THE ANXIOUS AARDVARK SEES THE LIGHT: DIVINE MASCULINITY IN DAVE SIM'S CEREBUS Thesis Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Arts in English By Isaac John Mayeux Dayton, Ohio May, 2011 THE ANXIOUS AARDVARK SEES THE LIGHT: DIVINE MASCULINITY IN DAVE SIM'S CEREBUS Name: Mayeux, Isaac John APPROVED BY: __________________________________ Andrew Slade, PhD. Director of Graduate Studies Thesis Advisor __________________________________ James Boehnlein, PhD. Faculty Reader __________________________________ Thomas Morgan, PhD. Faculty Reader __________________________________ Sheila Hassell Hughes, PhD. Department of English, Chair ii ABSTRACT THE ANXIOUS AARDVARK SEES THE LIGHT: DIVINE MASCULINITY IN DAVE SIM'S CEREBUS Name: Mayeux, Isaac John University of Dayton Advisor: Andrew Slade, PhD For most of its existence, detractors of Cerebus—a comic that details the exploits of an anthropomorphic aardvark who often struggles against women for power —have accused the comic of misogyny. Certain critics have attempted to answer the charges of misogyny by arguing that Cerebus portrays gender as a social construction, but those critics must ignore crucial sections of the text in order to make such an argument. I attend to Cerebus as a whole by arguing that it critiques feminists for decrying patriarchal aggression even as they use the narrative of masculine conquest for their own benefit. Nonetheless, the text offers its own critique of the narrative of masculine conquest by constructing Jaka as a victim of masculine aggression and by portraying Cerebus as the anxious male. Having exposed the insufficiency of the phallic model of masculinity, Cerebus proposes an alternative conception of gender that is linked to the divine. Finally, the text undermines its own authority as a source of truth, mitigating the concern that it is a hegemonic text. Because Cerebus privileges the notion that gender is a position in a divine grammar, the text argues for a different kind of gender essentialism in which both men and women can participate in masculinity. iii Dedicated to my wife, Hannah iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I cannot thank my advisor, Dr. Andrew Slade, enough for listening to my ideas and continually pushing me to thoroughly develop those ideas. He is a picky reader, and for that I am grateful. I also appreciate the help of Dr. James Boehnlein and Dr. Thomas Morgan, who supplied valuable feedback as readers. I must thank my wife, who prodded, nagged, and loved me all throughout my writing process. Finally, thanks to God, who endowed humanity with the impulse to create and to love. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….iii DEDICATION………………………………………………………………….iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS…………………………………………………...vii INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………....1 MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS AND PRINCESSES…………………………………………………………….6 CEREBUS AS THE ANXIOUS AARDVARK………………………………………………………25 THE REVELATION OF DIVINE MASCULINITY………………………………………………….36 HOW CEREBUS UNDERMINES ITS OWN AUTHORITY……………………………………………………….41 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….52 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Astoria feigns emotional weakness………………………………………….8 2. Astoria becomes a stationary figure amidst a whirlwind of irrationality…...10 3. Astoria looms large over Cirin and Cerebus in a moment of triumph…………….13 4. Cirin‘s imposing physicality………………………………………………....15 5. The original Cirin‘s atrophied mouth……………………………………......18 6. Cerebus hits Jaka in imagined marriage scenario number two……………...21 7. Jaka‘s commissioned painting……………………………………………….24 8. Cerebus neutralizes threats to his masculinity with his trusty sword………..28 9. Cerebus‘ vulnerability is exposed by Cirin…………………………………..30 10. Cirin looks on as the giant stone phallus approaches…………………...…..31 11. Dave explains how he will use the syringe to ―pierce the soft flesh of the underlid‖……………………………………..…34 12. Cerebus‘ swollen eyes communicate his anxiety…………………….……...37 13. Cerebus ―cracks up‖ for the third time in the series…………………………44 14. Cerebus in his ―Spore‖ costume……………………………………………..46 15. The patriarchal trio—Ham Ernestway, Jaka, and Bear—greet Cerebus after his death………………………………..…48 16. Cerebus is dragged away by what he presumes to be the light in the final page of the series ………………………..……………….50 vii Introduction "If the vote is a tie, the woman shall die. Better safe... when it comes to devils and vipers and scorpions... than sorry. And remember, you can always make more women" (Sim 2001c, 224). So says the eponymous hero of Cerebus—Dave Sim's six thousand- page comic book series—as he leads the local men in a vote on which women they will execute. For most of its existence, detractors of Cerebus—a comic that details the exploits of an anthropomorphic aardvark who often struggles against women for power —have accused the comic of misogyny. They read passages like the one above and accuse Sim of drawing Cerebus intending to foment hatred towards women. Rather than answer the charges of misogyny against Cerebus, I reformulate the debate to answer two questions. First, to what degree does Cerebus function as an anti-feminist text in its representation of women? Second, does Cerebus reinforce or subvert a narrative of masculine conquest? Even a casual interaction with the many message boards, fan sites, and blogs that discuss Cerebus reveals that the greatest controversy surrounding the work is its representation of women. Sim's detractors have labeled him a misogynist. One former fan went as far as to say that "Until Sim can confess that he is the working definition of a 1 misogynist, I will never buy another comic written or illustrated by Dave Sim or acknowledge Dave Sim in any way ever again" (Champion 2008). While many fans can still appreciate Sim's comics regardless of his personal views, others conflate Cerebus and Sim, treating them as one entity. The impulse to conflate Cerebus and Sim could very well end a productive scholarly conversation on Cerebus before it starts. People still debate whether Sim is a misogynist, and that debate would likely eclipse all other discourse on Cerebus if readers collapse Sim and his work into one entity. If the discourse on this graphic novel never rises above the question of misogyny, literary critics will likely ignore Cerebus altogether because of its reputation as a work that expresses a hatred for women. Such an outcome would be a loss for both the broader field of literary studies and the relatively new study of the graphic novel. While the former would benefit from the way that Sim confronts and defamiliarizes various aspects of contemporary discourses on gender, religion, and politics, the latter would gain from Sim's formal ingenuity. Sim often forces the reader to turn the book sideways or upside down in order to keep reading. He often intercuts his narratives with pages of uninterrupted prose. As critics of the graphic novel continue to unravel the ways that comics make meaning, Cerebus represents the testing and transgressing of the conventional boundaries that comics readers have come to expect. Critics must not ostracize a work with so much to offer on the basis of its reputation. At the same time, questions of gender, sex, and power find fertile ground in this mammoth text. Critics must evaluate Cerebus apart from anything Sim says in an interview about the intellectual capacity of women. The fact that Sim (2008) has asserted that there is a 2 "substantial body of evidence—increasing every day—that indicates women are intellectually inferior to men," has no bearing on the meaning of his work. Umberto Eco (1992) has pointed out that once an author creates a work for the general public, that work exists independently of the author. For Eco, the text holds meaning—not so much the reader or the author. The artist "has the right to react as a model reader" (194). For instance, Eco may try to refute what he regards as an overinterpretation of Foucault's Pendulum, but he does so with the same facts at his disposal as any other reader. Eco must interpret his own novel, rather than simply say "I did not mean that!" Sim's (2005b) interactions with his fans affirm this idea. When presented with a reader's theory, he typically responds to it based on the textual evidence that supports or refutes the theory. Comments like "Well, that would be interesting, wouldn't it?" and "Well, obviously that would be my view," reflect that Cerebus contains a good deal of ambiguity, and that it is not the author's job to present the reader with the final, unquestionable reading of a work. Sim seems to agree with Eco that while the author creates the work, the reader interprets it. The author's intentions do not make one interpretation better than another. The text supplies possible meanings and allows for multiple interpretations. The text does not speak in a univocal language. Even if Sim were to tell an interviewer, "I hate women and I am a misogynist"—which he has not—it would not follow that Cerebus is a misogynistic graphic novel. The few critics who have addressed the issue of misogyny in Cerebus have defended the text against such charges by arguing that Sim‘s work shows that gender is a social construct. Dominick Grace (n.d.), for instance, argues that ―In Cerebus, gender becomes not only amorphous but also an actively problematic concept‖ (1). Similarly, 3