Rules of Carnage

In my last Spidey villain article - which I'm not too happy with but whatever, read it for the lulzy vid in the intro - I briefly touched on the idea of the Sandman as a horror monster. It started to get me thinking about the other A-list monster foes that plague Spider-Man. Venom and the Lizard are pretty foolproof characters whose thematic appeal is obvious; I don't see any inherent conceptual problems that need to be worked out like with the Sandman, Electro and Mysterio (Part I, Part II). You can still expect a Lizard article eventually since he's my favesies and is gonna be the big bad for the new Spidey flick, but with those two rogues being so obviously sound there's only one real A-list monster villain left. One that could really use a hand these days.

Yup, Carnage, that exemplar of 90s comics excess. He managed to weasel his way into the highest echelons of the Spider-Man villain community by coasting on fan-favoritism and to this day he remains easily the most controversial of web-head's foes. A lot of people, mostly younger kids and folks who were younger kids in the 90s, really love the guy. He's stronger than Venom! He's crazy! He kills people and writes "Carnage Rules" in their blood! He's got fangs and claws and is scary and can morph his arms into swords and stuff!

A lot of other people, mostly the older, more mature readers, really hate the guy. He's derivative! He's creatively bankrupt! He's insipid, has no character, no intrinsic meaning or value! He's a shining example of everything wrong with the mindlessly ultra-violent superhero comics of his golden age!

Me? I remember as a little kid I thought he was so freakin' kool. For the yung'uns who can't remember, this guy was HUGE in the 90s. He was everywhere, probably just as overexposed as Wolverine and Venom were, maybe for a while even more. He was the star of a sweet-ass Sega Genesis game I would always play at my friend's house. I don't know how popular he is today - I get the feeling that the negative opinion of him is the norm now, if only because that's my opinion of him now - but regardless of how poorly-conceived the character may be, Carnage's position is secured. For better or for worse, he's definitely top 10 web-slinger villains material.

Wouldn't it be great, then, if he could actually be made interesting? If he could be re-assembled into a proper foe worthy of Spider-Man while retaining and expanding what little personality is already there?

Ah, but he can be! And it's not as difficult as you might think. Carnage was conceived and pitched as the Joker (or a caricature of the Joker) with a symbiote. To make Carnage a worthwhile enemy, all we have to do is take the symbiote off the Clown Prince of Crime and stick it onto Doctor Hurt.

What, you don't know who Doctor Hurt is? Go out and buy (who am I kidding, pirate) Grant Morrison's recent Batman epic. Some parts are better than others, but it's unquestionably the most innovative interpretation of Batman and his mythos since Frank Miller made him dark again in the mid-80s. And it gave us hands-down the greatest new supervillain of the 21st century. In the saga, Doctor Hurt and his legion of allies attempt to break down the World's Greatest Detective in body, mind and spirit, to unravel his mythology at the seams and annihilate him at the core conceptual level. "Twist and destroy the Batman and his legacy." It was Batman deconstructed to the brink of the abyss as his entire reality crumbled away, then reconstructed as the Dark Knight looked evil's greatest plan straight in the eye, kicked its fucking ass and stood triumphantly validated. Beautiful, inspirational stuff.


Spider-Man's never been properly deconstructed, let alone reconstructed in this way. The closest thing we've had was that Morlun saga by J. Michael Straczynski. It's a good read (JMS hadn't yet jumped the shark at that point) but the profound realizations the story explored basically amounted to "hey, all of these guys are themed after animals" and "eww, a kid with spider powers is actually really gross." It's a damn shame Spidey's never been put through deconstruction, because he's up there with the Caped Crusader as one of the most inspirational comics heroes (definitely not aspirational though, it would suck to be that guy), and because that mode of storytelling is such a natural fit for the genre. Stripping the character and the surrounding mythology, its symbols and milestones, down to pure idea, pure concept. Pure icon. Working out the representational metonymy we all find so compelling to its foundational, universally appealing core. And, since the hero-as-idea is (or at least should be) right, to then reconstruct it: to affirm the fundamental truth behind the concept and build it back up anew.

The physical and psychological agonies inflicted upon Peter is one of the Spider-Man comics' defining features, so it's strange that this has never extended to existential agonies. Obviously these come in spades in deconstruction tales. I mean, I guess there was existential agony in One More Day, but that ended up wrong. Spidey fell, succumbed to the pressure and compromised his values: he made a deal with the Devil in order to play God. The whole affair was very un-Spider-Man. So now we have a hero in need of great redemption, and Carnage, being the most explicitly demonic villain in his rogues gallery, can fill this necessary void. "The hole in things."

Oh oh oh wait, here's a more accessible analogy to tie you down while that Batman torrent finishes downloading: instead of being modeled after slasher flick bad guys, Carnage should take after the Universal monsters. And not just because I've been obsessed with them since I saw Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein when I was three years old.

To rid Carnage of his reputation as a derivative, insipid, valueless character, we need to inject some atmosphere into his stories, like the kind we see in all those great old monster flicks. But we have to derive it from something that already exists in the character or else we can't call the end result Carnage, can we? Good thing we've got everything we need. Carnage is very interesting in that he's one of the only comic book characters with an explicit philosophical leaning: absurdism. The school of thought is closely related to existentialism as well as nihilism, and asserts that if there is an inherent meaning or value in life/the universe, there is no way humanity can ever know it. One must learn to accept this human impossibility - the Absurd - and continue to live in spite of it; doing so totally frees the individual from all constraints and allows one to create personal meaning in their own life.


For Cletus Kasady, this constructed meaning came in the form of a calling to mass murder, because...umm....that's what cool villains do, I guess. Remember, we're talking about 90s superhero comics here, so Carnage's absurdist philosophy manifests in such gems as "Life is utterly meaningless! Chaos! The universe has no center! Its creator is a drooling idiot!" and "Order's just a lie, built on fantasies...like law, an' morals! I remember when I first realized that! How without those illusions, I could do anything!" and "Life is totally absurd – and madness is the only sane response." In just three lines I think Cletus has laid out every single cliché of supervillain cod-philosophy. So as you can see he's kind of a neophyte moron, expressing a pathetically bastardized/simplified version of the ideology to justify dumb senseless murder. We're not exactly having a dialogue with Kierkegaard or Camus, here. And, in my opinion, that's the problem.

Spidey has no shortage of dimwitted foes, and most of the intelligent ones are of the left-brained bookworm variety - all mad scientists and corrupt businessman. So why don't we make Carnage someone actually well-acquainted with the tenets of absurdism, someone with an intimate knowledge of philosophy? Give him the characteristics of a Universal monster - all Gothic horror veneer, deadly sophistication belying evil, deranged obsession. A person of culture, perhaps an intellectual or academic. The kind of creepy aristocratic guy who listens to Shostakovich on an old victrola and gets orchestra seats to Mefistofele at the Met. The kind of guy who reclines in his giant, bookshelf-lined study and calculates cryptic diabolical plans amidst the shadows. Less Freddy Kruger, more Dracula or Imhotep or Dr. Frankenstein (or Hannibal Lecter).

There's also another quality to these Universal monster movies that can help us grasp Carnage's endgame. People complain nonstop about how the Twilight films are ruining vampires and werewolves, how the movies are messing with the established mythologies of all these great monster archetypes by essentially making up their own rules. As a fan of all the classic monster movies I can see where these detractors are coming from, but here's the thing they don't realize: those great films took just as many - if not more - liberties with the actual mythology as the Twilight movies do today. Almost everything we think we know about these monsters is wrong, coming not from the actual myths, legends and folklore, but from the films based on them. If you go back to the source material, you'll find a very different picture of these creatures, one that might actually be closer to what we see in Twilight (purely by coincidence, because I'm sure as shit Stephanie Meyers didn't research any of this, and I haven't even seen the movies so I could be way off). I mean Christ, vampires didn't even have an aversion to sunlight until Nosferatu in 1922; even in the novel Dracula only 25 years earlier, the titular character dicks around in broad daylight all the time. And don't even get me started on werewolves, literally over half that shit we think of was made up in either Werewolf of London or The Wolf Man. Weakness to silver? Become a werewolf after being bit by one? Forced transformation specifically under a full moon? None of that exists in the source material.

I guess you could argue that these monster flicks should be considered part of the mythology and its natural evolution over time, but then Twilight - as infuriatingly unconcerned as it may be with producing quality interpretations of these archetypes - should have just as much a right to be a part of it as any other film. And besides, that would be like saying it's okay to change the comics so Peter had organic web-shooters all along, because that's how it was in the first Spider-Man film (Marvel actually did that for a while right after it came out and people flipped a shit). You know how angry we Spidey fans get when people who only know him from the movies think that's how Spider-Man actually is? It's the same deal, guys. So hate Twilight because it's poorly written, directed and acted, not because its vampires sparkle.

To relate this massive digression back to what I'm supposed to be talking about, this same idea of uprooting and corrupting the established mythology should be what Carnage is all about. Because really, what else would cause a superhero more carnage? As much as we like to try with psychology, myth is the only thing that adequately explains any of the stuff we see in comics. The mythology that makes up a hero is more than their personal oaths, creeds and world views - they are universal ideas predicated on a world with inherent significance. Superheroes - at least the iconic ones - are literally defined by the mythos surrounding them, it's the fabric that holds them together. What would it make Batman if Thomas Wayne faked his death to cover up a secret life of debauchery? The entire foundation behind "Batman," the reasons behind this mission Bruce has literally devoted his entire life to, would be utterly compromised. The ideology holding Batman together would fall apart, he would be forced to succumb to the Absurd as his entire world came crashing down on him. Probably end up a mad raving loon in Arkham...or dead in Crime Alley.

Carnage's assault should attempt to infect Spidey's mythology like a devastating virus: he would distort it with misinformation and wickedness into something of his own malevolent design, then peel back the decaying layers to reveal falseness behind any pretensions of importance or value. To rip apart Peter's very soul. "Ah, demoniacal madness!" Every important, hell, every event in his life predetermined as part of some behind-the-scenes plan decades in the making. "Spider-Man" and the reasoning behind it entirely rooted in deceit, "With great power there must also come --- great responsibility!" as a hollow dogma, Peter's decision to become a crime-fighter a meaningless, preordained exercise designed to assure his own destruction (Spider-Man as Peter's archenemy is always juicy, no matter how much it's overused). The radioactive spider was planted, Uncle Ben's murder was a hit, Gwen was a fall guy (HURR DURR), Aunt May is a deviant, Carnage is Richard Parker, etc. All elaborate lies - actually changing the established mythology would defeat the purpose - expertly-orchestrated to destroy the very essence of Spider-Man. Character assassination on a mythic scale, fatally undermining Peter's entire ideology and moral foundation. Carnage should instigate devastating mind games and unending gauntlets that challenge Spidey in ways he simply doesn't know how to deal with, all the while hissing, "Every moment of joy and happiness in your life, all your memories, lies! Your history is MINE!" And Peter, being the paranoid guy he is, would completely buy into the conspiracy theory. Little Puny Parker all alone against the void.

Now isn't all this so much more interesting than some grungy psycho who writes his name in blood? It's definitely a story I'd want to read. Hell, it's a story I'd want to write.

God I wish I wrote comics so bad...

But despite all the gloom and doom, there will be none of that One More Day shit going on here; he'll go through a hell worse than anything he's ever experienced before, but the ol' wall-crawler will come out on top in the end. Because Spider-Man the idea does have intrinsic value. Because Spider-Man is not Absurd. Because Spider-Man can take it, he can endure deconstruction. As I've said again and again, one of the most important things Spider-Man represents is fortitude in the face of seemingly unending hardship. Humanity's capacity to be indefatigable and have steadfast faith in a better future: life sucks now, but it can get so much better as long as we don't let it beat us down, as long as we work towards improving it and keep our hope alive. Carnage's motivation is clear: he has to snuff out this hope as a symbolic and literal victory on his way to engulfing the world in darkness. In the "gentle indifference" of absurdism. He's already won over Spidey's stomping grounds - this is the postmodern NYC, all unyielding cynicism and unhelpful sneering irony! Who does this freak think he is, swinging around giving people a reason to be sincere? Carnage must destroy Spider-Man because, by virtue of his very existence, our hero invalidates everything his foe very consciously represents. This town's not big enough for two big ideas.

Too bad for Carnage, the immovable object is right there in our champion's name - Peter, derived from the Greek word petros meaning stone or rock, and Parker for, well, something parked firmly in place. Spidey tells us we can't let life's apparent indifference crush our spirits, because under that one nasty surface layer - the breakups, awful workloads, financial straits, that shitty Friday night that left you a pathetic sniveling train wreck - life's a beautiful, inspiring, amazing thing. Ebb and flow. We all go through rough patches once in a while, that's why we have family and friends and our own inner life. If you're not at least trying to be a forward-thinking optimist, what's the fucking point of it all? That's certainly what keeps Spidey going; unlike Carnage, he knows that life isn't a black hole - it's a bunch of lights at the ends of tunnels.

So now that we've figured out the man inside the costume, let's finish up by taking a look at the symbiote itself. I guess the big thing here is that it's a more X-TREEM version of Venom. The villainous symbiotes are pretty obvious addictive drug metaphors (keeping in the Marvel framework of social activism in the face of ambivalence) but if Venom is da crack rock, Carnage is fucking PCP. The Venom symbiote will eventually try to assert its rage-filled sovereignty over its host, but it seems above all self-interested, for a while even taking a stab at a true symbiotic relationship. When it first bonds it seems to compromise, contouring to the body shape and skin of its host. It wants to use that body, not use it up.

The Carnage symbiote, on the other hand, still retains its goopy alien texture after bonding - it's much more domineering, controlling and aggressive. It's reckless, couldn't concern itself less with it's own well-being, completely foregone in its passion for destruction and chaotic revelry. It seeks to consume the host much more quickly, and the end result looks like a revenant flayed alive oozing fresh blood everywhere. This juxtaposition of monster and man, of life and death reveals the Carnage symbiote's overtly parasitic nature. It should sap the nutrients from its host, wither him away even as it empowers him with superhuman abilities. It should leave the host reduced to a bald emaciated skeleton, like the people in those hard-to-bear images of Holocaust victims and early AIDS patients (symbolism for the latter is already there in the character: Carnage was created when the Venom symbiote entered an open wound and mixed with Cletus Kasady's blood). And it should of course warp the mind just as badly, leaving the host a mad, babbling lunatic foaming at the mouth with macabre apocalyptic delusions. There would be a great irony at work here: Carnage attempting to break Spider-Man down to his fundamental core while the symbiote did the same to Carnage, stripping away the facade of suave, calculating sophistication to reveal the base, raving insanity and violently demonic obsession that drives him in his purest form.

Cletus Kasady could totally work if he was reshaped into something remotely believable, but I think it would be better to move the symbiote to a different host. Venom did just fine without Eddie Brock, after all. Carnage could be a priest or a demon or an occultist or a cultist or a crime lord or a Burglar or a master of disguise or a schizophrenic or a psychiatrist or a scientist or an old face back from the dead. He can be a Karloff or a Lugosi, or a Meursault. He can be any and all of these things; anything's better than what he is now, than Cletus the straw man psychopath. With the absurdism angle to ground him as a character, Carnage can take the Spidey books on an existential roller coaster to novel, wildly inventive territory. Like Doctor Hurt to Batman (that damn torrent better be finishing up) or the Universal monsters to the horror genre.


Maximum Carnage may be one of my least favorite stories in all superherodom, but I gotta say that cover is spot fuckin' on. The specter of Carnage maniacally leers - ready to pounce - above a superimposed Manhattan, like a poltergeist for the entire city. New York and sky above it scorched to eschatological blacks and reds, singed to be one with the symbiote's skin. It's Beelzebub rising atop his throne of skulls, ready to retake the city of sin in apocalyptic hellfire. And the only thing standing in his way is a single champion, one lone embodiment of everything worth saving. But how can ol' web-head defeat an enemy that can undo those very things our hero embodies?

The battle for New York's soul is at hand! No holds barred!

Carnage rules when the rules are carnage.