The comic that caused an overreaction from within
I recalled a little something done by the now defunct Crossgen that was written by Chuck Dixon and which the comics industry was not willing to support: a special called American Power, which had a cover that may have been judged simply by that. Including by one of their former contributors, Ian Edington, who told Dynamic Forces in the following interview:For those who haven't seen it, the cover shows a muscle-bound, gimp type hero punching out Osama Bin Laden.Ian Edington seems to think that the cover alone was something wrong. I beg his pardon? What is so wrong with the cover in and of itself showing a hero-type socking a real life villain in the face? Does this mean that he didn't like the late great Jack Kirby and Joe Simon's contribution from WW2, when Captain America's premiere cover showed him socking the fuhrer in the face?
I asked Bill if the book was actually some kind of post-modernist, ironic joke but no, it's art... apparently.
I asked him that if in the light of recent events, it was in questionable taste publishing a book that could be read by the husbands, wives and more importantly the children (it is a comic after all) of the victims of 9/11 and the Atocha station bombing? He said CrossGen intended it to be controversial hence the provocative cover and copy for the prequel. I added that since this book would not have been able to happen if 9/11 hadn't itself happened, that CrossGen were in fact cashing in on those people's deaths. He said no. I finally asked him if, human being to human being, he didn't feel at least a twinge of morality or conscience? He said, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Except the poor souls who died in 9/11 and at Atocha.
Given CG's fluctuating financial status, the way this book's been pitched, it seems intent on appealing to the lowest common denominator, shamelessly milking peoples tragedy and loss to put money back into Mark Alessi pocket. He must be more stuck for cash than anyone imagined.
If Edington's complaints were about the story, arguing that it trivializes real life where a mass-murderer is still on the loose and we don't know if he's dead or captured yet, that's where he could have a case. But the cover itself is not wrong, and I'm really disappointed with him if he's judged a book by its cover for the wrong reasons. True, there are occasions on which you can judge a cover, as both Marvel and DC have put out some insulting cover art for their books in recent years, but this is not the same case here.
I'm not questioning if Mark Alessi was a jerk (though I've always had a feeling that the accusations against him may have been at least half exaggerated), but I don't see what's wrong with appealing to the patriotic American citizen who'd like to see the vermin being dealt a well-deserved blow. And I think Edington was wrong to judge this way, not to mention that he may have insulted the victims of 9-11 the way he spoke about this. As of now, I've no signs that the interior story was in any ways trivializing real life; I assume it's all metaphorical/allegorical, so I don't see how he could do something so stupid.
It's also unfortunate that the industry would not back the book, which just shows how badly overrun they are with people who don't want to write convincing stories fighting terrorism.
On Chuck Dixon's website, he made the following announcment for how to buy the script he'd written for the book:
I’ve decided to offer, via download, the scripts for the two issues of American Power that I wrote for CrossGen.Well now, if Dixon is supporting the troops, I don't see how his intentions could've been bad overall. I'm really disappointed in Edington, and find it hard to understand why, if he really understands that bin Laden is an evil real life villain, that he finds it offensive to show him being socked in the face?
This is the comic that, sight-unseen, caused such deliberation and condemnation in the comics community. Now you’ll have an opportunity to see for yourself what the fuss was all about.
How can you get them? There’s only one way.
Use this link to go to booksforsoldiers.com and make a donation to this fine effort that supplies our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan with books, CDs and DVDS of their choosing for free.
There we have it then, an example of how screwed up the industry could be, to the point that they're opposed to a small company's wish to put out a book that could've made people proud. Frankly, if Edington is going to opine that way, then I guess I can't really care less if he's largely slipped into obscurity in the past few years.
If anything, there's something very ambiguous and fishy about what Edington said in that interview, one more reason why, as of now, I think I'll be discouraged from reading anything more that he writes.
Labels: indie publishers, politics, terrorism
