Over on the Dixonverse.net board, an interesting discussion has cropped up involving CBG columnists and the ostensible politicization thereof. Which is remarkably hilarious since CBG editor Maggie Thompson actually bends over backwards to AVOID political content.
John Jackson Miller's article "Blue States vs. Red States" is falsely described as a political polemic touting Blue State superiority. It is, in fact,a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how comic book sales and existing stores break down along geographic lines, and even features a lengthy sidebar interview with a retailer who is not only a huge advocate of labeling, but laments "Comics do not reflect mid-American culture." The same poster then goes on to say that I compare the "fight" of the CBLDF in Georgia to the censorship of the Nazis, and then complains about "clueless, elitist artists." Chuck Dixon also weighed in to complain about how politics or political views had no place in comics centering on the adventures of costumed iconic superheroes. In case anyone's interested--and since it's come to my attention that folks hereabouts seem to like political discussion--this is what I wrote in response to the guy complaining about clueless artists:
"And I could talk about clueless fans, but I shall do you the courtesy of assuming that you have inadvertently mischaracterized my column through deceptive memory, rather than having purposefully lied about it. Either way, the above description is incorrect.
In a 2000 word column, the word "Nazi" appeared exactly once. And it was not to compare the Georgia insanity to Nazi censorship, but rather to give proper historical frame to my quoting the Rev. Martin Niemoller, who was noted for saying, "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came fo rthe Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
And the point of my quoting that had nothing to do with Nazis per se, but instead to underscore the argument that comics fans who don't care about retailers being arrested for selling adult comics to adults because they themselves don't read the comics...might be well advised to start caring before the authorities come after comics they DO care about. Which is a real concern in the Georgia case, and I invite anyone interested in finding out the truth of the case to go out and actually read the column, rather than a distillation of it so biased that the word "fight" is in quotations.
As for politics in comics, Chuck, it's easy to make sweeping statements. But let's say I decided to revisit the Hulk as boss of the Pantheon. A commander in chief of a military organization that goes wherever it wants and does what it wants, up to and including overthrowing foreign dictators despite the wishes of most of the world. If I do that same story now that I did ten years ago, is it a politicized commentary on Bush? Anyone reading "Fallen Angel #8" in which the heroine tortures a captive for info would see it as a commentary on Iraq torture scandals...unless they bothered to check the pub date to see that it came out two months before. What if I want to do a story about a man trying to let his wife die? Should I shy away from stories that are metaphors for steroid use, since there's congressional investigations? Abortion rights? Capital punishment? Teenage sex? Premarital sex? Marriage? Divorce? Terrorists? Should I studiously make sure that no comic have the slightest real world ties since just about everything winds up becoming politicized these days?
That sounds rather unappealing. But that could just be me."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 21, 2005 11:47 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPolitics have as much a place in comics as in any other type of literature. Or does anyone not remember the war stories during WWII? Enemies in American comics have always been based on the perceived enemies of the USA. During the cold war how many comics used the Russians as the enemy? To think that the authors should censor themselves for fear of insulting either red staters or blue staters is ludicrous.
Great response, Peter. And I love that quote from Niemoller. People never seem to care about anything unless it directly affects them, which I simply don't understand. If something is wrong, it's wrong. Period. It doesn't matter who it's happening to.
I love the CBLDF. I wish organizations like it didn't have to exist, that it wasn't necessary, but it is, and they have my support wholeheartedly.
The last couple of comic conventions I've attended, San Diego last year and Wondercon last month, I've volunteered my time to help out at the Fund's booth, and it always amazes me how uninformed people are about issues that concern their hobby. And a lot of them seem to want to stay that way, blissfully ignorant of the world around them.
I suppose I can understand that to a certain extent. Comics are a hobby, escapism, something a lot of people read for fun, to take their minds off the drudgeries of real life, but when it comes to something like censorship (or politics in general), the hobby they enjoy so much may vanish before their eyes.
Is it just me, or is it ironic that the writer of American Power is decrying political content in comics?
Completely OT, but political, and something predicted by PAD:
For those of you so vehemently stated that there would NEVER be a draft, kindly look at this article from Stars and Stripes the military newspaper for overseas bases.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26965&archive=true
Specifically:
"While Cody stopped short of warning that the military could have to return to a draft, some experts say that may not be too far over the horizon."
(I also posted this on another thread, but it was comment 135 or so and I wanted to make sure it is seen.)
There is nothing that drives me crazier than people who say they don't want to engage in "political" conversations. Because if you realy strip them down to their bare essence, what are "politics" (I'm sure I'll get some smartass responses to that, but what the hey). "Politics", if you try to clean the automatic dirty word they have become in our culture and remove the fancy buildings and the elected representatives from the equation are, when you get to the core of it, conversations people have over issues that affect their lives, communities and cultures. It is vital that we have these conversatons, though many seem to take the opposite tack. (I know someone who, when asked what her feelings were about 9/11 - not about Osama or Bush or anything like that, just how she felt ON THE DAY, said 'I don't talk about politics!')
Anyway, engaging in truthful, vibrant, frank discussions is one way to keep these conversations vital, but it is equally important, if not more so, to do so through the arts. Even if you feel a certain writer "hits you over the head with an anvil" with comic stories that are overtly political, to say that 'politics has NO place in comics' is asinine. Even if you are unsure if an 'agenda' s being pushed, in the hands of a skilled writer, it makes for interesting stories. "Green Arrow" has just finished an extremely well-written arc in which it was discovered a major character, Mia, found out she was HIV-positive. he emotions leapt off the page while facts were presented in an intelligent manner. She is now the new Speedy, and has said "I am not DYING of AIDS, I am LIVING with HIV." This was an informative, entertaining story. Having Speedy be the first HIV-positive character in mainstream comics may strike some as POLITICAl. I see it as an incredible story that will continue for quite some time.
Chuck Dixon is wrong.
In my above post, I meant to state that Speedy is the first mainstream HIV-positive superhero/superheroine.
Thanks.
As for the "American Power" remark, yes, it is ironic. But Dixon feels that political pressure helped squash that series, which I happen to agree with. But of course, the concept, which certanly could be viewed as political as well, was perhaps not considered so by Dixon because he saw it as "patriotic" and not "political".
We all fall into that trap, by the way.
Therein lies the rub
Chuck Dixon did not say that comics should not be political, he said:
Unless you're writing an intrinsically political comic, keep your views to yourself. Don't use comic icon costumed heroes to espouse your views.
American Power was intrinsically political from the looks of it.
Well, crap. I guess the entire X-Universe just has to go away, doesn't it, having always been at least partially about race relations.
-Rex Hondo-
"Chuck Dixon did not say that comics should not be political"
Good point. Even though my response focused on superhero comics, I am editing my original post to be more accurately reflective of what he said.
PAD
And to show Chuck Dixon's whole response, so the unwarranted attacks against him don't pop up, because PAD's main arguments are with a different poster entirely.
(NO, KEN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING THAT. THIS IS PETER SPEAKING, AND I HAVE DELETED YOUR POSTING OF CHUCK'S WHOLE RESPONSE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS PART OF THE DIXONVERSE RULES:
"Further, except as we may specifically state otherwise on DIXONVERSE, the reproduction of any such material on any other website or networked computer environment is prohibited."
(I CAN REPOST MY OWN COMMENTS WHEREVER I WISH, BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REPOST CHUCK'S COMMENTS WHOLESALE WHEREVER YOU WANT, AND I AM NOT GOING TO CATCH GRIEF ABOUT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION BECAUSE OF YOU. POST IT AGAIN, I'LL DELETE IT AGAIN. KEEP IT UP, I'LL DELETE YOU. SAVVY?)
Superheroes are characters who--for the most part--take it upon themselves, without any kind of official authority from governments, to violently enforce law. Even in the cases of groups like The Avengers, the JLA, and various solo heroes who eventually manage to obtain official sanction to do what they do, in most cases they only win their status as offical lawn enforcers after a period of time in which they operate without that sanction, and therefore illegally. Superheroes are intrinsically political figures, and saying politics should be kept out of their stories is like saying sex, love, and intimacy should be kept out of romance novels.
offical lawn enforcers
Heh. You know what I meant...
Peter David already wrote a story about a person dying from AIDS...a long time ago, so Speedy isn't the first mainstream character to have been HIV positive.
Unless I just dreamed that story.
Speedy isn't even close to being the first HIV-positive character in mainstream comics. A fair number of the New Guardians ended up HIV-positive (admittedly through rather fantastic means), and that was a mainstream DC publication. Then there was one Jim Wilson, who was HIV-positive and appeared in a certain mainstream title written by one Peter David, which I'd suspect at the time had a higher circulation than Green Arrow currently does. I'll grant you that it's likely that Speedy's going to end up having more appearances as an HIV-positive character than previous such, but she's years from being "the first".
grumble, grumble....
Saying comics shouldn't be political is simply another way of saying "comics shouldn't reflect politcs I don't agree with." It's a lazy ass criticism that doesn't even bother to think about the entire millieu.
"Further, except as we may specifically state otherwise on DIXONVERSE, the reproduction of any such material on any other website or networked computer environment is prohibited."
I am sorry, I did not catch this. I am not a regular there and honestly did not realize this rule was in existence.
I won't let it happen again.
Of course politics belong in comics, just like anywhere else. If for nothing else, then just because in today's world, pretty much anything and everything really is, on one level or another, political. What a silly notion. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and certainly not morality plays.
As for what Dixon says, ever since his homophobic rant a couple of years ago, I wouldn't give half a pinch of snot to find out what else stagnates in that box of his, and I've made it a point not to support his work in any way.
PAD's pretty much spot on here. EVERYTHING is political, to somebody at least.
One caveat; writers should be aware that any story that focuses too much on the political issues of the day will quite possibly age faster than those dreadful 60s "socially relevant" movies that the studios churned out on the wake of EASY RIDER's success, many of them directed by noted counter cultural guru Otto "Finger on the pulse of today's youth" Preminger. Sit through SKIDDOO if you dare (bring a pair of handcuffs and a friend who will make sure that you don't try to gnaw off your own arm to escape).
It's certainly possible to write politically aware comics that will stand the test of time--DARKKNIGHT, WATCHMEN, PAD's issue of HULK that focused on spousal abuse (in the hands of a lesser writer it would have been a preachy mess). Of course, I also think that the shots at Reagan in DARKKNIGHT would have been better left out (and I'd feel the same way if they were shots at Clinton--they will seem jarring to those reading it 10, 20 years away from publication, especially to those kids today for whom Reagan is nothing more than a historical figure from the past, like Ben Franklin or Mrs Butterworth.)
Of course, if PAD wants to write an issue of HULK revolving around the Bill Mulligan's Neighbor Needs to Turn That Crap Down law, I will not complain.
Alan Coil,
"Peter David already wrote a story about a person dying from AIDS...a long time ago, so Speedy isn't the first mainstream character to have been HIV-positive.
Unless I just dreamed that story."
No, Alan. You didn't dream that story. I remember it quite well. It was "Incredible Hulk" #420, and it WAS groundbreaking.
My point was that Speedy is different because, unlike Jim Wilson, she was not revealed to be "dying of AIDS" and then died in the same issue. She did not die shortly thereafter like Karen Page. She has stated that she is "living with HIV". Which is an important distinction. That, and that she is being portrayed as a superheroine WHILE DOING SO, I believe, is an incredibly important distinction."
Tom Galloway,
Wasn't aware of the New Guardians, but again, the fact that A.) she did not contract her condition in a "fantastic" manner lends some more credibility to the current Green Arrow story, which is incredibly realistic.
I'm a little torn here. Chuck Dixon has been personally nice to me on more than one occasion, so I have a really hard time saying anything against him. On the other hand, I disagree that mainstream superhero comics are not a place for politics. Comics can be just as relevant as allegory as some of the best episodes of Star Trek or Twilight Zone (take a certain issue of PAD's Captain Marvel run for example). And I think Chuck himself has done this once or twice (Spoiler had a baby, then gave it up for adoption - if that isn't intrinsically political, I don't know what is). I mean, it's pretty tough to write Green Arrow without bringing his politics into the story.
On the other hand, I do agree that a writer shouldn't be using superhero comics as his/her own political soapbox, no matter what their views (unless its a creator-owned property, then they can do whatever they want). Notice, I qualify this with "superhero comics", and by this, I mean primarily Marvel and DC icons, which the PTB have taken great pains to keep as non-partisan as possible.
Now, none of this is to say that a writer should restrict themselves to fluff and slugfests (bear with me, I'm chasing down a thought here - sorry). A writer should strive to make a book their own whenever possible; a good example is Judd Winick's very personally gained views on homosexuals and HIV. I'll be honest, when I heard about Mia being HIV-positive, I thought "Oh, great, more didactic AIDS stories from Judd", but frankly that story has been better than the main one in recent issues (in my opinion, of course). I'm truly impressed that Speedy being HIV-positive hasn't been very preachy at all.
PAD manages to inject a lot of that into his own work as well. He is, to put it mildly, very good at allegory. I mean, really, PAD you should write Star Trek or something :). Anyway, I will close by saying that comics should not be so political as to override any entertainment value they have, but certainly every book should be treated differently by every creator, and if a politcal message is in keeping with the character, then by all means, go for it.
>She is now the new Speedy, and has said "I am not DYING of AIDS, I am LIVING with HIV."
If this is generally known, the following scenario becomes relatively likely.
Assuming I'm a villain and I get cornered by her. No easy escape.
1 - I surrender peacefully.
or
2 - I use whatever ranged attack I can muster to kill her from as far away as I can manage.
Because going in up close and personal risks getting some of her blood on/in me and that's not something I'm going to be willing to risk given her HIV-positive status.
Guess which option most villains would probably take?
Even limiting the issue to mainstream superheroes, to say politics has no place is awfully silly. Many of the very best Captain America stories have Cap examining his role in the American dream vs. the American reality -- and if that's not political, what is?
I agree with Roger that "leave politics out of it" usually means "leave out political opinions I disagree with", which is silly at best. A good writer can frame an issue in such a way that you won't feel preached at. I don't agree with most of Frank Miller's political opinions in the least, but the first Dark Knight is still a masterful work that I enjoy rereading. (DK2 ... well, let's not go there.)
TWL
Assuming I'm a villain and I get cornered by her. No easy escape.
Well, if you actually read the book, you'd know that while she is open about it in her civilian identity, she isn't advertising it as Speedy, so you're scenario isn't likely to play out unless that changes.
To take a realistic story element out of a story only hurts the story. Takes away its credibility. Takes away it's believability and impact on the reader. And, ultimately, makes it a boring read. Writers work thier asses off to make sure that the characters dialogue is realistic and not campy as hell (unless that's the point). Why should we make thier job harder by nay-saying the use of important social issues that effect us all?
"My point was that Speedy is different because, unlike Jim Wilson, she was not revealed to be "dying of AIDS" and then died in the same issue."
Yeah, except Jim was revealed to have AIDS about thirty issues earlier, in whatever issue it was (I don't remember the number offhand) that introduced Speedfreek. Remember that one? Where Speedfreek cut him and he was bleeding, and Rick--who'd faced everything from demons to Skrulls--was afraid to help a friend because his blood was tainted?
PAD
There's a difference between having politics as part of a running storyline, and using a comic as your own personal venue to display your political opinions. I don't think either are really inappropriate because of the format (comics), but if you're going to be espousing your personal beliefs, you'd better be the owner and publisher of that comic.
But politics occur in all aspects of life, and at all levels. Any time there's a difference of opinion as to what choice to make, and there's some form of voting or approval involved, politics are going to occur. Because if you need someone to support you, you're going to need to figure out how to win that support. And that, essentially, is what politics is. Gathering enough support to your cause to make your action the one the group you belong to chooses.
Any leader election issue of LoSH or Avengers is inherantly about politics. When the JLA sits around the table and discusses a plan of action, it involves some level of politics.
And I rather disagree that superhero comics should be devoid of commenting on current political events. Just like any other entertainment media, comics are an ideal place for such comments to be made. It generates discussion, and may even result in additional research and (gasp) enlightenment. And if there are kids reading comics, all the better (subject to age-appropriateness, of course).
Thanks for the defense, Peter.
I think if people actually read the column in question, they'll see I make it clear that I'm testing Warren's assertion that the coasts sell more comics -- and the "ignoring the flyover country" comment comes from a publisher he quotes.
For my part, while I do find correlations between how people vote and where comics are sold, I also find correlating demographic factors that I make clear are far more likely to explain sales than political ones: "Common sense says any correlations [with voting trends] will be due to some other common cause, rather than some I-voted-for-this-guy-so-I'm-not-buying-as-many-comics dynamic."
As for the tone of the piece, I'm not sure where the reader would find bias. As I make clear in the column, I'm a Southerner myself, having lived there in times when comics shops were plentiful and scarce -- and I lament any situation where any reader anywhere has trouble finding comics. That's the only bias there, and that's the way I write. In a stretch on IRON MAN which involved politics, I went to efforts to present Senate hearings where the main character got abused from both sides of the aisle -- and depicted President Bush in a manner permitting readers to either consider him creative and savvy or reckless as they prefer. (Hell, I even tried to present Vladimir Putin fairly -- and he bankrupted my oil company.) I suspect this approach harkens back to my poli sci days -- there, the process is key, and who's in, who's out, and what they all think are just variables.
(That said, my comics have been pro-military. My best friend's an army captain running convoys in Iraq, which has some influence. But I don't see being pro-military as a political point of view.)
As for CBG, I know Peter and Tony will attest (or maybe protest!) that I've worked with them to keep the focus more tightly on comics over the last few years. We've increasingly worked to keep politics in the magazine where it belongs: in discussions where politics and comics actually intersect. As they do in a discussion of where comics sell, for example -- and as they certainly do in any discussion of any CBLDF action. Under any definition, the use of law to affect what comics are sold where politics and comics intersect -- and people, both freelance and letter-writers -- are welcome to put in their two cents' worth about what's in the best interests of our common hobby. Which they've always done, and continue to do...
Best regards,
John Jackson Miller
Thanks for the defense, Peter.
And thanks for your input, John, as well as your good work on Iron Man a little ways back. I'd not read your stuff before, but I thought it was an intriguing take on the character with an appropriately realistic focus.
TWL
Karen said, roughly "To think that the authors of commercial product should censor themselves for fear of insulting consumers is ludicrous."
When phrases like this are inserted into her sentences, does the inanity become more apparent?
Yes, well, change the words in anyone's sentences and change the meaning to suit whatever point you wish to make. My original comment was:
To think that the authors should censor themselves for fear of insulting either red staters or blue staters is ludicrous.
You changed it to refer to customers as a whole. You either missed the point or chose to disregard the meaning. Why don't you write more opinions and attribute them to me while you're at it? You can go back and change everything I've ever written on this site to reflect your view!
"Superheroes are characters who--for the most part--take it upon themselves, without any kind of official authority from governments, to violently enforce law."
Wrong. As explicitly spouted in more than one comic of the seventies, specifically "Untold Legend of the Batman", the super-hero doesn't serve the law. He's defying the law to serve "justice".
Those who enforce the law are called cops.
"Saying comics shouldn't be political is simply another way of saying 'comics shouldn't reflect politcs I don't agree with.' It's a lazy ass criticism that doesn't even bother to think about the entire millieu."
A "lazy ass criticism" is not what Chuck said. Mr Dixon has explicitly stated in interviews, and possibly on his board that he has problems with the political super-hero comics that espouses views that he agrees with. It's not about whose politics is being spouted from the super-hero, it's about the super-hero being used as a political mouthpiece. You're putting words in an another's mouth just to set up a straw man.
"Where Speedfreek cut him and he was bleeding, and Rick--who'd faced everything from demons to Skrulls--was afraid to help a friend because his blood was tainted?"
I think this was one of the best and most relevent stories involving the topics at hand. I also think that it's far more reflective of reality than Winnick's vision of an HIV-infected action hero(ine) and the reactions of those(s)he interacts with.
"I think Chuck himself has done this once or twice (Spoiler had a baby, then gave it up for adoption - if that isn't intrinsically political, I don't know what is). I mean, it's pretty tough to write Green Arrow without bringing his politics into the story."
Spoiler having a baby was relevent because the characters are teenagers, but the content of the story, as I figured it, didn't involve characters explicitly condemning real world trains of thought. As for Green Arrow and his politics, Chuck wrote Green Arrow complete with politics. I, unfortunately, did not start reading that story until he was on the plane and less than two issues later (yet more than one issue later) he died.
>>And thanks for your input, John, as well as your good work on Iron Man a little ways back. I'd not read your stuff before, but I thought it was an intriguing take on the character with an appropriately realistic focus.
Thanks for the kind words, Tim. It was fun to do a "thought experiment" using the character's history as a springboard.
I took some time away from the computer to get CBG changed over and to reintroduce myself to my kids, but more comics are finally in the pipeline. More news as they're solicited..
Best,
John Jackson Miller
Hi John! JJM was my boss at my internship, going on four years now. He was also in line directly in front of me for event tickets at Gen Con last year. :)
My answer to whether politics belong in comics: it depends. If you have certain strongly-held political beliefs, you can work them into the story if it's logical and doesn't interfere - perhaps a secondary character can present those beliefs as a logical part of the story. Or, a story's metaphorical outcome or moral can fit in with how you think the world should be.
However, shoehorning such "real-world" ideas into a long-existing character is a mistake - such as making Captain America into a pro-Bush conservative.
>>However, shoehorning such "real-world" ideas into a long-existing character is a mistake - such as making Captain America into a pro-Bush conservative.
I agree, which is why I made a plot point out of people not knowing what party Tony Stark belonged to -- and Tony not telling, beyond espousing his views on how to run the military (which were already in the character's history). I figure if a writer is trying to convince readers he understands an existing character, it's best not to start by disagreeing with half of them.
Best,
John Jackson Miller
A "lazy ass criticism" is not what Chuck said. Mr Dixon has explicitly stated in interviews, and possibly on his board that he has problems with the political super-hero comics that espouses views that he agrees with. It's not about whose politics is being spouted from the super-hero, it's about the super-hero being used as a political mouthpiece. You're putting words in an another's mouth just to set up a straw man.
And just precisely where did I refer to Chuck Dixon?
Talking about putting words in people's mouths.....
"But let's say I decided to revisit the Hulk as boss of the Pantheon. . . Anyone reading "Fallen Angel #8" in which the heroine tortures a captive for info would see it as a commentary on Iraq torture scandals."
Hey, not only did you make a point, but you managed to work in a plug for some of your other work. Pretty sweet.
For the record, my favourite "political" issue PAD wrote had to be the single issue in "Captain Marvel" Vol. 4 when Marv & Rick showed up on the planet that took over the other planet and just caused alot of headaches. Mostly because it was making a statement, but even moreso becaue it was funny and not being too serious about it. That and a re-animated corpse came to life at the end. Any time somebody works zombies into a political satire is 100% gold in my book.
I agree, which is why I made a plot point out of people not knowing what party Tony Stark belonged to -- and Tony not telling, beyond espousing his views on how to run the military (which were already in the character's history). I figure if a writer is trying to convince readers he understands an existing character, it's best not to start by disagreeing with half of them.
While I generally agree with this, it's interesting to look at it in counterpoint with the Stern/Byrne run on Captain America, which despite being brief is a run a lot of people (myself included) remember very fondly.
The stories themselves didn't assign Cap any particular affiliation, but the letter columns debated the issue quite significantly, and I remember Roger Stern saying that so far as he was concerned, given the environment in which Cap grew up he was probably a New Deal Democrat.
Just an interesting memory -- and personally, I thought Roger's argument rang sufficiently true that it's the way I've interpreted the character ever since.
TWL
>>I remember Roger Stern saying that so far as he was concerned, given the environment in which Cap grew up he was probably a New Deal Democrat.
I remember that -- and remember those issues fondly. I think Roger's explanation made sense to me at the time. I think I also interpreted that, on becoming Captain America, Steve would have put his past feelings aside, in much the same manner that Churchill brought Labor figures into his war government.
More recently, I think I had more concern with the Liefeld angle that Cap, himself a doomsday weapon, would have been against the bomb. That was a debate we all had years ago and I don't want to rehash it now, but much depends on whether you decide to remember or throw out the contemporaneous YOUNG MEN panels with Cap and Bucky saluting an atom cloud as "another weapon in the arsenal of democracy!"
(Whoops, now I've started another debate. Time to get back to work...)
Best,
John Jackson Miller
Personally, I think politics and current events should affect comics. If comics weren't affected by current events, we wouldn't have Captain America (WWII), FF (space race), Codename Courage (9-11). Okay, so maybe the last one only exists in the movies, but I needed one more to make my statement sound good.
I've always been fond of Mark Gruenwald's portrayal of Cap, myself. He never got into explicitly what Cap's politics are, but the gist of it seemed (at least to me, through the hazy mists of memory) to be Cap as a symbol of the American ideal -- the principles of freedom, liberty, and tolerance for all. One of Gruenwald's issues featured a relatively long discussion between Cap and the Flag-Smasher (the anti-nationalization villian) that covered those views; FS thought Cap was an "America, right or wrong"-type of hero, and Cap had to patiently explain to him that he wasn't, that his adoption of "Captain America" was only because he felt America best espoused the ideals he wanted to promote.
(Or, as Cap said in Frank Miller's Born Again Daredevil storyline, "I am loyal to no one -- except the dream.")
That said, it sounds like Chuck Dixon's being a weenie. I suspect that he believes every major news network in existence is part of some Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy(tm), save for the beacons of truth known as Fox News and the Drudge Report...
--R.J.
[JJM:]
(That said, my comics have been pro-military. My best friend's an army captain running convoys in Iraq, which has some influence. But I don't see being pro-military as a political point of view.)
Depending on what you mean by this, I might strongly disagree. If by pro-military, you mean that you hope that your friend and others like him do not come to harm, I guess that's a non-political point of view -- especially if you mean non-political in the sense of non-partisan (Democrats and Republicans). But by plenty of reasonable interpretations of "pro-military", it certainly is a political point of view. (After all, there are plenty of people who oppose military operations partly on the grounds that our forces can get killed.)
I should mention that I really enjoyed your Iron Man run, partly for the precise reason that it had an interesting political component (in both my senses above).
Y'know, I think that Jim Wilson issue was one of my first Hulk reads. It's as good now as it was then.
Speedy's back and he's a girl? Cool. It's an interesting question if a superhero should lay down his/her crimefighting career if he/she has HIV, since the likelihood of bleeding on people is a tad higher when engaged in violent actions. Do they cover this angel?
Political issues in comics I think are fine; grafting one's political views onto an established character is dicey. GA has always been liberal/libertarian, and his relationship with the real GL (couldn't resist, sorry) made GL fair game since he was a conservative who was being "enlightened" so watching him grow politically would be a cool story line. And Barry/Flash was conservative, yet Wally/Flash was turned into an extreme liberal by WML, and that carried on since MW couldn't see his way clear to write anyone as a conservative... but for the true icons, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, I tend to think that they should be more centrist - but golly, people have views, so even that could change... Really, it's heavy handedness that bug me. Any of PAD's pro-gay, HIV awareness comics were handled so deftly that they were great, yet his anti-gun thing seemed over the top (though one clinker in hundreds of stories is pretty darn good, especially when I disagree with most of the conclusions. THAT'S writing skill...)
But what do I know, I don't even read comics much anymore.
yet Wally/Flash was turned into an extreme liberal by WML
Ironically, when Wolfman and Perez were doing the New Teen Titans, Wally was portrayed as the most conservative member of the team.
Not to nitpick but you did mention Bush (senior) in your War and Pieces storyline where Hulk and the Pantheon invaded Trans-Sabal.
"Not to nitpick but you did mention Bush (senior) in your War and Pieces storyline where Hulk and the Pantheon invaded Trans-Sabal."
I might very well have. He was president at the time. A few issues later I had Prince Charles held captive by a villain who threatened his life to a sea of British onlookers that didn't seem all that worked up about it. Several years after that I had Bill Clinton appear in several issues, portrayed as so waffling on issues that he needed Hillary to tell him what to do. So what's your point?
PAD
So what's your point?
There's no consistency in the Marvel Universe as to who's president - the real one or the in-universe one. :)
>>DONBOY: Depending on what you mean by this, I might strongly disagree. If by pro-military, you mean that you hope that your friend and others like him do not come to harm, I guess that's a non-political point of view -- especially if you mean non-political in the sense of non-partisan (Democrats and Republicans).
I meant non-political in the sense of non-partisan. Thus, I regarded that Stark urging that those within the institution be properly and safely outfitted might be both a pro-military and a non-partisan position.
Certainly there are ways to be pro-military and partisan. Conisder Sun Tzu, perhaps the first to hold that the proper role of the military is as a tool of policy, and not a maker of policy: He has a number of passages about folly coming when princes and generals try to do each other's jobs.
In the modern context, while the civilian leadership can be politically partisan -- and may from time to time put the military to uses or require practices that could be considered partisan by one side or the other -- over time the constituency of the professional military tends to be the military itself. Those politically motivated practices which are forced on it will be more likely to survive if they actually enhance performance in the field (such as desegregation) than if they don't (such as operating defective vehicles bought for political reasons). I'll leave everyone else to debate the other examples...
Best,
John Jackson Miller
I did read all the comments (or skimmed the longer ones), but way up at the top Karen asked: "During the cold war how many comics used the Russians as the enemy?"
I know this one. It was three. Iron Man dealt with Russians Black Widow, Titanium Man and Crimson Dynamo, Thor battled the Radioactive Man (or was he Chinese?). And over at Harvey the Fighting American tackled, oh, I don't know, let's say Red Rooster and Pinkie.
So, uh, Speedy is HIV positive? Speedy is a girl? She should tell people. Not to serve as a role model, but... well, I don't want to trivialize this with a tasteless comment, but as a super-hero(ine), wouldn't having your enemies be afraid to make you bleed be an advantage?
Yes, the original poster mentioned the alternative, but face it, these are super-villains we're talking about. They're always going to want to kill you at long range with a bazooka or a power blast or condensed sound wave or something if they can.
Hey, I don't mean to take your p*l*t*c*l rally less than seriously, but these are super-hero comic books we're talking about.
Except, most in the military identify themselves as Republican and Conservative. From the top down. You should have heard the complaints when Carter was in office.
Interesting POV, considering Dixon wrote some of the best Bat stories (IMO) without the use of a gun. Does that mean Dixon is for gun control? Wouldn't that be a political view? Or would settling all disagreements with fisticuffs mean Dixon would be pro-violence? Things to make you go hmmmm....
>>KAREN: Except, most in the military identify themselves as Republican and Conservative. From the top down. You should have heard the complaints when Carter was in office.
Granted, individual members have political opinions. The institution they belong to, meanwhile, only becomes political by acting politically. The services still by and large performed their missions under Carter, whatever the members' views.
But people have debated the distinction forever.
Consider the Civil War. Since many of the officers who joined the Confederacy had been trained at West Point, Radicals in Congress tried to shut the military academy down, branding its defenders as soft on secession. Defenders said the academy itself was apolitical, and had in fact served its function of producing skilled officers. (A number of Union soldiers found unfortunate cause to attest to that.)
The defenders won out -- in part, I think, because the case was never really made that the institution had a political agenda. The crisis in civilian authority may have split the ranks, but even caught in between competing interests, the academy remained as it was, the Union's academy. (Of course, given where it was geographically, it would've been hard to do otherwise..)
Best,
John Jackson Miller
I love the quote by Niemoller too, because it underscores the mentality of what I like to call "bad weather activistism."
You all know what a fair-weather friend is, right? Well, a bad weather activist is someone who only gets invovled when it directly affects him, and not out of a general principle. Niemoller's quote brilliantly illustrates this "every man for himself" viewpoint.
Glad to hear that there's more comics coming from John Jackson Miller. I really dug his take on Iron Man.
Adam Neace,
"I'll be honest, when I heard about Mia beng HIV-positve, I thought - 'Oh, great, more didactic AIDS stories from Judd', but frankly that story has been better than the main one in recent issues (in my opinion, of course)"
I agree. Though I see the HIV storyline as being the MAIN story.
"I'm truly impressed that Speedy being HIV-positive hasn't been very preachy at all."
Me too. It is simply a good story - that could become a great one - that simply tells the story of people living their lives and dealing with situations in character.
The StarWolf,
'She is now the new Speedy and has said "I am not dying of AIDS, I am LIVING with HIV.'
"If this is generally known"
It's not. As for "options villains would take, it might make an interesting story. But I doubt those who deal with dodging bullets, radiation, etc. would REALLY give a damn one way or the other, in regards to THEIR health.
Tim Lynch,
"Even limiting the issue to mainstream superheroes, to say politics has no place is awfully silly. Many of the very best Captain America stories have cap examining his role in the American dream vs. the American Reality - and if that's not political, what is?"
Agreed. To me, Captain America has been one of those characters who has rarely gotten his due for this reason. A lot of writers are afraid to touch him since he's so symbolic. If he seems to embody "old-fashioned values" he is seen as archaic and corny. If he seems to be liberal, he will be rejected by many as well.
"I agree with Roger that 'leave politics out of it' usually means 'leave out political opinions i disagree with', which is slly at best."
Agreed. A shining example of this is the "Captain America" issue that caused Mark Waid to leave the title. He wanted to do a story that went more in depth on the origin of the Red Skull. Because, despite most of what was presented, there were REASONS men like Hitler were created and the Nazi party became ascendant. He wanted to touch on those issues and marvel agreed, then rewrote the book without his knowledge, claiming it was 'too sympathetic to the Nazi point of view." As a result, Waid demanded Marvel take his name off that issue's credits, which they did, I believe.
I often wonder what that story would have been like.
>>Glad to hear that there's more comics coming from John Jackson Miller. I really dug his take on Iron Man.
Thanks! More starting this summer, updates as I have 'em go up at www.farawaypress.com. Also there is behind-the-scenes stuff and trivia about what's already out.
Best,
John Jackson Miller
RE: Waid's last Captain America issue.
They didn't take his name off of the cover, because I bought it based on his name, read it, enjoyed it the way I enjoyed "City on the Edge of Forever" the first time around, not knowing that it was a bowlderized version. I even went so far as to mention it to Waid when he wandered into the booth I was working at a Heroes*Con. I told him it was one of my favorite issues of the series, and couldn't figure out why he had a pained look on his face, even as he thanked me. It wasn't until later that I read an interview with him in which he discussed how much personal grief the editing of that particular issue had caused him, and I felt like a doof for bringing it up.
-Jason
Jason, you may want to do a google search to see if you can find the original script of that Cap issue. I'm not sure that it is actually online, but I read a hard copy years ago and it was brilliant. It certainly would have been the rock of his run and fans would still be talking about it. Too bad Marvel decided that it was not politically correct. I'm not sure that it would have received the fallout that they rationalized nixing it over.... wonder if it will ever see publicated print.
Fred
Yes, Waid was understandably upset, since Marvel used his name on the cover to sell copies and he felt it was no longer "his" story.
Karen wrote: "Except, most in the military identify themselves as Republican and Conservative. From the top down. You should have heard the complaints when Carter was in office."
Hey, I VOTED for Carter in 1976, but the way he gutted the military during his tenure was terrible. I was in the Air Force and I remember we couldn't fix planes because spare parts began to dry up. We had to wait months for ordered parts to come in from supply for parts that had once been routinely available. Military pay was also low, and the most experienced enlisted electronics technicians were leaving the Air Force in droves. Morale in the military (and in the U.S.) was also low because Carter was so wishy-washy. He'd talk tough about an issue, then back off or completely change his mind. Even long-time Democrats got fed up with Carter, and when he lost their support, he got creamed in the 1980 election.
Am I in bizarro- world or something?
Isn't this the same Chuck Dixen who was working on the "American Power" book by Crossgen?
Someone should call him on that. That's ridiculously hypocritcal.
"Isn't this the same Chuck Dixen who was working on the "American Power" book by Crossgen?
Someone should call him on that. That's ridiculously hypocritcal. "
Well, no, his complaint was that writers shouldn't be using iconic superhero characters as forums for political commentary, and that this practice was ruining comics.
Curiously, when I asked him to list ten instances of such incidents within the last year--which should be easy since it's such a prevalent problem--he didn't respond with a single example.
PAD
Yes, it's the same Chuck Dixon. And did you actually read his comments? He never said politics should never be in comics. And he is not for gun control, as near as I can tell. He can simply write good stories staying true to the characters, without letting his own opinions show through.
Peter David,
'My point was that Speedy was different because, unlike Jim Wilson's, she was not revealed to be "dying of AIDS" and then died in the same issue.'
"Yeah, except Jim was revealed to have AIDS about thirty issues earlier, in whatever issue it was (I don't remember the number offhand) that introduced Speedfreek. Remember that one? Where Speedfreek cut him and he was bleeding, and Rick - who'd faced everything from demons to Skrulls - was afraid to help a friend because his blood was tainted?"
You know what, PAD. Kudos to you. I HAD forgotten that issue (I believe it was issue #389). Maybe the space in between issues combined with the incredible power of #420 to do so. But, yes, the Rick moment was very powerful.
They were, and still are, very important stories. But the current Speedy storyline in "Green Arrow" emphasizes that she has HIV, the virus that CAUSES AIDS, and that she does NOT have AIDS yet. That is an important distinction to make, especially when so many people - including some on this board - seem to fail to realize the distinction.
In short, HIV is not the automatic, immediate death sentence it was 15 years ago (just look at Magic Johnson). That is very important to realize, and unfortunately many still don't.
Robbnn,
"Y'know, I think that Jim Wilson issue was one of my first Hulk reads. It's as good now as it was then."
Agreed.
"Speedy's back and he's a girl? Cool. It's an interesting question if a superhero should lay down his/her crimefighting career if he/she has HIV, since the likelihood of bleeding on people is a tad higher when engaged in violent actions. Do they cover this angle?"
Actually, the cool part of the story is that Mia becomes Speedy AFTER she finds out she has HIV. It's a huge part of what motivated her to strap on the bow and arrows. She feels she is more focused than ever and wants to use the rest of her life, be it 5, 10 or 50 years, to help people.
She hasn't bled yet, though that should be interesting.
So far, it is a fine example of well-crafted storytelling.
Napoleon Park,
"So, uh, Speedy is HIV positive? Speedy's a girl. She should tell people. Not to serve as a role model, but...well, I don't want to trivialize this with a tasteless comment"
But you will, anyway.
"but as a superhero(ine), wouldn't having your enemies be afraid to make you bleed be an advantage?"
I would simply like to point out that you are showing yourself to be an insenstive, uneducated cretin.
"Hey, I dont mean to take your p*l*t*c*l rally less than serious, but these are superhero comic books we're talking about."
Hey I don't mean to take Y*U less than seriously, but this is you we're talking about.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came fo rthe Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
To use this to say that "the Man" is eventually going to try to "come for" all kinds of comic art is just silly. I use to live in the hood and I regularly watched the police take away my neighbors. They came for the rapist, the car thief, and the drug dealer, but I never feared they were coming for me.
With any luck, Steve Miller posted with a great deal of "tongue in cheek"; otherwise, he doesn't understand the quotation's meaning and intent.
When ANY form of comic art can lead to the artist's OR a retailer's arrest without the art in question meeting the exact standards applied to obscenity and pornography, then you should be incredibly fearful that some currently acceptable form of comic art (or other artwork, for that matter) could be the next target.
By the by, who's to say that the police wouldn't have come for you? You may have gotten lucky, but plenty of people have had their property seized by police for the crimes that they didn't commit. Let's also not forget that more than a few people have been arrested simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. A few have even been convicted for crimes which led them to spend decades in jail, even on death row.
Nope, not tongue in cheek at all. Could I have been arrested? Sure, did I have reason to fear it? No, I had not committed anything remotely close to a criminal offense. We do not live in a Utopian society. There is no perfect law. There is no perfect government. There is no perfect humanly devised solution to legislating popular media, so does that mean we should have none? Every law on the books has probably snagged some poor innocent soul-it goes with the territory of man governing over man. Does it suck when it happens? Heck yeah, does it mean the law is a bad one? Nope, there is no fool safe way for laws to be executed. So in the few cases when an innocent comic book seller gets busted or a non obscene comic gets pulled from the shelves I’m all for defending them. Give them their day in court and clear their good names. On the other hand, when someone knowingly breaks the law-punish them. For the most part books that have been flagged so far have been understandable choices; the clear exception I can think of is the Elfquest case. That seems like one of the cases that would have quickly been absolved if it went to court. So until there is some sort of rating system on books (the kind Peter David said is impossible and that the big companies will never agree to, a few days before Marvel announced their voluntary compliance) the comic industry is just leaving itself wide open for legal attacks from the uninformed societal do-gooders. Again, please don’t use the dopey “but regular books don’t have a ratings system” argument, because most books are not a visual medium. Anyone with working eyes can assimilate the info from printed material as Art Spiegelman has eloquently expounded upon. A rating system isn’t about separating the “good books” from the “bad books,” but about putting some age appropriate guidelines on the covers to help retailers and consumers.
You want to see scary? Look at what's happening with our freedom loving friends in Europe:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1443908,00.html
Long story short--a Belgian cartoonist writes a book that gets published in Greece and is considered "blasphemous" (evidentially something that can get you jail time) and is now facing 2 years in prison. One troubling aspect of the EU is that one may find one self at the mercy of its most repressive members.
It amazes me that more Americans will probably know about the travails of a Funky Winterbean character than the real life stories of people like Theo Van Gogh and Gerhard Haderer.