Identity Politics and Representation in Comics

[hyzmarca]

Complaining that the new characters won't stick rings a little hollow. Nick Fury as a Samuel L. Jackson look-alike begins in an alternate comic continuity, makes it into the movies, and is so popular it's brought into the main continuity. That will last exactly as long Marvel wants it to last. That is the new Nick Fury and it will stick until someone unsticks it. Generally speaking, some changes will stick, others won't; so it has always been, so shall it always be.

The new Thor doesn't really look like it's intended to stick to begin with, and I'm pretty sure at the end of the day Thor will be Thor again and Thor-who-is-not-the-other-Thor will get a new name, a redesign, and some of her own comics that probably won't go anywhere because new characters very rarely get any traction to begin with and then she'll end up part of some random ensemble things here and there as minor characters always do.

Miles Morales seems to be doing pretty well. Marvel has told some... very unpopular Peter Parker stories recently, if you recall, so if there's any time to have a new Spider-Man stick - whoever they maybe - this is probably it.

I never actually gave a shit about Captain America to begin with, so I'm not going to pretend to know or even care. The name is dumb, the costume is dumb, and his weapon is a bullet-proof frisby. There is entirely too much Golden Age ridiculousness in the entire concept for me to take it seriously, and I'd like to think my tolerance levels are pretty high. But I will note that adding Falcon's wings to the costume has not improved it.

Miles Morales isn't even a replacement Spider-Man. Peter Parker is still Spider-Man. It's litterally two guys using the same name. Three if you count Hobie Brown, who Peter hired to stand in for him when he's doing corporate stuff.

[virgil]

Why is continuity so sacrosanct? The DC's plurality of cosmic reboots, Marvel jumping hoops to shove black Fury into the main continuity and making literal deals with the devil, revelations of retroactive continuity, etc. I don't see how the advantage of major continuity truly outweighs those messy disadvantages. Why do comic fans act like the poetry-fan in the below comic?

[hyzmarca]

Why is continuity so sacrosanct? The DC's plurality of cosmic reboots, Marvel jumping hoops to shove black Fury into the main continuity and making literal deals with the devil, revelations of retroactive continuity, etc. Why do comic fans act like the poetry-fan in the below comic?

Because when you're doing a massive interconnected universe in which the same characters and events might appear in multiple books by different creators, it helps to keep them consistent with each other.


And comic fans care about their favorite characters and how those characters are depicted. They care a lot.

They're actually more forgiving of out-of continuity works in that regard.

[Ancient History]

Time was, each comic book was self-contained. You couldn't even count on continuity between individual issues, much less anything approaching a "shared universe." But it is the possibilities of the shared universe which are so rich and fascinating - as has been shown by, for example, the Cthulhu Mythos created by Lovecraft and his contemporaries. DC and Marvel can honestly be said to have revolutionized the industry simply by making this massive, interlinked comic universes - which is something that can be kind of hard to pull off effectively.

And continuity has its drawbacks, because you do have a lot of creators, and it can be intimidating to new fans in the way that, say, re-watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer or One Piece from the beginning might be. But the kind of negative continuity that's the current vogue for Marvel and DC has just largely eroded my interest in their comics to a large extant - they're not the familiar characters, and the new characters by and large aren't that interesting to me.

Then again, I'm old. I've aged out of the target demographic in a lot of ways. DC and Marvel want the people that really like and identify with the movies. Which is fine. It's just not what I'm looking for, by and large.

[Kaelik]

Continuity is nice because it is nice to know what else happened to those characters, or in the universe that they would know about and that might affect them. There is a real possibility for character growth where post civil war people are genuinely different characters.

But in practice, since the characters never change no matter what, all the actual benefits of continuity are wasted.

[name_here]

Continuity means knowing what has previously happened in the story you are reading. For instance, a story of Joker breaking out of Arkham can be interpreted rather differently depending on whether it follows on from all prior stories of him breaking out of Arkham or whether it's in continuity with exactly one and so this is only his second escape. It also means that each new story doesn't have to explain who all these people are and why you should care and why the moon now has a ring from scratch.

I don't mind stories that have continuity or lack continuity, but I like knowing which is the case.

[Ancient History]

It depends. In Marvel and DC's case, continuity is a convenience, to be discarded whenever it becomes cumbersome. For other companies and creators, continuity is much more important, as things don't return to status quo ante.

[hyzmarca]

Then again, I'm old. I've aged out of the target demographic in a lot of ways. DC and Marvel want the people that really like and identify with the movies. Which is fine. It's just not what I'm looking for, by and large.

The DC target demographic is in its late 40s and early 50s right now.

[nockermensch]

Why is continuity so sacrosanct? The DC's plurality of cosmic reboots, Marvel jumping hoops to shove black Fury into the main continuity and making literal deals with the devil, revelations of retroactive continuity, etc. I don't see how the advantage of major continuity truly outweighs those messy disadvantages. Why do comic fans act like the poetry-fan in the below comic?

Some people need to believe that the action is really happening (for some real strange values of "really") to enjoy the stories. The importance given to Continuity is the keyfabe of comics.

[Ancient History]

Then again, I'm old. I've aged out of the target demographic in a lot of ways. DC and Marvel want the people that really like and identify with the movies. Which is fine. It's just not what I'm looking for, by and large.

The DC target demographic is in its late 40s and early 50s right now.

The DC target demographic is the executives at Warner Bros. right now.

[virgil]

But it is the possibilities of the shared universe which are so rich and fascinating - as has been shown by, for example, the Cthulhu Mythos created by Lovecraft and his contemporaries.

The Mythos uses much more broad strokes in its characters than you see in Marvel's main comic line. Lovecraft didn't later add a love triangle between Dagon, Chtulhu, & the Colour-Out-of-Space; only to have it broken up through cyber-bullying by the King in Yellow.

As Kaelik points out, they fundamentally don't want to change the characters (or let any of them die), and the few times they do, they make the narrative perform advanced yoga to permit regression.

I'm not saying continuity is bad on its own, but the comic book methodology feels fundamentally flawed. If you have a narrative that spans a plurality of years with space to fit new characters and storylines, sure. If you want to do something new and different, then make a new version. Television series get by just fine doing this; you never had to go through a crisis to explain why the Penguin in the Animated Series is different from his portrayal in Gotham.

[hyzmarca]

Then again, I'm old. I've aged out of the target demographic in a lot of ways. DC and Marvel want the people that really like and identify with the movies. Which is fine. It's just not what I'm looking for, by and large.

The DC target demographic is in its late 40s and early 50s right now.

The DC target demographic is the executives at Warner Bros. right now.

Warner Brothers doesn't really give any fucks about DC, they just care about the movie money, for the most part. DC could turn Superman gay and make the Flash and Native American woman and no one at Warner would notice.

DC's problem is the current crop of creators were fans who grew up reading comics and wanted to write the comics that they grew up reading.

I mean, they explicitly undid Crisis on Infinite Earths so that they could get their 70s Nostalgia on.

[CaptainComics]

I've never been able to understand why or how anyone could possibly think that continuity wasn't important, or could be done away with. Continuity is what allows for long-form storytelling. If you're going to write a story in which the previous installments may not have happened, or may not have happened the way it was presented, you very quickly lose any ability to create a coherent narrative.

Continuity is not and should not be consistent across multiple media adaptations. If you start up Ultimate Spider-Man, or a movie reboot, or a tv show, then obviously we can have a new version of his first encounter with Doctor Octopus. Obviously we can change his race or sexual orientation. Obviously we can decide that in this version it's Spider-Woman instead. But you can't pretend that this is a part of the same story that began in 1962.

People don't want to sift through decades of old stories just to be able to read something being currently published. That's a fact, and it's understandable. But once they do jump on the bandwagon, they get just as confused when characters' powers suddenly work differently than they have in the past, or somebody is revealed to have a long-lost twin brother when it was a plot point last year that the character was an only child. Continuity always matters, to everyone - but fewer people care about continuity with stories that they haven't read.

[name_here]

Well, continuity is only important when you want a long-form story with a unified narrative. Entirely episodic media is completely viable, with all those cartoons where everything is completely different at the end of an episode and then is back to normal at the start of the next with no explanation.

What's a problem is when it becomes unclear what is and isn't in continuity. You could have a new and different Spider-Man with or without continuity, but it's important to know if this is a story of a first Spider-Man with no connection to the previous one or if this is the story of a second Spider-Man following on from the previous one, because that means that when the Green Goblin shows up, you know whether or not that he might be here for revenge for something the previous Spider-Man did.

[violence in the media]

I've always viewed comic book continuity more like the ink-and-paper version of a daytime soap opera/telenovela than the sort of continuity you might find in a series of novels. That is, it feels like a low-stakes environment where nothing really matters.

[CaptainComics]

So I'm going to talk now about Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel.



Way back in 1967, Marvel Comics created Ms. Marvel as a spin-off distaff counterpart of the Kree superhero Captain Marvel. She was a long-time supporting character in Marv's book named Carol Danvers who got powers through being experimented on by aliens, and she was an attempt at tapping into the women's lib zeitgeist by a bunch of old men who didn't really get what women's lib was all about. As a result, Ms. Marvel ended up kind of floating around the periphery of the Marvel Universe for a good long while, ended up kind of dead and kind of a split personality with the X-Man Rogue, and then became an Avenger. She was a cool character, but didn't have many big storylines or events surrounding her and was never a huge name. Then Marvel made the big decision.

The company had tried to make the identity of Captain Marvel into something important for a long time, not only because it's got the name of the company right in the title but also as a way to spite rival DC Comics (who publish the adventures of a Golden Age character called Captain Marvel but have to title his books some variation of SHAZAM! due to a rights snafu). As a result, after the original Captain Marvel died, the identity was picked up here and there by various other characters, none of whom quite managed to stick. So, with Marvel needing to get a new Captain Marvel book onto the stands lest DC be able to use the name, they bestowed the title onto Carol Danvers.

The internet loved this idea. The biggest comic book company in the world, and the character named after them is a woman? Yes please! About time! Etc. So now there was nobody using the name Ms. Marvel, and a big company can’t exactly leave an IP lying around like that. So they created a new Ms. Marvel.

The new character was named Kamala Khan, a female Muslim Arab-American teenager with shapeshifting powers and an appealingly nerdy personality. She has a large and interesting supporting cast, from her conservative Muslim family to her nerdy techhead friends at school. Her home is in New Jersey, so she's close enough to the superhero-clogged Marvel New York to take part in crossovers and yet far enough away that villainous threats can't be easily handled by more experienced superheroes. Her stories are a delight to read, her fanbase is growing, and you almost never hear anyone complain about her the way they do about female Thor or black Captain America. Why is that?

First of all, there's the craft put into the character and her stories. Kamala has a strong and interesting personality that is on display from page one of issue one. She comes across as a person first and a superhero second. She is positioned to explore familiar and well-loved themes (the teenage superhero coming-of-age story that first rocketed Spider-Man to superstardom and has been remixed countless times in characters both successful and forgotten) yet brings a genuinely new perspective to them. Her relationships with her family, her religion, her status as a child of immigrants are all unique to her, yet speak to issues that we've all seen or dealt with in our lives. She is given opportunity to struggle against real challenges and enemies, and while she gets help on occasion from friends and family, her victories and defeats are ultimately the result of her own abilities and decisions. Simply put, it's a really good comic with a really good character in it.

So if the new Thor, Captain America, and Spider-Man are well-written and well-crafted, they should be just as good, right? Unfortunately no. The second part of what makes Ms. Marvel work involves the meta of the character, her positioning in the context of the greater Marvel Universe and the company's history and characters. It is here that we see the real difference between what Marvel SHOULD be doing and what they're ACTUALLY doing.

Simply put, unlike the other characters, Kamala Khan didn't steal anything from anybody to get where she is.

Carol Danvers wasn't Ms. Marvel anymore. She'd been "promoted" to Captain Marvel. And that's how everyone, the character, the fans, the company, saw the change for Carol - she had been brought up out of relative obscurity to the take the spotlight as an "important" character. Carol had had other identities before - Binary, Warbird - as a result of public opinion on the "Ms." in "Ms. Marvel" shifting (it was originally chosen as a symbol of female empowerment, but as times changed the connotation of Ms. became one instead of dismissal of women, and thus many readers wanted it changed). But as Captain Marvel, Carol was clearly and visibly placed as the equal and rival of any hero around. And this happy event naturally and organically left room for someone to take up the mantle that she had outgrown.

Compare this with the events of Thor, where the hero is stripped of his power for no comprehensible reason and relegated to a sobbing sad sack drunk in the corner. Compare with Captain America, where Steve Rogers is prematurely aged into a decrepit old man through a nonsense plot development. And compare with Spider-Man, where Peter Parker is still running around punching supervillains in the face exactly as he ever was. Two of the "legacies" are created by sabotaging the existing bearers of the identities, and the third is still using it!

Furthermore, not only did Kamala not steal Carol’s identity, she didn’t steal her thunder either. Kamala’s comic was and is published concurrently with Carol’s adventures as Captain Marvel. If fans of Carol Danvers want to see her adventures, they can just do that. If new readers don’t care about Carol but like Kamala, they can read Ms. Marvel. And if someone like both characters, then they can read both!

Again, this is not the case for Thor and Captain America, whose solo titles are now exclusively starring the exploits of other people. If you want to enjoy a monthly comic starring Thor Odinson, you’re shit outta luck. If you want to keep up on the adventures of Steve Rogers, too bad, he’s old and feeble now and can’t have adventures. If you like the Falcon, too bad, there’s no Falcon now, wouldn’t you rather see him pretend to be someone else? If you like Jane Foster, well, I hope you stuck it out through the nonsense in the first arc of the new comic long to enough to eventually discover that’s who’s in the book! As for Spider-Man, Peter hasn’t exactly been replaced, but he has been kicked out of New York in order to give Miles some room. Meaning that it’s the established character whose status quo and storytelling style must change in order to prop up the new character.

Finally, the new Ms. Marvel didn’t steal Carol’s place in the world. Carol has been a solo hero and an Avenger for a long time, with her own relationships and her own life. Though the new identity as Captain Marvel has put more spotlight on the character, it hasn’t changed the way she does things or the way other characters treat or relate to her. Likewise, Kamala is treated by other heroes and civilians as a talented newcomer, still making a name for herself and finding her place in the world. She’s not being hunted down by Carol’s old enemies, or contacted by her old friends for help. She’s having her own adventures and making her own friends and foes. She gets no special treatment from being the new Ms. Marvel, but she also faces no negative public stain from the legacy. In short, it is clear that everyone knows that this is not the old Ms. Marvel.

In contrast, there is a very strong feeling in the other books of a deliberate attempt to warp the world around these characters, forcing them into prominence in a way that feels completely inorganic. This is seen most clearly in Captain America, where numerous elements of Steve Rogers’s history and standing in the heroic community seem to have just sort of come with the suit and shield. For instance, Sam Wilson is leading multiple Avengers teams, despite the Falcon never having shown much aptitude for leadership and there being several team members on the current roster that have been excellent leaders of Avengers squads previously. Or Sam starting to give random off-the-cuff speeches about patriotism and heroism, when he wasn’t much of a soliloquizer in the past. That’s not to say that the Falcon couldn’t be a leader or a public speaker – just that there’s no reason for these attributes, clearly borne by the previous Captain America, to spontaneously appear in the character just because he’s dressed in red white and blue. This isn’t the story of a man trying to live up to the example set by an old friend. This is the story of Steve Rogers who’s black now. This disrespects the reader (do you really think you can trick me into thinking this is the same guy?), the old Cap (see how easy you are to replace?), the new Cap (sorry Falcon, you’re not a good enough superhero so we’re going to ignore your personality and replace it with one that’s more like a more popular character), and the other characters in the world (seriously, everyone’s just fine taking orders from an unproven guy wearing someone else’s clothes when the Wasp, Iron Man, and the Scarlet Witch are standing RIGHT THERE?).

Kamala Khan is her own woman and her own character. She's using a name that was once used to champion not just the standard superheroic ideals of truth and justice, but also the real cause of progressive societal change, and maintaining both elements of that identity. The identity was vacant when she took it up, and the previous bearer has moved on to bigger and better things, theoretically putting the character in a stronger position as a hero than ever (if you read Captain Marvel's book, you'll find that's not actually true, but that's a subject for another post). The story of the old Ms. Marvel ended, and the story of a new Ms. Marvel can begin.

[hyzmarca]

As for Spider-Man, Peter hasn’t exactly been replaced, but he has been kicked out of New York in order to give Miles some room. Meaning that it’s the established character whose status quo and storytelling style must change in order to prop up the new character.

I don't think owning a fortune 500 company with offices on three continents counts as being "kicked out" of New York. Particularly since Parker Industries does have a couple of facilities in New York City and Peter is there most of the time. He just also has globe-trotting adventures in China and Europe.

Plus, Miles isn't the only other Spider-Man. There's also Spider-Man 2099, who is stuck in modern day New York for the conceivable future. Then there are all the alternate reality Spider-People in Web Warriors, including Spider-Ham.

Besides, Miles isn't new. He's been around for years. Just in the Ultimate Universe. And Ultimate Peter's death wasn't some asspull editorial mandate, it was the perfect, fitting, end of his story that Ultimate Spider-Man had been culminating towards for a while. Having Miles be inspired to take up his legacy made sense, then.
He's just being moved over to 616 because the Ultimate line was canceled but he was a popular character that they didn't want to just drop.

Sam Wilson is leading multiple Avengers teams

Thankfully, they're cutting that back. He's only in All-New All-Different Avengers these days. And since the team consists of three teenagers, a rookie thor, a robot who has made some questionable lifestyle choices, and the most hated man in the world, it makes sense for Sam to lead.

[CaptainComics]

I don't think owning a fortune 500 company with offices on three continents counts as being "kicked out" of New York. Particularly since Parker Industries does have a couple of facilities in New York City and Peter is there most of the time. He just also has globe-trotting adventures in China and Europe.

You mean the part where they're using old Iron Man bits and pieces so that Miles can get all of the Spider-Man tropes? Yeah, I would call it being kicked out. They're making Peter Parker into an Iron Man ripoff so that a Spider-Man ripoff can be more like Spider-Man.

See, the thing of this is that these aren't organic story events. It's not like things just turned out such that Spider-Man happened to be out of New York. They set this up to manufacture a Spider-Man shaped hole that they could stick Miles into. And they skipped the story forward eight months so they didn't have to explain how or why this happened, which is the kind of storytelling laziness that is becoming more and more endemic to the medium.

Plus, Miles isn't the only other Spider-Man. There's also Spider-Man 2099, who is stuck in modern day New York for the conceivable future. Then there are all the alternate reality Spider-People in Web Warriors, including Spider-Ham.

First off, Spider-Man 2099 is a much better character than Miles, and I will be posting soon to explain exactly why that is when I cover the Spider-Man stuff in detail. Second off, there was no attempt to push Spidey 2099 as a "real" Spider-Man, even while he was operating in 2015. Third, he returned to his own time months ago, which is where his new series (and ugly new costume) will be taking place.

Web Warriors is an alternate reality mess that isn't going to last long and doesn't touch anything else. It's not the presence of alternate reality versions of characters that's the problem - it's doing palette swaps of existing character in which we end up with fewer viable heroes rather than creating new heroes that can forge their own legends (and spawn valuable merchandise licensing checks). You'll notice I have not complained yet about Spider-Gwen, because the issues with that character have nothing to do with representation in comics or displacing other characters. As far as this topic goes, she's not an issue - despite the fact that she has nothing going on storywise other than a really REALLY cool costume, her presence or absence does nothing to enhance or hinder Spider-Man in any way.

Ultimate Peter's death wasn't some asspull editorial mandate, it was the perfect, fitting, end of his story that Ultimate Spider-Man had been culminating towards for a while. Having Miles be inspired to take up his legacy made sense, then.

This is not snark, but a genuine question: did you actually read the Death of Peter Parker storyline in Ultimate Spider-Man, and the subsequent title(s) starring Miles? If so, I'd love to hear why you liked it. If not, I'm not surprised that you have this impression of the story, given the way it comes off when summarized. It is true that Ultimate Peter's death was Brian Bendis's own idea, and not editorially mandated. However, to say that it was a fitting end to the story of Ultimate Spider-Man is, in my opinion, complete hogwash. Again, when I start up the thread for my rants, you can expect a thorough explanation of my take on Brian Bendis's body of work for Marvel, with particular emphasis on Ultimate Spider-Man.

That said, I agree that Miles had a point in the Ultimate Universe, and while I hated the way the character was handled and the stories he was involved with, there was value to be had in exploring the story of a second Spider-Man, trying to live up to Peter Parker's example. Unfortunately, all of that goes out the window once you transfer Miles to the mainstream universe. He has no legacy to uphold, because Peter Parker's not dead and is in fact a completely different guy. There is no reason for anyone in the mainstream universe to have any reaction to Miles other than to tell him to get his own gimmick, that one's taken.

He's only in All-New All-Different Avengers these days. And since the team consists of three teenagers, a rookie thor, a robot who has made some questionable lifestyle choices, and the most hated man in the world, it makes sense for Sam to lead.

And that is better, and they should have led with that instead of what they actually did. But even here, Iron Man is on the team, and he has run multiple Avengers squads to great success in the past. (Is Iron Man the one you're referring to as most hated man in the world? I just don't see where you're getting that, unless that's somehow part of Bendis's new run which I have yet to get a look at.) Again, Sam is in charge because everybody knows Captain America is the leader, even though that's a different guy and this guy doesn't do that.

[hyzmarca]

(Is Iron Man the one you're referring to as most hated man in the world? I just don't see where you're getting that, unless that's somehow part of Bendis's new run which I have yet to get a look at.) Again, Sam is in charge because everybody knows Captain America is the leader, even though that's a different guy and this guy doesn't do that.

At the end of Superior Iron Man, Pepper Pots leaks all the evil shit that Tony did while he was inverted, effectively destroying his reputation. She also took Stark Industries from him by stock manipulation. And so he's basically broke.

I don't think owning a fortune 500 company with offices on three continents counts as being "kicked out" of New York. Particularly since Parker Industries does have a couple of facilities in New York City and Peter is there most of the time. He just also has globe-trotting adventures in China and Europe.

You mean the part where they're using old Iron Man bits and pieces so that Miles can get all of the Spider-Man tropes? Yeah, I would call it being kicked out. They're making Peter Parker into an Iron Man ripoff so that a Spider-Man ripoff can be more like Spider-Man.

See, the thing of this is that these aren't organic story events. It's not like things just turned out such that Spider-Man happened to be out of New York. They set this up to manufacture a Spider-Man shaped hole that they could stick Miles into. And they skipped the story forward eight months so they didn't have to explain how or why this happened, which is the kind of storytelling laziness that is becoming more and more endemic to the medium.

It's kind of a logical result of Superior, Since Doc Ock did leave him with a Fortune 500 company. Failure to make use of that would be incompetent, a fact which gets pointed out to him multiple times in the post-Superior books.

This is not snark, but a genuine question: did you actually read the Death of Peter Parker storyline in Ultimate Spider-Man, and the subsequent title(s) starring Miles? If so, I'd love to hear why you liked it. If not, I'm not surprised that you have this impression of the story, given the way it comes off when summarized. It is true that Ultimate Peter's death was Brian Bendis's own idea, and not editorially mandated. However, to say that it was a fitting end to the story of Ultimate Spider-Man is, in my opinion, complete hogwash. Again, when I start up the thread for my rants, you can expect a thorough explanation of my take on Brian Bendis's body of work for Marvel, with particular emphasis on Ultimate Spider-Man.

Ignoring the fact that the Punisher shot him as part of a stupid crossover event, a mutual kill against Norman Osborn while protecting his family was one of the more fitting ways to go. I've certainly seen worse. And if makes sense when all of his enemies know who he is.

[PhoneLobster]

Simply put, unlike the other characters, Kamala Khan didn't steal anything from anybody to get where she is.

Ok. I was prepared to put you in a separate camp, but with that little line you don't get to be in some better rational, not crazy racist/sexist camp, you get to be in the same camp as FatR, Darkmaster and Sacrificial Lamb.

Because right there you let slip your false exterior of a comics fan that just happens to have coincidental opinions on the quality of some specific pieces and accidentally openly expressed the same stupid fucking asshole opinions about thieving minorities stealing white man roles.

You're just trying (WAY too hard) to put a polite spin on it and obfuscate heavily with giant wads of irrelevant waffling trivia.

[Grek]

Hey, Phonelobster, imagine this: People can get mad about bad writing without that being a bigot.

Kamala Khan becoming Ms Marvel is good writing because Carol Danvers was promoted to Captain Marvel, freeing up the Ms Marvel name for a new hero without getting rid of Carol Danvers as an interesting character. Fans who want to read more stories about that character can pick up the Captain Marvel issues.

Jane Foster becoming Thor is bad writing because they wrote Thor Odinson going from a hero to a blubbering alcoholic manchild without any explanation of what would cause this mental breakdown in him. Fans who want to read more Thor Odinson stories can go fuck themselves, because he doesn't get new issues.

If you did the reverse and have Thor be promoted to King of Asgard/reform the God Squad/otherwise go on interesting adventures elsewhere while entrusting his hammer to a hero on Earth in order to defend his adopted home with it, that could potentially be a good storyline. If you had Mystique whisper some unspecified words to Carol Danvers that made her give up on heroism and then introduced a new "replacement" Ms Marvel who had somehow managed to connect herself to a White Hole ala Binary style and have that be the main character, that would be a very stupid plotline. The gender, skin colour, orientation, religion, etc. of the characters involved are all irrelevant to the fact that the basic premise of Kamala Khan's Ms Marvel origin story is objectively superior to the premise of Jane Foster's Thor origin story.

[Josh_Kablack]

Hey, Phonelobster, imagine this: People can get mad about bad writing without that being a bigot.

They can. But that is not what's happening here.

Because Sam Wilson is (at least) the fifth fucking Captain America, and nobody is in this thread is complaining how any of the other three dudes stole anything from Steve Rogers - even though the most recent not-Steve Cap undid more than 40 years of publication history worth of continuity. That happened all the way back in 2007. Somehow I missed the equivalent nerdrage over teh interwebs for that transition.....

[Omegonthesane]

CaptainComics - while I would not be surprised if you've already gon there, are there any cases in general of a new guy permanently assuming the mantle of an old superhero and the previous holder being out of the picture?

If not, why was it wrong for Kyle Rayner or Wally West to spend decades, plural, as in at least two - AKA long enough to have a generation of fans grow up with them as a thing to identify with in the mythos - holding the title of Green Lantern or Flash?

If so, how were these executed in a way that didn't insult the old legacy the way "Thor Odinson is now a helpless drunk" insults his legacy?

EDIT: Also, how about the previous Captain America handovers?

[Grek]

Hey, Phonelobster, imagine this: People can get mad about bad writing without that being a bigot.

They can. But that is not what's happening here.

Because Sam Wilson is (at least) the fifth fucking Captain America, and nobody is in this thread is complaining how any of the other three dudes stole anything from Steve Rogers - even though the most recent not-Steve Cap undid more than 40 years of publication history worth of continuity. That happened all the way back in 2007. Somehow I missed the equivalent nerdrage over teh interwebs for that transition.....

The reason you get no complaints about William Nasland and Jeffrey Mace is because both of them are retcons. The actual Captain America Comics were written with Steve Rogers as Captain America in mind.

What If #4 retconned Captain America as having been frozen in ice at the end of World War 2 after falling into the Atlantic. William Nasland (Spirit of '78) was Captain America for only part of that issue, and gets killed off during it. Jeffrey Mace (Patriot) was retconned as having "really" been the face behind Captain America's mask during Comics #66 through #75. William Burnside (Grand Director; see below) likewise was retconned into being Captain America during issues #76-78. But when those issues were being written, the writers were writing as if it were Steve Rogers and the readers were all reading under the assumption that it was Steve Rogers.

Burnside also doesn't count, as his comics were originally written as a separate continuity from the main Captain America line. He was only later retconned in as having been a different person posing as Captain America order to try to "fix" the continuity snarl and to distance modern and wholesome Steve Rogers Captain America from crazy and paranoia commie-hating 1950s Captain America.

Sam Wilson meanwhile got his powers when Captain America got depowered. Not "retconned into having secretly been absent", not "Captain America from an alternate continuity", but "Steve Rogers literally gets his super powers stolen from him and turned into a feeble old man" so that Sam Wilson could be given the title by the writers.

Do you understand how that is different and why people would object to that last one but not any of the previous ones?

[PhoneLobster]

Hey, Phonelobster, imagine this: People can get mad about bad writing without that being a bigot.

Yeah, but that's not where captain comics is really at is it? The quoted theft line pretty much puts him firmly in line with the bigots only with more diversionary after the fact attempts at justification.

And anyway, as far as I see it even if you want to push for a charitable defense now about the best you can get is portraying his case as "waaaah I dislike change!", unfortunately he has rather specifically already refined it to "waaah I dislike change, just coincidentally ONLY when it happens to replace white male characters with something else, for instance I really like this one change where it didn't do that, thus proving I am not a bigot!"

You can dance around and keep trying to throw distractions. I was fine to pretend it was just coincidental preferences in writing taste until Captain Comics refined his position and basically threw in accusations of character theft (in very similar terms and language to FatR).

But as of his basically declaring the only hand over to female character permissible without being "theft" was one from another female character he basically dropped his cards and his hand was revealed for all to see. I mean it doesn't get much clearer than that. Well. Short of the FatR quotes. But the whole point is that Captain Comics is basically just cloaking the same attitude in a giant pile of pretend polite excuses.

He is basically playing the dog whistle to their bull horn.