Capes and Politics: Who Would Superman Vote For?

            Consider: Superman is the guardian of truth, justice, and the American way. He makes apple pie look like a traitor. However, while Superman represents everything good about the Red, White, and Blue, few writers have ever shown Superman’s politics. It’s easy to see Superman as a conservative, with his whole big blue Boy Scout thing. He’s a farm boy from small-town Kansas, which should put him in Republican demographics. However, he doesn’t say a lot with words, but can his actions help us determine his politics?

Many Superman stories end with him deciding that he can’t make choices for humanity. Red Son features a communist Superman who controls the entire world, except for a Lex Luthor run USA. Superman clearly believes in letting people make their own decisions and is not for big government.

            Now while one could use that to argue for a rather libertarian Man of Steel, keep in mind he also is constantly swooping in and saving people. Lets not forget that Lex Luthor is the ultra-wealthy CEO of a multinational conglomerate. Any fans of Ayn Rand are not fans of Supes, who repeatedly stops LexCorp from operating beyond the law.

            Don’t forget Superman’s strong anti-gun position. He does not tolerate gun violence, and is strongly against killing and the death penalty. Also, as an immigrant himself, he probably would have some strong things to say about it. Put some points in the progressive column.

            Lastly, lets look at foreign policy. Superman is strongly anti-war, an interventionist humanitarian, and a supporter of the UN. He even went so far as to renounce his American citizenship to announce his position as a citizen of the world that does not represent US Policy.

            

            Oh.

            So, like the political ideologies of Superheroes, this doesn’t matter in the slightest because Superman can’t even vote. I don't care to know if Superman even would vote, or any caped crusader for that matter. Superheroes are uniquely progressive, self-sacrificing, and incredibly apolitical. That doesn’t sound like politics to me. 

Diversity Hires: Are we doing well with race in comics?

            I read this this quote on why the old Legion of Superheroes comics had no black people from co-creator Mike Grell.

“Their explanation for why there were no black people [in the Legion] was that all the black people had gone to live on an island. It's possibly the most racist concept I've ever heard in my life."

            WHAT. THE. ASS.

            Granted, that’s was decades ago, but it’s always been interesting how comics handle race. Recently, DC has introduced an Arab-American Green Lantern, who seems to be their favorite character to diversify. It’s just sort of interesting that whenever they need to add someone with diversity they immediately use a GL.

            Green Lantern has always had some racially provocative storylines thanks to Neal Adams, who put the very 1950s conservative minded GL alongside ultra-hippie Green Arrow which allowed for a lot of political discussion and some pretty incredible issues, including the introduction of African-American Green Lantern John Stewart and this fantastic panel.

            Still, there is not a lot of diversity in comics. Part of the fact is that these characters have been around since the 30s. The first mainstream black superhero was Black Panther. Before him there were black supporting characters, like the Spirits woefully racist caricature of a sidekick, but no real black badasses like Black Panther. He fought the KKK, Apartheid, and Doctor Doom.

            Asians are no longer regulated to the mystic sorcerer role, or do something involving katanas (like that one Outsider, Katana). It’s a step up from the Fu Man Chu-esque Iron Man villain literally called the Mandarin. The Atom is chinese, and Grant Morrison introduced two Japanese superhero squads known as Big Science Action and Super Young Team in Final Crisis who were just awesome in general.

            Hispanics are sort of new to the scene, with a surprising few in the mainstream outside of Blue Beetle and the Question. In researching this (read: looking up lists of Hispanic superheroes on Wikipedia) I was rather surprised to find out the Kyle Rayner counts because he is Half-hispanic Half Irish. I imagine we will se a rise in both Middle Eastern and Hispanic superheroes soon as the demographics continue to change, but I think there is a bigger problem at play here than just having these characters on hand.

            One of the reasons characters like John Stewart, Luke Cage, or Black Panther work is because they are badasses. A lot of times, comic companies will add “diversity hires” to the JLA or Avengers and then not really know what to do with them. To me, this is worse than not having anyone at all. Just sort of sticking someone in because the your super team wasn’t filling some sort of 501c3 requirement (I imagine the X-men do not pay taxes) is sort of missing the point.

            I really like Grant Morrison’s decision to use an Algerian immigrant for the Batman of Paris. There is still a general lack of Muslims in the multiverse, and this was a major step forward. The reason this works isn’t just because it’s a nice addition of diversity, but because the dude was awesome. It also worked well with the racial tensions currently plaguing France. It was a really solid call on their part, and that’s the kind of thing I applaud.

            When you look at the covers of most comics today, it does seem like they’re still sort of stuck in the Leave it to Beaver era of American entertainment where everyone is incredibly white. The problem is that is not what America looks like any more. We’re a pretty diverse country, and our heroes need to reflect that. I’m not saying we should up and make Superman and Wonder Woman black (besides, Grant Morrison did it in Final Crisis. They were supposed to be Barack and Michelle Obama.), but it wouldn’t hurt to consider bringing more diversity to the forefront in the interest of story rather than headlines. As fun as it is to make One Million Moms go crazy because Nova is going to marry his boyfriend, how about giving Nova a storyline that doesn’t just revolve around him being different. Batwoman has handled that really well, and I think a lot of other books that could take example from that idea of “yes, she’s a lesbian, now lets move on and watch as punches some dude in the teeth”.

            The best example of how diversity has been handled is with Jewish Characters. I think part of this has to do with half the people who write comics are Members of the Tribe, but the way they’re handled is really, really good. We get some big names, including Magneto, Shadowcat, Iceman, the everlovin’ blue-eyed thing, and the aforementioned Batwoman. These characters not only get storylines where their Judaism is the subject, but they also are allowed to develop far beyond that as actual characters who do things and are awesome in their own right.

            That’s what I’d really like to see. Lets have more ass-kicking as less trying to get articles in USA Today. Nobody reads it anyway, and having an Arab-American or homosexual Green Lantern doesn’t have any impact if you just do one story on how he is Arab-American or homosexual and then immediately go back to writing about Hal Jordan. Give them their own titles and see what you can do with them beyond sticking them in the background. If you want to really promote diversity and the American way (I think Superman would have something to say about that), let them actually do something.

             

Politics and Comics: Why activism in graphic novels is good.

I’d been wanting to read Grant Morrison’s WE3 for a while, and I finally got around to it today. It’s fairly incredible, to say the least, and it got me thinking. There are a lot of what I’ll call “issue comics” for lack of a better term out there. Books like DMZ and WE3 are fantastic works in their own right, but also have serious political messages in them.

I’d recommend WE3 to anyone who cares about animal rights, and DMZ to those more concerned with government. Lions of Baghdad is a phenomenal anti-war graphic novel from the perspective of lions that escaped from the Baghdad zoo during the bombing. Even Marvel’s Civil War presents a very interesting take on the Patriot Act set in-universe.

It’s really interesting to see how comics handle political issues. Comics are fairly progressive, and usually confront issues either directly or allegorically.  I mean, the X-men were meant to represent the racial struggle. The Superman radio show was used to go after the Klan. Neal Adams’ Green Lantern run had such an impact it helped jumpstart the Bronze Age.

            Comics serve as a good way to make a point because of the visual aspect. Seeing an image like a rabbit forced into a robot suit, or Speedy shooting up heroin has an incredible impact, much more than just reading or hearing about it. It’s hard to tell whether or not comics should be politicized at all.

           

            I’d say yes. After all, it shows the medium is maturing if it can handle serious subject matter like animal testing or failed states. I don’t think comics should straight tell people what to think, but there’s nothing wrong with bringing attention to a point. I mean, Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way, and that means looking out for your fellow man. 

Why Brickleberry is Bad (And You Should Feel Good!)

            While waiting for The Daily Show to come on last night, I had the misfortune of watching Daniel Tosh’s new animated “comedy” Brickleberry. If that sentence and it’s strategically placed quotation marks don’t sum up exactly what I thought about the show, then let me make it even more obvious: it is not good.

            I’ve never found Daniel Tosh to be particularly funny, though I tolerate his show when nothing else is on TV. He makes for good background noise, but if you actually pay attention it’s just a grown man laughing at youtube videos. This is his job. His actual stand up is decent at best, but his schtick is simple.

            Step 1: Make Offensive joke

            Step 2: Say you’re just kidding

            Step 3: Transition into more offensive comment

            Step 4: Smirk

            Now, I’m not really someone who is easily offended. I’ve been on 4chan. I’ve played online games. There isn’t a lot out there at this point that will shock me. I’m not going to turn the channel because of offensive humor. However, that can’t be a shows only gag.

            Brickleberry follows (or more mimics) Family Guy’s style of humor. It’s actually a pretty spot on copy of the McFarlane School of Comedy, but whereas sometimes Family Guy has some actual jokes, Brickleberry is more of a “point and laugh”. By this I mean there is not a single joke in the pilot of Brickleberry. It’s just a selection of offensive statements and cutaways to irreverent, bottom-tier sight gags where the joke is simply AIDS or racism.

            A joke has a setup and a payoff. There is none of this in Brickleberry. It intends to offend, but does nothing with it. South Park operates in a similar way, but intentionally pushes boundaries to make a point. There is no point to Brickleberry, it simply says “Here is a bear cub being raped, now laugh at it!” Anyone who will defend Brickleberry and comedians like Daniel Tosh will make the inevitable argument that critics are simply oversensitive and too easily offended. These people are thirteen and their opinions do not matter.

            The fact that Brickleberry is so miserably bad is probably a good thing. I have doubts it will last a season. That’s a very, very good thing. Brickleberry represents a low point of comedy, a last futile gasp of the Family Guy imitators that have been plaguing mainstream animation for a long time.  That is the benefit of Brickleberry. It offers something perfect to hate on the simple principle of quality.

Not Just For Kids Anymore: How and Why Comics Are Trying to Grow Up (And how they're doing it wrong)

            I’ve noticed I’ve been writing a lot about the concept of maturity a lot, and I thought it might be good to expound on that idea a bit. It’s something that comics and games have always been accused of lacking. They’re “kid stuff” or what have you, and I think a lot of the time in that effort to dodge that label they end up doing something worse.

            There are a few authors I can think of that can go off the rails a bit. These guys are all pretty incredible when restrained and can do amazing work. Alan Moore wrote For the Man Who Has Everything and Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, both of which made me shed a single manly tear before I went back to lifting weights and eating steaks. Mark Millar, who I rag on consistently for his more recent work did Civil War, which is a pretty phenomenal and astoundingly astute political commentary. And, Frank Miller, who in later years has proved himself to be slightly insane and more than slightly racist, produced 300 and The Dark Knight Returns, both of which are solid pieces in their own right.

            I like Watchmen okay, and Kick-Ass was good, but the problem is the imitators. People try to copy the “grit” and market it as something with mature themes or whatever. The idea of “mature themes” is one that is plaguing comics right now. The Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns imitators brought in the blood and the murder and the sex but it was all meaningless. Kick-Ass wasn’t good because it had a lot of swearing or gore but because the main character spoke to everyone who over wanted to be a superhero because his or her normal life sucked. When these things are copied that you get into some really stupid stuff, i.e. the late ‘80s early ‘90s in comics.

            The comic book really grew up in the ‘70s, ten years before Watchmen, when Will Eisner first wrote A Contract With God, which is considered to be the first graphic novel. It’s through this that we get incredible works like Maus, American Born Chinese, and Persepolis. Eisner showed to the world that graphic storytelling was not only possible but could be beautifully effective. It’s difficult to point out how many people owe him on this, but those who follow in the Eisner tradition usually pen incredibly meaningful and personal works.

            Unfortunately for the industry and for those of us who truly enjoy mainstream superhero comics, there aren’t a lot of people writing like that. Of course there are the Dan Slotts who do wonderful work for Marvel, and Mike Mignola has never let anyone down like, ever, but unfortunately the big 2 seemed obsessed with sensationalism over substance. It’s the difference between The Death of Superman, which was a commercial success and a national news story, and Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, which was actually a good read.  It’s authenticity versus spectacle, or telling a story to tell a story versus telling a story because they’ll talk about it on the Today Show.

            I get that comics are a business, but making headlines and making a quality product are a completely different. We readers are fiercely loyal to good writers and artists. If I see something done by Marcos Martin, chances are that I’ll buy it simply because his art is nothing short of incredible. Grant Morrison is someone else I hold in that same regard. Show us something good and we will reward you for it.  There’s often the argument made for stupid and mindless entertainment, and I understand that, but it seems like DC’s whole lineup is written by Michael Bay or something. Superhero comics have so much unused potential in them for truth and heart that gets tossed to the side in favor of fan service and meaningless action. This is, of course, an issue that plagues every genre. For every Breaking Bad you have Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo. For every Death With Interruptions (My current favorite book by José Saramango) there is a 50 Shades of Grey. For every Crash there is an Epic Movie.

            Maybe I’m just getting older or have taken off the rose-colored glasses, but I’m not finding the same quality of content anymore. I mean I still enjoy rereading Geoff John’s Green Lantern run up until the new 52, but I feel like once Flashpoint hit and they relaunched everything something crucial has been missing. I don’t know if its talent or heart or what, but whatever they are doing now is sadly not working for me. I worry about the comics industry often because it’s always sort of hanging on by a thread, and every time they struggle to climb back up with a gimmick they fall a little bit more.

            This display of mindless spectacle is a serious concern to me, simply because I see the value in comics, be they superhero or otherwise. I know how comics can connect in ways traditional literature simply cannot, but this wonderful potential is being jeopardized. We tend to only remember the good stuff from ages past, and so I can’t help but wonder what people will use as the example of this era in comics. I don’t think I’d like the answer.

            The argument I’ve been meaning to get to is a lot of these “mature themes” are part of the big twos attempt to seem edgy and relevant in the face of cinema and video games. There are really good adult comics out there like DMZ and Ex Machina that deal with actual issues, but in attempts to mimic them its easy to copy the sex and violence and not the actual reason they were written. People talk about how “comics aren’t just for kids anymore” and point out all the “mature” grit, but here’s the secret: comics never were “just for” anyone. Comics are for everyone.