LOIS LANE ongoing solo title? - news, rumors, hopes, fears, and ideas

[Ulysses]

Let’s just put aside Greg for a minute. You don’t share his politics.

To be clear, I never said I didn't share Rucka's politics. In fact, I made no statement of political position.

[EsotericFailures]

Journalists are opposed to fascists.

You’re clearly not familiar with the British press.

Rucka is talented but I’m not up for him lionising mainstream journalists as a force for good leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[misslane]

To be clear, I never said I didn't share Rucka's politics. In fact, I made no statement of political position.

If you aren't concerned about Rucka's politics, then why are you worried his writing may portray a political point of view that is biased and unfair?

[Superlad93]

And I think that job would best be performed if that character had to make a case for their perspective against someone with an equally strong perspective. The characters we love should run the risk of being wrong.

Even then it's still viewed primarily through the main character's perspective. If you want something on a more equal footing, then it becomes a dual protagonist or at least dual perspectives, and I'm pretty sure this isn't either of those when the book opens.

In any case, I doubt this very specific issue is the hill this comic is deciding to die on much less what the book will be about. This opening should be viewed more as the equivalent of a Superman comic opening with him saving the world from an apparent space tyrant or something. You're not asking yourself "hmmm is Superman even right to stop that evil looking space guy? Maybe that guy has a perspective I'm not taking into account." No. It's just there to show Superman doing his thing in a snapshot. Rucka just used the opportunity to also get some feelings out there.

[Nelliebly]

Nowhere did I say one ought to be neutral about fascism. But rather I think we should be objective about who is fascist. Simply labeling one's political opponents as fascist does not make them fascist. An argument, a strong case must be made. I suppose we don't know who Lois is taking a stand against until we've read the whole story. My suspicion is that Rucka will heavily imply that the current POTUS and all his supporters are fascist and that the political opponents of POTUS and his supporters are anti-fascist without making a strong case either way.

As I've mentioned, we'll see.

Lex Luthor has, historically, been portrayed as the kind of leader that behaves in a way that exploits the innocent and vulnerable. His xenophobia has, at times, been eerily similar to real life politicians.

Why is it ok for Superman to oppose Lex Luthor but the minute these very real issues start to connect to a fictional world...then it’s too much to come out against them? That doesn’t make sense.

If Lex Luthor was detaining immigrants and Clark called it out, would that be ok? Because that happened on Smallville. Episode entitled “subterrean.”

[misslane]

You’re clearly not familiar with the British press.

Rucka is talented but I’m not up for him lionising mainstream journalists as a force for good leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm well aware of the fact that journalists, like all people, are imperfect. There are plenty of unethical and compromised members of the fourth estate who either support the status quo or actively enable corruption. Nonetheless, journalists as a general rule are supposed to be anti-fascist. So those journalists who are compromised are clearly bad journalists. Lois Lane has never been a "mainstream" journalist, which is why Rucka enjoys writing her so much, so I hardly think that is valid concern for his book.

[Ulysses]

If you aren't concerned about Rucka's politics, then why are you worried his writing may portray a political point of view that is biased and unfair?

I never said that. My concern is that he will be dogmatic and preachy about his politics. My concern will be the same regardless of the writer's politics. Even politics I agree with, I wouldn't want them be presented in a dogmatic and preachy way.

[Ulysses]

In any case, I doubt this very specific issue is the hill this comic is deciding to die on much less what the book will be about. This opening should be viewed more as the equivalent of a Superman comic opening with him saving the world from an apparent space tyrant or something.

Oh, maybve there's a preview out there with more pages than what I read. Which preview did you read? I didn't see anything abut superman or an evil-looking space guy.

[Ulysses]

Why is it ok for Superman to oppose Lex Luthor but the minute these very real issues start to connect to a fictional world...then it’s too much to come out against them?

Because one of those things is mythology and the other isn't.

[Nelliebly]

Because one of those things is mythology and the other isn't.

If mythology doesn’t reflect real world themes than why even bother? Superman’s heroism is empty if it doesn’t reflect our world.

[Ulysses]

Even then it's still viewed primarily through the main character's perspective. If you want something on a more equal footing, then it becomes a dual protagonist or at least dual perspectives,

Here's hoping there is more than one character in the book, and as a result, more than one perspective.

[Superlad93]

Oh, maybve there's a preview out there with more pages than what I read. Which preview did you read? I didn't see anything abut superman or an evil-looking space guy.

I'm saying that I think it's the equivalent of that. You know, when you open up a Superman book and the writer has Superman ending an adventure we have no previous context for outside of "he's Superman, this is what he does, and this is how he does it" to give us a sort of snapshot of what he's all about.

I'm saying this moment is likely the equivalent of that but it uses real world politics to give you a quick look at where Lois stands. Like the hypothetical Superman vs space tyrant situation, it's not about the opposition. It's about understand where our main character stand, what they stand for, and how they go about upholding their position.

Does that make my point more clear for you?

[misslane]

I never said that. My concern is that he will be dogmatic and preachy about his politics. My concern will be the same regardless of the writer's politics. Even politics I agree with, I wouldn't want them be presented in a dogmatic and preachy way.

Is there a non-preachy or non-dogmatic way to oppose fascism and crimes against humanity? It seems like a pretty clear case of good vs. evil or just vs. unjust. It's not like the issues up for debate in this book are common conflicts on the liberal-conservative spectrum that warrant a fair and balanced approach (e.g. health care, taxation, etc.). All liberals, all conservatives, and all people should oppose fascism and inhuman treatment of immigrants. In other words, there are some things that don't warrant dogmatic preaching, but there are some things that do. I firmly believe it's okay to be preachy about opposing fascism and crimes against humanity.

[Ulysses]

If mythology doesn’t reflect real world themes than why even bother? Superman’s heroism is empty if it doesn’t reflect our world.

I don't think mythology reflects what we think is the real world is. I think mythology hints at what the world really is. As a student of mythology, I think the lesson we learn through mythology has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the nature of personhood. And I am convinced personhood is something shared by our political opponents.

[Ulysses]

I'm saying this moment is likely the equivalent of that but it uses real world politics to give you a quick look at where Lois stands.

Does that make my point more clear for you?

Yes, it does.