The Four Color Media Monitor

A while ago, I took apart one of the latest articles that sugarcoated Brad Meltzer in its report on novelists who turn to comic books. Now it is time to take a look at yet another superficial article about Brad Meltzer that goes the bizarre route, this one from CBR a year ago. Another article that pays lip service unto him and apologizes for his actions. And another article that even confuses all the matters his notorious miniseries has surrounding 9-11:

The next big thing for Meltzer and DC would be the wildly successful 'Identity Crisis,' a story that found its origins in the tragedy of 9/11.

'When you think of firefighters after 9/11, you look at them differently,' Said Meltzer, recalling what DiDio said to him when they were looking at the story. The event made people realize that firefighters weren't just the guys pulling cats out of trees and marching in parades, they were heroes doing an extremely dangerous job where their lives were on the line every day.

This was something that DC wanted to create for its heroes. They wanted fans to remember that what the heroes are doing is a scary dangerous job.

Since when wasn't it dangerous? But I guess that's not the main problem here. When you think about how, as evidenced in the contrived clash with Deathstroke, that the miniseries was so negative in its stance towards heroes, it's hard to swallow that it really respects the heroes of 9-11 either.

But Meltzer wasn't on aboard with it initially. He'd always wanted to do a Justice League story, but couldn't get his head around why anyone would want to hurt Sue Dibny. But DiDio got his attention with two words; Jean Loring.

In other words, this ludicrously written interview from CBR seems to be furthering the false notion that Jean was ever truly a harpy. It also signals a bizarre double-stance: if Meltzer really didn't want to hurt Sue Dibny, as he's been using as his defense for some time now, why would he want to hurt Jean Loring? Sorry, but this only weakens any defense he may have been so transparently using.

There's a part at the end that I can only assume was mistyped, but still involves plenty of head-shaking dishonesty:

Meltzer admitted that he was surprised by fan reaction to some of 'Identity Crisis,' particularly the misfortunes of Sue Dibny.

'The [reaction to the] rape scene surprised me more than anything. I didn't expect the venom,' said Meltzer.

But he thought that the response was the result of a very vocal minority, not indicative of the views of most of the book's readers as a whole. He wishes that rape didn't exist, obviously, but it doesn't, and comics should reflect that and deal with real issues.

When you respond that superficially, not willing to even address or bring up the exact arguments at hand, the leading one here being the lack of a female viewpoint in the miniseries, you're really being dishonest, and when you dismiss the reaction as just coming from a "minority", then you're showing yet more contempt. As for the word "doesn't", I can only hope that's a typo, because otherwise, the writer of that slop has convicted himself of offending women as much as he made himself part of the same problem as Meltzer.

One more thing this item doesn't mention is how Sue was like an allegory/allusion to the WTC towers, when IC suggests that the heroes are to blame for her murder. Needless to say, I find the whole idea of using a defenseless woman as a stand-in for real life details extremely offensive, mostly because in a way, it trivializes the tragedy in real life even more than Sue's own violation at the hands of Dr. Light was trivialized soon after it took place in the second part.

And this brings up another very disturbing thing about IC: it's that allegorically speaking, it seems to trivialize the attack on the WTC that took place in 1993, when the building's underground parking garage was bombed by Iraqi al Qaida Muslim fanatics, egged on by the sheik Omar Abdul Rahman. I thought about this the other day while eating lunch at work, and suddenly, I realized that there was one more very offensive metaphorical act that IC pulled. So, not only did it blame the victims, it also trivialized a previous attack on the same victim/target of assault.

If that's how comics are going to deal with real life issues, even from a metaphorical POV, then simply put, the superheroes of the DCU had no more business dealing with a 9-11 allegory any more than would have in expressing an opinion on abortion, homosexuality, living only on welfare, or any countless other subjects some people in this world seem totally incapable of discussing without nearly taking up arms against each other, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

Labels: msm propaganda, politics