Spider-Man, Diversity and "Who Cares?"

[Silvanus]

All of those were minor storylines that were brief and not meant to be 'the new character' indefinitely. They were story arcs only meant to be 3-5 books long. As far as Thor is concerned, I have reserved my judgement on that one. First, I am not a Thor fan so I just don't care. Making him a her doesn't make me want to read it. The controversy has me curious but too much effort is involved on my part so I probably won't because I just don't care. I understand that this has happened before in the comics with men, I also understand frustration at having your favorite character you have collected for 20 years to be altered in such a dramatic way and not even telling people what was whispered is like spitting in the face of the fans. Not giving 'Odinson' fans a story to follow about what happens to him. About what was whispered, about how this dramatic change came to be and what he is going to do as a result. About the character that sold comics title THOR for over years.

Well, except for Green Lantern, who is the new character until further notice. That Mantle has changed hands repeatedly, each new one being the new main one quite indefinitely. Still, I get your point.

How many of those occasions happened before the speculation boom, compared to during the boom and after the crash?

Which is kind of the point, here. This isn't a backlash that is fundamentally sexist or racist in nature. This is a backlash against the means employed (gimmick events, continuity reboots, alternate universes) to increase diversity in comic book characters, because comic book fans have been there, done that. Multiple times over. It's what caused the crash in the first place.

And moreover, in using these same, tired old tropes, comic companies' attempts reek of tokenism, appeasement to external pressure, and cynical capitalism. Especially when those tropes come at the cost of keeping the characters, which already exist and who have pedigrees in their respective universes and runs, in secondary roles.

Look, for example, to Rhodey since you mentioned him. How many times he did don the Iron Man armor, even before becoming War Machine, prior to the crash to zero controversy? Now, if the assumption comic book fans are simply bigots were the case, wouldn't fans have completely lost their shit over it each and every time it happened?

Uhrm, that's not my assumption. Don't put words in my mouth.

When you say "speculation boom", are you referring to an actual, specific time or event? As I've said, there's been greater focus on representation over the last several decades.

If the backlash is against gimmickry, then frankly, it would be backlashing against a hundred other things just as gimmicky as this. Yet, the only times I see it, it's something like this-- something tenuously connected to the popular notion of "political correctness". It's asking me to place too much faith in people to assume that it's unconnected.

[snipped for length]

No contrivances, no leaps in logic, no problems.

Well, I'll take your word for it, but I don't believe it represents most complainants. After all, X-23 becoming Wolverine also provoked vocal opposition, accusations of "PC" and pandering, all the same jazz.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Uhrm, that's not my assumption. Don't put words in my mouth.

When you're outright claiming controversy with gimmicks only occurs when women/PoC characters are involved, and questioning the prejudices of people discussing these topics with you...yeah, it kind of is.

When you say "speculation boom", are you referring to an actual, specific time or event? As I've said, there's been greater focus on representation over the last several decades.

The speculation boom occurred in the mid-80's and lasted until the crash. Most sources list '85 as the year the speculation boom started, since they connect it to the end of the bronze age and the rise of postmodernism in comics, but sources vary in terms of when the crash happened, '93 or '96 are the most common years cited for the crash.

Now, emphasis mine,

If the backlash is against gimmickry, then frankly, it would be backlashing against a hundred other things just as gimmicky as this. Yet, the only times I see it, it's something like this-- something tenuously connected to the popular notion of "political correctness". It's asking me to place too much faith in people to assume that it's unconnected.

That backlash actually does happen. Comic fans piss and moan about the gimmicky crap all the damn time.

A good chunk of the underlying issue is the borderline abusive relationship comic book companies and geek media have developed with their own audiences (which is the chief reason why "Comicgate" is generally spoken of alongside Gamergate, as evidenced in this very thread). Comic book fans, like gamers, gripe incessantly about the creative issues that exist in their own subcommunities...but for reasons unknown, still line up around the block to buy the shit thereby perpetuating the very creative issues they loathe.

I chalk a good bit of it up to peer pressure and the desire to maintain "geek cred", combined with the fact geeks are irrationally stubborn serial complainers, and honestly wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they found an environment in which they could be genuinely happy with the media they consume. But, in the end, I have no idea how this toxic environment became the status quo between the comics crash (and the vidya crash of '83) and now, but I suspect it's linked to geek culture ultimately being a counter-culture.

But...back to the original point. That backlash does happen, it's just not reported on because it's a norm. However, in this instance, clickbait media took it and ran with it because geek-baiting and geek-bashing is a cash cow...not the least of which to geeks themselves, hence the brief tangent about geek culture and the relationship between geek media and its audience. And, exacerbating the issue are comic book companies themselves (or perhaps more appropriately, the individuals employed by those companies), who have decided to cover for their own creative stagnancy and risk aversion by attacking their own consumer base, knowing they're safe doing so because their customer base will still buy the shit.

 

[Silvanus]

When you're outright claiming controversy with gimmicks only occurs when women/PoC characters are involved, and questioning the prejudices of people discussing these topics with you...yeah, it kind of is.

I never actually did make such an absolute statement, though, did I? I'm talking about trends.

It's a pretty damn severe accusation that I'm calling people "bigots". A word-- and a sentiment-- I never expressed. Let me make that clear.

The speculation boom occurred in the mid-80's and lasted until the crash. Most sources list '85 as the year the speculation boom started, since they connect it to the end of the bronze age and the rise of postmodernism in comics, but sources vary in terms of when the crash happened, '93 or '96 are the most common years cited for the crash.

Righto. So, why do we expect such a different reaction from readers when a mantle changes hands post-crash?

But...back to the original point. That backlash does happen, it's just not reported on because it's a norm. However, in this instance, clickbait media took it and ran with it because geek-baiting and geek-bashing is a cash cow...not the least of which to geeks themselves, hence the brief tangent about geek culture and the relationship between geek media and its audience. And, exacerbating the issue are comic book companies themselves (or perhaps more appropriately, the individuals employed by those companies), who have decided to cover for their own creative stagnancy and risk aversion by attacking their own consumer base, knowing they're safe doing so because their customer base will still buy the shit.

Hey, hey, hey. I'm not judging audience reaction on the basis of media reportage; I'm basing it on what I see with my own eyes, on the sites and forums I frequent. Responses from the communities I myself am a part of.

This very board-- with its not-insignificant numbers of comic readers, note-- has perhaps dozens of threads devoted to changes made for "PC" reasons, and I can't recall much at all about other instances of the mantle changing hands.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I never actually did make such an absolute statement, though, did I? I'm talking about trends.

So am I -- and the trend in question is, without a doubt, to label comics fans bigots instead of address deeper creative concerns. So, let's keep it impersonal, shall we?

Righto. So, why do we expect such a different reaction from readers when a mantle changes hands post-crash?

...because comic fans are simply fatigued with gimmick events, and overall desire a return to strong creative values and higher quality of writing?

This very board-- with its not-insignificant numbers of comic readers, note-- has perhaps dozens of threads devoted to changes made for "PC" reasons, and I can't recall much at all about other instances of the mantle changing hands.

Compare fem-Thor to Idris' Elba's casting as Heimdall for the movie. In the film's case, there was initial backlash and controversy, and when the film came out, the Asgards' ethnic heterogeneity was justified in the context of the film's own narrative, and most importantly Elba was good in it. Everybody shut up, except for a hardcore few who continued pissing and moaning, and the rest of the community decided those few weren't worth the time of day.

With fem-Thor's case, there was initial backlash and controversy, which the media ran with to accuse comics fans of sexism. When the comics came out, they simply weren't very good which pissed comics fans off even more. Because they -- rightly -- saw it as yet another gimmick event in a long line of gimmick events intended to boost sales, and cover for poor quality. And, instead of just admitting Marvel screwed the pooch on fem-Thor (which could have actually been very, very good), the media doubled down on their sexism allegations.

Notice, here, and with other instances of rewrites and shifts in characterization, the level of controversy strongly correlates to the quality of the end product. Look, as has been said earlier, to Falcon-Cap compared to fem-Thor: complete nontroversy, because the end product was actually good, and the hardcore few who pissed and moaned (and still do) aren't given the time of day.

And, that's where I personally take notice. I support diversity in comics and have for a long time (see my earlier comments about Steel) -- what I don't support is poor quality work and creative bankruptcy, ESPECIALLY when race and gender are intentionally deployed as a cover for poor quality work and creative bankruptcy.

Because, in the end, that's ultimately a regressive standpoint. Fem-Thor sales cratered after the first issue (high sales of which would rightly be attributed to the collectors' market and the controversy). After that how willing are bean-counters and investors going to be to sign off on future A-list woman characters, and woman-friendly roster shake-ups, least of all when the media is going straight out their ass attributing that failure to gender instead of writing quality? Not very bloody likely, especially when comics companies are as risk-averse as they are in today's market.

 

[Silvanus]

So am I -- and the trend in question is, without a doubt, to label comics fans bigots instead of address deeper creative concerns. So, let's keep it impersonal, shall we?

You made it personal when you accused me-- personally-- of considering people bigots.

I've tried to keep it impersonal, and even specified several posts ago that I was not talking about you individually. You did the opposite.

...because comic fans are simply fatigued with gimmick events, and overall desire a return to strong creative values and higher quality of writing?

Why draw the line at the crash, then, to exclude any counter-examples that came before?

There are various gimmicks that've been trotted out post-crash, too. Only a few involve mantles moving to a woman or PoC; only a few provoke the same kind of reaction.

Compare fem-Thor to Idris' Elba's casting as Heimdall for the movie. In the film's case, there was initial backlash and controversy, and when the film came out, the Asgards' ethnic heterogeneity was justified in the context of the film's own narrative, and most importantly Elba was good in it. Everybody shut up, except for a hardcore few who continued pissing and moaning, and the rest of the community decided those few weren't worth the time of day.

With fem-Thor's case, there was initial backlash and controversy, which the media ran with to accuse comics fans of sexism. When the comics came out, they simply weren't very good which pissed comics fans off even more. Because they -- rightly -- saw it as yet another gimmick event in a long line of gimmick events intended to boost sales, and cover for poor quality. And, instead of just admitting Marvel screwed the pooch on fem-Thor (which could have actually been very, very good), the media doubled down on their sexism allegations.

Notice, here, and with other instances of rewrites and shifts in characterization, the level of controversy strongly correlates to the quality of the end product. Look, as has been said earlier, to Falcon-Cap compared to fem-Thor: complete nontroversy, because the end product was actually good, and the hardcore few who pissed and moaned (and still do) aren't given the time of day.

Controversy over this will also die down and go away, in part because the novelty will wear off, and in part due to the short attention span of the media who cover it. The important point to note here is the initial backlash to Heimdall's casting, regardless of motive or reason or quality. The important point to note is that the backlash against X-23 being Wolverine, again regardless of quality or reason.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Why draw the line at the crash, then, to exclude any counter-examples that came before?

Because the speculation bubble caused massive gimmick fatigue which led in no small part to the crash, and created the cynical, skeptical environment in which current backlashes exist?

These controversies don't exist in a vacuum, and whitewashing the history of comic book companies' relationship with fans provides a partial, highly biased perspective of what's going on. It's a framing technique.

There are various gimmicks that've been trotted out post-crash, too. Only a few involve mantles moving to a woman or PoC; only a few provoke the same kind of reaction.

And only a few have seen the media all but declaring war against comics fans. Imagine that.

Controversy over this will also die down and go away, in part because the novelty will wear off, and in part due to the short attention span of the media who cover it. The important point to note here is the initial backlash to Heimdall's casting, regardless of motive or reason or quality. The important point to note is that the backlash against X-23 being Wolverine, again regardless of quality or reason.

Controversy of this will die out...when it stops generating clicks. The important point is not the initial backlash, as that's directly attributable to the sub-cultural baggage currently subject to no small amount of historical revisionism by omission. Why the backlash persists, and for how long it does, is the key factor.

Because, in the end, you have to explain -- if prejudice is the driving force behind these backlashes -- why Falcon-Cap's backlash was really anything but, and why fem-Thor's backlash is still ongoing. Both characters were introduced in the same story arc, with only a few months' difference.

Or, for that matter, why X-23-Wolverine is such a colossal non-controversy you can't even -- for example -- find a single damned article about it with even a laser-targeted Google search (meanwhile, simply searching for "female Thor" turns up multiple articles about the controversy on the front page alone). Hell, I didn't even learn about X-23 becoming the new Wolverine until yesterday, and I keep my ear to the ground on geek culture sexism controversies like a mofo.

 

[Silvanus]

Because the speculation bubble caused massive gimmick fatigue which led in no small part to the crash, and created the cynical, skeptical environment in which current backlashes exist?

These controversies don't exist in a vacuum, and whitewashing the history of comic book companies' relationship with fans provides a partial, highly biased perspective of what's going on. It's a framing technique.

Indeed, they do not exist in a vacuum; and it is just as much a framing technique to conjure a history in which fan reaction is only ever a justified response to company gimmickry. To do so, you must assume bad faith of the companies whenever they make such a change; and you must overlook a wealth of rhetoric and past examples on the part of consumers, owing to a (rather simple) conjecture on the history of the medium.

And only a few have seen the media all but declaring war against comics fans. Imagine that.

Is this about a few outlets decrying sexism? If this is in any way comparable to the much-overblown "gamers are dead" articles, then I'll not be paying it much attention. A few examples of clickbaity churnalism does not a war make.

People on this very board bemoan "PC", "SJW" changes, though this site has never taken part in such reporting. The behaviour and rhetoric I'm seeing cannot be attributed to some unrelated media outlets; people are responsible for what they say.

Or, for that matter, why X-23-Wolverine is such a colossal non-controversy you can't even -- for example -- find a single damned article about it with even a laser-targeted Google search (meanwhile, simply searching for "female Thor" turns up multiple articles about the controversy on the front page alone). Hell, I didn't even learn about X-23 becoming the new Wolverine until yesterday, and I keep my ear to the ground on geek culture sexism controversies like a mofo.

What?! First of all, articles do not represent the controversy; the reaction to the news does. That's what I've been talking about.

Secondly, it's very easy to find articles on the news; 1 [http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/taylor-discusses-unsheathing-x-23s-claws-in-all-new-wolverine], 2 [https://www.yahoo.com/movies/marvel-introduces-female-wolverine-in-comics-194637245.html], 3 [http://comicbook.com/2015/06/04/who-is-marvels-all-new-all-different-wolverine-/]. That's from a 20-second google search.

Thirdly, take a trip into the comment sections, and you'll find precisely the attitude I'm talking about-- bemoaning how the change is "pandering", "PC", ya-de-ya. Same shit, different character.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...To do so, you must assume bad faith of the companies whenever they make such a change...

I'd say the crash, and the overall lack of innovation or reform to the medium since leading to the comics industry being propped up almost exclusively by film and merchandising, represents a damned good reason to presume bad faith, and cause to express skepticism to any creative shake-up.

The behaviour and rhetoric I'm seeing cannot be attributed to some unrelated media outlets; people are responsible for what they say.

Does this responsibility extend to clickbait purveyors, I wonder? Because, I'm reading an awful lot of industry and media apologia, here.

What?! First of all, articles do not represent the controversy; the reaction to the news does. That's what I've been talking about.

Secondly, it's very easy to find articles on the news; 1 [http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/taylor-discusses-unsheathing-x-23s-claws-in-all-new-wolverine], 2 [https://www.yahoo.com/movies/marvel-introduces-female-wolverine-in-comics-194637245.html], 3 [http://comicbook.com/2015/06/04/who-is-marvels-all-new-all-different-wolverine-/]. That's from a 20-second google search.

Thirdly, take a trip into the comment sections, and you'll find precisely the attitude I'm talking about-- bemoaning how the change is "pandering", "PC", ya-de-ya. Same shit, different character.

Comments sections do not a controversy make. It's telling you have to point to "announcement" articles, opposed to actual articles reporting on controversy or op-ed about the shift in characterization, opposed to what you will find in the case of fem-Thor. Now, why might that be?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

And, before this continues, thinking about it I should admit bias -- I find fem-Thor extraordinarily offensive.

Jane Foster, who has always been depicted as brunette, for lack of a better way of putting it kind of mousy, is a wheelchair-bound woman dying of breast cancer. So, she picks up Mjolnir and turns into a Ms. Male version of Thor who is pretty much her exact opposite personality-wise, complete with tall and skinny muscular body, flowing straight and blonde hair, with -- of all things -- ample boobage underneath a lovingly-drawn boob plate and semi-exposed midriff underneath a corset. So, pretty much, 1:1 on the Western Contemporary Beauty Standards and Comic Boob Sexist Depiction checklist.

I'd almost chalk fem-Thor up to brilliant, but snide, satire of contemporary social justice, were it not for creators' own reactions to the controversy.

Then again, I'm the sort of type who, when people whine about realistic depictions of comic book characters, I respond with "yeah...why isn't Wonder Woman butt-ass nekkid with one breast off, again, and why aren't you arguing for that?".

 

[Silvanus]

I'd say the crash, and the overall lack of innovation or reform to the medium since leading to the comics industry being propped up almost exclusively by film and merchandising, represents a damned good reason to presume bad faith, and cause to express skepticism to any creative shake-up.

That's a damned good reason to express cynicism towards the corporate structure and publishers; it's a damned bad reason to presume bad faith of creative teams when they introduce plot changes, particularly new creative teams.

Does this responsibility extend to clickbait purveyors, I wonder? Because, I'm reading an awful lot of industry and media apologia, here.

Obviously it extends to reporters and journalists, yes. Criticising people for exhibiting some hostile attitudes is not at all apologia for anything else.

Comments sections do not a controversy make. It's telling you have to point to "announcement" articles, opposed to actual articles reporting on controversy or op-ed about the shift in characterization, opposed to what you will find in the case of fem-Thor. Now, why might that be?

Uhrm, well, it might be because my point has never been concerned in the least with the media narrative.

You're reading a lot of what isn't there into what I'm saying, and it's getting tiresome.