Spider-Man, Diversity and "Who Cares?"

[RedRockRun]

Who're you quoting?

Myself? That's just my opinion.

 

[JimB]

Who're you quoting?

Myself? That's just my opinion.

Okay, but in the post Silvanus quoted, you explicitly described it as a fact. So, which is it? Is it a fact that writers are trying to champion for the disenfranchised, or is it an opinion?

 

[tzimize]

I really, really dont think there are many comics fans that wants a character to stay the way he is because they are racist. I think thats just a symptom of the word racist COMPLETELY losing its meaning in our day and age. Wanting blacks to drink from seperate water fountains or going to seperate toilets/schools...thats racist. Even implying that comics fans want a character to stay the way he is because they are racist is at the same time stupid, and a er..."conversation domination technique" I dont know the proper english word for this, not a native speaker, but I hope it gets the meaning across.

I dont think there is a country in the world where different ethnicities dont have differences in their culture. An example easy to give would be the US. There are tons of ethnicities living side by side. But try watching a white comedian with a white audience, and a black comedian with a black audience. And tell me we're all the same. I dont mean that in a negative way, I just mean we're different.

A character is more than its skin color. But USUALLY its skin color has a lot to do with the kind of culture its been brought up in, and following that, how that particular character acts/is and what kind of cultural landscape he swings around in.

There are lots of fictional countries in the comic universes. My favorite example is Wakanda and the Black Panther. Wakanda is not a real country. If you want to write a fictional story, he can be white as easily as black...or can he? Imagine the outrage if The Black Panther became the White Panther. How is this different than being outraged that the new spiderman/torch/whatever is black? Or black-hispanic or what have you?

Fans are invested in their characters. Of course they dont want them to change, and its not for any other reasons than that they love the character. If spider-man had started out as black, you'd have just as manny pissed people if someone tried making him white.

As a last point, I'll just say it pisses me off to no end when people change the characters. Sure, give them an arc, let them change, thats interesting. But if you want the character to be someone else, why the hell arent you making a NEW character instead?

 

[Silvanus]

Myself? That's just my opinion.

Well, in that case, you're ascribing motives to people that they have not expressed. No filmmakers, comic writers, etcetera, have described themselves as "standing up for the disenfranchised", and it seems odd to claim that's their motivation, and put it in quotation marks as if they said it.

 

[Nazrel]

No, it's not. Thor's duty is not to solve a mystery that is not her problem in order to soothe the ego of a single man. It's to protect the realms. Thor is doing that. The Odinson can solve his own mystery in his own time.

In his own book?

Oh, wait.

Or off-camera, since a big part of the entire premise of the book is that "Thor" as a concept is bigger than any one man.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point of a major plot development having no explanation, none forth coming and little to no narrative focus directed at finding it out.

Not sure what this has to do with lack of character agency.

I don't see how choosing to pick up the hammer and put herself in death's way demonstrates a lack of agency. I think you're confusing skill with agency, and I further think the book has very much demonstrated Jane Foster is more than Jane Foster when she's wielding Mjolnir. Her body changes, her appearance changes, her manner of speech changes, her thoughts change. She becomes Thor. I don't know why she shouldn't get martial ability as part and parcel of also getting the physical strength necessary to break adamantium blast doors.

...

Did you actually read that first post you commented on? Cause you're not actually arguing against me.

It demonstrates a lack of agency because as I've stated and as you've expanded upon, once she's picked it up, she's the flesh puppet of the magic mallet.

How else are you supposed to interpret the "I've never seen it do that before." and the "Hammer sings, a song I have heard countless time before, but never like this."

As a symptom of all the changes afflicting Mjolnir, which I already outlined in my previous post.

How does that not make it an "I'm more awesome then you" moment?

 

[JimB]

Which is completely irrelevant to the point of a major plot development having no explanation, none forth coming and little to no narrative focus directed at finding it out.

It can get told in the flashback equivalent of a parlor room reveal and it'll be fine.

It demonstrates a lack of agency because as I've stated and as you've expanded upon, once she's picked it up, she's the flesh puppet of the magic mallet.

I disagree with your interpretation. The thing that gives her powers is not driving her like a woman possessed. If it was, she'd never have picked it up a second time.

How does that not make it an "I'm more awesome than you" moment?

You assume the point is to establish some kind of dominance, and I think that's a weirdly defensive position to take. These new abilities the hammer sports are revealed immediately after it's well established the rules governing Mjolnir have changed beyond what even the gods know. I think taking it as a hammer-measuring contest is falling for a red herring.

 

[Zenja]

Who're you quoting?

Myself? That's just my opinion.

Okay, but in the post Silvanus quoted, you explicitly described it as a fact. So, which is it? Is it a fact that writers are trying to champion for the disenfranchised, or is it an opinion?

Myself? That's just my opinion.

Well, in that case, you're ascribing motives to people that they have not expressed. No filmmakers, comic writers, etcetera, have described themselves as "standing up for the disenfranchised", and it seems odd to claim that's their motivation, and put it in quotation marks as if they said it.

I suspect they are doing it to create controversy with the recent SJW movement and generate sales. So he gives them more moral credit than I do on that ground. He suspects they are risking sales by catering to moral requests.

I get what you guys are saying, no one "said" this as a quote so debate point by technicality. But doesn't it seem like an obvious parallel can be drawn between the recent SJW outcry that promotes and encourages gender bending and race bending so long as the role is a white male?

I take it that you two believe that all these comic book writers had the same idea to gender bend and race bend characters at the same time for the purpose of great storytelling? You are aware that comics have a long history of playing story gimmicks off of pop culture don't you?

 

[JimB]

I get what you guys are saying, no one "said" this as a quote so debate point by technicality.

For me, it is that the discrepancy between two statements--the first insisting it is an indisputable and proven fact despite there being no evidence to support it beyond the theory fitting the available facts and being undisprovable because telepathy would be required to prove the creators' intent, and the second trying to defend it a fairly indefensible position by insisting it's only an opinion--is either a very weaselly and dishonest argument to make, or else RedRockRun misspoke. I would like to know which, as well as which of these two mutually exclusive options of fact or opinion he actually believes.

But doesn't it seem like an obvious parallel can be drawn between the recent SJW outcry that promotes and encourages gender bending and race bending so long as the role is a white male?

Sure. And John Oliver can draw a fairly obvious parallel between Cadbury's Creme Eggs and the Illuminati. That the parallel can be drawn is proof of nothing, though, except that someone took two apparently unrelated phenomena and a pencil, and drew a line connecting them. Actual work must be put into proving someone's frame of mind, and that must begin with specific knowledge of the individual mind being analyzed. Without that step, arguing about Mr. Aaron's motivation for writing Thor is inherently a strawman fallacy.

I take it that you two believe that all these comic book writers had the same idea to gender bend and race bend characters at the same time for the purpose of great storytelling?

I don't care what their motivations are (well, except for Brian Michael Bendis's motivation for creating Miles Morales, because I think it's a funny anecdote). I am perfectly happy to benefit from reading stories I enjoy without questioning the motivations of authors who are not, so far as I know, funneling their profits into homophobic PACs or anything; which is why I say Orson Scott Card can go fuck himself. However, if people are going to start asserting on a public discussion forum that they can establish the guilt of people they have never met, then I am at least occasionally willing to publicly discuss the quality of evidence they have to offer.

 

[Silvanus]

I suspect they are doing it to create controversy with the recent SJW movement and generate sales. So he gives them more moral credit than I do on that ground. He suspects they are risking sales by catering to moral requests.

I get what you guys are saying, no one "said" this as a quote so debate point by technicality. But doesn't it seem like an obvious parallel can be drawn between the recent SJW outcry that promotes and encourages gender bending and race bending so long as the role is a white male?

Frankly, not really. Comics have had people take the mantles of others since their very beginning; it's happened literally hundreds of times, since the start. The only difference is that in recent times, the figures have sometimes not been men, or have not been white.

Why would I second-guess their motivations only in those latter circumstances? Honestly seems to be looking for things to pin on political correctness, when in fact, it's merely treating women & minorities just the same as others.

 

[Nazrel]

Which is completely irrelevant to the point of a major plot development having no explanation, none forth coming and little to no narrative focus directed at finding it out.

It can get told in the flashback equivalent of a parlor room reveal and it'll be fine.

No, it's not fine, not when it's the catalyst of the plot, or, again, a massive character development of the hero the story had been following, that's completely independent of the development of said hero.

It demonstrates a lack of agency because as I've stated and as you've expanded upon, once she's picked it up, she's the flesh puppet of the magic mallet.

I disagree with your interpretation. The thing that gives her powers is not driving her like a woman possessed. If it was, she'd never have picked it up a second time.

Let me rephrase this, it renders her accomplishments not her own.

How does that not make it an "I'm more awesome than you" moment?

You assume the point is to establish some kind of dominance, and I think that's a weirdly defensive position to take. These new abilities the hammer sports are revealed immediately after it's well established the rules governing Mjolnir have changed beyond what even the gods know. I think taking it as a hammer-measuring contest is falling for a red herring.

No, I assume the point was to make her look awesome, but did it in a ham handed and obnoxious way, at the expense of the former protagonist (Who was, remember, the protagonist for this franchise for the last 54 years), who is already unworthy for no reason, lost an arm, is now left awe struck by this literal nobody's (because they couldn't be bothered to tell you who the protagonist was until the Issue 8.) mastery of Mjolnir.

You do grasp how this might have been framed better, how it might have alienated those who had been following this character, and why some might have found it obnoxious, correct?

 

[JimB]

Let me rephrase this, it renders her accomplishments not her own.

I disagree. I don't think it's any more fair to deny Jane Foster credit for what Thor does than it is to deny Billy Batson credit for what Captain Marvel does (I will not call him Shazam because come on with that).

No, I assume the point was to make her look awesome, and endear the audience to her (completely wrong mentality when introducing a character) but did it in a ham handed and obnoxious way, at the expense of the former protagonist (who was, remember, the protagonist for this franchise for the last 54 years), who is already unworthy for no reason, lost an arm, is now left awe struck by this literal nobody's (because they couldn't be bothered to tell you who the protagonist was until the issue 8) mastery of Mjolnir.

You took a very different read of that scene than I did. I do not see awe there; I see a broken heart, jealousy, and above all insecurity, like Thor's girlfriend just dumped him for another woman and he just caught his ex moaning for her in a way she never moaned for him.*

You do grasp how this might have been framed better, how it might have alienated those who had been following this character, and why some might have found it obnoxious, correct?

Sssssssort of? I really have no idea how you arrived at the take you have on that scene, but I guess I get how someone who arrives there wouldn't want to be there.

*God damn it, now I'm thinking of all the images that doubtlessly exist on Deviantart. I really should have gone with a different simile.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Y'know. I'm down for all of these mantle changes and what not, but lets be fair here. A lot of people don't like it when things change. Why would they want this new Thor when they were perfectly happy with the old one. I'm sure there'd be a lot less hate if a new hammer was created for this new Thor instead of replacing a character that people knew and loved. That way you'd at least be able to separate the Thor Odinson fans from the cootie haters.

Likewise with Miles Morales and Falcon Cap. Miles originally replaced Ultimate Peter. That Peter had fans who probably wouldn't have embraced the change even if Miles were white. I'm sure there'd be a lot of hate if Bucky took up the shield instead of Falcon Cap. Sure, there'd be less rape because the racists and mysogynists wouldn't crawl out of their caves, but the hate would still be there. It also doesn't help that Thor's first run was cringey as hell.

I can't defend the Heimdall hate. I somehow doubt there were that many Heimdall fans that cared about the race change. And then there's the hate that Nightrunner, Batman Inc.'s Muslim Batman of France, got.

 

[JimB]

Y'know. I'm down for all of these mantle changes and what not, but lets be fair here. A lot of people don't like it when things change. Why would they want this new Thor when they were perfectly happy with the old one. I'm sure there'd be a lot less hate if a new hammer was created for this new Thor instead of replacing a character that people knew and loved.

Marvel did this in the nineties. They gave War Machine an ongoing title beside Iron Man; they gave U.S.Agent a book beside Captain Ameria; they gave Erik Masterson a book next to Thor; dozens more examples I can't remember because it was twenty years ago and the books weren't popular, the latter of which of course is the point because this happened during the nineties, during the speculator boom, during the time comic books were at their most profitable.

And they contributed to Marvel's bankruptcy.

I won't pretend most of it wasn't due to its mismanagement of buying peripheral companies like trading card printers and a genuinely shitty toy company, but Marvel's handling of how to introduce new characters and establish a fan base for them was definitely a factor, and that was back in the days when comics were a license to print money. These are not those days. If someone wants to establish a new character, this is how it gets done: by borrowing the fandom of an existing hero and seeing if enough of them stick that the character can support an ongoing title.

 

[Zenja]

the second trying to defend it a fairly indefensible position by insisting it's only an opinion--is either a very weaselly and dishonest argument to make

Since you offer no counter argument, I think most people would actually see the logic in his arguement. Your only arguement seems to be that it isn't right he stated his opinion in a matter-of-fact manner. To me, that seems very weaselly and dishonest because it in no way refutes his point, it just calls him out on bad form. The point is still valid. Let's have a look at some recent coincidental facts:

- The term SJW becomes popular to describe a group of people who have a tendancy to be very vocal about media 'white washing' and prevalent male characters due specifically because of racism and sexism. (Primarily centered on "nerd culture" aka video games and comic books.)

- A huge controversy starts over the debate on sexism/racism in media on online forums and text feeds that goes on with no end in sight. No one is profiting from this discussion, people are just attacking one another in their free time by choice, almost like a hobby itself.

- Suddenly, the media in question you can spend money on starts making drastic changes to already established characters. (Gender/Race Bending) At first with minor characters, then they start changing major characters with large fanbases creating further controversy.


Do you propose a better theory off of these facts? Perhaps another bullet point to add to the sequence of events that may change the perspective?

I suspect they are doing it to create controversy with the recent SJW movement and generate sales. So he gives them more moral credit than I do on that ground. He suspects they are risking sales by catering to moral requests.

I get what you guys are saying, no one "said" this as a quote so debate point by technicality. But doesn't it seem like an obvious parallel can be drawn between the recent SJW outcry that promotes and encourages gender bending and race bending so long as the role is a white male?

Frankly, not really. Comics have had people take the mantles of others since their very beginning; it's happened literally hundreds of times, since the start. The only difference is that in recent times, the figures have sometimes not been men, or have not been white.

Why would I second-guess their motivations only in those latter circumstances? Honestly seems to be looking for things to pin on political correctness, when in fact, it's merely treating women & minorities just the same as others.

I would go so far as to say all the recent ones have not been men or not been white. Which is fine, I am not saying that isn't fine. (I would agree it has been handled poorly - I suspect on purpose) But it doesn't seem coincidental at all that this is happening all at once right on the verge of a representation controversy?

If RedRockRun's assumption seems so outrageous I personally wouldn't mind hearing some opposing guesses at the motivations behind all of these vents coinciding together. Surely, there must be 3 or 4 good reasons why this is all coincidence if the idea is so outrageous.

I find his statement a valid observation even if a little hollow. It doesn't really say much other than he assumes SJW's have influenced or exist within the media that is being changed. Probably a guess due to the action they are taking reflects the ideology that a stronger push towards representation should be addressed on such a drastic scale. I guess his statement could imply that many are annoyed that some people involved in comics feel like doing this makes them better people because of it.

You guys have thoroughly confused me. I don't even know why I am replying now, is the point being made that speculation shouldn't be allowed when discussing the morality or artistic merit of gender/race representation? Isn't that impossible? I am seriously at a loss as to what the point and counter points prove here but I will share these thoughts with you regardless and see where this goes.

 

[JimB]

the second trying to defend a fairly indefensible position by insisting it's only an opinion--is either a very weaselly and dishonest argument to make

Since you offer no counterargument, I think most people would actually see the logic in his argument.

I have no interest in countering RedRockRun's argument before he clarifies what it is. If he thinks it's a fact that writers are championing the disenfranchised, or whatever he actually said, then I have no need to make a counterargument because he has made a positive assertion and the burden therefore falls on him to provide evidence rather than allegations. If he thinks it's an unproven opinion, then we have something to talk about.

Your only argument seems to be that it isn't right he stated his opinion in a matter-of-fact manner. To me, that seems very weaselly and dishonest because it in no way refutes his point, it just calls him out on bad form.

It is not an argument. Please remember the sequence of events: RedRockRun said his opinion is fact; RedRockRun said his fact is opinion; I asked him which of those two options is the stance he actually holds; you told me I'm scoring debate points; because that's not what I'm saying, I told you what I am saying and why. If you still think what I said to RedRockRun is about debate points, then you are too locked into this preconception you have of my agenda for the two of us to have a meaningful conversation.

Let's have a look at some recent coincidental facts:

I looked at them. They are proof of nothing. If you want to prove a person's intent, then you have to demonstrate specific knowledge about the specific person whose intent you are attempting to ascertain. Without that, you are merely describing a possible intent of a possible person. That is pure strawmanning, and after years of having more or less this same argument over and over, I am tired of being asked to prove an effigy is not the person the effigy is set up to discredit.

 

[Silvanus]

I would go so far as to say all the recent ones have not been men or not been white. Which is fine, I am not saying that isn't fine. (I would agree it has been handled poorly - I suspect on purpose) But it doesn't seem coincidental at all that this is happening all at once right on the verge of a representation controversy?

Well, when you say "representation controversy", what event or time are you referring to? People have been looking more at representation in media now for several decades, so something falling within that wide timeframe could very easily be coincidence. It is, in fact, likely.

Anywho, it's just not the case that all the recent mantle changes have not been men, or not been white. Oswald Cobblepot was briefly deposed and replaced by Ogilvy (a white guy); Doc Oc became Spider-Man by taking control of Peter Parker's body; Commissioner Gordon took the mantle of Batman; the mantle of Green Lantern has switched multiple times in the past, but switched once again when the New 52 began.

Hell, the mantle of Thor has been given in the past to at least three other men. Each of them has even kept the name Thor. There's nothing different here, except the gender.

You guys have thoroughly confused me. I don't even know why I am replying now, is the point being made that speculation shouldn't be allowed when discussing the morality or artistic merit of gender/race representation? Isn't that impossible? I am seriously at a loss as to what the point and counter points prove here but I will share these thoughts with you regardless and see where this goes.

No, obviously you can speculate. Obviously you can criticise. You've got to expect criticism back, though; that's the nature of debate.

 

[JimB]

Well, when you say "representation controversy," what event or time are you referring to?

I am interested in this question too. When exactly is the cut-off date that we are no longer permitted to consider characters from on the grounds they're too old?

 

[Redd the Sock]

Kyle Rayner, Ben Reily, Superior Spider-Man, Red Hulk, Sam Alexandar, just about any number of lineup changes in the Justice League, X and Avengers books, it's not like these changes go down well all the time when it's white for white. Hell, DC got flak for killing Ted Kord long before Jamie came to replace him as Blue Beetle. Editors, and sometimes writers forget we aren't reading about "spider-Man", we're reading about Peter Parker. The character isn't the suit or the power set, it's the person. The team isn't the banner, it's the members. And while changing that can be done, the high profile ones these days aren't being done delicately, or often producing a follow up worth the loss.

I mean, I gave Miles every chance, but he was a character dominantly defined as "not Peter Parker". Seriously, when it wasn't his Daddy issues, it was how to live up to the legacy set by the high schooler that preceded him. Sam Alexander never clicked, and came at the cost of more than a few plot threads from Richard's book. Jane Foster's Thor: honestly a cool idea, lost in mystery and identity politics. Falcon Cap is something I haven't read, but a sign that the culture wars have done damage to something that otherwise would have been seen as a decent idea and natural choice for replacement for the temporary time it's destined to be. Simon Baz and Jessica Cruz are getting their shots in Green Lantern, but Baz didn't stick the first time, and Cruz is only interesting as the time bomb she is.

You can't put a new product under an old label and expect it to be loved as much as the old one, and you can even alienate your current fans in the process.

 

[JimB]

It's not like these changes go down well all the time when it's white for white.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble isolating your argument here. Are you saying people who accuse writers of tokenism or pandering or whatever aren't being racist because of how they behave when they accuse different writers of...whatever you're saying they accuse the writers of?

 

[Jetfan007]

I looked at them. They are proof of nothing. If you want to prove a person's intent, then you have to demonstrate specific knowledge about the specific person whose intent you are attempting to ascertain. Without that, you are merely describing a possible intent of a possible person. That is pure strawmanning, and after years of having more or less this same argument over and over, I am tired of being asked to prove an effigy is not the person the effigy is set up to discredit.

The lack of self-awareness here is astounding.

Please prove that people dislike FemThor because she's a woman. Please prove that is their intent.

Anywho, it's just not the case that all the recent mantle changes have not been men, or not been white

You may want to rethink this statement, unless you're claiming that all the recent changes have been white men to white men. Moreover, you're using three examples from DC to argue a point about Marvel's changes. Last I checked, DC doesn't make Marvel's decisions.

Hell, the mantle of Thor has been given in the past to at least three other men. Each of them has even kept the name Thor. There's nothing different here, except the gender.

Thor has also been a woman. There's a difference you're still choosing to ignore: the writing.