Manuel Casal Lodeiro explores what could have been a very Gaian comic book, Poison Ivy, but turned out biophobic instead. The essay was originally published in Spanish here.
I had high expectations for the acclaimed Poison Ivy series, written by one of the most prominent female comic book writers of recent times, Gwendolyn Willow Wilson. The character being written by a woman, the issue of violent defense of nature, feminism, the normalization of same-sex relationships between characters and other themes in the story all pointed to it being an interesting read for both my teenage daughter and myself, a veteran comic book reader and current activist and creator focused on biospheric destruction.
Upon reading the first two volumes published in Spain by Panini Comics, which collect the first 12 issues of the original series with a few extras, I certainly found a well-written and well-drawn story. However, my hope of finding a coherently ecological and even Gaian story (The “Green” — the natural force/entity with which the character connects, could be interpreted as a variation on Gaia) was not only disappointed but utterly betrayed. The story can only be described as anti-Gaian, and the character, a radical environmentalist and supposed eco-terrorist (at least by classical international definition, as she does not want to force any government to do anything) is incoherently biophobic. In fact, I haven’t read such expressions of biophobia since a notification my local council sent me not long ago, classifying a meadow in its natural state as a “danger to public health.”
A radical eco-villain—especially one directly connected to Nature—cannot conceive of Nature in the same terms as G.W. Wilson’s Poison Ivy does, and thanks to the revealing interview included in the Spanish edition, we see that this is a reflection of the author’s own delusional fear of the natural world, revealing an absolute ignorance and a marked neo-Darwinian stance. Besides researching parasitic fungi, she could have read something about Deep Ecology or the Gaia Theory, given that she was going to be working with a character so closely linked to the biosphere, or simply something about the motivations of real-world eco-terrorist groups.
In that interview, the New Jersey author states: “The natural world is unforgiving. We have come to see nature as something happy, benign, and nurturing, but generally all it wants is to kill us.” Later, she puts the same biophobic and anti-scientific idea into the mouth of Poison Ivy (p. 18 of no. 11 of the original edition): “You think everything natural is holy and pure. But nature spends every moment of every day trying to kill you.”
Firstly, this idea falls squarely within the modern notion, promoted since the Enlightenment, of humankind as something separate from Nature. It follows from these phrases that Nature is one thing and human beings are another entirely separate (perhaps even unnatural or artificial?!). This is necessary to then be able to characterize this Other as a danger, as a threat, since it wouldn’t make sense for Nature to so senselessly attack itself.
But, note, we’re not just talking about the typical position of ‘humankind has become a plague and Nature is making us pay by getting rid of us.’ Though this, too, is present from the beginning of this series. For example, Poison Ivy says, “Collectively we are an invasive species. We will suck up every resource on the planet until all that’s left is a superheated ball of cement. The only way to save this wonderful blue marble is to get rid of all of us. Every single one of us. Including me.” (last page of issue #1). Of course, this idea is fallacious, since what is a cancer for the biosphere is capitalist civilization, not the species as a whole. The author also makes this explicit in the series as well: “It’s not that I dislike human beings,” says Poison Ivy. “As individuals, they’re fine. What I hate, what keeps me up at night while I grind my teeth, is civilization,” (ibid.).
However, she doesn’t quite manage to make her character draw a clear and coherent line in this regard, at least in these first issues of the series that DC Comics began publishing in 2022. No, the problem here lies in the attempt to make us see that Nature is more than “amoral,” immoral, and “murderous” — that vision of a nature red in claws and teeth (Tennyson) so dear to the Enlightenment (Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Newton…) that ended up being hegemonic and banishing those with a less dominating and more integrated vision of Life and human civilization (Von Humboldt, Spinoza…).
It is deeply contradictory that the character holds this (biophobic) view and at the same time wants to destroy the human species to save (biophilia) the rest of the species. A Gaian heroine (or villainess, depending on who judges her) would understand that Nature is also us and that, yes, there is death in the world of Life, because it is a constitutive, indispensable, and inseparable part, but there is no cruelty, “malice,” or homicidal intent in it; and there is also, contrary to Wilson’s stand, purity, sacredness, and nourishment, for isn’t everything that keeps us alive Nature, “every moment of every day”?
Wilson demonstrates a profound confusion about how Life works and enormous anthropocentric prejudices that she has unfortunately transferred to this character and these stories. Nevertheless, we will keep reading future issues of the Spanish edition, hoping, probably in vain, for a U-Turn from biophobia to symbiotic biophilia with a Gaian consciousness rooted in the Green.
Manuel Casal Lodeiro is a writer and popularizer of the multiple threats to civilization and to Life on Earth. He is the founder and coordinator of the multi-language 15/15\15 Magazine for a New Civilization, among other endeavors, a father, and a very minuscule part of Gaia.
Leave a Reply