America #5

[lordultimus]

Comments

[cyberghostface]

The "I'm literally intrigued" panel... wow. Sounds like something someone would say in the red room on Twin Peaks while speaking in backwards.

[christianconnor]

Honestly, it feels like a decent parody of Kerouac in On The Road.

[informationgeek]

Combine bad writing with ugly artwork and this keeps getting worse.

[katefan]

Careful now. Calling someone's art ugly might offend some people.

That being said, I agree with you a hundred percent. Gabby's writing is atrociously bad and the art is abominable.

[thanekos]

Reader, do you not have the time to develop impressions of a story with your human brain?

No worries - with this dialogue, you won't even have to! Everything will be told to you.

[rainspirit]

This comic does very little for me, but I honestly hope all the attention s_d has been paying it means that it's finding commercial success and that someone out there is really into it. It's different enough - and has queer representative! - to seem like it might be someone's cup of tea. Might not survive the straight white male comic book nerds, though.

[cyberghostface]

It’s already canceled.

[rainspirit]

Well then! I guess this is just kicking dirt around on its grave. It's a shame.

[jlbarnett]

I thought it had already gone through a reboot

[cyberghostface]

No it ended early in the year. I think she might have showed up in other titles but this was it for the solo.

[katefan]

Well, when you get lines like "white energy meet brown fist" in the first issue, and when it goes downhill from there, why would straight white comic nerds buy the comic?

But that is the message, isn't it? The comic failed because we were homophobic, or racist, not because the writing was terrible or the art sub par, or the larger demographic of consumers were being targeted as oppressive assholes. Why should I drop four bucks a month for that? Why would anyone, for that matter, outside of a tiny group of rabid Gabbyfans who thinks she can do no wrong?

[laughing_tree]

> why would straight white comic nerds buy the comic

Because they can take a joke, presumably.

> The comic failed because we were homophobic, or racist, not because the writing was terrible or the art sub par, or the larger demographic of consumers were being targeted as oppressive assholes.

Please point me to the non-existent people saying that.

[katefan]

Oh, America is a joke all right. Just not one that is funny. Or was made funny when people roasted the hell out of it. It's so bad nobody here can even properly defend it's at best mediocre and at worst dumpster fire levels of competency art and writing.

But to take your answer seriously most straight white nerds I know can take a joke. When it's funny. Case in point, nobody I know has ever bought an issue of Squirrel Girl, proving at the very least they have a functioning sense of humor.

As to the second part, I confess I was being hyperbolic. Why do you think the comic failed so utterly?

[laughing_tree]

Beats me. I have so little interest in it that I've taken to only skimming the scans at this point. You're mistaken if you think I have any interest in defending its quality. That's why I'm not responding to all the other people dunking on it here, only the one going on about some non-existent anti-white agenda.

[katefan]

Spoken like someone who never actually read any of Gabby Rivera's tweets.

So just so we're clear, you never actually read any of the America comic? You aren't actually conversant regarding the nature of her work? I just want to make sure that you are ignorant of the contents of this series.

[laughing_tree]

> Spoken like someone who never actually read any of Gabby Rivera's tweets.

I've certainly read the ones that comicsgaters love to point to. The ones they claim makes her look like a racist but really just make them look like they can't recognize a joke.

> So just so we're clear, you never actually read any of the America comic? You aren't actually conversant regarding the nature of her work? I just want to make sure that you are ignorant of the contents of this series.

I've only read a very little of it. I'm sure there's much about it I'm utterly ignorant of. Please feel free to enlighten me with examples of this supposed discriminatory content you feel it contains, because that "white energy" line you love to trot out sure ain't it.

[katefan]

Right, so Gabby is joking when she is expressing her misogyny. Okay, go ahead and roll with that.

And I respect a person who is willing to admit their ignorance on a subject. That was not me being sarcastic; it's very hard to tell online whether or not somebody is when you can't see their face or hear their voice. But I'm not about to go through issue by issue and describe what I saw because you apparently aren't buying the example I gave. What I can do is suggest you watch Mim Headroom's recaps of America. Unlike here he is able to show most of the comics.

If you don't want to watch them I understand. That being said then that puts us at an impasse; I can't effectively argue my stance without 1) Buying America 2) Reading America 3) posting salient pages on Imgur and 4) dissecting them for you. All that time and money can be better spent on other pursuits.

[shakalooloo]

Ah, now things become a little clearer. Here, Kate and America have the same voice, and while it works for the former, it really, really doesn't fit for the latter.

[katefan]

I am convinced that the America comic did more to propel the Comicsgate movement than any other comic. More than gay Iceman, more than "feminist agenda" Mockingbird, more than Tamaki-fied Jenhulk. D&C and others got amazing amounts of mileage out of roasting this comic over a year. It also didn't help that Gabby Rivera made some incendiary tweets that made her, well, thoroughly unlikable.

[stolisomancer]

I always did like the covers on this book, though.

[redmagpie]

I wish the lesson Marvel learned from this was to bring in more seasoned comic writers, not that 'diversity' doesn't sell.

[katefan]

Seasoned comic writers cost money. So do talented artists.

[redmagpie]

I mean so does launching a comic. They could have gone to the indy publishers rather than got a novelist.
This artist gets work with Marvel pretty regularly, right? Does that mean that someone likes them?

[katefan]

That's an excellent point, now isn't it? Why did they hire Gabby Rivera? Could it possibly be that her race, sex and orientation played a part? Is it possible that to show how progressive they are Marvel felt hiring a gay lesbian latina was a smart move? Or was it that somebody at Marvel thought the only person who could write a lesbian latina was a lesbian latina? But nobody could be that stupid, right?

Right?! I mean the very idea that you had to be the same sex and sexual orientation of the character you are writing is just moronic.

(Notices stack of Iceman comics sitting on the comic book store counter collecting dust.)

Oh...right...

Bear in mind Christopher Priest, who has written Black Panther and more recently Justice League, has said that is exactly what Marvel does. He would get calls from Marvel to write for them again, but only offers to write black characters.

Now as to your second point, like you said, there are a whole lot of comic writers out there chomping at the bit to get a job at Marvel. Why skip over them and cherry pick Rivera if the point of her gender, race and orientation were taken out of the equation? And why does this artist get work? It could be exactly what you say; somebody likes them. You get in good with an editor, become their friend, you network and boom, you get work. And it helps if you work cheap.

[laughing_tree]

> Could it possibly be that her race, sex and orientation played a part?

Charles Soule has said his being a practicing lawyer played a part in him getting Daredevil. Paul Cornell being British played a part in him getting Captain Britain. Why, it's almost as if the company might think being lgbt or hispanic might give someone a stronger understanding of the lgbt/hispanic experience, and that might come in handy writing a lgbt/hispanic character. Crazy!

(That doesn't mean they think you *have* to be the same gender/race as who you write, except in the realm of conspiracy theory.)

> (Notices stack of Iceman comics sitting on the comic book store counter collecting dust.)

Iceman that did so well in collections/digitally that it got a second volume after cancellation? That Iceman?

> Bear in mind Christopher Priest, who has written Black Panther and more recently Justice League, has said that is exactly what Marvel does. He would get calls from Marvel to write for them again, but only offers to write black characters.

So in other words, Marvel's minority writers are underutilized and being pigeonholed and in a fair world would be getting more assignments. Agreed! Or, to use another Priest quote from that *same exact interview*: We have to get back to doing what’s right for the companies. The companies are too insular, way, way, way too male, and way, way, way too white. Until that changes, nothing gets better.

[katefan]

But Charles Soule was an established comic book writer before he got the Daredevil gig, wasn't he? Paul Cornell had a history of not only writing science fiction but he had also written British comics before he was handed the Captain Britain title. What comics had Rivera written before she was given an ongoing series her first time out?

None. Zero. Zip.

So how did a rookie comic book writer get her own ongoing her first time out? Not even Chelsea Cain was granted such largess; she actually wrote one shots to make her bones in the industry.

As to Iceman's renewal was that due to good sales or was it to its media attention like articles in the Huffington Post? I mean if you have statistics showing Iceman's overwhelming tpb and digital sales I'd like to see them.

Finally I agree 100% with Priest, but the way to get more diversity in comics isn't to hire unqualified people like Rivera; it's to find talent and foster it, teach it, bring it up through the system organically and show them the ropes. Giving Rivera America was a disaster.

[laughing_tree]

Hiring isn't and should never conform to a one size fits all policy because we're talking a *creative* enterprise. When Gaiman was hired for an ongoing at DC (Sandman), he had no published comics to his credit, and that worked out great, obviously. Ta-Nehisi Coates' first comic was the Black Panther ongoing and while I personally found it dull it's clearly been a solid decision for Marvel, looking at the success it's led to. I don't care for Brad Meltzer's comics, but he's obviously been a success story for DC, and his first gig was the Green Arrow ongoing. Recently, Eve Ewing's Ironheart is so good even the comicsgaters have to concede to its quality, and that's her first published comic.

An editor who's just a robot about hiring, strictly admitting people who meet criteria x, y, and z, isn't an editor worth a damn.

Plus, this is America Chavez, not an A-lister or prize title. In this age where Marvel limited series aren't really a thing anymore (well, they've just very recently started making a bit of a comeback, but I digress...), that *is* working one's way up and starting at the bottom.

So you think Rivera was a bad hire. Big whoop, bad hires have happened before, they'll happen again. To go from that to some "affirmative action gone mad" conclusion is persecution-complex nonsense. There are a number of white male writers I think are crap (and don't pretend you disagree). Yet I don't go on a bugbear about how clearly Marvel's racism is leading them to hire unqualified white dudes -- even after Priest, as you pointed out, has outright said he was being excluded from projects because he wasn't white.

> Finally I agree 100% with Priest, but the way to get more diversity in comics isn't to hire unqualified people like Rivera; it's to find talent and foster it, teach it, bring it up through the system organically and show them the ropes.

1. You don't agree with Priest if you think race, gender, and orientation should be completely taken out of the equation of hiring decisions.

2. Why? It's not as if you won't still ignorantly accuse them of being hired purely for quota-filling, just because you personally don't like their work. As your bringing up Sina Grace, a writer who's in no way a rookie, illustrates. Hell, comicsgate even accuse minority writers who get accepted into a *writer's training workshop* -- the very definition of working one's way up -- of being quota hires.

***

And, at the end of the day, I find it utterly bizarre that, in response to Priest outright saying he's being excluded from white characters because he's black, you make it all about how clearly Marvel's too *eager* to hire minority writers and not at all about how it's clearly not giving minority writers enough opportunities to write non-minority characters. I mean, the latter's the one he's providing firsthand evidence of. Even if you make the tenuous argument that those are both two sides of the same coin, the coin still has both sides, yet you and comicsgate almost exclusively focus on one of them.

[katefan]

I just got home and I'm tired as hell and I'm in no shape for butting heads with you on this any more. But the fact that you put so much time and effort into discussing the issue with me deserves a response. I want to thank you for a well reasoned and well worded response, for taking me seriously and showing me a measure of respect in that you felt my opinions deserved at least some measure of appraisal.

You raise some very valid points and maybe you're right about talent being judged on a case-by-case basis and it seems more often than not giving established non-comic writers a chance shows a measure of success (In Gaiman's case, tremendous) and I admit I was wrong about Coates and if Ironheart is any indication I was wrong about Ewing too.

In regards to Comicsgate, really people have got to be taken on a case by case basis. For example I don't think I ever saw Mim Headroom on Twitter so his presence is solely though his Youtube channel and I honestly don't think when you watch his stuff you could call him a Nazi or racist, just someone very critical of a lot of Marvel's output. Just Some Guy is one of the most insightful Youtubers and he's a black man, if Comicsgate was comprised only of white supremicists he would have to be the most delusional man alive and if you watched his videos I think you would have to say he isn't. Nerd Wonder is one of the most positive people I've ever met, I don't think she would be associated with a group steeped in such deep negativity.

I don't think the principle characters are racist, or sexist, or homophobic. And of course there are that sort in the group; every organization has it's extremists and assholes. Case in point, the guy writing Moon Knight said people who didn't agree with him could feast upon his ass. Does that sound professional? Chuck Wendig wasn't fired from his Star Wars comic for his political beliefs but how he expressed them. Mark Waid is being sued because apparently he went too far. A grown man sent a pic of his taint to Ethan Van Sciver. And the coup de gras, we have now found out the writer for Bordertown might be a serial rapist.

So yeah, some CGers are jerks, but compared to some of these jerks sometimes itts the CGers who come across a lot more professional. Just sayin'.

Shit, this went on a lot long than I intended it to. Anyway, again, thanks for taking me seriously.

[laughing_tree]

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to respond even when you were dead tired. No need to feel any such obligation to in the future, though. We're all talking in our leisure time here, and there's no need to turn it into work.

And, likewise, thank you for taking me seriously.

***

I'll point out I never used the term 'white supremacist.' There are plenty of lesser shades of racism than that, shades that I find much of CG to be guilty of, for reasons that I'm sure can be inferred from my previous comments. Might some of the people involved be otherwise decent people who've been swept up by some misleading rhetoric? Sure, and maybe those you listed, who I'm not familiar with, are examples of that.

But at the end of the day, a person's responsible for what banner they've chosen to fly under. So even if someone's not guilty of the same kind of toxic behavior as Ethan van Sciver or D&C, their *support* for them still means something. That support, that lack of condemnation, is in essence giving the okay to that kind of toxic behavior, and that *does* reflect on the person.

You bring up the behavior of a few pros as a 'both sides' sort of argument, but there aren't two sides, not as you're framing it. CGers are flying under a banner; it's an actual movement, with a name and everything. *Not* supporting CG isn't any of those things, it's just not supporting something. The Bordertown guy's behavior is plain evil, but people against CG aren't in any way choosing to fly his banner. You might as well go "well, look at what your side does" to a Libertarian by pointing to what a Green Party member is doing, just because both of them are proudly anti-Trump. (Moreover, you can see plenty of anti-CG people condemning the guy now that they know what he's done. I've yet to see that kind of widespread condemnation on CG's part for its member's more extreme actions.)

On top of all this, there's also the whole thing of nice vs. good. If someone is defending or supporting toxic ideology, it really doesn't matter how polite or nice or non-confrontational they are in doing so, they're still behaving awfully. They might be 'nice' about it, but nevertheless they're behaving awfully.

What the Spider-Gwen's artist did is indefensible, as is the Bordertown guy's actions (though the latter's obviously much worse than the former), but the other examples you mentioned? Well, guys like Waid are not being 'nice' but, as I see it, no way are their harsh words anywhere near the equivalent of the transphobia, racism, homophobia, or sexism I've seen on display all too often from CG. There's no comparison, in my opinion. And that's especially so when the harsh words are directed at those perpetrating or silently complicit with said transphobia, racism, homophobia, and sexism.

[velacron]

"On top of all this, there's also the whole thing of nice vs. good. If someone is defending or supporting toxic ideology, it really doesn't matter how polite or nice or non-confrontational they are in doing so, they're still behaving awfully."

While there is some truth to this, I hope you are aware how incredibly easily this can be twisted to argue "it's different when WE do it".

[laughing_tree]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.

[redmagpie]

Wow okay this was more aggressive than I feel my comment warranted.
There are hispanic and LGBT comic writers working in the indy comics scene. You don't need to be either of those to write a character like that well, but there's insight that you can get from being so that helps.
Also it's not like all the white male writers working in mainstream comics are great either.
And I said 'somebody likes the artist', meaning that some fans must like this art style. In terms of Marvel itself- Gabby Rivera has written one series for Marvel whereas this artist has worked on a bunch of stuff for them. If the editorial likes one of them, it's him.

[katefan]

I apologize if I came on too strong. I had in no way, shape or form intended to make my response sound like an attack against you.

[redmagpie]

It's okay! No need to apologise.