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.
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.
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.
"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".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lordultimus) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
scans_daily2018-12-12 11:15 am
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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".
no subject