Page 13 of 271 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363113 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 4057
  1. #181
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Links to graphs showing the diversity of Marvel and DC comics. Included is only one sample, but there are many more provided in the corresponding link.

    --------

    "Last week, redditor mcon96 made a post in /r/comicbooks titled "Some people say there's not enough diversity in comics, so I decided to add it up and find out for myself."...


    Attachment 1368

    http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...-charts-2.html
    This is exactly the sort of thing that is UNhelpful in this discussion.

    Everyone pulls out character lists and calculators and starts computing "we have [a] number of [b] type characters vs [c] number of [d] type characters".

    Down that road lives "tokenism". "We need an Asian lesbian on the X-Men to make the 'diversity' ratios come out right."

    The objections to that approach are several:

    First, exactly what numbers and ratios are going to satisfy the demand for "diversity"? Must the character roster match exactly to some census-derived proportion in the general population? How will creatives know that the appropriate thresholds have been reached?

    Next, how is the diversity to be achieved? Will new characters be created and proffered for the target audience? Or will existing characters be forcibly retrofit along "diverse" lines? The latter seems to be the approach favored of late by the Big Two. That presents it's own set of issues.

    Are fans of existing incarnations of key characters simply supposed to swallow without comment when the character in question is radically restructured to suit non-story purposes? And is the character in question succeeding because they are diverse, or because they are trading on the good-will and reputation of a "legacy" name? How can we tell the difference?

    Lastly, leaving aside any other issue, I continue to maintain that it is in and of itself wrongheaded and unproductive to assume that characters MUST be of the same group as the desired "target audience".

    I continue to ask the question: Does diversity require (for example) making Captain America an African-American lesbian in order for black and/or lesbian audiences to identify with and respond to the character? Are those audiences incapable of appreciating and being fans of Caucasian heterosexual Steve Rogers?

    I feel these are fair questions to ask. They're certainly difficult questions to ask. But that's what happens when non-entertainment purposes (to wit: increasing "diversity") are grafted onto what are supposed to be entertainment properties, not social polemics.

    For the record, I categorically state that I have no problems with "diverse" characters in and of themselves. I will read (or not read) such characters as I decide interest me (or do not do so).

    Right now, one of my favorite "rookie" characters is Sun Girl. She certainly qualifies as a "diversity character", being both ethnic and female. Neither of those qualities are my deciding influences, however. I like her because I think her character is both well-written and interesting.

    She represents, IMO, the right way to increase diversity in comic books.

  2. #182
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Double 0 View Post
    And once again, like most fan made polls/studies, they missed the point by aiming towards characters instead of creators/editorial.
    The same issues I talk about above apply.

    How will we know when the numbers "work"? What specific ratios do you propose that document "sufficiently diverse"? Does that mean that non "diversity" creatives are actively turned away?

    Further, are you saying that only members of a particular group can successfully write/draw FOR that group? Chris Claremount and Dave Cockrum (for example) would be surprised to hear that, both having been creatives for a wide range of nationalities, ethnicities, AND orientations (though the latter admittedly had to be couched carefully to not arouse the Comics Code and certain parts of upper management).

  3. #183
    Amazing Member Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    59

    Default

    The MCU has made huge fans of both Black Widow and Falcon. The Falcon was amazing in CA:TWS and I love how strong they've portrayed Widow throughout the universe so far.

  4. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowDemon View Post
    The same issues I talk about above apply.

    How will we know when the numbers "work"? What specific ratios do you propose that document "sufficiently diverse"? Does that mean that non "diversity" creatives are actively turned away?

    Further, are you saying that only members of a particular group can successfully write/draw FOR that group? Chris Claremount and Dave Cockrum (for example) would be surprised to hear that, both having been creatives for a wide range of nationalities, ethnicities, AND orientations (though the latter admittedly had to be couched carefully to not arouse the Comics Code and certain parts of upper management).
    I think both your posts fall into the trap of simply assuming that attempts at diversity are at a greater risk of being bad than anything else. I think that's flawed thinking.

    Say a writer is putting a team together. Say the writer decides they want to make the team diverse, and so grabs a half-dozen minority characters. You seem to believe that there's a larger risk of that book being bad then if the writer had simply grabbed a half-dozen straight white male characters, or if they had just picked a half-dozen characters randomly out of a hat, or if they hadn't put any thought whatsoever ever into trying to make a diverse team. What you seem to imply is that, while the book could still be good, it's effectively operating at an innate disadvantage simply because diversity was something that factored into the creation of the book.

    This is a fairly common attitude. I think it's wrong. I think good writers will write good books, and bad writers will write bad books. Occasionally, a good writer will write a bad book, and a bad writer will write a good book. I would argue that a writer who's socially conscious enough to put real thought into demographics and whether their book reflects the experiences of the non-privileged may actually be more likely to be good than one who doesn't give a **** about diversity. Because the writer who's socially conscious is a writer who thinks a lot about complex issues, and the writer who's not socially conscious is probably just throwing good guys at bad guys (which may still be entertaining, but isn't really great writing).

    In terms of diversity among creators, that's a matter of getting unique voices. A black man has different experiences and a different worldview from a white man. A woman is different from a man. A gay person is different from a straight person. Straight White Male is essentially the "default" in society, including in comics. So getting people who don't fit into that is vital simply for getting different ways of seeing the world. Claremont did great work with female characters, but he still wrote them from a male perspective. That's not to say that a woman could do better, only that a woman would do it differently. It might be better, it might be worse, depending on the woman writing, but the important thing is that it would be different, and that difference is necessary.

    It's also not about turning away talented straight white male creators. It's about actively seeking out creators who aren't straight white men.

    And there's another element, too. As I said, straight white men are the default. It's because we control everything. We're the ones in charge. Women make up half the population, but how many women have positions of real authority at Marvel? Not just as creators, but as editors, and in even higher positions? That's not right, and it's not going to change until women actually start being given positions. Giving women and minorities important positions - as long as they're qualified, obviously - promotes equality and justice. And, what's more, it can bring in different views that may help to improve things. Marvel wants to reach female readers - having women in executive positions, giving them a real voice, might allow them to suggest policies that would do that. Having black executives might help with reaching more black readers.

    Diversity is not only the right and moral thing to do - it's also the smart thing to do. It's not a matter of quotas. It's a matter of making a real, sincere effort to get qualified people who aren't the default.

  5. #185
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowDemon View Post
    This is exactly the sort of thing that is UNhelpful in this discussion.

    Everyone pulls out character lists and calculators and starts computing "we have [a] number of [b] type characters vs [c] number of [d] type characters".

    Down that road lives "tokenism". "We need an Asian lesbian on the X-Men to make the 'diversity' ratios come out right."
    I disagree -- studies like this are exactly why I created an Asian-American (Vietnamese) male as my lead character for Primus (Miles) and why I have two females as the leaders of the group, one of whom is Portuguese and French in origin (Rio) while the other is Mayan (Salem). It it likewise why I have a lesbian and a bisexual character in Primus, noting that I lacked as much and having realized that two of my characters (Daye and Niyasa) would have a much more interesting storyline moving forward if they had been lovers in the past.

    No, I didn't need to read the study to create these characters -- I came up with most of these stories over a decade ago -- but, likewise, I do like knowing what hasn't already been done so that I can do it myself.

    For instance, though I already have Arabic characters (Solace, Vhei) as well as Native Americans (Peace, Grace), Latinos (Bidi, Indigo), a gypsy Romanian, a Jamaican, a Scotsman -- and many more -- when someone mentioned Jewish characters in a previous thread, I recognized that I didn't have any (overtly) Jewish characters. I decided I wanted to create a character of Jewish origin as well, so I did so (Faith).

    It all depends on your perspective -- where you may see it as a "quota", I see it as information that I can use as I see fit.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-08-2014 at 08:47 PM.

  6. #186
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    15,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiamatty View Post

    It's also not about turning away talented straight white male creators. It's about actively seeking out creators who aren't straight white men.
    Thing is you can seek them out but will they be given a fair shot and if they fail will they be given another chance.

    Matt Wayne bought this up after McDuffie died (whose first and only solo monthly writing comic came 3 years before he died called Justice League and we all now how that ended). Everyone has no issue with the white guy getting chance after chance after chance when he fails. Yet we got an issue when it's a POC (mainly black males) or some women.

    How many folks tuned out the previous New Warriors series because of the black writer (who gave us some movie series called Under World)?

    Would Mighty Avengers still be around under a black writer?

    Marvel wants to reach female readers - having women in executive positions, giving them a real voice, might allow them to suggest policies that would do that. Having black executives might help with reaching more black readers.
    AND I will say BE CAREFUL wishing for that. Remember Static Shock had a black editor and you saw what happen to him. We can do just as much damage to characters of color/women as much as our white counterparts can.

    And that is the fear that I have. Marvel won't go look for the best but for whoever can toss out the most stereotypical troupe for attention and be the fall guy when it fails.

    I don't want someone aiming for the lowest common denominator for a short term sales boost. I don't need a Storm book to be Diary of a Mad Black Mutant or Scandal.

  7. #187
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Diamond Bar, CA
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Anyone and everyone should be allowed or hired in the industry regardless of ethnic, sexual or social background, etc...
    What SHOULD happen though is the job should always go to the best qualified and that's it.

  8. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skyvolt2000 View Post
    AND I will say BE CAREFUL wishing for that. Remember Static Shock had a black editor and you saw what happen to him. We can do just as much damage to characters of color/women as much as our white counterparts can.

    And that is the fear that I have. Marvel won't go look for the best but for whoever can toss out the most stereotypical troupe for attention and be the fall guy when it fails.

    I don't want someone aiming for the lowest common denominator for a short term sales boost. I don't need a Storm book to be Diary of a Mad Black Mutant or Scandal.
    But I think you're kinda missing my point: Why is there an assumption that this is more likely to happen when minorities are involved? There are tons of books by white writers, starring white characters, that are weak, derivative, lowest-common-denominator trash. And yet if an Iceman solo were announced, there wouldn't be any fears about whether it would be a knock-off of something. People would wonder if Iceman can hold a solo (Spoiler! He can't), whether it'll be any good, all that normal stuff. But the common concerns raised every single time a book comes out that focuses on women or persons of colour never come up for books about white dudes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvarez View Post
    Anyone and everyone should be allowed or hired in the industry regardless of ethnic, sexual or social background, etc...
    What SHOULD happen though is the job should always go to the best qualified and that's it.
    To a point.

    The reason Affirmative Action exists is because white people are at an inherent advantage. We've held all the important positions for a long, long time. So when you're talking about, as an example, executive positions, well, white guys already make up the bulk of executives, so they've got experience, which makes them more qualified. So the positions keep going to white men. Add in to that the fact that a lot of jobs are based on who you know, and the people already in power mostly know other people like them, and so hire people like them - more white men. On top of that, since white men are the ones in power, they generally set the tone in a workplace, which is generally going to wind up being to the detriment of women and minorities. White guys will tell racist and misogynistic jokes, and when they complain, they get seen as not being "team players." Women get sexually harassed, and when they complain, it hurts their careers.

    Straight white men have a huge advantage, simply by being born straight white men. It's an unfair advantage, especially the higher up you go. The only way to really combat that is to get more women and minorities in positions of power, which is generally going to mean giving them a higher priority in hiring practices. If you've got a woman who's only slightly less qualified than a man, go with her. If you've got a Latino who's only slightly less qualified than a white guy, go with the Latino.

    Or, at the very least, when the qualifications are effectively equal, go with the person who's not a straight white guy.

  9. #189
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Diamond Bar, CA
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiamatty View Post

    To a point.

    The reason Affirmative Action exists is because white people are at an inherent advantage. We've held all the important positions for a long, long time. So when you're talking about, as an example, executive positions, well, white guys already make up the bulk of executives, so they've got experience, which makes them more qualified. So the positions keep going to white men. Add in to that the fact that a lot of jobs are based on who you know, and the people already in power mostly know other people like them, and so hire people like them - more white men. On top of that, since white men are the ones in power, they generally set the tone in a workplace, which is generally going to wind up being to the detriment of women and minorities. White guys will tell racist and misogynistic jokes, and when they complain, they get seen as not being "team players." Women get sexually harassed, and when they complain, it hurts their careers.

    Straight white men have a huge advantage, simply by being born straight white men. It's an unfair advantage, especially the higher up you go. The only way to really combat that is to get more women and minorities in positions of power, which is generally going to mean giving them a higher priority in hiring practices. If you've got a woman who's only slightly less qualified than a man, go with her. If you've got a Latino who's only slightly less qualified than a white guy, go with the Latino.

    Or, at the very least, when the qualifications are effectively equal, go with the person who's not a straight white guy.
    As a Chicano, I understand all of that and I still say... pick the more talented individual.
    The problem is management or those in charge if they play favorites.
    It's unfair to screw over potential talent just because you feel the need to be "morally" correct despite seeing the obvious difference of talent.

    When it comes to the creative field, talent is talent. If someone is better, that's just how it is.
    I'm an illustrator and if I lose out to a white dude because he's better that's just how it is.

    I'm not saying that unfair biases don't exist, they do and they go both ways.
    I'm more than likely to be hired by a Latino if my competition is a white man even if he's better.
    That sucks and it's an act that should never ever be approved of.

    It's hard for us artists out there and all I ask for is fairness.
    May the better person win ALWAYS.

  10. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvarez View Post
    As a Chicano, I understand all of that and I still say... pick the more talented individual.
    The problem is management or those in charge if they play favorites.
    It's unfair to screw over potential talent just because you feel the need to be "morally" correct despite seeing the obvious difference of talent.

    When it comes to the creative field, talent is talent. If someone is better, that's just how it is.
    I'm an illustrator and if I lose out to a white dude because he's better that's just how it is.

    I'm not saying that unfair biases don't exist, they do and they go both ways.
    I'm more than likely to be hired by a Latino if my competition is a white man even if he's better.
    That sucks and it's an act that should never ever be approved of.

    It's hard for us artists out there and all I ask for is fairness.
    May the better person win ALWAYS.
    Well, in creative fields, "better" is going to have a degree of subjectivity, too.

    But it's not just the creative level that's being talked about. It's also about the people who make decisions about how the company is run. As Double O has said quite a few times, that's arguably even more important, especially in the long term, than writers and artists. And it's a place where women and minorities are at a huge disadvantage, simply because they've been excluded for so long. When an editorial position opens up, there's already a bunch of white guys who've worked as editors, but there's a lot fewer women and minorities. When someone's being promoted to a management level, they're going to hire someone with management experience, and the vast majority of managers are white guys, because managers have always been white guys.

    And while hiring biases go both ways, they work overwhelmingly in favour of straight white men.

    You're right that the problem is management playing favourites. That is exactly the problem. And the solution is to get more people in management who aren't white men, because at least then, the playing favourites will benefit other people.

  11. #191
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvarez View Post
    It's hard for us artists out there and all I ask for is fairness.
    May the better person win ALWAYS.
    Yeah, but let's be real about art -- it's not always about quality. Truth be told -- it's rarely about that, because if it was, artists like Steve Vai and Talib Kweli would consistently be at the top of the charts and Michael Bay would be broke.

    Fact is, I do want to see a Latino artist in the stable instead of just another white guy "of equal talent" -- provided that Latino artist brings me something unique and introduces me to something I haven't seen before (like "Love and Rockets" by Los Bros Hernandez).

    That's not to say that a "white" artist can't do the same (Neil Gaiman on "The Sandman" for example) or that I'd prefer a respectably talented illustrator "of color" (say Coipel) over someone like Travis Charest. But, realistically speaking, we've already made a lot of progress with regards to illustrator "diversity" (Coipel, Pichelli, Opena, Ramos, Cho, etc) but not so much with regards to the writing and editing aspect, and most importantly, the executive and ownership levels.

    I just think it's important to recognize that this need for "diversity" is bigger than just the "artistic" aspect -- there are billions of dollars at work here and billions of people being affected by these stories worldwide: ultimately, if we don't have any real access to the higher echelons of decision-making -- and can't adequately promote and/or profit from our ideas on this global stage -- then at the end of the day, any "progress" with regards to diversity is superficial at best.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-08-2014 at 11:30 PM.

  12. #192
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Diamond Bar, CA
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Yeah, but let's be real about art -- it's not always about quality. Truth be told -- it's rarely about that, because if it was, artists like Steve Vai and Talib Kweli would consistently be at the top of the charts and Michael Bay would be broke.

    Fact is, I do want to see a Latino artist in the stable instead of just another white guy "of equal talent" -- provided that Latino artist brings me something unique and introduces me to something I haven't seen before (like "Love and Rockets" by Los Bros Hernandez).

    That's not to say that a "white" artist can't do the same (Neil Gaiman on "The Sandman" for example) or that I'd prefer a respectably talented illustrator "of color" (say Coipel) over someone like Travis Charest. But, realistically speaking, we've already made a lot of progress with regards to illustrator "diversity" (Coipel, Pichelli, Opena, Ramos, Cho, etc) but not so much with regards to the writing and editing aspect, and most importantly, the executive and ownership levels.

    I just think it's important to recognize that this need for "diversity" is bigger than just the "artistic" aspect -- there are billions of dollars at work here and billions of people being affected by these stories worldwide: ultimately, if we don't have any real access to the higher echelons of decision-making -- and can't adequately promote and/or profit from our ideas on this global stage -- then at the end of the day, any "progress" with regards to diversity is superficial at best.
    Maybe It's because I'm from a family with a bunch of old school Brown Berets who fought and lectured during the Chicano/brown power movement, but I have to clear this up.

    When it comes down to it, I wouldn't wanna be hired or have anyone hired because of something other than them actually being the top qualifier.
    If there is ANY ulterior motive like race involved in the form of "Well this person is a minority, so lets give them the break for the good of diversity." I have a HUGE problem with that.
    It turns a person into a quota, into a drop in the bucket for some goal of making everyone feel good about themselves.

    We're not a tool to be used to further some cause, we should be doing that on our own.
    It's our responsibility to try to make a change, not someone who is looking our for their best interests or the interests of others.

    People always talk about unfair treatment and the like... but never the unfair advantages.
    It really sucks when you find out that someone was better than you and the only reason you've been taken on is because of what you are.
    There's a lot of guilt that goes into it which makes you question your real value as a person.

    To take it further it goes back to the colonized/colonizer mentality of "When we give this to you, then it's okay."
    To that I say no. I don't need handouts and I don't need be part of someones need to enrich diversity over any aspect, be it artistic or something else.
    Yes, I know that there is racism and I know that things will be twice as hard because of this uneven power scale.
    That just means I'll have to fight harder until things are right. I'll have to sell myself better to a point that even my race can be overlooked.

    What I'm saying is, let me do what I want on my own terms and let them be based on what I can do... and not who I am.

    As my Mexican American studies professor has said.

    "We are not a quota to be filled by management. Not a statistic.
    We are not a path to ethnic diversity or a hope of a better future.
    We are not here to make them feel like they have done something positive.
    We are Chicano and we will mark OUR own path on OUR own terms."

    - Dr. Raul Chavez


    I hope that made sense.

  13. #193
    Astonishing Member Double 0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,308

    Default

    That's nice and all, but when it comes down to it, they'd rather take a look at their somewhat-talented friend than some random talent. In other words, if you don't know the guy, then you can't just be better than their friends. You have to be WAY better than their friends.

    And when most of the upper management is either white straight male, or don't think consciously about the sociological issues that come with the hiring process, they are most likely going to choose their talented friends or connections. And usually, their friends are much like them.

    That's what happens when your hiring process is mostly based on subjectivity.
    Last edited by Double 0; 05-09-2014 at 07:32 AM.

  14. #194
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    8,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Double 0 View Post
    That's nice and all, but when it comes down to it, they'd rather take a look at their somewhat-talented friend than some random talent. In other words, if you don't know the guy, then you can't just be better than their friends. You have to be WAY better than their friends.

    And when most of the upper management is either white straight male, or don't think consciously about the sociological issues that come with the hiring process, they are most likely going to choose their talented friends or connections. And usually, their friends are much like them.

    That's what happens when your hiring process is mostly based on subjectivity.
    Agreed 100%.

  15. #195
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiamatty View Post
    I think both your posts fall into the trap of simply assuming that attempts at diversity are at a greater risk of being bad than anything else. I think that's flawed thinking.

    Say a writer is putting a team together. Say the writer decides they want to make the team diverse, and so grabs a half-dozen minority characters. You seem to believe that there's a larger risk of that book being bad then if the writer had simply grabbed a half-dozen straight white male characters, or if they had just picked a half-dozen characters randomly out of a hat, or if they hadn't put any thought whatsoever ever into trying to make a diverse team. What you seem to imply is that, while the book could still be good, it's effectively operating at an innate disadvantage simply because diversity was something that factored into the creation of the book.

    This is a fairly common attitude. I think it's wrong. I think good writers will write good books, and bad writers will write bad books. Occasionally, a good writer will write a bad book, and a bad writer will write a good book. I would argue that a writer who's socially conscious enough to put real thought into demographics and whether their book reflects the experiences of the non-privileged may actually be more likely to be good than one who doesn't give a **** about diversity. Because the writer who's socially conscious is a writer who thinks a lot about complex issues, and the writer who's not socially conscious is probably just throwing good guys at bad guys (which may still be entertaining, but isn't really great writing).

    In terms of diversity among creators, that's a matter of getting unique voices. A black man has different experiences and a different worldview from a white man. A woman is different from a man. A gay person is different from a straight person. Straight White Male is essentially the "default" in society, including in comics. So getting people who don't fit into that is vital simply for getting different ways of seeing the world. Claremont did great work with female characters, but he still wrote them from a male perspective. That's not to say that a woman could do better, only that a woman would do it differently. It might be better, it might be worse, depending on the woman writing, but the important thing is that it would be different, and that difference is necessary.

    It's also not about turning away talented straight white male creators. It's about actively seeking out creators who aren't straight white men.

    And there's another element, too. As I said, straight white men are the default. It's because we control everything. We're the ones in charge. Women make up half the population, but how many women have positions of real authority at Marvel? Not just as creators, but as editors, and in even higher positions? That's not right, and it's not going to change until women actually start being given positions. Giving women and minorities important positions - as long as they're qualified, obviously - promotes equality and justice. And, what's more, it can bring in different views that may help to improve things. Marvel wants to reach female readers - having women in executive positions, giving them a real voice, might allow them to suggest policies that would do that. Having black executives might help with reaching more black readers.

    Diversity is not only the right and moral thing to do - it's also the smart thing to do. It's not a matter of quotas. It's a matter of making a real, sincere effort to get qualified people who aren't the default.
    I understand the point you are attempting to make, but I disagree with your analysis.

    Particularly when we are discussing a limited pool of positions (both for characters "in universe" and for creatives IRL). You ARE talking ultimately about quotas. It's inescapable. If you have (for example) 50 slots to fill (either for characters or creators), do you simply take your 50 best potentials or do you start saying "So-and-so isn't as good/popular as this other guy, but he/she is a [insert diversity group], so we need to take him to demonstrate we're 'diverse'..."

    That's a quota, no matter how much people try to avoid calling it that.

    And your argument still falls into the trap of assuming that it is necessary to have "diverse" characters/creatives in order to appeal to "diverse" audiences. If a particular character/creator is successful, who gives a rat's rear one way or the other?

    It is in insult to a character like Captain America to say that Steve Rogers only appeals to white/hetro/etc audiences and that ethnic/alt orientation/etc audiences cannot find value in him.

    This is endemic to modern group relations thought, unfortunately. We are abandoning "e pluribus unum" ("from out of many, one") for "De uno autem ex multis" ("from out of one, many") or "de multis" ("out of many, many"), sometimes popularly bastardized as "e pluribus pluribus".

    [Apologizes if my Latin is a bit off, I used a translator except for "e pluribus unum", which I already knew".]

    Tacking on "diversity" issues also has a tendency to turn books "preachy". One of the early issues of the new Ms Marvel, for example, went out of it's way to make a point of having the better part of a page devoted to a story point about the character not being able to find halal(sp?) foods at a lunch counter. Or how some alt lifestyle characters can't seem to go two issues w/o reminding the readers of their status.

    Ok. Non-mainstream people sometimes find themselves having issues with the larger society. Point made. Can we get back to the story now?

    Comics as polemics probably reached it's summit (or nadir depending on how you look at it) in Phase 1 of the Ultimate Universe, especially in The Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men. The writers never passed up an opportunity to showcase either American society or the American government as utterly evil, twisted, bigoted, corrupt, etc. The politics became the purpose, and it was a big reason why I dropped out of both books very early on.

    Let me be clear (again): I am not saying that this must or will happen, but it has been my experience as a reader that it has a strong tendency towards happening, and I find it offputting.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •