Rereading Mark Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme: 2. This is the rhythm of the fight

Here’s Foxfire, gunning for Nighthawk, even when it looks like the story’s over. Now, this is cut between Nighthawk’s monologue with Hyperion – we talked about this in the last post. After this three-panel clip, we will cut back to Nighthawk arguing that the real problem with the Squadron’s utopia program is its assumption that everyone is as good, as virtuous as they are, an assumption they cannot in fact make – in other words, you could never guarantee that whoever inherited their legacy, whoever was entrusted with it, would adhere to their moral code – would not seek to pervert that legacy for their own ends.

And between these two acutely philosophical passages, Foxfire makes her decision. I mentioned the rhythm of this before – the dialling up the action, the increase in speed, tension, threat. What is she going to do? But let’s notice another layer of this, too – the apotheosis of Spectrum and Foxfire’s relationship, truth-telling, coming to terms with each other. We’re working out.a subplot here, resolving it, and just as we cut back to Nighthawk, in that third panel, we’re left with Spectrum’s interior monologue – dipping us into another PoV before we’re back to Nighthawk and his righteous crusade.

So we are compelled to read – it’s more than a demand, it is the form of the text – you have to read like this – on multiple levels, in an incredibly compressed space of time: action falling (the aftermath of the battle) and rising (Foxfire’s decision), the philosophical (at least, philosophy in the Mighty Marvel Manner, which is not nothing), the interpersonal, the intra-subjective. And at the same time, we’re paying off through-lines (personal, plot, symbolic) that have been building over several issues (since issue 1, for Nighthawk). So this is an exceptionally dense, rich, layered reading experience.

Rereading Mark Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme: 1. Inside the Hibernacle

Apres moi le deluge, Hyperion.

Is there any way to begin thinking about Squadron Supreme (1985-86) other than with this moment?

Nighthawk’s “Redeemers” have won; the Squadron are a page or two from formal surrender; the battlefield is littered with the dead and injured.

Now, let me tell you – I was all of thirteen when I read this, and I’m not sure I’ve ever recovered. I had in fact only read this issue and the one prior to it – it was a time when I bought comics in an entirely haphazard way. I’ve no idea why I picked up Squadron 11; I don’t even think I was especially interested in picking up 12, it just happened to be in the comic shop that week. So it was more a whim, than any particular urge to know what happened next, that impelled me to grab it.

But my word, I’m glad I did. I reread those two issue innumerable times over the intervening years. 12 got leant out to comics-reading friends: “You have never seen anything like this!” And no-one ever had.

But it wasn’t just the fight, jaw-dropping though it was in its bloodthirstiness (“Happy landings, scum!”). It was the moral force of the comic, the fact that the “bad guys”, the Squadron’s enemies, were themselves positioned as having a moral imperative that eclipsed the Squadron’s. There is real artistry here, in the rhythm of this scene – the competing rhythms of the shocked aftermath of the battle, the pace and urgency of Nighthawk’s monologue, and Foxfire’s sprint back into the frey (two more cadavers – thanks, Gru).

And yet – surely none of this makes the blindest bit of sense? This is crazy, right?

What does Nighthawk promise?

“We will reopen prisons, legalize guns, remobilize the armed forces … the hibernacle program will never get off the ground.”

Thirteen-year old me was completely on board with this. It had to happen – Nighthawk was right – the Squadron had over-reached themselves. Plus, coming after a scrap of that magnitude – I was too shellshocked to argue.

But now, it all seems bonkers. Let’s accept that you have to reopen prisons, because the B-Mod stuff really isn’t OK (the theory of mind and society it’s built on is absurd, mind you – but the absurdity is fascinating and might be worth talking about later). But the following list seems like a bunch of net goods to me. No guns, no army, and a promise to end death (if you want – the hibernacle program isn’t compulsory). But this is only a partial list – the Squadron has also made inroads into ending poverty and unemployment, according to an earlier issue. Does Nighthawk – or Gru – think that those advances should also be rolled back?

And look at it like this – Nighthawk has already made the case against B-Modding. We already know they’re going to knock that on its head. So why brandish the reopening of prisons? That would be implied in the end of B-Modding. It makes it look as though Nighthawk (or Gru) consider prisons to be a net good. If the Squadron had pursued an alternate course – community-based rehab, maybe – Nighthawk would still be up for sending as many punters as possible to the Big House.

Now, perhaps it sounds like I’m gearing up for a rant against Gru here, or that I am going to lambast what looks like a bunch of unexamined right-wing assumptions structuring the series (Or maybe they weren’t unexamined? Maybe this is Gru’s Atlas Shrugged?). But there’s not much mileage in that, and why should you be bothered? No, I’m dwelling on this because I find it interesting; because it is intertwined with the comic’s artistic successes; because it captivated me in the 80s; and perhaps because it captivated me because it was the 80s.

More later, true believer.