But what does Brubaker stand for?
The Charleston Post and Courier has some more on the steps now being taken with Captain America, writing that his forced replacement is now packing a pistol. First:
Brubaker's claim that he's heard from both left and right what Cap should stand for is just a convinient excuse not to deal with meatier issues. If Brubaker's got a position or a belief, all he has to do is say so, and not hide his light beneath a bushel.
As for firearms, wasn't that just on the covers? I have seen a few of those from the Golden Age that show Cap, or Bucky, or both, holding firearms, but that doesn't mean that they actually used them on the pages within. So unless he can name some issues and present some panels from the Golden Age that actually show this, I can't accept his argument here.
In fairness, the question of whether they used deadly force is still something I don't know. I do know that they doubtless wouldn't care about if evil like nazis ended up dead, and shouldn't if Islamic terrorists do either. But is that supposed to mean that Cap should have killed even during the Silver and Bronze Ages? Good question. But that's not the main concern here. What I'd like to know is if the Cap stand-in is actually going to fight terrorism? And despite what Brubaker says, it's unlikely that he will, or that any story involving it will be written convincingly. I've seen what Marvel's position has been like, and it's likely to affect just about any story on the subject, no matter what Brubaker is implying here. If memory serves, Greg Rucka may have said a few years ago when he was writing Wonder Woman that he'd be serving some stories involving terrorism. Unfortunately, it wasn't anything to do with Islamic extremism. In fact, I don't think there was any story there about combatting genuine terrorism at all. So if coming Captain America stories turn out to be no different, that won't be too surprising.
But either way, now that I think of it, that will not justify killing off Steve Rogers. He too should be fighting terrorism, whether Bucky's around or not, and he deserves the glory of victory that Civil War took from him. And no matter how Brubaker's upcoming storyboard will be written, that will not justify killing off Steve.
"We definitely wanted a Captain America that still screamed, 'This is Captain America,' but this isn't the same Cap you've been reading about," says Ed Brubaker, the comic book's writer. "This isn't Steve Rogers."But is it a story in which the hero battles modern-day terrorism convincingly, without resorting to leftist propaganda and apologia? Somehow, seeing what's become of Marvel lately, even a few of their movie adaptations, I doubt it, a certain part that's to come at the end of this article notwithstanding.
For the novices out there, Rogers was Captain America's true identity. He was taken down in a hail of gunfire earlier this year, a casualty of the civil war raging within the Marvel universe. Marvel's superheroes were fighting over a law that required all those with superhuman abilities to register with the government, thus revealing their secret identities. Iron Man led the way in support of the government. Even Spider-Man unmasked himself. Captain America, however, believed it was a violation of his civil liberties to be forced to reveal his civilian identity and led the rebellion against the law.Including defeatism, I suppose? And even if they weren't killed, if any innocent civilians were injured, would Steve really go into any kind of battle without considering the innocents he's sworn to protect?
When he finally went to surrender, fearing the war was taking too great a toll on innocent bystanders, he was blown away on his way to the courthouse.
"The kind of writer I am, all the writing grows out of the characters," he says.
Brubaker, who has been writing the comic book for nearly three years, says he's had people from the left and the right tell him what Captain America should stand for.Whether or not Captain America has actually been armed with firearms in the past, isn't the army part a moot point? What about emphasizing if Cap considers terrorists and Islamic extremism an evil that needs to be confronted, and without blaming the country he represents, as Marvel did with him five years ago?
But Brubaker says he's always tried to emphasize Captain America's military background. And the truth is, he adds, this isn't the first time that the Captain has been armed.
Brubaker's claim that he's heard from both left and right what Cap should stand for is just a convinient excuse not to deal with meatier issues. If Brubaker's got a position or a belief, all he has to do is say so, and not hide his light beneath a bushel.
"I've leaned on the 'soldier' part of super-soldier," Brubaker says. "If you look at Cap in the 1940s, they have him with a shield in one hand and a machine gun in the other, and Bucky (the Captain's World War II teen sidekick) has a flamethrower.Okay, let's see here. He does bring up the subject of terrorism. But giving that mention and actually doing anything that doesn't succumb to PC-madness are 2 different things. And there's still no way of knowing if Brubaker intends to write a convincing story along the lines of the war on terrorism, or if Marvel editorial will allow it; I've seen what they're like now.
"In the '80s, they started changing his history, saying he'd never killed anyone. A guy who fought in World War II isn't going to care if terrorists die."
As for firearms, wasn't that just on the covers? I have seen a few of those from the Golden Age that show Cap, or Bucky, or both, holding firearms, but that doesn't mean that they actually used them on the pages within. So unless he can name some issues and present some panels from the Golden Age that actually show this, I can't accept his argument here.
In fairness, the question of whether they used deadly force is still something I don't know. I do know that they doubtless wouldn't care about if evil like nazis ended up dead, and shouldn't if Islamic terrorists do either. But is that supposed to mean that Cap should have killed even during the Silver and Bronze Ages? Good question. But that's not the main concern here. What I'd like to know is if the Cap stand-in is actually going to fight terrorism? And despite what Brubaker says, it's unlikely that he will, or that any story involving it will be written convincingly. I've seen what Marvel's position has been like, and it's likely to affect just about any story on the subject, no matter what Brubaker is implying here. If memory serves, Greg Rucka may have said a few years ago when he was writing Wonder Woman that he'd be serving some stories involving terrorism. Unfortunately, it wasn't anything to do with Islamic extremism. In fact, I don't think there was any story there about combatting genuine terrorism at all. So if coming Captain America stories turn out to be no different, that won't be too surprising.
But either way, now that I think of it, that will not justify killing off Steve Rogers. He too should be fighting terrorism, whether Bucky's around or not, and he deserves the glory of victory that Civil War took from him. And no matter how Brubaker's upcoming storyboard will be written, that will not justify killing off Steve.
Labels: Captain America, marvel comics, moonbat writers
