Liberal Writers Killing Marvel Comics?

[CaptainWagner]

Spider-man shouldn't be a flagship character, at least not without major developments in Peter's character. And if there's one thing Marvel hates, it's letting Peter Parker grow.

 

[Sithborg]

I still think it's beyond insane that Marvel basicly made Captain Marvel their flagship character when they have freaking Spider-man at their disposal.

How is Spider-man not their flagship character?

 

[Spidey_62]

I still think it's beyond insane that Marvel basicly made Captain Marvel their flagship character when they have freaking Spider-man at their disposal.

Remember when Bendis started writing Iron Man Marvel said that it was their flagship book and they're re-positioning him as THE flagship guy and then less than a year later Iron Man is 'dead' and isn't even the star of the book anymore. I don't understand that, thinking back on it.

 

[Neptune]

Haha yeah, i don't think that was ever really the plan. They probably wanted to piggy back on Iron man's appeal and movie succes so they could introduce Riri as Iron trash. Next thing you know, that garbage Squirrel girl is gonna be the flagship character because the feminisms and stuff.

 

[Motown Marvel]

...Squirrel Girl is awesome, though.

 

[Motown Marvel]

It’s not really an issue with actual diversity but there newly defined version of diversity where they have race and all that be 90% of the characters essence with no real personality, no real struggles, no sacrifices etc

Then there’s the part where they hire solely based on diversity checklists and not factor in actual merit.

That’s the main difference between people like Louise Simonson, Ann Nocenti, Jo Duffy, Christopher Priest, George Perez, and Gail Simone and people like Ta Nehisi Coates, Gabby Rivera, David F Walker, Mags Visaggio etc. The former’s race, gender or sexuality was incidental to the fact that overall they understood the craft and the field they’re working in so they told good stories.

But your criticism of a character lacking any real content can be attributed to the majority of comic book characters; as the majority of characters in comics (and their stories) often lack any real depth, usually in an attempt to maintain a formulated status quo. And while the majority of those characters are written by white men, no one is blaming the quality of their writing on them being white men. Yet when a woman or person of color gets a job writing a character, which you personally end up finding lackluster, you feel it is a result of them forcing diversity among the ranks of their creators. If you feel Coates, Priest, and Walker being black men hasn't been paramount to their ability to writing respectable black characters, or Wonder Woman's womanhood hasn't been as integral to her own character, or Gail Simone's ability for writing fully realized female characters hasn't been a result of her own experiences as a woman, then I dunno what to tell you because these concepts are common sense.

 

[Spidey_62]

...Squirrel Girl is awesome, though.

I don't get the hate for her or the book, it's carved out its own little fun corner and is a nice alternative style book with a lot of charm.

 

[sweetre15]

But your criticism of a character lacking any real content can be attributed to the majority of comic book characters; as the majority of characters in comics (and their stories) often lack any real depth, usually in an attempt to maintain a formulated status quo. And while the majority of those characters are written by white men, no one is blaming the quality of their writing on them being white men. Yet when a woman or person of color gets a job writing a character, which you personally end up finding lackluster, you feel it is a result of them forcing diversity among the ranks of their creators. If you feel Coates, Priest, and Walker being black men hasn't been paramount to their ability to writing respectable black characters, or Wonder Woman's womanhood hasn't been as integral to her own character, or Gail Simone's ability for writing fully realized female characters hasn't been a result of her own experiences as a woman, then I dunno what to tell you.

Because If the priority was on telling good stories and not trying to virtue signal and say “hey look how diverse I am” regardless of the race or genders of the writers, this would not be an Issue. Priest and Simone not only built off of what the characters they worked on had been prior to them being involved but wrote them as characters who had more to them than just their race or sexuality.

What Marvel has been currently doing is tokenism disguised as diversity.

No matter what race you are, there’s no shortcut to being a good writer.

I’m a black man but I highly doubt I’d be able to write Luke Cage better than Jo Duffy or Christopher Priest because not every black has the same experience nor is race or gender an instant qualifier for writing a character.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Because If the priority was on telling good stories and not trying to virtue signal and say “hey look how diverse I am” regardless of the race or genders of the writers, this would not be an Issue. Priest and Simone not only built off of what the characters they worked on had been prior to them being involved but wrote them as characters who had more to them than just their race or sexuality.

What Marvel has been currently doing is tokenism disguised as diversity.

No matter what race you are, there’s no shortcut to being a good writer.

I’m a black man but I highly doubt I’d be able to write Luke Cage better than Jo Duffy or Christopher Priest because not every black has the same experience nor is race or gender an instant qualifier for writing a character.

Writing ability is obviously integral, no one is arguing that. But none of the characters within their books are making a spectacle of their race or gender. A character like America is a gay Latinx, but her stories don't hinge on her diversity. The only people making a spectacle of her diversity are readers who are wrongfully offended by it, or fans who are rightfully excited by it.

 

[Sithborg]

Because If the priority was on telling good stories and not trying to virtue signal and say “hey look how diverse I am” regardless of the race or genders of the writers, this would not be an Issue. Priest and Simone not only built off of what the characters they worked on had been prior to them being involved but wrote them as characters who had more to them than just their race or sexuality.

What Marvel has been currently doing is tokenism disguised as diversity.

No matter what race you are, there’s no shortcut to being a good writer.

I’m a black man but I highly doubt I’d be able to write Luke Cage better than Jo Duffy or Christopher Priest because not every black has the same experience nor is race or gender an instant qualifier for writing a character.

And yet, Ms. Marvel, whose race and religion are so integral to the book.

The frustrating part, is that people seem to confuse the two issues. People seem to confuse being upset over sudden creation of legacy characters replacing the old standby character with characteristics of that character.

 

[sweetre15]

Writing ability is obviously integral, no one is arguing that. But none of the characters within their books are making a spectacle of their race or gender. A character like America is a gay Latinx, but her stories don't hinge on her diversity. The only people making a spectacle of her diversity are readers who are wrongfully offended by it, or fans who are rightfully excited by it.

It’s that there is nothing to them but those surface traits mixed with shallow pop culture references, cliched political talking points and no depth or character development of any kind.

Then there’s the fact that the artwork is often subpar, the pacing is lackluster and the action in the books aren’t very exciting.

And when these books get criticized the creators feel the need to fight with the fans to sidestep any of the criticisms.

Which comes across as them having an agenda that doesn’t include writing good stories, characters or fun adventures.

 

[sweetre15]

And yet, Ms. Marvel, whose race and religion are so integral to the book.

The frustrating part, is that people seem to confuse the two issues. People seem to confuse being upset over sudden creation of legacy characters replacing the old standby character with characteristics of that character.

But would you say that it prioritizes those things over telling good stories?

Because a lot of these books do just that

Not only that but it’s likely a case of both being a problem.

That said,I personally don’t like Ms Marvel because what I’ve read of the books were never interesting to me personally but I know a decent amount of people do like it.

 

[Motown Marvel]

It’s that there is nothing to them but those surface traits mixed with shallow pop culture references, cliched political talking points and no depth or character development of any kind.

Then there’s the fact that the artwork is often subpar, the pacing is lackluster and the action in the books aren’t very exciting.

And when these books get criticized the creators feel the need to fight with the fans to sidestep any of the criticisms.

Which comes across as them having an agenda that doesn’t include writing good stories, characters or fun adventures.

But these same criticisms can be waged against the vast majority of mainstream comics, and it has nothing to do with the diversity of the characters or their creators.

 

[sweetre15]

But these same criticisms can be waged against the vast majority of mainstream comics, and it has nothing to do with the diversity of the characters or their creators.

In what way though? Because in most of the older comics I read, the characters actually have personalities, struggles, things they sacrifice to be superheroes etc. I see very little of that in these recent Marvel books.

 

[Motown Marvel]

In what way though? Because in most of the older comics I read, the characters actually have personalities, struggles, things they sacrifice to be superheroes etc. I see very little of that in these recent Marvel books.

They’re the same as every other character in every other comic. They fight bad guys while trying to balance their personal life and somewhere along the way the death of a loved one probably occurred. Sometimes this can be written really well, a lot of the time it is not. Hundreds of comics come out every week, the vast majority are very mediocre in terms of character development and storytelling, yet no one is blaming the overwhelmingly white male creators for it. A poorly written comic is not the result of a creators gender or race.

The goal of diversity and representation in comics is a good thing, because comic readers are a diverse group. But in order to properly achieve that, we need diversity among creators.

 

[chamber-music]

Yeah, quite a few comic creators should not be on social media. They seem to get way, way too defensive.

I have seen enough to say that Spencer has issues.

If your a writer then you should expect criticism. Not everyone is going to live everything you do.

Allow me to add my 2 cents on the "Diversity" issue..

Marvel has ALWAYS been diverse. The X-Men were their biggest titles and they were full of strong powerful women and even led for a while by an African woman. Black Panther, as just one other example, has always been a huge fan favourite for decades with some popular runs.

The problem is that over the past years, Marvel has treated Diversity as if it was one of their events, and the quality of the different titles has been as ropey and varied as the tie-ins of any of their other big events. Some great, lots mediocre and some awful.

Add to this the bizarre new notion in media that only a woman can write a woman, only a black person can write a black character, and only a gay Latinx can write a gay latinx (Claremont wrote the best Storm and is as far from an African woman as you can get).. and we've ended up with a heap of writers with so little experience that for some this was literally their first time writing comics. Some have done great with the change in medium.. others not so much.

Marvel comics are just priced too high for people to be gambling to such a degree in the quality of what they read. They'll only stick it out for characters they know and love already. And then, when Marvel implied that a lot of its readers had some issue against diversity (basically calling them all racists lol) then it was the final straw for a lot of people that had been holding out.

Every writer has to start somewhere so inexperience isn't necessarily a negative in my opinion.

I agree that putting diverse writers in narrowly defined boxes is not a good thing. While there are diverse writers that want to write books about characters like themselves I don't think it should be a obligation. I like diverse characters with stories that sometimes tackle unique issues facing that community but I don't want characters who's ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion is their sole defining trait and every story resolves around that part of their identity.

Some writers do not want to just write books about people from the same background as them. Christopher Priest said in interviews he just kept getting offered black character books for a while from comic companies. I'm sure their are women and minority writers that want to write Superman or Spider-Man books just as much as they want to write stories about people like themselves. We need to be careful people aren't pigeonholed.

I do feel Marvel has slightly used diversity as a marketing gimmick at times. Marvel has created a number of diverse heroes over the years they have been more than happy to let sit in limbo which makes me feel their diversity push is somewhat disingenuous. Saying that I am glad diverse Marvel properties like the Runaways and Living Lightning are getting a push again.

Identity politics is always going to be polarizing. If you want to be progressive yet inclusive then instead make the heroes diversity a part of who they are but not the defining trait of who they are.

The biggest issue really is price, the direct market and the quality of the writing though.

Perhaps Marvel needs to start looking at cost cutting measures. Making certain comics overseas where printing might be cheaper or producing some comics on lower quality cheaper paper and selling them at a lower more accessible price.

Getting physical comics sold in places young people and kids actually go to is another good idea.

 

[sweetre15]

They’re the same as every other character in every other comic. They fight bad guys while trying to balance their personal life and somewhere along the way the death of a loved one probably occurred. Sometimes this can be written really well, a lot of the time it is not. Hundreds of comics come out every week, the vast majority are very mediocre in terms of character development and storytelling, yet no one is blaming the overwhelmingly white male creators for it. A poorly written comic is not the result of a creators gender or race.

The goal of diversity and representation in comics is a good thing, because comic readers are a diverse group. But in order to properly achieve that, we need diversity among creators.

No one is blaming the races and genders of the writers in general so I don’t see why bringing up that they’re white or whatever is of any relevance. The only people bringing up the race of the comic pros (for the Most part) are people wanting to defend Marvel’s “agenda” that has been used thus far. especially since Marvel detractors’ arguments have not been in any way leaning towards saying the race or gender of the creator is a problem in any way. It’s hiring them SOLELY because of this without regard to their talent that’s a problem. Never mind that the books written by white writers get criticized just as much if not more. (*cough* Nick Spencer *cough*)

And Even if I were to grant you that a lot of comics have a problem with writing in regards to limited depth or whatever justification you’re giving, that’s not a good defense of the many lackluster releases Marvel has had and the criticism of many books using the format of balancing superhero work and their regular life is NOT the issue either. It’s how well you do it that is.

It also doesn’t change the fact that the current new crop of characters are almost nearly all interchangeable characters that have nothing to them but being black or being homosexual etc.

If Batman’s character was literally “I’m rich” then I highly doubt he’d be as popular as he currently is since he’s went through lots of character development over the years and the relationships he has with characters like Nightwing, Catwoman, Talia Al Ghul, Tim Drake, Superman, Damien Wayne etc are all unique and engaging enough to make people care when Batman decides to propose to Catwoman as an example.

 

[Mad Ones]

and how long did it take Batman to develop his rich history and dynamics with a large supporting cast? did he start out that way?

but let's keep attacking new characters and making sweeping generalizations.

 

[JewishHobbit]

and how long did it take Batman to develop his rich history and dynamics with a large supporting cast? did he start out that way?

but let's keep attacking new characters and making sweeping generalizations.

I've not read much early DC so I can't say much there, but most of the early Marvel that I read gave them quite a bit of depth from the get go. And none of it was "I'm a straight, white male! Look at me!" I have nothing against minority characters, but I do think that a lot of time the newer ones lack depth. Or in some cases they start out with depth and are then relegated to whatever it is that makes them a minority. Northstar and Iceman come to mind. Also Wiccan and Hulking had great depth until the volume came out with Loki, America, etc. and suddenly I feel like they lost all depth and were just two gay guys in a book about homosexuality. Which was a shame too because I ADORED the two of them under Heinberg (I think his name was) but got extremely bored of them during that run. Enough to where when they went off to whatever Avenger book they went to, I'd lost all interest in following them there. Not because they were gay (they were always gay) but because that became the focus of their characters when last I read them. It'd be the same if Speed got a book focused on him being a straight guy and ignoring all else. It'd be boring.

 

[Mad Ones]

If you think all these characters are doing is saying "look at me, I'm a minority!" then you aren't reading these books and have already dismissed them. I guess all Batman does is say "I'm rich! Look at me!"

Gillen actually made Wiccan and Hulkling interesting with what he did with Prodigy. Heinberg was writing these characters back when there were no queer characters anywhere, so their sexualities were downplayed to not upset the sensibilities of people who expect heterosexuality in their comics. That mentality is outdated now.

Iceman's conversation with his father in Iceman #5 was the deepest thing I've read from Marvel in 2017.

Comics are comics but as soon as women's or minorities' stories get told suddenly "depthlessness" in comics is a problem.

 

[JewishHobbit]

If you think all these characters are doing is saying "look at me, I'm a minority!" then you aren't reading these books and have already dismissed them. I guess all Batman does is say "I'm rich! Look at me!"

I admittedly haven't been reading many of them (as stated), but I'm just going off of the few I've read.

Gillen actually made Wiccan and Hulkling interesting with what he did with Prodigy. Heinberg was writing these characters back when there were no queer characters anywhere, so their sexualities were downplayed to not upset the sensibilities of people who expect heterosexuality in their comics. That mentality is outdated now.

I disagree with all this. I don't think it was downplayed as it was obvious from near the very beginning and done beautifully. It might have felt downplayed because there were four or five other characters also taking up panel time, but I thought it was done very well. He did a great job balancing their relationship with their heritage, interests, and youthfulness. But when Gillen came on it was only about their relationship. Not only that but the whole book was ONLY about homosexuality. He got rid of all but one of the straight characters and later brought her sexuality into question, added in (if I remember all this correctly) 1 gay character, 2 bi-characters, and 1 straight character who came out gay as the comic progressed. Then he had them all essentially running from their controlling parents... or something of that nature. Where was the heritage? Interests or traits beyond their sexuality? Anything that made them the most interesting duo of the past 20 years? It was all gone and they just became two gay members of a gay-themed book. The whole Young Avengers franchise died with that book, so I think it's safe to say I'm not the only one who feels that it lacked depth of any kind. It just felt like it was pandering.

Iceman's conversation with his father was the deepest thing I've read from Marvel in 2017.

But again... it was strictly limited to his sexuality. Sure, it had depth coming from that mindset, but again... Iceman's character has evolved into just "the gay X-Man". That title previously belonged to Northstar who could barely get a plot going that was about more than his sexuality starting with when he first joined during Eve of Destruction. Heck, he left the books for a few years and only recently came back to hit the gay-note again in Iceman's book. And this coming from someone who loves Northstar.

Now admittedly, Iceman was never the most deep of characters, peeking with Operation Zero Tolerance (in my opinion) so I can get used to him being the "gay X-Man", but I don't like how his current book ONLY focuses on that. There's certainly more to him than that. Heck, even O5 Iceman lost depth after he came out. It stopped being about him as a time lost original X-Man seeing how the world has changed in his future to just him looking for dates and cracking jokes.

Comics are comics but as soon as women or minorities are having stories told suddenly "depthlessness" in comics is a problem.

Depends on the character and how they're handled. If a character is strictly focused on because they're a woman or a minority... then it's pandering and typically boring. If they are written with depth... then they're good characters. I mean, do you see anyone complaining about Storm, Carol Danvers, Ms. Marvel, Bishop, etc? No, because they were all deep characters from the get go (at least that's my understanding of Ms. Marvel). And let's not act like people haven't always complained about characters who are straight, white, and male if they have no depth. It's just that Marvel hasn't been creating too many of them of late

 

[Mad Ones]

I disagree with you about Gillen's Young Avengers, demonstrating how subjective "depth" is and how it gets mobilized to "critique" women and minorities.

Why do you care so much that Iceman's comic is so much about his personal life? Or that a comic might be about a group of queer superheroes? Why does putting queerness to the forefront, not just the background, upset you so much? Does it bother you that so much of Cyclops' character has been defined by his heterosexual relationship with Jean? Spider-man and MJ/Gwen? Let's not pretend that the history of comics has been mostly an exploration of masculinity, authority, and power. Is this what you actually mean when you say "depth"?

Cable's solo comic isn't "deep" and yet Iceman is the problem. No double standard there at all.

I think whenever I read "depth" I'll just interpret it as "not interesting to ME" or "not the kind of story I relate to" for now on.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

If you think all these characters are doing is saying "look at me, I'm a minority!" then you aren't reading these books and have already dismissed them. I guess all Batman does is say "I'm rich! Look at me!"

Gillen actually made Wiccan and Hulkling interesting with what he did with Prodigy. Heinberg was writing these characters back when there were no queer characters anywhere, so their sexualities were downplayed to not upset the sensibilities of people who expect heterosexuality in their comics. That mentality is outdated now.

Iceman's conversation with his father in Iceman #5 was the deepest thing I've read from Marvel in 2017.

Comics are comics but as soon as women's or minorities' stories get told suddenly "depthlessness" in comics is a problem.

I'm with JewishHobbit on this bolded part. It's just plain false. It wasn't downplayed at all. It was presented in hand with the rest of their characters, making them well rounded. Just because it wasn't getting shoved in our faces every time they were on pane does not mean that it was downplayed at all.

But I understand the confusion, because every other LGBTQ or minority character has been aggressively touted as such. Hence the pickle that Marvel is in with hollow "legacy" characters and one-note characterizations.

 

[Mad Ones]

People still use the "shoved in my face" argument? Huh

Queer characters are well rounded when their sexualities are a small focus, apparently. Except that's not how it works in real life. It's rediculous to expect Marvel to write queer characters like they did 15 years ago.

Whatever, you prefer comics that "shove" heterosexuality in your face. You're in luck because that's most of them.

 

[JewishHobbit]

I disagree with you about Gillen's Young Avengers, demonstrating how subjective "depth" is and how it gets mobilized to "critique" women and minorities.

Why do you care so much that Iceman's comic is so much about his personal life? Or that a comic might be about a group of queer superheroes? Why does putting queerness to the forefront, not just the background, upset you so much? Does it bother you that so much of Cyclops' character has been defined by his heterosexual relationship with Jean? Spider-man and MJ/Gwen? Let's not pretend that the history of comics has been mostly an exploration of masculinity, authority, and power. Is this what you actually mean when you say "depth"?

I disagree with you that those characters are defined by their love interests. Their love interests are only one facet of their larger, depth-filled characters. Saying Spider-Man is merely defined by his love interests is laughable.

Cable's solo comic isn't "deep" and yet Iceman is the problem. No double standard there at all.

Cable's book is horrendous and far worse than Iceman's. He just isn't relevant to this thread's conversation which is why I didn't bring him up. So is Weapon X for that matter.

I think whenever I read "depth" I'll just interpret it as "not interesting to ME" or "not the kind of story I relate to" for now on.

This can be true alongside the lack of depth. I'm all for gay characters. Being that I'm still reading Iceman, it's obvious that I have no problem reading books about gay characters. I just prefer the book to be about MORE than their sexuality. I mean, I never had any interest in Trouble or Mary Jane Loves Spidey either. Same principle.