:. e-mail this article :. print this article :. comment on this article

The Middling Ages

Conversation recently imagined regarding The Crusades:

"So DC has released a new series, eh? What's it about?"

"Basically, it's about a guy dressed up in a Knight's armor killing bad guys."

And that pretty much sums it up. There's not a lot of meat here and the story itself is not all that interesting. Seems that there's this avenging figure of justice going around the city killing bad guys as they're committing their crimes.

So what?

The hook here is that the 'good guy' is dressed in a full suit of armor and is riding a horse. But this is a hook that only works briefly and, once exploited, the reader discovers that the suit is, at least figuratively, empty. There's nothing more to be taken from this story. Violence for violence sake only goes so far. Once that line is reached, something of interest has to remain or there is no point in going farther.

The Crusades tries to make a statement regarding the level of violence, both verbally and physically, in today's society…but doesn't quite manage it. The main problem is that the reader simply doesn't care about the characters. They are, for the most part, cardboard stereotypes: The obnoxious, shock-jock radio host, hungry for the big story; the good-hearted assistant, hopelessly in love with the radio host; and the mysterious avenger of righteous justice. We've seen them all before, and the addition of sexual innuendo and graphic violence does not add anything to their personalities or stories. The 'mystery' of the avenging knight is tired, especially when one considers the fact that all superheroes are built on similar 'mystery'. "Who is he? Where does he come from? Where does he go?" To which the reader is likely to answer, "Who cares?"

But perhaps we are struggling too hard to find a meaning where there is none. Maybe The Crusades is simply a 'bad-ass good guy vs. bad-ass bad guys' type of story. Even Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." But, even on that level, the story fails to entertain. It is too predictable and follows the standard formula too closely. The radio host complains that he wants just one "normal" witness which, of course, his research assistant soon becomes. It's a story with no new wrinkles, leaving you extra time to consider the other places where it is also lacking.

Maybe it is just meant to be a mirror of our society and how violence permeates everything, even our conception of justice. It's no longer enough to be a good guy, but now you have to be a good guy who 'kicks butt' or, in this case, slices stomachs. Are we, as a society, violent? Certainly we are. Society, and individuals, are violent in every way: personally, professionally, and socially. Crusades might be trying to illustrate that with the career-minded, power-hungry shock jock and the various character vignettes interspersed through the book. Except, it falls flat on this point because it doesn't take a stand itself. Crusades shows the violence, but never takes a position on it. Of course, no one is likely to come out and say that 'violence is good for society'. But it's hard to empathize with a hero who is often just as, if not more, violent than the criminals he's facing. So then, does the value of a human being rest in just how violent they are and who they are violent to? Is it justified to be ultra-violent to the violent, because they, supposedly, encouraged it? Are these meanings really in the book or are we just struggling to justify what is, in essence, nothing more than a splatter movie drawn on paper?

Could be.