Comics XII: All New, All Twelve

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Bastard of Boston said:

But, again, nobody is looking to see where this goes.

And, again, that doesn't matter because the criticism is not about where it goes. It's not about making assumptions about what the context is going to be. It's about saying that some things are problematic in pretty much any context.

It's absolutely legitimate to say that without having it dismissed as 'hysteria' or being told 'well then, don't buy it'.

8 minutes ago, Bastard of Boston said:

In the past, nobody could really overreact to this type of thing because it required commitment. Social media has made it too easy. You don't need to be committed to anything to be outraged. You just have to log onto Twitter for five minutes.

They said similar things about those newfangled printing presses and teaching the commoners to write.

[Bastard of Boston]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

And, again, that doesn't matter because the criticism is not about where it goes. It's not about making assumptions about what the context is going to be. It's about saying that some things are problematic in pretty much any context.

It's absolutely legitimate to say that without having it dismissed as 'hysteria' or being told 'well then, don't buy it'.

They said similar things about those newfangled printing presses and teaching the commoners to write.

How is it problematic? That's a vague statement. Is it problematic because it has to do with Nazis? It's completely fair to expect an audience to wait until context is given before reacting. As for the second part of your statement...I got nothing? I'm sure there are both rich and poor alike sending Nick Spencer and Brevoort death threats. What a weird leap. Because my statement about Twitter is totally analogous with disallowing "commoners" their literacy. Then again, I suppose it's on topic with people going to the extreme.

[Little Valkyrie]

It's also a complicated mess because 616/comics Hydra has a rather tangential connection to Nazis (mainly Baron von Strucker--but the origin is in Nick Fury comics as a James Bond SPECTRE sort of thing), whereas MCU/movies Hydra has an explicit connection to the Nazis (but was then used because they didn't want to put more Nazis on the screen).  And a few people have acknowledged that this is comics and not movies and yet are still insisting that because the movie material is out there, the association is strong enough that it's a completely off-limits plot line. 

As a comics-only fan, I'm actually kind of impressed by this plot in and of itself because it indicates that for once, the movies aren't dominating and controlling the comics content, unlike the abysmal state of the Guardians of the Galaxy.

(I cut out the seriously tl;dr part about the history of HYDRA in the comics, but am happy to provide panels, issue numbers, and even an overview of retcons upon request and the delivery of something nice and 90+ proof to my house.)

 

[red snow]

I'm more shocked that Cap hasn't been a nazi before. Given the age of the character I thought that story would have been mined a long time ago so credit to Spencer for coming up with it.

The folk getting upset about Captain Hydra clearly don't even read comics as they'd be so jaded over how temporary these things are anyway. Marvel probably knew this and sent copies to the people who'd turn it into an issue for some free publicity. They just wanted to steal some attention away from DC rebirth and it worked.

I wonder if some of the outrage is also tied up with the gay Captain America campaign? In a "you make him a nazi but you won't make him gay" dummy spitting. I seriously doubt/hope people haven't been wanting cap as a nazi role model. As for gay cap america, I think it would work really well in the MCU given he's still a virgin there and that may be down to repressed feelings due to being from the 40s.

I don't think it would work in the comics without there being some streamlining of continuity.

 

[Little Valkyrie]

36 minutes ago, red snow said:

I'm more shocked that Cap hasn't been a nazi before. Given the age of the character I thought that story would have been mined a long time ago so credit to Spencer for coming up with it.

 

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby actually did a comic with Cap brainwashed by Nazis and saluting Hitler, yes.

 

This is "Cap was always an agent of HYDRA, somehow".  I don't think Marvel deliberately leaked--the shitstirrer at Bleeding Cool was teasing something big, but it took the issue coming out for a mighty roar to come up from the internet.

[Ruhail]

Its just Nick Spencer being an edgey hack to make Cpt. Falcoln look better. 

[red snow]

6 hours ago, Little Valkyrie said:

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby actually did a comic with Cap brainwashed by Nazis and saluting Hitler, yes.

 

This is "Cap was always an agent of HYDRA, somehow".  I don't think Marvel deliberately leaked--the shitstirrer at Bleeding Cool was teasing something big, but it took the issue coming out for a mighty roar to come up from the internet.

I can't see how this won't turn out to be the same thing - an illusion or alternate reality version of him. It makes zero sense otherwise. I mean there's absolutely no way the "long game" of him thwarting pretty much every attempt they've made. Unless someone brainwashed him to be "good" and he's only now remembering who he was?

It's like when they told us there'd be a new spider-man that wasn't Peter Parker. Wait a minute, didn't Red Skull recently have Onslaught's powers? So it could turn out Captain america and Red Skull have weirdly merged or some comics-nonsense like that?

If Spencer can do a story that worked as well as Superior Spider-man did we'll be in for a treat.

3 hours ago, Ruhail said:

Its just Nick Spencer being an edgey hack to make Cpt. Falcoln look better. 

I suspect his first issue sold better than the Falcon version and probably will for a while thanks to the attention it's received.

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Bastard of Boston said:

How is it problematic? That's a vague statement.

Well, if you've actually read the reactions you're complaining about, I would assume you already know why people consider it inherently problematic? Because Cap was created by two Jewish writers as an explicitly anti-Nazi hero before the US was even officially at war, and because there are living people for whom that is emotionally important and it is therefore problematic to invert that just for shock value.

9 hours ago, Bastard of Boston said:

 It's completely fair to expect an audience to wait until context is given before reacting.

But it's not fair to suggest that a thing cannot conceivably be ill-judged without that context, or that people are not allowed to react to a thing without context. (And actually, there is context available: there's a whole issue's worth, in fact. Your suggestion is that there isn't enough context, not that there is none.) That image exists, it was created, and the creators involved know - and so far as I'm aware, fully acknowledge - that people are going to react to it and it's their right to do so.

Let me use another comparison: if a writer had created a picture of Steve Rogers-Cap made up in blackface, would people have a right to say 'that's a problematic idea' or should they wait for the next issue to see where the writer is going with this? I'm not suggesting the two are equally offensive, but I'm trying to illustrate that it's possible for someone to find an image offensive independent of its context, and that 'wait to see where the writer is going with this' isn't always going to be a way of invalidating that criticism.

9 hours ago, Bastard of Boston said:

As for the second part of your statement...I got nothing? I'm sure there are both rich and poor alike sending Nick Spencer and Brevoort death threats. What a weird leap. Because my statement about Twitter is totally analogous with disallowing "commoners" their literacy. Then again, I suppose it's on topic with people going to the extreme.

It's a point about how new media, or the spread of communication (in that case, literacy) is always portrayed as a vehicle for irrational 'hysteria'. Nothing to do with wealth except that in the time I'm talking about, literacy was restricted to the wealthy. Apologies if that's not clear.

9 hours ago, red snow said:

The folk getting upset about Captain Hydra clearly don't even read comics

Oh, come on. The folk I've seen getting upset include not only comics fans, but comics writers, artists, editors and critics. They know full well how comics work.

This is just a sillier variation on the 'wait and see' line. Ignorance or lack of understanding of the medium is not the root of the criticism here. The critics understand the field as well as anyone. They think this was a bad idea, even while knowing where it is likely to go and acknowledging that Spencer is a fine writer.

I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement with all of the criticism of the plotline, but these attempts to dismiss it out of hand are not on.

9 hours ago, red snow said:

I wonder if some of the outrage is also tied up with the gay Captain America campaign? In a "you make him a nazi but you won't make him gay" dummy spitting.

Do you really want to go there? Because that's a valid argument about representation in comics being dismissed as the behaviour of spoiled children. Not a good look.

[Ruhail]

Since Spencer is engrossed in the 2016 election hes warping characters to fit his political view despite it not making sense. He knows what hes doing, hes lying if he didnt think people would be upset and hes handling it in his typical condescending uptight way.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Well, if you've actually read the reactions you're complaining about, I would assume you already know why people consider it inherently problematic? Because Cap was created by two Jewish writers as an explicitly anti-Nazi hero before the US was even officially at war, and because there are living people for whom that is emotionally important and it is therefore problematic to invert that just for shock value.

But it's not fair to suggest that a thing cannot conceivably be ill-judged without that context, or that people are not allowed to react to a thing without context. (And actually, there is context available: there's a whole issue's worth, in fact. Your suggestion is that there isn't enough context, not that there is none.) That image exists, it was created, and the creators involved know - and so far as I'm aware, fully acknowledge - that people are going to react to it and it's their right to do so.

Let me use another comparison: if a writer had created a picture of Steve Rogers-Cap made up in blackface, would people have a right to say 'that's a problematic idea' or should they wait for the next issue to see where the writer is going with this? I'm not suggesting the two are equally offensive, but I'm trying to illustrate that it's possible for someone to find an image offensive independent of its context, and that 'wait to see where the writer is going with this' isn't always going to be a way of invalidating that criticism.

It's a point about how new media, or the spread of communication (in that case, literacy) is always portrayed as a vehicle for irrational 'hysteria'. Nothing to do with wealth except that in the time I'm talking about, literacy was restricted to the wealthy. Apologies if that's not clear.

Oh, come on. The folk I've seen getting upset include not only comics fans, but comics writers, artists, editors and critics. They know full well how comics work.

This is just a sillier variation on the 'wait and see' line. Ignorance or lack of understanding of the medium is not the root of the criticism here. The critics understand the field as well as anyone. They think this was a bad idea, even while knowing where it is likely to go and acknowledging that Spencer is a fine writer.

I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement with all of the criticism of the plotline, but these attempts to dismiss it out of hand are not on.

Do you really want to go there? Because that's a valid argument about representation in comics being dismissed as the behaviour of spoiled children. Not a good look.

I agree that my comment about dummy spitting wasn't the best choice of words and looks bad the way you interpret it. I apologise as it's wasn't my intention but if it can be seen that way I accept the blame. I'd try and it explain it more clearly in terms of "if I was wanting a gay captain america I'd find it extra insulting that they can do nazi cap but won't try gay cap". But I'll put my hands up and admit some of the words I chose weren't the best.

The other points clearly boil down to opinion in the end. It's not a case of it only being good or bad. If people hate the idea that's fine - it's not anything new in comics. People also aren't wrong for saying the story might be a good idea as long as the overall story is worthwhile. I'm largely indifferent in that I'm not outraged or inclined to read the story. I'm sure where these things have happened in the past it's been done in a one-shot where the resolution is present. Leaving people hanging with Cap is a nazi for at least a month isn't wise.

 

[Bastard of Boston]

12 hours ago, mormont said:

Well, if you've actually read the reactions you're complaining about, I would assume you already know why people consider it inherently problematic? Because Cap was created by two Jewish writers as an explicitly anti-Nazi hero before the US was even officially at war, and because there are living people for whom that is emotionally important and it is therefore problematic to invert that just for shock value.

But it's not fair to suggest that a thing cannot conceivably be ill-judged without that context, or that people are not allowed to react to a thing without context. (And actually, there is context available: there's a whole issue's worth, in fact. Your suggestion is that there isn't enough context, not that there is none.) That image exists, it was created, and the creators involved know - and so far as I'm aware, fully acknowledge - that people are going to react to it and it's their right to do so.

Let me use another comparison: if a writer had created a picture of Steve Rogers-Cap made up in blackface, would people have a right to say 'that's a problematic idea' or should they wait for the next issue to see where the writer is going with this? I'm not suggesting the two are equally offensive, but I'm trying to illustrate that it's possible for someone to find an image offensive independent of its context, and that 'wait to see where the writer is going with this' isn't always going to be a way of invalidating that criticism.

It's a point about how new media, or the spread of communication (in that case, literacy) is always portrayed as a vehicle for irrational 'hysteria'. Nothing to do with wealth except that in the time I'm talking about, literacy was restricted to the wealthy. Apologies if that's not clear.

Oh, come on. The folk I've seen getting upset include not only comics fans, but comics writers, artists, editors and critics. They know full well how comics work.

This is just a sillier variation on the 'wait and see' line. Ignorance or lack of understanding of the medium is not the root of the criticism here. The critics understand the field as well as anyone. They think this was a bad idea, even while knowing where it is likely to go and acknowledging that Spencer is a fine writer.

I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement with all of the criticism of the plotline, but these attempts to dismiss it out of hand are not on.

Do you really want to go there? Because that's a valid argument about representation in comics being dismissed as the behaviour of spoiled children. Not a good look.

It's art. Context is everything. Not portraying it doesn't make it go away. By your rationale, literature should never highlight deplorable behavior because it would be "problematic" or offensive. Everything is offensive to someone. GRRM highlights rape and murder in his Ice and Fire series. Because these two things are, no doubt, two issues which would trigger much discomfort in his audience, should he not write of them? The same applies to Captain Hydra. Captain Hydra is clearly not being glorified. The shock value inherent in this decision is to momentarily make the reader question whether Cap is a villain -- a villain. Villains do bad things. Nazis are villains. Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it can't be portrayed in art. If Marvel was portraying Captain Hydra as a misunderstood anti-hero, then yes, very offensive. But, is there any evidence this is occurring? Is Marvel somehow making Naziism "okay?" Absolutely not.

Sure, it's sad that many people consider this to be a betrayal. But, it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. You brought up Kirby. I posted an actual page, by Kirby himself, where he draws Captain America saluting Red Skull. The very man who supposedly would roll over in his grave if he saw the Hail Hydra panel.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to react to it. I'm saying that it's my opinion that their reactions are extreme. They can tweet away. It's their prerogative. It's my prerogative to have an opinion on their opinions. Hence, this discussion. I'm sure you would think it's ridiculous if I said that -- because you feel these people are allowed to be upset -- you're condoning their death threats. I know that's not true, but if I wanted to go to the extreme, I can sit here and make those accusations of you. That would be just as ridiculous as you taking my opinion on Twitter and somehow segueing it into me censoring the masses or comparing it to a century old movement to curb literacy.

[mormont]

13 hours ago, Bastard of Boston said:

It's art. Context is everything. Not portraying it doesn't make it go away. By your rationale, literature should never highlight deplorable behavior because it would be "problematic" or offensive. Everything is offensive to someone. GRRM highlights rape and murder in his Ice and Fire series. Because these two things are, no doubt, two issues which would trigger much discomfort in his audience, should he not write of them?

I've never said that the Captain Hydra scene should never have been written. I've said that people are entitled to react to it as written. Nor have I said that things that might be taken as offensive should never be portrayed in art. You're tilting at windmills there.

Similarly, I've never said that context isn't important. In fact, context is important: context is why this is controversial. Context is what matters to people. Another character doing the same, after all, wouldn't be a problem. It's the context of Cap's origins as a character that is the problematic part. (And, as I've pointed out, we have a whole issue of context in this particular story.)

There's a difference between 'context is everything' and 'wait and see where the writer's going with this', though, and that difference is critical. Every single person I've seen complain about this has acknowledged the places the creators are likely to go with this and find it offensive despite that. Is it conceivable that the creators are in fact going to pull something completely unexpected out of the hat that changes everything? Yes, I suppose so. Is it fair to slam people for their reactions to what they have and what they know right now? Absolutely not. That's not how art works.

We react to art as it is presented. In sequential art, like comics, how it's presented, issue by issue, is an artistic choice, a part of the art in itself. Spencer and his co-creators made the choice to present this as it is. They did that, presumably, for impact. That's the part people are criticising: that this has been done for shock value, and that strikes them as cheap and/or exploitative.

And yes, maybe you could level the same charge at Kirby, but I'd argue that the context there was different. If nothing else, that was then and this is now, and the differences between then and now are much more substantial than the existence of Twitter.

[Bastard of Boston]

You're saying people are fully aware that this won't stick and Cap really isn't Hydra, but they can be offended, regardless? Why? Because Naziism is off-limits as a writing trope? This goes back to my point about what should/shouldn't be off limits in literature. So, yeah, I'm just gonna go with I disagree. Keep in mind, I never even said they shouldn't be allowed to feel offense. I never argued that people shouldn't be allowed to react. I'm arguing, clearly, that I disagree with their reactions. In every post I've made on this issue -- including the original -- I commented that people are allowed to feel however they feel...until you get to a place where you're threatening the lives of the people involved with creating the comic.

[Ruhail]

1 hour ago, Bastard of Boston said:

You're saying people are fully aware that this won't stick and Cap really isn't Hydra, but they can be offended, regardless? Why? Because Naziism is off-limits as a writing trope? This goes back to my point about what should/shouldn't be off limits in literature. So, yeah, I'm just gonna go with I disagree. Keep in mind, I never even said they shouldn't be allowed to feel offense. I never argued that people shouldn't be allowed to react. I'm arguing, clearly, that I disagree with their reactions. In every post I've made on this issue -- including the original -- I commented that people are allowed to feel however they feel...until you get to a place where you're threatening the lives of the people involved with creating the comic.

Nick Spencer is a former politician who openly whines day and night about Trump and Clinton so much so that he cant stop smashing people over the head with his obsession in his Falcon and Steve books using them as his Soapbox is what my big problem is. If he'd stop crying about the reaction and be honest about what hes doing id just move on but no he wants to be a butthurt crybaby so im going to laugh when this book slumps like his garbage Cap Falcon book.

[red snow]

Did anyone read the rebirth books this week? I haven't got round to the comic shop yet and suspect there's a chance they'll be sold out. Batman and Superman are the two I'm most interested in. I suspect Batman will remain fairly unchanged (as he did entering the new52 - why meddle with a working formula) but Superman is facing pretty big changes given it's reverting back to the pre52 Superman - married and with a kid. It's probably showing my age that I find that approach more interesting (BKV can make it work in "Saga" so why not Superman).

Green lantern/Arrow are both titles I'm not biting on. Green Lantern just feels a bit done since John's run (it was even a bit done by the end of it) and there seems to be too many human lanterns running around.

[Bastard of Boston]

I read the Rebirth stuff. I was a little underwhelmed. I'm hugely excited for King on Batman, and I loved Snyder's run, so I was expecting to love the hell out of their issue. Janin's art is always nice. Didn't seem like much happened, though. For a significant issue (#1), I felt like it needed to have more impact -- unless it's intended to be the start of a Calendar Man arc. I suppose I can wait. Superman was decent. I liked the idea that old Superman is convinced the new one is destined to resurrect -- that naive hope is pretty poignant. I don't really have any connection to Cruz or Baz, so I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Lanterns. The art on Green Arrow was pretty poor, making the book a tough read.

[red snow]

32 minutes ago, Bastard of Boston said:

I read the Rebirth stuff. I was a little underwhelmed. I'm hugely excited for King on Batman, and I loved Snyder's run, so I was expecting to love the hell out of their issue. Janin's art is always nice. Didn't seem like much happened, though. For a significant issue (#1), I felt like it needed to have more impact -- unless it's intended to be the start of a Calendar Man arc. I suppose I can wait. Superman was decent. I liked the idea that old Superman is convinced the new one is destined to resurrect -- that naive hope is pretty poignant. I don't really have any connection to Cruz or Baz, so I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Lanterns. The art on Green Arrow was pretty poor, making the book a tough read.

Will try and check them at weekend. I think I'll give King a few issues as this quick interview intrigued me (and he seems a nice guy).

I read the final issue of Superman and felt kind of bad how reader apathy lead to the character's death (ultimately the blame lies with no-one really making the character work beyond Morrison's prequel arc). I think older Superman is the natural way to go after young supes failed to catch on. Given his status I think having him as the wise hero everyone looks up and acting as a custodian could work

[Nictarion]

I didn't pick up Batman Rebirth since I plan to stick with Synder when he starts All-Star (don't really want to read 2 Bat titles every month), but I'm curious about King's take on him. I'm loving Vision so I'll have to wait for people's reactions to his Batman after a few issues. 

[red snow]

3 hours ago, Nictarion said:

I didn't pick up Batman Rebirth since I plan to stick with Synder when he starts All-Star (don't really want to read 2 Bat titles every month), but I'm curious about King's take on him. I'm loving Vision so I'll have to wait for people's reactions to his Batman after a few issues. 

It wouldn't just be to two titles a month as Batman is shipping twice monthly, I think. In the old days it would have been offset by delays with All star as the line-up of artists would guarantee delays but DC has a pretty good track record of scheduling books so they don't fall behind (Vertigo doesn't count).

[The King in Black]

Rebirth has been interesting so far. I'm interested in seeing where they're going with the 

Spoiler

Doctor Manhattan

stuff.

Batman Rebirth was a good read, while Superman and GL were decent at best. GA had so much fanbait it was almost cynical , but damn it did it work on me. 

 

On the other side of the street, I will be deliberately staying away from Civil War II 'cause fuck you Marvel. The Captain America stuff is laughable at best. I'm sticking with Moon Knight, Vision and Ultimates ; those books have not disappointed  me yet