grendelsdj's review
2.0
this of course is a compilation of articles from individual researchers and academicians. it is good at what it does, but it is not satisfying to read. it would be awesome to use in a psych class, especially a theory class, as the articles are well written and interesting, but the disjointedness of the differing perspectives analyzing different aspects is distracting. same with the joss whedon and harry potter compilations. i will recommend them for my high school AP Psych teacher.
foolgal's review
3.0
** I received a copy from NetGalley and BenBella Books in exchange for an honest review. Thank you to the both of them!**
Honestly, it was a fairly boring read. I approached this book assuming that I'd get information on a metatextual level about superheroes and their motives, but what I really got was an infodump on psychology in general. The majority of the essays are so basic that they're on middle school level comprehension, and very barely even touch on their original topic, the superheroes. Other essays have misogynistic and ableist themes underneath them, particularly the ones written by Chuck Tate. 'An Appetite for Destruction' assumes that Batman is a neurotypical man with a lot of aggression, instead of someone with a mental disorder (even though Tate himself specifies multiple symptoms of a split personality disorder, he just leaves it as Batman being aggressive). 'The Stereotypical (Wonder) Woman' did very little for talking about the positive impact Wonder Woman has done, and essentially highlighted everything typically 'feminine' in her narrative as being negative. Her relationships with other women (platonic and familial) are shown in a negative light, and essentially framed to be a 'step backwards' in equality, instead of a positive thing. Tate even points out how traditionally feminine things are seen as inferior, yet goes on to write under that assumption (instead of acknowledging that Wonder Woman can be both feminine and incredibly strong).
That being said, there were some decent essays in this. 'Superman's Personality' was a fairly interesting (if dry) read that introduced the idea of the New York Superman (and how that would affect his characterization). 'Anti-Heroism' is the only essay that matched up to what I thought this book was going to be about- it analyzes motives behind antiheroism (and how not all antiheroes are villains). My favorite was 'Prejudice Lessons from the Xavier Institute', which is honestly the reason I gave this book three stars. Calling out the problematic nature of the "Charles Xavier is Martin Luther King Jr. and Erik Lehnsherr is Malcolm X", this essay breaks down the faulty reasoning behind Xavier's institute- instead of educating the public on mutant (therefore, minority) issues, Xavier tries to make the mutants more palatable to the outside society. On top of that, there's good commentary on how Xavier rarely even advocates for mutant rights- instead martyring his X-Men to show the world that they're worthy of love (by protecting them while they don't receive any respect or rights).
All in all, if you're looking to read this book, those are the essays I recommend.
Honestly, it was a fairly boring read. I approached this book assuming that I'd get information on a metatextual level about superheroes and their motives, but what I really got was an infodump on psychology in general. The majority of the essays are so basic that they're on middle school level comprehension, and very barely even touch on their original topic, the superheroes. Other essays have misogynistic and ableist themes underneath them, particularly the ones written by Chuck Tate. 'An Appetite for Destruction' assumes that Batman is a neurotypical man with a lot of aggression, instead of someone with a mental disorder (even though Tate himself specifies multiple symptoms of a split personality disorder, he just leaves it as Batman being aggressive). 'The Stereotypical (Wonder) Woman' did very little for talking about the positive impact Wonder Woman has done, and essentially highlighted everything typically 'feminine' in her narrative as being negative. Her relationships with other women (platonic and familial) are shown in a negative light, and essentially framed to be a 'step backwards' in equality, instead of a positive thing. Tate even points out how traditionally feminine things are seen as inferior, yet goes on to write under that assumption (instead of acknowledging that Wonder Woman can be both feminine and incredibly strong).
That being said, there were some decent essays in this. 'Superman's Personality' was a fairly interesting (if dry) read that introduced the idea of the New York Superman (and how that would affect his characterization). 'Anti-Heroism' is the only essay that matched up to what I thought this book was going to be about- it analyzes motives behind antiheroism (and how not all antiheroes are villains). My favorite was 'Prejudice Lessons from the Xavier Institute', which is honestly the reason I gave this book three stars. Calling out the problematic nature of the "Charles Xavier is Martin Luther King Jr. and Erik Lehnsherr is Malcolm X", this essay breaks down the faulty reasoning behind Xavier's institute- instead of educating the public on mutant (therefore, minority) issues, Xavier tries to make the mutants more palatable to the outside society. On top of that, there's good commentary on how Xavier rarely even advocates for mutant rights- instead martyring his X-Men to show the world that they're worthy of love (by protecting them while they don't receive any respect or rights).
All in all, if you're looking to read this book, those are the essays I recommend.
More...