How Liberalism May Be Hurting Comic Book Sales by Darin Wagner

I'm from Texas and most folk I know believe in evolution, but then again I live in Denton, a town that is as liberal as a town can get. The ones who don't believe, don't understand what evolution actually is. They are confused about scientific terms like "theory" and "law". They've never been properly taught the process of evolution. I wasn't, I had to figure it all out on my own, after I graduated high school. The discussion of it rarely gets past "monkeys still exist, so do humans, therefore evolution is claptrap" They see it as an attack on God and religion and specifically Christians. I feel like if the unbelievers had it explained to them in a concise, engrossing, and interesting manner then their would be no discussion about whether it's real or not.
 
I just remember that case being referenced as precedent in other school board cases a few years ago. But anyway.

For the record, I don't believe that (macro) evolution is true/real and usually am frustrated by how quickly proponents of evolution will write you off as a religious nutcase for having that point of view. But I also think banning the discussion of evolution in school is equally ridiculous. You don't have to agree with it to recognize that it's a theory that (a lot of) people ascribe to. People on both sides of the argument get so bent out of shape when you challenge them and their basic philosophies (the evolution/ID/creationism debate is at it's root a debate between the philosophies of naturalism and theism).


EDIT:
I'm from Texas and most folk I know believe in evolution, but then again I live in Denton, a town that is as liberal as a town can get. The ones who don't believe, don't understand what evolution actually is. They are confused about scientific terms like "theory" and "law". They've never been properly taught the process of evolution. I wasn't, I had to figure it all out on my own, after I graduated high school. The discussion of it rarely gets past "monkeys still exist, so do humans, therefore evolution is claptrap" They see it as an attack on God and religion and specifically Christians. I feel like if the unbelievers had it explained to them in a concise, engrossing, and interesting manner then their would be no discussion about whether it's real or not.

No, the truth is that evolutionary theory has holes in it. It's not perfect, or infallible. Believe it or not some of us have been educated, understand the difference between a theory and a law - theories don't become laws once they're proven, laws describe things that happen all the time (gravity, thermodynamics, etc) and theories try to explain WHY things happen (atomic structure, evolution, etc). If you start from the presupposition of naturalism (a higher power was not involved in this, there is a natural explanation) then evolution is a good theory, but it's not perfect. It doesn't answer all the questions, but it fits a lot of the data we have. But if you start from the presupposition of theism (there is a higher power that may have been involved in this) then you can interpret the same data through different lenses and come up with another theory that also isn't perfect, but also fits the data we have. Many people will say that science itself presupposes naturalism, but I disagree; science should be unbiased, but scientists are far from it.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, I'm done.







(for now)
 
Last edited:
Okay, going to not be baited into an argument over the "Theory of Evolution's flawed" comments. As nothing is perfect, even the Theories founded by Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.


Rereading the thread, I'm seeing that I agree with Bass, but we seem to be reaching the same destination, just from different angles. Writers forcing their political beliefs into the characters' mouths, overriding the plot, ends in bad storytelling, which IMHO is what's killing the industry. People either want mindless fun (Bleach, Michael Bay movies, pop music) or something truly thought provoking (Se7en, Watchmen, indie music/art), what we're getting instead is high school philosophy and politics.
 
Definitely not suggesting you are.

I know. Thank you for saying that. I was mostly responding to the idea that most people who disagree with evolution just don't understand what they're talking about. But it is true, that there are a lot of people (on both sides of the argument) who have just accepted what they've been spoonfed without looking into it any more.

Okay, going to not be baited into an argument over the "Theory of Evolution's flawed" comments. As nothing is perfect, even the Theories founded by Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.


Rereading the thread, I'm seeing that I agree with Bass, but we seem to be reaching the same destination, just from different angles. Writers forcing their political beliefs into the characters' mouths, overriding the plot, ends in bad storytelling, which IMHO is what's killing the industry. People either want mindless fun (Bleach, Michael Bay movies, pop music) or something truly thought provoking (Se7en, Watchmen, indie music/art), what we're getting instead is high school philosophy and politics.
I wasn't trying to bait anyone or start an argument, I was simply responding to Frapalino.

But yeah, I agree that in a lot of mediums storytellers seem to just aim for the lowest common denominator instead of trying to really write a good story.
 
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.

If plot is a vehicle, then the vehicle it is analogous to is a rocket ship and the destination is outer-space. Plot is as important as a character. They're two sides of the same coin. Even small, introspective dramas like UP IN THE AIR, have tight, effective plots just as loud, kinetic action stories like STAR WARS have wonderful, engaging characters. Plot is not something to be just seen as a vehicle to do the more 'important' things like meaning and subtext. The plot is the meaning. The plot is life changing. The meaning of the story is how and why life changes.

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.

But STAR WARS is tremendous. It's not mindless. The reason STAR WARS does so much better than say SE7EN is not because it's mindless entertainment that doesn't tax people. The reason it's such a huge success is because that's how most people see life. Most people do not see life as futile (WATCHMEN) or losing a battle to evil (SE7EN). Most people see themselves as having the potential for greatness (STAR WARS). People also understand down-endings; THE GODFATHER PART II is an enormous success, and a down-ending story, because people watch that movie and go, "Life is like that". They know the self-destruction of ambition. Shakespeare's many tragedies have endured through time because they're true and they resonate.

I've got a lot of research on this subject to get to, and I think I'm going to discover that despite all outward appearances, **** doesn't sell.

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

I know. It's a shame people like William Lane Craig and John Lennox aren't put on television.

I'm from Texas and most folk I know believe in evolution, but then again I live in Denton, a town that is as liberal as a town can get. The ones who don't believe, don't understand what evolution actually is. They are confused about scientific terms like "theory" and "law". They've never been properly taught the process of evolution. I wasn't, I had to figure it all out on my own, after I graduated high school. The discussion of it rarely gets past "monkeys still exist, so do humans, therefore evolution is claptrap" They see it as an attack on God and religion and specifically Christians. I feel like if the unbelievers had it explained to them in a concise, engrossing, and interesting manner then their would be no discussion about whether it's real or not.

Well, evolution is often used to describe three separate biological processes; The process of change and diversity of biological organisms over time, The reconstruction of the tree of life to one or more common ancestors, and finally the mechanism of natural selection and random mutation to explain the adaptability of organisms to their environment without a designing intelligence. The first two predate Darwin. Darwin's contribution is the mechanism, and it is here where the debate lies because while it is evident natural selection and random mutation do something, they aren't adequate to explain everything and already there are other natural processes being added to the mix in order to explain how biology could form as it has by accident (recently, something to do with the mechanical shifts of the Earth below the sea).

The problem is that the evolution argument isn't really about evolution, but more about Darwinism, and it's not about Atheism/Science vs Religion, but Science vs Science. Intelligent design is about working when it is reasonable to infer a design hypothesis, not just say, "God did it" and call it a day.

Instead we have this polarized nonsense which amounts to, "Evolution is a lie and God did it" vs "Evolution disproves God and thus becomes our new God". Seriously. The people who go around campaigning evolution as an argument against God (like Dawkins) sound as religiously dogmatic as their opponents. They say religion makes you stop asking questions and go, "God did it", completely unaware that in the presence of any sort of questioning of evolution they stop asking questions and yell, "Evolution did it".

Evolution is fascinating, and the stupidity on both sides is hurting everyone.

Many people will say that science itself presupposes naturalism, but I disagree; science should be unbiased, but scientists are far from it.

It's the opposite: science doesn't presuppose naturalism, it presupposes theism.

Science cannot explain a number of things, chief among them, science cannot explain why we can do science at all. Science cannot explain why there is an intelligible rationality to the universe. According to historians, one of the reasons science progressed so quickly in the West, as opposed to the East where they had a lot of technology, is because the West had the concept of a divine lawgiver who had created the universe. Western scientists, like Newton and Galileo, because they believed in a designer of the universe, expected it to be designed and obeying to patterns and laws. It wasn't long ago that each new scientific discovery was seen as proof of the marvelous of God's design, rather than the bizarre "it works just cause" rationale we have today.

Okay, going to not be baited into an argument over the "Theory of Evolution's flawed" comments. As nothing is perfect, even the Theories founded by Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.

If you're feeling baited, then I suggest it may be because you're assuming that if one holds the point of view that "Evolution is flawed" that means they think, "It has no validity". It's simply not the case. Saying it's flawed only means it's not the only and completely final answer. Just as Newton's laws of gravity led to special relativity, which leads to quantum mechanics. Each explanation leads to another that fills in holes and possibilities from the former. Evolution is no different, nor is it the end of biological discovery. :)

Rereading the thread, I'm seeing that I agree with Bass, but we seem to be reaching the same destination, just from different angles. Writers forcing their political beliefs into the characters' mouths, overriding the plot, ends in bad storytelling, which IMHO is what's killing the industry. People either want mindless fun (Bleach, Michael Bay movies, pop music) or something truly thought provoking (Se7en, Watchmen, indie music/art), what we're getting instead is high school philosophy and politics.

I would agree that the problems are not only that the politicizing is inappropriate, but also bad. If it was appropriate and good (as in DR STRANGELOVE or WATCHMEN), then it's not a problem.

So, dude has a new article about what a "conservative comic" would look like. His understanding of conservatism baffles me.

I only skimmed it, didn't fully process it, but he seems again to be somewhat on the ball, just saying, "This is how you can have positive conservative views that aren't horrifically right-wing and bigoted" and that fair-minded promotion of conservatism is better than bad promotion of it. I think I would agree.
 
Last edited:
If plot is a vehicle, then the vehicle it is analogous to is a rocket ship and the destination is outer-space. Plot is as important as a character. They're two sides of the same coin. Even small, introspective dramas like UP IN THE AIR, have tight, effective plots just as loud, kinetic action stories like STAR WARS have wonderful, engaging characters. Plot is not something to be just seen as a vehicle to do the more 'important' things like meaning and subtext. The plot is the meaning. The plot is life changing. The meaning of the story is how and why life changes.

I'm not saying plot isn't important. I'm just saying it needs subtext. What I'm saying is, verisimilitude isn't art. If I detail the events of my day, I might have a story that's true, but I don't have a story with meaning. Going into a story with the narrative first is a fine way to approach a story but by the time it's done it needs to say something, whether subconscious or explicit. I think Star Wars is a pretty damn good example, given that it was modeled so tightly on Hero With a Thousand Faces (We won't talk about Kurosawa), which is basically the blueprint for subtextual narrative. It's a book that exists to show the thematic purpose behind the hero's journey. It's the definition of film with meaning because it plays directly to the source.

That said, I think the best films are the ones that make you reevaluate how you see life. It's easy to make people pay attention to something they don't want to hear, much harder to convince them that something outside their comfort zone might be true.


Bass said:
I only skimmed it, didn't fully process it, but he seems again to be somewhat on the ball, just saying, "This is how you can have positive conservative views that aren't horrifically right-wing and bigoted" and that fair-minded promotion of conservatism is better than bad promotion of it. I think I would agree.

They just struck me as a very non-flattering way to look at conservative ideology. He seems to lump them into two categories. Transforming complicated issues into very grossly oversimplified lines in the sand, or taking basic issues of morality and ethics and claiming them as "conservative" ideals.

One example he uses is Aquaman being upset over an oil spill, which is.... apparently a liberal way to think? His suggestion for how a conservative would act in this situation is "the protagonist mentioning something like how statistically safe drilling for oil is, how important oil is to mankind, what technological marvels modern oil platforms are or how well the platform's damage control team responded to the unusual crisis. (Complimenting the damage control team would reflect positively on the company they work for and imply that the company is a responsible one… as opposed to how oil companies are typically portrayed when there is a liberal slant.)" Not only is that grossly more pedantic, it presumes a disgustingly two dimensional perspective on ideology. It frames liberals as anarchists (Corporate interest should always be stymied) and conservatives as corporate toadies (Frame corporations in a good light regardless of the facts in hand). It pegs "environmentalism" as a purely liberal issue when this isn't the case at all. It's just a talking point behind which sloganeering politicians rally their troops. The idea of "green energy" is not at all a province solo of the liberals. In fact, there's no reason it shouldn't be embraced by conservatives (and in fact, has). Conservativism is predicated on the idea that, in a free system, the best ideas will rise to the surface as the best individuals succeed and a burgeoning new industry is the perfect place to stimulate growth and the romance of the Algiers conservative myth.

Let me put it like this. Aquaman isn't angry because he's a liberal and he thinks drilling for oil is bad. He's angry because someone ****ed up and anyone should be angry when a ****-up of that scale occurs, regardless of ideology. It's not about always disagreeing or always agreeing with oil companies. It's about recognizing a problem and realizing how it needs to be fixed.

Case in point, Matt Fraction's most recent Iron Man run, in which Tony Stark, now broke, but clearly a man who pulled himself up from his bootstraps, is now broke but engineering a new system of clean energy that challenges invested corporations that rely on bureaucratic nepotism and political lobbying to stay afloat. Is there anything more Randian than that? Really?

His other claim is that The Incredibles is a conservative film because it "celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement." as if these are exclusively conservative ideas. I'm not even going to get into how stupid that is, because, well, it is. These are virtues most people revere (Okay, marriage less than others, but liberalism isn't especially anti-marriage), regardless of ideology and assuming it's a virtue exclusive to conservatism is at least as insulting as assuming conservatives punch jukeboxes they disagree with.

Oh, and then there's Animal Man, which embraces all of those values enthusiastically while telling the story of a hipster vegan animal rights family enmeshed in paganistic shamanism. Who'd have figured?


(Oh, and then at the end he basically quantifies liberalism:cynicism::conservatism:eek:ptimism)
 
Last edited:
I just spent a half an hour typing and deleting, typing and deleting. I keep trying to get my thoughts focused but its difficult. I'm very... I don't see myself as a Liberal, but I agree with most Liberals on a lot of Social issues, but I got there through a Conservative position. I think its a result of being raised Secular (I attended my first Church service at the young are of 25. It was terrifying). I don't disparage religion though. Its a wonderful thing to be able to give your belief over to something that you can't quantify. I just don't see the conflict between Science and Religion. I mean at the heart of it they ask two entirely different questions, don't they? To me Science asks "How did this happen?" and Religion asks "Why did this happen?"

See now I just cut a paragraph that went on about Science and Religion when its not the topic here, is it?

Liberalism in comics is. And I'll be honest, I get a little tired of it too. Lets go back to the theoretical Oil Spill and Aquaman. Yeah, he should be pissed that it happened, but I really don't want to hear this weeks Aqua-writer use it as a mouthpiece for his views on off shore drilling. I can't think of another reason why he'd even have that in a comic other than to make that point. Its ****ty writing and its all over the place. And before someone says "Conservative writers can do that **** too!" Of course they can, but damn are they outnumbered.

Honestly, I ****ing hate Politics anymore. I lived and breathed it for 3 years in an attempt to elevate my station in life. I don't even know if I'm going to vote this year.

This little post took me over an hour. It doesn't say half of what I want it to. What it does say isn't expressed in a way I'm satisfied with, but I need to sleep and I wanted to contribute to this.
 
Liberalism in comics is. And I'll be honest, I get a little tired of it too. Lets go back to the theoretical Oil Spill and Aquaman. Yeah, he should be pissed that it happened, but I really don't want to hear this weeks Aqua-writer use it as a mouthpiece for his views on off shore drilling. I can't think of another reason why he'd even have that in a comic other than to make that point. Its ****ty writing and its all over the place. And before someone says "Conservative writers can do that **** too!" Of course they can, but damn are they outnumbered.

Ideally, it would be because it forwards the story in some way. I can't speak for that story personally, but for Aquaman, it's a suitable topic. On the completely apolitical camp of the fact that he's a superhero, so he deals with natural disasters. In the political but divorced reality camp in that, as King of the Seas or whatever the **** his title is, an oil spill is a major disaster in his realm perpetrated by foreigners. But I don't think "oil spills are bad" is really a liberal stance, is it? It's the stance of someone who doesn't like oil spills which, I'd assume, is a pretty enormous portion of the population.

The thing that bothers me with this guy is his insistence that 1) political inclination is determined by rhetoric rather than an exploration of how a particular situation interacts with their values and 2) that the response to this so called "liberal bias" is to repeat the same mistakes, but with a conservative bias instead.
 
Ideally, it would be because it forwards the story in some way. I can't speak for that story personally, but for Aquaman, it's a suitable topic. On the completely apolitical camp of the fact that he's a superhero, so he deals with natural disasters. In the political but divorced reality camp in that, as King of the Seas or whatever the **** his title is, an oil spill is a major disaster in his realm perpetrated by foreigners. But I don't think "oil spills are bad" is really a liberal stance, is it? It's the stance of someone who doesn't like oil spills which, I'd assume, is a pretty enormous portion of the population.

The thing that bothers me with this guy is his insistence that 1) political inclination is determined by rhetoric rather than an exploration of how a particular situation interacts with their values and 2) that the response to this so called "liberal bias" is to repeat the same mistakes, but with a conservative bias instead.

Of course Oil Spills are bad, but thats not what the conversations about. Its about how its addressed by the characters. Wither they look and say "Holy spewing crude Auqaman! We need to help" or the go "You know you really shouldn't have been out here in the first place. Now I have to clean up your mess". And an oil spill is a perfect example of it because its a man made natural disaster. Most other disasters that a character would be intervening in wouldn't give that option for commentary. Superman wouldn't fly in to New Orleans and ask people why they thought living in a city below sea level was a good idea. Firestorm wouldn't go to California and tell people that living in a place so arid that Wildfires are part of the life cycle of the local foliage wasn't the smartest move they've made. The only reason to use a disaster like that in a comic is as a setup for your opinions.

And I really don't give a **** about Geoff Johns opinions on off Shore Drilling.

I also don't care about Angelina Jolie's opinions on Starvation in Africa or Neal Adams thoughts on the Hollow Earth Theory.

Or Jenny McCarthy thinking vaccines cause Autism.

Its all the same problem. Everyone wants to tell the world why they're right and your wrong. Even me.

I'm just tired of hearing it. ****ing all of it. On both sides. just tell good stories. If you do that you can get your messages across without beating us up about it. Bill Willingham is pretty conservative from what I hear but it doesn't get hammer on all the time in fables. Is it there? Sure, but you can enjoy it without even seeing the messages.

Less so with most others.

I don't even know if what I wrote made sense.

Goodnight Seattle.
 
I'm not saying plot isn't important. I'm just saying it needs subtext. What I'm saying is, verisimilitude isn't art. If I detail the events of my day, I might have a story that's true, but I don't have a story with meaning.

Absolutely. We're really having a semantically argument: I'm just defining plot differently than you. I think what you call plot I would call "event", while I define plot as something that subtext is incorporated in. We're in agreement.

They just struck me as a very non-flattering way to look at conservative ideology. He seems to lump them into two categories. Transforming complicated issues into very grossly oversimplified lines in the sand, or taking basic issues of morality and ethics and claiming them as "conservative" ideals.

One example he uses is Aquaman being upset over an oil spill, which is.... apparently a liberal way to think? His suggestion for how a conservative would act in this situation is "the protagonist mentioning something like how statistically safe drilling for oil is, how important oil is to mankind, what technological marvels modern oil platforms are or how well the platform's damage control team responded to the unusual crisis. (Complimenting the damage control team would reflect positively on the company they work for and imply that the company is a responsible one… as opposed to how oil companies are typically portrayed when there is a liberal slant.)" Not only is that grossly more pedantic, it presumes a disgustingly two dimensional perspective on ideology. It frames liberals as anarchists (Corporate interest should always be stymied) and conservatives as corporate toadies (Frame corporations in a good light regardless of the facts in hand). It pegs "environmentalism" as a purely liberal issue when this isn't the case at all. It's just a talking point behind which sloganeering politicians rally their troops. The idea of "green energy" is not at all a province solo of the liberals. In fact, there's no reason it shouldn't be embraced by conservatives (and in fact, has). Conservativism is predicated on the idea that, in a free system, the best ideas will rise to the surface as the best individuals succeed and a burgeoning new industry is the perfect place to stimulate growth and the romance of the Algiers conservative myth.

Let me put it like this. Aquaman isn't angry because he's a liberal and he thinks drilling for oil is bad. He's angry because someone ****ed up and anyone should be angry when a ****-up of that scale occurs, regardless of ideology. It's not about always disagreeing or always agreeing with oil companies. It's about recognizing a problem and realizing how it needs to be fixed.

Case in point, Matt Fraction's most recent Iron Man run, in which Tony Stark, now broke, but clearly a man who pulled himself up from his bootstraps, is now broke but engineering a new system of clean energy that challenges invested corporations that rely on bureaucratic nepotism and political lobbying to stay afloat. Is there anything more Randian than that? Really?

His other claim is that The Incredibles is a conservative film because it "celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement." as if these are exclusively conservative ideas. I'm not even going to get into how stupid that is, because, well, it is. These are virtues most people revere (Okay, marriage less than others, but liberalism isn't especially anti-marriage), regardless of ideology and assuming it's a virtue exclusive to conservatism is at least as insulting as assuming conservatives punch jukeboxes they disagree with.

Oh, and then there's Animal Man, which embraces all of those values enthusiastically while telling the story of a hipster vegan animal rights family enmeshed in paganistic shamanism. Who'd have figured?


(Oh, and then at the end he basically quantifies liberalism:cynicism::conservatism:eek:ptimism)

Brilliant critique of how he defines 'conservatism'. I agree.

Its a wonderful thing to be able to give your belief over to something that you can't quantify.

You've got a slight confusion here: faith isn't something you do on the absence of evidence. You put your faith in something because you have evidence to do so. For example, you put faith in your doctor on the evidence of his credentials, or faith in a government official based on his campaign rhetoric. It's the same for religion. People put their faith in God because they have evidence to do so.

I just don't see the conflict between Science and Religion. I mean at the heart of it they ask two entirely different questions, don't they? To me Science asks "How did this happen?" and Religion asks "Why did this happen?"

That's pretty much it. It's disturbing to see people like Professor Peter Atkins say things like, "The 'why' question is just a silly question." Many popular scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking are equally dismissive of 'why' questions because, as you say, they're not the purview of science and there is a current belief in today's society that the only avenue to truth is science. It's called scientism, and it is demonstrably untrue.

And I really don't give a **** about Geoff Johns opinions on off Shore Drilling.

I also don't care about Angelina Jolie's opinions on Starvation in Africa or Neal Adams thoughts on the Hollow Earth Theory.

Or Jenny McCarthy thinking vaccines cause Autism.

Its all the same problem. Everyone wants to tell the world why they're right and your wrong. Even me.

I'm just tired of hearing it. ****ing all of it. On both sides. just tell good stories. If you do that you can get your messages across without beating us up about it. Bill Willingham is pretty conservative from what I hear but it doesn't get hammer on all the time in fables. Is it there? Sure, but you can enjoy it without even seeing the messages.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. I want experts to give us their opinion based on a lifetime of research. Not flash-in-the-pan celebrities who are famous for being famous. Experts should be celebrities for their expertise in those subjects.
 
...this is all in good fun right?


if so, I respond this way:

whatever, you're a poop face. And yes, that IS a racial slur.

if not: I respond the same way in my head and say something nice on here. Something like: Bass, We don't agree on a lot of issues, but I respect you and would never put you down. All I ask is the same treatment from you.









(this whole post is assuming we are joking. If not I'm just going to come off as an idiot - not to mention racist. But that probably happens anyway...the idiot part, hopefully not the racist part.)
 
Of course Oil Spills are bad, but thats not what the conversations about. Its about how its addressed by the characters. Wither they look and say "Holy spewing crude Auqaman! We need to help" or the go "You know you really shouldn't have been out here in the first place. Now I have to clean up your mess". And an oil spill is a perfect example of it because its a man made natural disaster. Most other disasters that a character would be intervening in wouldn't give that option for commentary. Superman wouldn't fly in to New Orleans and ask people why they thought living in a city below sea level was a good idea. Firestorm wouldn't go to California and tell people that living in a place so arid that Wildfires are part of the life cycle of the local foliage wasn't the smartest move they've made. The only reason to use a disaster like that in a comic is as a setup for your opinions.

And I really don't give a **** about Geoff Johns opinions on off Shore Drilling.

I also don't care about Angelina Jolie's opinions on Starvation in Africa or Neal Adams thoughts on the Hollow Earth Theory.

Or Jenny McCarthy thinking vaccines cause Autism.

Its all the same problem. Everyone wants to tell the world why they're right and your wrong. Even me.

I'm just tired of hearing it. ****ing all of it. On both sides. just tell good stories. If you do that you can get your messages across without beating us up about it. Bill Willingham is pretty conservative from what I hear but it doesn't get hammer on all the time in fables. Is it there? Sure, but you can enjoy it without even seeing the messages.

Less so with most others.

I don't even know if what I wrote made sense.

Goodnight Seattle.

I don't think "issues" stories are bad in and of themselves. Just like any story, it's an issue of how well it's told. Bad political stories are bad because they're bad stories, not quantifiably better or worse than a bad story about nothing in particular. And I think good issues stories can be told by a layman as long as the writer has the chops to convince the audience to care about the issue. Morrison has done this a few times stumping animal rights to varying degrees of preachiness. There's the coyote story from Animal Man which is a great story in part because it's a heart-wrenching story of animal brutality but even more importantly, it encapsulates the themes of the series better than the pretentious writer-cameo finale ever could. It's a story that asks "How real are characters? How important is their pain?" and in doing so, it foreshadows everything that comes after it. He gets even more explicit in We3 which, despite being preachier, is the only comic that makes me tear up every time I read it. It's explicitly a socio-political book in that it riffs on two major issues: the ethics of animal experimentation and the ruthlessness of the military industrial complex. It works because of the characters. The stars are simple but they're so archetypal that anyone who's owned a pet can see the reflection of their baby in one of the three. He doesn't need to be an expert on the social benefits vs. the ethical concerns of the practice, nor does he need to be an expert on where the moral horizon of military doctrine lies, because he filters it through a narrower prism. It asks "How would you feel if your loved ones were subjected to this treatment, regardless of the benefit to society?"

Hell, the truly acclaimed runs in comics history are dominated by political stories, from Watchmen to Swamp Thing to Ex Machina to The Authority to practically everything Jonathan Hickman has done, and on into movies like Syriana, The Third Man, Gattaca, books like Crime and Punishment or the works of China Mieville or Babbitt. And it works because, regardless of the politics of the writer (and their politics usually show through) and regardless of its attempts at persuasion (and it usually tries to persuade the reader of something), it's about creating compelling characters and putting them in a position that makes the reader reevaluate their own beliefs. Aquaman saying "Oil spills sure do suck!" or "Boy howdy, this sucks, but it's a freak accident! Seriously! Oil drilling is totally safe! (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)" doesn't make the reader think anything aside from "Hah. I know what this writer's stance is".

It's why Civil War was drek. It's why Brightest Day was drek. It's why the Fountainhead was drek. It's why Boondock Saints was drek. I like that word. Dreeeeeeeeeeeeek. Because the ideology is powerful only if we care about the characters and the impact the ideology has on them.

Absolutely. We're really having a semantically argument: I'm just defining plot differently than you. I think what you call plot I would call "event", while I define plot as something that subtext is incorporated in. We're in agreement.

Brilliant critique of how he defines 'conservatism'. I agree.

Thanks bro.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top