| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have to buy the comics for the heroes to be made. A large part of the population that has traditionally bought comic books is the white and male population, so it's no real surprise that most older heroes reflect this. As the type of people who buy the comics change, I fully expect the heroes being featured to change. I just don't care for the idea of completely changing old heroes to fit the new desired stories. New characters tell the new stories far better, and can do so without stepping on the toes of the stories already being told by the existing ones.
First off - and I want to be civil to the op, not critical - the title does come off a bit inflammatory. Perhaps unintentional in referencing the article, but still a bit off-putting without some initial explanation - which you did give later.
Second - good job dropping any Bendis title! Honestly, I find it difficult to tolerate a lot of Bendis' writing on Marvel stuff the longer he's been there. After a certain point, Powers-Avengers-House of M would be my choices, the quality of his work just isn't that stellar and he seems to want to rehash too much. How many smarmy, minutia conversations between characters can I have in a series before it gets ridiculous? There's never too many for Bendis.
Moving back on point. The one thing I would add to all this would be the financial element. Diversification of the your superteams should be lauded and I try not to be cynical about the attempts to "play this up" with Marvel in light of their other recent publicity calls. But print media - including comic books - is becoming a market of smaller returns. I'm not quite ready to declare it as dead as has been written about, but it is definitely less financially stable. By making your product more diverse in the characters, you are providing yourself with the chance to strike interest outside your traditional market and make it grow in a time of constraint. Not too sound cold about the cultural or social importance of some of these moves (and this is true for DC as well), but it has as much to do with broadening your medium for financial success. What does concern me - and it has been voiced already - is are some of these attempts backed by good story-telling?
Bendis is one of the best writers Marvel has, IMO, just to make a counterpoint here.
I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
Heh. If it hadn't been for the thread/article title, I don't think I'd have noticed anything "wrong" about that lineup.
The article doesn't seem to go into detail about who these people are (I admit, I skimmed a bit), but none of them seems to represent me (they all look so young!) And that's okay, I don't really need to feel represented to enjoy a good story.
"When we deny women and girls representation, we put them in ever smaller boxes," she wrote. "And when we limit their potential, we limit the potential of our culture as a whole. When we limit the contributions of half our society, we cut our potential in two."
I... uh, okay, this is me talking from a "didn't really grow up with these comic books" perspective, but maybe that's giving comic books slightly more importance than they really deserve. It's just comic books. I'm pretty sure Marvel isn't the last line of defense against cultural decay, or something. :p
Would it be nice with a broader representation of women in comic books? Absolutely! Is it going to destroy our cultural basis that girls have to pick between She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel and femThor? Probably not.
But I get that I'm a weirdo, so feel free to ignore!
Slight tangent: Also, that picture of Captain Marvel? *swoons*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have to buy the comics for the heroes to be made. A large part of the population that has traditionally bought comic books is the white and male population, so it's no real surprise that most older heroes reflect this. As the type of people who buy the comics change, I fully expect the heroes being featured to change. I just don't care for the idea of completely changing old heroes to fit the new desired stories. New characters tell the new stories far better, and can do so without stepping on the toes of the stories already being told by the existing ones.
Which is one of the better arguments against 'switch-outs'. Unfortunately, the 'Big Two' have an atrocious track record when it comes to supporting new characters. A five minute browse through either section in your FNCS is unlikely to field more than one title in twenty with a character or team that was initially developed in the last decade, much less the last year or so. While I am a SWM, I can read the writing on the wall well enough to know that, for all that I suspect POC and women would in fact prefer new characters entirely, it is going to be easier to convince the people who make these decisions to support changing who plays the role of the IP than it is to support an entirely new IP...
Bendis is one of the best writers Marvel has, IMO, just to make a counterpoint here.
Not a problem at all - YMMV as they say. I'll admit my take is totally my bias on the guy.
Personally, I like Fraction better. But then I'm a sucker for somebody who can pull off starting a title for six issues in a row with the exact same line & make it work.
I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
Any chance of a link to the original article the thread title comes from?
Any chance of a link to the original article the thread title comes from?I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
D00d. It's right there in what you copied. Just click on The New Ultimates...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
Heh. If it hadn't been for the thread/article title, I don't think I'd have noticed anything "wrong" about that lineup.
The article doesn't seem to go into detail about who these people are (I admit, I skimmed a bit), but none of them seems to represent me (they all look so young!) And that's okay, I don't really need to feel represented to enjoy a good story.
"When we deny women and girls representation, we put them in ever smaller boxes," she wrote. "And when we limit their potential, we limit the potential of our culture as a whole. When we limit the contributions of half our society, we cut our potential in two."I... uh, okay, this is me talking from a "didn't really grow up with these comic books" perspective, but maybe that's giving comic books slightly more importance than they really deserve. It's just comic books. I'm pretty sure Marvel isn't the last line of defense against cultural decay, or something. :p
Would it be nice with a broader representation of women in comic books? Absolutely! Is it going to destroy our cultural basis that girls have to pick between She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel and femThor? Probably not.
But I get that I'm a weirdo, so feel free to ignore!
Slight tangent: Also, that picture of Captain Marvel? *swoons*
I think it's less of an issue for older folk. Once you get past the age of 30 you're more likely to have a good concept of who you are and have better tools to do reexamination internally.
Children, teens, young adults, etc, are still exploring that territory. They're still building that self-image and searching for ways to explain their experiences and who and what they are. Because of that, they are much more likely to latch onto stories that include people who share some sort of similarity to them. Kids love shows with protagonists in their own age range. Add in gender, race, orientation, culture, etc... it becomes a way to explore their own story, not just the one presented.
They like stuff that doesn't relate to that as well, kids love good stories just like adults. Add in the above elements though and they become the stories that they carry with them through life.
A great example for me is Ender's Game. Often adults who read the book for the first time have some appreciation for the book, to varying degrees. They read the story and appreciate it (or not) on its merits. Give the book to a 6th grader though, and the potential for that story changes. Not all of them will love it, but for those that do, it becomes part of their life, it helps them make sense of who and what they are in some small way. They don't just read the book, they live it. This isn't an adulation of OSC's writing, but rather the subject matter and nature of the protagonist.
The diversification of protagonists is only partially for adults. It's much more important for drawing in younger readers and it can mean a lot. Validate them, tell their story and they'll be hooked for life.
Which is one of the better arguments against 'switch-outs'. Unfortunately, the 'Big Two' have an atrocious track record when it comes to supporting new characters. A five minute browse through either section in your FNCS is unlikely to field more than one title in twenty with a character or team that was initially developed in the last decade, much less the last year or so. While I am a SWM, I can read the writing on the wall well enough to know that, for all that I suspect POC and women would in fact prefer new characters entirely, it is going to be easier to convince the people who make these decisions to support changing who plays the role of the IP than it is to support an entirely new IP...
Comes back to whose buying the books. As the audience changes slowly, so are the characters being supported, and I guarantee that the execs at both major companies would love to be able to sell both old and new. Until the new markets can prove they can stand on their own, of course they are going to not widely support brand new characters. Unfortunately, in the interim, these communities seem all to willing to support the bastardized versions of existing characters, making it that much harder for them to distinguish themselves from the traditional readership.
I think it's less of an issue for older folk. Once you get past the age of 30 you're more likely to have a good concept of who you are and have better tools to do reexamination internally.
Enh. I guess. When I was a kid I hated those Spielberg movies where a bunch of kids were the heroes. Maybe I'm an odd duck.
Anyway, that was kinda my point. I don't think I've ever really felt a 'need to feel represented', and I think that's okay. It means they can represent someone else who needs it more, and I can still enjoy the story (assuming it doesn't suck. ;) )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Children, teens, young adults, etc, are still exploring that territory. They're still building that self-image and searching for ways to explain their experiences and who and what they are. Because of that, they are much more likely to latch onto stories that include people who share some sort of similarity to them. Kids love shows with protagonists in their own age range. Add in gender, race, orientation, culture, etc... it becomes a way to explore their own story, not just the one presented.
They like stuff that doesn't relate to that as well, kids love good stories just like adults. Add in the above elements though and they become the stories that they carry with them through life.
A great example for me is Ender's Game. Often adults who read the book for the first time have some appreciation for the book, to varying degrees. They read the story and appreciate it (or not) on its merits. Give the book to a 6th grader though, and the potential for that story changes. Not all of them will love it, but for those that do, it becomes part of their life, it helps them make sense of who and what they are in some small way. They don't just read the book, they live it. This isn't an adulation of OSC's writing, but rather the subject matter and nature of the protagonist.
The diversification of protagonists is only partially for adults. It's much more important for drawing in younger readers and it can mean a lot. Validate them, tell their story and they'll be hooked for life.
I've never believed that.
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.
It paints people into boxes. It says that they can ONLY relate to people who look and act just like them...
Spider-man was INSANELY popular for decades. He was poor, he was the every-man.... not the every 'WHITE' man... but Everyone who was down on their luck could look at him and find something to relate to.
Mutants have represented whatever oppressed minority is big at the time, and people have flocked to it.
Batman is still insanely popular. He's a handsome white guy with more money then some governments... there is NOTHING relatable to him for Anyone... He's still popular and people love him.
The problem with claiming we need more diversity in comics... is that there IS diversity there already. People are claiming status quos from the 60's and pretending they still apply.
We HAD books with War machine, and Black Panther, and John Stewart and women and the occasional latinos... but people didn't buy them. The teams are extremely inclusive now days, but if the lineup isn't the perfect 'iconic' team that people want... they stop buying it and it gets rebooted.
People of all races/creed/age/gender want awesome comics with awesome characters doing awesome things... They do not want to be told 'Here is the black hero... he MUST be going through whatever YOU are going through...'
Girls like Superman and Batman too... they don't NEED to have a 'special girl-version' of the charcters to get their attention.
Popular things became popular for a reason. There are a LOT of people out there who ALREADY looked at these existing characters for inspiration and as role models... without having to 'look like them.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Green lantern mosaic did more for me than x-men did, although I remain a fan of them.
Children, teens, young adults, etc, are still exploring that territory. They're still building that self-image and searching for ways to explain their experiences and who and what they are. Because of that, they are much more likely to latch onto stories that include people who share some sort of similarity to them. Kids love shows with protagonists in their own age range. Add in gender, race, orientation, culture, etc... it becomes a way to explore their own story, not just the one presented.
They like stuff that doesn't relate to that as well, kids love good stories just like adults. Add in the above elements though and they become the stories that they carry with them through life.
A great example for me is Ender's Game. Often adults who read the book for the first time have some appreciation for the book, to varying degrees. They read the story and appreciate it (or not) on its merits. Give the book to a 6th grader though, and the potential for that story changes. Not all of them will love it, but for those that do, it becomes part of their life, it helps them make sense of who and what they are in some small way. They don't just read the book, they live it. This isn't an adulation of OSC's writing, but rather the subject matter and nature of the protagonist.
The diversification of protagonists is only partially for adults. It's much more important for drawing in younger readers and it can mean a lot. Validate them, tell their story and they'll be hooked for life.
I've never believed that.
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.
You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.
Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think about it. Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it. I just want you to think about it.
I don't think you're racist/sexist/gender-biased/etc. I think you aren't considering what your words mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
Marvel is 'starting to realize'? Its a shame the writer of that article is so late to the party... there have been female, minority and even gay heroes in comic books for decades. The Falcon debuted in 1969. Northstar has been around since 1979 and finally came out as officially gay back in '92, more than 20 years ago. Wonder Woman (DC) made her first appearance in 1941 for pete's sake. The list goes on and on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.
I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.
People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.
To my mind, at least.
It helps though, when there are a few characters out there that do look like you. When you identify with a character it makes the pull stronger. I was a tall, skinny (although not so much anymore, I'm afraid), brown haired, brown eyed, glasses wearing introvert who felt like an outsider even among the other outcasts during high school. Is it any wonder the Marvel Comics character I identified the most with was Cyclops? (It probably helped a lot that my middle name is actually Scott)
Cyclops, the de facto leader and field general of the X-Men from day 1 and not Peter Parker...? I find that interesting.
I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
Marvel is 'starting to realize'? Its a shame the writer of that article is so late to the party... there have been female, minority and even gay heroes in comic books for decades. The Falcon debuted in 1969. Northstar has been around since 1979 and finally came out as officially gay back in '92, more than 20 years ago. Wonder Woman (DC) made her first appearance in 1941 for pete's sake. The list goes on and on.
falcon didn't make many appearances after those first few years and has never had his own book. His power set has been ill defined and his costume updated erratically- always looking weird until relatively recently. Northstar has been a bit better, but he rarely appeared outside of alpha flight until mutant madness got big in the 80s and then his sexuality kinda flickered until the 90s-90s - I vaguely remember at least one attempt to "explain" his sexuality and his sisters mental health in that they were part elven or something. Wonder woman's history and origins have divided the fan base something fierce.
It's not the presence of such characters, its how they are treated by the writers, which influences reader acceptance something fierce.
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.
People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.
To my mind, at...
agreed, tokenism is a problem. But to make your heroes monochromatic/monogender/monosexuality isn't the way to handle it.
tokenism is a problem. But to make your heroes monochromatic/monogender/monosexuality isn't the way to handle it
Agreed. And for the record, I don't think anyone is implementing or encouraging the implementation of that as a policy.
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.
People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.
To my mind, at...
Please quote or link where someone called for more tokenism in this conversation.
Not something YOU might interpret as tokenism, but that that person called tokenism.
If I remember correctly, Ms. Marvel nee Monica Rambeau was not only female and black, she was also leader of the Avengers for awhile.
Captain Marvel, actually. I was going to bring that up as a good example of how Marvel actually managed diversity well back then. Here was a character who was African-American from New Orleans (not another New York-centric hero for a change) and female character who didn't need to be portrayed as some kind of victim who got super powers. She got them stopping the bad guy from carrying out his plan as part of being a police officer. And her powers were pretty bad-ass as well.
The problem is that Marvel then went and screwed it up. From my understanding from reading here, is that they removed her from the Avengers due to editing fiat (which also led to the departure of Roger Stern - her creator at the time) by having her "crippled" for a time before bringing her back in the 90's.
...I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.
People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's
token characters are a hard thing to pin down sometimes. It depends on the writer almost as much as the company.
token characters are a hard thing to pin down sometimes. It depends on the writer almost as much as the company.
That's a separate issue.
Wiggz brought up tokenism as if that was what was being argued. I'm unaware of anyone in this thread who is actively advocating tokenism.
Also, I find the idea of ALL DIVERSITY to be reduced to tokenism to be disrespectful to minorities.
When a company uses the term "Diversity" that is code for reaching out to new markets.
The comic book industry has for 60+ years has catered to the young white male demographic. During this time white males made up for almost all of the industry and they understandably write best about what they know.
Why should any company be complacent with such a small demographic when you can reach out to Women, Men and people of all races and cultures?? They are in the business of selling comics, makes sense trying to open up your product to as many people as possible.
The term Token is totally disrespectful. I wish we could retire it.
-MD
When a company uses the term "Diversity" that is code for reaching out to new markets.
The comic book industry has for 60+ years has catered to the young white male demographic. During this time white males made up for almost all of the industry and they understandably write best about what they know.
Why should any company be complacent with such a small demographic when you can reach out to Women, Men and people of all races and cultures?? They are in the business of selling comics, makes sense trying to open up your product to as many people as possible.
The term Token is totally disrespectful. I wish we could retire it.
-MD
The concept token is totally disrespectful. I wish we could eliminate it.
A poorly written character sucks, whether he's black, white, an alien, or a she. That's into other shes.
A well written character is great, again, whether they have any or none of the above qualities.
A well selling, well written character is the best, because they stick around forever.
When Superman died and four imposters took over, maybe some of you remember one of them was a black man named John Henry. Care to guess which one my half-black best friend liked the most? If you said Cyborg, because he was the baddestass, you'd be correct. Meanwhile, I (white Jew) hated John Henry's art (Man of Steel had a terrible artist back then), but loved the character. Went on to collect his short lived solo series. He was great, like a black Iron Man (no, not War Machine), smart, physically powerful, and endorsed by Superman himself. Didn't save his comic, and these days, I don't even know if Steel is around.
Well written is great, regardless of diversity level. But you need sales, or it goes away.
This. Well said, thanks :)
I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.
To my mind, at...
You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think about it. Don't...
That isn't a problem (well, much of one...) What is the more common thing is.
White person: Black People need someone who they can relate to.
Black person: Actually, I've always identified pretty good with Spider-man.
White Person: How?? he's not black?? Nope! We need to change things around so you have a character You'll like... While we're at it, lets make one of these characters a girl. How about Thor this time?
Woman: What?!? You mean I can't like Thor cause he's a guy?
That's where the token characters come from. When you're assembling a cast of characters, and you move down the checklist. One Black, One Asian, One girl, One gay... perhaps a combination in there even better.
We need the characters to be fully fleshed out, and to be parts of the cast because they are awesome characters that the writer wants to write about. Not just because of a 'checklist.'
Otherwise you end up with stereotypes that only tick people off more. "Oh look yet another angry black youth who fought to avoid the mean streets..." I guess that must be what all black people everywhere relate to...
Falcon as Captain America COULD work... He's a long established character with a solid fan base. However since A) we JUST did a 'new Cap' storyline that lasted too long... and B) it was announced during the same 'shakeup' that gave us female-Thor...
It stinks of a 'gimmick'
Gimmicks = bad storytelling
This. Well said, thanks :)
I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.
To my mind, at...
...You lost me right there.
You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.
Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think
Please link for me the post where someone argued in FAVOR of tokenism.
I don't care where you THINK it exists. I want to know who is advocating that we need more hollow tokens.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have fun preachin' to the choir, y'all.
I'm usually sympathetic to the cause, but the repeated hostility and attack dog tactics displayed on this thread is enough for me to turn my backs on all of you and walk away. If you do want to reach straight white guys (of which, yes, I happen to be one)-- you are NOT going to do it the way you're typing and expressing yourselves here.
When a company uses the term "Diversity" that is code for reaching out to new markets.
The comic book industry has for 60+ years has catered to the young white male demographic. During this time white males made up for almost all of the industry and they understandably write best about what they know.
Why should any company be complacent with such a small demographic when you can reach out to Women, Men and people of all races and cultures?? They are in the business of selling comics, makes sense trying to open up your product to as many people as possible.
The term Token is totally disrespectful. I wish we could retire it.
-MD
The concept token is totally disrespectful. I wish we could eliminate it.
A poorly written character sucks, whether he's black, white, an alien, or a she. That's into other shes.
A well written character is great, again, whether they have any or none of the above qualities.
A well selling, well written character is the best, because they stick around forever.
When Superman died and four imposters took over, maybe some of you remember one of them was a black man named John Henry. Care to guess which one my half-black best friend liked the most? If you said Cyborg, because he was the baddestass, you'd be correct. Meanwhile, I (white Jew) hated John Henry's art (Man of Steel had a terrible artist back then), but loved the character. Went on to collect his short lived solo series. He was great, like a black Iron Man (no, not War Machine), smart, physically powerful, and endorsed by Superman himself. Didn't save his comic, and these days, I don't even know if Steel is around.
Well written is great, regardless of diversity level. But you need sales, or it goes away.
love steel..he's still around. Loved his origin story. I still want him and mr. Terrific to hang out.
Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it.
So is there any point in offering further discussion on this topic if it disagrees with your perspective?
Please quote or link where someone called for more tokenism in this conversation.
Definition: Tokenism is the policy or practice of making a perfunctory gesture toward the inclusion of members of minority groups. This token effort is usually intended to create an appearance of inclusiveness and deflect accusations of discrimination. Classically, token characters may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Alternatively, their differences may be overemphasized or made exotic and glamorous.
When the article in question starts with the title: "Marvel is realizing straight white guys aren't the only ones who can save the world," you are inviting the question of tokenism, even if it is to praise Marvel for their efforts. One of the article's themes is to point out that a) there is a market and interest of ethnically/racial/sexually diverse super-heroes and b)Marvel isn't just paying it lip-service to this. The article highlights the Ultimates' writer:
"But he wanted to make clear that he's writing stories that he's looking beyond his roster's gender and skin color, and is trying to make his characters, not their skin color or gender the only part of the story. "I have to meet those expectations head on and go further by telling interesting stories with the characters, not solely because of them. I'm not telling 'female' or 'minority' stories. I'm telling stories with people of different backgrounds in them. So while I'm aware of who the characters are and what they represent, that's not quite at the forefront of my creative process.
In other words, he is trying to avoid the very definition of a token super-hero comic in how he is writing the comic, but it is still a potential issue of relying on a token representation if it isn't done right.
Have fun preachin' to the choir, y'all.
I'm usually sympathetic to the cause, but the repeated hostility and attack dog tactics displayed on this thread is enough for me to turn my backs on all of you and walk away. If you do want to reach straight white guys (of which, yes, I happen to be one)-- you are NOT going to do it the way you're typing and expressing yourselves here.
Reaching the demographic that is over represented and in no danger whatsoever of being lost as they compose the vast vast majority?
That's where the token characters come from. When you're assembling a cast of characters, and you move down the checklist. One Black, One Asian, One girl, One gay... perhaps a combination in there even better.
We need the characters to be fully fleshed out, and to be parts of the cast because they are awesome characters that the writer wants to write about. Not just because of a 'checklist.'
Otherwise you end up with stereotypes that only tick people off more. "Oh look yet another angry black youth who fought to avoid the mean streets..." I guess that must be what all black people everywhere relate to...
More to the point about the other side of this as Phantom points out. Marvel may be striving to be more diverse but the problem with this article comes from the fact that Marvel's motives historically often have to do with profitability trends and the usage of tokenism.
Luke Cage was not created for cultural altruism, he was developed to cash on the Blaxploitation trend of the 70's. She-Hulk was about cashing in on the popularity of the Bionic Woman on TV and getting copyrights for the Incredible Hulk TV show. Spider-woman was another copyright ploy and was rebooted three different times to keep her going before Bendis used her in the Avengers. Iron Fist, being white instead of Asian, was still an attempt to cash in on the martial arts craze Bruce Lee had started in the U.S. Before bi-racial Mike Morales, there was another latino Spider-Man for the 2099 Marvel Line. There are more examples both good and bad.
So the fact that Marvel has trotted out all these new changes in the first part of 2014 just as their movie brand is expanding and growing into a larger and larger audience (X-Men, Spider-Man, Captain America, and Guardians of the Galaxy just this year, I think) comes off as being in the same vein of economic opportunism as much as cultural diversity.
As the writer points out in the article: This roster was more or less formed before it was presented to me... That smacks less of creative development and more corporate mandate.
It's not helped that the author makes statements like: "Cloak is black, Miles Morales is a half-black half-latino Spiderman, Kitty Pryde is Jewish, and Spiderwoman a.k.a. Black Widow is actually a clone of Peter Parker. Kitty Pryde has touted her Jewish heritage for 30+ years ever since Claremont created her and Cloak has been around just as long in several series. These hardly represent new diversity on Marvel's part.
The real question/problem to all this (and the author points this out) is will Marvel really support a series where they have effectively lumped all of this in one package? If the series is well-done and successful, then it shouldn't be an issue. But if Marvel, especially for financial reasons, limits the writing or continuously alters the format, then the whole affair will come off as tokenism in the long run.
Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it.So is there any point in offering further discussion on this topic if it disagrees with your perspective?
Taking quotes out of context is not having a conversation. It's trying to "win points" in some invisible game that doesn't exist.
To wit: You will not convince me that minorities asking for representation is offensive.
Are you taking the position that it IS offensive?
Here's the part that puzzles me in this argument.
Is anyone arguing in favor of fewer or no minorities in comics? (or other forms of media)
If you truly don't care what skin color, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc of the characters, why debate the issue at all? Because all I've seen from people debating against this issue is reasons why minorities shouldn't be in comics. Is that the goal?
I will most definitely be supporting this book. As I've just dropped both Bendis X-titles and one of Hickman's Avengers books there's room on my pull list for this.
You're about 50 years too late with that headline...
We are also arguing that when the dominant character traits when discussing a character are ethnic or gender based, the character is probably going to suck.
Taking quotes out of context is not having a conversation. It's trying to "win points" in some invisible game that doesn't exist.To wit: You will not convince me that minorities asking for representation is offensive.
Are you taking the position that it IS offensive?
The point is that making statements that start with "I've stopped listening to you at point A, and nothing you say is going to change my mind" - whether that topic is race, politics or any other subject immediately puts off any interest in further discussion. Make an argument stand on example and your reference points.
Lecturing someone with statements like: "Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think about it. Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it. I just want you to think about it. I think you aren't considering what your words mean."
Whether it is your intent or not and whether you agree or not, it comes off as condescending and hostile to the discussion. And that makes it difficult to continue discussion the subject in a productive way.
For example, you asked where was tokenism being brought up. ("Please quote or link where someone called for more tokenism in this conversation") I made the point above that whole parts of the article bring up the subject of how the writer is trying not fall into token characters. Whether you agree or not, I made a point without trying to be condescending or hostile to your statement.
No, what's being argued is "Demographic group/cause/issue X should be more popular and it isn't. This proves that bigotry is everywhere and comics companies are evil for not producing stuff I want to see regardless of what people are willing to pay for."
Who is arguing that in this thread? Quote and/or link their post.
Taking quotes out of context is not having a conversation. It's trying to "win points" in some invisible game that doesn't exist.To wit: You will not convince me that minorities asking for representation is offensive.
Are you taking the position that it IS offensive?
The point is that making statements that start with "I've stopped listening to you at point A, and nothing you say is going to change my mind" - whether that topic is race, politics or any other subject immediately puts off any interest in further discussion. Make an argument stand on example and your reference points.
Lecturing someone with statements like: "Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think about it. Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it. I just want you to think about it. I think you aren't considering what your words mean."
Whether it is your intent or not and whether you agree or not, it comes off as condescending and hostile to the discussion. And that makes it difficult to continue discussion the subject in a productive way.For example, you asked where was tokenism being brought up. ("Please quote or link where someone called for more tokenism in this conversation") I made the point above that whole parts of the article bring up the subject of how the writer is trying not fall into token characters. Whether you agree or not, I made a point without trying to be condescending or hostile to your statement.
No, that's your interpretation of their argument. I asked where someone has openly advocated tokenism. Not where you think tokenism exists or could exist. Who is actively pushing for tokenism?
Also, if you're going to insist on reading my statements out of context, there's nothing I can do to help you. Cause it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to decide to read it however you want.
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.
Seriously, lets look at this statement some more.
That is hatred. It might be unintended hatred, but it is hatred none the less. Being opposed to diversity is being opposed to people who are different. That's all sorts of bad "isms".
It doesn't matter who is making a call for diversity, they're in a minority or a majority. In fact, people in the majority have a responsibility to make those calls, because it means we recognize that there are problems and they need to be corrected.
And yes, I do shut down. I don't apologize for it. I don't care what arguments people have to back up hatred. It's still hatred.
I hate reporting this stuff, because that just white-washes the issue and makes it seem to disappear, on both sides. People sit in their little bubbles and assume that they're right.
People pointing out patterns of racism/sexism/etc is not offensive. Anyone making such a claim is at worst unknowningly supporting said racism/sexism/etc.
Please counter this and tell my why black people shouldn't be allowed in comics.