Firestorm votes Democratic!

[PaulTiberius]

I found the first three pages of obvious anti-Bush rhetoric in the most recent issue of Firestorm to be over the top. I don't expect comic creators to keep all their personal politics out of their work, nor do I expect them all to agree with my own politics. But this issue had a campaign speech that was irrelevant to the plot, and just served, in my mind, to try to convince readers/voters how bad the present administration is, published four weeks before the election in our real world. It had nothing to do with what's actually going on in the DCU of late, it was all about Iraq, Katrina and Halliburton, without using those words.

Here's a quote:
Lorraine Reilly, Firestorm #30: When my father was young, they had a saying: “Never trust anyone over thirty.” It sounds silly – but it was a very serious response to the times. Back then, a group of older men had a stranglehold on the federal government. …

Today, a new group of men controls all the branches of the federal government. Men of power. … They lie to us about weapons of mass destruction. They ruin crucial government agencies with shameless cronyism, then watch as our cities flood and die. They preach morality while they steal our jobs and bankrupt our future, little by little – all the while grabbing more and more money for themselves.

I don't think this is what I pay for in a comic. At least make the political elements relevant to the story, and true to the history of the imaginary world.

Stuart Moore might as well have just replaced this scene with a blank page that said:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Democrats four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”

[Nstar83]

Get Over it, comics are a great every average joe to vent such frustrations, which i have no doubt alot of readers agree with.There are alot of politics going on in the firestorm book so it was apropriate given the characters involved.I think your only complaining because your conservative an disagree with what he said thru the comic he was using as his soap box, everyones entitled to thier opnion an allowed to express it, that includes in art such as comics.

[Peter M.]

You might not have noticed this, but she is a Democrat Senator and apparently it is election season in the DCU given the events in Freedom Fighters.

As for her complaints, they are hardly exclusively to Republicans, Democrats have a far longer and sordid history of corruption and incompetence. In fact those responsible for the disaster in NOLA were all Democrats, it's just that they and their allies in the MSM would rather have us concentrate on Mark Foley than Harry Reid's land deals and the incompetence of Nagin and Blanco.

[Petertime]

Hey, not sure what exactly to say, but I felt a need to respond.

I agree the stuff in a comic should pertain to the comic, both the short and long term story. Not having read that issue, I can't comment on that other then to say, if you say it had nothing to do with the story I believe you.

That said, I understand sometimes people need to make statements when they feel very strongly about something. I know if I lived in the U.S. I'd be pretty vocal with my views on your current administration. Maybe the writer just felt he had to make a point, and took this opportunity while he could. I can totally understand that.

Then again, he should have worked harder to make it fit the story.

[nuclearman]

I haven't read the issue yet ... so I'll reserve judgement.. I haven't found any of SM's stories so far to be politically motivated.

[PaulTiberius]

Then again, he should have worked harder to make it fit the story.

Yeah, that's about the gist of it for me. Obviously, I hate the statement on its face, because I am a Republican and this is just all the liberal talking points shoved out on the page. But I don't really have the right to complain about MY politics not being represented. The author can do what he wants, and I will either take it or leave it.

But I think it is legitimate to note how blatant it all was, how utterly irrelevant it was to this particular issue, and how it's quite convenient that this soap box was inserted into the last issue to hit the stands before the election.

It's presentation in the comic was just so pompous, and the art ridiculously solemn. I scanned a couple of panels for my blog, with my cruddy scanner, by the way.

[PaulTiberius]

I haven't read the issue yet ... so I'll reserve judgement.. I haven't found any of SM's stories so far to be politically motivated.

Yeah, neither have I. That's what made this issue so bizarre to me, and probably heightened my sense that it didn't belong. I have trusted Stuart Moore to provide just good old super-hero fun, and have never felt I needed to brace myself going into his comic to be ready for my political perspective to be mocked or insulted or pointed out as "wrong."

It certainly seems out of character for the author.

[Ontir]

I found the first three pages of obvious anti-Bush rhetoric in the most recent issue of Firestorm to be over the top. I don't expect comic creators to keep all their personal politics out of their work, nor do I expect them all to agree with my own politics. But this issue had a campaign speech that was irrelevant to the plot, and just served, in my mind, to try to convince readers/voters how bad the present administration is, published four weeks before the election in our real world. It had nothing to do with what's actually going on in the DCU of late, it was all about Iraq, Katrina and Halliburton, without using those words.

Here's a quote:


I don't think this is what I pay for in a comic. At least make the political elements relevant to the story, and true to the history of the imaginary world.

Stuart Moore might as well have just replaced this scene with a blank page that said:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Democrats four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”

Comics have ALWAYS reflected the societal and politcal realities of their creators. Superman and Batman were a direct repsonse to the violence, and political corruption of the prohibition era. Wonder Woman and Captain America represented a shift in perspective as war was upon us. While the sequence you take issue with might not pertain to the specific issue in which it appears, it may well be part of a larger statement or arc. If, however, you find it's too much, don't buy it.

[Damo]

Wow. A comic character with political views. Scandalous.

*Goes to read Green Arrow. Or maybe Cereberus the Aardvark? Then again, Kingdom Come is good... hopefully good enough to tide things over until Batman vs. Osama bin Ladin comes out...*

[Bradley]

I haven't read the issue in question, but I think it might be worthwhile to point out that way back when I was a kid and Firestorm was written by Gerry Conway and drawn by Pat Broderick, there were frequent instances of conservative rhetoric slipped into the comic book. Ronnie, of course, constantly reminded the reader that protesting the Hudson nuclear plant was a "stupid thing" he had done. The first villain Firestorm fought in his second series was the Black Bison, a Native American character whose villainy was caused by his hysterical anger towards the white man. The second Hyena was a foreign-born doctor who became hysterically angry over being made to start his medical training from square one once he arrived in America. Killer Frost was a meek, mousy wallflower who became hysterically angry because she felt she was overlooked by men.

And look at issue #3, we see a "looney liberal" judge yell at a prosecutor that he's violating Killer Frost's civil rights by keeping her enclosed in a chamber that nullified her cold powers, and orders that she be freed. Naturally, Killer Frost takes advantage and goes on to freeze all of New York, all because of some leftwing wacko activist judge. And just to make sure we get the point, the caption tells us that the judge was appointed during the "last days of previous [Carter] administration."

The funny thing is, I'm a huge, huge liberal. Like, to the left of Karl Marx. And I absolutely love Firestorm-- particularly Gerry Conway's version of the character. Sure, I tend to roll my eyes at the parts that I find insensitive or overtly political, but I can overlook them because... Well, I thought Firestorm was awesome when I was a kid, and I think he's awesome now. Conway being a Reagan Republican didn't make the story arc where Firestorm was infected with the Hyena virus any less awesome.

Now, if you generally don't like Stuart Moore's work on the character, that's fine. I tend to think the book is one of the best on the stands today, but your mileage may vary. However, if you tend to like the book, don't let the fact that one character is a Democrat and expresses the beliefs that you suspect Moore holds to detract from your enjoyment of the book. Surely, you can tolerate other people's political opinions without actually having to subscribe to them yourself, right?

[PaulTiberius]

I haven't read the issue in question, but I think it might be worthwhile to point out that way back when I was a kid and Firestorm was written by Gerry Conway and drawn by Pat Broderick, there were frequent instances of conservative rhetoric slipped into the comic book.

Thanks, Bradley, for all of this. I had no idea! I've only ever read a few of the classic issues.


The funny thing is, I'm a huge, huge liberal. Like, to the left of Karl Marx. And I absolutely love Firestorm-- particularly Gerry Conway's version of the character. Sure, I tend to roll my eyes at the parts that I find insensitive or overtly political, but I can overlook them because... Well, I thought Firestorm was awesome when I was a kid, and I think he's awesome now. Conway being a Reagan Republican didn't make the story arc where Firestorm was infected with the Hyena virus any less awesome.

Then we are fellow travelers of a sort. All the liberal agendas (if I can use that phrase) in modern comics still don't make me quit them. I love the genre!


Now, if you generally don't like Stuart Moore's work on the character, that's fine. I tend to think the book is one of the best on the stands today, but your mileage may vary. However, if you tend to like the book, don't let the fact that one character is a Democrat and expresses the beliefs that you suspect Moore holds to detract from your enjoyment of the book. Surely, you can tolerate other people's political opinions without actually having to subscribe to them yourself, right?

You are absolutely right. And I actually explored precisely this question in much more detail on my blog (shameless plug, click link in sig). I just didn't want to put the whole thing in a post and scare away anyone with its sheer length. But there are pretty pictures with my blog, so it's an easier read. Check it out. :)

I do plan to keep reading Firestorm, at least for a while. The only book I've ever dropped for primarily political/worldview reasons was Uncle Sam & the Freedom Fighters. But as a rule, I'm not the boycotting type.

[PaulTiberius]

Comics have ALWAYS reflected the societal and politcal realities of their creators. Superman and Batman were a direct repsonse to the violence, and political corruption of the prohibition era. Wonder Woman and Captain America represented a shift in perspective as war was upon us. While the sequence you take issue with might not pertain to the specific issue in which it appears, it may well be part of a larger statement or arc. If, however, you find it's too much, don't buy it.

And I want meaty, thought-provoking writing, which includes political content. No question.

While I personally disagree (vociferously) with the political view spouted in this particular issue, what really ticked me off was the way it intruded on the story for no reason, the way it played off real-world politics instead of DCU politics, and the irrelevance of its content to the theme of the ongoing story arc.

Candidates Kelly and Creed, in the X-Men mythos, definitely came across as political commentary on the times in which their characters were featured, in ways I, as a Conservative, probably would have found somewhat unfair. But they had the virtue of being relevant to what was going on in the story, so while I might utterly disagree with the writers' worldviews, I could at least accept that the characters and their messages were organically integrated into the stories and served a deliberate purpose ... beyond a shameless attempt to persuade readers to vote in a certain way four weeks from the publication date.

[Ontir]

There actually are Republicans/Conservatives who believe a good deal of what you attribute to liberals in this Firestorm issue. In general, I think "Liberal Agenda" is a load of manure. The words "liberal," conservative," "Republican," "Democrat," Democracy," & "Communism" are now entirely bereft of real meaning, merely slogans thrown at the opposing side, with no more accuracy than "X" or "O."

It seems to me, that one ought to expect a certain amount of controversy from a title called Firestorm, though. Re-reading the quote, I can't find anything that's even questionable, let alone objectionable - except the "never trust anyone over 30." I'm 40, and highly trust-worthy.

[Rik Levins]

...I can't find anything that's even questionable, let alone objectionable - except the "never trust anyone over 30." I'm 40, and highly trust-worthy.

All of the people who used to say that are members of my generation, and therefore crossed the threshold to untrustworthiness decades ago.

[Hulkamaniac]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ofcourse, but to complain about how an artist or writer created their work is just silly. Were you the guy yelling at Streisand at her performance for adding her two cents intoa comedy skit during her own production? I recomend staying away from sci-fi , comic books, cartoons and the "liberal media" if i were you. let me ask you a question , did you hate Robocop because he's a take on the evils of privatization? Dont ever read Grean Arrow or most of the "liberal" characters written by mostly "liberal" writers or creators. You must be torn when reading Civil War, better off just buying Iron Man comics or somthin;)
Look everyone has their "soapbox" , Moore happens to have a much bigger one than your blog when it comes to his readership and his paycheck :p
If you dont like the message then dont buy the comic, its that simple, everyone has dropped titles now and again, why should this be any different? ANd dont give me that, "He has defiled my beloved firestorm!", get over it, I can't remember how many times my beloved characters have been mutilated or killed off, bad writing, art whatever. If these political and social issues bother you so much maybe you should write your own "conservative" comic book:D

PS. your title is misleading, not all "liberals" are Democrats, no matter how much Republicans chant such a mantra.

[StrikeForce Albert]

you must really not like Civil War then

[PaulTiberius]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ofcourse, but to complain about how an artist or writer created their work is just silly.

You're reading too much into my complaint (referring the bulk of your post, which I have not copied here). And while I don't expect everyone to read my blog, I will just say some of the things you bring up in your questioning here are things I freely admit to, and did so on my blog. I.e., I recognize I don't have a legitimate right to complain ONLY about the content of someone's politics.

And this statement you began with, that complaining about "how" an artist created their work is "just silly" ... you don't seriously believe that, do you?

[PaulTiberius]

you must really not like Civil War then

Heh heh. Read my blog.

What you'll find is that, again, what I "don't like" about Civil War is certainly tied into the content of the authors' apparent political worldview, but is most significantly related to my view that they are failing to present the dilemma in an illuminating way.

I'll read the most hard-core leftist moralizing with an open mind and try to get something out of it if it's in the context of a well-integrated, powerful work of art.

[Hulkamaniac]

And this statement you began with, that complaining about "how" an artist created their work is "just silly" ... you don't seriously believe that, do you?

sure do, look its not like the artists work is gospel. Everyone should know that an artist is human, and as such they will have certain ideas and such due to their life experience and/or view. What one has to do is understand what the context of such "art" is and its "message", why such idaes are portrayed and come to your own conclusions based on your own life experience and understanding of the world and whatnot. Not everyone is on the same page and there are reasons for that. To ignore those reasons and to asign your "morals" upon them is the wrong approach. we all should agree to disagree but that doesnt mean that we will like it or the other persons view. Art, music, literature, they all share this same attribute, and if one does not like the message one only has to look away or not proscribe to that ideaology. So it is silly to complain about "art" its just that, art! not law or dogma, just art, its has a message and you can either like it or not, its not that big of a deal. Its impact is only as much as you give to it. so yeah, complaining actually works against you in this case, it just helps to publicize the art and message that you are complaining about.

[Sean Walsh]

Comics have ALWAYS reflected the societal and politcal realities of their creators. Superman and Batman were a direct repsonse to the violence, and political corruption of the prohibition era. Wonder Woman and Captain America represented a shift in perspective as war was upon us. While the sequence you take issue with might not pertain to the specific issue in which it appears, it may well be part of a larger statement or arc. If, however, you find it's too much, don't buy it.

Yeah, but in those instances the writers and artists created stories and entire characters that would reflect those opinions in roundabout (or more direct than that) ways. This sounds like it was just ham-handedly put into the book as a speech unrelated to the rest of the plot and story.

Why should readers who like a character be told "Don't buy this" because it contains some overt political statement some folks may not agree with that's got little to do with the character's origins and personality?

[Leebenhouse]

Well, I've got to say, that all things considered, I think I agree with 95% of her anti-Republican party sentiments, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they're pro-Democrat. Sometimes you can be your own person, neither Democrat or Republican, but the system of this country makes you chose between one of the two crappy crappy parties if you want any of your views represented. And of course it's pretty damn hard to be a Republican unless you believe in ALL the views of the party.

For all you know, she could be a Libertarian.

And I would expect politics to come into play in a comic about a nuclear powered superhero. I mean, that's the whole reason Firestorm exists, that radical anti-nuclear protestors tried to blow up a plant.

[Loren]

Politics can make for good comics, if done right. A good illustration of the right way and wrong way to do it can be found in Joe Kelly's JLA run.

JLA #78-79 is a Kanjar Ro two-parter involving the team going to an alien planet, and having to decide how they should respond to what they find. It's a parallel to the US's relationship with Iraq prior to the war, and it's a rather excellent story. Possibly the best of Kelly's run.

JLA #83, on the other hand, is arguably the worst of Kelly's run. It takes the same inspiration from the US-Iraq buildup, but otherwise it basically just casts Lex as Bush and the JLA as Kelly's idealized Democrats, and sets the whole thing in a middle-eastern stand-in for Iraq. It doesn't read like a JLA story; it reads like an editorial on Iraq, with the JLA glommed onto it.

The Firehawk quote shared in the first post seems to fall more into this latter category. Read it again:

"Today, a new group of men controls all the branches of the federal government. Men of power. … They lie to us about weapons of mass destruction. They ruin crucial government agencies with shameless cronyism, then watch as our cities flood and die. They preach morality while they steal our jobs and bankrupt our future, little by little – all the while grabbing more and more money for themselves."

Now does that sound like something that would be spoken by a DCU denizen? Or does it sound like a left-wing speech about real-world politicians, inserted into the mouth of a DCU character? Does the DCU have a single group controlling all the branches? What "weapons of mass destruction" is she talking about? And the only city that flooded in the DCU is Sub Diego, which seems an odd thing to blame the feds for.

Similarly, it would be equally out of place for a conservative DCU character to up and give a speech about 9/11 and illegal immigration and tax cuts. It pulls the reader out of the narrative, and comes across as artificial.

[Rhydaman]

It certainly seems out of character for the author.
But it's in character for Loraine Reilly. Who is, after all, a Democrat senator, so you'd expect her to say that sort of thing.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Jason yawning every now and then when she gets started.

[Hulkamaniac]

Why should readers who like a character be told "Don't buy this" because it contains some overt political statement some folks may not agree with that's got little to do with the character's origins and personality?

1. because they are not the ones writing it nor own the rights to it or anything that would give them the power to do anything about it, sry, like i said write your own stuff if you want to spread your view of somthing.

2. there are many character reasons that may explain these statements. like mentioned b4 ,

You might not have noticed this, but she is a Democrat Senator and apparently it is election season in the DCU given the events in Freedom Fighters.

. among other reasons, (maybe since he is an african -american character he has some harsh feelings on Katrina?)

[Bradley]

Yeah, but in those instances the writers and artists created stories and entire characters that would reflect those opinions in roundabout (or more direct than that) ways. This sounds like it was just ham-handedly put into the book as a speech unrelated to the rest of the plot and story.


It seems to me that this reflection could fall under the category of "characterization work," though. She's a Democrat, after all. And Moore seems to be establishing her as a pretty independent-minded, left-wing kinda Democrat (as opposed to many of her fellow Democrats currently serving in both houses of Congress).

I'm reminded of the scene from Daredevil: Born Again, when Miller has Captain America briefly reflecting on why the flag is so important to him. I don't share Captain America's reverence for the flag, but I thought it made sense for him to feel the way he did, given his history. If my response, as a liberal, had been to toss the book aside and complain about the "jingoistic flag-worship," I think you'd probably point out (quite correctly), that I missed the point entirely. Characters can-- and probably should-- have political views. It makes them resonate a bit more deeply.

Now if, on the other hand, Firestorm spends the next issue fighting a new villain called the Supplysider, who gains his energy from the minimum-wage workers he exploits and the gay teenagers he kills... Well, then I think you'd have a pretty compelling argument that the book is going overboard with a political agenda.

[Ontir]

Yeah, but in those instances the writers and artists created stories and entire characters that would reflect those opinions in roundabout (or more direct than that) ways. This sounds like it was just ham-handedly put into the book as a speech unrelated to the rest of the plot and story.

Why should readers who like a character be told "Don't buy this" because it contains some overt political statement some folks may not agree with that's got little to do with the character's origins and personality?

That may well be. If it's just a rant by the writer, it'll be one issue that Paultiberius doesn't like. On the other hand, it could be the beginning of a major character arc. I didn't say not to buy a book because it has political content. I said if the content is something you can't deal with, don't buy it, which is a way of letting TPTB know, that they're alienating the readership.

[titanfan]

They lie to us about weapons of mass destruction.

This was the only thing I don't think fits in the DCU. I agree it wasn't necessary.

Given how SCREWED UP, the DCU political landscape has been the past few years, there are like dozens of other things that Lorraine could have mentioned that would make more sense.

Bludhaven got Chemo'd, Star City is in shambles, a former ex-President (Luthor) did all sort of corrupt crap, foreign relations with several countries (Kandahq, China, etc.) have broken down.

Would it even be possible/realistic for a government to lie about weapons of mass destruction in the DCU? All it would take would be a Superman fly by from space.

[Stuart Moore]

Cool debate! For my take on this, go here:

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000094565&tstart=0

or here:

http://www.comicbloc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36890

Best,
Stuart

[Hulkamaniac]

thanks for the links and the info Stuart, tee hee:D

[PaulTiberius]

Cool debate! For my take on this, go here:

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000094565&tstart=0

or here:

http://www.comicbloc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36890

Best,
Stuart

Stuart, thanks so much for dropping by! I hope you'll stay around and wrangle this with us. What can you say about this main complaint of mine, that what the first few pages did was present a specific line of political opinions that didn't resemble much the DCU, and was clearly a point-for-point real-world political speech?

Aside from my personal disagreement with the specifics of those politics, it was just totally inconsistent with the fictional world. It seemed you deliberately stepped out of the environment and put the story on hold so you could put forward your politics.

Honestly, I found this approach to be as illegitimate as having Batman stop in the middle of a fight, turn to the reader, and say, "By the way, kids, don't do drugs and stay in school."

It just has no place if you are at all concerned with maintaining an internal integrity and consistency of the story. There were far more interesting ways you could have established the backstory of her campaign and the passion of her ideological perspective.

And again, while I'm personally of a diametrically opposite political perspective to what was said in Lorraine's speech, I'm really more interested in talking about the best way to creatively present politics in a way that's doesn't seem ridiculously out of place.

[PaulTiberius]

So it is silly to complain about "art" its just that, art! not law or dogma, just art, its has a message and you can either like it or not, its not that big of a deal. Its impact is only as much as you give to it. so yeah, complaining actually works against you in this case, it just helps to publicize the art and message that you are complaining about.

Hulkster (may I call you that?), I understand your point and can appreciate where you're coming from. But art criticism -- and its lower form, the review, which I do as a hobby both on my blog and at SilverBulletComicBooks (http://www.SilverBulletComicBooks.com) -- relies upon the principle that there are some standards we can often apply in deciding whether a piece of art is "good" or not ... or whether, at least, it lives up to the standards of quality fans expect from the artist.

While I understand your overall point, the art is probably best viewed as an utterly subjective endeavor, I can't really get behind the idea that it's never worth pointing out art's failings.

[PaulTiberius]

But it's in character for Loraine Reilly. Who is, after all, a Democrat senator, so you'd expect her to say that sort of thing.

But she's also a citizen of the DCU, and so I WOULDN'T expect her to say things clearly responding to real-world specific events.

[PaulTiberius]

(maybe since he is an african -american character he has some harsh feelings on Katrina?)

For what it's worth, if you Google "race katrina victims," you find some articles reporting that fewer than half of the Katrina fatalities were black.

Can't vouch for this research, since both articles I looked over were written in Dec. 2005, and both were carried on conservative-leaning news sites. The stats could have changed with additional information over the past year.

Just saying.

[PaulTiberius]

I'm reminded of the scene from Daredevil: Born Again, when Miller has Captain America briefly reflecting on why the flag is so important to him. I don't share Captain America's reverence for the flag, but I thought it made sense for him to feel the way he did, given his history. If my response, as a liberal, had been to toss the book aside and complain about the "jingoistic flag-worship," I think you'd probably point out (quite correctly), that I missed the point entirely. Characters can-- and probably should-- have political views. It makes them resonate a bit more deeply.

A decent point you have, but it's not perfectly parallel. Reference to the value of the American flag -- even in jingoistic fashion -- is a fairly general topic that could fit in any fictional context that included a United States of America. But Moore wrote a page of dialogue that made unmistakeably obvious references to Iraq, Katrina and Halliburton. These are highly specific things that work against any larger point of fleshing out the character's views, because these specific things didn't happen in the fictional world of the character. All they really do, in my opinion, is present the author's views in a blunt, disruptive way.

And again, I don't claim to have any legitimate right to gripe at the political perspective on display just because it's opposite to my own. I think I do have a legitimate, objective complaint that this speech was as organic to the context of the story as a public service announcement.

And now I'm repeating myself. :)

[DonC]

Stuart Moore might as well have just replaced this scene with a blank page that said:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Democrats four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”


Would you have complained if it was:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Republicans four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”

[PaulTiberius]

Would you have complained if it was:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Republicans four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”

No. I think that's exactly what all comics need.

(would you like gravy with that sarcasm?)

:D

[bird]

i demand a comic book with ayn rand vs karl marx. both as superheros! or ann coulter vs michael moore. perhaps a super team match up of air america vs fox news celebs! i wouldn't mind seeing al frankin and rush limbaugh in super hero tights(i know he's not actually on fox news as a host and al and bill are more "arch enemies", but he should be added in just for bad taste).

ralph nader and pat buchanan as a duo would be great!!

viva la revolucion comrads

[Rhydaman]

But she's also a citizen of the DCU, and so I WOULDN'T expect her to say things clearly responding to real-world specific events.
Well, the Katrina reference could also be about Star City. I agree that the WMD reference is more of a stretch, but could it be to Captain Atom's incarceration in, and subsequent explosion over, Bludhaven?

DC should give No Prizes.

[Stuart Moore]

Stuart, thanks so much for dropping by! I hope you'll stay around and wrangle this with us. What can you say about this main complaint of mine, that what the first few pages did was present a specific line of political opinions that didn't resemble much the DCU, and was clearly a point-for-point real-world political speech?

Aside from my personal disagreement with the specifics of those politics, it was just totally inconsistent with the fictional world. It seemed you deliberately stepped out of the environment and put the story on hold so you could put forward your politics.

I actually think I covered this in my "podcast" (which isn't really a podcast at all)...there are two distinct reasons why this speech ties directly into the story. Both will become clearer next issue; one of them in particular, regarding Jason, I don't want to discuss yet at all.

Regarding the real world vs. the DCU: This is just my take on things, but to me the DCU is the real world except where specific events differ. In one of your other messages, you say that Iraq and Halliburton didn't happen in the DCU; I don't think that's been established, and I don't subscribe to that interpretation. To me, the farther superhero comics stray into their own little pocket universes, the less interesting and relevant they are. And the stakes in this universe, right now, are too high, the situation in this country too dire, not to use that universe for some good if I can.

If it fits the story...which, as discussed in the link, I think it does. Dramatizing political concerns is very tricky, yes -- there are a thousand right ways to do it and probably ten thousand wrong ones. Each reader will have to decide for him/herself, especially in times as touchy as these.

I appreciate the debate and the general level of civility, but I probably won't reply further...I really kind of said my piece in the podcast. Thanks.

Best,
Stuart

[cactusmaac]

You'd think comic book writers would have the sense to leave the soapboxing on their blogs instead of shoehorning them into WFH assignments.

[Hulkamaniac]

Hulkster (may I call you that?),

While I understand your overall point, the art is probably best viewed as an utterly subjective endeavor, I can't really get behind the idea that it's never worth pointing out art's failings.

yes you may:D
and I would see your point if it was hurtful or attacking someone, or put someone in danger , but what your attempting to do is legitimize your oppossite view by simply complaining about how a guy wrote his view within his creative work. I see you don't even like his totally great explanation as to how it fits into his past writing and the characters and story. you simply are attacking his creative work because you don't agree with the message, I know you go to great lengths to dispute this but its really what you are doing. If you have legit creative criticism then fine, but you are weak on that front and strong on your obejection to the message of the art, so again if you dont like it dont buy it, look at it whatever. your "talent" for being a critic also must be tempered and not to use your "powers" as a pulpit much like you are accusing the writer. do you blaim public policy for the pitfalls of modern society or do you blaim Ludicris?
like I said agree to disagree :D

For what it's worth, if you Google "race katrina victims," you find some articles reporting that fewer than half of the Katrina fatalities were black.

Can't vouch for this research, since both articles I looked over were written in Dec. 2005, and both were carried on conservative-leaning news sites. The stats could have changed with additional information over the past year.

Just saying.


Oh and that Katrina tidbit you happened to comment on: please, are you really O'Reilly or somthin? cuz thats just plain misleading. your stat may be accurate but it overlooks the fact that more blacks were left to fend for themselves at the Dome and other parts of the city, in disproportion to the white victims. plus it also overlooks the after affect, like that many poor black neighborhoods are not being rebuilt and are neglected by the Federal aide they deserve and/or state aide. its more important to build the casinos than the old neighborhoods apparently. FEMA trailer anyone?

[Bradley]

You'd think comic book writers would have the sense to leave the soapboxing on their blogs instead of shoehorning them into WFH assignments.


Well, as the great George Orwell noted in "Why I Write," there are four motives for writing-- Sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. Most of the time, it seems to me, a given writer-- even a writer of work-for-hire comic books-- will be influenced by all four motives. "The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics," Orwell noted, "is itself a political attitude." Furthermore, Orwell tells us that it's impossible not to let politics influence writing. "It seems to me nonsense," he wrote, "in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which sideone takes and what approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one's political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one's aesthetic and intellectual integrity."

In other words, I'll take a book written by Stuart Moore or Gerry Conway-- two men who are conscious of their political views and the impact those views have on their art-- over a book written by someone who thinks he's being "fair and balanced" by deluding himself into thinking that his art is apolitical.

[cactusmaac]

Personally I'd take a book written by Kurt Busiek - a man who has very little fondness for Bush but possesses the sense not to make lame potshots at politicians he dislikes in his corporate work.

The comparison to Orwell is asinine. He was doing his own material on his own dime and was a scrupulously fair writer.


If the scene also suggests a particular way of looking at what’s happened to this country -- a constantly-renewing cabal of old men who always want to tell you what to do, at the cost of any and all morality and civil liberties -- then so much the better. Especially this close to election day.

Yeah, that description of the US political scene belongs up there with 1984 and Homage To Catalonia.

Judging from Moore's post at the DC boards he was acting out of the first reason and not the fourth.

[Bradley]

The comparison to Orwell is asinine. He was doing his own material on his own dime and was a scrupulously fair writer.

Re-read my post. I didn't compare Moore to Orwell. I used Orwell's ideas about writing to defend Moore's writing. Now, you may feel that Orwell's ideas about writing are asinine, and we can argue about that. But at no point did I say "Stuart Moore is as good/ambitious/noteworthy/etc. as George Orwell." So please, I'll thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth and then calling them asinine.

[cactusmaac]

If you're going to use Orwell's ideas to justify Moore's writing, you need to compare the kind of writing that Orwell did to Moore's. Quality's a separate issue.

[Bradley]

If you're going to use Orwell's ideas to justify Moore's writing, you need to compare the kind of writing that Orwell did to Moore's. Quality's a separate issue.

I disagree. Orwell said, "Everyone writes of them in one guise or another." That is to say, everyone who writes writes of these issues. Now, you could argue that Orwell was talking only about his contemporaries, or only about the issues of fascism and socialism that informed his own writing. But what you can't say is that Orwell is saying, "Only people who do the sort of writing I do write about these things."

And again, as Orwell says, art is inherently political. And to argue otherwise is still a political position.

[Ontir]

Cactus,

Dubya's "presidency" wouldn't be possible without the potshots that helped him eliminate qualified candidates in his own party (John McCain), let alone opposition (Ann Richards and John Kerry). If he's the target of some, it's merely sauce for the goose.

All writers put their political opinions into their work, some more nakedly than others; but their positions and beliefs make themselves known in many ways. I've not yet read Firestorm, so I can only comment to a point; but if it's just a one-off rant, connected to nothing other than the writer venting, that's wrong, and it should've been caught and amended by editorial. If, however, it's a part of a larger plot structure, it's valid.

[PaulTiberius]

Well, as the great George Orwell noted in "Why I Write," there are four motives for writing-- Sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. Most of the time, it seems to me, a given writer-- even a writer of work-for-hire comic books-- will be influenced by all four motives. "The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics," Orwell noted, "is itself a political attitude." Furthermore, Orwell tells us that it's impossible not to let politics influence writing. "It seems to me nonsense," he wrote, "in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which sideone takes and what approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one's political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one's aesthetic and intellectual integrity."

In other words, I'll take a book written by Stuart Moore or Gerry Conway-- two men who are conscious of their political views and the impact those views have on their art-- over a book written by someone who thinks he's being "fair and balanced" by deluding himself into thinking that his art is apolitical.

What fascinating material. Thank you!

[PaulTiberius]

I actually think I covered this in my "podcast" (which isn't really a podcast at all)...there are two distinct reasons why this speech ties directly into the story. Both will become clearer next issue; one of them in particular, regarding Jason, I don't want to discuss yet at all.

Regarding the real world vs. the DCU: This is just my take on things, but to me the DCU is the real world except where specific events differ. In one of your other messages, you say that Iraq and Halliburton didn't happen in the DCU; I don't think that's been established, and I don't subscribe to that interpretation. To me, the farther superhero comics stray into their own little pocket universes, the less interesting and relevant they are. And the stakes in this universe, right now, are too high, the situation in this country too dire, not to use that universe for some good if I can.

If it fits the story...which, as discussed in the link, I think it does. Dramatizing political concerns is very tricky, yes -- there are a thousand right ways to do it and probably ten thousand wrong ones. Each reader will have to decide for him/herself, especially in times as touchy as these.

I appreciate the debate and the general level of civility, but I probably won't reply further...I really kind of said my piece in the podcast. Thanks.

Best,
Stuart


Stuart, thanks so much for taking the time to explain your thinking on all this. I really do appreciate it!

Instead of dominating this thread with my thoughts any further, I've put up a run-down of what was said and some more of my own response on my blog, direct link here (http://comicglutton.blogspot.com/2006/10/stuart-moore-responds-to-glutton.html).

I'm glad so many people are getting something thought-provoking out of this thread. To continue being a shameless shill, I hope some of you will check out my blog, because, you know, it's got pretty pictures. :)

[Kurt Busiek]

Personally I'd take a book written by Kurt Busiek - a man who has very little fondness for Bush but possesses the sense not to make lame potshots at politicians he dislikes in his corporate work.

I think you're confusing "lack of interest" and "sense."

The subtext of your comment suggests that I think it's sensible to refrain from injecting political opinion into work-for-hire comics, because someone else owns them, and I completely disagree. There's been plenty of political opinion in work-for-hire comics over the decades, from Captain America smacking up Hitler almost a year before Pearl Harbor, to Stan Lee and Don Heck lampooning Khruschev, to Steve Englehart portraying Nixon as a costumed criminal, to various Iron Man writers portraying Iron Man's growing disillusionment and ultimate sickening over the Vietnam War, and on and on and on.

I don't have a problem with any of it. I don't put a lot of political opinion into the comics I write not because I think it's my responsibility to refrain, but because I'm simply not a very political writer. There's not a lot of overt political speechifying in ARROWSMITH and ASTRO CITY, either, and I own those. Though to be fair, ASTRO CITY has taken the bold step of suggesting Nixon was something of a political opportunist in recent issues, hardly a controversial position.

I'm simply more interested in character interaction involving other kinds of conflicts, so that's what I tend to write. But I have no problem writing Green Arrow bitching about big business and callous conservatives, and I wouldn't have any problem writing Lorraine Reilly as the Democrat she's been established to be.

I do, however, have a problem, with the idea that if a writer's doing something work-for-hire, he's under some obligation to refrain from informing the book with his ideas, whether those ideas are moral, political, social or whatever. William Goldman wrote ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN as a work for hire job, after all. And Stan wrote what he wrote, and Jack Kirby's ideas are all through his work, as are Englehart's and Ditko's and Kanigher's and Miller's and Claremont's and Moore's and Gaiman's and Dixon's and on and on through theirs.

Being on someone else's dime means they should get value for money, not inoffensiveness.

I've got strong political opinions, but they're not what I'm moved to write about. That doesn't mean that I think those who are moved to write about them should silence themselves. It just means that I'm interested in writing about other things, for the most part.

kdb

[Agentum]

More anti-Bush "propaganda" can only be good:D

I understand why some americans feels very strongly for or against your current goverment, they are so extreme.

You may not see it but it's even more common with pro-USA propaganda in your comics and has been since the begining.

It's a problem if you want the comics not reflecting real life at all, an all happy world or whatever.

If your books would say that your either with USA or against us i would throw them all out and stop buying them, but as long they just make you think yourself i don't see the problem with some real politics in them.

[Samurai]

How can "USA is good" be mind-numbing propaganda but "USA is evil" be "encouraging readers to think for themselves"? I think you may be attributing self-reflection to only the negative side because it matches your own beliefs, which you obviously consider to be well reasoned and independent of propaganda.

And despite what Hulkamaniac said, Paul has a very strong case against Stuart for discontinuity with the DC universe. As far as we know, none of the things Lorraine ranted about occured in the DC universe, which has fictional cities, fictional presidents and govt officials, etc. While there was the corrupt Luthor presidency, he was followed by Pete Ross, then a generally well-reguarded President Horne, who was assassinated, and now his VP Macklin has become President.

So, just who is Lorraine supposed to be talking about? Which of them lied about WMD's, and in which country were they supposed to be? Was that country invaded by the US military? What about the very real WMDs the JLA faced recently in JLA Classified, donated by many countries to General Tuzik? Those weren't a lie.

None of the last 3 Presidents spent long enough in office to perpetrate much "shameful cronyism", so was she complaining about the Luthor administration? That was quite a while ago now, why would she be running against/complaining about a President from 3 terms back? And which city flooded and died while the President did nothing? Sub Diego is the only one I know of.

They preach morality and steal our future? Again, who does she mean? It wasn't Ross or Horne, as far as I know, since neither had any real scandels that would make any morality speeches seem hypocritical, and Macklin is too new in office to have done anything yet, so is she again going back to Luthor? I don't recall him going on and on about morality, and it seems against his nature to do that, but even if he did, she's again complaining about a guy who was President 3 administrations ago. And none of the succeeding administrations have shown similar behavior, as far as I know.

[Agentum]

How can "USA is good" be mind-numbing propaganda but "USA is evil" be "encouraging readers to think for themselves"? I think you may be attributing self-reflection to only the negative side because it matches your own beliefs, which you obviously consider to be well reasoned and independent of propaganda.

.
No none of those is good if thats what the comic is wanting you to think.
But i have hard to believe that this comic tells that you should think USA is evil.

I dont like brainwashing propaganda at all, but i understand this is comics for americans so a little patriotism here and there doesn't put me off.

But if the book is trying to force a concept on me i don't like it, good or bad.
Mostly the writers is better than that so i don't have to agree with them to enjoy the story.

But if Bush was writing the comics i don't think they would be that subtle :D

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I don't really give a damn how much or how little political commentary is in a super-hero comic book as long as it makes for an entertaining story. Nor do I care whether I happen to agree with whatever political ideology the comic happens to be expressing.

Nobody would suggest Dark Knight Returns wasn't political and it was work for hire.

Nobody would suggest Civil War isn't political and it is most certainly work for hire.

Again, the only thing that matters is how good of a story it is.

[AllisterH]

In a way, I can see why a writer shouldn't be forced to muffle their political beliefs, yet at the same time, if it doesn't correspond to the universe they write in, it takes you out of the story.

Remember, 9-11 NEVER happened in the DCU as stated by Rucka et al so we wouldn't have Halibrutron, Iraq etc...

[Agentum]

Why didn't it happen?

To not let DCU be too real or what?

I mean the world is full of bad stuff happening and thousands of thosands dieing in as big diasters that they gets inspired by, but maybe 9-11 feels to close?

Not that i need it in any way.
I understand that it may be better to keep it more simple than the real world.

They have used Irac alot anyway but it's called Qurac or something.

[PaulTiberius]

I do, however, have a problem, with the idea that if a writer's doing something work-for-hire, he's under some obligation to refrain from informing the book with his ideas, whether those ideas are moral, political, social or whatever.

...

I've got strong political opinions, but they're not what I'm moved to write about. That doesn't mean that I think those who are moved to write about them should silence themselves. It just means that I'm interested in writing about other things, for the most part.

kdb

Cool, another creator jumps in!

I'll say I agree with Busiek's statement here. To my mind, none of the general (i.e., separate from my personal political perspective) complaints that can be offered in this involve the idea that just because you're writing characters you don't own, you have the responsibility to keep your views out of it.

Obviously, there will be a tighter editorial control over whether those views remain consistent with the legacy of the book.

[PaulTiberius]

And despite what Hulkamaniac said, Paul has a very strong case against Stuart for discontinuity with the DC universe. As far as we know, none of the things Lorraine ranted about occured in the DC universe, which has fictional cities, fictional presidents and govt officials, etc. While there was the corrupt Luthor presidency, he was followed by Pete Ross, then a generally well-reguarded President Horne, who was assassinated, and now his VP Macklin has become President.

Wait. When did Horne get assassinated?

And I'm not reading Uncle Sam (it's the only recent book I can think of that I dropped explicitly because of its political slant), but, according to the solicits, I thought the current president was named Knight?

[shaunyc56]

Here's a quote:


I don't think this is what I pay for in a comic. At least make the political elements relevant to the story, and true to the history of the imaginary world.

Stuart Moore might as well have just replaced this scene with a blank page that said:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Democrats four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”[/QUOTE]


Ummmm, Isn't Firehawk a politician, I mean she's a Democratic politician, putting her own spin on true events. Why is it when a comic character, has a different opinion from someone, everybody assumes that is the creators point of view. Also, are you also saying that there should be no politician characters in comics?

[AllisterH]

Why didn't it happen?

To not let DCU be too real or what?

I mean the world is full of bad stuff happening and thousands of thosands dieing in as big diasters that they gets inspired by, but maybe 9-11 feels to close?

Not that i need it in any way.
I understand that it may be better to keep it more simple than the real world.

They have used Irac alot anyway but it's called Qurac or something.

The sheer number of supers in the DCU really prevents something like that. Rucka basically acknowledged as such.

[Hulkamaniac]

And despite what Hulkamaniac said, Paul has a very strong case against Stuart for discontinuity with the DC universe. As far as we know, none of the things Lorraine ranted about occured in the DC universe, which has fictional cities, fictional presidents and govt officials, etc.



I think Stuart's links of his explanations, as stated b4, do explain alot, even if you don't like it. plus I really don't think its smart to base somthing on "As far as we know", there are alot of things that are reflected in the DC universe from real life and I think it's unfair to tell someone to ignore all that motivates or inspires a storyline or dialogue of ones own work.
I don't recall DC covering alot of history or culture, how do you explain the fashion or ideology or a myriad of things within the DCU. does it all have to be documented in the pages of a comic for it to be mentioned? theres alot to be answered based on your statements.

plus I really like what one of my personal fav writers had to say:



I've got strong political opinions, but they're not what I'm moved to write about. That doesn't mean that I think those who are moved to write about them should silence themselves. It just means that I'm interested in writing about other things, for the most part.

kdb

[Hulkamaniac]

Ummmm, Isn't Firehawk a politician, I mean she's a Democratic politician, putting her own spin on true events. Why is it when a comic character, has a different opinion from someone, everybody assumes that is the creators point of view. Also, are you also saying that there should be no politician characters in comics?

no, I think their objection is the particular type of politics being discussed, otherwise why is it such a big deal to see this type of writing within a comic book?:confused:

for the record , i'm done with this topic, theres nothing to be gained here. In the end this is a discussion about a few people wanting to basically censor comics to reflect what they are comfortable with. its actually kind of silly, this is acomic forum not a politics forum as I recall and I'm gonna stick to the comics. atleast i'm gonna try :)

[Bradley]

no, I think their objection is the particular type of politics being discussed, otherwise why is it such a big deal to see this type of writing within a comic book?:confused:

for the record , i'm done with this topic, theres nothing to be gained here. In the end this is a discussion about a few people wanting to basically censor comics to reflect what they are comfortable with. its actually kind of silly, this is acomic forum not a politics forum as I recall and I'm gonna stick to the comics. atleast i'm gonna try :)


Well, Orwell would say that's a political decision too...

In all seriousness, I wanted to point out that I think PaulTiberius, the guy who started this thread, has been remarkably cool as he's disagreed with some of us. He's got his opinion, and I've got mine, but it's nice to be a part of such a respectful exchange of ideas.

[Hulkamaniac]

In all seriousness, I wanted to point out that I think PaulTiberius, the guy who started this thread, has been remarkably cool as he's disagreed with some of us. He's got his opinion, and I've got mine, but it's nice to be a part of such a respectful exchange of ideas.


I agree, this has been a very nice discourse, thanks PAul, you actually got me back into a comic that I had been passing up for a few months.

[Agentum]

The sheer number of supers in the DCU really prevents something like that. Rucka basically acknowledged as such.
Ok, well i agree, it would be really hard to do the way it was done irl.

But there could have been magical components involved or whatever, well i think it's best this way.

[PastePotPete]

Riley is a hero in the book. There is a definite implication that her actions, including speeches that she gives, are heroic. Arguing that 'this is just the character's opinion' doesn't really completely hold water as an argument against someone who was offended by Riley's dialogue in that issue of Firestorm. Mr. Moore was definitely trying to get his views out there.

Good for him.

Who says comics can't be a forum for the writer's political views? Comics should be a forum for a writer's political, moral, sexual, spiritual, you-name-it views on anything. Some writers do it with more subtlety. Moore put it out there. Whatever works in the story. And that's the key, isn't it? Because sometimes these political messages DON'T work and put off readers.

Our argument should not be about whether the message was appropriate. This country has free speech. OF COURSE it was appropriate. Our argument should be about whether it was appropriate for the story.

She's a democratic senator. It fits her character. I think it was appropriate to the story.

Does it bother you that you like the comic but disagree with the writer's politics?

[PaulTiberius]

Here's a quote:


I don't think this is what I pay for in a comic. At least make the political elements relevant to the story, and true to the history of the imaginary world.

Stuart Moore might as well have just replaced this scene with a blank page that said:

“We interrupt regularly scheduled programming for the following announcement: Stuart Moore wishes to express his fondest hope that you will elect Democrats four weeks from now. We now return to Firestorm The Nuclear Man, already in progress.”


Ummmm, Isn't Firehawk a politician, I mean she's a Democratic politician, putting her own spin on true events. Why is it when a comic character, has a different opinion from someone, everybody assumes that is the creators point of view. Also, are you also saying that there should be no politician characters in comics?

As it turns out, I'm not assuming. This is the creator's point of view.

And no, I'm not saying that there should be no politician characters in comics, and I'm not sure how you leapt to that conclusion. I explicitly say differently both in my original post in this thread, of which you quoted part, and on my blog, where (insofar as anyone is all that concerned about what I personally think) I've detailed my thoughts much more fully.

[PaulTiberius]

no, I think their objection is the particular type of politics being discussed, otherwise why is it such a big deal to see this type of writing within a comic book?:confused:

I hope I haven't come across as being ONLY upset that Democratic talking points made it into a comic me, a Republican, is reading. I buy 100 comic books a month. There's a lot of agenda-writing out there, and I haven't started threads to complain about the illegitimacy of a specific issue like this until now. Of course I'm motivated by my bias (a point I've admitted already), but I also believe I've tried to dig deeper and explore the general issues that make politicized material of any variety either illuminating or obtrusive.

for the record , i'm done with this topic, theres nothing to be gained here. In the end this is a discussion about a few people wanting to basically censor comics to reflect what they are comfortable with. its actually kind of silly, this is acomic forum not a politics forum as I recall and I'm gonna stick to the comics. atleast i'm gonna try :)

You've jumped the shark. As far as I can tell, you're the first person to use the word "censor" on this thread. You won't find a whiff of censorship in anything posted from me, anyway.

Glad to have you in the discussion, Hulkster. :)

[PaulTiberius]

Well, Orwell would say that's a political decision too...

In all seriousness, I wanted to point out that I think PaulTiberius, the guy who started this thread, has been remarkably cool as he's disagreed with some of us. He's got his opinion, and I've got mine, but it's nice to be a part of such a respectful exchange of ideas.

Thanks, Bradley. I so hate the flamers that take real discussion and turn it into something ugly. If we hadn't been so civil here, we might not have garnered the input of the comic's author himself, which was really quite interesting to read.

Don't know about anyone else, but I always enter these discussions hoping to learn something about the other side and understand a perspective different from my own.

[PaulTiberius]

I agree, this has been a very nice discourse, thanks PAul, you actually got me back into a comic that I had been passing up for a few months.

Cool! Maybe Stuart Moore will send me a comp of the next issue in gratitude?
:D

[Captain Shady]

In fact those responsible for the disaster in NOLA were all Democrats, it's just that they and their allies in the MSM would rather have us concentrate on Mark Foley than Harry Reid's land deals and the incompetence of Nagin and Blanco.

I'm from NOLA and that's about as wrong as it gets. Actually anybody that points to one side or the other as responsible is wrong. Dems and Republicans all dropped the ball. Both parties are responsible just as every level of government is responsible. Federal government, state government and city government failed in almost every aspect. Executive and legislative. Most important in this failure is that for decades even our corrupt louisiana politicians have begged the federal government for better levy protection, wetland protection, and warned of the impeding doom when the big one hit. Nothing happened, funding a lot less then what Katrina ended up costing us, was always denied. Dems and Republicans are still opting not to vote for policys in favor of the state.

It amazes me how people (not refering to you Peter) who know half the facts feel compelled to point out who is responsible. It's only a matter of time where a different part of the country gets hit by a natural disaster and it will turn out for years they've been begging for funding that ends up going to a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. It isn't exlusively Bush's fault, it isn't exlusively Blanco's fault, or Nagin's fault but they are all culpable.

One group people are especially quick to criticize are the people of Louisiana and that's about as limited and information bereft viewpoint as there is. This is a case of all government and all parties failing their constituents.

[nuclearman]

Well, Orwell would say that's a political decision too...

In all seriousness, I wanted to point out that I think PaulTiberius, the guy who started this thread, has been remarkably cool as he's disagreed with some of us. He's got his opinion, and I've got mine, but it's nice to be a part of such a respectful exchange of ideas.

Well said... I have been watching this debate with great interest.. and both parties have been respectful of the others ideals.

To see a firestorm thread go over five pages is a bit of a thrill.. I really love the book and often put up a thread to get other peoples views...only to see a couple of replies and then it fades off into the ether.

Hopefully this increases sales !!

Going off to pick up my copy tonight... and I am looking forward to it.:D

[PaulTiberius]

Well said... I have been watching this debate with great interest.. and both parties have been respectful of the others ideals.

To see a firestorm thread go over five pages is a bit of a thrill.. I really love the book and often put up a thread to get other peoples views...only to see a couple of replies and then it fades off into the ether.

Hopefully this increases sales !!

Going off to pick up my copy tonight... and I am looking forward to it.:D

I hope you enjoy it!

That's a great line-up of favorite books you have there ... but how in the holy freaking heck does OMAC show up with all those others????? :confused:

[nuclearman]

I hope you enjoy it!

That's a great line-up of favorite books you have there ... but how in the holy freaking heck does OMAC show up with all those others????? :confused:

I've been enjoying it.... The Firestorm and Cyborg appearance is helping it though.. I really like the artwork.

[PaulTiberius]

I've been enjoying it.... The Firestorm and Cyborg appearance is helping it though.. I really like the artwork.

I liked #1 quite a lot, but #3-4 really dropped the ball, so I'm out. It's interesting, at least to me, to see how my opinion changed between the two, given the two (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews/1152539722556.htm) ... reviews (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews/116106263210661.htm) I wrote.

I had high hopes, but the book is out of my list now.

Glad someone's enjoying it, though. It was actually Firestorm's cameo that was the deciding factor in picking up #1 to begin with. :)

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I love how every time a character in a fictional medium has a strong view on some sort of issue and presets his/her opinion in the story, that everyone autmatically assumes that it's just the writer trying to push his views on everyone.

When I write, when I'm making up a character, deciding what they believe in is part of the process. I don't pick what I believe in, I pick what I feel the character would believe based on his/her personality and experiences, and run with it.

If a character is a politician, of course that character is going to preach what they believe in the story. It's common freakin sense. It's not about the author trying to bend the fans to his will.

Long story short: get over it.

[Agentum]

It amazes me how people (not refering to you Peter) who know half the facts feel compelled to point out who is responsible. It's only a matter of time where a different part of the country gets hit by a natural disaster and it will turn out for years they've been begging for funding that ends up going to a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. It isn't exlusively Bush's fault, it isn't exlusively Blanco's fault, or Nagin's fault but they are all culpable.

One group people are especially quick to criticize are the people of Louisiana and that's about as limited and information bereft viewpoint as there is. This is a case of all government and all parties failing their constituents.

I really think that flooding was a big disaster for USAs goverment, not being able to take care for their own but thinking they can take care of the world.
The prioritys needs to been put right.
So little USA gives to the outside world in help (outside military power) they should have been able to help their own.

[Paul Newell]

Well, the Katrina reference could also be about Star City. I agree that the WMD reference is more of a stretch, but could it be to Captain Atom's incarceration in, and subsequent explosion over, Bludhaven?

DC should give No Prizes.
The Katrina reference is probably about the sinking of San Diego in Aquaman.

[PaulTiberius]

I love how every time a character in a fictional medium has a strong view on some sort of issue and presets his/her opinion in the story, that everyone autmatically assumes that it's just the writer trying to push his views on everyone.

When I write, when I'm making up a character, deciding what they believe in is part of the process. I don't pick what I believe in, I pick what I feel the character would believe based on his/her personality and experiences, and run with it.

If a character is a politician, of course that character is going to preach what they believe in the story. It's common freakin sense. It's not about the author trying to bend the fans to his will.

Long story short: get over it.

I recommend you read this whole thread, including what Stuart Moore himself had to say about it. These are HIS views in the mouth of the character.

And you're not being very fair to the intelligence of the average reader. There are tell-tale ways to know if a politically-influenced statement is merely the position of the character, or the author's own views speaking.

[Samurai]

I love how every time a character in a fictional medium has a strong view on some sort of issue and presets his/her opinion in the story, that everyone autmatically assumes that it's just the writer trying to push his views on everyone.

When I write, when I'm making up a character, deciding what they believe in is part of the process. I don't pick what I believe in, I pick what I feel the character would believe based on his/her personality and experiences, and run with it.

If a character is a politician, of course that character is going to preach what they believe in the story. It's common freakin sense. It's not about the author trying to bend the fans to his will.

Long story short: get over it.
You're missing the point. If Lorraine were ranting about Luthor's administration, and how he'd declared Batman and Superman to be wanted criminals, or how the govt failed to protect the people of Bludhaven, those things would have been in character for both her and the setting. They would have been fine, and they would have showed the writer truly was trying to think in character for the people in the book. Those were major events in the DCU that a politician there would actually address.

But had she done that, the connection to Bush would have been far more tenuous. The writer didn't want that. He wanted to vent his views on the real President Bush even though there is no such person in the DCU. He wrote his own thoughts instead of what would be appropriate for his fictional character because making a political point was more important to him that keeping to the fictional history and setting of the DCU. Maybe he's more used to Marvel, which has real cities instead of Metropolis and Gotham, and a President Bush instead of Presidents Luthor, Horne and Macklin. In Marvel, it might have made a bit more sense, though events like Kang's invasion and the Civil War would still have been far bigger issues to deal with.

[Justin D.]

How can "USA is good" be mind-numbing propaganda but "USA is evil" be "encouraging readers to think for themselves"? I think you may be attributing self-reflection to only the negative side because it matches your own beliefs, which you obviously consider to be well reasoned and independent of propaganda.

What are you talking about? Who has said any of the things you quote in your first question? Does this tactic of simply making stuff up and attributing non-existant quotes to people ever actually work?

Personally, I'm going to have to agree, but disagree with Paul on his main point. I say that because while having Reilly condemn President Luthor and Ross directly would have made for a possibly smoother scene where the comparisons to real-life situations would have most likely been apparent, I don't have a problem with what she said because it can be linked back to different DCU stories on one level or another.

Like Bradley, I have to offer kudos to Paul for how smoothly he disagreed with what can turn out to be a volatile subject. It seems evident you cared more about the scene because it took you out of the story and not simply because she voiced ideas you didn't like.

[AllisterH]

Well, the Katrina fiasco, as weird as it sounds, kind of makes sense as an example.

Remember when the Quake hit Gotham? How many of us were going "Geez, isn't it unrealistic that the US gov't wrote off Gotham?"

If Firehawk had used that as an example, I think nobody would've had a problem with that....