Sam Wilson: Captain America #21
May. 11th, 2017 08:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
laughing_tree posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_daily
"Earlier in my reviews of this run, I commented that Spencer’s version of Sam Wilson reminded me a lot of President Barack Obama. Now that we’ve had more time with him, I see that he’s much more than that. He’s every black person that’s ever had to think about where they fall in the battle of injustice. He’s every one that’s been given power and had it stripped away. Which, eventually, boils down to practically every minority in America. [...] This current run of Captain America: Sam Wilson is going to end up on the syllabus of a really liberal, young-minded sociology professor one day." -- Black Nerd Problems
no subject
Date: 2017-05-11 12:37 pm (UTC)He watches the whole controversy of Rage being convicted of robbing a pawnshop, despite Captain America's best efforts to defend him. This enrages Rayshaun so much that he puts on Rage facepaint and joins the riots, firebombs buildings. Captain America calls for peace, obviously Rayshaun does not listen. Then later, he watches Captain America resign because Sam's given up on his methods and doesn't believe in wearing the flag anymore.
And then I ask you if you think Rayshaun's going to give up rioting and be a good clean patriotic superhero, or if he's going to continue on his path, and you just don't know. As if both options are equally likely to you.
Why do you do this, why do you reduce all things to their most generic formulation? The diametrically opposed methods of Reyshaun and Sam don't matter, what's really fundamental is that they're both fighting against the same thing, so maybe they agree - or then again, maybe they don't. At this point, why even bother reading a story then, when anything can happen next and make sense, where there's no momentum of the story leading in one direction or another? A tyrant can pardon the rebels or execute them immediately, and they're both equally sensible options. A villain can want to prevent a force field from being built, or depend on the force field being built, and they're both part of his master plan. A teen rebel can either reform, or keep going down his path, and based on the story so far I have no idea what's going to happen next! Why even bother with plot and buildup? Just flip a coin!
no subject
Date: 2017-05-11 01:10 pm (UTC)He firebombs a single building. And we have no idea whether or not he listened. Did he even show up again before the Patriot scene? And throughout it all, he had how many lines? Three?
I don't know what he's going to do next because he's a blank slate. Does he have firm conviction that violence is the only solution, instilled in him by a revolutionary dad? Was the Molotov cocktail something he did while caught up in the emotion of the moment, which he immediately regretted? How should I know? This isn't some character we've been following for years or even for a single arc or even a single story. Build up? What build up? He's someone who up until just now was a glorified extra.
There's a saying Kurt Busiek likes to use when asked "Who would win in a fight?" questions. He answers that it's whichever makes for the better story. "We rig the fights." Same here. That he's a blank slate, that we know so little, means there's room for all sorts of rigging. Maybe they will give him the revolutionary dad. Maybe they'll reveal someone was injured in his explosion, crippling him with guilt. Who knows! Whatever will make for the better story.
I don't know who he is yet and I look forward to reading the stories and learning.
"A tyrant can pardon the rebels or execute them immediately, and they're both equally sensible options. A villain can want to prevent a force field from being built, or depend on the force field being built, and they're both part of his master plan."
They can both make sense in the right context. Execution is everything.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-11 02:22 pm (UTC)"The right context," you say, "execution is everything" you say, and yet here you are ignoring what actually happened in favor of all the possibilities that might have occurred. We could have seen nothing but scenes of Rayshaun going to school and doing his homework, we could have been shown scenes of him killing a dog, we could have been shown scenes of him defending a protester from the cops, and you would still be here using the same argument, that he is unknown and unknowable, separate from everything that has actually happened.
Sure, yes, Rayshaun could be anything, these are comic books after all, but you're allowed to say, "I think there was a change of plans, I think there was a soft retcon here, because this certainly doesn't seem like this was what they were building up to when they introduced him."
no subject
Date: 2017-05-11 03:05 pm (UTC)My point is he's barely a 'character' there. No interiority, no lines, no aftermath. This isn't some protagonist where we're following the throughline of his life, so that we can reasonably expect we're getting all the relevant information. He's hi-then-bye glorified extra. This isn't like revealing Peter Parker has a split personality we've never seen. It's revealing that a guy from a single scene has a split personality. In the circumstances, new heretofore unseen dimensions would hardly be a cheat. Rather, they'd pretty much be obligatory.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-11 11:39 pm (UTC)Sam continues to call for non-violence, but the riots continue and his words start sounding increasingly hollow even to him, until he finally resigns as Captain America. This is the story we are being told, of Sam's methods failing until he gives up on them.
And then you come in and say, hey, maybe this rioter listened to Sam off-screen. Maybe he regretted his actions, off-screen. Maybe Sam's methods were actually effective, off-screen. Maybe he convinced someone, off-screen. Maybe he succeeded, off-screen!
Never mind that Reyshaun is listening to Sam's resignation as he sneaks back into his house. Maybe he immediately regretted his actions, maybe he listened to Sam's earlier speech, and immediately stopped rioting way back then. Maybe he's just been hanging around all this time outside his house dressed up as Rage for no reason whatsoever. Sure, that's technically possible. Or maybe you're ignoring the actual text of the story in favor of shrugging and saying, maybe, maybe, maybe.
Even for background characters, heck, even for props, you don't just assume an untold backstory that says the opposite. If we're telling a story about a poverty-stricken town and a broken down jalopy drives by, what's the point in saying, hey, maybe the driver's an eccentric millionaire and he keeps that car around for sentimental reasons!
Seriously, why do you even read stories if you don't care about what happens in them. Why not just stare at a blank piece of paper and say 'Wow! Anything could happen!'
no subject
Date: 2017-05-12 01:47 am (UTC)So I don't think rioting is being framed as harshly as you do, and so I don't think Shaun's involvement in said rioting is determinative the way you do. It is not comparable to the "killing a dog" example you used earlier.
(Knowing you, at this point maybe you'll go digging for every instance in the story where rioting is portrayed in any remotely negative light. Don't bother. I said "not as harshly," not "positively.)
It's the act of a teenager in a specific powderkeg of a situation where emotions were understandably running high all round, not some cemented ideology at the core of his being. Revealing that Rayshaun is always a cool-tempered guy with a philosophical aversion to violence, *that* would be a jalopy-driving millionaire. Having him not go around firebombing banks as the Patriot... not so much.
"Maybe he's just been hanging around all this time outside his house dressed up as Rage for no reason whatsoever."
Or maybe he was out protesting. It's not like the only possibilities are he kept firebombing stuff or he completely gave up the cause.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-12 02:32 am (UTC)I'm not talking about a strictly causal relationship from a single speech, I'm talking a thematic one, in which Sam spends his entire run trying to keep a balance, trying to find a better way, and Rayshaun and the riots are the evidence of that better way not working. Rioting doesn't need to be harshly portrayed - obviously there's a lot of sympathy with the rioters - it just needs to show Sam's failure to provide a better option.
(My other examples were 'staying home and doing his homework' and 'saving a protester from a cop'; they weren't meant to vilify rioting, they were random hypotheticals.)
You are still saying: maybe this rioter gave up rioting off-screen and was just peacefully protesting like Sam wanted, in a story about Sam's failure. If you want to argue that the story's not about Sam's failure, or that Reyshaun rioting doesn't reflect badly on Sam at all, or some other argument like that, sure, do that. But don't just shrug and throw up your arms and say, maybe, maybe, maybe.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-12 08:31 pm (UTC)The rioting is painted as an understandable consequence of the people's rightful outrage. The source of that outrage, that's Sam's real failure.
So no, I do not think Rayshaun, one individual among many, continuing to riot is essential to the story's themes.
But look, Rayshaun possibly regretting his actions immediately was just one hypothetical I pulled off the top of my head to illustrate my larger point. Whether he did or not is hardly key. That larger point, again: So far, we know so little about the character that I can't predict how the Patriot's going to operate.
This goes back to the bit about the sympathetic portrayal of the rioters. I didn't think you were vilifying them; I used the dog-killing example because it was useful as a contrast. Because someone killing a dog, that is determinative. A writer's not going to put that in unless the point is, "This guy's a monster." An example on the other extreme, equally determinative and telling, would be if we saw Rayshaun refusing to fight back against bullies even as they were pummeling him because he was opposed to violence. But the sympathetic portrayal of the rioters means the whole point is that these aren't people exceptionally inclined to violent solutions or unusually callous to property damage or whatever; they're regular folks, caught in a specific powderkeg of a situation where emotions are running high all around. And their rioting says little about how they act -- how Rayshaun will act -- outside that powderkeg. So no, I do not think that just because he firebombed that bank, it's a given that he's going to continue to do so as the Patriot.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-12 11:55 pm (UTC)Hmm, not really though. Maybe a racist sicced their dog on him and he had to defend himself by killing it. Maybe he was caught up in the emotion of the moment and immediately regretted it. Maybe it was an entirely reasonable decision in the heat of the moment. It's a powderkeg, and people will act differently outside of that powderkeg. So who knows?
I'm joking, but I think it's weird that you can rightfully see a guy killing a dog as the writer painting them as a monster, but show a guy firebombing a bank, and you're making all these excuses that maybe the writer intended to portray someone totally different, and that maybe the character regretted it off-screen.
I think the difference is that you view rioting as vilifying, and so you think it would be wrong to judge these people at their lowest point. I don't think that. I think it's a legitimate character trait, a legitimate ideology, that it's a legitimate option at this point to resort to violence after the legal system has clearly proven it doesn't care about them and theirs. I think it would be interesting to see an anarchist superhero - okay, maybe he doesn't firebomb banks specifically, that's sort of cliche - but it would be interesting for me to see a superhero who's opposed to the establishment, opposed to the cops, and not afraid of using violence to attain his goals.
I think the opposite would be insulting - if Rayshaun were to become just another goody-goody patriotic hero who upholds the law, that would be fucking bullshit. Why would he be doing that, when the law has already proven it doesn't care about people like him?
You say the rioting is an understandable consequence of rightful outrage, but you're treating it like a moral lapse.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-13 05:14 pm (UTC)Which isn't the same as saying what we've seen says *nothing* about him (a stance you seem to think I subscribe to, based on some of your comments). I'd be surprised if he turned out to be your "goody-goody" too. But there are plenty of points in-between "goody-goody" and "guy who goes around bombing buildings."
no subject
Date: 2017-05-13 11:19 pm (UTC)If a real-life rioter did that, I be comfortable assuming that yeah, he did have a commitment to change through violent action.
I just don't understand your criteria. Why is killing a dog 'determinative', why is refusing to fight back 'determinative and telling'? I might as well say that a fight is an exceptional circumstance, and how a person reacts when they're being attacked in a fight doesn't say anything about them as people. Maybe they freaked out, maybe they froze up, maybe, maybe, maybe. And we're talking about superhero comics here, most of the circumstances are exceptional. The writer chooses which moments to show us, and if he wanted to make a point that Rayshaun regretted his actions, he could have easily shown us that. He didn't. At some point we have to take it on faith that what the writer shows us is what he wants us to see, that despite the exceptional circumstances, the writer isn't deliberately just showing us all the reactions that are out of character.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-14 02:42 am (UTC)Enough of a commitment that you'll assume he went to do more of the same in his life? Like, if all you knew about a guy was he "struck the first blow unprovoked" at some famous race riot when he was a teen, you'd assume he went on to also firebomb other buildings outside the riot?
"Why is killing a dog 'determinative', why is refusing to fight back 'determinative and telling'? I might as well say that a fight is an exceptional circumstance, and how a person reacts when they're being attacked in a fight doesn't say anything about them as people. Maybe they freaked out, maybe they froze up, maybe, maybe, maybe."
Yes, absolutely true. That's why I specified my scenario as refusing to fight "because he was opposed to violence." And just in case it's not clear, by killing a dog, I meant maliciously doing so in cold blood, not in the context of a fight for survival or whatever. If it was a fight for survival, I would not use it to make assumptions about how the character will treat animals outside that exceptional circumstance.
"If he wanted to make a point that Rayshaun regretted his actions, he could have easily shown us that."
If it's not essential to that particular story, there's no harm in saving it for later. But again, regretting his actions was just one hypothetical off the top of my head. If you don't buy that particular example, okay, but it doesn't change the larger point.
"At some point we have to take it on faith that what the writer shows us is what he wants us to see."
I'm sure he wanted us to see it. I don't draw the same conclusions from the sight as you.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-14 07:59 am (UTC)This "because he's opposed to violence" bit - how can you prove motivation? Maybe he's lying, maybe he's dissembling, maybe he's justifying his cowardice to himself - intent is fundamentally unknowable to outsiders, and sometimes it's mysterious even to the actors themselves. You are slipping back into 'everything is unknown and unknowable territory'. Barring any evidence to the contrary, you have to judge people by their actions, and this is especially true for fictional characters, who do not exist at all outside of the page, outside of the thoughts and actions and words we are shown, so we can actually see them in their entirety.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-14 02:47 pm (UTC)Yes, intent is never truly knowable, but that doesn't mean some scenarios aren't stronger indicators of intent than others. Again, gradations. A scene of a guy killing a dog maliciously for kicks is more telling than a scene of a guy killing a dog that has no context. A guy not fighting back is less telling than a guy not fighting back while another character is explaining that his inaction is because of his beliefs. A guy not fighting back while himself thinking that its because of his beliefs is more telling than either of those. A guy not fighting back while the omniscient narrator says its because of his beliefs is even more telling still. A wordless scene of a kid doing homework tells us very little because kids of all kinds do homework.
And I maintain that Rayshaun's scene does not tell us enough to conclude that he's going to be firebombing buildings as the Patriot. That's not me saying we should ignore the scene. It's me keeping it in mind and reaching a different conclusion from it than you. I am judging him by his actions, and this is my judgment.