This is what happens when comic publishers spend so much time pandering
USA Today's written more on the brainless liberal outrage over DC hiring Orson Scott Card because of his opposition to gay marriage. It says here that:
They also quote a comic store owner saying:
The Dallas Observer quotes a comics store manager saying:
And where were any of these so-called Superman fans when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's heirs were trying to regain their fair share of the copyrights to the Man of Steel? Probably spending all their time in the basement out of touch with the wider world. Super-fans they call themselves? Sure.
Those who despise Card's positions might want to consider that Dr. Martin Luther King was also against gay practice, and it's based on his beliefs that we should judge by the color of one's character and not by the color of one's skin. This is a position even his niece, Alveda King, also maintains.
All this lashing at Card is pretty much the result of years on end of DC and Marvel pandering to advocates of diversity at all costs, instead of basing their output on story quality, and now, the chickens are coming home to roost. But for the most part, it's mostly faux-outrage, since, as I said before, if a Muslim with anti-gay standings were given the writing assignment, the liberal ragers wouldn't say a word.
Card and his representatives did not respond to requests Wednesday for a comment.How do we know they haven't deliberately shut him out because they side with the pro-gay marriage activists? Something to think about.
A statement released Wednesday by DC said: "As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself."I'm amazed that they're willing to stand by him, considering there's at least a few other conservative writers like Chuck Dixon they've practically ostracized, after all the good he tried to do for them.
The publisher has a history of being pro-LGBT with its series. Batwoman, featuring a strong and nuanced lesbian superheroine who shares the Gotham City streets with Batman, has won two GLAAD Media Awards for outstanding comic book and is up for a third this year.Not exactly. On the one hand, I'm surprised that they're willing to hire him, given that they've also had a history of questionable relations with conservatives, dating back at least 2 decades. On the other, I find it telling that they're willing to hire Card to write a Superman book that's not in the mainstream category.
That's partly why some comics readers have difficulty understanding the Card hiring.
"When you consider all the writers available in the world, picking one as controversial as Card seems like a clueless, tone-deaf move by DC. On the other hand, they were probably just thinking of the Ender's Game movie coming out (in November) and getting even more attention," says Heidi MacDonald, editor in chief of the comics-culture website The Beat.What do they stick by, exactly? It's the atrocious story ideas that fail they've frequently stuck by, right down to Identity Crisis, and even before that, Emerald Twilight and replacing Hal Jordan with Kyle Rayner, which went on for far too long, and even after they allegedly fixed that grave error, they still ended up failing the characters.
The comic-book company that first introduced Superman in 1938 has "buffeted this kind of thing constantly for years and they know how to stick by their decisions," she adds. "It's the fact that they do stick by them that annoys more and more people, though. And those people happen to be very, very vocal on the Internet."
They also quote a comic store owner saying:
"It is shocking DC Comics would hire him to write Superman, a character whose ideals represent all of us," Neal wrote. "If you replaced the word 'homosexuals' in his essays with the words 'women' or 'Jews,' he would not be hired. But I'm not sure why it's still OK to 'have an opinion' about gays. This is about equality."I'm afraid that's not entirely true, if Identity Crisis says something. If they could vomit out a miniseries as vile as that, there's every chance they'd be willing to hire a writer with abhorrent views of women, and in a way, they did.
The Dallas Observer quotes a comics store manager saying:
"Superman is a hero for all of us," says Richard Neal, co-owner of Zeus Comics. "He's not just a hero for some people."If he really believes that, does he recognize that he's also a hero for conservatives? I seem to detect a lapse in logic here. If he's not just a hero for some, then he's obviously not just a hero for leftists to act possessive about, as though he were solely their property and no one else's.
And where were any of these so-called Superman fans when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's heirs were trying to regain their fair share of the copyrights to the Man of Steel? Probably spending all their time in the basement out of touch with the wider world. Super-fans they call themselves? Sure.
Those who despise Card's positions might want to consider that Dr. Martin Luther King was also against gay practice, and it's based on his beliefs that we should judge by the color of one's character and not by the color of one's skin. This is a position even his niece, Alveda King, also maintains.
All this lashing at Card is pretty much the result of years on end of DC and Marvel pandering to advocates of diversity at all costs, instead of basing their output on story quality, and now, the chickens are coming home to roost. But for the most part, it's mostly faux-outrage, since, as I said before, if a Muslim with anti-gay standings were given the writing assignment, the liberal ragers wouldn't say a word.
Labels: dc comics, msm propaganda, politics, Superman
Actually, there's no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Martin Luther King was anti-gay. Apart from the suspect testimony of the niece you've mentioned, which has been refuted by every other member of the King family. His wife, Corretta Scott King, was a vocal supporter of gay marriage.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:22 PM
I love how the Left stresses "equality for me, but not for thee." Or however that expression goes.
Incidentally, has anyone read DC's Young Romance anthology, this month? It was pretty good (the Aquaman tale was my favorite of the lot), although, there is the issue about the Apollo/Midnighter story. I tried to read it, but A) the pairing doesn't interest me and B) it opened with a more seedy setting at a gay bar. As such, I didn't bother (and any leftie wants to scream "homophobe," knock yourself out). Conversely, the other stories did not go on this tactic. It was written by Peter Milligan, which might explain the sordidness -- he tends to do that in his writing.
Anyway, as for the outrageous outrage at Card, inclusive ness is supposed to work both ways: the majority has to make some work with the minority and, more importantly, the reverse. Unfortunately, the minority (whomever they may be) doesn't always get the memo and presses onward. British writer Melanie Phillips writes on this, at length. And if DC does push for this pro-gay minority, which is fine, but do they have the money and numbers to justify slighting the majority who might like Card's work (he has to be doing something right)? It's all about the money.
And lastly, as per this line:
"If you replaced the word 'homosexuals' in his essays with the words 'women' or 'Jews,' he would not be hired."
The logic fallacy with that statement is that homosexuality is still legally defined as behavior, unlike race or gender. Until someone changes that law, homosexuality has to be regarded differently than the other two groups. Which is why I take umbrage -- if you're going there as an argument, know what you speak.
In the end, pandering is pointless, since most of it is all superficial or to alleviate guilt, anyway. And then, it's on to the next fashionable group, and so on.
(Sorry for the lengthy rant, but I was on a roll.)
Posted by
Killer Moth |
2:51 PM
Well said, Killer Moth.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:15 PM
And that bit about people having an opinion on same-sex "marriage" really means, "I don't like that people think differently than me, so they must be silenced."
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:33 PM
When it comes to homosexuality, it's time we said more often, "We are the 99%. Or close to it."
Over represented in the media and socialist / luciferian infiltrated professions though they are, in the normative population homosexuals are vanishingly rare, and as such have zero relevance to mainstream entertainment. In fact a case could be made that the more teeny tiny and in some cases thoroughly objectionable minorities (such as islamic activism) are pandered to, the longer comics will remain largely a consumer item for the unhinged obsessive compulsives rather than the millions of people who used to buy them...
Posted by
Unknown |
5:48 PM
Anon: No evidence that MLK was against homosexuality (or at least the practice of it)? The article Avi quotes says this:
In a 1958 letter published by Ebony magazine, King responded to a question from a boy who was struggling with homosexual feelings. King called the boy's feelings toward the same gender a "problem." He went on to tell the boy, "You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it." The civil rights leader knew the difference between skin color and sexual desires.
Well, was this letter published or wasn't it? I'm sure Ebony has archives. Like it or not, this is evidence. I'm not taking a position on what KIng's real beliefs on the matter were, just correcting your contention about there being "no evidence whatsoever." And, the King family can say whatever they wish about the Dr.'s real beliefs. The fact is, unfortunately, we'll never know, will we? T A niece says one thing, others say another. It stands to reason, of course, that there is an image to protect and uphold. 1958 values were certainly different from today's. And even if King was against homosexuality then certainly doesn't mean his views wouldn't change over time, had he lived.
Posted by
Hube |
5:51 PM
Oh, and well said, Moth!
Posted by
Hube |
6:06 PM
Thanks, guys. I really appreciate the kudos.
To answer Flying Tiger's point: You notice this trait in mainstream media, their attitudes are "I personally know Group X or Y, therefore, all people in Group X or Y are wonderful people in every way to me, and nothing will convince me otherwise. My narrative matters most to me. La-la-la, I'm not listening!" You definitely see this trait a lot with the immigration debate and the MSM's open-borders sympathy, so why shouldn't it carry traction in other groups and other venues? A lot of these issues is media-driven, anyway. But the politicos follow the media, so we have another clash of the Ruling Class vs. Country Class.
Look at the same-sex marriage debate: 10 years or even 5 years ago, yes, the argument was there, but there was no overt push. Now, it is done at warp-speed and it must be done "NOW, NOW, NOW!" Why the rush, as shouldn't we discuss what will happen if we re-define marriage and all the social changes from that? Of course, the rush is that the topic is the next Left cause du jour, so. And if Sharia Law does become a reality in America, well, they'll have their hands full, to say the least.
And the rest is what I said about guilt and the superficiality of it all. We are a very superficial society, these days, so it's a matter of course.
And well said, Hube about the MLK issue. As you said, "we'll never know, so you can only speculate so much."
Posted by
Killer Moth |
6:45 PM
Agreed, Killer Moth. They always want to push their agenda through as fast as possible.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:42 PM
Indeed, Carl. And meanwhile, while the Left is shrieking about Card, stuff like this happens:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/12/Uganda-deports-British-gay-play-producer
How about that?
Posted by
Killer Moth |
1:02 PM
Wow. They probably won't pay attention to that since they're too busy moaning about Card and turning into a "controversy."
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:43 PM