politics in comics

[jackolover]

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.

Would Australia gag Phantom? It’s difficult to say. Nobody is doing political commentary in Phantom so the point is moot. I would say a comic that tried to comment on government policy would get a visit from ASIO and that story shut down, yes, but we don’t have that situation so...

Bias by comic writers? Yeah, you’re not going to get commentary unbiased unless it’s from an Artificial Intelligence. But you might get an opposing view to the propaganda machine, and that would scare the **** out of them.

As for the news media and government transparency. I am very sceptical that either exist, because of the way business and the economy run. You really need the independence of a comic writer who hasn’t been bought. Everything else, news media, politics, has an agenda that includes manipulating the masses, so it’s irrelevant. We once had an attempt to create a world newspaper sourced from a multitude of journalists from different countries. The big boys gagged it after the first issue. It was so refreshing because it was something you hadn’t read before - the truth.

[DJ1107]

I wouldn't mind the politics in Marvel if it wasn't all so horribly one-sided lately.

[jackolover]

The main problem with a character having a consistent view is that they characters do not age.

For example, Hawkeye will always be ~30 years old. Even assuming a consistent political bent for the character, the where the character fall on the real political spectrum is going to change based on when a series is published, or even where it is read.

(I live in metro Boston. Between that, and the circles I travel in, I am often one of the more conservative people in any given room. But, I am much to the left of the US as a whole.) The liberal Hawkeye of yesterday would effectively be the conservative Hawkeye of today.

To complicate things even more, more characters are not inherently political, and should probably remain that way.




Most of them need to stay out of politics as well. I do not care how they vote. And, if they want to donate to a party or candidate, it is certainly their right. But, celebrities advocating for candidates and issues are mixing what is wrong with American culture and American politics into one terrible whole.

(Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair at the RNC and Katie Perry at the DNC are both insults to the American voter.)

If an entertainer wants to change industries, and go in to politics, that is another question. (For example, ignoring Al Franken's recent scandals, there was nothing wrong with leaving SNL and going in to electoral politics.)

So a movie about Nixon being a crook and liar is too sensitive to make it to the screen? It’s the truth. That should be expressed because it shows a trusted official in a responsible position manipulating the system. I think society would like to be informed, otherwise, drug us with Hydra Caps meds and leave us alone and give us more TV.

[jackolover]

Yes. And, those creators need to stay away from thing that they are not qualified to write about.

I have no problem with politics, and have mentioned examples of politicomics being done well. But, generally, mixing comics and politics does not yield any good result.





I have nothing against stupid laughs at the expense of politicians. A local fire-brand has spent most of the last few months harassing local officials. He accused one of them of eating babies, and then went on to mock the poor guy's name. I will admit that his invective and mockery is a guilty pleasure of mine.

But, if comics are going to get more political, then they need to be smarter about it. If nothing else, mocking Trump is cheap and easy and has been done to death.

Similarly, writers like Spencer, who actually do understand politics, only make things worse by being viciously partisan. (I did not vote for Trump. But, there is no reason for Spencer to be as dismissive of Republicans as he is.)

In other cases, writers need to make better cases for what they are pushing.




But, the artist still needs to have insight about the subject matter.

"Nazis are bad" is not worth anybody's time. Make a case for how and why Nazis are bad.


To go back to one of my earlier examples, consider "Red Son". That is an exceptionally well-written case for being wary of the Moral Hazard (or Tragedy of the Commons). Millar (who I am given to understand is a lefty) argues that the danger is greater when the consuming authority/protector is well-intentioned (and recognized as being so). Superman works as a main character because everybody identifies Superman as being good.

That is a far beyond and above making the bad guys obvious proxies for real life politicians. (I am a fan of Al Ewing, but his attempts at getting political are a waste of page space.)

We could go back to the Middle Ages and see street performers mocking royalty for laughs. This has been Entertainment for hundreds of years, so now,the 21st Century, it becomes taboo? Comics are just another vehicle to air disrespect, and mockery at authority. Full stop.

[Da Boat]

So a movie about Nixon being a crook and liar is too sensitive to make it to the screen? It’s the truth. That should be expressed because it shows a trusted official in a responsible position manipulating the system. I think society would like to be informed, otherwise, drug us with Hydra Caps meds and leave us alone and give us more TV.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I admire Oliver Stone as a filmmaker but I don't think Nixon was just about one thing. That is why he's an interesting character cause he was a complex dude that had this fall from grace. Stone pratically made him like Satan.

Again entertaining but ludicrus.

[Da Boat]

The main problem with a character having a consistent view is that they characters do not age.

For example, Hawkeye will always be ~30 years old. Even assuming a consistent political bent for the character, the where the character fall on the real political spectrum is going to change based on when a series is published, or even where it is read.

(I live in metro Boston. Between that, and the circles I travel in, I am often one of the more conservative people in any given room. But, I am much to the left of the US as a whole.) The liberal Hawkeye of yesterday would effectively be the conservative Hawkeye of today.

To complicate things even more, more characters are not inherently political, and should probably remain that way.




Most of them need to stay out of politics as well. I do not care how they vote. And, if they want to donate to a party or candidate, it is certainly their right. But, celebrities advocating for candidates and issues are mixing what is wrong with American culture and American politics into one terrible whole.

(Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair at the RNC and Katie Perry at the DNC are both insults to the American voter.)

If an entertainer wants to change industries, and go in to politics, that is another question. (For example, ignoring Al Franken's recent scandals, there was nothing wrong with leaving SNL and going in to electoral politics.)

I prefered characters to stay apolitical altogether. I don't want to know if Clint Barton is either from the left or right, that is not why I have loved this character for so long. I like him cause he is a rebel and hellraiser and he always crap on Cap's decisions. These guys are adventurers that mainly want to stop super-villains. That's it.

[jackolover]

Well, let's be real here, a good result is largely subjective. Some folks are quite happy with the cheap mocks and partisan presentation. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself. A person who is happy with that might be of the lowest common denominator (or at least need more discerning taste), or they might be intelligent and well informed people who are looking at comics more as a satire, where heavy-handed commentary is a viable narrative method.

I think I'm largely in agreement with your personal tastes though; I enjoy politics in my comics when they're done well, but I do want them to be done well. I'm gonna be a little stuck-up about it and expect something at least marginally intelligent. I think I'm just more willing than you are to accept the fact we're gonna get a bunch of crap in the process.



I'm fine with characters being viciously partisan where applicable, but writers? No, not so much. Writers, I expect to have a basic understanding of an issue. They don't need to be experts, nor do their arguments need to be air tight (I'll expect that from comic writers after the politicians themselves manage it) but they should put some effort into researching the material. And I expect writers to cover all major sides of an issue too; don't just present one side of an argument, get the main perspectives in there.

Politics can often be done poorly in comics and usually are, but can't that be said for most anything? Why should we hold writers to a higher standard for politics than we do physics, philosophy, psychology, biology, or anything else?

I don’t mind if comic writers aren’t experts. If they have a view on something they feel that’s wrong, go ahead and comment on it, even if it is ill informed. Do you meet people with opinions you always agree with? I doubt it. Let comic writers have the freedom to make commentary. They’ll have correction as it goes along. That’s how life is. You learn from your mistakes. But to just gag it, reduces the independence and freedom to put all the writers creativity on display. Yes, the Comics Code forced writers to reduce their ability to communicate to restrictive limits, but what do we want comics to be able to communicate? The world outside your window, or DC?

[jackolover]

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I admire Oliver Stone as a filmmaker but I don't think Nixon was just about one thing. That is why he's an interesting character cause he was a complex dude that had this fall from grace. Stone pratically made him like Satan.

Again entertaining but ludicrus.

”The film portrays Nixon as a complex and, in many respects, admirable, though deeply flawed, person”.

I can’t see how this is a problem. Whatever bias went on with Oliver Stones interpretation of Nixon, at least it didn’t shy away from bringing it to the public. To not say anything is blindly respecting the office of POTUS when it screws you.

[Da Boat]

”The film portrays Nixon as a complex and, in many respects, admirable, though deeply flawed, person”.

I can’t see how this is a problem. Whatever bias went on with Oliver Stones interpretation of Nixon, at least it didn’t shy away from bringing it to the public. To not say anything is blindly respecting the office of POTUS when it screws you.

But what if what he brought to the public was mostly bullshit?

Like when the Chinese leader talked to Nixon and the leader went "we understand each other cause we are both Evil".

I mean....

[Spiderfang]

The only politics Marvel seems to cater to in the 2010's are identity politics and always come back to "did you just assume/mis-gender that male-looking alien baby with a phallus' gender?" or "apparently women don't have rights now for some reason!" I kind of miss the 60's & 70's era of writing, sure the pacing was slower and it was definitely easier to burn out on but stories did not rely on having to reiterate the fact that "STORM IS A PROUD BLACK QUEER FEMALE MUTANT" or "MARY JANE IS A PROUD INDEPENDENT FEMINIST FEMALE" every 2 pages, it's like we could some how gather from the writing and character development that they were awesome and we didn't need a disclaimer telling us so. I liked secret empire for a similar reason because it dealt with moral and ethical politics instead of just "evil white man whit a shield" (though some could interpret it that way).

[Tazpocalapse]

In what comic does Storm reiterate "STORM IS A PROUD BLACK QUEER FEMALE MUTANT" every 2 pages?

[ed2962]

Marvel was founded as an entertainment company, back in the 30s when it was known as Timely Publications. Captain America only worked as propaganda in World War II because he didn't become partisan; he tapped into nationalist pride and patriotism rather then the political talking points of the day. Quite a far cry from Marvel today, who's current politics condemns national pride as a form of bigotry and conflates patriotism with Fascism. Marvel only threw their lot in with Obama out of sycophancy, to be seen as part of the winning team in 2008. Now Obama is gone and that cover is just a horribly dated example of Marvel's short-sighted political leanings.

This simply is not true.

[ed2962]

The only politics Marvel seems to cater to in the 2010's are identity politics and always come back to "did you just assume/mis-gender that male-looking alien baby with a phallus' gender?" or "apparently women don't have rights now for some reason!" I kind of miss the 60's & 70's era of writing, sure the pacing was slower and it was definitely easier to burn out on but stories did not rely on having to reiterate the fact that "STORM IS A PROUD BLACK QUEER FEMALE MUTANT" or "MARY JANE IS A PROUD INDEPENDENT FEMINIST FEMALE" every 2 pages, it's like we could some how gather from the writing and character development that they were awesome and we didn't need a disclaimer telling us so. I liked secret empire for a similar reason because it dealt with moral and ethical politics instead of just "evil white man whit a shield" (though some could interpret it that way).

I'd argue the opposite. Comics from the 60's and 70's were much faster paced and they had no problem hitting the reader over the head with their messages.

[Spiderfang]

In what comic does Storm reiterate "STORM IS A PROUD BLACK QUEER FEMALE MUTANT" every 2 pages?

lol none, it was an example (albeit bad one) in regards to certain new legacy characters.

[Sutekh]

Captain America only worked as propaganda in World War II because he didn't become partisan; he tapped into nationalist pride and patriotism rather then the political talking points of the day.

But in the real world, getting involved in 'that war in Europe' was *hugely* unpopular, and it wasn't until the attack on Pearl that those supporting intervention were able to 'sell' it to the American people, who, generally speaking, were fine with letting Hitler have Europe (and didn't believe stories about concentration camps or genocide of Jews, Romani, homosexuals, etc.).

Captain America punching Hitler was indeed controversial, when it was printed.

As for the rest of your post. Captain America. Still a character that exists. There's also a Captain Britain. And a hero named the Patriot. Nationalism and national pride and patriotism are very much alive in the Marvel universe.

That said, superhero comics are generally about unlicensed vigilantes who are filling a necessary role in a dangerous universe full of extra-dimensional threats and alien invaders and superhuman villains that the governments of most nations are pretty much useless against, so if you want a pro-government, pro-regulation sort of entertainment, superhero comics are probably never going to be your thing.

At the end of the day, if you don't like salad, that's fine. Just stop eating salad and then complaining about how much you don't like salad. Have a sandwich or something, instead.

Most of the rest of us actually like superhero stuff, and understand that for superheroes to exist, to be needed, we have to suspend disbelief and accept that the military, government, police, legal system, etc. have to be unable to handle certain threats.

And as for kissing Obama's boot, this is also the same Marvel that had Obama flee the White House in Secret Warriors, when a pissed-off child of Ares showed up and murdered dozens of Secret Service people trying to get to him, and then, surrounded by corpses in the Oval Office, wrote Obama a letter about how he could do this again any time he wanted, and the President was only alive because he was letting him live. Yeah. Sounds like real boot-kissing there...