Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

Politics of comic creators and its effect on their work

15:04 / 28.03.03

Spinning off from the Cerebus: is it worth it thread...

Warewulf sez:
I will not give that man money. I don't care if I am missing out, he's a fucker and I won't contribute to his income.

We've had a thread similar to this in the music, but I think its worth thinking about specifically with regards to comics.

So to what extent do people feel the link between a creator's personal politics and their work is important.?

22:24 / 28.03.03

If a creator has strong views, whatever they may be, and it comes across in their work in a thought-provoking way, then that's fine.
I'm not sure I'd buy their stuff, though. (Would I buy a comic about a militant homophobe? No. Would I buy a comic about a militant homophobe if it contained well-thought out social/sexual commentary? Maybe.)

If I find that a creator is just wildly homophobic/racist/whatever, I'll think twice about buying his work. (Eg. Dave Sim and Chuck Dixon.)
The reason being, I don't want to give these people money. I don't want to support them and help them buy shiny new things. I may be missing out on important/wonderful/revolutionary stuff but I really don't care. I won't give these people my money.

Now, obviously, I'm not saying that I know the politics of every author I've ever read, I'm simply saying that if their views come to my attention, and I don't agree with them, I'll think twice before buying their stuff.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

04:07 / 29.03.03

I have quit buying anything by Chuck Dixon since 1) His stories all seem to be about the same thing and 2) I disagree with how he handles characters...as they all embody his beliefs.

That and he hasn't written anything worth reading since he quit working with Tim Truman.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

16:44 / 29.03.03

!

A while ago someone at this site flagged up this thread which seems to suggest that John Byrnye is in fact a nutjob.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

16:47 / 29.03.03

Link

Not having much luck with my HTML etc on this board so far.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

18:42 / 29.03.03

Holy shit...
i can only imagine the bloodbath if someone with the same thinking as john byrne showed up here...

damn...

Anyway, back to politics.
My morals are sadly lax in many cases, where other lithers would boycott something, if i like it i would prolly still buy it.

Politics are complex, and i never completely agree with anyone all the time. The difference you run into is the pleasure more important than the cash your giving. I like driving when its cold out, so i buy fuel for my car etc.

Anyway, at work and rambling, but if i didnt buy things due to disagreements with the creators OUTSIDE the text, i wouldnt be reading filth or ne xmen i think.

Also, i have never read cerebus and was considering getting the early trades, how much cash do creators get for trades?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

13:58 / 14.04.03

I can't find the original Dave Sim thread when he wrote that 'article' about how women were evil creatures, but there's this where he claims victory in the debate, and claims simultaneously that feminism is a small thing while at the same time potentially large enough to damage the career of Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman, should they ever work with him. He's still waiting for a reply to his 'woman as intellectual void' tract, though I think he mistakes people going "where do we start? what is the point?" for proof of his own intellectual superiority.

Matthew Fluxington

14:17 / 14.04.03

I sorta knew that Chuck Dixon was a right wing guy, and I also am sort of familiar with his work on DC's Batman family of comics, but would anyone mind being more specific about how his views are representing in his comics? He's writing about vigilantes, that's true, but I'm getting the impression that there are some very specific things that he's written that I'm just not aware of, and I'd like to hear about it.

--

14:27 / 14.04.03

Was it Chuck Dixon who said he wouldn't want his kids to be reading comics like "The Invisibles" because it depicts homosexual characters, or am I thinking of someone else?

Matthew Fluxington

14:30 / 14.04.03

Wow. If that was him, that'd be really funny considering the fact that he had been making his money writing the adventures of Batman & Robin for the majority of his career. Chuck's not good with subtext, huh?

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

14:50 / 14.04.03

Yeah, Dixon has spoken a LOT on his website about how he doesn't want homosexual characters in comics because his kids could read about them. He's also done a lot of complaining that comics creators are "liberals" and such (like most ditto monkeys). I remember one time he threw a fit because of an anti-gun comic DC did featuring Batman and was sending letters to the Comic Buyer's Guide just about every week about it.

But now he's at CrossGen, where I can ignore his work.

--

14:57 / 14.04.03

"Dixon was emphatic that he saw no place for homosexuality in kids' comic books. In an earlier post on the Dixonverse Web site he wrote "I don't want to expect to be able to shield my kids from the subject of homosexuality as the media seems intent on bringing into my home and nothing short of cutting the electricity and boarding the windows will stop it. But I DON'T want my kids reading about it in comics. I don't want Judd Winnick or Grant Morrison or the nimrod who wrote this 'Rawhide Kid' comic informing my kids about the many facets and lifestyle choices out there in the world. I'd like to be the one to talk to them about it when they're older and I feel the time is right. I especially object to them using characters familiar to my kids to present this worldview. Could you please leave the Beast and Green Lantern alone?"

Fine words there. Remember that people, homosexuality is out - but heterosexual necrophilia is to be encouraged!!"

Well, that pretty much sums it up it seems. Batman & Robin, I remember reading a book by a guy called Dr. Wertham called "Seduction of the Innocent" (came out in the 50's I believe)that claimed Batman and Robin were gay and that reading comics like that made boys homosexual. The book was mostly sensationalistic bullshit. Actually, it was pretty much all sensationalistic bullshit, but apparently at the time a lot of people believed him.

Matthew Fluxington

14:57 / 14.04.03

That's too bad. I honestly don't have a problem with people being conservative or having conservative beliefs, but he just sounds like an intolerant and deeply paranoid man, and those are the folks that I really distrust/dislike.

"Batman.......isn't closeted......he likes WOMEN........Catwomen.......just read Detective Comics #523...."

--

14:58 / 14.04.03

"Dixon was emphatic that he saw no place for homosexuality in kids' comic books. In an earlier post on the Dixonverse Web site he wrote "I don't want to expect to be able to shield my kids from the subject of homosexuality as the media seems intent on bringing into my home and nothing short of cutting the electricity and boarding the windows will stop it. But I DON'T want my kids reading about it in comics. I don't want Judd Winnick or Grant Morrison or the nimrod who wrote this 'Rawhide Kid' comic informing my kids about the many facets and lifestyle choices out there in the world. I'd like to be the one to talk to them about it when they're older and I feel the time is right. I especially object to them using characters familiar to my kids to present this worldview. Could you please leave the Beast and Green Lantern alone?"

Fine words there. Remember that people, homosexuality is out - but heterosexual necrophilia is to be encouraged!!"

Well, that pretty much sums it up it seems. Batman & Robin, I remember reading a book by a guy called Dr. Wertham called "Seduction of the Innocent" (came out in the 50's I believe)that claimed Batman and Robin were gay and that reading comics like that made boys homosexual. The book was mostly sensationalistic bullshit. Actually, it was pretty much all sensationalistic bullshit, but apparently at the time a lot of people believed him.

--

14:59 / 14.04.03

ARRRGHHHH! Attack of the quardruple post! Sorry about that.

15:15 / 14.04.03

I remember one time he threw a fit because of an anti-gun comic DC did featuring Batman

I thought Batman had always been kind of opposed to guns. Doesn't he (er, Batman that is) have the thing where he hates guns, never uses them blah, blah, blah in the same way he hates 'crime'? Or am I thinking of another superhero?

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

15:49 / 14.04.03

The "Batman doesn't use guns" was grafted onto the character in the 50's where they made it so he doesn't use them because his parents were killed by them. There were stories even into the mid 80's where "Batman will have to use a gun in order to save a life, will he?" and he finds another way because he refuses to use them.

Most of this came from outside forces tho, since heroes weren't allow to use guns under the Comics Code (which is why Punisher didn't get his own series until the code relaxed their rules in the mid 80's, very quietly).

Dixon was one of the writers who, after the Batman movie, softened this somewhat and made it more that Batman doesn't NEED to use a gun, mostly because of Dixon's VERY pro-gun stance.

Regrettable Juvenilia

19:22 / 14.04.03

"the subject of homosexuality [that] the media seems intent on bringing into my home and nothing short of cutting the electricity and boarding the windows will stop it."

That's such a brilliantly visual image of a certain paranoid mindset. Fantastic.

--

19:28 / 14.04.03

H'mm, if the media is so intent on bringing the subject of homosexuality into our homes, how come you never see two guys kissing on commercials? Or, for that matter, why are there only 7 (according to GLAAD) re-occuring gay characters on prime time TV shows?

19:52 / 14.04.03

7 is too many!

Batman packed heat from Detective Comics #27 to #33, and Batman #1. The editors decided to soften him up a little after Batman mowed down a group of Hugo Strange's Man Monsters, who were once normal Gothamites.

"It saddens me to take an innocent human life, but in this case, I have no choice." - Batman.

Werhtam and the comics code had nothing to do with it.

Wertham did contend that Batman and Robin were promoting homosexuality, and also took offence to Robin's trademark open legged, short shorts stance. Frank Miller also denied that Batman is homosexual. Whatever. Batman and Robin have appeared in so many different forms and permutations that there is no right answer.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

22:21 / 14.04.03

Moriarty, it's true that the code had nothing to do with Batman not using a gun, but the big taboo against it (gimmick stories of Batman not using a gun) came about at that time, and in Joe Simon's book "The Comic Book Makers", he discusses how DC did the stories to deflect criticism of their comics line.

Another big "plotical" change in comics was the early Superman stories. In his earliest stories, he was a walking, talking "New Deal", with Superman working against wife beaters, corrupt businessmen, helping striking miners, etc... But by the time Superman started to become insanely popular it's believed that the creators were told to tone it down, and did so in the middle of a story. I'll go back to Chabon's notes to see if I can find out which story it was.

00:24 / 15.04.03

I dig.

I miss the New Deal Superman.

The Natural Way

16:32 / 15.04.03

Who was the fucker that wrote all that terrible shit in 'Anarchy' all that time ago? Austen? Y'know, all that really fucking lame philosophy shit?

A

13:24 / 16.04.03

If you're talking about the Batman character "Anarky", then I believe it's Scottish comics writer Alan Grant who is responsible.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

13:29 / 16.04.03

Alan Grant is pretty horrible, yeah. Now I think of it, his later stuff on Anderson: Psi could give Chuck "Goth Angst is my middle name" Goth Angst Austin a run for his pseudo philoso-babble money anyday.

I hope the two do not have a contest on this, that would suck

11:10 / 18.04.03

Grant is also insane. Does anyone remember the "bibliography" in the back of the Anarky miniseries?

The Natural Way

12:43 / 18.04.03

Yeah, what was the name of that book? Oh, that's it: 'Who Lies Sleeping?' The Old Ones are real, they live under the Earth and in space and they're coming back. And that blurb: "why is it that aliens are reptile in appearance? What is the truth behind the biblical tale of the Gadarean [I know that's a sp] swine? Etc..."

Twisted stuff.