InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "OH NOES! WHERE'S MAH BODY?!"

dr_hermes (dr_hermes) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-22 02:49:00

Entry tags:

creator: harold gray, era: golden age, title: little orphan annie

Annie talks to Mr Am about his slaves
[Sorry about the size of the scans being inconvenient for some. So far, when I fiddle with them, they don't work at all but I'll tinker.]

I never enjoyed LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE. The whole tone was a bit too mean-spirited for me, what with Daddy Warbucks (what a name, he sounds like a Dick Tracy villain)using his assassins Punjab and the Asp to make his enemies conveniently disappear. It was a strip with a strong conservative slant, and although the preaching about self-reliance and pluck was sound enough, it's distasteful how everyone in favor of unions or Social Security was shown to be vile and shiftless. The endless cycle of the plot was unsatisfying, too. Daddy kept dying or disappearing or going off to exploit Third World nations, leaving Annie to fend for herself in small towns where the decent hardworking folks were menaced by socialist ideas. Then Daddy Warbucks came back, there was happy rejoicing and merciless retribution, then he left again. This might still be going on.

Still, there were sometimes some very odd and haunting stories. In 1937, we meet Mr Am. This bearded burly fellow claimed to be millions of years old, had extraordinary knowledge and abilities, and was given to laughing heartily for little reason. He also had a large labor force of voluntary slaves (what, WHAT...?)

So, if you think Golden Age Wonder Woman had some unhealthy ideas, what with happiness can only be found through submission to loving authority, be glad at least you don't work for Mr Am.

(Post a new comment)

	tavella 2009-05-22 02:28 am UTC (link)
	That is a much more readable size, thanks. And wow, that is creepy. I'm assuming that Mr. Am was not revealed to be secretly villainous and using mind control powers? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-05-22 07:44 am UTC (link)
	Nope, apparently Harold Gray thought Am was just fine. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jlroberson
2009-05-22 06:06 am UTC (link)

Mr. Am is fucking Dick Cheney, John D. Rockefeller and John Galt all rolled into one big antimatter Santa. Think of it--this to the anti-union, highly right-wing Gray, was the unattainable ideal. Mr. Am with his happy slave army down below. Well, he says they're happy. We never even see one of their faces so we don't know. Jesus. These are things any antebellum plantation owner might say.

I'm sorry, but I have always thought both Mr. Am and Daddy Warbucks were fucking evil, all the way back to when I read these in NEMO. And I think at the time Richard Marschall, who I think is rather conservative(please correct me if that's not so), wrote favorably of Gray's POV. And I'm speaking as someone who enjoys Chester Gould. But the thing about Gray is that there's something unavoidably creepy and dark about the style that makes me wonder how anyone ever began associating "cute" with this property.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

dr_hermes
2009-05-22 07:50 am UTC (link)

Occasionally, a spoof or pastiche will use Daddy Warbucks as an outright villain and it just rings true. That was the reveal toward the end of THE SHADOW STRIKES!, that Shiwan Khan was actually working for Warbucks.

Conservative is one thing, this is over the line. There's no need for Social Security or Medicare or unemployment insurance... people should work hard and simply put enough away to cover when they get old or sick or disabled. Well, I suppose if you're a millionaire cartoonist, that seems reasonable enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-05-22 07:58 am UTC (link)
	With newspaper publishers' agendas Gray was happy to push--and in those days, newspaper publishers were tycoons alongside others, quite unashamedly defending their interests and barely disguising it. I'm trying to remember, who was Gray's primary home? Was he under Patterson at the Tribune? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tavella 2009-05-22 10:06 am UTC (link)
	John Galt Yes, I had that thought while reading it: Did Gray ever run into Ayn Rand? Because it's like proto-Randite. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	greenmask 2009-05-22 06:44 am UTC (link)
	The strip itself is kind of scary. But the art is great. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-05-22 07:38 am UTC (link)
	It's open-ended art. The simplicity and the blank eyes give the reader a lot of room to project into it. This makes it pretty powerful. On the other hand, it doesn't have much warmth or subtlety (which matches the story, I suppose.) Take a look at Sandy, the "loveable" mutt who follows Annie. That's one of the most sinister dog faces I've ever seen. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	icon_uk 2009-05-22 08:09 am UTC (link)
	The freaky eyes are what always put me off Annie (Well, that and the fact no UK paper published it), they are the cold dead eyes I associate with killer androids... (Reply to this) (Parent)

besamim
2009-05-22 06:56 am UTC (link)

From what I know of history, some people have indeed become slaves voluntarily, but only when they had literally no money, no in-demand education, training or skills, and no family capable of supporting them, so it was either enslave oneself or die of exposure or starvation. I have no idea where Gray got this idea of people happily selling their freedom so they could "reap the joy of a hard day's work" or whatever.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

kamino_neko
2009-05-22 03:35 pm UTC (link)

What you're describing sounds more like indentured servitude than true slavery.

Also sometimes inflicted as punishment for a crime, indentured servitude was rather more limited than slavery - it was contracted for a specific length of time. There may have been other types of contract, but the time-limited version was typical.

The 'serve or starve' version typically came with passage to a new land - the US and Australia had a lot of indentured servants in the early years - where once your contract was up, you'd be able to get some land and make a living as a free man.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

besamim
2009-05-22 09:39 pm UTC (link)

Bear in mind that "slave" doesn't necessarily connote "chattel property" in all cultures at all times. Americans are accustomed to think of slavery that way because yes, African American slaves were indeed considered mere property, not human beings with rights, in the eyes of those states that allowed the practice. But in such cultures as ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, slaves were generally considered persons and enjoyed varying, though limited, degrees of legal protection. So depending on the society and the time, there could be a thin line indeed between "indentured servitude" and "slavery."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

icon_uk
2009-05-22 07:10 am UTC (link)

Given his name, his age and his abilities, is it possible that Mr Am is supposed to be some iteration of God?

In the Catholic tradition, the words "I am" are a translation of the Hebrew name of God, as mentioned in Exodus when Moses asks God what his name is 'I am "I am"'.

I believe the original Hebrew phrase is more along the lines of his name being "I am that I am" or "I am what I am", which is just asking for Popeye as God, or possibly a Gloria Gaynor reference...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

dr_hermes
2009-05-22 07:33 am UTC (link)

There are some strong hints about that. Gray brought back Mr Am every few years, but I think he left things vague and ambiguous, and following writers didn't add any explicit information.

Maybe he's supposed to be a flesh and blood manifestation of God (not the Son, but a messenger of some sort). Or he could be some ancient sorceror just playing mind games with people.

It'd be funny if the strip had Mr Am turn up just before Christmas, very busy and distracted in directing his slaves. He starts wearing a red suit and black boots, and Annie notices some reindeer being fed...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	arilou_skiff 2009-05-22 08:34 am UTC (link)
	The funny thing is that my first idea was to equate Mr. Am with Karl Marx. Marx's ideas are after all founded on the idea that meaningful work is it's won reward (it's just that capitalism alienates us from our work and makes it not meaningful) I thought it was an anti-marxist caricature at first. (maybe it's just the beard) (Reply to this)

	alschroeder 2009-05-22 09:38 am UTC (link)
	Most of the things I had read about Mr. Am before indicated he was God, as Gray saw him---but this part is really hard to reconcile, unless Gray was a lot more anti-religious than other writings indicate. Hell as a forced labor--excuse me, UNFORCED labor camp? That's...pretty bizarre. Or maybe it's supposed to be Purgatory. (Reply to this) (Thread)

tavella
2009-05-22 10:04 am UTC (link)

When you combine it with his general worship of power and wealth otherwise, it becomes extra-creepy. There are some religious takes on life where a simple life of work and worship is the highest good... but Gray's view seems to have been almost parodically close to the cartoon-villain Republican: luxury and power and the freedom to murder and bribe the justice system for the rich, everyone else serfs.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

alschroeder
2009-05-22 10:22 am UTC (link)

He wasn't an unthinking fundamentalist, though. Mr. Am himself mentions how old scientists think the universe was, and it's pretty close to what scientists DID think at the time. Nor does Mr. Am seem to be mocking THAT part of their knowledge---just that he could tell them a lot more. So he's a sophisticated believer, not a literalist...

Still creepy, though. It's sort of like the dwarves who worked for God in TIME BANDITS...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-05-22 11:11 am UTC (link)
	In some ways the attitude seems like a certain kind of Calvinist. "Those God have chosen will show that by working hard and being successfull." that kind of thing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-05-23 02:38 am UTC (link)

I'm of two minds about what's going on here. Slavery is undeniably a terrible thing - but what exactly defines slavery? Is it working without pay, or is it HAVING to work without pay?
I think one of the most basic horrors of slavery is that one is forced into it - you have no choice in the matter; you must work for as long as your master orders you to, with no benefit for yourself at the end of the day. On the other hand, the line becomes blurred a bit when someone CHOOSES to work without pay. If you make the conscious choice to labor for someone without any remuneration or reward, is it still slavery?
"My men work for me voluntarily", says Mr. Am. This would seem to indicate that they chose this life, rather than being forced into it (although, of course, we only have his word on that). He claims to treat them well and give them food (again, only his word), and he claims to work just as long and hard as they do on his end of things - so, one could argue, he's subjecting them to only as much work as he subjects himself to. On the other hand, he says quite firmly that "They never quit". WHY do they never quit? If they choose to work for him, as he seems to imply, does that mean that they have also have the freedom to throw in the towel and go elsewhere, but never do? Or does it mean that they have the freedom to START working for him, but not to stop - i.e, the initial decision may be theirs, but that decision, once made is final and permanent? Or is the whole thing a load of hooey, and they are genuine slaves as we think of them, forced to start working and doomed never to stop?
Mind you, there are complicating factors here - Mr. Am is not your usual boss. Perhaps the workers are all as old as he is. Perhaps this is the reason that they never quit - they are all men of another era, unaccustomed to the modern world, and would rather stay in a world with familiar customs than subject themselves to the bewildering culture of the 20th Century. Perhaps they choose to work for him out of simple pride that their labors are uncovering so much of value about the past - perhaps Mr. Am gets his workforce by appealing to the hard-working zealots of the archaeological and paleontological community, those who are not particularly talented themselves, but are willing to pitch in to make a difference - ANY difference - in the field, even if their labors go uncredited. Perhaps they have simply been working so long at their labors that they can no longer conceive of another life outside the diggings - self-made zombies, as it were. It's an odd situation, to be sure - are they slaves, indentured workers, or what?

(Reply to this)