Spider-Man, Diversity and "Who Cares?"

[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.

 

[Nazrel]

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.

Inaccurate.

Eric Masterson, wasn't Thor and damn well knew it. He was pretending to be Thor to the world at large, which is why he wore the face obscuring helmet. The asgardians certainly didn't consider him Thor. (Though technically he was Thor, because it turned out the real Thor was fused with his subconscious.)

Dargo, the Thor cultist from 2591, also damn well knew he wasn't Thor either.

Red Norvell, is a bit more of an interesting case.

Long story short, Odin made a copy of Thor's divinity, combined it with a free pass the wield Mjolnir, so he could have a "thunderer" to sacrifice to the midgard serpent as part of him playing, "of no woman born" with the Ragnarok prophecy.

Red Norvell fused with it, then got eaten by the midgard serpent.

Mid nineties, about a year or 2 before the long running series was finally canceled, Odin resurrected him after having a falling out with Thor, gave him his own magic hammer, then basically says "You're named Thor now to, my son, my only son, because screw that bastard."

Red Norvell, at this time, also damn well knew he wasn't Thor, but wasn't going to argue with the god king who just resurrected him.

But, if you count that act of patriarchal pettiness, I suppose there's a precedence for having multiple "Thor's".

 

[JimB]

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 Thor because she's a woman. Please prove that is their intent.

Jetfan007, my level of interest in arguing with you about the Mighty Thor is not improved by your insults, by your demand I defend a vague and defenseless position I never took, nor by your misuse of the word "intent." If you actually want to understand what I think, then by all means, ask me to clarify what confuses you, but if all you want is to pick a fight, then I will thank you to leave me out of it.

 

[Redd the Sock]

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?

I'm saying they'd often be just as angry and hostile (Superior Spider-Man prompted death threats) and that the racial thins are just different ammunition than "done for shock value and press" or "inserted vanity project / character with no regard for fans" or "mandate from an editor that hated the character / story being told". Don't mistake racist words for racist intent, especially from a group that has championed (or at least ignored) certain changes in the past: Lesbian Batwoman, Latino female Question, Black Ultimate Nick Fury, Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, female ultimate Vision, gay ultimate Colossus, (seriously, I wonder why people think Miles was revolutionary) Kate Bishop's Hawkeye(he was dead when she took the mantle) the half dozen times Rhodey took over as Iron Man, or liked new characters like the Young Avengers (orignal run, that last try was garbage), the Runaways, Midnighter and Apolo in Stormfront, Phylia Vehl's all too short run as Quasar, Earth 2's Black Superman (Val Zod) just for things off the top of my head.

Honestly I think the issues with diversity started when they stopped happening organically and started seeming to come clumsily to quiet twitter activists and get on the View. I'll take Renee Montoya's Question over Jane Foster's Thor any day.

 

[WolfThomas]

The thing I don't get that no one is talking about is there is actually 3 Spidermen at the moment. Peter Parker. Miles Morales. And Miguel O'Hara the Spiderman of 2099 who is stranded in the past. He's the first Latino Spiderman and he seems around for good so far (2099 is a shitty place).

 

[Nazrel]

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).

You know I didn't feel comfortable commenting on this before, because I know next to nothing about Billy Batson, since I don't really read DC, but thinking about it, even based on my own superficial understanding that seems like a false parallel.

Sure, Solomon would deserve more credit then Billy in certain situations, but the rest just provided a power set, controlling and mastering these powers was entirely on billy's head, wasn't it?

 

[JimB]

You know I didn't feel comfortable commenting on this before, because I know next to nothing about Billy Batson, since I don't really read DC, but thinking about it, even based on my own superficial understanding that seems like a false parallel.

Sure, Solomon would deserve more credit then Billy in certain situations, but the rest just provided a power set, controlling and mastering these powers was entirely on Billy's head, wasn't it?

You know, I'm not familiar enough with Fawcett characters to say. I tend to doubt there was ever a training/mastering montage just because I do not credit the property for being that deep at the time, but I can't prove it. I disagree the comparison isn't apt, though, because their situations seem extremely similar to me: mortals given power by the gods but still in control of their own actions, superhuman competence simply being accepted as part and parcel of the gig.

 

[JimB]

Don't mistake racist words for racist intent, especially from a group that has championed (or at least ignored) certain changes in the past.

This sentiment confuses me. Which group are we talking about? Like, is it an actual group? What are the names of the people who supported Samuel L. Fury but not Miles Morales? And above all, how on Earth am I to determine their intent except by their words?

 

[aba1]

I always thought these diversity check marks are dumb honestly. I would argue they will create more discrimination in the long run then it will solve. People should be treated as people first and foremost and the gender and perceived race shouldn't be a qualifying factor. By making it a factor it implies that the person should be judged based on their race or gender because it is somehow relevant.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Diversity "re-castings" are, in my opinion, pandering of the worst kind, creatively bankrupt, and not just insulting to the targeted demos but also comic book/comic book film fans across the board.

Women and PoC superheroes already exist in these universes. Why not do something, hell anything, to elevate these characters to A-list status? Some of these white and/or male superheroes have been in rosters for decades, and if anything, sparing omnipresent continuity reboot three-card monte to keep the marks paying up, fans tend to get a little fatigued of them from time to time. Rotate them out, and give the "minority" characters due time in the limelight.

Or, god forbid, create new women and PoC superheroes. And by that, I mean good superheroes, not merely token or one-off characters to be quickly forgotten. If the market is there -- and it is -- capitalize upon it.

Of course, the issue with the above is that these attempts (and they have been made) invariably fail which has made comic companies risk-averse in this regard. And no, it's not because comic fans are basement-dwelling neckbearded misogynist shitlords (as some would have us believe, particularly in response to the fem-Thor debacle) -- it's because stories attempting to do the above are of invariably poor quality. That's on the producers' heads.

To me, this ongoing issue isn't merely of race, sexual orientation, or gender homogeneity, but strikes to and is reflective of a deeper issue with post-crash comics and comics production: creative stagnation. The push for greater diversity in comics is occurring at a time of low creativity, and as such the response has left a great deal to be desired.

 

[Silvanus]

Diversity "re-castings" are, in my opinion, pandering of the worst kind, creatively bankrupt, and not just insulting to the targeted demos but also comic book/comic book film fans across the board.

Righto. D'you have the same issue with superhero/villain mantles changing hands at all, or only when they go to people who don't share the demographics of the original?

Of course, the issue with the above is that these attempts (and they have been made) invariably fail which has made comic companies risk-averse in this regard. And no, it's not because comic fans are basement-dwelling neckbearded misogynist shitlords (as some would have us believe, particularly in response to the fem-Thor debacle) -- it's because stories attempting to do the above are of invariably poor quality. That's on the producers' heads.

What, really? You're going to argue that attempts to create women and PoC heroes have invariably failed? In the face of Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Huntress, Susan Storm, Jean Grey, Mystique, War Machine, and a hundred others?

Inaccurate.

Eric Masterson, wasn't Thor and damn well knew it. He was pretending to be Thor to the world at large, which is why he wore the face obscuring helmet. The asgardians certainly didn't consider him Thor. (Though technically he was Thor, because it turned out the real Thor was fused with his subconscious.)

Dargo, the Thor cultist from 2591, also damn well knew he wasn't Thor either.

Well, of course, but Jane Foster doesn't believe she is the same entity as Odinson, either. They used the name, which was specifically a sticking point for people earlier in this thread.

 

[Nazrel]

Inaccurate.

Eric Masterson, wasn't Thor and damn well knew it. He was pretending to be Thor to the world at large, which is why he wore the face obscuring helmet. The asgardians certainly didn't consider him Thor. (Though technically he was Thor, because it turned out the real Thor was fused with his subconscious.)

Dargo, the Thor cultist from 2591, also damn well knew he wasn't Thor either.

Well, of course, but Jane Foster doesn't believe she is the same entity as Odinson, either. They used the name, which was specifically a sticking point for people earlier in this thread.

Let me rephrase it.

They were imposters, they were pretending to be the original Thor, and knew they had no real claim on the name.

Masterson had no illusion about being anything more then a temporary stand-in.

Dargo, accidentally grabbed the hammer during a corporate raid on the cult, and got mistaken for the second coming.

 

[Silvanus]

Let me rephrase it.

They were imposters, they were pretending to be the original Thor, and knew they had no real claim on the name.

Masterson had no illusion about being anything more then a temporary stand-in.

Dargo, accidentally grabbed the hammer during a corporate raid on the cult, and got mistaken for the second coming.

Right. But what is the sticking point, exactly? The hammer still let Dargo lift it; he was still transformed with the power, still wielded the Power of Thor. Batman can be Dick Grayson, or Damian Wayne, or Jim Gordon, but the Power of Thor can't be wielded by Jane Foster.

It just seems an arbitrary distinction, for readers to say this can't happen for storyline reasons, but the others can-- and so very often, when people have a problem, it happens to fall along gender lines (or ethnicity lines).

 

[MCerberus]

Women and PoC superheroes already exist in these universes. Why not do something, hell anything, to elevate these characters to A-list status? Some of these white and/or male superheroes have been in rosters for decades, and if anything, sparing omnipresent continuity reboot three-card monte to keep the marks paying up, fans tend to get a little fatigued of them from time to time. Rotate them out, and give the "minority" characters due time in the limelight.

Or, god forbid, create new women and PoC superheroes. And by that, I mean good superheroes, not merely token or one-off characters to be quickly forgotten. If the market is there -- and it is -- capitalize upon it.

Of course, the issue with the above is that these attempts (and they have been made) invariably fail which has made comic companies risk-averse in this regard. And no, it's not because comic fans are basement-dwelling neckbearded misogynist shitlords (as some would have us believe, particularly in response to the fem-Thor debacle) -- it's because stories attempting to do the above are of invariably poor quality. That's on the producers' heads.

Snipped for a little bit of length control, but you hit the nail on head. Risk aversion. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that creating new heroes or having successors or shining the light on current heroes that are women/not white. They hedge bets or put the B-team on it or what have you.

And you know what happens when creators have their full support and artistic vision. John Stewart, who for most people IS Green Lantern, Static Shock, and the DCU Teen Titans. Or this could just be the DCU being one of those weird golden ages (reminder: Supergirl was also pretty awesome there and Lex is super-indeterminate on his race).

I'm really not convinced one of the writers had this amazing idea and arc for Fem-Thor, which means it may not have needed to be done. Meanwhile, Falcon = Cap is actually an amazing vector to examine past racial sins, legacies, and a whole lot of other stuff if they had the balls (I believe the current Falcon origin is he was a test-subject for an iteration of the serum), because Cap is inherently a symbol. Plus if something happened to Steve, there are only two people who could step in so why not make it the one who wasn't brain washed by the Russians?

edit - also the current Question whose identity is not their minority but still informs you about the character. That one's usually handled well and without controversy. I've said it before, but right now Question is more Batman than Batman is.

 

[Nazrel]

Let me rephrase it.

They were imposters, they were pretending to be the original Thor, and knew they had no real claim on the name.

Masterson had no illusion about being anything more then a temporary stand-in.

Dargo, accidentally grabbed the hammer during a corporate raid on the cult, and got mistaken for the second coming.

Right. So, is the sticking point whether or not they have Odinson's permission, or something? The hammer still let Dargo lift it; he was still transformed with the power.

It just seems an arbitrary distinction, for readers to say this can't happen for storyline reasons.

No, the sticking point is they were never Thor. (Though, again, Masterson technically was because he was fused with his subconscious.)

Dress up like Richard Nixon, trick people into believing you're Richard Nixon, does not make you Richard Nixon.

They did not assume the mantle of "Thor", they pretended to be the same person.

In relation to the narrative, they were Thor impersonators.

You're stuck on this idea of "Thor" as a mantle, it's not, it's the guy's name. "God of Thunder" is the mantle.

Neither exactly had permission from the original (not sure what part of Dargo mistaken for the second coming gave you this idea), though Masterson was by mandate of Odin (Actually Loki possessing Odin; Long story.).