@MydLyfeCrysis: I agree with you, I feel insulted when they make a characters race or sexual orientation a thing. I like batwoman, she's a great addition to the bat-family, so what if she likes girls, I do too. I think that we all would have been okay with Miles if we met him before peter died, like make them friends. In a new interview with Newsarama, Bendis seems so surprised that people are calling it gimmicky, he killed peter than tossed miles in our faces, how were we supposed to take it? He also said that Miles is 13 (which strengthens my theory that he's a mutant) and he lives in Brooklyn. I hope he doesn't turn this into a "black/hispanic kid struggling in the inner-city" story Not all of us grew up in the hood.I agree with you, man. Had Miles been an already established character in the universe who evolved, naturally through the story, into the new Spider-man, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I would actually have applauded such a transition had it been done well. It's not the character. It's not the character. It's not the character.
They want a headline, not a story. They want "yay diversity" or "oh noes superman is dead!" to make people buy their paper or click on their link.
But the flip side to this--the up side--is that anyone who actually picks up a book because of a marketing blitz might find a product that is actually good. That actually makes them want to read comics, and then the industry grows as a whole. And Marvel at least has come out and stated that they do these media blitzes because they work. Because they're running the numbers and seeing real increased readership.
Hmm. So it sounds like you're more upset about how this book is being marketed than with the book itself. Is that fair?
"We should have a black Batman." (Core motivation) "Okay. Wasn't there a black Batman in Batman Inc.?" (brainstorming) "Yes, and he's in Africa. Batman in Africa! That's awesome!" (core concept of the book established)
Your concept evolution makes a good point. I will relegate that. But understand I don't see that as diversity for diversity's sake. I see that as starting with an interesting point, and evolving it to provide an entirely unique story. Perhaps I am jaded seeing characters I SHOULD love that never make it beyond that point of an awful stereotypical icon. That or they never grow to anything beyond 2D splashes of color to add cred or appease the PC gods. Hey, I WANT representation, icons, and role models, but I want them to be GOOD examples of such and not at the sacrifice of already great and established characters (and books). Which, I think, is fair.
Perhaps I wax too philosophical for some, and delve too deeply into motivation and perceived intent, but it is a flaw I bear.
Anyway, I just hope Batwing is good. I'd be almost as excited for it if it were Bruce Wayne fighting African warlords, but I think it adds gravitas that this Batman will be defending his home. It will seem less like a fly-by-night adventure the American super-heroes are having this week in Africa. Batwing won't solve all of Africa's problems in six issues and then go back to Gotham. Also, Africa is big and has a lot of different political climates. There are so many different settings and stories they could do there that it easily qualifies as fodder for an ongoing. It just needs to not suck.
I agree my friend. The feeling of Batwing defending his homeland gives the book a more meaningful impact. I just don't think it would work with Bruce. Not as a permanent book run, that is for sure.
These quotes are what led me to my frustration with Spider-man's new move. There was literally NOTHING in the IGN article about the character other than his diversifying qualities. Nothing that rounds him out as an interesting character. Nothing that shows why I should be hooked on him as a hero. It almost gives you a feeling that Parker was killed in order to supplant a more diverse Spider-man.
"It's certainly long overdue. Even though there's some amazing African-American and minority characters bouncing around in all the superhero universes, it's still crazy lopsided."
"What you have is a Spider-Man for the 21st century who's reflective of our culture and diversity." ---Marvel EIC Axel Alonso.
"Maybe sooner or later a black or gay — or both — hero will be considered something absolutely normal." --- Sara Pichelli, Ultimate Spider-man artist.
"The character is new and represents a clear step towards further diversifying superhero comics"
I don't think diversity is a "gimmick," but I do agree that if a character who is added for diversity's sake doesn't have a solid story behind it, it SHOULD fail.
Well, I have a feeling this is partially in reaction to my posts as "diversity for the sake of diversity" is verbatim from my posts in said topics. But, if we read much of those posts we have people calling others racist simply for not liking the direction. In this age of free exchange of ideas, as you tried to imply in a different thread, why are people given such a horrible label simply for not agreeing with you? When does disagreeing with you equate to intellectual diversity of opinion, and not racism? What if they are sticklers for tradition in relation to specific characters? What if this tradition includes keeping Black Panther black? Why can anyone be proud their favorite character is their race, save when it comes to Caucasians? (Keep in mind, I just might not be white! GASP! :) )
The reports of DC going from 12% women writers to1% has recently been discussed on this site. Judd Winick discussed Batwing. Also, there has been a lot of talk about the recent changes in Ultimate Comics Spider-Man, and by the comments, not a lot are happy. Question: when is a change not just for the sake of diversity? When is it okay to write a character that is not stat quo (white-hereto-American-male)? Are you going to stop reading or not even pick up these titles? Why or why not?
Now, had the dreaded 'D' word not been mentioned and had it been explained that Africa (and the Mid-East) is still a rather lawless section of the world governed by corruption, warlords, criminal empires, and that it more than anywhere needs a Batman, I'd be incredibly excited. Had we been introduced to a character who sees the vile elements destroying his home, the humanity of the land he loves; a character who stands up and fights the rampant evil that plagues Africa. I would be enthralled by the tale. Diversity should be a byproduct of a great story, and will never be the genesis.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is a failure on all accounts. It's insulting. I still hold out hope it's a good book, and it's interesting to see what they do with a new Spider-man. But I cannot shake the awful taste in my mouth the awful "D" word brings to my mouth. It's the bane of great stories to begin with diversity and work your way out. Diversity should be a byproduct of a great story, not the genesis.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment