Crumb claims he treated his graphic novel of Genesis
as a straight illustration job. However, expressing Genesis in pictures rather
than words means that some interpretation is inevitable. The text of the Bible
is generally considered a patriarchal document, as it seems to focus mainly on
the stories and accomplishments of men. Crumb seems to visually augment the
role of women in many instances throughout the book. Crumb’s visual choices in
illustrating Genesis were meant to undermine the traditional patriarchal
interpretation of the book in favor of a more feminist and historically
accurate viewpoint.
Throughout the documentary of Robert Crumb’s career,
viewers hear from a number of people who have witnessed the cartoonist’s growth
as an artist. These sources provide a number of reasons as to what inspires
Crumb to depict people in his controversial style. One contribution that Crumb
himself offers is the LSD trip he took a number of years before. This
experience began Crumb’s uninhibited drawing of his dark side. In these comics,
he depicts the most grotesque of his own fantasies. This was also his segue
into drawing the seediest aspects of human nature in general.
Art critic Robert Hughes relays that Crumb’s work
reflects a deep sense of human absurdity. Crumb himself expresses his disgust
at the portrayal of the typical consumer American family in the 1950s. The
depiction of a happy family sitting around a table with no acknowledgement of
conflict or neuroses unsettles him. He examines this concept satirically in a
comic that shows father-daughter and mother-son sexual relations. Another comic,
dubbed “Ed Everyman,” examines normal occurrences of a typical man. This
includes the mundane act of reading the newspaper while on the toilet; the most
interesting event being that someone walked in on him by accident. This comic
satirizes the boring and stable lives that people long for, looking at how
mundane the “American Dream” truly is. These are examples of the way in which
Crumb seeks to draw attention to how we take for granted the legitimacy of
certain ideologies.
In much the same way that he points out the facade of
a happy, idyllic family; Crumb draws attention to the contradictions between
Genesis’ accounts of women and the way in which society has altered them. The
Biblical account reveals stories from a primarily patriarchal viewpoint,
signifying that women possibly had more power in that time than the text of Genesis
expresses. Sources that examine this book and the time period from which it
originates can also be construed as patriarchal. The New Catholic Encyclopedia
says of women’s roles in biblical times that due to “the patriarchal nature and androcentric structure of ancient society,
the roles the woman played in the family were secondary to corresponding roles
played by the man.”
The Biblical accounts of women and their illustrations
offer great support for the argument that the current patriarchal consideration
of the text is a misinterpretation. The images associated with the Bible
consistently promote a false dichotomy in which women are given the option to
be either the evil seductress or the virtuous housewife. Examples of this can
be seen throughout history. This idea is presented in the medieval artists’
renderings of Eve as coupled with the Devil. She is visualized as a scheming
temptress who capitalizes on her sexuality in order to drag her husband down
into sin. In the same way, Potiphar’s wife is depicted as sexually predatory in
paintings from the early Renaissance. Viewers witness her grabbing at Joseph,
her legs spread to reveal her sensual intentions. This concept of woman as
scheming seductresses is not the only depiction of woman in the Bible.
More popular is the depiction of certain female
characters as “paragons of virtue.” In the German and Netherlandish art of the
16th and 17th centuries, Eve is pictured as the ideal
wife and mother. One particular work shows her to be a prototypical housewife,
sitting by a burning fire whilst she works at her spindle. Mary (the mother of
Jesus) is also depicted as a chaste role model, who perfectly occupies her
position as a wife and mother, in much of Western medieval art. Some pieces
even go so far as to juxtapose her figure with that of Eve, illustrated as a
temptress in this context. These types of works emphasize even more the false
dichotomy that the interpreters of the Bible impose on women. This
one-dimensional view of women is harmful in practice as it enforces gender
roles which do not address women as multidimensional people, but as products of
their relationships to men: the diligent wife or the conniving whore.
Interestingly enough, these patterns in Biblical
imagery are not representative of the actual Biblical stories. In her analysis
on Biblical art, Meyer observes that these images tend to reflect the “ebb and
flow in society’s attitudes towards women and their role.” This is even more
evident as we witness Biblical imagery change so drastically between time
periods. The dynamic depictions of women serve a purpose for their particular
time period, but one aspect remains constant. The reinforcement of the
patriarchal family order is supported by each one. However, when examining the
actual events of Genesis, readers must confront that its connotation of male
domination is not entirely endowed in the text.
Even sources fixed on the Bible as
completely male-centered allow that women were accepted into prophet and sage
roles, indicating they maintained a considerable level of respect and
responsibility within communities. The inclusion of women in these revered
roles calls into question the idea of an overwhelming patriarchy in the time of
Genesis. In “Genesis Matriarchs Engage Feminism,” Davidson addresses what close
reading and literary study of the book have revealed about the role of women in
this time period. The argument that women were secondary citizens does not hold
up when examining many of the stories in Genesis.
First and foremost, there is the
inconsistency of Abraham asking Sarai instead of commanding her to act as his
sister if they resided in a patriarchal society. Indeed, the behavior of
everyone involved in both accounts seems to suggest that Sarai is regarded with
respect and admiration. Both the pharaoh and Abimelech are interested in her,
in spite of her advanced age. She is returned safely to her husband after their
deceit is found out, and the pharaoh and king are eager to appease any of their
requests. These actions seem to suggest that Sarai is a priestess or prophet of
some sort, rather than her husband’s possession.
This sequence of events in Genesis is also an
indicator of the direction Crumb takes with his visual choices. The text makes
no mention of Sarai’s reaction to this request, causing readers to initially
believe this is another case of only paying attention to the actions of men, as
the text of Genesis often does. Crumb,
however, fleshes out Sarai’s character by inserting several different reactions.
By giving her a confused and questioning thought bubble, he interprets that
Abraham’s words are not what she expected to hear. He then draws her shedding
tears, expressing that her husband’s plan saddens her. Including these
reactions implies that he felt her opinion and emotions were important to
understand the situation.
Another example of Sarai’s value is the scene in which
she dies. The text states that Abraham truly mourns his wife. The subsequent
story details his going to great trouble to find a burial site for her. He pays
a large amount of silver in order to obtain the ideal location to bury Sarai.
This story does not portray a man attempting to bury someone he considered his
property and child-bearer. Rather it is the account of a man saying goodbye to
his partner in life. The depression and desperation felt by Abraham in these
scenes is enhanced by Crumb’s depiction. Viewers witness Abraham wailing over
his wife’s body and then having a deadened and desperate expression as he looks
for an appropriate grave. Crumb’s illustrations bring home the extent to which
Abraham and those around him valued Sarai. Sarai’s impact on Abraham is an
indicator of the influence of women in general that is often misinterpreted in
Genesis.
The next compelling evidence for the
existence of a matriarchal aspect in Genesis is an examination of Rebekah’s
life. She is also asked by the men in her life about whether she wants to
pursue a certain course of action. When asked if she will leave her family to
marry Isaac, her brother immediately defers the question to her. In fact,
Rebekah is very much the protagonist of Chapters 24 through 26 as the narrator
of Genesis seems more interested in the life and lineage of Rebekah than in her
husband’s. This is a subtle show of favoritism, but is consistent across the
account of their lives. She goes “to inquire of the Lord,” an action reserved
to prophets of this time period, and is granted an oracle who gives her God’s
message regarding her son. She is also
said to be upset at her son’s choice to marry Hittite women, indicating her
interest in her “covenant line.” These actions together support a societal
model in which Rebekah was an important and contributing member.
Crumb models his illustration with this
mindset, placing Rebekah at the forefront throughout these chapters. She is
portrayed as a beautiful, confident woman who is in charge of her life. In
Chapter 26, Crumb portrays Rebekah as happy, often laughing and playing with
her husband. These illustration choices seem to suggest that Isaac and Rebekah
are partners in their union. The depictions later in the book even seem to
suggest that Rebekah is the dominant force in their relationship. One
particularly telling panel is at the end of chapter 26, in which Rebekah is
pulling the hair of Esau’s wife aggressively while Isaac sits in a defeated
posture in the background. Isaac almost appears to be curled up in the fetal
position, passively listening to his wife’s display of anger. Depictions such
as these align Crumb’s work in Genesis with the idea that there is more to
these Biblical stories regarding women.
Another story in which Crumb’s drawing gives insight
to this more feminist perspective is that of Leah and Rachel and their attempts
to manipulate Jacob. Crumb emphasizes that it is an account of the women
exerting their power by making them the centerpiece of the comic panels, while
Jacob is off to the side or only half-pictured. They are the focal point of
almost all the panels and Jacob takes on an almost minor role. It is in this
chapter that viewers witness their control over Jacob’s lineage, an extremely
important aspect of ancient life. His frequent association of Leah and Rachel
with an aspect as paramount as Jacob’s lineage communicates that Crumb believed
women to have great influence in Biblical times.
This subtle illustrative focus on women is the aspect
of Genesis that bridges the gap between the “straight illustration job” and his
earlier work. Both types of work have the same purpose. In his typical comics, Crumb
observes the ridiculousness that is inherent in our routines, beliefs, and
assumptions. He then cartoons them in a grotesque fashion so as to bring them
to light. In Genesis, he illustrated a sacred text extraordinarily close to the
wording it provided. By depicting it realistically, he actually accomplished
the same goal as his usual work and confronted an accepted system of gender
roles.
Crumb’s reputation for cartooning
situations degrading to women may cause some to disagree with this argument. They
may argue that Crumb’s depictions of women in Genesis are simply a
personification of his sexual preferences for strong women, rather than a
statement against traditional ideology. This requires the acknowledgement that
Genesis does indeed differ from his usual work. Rather than go for cheap shock
value at his manipulating the stories and sensationalizing the characters, he
chose an honest approach. Whereas he usually capitalizes on the images of
genitalia and overt sexualization of women, he treated the women of Genesis
with respect. His illustrations represent a deeper reflection on the characters,
as he did not sensationalize them, mostly featuring them clothed and in
positions of authority. This approach also better accomplished his goal. He was
able to show the disparity between the textual treatment of Biblical women and
the illustrative and connotative methods that tend toward the patriarchal false
dichotomy previously mentioned.
The understanding of Crumb’s
viewpoint could incite major restructuring of religious rules regarding women. It
eliminates much of the support for the belief of the Bible instructing women to
be subservient to their husbands in order to obey God. It could affect their
roles in marriages as well as within churches, rendering women equal with men.
The implications of this more feminist interpretation also open the door for
further research into the rest of the Bible. The bias with which religious
leaders have treated Genesis may very well permeate interpretations of the
entire Bible and calls for a re-evaluation.
Genesis represents the largest
undertaking that Crumb has yet to attempt; the rebellion against the
traditional Judeo-Christian gender roles. The acceptance of this interpretation
does not necessarily render the book illegitimate, rather it draws to light the
need for more objective interpretations in which no participant has an agenda
to enforce or a people group to exert power over. Crumb’s illustration of
Genesis reveals insight into what this more objective stance could look like;
depicting the accounts of three-dimensional characters of both genders.
ReplyDeleteI like the way this starts a lot - it’s a streamlined, clarified, and more forthrightly opinionated version of your earlier work. This bothers me a little, though: “These are examples of the way in which Crumb seeks to draw attention to how we take for granted the legitimacy of certain ideologies.” So far, you’ve been very clear and articulate, but you haven’t really written about anything ideological. That doesn’t mean that this won’t come into perfect focus - it doesn’t *seem* to fit yet, though.
“In much the same way that he points out the facade of a happy, idyllic family; Crumb draws attention to the contradictions between Genesis’ accounts of women and the way in which society has altered them.” -- good transition
I like the paragraph on seductress vs. housewife a lot. If you’re going to bring up Potiphar, I wonder if you’ve noticed the extremely clever way that Crumb illustrates that whole story. If you haven’t, have a second or third look at how it develops! I think it would be a good place for you to flesh out your argument a little, because it provides a rather subtle example of Crumb’s agenda.
Your overall strategy here is excellent. By clarifying & extending your argument at the beginning, and then keeping most of your existing material, you greatly strengthen your work without needing to redo everything.
There are a number of ways in which this could be fine-tuned. One would be to simply further develop some of the subtle moments in Crumb’s text (e.g., Potiphar). Another would be to push on the topic of ideology a little more. Is this Crumb transforming or making up for past bad behavior, or is it a clarification of what he was really up to all along? Is it a challenge to his earlier work, or a culmination of it? An inversion, or a maturation? I think you lean toward the second half in each of that series of dichotomies, and in any case I think you’re well positioned, if you choose, to make this essay about Genesis really a way of interrogating Crumb’s work as a whole, and taking a position on his career as well as on this particular text.
This is very strong work. I’d like to see the ending developed a little farther, but it’s already good as it stands.