How Liberalism May Be Hurting Comic Book Sales by Darin Wagner

[Bass]

There is an article receiving much (bad) press about how liberal rhetoric in comics is killing the medium.

It's getting a lot of bad press, even on Let's Be Friends. And I had a bit of a twitter-debate with Cully Hamner on this.

While I disagree with Darin Wagner on the conclusions that liberalism is destroying comics, what irks me so much is how people are just saying it's "dumb" when the article seems rather level-headed and reasonable. But more than that, is that people are criticizing him for a point of view he never expresses.

He never states there should be more conservatism. I wish someone could find me that passage. I've read it a few times and cannot find any such statement. What he argues for is less politics. He says you can make any character, even Robin Hood, liberal or conservative, if you want, but that you shouldn't because art isn't necessarily a space for political rhetoric (unless, it's appropriate as in the case of Hawk & Dove, which he mentions). He's talking about the liberal side of comics, not the conservative side, and so his opinions of whether there are too much or too little or if comics would do better with less or more conservatism is not only irrelevant, it's never brought up.

His argument is very clear that there's too much casual liberalism in a genre of storytelling in which political rhetoric is inappropriate, and it should be lessened, because it's killing comic book sales.

I would only contend with the notion that it's a key factor in the loss of sales, because there are far greater problems than it. But even I, in my left-wing Ivory tower can agree that there's too much casual liberal rhetoric.

I feel bad for the guy and pretty much the comic book world. Everyone is savaging this guy and missing out on, I think, an important point: If you're an artist and you want to make political comments about the current landscape of the US, shoehorning them into your Superman comic is probably not the best way to express yourself.

 

[Jaggyd]

Let's be honest, ****ty storytelling and horrible marketing is what's hurting comic sales in the US.

Unfortunately, to most people, when you say, "We need less X" they automatically assume that means "We need to add more Y", even if it's not the argument. It's like Gay Rights in the US, when I say "I want equal rights!" people like Sean Hannity hears "I want SPECIAL rights!". It's the innate idiocy of the masses, and sadly not much more.

As to the "left-leaning" stories, even that's relative. I know people of both sides of the spectrum claiming Batman is a "Socialist idea of taking away our Second Amendment rights" and the other claiming he's "A totalitarian fascist, bent on bullying and controlling the people of Gotham". If you were to go into any "study" with a particular ideal, you'll always find what you're looking for. The best example, would be something like Batwoman, to many people, her sheer existence is "Liberal", does it make it so, who knows.

What needs to be fixed about comics is the antiquated notions surrounding; toadyism, publishing, distribution, and even the genres themselves (let's not get started on how women are treated as creators/fans/consumers), politics are just another scape goat that ignores the greater problems in the industry.

But, at the end of the day, even this is just my opinion. I haven't done vast amounts of market research or consumer studies, I can just see the writing on the wall. Comics are facing the same hurtle as the newspaper industry did, and unless they make different choices, American comics as an industry, may go the way of newspaper subscriptions.

 

[Zombipanda]

Yeeeeah... Jag's pretty much on the money, but then she usually is.

My problem with the article is, the points the guy argues are "liberal rhetoric" really seem flimsy to me. I dont' see it. At worst, I see casual, flippant commentary by liberals who don't really think liberalism through or understand liberalism, but it doesn't seem like a prevalent thing to me, and it seems like this guy is actively seeking out a problem that's really not there. I mean, Aquaman complaining about oil pouring into the ocean? That doesn't seem like a thing Aquaman would do?

If there was some sort of "liberal revolution" happening I'd say it was less about politics and more about a desire to avoid stagnation. Superheroes are, by nature of the business, conservative figures. Their status as indefinite properties and the need to maintain a continuity that remains static and appeals to the largest common denominator insures the stories are going to fundamentally remain the same into perpetuity. We won't see a story where we really look into the implications of Batman's actions on people's rights or the question of whether Superman is best utilizing his powers by punching aliens, so these stupid little asides about his citizen and the like are silly attempts to institute change. But it's really just a blip on the radar that makes all these conservatives with a persecution complex salivate.

That said, there's nothing wrong with comic book stories that explore politics. I always felt like "Green Arrow/Green Lantern" was kind of shoddily done social commentary but then there's stuff like Grell's Green Arrow or Ditko's work where, while it has political ideology I don't agree with, it's at the heart of the story and true to the character.

Complaining about how the big two companies do things is kind of a futile cause. They're going to keep doing what they're doing. The answer is going to come from the independent press, as it always does, which will hopefully finally have the opportunity to flourish with the opportunities opening up from digital revolution.

And there's no way Batman is a socialist. Just.... no way. at all.

 

[E]

My problem with the article is, the points the guy argues are "liberal rhetoric" really seem flimsy to me. I dont' see it.

Would you describe yourself as liberal? Maybe it's harder to see because it doesn't clash with your values and beliefs.

 

[Bass]

Unfortunately, to most people, when you say, "We need less X" they automatically assume that means "We need to add more Y", even if it's not the argument. It's like Gay Rights in the US, when I say "I want equal rights!" people like Sean Hannity hears "I want SPECIAL rights!". It's the innate idiocy of the masses, and sadly not much more.

Where were you when I was tweet-debating Cully? That is a perfect example. *steals*

Yeeeeah... Jag's pretty much on the money, but then she usually is.

Because you posted that, I assume this is an off-hand remark to her being a stripper.

That said, there's nothing wrong with comic book stories that explore politics. I always felt like "Green Arrow/Green Lantern" was kind of shoddily done social commentary but then there's stuff like Grell's Green Arrow or Ditko's work where, while it has political ideology I don't agree with, it's at the heart of the story and true to the character.

Yeah, that's his point. Politics in some characters, when appropriate is fine. Remember, he doesn't complain that people have liberal views, but at the unending stream of casual, superifical liberal rhetoric he sees, and it has a cumulative effect. I completely understand that. I am sick of the casual atheistic rhetoric in pretty much everything I watch, relevant or not. It's not "there is no God", that doesn't irk me much, but what I can't stand is the rhetoric "people who believe in God do so irrationally and are hysterical about it" which is just horrendously fallacious, and is analogous to his claim that everyone in comics keeps saying, "Right-wing people are bigoted cavemen", which is just as erroneous.

That's why I think he's level-headed; he's asking people to dial down the casual rhetoric, without asking them to change their opinions on anything.

Would you describe yourself as liberal? Maybe it's harder to see because it doesn't clash with your values and beliefs.

That's very true. It's a hard-line to draw between "Am I reading what I want into this?" versus "This is actually here and no one else can hear it".

 

[Jaggyd]

Where were you when I was tweet-debating Cully? That is a perfect example. *steals*

You're welcome

Because you posted that, I assume this is an off-hand remark to her being a stripper.

I'm the best damn stripper on this board.

Yeah, that's his point. Politics in some characters, when appropriate is fine. Remember, he doesn't complain that people have liberal views, but at the unending stream of casual, superifical liberal rhetoric he sees, and it has a cumulative effect. I completely understand that. I am sick of the casual atheistic rhetoric in pretty much everything I watch, relevant or not. It's not "there is no God", that doesn't irk me much, but what I can't stand is the rhetoric "people who believe in God do so irrationally and are hysterical about it" which is just horrendously fallacious, and is analogous to his claim that everyone in comics keeps saying, "Right-wing people are bigoted cavemen", which is just as erroneous.

That's why I think he's level-headed; he's asking people to dial down the casual rhetoric, without asking them to change their opinions on anything.

If you're talking about "Atheism in comics", I personally don't think it's used enough. Both DC and Marvel have entities that outstrip the Judeo-Christian Diety by magnitudes. With that said, most writers (Outside of guys like Morrison, Ellis, Ennis, etc) have a shocking lack of ability to write about atheism in any way that doesn't sound like a 15 year old just trying to get a rise out of his grandparents.

That's very true. It's a hard-line to draw between "Am I reading what I want into this?" versus "This is actually here and no one else can hear it".

And that's pretty much what I was trying to say in my previous ramble, we're all guilty of "reading into" things that aren't there. Everyone has their own philosophical/political windmills, it's just how much of a fool you make of your self while tilting towards them.

 

[Zombipanda]

Would you describe yourself as liberal? Maybe it's harder to see because it doesn't clash with your values and beliefs.

E, I'm a radical. But I think I'm pretty good at sniffing out bull****.

Yeah, that's his point. Politics in some characters, when appropriate is fine. Remember, he doesn't complain that people have liberal views, but at the unending stream of casual, superifical liberal rhetoric he sees, and it has a cumulative effect. I completely understand that. I am sick of the casual atheistic rhetoric in pretty much everything I watch, relevant or not. It's not "there is no God", that doesn't irk me much, butple who believe in God do so irrationally and are hysterical about it" which is just horrendously fallacious, and is analogous to his claim that everyone in comics keeps saying, "Right-wing people are bigoted cavemen", which is just as erroneous.

See, I don't see this cascade of casual liberal rhetoric he's talking about. Sure, Hawk's badly written, but then, plenty of characters are. Green Arrow, the self-stylized "socialist" isn't really that at all. He's a privileged white man who kills when he thinks it's right. In counterpoint to Hawk, Dove isn't liberal so much as she's obnoxiously sweet. It's not an issue of prolific politics as it is bad writing and poorly written politics. And his arguments really seem like a stretch. Aside from Hawk, who is written like a real ****, is it really a purely liberal standpoint to think an oil spill caused by defective machinery is a bad thing? These don't sound like liberal arguments to me, unless you're drastically as far to the right as you can possibly be, or if you're going out of your way to look for persecution. It really seems to me to be a case of people looking for what they what to find.

But I think the core dialectic of superhero comics is pretty conservative. I don't think of that as a bad thing ( I mean, not necessarily). It's just a necessity of the genre and the industry.

Honestly, I'm sick of conservatives complaining about "liberalization" in every aspect of American life as if they're some sort of put-upon minority.

I'm the best damn stripper on this board.

I'd like to contest this statement.

 

[Frapalino]

This has been the only place I have seen rational discussion about that article. Too many writers, in all mediums, are more concerned about what their project is "saying" instead of telling a good story. They seem to not understand that plot is the most important element. These casual asides often feel like a heavy club banging their message home. It's an easy trap to fall into, I know I have many many times.

 

[Jaggyd]

This has been the only place I have seen rational discussion about that article. Too many writers, in all mediums, are more concerned about what their project is "saying" instead of telling a good story. They seem to not understand that plot is the most important element. These casual asides often feel like a heavy club banging their message home. It's an easy trap to fall into, I know I have many many times.

^^^^^^

so much truth in this post.

 

[Bass]

Thanks, Frapalino.

I would suggest though, for a writer, the plot is what they're "saying". Too many writers fail to understand this. The way a writer expresses themselves is not through dialogue but through event. "Life is like this" the plot says. SE7EN expresses through its plot it's meaning of "Evil triumphs because it is endlessly creative, though what it creates is grotesque". The plot of WATCHMEN expresses its meaning that "Life is futile but beautiful, because it is one chaotic, rudderless event." No one needs to say these things because every moment of every scene is infused with that meaning.

But too many writers think their character's have to say the meaning to the audience. If they think their stories should even have a meaning at all. Most writers don't even believe it should have any meaning at all, that it's just enough to "ask questions".

It's enough to make me despair, it really is.

 

[Jaggyd]

Thanks, Frapalino.

I would suggest though, for a writer, the plot is what they're "saying". Too many writers fail to understand this. The way a writer expresses themselves is not through dialogue but through event. "Life is like this" the plot says. SE7EN expresses through its plot it's meaning of "Evil triumphs because it is endlessly creative, though what it creates is grotesque". The plot of WATCHMEN expresses its meaning that "Life is futile but beautiful, because it is one chaotic, rudderless event." No one needs to say these things because every moment of every scene is infused with that meaning.

But too many writers think their character's have to say the meaning to the audience. If they think their stories should even have a meaning at all. Most writers don't even believe it should have any meaning at all, that it's just enough to "ask questions".

It's enough to make me despair, it really is.

The problem is, as a wise person once said; "A person is smart, people are stupid and dangerous". Neither Seven not Watchmen were fiscal successes, they're cult films, because the educated will search out things that speak to them. We live in a world where if it's not prepackaged and tells them the entire story and ending, it's classified as Elitist. Hell, I live in a country where the majority of the people don't believe in evolution. A well told story is wonderful but in this day and age, doesn't sell as well as name-calling and a "happy ending". I want more Hunger Games than Twilights, I know you guys do too, but like every other forum, we're the vocal minority. The majority lacks soul, lacks the desire to think, they want Michael Bay to make explosions, and Stephenie Meyers to make sex scenes. I have faith in the little ones tho, they're the ones living and breathing things like Adventure Time and other stuff that challenges the conventions of storytelling.

Sorry about the rant, after just 6 months in the design industry, I'm seeing how blatantly vapid and vanilla our culture is, and by definition, that is conservative. So, maybe we creators should be more liberal in our creations, fight the status quo and create more Bones and less Spider-mans.

Okay, I'm done, I'm going to get a drink before I slash my wrists in the bathtub.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Jaggyd obviously hasn't seen me strip.

I love how this is the only thing I took from this article.

Kid in five months people.

 

[Bass]

The problem is, as a wise person once said; "A person is smart, people are stupid and dangerous". Neither Seven not Watchmen were fiscal successes, they're cult films, because the educated will search out things that speak to them.

I'm not sure that's true. I think SE7EN has done very, very well. And I was referring to the comic of WATCHMEN, which is a huge success, not the film, which wasn't because it missed the point I just expressed.

 

[Zombipanda]

Thanks, Frapalino.

I would suggest though, for a writer, the plot is what they're "saying". Too many writers fail to understand this. The way a writer expresses themselves is not through dialogue but through event. "Life is like this" the plot says. SE7EN expresses through its plot it's meaning of "Evil triumphs because it is endlessly creative, though what it creates is grotesque". The plot of WATCHMEN expresses its meaning that "Life is futile but beautiful, because it is one chaotic, rudderless event." No one needs to say these things because every moment of every scene is infused with that meaning.

But too many writers think their character's have to say the meaning to the audience. If they think their stories should even have a meaning at all. Most writers don't even believe it should have any meaning at all, that it's just enough to "ask questions".

It's enough to make me despair, it really is.

Plot isn't the end-all-and-be-all. It should be a vehicle to telling a story that has meaning and that meaning should be embedded as subtext in the direction of the plot. The problem is, the mainstream comic book industry isn't indicative to telling stories with meaning because they're about existing properties that have a generally immutable internal structure. Plot is about bringing a character or idea from one place to another and the structure of established superhero comics necessitates the character end up essentially in the same place where they started.

And I don't think Jaggyd is saying Se7en was bad. She was saying it was good and that's the precise reason it didn't sell. If you want an example of everything that's bad about spoon feeding the audience, all you've got to do is look at the trailer for In Time. [video=youtube;fdadZ_KrZVw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdadZ_KrZVw&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

They say "TIME!!!!!" with gravitas approximately 7,674 TIMES in the 2:30 length of TIME that the trailer runs.

 

[Jaggyd]

I'm not sure that's true. I think SE7EN has done very, very well. And I was referring to the comic of WATCHMEN, which is a huge success, not the film, which wasn't because it missed the point I just expressed.

Seven and Watchmen were commercial/critical successes to a point. Seven made around a 10 fold return, and Watchmen from what I've found was about a 4 fold return on it's initial run (granted WB/DC has made a LOT more milking the trade later). Compare that to movies like Avatar, Star Wars, Twilight and Titanic that were simple movies that held the hand of the viewer, and we know how much they've made, that's just the point I'm making. Intelligent stuff like; Any Coen Bros movie, most Aronofsky, etc, does well enough globally, but when you look at American returns, they generally don't do well versus the mindless ****.

 

[Zombipanda]

Seven and Watchmen were commercial/critical successes to a point. Seven made around a 10 fold return, and Watchmen from what I've found was about a 4 fold return on it's initial run (granted WB/DC has made a LOT more milking the trade later). Compare that to movies like Avatar, Star Wars, Twilight and Titanic that were simple movies that held the hand of the viewer, and we know how much they've made, that's just the point I'm making. Intelligent stuff like; Any Coen Bros movie, most Aronofsky, etc, does well enough globally, but when you look at American returns, they generally don't do well versus the mindless ****.

It's not longer about whether you'll make money back or not. The cost of film has gotten so high that only those films guaranteed to make the most money humanly possibly are greenlit, and those are usually bad films that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Let's be honest, ****ty storytelling and horrible marketing is what's hurting comic sales in the US.

yep. Honestly, most media is liberal. Movies, TV, music, the news (except Fox news and probably local news in conservative areas) all tend to have liberal leanings. So I can't see how the liberal rhetoric is hurting this one industry and not the others.

Yeah, that's his point. Politics in some characters, when appropriate is fine. Remember, he doesn't complain that people have liberal views, but at the unending stream of casual, superifical liberal rhetoric he sees, and it has a cumulative effect. I completely understand that. I am sick of the casual atheistic rhetoric in pretty much everything I watch, relevant or not. It's not "there is no God", that doesn't irk me much, but what I can't stand is the rhetoric "people who believe in God do so irrationally and are hysterical about it" which is just horrendously fallacious, and is analogous to his claim that everyone in comics keeps saying, "Right-wing people are bigoted cavemen", which is just as erroneous.

That's why I think he's level-headed; he's asking people to dial down the casual rhetoric, without asking them to change their opinions on anything.

I hate that too, but unfortunately, it's the irrational and hysterical theists that seem to get the spotlight.

If you're talking about "Atheism in comics", I personally don't think it's used enough. Both DC and Marvel have entities that outstrip the Judeo-Christian Diety by magnitudes. With that said, most writers (Outside of guys like Morrison, Ellis, Ennis, etc) have a shocking lack of ability to write about atheism in any way that doesn't sound like a 15 year old just trying to get a rise out of his grandparents.

I'm reading old X-Men comics from the 80s right now, and after facing the Beyonder in Secret Wars (or maybe Secret Wars II?) Nightcrawler has a real crisis of faith for a while. I thought that was pretty interesting.

Hell, I live in a country where the majority of the people don't believe in evolution.

which country are we talking about? The US?

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Yup, the South doesn't believe in evolution and many cities have banned the discussion from schools.

 

[Captain Canuck]

the whole South?

I thought the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial had settled the debate that evolution was the only scientific explanation for the origin of life and the those of us who disagree are wackos and have no rights?

Weren't most of the battles in the school boards killed with the precedent set by this case?

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Most likely.

And that ruling really only applies to that district I think, and if everyone in the other district supports intelligent design, then they will make their own ruling for it. Legal systems kinda suck balls.