was DC less "socially aware" than Marvel in the past?

[Rogue Star]

I'd say overall, Marvel has been more socially aware. One of the great franchises, X-Men, is built on the foundation of racism and xenophobia. I think the reaction of Marvel's general citizenry is more realistic. Look at the huge numbers of people in the real world who get whipped into a frenzy with demagoguery about plain old humans. Throw in aliens, gods, Inhumans and mutants and it would probably get pretty bad.

There is a large portion of comic fans who say, "Keep politics and social issues out of my comics", but that excludes some rich story telling material.

The DCEU's Snyderverse is essentially showing us what would happen if Superman was dropped into the Marvel universe. Clark should be glad he hasn't lost his girlfriend and gotten evicted from his apartment yet.

[Atlanta96]

Marvel was more so in the past. At this point, I think they're more or less on the same page. They've both done a lot of progressive things, and they've both done a lot of embarrassing stuff. Some of the most sexist crap I've ever read comes from Marvel.

Evil dominatrix Susan Storm, Janet Van Dynes vapid sidekick days, that horrible Carol Danvers rape story, Marvel has had its share of embarrassing moments, no doubt. To be fair, the most sexist thing they've done in recent years was a variant cover with some questionable anatomy, so they're doing alright at the moment!

[Jim Kelly]

It was a commonly held belief in fandom, in the '60s and '70s, that National Periodical Publications tended to be a couple of years behind the times. They might see a trend and want to capitalize on it, but the machinery of publishing ran so slow that by the time they made a decision to exploit a trend, they were way behind.

I don't think Marvel was that much better. But the fact that they only published a handful of comics against the enormous output of DC (because they were controlled by Independent News, the sister corporation of National that distributed both DC and Marvel comics), probably gave them some more flexibility.

The Marvel Age in the '60s had two things going for it.

One was that, because Marvel had a smaller output, they could target their comics at a specific market. Throughout the history of Martin Goodman's publications up to that point, he would spot the latest trend and then switch his whole line to capitalize on that trend. The comics tagged the Marvel Age were targetted at teens. And you could say that the teens saw in those comics what they wanted to see.

Two was Stan Lee. Stan was a good pitch man and in his Soap Box and the letter columns he convinced the readers that what they were reading was pure gold. As well, with 20/20 hindsight, Stan Lee has done a good job of revising our memories. He tells us that everything he wrote was in tune with the times--and we believe him. Maybe that rug is a magic rug.

There wasn't a lot for National Periodical Publications to gain by going out on a limb and publishing a bunch of stuff that the retailers didn't like. When Carmine Infantino became the Editorial Director, he got push back from the retailers who claimed they couldn't move that product. They wanted nice safe comics to put on their racks--not all this experimental and progressive stuff that Infantino was trying to get out the door.

Marvel could be a little more daring, because they had nothing to lose.

However, if you're talking about people, I get the feeling that Arnold Drake was much more in tune with the times than Stan Lee. It's just writers like Drake couldn't get DC to publish their progressive work. Not often. That doesn't mean the people working at National were out of step with the times. In their personal lives, they pursued modern interests--but when they came to work, they had to produce the material their employer demanded of them.

But on those occasions when writers and artists could get socially aware material past the filter of National's corporate interests, I think their work was much more daring than Marvel. Sekowsky's WONDER WOMAN, O'Neil and Adams' GREEN LANTERN/Green Arrow, Wein and Wrightson's SWAMP THING were cutting edge and often addressed themes that Marvel wouldn't touch.

Moreover, DC's true glory in the late '60s and early '70s were the horror anthology comics (and PLOP! should be included in with them). It's in those comics where writers and artists could sneak stuff by without their overlords noticing. You get a lot of really great and innovative stories in those comics. But because everyone is so super-hero obsessed, DC's horror anthologies don't get their due.

[ed2962]

It was a commonly held belief in fandom, in the '60s and '70s, that National Periodical Publications tended to be a couple of years behind the times. They might see a trend and want to capitalize on it, but the machinery of publishing ran so slow that by the time they made a decision to exploit a trend, they were way behind.

I don't think Marvel was that much better. But the fact that they only published a handful of comics against the enormous output of DC (because they were controlled by Independent News, the sister corporation of National that distributed both DC and Marvel comics), probably gave them some more flexibility.

The Marvel Age in the '60s had two things going for it.

One was that, because Marvel had a smaller output, they could target their comics at a specific market. Throughout the history of Martin Goodman's publications up to that point, he would spot the latest trend and then switch his whole line to capitalize on that trend. The comics tagged the Marvel Age were targetted at teens. And you could say that the teens saw in those comics what they wanted to see.

Two was Stan Lee. Stan was a good pitch man and in his Soap Box and the letter columns he convinced the readers that what they were reading was pure gold. As well, with 20/20 hindsight, Stan Lee has done a good job of revising our memories. He tells us that everything he wrote was in tune with the times--and we believe him. Maybe that rug is a magic rug.

There wasn't a lot for National Periodical Publications to gain by going out on a limb and publishing a bunch of stuff that the retailers didn't like. When Carmine Infantino became the Editorial Director, he got push back from the retailers who claimed they couldn't move that product. They wanted nice safe comics to put on their racks--not all this experimental and progressive stuff that Infantino was trying to get out the door.

Marvel could be a little more daring, because they had nothing to lose.

However, if you're talking about people, I get the feeling that Arnold Drake was much more in tune with the times than Stan Lee. It's just writers like Drake couldn't get DC to publish their progressive work. Not often. That doesn't mean the people working at National were out of step with the times. In their personal lives, they pursued modern interests--but when they came to work, they had to produce the material their employer demanded of them.

But on those occasions when writers and artists could get socially aware material past the filter of National's corporate interests, I think their work was much more daring than Marvel. Sekowsky's WONDER WOMAN, O'Neil and Adams' GREEN LANTERN/Green Arrow, Wein and Wrightson's SWAMP THING were cutting edge and often addressed themes that Marvel wouldn't touch.

Moreover, DC's true glory in the late '60s and early '70s were the horror anthology comics (and PLOP! should be included in with them). It's in those comics where writers and artists could sneak stuff by without their overlords noticing. You get a lot of really great and innovative stories in those comics. But because everyone is so super-hero obsessed, DC's horror anthologies don't get their due.

Excellent post!

[gurkle]

I don't think socially aware necessarily equals progressive. Virtually every comic company did stories making fun of feminism in the '70s (or "women's lib" as it was always called), and most of those stories can't be called progressive, but they are certainly socially aware in the sense that they're acknowledging what's going on in the wider world. On a more serious level, something can be socially conscious and conservative in its viewpoint.

The difference between DC and Marvel in the Silver Age was not so much that DC was less progressive, it was that DC editors mostly just didn't want to acknowledge the wider world if they could help it, except with occasional nods to changing pop-culture fads. I don't think that's consistently been the case with DC, but there was a sense in that period that Marvel was more "relevant" by comic book standards.

Update: I was writing this before Jim Kelly posted above, but I agree with most of what he said.

[Rogue Star]

Evil dominatrix Susan Storm, Janet Van Dynes vapid sidekick days, that horrible Carol Danvers rape story, Marvel has had its share of embarrassing moments, no doubt. To be fair, the most sexist thing they've done in recent years was a variant cover with some questionable anatomy, so they're doing alright at the moment!

I've been meaning to call that Spider-Woman cover back to peoples' attention for a while now. I mean, it's no wonder Marvel is so progressive and forward thinking now, right? Who wouldn't be after that disaster?

[Atlanta96]

I've been meaning to call that Spider-Woman cover back to peoples' attention for a while now. I mean, it's no wonder Marvel is so progressive and forward thinking now, right? Who wouldn't be after that disaster?

But like I said, it's just a variant cover. Marvels days of unavoidable sexist content are pretty much behind them now. Also, Milo Manara has produced some pretty great looking variant covers for Marvel that I think should be acknowledged along with his little mistake on Spider Woman.

[gurkle]

But like I said, it's just a variant cover. Marvels days of unavoidable sexist content are pretty much behind them now. Also, Milo Manara has produced some pretty great looking variant covers for Marvel that I think should be acknowledged along with his little mistake on Spider Woman.

I'm not really sure it was a mistake. Without dredging up too much of the argument, I think there's an assumption that only guys like that kind of art. (It's a bit like some people got upset over Adam Hughes being picked to draw Betty & Veronica, when in fact the old Archie cheesecake art was tremendously popular with girls.) I admit, though, that popularity doesn't absolve charges of sexism; more girls probably buy Harley Quinn than Captain Marvel but that doesn't mean the former is automatically better for girls.

But anyway to get back to Marvel vs. DC in the '60s, it's true that a lot of Marvel's heroines were the product of Stan Lee's very old-fashioned (even at the time) view of how women should act. But he had experience writing and editing comics with huge female readerships, and in many ways the comics had a lot of elements that were very inviting to female comics readers of the time. I think overall they were a little more inviting to readers of my mother's generation than DC's superhero comics (apart from the female-led ones) tended to be at the time. Of course it's nothing compared to comics like Frank Miller's Daredevil and Claremont's X-Men, which got large female readerships by providing women who participated fully in the stories.

[Agent Z]

The weird thing with Marvel is how the populace can hate mutants with a passion, but the genetic freakshow of the Avengers and the Inhumans... not a peep.

Especially when you consider two of the Avengers are from non-Christian pantheons.

[Agent Z]

Because real life racism and bigotry always makes sense and follows logical patterns?

(Not that we haven't seen bigotry directed at the Inhumans, or the FF hounded and maligned, or Spider-Man villainized horrendously, the Avengers protested for letting mutants in or having mutant/synthezoid couples...)

Even when we do, it's never to the extent of the Mutants whom the government has built 3 storey tall death machines for the purpose of wiping out.

That's not even getting into how the populace can somehow tell the difference between a Mutant and another super powered individual.

[JAG2045]

I mean, DC's original plan for their first African American lead, who was their first major black superhero overall, was going to be white racist who turned into a black dude hulk-style. The higher ups had to be talked out of that idea and into replacing it with Black Lightning. That was 1977. First black superhero to join the Justice League was Vixen in 1983.

By Black Lightning's debut, Marvel had given solo titles, starring features, or title billing to Black Panther (Jungle Action #5-#24, 1973-1977, and Black Panther #1-15, 1977-1979), Black Goliath (Black Goliath #1-5, 1976), Luke Cage (Luke Cage - Hero For Hire/Power Man #1-49, 1972-1972), and The Falcon (Captain America and the Falcon #134-#222, 1971-1978). Black Panther was an Avenger starting in 1968.

While neither company has a great record with actually diverse casts of heroes (Asians have particularly gotten the shaft - though I will point out that Marvel's kung-fu craze comic starred the Chinese Shang-Chi while DC had the white Richard Dragon), Marvel has consistently made the first move on matters of inclusion. That's a decent barometer of social consciousness, I think.

DC also had trouble with the LOSH being inclusive:

From the "Tyroc" wikipedia article - "According to Mike Grell, who co-created Tyroc with Cary Bates, the character of Tyroc was "sort of a sore spot with me."[4] He had previously tried to introduce black characters into the series, but had been prevented by then-editor Murray Boltinoff.[5] "I kept getting stalled off...and finally comes Tyroc. They might as well have named him Tyrone. Their explanation for why there were no black people [in the Legion] was that all the black people had gone to live on an island. It's possibly the most racist concept I've ever heard in my life...I mean, it's a segregationist's dream, right? So they named him Tyroc, and gave him the world's stupidest super-power."[6]"

[Outside_85]

Especially when you consider two of the Avengers are from non-Christian pantheons.

In a way I think that if the presence of Thor and Hercules was a thorn to some, I think Quicksilver (mutant) and the Scarlet Witch (mutant witch) would be as well along with Dr. Strange (occultist). That said I think the normal public perception of Thor and Herc is that they are simply metahumans who pretend to be the mythological characters?

[t hedge coke]

Even when we do, it's never to the extent of the Mutants whom the government has built 3 storey tall death machines for the purpose of wiping out.

The US Gov has done more than its part in racially-based attacks. Giant robots are just terribly inefficient compared to concentration camps, subtle fearmongering campaigns, and a good prison-industry setup.

Never to the extent? Colonization and westward expansion, alone, was worse than anything the MU US has done to mutants.

[Agent Z]

The US Gov has done more than its part in racially-based attacks. Giant robots are just terribly inefficient compared to concentration camps, subtle fearmongering campaigns, and a good prison-industry setup.

Never to the extent? Colonization and westward expansion, alone, was worse than anything the MU US has done to mutants.

For the record, I was talking more about bigotry and mistrust directed towards Inhumans, Spider-Man and the Avengers vs bigotry and mistrust towards Mutants.

[t hedge coke]

For the record, I was talking more about bigotry and mistrust directed towards Inhumans, Spider-Man and the Avengers vs bigotry and mistrust towards Mutants.

That makes a lot more sense.