equated to libertarianism, or conservatism, or, for that matter, anarcho-syndicalism, or any other reflexive, self-proving, anti-intellectual pseudo-religious ideology. For as long as it is, it is rendered at best inert, and at worst, simply a political tool. Neither of which befits a proper Aesthetic movement.
Rather, I hope it will evolve to where it (supposedly) began. It's goal was to be a light. To be, in a word, good. So, in that context, the solution of the debate between superversive versus subversive is, by proxy, really just defining what is good. Or, as Hitchens wrote:“...a bit like the Golden Rule: the creed is only as morally strong as the person who happens to be uttering it.”
So.What is good?
V.
“Form of...?”
“Shape of...?”
...Well,I think I can safely say that good is what the Super Friends would do(Can I get a Bill Woodson saying 'Amen!' to that?). And, this is just me, I think the Super Friends would be on the side of those who are trying to reform the institutions.*
But reform isn't possible by lionizing the oppressors, or by demonizing the reformers. If the reformers are wrong, well, then, by God, reform them. Absolutely, yes, there are those on the left who lose their way. I have been friends with anarcho-syndicalists who were so devoted to the subversion of modern institutions that they supported (and still seem to support) what is becoming modern fascism right before our very eyes.
That is to say, they are former friends.
Anyway, these are trying, disconcerting times. And in such times, we need voices of intelligence and clarity to provide superversive (i.e.,moral) guidance. So I would humbly suggest some honest debate between good people about what superversion really is, or at least should be, is in order.
Who knows, maybe creating stories of having the intelligence, wherewithal and grit to devote the time and energy to actually reform institutions to make positive change is one way that people can exhibit the kind of courage that Mr. Simon called for in the first place?
In fact, I believe there was a superversive TV show about just that.
It was called “The West Wing”. And, yeah, it did pretty well, too.
Best Regards,
_Mark (The O.G.eek)
~~~
*-And, yes, I am aware of the irony in this position; Umberto Eco's1972 essay “The Myth of Superman” explored how, for narrative reasons, Superman and other costumed heroes needed to be exemplars of' civic consciousness' rather than 'political consciousness'. That is, they always save the world piecemeal, rather than take over entire countries or institutions to reform society through brute force. But story lines in latter decades have emerged that explore and bring ascertain level of political awareness into comics. So, maybe I'll campaign for Zan/Jayna in 2024. Sorry, I meant Jayna/Zan (Ha, another poke just for you, you SJW haters).
