Comics / Comic Reviews / Marvel Comics

Red Skull Incarnate #1

By Beth Davies-Stofka
Jul 10, 2011 - 11:33

In his Afterword to Red Skull Incarnate #1, author Greg Pak writes,

I took on “Red Skull: Incarnate” because, like countless others who have learned a little about the Holocaust, I’d struggled to understand how a nation often described as the most cultured in Europe could descend into the unfathomable barbarism of the Nazi regime.  To avoid repeating the horrors of the past, we desperately need to tell the stories of the heroes who resist.  But we also need to struggle with the question of how everyday people can so willingly embrace evil.

I would have found it more credible if he had said that he wanted to write something totally sickening and had used the excuse of the Third Reich in order to get it published.  

But he didn’t. He seems to see himself as a brave man who has taken up the moral charge and gone where others don’t dare go. Although he confesses to knowing only "a little" about the Holocaust, he wants to be the one to enlighten us.  He claims nothing less than his intention to save American society, if not humanity.  And since I don’t know Mr. Pak, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

But oh, that’s troubling.  If he is indeed sincere, then the only available conclusion is that he is dangerously ignorant.  To pass something this sordid off as a response to a higher calling puts him in the same category of miscreant as those journalists who recently told us that they were defending democracy by deleting messages from a dead little girl’s phone.



The eight-page slaughter of homeless dogs can only be described as a kind of pornography of violence.  The suffocating cruelty of the massacre is depicted with classic comic book techniques: the whining of the pups, the snicks of the knives, the trailing spurts of blood, the suffering of the dogs as they are thrown to the ground to slowly bleed to death, whimpering in pain.  All of this action happens in the context of the ultimate horror cliché: rain falling from black clouds, the thunder and lightning escalating alongside the violence.

I get the point.  There’s allegory here.  A child is on the fence.  The course of his life is about to be determined.  He contemplates the everyday heroism of standing up for the weak and defenseless, and he contemplates the everyday calculation of throwing one’s lot in with the wicked.  Heroism is really the impossible choice, as poverty, cruelty, and violence press in from all sides.  Ordinary Germans are the witnesses to evil’s everyday ruthlessness, and are driven to self-preservation.  No one really puts themselves on the line for others.  Only a very few can.  And this creates the perfect conditions for world war and genocide.



But that only explains the allegorical function of the young Johann Schmidt.  In its own way, it is relatively unobjectionable.  The problems arise when we consider the other group of characters in this scenario: the dogs.  What are we to make of their allegorical role in this tale of atrocity?  

Are they supposed to represent a microcosm of German society in 1923, where the masses were trapped and caged by the punitive demands of the Treaty of Versailles?

Are they supposed to foreshadow the coming attacks of Hitler’s Storm troopers on the Jews?

Do they merely represent the alternatives of cruelty and weakness?

I’m fishing around for meaning because it’s really not clear, and this is where the problem with Pak’s story lies.  The only really clear role for these dogs in the allegory is to suffer and bleed.  Pak has exploited animals to make his point.  And killing animals for entertainment purposes cannot be justified.  

Now, I know these weren’t “real” dogs, so you might argue that no actual animals were harmed.  But this massacre happened, in the closed world of the comic book.  It’s a fictional world to be sure, but it has a whiff of reality to it.  There was never an actual Red Skull, but there was such a thing as Germany between the wars.  The actual world and the world of the comic bleed together, and with that, the blood of the massacred dogs finds its way into the room where we sit to read this comic.

I also know that if we take the Afterword seriously, this isn’t just “entertainment.”  Pak says he’s committed to writing this comic in order “to avoid repeating the horrors of the past.”  So Red Skull: Incarnate goes beyond entertainment.  It’s an educational comic.  But killing animals for educational purposes also cannot be justified.  

It would seem that Pak has done something shockingly immoral – exploiting animals for cruelty and killing – while claiming the moral high ground.  This kind of behavior needs to be called out, named, and condemned.  This is a case where we must protect ourselves from those who claim to be protecting us.  We must reject this comic for its brutality and stupidity.  Marvel has an honorable history of emotional and spiritual sensitivity to immigrants, refugees, and survivors.  This is its day of shame.

Rating: 0 /10

Last Updated: May 16, 2012 - 6:56
Join the discussion:

Join the discussion:

Comments

Excellent review!

Excellent insight. This work was totally misguided. For every socially conscious x story there seems to be a stinker at The House of Ideas.

#1 - Andy Frisk - 07/10/2011 - 14:27

Beth, I fail to see your point in trashing this comic (the key word here being COMIC). This is the origin of the Red Skull - a Nazi and a major villain in the Marvel Universe. This is not presented as history, nor as high literature. I can see how one might take exception to the treatment of the dogs, but I hardly find that part of the story damning of the entire issue. It seems to me that you have personal reasons and are offended by the subject matter in and of itself. I say this because other reviews are highly positive.

#2 - Living Tribunal - 07/10/2011 - 14:59

Thanks for reading, Living Tribunal! I was, indeed, deeply offended. I teach college students about the Holocaust, and the philosophical and religious issues it raises, so I do have some expertise in this area.

I think I was very fair to the comic, but what really got my goat was Pak's pretensions in the Afterword. Perhaps your comments would be better directed to him. I think he might be the one who needs reminding that this is a COMIC, not presented as "history" or "high literature." (Although I strongly disagree that comics cannot be historically meaningful, or important pieces of literature.)

#3 - Beth - 07/11/2011 - 08:22

So Pak's Afterword aside, Beth, I still do not know what you found to be so offensive about this issue. Is because Pak tries to make Johann a mildly sympathetic child(at least so far)? I had no problem with this. Do you feel the comic is offensive to Jews and if so why? I saw nothing offensive directed toward Jewish people (but then again I am not Jewish). Do you think it somehow glorifies the nazis? Again, I saw nothing of the kind. I am just trying to better understand your perspective.

#4 - Living Trubunal - 07/12/2011 - 18:33

The slaughter of the animals was callous and gratuitous. It doesn't add to our understanding of how ordinary Germans assisted in the slaughter of the Jews. It doesn't add to our understanding of how ordinary Germans lied to themselves and looked the other way. It was just cruelty for its own sake. That sickens me.

#5 - Beth - 07/13/2011 - 08:20

about the dogs

I think also, presenting killing dogs as a sort of gateway to the Holocaust represents its own moral quandaries. It's as if he were trying to rationalize hate with empathy. In some cases, hatred cannot be rationalized, and I think Pak hit a brick wall here, demonstrating that fact. It is offensive, comparing dogs to Jews.

#6 - Dan Horn - 07/14/2011 - 11:09

Now that I think of it...

By Pak's reasoning perhaps NONE of the Nazis were inherently evil. Perhaps they'd all be subjected to this same sort of "turning point." Maybe Marvel should publish an adaptation of Mein Kampf that shows him in a sympathetic light as well. The truth of the matter is that bigotry and hatred is often blind, sometimes inbred, many times a product of fear or perhaps a feeling of superiority. In trying to romanticize the making of a Nazi war criminal, Pak's missed the point entirely.

#7 - Dan Horn - 07/14/2011 - 12:34

Dan, agreed on all points. I really struggled to be fair to Pak, simply because I was so revolted. It's not necessary to the allegory to interpret the dogs as Jews, so I let him slide on that. But still, it's one of the more obvious interpretations, and I wish SO MUCH that this had occurred to Pak, and he would have put his pen down. In addition, it's false and unhelpful to appeal to the literature on serial killers. It's simply wrong to compare ordinary Germans of the time to serial killers. The truth is far more disconcerting. Many of them were patriots. That's the reality that really needs to be faced. A serious literary consideration of the limits of patriotism would be a great undertaking for someone.

#8 - Beth - 07/14/2011 - 17:39