The Four Color Media Monitor

The Muddy River News (Quincy, IL) covered the local Fall-Con, where conventioneers appear to be trying to stay out of the whole flap involving DC's recent employment of far-left Gretchen Felker-Martin, who was dismissed by management and had the Red Hood series cancelled after a single issue after the "dude in a dress" wrote an incendiary post on social media about the tragic murder of right-wing campaigner Charlie Kirk:

Fall-Con opened its three-day run at the Oakley-Lindsay Center Friday as word was spreading about the cancellation of the Batman spin-off comic book series “Red Hood.”

The decision came soon after comments the author, Gretchen Felker-Martin, made on social media following the assassination of Trump ally Charlie Kirk while speaking before thousands at a university in Utah.

Although the post was deleted, screen grabs continue to circulate.

The first issue of the 17+-rated comic book went on sale September 10, the same day the publisher sent a notice to retailers that said, “DC Comics cancels existing orders for Red Hood #2 and Red Hood #3, and any orders for future issues of the series.”

Comic book vendors taking part in Quincy’s weekend show told Muddy River News they’re not impacted because they deal in vintage comic books. Still, it made for some interesting conversation, although they talked with MRN on the condition of anonymity.

“I think in these cases, publishers in general don’t want to taint their brand,” said one seller of the decision. “It might be from a marketing standpoint.”

If DC management really did want to protect their reputation, they'd never have approved a story as repulsive as Identity Crisis back in 2004 that was hurtful to women and victims of sexual assault. And, they'd have taken notice of Felker-Martin's previous statements on social media long before hiring him. By failing to do so, and only distancing themselves from him following an incident as serious as the Kirk assassination, they've only proven they're not responsible, and don't uphold any lessons of past comics, not even Stan Lee's message from Spider-Man's debut that, "with great power comes great responsibility". Also, doesn't a moral standpoint count far more than marketing? And on that note, a terrible problem looks like it may be formed if we don't keep a responsible eye open:

DC is asking dealers and individuals to send the book back for a refund. But another dealer says those already out there might disappear for a while and then emerge for resale online because of the controversy.

“It could be a collectible over time and more valuable.”

Comic books have been controversial, dating back to the 50s when the industry decided to self-regulate and form the Comics Code Authority to avoid Congressional regulation. Comic books that clear this voluntary content review are denoted with a seal in the top right corner of the cover.

Through the years, certain editions have been pulled from the shelves because of artwork errors, hidden messages or controversial content, including the T+, or teens and up, Spider-Man Reign #1 in 2006, because of a panel showing a naked and elderly Peter Parker.

If memory serves, the problem with Reign is that it showed Peter being mutilated in one of the worst ways possible, and too repulsive to describe. With that told, are these convention merchants really trying to avoid the controversy even DC's guilty of causing by merely employing somebody that morally bankrupt? Why should anybody with common sense want to invest in a single comic penned by somebody as awful as Felker-Martin turned out to be? It's not that simple. By that logic, even comics penned by the disgraced Gerard Jones would be valueable based on how he turned out to be a felon who committed a grave crime. Sorry, but that risks celebrating somebody's work based on a bad reputation, and such items would only turn the speculator market into a more of a travesty than it already is.

But the comment by the aforementioned merchant suggests, disturbingly enough, that a comic penned by someone that morally bankrupt could one day end up circulating on the black market, possibly coveted by all the worst basket cases who consider extremist writers' productions something to treasure, even if it holds zero value on the speculator market. If that happens, it'll be a very dark day.

But this is the first time in recent memory that anybody in the field can recall a series being outright cancelled. And not over content, but rather a personal issue with something the writer stated elsewhere.

A spokesperson for the publisher said, “At DC Comics, we place the highest value on our creators and community and affirm the right to peaceful, individual expression of personal viewpoints. Posts or public comments that can be viewed as promoting hostility or violence are inconsistent with DC’s standards of conduct.”

An individual dealer taking part in Fall-Con says he likes the older comics because they aren’t pushing the envelope like the stories and artwork of today. But he worried that anything he said might be taken the wrong way and asked MRN not to publish his name.

“I like keeping comic books safe and simple. I like kids to enjoy it.”

Certainly, but even adults should be able to enjoy specific stories without their being exploited for the sake of repellent ideologies and politics. Somebody has to make the case that the industry today needs to cease with the far-left activism, and who knows if even these merchants have the courage to say so?

Another noted that there are plenty of comics out there that are edgy and and to some, might be objectionable. But while he might not order a series to put on display on his store shelves, he will still make individual orders if a customer requests it.

And he wondered if “Red Hood” could wind up back on the shelves. DC might have cancelled it to avoid bad publicity in the present, but it doesn’t preclude a return with different authors, one day.

“What they should have done is fire the writer and continue the series. Some say this was a knee-jerk reaction.”

I suppose it's debatable, but there are some series and projects that have been heavily tainted in some way or other, and won't make an easy sell going forward. Some could argue the 3rd Green Lantern volume is severely tarnished after the disgraced Gerard Jones was arrested nearly a decade ago on charges of child porn distribution, and said series volume certainly isn't fondly recalled or selling so well today, based on where it went next during the Zero Hour crossover. If Felker-Martin already wrote several issues of the adult series that's now bound to gather dust on the shelves, there's no way DC will be able to sell those now that it's known he wrote incitement, along with racist, antisemitic and misogynist drivel.

Hopefully, following this whole travesty, Felker-Martin's career is over. But only time will tell if the entertainment industry is going to mend fences and their MO, and ensure contributors will be vetted and instructed to avoid making divisive statements online. And if any basket cases are planning to try and make bank off something like the Red Hood premiere issue, on the black market or otherwise, then anybody who spots such behavior must sound the alarm and make sure no insane hoodlums profiteer from it. The only place where that worthless pamphlet belongs is in the paper shredder.

Labels: conventions, dc comics, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, sales, violence