Would a book like 'X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills' be made today?

[Valamist]

So the other night I finally got around to reading the graphic novel God Loves, Man Kills by Chris Claremont and I loved it. Such a good X-Men story, really showed why I love that franchise and Claremot as a writer. However, one thing that struck me was how overtly 'political' this book could be considered. I mean, the main villain is a charismatic TV evangelical Reverend man who used every trick in the book to peddle religious dogma and bigoted hatred. I cannot help but to think that such a book coming out in this day and age would be chastised for being overtly political and an attack on religion. This seems to be a perfect example to use in the argument that Marvel comics have always had plotical edges to them.

Not to mention how dark some of the scenes are. I mean, the first few pages have kids being killed and hug up.

[Marvell2100]

Under Disney? Hard to say.

But Steve became a fascist and blew up Las Vegas so i'd like to think yeah it would.

[SpiderClops]

Yes, it definitely can be made today. But it would most likely be badly written and tone-deaf.(and not because of Disney)

[JudicatorPrime]

Funny you should mention this. I was just reading the history of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ. Yes, "God Loves, Man Kills" could be written and published today, but the readership's response to it would be much more heated and vocal. You can't attack the belief or the belief system, but you can blow holes in the wrongful acts and behaviors caused by said belief system.

[Silvermoth]

I think it absolutely would. I think the xmen comics especially are not afraid to deal with real world issues.

They might make it a bit more heavy handed though

[johnnybourbon]

Yes and no. The concept could certainly be executed but could the material/politics be presented with the nuance and maturity that Claremont brought to it? Id have to say no, Marvel doesn't have anyone writing on that level at the moment.

As for the reaction surely it'd be controversial now, just as I'm sure it was then but the real deciding factor both then and now is whether the writer is able to tackle the subject matter they are using in a way that transcends perceived partisan politics. Claremont was a smart guy who understood being an outsider enough to be able to relate that to a wide audience and use the outcast metaphor in a way that applied to a huge variety of groups. Anyone could pick up Claremonts Xmen and relate to how it feels to be the people in his stories at some point or another.

On the other hand what you see a lot of today are writers handling topics that are clearly out of their league and the result is clumsy and divisive. If you arent adding anything to the conversation that cant be found in a buzzfeed article or whatever hashtag is currently trending on twitter then you probably arent ready to start juggling the heavy concepts and dark imagery at play in GLMK. Think of Marvels current writers, now thing of those first few pages of GLMK. My stomach twists at the thought of how they might play out were they in those hands. The real question is who is up to that task at the moment? The only person I can think of off the topic of my head who has recently(ish) handled such a delicate topic during a sensitive political time and did it well would probably be Brubaker's death of Cap but I could be overlooking something.

[Shadowcat]

I’d love for it to be told again, for a more modern audience, unfortunately the backlash from the religious right would be massive.

[milton75]

Funny you should mention this. I was just reading the history of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ. Yes, "God Loves, Man Kills" could be written and published today, but the readership's response to it would be much more heated and vocal. You can't attack the belief or the belief system, but you can blow holes in the wrongful acts and behaviors caused by said belief system.

Do you mean "you can't attack the belief or the belief system" in that it is practically difficult to do so because of the backlash it causes, or that it is morally problematic for us to attack belief systems?

In my view, one of the greatest tricks that religious organisations have managed to pull off is to contextualise their dogma as something that should be reserved and protected from the usual cut and thrust of debate that exists elsewhere in society. While I respect the right of individuals to believe in whatever they want, I do not necessarily respect their beliefs in of themselves. I don't ascribe "special status" to religious beliefs, and would personally welcome the opportunities for more free and honest discussions on them.

It may well be that if a comic like GLMK was released today it would deal with it in a heavy-handed manner. On the other hand it may offer an incisive perspective that opens up the issue to some that have previously not considered it. I would say we deal with each case on its own merits and hopefully avoid being scared off by a vocal contingent who cannot stand for any suggestion that the bubble they exist within might be pricked.

[JudicatorPrime]

Do you mean "you can't attack the belief or the belief system" in that it is practically difficult to do so because of the backlash it causes, or that it is morally problematic for us to attack belief systems?

I was referring to the market backlash in this hypersensitive day and age. An author can write anything that she or he chooses, but brace yourself for the fallout, especially if you're challenging faith-based principles and conceptualization. There can be no credible challenge to true omnipotence, but I have a few devout relatives who obviously believe otherwise. One Thanksgiving we had a rather animated discussion on the matter. The food went cold and largely untouched, but the exchange was very heated!

[Carabas]

Yes, it definitely can be made today. But it would most likely be badly written and tone-deaf.(and not because of Disney)

So not that different from the original version then...

Somebody might have stopped Claremont from using the N-Word today.

As they should have back then. I mean not on principle, just in that specific case because it was dumb. You don't get to equate your made up fantasy racial slur with that.

[Mike_Murdock]

Yeah, my takeaway is this: In the fictional world they're living in, it absolutely makes sense. But we don't live in that fictional world.

Let's keep in mind that Claremont did it twice, plus dropped a whole bunch of other slurs in New Mutants 45 using Kitty Pryde (makes me wonder if Claremont thought a Jewish character could get away with it more). I thought the most impressive thing about Bendis's Kitty Pryde speech is that Kitty did not repeat the racial slurs others said. I thought it showed definite maturity on her part

[Knives]

Maybe I'm wrong but do not think it would have the same impact.

The motive is simple violence and open prejudice in a world with terrorists who blow themselves for their beliefs or with genocide and hunts for minorities taking place in various countries generating an unprecedented wave of immigration has become part of people's lives to the point that many consider that's normal. I know it's not a good thing, but it's what I feel .

Even from the point of view of an X-mens reader why they should be more concerned with an intolerant who wants the death of mutants when at one time the US government sanctioned operations against mutants, the Avengers destroyed a mutant refuge and a species different did nothing while several mutants were dying sick by a toxic cloud they threw in the atmosphere?

As a reader there is no reason for anyone to be shocked by a religious group preaching violence and prejudice or killing children when it happens around the globe in real life every day or when have to see this kind of thing in a comic and know that no one has been punished for this:

MG X-mens.jpg


From my point of view humankind has become more apathetic to the suffering of the people around them when it does not directly affect them. And governments or the UN have had more difficulty making countries respect human rights.

So although this kind of story may still have relevance do not think it would have the same impact that it had at the time or would become a classic.

[pugbuddy]

Yes, it definitely can be made today. But it would most likely be badly written and tone-deaf.(and not because of Disney)

Exactly. It would be even more heavy handed.

[Sighphi]

So the other night I finally got around to reading the graphic novel God Loves, Man Kills by Chris Claremont and I loved it. Such a good X-Men story, really showed why I love that franchise and Claremot as a writer. However, one thing that struck me was how overtly 'political' this book could be considered. I mean, the main villain is a charismatic TV evangelical Reverend man who used every trick in the book to peddle religious dogma and bigoted hatred. I cannot help but to think that such a book coming out in this day and age would be chastised for being overtly political and an attack on religion. This seems to be a perfect example to use in the argument that Marvel comics have always had plotical edges to them.

Not to mention how dark some of the scenes are. I mean, the first few pages have kids being killed and hug up.

No, it would be fine. Because, like you said, it was written good.

The issue with politics in books is when they are hamfisted in and clearly are out of place .