Is Liberalism Leading to Comic Books' Downfall?
By D. S. Hube | January 21, 2012 | 07:35
Seen at Instapundit comes word of the site Bleeding Cool whose Darin Wagner asks this obvious question (no offense to Darin).
"You pick up a superhero comic book featuring a childhood favorite of yours, hoping to reignite some of that magic you felt way back when and you see that the opening sequence in the comic deals with an oil rig disaster," he wrote. "You immediately and disappointingly know what’s going to be said, either by your childhood favorite or by some other character given credibility within the story."
You turn the page, and sure enough, your childhood favorite grumbles about his/her country’s dependency on oil or how inherently dangerous oil drilling is to the environment and how it’s not worth it or simply mutters to him-or-herself briefly about the evils of corporate America. That’s when you put the comic back on the shelf and your local retailer loses a sale. (Sound familiar? Brightest Day #5 contained a similar scenario featuring Aquaman.)
Alas, I know this all too well. As a big comicbook geek from waaaaay back (I have a section of my blog, The Colossus of Rhodey, dedicated to comics), and as one who continued to purchase comics up until the mid-2000s, I find this modern "progressive" trend not only disburbing, but disgusting. It's what led me to stop purchasing contemporary comics outright, and lose some, if not friendships, associations, as a result. Much of Colossus' comics section deals with the ridiculous liberalism that has crept into comics over the last decade or so. The very first post in this category dealt mainly with a group called The Authority, whose members' actions supposedly on behalf of the "greater good" were a progressives wet dream come true. They at one point took over the United States government and proceeded to make demands that your typical environmentalist, climate Chicken Little, and socialist would begin crying in delight over.
Modern hot shot writer Mark Millar (ever see the movie Kick Ass? That's his) is an avowed leftist from way back. Many of his works are imbued with progressive drivel throughout, such as in his Superman: Red Son (which reimagines the Man of Steel as a Soviet superhero), in Marvel's The Ultimates and the cross-over event "Civil War." In the former, Millar had Londonders cheering on the Soviet Superman as he battled his American counterpart as sort of an analogy to American "interference" in European affairs during the Cold War. In The Ultimates (which, by the way, the upcoming The Avengers movie is mostly based on), Millar had a superhero team composed of characters from countries like North Korea and the Muslim Middle East invade the United States so as to "restrain the Roman Empire" because they "feared what America might do next." Another rationale was because America was "interfering with cultures they could never understand." Lastly, in "Civil War," Marvel's superheroes split along ideological lines: One side favored registering superhuman powers with the government; the other side fought against such. The former was led by Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, and the latter by Captain America. Millar's scripts were heavily tilted in favor of Captain America's team; he ridiculously had Iron Man's team utilizing some of the worst Marvel villains in its history working on its behalf, and even made use of an other-dimensional prison where dissenters were locked up without trial.
Darin mentions the recent choice by Superman to renounce his American citizenship, and how [supposedly] conservative-leaning heroes are either borderline psychos or outright mental defectives as more up-to-date examples. He also brings up a good point that many individual instances of lefty "jabs" in comics aren't all that big a deal; however, the cumulative effect begins to irritate people if they do not share the politics of the writers. Like Captain America of the future informing his counterpart of the past how awful his country has become since WW II. Like Captain America infiltrating the Tea Party. Like writer/artist Erik Larsen stating outright that George W. Bush was "worse than Nixon," and stole not one, but two elections. Like Larsen having his most popular creation, the Savage Dragon, punching G.W. Bush in the face. Like popular writer Warren Ellis creating a superhero who takes it upon himself to kill the president (Bush, of course) for, among other things, his "illegal" war in Iraq. Where popular X-Men writer Chris Claremont laments the Reagan era in his story "God Loves, Man Kills" wherein religious fundamentalists go around murdering mutants. Are you getting that cumulative effect yet? Because this is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. And what's more, all the above and more are widely accepted without so much as a peep (the only exception being conservative blogs), whereas when the few instances of right-of-center stories are in development, they're "controversial" and contain all the progressive complaint "-isms." The writer of the novel First Blood (think: Rambo) writing Captain America? Oh, NO!! Frank Miller planning a Batman story where he battles al Qaeda? We're squeamish.
This cumulative effect eventually took its toll on me. I kept purchasing comics probably longer than I should have. Many of the stories were top notch despite my knowing the politics of the creators -- the aforementioned Superman: Red Son, The Ultimates, and original The Authority series are examples -- but at a certain point, I had had enough. (I think it may have been after collecting a few issues of the series Supreme Power, which I wrote about at the comics site Four Color Media Monitor here.) I just asked myself "Why do I continue to support these guys? I give them my money -- and they continually spit in my face." Some otherwise reasonable creators don't seem to get this concept. Last year I "unfriended" popular comics writer Kurt Busiek on Facebook shortly after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Kurt's best known for his Astro City original series, as well as his memorable run on Marvel's The Avengers. But Kurt is pretty outspoken on his Facebook page -- which is certainly OK, but when you're in the field he is, it just might not be a very good idea. As I wrote in the comments at Four Color Media Monitor,
I've absolutely NO hassle with anyone pontificating on matters political, whatever your field of endeavor. However, if you're in Kurt's field, it is ridiculous to expect NO criticism in response to your outspokenness. In regards to the Giffords shooting, Kurt immediately took the Reflexive Left's penchant for invoking conservative "hate" rhetoric as a "cause" for a killer's/terrorist's actions. Yes, he did say "we need to wait and see," but then again, Kurt did not exactly wait, did he? Moreover, by exclusively focusing on Palin, the Right, and moronic a-holes like that hateful comics vendor, Busiek effectively alienates approximately half of his fan base. And then people complain when those alienated point to his comments?
Busiek apparently didn't like that I made screen caps (see at above) of some of his comments and sent them to FCMM's Avi Green, who then wrote about it. (He Tweeted about it and his minions rushed over to FCMM in his defense.) That's too bad. Years before this little incident, I had had an e-mail exchange with Kurt where we discussed (mainly) economic boycotts when entertainers (or writers/artists like Kurt) make controversial statements or do something controversial. Kurt was dead-set against such boycotts, stating that he felt it best to "discuss" the issue in various forums. Of course, with that, the power resides with the entertainer since they have much more access (based on their popularity) to social media and such. The only real thing that the average joe can do to "inform" entertainers that they're dissatisfied is to utilize their pocketbook -- or, more accurately, not utilize it. (Perhaps this has changed in my regard -- now that I have this NB forum!)
It's the 'ol "Shut up and sing!" mantra. If you're in the entertainment business, you run the risk of alienating a certain portion of your fanbase if you insist upon making controversial statements or taking up controversial positions on issues. This is no way means you have to shut up; however, you need to be aware that freedom of speech does NOT mean there's freedom from criticism -- or freedom from consequences. And, thus, all this is [partly] why I blog. I why I'll continue to not shell out $3-4 for a comicbook any time soon.
Darin has since added a follow-up post to his question about liberalism and comics: "What Might A Conservative Comic Book Look Like?"
- D. S. Hube's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I was not a comic book fan
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 8:46am.
I was not a comic book fan growing up. Most of my culture came from Mad or Cracked. It was many years before I realized Alfred E Neuman was a fictional character.
MAD and Cracked were the only
Submitted by ammo john on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:53am.
MAD and Cracked were the only comics I ever bought, too. When they were funny, anyway (the 70's).
Sometimes I'll pick up a comic that the military PX/BX has for free at the checkout stand just to see the superhero (like The Hulk or Ghost Rider) assist the troops fighting the bad guys.
Yet another example of the liberal penchant
Submitted by johnsonl on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 9:32am.
to "control the message, control the masses."
⇒ Comic Books
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 10:59am.
ARCHIE celebrates a gay wedding, and JUGHEAD has himself circumcised with a pinking shears to match his hat?
Yeah, times have changed.
Libs are leading to the downfall
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 11:18am.
Of everything thats good. Ask em why, they dont know.
⇒ Boudin
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 11:29am.
Bob Beckel the other day, in a jaw-dropping admission that liberals created the current culture of dependency,said it was done "for the right reasons.
Liberals will certainly tell you why. It's "for all the right reasons".
Back in the
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:31pm.
early 60s, I was the Comic Book Kid. I was always at the news stand at the first of the month with what allowance i had to get all the good comics early - like Superman, Batman, Sgt Rock, Iron Man, Thor, Sgt Fury. It was only at the end of the month i would get desperate and buy Archie and Veronica or Wonder Woman. And of course, I loved MAD. Never saw much to CRACKED.
But sometimes, just perusing, i've picked up modern comics and glanced through them. I'm pretty surprised at what i see, from the out right leftist propaganda to the half naked women. Of course, as a teen ager i would not have minded that too much. But i remember the comics of my day stressed good wins over evil, and the goodness of America. That sadly has changed, not just in comic books but in every thing.
But the time I was out of high school in 68 i had pretty much given up comics. I do wish i had kept those i had from the late 50s to the early 60s though. But who knew?
I hear ya
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 3:43pm.
Comic books today reflect accepted standards of American society at large, and always have.
The comics you and I read as kids were squeaky clean because they were "Approved by the Comics Code Authority" (CCA) -- that stamp-shaped image in the upper right had corner of the cover of each book. The CCA was the industry's self-policing mechanism created in the '50s in response to the claims of psychiatrist Dr. Fredric Wertham in his book 's Seduction of the Innocent (1954) that graphic extreme violence (dismemberment, bondage, and 'injury to the eye' themes were noted) and scantily-clad buxom women were inspiring anti-social behavior in young boys, leading to juvenile delinquency. The publishers feared Federal regulation of their industry, so they cleaned up their act with the creation of CCA. Bill Gaines' EC comics had epitomized the violent trend, and after the CCA was created, only its MAD comic survived by transforming to a magazine format.
The CCA has long since died, and the content of comic books today is extremely violent and sexual. I've opened up some books and found fully-naked characters embraced in hetero- and homosexual activity on the first page. Like other media,
In the store my wife worked in, there was a Kid's Corner where the few appropriate books were displayed. Most titles, if rated by the movie scheme, would be rated PG-13, and many are R or higher.
But I draw parallels to television. Compare the Andy Griffith Show or the Dick Van Dyke Show to How I Met Your Mother and other so-called comedies today.
The comic book counter-culture
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 5:27pm.
The comic book industry has always competed with other media for our entertainment $$$, and the evolution of comic books reflects both the increase in competition and the change in social mores.
The profile of today's comic book customer is
- The male aged 16-60 (mainly white, but some some of Asian or African ancestry) who has the resources to shell out $3-4 for each book (more for graphic novels, hard-bound collections, etc.) and the time (and patience) to follow plots that run for months and across titles.
- He is also likely to read science-fiction and fantasy novels, and/or watch the subjects in films and TV series, and if he is under 40 also tend to play a lot of video games. Speculative fiction is the prime focus of his entertainment investment time and $$$
- He has an above average IQ, and most are college students or college graduates, some with graduate degrees. He reads a lot.
- He loves heavy plots (including political and social overstatements) and heavier characterization of the comic heroes and villains.
- He was probably considered a 'geek' when he was a kid, and may still be.
The editors, writers, and artists of the industry tend to come from that pool of comic book customers.
- They grew up immersed in the culture, and it would seem that they have a bent for making it darker.
- They see themselves as a vanguard for progressive change, modeled loosely on Stan Lee's groundbreaking stories in the Marvel books of the '60s-'70s. The comic books they read as children were already espousing progressive political and social values, and that was part of the appeal. They are merely taking it further.
- I've often speculated that most of them were labeled as geeks when they were younger, and thus came to the industry with a passion for undercutting the image of the hero; but, I have no evidence to back that up.
So what we have now is an entertainment medium that in many ways is a closed system -- it would be a virtual self-licking ice cream cone were it not for the fact that it needs cash infusion from the outside. It will never appeal to other demographics, and as it gets darker and more violent, it will lose some of its long term customers.
What's left is less of a hobby and more of a counter-culture. I collected comic books from the early '60s to the mid-'80s, and then pretty much ceased. My wife worked in a comic book store for the past 6 years, so I became acquainted with the contemporary material and the fans.
I find the material today just too dark and unnecessarily sexual for my tastes, but the industry does have a customer base that supports it (There are more publishers and comic titles now than ever before), so it's safe t say that they have adapted to the economic and technical change. They just won't see my $$$.
You're absolutely right. I
Submitted by greenfairie on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 1:37pm.
You're absolutely right. I read a variety of non-superhero titles in the '90s and I'd noticed how the demographics shifted at comics shops. You'll rarely find children at comic book stores these days. Comics by and large are made by and for a fanboy culture. I don't read very many of them anymore.
Good Grief YES!
Submitted by HeavyChevy on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 2:13pm.
I loved my comics, I really love my comics as a matter of fact I still have a tub and a backpack of a combined 2000+ comic books in the garage! Special editions, reflected covers, special gloss covers etc...
I stopped collected around 1999 for two reasons
1. They were getting to expensive.
2. It was so politically annoying I could no longer stand it.
Remember the big deal they made when North star from Alpha flight came out of the closet as being gay, they act like it was so cutting edge you bled just for opening the comic. I did not care if he was gay or not (Come on it was North star it was sort of evident even before they brought him out the closet.) I just did not like they way they did it. it was the usual obligatory "everyone is homophobic and they did not understand canned issue" They cannot introduce a gay character without bashing on everyone else in the process.
Maybe its time I finally sell them all I can use the money :-)
Also to all my NB friends I'm apologizing in advance for those who's been trying to communicate with me...sorry!
HeavyChevy
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 3:44pm.
Personally, I thought the problem with North Star coming out was the fact that he went from being a well-written, three-dimensional character who just so happens to be gay, to being "Oh girlfriend, have I told you I'm gay yet, because I'm SO~ checking out Captain America's tush! Mm-mm-MM!"
Right
Submitted by HeavyChevy on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 4:26pm.
North Star and his twin Aurora were both good characters but after that issue it just went south from there.
All due respect D. S., but I
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 3:41pm.
All due respect D. S., but I think you're reading a little too far into "Red Son". It was an Elseworlds title, a "what if" that simply asked "What if Kal-El's rocket had landed in Ukraine rather than Kansas?" I don't think it claimed that the world would be a better place under Soviet rule or anything like that; it was just a different look at a familiar character, like "Superman: True Brit", which likewise transposes the Man of Steel to England.
Of course, what's really funny about comics isn't what they're doing on purpose, but what they're doing on accident. As you said, there have been several recent instances of writers flipping the bird at George W. Bush (and you didn't even mention the abysmal "Amazons Attack", where a Dubya stand-in orders anyone who could potentially be an Amazon sympathizer put into internment camps).
...But then we have "Dark Reign", a follow-up to "Civil War", where Norman Osborn (AKA Spider-Man's arch-nemesis the Green Goblin) is put in charge of America's defense. He re-forms various hero teams with villains disguised as heroes, plans on stealing all the heroes' identities so he can kill them, and pretty well aims to take over the world. And which President was stupid enough to hand all this power to a well-known psychopath, mass-murderer, and super-villain? Why, that would be the Chosen One of Hope and Change, who's actually depicted in-universe and referred to by name. How 'bout them apples?
I never said
Submitted by D. S. Hube on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 4:32pm.
... that RED SON "world would be a better place under Soviet rule or anything like that." Read the paragraph again. I mentioned that Millar (among other things) shows Londoners cheering on the Soviet hero over the American counterpart when the two clash.
Nevertheless, further down, I write that RED SON is a top-notch story aside from some of its politics.
Indeed you did; I apologize
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 6:42pm.
Indeed you did; I apologize for the mistake.
Come to think of it, "Red Son" could be viewed as a look at everything that's wrong with the socialist attitude. At one point, the Jimmy Olsen stand-in remarks that Soviet car manufacturers have stopped making seatbelts because everyone knows Superman will save them, taking the concept of the nanny state to a frightening extreme. Even further we have the "Superman Robots", namely the political dissenters whose "reward" is some heat vision brain surgery that turns them into obedient Proletariats.
No worries
Submitted by D. S. Hube on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 9:24am.
And you're right -- Millar does take on issues with the communist mind-set. I'll grant him that. (The Batman sub-plot addresses it quite well.) But the foreword of the graphic novel (forget who wrote it at this moment) states that Millar's politics are "gray" in the story, not black or white. But ... isn't that silly in and of itself? Was there really no good and evil in the Cold War? C'mon.
Liberalism is only PART of it.
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 3:59pm.
I maintained, and still do, that part of it is that the new crops of writers and editors want to leave their 'mark' on whatever comics they're editing. It's kind of similar to what tyrants and dictators do when they take over a country. Like Pol Pot, one of the first things they do is wipe out (kill) any members of the population who remember 'the way things USED to be'. The tyrant wants everyone living under their boot to remember nothing except HIM being in total control.
Apply to the comic editors: This silly business in which DC comic 'rebooted' every comic book they have. They don't want anyone to remember what the comics were like before THEY became the bosses (or how good they were before they showed up). So they wipe out all their established history and leave the readers with nothing but 'Miller's Universe', or whichever editor is ruling the roost.
That's how you wind up with nonsense like the ridiculous 'Ultimate' Spider man, where they kill off Peter Parker to replace him with someone 'more ethnically diverse'. It wasn't enough for the libutards running the show there to make him a minority. They had to make him TWO minorities. So now he's half black to suck in black readers and self-hating liberal whites, and also half Mexican to make sure the illegal immigrants will read it too.
You can imagine the splash page. A starburst caption boasting '50% Black! 50% Latino! 200% Sell-out!! And if this isn't good enough for ya, we'll find a way to make him Asian, and Slavic, and Jewish and Muslim! What more do you WANT???' And Spiderman swinging by with a sombrero on and saggy gang-banger pants saying 'Yo yo yo! Arriba arriba! Taco Burrito Chimichanga! I'll bust a web up yo' butt! Am I diverse enough for you now?'
Unfortunately...
Submitted by BosTarus on Mon, 01/23/2012 - 6:28pm.
I was out all weekend-so I missed this discussion as it happened. So this is probably past date anyhow.
Oh well, I'm a huge comic fan-I currently have a box a comic store and I try to go every week.
Just wanted to address the "silly" reboot of DC comics-there's nothing silly about it, but instead all practicality. Comics need to be rebooted every now and then, this isn't the first, and its far from the last. Its not an effort to obliterate the past, but to keep the comics current. Otherwise, Batman would be over 85 years old, and teenaged Spiderman would be in his late 60s.
And speaking of Spiderman, everyone got up in arms when they replaced him with a "minority". First off, you at least mentioned the "Ultimate" portion of the title-most people don't even realize that this was an alternate Marvel universe, not the primary one. And they did it mostly to raise the stakes. Most comics suffer from diminishing returns on their danger level-so they killed off their alternate universe Spiderman to make that world more dangerous and the stories, therefore, more interesting. Anyway, the title didn't continue on long after his death (as planned) but they replaced him so that there would still be a Spiderman in that universe-even if it wasn't Peter.
And there's nothing wrong with adding in more diverse characters-New York is a diverse town, it makes sense that some of the heroes might not be white. If it was an attempted ploy for readership, then they wouldn't have cancelled the title (which was planned before Peter's death).
Discussion On Social Media
Submitted by greenfairie on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 1:32pm.
"Kurt was dead-set against such boycotts, stating that he felt it best to "discuss" the issue in various forums. Of course, with that, the power resides with the entertainer since they have much more access (based on their popularity) to social media and such."
That's right and they have an army of fanboys who will immediately leap to their idol's defense. I learned that lesson the hard way after getting into minor (non-political) disagreements/misunderstandings with famous people via Twitter or Facebook. A few months ago an actor I've met personally and I liked issued his support on Twitter for OWS. After removing my head from my desk, I realized it was folly to try and argue. Entertainment folks are extremely sensitive and don't like to be challenged, even if you try to be respectful. Fans on their Twitter or FB feed view any kind of disagreement as a personal attack on their boy or their girl and you'll start getting flamed and trolled by scores of strangers.
My solution was to unfollow any entertainment figure unless he/she remains apolitical, or if that person is an out -of-the-closet conservative or libertarian.
Discussion On Social Media
Submitted by greenfairie on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 1:33pm.
Double post, sorry.