EJAC 34 (1) pp.

6782 Intellect Limited 2015

European Journal of American Culture

Volume 34 Number 1
2015 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/ejac.34.1.67_1

Katherine Marazi
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Superhero or vigilante?
A matter of perspective
and brand management
Abstract

Keywords

Vigilantism is a recurring theme in superhero narratives where, objectively speaking, all superheroes are vigilantes. Nevertheless, the fictional nature of superheroes
allows one to contemplate the ideological grey area and connotations of vigilante.
This article will focus on three specific human superheroes who display a strong
brand identity in order to examine the theme of vigilantism in connection with
brand identity and brand management so as to display the oscillating power struggle between individual and the collective, between the private corporate sector and
government power. Drawing on the position of power from which one speaks or
is prompted to speak, as advocated by Michel Foucault, as well as the practices of
brand management and postmodern marketing as advocated by Adam Arvidsson,
this article views vigilantism as occupying an ideological grey area due to the brand
presence of the superheroes, thus displaying a convoluted relationship between a
brand governing authority and a government authority. The question at hand is
whether the character wants to be perceived as a vigilante due to a context he has
set, or is deemed as such, because a different authority cannot infiltrate said context
so as to control and conform him to the opposite effect.

superhero
vigilante
brand identity
management
postmodern marketing
power play
culture jamming

67

Katherine Marazi

Vigilantism is an occasional theme in the superhero universe but appears to be

more prominent in the case of superheroes such as Batman, Green Arrow and
Iron Man notably due to their more human nature. Unlike characters such as
Superman, Thor, the Hulk and Spiderman whose powers are either part of their
nature, or have been acquired through magic or science, Batman, Green Arrow
and Iron Man, have acquired superiority by pushing their physicality and/or
intelligence to extreme limits. More importantly, the vast financial support
network, which they have at their disposal, grants them a distinguished position in fictional society as opposed to other superheroes. Thus, Bruce Wayne,
Oliver Queen and Tony Stark are all human characters within the superhero
sphere; however, a strong, common feature among the three is that they are
all businessmen displaying a prominent brand presence as Wayne Enterprises,
Queen Consolidated and Stark Industries, respectively. Brooker (2012: 79) has
insightfully deemed Batman a range brand both in our world but also in his; the
W that marks Wayne Tower and the Bat logo signal the brand presence of the
characters dual identity in the business world and the crime fighting one. Tony
Stark/Iron Man could be considered the Marvel Universe range brand equivalent
to DCs Batman. As a result, by not displaying actual superpowers, vigilantism
becomes a prominent theme as the fictional public is constantly questioning the
right of these human characters to take matters into their own hands. What
is more, for viewing audiences who are aware of the characters dual identity,
vigilantism takes on a different perspective by not necessarily questioning the
motives but the right of these characters to take advantage of their attributes
and abilities. Consequently, the human-ness of these characters in connection
with their corporate brand presence makes them ripe for the examination of the
vigilante theme, which resonates more politically due to the fact that as humans
they can ultimately conform to, or be controlled by, an overarching governmental authority who seeks to maintain a status quo. The intriguing factor, however,
is the oscillating power play between the governing authority of the brand and
the government authority where each side occupies differing places on a spectrum, thus affecting how the character is perceived. Whether the dual identity is
secret or not also plays a vital role. The issue regarding the power play becomes
one of access and control. As Iron Man 2 (Favreau, 2010) demonstrates, the US
government cannot control Iron Man without controlling Tony Stark. In the
case of Batman, as seen in Christopher Nolans films, or the television series
Arrow (2012), where identities are both secret, the government cannot begin
to exact control, or power of authority, unless the brands context reveals a
point of access. More importantly, the relationship between Batman and the
Joker in Christopher Nolans The Dark Knight (2008) positions the Joker, albeit
as a symbol of chaos and terror, but also as a figure who manages to enter
and question the Batmans authority in the context set by the Batman brand
by taking on an anti-branding logic and culture jamming stance. By taking into
account what Michel Foucault advocated in his The History of Sexuality regarding the position of power from which one speaks, or is prompted to speak
(1979 cited in Brooker 2012: 89), this article argues that the theme of vigilantism occupies an ideological grey area due to the brand presence of characters
that displays a brand governing authority within a government authority where
the question at hand is whether the character and the authority behind the
character wants to be perceived as a vigilante due to a context he has set, or
is deemed as such because a different authority cannot infiltrate said context so
as to control and conform him to the opposite effect. Is it a question of what a
vigilante actually is or who deems him as such?

68

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

What is a vigilante and what is a superhero?

Vigilantism is an ambivalent term when viewed through the fictional prism
because it is ultimately detached from reality. Essentially, a vigilante is an
individual, who may join a group displaying similar logic, who takes the law
into his or her own hands without permission from legal or governmental authority, because that authority is allegedly inadequate, thus prompting the individual, or group, to fight, prevent and punish crime, ultimately
representing an alternate, ambiguous form of justice.1 The initial Spanish
origins (Merriam-Webster Online: Dictionary and Thesaurus 2014) of the
word, however, connote that vigilante can also come to mean watchman,
or guardian, thus offering a different, possibly positive, dimension of meaning and value, particularly to fictional super/hero characters such as Batman.
Essentially, vigilantes are outcasts of society as they do not act in accordance with government state laws in spite of their logic and motives occasionally being subjectively understood and viewed as acceptable by citizens
who may identify with their reasons of action. This identification apparently
stems from emotions triggered by similar situations citizens may have experienced and, moreover, may be amplified if said citizens are not satisfied with
the legal actions of the system in question. When considering the theme of
vigilantism, one ponders on what is justice, as well as what is right, what is
wrong and what is the best course of action. More importantly, is there a
middle ground between the individual and the collective logic with regard
to the aforementioned issues? Hero mythology and superheroes in particular, effectively surface these queries in relation to society and the status quo.
According to Angela Ndalianis, [h]eroes and superheroes have never operated in a vacuum (2007: 3); instead, their actions have a fundamental link to
the welfare of the society from which they originate. As a result, for consumer
audiences, superheroes in most cases are perceived as the good guys, who
can distinguish between right and wrong, and even though they take matters
into their own hands, are not deemed vigilantes as such but watchful, protective guardians.
Superheroes are considered a continuation and extension of the hero
myth in modern-day culture and similarly emanate, according to John Girling
(1993 cited in Ndalianis 2007: 4), the inspirational character of myths evident
in turbulent times that not only come to provide meaning to identity but
also call into question the reality of powerful, impersonal forces at work
in society. The super/hero is a concrete manifestation of an abstract concept
that speaks of the struggle of civilization to survive and maintain order in a
world that threatens to be overcome with chaos (Ndalianis 2007: 30). Hence,
as Richard Reynolds (1992: 77) states, the super/heros mission is to preserve
society not to re-invent it. Geoff Klock (2006: 43) stresses the fact that Frank
Miller in his work aimed at highlighting the fact that at least theoretically,
each superhero is fighting for an overall change in society, even if in each
individual issue the hero is usually reactionary in maintaining the status quo.
What this entails is that super/heroes are not actively changing the status quo,
but they offer a respective context via which to examine it, question it, and
reach meaningful conclusions or observations. This has become evident in the
cases of revisionary superhero stories, such as Alan Moores Watchmen (1986,
DC Comics), which effectively comes to question the motives of the characters as well as raising the question to whom are they accountable. While
Danny Fingeroth (2006: 17) argues that the super/hero comes to represent

1. According to the Oxford

Dictionaries Language
Matters a vigilante is
a member of a selfappointed group of
citizens who undertake
law enforcement
in their community
without legal authority,
typically because
the legal agencies
are thought to be
inadequate (2014). The
Cambridge Dictionaries
Online defines a
vigilante as
a person who tries
in an unofficial way
to prevent crime, or
to catch and punish
someone who has
committed a crime,
especially because
they do not think
that official
organizations,
such as the police,
are controlling
crime effectively.
Vigilantes usually
join together to
form groups.
(2014)
Finally, the MerriamWebster Online:
Dictionary and
Thesaurus states
that a vigilante is a
person who is not a
police officer but who
tries to catch and
punish criminals; is a
member of a volunteer
committee organized
to suppress and punish
crime summarily (as
when the processes
of law are viewed as
inadequate); broadly: a
self-appointed
doer of justice (2014,
original emphasis).

69

Katherine Marazi

2. According to Smith
[t]he secret identity
also embodies the
American immigrant
experience as
assimilation, in
which the alien
Other must put on a
mainstream costume in
order to pass within
society, a masquerade
that is always in
jeopardy of being
exposed (2009: 12627).

values of the society that produces him and by extension appears to always
know what the right thing is, Reynolds informs that:
Superheroes are by and large not upholders of the letter of the law;
they are not law enforcement agents employed by the state. The set of
values they traditionally defend is summed up by the Superman tag of
Truth, Justice and the America Way. Sometimes the last term has been
interpreted in a narrowly nationalistic way but far more often has
stood for the ideals enshrined in the US Constitution.
(1992: 74)
Hence, super/heroes in the real world would constitute vigilantes resonating Robert Rays (1985) dichotomy of the official hero [who] works entirely
within the system and the outlaw hero who may overtly work for the institution, but [who has] lost faith in the institutional order, working outside the
system according to [his/her] own individual set of rules (1985 cited in Smith
2009: 134). As a result, by viewing super/heroes as metaphors, or symbols,
one can examine, re-evaluate and question the system, the status quo, as well
as notions such as justice and the meaning of vigilantism. For superheroes,
this is achievable through the exhibition of particular attributes, and for the
case studies in question the rules are governed by brand identity logic.
The two main attributes which render super/heroes as vigilantes by simultaneously provoking audience engagement, possible identification with but
also detachment from said characters are their dual/secret identity and their
superpowers. A masked, or hidden identity, is essentially employed by those
who aim to engage in illegal activities. Superheroes, on the other hand, create
a secret identity for purposes of anonymity. As a result, the only way to distinguish hero from villain, or criminal, is to examine the motives. According to
Fingeroth (2006: 48), anonymity can also serve those who engage in acts of
political, or social, courage who would otherwise be severely punished. In the
case of Spiderman, anonymity is employed so as to protect family and loved
ones. In addition, a mask can invoke terror, or mystery, thus complicating
the motives behind ones actions, or attempting to conceal said motives as
in the case of philanthropists (Fingeroth 2006: 48). Batman and Arrow fall into
this category. Wayne and Queen want to be seen as someone or something
completely different from their alter egos. In The Dark Knight (2008) during
a conversation with D. A. Harvey Dent, Wayne actually questions the right
and credibility of the Batman, thus planting in the minds of those around him
his distinct position towards the character. Finally, anonymity grants courage that allows one to act, or speak, without fear of repercussions (Fingeroth
2006: 48). The secret identity in combination with anonymity provokes audience identification because it signals the struggle faced in maintaining equilibrium between whom one truly is and who one is expected, or even wishes
to be in various contexts. Ultimately, it becomes a matter of what identity is
projected, in what context and for which reasons, hence the idea of wearing
a mask and becoming someone else is alluring and cause for identification,
thus ensuring a positive disposition towards superheroes. This automatically leads to the notion of dual identity which as Gary Engle (1992 cited in
Fingeroth 2006: 5354) explains is apparent in American society due to the
immigrant experience2 which can be applied to superheroes as well, the most
obvious being Superman/Clark Kent. What the dual identity entails is the act
of assimilation in the respective society in order to become part of that society,

70

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

thus acting as another aspect that allows the audience to identify with superheroes. Again, for cases such as Superman this indicates the need to infiltrate
and be accepted by society, whereas Wayne, Queen and Stark are already part
of that society. Bruce Wayne and Oliver Queen both exhibit dual, albeit secret,
identities which allow them to, on the one hand, as Wayne and Queen, belong
to and act within the system, but on the other hand, grant them a foothold to
the system which they oppose both at a corporate and government level
when taking on their secret personae. By keeping Batman and Arrow a secret,
they offer no access point via which the system can conform or control them,
which ultimately leads to them being considered vigilantes by the fictional
government and public. Iron Mans case appears to be unique because not
only does Tony Stark reveal his identity in the first Iron Man (Favreau, 2008)
film, he also divulges his intention in Iron Man 2 (2010), which is to privatize
world peace. On the one hand, by revealing his identity Tony Stark grants the
government his point of access which the US government seeks to attain and
control, but at the same time raises the question of whether governmental
authorities should, or even can, make him conform to their agenda which is
to hand over the Iron Man technology, or if that technology ought to remain
in the hands of the particular individual. The aspect of governmental control
features more prominently for these particular characters when one takes into
consideration the second aspect that deems these characters superheroes, or
possibly vigilantes, namely, their superpowers.
Powers, whether physical or intellectual, accumulated via magic or science,
as in the case of Thor and Superman which are simply part of the characters
nature, are the attributes that enable one to become a superhero. They also call
into question the actions and motives of the individual who has such power
at his or her disposal and more importantly the right to take advantage of that
power by taking matters into his or her own hands. Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark
and Oliver Queen, however, actually display no powers in the fantastic sense
other than the human capabilities, which they have pushed to extreme limits
thanks to their corporate and monetary support, which also grants them a
highly prominent brand presence. Hence, the main reason superheroes may
be deemed as vigilantes by governmental and law authorities is because they
display certain powers that said authority may not, or cannot, conform and
control, thus allowing such characters to pose as a threat to the status quo.
This is even more prominent when superheroes display no actual super
powers. Superhero powers, in contrast to the dual or secret identity, according
to Robert M. Peaslee (2007: 38), are the attributes which do not allow one to
identify with but actually distance audiences from these otherworldly characters and act as the springboard from which one begins to question between
the self and the whole, between desire and responsibility, between chaos
and order. For the case studies in question, the fact that their powers are a
result of monetary and corporate holdings may even be viewed as provocative. Nevertheless, superhero characters become attractive because they are
both Superman and Everyman, alter ego and superego (Peaslee 2007: 37).
Wayne, Queen and Starks superiority, however, is not entirely unattainable
which makes them more susceptible to the vigilante theme. The powers that
Batman, Arrow and Iron Man display are anchored in their corporate presence,
which is why they would qualify more as actual vigilantes in our world. This,
as Peaslee (2007: 37) argues, has much to tell the viewer about the value and
legitimacy of the institutions in which such power is situated. Peaslee (1971
cited in 2007: 38), views superheroes in juxtaposition with E. P. Thompsons

71

Katherine Marazi

3. Umberto Eco (1972)

in his The myth
of Superman,
commented that
the prevailing view
of Superman (and
superheroes generally)
as mythical saviors
was, by way of myopia,
in error; instead, Eco
pointed out, analysts
should be attuned
to the particularly
American qualities
of Superman, who
eschews fighting
injustice on the macro
or structural level and
prefers to wage smaller
battles of immediate
and palpable
significance. The
effect of this decision,
according to Eco, is an
implicit acceptance
and defense on the
heros part of the
tenets of capitalism
and bureaucracy,
such as property
ownership, legality,
and due process. In
sum, Superman is
ideology (1972 cited
in Peaslee 2007: 37).

concept of moral economy, and confirms the goodness that superheroes

display and their intent to do the right thing when the governmental authority
appears incapable or unwilling to do so. This in a sense justifies their presence both for the fictional public but also for the viewing audience. If any
audience identification is displayed towards the heros powers then it takes
place in a hypothetical context whereby if one had said powers how and for
what reasons would one use them. However, Peaslee (2007: 38) also suggests
that bureaucracy also be considered so as to determine the context of action,
which as this article will argue is more prominent due to their brand presence.
Essentially, superheroes whether deemed vigilantes or not evoke a correspondent implicit good-ness, a common-sense approach to doing the right
thing that often operates outside the acceptable parameters of bureaucratic
authority (Peaslee 2007: 38). Max Weber, on the other hand, explains that
society as a human construct in connection with the technical and economic
conditions of machine production that determine and govern our lives result
in an iron cage of constraint for all individuals belonging to such a mechanism (1958 cited in Peaslee 2007: 38). What is more,
bureaucracy in full flower comes to act in opposition to the very democracy responsible for its creation [and] [s]ince superheroes do not reject
bureaucracy outright but exist to varying degrees within it, the dialectical nature of the human relationship with law and propriety are vividly
expressed in their activities.
(1958 cited in Peaslee 2007: 38)
Thus, having skills, abilities or the means to do good becomes a question of
power. Bruce Wayne, Oliver Queen, Tony Stark are not only businessmen
within their fictional realm, but the existence of their enterprises stems from
their acceptance of the democracy and bureaucracy of their fictional world.
Peaslee (2007: 3738), moreover, in contradiction with Eco (1972) who views
superheroes, particularly Superman,3 as ideology, suggests viewing superheroes as representing a gap in ideology, which is also reminiscent of Michel
Foucaults (1972) notion of discontinuity. Superheroes, in order to be current
and relevant, need to accommodate themselves to specific eras and historiccultural contexts (Ndalianis 2007: 34). Hence, one cannot strictly speak of a
linear, continuous, unruptured metaphor or symbol of a specific ideology. As
Foucault informs,
[b]eneath the great continuities of thought, beneath the solid, homogeneous manifestations of a single mind or of a collective mentality,
beneath the stubborn development of a science striving to exist to reach
completion at the very outset, beneath the persistence of a particular
genre, form, discipline, or theoretical activity, one is now trying to detect
the incidence of interruptions.
(1972: 4)
Consequently, considering superheroes as metaphors of ideology would
offer continuity in relation to examining notions such as power, authority
and justice, but viewing them as gaps, or seams, would deem them as a tool
for deciphering the discontinuity in relation to their ideological meanings.
By focusing on superheroes whose powers are based in their brand presence, this article will display the complexity revolving around the notion of

72

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

vigilantism but also delve into the context that seeks to impose this notion
and the meanings it assigns.

The components of brand identity and the issue

of power play
Viewing Bruce Wayne, Oliver Queen and Tony Stark through the prism of
brand identity will shed light on the collaborating components of the respective brands and, moreover, will display the power play resonating within the
brand as well as its relation with external authority or governing figures. David
A. Aacker (1996: 6869) informs that the brand identity structure consists of
a core and extended identity. More specifically, the core identity the central,
timeless essence of the brand is most likely to remain constant as the brand
travels to new markets and products. The core essentially resonates the nature
and logic of all superheroes and can be viewed as a common aspect. What
allows one to differentiate between superheroes is the extended identity. The
extended identity includes brand identity elements, organized into cohesive
and meaningful groupings that provide texture and completeness (Aacker
1996: 6869). The extended identity consists of the brand as a product, an
organization, a person and a symbol. What this entails is a myriad of superhero
products in the form of comic books, graphic novels, films, television series,
video games and merchandise. It also points to the myriad different superheroes and their distinctive symbolic meanings. Most importantly, the notion of
organization, which is akin to a system of logic, rules and ideologies, is the
aspect that displays and ensures elements of power play. What is important
to consider is that, despite the overlapping of brand identities and by extension the overlapping and coexistence of brand organizations, each organization respectfully seeks to define its borders of action and influence, ultimately
resulting in a postmodern, and even metafictional, organization within an
organization where the question of borders, power and influence immediately
comes into play. The entertainment industry is initially, and essentially, an
industry that caters to audience consumers by providing content, tactile and
service commodities. Thus, DC and Marvel are organizations that mainly deal
in superhero entertainment but are also subject to their respective governing
organizations, Warner Bros. and Disney. By extension, both Warner Bros. and
Disney reside within American society and abide by the business, marketing and patent laws issued by the US government. Both DC and Marvel
character brands are subject to their overarching organizations, namely, DC
Comics and Marvel Entertainment. Marvels superheroes actually display this
type of relationship within their fictional universe, where specific superheroes
are subject to the S.H.I.E.L.D. organization, which in turn is subject to the
fictional manifestation of the US government. This relationship in fact appears
to be the focal point in the second season of Joss Whedons television series
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013). A similar logic of an organization can also be
viewed within the Avengers team also subject to S.H.I.E.L.D. the Justice
League, C. Xaviers X-men and Magnetos Brotherhood. At the level of individual superhero characters, this becomes even more apparent when viewing
Batman, Arrow and Iron Man, whose alter egos display a strong brand presence within the fictional universe.
The nature and structure of brand identity in the fictional narrative of the
respective case studies not only indicates the relation between the brands
components but can also be seen in connection with the authority figure of

73

Katherine Marazi

government in order to evidence the workings of power play. The core of the
brands in question is the moniker of the family names, Wayne, Queen and
Stark. These brands preside in a fictional US society and are subject to the
laws and regulations of the overarching fictional US government. Essentially,
the power play becomes one of government against private corporate power.
The figure of person with regard to the extended identity is the superhero
character in question while the actual corporations constitute the organization
aspect of the brand complete with a board of directors. What this entails is the
questionable and oscillating position of power of Wayne, Queen and Stark
within the organization. This relation appears more complex when considering the alter egos of these characters are extended identities of Wayne,
Queen and Stark but also products of the corporations. Tony Stark and Stark
Industries are subject to the fictional US government, while his alter ego,
Iron Man, is subject to Stark and Stark Industries. Hence, in order for the US
government to control and use Iron Man for its national defense agenda, it
initially needs to assimilate and control Tony Stark, who as the film displays,
goes against the government in favour of his industrious brand logic regarding the Iron Man suit. Tony Stark is Iron Man, Iron Man is Tony Stark and
as such Tony Stark refuses to abide by what the US government is asking of
him. On the other hand, both Bruce Wayne and Oliver Queen make use of
the utilities and materials available via their organizations, Wayne Enterprises
and Queen Consolidated, in order to manifest their superhero personae
that can be seen both as extended identities of these characters but also as
products of the corporations. In Batman Begins (Nolan, 2005), Wayne refers
to the head of the Applied Science Division, Lucius Fox, in order to procure
the necessary materials, equipment and apparel in order to become Batman.
What is most intriguing is how both Wayne and Alfred decide upon ordering
certain products, via Wayne Enterprises, in bulk so as not to arouse suspicions
within Wayne Enterprises, which would ultimately lead to legal repercussions.
Wayne, essentially, extends an invitation to an employee of Wayne Enterprises
to enter the Batman brand, thus drawing an interconnecting bridge between
the two which he can use to his advantage. Queens case is quite similar in the
first season of the television series Arrow (20122013) where he takes advantage and recruits both his bodyguard and an IT employee while using his
financial wealth to establish both his secret headquarter of operations within
an abandoned property of Queen Consolidated as well as any technological means, weapons and apparel necessary. Unlike Tony Stark, both Wayne
and Queen keep their alter egos secret from both their brand organizations as
well as from the public, ultimately displaying that their actions as Batman and
Arrow do objectively entail vigilantism. Stark, on the other hand, upon seeing
the underhanded dealings his CEO Obadiah Stane had engaged in which
ultimately endangered him, decides to unveil his secret identity and link it
to the new logic of Stark Industries, which now goes against the production
and distribution of weaponry. In a sense, Stark both capitalizes and legally
corporatizes both himself and Iron Man as a force capable of protecting the
American Nation by privatizing world peace, against both means of war but
also against foes that would use such means against America. Thus, when
commissioned to grant the US government access to the Iron Man technology for defense purposes he refuses due to his disbelief in the authenticity of
their goals and so as to maintain the core essence of what Iron Man, and by
extension, Stark Industries represent. Starks position appears justified, from
a corporate perspective, when Col. James Rhodes confiscates one of the Iron

74

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

Man suits, and by extension forces CEO P. Potts to engage in legal battles
against the US government due to the illegal seizure of trademark property.
What is interesting in Iron Mans case is that when the US government fails to
assimilate Tony Stark and as a result proceeds to procure the Iron Man technology via other means, another organization, S.H.I.E.L.D, whose mentality appears to be a combination of the US governments defense tactics and
Tony Starks corporate vigilante logic manages to recruit Stark, thus becoming the mediator between both governmental and industry organizations. Of
course this example is just an indication of just how complex and convoluted
the coexistence, overlapping, and definition of borders and power between
organizations can be. Another power player, which can affect how the superhero is perceived, is that of brand management and marketing.
Media Franchise Culture treats its Intellectual Properties and media franchises as brands for marketing purposes. Marketing, however, according to
Richard Maxwell (in Miller et al. 2001: 152), does not aim at protecting its
consumers. Instead, it seeks to provide consumer audiences with intertextual
commodities4 that offer a branded environment and initially provide a context
for consumer action within which a particular consumer good or media product can acquire additional dimensions of use-value and by extension become
a channel for the construction of branded ambience that can capture the
attention of consumers (Arvidsson 2006: 7677). What needs to be taken into
consideration, therefore, is the context the brand belongs to as well as the
context the brand in question actually sets. For Batman, Iron Man and Arrow,
the brand sets a superhero context that becomes a matter of vigilantism only
from external factors that have not been granted access to the brand, or if they
have are now in a position of accumulated knowledge to question the superhero characters motives and actions. In addition, Arvidsson (2006: 13) argues
that Media Culture is commercial culture: its contents are commodified, its
communications proceed in order to make money. This means that life within
the media is also life within Capital. The case studies in question appear to
display this mentality that appears to govern both the superhero characters
and the negotiation of meaning of the notion of vigilantism, especially when
viewed in its postmodern mindset. Postmodern advertising, according to
Arvidsson (2006: 63, 68), sought to take advantage of intertextual commodities and their associations whilst developing brands that could anticipate
things such as emotion, community or reassurance, while postmodern brand
management sought to provide brands as goods, or tools, whereby consumers
could create their own meanings as opposed to modern brand management
that sought to impose ways of thinking and behaving in relation to the brand.
As such, one can contemplate the numerous and various superhero manifestations and, in comparison, draw various meanings regarding symbolism,
themes and ideology. Brand management, however, also uses Brand Identity
as a tool not only to guide in the treatment it will undergo as Extended
Identities but also to create brand associations or as Aacker (1996: 25) puts it
what the organization wants the brand to stand for in the customers mind.
How consumers think and feel about a brand is where the value of a
brand truly resides. Since superheroes reside in Pop Culture, brand marketing
aims to cater to the wide mass audience to which they can promote said I.P.s
and branded content. This is achieved via range brands, co-branding and subbrands which offer a variety of different products, catering to different tastes
and preferences but ultimately uniting the consumer audience underneath a
specific umbrella brand, or brand system. What is of significance, however,

4.

When a particular
media product (or
content) can be
promoted across
different media
channels and
sold in different
formats, what is
marketed is not
so much films or
books, as content
brands that can
travel between
and provide a
context for the
consumption of a
number of goods
or media products.
Thus brands like
The Lion King,
Harry Potter, the
X-Files and Britney
Spears come as
music, film, books,
games, McDonalds
hamburgers,
cosmetics, clothing
and websites to
mention just a
few possibilities.
Computer games
are popular form of
such extensions.
(Arvidsson 2006: 75)

What Nintendo for

example sells is a
branded environment
that provide[s] a
particular context for
kids consumer agency
(Arvdisson 2006: 76).

75

Katherine Marazi

5.

76

Branded goods
are experiential
commodities. At
least according
to the marketing
literature, it is how
they make you
Sense, Feel, Think,
Act and Relate
(Schmitt, 1999), that
make up the core
of their use-value.
However, contrary
to, say, a feature
film, and like,
say, a computer
game, brands
do not so much
provide readymade
experiences, or, for
that matter, more
enduring forms of
immaterial usevalues, like identity
and community.
Brands thus rely on
the productivity of
consumers not only
for the realization,
but for the actual
co-production of
the values that
they promise. Like
contemporary
consumption
more generally,
brands depend
on consumers
rendering these
objects part of
themselves and
of their life-world,
on consumers
letting themselves
become part of the
experience of being
with products.
(Arvidsson 2006: 35)

is the function of the brand within both Capital and Pop Culture. Celia Lury
advocates that the brand pre-structures the action where brand owners own
a particular predetermined frame of action that they see as guaranteeing them
use-value and profit-value (2004 cited in Arvidsson 2006: 8, original emphasis). As such, consumer audiences are granted access to the context of the
brand by purchasing products and services, thus enjoying the use-value while
the industry enjoys the profit-value. Similarly, in the fictional realm, secondary
characters gain access to the superhero brands context of action through the
revelation of the superheros dual/secret identity and the superhero benefits
from any help or assistance these characters have to offer. The premiere of the
Arrow 3 (20142015) sees Captain Lance making a public announcement that
condemns the anti-vigilante group and accepts the Arrow as an ally towards
the police force (Morgan 2014). What is ironic is that Lance was initially the
number one enemy of the Arrow in the police force, but the eventual cooperation of both allowed Lance to enter the Arrows and Queens context
which altered his conception of the character. Rob Shield further supports that
brands are virtual goods in the sense that they do not display the tangibility of the actual but [they] clearly exist nonetheless (2003 cited in Arvidsson
2006: 8). As a result, according to Arvidsson
brands do not so much stand for products, as much as they provide a
part of the context in which products are used, which is the core component of the use-value5 that brands provide consumers with [and by
extension the relative organization or industry with].
(2006: 8)
The use-value differs depending on whether one engages with the brand
context or not and as a result refocuses how one comes to view particular
issues. In the case of Batman, Lucius Fox is granted brand access to both
the Wayne and Batman brand, thus comprehending the logic behind the
superheros motives, which he comes to question nonetheless, when Batman
resorts to cell-phone sonic surveillance in order to locate the Joker. In the
case of Oliver Queen, both John Diggle and Felicity Smoak are granted access
to both brands, thus willing to help in the Arrows crime-fighting ventures
until they clearly appear to be prompted by personal and vengeful reasons.
Similarly to the case of the Arrow and Captain Lance, the cooperation of
Batman with Harvey Dent prompts Dent to change his initial views of the
hero as vigilante. Finally, Tony Starks personal problems that lead to an
instability of his brand not only prompt Col. Rhodes, on behalf of the US
government, to take matters into his own hands but also indicate the existence of brand liabilities that can affect the way the superhero, his motives and
actions are viewed. Brands have the ability to act as a medium of communication, ultimately setting a context of both dialogue and action between
production and consumption. Hence, the superheroes in question, if viewed
as brands, can also be considered a medium via which one can negotiate the
notion of vigilantism. However, even if Intellectual Properties can be viewed
as belonging to the intertextual commodities(see endnote 4) that offer a
branded environment and provide a particular context for consumer agency
within which a particular consumer good or media product can acquire additional dimensions of use-value, they also, by extension, become a channel
for the construction of branded ambience that can capture the attention of
consumers (Arvidsson 2006: 7677). Thus, when it comes to the branded

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

environment, audiences are somewhat guided in how they view, perceive and
possibly discuss the brand.
For any organization, a brand is a commodity of value, and in spite of the
marketing tactics employed to maintain and attract new consumers, a governing logic via which the organization in question establishes and maintains its
authority is undisputable. Arvidsson (2006: 67, original emphasis) informs
that Brand management is about putting public communication to work
under managed forms, by providing a context where it can evolve in a particular direction essentially add[ing] to or reproduce[ing] the particular qualities
that the brand embodies. In fact, this logic reflects the tactic employed by
the superhero characters when they reveal their identities to other characters. Nowadays it is not a matter of imposing ways of using goods or how
consumers think and behave but of actually offering brands as tools so that
consumers can create their own meanings and by extension functional and
emotional values (Arvidsson 2006: 68). As the LucasFilm Studio decision6 to
renegotiate the franchise canon displays, the industry is always behind and
in connection with consumers in some cases in dialogue, in others guiding
even possibly dictating the nature, stature or treatment of a branded I.P.7
Arvidsson (2006: 74, original emphasis) insightfully explains that an important task for brand management is to ensure that the ongoing production of a
common social world on the part of consumers proceeds in ways that reproduce a distinctive brand image, and that strengthens the brand equity the
productive potential that the brand has in the minds of consumers which is
understood as the most important factor behind brand value. Thus, in order
to achieve this, brand management employs what Michel Foucault alluded to
as government; in the sphere of brands and marketing what this entails is that
brand management is achieved through the provision of particular ambiences
that frame and partially anticipate the agency of consumers (1991 cited in
Arvidsson 2006: 74). Or, as Lury has advocated, the brand becomes a
platform for action that is inserted into the social and works to program
the freedom of consumers to evolve in particular directions. While it is
not impossible for consumers to break with the expectations inscribed
in these ambiences the task of brand management is to create a number
of resistances that make it difficult or unlikely for consumers to experience their freedom, or indeed their goals, in ways different from those
prescribed by the particular ambience.
(2004 cited in Arvidsson 2006: 74)
The marketing tactics employed in The Dark Knight in connection to the
Batman Joker relationship actually set the ambience for the Batman brand
to be viewed as a vigilante nonetheless, but in the Spanish connotation of
the word.

Vigilante superhero and the prism of brand marketing

The brand context established in The Dark Knight (2008) through the opposing, albeit complementary, brand characters of the Batman and the Joker
appears unique and in accordance with postmodern brand marketing aiming
to create certain emotions via which to maintain audience brand loyalty.
Naomi Klein (2001) displays the negative aspects of brand culture by raising awareness towards unknown circumstances and dealings, the treatment

6. Lucasfilm President
Kathleen Kennedy
(2014) informs in The
Legendary Star Wars
Expanded Universe
Turns a New Page
posted on the official
Star Wars website
(25 April 2014) that
We have an
unprecedented
slate of new
Star Wars
entertainment
on the horizon.
Were set to bring
Star Wars back
to the big screen,
and continue the
adventure through
games, books,
comics, and new
formats that are
just emerging.
This future of
interconnected
storytelling will
allow fans to
explore this galaxy
in deeper ways
than ever before.
(www.starwars.com)
7. Mike White (2014) in
his online article Star
Wars new media set
as official canon only
informs:
New things are
afoot in the galaxy
far far away. The
studio behind the
insanely popular
Star Wars franchise
has announced
the new direction
they plan to take.
Up until now there
has been a large
amount of media
released with a
Star Wars name
branded on it, but
those were works
that took place
in the Expanded
Universe, meaning
that they did not
follow the main
Star Wars story. The
decision was made
by Lucas Film and
the man himself,
George Lucas.
They stated that
all Star Wars new
media, including
the games that are
planned for future
release, will be set

77

Katherine Marazi

as official canon
only. Meaning that
it will not make
any references
to any events or
characters that
made appearances
in the Expanded
Universe
mentioned above.
Although the
Expanded Universe
of the franchise
has only served
to boost the
insurmountably
large fan base,
George Lucas
wanted it to be
known that that
Star Wars will
not be restricted
or limited by the
concept of the
Expanded Universe.
As of now the only
canon media in the
Star Wars franchise
are the first six
films and the
animated series,
Star Wars: The
Clone Wars which
started airing in
March 2008.
(www.guardianlv.
com)
8.

78

That Joker has no

secret identity
is significant:
Bakhtin points out
that the fools of
medieval culture
were not actors
playing their parts
on a stage, as did
the comic actors
of a later period,
impersonating
Harlequin but
remained fools
and clowns always
and wherever
they made their
appearance.
(Brooker 2012: 137)

of and situation of cultural labour and the effects of brand culture engagement. In a way, the repartee and the ambiguous relationship between Batman
and the Joker in The Dark Knight reflects this stance and cautions against blind
loyalty towards a brand. Unlike Tim Burtons Batman and Joker who both
display dual identities and have an origin story, Nolans Joker has only one
identity8 while being completely evasive about his origin. Instead, he appears
as a possible mirror reflection of the Batman. Brooker (2012: 176) sees the
relationship between the Batman and the Joker as not one of binary oppositions but as a spectrum where they do not occupy opposing sides but different points on the rainbow range of light thrown by a prism, which also comes
to reflect the point of view from which one is considering a character as a
hero or vigilante. The campy aesthetic of both the 1960s television series and
Joel Schumachers Batman films are an example of how Batman, similarly to
the Joker and most of his adversaries, is, and has always been, [] a figure
of carnival (Brooker 2012: 175). Another example in the actual film is when
Commissioner Gordon informs Batman of a new adversary who has a similar taste for theatrics. Moreover, the copycat Batmen at the beginning of the
film not only point towards the cheap knock-offs of brands but also allow
Batman to establish his brand authenticity and theatricality by stating that he
does not wear hockey pants, but a full-fledged genuine costume. As a result,
the dynamic between control and chaos that plays out in the Joker/Batman
relationship is not simply about order versus carnival, or repression versus
libido; it also describes Batmans shifting position on a spectrum from cop to
criminal, insider to outlaw (Brooker 2012: 186). As such, the Joker who is the
epitome of carnival comes to culturally jam the dominating brand message
of the Batman. The very logic of Bahktins carnival connects to the theme of
corporate culture jamming that was implemented in the marketing poster
campaign of The Dark Knight. The notion of carnival indicates a temporary
suspension; a temporary liberation from the prevailing truth and from the
established order (Brooker 2012: 139). Similarly, according to Charles Reed
(2010: 3), culture jamming is traditionally considered to be an action that
aims at disrupting dominant messages, through the manipulation of images,
by introducing noise into the signal that might otherwise obliterate alternatives to it. Culture jamming is considered to be anti-corporate rhetoric, hence
as Reed (2010) evidences, the mere fact that this tactic was employed both
in the paratextual marketing and promotional features of Nolans The Dark
Knight but also through the character of the Joker within the fictional narrative
indicates that a different brand ambience was established through which to
consider the Batman brand.
Both Batman and the Joker display a brand presence in the film, but it
appears that the culture jamming context set by the Joker brand overshadows the Batman brand and calls into question the nature of Batman as hero
or vigilante. The relation amongst brands appears convoluted. One the one
hand, there is the legal hero D. A. Harvey Dent to whom the Bruce Wayne
brands offers support in his election campaign. On the other hand, Batman is
presented as the outlaw hero who occasionally cooperates with Dent. Finally,
there is the terrorizing figure of the Joker who has [n]o matches on prints,
DNA, dental, clothing is custom, no labels. Nothing in his pockets but knives
and lint. No name, no other alias (Nolan, 2008). He does, nonetheless, have
his own costume, his own calling card and sets his own unique brand ambience of culture jamming. Drawing from Debord (1956, 2005), Eco (1986) and
Dery (1993), Reed (2010: 16) informs that the foundation of culture jamming

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

is that most mass media messages are controlled in such a way as to marginalize all other forms of communication which are outside of that control.
In Batmans case that message is his ultimate goal to fight crime in the city
of Gotham. That control appears to be governed by the corporate sector,
which due to being the economically and socially powerful, controls both the
communication and the channels of transference. As a result, Batmans control
is anchored in his corporate self as Bruce Wayne. In accordance with Debord
(2005), Reed (2005 cited in 2010: 16) informs that control appears in the spectacle where the tangible world is replaced by a selection of images which exist
above it and the spectacle is viewed, according to Boje (2001), as a theatric
performance that legitimizes, rationalizes, and camouflages violent production and consumption(2001 cited in Reed, 2010: 16). Evidently, this points to
what Brooker (2012) advocated in regards Batmans theatricality, but it also
points to Batmans ability to stand above the city of Gotham, its criminals but
also its laws. Production and consumption inevitably points towards Marxs
concept of political economy where peoples social existence determines
their consciousness and in this relationship the ownership of capital determines who has power in society (1978 cited in Reed 2010: 16). As a result,
Batmans power exists in his alter egos corporate relations and holdings without which he would not have the means to become Batman. However, the
existing brand culture of commodities and services is an indication of this
control thus pointing to Debords expansion on Marxs view of capital control
being the control of things which only appear to have value rather than existing for a specific purpose or fulfilling an actual need (2005 and 1978 cited in
Reed 2010: 16, original emphasis). Batmans value is exactly what the Joker
comes to jam and question.
What is negotiated in the relationship of the Batman and the Joker is essentially the spectacle ambience, which as Marcus explains is symptomatic of a
world in which all communication flows in one direction, from the powerful
to the powerless aiming to persuade the masses while the carnivalesque is
employed so as to call for a release from corporate power (1989 cited in Reed
2010: 17). Throughout the film, one can witness both the Wayne brand and
the Batman brand cooperating with the governing authority represented by
the district attorney Harvey Dent and Commissioner Gordon. Batman by the
end of the film is posited in the minds of consumer audiences as a watchful
protector or even a panoptic guardian. On the surface it may appear as a classical tale of hero versus villain, but the main underlying theme that pulsates,
similarly to the Jokers instrumental theme, is who is the Batman and why
does he not reveal himself. For the public within the fictional universe, this
question echoes every time the Joker terrorizes the citizens of Gotham City
in the hope of proving the Batmans inability to uphold justice, control, order
and maintain his brand logic. The Joker literally calls into question whether
Batman is a hero or a vigilante. As Reed (2010: 66) states, the Joker challenges
the watcher or guardian nature of Batman but also questions who will guard
the guards themselves. Hence, by jamming the Batman brands ambience
and making noise regarding the nature and legitimacy of the authority behind
the Batman brand, the Joker concludes that the public will see Batman as the
Joker, namely, a freak. By refusing to take off his mask in compliance with
the publics demands, Batman admits to being outside the established order,
ultimately being deemed a vigilante by the fictional public. For consumer
audiences, on the other hand, who are aware that Batman takes the blame
for Harvey Dent/Two-Faces indiscretions, the Batman truly becomes the

79

Katherine Marazi

atchful guardian who essentially manages to uphold the established order

w
by not tarnishing the reputation of one who was believed to be the best citizen in Gotham and one the fictional public could place faith in now that their
trust in the Batman has been shaken. The issue of vigilantism, consequently,
is affected and renegotiated depending on point of view.
The implementation of culture jamming both within the fictional story
and as an advertising practice appears to serve both the distinction of Nolans
Batman reboot but also hints towards the concept of hegemony, because the
production sought to establish their dominance by at once producing and
limiting their own forms of counterculture. As Brooker (2012: 103) informs,
Nolans realism is consistently associated with toughness, grittiness,
rawness and masculinity, and contrasted to an extent with the gothic stylings
of Burton, but more significantly, with the camp theatricality of Schumacher.
As a result, both Nolan, as an authorial brand, and the new Batman reboot,
establish their unique, respective position within the Batman matrix becoming
an instance, or sub-brand amongst the numerous other Batman sub-brands
such as Burtons, Schumachers, Frank Millers, Denny ONeils and Grant
Morrisons. At the same time, a brand differentiation, or rather dilution is
achieved between the Batman and Joker brand due to the implementation of
culture jamming. While postmodern branding is insistent on controlling the
context the brand sets, it is more open to the emotions and interpretations
of the audience. As Reed (2010: 59) highlights, the alternating positions of
action-reaction and weakness-strength is important within the context of the
films poster campaign because it destabilizes the ability for the audience
to clearly define either character. The messages of these two brands appear
ambiguous, interchangeable and even equally acceptable, and as a result lead
to brand value in spite of which character the audience may identify with or
prefer. Therefore, the film may challenge the audience to consider Batmans
heroic, protective nature against the panoptic guardian he eventually assumes
at the end of the film, but its ultimate goal from a marketing perspective is to
accumulate brand value. The high indication of brand loyalty, either towards
the Batman brand or the Joker brand in Nolans film displays that whether or
not Batman is truly, legally speaking a vigilante in respect to our world is not
the dominating question. While in our world Batman would conceivably be
deemed a vigilante, for the majority of the fictional public at the end of the film
he is considered a full-fledged vigilante. For Commissioner Gordon, who has
been extended access to the Batman brand similarly to Captain Lance and the
Arrow, Batman is a watchful guardian, a dark knight. Finally, for all-knowing
characters and audience consumers he remains a super/hero.
The notion of vigilantism in connection to superheroes is complex and
ambiguous at best. To consider, in a realistic sense, that all superheroes are
vigilantes would be to adopt as Stephen Krensky (1954 cited in 2008: 4849)
highlights Fredric Werthams negative stance towards these fictional characters as promoters of violence, disobedience and juvenile delinquency. By
considering them as embodiments of American ideology, or even more importantly, as gaps or tools for the negotiation of ideology, evidences the convoluted and ambivalent nature of various themes and issues. Viewing a small
sub-group of superheroes who share a corporate presence in their fictional
universe through a brand identity management prism offers further indication that the notion of vigilantism constitutes a grey area or at least the agents
and institutions that label, or promote, a character as such operate within an
oscillating power structure. While superhero characters and stories are not

80

Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective

intent on promoting or creating actual vigilantes they do offer a context within

which one can consider vigilantism from numerous aspects and by extension
ultimately challenge one to consider the position(s) of power that define and
delimit a vigilante, or a hero.

References
Aacker, D. A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013, USA: ABC).
Arrow (20122013, USA: Warner Home Video, DVD).
Arrow 2 (20132014, USA: Warner Home Video, DVD).
Arvidsson, A. (2006), Brands: Meaning and Value in Media Culture, Abington,
Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Brooker, W. (2012), Hunting the Dark Knight: Twenty-First Century Batman,
London and New York: I. B. Tauris.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2012), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
dictionary.cambridge.org. Accessed 6 June 2014.
Eco, U. and Chilton N. (1972), The Myth of Superman, Diacritics, [e-journal]
2: 1, pp. 1422, http://www.jstor.org/stable/464920. Accessed 17 April 2008.
Favreau, Jon (2008), Iron Man (DVD), USA: Marvel Studios, Fairview
Entertainment and Paramount Pictures.
(2010), Iron Man 2 (DVD), USA: Marvel Studios, Fairview Entertainment
and Paramount Pictures.
Fingeroth, D. (2006), Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us
about Ourselves and Our Society, New York and London: Continuum.
Foucault, M. (1972), The Archeology of Knowledge (trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith),
London: Tavistock Publications.
Klein, N. (2001), No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, No Logo, London and New York:
Harper Perennial.
Klock, G. (2006), How to Read Superhero Comics and Why, New York and
London: Continuum.
Krensky, S. (2008), Comic Book Century: The History of American Comic Books,
Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books.
Merchandise (2014), The Legendary Star Wars expanded universe turns a
new page, Star Wars, 24 April, http://www.starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page. Accessed 15 June
2014.
Merriam-Webster Online: Dictionary and Thesaurus (2014), Springfield,
Massachusetts: Encyclopedia Britannica Company, www.merriam-webster.com. Accessed 10 June 2014.
Miller, T., Govil, N., McMurria, J. and Maxwell, R. (2001), Global Hollywood,
London: bfi Publishing.
Morgan, L. (2014), Arrow Season 3, Episode 1 Recap: Oliver goes on an
explosive first date in The Calm, New York Daily News, 9 October, http://
www.nydailynews.com/blogs/channel-surfer/arrow-season-3-episode-1recap-calm-blog-entry-1.1968519. Accessed 10 October 2014.
Ndalianis, A. (2007), Do we need another hero?, in W. Haslem, A. Ndalianis
and C. Mackie (eds), Super/Heroes: From Hercules to Superman, Washington,
DC: New Academia Publishing, pp. 18.
Nolan, Christopher (2005), Batman Begins (DVD), Directed by Christopher
Nolan. USA: Warner Bros.
(2008), The Dark Knight (DVD), USA: Warner Bros.

81

Katherine Marazi

Oxford Dictionaries Language Matters (2014), Oxford: Oxford University Press,

www.oxforddictionaries.com. Accessed 9 June 2014.
Peaslee, R. M. (2007), Superheroes, Moral Economy, and the Iron Cage:
Morality, alienation and the super-individual, in W. Haslem, A. Ndalianis
and C. Mackie (eds), Super/Heroes: From Hercules to Superman, Washington,
DC: New Academia Publishing, pp. 3750.
Ray, R. (1985), A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, 19301980,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reed, C. (2010), Agents of chaos: An analysis of the poster campaign for The
Dark Knight as an example of corporate culture jamming, M.A. thesis,
Omaha: University of Nebraska, http://search.proquest.com/docview/743
820249?accountid=8359. Accessed 10 February 2013.
Reynolds, R. (1992), Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology, Jackson: University
Press of Mississippi.
Smith, G. M. (2009), The superhero as labor: The corporate secret identity, in
A. Ndalianis (ed.), The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero, New York and
London: Routledge. pp. 126143.
White, M. (2014), Star Wars new media set as official canon only, Guardian
Liberty Voice, 30 April, http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/star-wars-newmedia-set-as-official-canon-only/. Accessed 15 June 2014.

Suggested citation
Marazi, K. (2015), Superhero or vigilante? A matter of perspective and brand
management, European Journal of American Culture 34: 1, pp. 6782,
doi:10.1386/ejac.34.1.67_1

Contributor details
Katherine Marazi is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Translation and
Intercultural Studies at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She also
holds a degree in English Language and Literature and an M.A. in American
Literature and Culture. Her research interests focus on Adaptation theory,
Brand Identity theory, Media Franchises and Pop Culture. She has delivered conference presentations on Batman, adapting Marvel Superheroes
for a Cinematic Universe, trans-media storytelling and Buffy the Vampire
Slayer. She has conducted a creative writing workshop in the context of the
Transparent Windows book club (School of English, Aristotle University)
catering to character building, superheroes and MMORPGs. She has written book reviews focusing on comic books and superheroes. In 2013 she
received a Scholarship for Academic Excellence by the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki. Since 2013 she has been acting as a teaching assistant in the
School of English at Aristotle University with a focus on introductory fictional
courses and literary research courses.
Contact: Faculty of Philosophy, School of English, Aristotle University, 54124,
Thessaloniki, Greece.
E-mail: cathy_marazi@yahoo.gr; amarazi@enl.auth.gr
Katherine Marazi has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

82

Copyright of European Journal of American Culture is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.