politics in comics

[millernumber1]

You seem to use this rhetorical term over and over without any sense of irony. Do you not recognise that the way you are using it is actually an example of the tactics you decry?

Pointing out the disconnect between definition and usage is not a silencing tactic - it's an attempt to see if the other side is willing to be more honest about their beliefs.

Also, playing "I'm rubber you're glue" game doesn't actually advance the discussion. I say that privilege is used as a silencing tactic, it's used as a silencing tactic, I point it out again, and then you say "no, you are"?

[CentralPower]

Sure, they can be. But I would argue progressivism, as a philosophy, isn't about controlling people.

Progressivism generally works better when people cannot opt out. In a practical sense, it requires control over people and resources.

And, progressives tend to be statists, as states provide mechanisms for that control.

I am a left, and a statist. But, I see the need for political competition, to keep the state from becoming to pervasive and more harmful than anarchy. (Put another way: Leviathan is a greedy beast. The more you feed it, the bigger and hungrier and more aggressive that it gets, demanding more feeding. The more you feed it....)

[Carabas]

I say that privilege is used as a silencing tactic, it's used as a silencing tactic, I point it out again, and then you say "no, you are"?

Just saying that something is used as a silencing tactic is not the same as proving it, no matter how often you repeat it. Which actually is a silencing tactic.

[millernumber1]

Just saying that something is used as a silencing tactic is not the same as proving it, no matter how often you repeat it. Which actually is a silencing tactic.

Proof of a social phenomena is nearly impossible. But I don't expect it to actually silence anyone, just maybe, a tiny chance that someone might have a tiny jar of disconnect between what they're saying and doing.

Am I saying "shut up"? No. I'm disagreeing that you're using "privilege" in the way you say you are using it.

[Trey Strain]

No, politics don't sell comics.

https://movietvtechgeeks.com/death-s...ors_picks=true

[Bor]

No, politics don't sell comics.

https://movietvtechgeeks.com/death-s...ors_picks=true

Yeah beacause arguments like “According to some Youtubers I follow and some I don’t, as well as other articles here and there, Marvel is having some difficulty with sales these past years due to plenty of weird decisions and greedy events one after the other.” is just a brilliant argument. Please that article is a joke.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Yeah beacause arguments like “According to some Youtubers I follow and some I don’t, as well as other articles here and there, Marvel is having some difficulty with sales these past years due to plenty of weird decisions and greedy events one after the other.” is just a brilliant argument. Please that article is a joke.

"The Death of SJW Marvel: Good or Bad for SJW"

The title alone is enough to tell you that the article is trash.

[ed2962]

No, politics don't sell comics.

https://movietvtechgeeks.com/death-s...ors_picks=true

This opinion piece is completely removed from reality. Anyone who thinks that DC is "killing it" because there's no politics in their comics can't possibly be reading them. Then there's the falsehood about the comics not ressembling the movies. The guy also gets simple fact wrong. Dan Slott did not write One More Day. Nick Spencer did not write Secret Wars.

[skyvolt2000]

This opinion piece is completely removed from reality. Anyone who thinks that DC is "killing it" because there's no politics in their comics can't possibly be reading them. Then there's the falsehood about the comics not ressembling the movies. The guy also gets simple fact wrong. Dan Slott did not write One More Day. Nick Spencer did not write Secret Wars.

The Black Lighting Mini say HI. The last 2 issues alone would be set on fire on youtube if they were at Marvel.

And a bunch of other books I could name.

[Trey Strain]

This gym chain has the right idea. People don't go to the gym or read comics to be assailed by MORE POLITICS than they already are.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/gym-chain-...opstories.html

[skyvolt2000]

This gym chain has the right idea. People don't go to the gym or read comics to be assailed by MORE POLITICS than they already are.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/gym-chain-...opstories.html

No they don't. If one doesn't care for what is on those tvs-you have a smart phone USE it to watch what you want.

It's folks who refuse to accept reality-the world is no longer black and white. And those who want to find issue with everything yet can't explain WHY.

I and many others have asked NONSTOP for SPECIFIC politics and mess in these books. Not general NONSENSE that shows one never read the books in question. No one wants to reply.

We are not asking to insult anyone or make fun of them. We ask because MAYBE there was something in that book that we didn't see.

I'll give an example.

I just read Raccoon Rocket volume 1 (2016 where he is stick on Earth) and it was pretty much about him versus Kraven the Hunter. Who started up some game of hunting aliens stuck, trapped or choose to live on Earth.

Could this book be political? On the surface NO.

When you look deeper into it-a case can be made that this was an allegory to illegal immigration. Heck the book felt like Machete without Michelle Rodriguez. Kraven hunting down illegal aliens who can't work legally. Cops hating X-Men (yes there was a scene).

This is what we are asking-give us your take on the book and help us understand.

[Electricmastro]

The Jim Shooter thread somehow turned to the subject of politics in comics. Rather than further derail that thread, I am posting my responses to the political questions here.

-----------------------------------









My view on this may be skewed, as I have a background in politics.

I am fine with political ideas (emphasis on "ideas") in comics. If nothing else, superheroes are just about the best analogues for power one is likely to find in fiction. But, the writers need to have something to say, or have a better way to handle something that has already been said. "Superman: Red Son" is one of the most articulate cases against creating the moral hazard (aka "nanny state" or "tragedy of the commons") around. Gruenwald's "Squadron Supreme", for all of its Bronze Age baggage, is a respectable case against benign tyranny. Both stories are about ideas.


What I do not want are "ripped from the headlines" polemics, especially when the writers have nothing new to add. Generally, anything in those comics has already been covered (likely with more insight) in a newspaper or magazine.





But, those single issues read and look better than the "done in one" stories of previous decades.




But, why are we going to read the comic pitched at little kids?

I am not against kiddie books. But, not many adults (myself included) are going to buy them.

If nothing else, if an idea is worth writing about, it is probably worth writing about well. Pitching to kids diminishes the idea.




I have found the politics in Ewing's work to be a deterrent.

Ewing has technical skills as a writer. He he can write with ideas (beyond OCD plot-points about minutia, though he handles minutia well).

But, Trump analogues (such as the Golden Skull) are a waste of page space. Ewing is not saying anything useful or insightful about the President (then-candidate), especially compared to some of the better critiques that are available in non-comic media.

If Ewing or Gillen want to write about Brexit on their own, that is one thing. (And, given where they live, it is completely appropriate.) But, they should not be talking about Brexit or Universal Basic Income in comics.




Given the scale and resources (infrastructure and intellectual) that the big two have, that idea could work as an imprint. If nothing else, the imprint would make it easier for the "comics need to be simple and easy" crowd to avoid.

But, the idea has merit. Get real commentators or experts (Spencer, Peters, Friedman, Henninger, Rove) to come up with concepts and plots. Then, if needed, get writers like Bendis to make it readable. (Actually, the guys I listed can write. But, you get the idea.) Politics, economics and technology are obvious subjects for superhero comics. Comics are a good vector for the sorts of thought experiments that those topics warrant.

Comics could contribute to the market of ideas without being polemical.

I think... that there should come a point when we should just starting ignoring all the non-constructive, reactionary, vitriolic complainers of politics being in comics and hopefully focus more on the productive feedback from there. Reasonable enough, no?

I mean, sure, the internet is much more expansive in 2019 than it was in the 1980s, suffice to say, but at the same time, seeing as how many were writing in bags of hate mail to Tom DeFalco for changing Spider-Man’s suit from red to black, evidently it seems that people complaining about just about everything all the time.

And you know what, I’ve just thought of something.

How come I see few to no people complaining about how Iron Man was turned into a soapbox about the dangers of drinking and hitting people over the head with that message?

How come few to no people seem to complain about how Frank Miller handled Catholicism in Daredevil? No one seems to complain about him having poorly written Daredevil into a bible-thumping book, or the politics in Daredevil for that matter.

How come few to no people seem to complain about how the politics were handled in the Captain America: The Winter Soldier movie for that matter?

And I see none of that complained about today either. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?

[Huntsman Spider]

I think... that there should come a point when we should just starting ignoring all the non-constructive, reactionary, vitriolic complainers of politics being in comics and hopefully focus more on the productive feedback from there. Reasonable enough, no?

I mean, sure, the internet is much more expansive in 2019 than it was in the 1980s, suffice to say, but at the same time, seeing as how many were writing in bags of hate mail to Tom DeFalco for changing Spider-Man’s suit from red to black, evidently it seems that people complaining about just about everything all the time.

And you know what, I’ve just thought of something.

How come I see few to no people complaining about how Iron Man was turned into a soapbox about the dangers of drinking and hitting people over the head with that message?

How come few to no people seem to complain about how Frank Miller handled Catholicism in Daredevil? No one seems to complain about him having poorly written Daredevil into a bible-thumping book, or the politics in Daredevil for that matter.

How come few to no people seem to complain about how the politics were handled in the Captain America: The Winter Soldier movie for that matter?

And I see none of that complained about today either. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?

My answer to that would be that in the cases of Iron Man, Daredevil, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the topics addressed therein were written in a way that the audience could choose to engage or not engage with the greater sociopolitical themes and ideas presented, that they could take it as a basic superhero story of good ultimately triumphing over evil or, if they chose, reckon with the social and moral messaging under the surface of that basic superhero story. The issue for a lot of people today, I think, is that they feel like their only choices when it comes to engaging with sociopolitical topics and themes in superhero comics are to either agree or opt out, and for people who don't (want to) agree with the premises presented by the comics or comics-based media they're consuming, it leads to a lot of resentment on their part, as they likely feel they are being called out by the media they are consuming as bad people for not agreeing with its messages. Just my take, though.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The argument made by Watchmen is that superhero stories cannot be political and continue telling superhero stories or being about superheroes.

IF you were to do a truly political story about IRON MAN it would involve a lot of bits of him lobbying to ensure policies that harm or affect his company aren't passed, it would involve him making deals with China or Bangladesh or other countries to outsource manufacturing and so on. Likewise, if you deal with Tony automating his labor process and doing it home, you are going to have to deal with him laying off workers from manufacturing jobs.

Tony Stark is based these days on Silicon Valley types and those are the real-world issues that involve them.

Almost any hero if you apply real politics to them and their story would fall apart and no longer function.

I think superhero stories can work as entertainment and social commentary but in terms of actual political insight or critique, the genre just isn't built for it.

[Huntsman Spider]

The argument made by Watchmen is that superhero stories cannot be political and continue telling superhero stories or being about superheroes.

IF you were to do a truly political story about IRON MAN it would involve a lot of bits of him lobbying to ensure policies that harm or affect his company aren't passed, it would involve him making deals with China or Bangladesh or other countries to outsource manufacturing and so on. Likewise, if you deal with Tony automating his labor process and doing it home, you are going to have to deal with him laying off workers from manufacturing jobs.

Tony Stark is based these days on Silicon Valley types and those are the real-world issues that involve them.

Almost any hero if you apply real politics to them and their story would fall apart and no longer function.

I think superhero stories can work as entertainment and social commentary but in terms of actual political insight or critique, the genre just isn't built for it.

That's a pretty good point there, because superheroes mostly operate in a world of black-and-white, straightforwardly good-versus-evil, while politics is highly morally gray with no heroes or villains, regardless of how they may present themselves or be presented, just people opposing each other because they want different things, or maybe even the same things that can't be shared or distributed fairly.