Spider-Man, Diversity and "Who Cares?"

[Silvanus]

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.).

I didn't say he had the permission of Thor; I put that forward as a potential sticking point.

Is the sticking point, then, that these figures claimed to be the same Thor, but Jane Foster doesn't, yet uses the same name?

There's perfect precedent for the Power of Thor being wielded by other figures; is the issue only that Jane Foster is using the name?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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?

Actually, yeah I do. Call me jaded after the disjointed Dark Age-heralding "death of Superman" arc. But at least we got Steel out of it, which in my opinion is the gold standard of how "inheriting the mantle" should go.

Which, coincidentally enough, Steel is African-American.

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?

Let's unpack this for veracity's sake.

Wonder Woman was debuted in 1941, which would make her a Golden Age character.
Catwoman debuted in 1940, which would make her a Golden Age character.
Susan Storm debuted in 1961, which would make her a Silver Age character.
Jean Grey debuted in 1963, which woudl make her a Silver Age character.
Mystique debuted in 1978, which would make her a Bronze Age character.
War Machine debuted in 1979, which would make him a Bronze Age character.
Huntress debuted in 1989, which would make her a Bronze Age character.

Meanwhile, all these post-crash A-lister PoC and women superheroes are...?

I can think of one -- ONE -- off the top of my head: Harley Quinn, and she debuted in a cartoon.

Which, ultimately, is my point: post-crash comic book creators and companies are so risk-averse and creatively bankrupt they can't even meet growing market demand for diversity, by so much as a token effort to increase the profiles of women and PoC characters that already exist. Instead, they stick to the same tired gimmicks that caused the crash in the first place and scream bigotry when comic fans reject them.

Bonus round: how about all those major Dark Age women and PoC superheroes? Especially the women characters. The ones who came out of the "bad girl" sub-era, that we "just don't talk about" because objectification and sexism?

 

[Silvanus]

Actually, yeah I do. Call me jaded after the disjointed Dark Age-heralding "death of Superman" arc. But at least we got Steel out of it, which in my opinion is the gold standard of how "inheriting the mantle" should go.

Which, coincidentally enough, Steel is African-American.

I'm not sure what the emphasis there is meant to imply; I'm not accusing you of anything. I can see how my post from before could come across that way, though, and apologise for that.

Still, the mantle-changing thing is as big a part of comics as any other. If I were to give it twenty minutes' thought, I could probably fill the page with mantles that have changed hands, sometimes up to five times. If we were to do a statistical comparison-- and Bast knows we won't, because we'd be here all night-- I'm pretty sure there's been minimal fuss most of the time. Except when it's a woman, or can otherwise be attributed to political correctness in some manner.

Now, some of the blame rests on the clickbaity nature of internet media, and how over-enthusiastic they get about stuff like this, which can be alienating. But not all. Some of the it lies with questionable, unconscious attitudes in the audience.

The audience at large, mind, not yourself specifically.

Let's unpack this for veracity's sake.

Wonder Woman was debuted in 1941, which would make her a Golden Age character.
Catwoman debuted in 1940, which would make her a Golden Age character.
Susan Storm debuted in 1961, which would make her a Silver Age character.
Jean Grey debuted in 1963, which woudl make her a Silver Age character.
Mystique debuted in 1978, which would make her a Bronze Age character.
War Machine debuted in 1979, which would make him a Bronze Age character.
Huntress debuted in 1989, which would make her a Bronze Age character.

Meanwhile, all these post-crash A-lister PoC and women superheroes are...?

I can think of one -- ONE -- off the top of my head: Harley Quinn, and she debuted in a cartoon.

Which, ultimately, is my point: post-crash comic book creators and companies are so risk-averse and creatively bankrupt they can't even meet growing market demand for diversity, by so much as a token effort to increase the profiles of women and PoC characters that already exist. Instead, they stick to the same tired gimmicks that caused the crash in the first place and scream bigotry when comic fans reject them.

Bonus round: how about all those major Dark Age women and PoC superheroes? Especially the women characters. The ones who came out of the "bad girl" sub-era, that we "just don't talk about" because objectification and sexism?

Well, that's rather shifting the goalposts a little, don't you think?

 

[Nazrel]

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.).

I didn't say he had the permission of Thor; I put that forward as a potential sticking point.

Is the sticking point, then, that these figures claimed to be the same Thor, but Jane Foster doesn't, yet uses the same name?

There's perfect precedent for the Power of Thor being wielded by other figures; is the issue only that Jane Foster is using the name?

It's hardly the only issue, but in relation to the name, context for appropriation also likely plays heavily into it.

Here's how to do something like this competently, have the real Thor out of the way (as in dead or missing), someone picks up the hammer (gender or race, irrelevant), and everyone just starts calling them Thor, preferably to their mild protest.

What did they do?

He becomes unworthy, by not actually becoming unworthy, because that would have involved him actually doing something, instead of someone just whispering in his ear; then contrivedly giving up his name, despite those two things literally having nothing to do with each other.

She picks up the hammer, and is suddenly more awesome with it then he ever was.

He gets pissed on a little bit more by getting dismembered, then after being stuck in awe at seeing her in action, says "You're Thor now, cause I just suck."

There's nothing wrong with the idea of Thor becoming unworthy and someone else picking up the hammer. That idea has great potential, but this was just contrived bull%^&$#.

Let's compare this to my favorite character, Laura Kinney (X-23), and her new mantle.

I was admittedly not 100% behind her becoming Wolverine; she was already laboring under the stigma of being a clone, and didn't need to be pushed further into Logan's shadow (though Mr. Taylor is making the concept work wonderfully.)but it was a very straight forward succession.

Adopted daughter takes over deceased fathers mantle. Done.

No contrivances, no leaps in logic, no problems.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

If I were to give it twenty minutes' thought, I could probably fill the page with mantles that have changed hands, sometimes up to five times.

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?

Well, that's rather shifting the goalposts a little, don't you think?

My initial post, emphasis mine,

Women and PoC superheroes already exist in these universes [...] 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.

Perhaps I should have been clearer in my point, but shifting the goalposts? No.

 

[Zenja]

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?

The whole Gamergate thing that hit all mainstream media, not just gaming. Paul Feig has even mentioned Gamergate in an interview regarding Ghostbusters 3. While the discussion over representation has been going on for decades, the controversy is very recent. (Within this decade) Before it was jokes like "the black guy always gets killed", "When a girl takes off her glasses it makes her hot", or "people who live in the jungle know magic and/or can talk to animals", etc. If we are looking for a specific year, probably about 2010 is when the representation discussion started turning into controversy and we see a big push for this stuff to change as the joke began to get tiresome and no longer funny when it persisted even when the problem was acknowledged.

Fast forward to today and now no one has patience to for stories to naturally diversify its cast. (Which I kind of understand because we waited for a while already) As well, no one is bothering to look at sales figures around minorities and women as if that has no relevance. Even though that one is EXTREMELY important as the market tends to cater to demand, not ethical ideology as that doesn't tend to sell well unless on the back of controversy. Gamergate (love it or hate it) has created a huge wake of controversy. You could even point to Anita Sarkessian for rallying the crowd for Gamergate. I think that line being blurry is why Gamergate so easily can be painted as sexist/racist instead of anti-political. (Because everyone has a political view) This isn't really a good place to post my views on that stuff but the point is, this topic of diversity has never been shoved at the public harder than it is right now. It is in every form of media and now you have people putting messages out there that imply "if you don't like X you are racist/sexist" which should be a red flag for society that things are beyond 'out of hand'. There are many reasons not to like something. Just as you two are arguing, "ascribing motives to people that they have not expressed."

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?

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.

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. I feel this is a good point:

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.

Even if you could point out more permanent shifts in the main character to parallel and explain the whole technicality of what could or couldn't be done in the lore, you still miss a very crucial aspect of the problem at hand. Thor 'Odinson' has fans and fans of his character are losing a comic and not gaining a new one. They didn't give him a proper 'send off' or anything. They gave an unknown whisper, called him a disgrace for it essentially, and lost a monthly storyline in favor of a new girl Thor they know nothing about.

Now as I said before, I haven't read the new Thor comics nor will I probably. But I know a lot of people are complaining about the whisper and it is hard not to sympathize if you have ever had your favorite character essentially destroyed for no reason in comics (Happens more often than you would think) due to crappy cheap shock value writing and seeing how much they think they can get away with. SO while I don't have much ground to discuss the lore aspect of Thor, I will address that I think people should at the very least be understanding that long time fans are, in fact, giving something up for this story. So if you like it better than Odinson's run, it would be nice to show them some understanding for having to give up one of their favorite stories so you can have this one. Simply recognizing their frustrations would probably help it seem less like an argument instead of implying sexism and close mindedness. I highly doubt the writing is flawless and without cheap shots to the controversy considering it is a comic book and if I know Marvel, the fans probably have some valid points.

 

[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.