Calculations in Marvel's Diversity

[JoeWithoutFear]

Hey, CBR.

Got a huge post here. It's not long because of a meandering rant, though I'm sure some will read it that way. It's long because I try to explain myself as well as I possibly can because I believe mutual understanding is a cornerstone of real progress. I know that sometimes the more you give people in the interest of understanding, the more ammo you give them to use against you (that one little phrase that didn't come out quite like you intended!). But, hey, at least I tried...

~~~~~

Obviously this is a huge topic these days. Just glancing over the CBR forums and headlines on a daily basis shows just how ubiquitous the talk of diversity efforts have become. On the surface, that's a good thing. But, what most people have taken issue with is how these efforts appear engineered to create conflict instead of peace. This is happening so much that I think people honestly believe that if you aren't fighting someone, if you aren't making someone angry, if you aren't seeking to end one's pain by transferring it to someone else, then you aren't accomplishing anything progressive. Personally, I don't believe the best way to peace is through war. I didn't believe it when George W. Bush tried to sell the notion years ago, and I still don't believe it today. And if you aren't concerned with working towards peace and understanding, then what the hell are you working towards?

Let's start with an assumption that I see as a given: diversity in comics is not a zero-sum equation. You don't have to remove heterosexual, white, male heroes to increase the number or prominence of female and minority heroes.

Still, creating unnecessary friction certainly makes sense when you think about how media makers and journalists can leverage controversy and fighting to meet their goals. To quote one of my favorite bands, "No one's excited unless they're divided." So, you divide people, you give them an enemy or something to be afraid of or worried about, and now they're excited. It's a cheaper, easier way to get people excited. It has made people tune in to the news for decades and it makes people pick up tabloid magazines to this day. Excited people will click on links, share articles, post comments, rally their friends, and talk about comic books that might otherwise struggle for attention on the merit of their content alone.

The problem is, diversity on its own is not really controversial these days. Yes, it's as emotionally charged as ever. But, in general, people are welcoming and eager to celebrate those who have different backgrounds than their own. People generally want others to not have to suffer in silence or be judged unfairly for who they are. People generally want others to be able to pick up a given work of media art and see themselves reflected back in some way if that's what it takes to get them to relate to that art. Because of this acceptance, diversity on its own is not going to create the kind of "excitement" that the one's selling want to generate from the one's buying. Sure, introducing new characters of diverse backgrounds would increase sales among the reflected groups, but it's not going to generate the loudest buzz possible in the 2000-teens.

So, the method chosen has to be more potent, more buzzworthy. And this is where I'm getting to the point I'm trying to illustrate here. Something that I'm not sure has really been talked about but seems like a kind of obvious factor in the equation. I now see Marvel's recent big attempts at diversity as a two-step process.

Step 1. Take a prominent heterosexual, white, male hero and alter one of those traits.
Step 2. Make the altered chosen trait from step 1 as big of a contrast as possible.

That's really the crux of my observation here, step 2. Let's take a look...

• The character of Thor was an embodiment of many masculine stereotypes. So, the new Thor is female.
• Steve Rodgers was very "white," in whatever cultural, or even national, sense you want to think of it. So, the new Captain America is black.
• One of Bobby Drake's well-known character traits was a frequent affirmation of his heterosexuality. So, the story reveals Iceman to be gay.

In other words, while the writing itself reflects a lack of ambition, the specific choices made illustrate a very calculated process expected to yield a desperately desired result. They want that change to be as jarring as possible to create the largest emotional response as possible to generate the most "excitement" as possible to get people to ... make a big deal out of it. Fight with each other, draw battle lines, share, click, read. It works great for the people selling the comics and the blogs. And it also works great for people who enjoy the battle, who see it as a good thing. But, for some, it feels like their emotions are being unnecessarily (see: zero-sum above) and purposefully prodded just to increase revenue -- not for any virtuous social goal.

It hurts even more because the long-time fans are the ones who supported comic books. So they feel sold out and a little betrayed when they feel like nothing more than an emotional resource. Not because they have something against women and minorities, but because the method is DESIGNED to upset them. Not by challenging their beliefs about social issues, but by taking away something they enjoyed. It's the same backlash comic creators receive about new costume designs or when a character moves to a different city for lazy plot reasons, or their powers change for lazy reasons, or etc, etc.

I know many people reading this made their minds up a long time ago. They will read what I wrote and see what they want to see. There's human nature in that and I am understanding of it. But, for those who are not too extreme in either direction, I feel like it's important to recognize Marvel's strategy and understand why it is having the result that it is -- not because people are bad, but because it's the intended result.

With so much of the audience today being more interested in waging their own battles off the page than any kind of narrative conflict in the books, I don't see an end in sight to these, at best, questionable decisions. At least, not until the next trend emerges to replace it... which could be a while.

Anyway, maybe this helped shed some light on things for people. Maybe it helped you understand someone you still disagree with a little better. Or, maybe it just made you think less of me. I'm trying to be brave and speak my truth and so I'm prepared for that consequence as well. But, I will leave you with one of Bendis' best pieces of recent writing...

scott.jpg

[Trident]

This is a very good and well thought out post but being honest I doubt many are going to take to it well. It will fall on death ears sadly.

[Cloudman]

Your analysis of the two-step process is bang on. Marvel knows very well that controversy sells, and that comic book fans are, in general, continuity enthusiasts. So when something like the gay Bobby thing comes along, people (myself included) get frustrated at the willingness to cast continuity aside. That the reason behind it is diversity doesn't factor into it for most of us; just the fact that the characters we enjoy are being toyed with in ways that go completely against their entire history is what annoys people.

If Marvel's interest was really in diversifying their brand, they would create new minority characters rather than drastically altering established non-minority characters. Why aren't they dedicating books to lesser-known existing minority characters? Why aren't they creating new minority characters, then putting big-name writers on their books? Because they don't have the faith that it will sell. And that is all it comes down to.

[Kieran_Frost]

Adding diversity creates pain in others???

[UltimateTy]

Your analysis of the two-step process is bang on. Marvel knows very well that controversy sells, and that comic book fans are, in general, continuity enthusiasts. So when something like the gay Bobby thing comes along, people (myself included) get frustrated at the willingness to cast continuity aside. That the reason behind it is diversity doesn't factor into it for most of us; just the fact that the characters we enjoy are being toyed with in ways that go completely against their entire history is what annoys people.

If Marvel's interest was really in diversifying their brand, they would create new minority characters rather than drastically altering established non-minority characters. Why aren't they dedicating books to lesser-known existing minority characters? Why aren't they creating new minority characters, then putting big-name writers on their books? Because they don't have the faith that it will sell. And that is all it comes down to.

Great post Cloudman

That's how I feel about it.

[JoeWithoutFear]

Adding diversity creates pain in others???

Not even remotely. Please re-read.

[Marvell2100]

As with all change there will be controversy. Bringing in a newly created LGBT character does increasing not have the same impact as having an established well known character revealed as gay. Making Captain America another blond haired, blue-eyed male isn't the same as having an African-American represent the embodiment of the ideals of the American Dream. Having the most powerful character in the MU become a woman carries a lot more impact since Thor has been replaced by a another male(and a frog) before.

But if we look at what the change represents, we can see a shift in the dynamics of this country and the world. The LGTB population continues to grow, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable by the majority in this country(US). Women and minorities are increasing in positions of power in business and politics. Comics cannot continue to be told in a vacuum. LGTBs, women and minorities buy movies, games, tech, cars and comics. They deserve representation in entertainment and elsewhere.

I believe that some are probably unhappy with the execution of change rather than the change itself(I would hope so). There are instances when it could be done better there is no questioning that. But we shouldn't overlook the reasoning behind the change. We have over70(?) years of published comicbook history where the default was white male. People don't want to wait another 70 years to have diversity take hold. Marvel is changing things by choosing to use established characters to build a base and will probably introduce newer minority characters as they establish continue to grow and diversify.

And we can't forget the fact that our comicbook creators are becoming more diverse as well.

[JoeWithoutFear]

@Marvell2100

I don't think you said anything that is at odds with what I wrote above. However, I don't think your post here addresses one of my key points. Which is: there is no problem with adding characters to achieve that goal. The problem comes from thinking that you have to take from someone in order to give to someone else. I don't see that being necessary at all. Do you? If so, why?

[Kieran_Frost]

As with all change there will be controversy. Bringing in a newly created LGBT character does increasing not have the same impact as having an established well known character revealed as gay. Making Captain America another blond haired, blue-eyed male isn't the same as having an African-American represent the embodiment of the ideals of the American Dream. Having the most powerful character in the MU become a woman carries a lot more impact since Thor has been replaced by a another male(and a frog) before.

But if we look at what the change represents, we can see a shift in the dynamics of this country and the world. The LGTB population continues to grow, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable by the majority in this country(US). Women and minorities are increasing in positions of power in business and politics. Comics cannot continue to be told in a vacuum. LGTBs, women and minorities buy movies, games, tech, cars and comics. They deserve representation in entertainment and elsewhere.

I believe that some are probably unhappy with the execution of change rather than the change itself(I would hope so). There are instances when it could be done better there is no questioning that. But we shouldn't overlook the reasoning behind the change. We have over70(?) years of published comicbook history where the default was white male. People don't want to wait another 70 years to have diversity take hold. Marvel is changing things by choosing to use established characters to build a base and will probably introduce newer minority characters as they establish continue to grow and diversify.

And we can't forget the fact that our comicbook creators are becoming more diverse as well.

Awesome post.

However, I don't think your post here addresses one of my key points. Which is: there is no problem with adding characters to achieve that goal. The problem comes from thinking that you have to take from someone in order to give to someone else. I don't see that being necessary at all.

Outing Iceman as gay isn't taking him away from anyone. He's still around. It's a character development, like when he stopped looking like a snowman, like when he was revealed as Omega. Characters grow, evolve, develop; it's why we love comics. At the end of the day he's still a mutant, he's still an X-man, he still has ice powers, he's still a joker, he's still awesome. And he's been taken away from no-one.

Was Ricky Martin "taken away" from everyone? Was Channing Tatum? Was Ellen Page? Was Anna Paquin? Was Jodie Foster?

[HUTHAIFA]

Marvel is in the business of selling comics. The fans are not overly interested in buying books with new heroes. There is a small segment that will buy it because they like the underdog, but most won't.Ms. Marvel sells better than Captain Marvel. Lady Hammer sells better than Thor. The problem or issue isn't with Marvel its with the fan base.

[JoeWithoutFear]

Awesome post.


Outing Iceman as gay isn't taking him away from anyone. He's still around. It's a character development, like when he stopped looking like a snowman, like when he was revealed as Omega. Characters grow, evolve, develop; it's why we love comics. At the end of the day he's still a mutant, he's still an X-man, he still has ice powers, he's still a joker, he's still awesome. And he's been taken away from no-one.

Was Ricky Martin "taken away" from everyone? Was Channing Tatum? Was Ellen Page? Was Anna Paquin? Was Jodie Foster?

In the case of Iceman, it's a change that, as I described above, appears designed to be in stark contrast to what was established about that character. It would be the same as if he was suddenly written as no longer being a joker. How do you think fans would react? Positively? As "growth"? I think people would miss the old Bobby. As they do when he's been written so bitterly in Uncanny lately. Bobby's eye-roll-worthy hetero goofiness was as much a part of his character. That's why it creates a jarring effect to change it.

Plus, you can't dismiss the reasoning behind these changes. As I tried to make clear above, it would be one thing if it felt like these changes were being done in the name of being inclusive. But, that's not what's happening. It looks like they are being done to get a reaction, create a PR buzz, marketing, etc. That matters. The motivation behind things matters to people.

If Marvel wanted to better represent more groups of people, AND keep their long-time fans happy, it could be done. Simple as that.

To your other point, those are real people living in their real lives. The evolution of their sexuality is not a marketing ploy, it's who they are. Again, motivation matters. If Iceman was outed as gay as a singular event, it would go over much better. Much like when Ultimate Colossus was written as a gay man. But, when it is the next in a string of similar changes, all with identical themes (replacing straight/white/male with _____), again, it comes off as something else entirely.

I'm not looking to make people dislike Bobby being gay or any of the others. I'm trying to help people understand the others around them. I'm willing to bet there was a time when something you liked was changed and you didn't like it or the reason behind it. Does that make you a bad person? No. Would you appreciate people accusing you of being regressive for it? I imagine not.

All of this could be handled better. And I think I'm seeing the reasons why it isn't, and those reasons are really sad.

Marvel is in the business of selling comics. The fans are not overly interested in buying books with new heroes. There is a small segment that will buy it because they like the underdog, but most won't.Ms. Marvel sells better than Captain Marvel. Lady Hammer sells better than Thor. The problem or issue isn't with Marvel its with the fan base.

But, people say that HUGE groups of people are desperate for books with prominent and powerful women and minority characters. Assuming that's true, and the book was of adequate quality, it would sell, right?

[Marvell2100]

@Marvell2100

I don't think you said anything that is at odds with what I wrote above. However, I don't think your post here addresses one of my key points. Which is: there is no problem with adding characters to achieve that goal. The problem comes from thinking that you have to take from someone in order to give to someone else. I don't see that being necessary at all. Do you? If so, why?

But that's what's been done throughout comics isn't it? Every iconic character has been replaced at one time or another. Usually the original returns no worse for wear. But what we got out of it was a different take on a character and a different perspective. Sam Wilson's Captain America is not the same as Steve Rogers Captain America. James Rhodes Iron Man is not the same as Tony Starks Iron Man and so on and so on.

They really haven't taken anything from these characters for the fact that they are still around. Steve, Tony, T'Challa, Bobby and Carol are all still appearing in comics. Here's a question: If Steve Rogers retires should Captain America retire with him? Does that title belong to him and him alone? No, someone else would step into the role. Thor no longer has Mjolnir but is that the only thing that defines him? Tony Stark is still a genius with or without armor. Bobby's sexual orientation has no effect on his mutant abilities. Steve Rogers is Steve Rogers in or out of costume.

[gurkle]

The new characters and roles are fine with me; it's the self-congratulation that gets on my nerves sometimes. Marvel still is mostly dependent on white male heroes created in the '60s (and probably always will be); it hasn't had a recent run of creating new female characters that compares with Claremont's in the '80s; it has very few female writers getting regular work. For PR purposes they act like they've come a long way, which they really haven't. Or at least they have a long way to go.

But in their defense, creating new superhero characters is incredibly hard. Claremont was able to do it in X-Men, but it was a different time, when comics were much more under the radar, and new characters could go through a lot of trial and error before we figured out if we liked them. Today a character gets introduced, tried out for a while, and disappears into the bin of forgotten new characters. They're getting better at this - Kamala, and the strong fan reaction to the Spider-Gwen issue that got her a spinoff - but it will always be the case that you can sell more copies of "Thor" than "Woman With Thor's Powers."

I'm fine with that. I just don't like it when critics or fans or writers start lecturing readers who think wrongly. Like the people who correct readers who call the new Thor "female Thor." The original Thor is still in the book; there's nothing wrong with specifying which Thor you're referring to, and not everything is Problematic. It's not a big deal, but comic writers on Twitter could sometimes do with a little less calling out easy targets for applause. They take the trolls too seriously and ignore that the counter-trolling can be off-putting too.

Outing Iceman as gay isn't taking him away from anyone.

Not inherently, but when characters are outed as gay the writers often portray them as always having been gay - bisexuality, of course, is not an option - which leads them to dismiss their straight relationships as not quite counting, or at least belonging to a time when the character was confused. If you were really invested in one of Bobby's straight relationships, then I could see him being gay as a sort of slap in the face to that.

However, Bendis is doing his best to avoid that, and respect the fact that adult Bobby has been in straight relationships and that it's not as simple as him just always having been gay. So I think he's doing a good job of not making it a problem. But sometimes other writers do underestimate how much people have invested in the characters' romantic histories.

[Kieran_Frost]

As I tried to make clear above, it would be one thing if it felt like these changes were being done in the name of being inclusive. But, that's not what's happening. It looks like they are being done to get a reaction, create a PR buzz, marketing, etc. That matters. The motivation behind things matters to people.

As Bendis pointed out, it was done with marketing. It wasn't hinted in the synopsis, no-one knew it was coming, there was no drop a few weeks ago implying something like this would happen, there was no cover implying it would happen. Either they need to fire who is in-charge of their marketing, or (far more likely) it wasn't about marketing. Yes it made news; because it's the first ever A-lister hero Marvel has outed. The first of anything like this always gets media attention (because it's a unique event). That's not on Marvel or Bendis, that's just the world we live in.

Bendis didn't do it for sales (his comic was already in the Top 20); he did it because he felt there was a story to tell. The fact it got attention is secondary.

If Marvel wanted to better represent more groups of people, AND keep their long-time fans happy, it could be done. Simple as that.

I'm a long term fan. The idea that long term fans aren't happy with this is false. I'm a long term fan, and I'm very happy with the reveal and the step forward in better representation. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

To your other point, those are real people living in their real lives. The evolution of their sexuality is not a marketing ploy, it's who they are. Again, motivation matters.

Major "established" people, with a history of str8 sexuality, come out as gay in real life. If it's good enough to be believable in real life, I think it's good enough to be believable in a world where people fly and shoot lasers from their eyes.

If Iceman was outed as gay as a singular event, it would go over much better. Much like when Ultimate Colossus was written as a gay man. But, when it is the next in a string of similar changes, all with identical themes (replacing straight/white/male with _____), again, it comes off as something else entirely.

This is implying Bendis cares what others writers are doing, and he has shown many, many times he doesn't

Not inherently, but when characters are outed as gay the writers often portray them as always having been gay - bisexuality, of course, is not an option - which leads them to dismiss their straight relationships as not quite counting, or at least belonging to a time when the character was confused. If you were really invested in one of Bobby's straight relationships, then I could see him being gay as a sort of slap in the face to that.

What relationships of Iceman are beloved and key to the core of the character? Honestly, I can't think of any Iceman pairing anyone's much made a fuss over. Even IF his relationships prior to this are dismissed (and I don't think they will be)... is that much of a loss? Iceman and [insert failed lover] is no Peter/MJ.

[Marvell2100]

Plus, you can't dismiss the reasoning behind these changes. As I tried to make clear above, it would be one thing if it felt like these changes were being done in the name of being inclusive. But, that's not what's happening. It looks like they are being done to get a reaction, create a PR buzz, marketing, etc. That matters. The motivation behind things matters to people.

Sure motives do matter in some instances. Abraham Lincoln didn't free slaves solely because he believed slavery was wrong but do you think it mattered to the suddenly freed Blacks the reason why he did it? Everything has context. Yes, Marvel is getting a PR/marketing buzz because they are publicly outing a prominent character and maybe they did it to boost their sales. But I imagine that their are thousands of LGTB comicbook readers who could care less about that. What they see is a popular character who shares something in common with them. I think the most important thing in all of this is to do the characters properly as far as their portrayals. If Marvel doesn't do anything else with them, then that becomes the problem. But in fairness there are many established characters as well as new ones that are sitting in limbo right now.