MydLyfeCrysis's forum posts

#1 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
@damswedon: Whoa, she's in Batgirl? I swear, I looked and looked but couldn't spot her. I thought it would be weird that she appear in all the others, but not Batgirl. To save my sanity, please, tell me where she appears.
#2 Edited by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
She's definitely not in Batgirl, or I'm going crazy and cannot find her. But a big yes for her being in Detective Comics, and Batwing.
#3 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
@Nefilim927:  I've said from the beginning diversity for the sake of diversity is a failure. Now, after reading both issues, I agree with you very much. While Miles -so far- feels flat and like nothing more than a token character of "diversity," David's character simply blew me away. I cannot remember the last time I was introduced to a brand new character and felt such a connection to him. I felt that he was a real character in a real world. He has real motivations, a real story to tell. He has far more purpose than just being a "black Batman." I am incredibly excited to see David's history, and to see where he goes as Batwing.
Also, wasn't it simply gut wrenching when:
#4 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
@GundamHeavyarms said:
@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. 

Well said. A real problem shows up when Marvel/DC then buy into this sensationalist attitude and market in that way.

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.

My fingers are crossed.
#5 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmm. So it sounds like you're more upset about how this book is being marketed than with the book itself. Is that fair? 

Correct, sir.

  • "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.

    #6 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
    @Osiris1428: Then you are missing where I said I'm still reading the books, and hoping they are good. Batwoman is doing well, the books are good because she is MORE than just a lesbian. She is a well rounded character who evolves and is placed in some great stories. My worry is that when characters are created simply for the sake of diversity they never grow to be anything more than their diversifying (and sometimes stereotypical) qualities. You keep assuming I'm against non-white characters. This simply isn't true. I'm against 2D characters that never evolve and are given lousy stories.
    In an article on IGN concerning the new Spider-man move:

    "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.

    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. 
    What I meant by the preaching is that, why can't we be introduced to the character? Why are they only identified by the qualities above? It doesn't make me excited to read the books. And you yourself mentioned they focused on diversity in the Winick interview, and it was after seeing that interview that I became a tad frustrated that this was the seemingly defining characteristic of the book. Isn't it just as insulting to say we should like this hero not because he is a bastion of good, and justice, because he fights evil, because he is moral character, and a fantastic role model, but we should like him simply because he reflects our skin tone?
    Hell, the only thing IGN really says about the move is:  

      "The character is new and represents a clear step towards further diversifying superhero comics"  

    #7 Edited by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
    @fodigg: First, I want to thank you for replying to me in an intelligent, non-aggressive manner. 
    While I think we may have to disagree on some points, you are making one key mistake, which is perhaps my failure to correctly articulate. Where we disagree is that I don't think a serial plot, and a superhero plot, can really succeed when it's only motivation is to introduce "diversity" for that simple reason. As I stated before, it's patronizing. My qualm isn't with creating a pantheon of unique heroes, but the way in which it can be handled.
    Most importantly, my frustration isn't with the existence of Batwing, the setting, or plot. My irritation is with the way these characters have been introduced to us. That the concept of diversity is all that legitimizes these heroes. The concept of diversity is all that sanctions them. We cannot talk about all those interesting and unique points of the book without first marking this character as a product of political correctness. First, DC must let you know that if you don't like the character you are against diversity and, with society's implications a racist. In this context, my argument isn't near contradictory. What I ask, is that if this book is more than an insulting, "look Batman is black" and an actual a gaze into an interesting part of the world from a unique point of view, let it stand on those merits. 
    I think this is also seen when, as you said, people start with the idea to make a diverse character just to be diverse. Generally those characters never move beyond that diversity. Sure, that isn't the result 100% of the time, but we must admit most of the time this is the case. The character is nothing more than their "diverse" quality, the message becomes ham-fisted and the story suffers. I feel your point of Othello is a good one, in that it answers your question. But to clarify; had Shakespeare written a letter stating his fascination with the moors, the region, and culture,  and his desire to explore a tale from a moor's point of view, it would change nothing for me. But wouldn't it cheapen the legacy of the mastery of tales such as Othello had they not been allowed to stand on their own merits?  
    And this statement is exactly echoing what I feel. Diversity for diversity's sake implies there isn't solid foundation for the character, but that it is there for quotas and back patting. Cheers.

    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.

    #8 Edited by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
    @Osiris1428 said:

    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?

    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! :) )
    From much of what I've read people aren't upset by the fact that the new Spider-man isn't white, but they are upset at the thought that Marvel thinks people are so easily manipulated. That waving diversity for diversity's sake makes us applaud them, even if their stories are crap. People are insulted at this patronizing way the characters are introduced to us. I will quote something I said before: 

    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.

    Nobody wants to be lectured, or to be the object of heavy-handed preaching. And these introductions to these characters are just that. It cheapens the character. It makes the audience feel like they cannot stand on their own merits. That they are not quality characters themselves and must be subsidized by the "white guilt" that is perpetuated today. An act which is just as wrong as any other.
    When is diversity fine? Well, always. But the point is having it contribute something to the story. Let the story lead itself. Let the characters grow and their diversity be a byproduct, not the nexus. Had our introductions to these characters not been "this is new diversity, and if you don't like it you're racist" and Marvel/DC had simply allow the story to be told without the ham-fisted preaching to the politically correct gods, I doubt we'd have so many negative reactions.
    I'm picking up the titles. I'm still optimistic about them as well. Remember, I think it was the preachy, high-horse,  ham-fisted introduction to the characters over the racial qualities of the character's themselves. Perhaps this kind of reaction will dissipate when companies make such a big deal about them being diverse, and let what happens in a story happen. Maybe they should focus on telling great tales, even if the protagonist stays white, becomes black, is a woman, etc. A great story and beautiful art needs no excusing or preemption.
    #9 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio
    @Godot: Then you are even more ignorant that your post lets on. "White privileged" is the farthest thing one would use to describe my life and assumes a hell of a lot. Further, that is an ignorant phrase used when people cannot intelligently discuss what can be a volatile topic. I hinted at no racism. Diversity is often a buzzword used to apply some kind of "street cred", or appease the PC crowd at the cost of quality. To this effect I do call it the "dreaded D-word" as it is often a harbinger of degraded quality, and heavy-handed preaching. It causes a pigeon-holing of the property that usually winds up as supercilious tripe. 
    Where in my post did I even hint at racism or "white privilege" when discussing diversity for diversity's sake? Was it where I defended the target minority group (of whom I could be a part of by the way) by saying that it is patronizing and an insult to the intelligence of readers? Or how about when I said that I would be reading the two books mentioned, and with optimism, only wishing they would let the stories do the talking for themselves instead of trying to induce some pathetic form of politically correct guilt upon their market? If they decided to have a white dude take up Black Panther's mantle, and in their selling of the idea tried to some crap about diversifying the hero, I'd feel just as annoyed.
    #10 Posted by MydLyfeCrysis (106 posts) - - Show Bio

    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.