politics in comics

[Prof. Warren]

I have no problem with real, living people appearing in Marvel (or another company)'s comics, but I find it cringeworthy when they bootlick them.
Whether it's presidents like Obama or celebrities like Jay Leno.
I'm more confortable with comics making fun of them.

Those covers do poke fun at Obama, with Spidey making humorous note of Obama's ubiquitous presence: "Sheesh! Guy gets elected and suddenly he's everywhere!"

No "bootlicking" going on.

[Carabas]

If you're claims about the sales figures are true then I can't say it's done Marvel any good in the long-run, that boost didn't translate into a stable increase of monthly readers. Just another example of how Marvel places the importance of political point-scoring over the long-term health of the business. Stunts like that cover just push people away, when readers want to see Spider-Man, not some flash-in-the-pan president who'll just make the comic look horribly dated in only a couple years after release.

It's not going to look dated 100 years from now. You know, except for it being made of paper.

[JKtheMac]

As I pointed out in the last two Marvel politics threads it is easy to miss the political context of older comics because the political issues of their day are less familiar to a modern audience or the issues are less pressing.

Certainly when I revisit some of the comics I was more familiar with as a child, they often take on a different meaning in light of the issues of their day.

Consider for example watching Star Trek the original series. It would be easy to miss the occasional Vietnam analogy or some of the less obvious Cold War symbolism and examinations of contemporary sexuality, racism or feminism issues would just feel strange, overstated or couched. But in their day the politics were very apparent and contemporary.

[mugiwara]

Those covers do poke fun at Obama, with Spidey making humorous note of Obama's ubiquitous presence: "Sheesh! Guy gets elected and suddenly he's everywhere!"

No "bootlicking" going on.

The issue had Obama and Spidey bro-fisting and Obama calling him "partner".
That was embarassing.

[WhichDrWhowins]

and religion? in art, magazines, comicbooks or animation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh4mi2Ea_7o

Couldn't agree with you more here. One of the reasons I read more DC these days.

A lot of company and artist are also starting to self censor

Seeing as how that policy of real presidents has given us cringeworthy covers like this:

Attachment 58442

I'd much rather Marvel come-up with fake presidents for their fictional universe over these partisan displays of politics.

Maybe its because he was the first half-black half African American President?

a lot of people rode the hype train giving him the 'peace prize' for example as they bomb Syria, bomb Iraq, NATO Hillary push for the bombing of Libya ... of course Obama is not alone in blame the Bush family and Neocons helped greatly destabilize Iraq

I don't have a problem with politics in comics. I've read The Authority and V for Vendetta. President Luthor and Dark Reign were some of my favourite story arcs.

The comic industry just need to keep an eye on their staff and stop nonsense like what that X-Men Gold artist did, Trump Modok and "Ask me about my feminist agenda" tee-shirts.

So you prefer social commentary rather than current political commentary? or should the comic get involved in the internal politics of say Canada, USA, France, England etc ?

[ed2962]

Seeing as how that policy of real presidents has given us cringeworthy covers like this:

Attachment 58442

I'd much rather Marvel come-up with fake presidents for their fictional universe over these partisan displays of politics.

This is no different than back in the 80's when Reagan was in every other Marvel comic. You even had Rogue from the X-Men blowing him a kiss!

[CentralPower]

The more comics try to stay "current" the more dated they become. It's a pathetic trend that needs to be squashed.

This.

How many of those "ripped from the headlines" comics are worth re-reading?

The thread title should be Politics in Marvel because its more clear and fits the forum. Politics in comics is fine because if its a story you created you have the right to say what you want (relatively).

I tried to edit the title. But, I can only edit the post. (If somebody wants to let a moderator know, it would not hurt my feelings or nothing.)


The problem with politics in comics is that politics is the sort of thing that is worth handling well if it is going to be handled. And, shallow parody (Trump/Modok, or most editorial cartoons) does not meet that bar. "Trump is a big jerk" is not impressive from legitimate commentators, nor it is impressive in comics. (I live in a pretty blue area, and see plenty of people who think that calling the President out for everything is a good tactic. It is not.)

Considering Trump's policies would actually be disastrous for comic book writers, along with being generally horrible for everyone, I'm surprised more comics haven't taken shots at him.

Not everything has to be a protest or about politics.

Thinking that everything has to be politicized (especially as a protest) is a common mistake.

I know a third party agitator who recently spent a day "protesting" a visit to Boston by Hillary Clinton,. He then went on to complain that not enough people showed up to his protest. I had to resist the urge to point out that some people have jobs and other things to worry about, and that protesting a politician in the winter of her career is a low priority.

I don't really count taking shots at Trump as something controversial because a) he spends a lot of time attacking, bullying and belittling people, what goes around comes around b) he struggled to condemn alt-right Nazi activities and he has a very uneasy relationship with folks of color, which is just adding fuel to an ugly fire c) and most importantly, most individuals in the US didn't even vote for him. It's all par for the course for a belligerent President that most Americans just didn't support.

As somebody who is in the business, I expect better when people are taking shots at an official. The occasional cheap-shot is fine. (I have indulged in that sort of thing myself, at the municipal level.) But, with Trump, it just goes on, and it sounds like whining. He had a better campaign (and *he* actually campaigned better) than his 3 opponents. That is an indictment of them more than it is of him. (And, I say that as somebody who worked for one of the opposing campaigns.)

It does seem as if many only want politics in their stories if they don't seek to explore actual issues that liberal democracies have. So Red Sun is ok because it doesn't make us reflect upon America.

"Red Son" is good because it addresses an idea (the Moral Hazard, and the role of the state), rather than being a polemic about something that happened in the news recently.

I'd much rather Marvel come-up with fake presidents for their fictional universe over these partisan displays of politics.

That was not really partisan. Obama liked Spider-Man. (And, given Obama's age, that could either be an indictment of or a credit to his character as a person.) Marvel decided to milk it.

Admittedly, the issue sucked. But, it was not partisan.

The issue is that folks right now are selectively "seeing politics" based on who's writing a title and NOT what is actually in the comics. I actually had to ask yesterday for people to actually show me where these heavily political superhero comics where superheroes spout left wing politics constantly.

In some cases, (Spencer being a good example), the writer justifies people seeing a run of comics as politicized.

So you prefer social commentary rather than current political commentary? or should the comic get involved in the internal politics of say Canada, USA, France, England etc ?

Does any voter in any of those countries really want comics (or comic fans) weighing in on anything that matters?

If somebody needs comics to make a question accessible, maybe they do not need to be voting. (And, while I may have thoughts on events in other countries, it is is probably not my business what the people of those countries decide to do.)

[Huntsman Spider]

This.

How many of those "ripped from the headlines" comics are worth re-reading?




I tried to edit the title. But, I can only edit the post. (If somebody wants to let a moderator know, it would not hurt my feelings or nothing.)


The problem with politics in comics is that politics is the sort of thing that is worth handling well if it is going to be handled. And, shallow parody (Trump/Modok, or most editorial cartoons) does not meet that bar. "Trump is a big jerk" is not impressive from legitimate commentators, nor it is impressive in comics. (I live in a pretty blue area, and see plenty of people who think that calling the President out for everything is a good tactic. It is not.)




Not everything has to be a protest or about politics.

Thinking that everything has to be politicized (especially as a protest) is a common mistake.

I know a third party agitator who recently spent a day "protesting" a visit to Boston by Hillary Clinton,. He then went on to complain that not enough people showed up to his protest. I had to resist the urge to point out that some people have jobs and other things to worry about, and that protesting a politician in the winter of her career is a low priority.




As somebody who is in the business, I expect better when people are taking shots at an official. The occasional cheap-shot is fine. (I have indulged in that sort of thing myself, at the municipal level.) But, with Trump, it just goes on, and it sounds like whining. He had a better campaign (and *he* actually campaigned better) than his 3 opponents. That is an indictment of them more than it is of him. (And, I say that as somebody who worked for one of the opposing campaigns.)




"Red Son" is good because it addresses an idea (the Moral Hazard, and the role of the state), rather than being a polemic about something that happened in the news recently.




That was not really partisan. Obama liked Spider-Man. (And, given Obama's age, that could either be an indictment of or a credit to his character as a person.) Marvel decided to milk it.

Admittedly, the issue sucked. But, it was not partisan.




In some cases, (Spencer being a good example), the writer justifies people seeing a run of comics as politicized.




Does any voter in any of those countries really want comics (or comic fans) weighing in on anything that matters?

If somebody needs comics to make a question accessible, maybe they do not need to be voting. (And, while I may have thoughts on events in other countries, it is is probably not my business what the people of those countries decide to do.)

Comics have addressed sociopolitical or sociocultural questions and challenges before and shouldn't be belittled as a medium for raising awareness of issues and getting people engaged. If people are inspired by comics to learn more about the society they live in and the politics and culture surrounding said society, I say more power to them.

[Chainsaw Vigilante]

The Jim Shooter thread somehow turned to the subject of politics in comics. Rather than further derail that thread, I am posting my responses to the political questions here.

-----------------------------------









My view on this may be skewed, as I have a background in politics.

I am fine with political ideas (emphasis on "ideas") in comics. If nothing else, superheroes are just about the best analogues for power one is likely to find in fiction. But, the writers need to have something to say, or have a better way to handle something that has already been said. "Superman: Red Son" is one of the most articulate cases against creating the moral hazard (aka "nanny state" or "tragedy of the commons") around. Gruenwald's "Squadron Supreme", for all of its Bronze Age baggage, is a respectable case against benign tyranny. Both stories are about ideas.


What I do not want are "ripped from the headlines" polemics, especially when the writers have nothing new to add. Generally, anything in those comics has already been covered (likely with more insight) in a newspaper or magazine.

Agree on that.

I think the biggest problem is that a lot of writers that are doing the political thing these days are doing it because they want people to agree with them, rather than they want to create a compelling story about ideas. I mean that's one of the biggest problems with the current political climate, people want to be lauded and get "pats on the back" and to fit in with others more than they want to think for themselves and have real critical thought. People want to be considered someone with the best ideals rather than have the best ideas.

[Kintor]

This is no different than back in the 80's when Reagan was in every other Marvel comic. You even had Rogue from the X-Men blowing him a kiss!

I also disagree with depictions of Reagan in 80s Marvel comics, it was cringeworthy then and it's even worse now. Something as embarrassing as that Obama cover would've been unthinkable in earlier years when Marvel had creative talent with more integrity calling the shots at the company. Superimposing comic book characters alongside real presidents is always a bad call and politically motivated, it simply shouldn't be done.

[jackolover]

I think one of the problems with politics in comics, (and I’m citing Australian policy here as my experience), is that political parties don’t want their policies scrutinised in the public arena, by stating a stance contrary to theirs. For instance, if a Phantom comic started saying we should ship out overseas born criminals back to their country of origin, then that would contradict Australian immigration policy so that comic would be gagged. I’d like to see Australian policy tested in a Phantom comic, just to get another perspective from the writer as against what we are spoon fed by the biased press, which sounds like right wing propaganda, so you can’t trust any paper to give a balanced comment in Australia.

If you have the same feeling in America about the press spoon feeding you rubbish, then maybe comics bringing up policy airs these issues in another forum instead of the biased press not allowed to express what they really feel.

We in Australia have this over-sensitive Liberal stance where we can’t upset community groups by targeting them. It really holds back any debate when everything is gagged before it can even be discussed. You feel powerless when being confronted by stonewalling politics in the Bureaucracy forbidding any opposing view. History then becomes what has never been challenged. It’s a travesty.

I say, air everyone’s dirty laundry and let the facts speak for themselves. Too much politics has been a totalitarian government controlling boisterous debate, by only allowing bought and paid for scripts. I look at my political landscape in Australia, and I’m horrified they are all wind sails, that will sell their souls for re-election, as well as wreck the economy with short-term giveaways. It reminds me of Roman Emperors who gave away gold coins or loaves at the gladiator arenas to appease the masses. This is politics now.

[CentralPower]

Comics have addressed sociopolitical or sociocultural questions and challenges before and shouldn't be belittled as a medium for raising awareness of issues and getting people engaged. If people are inspired by comics to learn more about the society they live in and the politics and culture surrounding said society, I say more power to them.

Gotta disagree.

The person who needs or uses comics to get their news and commentary is not the person who needs to be talking about politics or the news.

I think the biggest problem is that a lot of writers that are doing the political thing these days are doing it because they want people to agree with them, rather than they want to create a compelling story about ideas. I mean that's one of the biggest problems with the current political climate, people want to be lauded and get "pats on the back" and to fit in with others more than they want to think for themselves and have real critical thought. People want to be considered someone with the best ideals rather than have the best ideas.

It may be commercial more than ideological or a question of intellectual vanity.

Spencer and Sitterson go out of their way to be disagreeable. (At one point, Spencer went so far as to say that he did not want Republicans reading his run on "Captain America".) If anything, they are looking for notoriety and higher sales through controversy. (I will admit to reading some of Spencer's "Captain America" run because of the controversy.)

For instance, if a Phantom comic started saying we should ship out overseas born criminals back to their country of origin, then that would contradict Australian immigration policy so that comic would be gagged.

Would Australia actually restrict the distribution and sale of a comic that disputed a federal policy?

If you have the same feeling in America about the press spoon feeding you rubbish, then maybe comics bringing up policy airs these issues in another forum instead of the biased press not allowed to express what they really feel.

Comics are not going to be any more immune to bias than the press. If anything, comics are going to have lower professional and craft standards for eliminating bias than newspapers. (Put another way, comics can be more obviously biased.)

And, if comics are going to address politics, then the writers need to be qualified to write about politics. (And, no, cheap-shots at the President are not insightful commentary, nor are polemics about current events.)

I say, air everyone’s dirty laundry and let the facts speak for themselves.

That is what the news media is supposed to be for. I would also argue that voters should push for transparent government, rather than relying on comics to find the answers.

[ed2962]

Gotta disagree.

The person who needs or uses comics to get their news and commentary is not the person who needs to be talking about politics or the news.




It may be commercial more than ideological or a question of intellectual vanity.

Spencer and Sitterson go out of their way to be disagreeable. (At one point, Spencer went so far as to say that he did not want Republicans reading his run on "Captain America".) If anything, they are looking for notoriety and higher sales through controversy. (I will admit to reading some of Spencer's "Captain America" run because of the controversy.)




Would Australia actually restrict the distribution and sale of a comic that disputed a federal policy?




Comics are not going to be any more immune to bias than the press. If anything, comics are going to have lower professional and craft standards for eliminating bias than newspapers. (Put another way, comics can be more obviously biased.)

And, if comics are going to address politics, then the writers need to be qualified to write about politics. (And, no, cheap-shots at the President are not insightful commentary, nor are polemics about current events.)




That is what the news media is supposed to be for. I would also argue that voters should push for transparent government, rather than relying on comics to find the answers.

Comic writers are as qualified as songwriters, filmmakers, TV writers, novelists, and playwriters to talk about politics. All of which deal with politics and social issues. No reasonable person looks at these forms and thinks they're getting objective journalism...these are art/entertainment forms that can be used to comment on society. We as the audience are free to comment on or reject said art forms and that's how the exchange of ideas works.

[The_Greatest_Username]

I don’t mind politics in comics, but if a writer chooses to be political, I would prefer them express views consistent with whatever character they’re writing rather than use a particular character as a mouthpiece.

[Carabas]

I don’t mind politics in comics, but if a writer chooses to be political, I would prefer them express views consistent with whatever character they’re writing rather than use a particular character as a mouthpiece.

I don't think there is even a single character in all of comics that has consistent political views over the decades.