Communication Theories in Katawa Shoujo:

Communication Theories in Katawa Shoujo:

Katawa Shoujo is a visual novel game about a high school boy named Hisao Nakai in Japan. After developing a heart condition (arrhythmia), he’s transferred to Yamaku Academy, a school for students with disabilities. As he adjusts to his new life, Hisao meets five girls, each with their own experiences of disability and unique way of communicating. Through these relationships, Hisao not only explores romance but also learns to adapt to disability culture — and each girl’s story represents a different communication theory that helps him do so. The player also meets Kenji, a paranoid, legally blind student who lives across the hall. Though his over-the-top conspiracy theories and isolation from the rest of Yamaku make him an unforgettable character, his story ends early and doesn’t follow the same structure as the others. Because of that, while he deserves a mention, he won’t be discussed in detail here.

The game’s story structure follows a pattern of culture shock. Hisao leaves behind his old way of life and enters disability culture at Yamaku. “Only after I stand in front of the haughty main building, I surprise myself by realizing why the gate bothered me: it was my last chance to turn back, even if I had no life I could ever return to.”

Dr. Igor Klyukanov outlines five stages of culture shock in Principles of Intercultural Communication, which we can see reflected in Katawa Shoujo:

1. Preliminary and Spectator Phase – Hisao’s early days at Yamaku, where he passively observes the new environment but doesn’t yet understand it. He wonders if he will ever have a “normal” life again.

2. Increasing Participation Phase – As he interacts with the students, he starts questioning his old perspectives. He wonders, “Will I ever get used to sights such as this?” and, “Is this what passes for normal around here?”

3. Shock Phase – A turning point in Hisao’s journey, depending on the route taken. This is the emotional crisis where he must either accept his new reality or struggle against it.

4. Adaptation Phase – If he successfully navigates the shock, he reaches a point where disability is no longer foreign. He is able to exist in and out of the culture at the same time, accepting both his past and present selves.

Each girl Hisao meets serves as a guide, embodying a different communication theory that helps him through this adaptation process.

Shizune and Misha – Social Influence Theory

Shizune, a strong-willed deaf student and class representative, communicates through her interpreter, Misha. Misha’s loud, bubbly personality contrasts with Shizune’s serious and competitive nature, creating a comedic yet dynamic relationship between the three. Their story aligns with Social Influence Theory (French and Raven, 1959), which suggests that relationships develop through shifts in power, influence, and persuasion. From the start, Shizune wants to draw Hisao into her world, challenging him through student council work and games. She believes: “The mark of great people is that they are daring and can follow through.” She wants to make Hisao stronger by encouraging him to take on leadership roles. In her good ending, Hisao embraces this influence, realizing that Shizune was never trying to control him—she just wanted to connect. In her bad ending, the power dynamic collapses. When Hisao and Misha’s hidden relationship is exposed, Shizune loses trust in both, and Hisao becomes isolated. Since Shizune views love and life as all-or-nothing competitions, there is no neutral ending.

Hanako – Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Hanako, a shy burn victim who avoids attention, struggles with social anxiety and self-worth. Her story follows Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger and Calabrese, 1975), which states that as people interact, they seek to reduce uncertainty about one another. When successful, this leads to increased intimacy and trust. At first, Hanako barely speaks to Hisao, often relying on her best friend, Lilly, for comfort. But as Hisao shares his own struggles, she begins reciprocating. “I-I have to,” she says when explaining her past, indicating her need to balance the information she’s given and received. In her good ending, she fully opens up, allowing Hisao to see her scars and returning his affection. In her neutral ending, they remain stagnant, both agreeing to “stay the same,” preventing further connection. In her bad ending, she retreats completely, rejecting Hisao in a final outburst: “I hate Lilly! I hate you most of all! I know I’m broken!”—a full breakdown in uncertainty reduction.

Lilly – Principled Negotiation Theory

Lilly, a blind and kind-hearted girl, navigates relationships with a sense of fairness and compromise, making her story fit Principled Negotiation Theory (Ury and Fisher, 1981). This theory emphasizes agreements that satisfy both parties’ interests in a balanced, lasting way. Unlike Shizune, who views conflict as a challenge, Lilly avoids unnecessary confrontation, focusing on harmony. She even accommodates Shizune, her rival, saying, “Please, Hisao, it’s alright,” when he tries to defend her. In her good ending, Lilly stays in Japan, choosing her relationship with Hisao over moving to Scotland. The agreement is fair and mutual. In her neutral ending, she leaves, but encourages Hisao to follow his own dreams, showing wisdom but forfeiting their relationship. Because she has an older sister to care for her, she has no bad ending.

Rin – Redefinition Theory

Rin, an eccentric painter born without arms, often struggles to express herself. Her story follows Redefinition Theory (Braithwaite, 1990), which argues that people with disabilities challenge societal definitions and create new identities for themselves. Rin doesn’t see herself as limited: “I don’t think I’m that disabled. I mean, I do pretty much everything differently. But it’s not that hard. I can always practice.” She adapts effortlessly, seeing disability as a part of her identity rather than a restriction. Hisao, however, initially struggles to understand her. When he tries to “fix” her or make sense of her abstract thoughts, their relationship fractures. “I think in the end, I’m not really happy with who I am, either. But that doesn’t mean that I regret being who I am. That’s the thing that’s wrong with you, Hisao.” In her good ending, Hisao accepts that Rin doesn’t need fixing, and their relationship becomes one of mutual understanding. In her neutral and bad endings, he fails to see her as she is, causing her to withdraw completely.

Conclusion

Katawa Shoujo is more than just a dating sim. It’s ultimately about Hisao’s journey of adaptation and self-discovery within disability culture. Each girl represents a communication theory that helps him move through the phases of culture shock, from uncertainty to acceptance. Through these experiences, Hisao—and by extension, the player—comes to see disability not as an obstacle, but simply another way of being.

Bibliography

Berger, C.R., and Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112.

Braithwaite, D.O. (1990). From the Margins to the Center: An Intercultural Redefinition of Disability. Text and Performance Quarterly, 10(1), 7-21.

French, J.R.P., and Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Klyukanov, I. (2005). Principles of Intercultural Communication. Boston: Pearson.

Ury, W., and Fisher, R. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.

Stranded II (PC+Mac 2007): Game Accessibility Review:

Stranded II (PC+Mac 2007): Game Accessibility Review:

Stranded II is a bit like Minecraft. Except Minecraft lets you build whatever world you want piece by piece. Stranded II appears to be the opposite philosophy. Namely, you have to build what it tells you you can build, and you have no idea what you’re getting as you randomly hit trees or the ground. Every tree you hit, you could get leaves, vines, or branches. There’s no telling what you’ll get whenever you hit a resource…it’s all chance!

    Also, the inventory is ridiculously small. I’ve played this game many times over to see if I could get the hang of it. I eventually did, but I don’t think it made it any more fun to play. The key strategy is to set up structures bit by bit. First, make a hammer by combining 1 branch + 1 stone. Then, click on the hammer and put it in your hand. Right click to build an available structure. Putting the hammer in your hand and clicking repeatedly? You have to do it EVERY time you build something.

Okay, let’s build a shelter: 20 branches, 30 leaves. Since the inventory is ridiculously small, you’re going to hear your character complain: “It’s too heavy!” a lot. So, basically, build the structure piece by piece, meaning once you have the materials, click 50 times (20+30) on the structure, and then, you’ll have it. And that’s the easiest structure to get in the game. Food, water, and fatigue are all measured separately too, rather than Minecraft’s unified hunger meter, so you always have to keep an eye on that.

I respect that the game is based on survival, but does: “Click on this graphically pre-determined structure, while clicking wildly on this tree to see if you can get materials to build the graphically pre-determined structure” sound fun? No, not to me; it’s tedious, and just reminds me I could be playing Minecraft. Minecraft at least let’s me take pride in what I build, because the buildings’ designs are up to me.

And before any Stranded II fans chime in, yes, I built the wood and stone storage. But, I found that, again, the inventory is so small, that I kept having to sacrifice food to carry back logs for the all purpose storage hut. Otherwise, “It’s too heavy!” And I would find that my dropped food would perish after a while, or else I’d just lose track of where I put it.

Now, to make matters worse for non-German speakers, I kept finding bits of the game that were untranslated even in the English version. These were mostly ok. “Alle” means “all” for taking all the materials in front of you. “Eingeborener” means native, as you will sometimes encounter natives. But, there was one German message where, if I didn’t speak German, I’d be toast: “Feuer! Feuer! Ein Gebäude brennt!” In English: “Fire! Fire! A building is burning!” I’d built my shelter too close to my campfire (10 branches+50 stones) and it burnt down.

 Overall, I had some fun with this game. Hunting animals, seeing how long I could survive. But, there are too many random elements in Stranded II, and the building process is way too tedious for my taste when gathering is so difficult to measure and at the same time I have to maintain supplies, and even sometimes avoid lions. Yes, lions. Now, click faster, before they kill you!

I’m posting this to prove a point about disability in gaming. Previously, I lambasted Minecraft for having nearly impossible controls. But, it was still kind of fun to build with, truth be told. But, Stranded II is proof that a game can be perfectly accessible control-wise, and still be bad. Even though most of Stranded II is controlled by simple point-and-click, other problems make the game pointlessly tedious, and the fun dies quickly. Sometimes fun transcends disability issues: If a game’s bad, a game’s bad.

FINAL GRADE: C

ACCESSIBILITY GRADE: B+ (Point-and-click for nearly all actions; some untranslated words, clicking to build gets tiresome.)

FORGIVENESS FACTOR: E (Resource management is incredibly critical; limited inventory space makes survival difficult.)

 CONTROL A-:  (Nearly all interactions are point-and-click; controls can be changed in the main menu.)

Avengers vs. Justice League: War

Avengers vs. Justice League: War

Captain America: “We need a plan of attack!”

Iron Man: “I have a plan. Attack!”

So, in my last post, I made the claim that there are aesthetic differences in the movie Justice League: War to make it different from Avengers, but that it was basically the same plot. The main aesthetic difference I argued, was fear as a motivator. From the beginning, it is established that Batman is a fugitive, hunted by Green Lantern.

    The heroes in Avengers, however, start out as heroes, and active members of their respective communities from SHIELD to India, for The Hulk. In Justice League: War, The impetus for banding together was only the invasion; but they didn’t have 3 hours to jibe and develop relationships between the characters. Iron Man/Hulk do a good job joking and teaming up to work on the alien object, even though Cap chastises them for being unfocused.

   So, from the start the heroes are paired together, and play off of each other. I often say of the Avengers movie that it is a good example of a viable theory of group communication called “Forming, storming, and norming.” It is of course, arguable that Hawkeye needed a little more exposure, but as the only one in this group who hadn’t had a movie yet, he couldn’t be in the first two stages. Justice League: War has little time to develop and thus normalize the heroes roles: essentially we have “forming, storming, Batman!” But, what is forming, storming, and norming?

    Forming is when the group forms. Black Widow serves this purpose, as well as SHIELD, as well as pairing off the heroes to form relationships…as when Cap breaks up a fight with Tony Stark. Superman also fought with Batman like this. But, then, Batman has to rescue Batman. Also, it’s telling that Wonder Woman avoids meeting the President. I know that’s comic relief, but she acts as a fugitive as well. Whereas Cap keeps the group focused by remaining in his past role: The soldier.

  In this respect, each Avenger contains something that connects him to the mission….and that they’re opposed to. Storming is when they question the mission. Even Tony Stark’s suspicion of SHIELD plays on Cap’s trust in SHIELD. Hulk’s rampage and defeat by Thor connects him to Thor. So, he ends up paired with him. Justice League: War has a storming stage, but it is short, since the heroes never meet until the invasion, and Batman rescues Superman. Abducting Superman for conflict reasons, I feel is an odd choice, but it served to show Batman as a leader, and he takes charge, but the end result is the group never feels solidified…it’s Batman’s show…but that’s okay! They have forming, storming, Batman.

   In sum,  Avengers had more time to dealt with forming, storming, and norming. The norming is solidified by the teams mutual avenging of the death of Coulson. It feels less dark because there is more humor (Iron Man’s a jerk, sometimes, but he enjoys himself!) and has more time for the group’s conflicts to resolve. But, in Justice League: War, DC wants the tension to be there, to use a phrase, because he’s Batman.

  Batman thrives off of being a fugitive, and why not? Batman is popular, and this gets the team together quicker…at the cost of character development. In a sense, DC must go with the Batman feel at this point, because the audience already knows him. In a similar vein (Although you have to credit the writers!) Marvel’s Avengers follows the aesthetic of it’s most bankable character for much the same reason. And they are both billionaires…ironic since they are the most bankable.

Ultimately, the cultural aesthetic comes down to who was leading the group. Cap leads the Avengers, kicking into full army mode and formulating his plan of attack! Batman serves as a leader, but only after Superman is underplayed. But, the circumstances called for him to step in…Because he’s Batman! And it would save them making more movies.

Even though Justice League: War is a good preview of what a Justice League movie might look like, to me, it’s clearly following an Avengers formula…but that’s okay! It’s a good decision. That just means they’ll have to go with more familiar characters, and resolve less interpersonal conflict. But, Batman thrives on conflict, and just happens to be the most recognizable character in that universe. Yes, the Avengers all had movies, but DC is playing catch-up, and doesn’t have time to build up there characters. So, Batman may be the hero the DC movies deserve…but not the one they need! Only time will tell!

Bonus Question: Who do you think would win? Avengers or Justice League?

Planet of Snail (2012)

PLANET OF SNAIL (2012)

 Young-Chan Cho: “All the deaf and blind people have the heart of an astronaut.”

Planet of Snail is a documentary from South Korea. It is very slow-paced and plays with minimal sound to simulate Young-Chan reliance on tactile communication and finger taps as opposed to always using voice. His voice, one might say is the lack of sound. The story follows him along with his wife Soon-Ho. Soon-Ho has a disability caused by degeneration of the spine.

Together the film explores their mutual dependency and quiet, slow lives. The reference to Young-Chan Cho as an astronaut in the Planet of Snail is interesting because I too consider myself an alien. Some things that an able-bodied person can do very easily, I can’t. But, I think from that I gained a desire to explain my worldview. For Young-Chan Cho, it’s the same. On one hand, he talks about his disability as no different than fading memory for a sighted person. When you remember something with sight, it’s never as clear as it was when you saw it the first time. A very insightful critique of sightedness!

    On the other hand, Young-Chan’s poetry reveals a deep understanding of how his life is alien. “What I see in front of me is my reality.” He says. “I am deaf-blind even in my dreams.” In spite of this determination, he encounters obstacles very early on in the film. While taking a Hebrew exam, Young-Chan’s professor says that he had the words in the right order, but his assistant transcribed it wrong. That is, his wife, not his assistant. But, he gets an A+!

    Later in the film, we see Young-Chan eating with friends, who look as though they may be deaf-blind as well. They get into an argument about why he married, and the other friend believes he may never marry. Much of this argument is done through tactile communication and finger tapping. I don’t know Korean sign language, and only understand little bits of American Sign Language, but the finger tapping to me seemed vital to understanding the language. Young-Chan’s friend believes he married Soon-Ho to be a live-in caretaker, which Young-Chan Cho denies, but seems shaken by.

   Through his friend, we see his clay crafts, including a mug shaped like a naked man. Young-Chan explains that he didn’t like that one very much. Soon-Ho says that sometimes he takes care of her, because sometimes her pain is so bad that she can’t even pick up the phone. “I couldn’t even say hello. I could only make screeching sounds.” She says. Nonetheless, we see Soon-Ho helping Young-Chan around the house more often than vice versa: Fixing a light, helping with food, walking on the beach, even helping to organize Cho’s play with his friends.

     The film ends with a solo trip to a doctor's appointment, where he admits he was scared to be without his companion. “I felt colder.” He says.  Then, Young-Chan Cho goes swimming, where he says he can open his eyes and see a different world. (As opposed to The Planet of Snail.) In closing, he says he's only waiting to see the most precious things. He and I have much in common. We are both astronauts; we both use words to paint our lived experiences with disability; we have many of the same fears. What will happen to me when my friends and caretakers are gone? The film explores these fears, which at times seem to contradict his coping mechanisms…art and poetry which transcends his body.

    The film is very slow-paced, but there was enough going on that intrigued me that I never lost interest. I love movies about disability experiences, other planets, and other cultures and ways of life. I identified with the main character; but only insofar as he uses art to overcome his disability, such as I try to do. The rest was new to me: The finger tapping, Young-Chan Cho’s beautiful descriptions of his disability in poetry, having a partner vs. having friends, and negotiating each other’s disability. These were all wonderfully new to me. The slow pace also helped me drink in Young-Chan's world.

     I found Planet of Snail to be a fun, dramatic and captivating experience… it is not  just internationally appealing to me, being a Korean film, but it is interculturally appealing too. I mean, I related my experiences with disability with Young-Chan They didn’t always match up. For example, in my dreams, I'm able-bodied, though it by no means is a reflection of de-valuing my life with a disability...I can simply do more in my dreams. Also, Young-Chan says sometimes he knows he’s being stared at. I would tend not to focus on it…nonetheless, I do know it probably is happening.

Anyway, this is a great film that explores many themes about disability and relationships, and the role of art as a tool for life. Highly recommended…I’d say 4/5 stars: the slow pace might be off-putting to some, but in my case, it helped me catch details like the finger tapping as communication. A wonderful film! Go see it!

Game of Thrones Update and Thoughts

   WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

Game of Thrones Updates and Thoughts:

Game of Thrones: I’m finally caught up. Yes, everyone’s talking about the Red Wedding thing. Personally, I wasn’t really attached to any of the Starks that…well, were in the Red Wedding, so I’m not losing sleep over it. Rob Stark chose to be a tactician and marry a Frey instead of building up his own House. And I feel that, at this point, the people…in the Red Wedding…were just getting in the way of the story of what I think will be a showdown between House Targaryen and House Baratheon. I was shocked more at the very ending of the last episode, but I’m not losing sleep over it. Rob Stark was just too politically weak to be valuable.

    On the other end, it looks like Bran is pretty well held up by a siege of people beyond the wall in Castle Black. Seems Hodor might have given them away with all his “Hodoring” (Hodor! Hodor!) I have high hopes that the Stark children at least might survive. The ones that do survive seem to be the ones who surround themselves with protectors, which Rob Stark never did. Bran has protectors. John Snow HAD protectors. Though many might as well have turned on him. A lot of people say this is a kind of amoral show, where if you try to do good, you lose. Although I thought that at first, I’m beginning to disagree.

    For example, look at Danaerys. She has an empire basically of freed slaves, and treats them all as equals. Wherever she encounters cruelty, she conquers and sets the rules so that people are given rights and respect. The Dothraki were complete barbarians at first, but by assimilating to the culture, understanding Dothraki, and ultimately making them play by her rules while respecting the host culture, she changed it. That’s an important lesson in intercultural communication: Assimilating to another culture does not mean you have to give up your native values. It does however, mean you need to understand how the rules of the culture work. The Khaleesi has consistently employed intercultural communication to her benefit.

    Another example I’d like to point to is Tyrion Lannister. Though he plays at being an amoral hedonist, he has actually revealed himself to be quite noble at times. Even empathetic. He refused to bed Sansa. He opened up to Shae about his personal conflicts and struggle for dignity as a dwarf. He defended King’s Landing! Maybe he’s not so amoral. I was particularly uplifted by his decision not to bed Sansa. This was done for multiple reasons, probably. Number one is that he knows he’s being wed to Sansa for his own humiliation, as she’s 14 and he’s a dwarf. He’s not going to let them have the last laugh. Finally, he loves Shae, so…maybe also he’s not the polyamourous type as we were led to believe either.

    Finally, Milsandre has the blood of kings and people think she’s a powerful priestess. Never mind how she gets the blood, which was painful to watch. She sort of uses her position as priestess as a form of religious cultural domination. As such, when people see her victories, she attributes it to her god and her blood, so people fear her. I guess I can’t really say what’s coming for her yet…but she seems to me to be quite the opposite style as the Khaleesi, who assimilates to her conquered cultures…I predict a showdown between the two women. At least Bran and Arya still have protection.

I have no idea what’s going on with the Blackwatch at this point. Samwell’s last scenes felt a bit unnecessary. But, that’s Game of Thrones! Political intrigue, backstabbing, and sometimes magical creatures pop out! Should be exciting to see how long these characters can last. Is it all just secretly a straightforward morality tale? Somehow I doubt that. In Game of Thrones, those who have power make the morals! Stay tuned! And yeah, I know this is going to be out of date as soon as I post it, but I had to put down my observations!

ANIME REVIEW: NEON GENESIS EVANGELION

ANIME REVIEW: NEON GENESIS EVANGELION:

  Giant robots, high school, and alien attacks! Neon Genesis Evangelion is a 26-episode 80s anime that’s like if Power Rangers was conceived in the middle of a Freshman Philosophy course and turned suddenly into dark adult content. First of all, the art and detail are good: It’s set in the futuristic year 2015 and there’s always an electronic buzz in the background someone and cars whirring. The school kind of looks isolated if not for the giant robots underground.

(Remember it was the 80s in Japan; but the English version was conceived in 2004..so this is still apocalyptic.) The series revolves around students, mainly a young boy named Shinji Ikari who do battle with giant aliens called Angels while piloting huge robots called Evangelions or EVAs. Every episode is seemingly divided into one of the character’s psychological problems, then a huge robot fight to help them confront it.

 And yes, multiple times the issues involve girls or Shinji’s female pilots/students. Most of the “fan service” however is done in the name of comedic relief. Occasionally, it addresses cultural, psychological, or philosophical issues. For example, one of the pilots is a German-Japanese girl dealing with fitting into post-apocalyptic Japanese society. Another girl seems completely detached from human relationships, for reasons that are later revealed, and also make her the best pilot. Shinji’s father issues also play in in the form of he’s the boss of NERV, which is the organization behind defending Tokyo and killing the Angels. Every episode has a bit of gossip and a big robot battle at the end.

  The EVAs and their pilots minds are connected, in a bit of man-machine symbiosis. Without spoiling anything, eventually the angels figure this out, and the series turns dark. Between battling with giant machine guns and lasers and knifes, now they must also shield themselves from mental attacks. Shinji begins to question the war: “Angels are envoys of God. Why are we fighting envoys of God?” (To which stubborn Asuka replies: “Are you stupid or something? They attacked us, Dummkopf!” So the action takes place on three fronts. Man vs. Society (Their base in Tokyo-3.) Man vs. Man, and Man vs. Angel. I wish I could discuss Rei’s dilemma, but no spoilers.

     Of course watching the battles is spectacularly fast-paced and over the top. When the drama gets too heavy they usually go back to their dorms, and then you see some funny stuff like Shinji trying to hide his nakedness from his commander, Misatu or Asuka Langley Sohryu being stubborn and adapting to Japanese ways. She’s usually scolded for being too stubborn and ambitious: “Asuka! The Japanese way is to consider others before yourself!” says Misatu.  Eventually, I don’t think I’m spoiling when I say that when confronting her battle trauma (Caused by a blast of German Opera music from an Angel!) you learn the real reason she identifies with her mother’s side in Germany.

    There’s always a battle going on; first the pilots are attacked individually, and you learn their bios, then NERV is attacked, and then the pilots’ minds when the episodes get darker and darker. The last few episodes take place almost exclusively inside the pilots’ tortured minds. I can’t imagine how this change in tone might have affected Japanese boys in the 80s, but it took me by surprise and added a lot of plot twists and suspense! There’s even some romance; yes, romance! Not just fan service. The big surprise though comes when the final form of the Angels is revealed, and they attack their young minds through the EVAs!

Overall, it’s a good show if you like extremes! Extreme action! Extreme fan service! Robots! EXTREME PSYCHOANALYSIS AND INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT! Oh, yes…and they all share a pet penguin! But don’t take my word for it: This stuff has to be seen to be believed! And when you're done with that I think there are Evangelion movies! PS: Sorry I couldn't find the English subs for the theme, but it's called "The Cruel Angel's Thesis"!

      REI AYOTOMEI

                                                      

                                                            

     PEN PEN!

                                                 

                                               ASUKA LANGLEY SOHRYU ON HER EVA

EVA VS. ANGEL

     REI, SHINJI, AND ASUKA 

A Quick Cultural Critique of Man of Steel

A Quick Cultural Critique of Man of Steel:

Hey Viewers!

Enjoyed talking Iron Man with you last time! Now, this is just something I need to get off my chest. As you may or may not know, I'm not a big fan of the dark re-boot aesthetic for Superman. But, mainly, here's why. The thing about Superman is he represents coming from two different cultures. And for the most part, stands up for what's good about his adopted culture, but he doesn't even particularly need to DO much. The environments, the soundtracks, HIS actions, fill you with hope. But, contrary to Iron Man, he's completely modest. All he needs to do is...save falling building, "Just doing my job, ma'am!" fly off...cue Superman theme! Isn't multiculturalism nifty? Sure am glad Superman flew down to save us...

The mind fills in the rest. This isn't the sense I get from Man of Steel. There's gonna be a lot of exposition. In Superman: New Krypton the graphic novel, we're told that the "S" is actually the Kryptonian crest of House El. As in "Kal-El" and "Jor-El". I like that explanation. It makes sense. His parents sent him with a momento of Krypton. Nope. Not in Man of Steel. In Man of Steel, it just means "Hope". Do we really need to be told Superman is hope? Anyway...I hope they base it on good comics, but yeah, essentially this seems to be a Dark Knight re-skin. I'll admit I was excited at first, but really Superman is about modesty and multiculturalism; when I see Henry Cavill in the preview explaining that the S means hope; I DUNNO....YA DON'T SAY???

Additionally, the soundtrack seems to be off. When I hear the new theme, I get the impression of a man burdened with responsibility, but still no hope, no rising notes. There are no rising notes to signify the "flight" of Superman which is optimistic because he's above the world he's saving; but he just sees it as his job. "This looks like a job for SUPERMAN." Ever since 1941, there have been these sort of three rising notes that (to me.) seemingly sing SU-PER-MAN, and symbolize his flight. Especially after the "It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Superman!" bit. Heck, even Lois & Clark played around those notes. As did John Williams, and the '96 Superman: The Animated Series (Which I was watching when I opened up the N64. Epic Nintendo reveal!)

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Superman leitmotif and character, I leave you with a sample of selected Superman anthems, and Captain Picard playing around with notes (Because it's what Superman's themes do, too! (With the three rising hopeful notes.) It's never the same theme, but it's played around. The new theme does not, and is flat. Plus to demonstrate the effectiveness of Superman's modesty, consider the opening scene of Lois and Clark. It was a cheesy 90s drama, I know! But consider  Dean Cain's first scene as Clark Kent.That's perfect! He stops a bus with his hand, and just walks it off. Modesty! All of Superman's traditional portrayals are essentially mild-mannered.

When I hear Russell Crowe as Jor-El say "He'll be a god to them." in the trailers...I cringe a little. Superman wouldn't want that; Jor-El wouldn't want that. That's what I have against all these "Superman learns not to be a god" plots. He just wouldn't want to be. He's just doing his job, and doesn't want to hurt innocents. It amounts to a humiliation of Superman to try to portray him as a god. But nonetheless, Injustice needs its villain...and Batman is popular right now.

You can make the argument that Superman's creators were Jewish, yes. But, to me, nothing about Superman is a religious experience. He's for America, and for everyone who's ever felt different. TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY. It's about honoring that Jewish background, maybe, but there is no evidence that he is exclusively tied to it: he represents intercultural discourse. WITH HIS FISTS and a Boy Scout morality. Oh, sorry I went all Colbert on you there.

Like to me, Superman represents the feeling of me being in German class, almost. When speaking German, I don't worry about my disability. I'm able to focus on what I can do..speak. I have a sense of being judged by the good I can do, not restrained by physical limits. And indeed independent living has been an alien world for me, that I'm still in culture shock about. But anyway...you see, with Superman...the less said the better. Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman said it best: "Gods get their strength from us believing in them. Superman gets his strength because he believes in us." Superman can never be a god, and wouldn't want to be.

Maybe the film will clear it up later. "Secret Origin" was good as a comic, but I kinda lost hope when Superman was explaining to Lois that the "S" means "HOPE" and General Zod was all: "I WILL FIND HIM!" and blowing stuff up. In the comic, Luthor just manipulates the military's paranoia about alien threats, which they will no doubt do here, but differently. It all comes down to identity, not who Kal-El is, not who Clark Kent is, but as that comic later shows, who SUPERMAN is. I guess I just worry that when I see Henry Cavill strutting around is that armor over a gloomy orchestra...they're setting him up to be a god, and something much less human. Just my two cents. Enjoy the links, and see if you agree with my analysis!

                                        Now let's learn about playing around themes with Picard!

Superman - Secret Origin (2010)

Superman - Secret Origin (2010)

    Lois: “Are you an alien or a man?”

Superman: “I’m Superman.”

   I really wanted to read this because it’s supposedly what Man of Steel is based off of. Indeed, the foreword is written by David S. Goyer, a writer for Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, who talks about meeting Geoff Johns, the writer. So, it seems to drop hints that this is the comic that inspired it; particularly when young Clark tries to fit in so much with his friends. “I don’t want to be different.” He says to his father upon learning he’s from Krypton. “I want to be your son.”

  So, to fit in Clark Kent hides his powers, which naturally don’t stay hidden for long. This is ironic since I usually think of Clark Kent enjoying being Superman, and Clark Kent as his reason for anonymity. Nonetheless, here we see him break a friend’s arm in football, then, accidentally burn his school down with eye lasers after he’s kissed by a girl. Worse, he can hear his friends talking behind his back with his super-hearing.  John Kent is distraught, and  tells him the truth: He’s from Krypton.
     
     In comics, part of what makes a good story is conflict of opposites that can be shown pictorially. (Hollywood has caught on.) So, just as we have young Clark struggling to find out where he comes from, we have Lex Luthor, who just pages after Clark’s revelation makes his dad drive off drunk (for being some sort of unspecified know-it-all.) and fall off a cliff road. Superboy (in his full costume.) catches the truck. Thus begins their rivalry.

    Lex Luthor is established as the perfect ambitious rival to Superman. Superman is reluctant to move out of Smallville. Lex Luthor dreams of dominating Metropolis. Superboy wants to have friends. Young Lex considers himself above others, saying: “Glasses mean one of two things…either you’re genetically inferior or you read books.” That establishes his character. Black-and-white perception. No possibility of forgiveness.

While these dynamics are always in play, Lex is always trying to think of ways to thwart Superman, who is a threat to his arrogant selfishness. At the same time, I never saw Superman boast of his strength. (Except for when he reluctantly poses lifting cars or hands-on-hips for Jimmy Olsen, which was not a boast, but a response to polite requests.)

   Indeed, in this comic, Superman displays an almost comical naïveté  about his powers, in favor of not hurting anyone. During a battle with the U.S. Army (who fears he’s here to conquer Earth, per Luthor’s suggestion.) Superman flees into the sewer for fear of hurting innocent people who nonetheless want to kill him. Now, this is a scene I’m sure the Man of Steel movie will use, because it’s so difficult to show Superman visually as a sympathetic character. We’re used to seeing Superman confident; but here we see him torn between his childhood fear of hurting friends, and protecting those he loves. Superman, not Clark Kent, appears emotionally vulnerable.

    So, who is Superman really? The cool answer is usually that his “true” identity is Superman, and that the klutz Clark Kent is a disguise. Here, we realize it’s a false dilemma. He’s both alien and man, which leads to his answer to Lois Lane’s above question. I will avoid spoiling the rest of the comic, for those that want to read it separately, or enjoy the Man of Steel movie without spoilers. Suffice to say, I’m pretty confident General Zod will be a stand-in for Lex Luthor. But, we will see the same conflict between cultural identity: is he a man or an alien (Or, in the case of General Zod, who’s sure to make the U.S. Army nervous, is Superman an alien supremacist like his fellow Kryptonian?) The answer of course is that culture is decided by individuals, and can’t be placed in rigid logical boxes. Superman decides Earth is his home, no one owns it. And so, when Luthor becomes enough of a threat, he decides to stop him from taking over, and spreading lies about him.

   After a fight with the Luthor-created Metallo, Superman explains to the army (out in the streets!) that he’s nobody’s savior, and that Luthor isn’t either. We’re all in control of our own destiny. As cheesy a message as it is in comics, the affect is greatly achieved because it takes a great counterforce to his identity (Lex Luthor…who he lets off the hook many times!) in order for him to fully embrace his Superman identity. When he decides he’s had enough, he finally confronts his fear of hurting others and embraces using his powers for Good! I doubt Metallo will show up in Man of Steel, but this seems like the kind of conflict of opposites that great modern superhero movies are made of, so give it a read, and look for where Zod might fit in!

I AM NOT MY DISABILITY: THE INCOMMUNICABILITY OF DISABILITY

                I AM NOT MY DISABILITY:  THE INCOMMUNICABILITY OF DISABILITY

What is a disability? Is it a severe mental or physical limitation? If this is so, are obese people or drug addicts disabled? Both can be either severely physically and/or mentally limiting. Is it a blessing, granting people a different and positive viewpoint on life?  Or is it a curse, confining and restrictive to otherwise able human beings? It seems that no matter how one looks at the issue, both disability and the disabled community are increasingly difficult terms to define. It is incommunicable.

 This flies in the face of the old axiom that  “You cannot not communicate.” I take communicability to mean understandability of experience. While the ADA and other laws have defined (dialogically) some terms that make disability rights understandable, disability itself is incommunicable. What I argue is that disability and the disability community are relative terms that can actually be harmful to a person if they are rigidly defined to medical diagnosis or reliance on assistive devices. To understand why I am against such definitions (i.e. wheelchair user or cerebral palsy sufferer) it necessary to relate how such ambiguous terms have been communicated through history.

Dialogue is described by John Durham Peters as sharing the same time and space.1 Its uses include the clarification of terms and the creation of dyadic relationships (where we talk to each other.) and creating a sense of shared understanding and meaning. Dialogical contexts include role-playing, philosophy, and drama, where time and space are shared. Because dialogue is fundamentally a dyadic sensation, where the meaning or truth of a statement is typically evaluated by agreement on common meanings for terms, I maintain that any set dialogical definition of “disability” or “disability community” will ultimately be more restricting to a person with a disability than would no definition at all. While it is true that a dialogical definition reached by a common meaning and sharing of inner experience on which laws have been established to protect disability rights, this dialogic search for clarity of terms forces on the disabled an illusionary collective mindset that focuses on common limitations, not abilities.

Dissemination however, would provide a much more personal definition of “disability”, thus allowing for interpretation and the personal development to the notion that I am not my disability. Dissemination seeks no definition: it is open for all to hear.    Dissemination is broadcasted to an open-ended destination; it is a feature of all speech, according to Peters.2 (Shepard, et al., 212) I argue that it allows for autonomy in speech and thought, throughout what we might call the “disability community”. Recently, it has become popular to say that there ought to be one word to characterize the disabled experience, and that this definition should point in effect to the notion that we are all handicapped.

Though I am sympathetic to such efforts, I see the search for dialogical definitions of disability “community” as limiting to the concept of community, although such definitions based on assistive devices or medical diagnosis as helpful to the individual in gaining autonomy, not the community. (“deaf community”, quadriplegics, “wheelchair-users”, etc.) It is up to the individual to interpret what his/her disability actually means through self-discovery. This is why an outlook of dissemination and interpretation is helpful, and why I argue that the community of disabled people cannot be defined by the limitations of its members, but instead by its individual overcomings.  This notion that “we are all handicapped.” is not new.

As far back as 1894, Charles Horton Cooley developed the concept that “Transportation is physical, communication is psychical.” (Peters,  184). He saw all men and women as being sensorily handicapped, but by means of new media transportation like trains, radio, and telegraph (he did not include wheelchairs and speech aids.) they could more easily bridge distances of communication between distant people. This is an attempt to squeeze dialogic thinking into media of dissemination; the sharing of two mutually held ideas and the forming of one psychic understanding.

It was Franz Kafka who challenged the idea that media could transport our souls. Humanity knows that “written kisses never reach their destination. Rather they are drunk on the way by ghosts.” (Peters, Franz Kafka to Milena Jesenkà.) So, they have created trains, telegraphs, and aeroplanes. But, it is no good. In other words, the new communicative media could not cure Cooley’s handicap, being blind and deaf to a larger social world. It is not that “the new communication has spread like morning light over the world,” (Peters, 187-188) as Cooley would have it, but rather, that like the privileged page gifted with the emperor’s last message in Eine kaiserliche Botschaft (1919), the message is never read nor delivered: “The Emperor—so they say—has sent a message, directly from his death bed, to you alone, his pathetic subject, a tiny shadow which has taken refuge at the furthest distance from the imperial sun.” 3 (Kafka trans. Appelbaum, 49) This is a challenge to Marshall McLuhan and his school of thought. The medium may be the message, but it might not be the soul, by which I mean handicaps cannot be reasoned dialogically. As Peters’ noted, Kafka’s Verfremdung [estrangement] explodes the dialogical concept of sharing which is inherent in independent living, but not to disability.

These days, a popular phenomena within disability culture if I may call it such, is the independent living movement. The aims of the movement are to provide persons with disabilities the least restrictive environment in which to live. Which is to say, handicaps are removed through nurse aides and/or assistive devices, or whatever is needed. These aims are fine and noble. But, it raises a question: is the notion of independent living defined? Who has defined it? Under what terms? (Note that here there is a dialogical tint.)

As I have stated, any drive towards freedom should come from the disabled person himself/herself, not as part of a medical examination. I am purposing that it is when the disabled are independent themselves that they really begin to uncover their true handicaps and develop methods to overcome them. Those methods and true disabilities will be individual and as such not open to clear dialogue, but dissemination.

Is independent living harmful to this end? No. One should realize that when one says “independent” we are disseminating. It can mean different things, and levels of independence, just as Wittgenstein claimed that “Water!” could be anything not referring to water itself when used in isolation as a word.4 (Wittgenstein trans. Anscombe, 10) In just that way, one can learn to laugh at one’s own handicap. It is a language-game, and I must play with it in different ways. In effect, the disabled must depend on others as must depend on others. It is wrong to say we don’t need others. We are all handicapped, I believe, robs the individual of his or her own uniqueness.

In summation, is the drive for dialogical clarification of terms and truth misplaced? Perhaps so, but not without benefits. Laws and media have furthered the rights of people with disabilities. However, the community cannot risk finding the one true definition. The aim should be not the dialogical we are all handicapped, but rather a product of dissemination. I am not my disability. As Goethe’s Faust put it: “Name is but sound and smoke, befogging heaven’s blazes.”5 (Goethe trans. Kaufmann, 327)