How about the notion of “secret identity” in graphic narratives, pitting the superhero against the “ordinary” citizen? Do you remember when Enid buys the mask at the sex shop in Ghost World? I suppose what I’m suggesting is a collaborative work that shows the relationship between the superhero comic and the “serious” graphic narrative…
Seriously. Indeed. This is a good idea and even better if we coupled it with your connoisseurship angle. I’m thinking that what makes characters similar is the “expertise” they bring to things. I’m thinking Batman and his utility belts and say Seth’s It’s a Good Life If You Don’t Weaken where the story is about collecting. My sense is that the collecting make the secret identity. Both superheroes and ordinary citizens are known by their collected tools, be they physical, psychological, or emotional… moral? Maybe then, we could look at the collections that make up secret identities, or—dreaded word—signify secret identities, in GNs.
So…secret identity is a matter of metonymy. In Fun Home Bruce Bechdel’s "secret identity” as a gay man is both symbolized and obscured by his obsession with house restoration, especially with details, a mirror here, this kind of drape there, baroque decorations…. In Ghost World, Enid collects kitsch and peruses garage sales…
Yup and yup. Or, secret identity for superheroes is a matter of metaphor: Batman embodies Bruce Wayne’s obsession with secrecy and extra-sensory perception, and maybe Blind Rage—he is both a symbol of something and obscures its meaning—and his own feelings about it. While the heroes in Watchmen survive because of their obsessions: Dr. Manhattan is obsessed with watches, so he can put himself back together at an atomic level after he is shredded by an atomic blast. For both supers and normals, it strikes me that it’s their skills at assembling—or assemblage—metaphors, symbols, etc. and manipulating them that allows them to function with and defeat, sometimes, the evils that surround them. At the same time, in the graphic medium, it’s dead giveaway to a “secret identity” b/c it’s in pictures. The author is manipulating the same things.
Watchmen is interesting because it re-normalizes the supers, bringing them back down to earth. I think The Fantastic Four did the same thing, not to mention The Incredibles—superheroes in a domestic arrangement. In my limited reading of Watchmen, the heroes are more fetishistic than heroic, which underscores your point above. There’s something pathetic about them, as if they were in fact more like little kids dressed in capes than they want to admit. Or it’s as if they were cross-dressers, with the exception of Dr Manhattan. Rorshach is interesting because, apart
from his mask (is it a mask?), he dresses normally. The types of outfits—what sort of mask, cape or no cape (No capes, darling!), and footwear choices—suggest a curious obsession with the outfit. In Fun Home when Alison discovers her “secret identity” as a lesbian, she assumes a butch lesbian “look.” Now, is this her version of the superhero costume? Have you seen Exactitudes.com? If you haven’t, you should.
Yes, the fetish is key. I think even more so when we get into the Pantherwomen and catwomen. I think Persepolis plays up the costume, too, no? she assumes a few different identities throughout the book without the Shaw, without the Shaw, the punker, etc. Again, I think this turns back on idenity. And, maybe not even secret ones. Also, as you allude, the concept of childhood playing a role in the idenity or its secrets. For instance, Batman is obsessed with an event in his childhood that ultimately drives the totality of his narrative and his costume. Have you read _Superfolks_? It plays on that "domestic arrangement" but in a 1970s context. And, it's a novel with no graphics. The obsession with the outfit is also key when you think of cinematic crossovers where the "arriving at" the outfit is a big moment, often involving several stages--it's like a symbolic growth out of infancy into somekind of wierd adulthood--a more "mature" costume. All this seems to be pointing away from the secrecy angle, though which is interesting. I mean, if the costume is "out there" then where's the secret identity. Which brings me back to the Clark Kent conundrum--is he Superman for for real--with costume, etc. or is Clark Kent the real... but Clark Kent looks normal, but its secret. So, superman is real--but whattabout that costume? I'm just saying.
All those masks that just cover the eyes seem pretty weak as far as concealing one's identity goes. You would need to have one of those masks like Spiderman or one of those Mexican wrestlers to really conceal your identity. The issue seems more to be the "idea" of secrecy rather than some plausible notion of secrecy.
