"I have a Ph.D in Horribleness"

My Ph.D in Horribleness (Get yours here)

For almost three years since its initial cost-free digital distribution in July 2008, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog has remained freely accessible to viewers (at least those in the U.S.) nearly without interruption. [Check out Horrible Links in the righthand gadgets bar for Netflix and YouTube info.] The film itself is a very brief 42 minutes-- including credits-- and yet is somehow packed with sharp commentary on a range of strikingly familiar social tensions from masculinity and individualism ("The world is a mess and I just need to RULE it." /"A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" /"The Hammer is my penis."), to charity and homelessness ("You’re treating a symptom and the disease rages on, consumes the human race." /"A hero doesn't care if you're a bunch of scary, alcoholic bums!"), to consumer culture ("My nemesis is Captain Hammer. Captain Hammer, Corporate TOOL." /"...by the way it’s not about making money. It’s about TAKING money. Destroying the status-quo because the “status” is NOT “quo”."), to sexuality and relationships (see especially: Dr. Horrible, Moist, and the Pink Pummeler), and of course religion and morality (most notably: "All the angels sing because you're gonna die"). As this list explodes, I can't help but wonder at how Dr. Horrible seems almost entirely forged of such biting one-liners at times. A good place for me to more or less begin with ought to be Dr. Horrible's "new catchphrase" (according to an incredulous comment made by Moist in Act II), "I have a Ph.D in Horribleness," and the ways this line comes through the story of Dr. Horrible with both a certain surface validation of education/academia and a contradiction-filled subtextual critique of such credentialing systems.


So, why do I care, beyond a good laugh, about this seemingly awful and unsuccessful self-branding? My multilevel interests are certainly a blend of clear/confused, analytic/sarcastic, personal/professional. First, the catchphrase is beautifully snarky for its (re)affirmation of education as an evil value (a big part of my draw to "an ethics of evil" is its center on intelligence). In contrast to his nemesis, Dr. Horrible demonstrates an appreciation of ethical conduct (protecting children, refusing to kill), strength of mind, and working toward social change and redistribution of power. This is not a new concept, of course, as the theme of sharp-witted evil-doers can be found stretching back over many decades through histories of brilliant mad scientists and evil world-changing geniuses in comic books or other superhero/supervillain texts such as original and crossover films, TV series, and video games (Lex Luthor, Magneto, Roxor, The Brain, Eric Cartman-- all have something in common with Dr. Horrible). On top of that the doctor theme itself is also incredibly popular among villains, encompassing genre skipping icons from Dr. Doom, Dr. Octopus, Dr. Strange, Dr. Fu Manchu (WARNING: Orientalism), Dr. No, Dr. Evil, to Dr. Robtnik. In a February 9, 2011 story on Comic Vine, Tony 'G-Man' Guerrero reminds me that I'm not alone in my consideration of this trend by asking, "Why are so Many Villains Doctors?" In this writing, he sets off to examine a few popular evil doctors for proof (or lack thereof) related to being an actual (medical) doctor. Guerrero's definition is a little too confined for my tastes, but I find the brief exploration useful as another road into the humor surrounding Dr. Horrible's Ph.D. Indeed, the catchphrase itself works to articulate the irony of claiming the title of an advanced degree (in a rather unrecognized field to boot), without having earned one(?), as part of a show of power. It's hyperbolic self-determination (perhaps he even becomes more evil/horrible the more he believes in himself as such).

Earning a doctorate of philosophy in something related to race, gender, film, and cultural studies has been a long-term goal of mine since finding said academic passions along with the drive to become a professor as a career path. In more than minor ways, that means that I have to buy into a system where credentials make the person-- a person who at least eventually appears much more like a marketable product. As such Dr. Horrible and I share a little something in common, namely the drive or desire to prove ourselves through title and qualification (his declaration) or the process of earning them (my dedication). And we're both working to sell ourselves as these neat and understandable packages-- Dr. Horrible for the evil fame and glory, and me for the acceptance letter and financial aid package. On the other hand, I like to think that we each also maintain skeptical critiques of these forms of credentialing. Ultimately Dr. Horrible's credentials are unintelligible, thus Moist's confused reaction. The "Ph.D in Horribleness" doesn't exactly fool or confuse anyone along the same twisted lines that inspire Guerrero to question the status of other doctors. It seems in fact rather clear that Dr. Horrible is not a real doctor at all, at least not in any way that can be confirmed beyond his positions as scientist and inventor, titles that describe quite a few doctors at the same time that the terms do not all inclusively overlap. That his catchphrase is at once an assertion of verifiable intellectual prowess (in a recognizable form, an advanced degree) as well as a refusal of typical ideas of what kinds of knowledges are valuable all roll together to root this Dr. in contradiction. I maintain these contradictions as a valuable space to sit and think on why-- why science, why academics, why doctors? I believe it might be that all these things, when radically embodied, have been at some time or still are seen as posing a(n evil) threat to concepts of the good, the true, or the normal.

If I could be a supervillian /evil doctor, I'd be Dr. Deconstruction. Using your own mind power or this Evil Doctor Name Generator, who would you be?

(Coming up next, more on how this relation to normalcy queerly positions Dr. Horrible...)