Why is the Quantum Leap Reboot Just Okay?
This article has spoilers for both the original show and the reboot.
Here’s a phrase you don’t hear a lot of young people saying these days—I’m a big fan of 1989’s hit sci-fi show Quantum Leap, about wayward time traveler Sam Beckett trying to mend the lives of people in the past with the help of his best friend, a hologram from the future named Al that only he can see and hear. I started watching the show with a close friend in 2020 and while I still haven’t seen every episode, I’ve more than got a handle on the show by now. So obviously my ears pricked when I found out about the new Quantum Leap show, starring Raymond Lee as Ben Song, a new time traveler tossed on a journey of helping others and self discovery after a revival of the fictional Project Quantum Leap by the United States government. And now that the first season is complete and we can properly compare the two shows—although the reboot/sequel (or “requel”) is renewed for a second season, so there’s still more to come—I’ve decided to write this review to set the matter straight on where I think the new Quantum Leap falls short and how I think it could improve in the future.

To start off with, I do think there are some things the Quantum Leap reboot does extremely right. Primarily, I think their decision to cast Raymond Lee as their leading man was a fantastic one. I’ve never seen him in anything else, but from his performance on this show I can confidently say that he’s a very good actor (…when they allow him to be, but I’ll get to that in a minute). He’s not the same as Scott Bakula’s Sam Beckett, even though they’re both amnesiac geniuses and fish out of water, and it feels fresh in the right ways. They took careful strides to make sure that Ben is not simply Sam cut out and pasted into a new body, although the qualities they share include having compassion in spades and being able to relate to just about everyone. My personal favorite performances of his include his demon-slaying exorcist rant in season one’s seventh episode, “O Ye of Little Faith,” and the way he talks a radicalized scientist off the ledge three episodes later in creatively-written time loop episode “Leap. Die. Repeat.” Ben as a character especially shines in “Family Style,” where he’s able to connect with the person he’s leapt into specifically because of their shared background as the child of an immigrant, something that I don’t think would have worked in the original show given Sam’s own “from the heartland” backstory. This wouldn’t work with the original character but does here is a great thing to be able to say about a reboot. He’s a charismatic main character played by an actor with some serious talent and I enjoy watching him onscreen.

In fact, most of the cast is charismatic. Mason Alexander Park’s Ian Wright is a delightful standout and you’d be hard-pressed to find a project of any quality that Ernie Hudson (here playing a legacy character from the original show, Herbert “Magic” Williams) doesn’t give a solid performance in. Nanrisa Lee is giving a fine performance in a very limited role as Jenn Chu that finally has a chance to be excellent in episode fifteen before she’s promptly forgotten about again. Georgina Reilly’s Janis Calavicci is… Okay? I don’t think she’s a bad actor, and I really do like when female characters go nuts and try to sabotage the government, but I think she’s somehow been both over- and under-utilized thus far. Then, of course, there’s relative newcomer Caitlin Bassett playing Ben’s holographic link to the future (and fiancée), Addison Augustine, whose performance I probably like the least. Saying that makes me feel bad, because she’s not really a bad or unskilled actor—I’d probably put her on the same level as Nanrisa Lee or Georgina Reilly. The issue is how they’ve utilized her thus far, which is where my problem with most of the show lies.
In the original Quantum Leap, while Addison’s predecessor Al Calavicci was the only consistent character other than Sam himself, he often took a back seat. There are many episodes where this isn’t the case—think of “Shock Theater” and of course episodes like “The Leap Back” and “M.I.A.,” but there are others where Al doesn’t even show up until a third of the way into an episode. It gives Sam time to adjust to the leap while he figures out what’s going on and gives Bakula a chance to walk around chewing scenery while the audience tries to piece together what’s happening before he can. In the reboot, we’re lucky if we get five minutes of Ben trying to get a handle on where he is and what he’s supposed to be doing before Addison pops up. This is problematic because in the original show, Sam is often the straight man to Al’s jokes and lecherous ways despite the absurdity of the situation he’s inevitably found himself in. But because Addison doesn’t bring that to the table, the show becomes about two straight men struggling to bounce off of each other. It’s especially noticeable because often when Addison is removed from the episode for whatever reason Ben immediately starts to shine more—one of the above examples of Raymond Lee’s acting, Ben’s monologue while he prepares to fight what he thinks is a demon, almost certainly only narratively happens because of how Project Quantum Leap and therefore Addison has lost contact with him. Yes, there are times when having Addison there works well, such as in episode sixteen (“Ben, Interrupted”) where she anguishes over watching Ben as he dies without being able to touch him or do anything to save his life beyond beg him to get up, but most of the time her being so no-nonsense is detrimental to the scene. Her characterization would work much better if Ben leaned a bit more into the comedic—and when Raymond Lee gets the chance to say a line with a comedic delivery, he absolutely excels at it, with charisma practically oozing off the screen. The show does deal with serious topics, but so did the original, and it still found time for plenty of comedy, often at the expense of Al’s responses to Sam’s trials and tribulations.
Something else about this dynamic that doesn’t work is the distribution of screen time and audience attention. In the original show, as I mentioned above, Sam and Al are the only consistent characters, although the other people working at Project Quantum Leap are often referenced and we learn small tidbits about their personalities through the main characters’ recollections of them. We do glimpse it on occasion, such as when we see the waiting room in episodes like the two-part season five premiere “Lee Harvey Oswald,” or when Sam and Al switch places in previously name-dropped episode “The Leap Back,” but for the most part Project Quantum Leap is as mysterious to us as it would be to any civilian living in that world. The reboot constantly flashes back and forth between the past—and then future—that Ben is trapped in and our present as his coworkers try to retrieve him. I can see how this would be a good idea on paper; TV shows in general tend to have more than two characters and an unseen artificial intelligence making up their main cast, the machinations and goings-on of Project Quantum Leap are inherently intriguing, and it’s an aspect of the original that wasn’t fleshed out which makes it ripe for a revamp. But in practice, it just means we don’t have time to get properly invested in the leap. Ben is meant to be isolated in the past with his only support forced to be a passive observer. Even in the scene I praised earlier, where Addison has to come to terms with the fact that Ben is dying and she can’t do anything to physically stop it, is disjointed because we spend half of it away from the actual conflict. When Ben has a team of people monitoring his vital signs and trying to give him pep talks, he feels less like a lost time traveler trying to put right what once went wrong and more like a dime-a-dozen superhero. It’s a disservice to Raymond Lee’s performance and feels like the show is afraid of fully handing him the reins.
The plot itself is equally frustrating, because half the time it feels like the show doesn’t even want to have one. Story elements such as Ziggy being the mole on the team feeding information to Walter Perez’s “Leaper X,” the latest in a short line of evil time travelers (I will admit that I yelled out loud with delight when they mentioned the “evil leapers” Sam encountered in the original show), essentially go nowhere and presumably won’t be picked up again now that he’s been shot and killed by a random supporting character last seen in an episode that originally aired five months before the finale. Janis sashays in and out of the story dropping cryptic hints about the events of the future that only she and Ben have been warned about that don’t really wind up going anywhere. While the mini-twist we get at the start of the show that Addison was the one originally intended to leap into the past with Ben as her guiding hologram is an intriguing one and it does factor into the finale in a somewhat interesting way, between those two points it hardly matters. Any potential scenes of the two of them grappling with the fact that Addison has training Ben doesn’t and vice versa are pushed aside. Every episode is a battle between the factions I mentioned above—Ben and his journey through time versus the project trying to bring him home and figure out why he left in the first place.
Spending time at the project also feels like another mishandling of connections to the original show. Chronologically, the events of the new Quantum Leap’s present take place twenty-three years after the present day of the original, but instead of fleshing out the bizarre future vision of 1999 presented by late-80s/early-90s writers, the world looks just like our own. There are no businesses named “Sex World” or blinking neon signs in the desert to be found. Thus, even the potentially quirky characters following in the footsteps of their predecessors feel too… normal. While I commended the aforementioned Ernie Hudson’s performance as Magic, the show never really does anything with the fact that his body was once used by Sam during a leap. The waiting room, the place where “overwritten” people would go while they were being piloted, is utterly discarded as a concept. Why? Wouldn’t it be interesting to have Magic talk to the people brought there as someone who was once in the exact same position?

Maybe that isn’t fair, because it’s not the only thing the show doesn’t do with Magic—beyond some cute scenes with him and Ian or Jenn, he practically has no role here. He exists only to gesture in the direction of the original show. Honestly, the same goes for Janis Calavicci, who shares a last name with her late father and nothing more. She’s visually bland with none of Al’s flamboyance and her interesting relationship with her mother is left entirely offscreen beyond when she drugs her and hides out at her house. It’s a shame because of how much promise she showed as Ben’s unseen partner in the season’s first handful of episodes. She even gives us a glimpse of the third of the original show’s handlinks, a charming doodad that looks like it’s made of rubber LEGOs. (In the rest of the show, it’s replaced by a generic tablet and a glowing hockey puck, which gives Addison no chance for characterization through her trusty equipment, although at least one can easily imagine a world in which that bland choice is shorthand for characterizing someone as too uptight. This is actually a mistake 1989’s Quantum Leap wound up correcting, changing the black plastic handlink to the gummy one that felt more in line with Al’s character and their vision of the future.) Not even Ziggy is carried over—instead of a floating orb with a sultry voice and a big ego, she’s a voiceless bank of monitors without even her original transgenderism. While I understand these changes through the lens of a sequel trying to step away from what the original show did, the fact that they were included in the finished product means that concept is essentially an act of pantomime. The show wants to both bring an overarching plot to something that originally only had the faintest gestures toward a grander narrative and it wants to keep the aspects of the original show that remind us of just how much better it worked without a plot.
As you can see, I have many criticisms of the new Quantum Leap. I don’t, however, have much ill will toward its politics. Some of the most bizarre critiques I’ve seen of this show are related to how it’s shoving progressive politics down our throats. I won’t spend very long on this point because even acknowledging this ridiculous argument is more than I want to do, but it genuinely drives me up the wall. To pretend in bad faith that this is the first time this now-franchise has had the concept of “progressive politics” in it is downright laughable. The original show had episodes like “Black on White on Fire,” where Sam leaps into a medic on the ground during the Watts Uprising who must save lives endangered by police brutality, “Running for Honor,” which sees Sam having to protect a gay classmate of his host from being lynched, and “Unchained,” in which Sam battles a corrupt prison system in order to escape from a chain gang with a wrongfully convicted Black man. Not everything about these episodes and the dozens more like them holds up, and newspaper articles exist to prove that they didn’t always work at the time, either—looking primarily at my second example here—but they tried as hard as they could to say their piece about standing up for the rights of others. Trust me, it’s not the end of the world because a TV show told you that you should respect the rights and autonomy of transgender people while having a transgender character as a main cast member. What’s more Quantum Leap than a somewhat clumsy but earnest and deeply well-meaning episode about a social issue meant for consumption by people largely unaffected by it?
It’s in moments like that where the original spirit of Quantum Leap glimmers through in the reboot. When Ben refuses to take the easy way out and insists that every child be saved from the abusive “wilderness therapy” camp that his host and their friends are escaping from, we see the strength of his character. When Ian breaks down a barrier in their relationship with Addison and tells her about their suicide attempt when they were a kid, it feels almost like a direct response to the end of the original show’s transmisogynistic episode “What Price Gloria?” in a way that, to me, feels natural. When Ben teams up with his enemy to rescue someone from a mental institution, the evil leapers demonstrate that they have the same potential now as they did in the original. And when the show does something completely new, such as when their time loop episode gives a new coat of paint to the genre by having Ben inhabit a different person each time it restarts, the clever writing and Raymond Lee’s performance stand tall on their own as the show becomes genuinely good if not great. Even in the poorly constructed finale, the all-out fistfight that Ben survives by remembering advice given to him when he inhabited a boxer is fun and triumphant. There’s a reason I didn’t title this piece “Why is the Quantum Leap Reboot Bad?” For as much as I’ve talked about the parts of this show I don’t like, it isn’t bad and I’m not rooting for it to crash and burn. I want this show to be good. I want it to be worthy of having the cast it does and the name it’s been given. I want to see Raymond Lee making right what once went wrong and maybe fighting evil leapers along the way. Every time the show gives its premise room to breathe and allows Ben to be himself, I can see that show just under the surface, frustratingly out of reach.

I have to hope that season two will be better with whatever it entails. The final scene of the season one finale is so vague and open-ended that as of yet I have no idea how things might shake out. But I want to believe in this project. With a more diverse main cast and hopefully a more diverse writing room, it has the opportunity to outshine its predecessor in some aspects, even though so far it hasn’t. I know this show can be good. It can even be great. So—like Sam and Ben on their respective time travel adventures, you could say—I have to have faith that things will eventually work out. All I can hope is that the upcoming season will be what finally brings this version of Quantum Leap home.
Rachel Pollack Haunts the Doom Patrol Show

The question of who should get credit for comics is one that has always plagued the industry, even before characters started making their way onto the big and little screens. Just look at the controversy surrounding Bill Finger’s contributions being left out of common conversation about the creation of Batman and many key aspects of his mythos until very recently, with legal recognition only occurring in 2015, over two decades after his death. The issue has only been raised further since superhero movies and TV shows started popping up left and right, from the 90s Flash show to 2021’s Superman and Lois. Who gets credited at the end of episodes and in a flicker before the latest Marvel movie’s second post-credits scene? More importantly, who gets paid for these characters? So often, it isn’t the original writer and artist (or artists, plural), and if they are, it’s only the smallest sliver of what these movies and shows may generate. And when writers like William Messner-Loebs struggle with poverty despite creating and redefining several iconic characters and award-winners like Ed Brubaker say that they’ve made more on residuals for film cameos than they have for creating the characters making Marvel millions upon millions of dollars, this becomes a huge problem.
To the credit of the 2019-through-present Doom Patrol show currently releasing its fourth season on HBO Max, they do make an effort to credit character creators properly. Every episode opens thanking the creators of the team and several of its most iconic characters, Arnold Drake, Bruno Premiani, and Bob Haney, although there’s some contention about that last name being on that list that we don’t have time to delve into right now. Originally, previews for upcoming episodes would include a list of people being specially thanked for their contributions, and while I have been sadly unable to find the majority of that list, the end of certain episodes attempts to give credit where credit is due. The most complete list of those names I’ve been able to find includes writers for various runs (Grant Morrison, Paul Kupperberg, and Gerard Way), illustrators for those runs, event comics that the team has appeared in, or other crossovers (Richard Case, Nick Derington, Vince Giarrano, Steve Lightle, Erik Larsen, Ivan Reis, and Joe Staton), and other individuals who have influenced or created characters that feature on the show to varying degrees (George Peréz, Marv Wolfman, and Neil Gaiman). To me, while I firmly believe that all of these people should be credited for the aspects of the Doom Patrol show they are responsible for, there are some notable names missing from this list like Keith Giffen and Matthew Clark. For the purposes of this article, however, we’re going to be focusing on just a few—Rachel Pollack, the writer of the Doom Patrol run following Grant Morrison’s critically acclaimed take on the team, and the creative team that worked with her.

Even among Doom Patrol fans, Pollack’s run isn’t typically discussed, especially not with people just dipping their toes into the team. Usually, people start with Grant Morrison’s take on the character, if they don’t decide to jump all the way back to 1963 and begin at the team’s inception. While more of a cult classic when it was originally written, Morrison’s run is now easily the most famous version of the team, and after that I notice people talking about Gerard Way’s run (although it is also the most recent and more spiritually in-tone with Morrison’s work than its immediate predecessors) and sometimes Keith Giffen’s. Canonically, John Byrne’s has been all but wiped from existence, but his name being on so many famous characters like Superman and the Fantastic Four means that his Doom Patrol issues occasionally pop up in conversation. John Arcudi, Paul Kupperberg, and especially Rachel Pollack’s runs barely even make the footnote. While it’s received more recognition in recent years, especially since an omnibus of her run (an absolutely gorgeous one at that, thanks to the loving restoration of the work of the various colorists on the run) was just released a few months ago, it was practically doomed (hah) from the start as it followed hot on the heels of Morrison’s supposed masterpiece. However, Pollack’s run being relatively obscure doesn’t mean the show hasn’t directly adapted aspects of it.
Of course, comics are a collaborative medium by nature, whether that collaboration is between writer, penciller, inker, colorist, and letterer, or between one writer and the next. Often, one person gets credit above all else where a team should. For a Doom Patrol-related example, Nick Derington is often solely credited as the artist for Gerard Way’s take on the team, when Tamra Bonvillain is equally responsible for bringing his lines to life with stunning colors. The show certainly features things that were a collaboration between Pollack and the people that came before her. Grant Morrison may have decapitated Niles Caulder, the team’s abusive, controlling paternal figure, but it was Pollack who breathed more life into that head and took us on a journey through his mindscape that, in my opinion, puts Danny the Street’s Fantastic Four-inspired dream to shame. Dorothy Spinner was created by Paul Kupperberg and his art team including Erik Larsen and Michele Wolfman, but she featured extremely heavily in Morrison’s run and took on a runaway life of her own in Pollack’s, including overcoming and accepting herself in ways mirrored by the Doom Patrol show years later. But there are absolutely things they depict where the credit should fall squarely on Pollack and her team’s shoulders.
The title of this article comes from one of them, the primary example of something from Pollack’s work that has been used on the show without credit—the sex ghosts. On the Doom Patrol show, they first appear in season two, manifesting randomly around the house during a wild party running rampant with sexual magic and sporadically popping up since then. These ghosts are not only the creation of Rachel Pollack but of Linda Medley, Graham Higgins, and Daniel Vozzo, debuting in Doom Patrol vol. 2 #67.
From their very first appearance, these ghosts tie themselves to two of the most overt themes in Pollack’s Doom Patrol, sexuality (though perhaps it would be better to phrase it as sensuality) and gender. They’re referred to as Sexually Remaindered Spirits, or “SRS,” living their un-life in pursuit of joy and pleasure with each other and occasionally with other consenting parties, such as when they run a phone sex hotline out of the basement of the Doom Patrol’s headquarters. Their name is a joke based on the other thing SRS is an acronym for, sexual reassignment surgery, and transgender superhero and member of the Doom Patrol Kate Godwin, who we’ll discuss more shortly, is both confused and amused upon first hearing the acronym because of this. Doom Patrol had dealt with gender before, of course—Morrison’s run famously had Rebis, a being of three composite parts, who struggled with having hir gender validated by those around hir and, quite frankly, by the narrative—and Kate herself is much more intended to be both representative of aspects of the transgender experience and a realistic depiction of someone living within it. But the SRS are nonetheless a wink and a nudge to a transgender and otherwise queer audience. To divorce them from the context of being created by DC’s first openly transgender writer is to make them no longer what they are, no longer SRS. The show seems to acknowledge this, to an extent. The name is gone. The sex ghosts are simply… sex ghosts. Rachel Pollack’s vision is gone, right alongside Linda Medley and Graham Higgins’ visual gymnastics and Daniel Vozzo’s ethereal echoes that put the sexually remaindered spirits as neither human nor inhuman but simply masters of their own sexual desires and an open doorway to the desires of others.

The other primary example is Codpiece, who makes his television debut in the recently-released premiere of Doom Patrol season four, and his comic book one in Doom Patrol vol. 2 #70, created by Rachel Pollack, Scot Eaton, Tom Sutton, and Tom Ziuko. Codpiece is an interesting case, and not just because he’s a man with a gun strapped to his dick. He pops up scantly in-name-only as a joke, such as when supervillain Snowflame auctioned off his “codpiece cannon” in the pages of Catwoman vol. 5. The point of his character is to be an embodiment of toxic cisgender masculinity and insecurity. He has a complex about the size of his penis that drives him to abuse others around him including random women in his life and sex workers he hires. It is incredibly important that the person who defeats him, in her debut appearance, is transgender woman and former sex worker Kate Godwin. To bring Codpiece up as a bit character in modern comics isn’t necessarily problematic, but it does rub me the wrong way to know that the borderline joke villain created for one issue was referenced before Kate was after John Arcudi unceremoniously killed her off in a flashback in 2002 (thankfully, she has since been returned to life, something else we’ll extremely briefly touch on shortly). I am, however, willing to jump the gap and call adapting Codpiece to a Doom Patrol television show without adapting Kate problematic. The reason Kate defeats Codpiece is because she is a part of the groups that he has intentionally harmed through verbal and physical harassment and stalking. She doesn’t do it alone—she’s assisted by George and Marion, a pair of “bandage people,” and a small group of SRS called “the insects,” because the Sexually Remaindered Spirits are characters in their own right and because, well, it’s funny for a transgender writer to have a post-op transgender superhero be assisted by some spirits named after sexual reassignment surgery—but she is the catalyst for his downfall. To adapt Codpiece is to adapt Kate; she can exist without him, but he cannot be foiled by anyone other than the people he has spent his life resenting. Unless, of course, the show decides he can be.
The show has already cast its lot in with transgender people by making Danny the Street (a character originally conceived of as a drag queen by Grant Morrison, repeatedly called a “transvestite” in all manner of official material, and then slightly more favorably labeled as “transgendered” in the New 52) officially nonbinary, as they’re now explicitly genderqueer, and by having scenes where drag queens pummel the hell out of the tyrannical hand of the homophobic government. Where is the issue in presenting a positive portrayal of a transgender character who has meant a great deal to many people and in perhaps giving some money to a transgender actress? To watch Doom Patrol trip over its own feet as it covers its ears so it won’t hear the commentary the original comics are explicitly making is frustrating. And to do it all without crediting the team responsible for the characters they’re using to ignore that commentary is practically offensive. What is there to gain by ignoring the contributions of Rachel Pollack? Of Linda Medley, of Graham Higgins, Tom Sutton, of Scot Eaton, of Tom Ziuko?

Of course, this is a precedent set by comics. I already mentioned that Kate was killed off by John Arcudi and his creative team in 2002. Dorothy Spinner took a few more months, but her end didn’t come much later. Niles Caulder’s body was restored when John Byrne’s reboot rolled around in 2004. George, Marion, and the Sexually Remaindered Spirits haven’t been mentioned in decades. Comics are used to always resetting to a status quo, and it hurts to see Doom Patrol follow that trend. Kate and Dorothy making their reappearances in DC’s Pride Month Special 2022 was a dream come true for me and many other Doom Patrol fans, and seeing the show’s official twitter account tweet a cropped panel of just Dorothy and Danny from that issue was salt in the wound that I still haven’t forgiven. Doom Patrol has always been a haven for the oppressed and the underdogs. To not credit a transgender woman and her creative team for their achievements in writing for the comics that this show is based on feels like a slap in the face to everything the team is supposed to represent.
In August of 2022, Rachel Pollack was admitted to the ICU for emergency medical treatment after it was announced that, following a battle with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma around 2015, a different kind of lymphoma had recently been discovered in her body and she was receiving chemotherapy. While she lived to see her omnibus published after several months of delays and is currently recovering, it eats me alive to think that there is credit that she could be receiving but isn’t. To be clear, I don’t know if she’s been paid for her characters appearing on the show, and if she has but this hasn’t been made public I don’t blame her or the executives responsible for that decision—in fact, the reason I have been somewhat scarce about discussing potential monetary compensation for character usage beyond the examples in my opening is because I would like to assume that she has been. But imagining that she could pass without her work being introduced to an even wider audience beyond just comic fans, lovers of mysticism and tarot, and science fiction books is upsetting to say the least. I don’t know what I hope to accomplish by writing this. I certainly don’t think I expect to accomplish anything. I just want someone else to think that this is wrong. I want someone else to see that these characters and stories were made by people who haven’t gotten the credit or respect they deserve. I want the following people to be highlighted for everything they’ve done for the Doom Patrol as a team and as individual characters:
Ted McKeever, whose abstract and incredible illustrations certainly aren’t for everyone but who I can’t imagine Rachel Pollack’s run without. Linda Medley, who picked up where Richard Case left off and made the Doom Patrol her own. Scot Eaton, who filled in for her but contributed no less than stunning artwork that includes his work on Kate Godwin’s debut issue. Vertigo editor Tom Peyer, who made the imprint what it was at the time, and editor Lou Stathis who succeeded him and kept the fire burning bright and passionate. Jamie Tolagson and the Pander brothers, who illustrated only one issue apiece and still left their marks. Tom Taggart, whose cover work for Doom Patrol makes the run stand out in any spread, and Kyle Baker, whose covers contain such vivid colors and deep emotions they’re almost overwhelming to look at. Graham Higgins, Mark Wheatley, Eric Shanower, Alex Sinclair, Debbie McKeever, and Gene Fama, who helped make the insides of those issues live up to expectations. John Workman and Ellie de Ville, because letterers are the key that keeps comics of all kinds moving forward. And, of course, Rachel Pollack, for everything she’s done for the Doom Patrol.
Maybe one day these people will get the credit they deserve from the Doom Patrol show. And if they don’t, I hope you’ll join me in still standing up to applaud them.
[The edit I never wanted to make: Rachel Pollack passed away today, on April 7th, 2023. She touched the lives of so many people, even those she had never met. Her writing for Doom Patrol remains a standout and many consider her to have been one of the world’s foremost experts on tarot. Her memory is a blessing.]
Wonder Woman 1984: A Flaming Mess
I did not have the intended viewing experience for Wonder Woman 1984, directed by Patty Jenkins and starring Gal Gadot.
This was a big superhero movie meant for theaters and destined to be a blockbuster. But because of the global pandemic, I wound up watching the movie in my backyard in the freezing cold with a cup of hot chocolate and my best friend streaming the movie for us on her small computer screen, subtitles turned on so we wouldn’t disturb the neighbors with anything more than our confused screaming. We didn’t go in expecting a masterpiece, as we’d both separately heard bad things about the movie. We just wanted to have fun, and in a way, we did.
Wonder Woman 1984 is a movie made up of disjointed story elements, racist caricatures, and confusing choices. The first Wonder Woman movie, which came out in 2017 and was also directed by Patty Jenkins, was substantially better, and despite a lackluster third act as well as many other flaws it had a coherent story and the plot beats made sense. Its sequel couldn’t even manage a sensible plot beyond the racism and disorienting editing. But to talk about it properly, I’m going to need to break it down into chunks. This movie was two and a half hours long, after all. There’s a lot to talk about.
First, I want to address the elephant in the room and talk about my claim above, that this movie is full of several racist caricatures. This is a tough topic, and I am absolutely not the best person to tackle it, being a white person living in America. But I’m going to do my best to talk about this respectfully, because when talking about this movie, it’s one of the most important things to criticize. While I’m certain I won’t be able to cover all of it, I’m going to discuss some of the bigger points.
I’ll start with this movie’s nearly cartoonish portrayal of Arab men. Somewhere in the middle of the film, Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) visits Cairo and asks a high-class man who lives there what he would wish for if he could have anything he wanted—the wishes are a large part of the plot of this movie, but we’ll get there when we get there. The man, Emir Said Bin Adyos (Amr Waked) wishes to have his land returned to him and that all “heathens” would be cast out. A wall immediately forms. Lord, in exchange, asks for all of the oil on his land, which could be commentary on how America steals oil from countries in Western Asia/The Middle East and North Africa if it didn’t immediately follow such a horrifying stereotype.
The only other people from this region that we see are children who exist only for Wonder Woman to white-savior-style rescue them from being run over by the evil Arab men working for Emir and Lord (which is almost hilariously sickening considering Gal Gadot’s past as an IDF soldier and Israel’s historic and current practice of bombing Syria and Palestine), a man who wishes for nuclear weapons and later recants his wish while crying and holding a machine gun, and another man who approaches Lord to make a wish in heavily-accented and broken English about an alliance with the Soviet Union. I shouldn’t have to explain why these are terrible and offensive stereotypes to put in a modern-day movie, even one set in the 80s, when offensive stereotypes of West Asian/Middle Eastern and North African people were all the rage.
There are also notably zero Asian characters in the film, barring Babajide (Ravi Patel), an Indian man wearing a terrible wig with fake dreadlocks who presents himself as a direct descendant of and an expert on the Maya people. The movie tries to make a cute joke about how his name is actually “Frank” and he is as much an expect on Maya culture as any random person who read a few history books and has an ancestor who was supposedly Indigenous, while ignoring that he seems to be their research consultant, considering they explicitly state that the Maya people went “extinct” due to a cataclysmic event caused by the McGuffin in the movie, despite the attempted erasure of their culture and existence being a function of colonialism, and there being Maya people still alive today. Some of them even go to see movies like Wonder Woman 1984! Shocking, I know. There are also zero notable Black characters, and the only background characters we see who are Black are a little girl who Diana saves at the beginning of the movie and a homeless man who shows up to demonstrate the morality switch of antagonist Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig).
Lastly, though there are certainly things I must be forgetting, we have Maxwell Lord himself. As I stated, he is played by Pedro Pascal, a Chilean-American actor. I am someone who is burdened by being a fan of DC Comics, and I was intrigued by the decision to cast a Latino actor as Lord, who is white and comes from old, old money in the source material. Were they just going to ignore that they had cast someone who is Latine? To my surprise, they did not. Lord is said to have anglicized his name in order to fit in with the racist white “higher society” and to make it better as a businessman and wears a blond wig to hide his naturally dark hair (a detail which admittedly slightly confuses me, as in the comics Lord’s hair is already brown). I am not immediately opposed to this. I like it when characters who are “race-bent” in an adaptation are given ties to their culture—a good example of this being Joan Watson (Lucy Liu) on Elementary, who talks about things like her own family’s anglicized last name and her connections to her heritage. In my opinion, it almost always makes for a great character detail. So what’s the problem?
Part of it is that Lord’s backstory in the movie is that he comes from a dirt poor and violently abusive family and had to deal with racist and classist bullying as a child from other kids around him. I specify in the movie because this is not his backstory in the comics, where as I said he comes from very old money, has been rich his entire life, and was not abused. Yes, they specifically made a character Latino and then changed his backstory to be that he came from no money and had an abusive and potentially alcoholic father. He also has an exaggerated accent that Pascal does not have in real life. I find this to be pretty reprehensible. There was no reason for this character to be Maxwell Lord, as he is in almost every respect an in-name-only adaptation of the character. They made the choice to make him into a stereotypical depiction of a Latino man, and it only comes off as mean-spirited.
This is not at all to disparage Pascal’s performance. Indeed, he is easily the standout of the movie, bringing the character charisma as well as manic energy. Pascal’s iteration of Lord is electric and charming and campy and in my opinion pitch-perfect for the kind of character he’s playing, even if I find that he’s not much like the manipulative and dryly humorous Max Lord of the comics. He brings the film a sense of energy that it really lacks in most of its scenes. There’s only one major problem with Lord, beyond the racism infecting his new backstory, and it’s that I have absolutely no idea what his role is in this movie.
To be fair to Lord, I have no idea what the roles of most of the people in this movie are. What does Diana, the titular Wonder Woman, want? I don’t know. What does Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) want? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it’s nothing. What does Max Lord want? Power? Sure, but beyond that, I don’t know.
The only person whose motivations make sense and follow a kind of linear development is Barbara, who was presented in the advertising as the main antagonist of the movie and only actually appears as her comic counterpart Cheetah for five or so underwhelming minutes. She wants to feel powerful and looked up to after a lifetime of being ignored and stepped on. This is a standard motivation for a villain that could be done very well by a good screenwriter, director, and actor, and I don’t inherently have any problems with it. But the lackluster arc Cheetah follows stands out starkly considering she’s the character with the most clearly defined needs. The audience empathizes with how she’s been treated as disposable for her entire life, and it’s easy to see how she’d fall under the spell of Max Lord, a wealthy and powerful man showing interest in her purely to suit his own ends. How she goes from an overlooked worker at the Smithsonian to a so-called apex predator fighting to keep her place on the food chain is understandable, as disjointed as it is made to be by the editing, pacing, and the placement of other story beats.

This especially stands out when compared to the arc of our protagonist, Wonder Woman herself.
At the beginning of the movie, Diana is working as an anthropologist at the Smithsonian, while also occasionally going out to anonymously stop crimes and save people from things like mall jewelry store robberies. (My uncle’s best friend played one of the robbers, so hi, Jimmy, if you’re reading this. I promise, you weren’t one of the bad things about this movie.) She’s still mourning the loss of Steve Trevor and finds herself investigating the mystery of a certain crystalline artifact that the mall burglars attempted to steal. This is not a bad setup. It’s simple and it’s understandable, even if the question of why she suddenly decided to start doing Wonder Woman-y things again after decades of radio silence goes unanswered. It’s when the crystal’s odd wish-granting powers come into play that things start to get incomprehensible.
The crystal can grant wishes (actually, it can only grant one singular wish to each person, unless the movie wants someone to have two wishes for some reason) to anybody with some kind of inevitable price, and Max Lord wants it so he can… have more oil? Become the ruler of the world? It starts out seeming like that first one, but his motivations disappear at some point toward the end of the second act. Diana, not knowing the crystal’s powers, makes a wish to see Steve again. This manifests as… Steve’s consciousness being transplanted into the body of a man credited as Handsome Man (Kristoffer Polaha) as if this were an episode of Quantum Leap (1989) starring Scott Bakula, right down to the mirror scene where Steve looks in the mirror and sees a stranger’s face staring back at him. This is also a decent plot point, even if it cheapens Steve’s sacrifice at the end of the first Wonder Woman movie. If the wishes can be granted at a price, is this one’s price that an innocent man’s entire soul has been overwritten so he can be puppeteered by a man who died at the end of World War I? Does our hero have to contend with being an accomplice to murder if she accepts her friend/lover back into her life?

No, actually. The price to pay for Diana’s wish is that she’s losing her powers. Handsome Man being taken over in an act of horrifying cosmic resurrection is never presented as a bad thing for Handsome Man, only a bad thing for Diana and Steve, as the wheel of fate separates them once again. This doesn’t even get into the automatic minefield of consent issues that come from taking over a man’s body and life and then immediately having sex with someone who is in a stranger’s skin. Never once do the protagonists have to contend with the fact that Handsome Man could’ve had a life and a family that he was almost permanently ripped away from. While we do see a scene at the end of the movie where Diana talks to Handsome Man after his life and body have been rightfully returned to him, prior to that Handsome Man is treated narratively as nothing more than a vessel for Steve. Even when Steve “dies” again, we don’t actually see Handsome Man’s body being restored. Instead it happens offscreen as Diana runs away from him after renouncing her wish, giving it zero of the emotional weight Steve’s vibrant self-sacrifice in the first movie had. In that moment I should have felt terrible for Steve and Diana. Instead I was only worried about Handsome Man, a character who doesn’t even have a name.
Technically, Diana’s arc in this movie is supposed to be set around truth. But I don’t think she learned anything about “truth” in this movie at all. She learns to move on from Steve. She learns that it’s impossible to truly “have it all,” as Maxwell Lord puts it. She learns to fly, which is very exciting for her, I’m sure. But none of this has to do with truth. She’s a protagonist who doesn’t learn anything about the very theme of the movie. Nor does she technically teach anyone about truth. All she teaches the world while pulling the old “the camera was broadcasting the whole time!” trick is that Lord is lying when he says that when their wishes are granted nothing bad will happen. That doesn’t tie into her speech about truth to Lord or the speech she is given at the beginning of the movie from a parental figure as a child, which is supposed to set up that same arc.
A story with a weak plotline for the protagonist must rely on the villain. And while I said that Barbara’s storyline is serviceable on paper and is simply done in a way that lacks most of the pizazz that’s required to bring a predictable storyline to life, I meant it when I said I don’t actually know what Max Lord, the perceived secondary antagonist who turned out to be the big bad all along, really wants.
It should be a simple tale about the corruptive power of capitalism. A man who always wants more money and more power. He wants the wish-granting crystal so that he can have both of those things and keep reaping the benefits. And then, of course, his greed is his own grand undoing, as he sacrifices everything including his own health for power. Easy, right? So why does he offer everyone else around him the same opportunity to grant wishes? Why does he act like he can only grant one wish to one person, but Cheetah gets two—is it because the first one she made was next to the stone, and not directly to him? And if so, why isn’t that explained? Why does his motivation for more power seemingly entirely disappear after he manages to secure a timeslot on the TVs of literally everybody in the world, making his goal an utter mystery? Lord is a confusing character and the writing is honestly a waste of Pascal’s wonderful performance, which is a shame considering his solid comic book history, where the thing he’s second-most known for is getting killed by Diana herself.
So it’s a confusing cast of characters. We have a protagonist who seems to be having a different arc than the theme of the movie wants her to. We have a main villain whose motives seem to vanish from the screen part of the way through the film. We have a secondary villain who has a predictable plot line that is at least parseable. And we have Steve Trevor, who is another character with zero storyline beyond learning what some at-the-time modern things are—which is a shame, because after Pedro Pascal, Chris Pine’s performance is by far the next most enjoyable one to watch, just because “man out of time” is a fun character to play, and the scene where he and Diana are flying the invisible jet through a fireworks display is genuinely delightful.
About that “man out of time” thing—for a movie that really wants you to know it’s set in the 80s with its title literally including the year and its occasional glimpses of timely fashion and its one or two jokes about things like parachute pants, there really isn’t a reason for the movie to take place in that decade at all. I was expecting a lot of 80s aesthetics, outfits, and musical choices, but there really aren’t many things that tie it to the period, barring the same offensive racist stereotypes that you’d see in almost any film of the day. The score by Hans Zimmer is fine. I’m not a music person, but I didn’t notice anything wrong with it and I still think the main Wonder Woman character theme is an excellent piece of composition. However, I don’t recall any nods to 80s musical trends within it, and there definitely were little to none on the film’s soundtrack. Why not take advantage of the decade’s iconic and unique sound for the film? It’s a wasted opportunity to bring some much-needed energy to this bloated mess of a movie.
Another thing that tends to bring energy to movies is snappy editing. Shots and cuts that feel like they’re smoothly and cleanly carrying the movie from one scene to the next. Someone who isn’t well-versed in film editing shouldn’t even notice most of those edits and shots, unless there’s something extra in there for the “wow” factor like a long take or a practical effect that goes off without a hitch. Unfortunately, Wonder Woman 1984 doesn’t even manage that. I’m not an expert on editing. But the choppy style of the entire film—my favorite jump cut being at the edit of the outfit montage with Steve in the body of Handsome Man and Diana, when it switches between one angle and a slightly different angle for no reason—makes it feel to the average viewer (me) like I’m watching someone’s high-budget YouTube video, not a would-be blockbuster film. And as I said, this movie is two and a half hours. Without editing and a clean pace, it just feels like the world’s most confusing marathon crawl.
A third Wonder Woman movie has already been announced, of course. I’m curious to see whether it will be like its immediate predecessor. I don’t expect this brief review to change anything—I’m not a professional movie critic, just a comic book fan who was absently looking forward to this movie and was disappointed or disgusted or both by a lot of it. But I wanted to talk about the movie, somewhat because every advertisement I’ve gotten for it assures me is doing well with critics, and somewhat because I feel like it’s my duty to call out DC’s garbage for what it is.
At the end of the day, Wonder Woman 1984 is a mess with shiny paint and low-quality CGI. It’s a mess that isn’t bad enough to be a so-bad-it’s-good movie like the Catwoman movie from 2004 or good enough to be a mid-tier Marvel film like Ant-man (2015). It’s a mess that I don’t even see becoming someone’s guilty pleasure the way 2016’s Suicide Squad is for me, where I recognize that it’s an incompetent and bad movie but I still watch it whenever it’s re-aired on TV. It’s sad partially because, while the first film wasn’t exactly Oscar-worthy, it was at least decently good-to-great, depending on who you ask. I don’t think the sequel will receive the same affection, nor do I think it deserves it.
Wonder Woman 1984 is a movie allegedly set in the 80s that could take place anywhere at any time. It’s a movie that allegedly has two villains, but one is basically a non-presence with a predictable story and the other has all of his motivation surgically removed at some point during the runtime. It’s a movie allegedly starring Diana Prince, but she learns essentially nothing and the film only plays at giving her a proper arc around what is supposed to be the primary theme of the movie. It’s a movie that fails to be a movie instead of a first-draft script with a digital furry slapped into it for the sake of having Wonder Woman’s most famous “nemesis” in the marketing.
I’ve seen people online trying to fix the movie with simple band-aids, or saying that the racism and terrible screenwriting are ignorable in favor of the good movie hidden beneath. But I don’t think there is a good movie beneath those layers. When you cut out the racist caricatures, the shoddy editing, the unremarkable soundtrack, the bizarre consent issues, the terrible pacing, and the lack of any real development in the story of the protagonist…
The only thing left is the bad taste in my mouth.
Where Are The Autistic Superheroes?

I recently started watching Stargirl, a show on DC’s streaming platform DCUniverse that co-airs on the CW Network. My opinion may change, since the first season isn’t over yet, but I really enjoy it so far, and a large part of that is due to one of the characters in the main cast—Elizabeth “Beth” Chapel, played by Anjelika Washington. I see a lot of myself in her, as someone who was an awkward kid who didn’t know how to make friends and relied on my parents for social support while struggling to keep my intense interests in things people would find traditionally “weird” in check. Those traits specifically, in fact, were some of what led me to figuring out I was actually autistic. They’re common in people on the autism spectrum and in those with similar disorders. So is Chapel, a beginning superhero who struggles with social cues, volume control, connecting with others, and rambles at length about her niche interests to anybody who will listen, also autistic?
Well… we don’t know. It hasn’t been explicitly stated, and while we’re only just starting to wrap up season one—as the tenth episode was released on Sunday night, and I’m uploading this on Tuesday afternoon—even with it having been renewed for a second season I don’t have a lot of faith that it will be. In the pantheon of DC television shows currently airing, there isn’t a single autistic character, much less a superhero. Chapel is part of a trend, and it’s not a good one.
Autistic coding, or (to put it simply) the act of presenting a character with autistic traits that can be picked up on by the audience at large and can be read as autistic without the creators actually having to say anything (think of Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) from The Big Bang Theory or Spencer Reid (Matthew Grey Gubler) from Criminal Minds, and you’ll be on the right track), is very present in superhero media. From cartoons to live action, there are characters designed to register on an autistic person’s radar and make them go “oh, that one’s like me” as well as characters deliberately written to be understood as autistic or at the very least non-specifically “different” to neurotypical audiences. Autistic coding is something we rely on to see a character that is truly a reflection of us, because there are so very few autistic characters in media who are not characterized specifically by their autism meant to be consumed by non-autistic viewers—an example of this kind of neurotypical-pandering representation being Shaun Murphy (Freddie Highmore) on The Good Doctor, who is a savant surgeon. Canonical autistic representation is even less present in superhero media. I can count the amount of confirmed autistic characters between DC and Marvel on one hand. The heroic characters wouldn’t span more than three fingers. So wouldn’t a group of shows that pride themselves on their inclusivity (like having the first live-action transgender superhero in Nia Nal (Nicole Maines) on Supergirl, or the first live-action Black lesbian superhero in Anissa Pierce (Nafessa Williams) on Black Lightning) want to expand autistic representation?
Part of the problem is, undoubtedly, because of what a wider audience already thinks autism looks like. See the characters I mentioned above—Sheldon Cooper, Spencer Reid, and Shaun Murphy. What do they all have in common? They all have an interest in something deemed to be “productive” by society. They’re all incredibly smart. And most importantly, they’re all white men. Autism doesn’t look like white women—though there are a handful of autistic-coded and explicitly autistic white female characters, like Fiona Helbron (Betty Gilpin) on Elementary (canonically autistic) and Parker (Beth Riesgraf) on Leverage (highly coded)—and it especially doesn’t look like people of color of any gender. It looks like a white man solving a genius equation or a white little boy (typically between the ages of nine and twelve) who doesn’t talk and is obsessed with trains whose inability to comprehend social situations is excusable because of their brilliance. My beloved Beth Chapel, meanwhile, is a Black girl. She may be incredibly smart, even reaching a genius level, and some of her interests may someday manifest as something “useful,” but she is still a kind-hearted Black teenager who brings her parents dinner and makes them lunch every day and who sees the best in everybody. She isn’t a rude white man scribbling complex formulas onto a chalkboard. She is the antithesis to the formula of autism in the media. And that is exactly why I would find her to be such good autistic representation, if she were to ever be confirmed as such.
But will she be? I ask with so much skepticism because we’ve been here before. Twice, in fact, though one is more “extreme” (read: obvious to a neurotypical audience) than the other. I’ve watched two other characters step into the superhero spotlight on CW/CW-adjacent superhero shows before, and immediately identified them as autistic before being let down when it was never commented on despite the obvious intent behind at least some of their characterizations.
I’m talking, of course, about Cisco Ramon (Carlos Valdes) on The Flash and Brainiac-5/Querl Dox (Jesse Rath) on Supergirl. They’re similar to “standard” autistic-coded characters in that both of them are men with genius intellects, and a case could even be argued for either of them being savants. They’re also miles away from meeting that “standard” by virtue of, yet again, neither of them being white, as Carlos Valdes is Columbian and Jesse Rath is Indian-Ashkenazi, and therefore neither character fits into our conventional views on autistic individuals. Brainiac-5’s coding is more blatant, especially since it’s easily translated from the Legion of Super-heroes comics he comes from where he’s received extensive coding for literally decades, but Ramon was one of the first characters I realized was “like me” (i.e. autistic) all on my own, with his constant fidgeting and difficulty connecting with others without the lens of pop-culture references being a struggle I recognized intimately well as a person who tried to express themselves almost exclusively through Gravity Falls quotes for at least a good two and a half years.
Neither of them have been confirmed explicitly to be autistic characters (and there is an argument to be made about whether or not Brainiac-5 would be good representation overall considering he’s an alien whose stilted style of speech, frequent sensory overloads, and problems navigating social situations are all pinned on the fact that he’s not from Earth. Which is something I understand, and if he were to be the only autistic character in the entire DC television lineup I would find him a laughable example of representation at best, as it plays into the other stereotype about autistic people being cold, emotionless aliens and/or robots) despite their extensive coding. The closest we’ve come is Rath liking a tweet of mine about his portrayal of the character coming off as incredibly autistic, which doesn’t count as explicit confirmation, even if it was pretty neat. Nor have any other characters from any of the CW-affiliated DC shows been confirmed to be autistic, whether they’re part of the main cast or a guest star, even when they’re characterized as having some kind of developmental disorder in the source material they’ve been pulled from. (Yes, there is a specific character I have in mind here—Big Sir from The Flash, though his disability is more of a hodge-podge of traits more similar to Down Syndrome than autism, and presented in such a repugnantly tactless and disgustingly ableist way in the comics that I can’t exactly blame them for abandoning it.) That doesn’t set the best precedent for Chapel being confirmed as autistic, either, as she’s been around in this live-action form for less than a year compared to their respective (at the time of writing this) seven and three.
But does it even matter? If the autistic coding ingrained in these characters is so clear that someone like me, with a developmental disorder that makes processing information difficult, can pick up on it, is there a real reason to lay it out? Would anything be gained by having it be brought up that these characters are so clearly living as autistic people within their world?
To me, it matters. This is for a variety of reasons. For one, these characters not being explicitly canonized as autistic makes it easy for neurotypicals to dismiss it and continue creating ableist fan content while erasing the experiences of autistic people who relate heavily to them. For another, it helps to flesh out who a character is and how they’ve experienced events in a relatively easy way. And as is the case when the characters being confirmed to be autistic are already members of their main casts, it shows autism in a positive light not affiliated with the dreaded “very special episode” viewpoint, where autistic people are teaching tools for children more than human beings. But I feel that the most important thing having good, protagonistic representation for people with autism would do is help autistic kids feel less alone—perhaps especially the ones who were never diagnosed because of their gender and/or race, as autism is so under-diagnosed in those who don’t fall into the trite categories that make up what little representation we get.
I think the time is right for a proper autistic superhero in live-action. I think the time has been right for one for a long, long time. It would be incredibly easy to confirm these characters as autistic in a natural way, even on shows with so much pseudo-science it makes my head hurt. Representation for autistic people is already poor, and essentially nonexistent for autistic people of color. When the building blocks have already been set up so extensively, what’s stopping us from seeing ourselves and our friends onscreen, finally having become the heroes we once looked up to?
Author’s note: In one of DC’s backstories for him, the supervillain Black Manta is said to be an autistic man. He made his big screen debut in 2018’s Aquaman, where he’s played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, and to the best of my knowledge is not portrayed as autistic in the adaptation. Since I haven’t seen the movie, and the character is a supervillain not a superhero, I didn’t bring him up in the main text, but I do think it is important to recognize that one of the most prominent autistic characters (and a Black autistic character at that) in comics is a murderous supervillain whose autism was written as if it made him more evil—before it was promptly cured.
Let’s Talk About Comics: Identity Crisis by Brad Meltzer
This article will mention and discuss several fictional instances of suicide, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Reader discretion is advised.
Identity Crisis, written by Brad Meltzer and illustrated by Michael Bair and Ralph “Rags” Morales, was a seven-issue miniseries that ran from December of 2004 to February of 2005. In 2007, it was added to the Young Adult Library Services Association’s list of Great Comics for Teens, so for many people, it was their first introduction to the DC universe as a whole. It was advertised the same way many comic book events nowadays are-as challenging, groundbreaking, and as something that would “change the DC universe as we know it.”
I hate it with every single quivering fiber of my being, and I consider it to be one of the worst and most overrated comics of the past twenty years.
The basic premise of Identity Crisis is a simple one, and it isn’t a bad idea. It centers around a murder mystery, with the characters trying to figure out the culprit as long-buried secrets about the Justice League/Justice League of America (since yes, those are in fact two different organizations) come to light. Though he has written other comics, Meltzer is more notably a crime fiction writer, and it makes sense that he would play to his strengths when being given the chance to write a story designed to break DC’s mould. Unfortunately, everything Meltzer tried to do falls flat on its face. The story is ridiculous, the mystery element is dull at best, the voyeuristic portrayal of sexual assault and murder feels tasteless and was clearly designed for shock over substance, and the “big secret” of the Justice League of America that is clearly supposed to make us hate certain members is quite frankly ludicrous. Most of my qualms are with the writing. Morales’ art isn’t one of my favorites, but the big noses and thick eyebrows he gives his characters reminds me of my own (much different and much less professional) art in a way, and my only issue with it is that certain characters like Vixen and Connor Hawke have skin tones only a few shades grayer than their white associates, despite the fact that they’re both intended to be both Black and dark-skinned. Outside of that, I don’t have many complaints about the more illustrative aspects of the book.
So what is it about the writing that I find so downright appalling? Well, in order to answer that, we’re going to need to briefly discuss the history of the woman the comic is centered around: Sue Dibny, the wife of Ralph Dibny, aka the superhero the Elongated Man-and yes, that really is his alter ego’s name.
Sue first appeared in The Flash #119 in 1961. She was introduced exclusively to be the wife of Ralph, who had been introduced several issues prior in The Flash #112. She was there mainly to provide a voice of reason and someone for Ralph to bounce off of when Barry Allen (the Flash at the time) wasn’t in the picture, especially after the two of them began starring in the latter half of issues of Detective Comics. Over time, however, Sue’s actually gained a personality, becoming a character in her own right who was able to stand on her own. She became an accomplished detective through the hands-on experience of working beside her husband-she even outsmarted Batman, making her the rightful owner of the title of “World’s Greatest Detective.” Despite being the only member of the team without powers, Sue held the Europe wing of the Justice League International together practically single handedly, while also outsmarting villains like Sonar. Despite paper-thin beginnings, Sue became a genuinely well loved character both in-universe and out. People liked her, and they liked her husband, and they liked their relationship. But Sue had one massive stain on her character that was impossible to remove, and it was that since she was the wife of a superhero, she was completely, 100% expendable.
I said Identity Crisis was a murder mystery, didn’t I? In the first issue, Sue dies, and the rest of the comic follows the attempts by the superhero community to solve the mystery of her death. If you haven’t read the comic, you might be thinking that naturally her husband would be at the forefront of the case, since he’s a detective himself. Especially since Sue’s murder was a locked-room mystery, the same kind that Ralph had spent years solving with her by his side in the pages of Detective Comics. Unfortunately, you would be wrong, because outside of providing a plot kickstarter, Sue and Ralph don’t have any further impact on the storyline of Identity Crisis.
You may be wondering how that’s possible, since murder mysteries typically revolve around, well, a murder. Which is true, and it does apply for the comic. But the crime could have been anything. It could have been Batman getting his cookies stolen, or Superman having his secret identity revealed. This is because the actual “secret” of the Justice League of America doesn’t actually need to be related to Sue in the slightest. Let me explain.
The secret of the Justice League of America is that several times over the years of the team’s history, members of the team have tampered with the minds of their foes in order to remove things like the location of their hideouts or their own secret identities from their memories. Now I understand why Meltzer chose to do this-it’s an interesting dilemma. At what point are superheroes going too far? Is it fair to tamper with someone’s mind, even if they present a danger to you and your family? It’s a neat scenario to explore in a superhero setting. Unfortunately, Meltzer decided to reveal this truth in one of the most disgustingly tasteless ways possible; Meltzer states in Identity Crisis that several original members of the Justice League of America (namely Zatanna, the Atom, Hawkman, Barry Allen’s Flash, Green Arrow, and Black Canary) wiped the mind of fairly low-level supervillain Arthur Light (aka Doctor Light) after he broke into their headquarters and raped Sue, who was alone there.
I think that here is a good place for me to state my opinions on using sexual assault as a plot device in anything, really, but especially in comic books, because I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. I believe that everyone deserves representation of themselves. Everyone deserves to see themselves in their heroes. It’s why I naturally gravitate toward heroes with PTSD or heroes that I can easily read as autistic or otherwise neurodiverse, as well as heroes who are members of the LGBT community. They may be fictional, but they can help us understand and heal ourselves. However, with that being said, I also believe that if you are going to write a storyline with sexual assault in it, you should not only do your damn research and portray it as respectfully as possible, you also have a duty to not show it or describe it graphically no matter what that means.
Identity Crisis does none of these things, as it has Sue’s status as a survivor of sexual assault revealed post-mortem by her husband to two friends as it is graphically shown to us in a flashback. It’s practically a masterclass in everything you shouldn’t do. And on top of all of that, we’re expected to sympathize with Light even though he is clearly and explicitly a rapist, because he had his mind wiped. Sexual assault wasn’t needed in order to bring this secret to the forefront. Light could have done anything. Anyone could have done anything. The only thing that needs to happen is a mind wipe, and there are a dozen alternate reasons for one to take place that I can think of off the top of my head, including secret identity reveals, kidnappings, and retiring superheroes trying to stay out of the limelight. Sue is unnecessary. Her death is not required to fulfill the plot.
In the end, Identity Crisis affects the interior of the DC universe as a whole in the long-term about as much as a pebble being dropped in a pond affects our efforts to find life on Mars. The murderer is revealed to be Jean Loring, the ex-wife of Ray Palmer aka the Atom, whose motives can be boiled down to a joke between buddies about “crazy exes.” (As previously mentioned, despite the fact that this kind of thing is his specialty, Ralph is not the one who solves the mystery, even though that’s the only way for it to possibly be narratively satisfying.) Jack Drake, the father of the third Robin, Tim Drake, is killed, as is the longtime Flash villain Captain Boomerang, and the superhero Firestorm (Boomerang and Firestorm were both later resurrected). A few years later in the pages of the comic 52, Ralph committed suicide in order to be with Sue again. For a long time, those were the only things anyone cared about that were still actively explored in a post-Identity Crisis DC universe. The death of a woman and how that affected the men in her life-not even how it affected her husband, but how it affected their friends. Sue and Ralph (but especially Sue) became a throwaway reference to make characters like Barry Allen momentarily sad. But outside of that small impact on the fictional world, Identity Crisis sent taught real and damaging lessons for a variety of reasons.
One, it showed audiences that no matter how important they were to characters in-universe, women were still utterly expendable for the sake of plot contrivance. Two, it showed audiences that making stories end in a narratively satisfying fashion was out and shock value was in, a trend that would continue to this day. Three, it showed survivors of sexual assault that the general attitude of DC editorial toward their experiences was the same was it was in the 80s and 90s-i.e., that it was something to be graphically portrayed and never properly examined in any meaningful fashion, and that the only sexual assault survivors who mattered were dead. Four, it showed that stories claiming to change the fictional universes of DC and Marvel would most likely never be game changing in the way that they were promised to be. Five, it showed that even the most tasteless of event comics will still be upheld as canon years after their publication, long after everything else has been retconned away. And finally, six, it reassured DC and Marvel that shock sells-something that they’d known for a long time, considering the tasteless storylines of the 90s, but had fallen a bit out of style in the early 2000s.
Identity Crisis could have been good. It could have been a story about any number of things that required superheroes to grapple with moral dilemmas or with their own inner demons or with a new kind of villain. But it’s not. Instead, it was simply another in a long line of misogynistic cash grabs that are more infamous for their flaws than famous for their strengths. Instead, it just showed that when given the choice between writing an interesting story while examining the fictional worlds of superheroes and killing off a character for cheap shock, people will always gravitate toward the latter. Unfortunately, things haven’t changed much on that front. DC and Marvel are still churning out shock factor events faster than audiences can keep up with them. Female characters, disabled characters, LGBT characters, and characters of color (and any combination thereof) are still viewed as acceptable cannon fodder for authors to use up. And audiences have realized that by now.
Unfortunately, if their recent track record of books like Heroes in Crisis and Uncanny X-Men anything to go by, DC and Marvel haven’t, and that’s honestly as sad as any fictional death for the sake of getting a few surprised gasps has ever been.
Birds of a Feather
You may have heard of the term “cooperative breeding” before.
It was most recently in the news because of an article published by the Washington Post titled “A Rare Trio of Bald Eagles-Two Dads, One Mom-Are Raising A Trio of Eaglets Together in One Nest”, which takes most of its information from an Audubon-published article entitled “A Rare Bald Eagle Trio-Two Dads and a Mom-Captivates Webcam Fans.” The article itself goes into the history of the bald eagles and how the mated pair of Valor I and Hope became the mated trio of Valor I, Valor II, and Starr. It’s not the first time cooperative breeding has been observed in eagles before, and Valor I and Valor II have been previously recorded raising a clutch with a female eagle named Hope, but a live webcam on the nest constantly streaming footage of the eagles and their three chicks certainly provides a more inside look into the lives of coparenting eagles than we’ve ever had before.
Cooperative breeding, also known as communal breeding, is relatively well-documented in the bird world, and has been observed in over three hundred species, from common birds like crows to more tropical ones like anis. Typically, the “helper” (or helpers, as the job isn’t limited to one other bird) of the mated pair is a part of the family, not a potential parent of the clutch. The helper may be a part of a previous clutch, or a part of the clutch of one of the parents, or a parent of one of the parents. It has been especially well recorded in social birds like crows and jays. Less commonly, cooperative breeding has happened with birds unrelated to the main pair, like in the case of Valor I, Valor II, and Starr, helping to raise their chicks and protect the nest from predators and rivals. In the case of a handful of species, like ground hornbills, cooperative breeding is required, and fledglings don’t stand a chance of survival if their parents don’t have help from the birds around them.
But why does cooperative breeding happen in the case of species where it isn’t obligatory for the survival of the species as a whole?
Pairs with helpers are typically more successful than pairs without them, whether that helper is related to the parents or potentially related to the clutch in some way or another. More hands (wings?) on deck means more birds protecting the nest, more birds keeping the young well-fed, and it may even help with gaining some experience in the field for when the helpers need to go off and raise a clutch of their own in the future. Like doing a lot of babysitting so you know what you’re getting into and what not to do before you have a kid if your own. But things that seem simple get a little more complicated than that when we look at cooperative breeding where the helper of the mated pair isn’t related to them.
At first, the answer seems relatively obvious. If the helper bird is male, and may have had a chance to mate with the female of the mated pair, he’s simply ensuring the survival of chicks that may be continuing his bloodline by assisting the mated pair to give them the best shot they have at a long life that will hopefully continue to spread his genes far and wide. It’s true that it some cases, this is almost certainly the answer to the question the behavior poses. But with that answer comes another handful of questions-most notably, why cooperate? Why does the male not destroy the nest fertilized by his rival and then mate with the female himself, which would ensure that the clutch has his genetic material and that he isn’t wasting his time helping a clutch that could be completely fertilized by another male? It’s true that one nest can have multiple fathers, and if the rival male has previously mated with the female of the mated pair some of the eggs could belong to him, but how well is that truly understood by the birds themselves?
Though it is definitely much less common than shared paternity, maternity is also shared among certain species of bird. Acorn woodpeckers, when living in a large group, will often have a communal nest which every bird incubates and helps to raise. While it is still more common for paternal duties to be shared between the woodpeckers, maternal duties often are as well, with females taking turns incubating and gathering food for the clutch of baby woodpeckers just as the males do. However, these woodpeckers are often living in social groups the way birds like crows do, and many of them are familially related to each other and to the clutch, and it can be difficult to tell which birds are from previous clutches and are now helpers and which ones are genuinely the parents of the nest, maternally or otherwise.
What many people find so fascinating about the story of Valor, Valor II, and Starr is that there was a period of time after Valor I and Valor II’s original mate, Hope, had disappeared (likely deceased due to an attack by a pair of rival eagles, though her body was never recovered) where it was just two males raising a clutch of chicks together. Many have questioned why they didn’t destroy the clutch, or try to attack each other. Bald eagles are extremely territorial, especially over good nesting sites, and it was expected that Valor I and Valor II would turn on each other immediately after Hope was gone and before Starr showed up and mated with them. Bald eagles mate for life, but if their mate dies it won’t be long before they search out a new one to start a family with. Valor I and Valor II should’ve done that and abandoned the chicks and left them to die or fought for the location, with the victor reusing the nest with their new mate. But they didn’t do either of those things. As mentioned in the article, it’s believed that the reason why they raised the clutch after Hope died was out of an obligation to the location, not to each other. When Starr came along, they should have fought over her, too, but they didn’t do that either. They already raised one clutch with her that had a fifty percent success rate, and this April they have three eggs that they’re raising together.
It’s human to try to decipher the emotions that these birds may or may not be feeling toward each other and toward their chicks. It’s human to speculate on whether or not the trio actually love each other. It’s human to anthropomorphize these birds in this way, especially since it’s hard to tell why they’re doing this. The mystery only deepens when you take into account the fact that they’re such a territorial species. But the most likely explanation is the obvious one-that they’ve simply found a system that works for them to optimize the survival of their chicks and the continuation of the species and their bloodline within it, especially since Valor I was a notoriously bad father when he was attempting to raise his first clutch. Hopefully, we’ll be able to study this unlikely trio of parents and how they raise their children for a long time, and let it remind us that there is always something new and special to study, even with species we think we’re familiar with.
Let’s Talk About Comics: Doom Patrol by Rachel Pollack
It is not a surprise to anyone who has met me that I love comics and superheroes. It is also not a surprise to anyone that I tend to gravitate toward characters that are like me, whether that is because they are Jewish, members of the LGBT community, mentally ill, neurodivergent, or simply share similar life experiences to my own. Finally, it is not a surprise to anyone that comics have had a rocky history with representation for members of marginalized groups in general. This is not where I will be talking broadly about representation in comics, since I’m hoping to start a series specifically about that. But it’s inevitably very difficult to talk about the Doom Patrol (especially the volume written by science-fiction author Rachel Pollack) without talking about representation.
From the very start, the Doom Patrol comics have been about outsiders, whether you were an outsider for what amounts to a fantasy disability, because of your superpowers, because of your mental health struggles, because of your gender, and often because you were just plain weird. While many people draw comparisons between the Doom Patrol and the X-Men, since they were created around the same time (the Doom Patrol debuted in My Greatest Adventure in June of 1963, created by Arnold Drake, Bob Haney, and Bruno Premiani, while the X-Men debuted in September of 1963 in The X-Men, created by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee) and have several superficial similarities, I’d argue that they represent two similar but distinctly things, as the X-Men are often used as an allegory for real-life minorities, while Doom Patrol tends to steer clear of that particular metaphor in favor of others, though they certainly aren’t above political satire.
I’m not here to talk about the Doom Patrol as a whole, though. Plenty of people smarter and more well-versed in the team and their history than me have. I’m here to talk about my personal favorite run of the Doom Patrol, which lasted for only twenty-four issues but managed to leave a lasting impression on me regardless. So let’s talk about the under-appreciated little sister of Grant Morrison’s famous run on the series. Let’s talk about Rachel Pollack’s Doom Patrol.
When Morrison ended his Doom Patrol run after forty-four issues full of weird art and even weirder stories, Pollack, a science-fiction author with a hand in the women’s spirituality movement who had already written several books of her own, took over. After an admittedly rocky start while trying to find her footing in the wake of Morrison’s beloved run and getting the story she wanted to tell set up, Pollack got everything straightened out and wrote several killer “bottle issues” (similar to bottle episodes, which use familiar settings and regular characters for budget reasons while going deep into the lore of the characters) as well as some smaller self-contained arcs before she began what is in my opinion one of the best arcs of all time in comic book history, titled “The Teiresias Wars.”
But even that’s getting ahead of ourselves. First, I’m going to (briefly) talk about my two favorite “bottle issues” of hers from before that arc began-Doom Patrol #70, titled “The Laughing Game,” and Doom Patrol #74, titled “Bootleg Steele.”
Two of the most common themes in Pollack’s run, identity and duality, are showcased excellently here. I may be a bit biased toward “The Laughing Game,” since it introduces my favorite Doom Patrol character of all time, Kate Godwin/Coagula, but even from the perspective of someone without any particular character attachment, it’s a very well done issue. In “The Laughing Game,” duality isn’t a huge focus, but identity is. The villain’s tragic backstory is that he has self-esteem issues about the size of his, well, package, and internalizes things which aren’t even actually directed at him, which only makes him feel worse even as he shoots down the people who try to help him with his problems. And at the end of the day, when he quite literally straps a gun to his crotch and tries to commit crimes out of an imagined feeling of victimization, he’s ultimately defeated by the aforementioned Coagula, a transgender woman and former sex worker turned computer programmer (her professions were chosen based off of Pollack’s observations of the most common jobs for transgender women at the time) with the ability to dissolve or coagulate things as well as a computer sensitivity. And hey, I’m always down to read something that involves embodiments of cishetero-masculinity being taken down by transgender people.
“Bootleg Steele,” on the other hand, while also being about identity, deals just as much with duality. The basic plot of the issue is that one of the few mainstays of the Doom Patrol team, Cliff Steele/Robotman, has to deal with a greedy businessman profiting off his image with video games and life-sized models of him that actually believe that they are him. The issue focuses Steele’s issues with his identity as a man and a robot as well as on his relationship with Kate, who’s obviously had her own identity issues in the past, while spotlighting the duality between man and machine. The issue ends with Steele staring down the man trying to profit off of his own perceived inhumanity and plainly stating that the difference between him and the life-sized toys he’s selling is that they’re machines, and he’s not. It’s a powerful statement for any character, but given Steele’s long in-universe history of questioning his own humanity, it holds even more weight.
After #74, the Teiresias arc immediately begins in #75, drawn by Ted McKeever and colored by Stuart Chaifetz. To put it in extremely simple terms, the plot is that an ancient race, called the Teiresiae after the Greek seer who was transformed into a woman, are trying to stop the construction of the Tower of Babel by another race, called the Builders. From the start, the arc focuses on Pollack’s main themes of duality and identity. When one of the Teiresiae is describing their history to the team, they say that the world was divided into categories such as master and slave, creator and created, and above and below, after the world was split into male and female. Even before this, two conversations on identity take place between Kate and Steele, first when he finds out she’s transgender and then while he’s waiting for a new body to be built for him after his old one was destroyed (destroying Steele’s body is something of a rite of passage for Doom Patrol authors). At first he reacts poorly and in confusion, and it’s only after Kate compares her experiences to his own that he understands that she’s a woman just like he’s a man. Pollack expertly paralleled two different experiences between two wildly different people in a way no writer before or since her has done quite as skillfully. Later, when Kate and Steele must fuse into one to become their own Teiresiae in order to awaken the other members of the lost race, their experiences are again shown as similar, the duality of man and woman shown as less important than two people bonding over a shared past crisis of identity.
In the end, the actual plot of the arc isn’t important, and honestly I’d rather not spoil key events since I genuinely believe that everyone who’s alright with some of the touchier content within it should read it. What’s important is that its themes of duality and identity, particularly shifting identity, are handled with care and respect by an author who truly understands what she’s writing about. Pollack covered several topics generally seen as uncomfortable or taboo in her run on Doom Patrol, especially gender and menstruation, using her background in the women’s spirituality movement to make things as realistic as possible as well as allowing her own personal experiences with gender and sexuality to guide her. (I will admit that the brief scene in issue #82 when Cerise, a woman who is the leader of a local women’s spiritual circle, welcomes Kate to participate in a women’s-only ritual surrounding menstrual blood that they believe will help Dorothy Spinner (the youngest member of the team) while saying that she brings with her an ancient and sacred power, is one of the handful of times a comic has made me openly cry.) While both Pollack and Morrison covered issues of religion and belief in God or gods, Pollack’s Jewish background clearly shines through in her writing of the final arc, which involves a predestined “end of the world” scenario. Again, there’s a level of nuance and sensitivity in her writing that feels refreshing.
So why is Pollack’s run so little-known? Why is a strong and provocative comic run that came right on the heels of an extremely famous one so under-appreciated? Why hasn’t this version of the Doom Patrol been given its due, when Morrison’s is well known and the team itself has recently been pushed into the spotlight by a DCUniverse original show?
Well, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it probably has something to do with the fact that transgender women in general receive very little respect and attention in the comic book industry as a whole now, and they certainly received less in 1993, when the first issue of Pollack’s run was published. A lot of people in comic book circles hadn’t heard of Pollack, since while she’d already won an award for her original novel Unquenchable Fire in 1989 the overlap between the readers of novels and the readers of comics is often shockingly lacking. There’s also the inevitable drop in audience when you change from one writer, especially one as critically acclaimed as Morrison (yes, I have extremely strong feelings about him, but this isn’t the time or the place to discuss them), to the next, especially since Pollack’s first few issues are by far her weakest. The odds simply weren’t in her favor, and unfortunately it feels as though certain Doom Patrol writers that followed her actively attempted to undo the changes she made and the development she gave to her main characters.
Is Pollack’s run perfect? No, of course not. There are plenty of people who were put off by her heavily symbolic writing style, or found the first few issues where she was attempting to get things on track off-putting. Some people really dislike McKeever’s abstract and confusing art style, and that was specifically what put them off the run as a whole. I have criticisms of it myself, especially of the rocky first issues, and there are certainly some aspects of it that are now dated at best. No comic book run is perfect, not even my favorites, as much as I wish they were.
But Pollack created one of the first transgender superheroes, and certainly the first to be handled with the respect that she deserved as well as the first to be created by a transgender writer, basing her heavily off of her own experiences and the experiences of her friends. She wrote issues that tackled issues like menstruation and sexuality and gender and made houses filled with sex ghosts and bandage people and wrote villains naming themselves after codpieces and decapitated heads with dreams full of schemes and girls who ran wild in the woods with crow gods and let transgender people save the world through our own secret power. Pollack wrote something memorable and beautiful and genuinely special that touched me in ways other comics simply haven’t despite my enjoyment of them.
And I think it would be a shame for us to forget about that just because the name on the cover isn’t Grant Morrison.
Swift Words
The life of a Vaux’s swift is an exhausting one.
Named for scientist William Vaux, they spend their entire lives on the wing outside of when they nest in the cavities of hollow trees or inside of chimneys. Eating, mating, and even sleeping is done entirely while in flight. Every winter they make the long migration to Venezuela and Colombia before returning to breed in Alaska, Canada, the Pacific Northwest, Montana, and Northern California. Considering they only weigh 18 grams (.63 ounces) and have a wingspan of only 28 centimeters, this long migration is quite the feat, especially for a bird that only lives an average of just over five years in the wild.
However, to make their trek easier on their little bodies, Vaux’s swifts are optimized for nonstop flight. Their bodies are aerodynamic and bullet shaped, with small tails and narrow, pointed wings. Their feet are tiny and physically can’t grip onto branches and horizontal surfaces the way the feet of passerines (to simplify, perching birds) can. They can only land gripping onto vertical surfaces, clinging to grooves in bark when they roost together. They’re highly physically specialized for the demanding way of life they live.
As I said, they eat, mate, and sleep on the wing, too. While not quite as accomplished as their cousins, the common swift, which can spend ten months without ever touching land, Vaux’s swifts still rarely descend. Like swallows, they eat flying insects and ballooning spiders, catching them easily without stopping their erratic flight. Vaux’s and other swifts do roost, especially while migrating, but it’s common for them to practice unihemispheric sleep (essentially, practicing unihemispheric sleep means that an animal is sleeping with only half of their brains at a time. Dolphins do it too, and are probably more famous for it) in short bursts in order to keep moving. Mating is less of a stretch of the imagination, as even in passerines, sometimes stubborn males will chase females down in flight and attempt to mate with them, though they’re typically unsuccessful. They build their nests out of saliva, feathers, and small twigs, usually raising their tiny babies in groups surrounded by dozens of others of their own kind. Once the young birds can fly, they only come back down to make nests for themselves and continue the species.
Vaux’s swifts have also managed to become a common sight in urban environments, though there’s a high chance you didn’t know that they were what you were seeing, since they’re often confused with swallows due to superficially similar features despite being more closely related to hummingbirds and are sometimes even mistaken for bats because of their rapid wing beats and eerie flight pattern. As I mentioned, their natural roosts are inside of hollow trees. But due to deforestation and the steady outward spread of cities and towns, they’ve found that tall brick chimneys are just as good, and thousands of them can pack into a single one on their migration trail. I’m lucky to live in a city that regularly hosts tens of thousands of Vaux’s swifts heading for Venezuela every fall, and it’s a city-wide event to attend Chapman School, where they spiral into the historic brick chimney that’s been set aside specifically for them en masse. On a smaller scale, they’ve also chosen the chimney of my neighbor’s house, and we’ll usually see twenty to ninety of them going in each night in the late summer and early fall, usually before the ones at Chapman have arrived.
Currently, Vaux’s swifts are having no trouble finding roosts along their migration route. But I can’t help but worry-the Chapman chimney is specifically for them, and the school has a separate modern one so the birds aren’t damaged when they heat the school (an anecdote of the time before this was the case involves students and teachers wearing multiple coats while school was in session to protect the sleeping birds), but what about the dozens of other chimneys they nest in, like the one at my neighbor’s house, which are becoming more modern and adept at keeping animals out? What about the deforestation and other loss of valuable habitat that continues to threaten them and countless other bird species?
The number of swifts roosting in Chapman is actually rebounding after a subtle but steady decline for the past few years, and I’m genuinely not worried they’ll go extinct in the near future. If a species of swift does one day disappear from our skies, they probably won’t be the first to go. But they’re an integral part of the community of my city. Hundreds to thousands of people every fall look forward to sitting beneath the chattering skies, watching the swifts spiral into the Chapman chimney, cheering on or booing the hawks and occasional falcon that come to take their share of the veritable buffet of little birds. The community outreach that my Audubon does there (which I’ve been lucky enough to participate in) was my first encounter with the organization. The swifts are the mascot of the school. They’ve been coming longer than I’ve been alive. They’re special to me, and my anxiety over their continued survival is surely understandable even if it’s a bit unreasonable.
Is it selfish to want a species to be preserved because of your own personal connection to it? Maybe. But I think if more people had a connection to a species, whether that species is truly deeply endangered or of least concern, we would see more people actively fighting to protect them. It starts young. There’s a wonder that sparks in kids when they see a wild deer or watch a hawk catch a swift on the wing, even if they’re seeing it for the thousandth time. Like all birds, Vaux’s swifts are evolutionary marvels, hypnotizing to watch in groups and fascinating to individually study up close from their tiny claws to their narrow wings. They’re Oregon icons, and I hope they’ll always be waiting for me every fall, spiralling into their own special brick chimney, packed in each night in the world’s noisiest slumber party.
Civic as the Jay
People seem to really love to hate jays.
It’s not exclusive to birdwatchers around the country who are tired of seeing them stealing seed they were hoping would attract finches or sparrows or titmice from bird feeders. People with little to no knowledge of birds hate them too, because they’re loud, figure out problems quickly, steal the eggs and nestlings of other birds to eat, and aren’t above harassing domesticated dogs and cats. True, this hate is mostly reserved specifically for blue jays, but I’ve met my fair share of people who devote at least some of their time to disliking scrub jays, too, and it’s not camping in the Pacific Northwest if someone isn’t chasing a Steller’s jay or a grey jay (grey jays are even nicknamed “camp robbers”) away from the food they left out by accident.
You could probably tell where this was going, but I love jays. Oregon doesn’t have blue jays outside of when one or two get lost and wander into the eastern part of the state every year. We do have Stellar’s jays, grey jays, pinyon jays, and California scrub jays (previously known as western scrub jays before the species was split in three; the California scrub jay, the island scrub jay, and the Woodhouse’s scrub jay). My neighborhood has several scrub jays that live in it, and they usually decimate the suet feeder within a few days of it being refilled if the squirrels don’t get to it first. Steller’s jays prefer forests to cities, but I see them in city parks fairly often. Grey jays stick closer to the mountains, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pinyon jay, since they prefer the central and eastern parts of Oregon. And when I travel inland to visit family in Chicago, I love watching blue jays shout at each other from trees and fence posts.
I know what you might be thinking. “But they’re a nuisance! They chase all the birds away from my feeder! Grey jays steal from me every time I go camping! In ‘Invasion of the Nestbox Snatchers’, you talked about how house sparrows are damaging because they kill eggs and nestlings, but don’t blue jays do the same thing?”
I can’t tell you what bird is and isn’t a nuisance to you personally, or that the chickadees and sparrows chased away from your feeder will absolutely come back, or that the simple solution to stop grey jays from feeding off your scraps is to dispose of things and lock up food properly, or that blue jays hardly ever eat eggs and nestlings, especially not on the same scale as an incredibly invasive bird does. Well, I can, but I don’t think I can make you listen if you’re already dead-set on hating these enigmatic backyard birds. Instead, I’m going to talk about some of the virtues of jays.
Jays, and many other birds, have a behavior known as caching. Like when a squirrel buries nuts for later, jays will collect food and hide it somewhere for later. While most species of jay hide their caches by guying it, grey jays have a special kind of saliva that they use to cover whatever they wish to cache before sticking it somewhere like under bark or among some lichen. They can cache thousands of things per year this way, and retrieve almost all of them from memory, often weeks or even months after they hid them in the first place. They’ll hide anything from nuts to berries to that chip one just stole from your picnic table.
More interesting to me than caching, however, is recaching and what happens when jays steal from the caches of other jays. It’s extremely common. Steller’s jays will steal from grey jays, grey jays will steal from other grey jays, scrub jays will steal from other scrub jays and Steller’s jays, and blue jays will steal from everyone. There have been several studies done specifically on scrub jay caching, including Social cognition by food-caching corvids by Nicola S. Clayton, Joanna M. Dally, and Nathan J. Emery and Re-caching by Western Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma californica) Cannot Be Attributed to Stress by James M. Thom and Nicola S. Clayton. These studies posit that members of the species formerly known as western scrub jays are aware of potential watchers (whether those watchers are humans or other scrub jays) when caching their food, and will recache their food not out of stress, but out of actual cognition of potential spies. “It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you,” after all.
These caches can have unintended side effects. While jays are gifted with an extraordinary memory that allows them to remember where they cached their food, this memory isn’t infallible. When forgotten, the seeds that they have cached often germinate, which is beneficial to the survival of the tree species and to humans. Fascinatingly, the jays seem to be able to know which seeds are the most viable, and collect those ones to cache. While they may be intending to eat them (and often do), a portion of every jay’s overal cache ends up as nothing more than a carefully planted seed ready to grow into a tree. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to read the article cited as the direct source of this study, but Blue Jay: Acorn Planters by Bob Thomas does contain a summary of it, and How Alaska’s Jay birds spread their seeds by Mary Williamson discusses seed dispersal done by Steller’s jays.
While tool use isn’t as documented in jays as it is in their cousins ravens and crows, studies like Tool-Making and Tool-Using in the Northern Blue Jay by Thony B. Jones and Alan Kamil clearly demonstrate that captive blue jays are capable of learning to use tools in exchange for a food reward. Tool-use and instrumental learning in the Eurasian jay by Nicola S. Clayton, and Lucy Cheke seems to reliably suggest that Eurasian jays (which, as the name suggests, are not found in North America) are also capable of tool use. Green jays, which are found in Central America, have also been recorded as tool users, using twigs to retrieve insects from under bark. While I cannot find any studies surrounding the use of tools by scrub jays, I can provide anecdotal evidence of seeing scrub jays use cars to crack open walnuts. This behavior is something that has been studied in the jay’s fellow corvids, the crows.
While not quite as successful at the mimicry of human sounds and voices as their cousins the ravens are, jays are still accomplished copycats. Eurasian jays imitate cats and urban sounds along with the typical stolen bird calls. It’s not uncommon to see a Steller’s jay land on a feeder and shriek out the cry of a red-tailed hawk, the same one that plays in the opening scenes of so many western films. Blue jays are also known for imitating raptors of all kinds, which they seem to prefer to mimic over songbirds. (Pro tip for birders frustrated by jays tricking them into thinking a hawk is nearby: if it’s coming from close to the ground and sounds just a bit off, it’s not a red-tailed hawk!) Why they do this is unclear, but the leading theory is that it scares off other birds when they’ve found a food source or a good nesting site.
Throughout history, people have been fascinated by jays and other corvids. The title of this article comes from the Emily Dickinson poem The Blue Jay. Jays have been seen as tricksters, of both the heroic and treacherous nature. They are beautiful but duplicitous. The famous book To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, while extolling the beauty of literal mockingbirds (most other mockingbirds appearing in the book are strictly metaphorical, after all), actively puts down jays, saying “Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit ‘em.” Outside of books and stories, jays are egg thieves and feeder tyrants despite their gorgeous feathers. But one doesn’t have to look far to find examples of jays exhibiting corvid-typical levels of intelligence and incredible feats of mimicry, their beautiful feathers shining as they bounce along fences with their throats stuffed full of acorns ready to be cached.
I can’t convince you to like jays, but if you look at them from different eyes, you might find that they’re not so bad after all.
