The Four Color Media Monitor

It's not the first time I spotted Ron Marz retweeting something relating to Meltzer, but this time, he's done it again, for real:
Well...well...well. The man who allegedly claimed concern about a cybertroll who was harassing women - right down to making an offensive crack about Identity Crisis - has put his sincerity further in doubt, and provided free advertising for a man who authored the very story that more than a modicum of women found offensive at the time. This is very telling, and gives reason to doubt Marz was being altruistic, and was acting more for the sake of brownie points.

Mr. Marz, there really isn't much else I can say that I haven't already told your peer Cully Hamner. But, as I've asked before and will again, when you posted that tweet...had you considered what victims of rape and child abuse might think of the disgusting miniseries Meltzer scripted a decade ago, and what some women might think of you for promoting the work of a man and an editor (DiDio) who never answered any challenging questions about the one-sided structure? If you're familiar with Valerie D'Orazio, what would even she think of you? No no, go ahead and act as contemptuous as always, Mr. Marz. It'll just demonstrate what a truly heartless man some folks are coming to view you as, and prove why you're a leading example of the need to separate art from artist.

You know, when you gave Mark Millar some assistance in stopping that cybertroll who was harassing women online, you were performing an admirable mission in itself. You practically did what even Meltzer never showed the guts to do - stand up for people who were being harassed over peanuts by a vile scum of the earth. From what I can recall, no, I don't think Meltzer ever came to the defense of the troll's targets, unlike you and Millar. And this is why some people are bound to feel startled - and very uneasy - when they see you suddenly going along and embracing the work of a man who wrote something that appeals to sadists. Including the blogmistress you once mentioned. Just 3 years ago, she spoke about Grant Morrison's surprise comments on IC, and suppose you happened to be one of the apologists she speaks of? There are some issues on which I have disagreements with her. But in her defense, I'll say she did not deserve that awful experience, and you're not helping matters by giving free promotion to the author of a book that was used to add insult to injury.

I wonder if this could explain your curious quiet on the issues of two newly revealed embarrassments in showbiz, Stephen Collins and Bill Cosby, who've been exposed for committing sex offenses in past decades? Speaking of the latter, you don't know how depressing it is to discover a man once thought a genius in comedy did something so awful. It's sent my city of birth into turmoil. My parents' fellow alumnae from Temple University feel shattered. And why? Because it turned out Cosby did not want to be the iconic figure we all hoped he'd be. And while I never cared for 7th Heaven, I can understand why any former viewers would feel devastated now, after Collins' betrayal of trust was revealed. Yet, judging from your silence on the issues, Mr. Marz, it's apparent none of this seems to concern you. Why, is it because their political standings aren't exactly conservative? Barbara Bowman, one of Cosby's victims of the past, recently wrote about her experiences on the Washington Post. She wondered why it took 3 decades for anyone to believe her story. In your case, we could wonder why it'll take another 300 for you to care about her story? Mrs. Bowman said:

Unfortunately, our experience isn’t unique. The entertainment world is rife with famous men who use their power to victimize and then silence young women who look up to them. Even when their victims speak out, the industry and the public turn blind eyes; these men’s celebrity, careers, and public adulation continue to thrive. Even now, Cosby has a new comedy special coming out on Netflix and NBC is set to give him a new sitcom.

Since this was written, Cosby's projects have been cancelled by the two networks. But Mrs. Bowman's got a point: whether you're part of the industry, or the public, or both, one thing is clear: you have, in a way, turned a blind eye, not just to Cosby's wolf in sheep's clothing act, but also to the potential damage a grimy miniseries like Identity Crisis can cause to this world, not to mention how it can give mental cases the vibe you consider serious issues trivial at worst, and what would you say if you knew you were rewarding the same cybertrolls you supposedly tried to stop? In fact, what would the blogmistress the 2-legged animal online was harassing think if she found out you were excusing the author of a book that the troll used as a tool for his harassment tactics? Even if she doesn't say so openly, that doesn't mean she won't be devastated you're promoting the author of a book the very cybertroll used as a means for harassment.

What's that you say? "But I'm not supporting that miniseries, I'm supporting Meltzer's other work"? It's not that simple, Marz. See, Meltzer, as mentioned, has never shown remorse over Identity Crisis and how it's all set up, never answered any hard questions or defended the precise structure, and that makes supporting him very problematic for as long as he's unrepentant (and makes it hard to believe he supports the message in one of the car stickers he's published). Also, if you want nothing to do with Orson Scott Card (who's been a Democrat for many years), and can't separate art from artist, then I'd assume you'd be applying the same standards to Meltzer as well. Indeed, why would you be so comfy with one but not the other? But, I may have found a little argument online that easily describes your puzzling paradox: The CNN writer Sally Kohn was asking people if they'll still watch the Cosby Show, and in the comments section, I found an intriguing revelation that further confirms something I've been trying to figure out about how people of your standings think:

I just think it's funny that Sally Kohn was up in arms about Duck Dynasty; simply because one guy one the show made anti-gay comments. She called for the channel to pull the show altogether, without apology, because of one persons opinion.

But when it's Bill Cosby, and an allegation of multiple multiple rapes; she wants to keep the show on, bug not glorify Cosby at the same time. Why? Simply because the Cosby show was important to her childhood.

Just more liberal "as long as I get mine" mebtality, with some gross hypocrisy thrown in for good measure. Why is this writer still employed?

That reminds me of your mentality, Marz. Orson Scott Card's work is not important to you simply because he took a position you disagree with even though he didn't add it to the manuscripts for Ender's Game, yet Meltzer's inexplicably is, despite writing such poor renditions of the female cast directly into his books in a way that's potentially denigrating to rape victims? Kohn could count as a female counterpart to your mentality, and is a perfect example of a sad fact of reality: there are women out there with less rationale willing to throw dignity and morale under the bus, for money and agenda. Jann Jones, a DC staffer in the past decade, was proof of this in the comics medium at the time.

Still, since we're on the subject, Marz, it might surprise you to know Card once gave a favorable review to one of Meltzer's audiobooks back in 2007. And you know what? I'm tremendously disappointed with Card for that. As of now, I'm not so keen on defending Card for anything if he knows what Meltzer wrote yet lets him off the hook. It'll be interesting to see what Marz thinks when he learns the author he just despised for peanuts did the author he sides with a favor. Will Marz change his opinion by at least 180 on Card after this? Good question. This is also one more clue to a mindset I've noticed traces of: some allegedly concerned people who consider "homophobia" a major worry, but have none of the same concerns about misogyny.

And in case I didn't mention, it's not just Identity Crisis where a problem with poor characterization for women dwells in Meltzer's work: nearly a decade ago, I linked to a blogger who, while his politics were mostly liberal, still made some very eyebrow-raising and astute observations about a few other products of Meltzer: the women in a few other novels he wrote and a TV program or two he produced cannot cope with certain matters; a theme that appears to come up more than a few times.

So you see, Marz, it's not just one mere item by Meltzer that's a problem, there's at least a handful of other examples. And if so, there could be a couple more. And that doesn't bother a man allegedly trying to mend fences by scripting a number of titles with women as stars (Witchblade) and prominent co-stars? Hmm, how odd.

I know there's some women in comics fandom who'll probably argue that your contempt for mere mortals is nothing new to them, and they don't see much point in taking issue with a man who can't decide where he stands clearly. But that doesn't mean they'll remain silent for long. There might be some folks on the web better organized than I am who'll decide this is the time to start a campaign calling not just for ethics in journalism a la Gamergate, but also ethics in would-be professional writers who make fools of themselves, in contrast to past pros who speak with far more panache like Stan Lee. Think about it: they could call for boycotts of specific products by writers/artists/editors who they feel are giving comicdom a bad name, and lobby advertisers to withdraw their support and save money. They could even call for boycotts of your stuff! When you think about it, of course it's possible.

If you really don't want that to happen, and you really don't support Identity Crisis' one-sided vision, Mr. Marz, maybe now's the time to ask people you if you're acting properly by promoting the work of a man who wrote a nauseating tale, and distance yourself from him too. But, I've a sad feeling you won't. Okay, maybe you will do some soul searching. But for now, few will think you really care about rationale on the net if you excuse a novelist who pens something perverted, and take such a double-standard between homophobia and misogyny.

If we've learned something here today, it's that Marz can't seem to help himself, and doesn't think things through going ahead. And if he can't, then his points won't ever hold up. Hence, he won't ever be able to convince anybody he's changed since the days of Green Lantern's Emerald Twilight.

Update: as expected, Marz's only reaction is spite, even if he galls other people he allegedly doesn't intend to, and here's a most intriguing money quote he's tweeted:

He howls about "Identity Crisis" because he doesn't like it, and compares it to Oscar Scott Card's real-life, real-world homophobia.
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 18, 2014

This can tell a lot more than he'd want it to. I guess he means a prejudiced expression written into a story, fictional or otherwise, presented with one-sided focus and nothing to challenge it, is perfectly okay? That's like saying D.W Griffith's Birth of a Nation, a revolting falsehood, is acceptable simply because its racist themes are just present in the movie. Or like saying the 2001 movie called Bubble Boy is okay because its "only a movie" (and what were all those nazi propaganda films during the 1930s?). Or like saying Enid Blyton's use of racist caricatures in her children's books is fine because it's only taking place in a fictional tale. But if Card just dared to inject precise views into his manuscripts, we can all guess where Marz would go with that. Still, we probably saw his self-justification coming, and Marz isn't one to place a high value on logic. After all, he's the same man who sees nothing wrong with Roger Waters' real-world anti-Israelism.

Let us be clear. When a writer injects a specific expression into his/her scriptwriting for a book/movie/TV program/music tape, it is more or less the author's viewpoint, and makes no difference whether the author's acted the same way in real life; they're using their manuscripts, fictional or otherwise, to convey something they think is okay, or don't think is noxious at all. And if it wasn't right for cartoon makers from the early 20th century to resort to racial stereotypes in WB's Looney Tunes, for example, then it's not acceptable for modern writers to do something similar.

Labels: dc comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, violence