Marvel & DC Pride

[shakalooloo]

Each of the big two published a Pride special anthology this month, for the same price. How do they compare?

First thing one will notice - beyond the covers themselves - is that Marvel's offering is of the same material as their regular comicbook output, and even retains the same stapling to keep the pages together, while DC has the slightly sturdier outer shell and spine that their 100-page giants tend to sport.




Inside, I won't go over again how ridicuolous the Marvel Voices contents page layout is, but I will re-iterate that Marvel has once again chosen to isolate the creator credits there, whereas DC prints them both on the inside cover (which Marvel instead gives out to ad space) AND with the individual stories.

On ads, while both volumes feature 'non-content' pages, DC's are more curated, advertising Pride-related services and charities, while Marvel shoves in the same ones in every other book it publishes this month, including pushing the latest event title. Other big difference - DC ads only interspcae the stories, while Marvel is happy to interrupt a comic's flow to show an ad in the middle of it.



Content-wise, barring a foreword, DC is all comic strip. Marvel instead has mainly stories with a four page history article and some Marvel Handbook entries in the back. Leaving aside that the latter are essentially glorified wikipedia entries (and Marvel's insane numbering system meaning that two characters debuting a year apart both cite Marvel's Voices: Pride #1 as their debut!), the editing on the history article is not the best, omiting and confusing dates in places and having FOUR of the six total times Brian Falsworth is mentioned calling him 'Brain'.

The most important part of the anthology, obviously, is the comics themselves, and the quality therein is obviously subjective. The only real objective distinction one can draw between the two is hinted at on the cover, where DC boasts 'fan-favorite characters'.

DC has a majority of its time spent with big-name characters with their own books, like Jon Kent, Tim Drake and Harley & Ivy. Marvel has instead gone for introducing a bunch of new characters, to such an extent that none of the stars even have an ongoing book currently - not even the Young Avengers or the Guardians of the Galaxy! So the DC title feeds more into its current events while Marvel's is more self-contained.

The Marvel book does not contain anything close to DC's 'Finding Batman', but one story does pick at an old, favourite discussion topic of Scans Daily, so why not leave this with a page discussing Krakoa?



Charlie Jane Anders, story; Ro Stein & Ted Brandt, line art; Tamra Bonvillain, colors; Naseem Jamnia, consulting

Comments

[numeronone]

I maintain that, in tone and attitude, the majority of mutants seem closer to silicon valley billionaires and crypto enthusiasts than oppressed, marginalised peoples. They are now a noveau-riche upper class.

[leahandillyana]

DC anthology was surprisingly good while the only good thing in Marvel anthology was explicitly comfirming Loki as bisexual, though adding Leah to their exes was very OOC on the authors' part.

[shakalooloo]

I think someone just ran through a list of every character Loki had ever met in comics or mythology that could conceivably be seen as a love interest and lobbed them into the story.

[alliterator]

I mean, Leah IS one of their exes. Although they never called each other boyfriend/girlfriend, they were definitely in a young romance.

Of course, that Leah no longer exists, so this Leah has to be...young Hela? Eh, it doesn't matter.

[blueprintstyles]

I really hate this perspective on Krakoa, they have a place where mutants are SAFE, where their needs are cared for, and where they don't have to worry about discrimination at work. It's like that episode of Rutherford Falls where the Indigenous casino owner goes off on the 'liberal' podcaster. If you're not suffering and struggling as your minority type should be, you're a turncoat. Way to turn me off a new character Marvel.

here's the scene for those who want to see what I'm talking about,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyCUYCGQ83M

[mindsweeper]

It doesn’t turn me off the character, just the writer.

[lordultimus]

I don't recall indigenous people outlawing all other races from entering their casino's, or declaring themselves to be the superior of all other races.

[alliterator]

I think this viewpoint makes perfect sense for this character. She's someone who has tried to distance herself from her own powers and tries not to define herself by being a mutant. It's clear that the writer, Charlie Jane Anders, is trying to write a more complex storyline.

[deh_tommy]

If that’s what Krakoa was, then I’d agree. But frankly, it’s not. It love bombs new members then leaves them out to dry, ignores the existence of its young, shamed folks for not being mutant enough over an event that they had no say in and encouraged them to kill themselves to thunderous applause, pushes an artificially constructed culture concocted overnight by a bunch of old white dudes, encourages the erasure of omens familial and cultural ties, mistreats and manipulates the mentally vulnerable and unwell, tars everyone under the same brush, and enables, glorifies and provides protection to various heinous, unrepentant monsters.

It’s getting better bit by bit (mainly through recent books like Immortal X-Men and New Mutants which point out how messed up the unfortunate implications have been and work on correcting them), but I think his assessment is right. She’s not doing herself any favours with her rebuttal.

[morallyambiguousscience]

It's not a safe space, it's an authoritarian supremacist ethnostate. The idea is inherently anti-diversity. It's just pink washing fascism.

[blues32]

The mutants don't SEEM safe. I mean, putting aside the attacks they suffer, their haven itself is slowly devouring their life energy. Has to end up taking a year or two off their lives in grand total.

[blueprintstyles]

Holy S%! this blew up. I disagree with some elements writers have taken with Krakoa but overall I still strongly support it. Every step taken until Hickman left was to ensure they as a nation would be treated as an equal and not be bombed out of existence, like the last mutant nation that tried to rise up. These weren't shows of strength or superiority, these were economic and societal decisions every country makes. And I don't fault them for doing away with a lot of 'human conventions' most of them don't really work anymore or never did. Why stick with fossil fuels when you can go solar?

I'd rather mutants piss some people off to ensure the safety of their family and neighbours than constantly be maimed, marginalized and murdered in a one-sided conversation. There was a group that hunted mutants for their organs to take their powers, and there was a debate about whether or not they were in the wrong. When I read that run, I flashed to the NFL banning people from taking a knee to protest police brutality, and celebrities I once admired saying blue lives matter. I'm done with being polite about being treated as an equal, and it made my heart soar reading the X-men are done too. Agree to disagree.

[zachbeacon]

So do both of the anthologies have stories featuring all the characters that they put on the covers to sell the books?

[shakalooloo]

DC does. Marvel does not. Karolina and Nico are mentioned in the history article, but do not appear in a story. Northstar and Kyle appear in a portrait in the background of the strip scanned above, and Kyle is one of the OHMU profiles.

[alliterator]

Both were good, but I'd actually give Marvel the edge here. Like you said, DC concentrated on their most popular characters.

And Marvel, instead, introduced new ones. I think that's pretty significant.

Both anthologies had cringe moments, yes, but DC's had the biggest cringe with the Devin Grayson "Pride is a party!" comic strip. And, honestly, most of them were just fluff, aside from the very last story, "Finding Batman," which blew everything else out of the water. *That* is what I wanted more of.

Marvel's stories had much more variety and were must more interesting. "Finding Batman" still is the best story of all of them, but, again, I'd say Marvel's simply had better stories.

[shakalooloo]

I could've done without TWO of the stories in Marvel revolving around Loki scheming, but the Escapade introduction was pretty cool. Having the extra page count definitely helped establish the characters better than the couple of panels D-Man's friends got. Certainly interested in seeing more.

Wondering at the horrific potential of a character who can transmute ANY ORGANIC MATERIAL into chocolate...

[windleopard2]

Both were good, but I'd actually give Marvel the edge here. Like you said, DC concentrated on their most popular characters.

Not quite accurate. The most popular character in DC Pride are Jon Kent, Jackson Hyde, Harley & Ivy and Tim Drake. The rest were:

* Nubia, a Wonder Woman character who is only now just receiving a push in comics and whom the majority of comic fans didn't know or care about, to say nothing of the general public being unaware of her.

* Alysia Yeoh, a fairly new Batgirl supporting character.

* Jo Mullein, who while having a decent reception, has nowhere near the fanbase as classic Green Lanterns Hal, John, Guy or Kyle or even fellow new Lantern Jessica.

* Ray Terrill, a fairly niche character, even among comic fans.

* Kate Kane, while still fairly popular and well known, I wouldn't count as among DC's most popular characters. Not yet anyway.

* Kid Quick who's from an alternate universe and is also a new character.

DC used it's popular characters while pushing new or not very popular ones.

[scorntx]

I was wondering, and since this is about Marvel and DC's pride celebrations, seemed a good place to ask:
DC's adverts were showing Huntress (one of the Helenas, and I'm assuming it's Bertinelli) among their line-up, and I was wondering if anyone knew when they explicitly confirmed her as being queer?

[iamrman]

My favourite story was the one with Loki's exes. Was the horse-man the same one that fathered Sleipnir?

[icon_uk]

I've not read this story, but in the various takes on the legend I know, Sleipnir's father was a horse, rather than a centaur

[blues32]

The fact that Marvel is using many long term members of the LBGTQ community and DC seems to be using ones they just made very recently on their covers is a little off-putting. It's not like there weren't older characters they could use. ...though some of them were written very poorly.

Why isn't Obsidian on the cover? He was one of the first openly gay DC characters, wasn't he? Does he at least get a mention? Marvel had Northstar on their cover and he was their first openly gay superhero (I think). And who is that speedster? Is that the second Flash from Justice League 3000?

[scorntx]

It's Jess Chambers, Kid Quick of Earth-11, who is genderfluid and uses "they / them".

[shakalooloo]

On their covers, sure, but inside Marvel using even more recent characters than DC - characters who have not appeared before the issue in question!

[cygnia]

Any ace/aro characters in the Marvel book? I know DC has Conner Hawke...

[shakalooloo]

There aren't any called out as such within the book, and no story bringing it up, either.

[huntleyhaverstock]

I've always thought the X-Men were most effective as characters when their strangeness made you subtly uncomfortable -- most notably in Grant Morrison's NEW X-MEN run. It's easy to empathize with hot, spandex-clad super people who look just like you (except way more attractive, and then also Wolverine) or at least whose whole personality is avuncular, lovable, and non-threatening (the old "oh my stars and garters," hangin'-out-with-Wonder-Man Hank McCoy).

It's harder, and more interesting, to empathize with people who look strange and frightening to you, and act in ways that, however fundamentally benevolent, kinda creep you out.

I think the flaws with Krakoa were baked in from the start, and designed to spur this kind of passionate discussion and debate. I think there's room to see Krakoa as a safe refuge for the persecuted, but also as a place where an oppressed minority gains overwhelming power and risks having it corrupt them -- tempts them to forget the lessons of empathy they learned when they were the underdogs. I think we're meant to see these signs as ominous, and root HARD for the characters to resist them.

I think that push and pull, that discomfort, is fully intentional, and I find it fascinating. I don't think the message of Krakoa is, "Oppressed minorities shouldn't gain power or enjoy safety." I read it as, "Too much power in anyone's hands can tempt people to make bad decisions, and cutting yourself off from the larger world makes it harder to empathize with others. How do these people we fundamentally root for navigate those challenges and remain heroes?"

[laughing_tree]

Well said! Thank you for articulating a core part of the Krakoan era's effectiveness as a storytelling device.

I continue to be surprised more people don't see it, honestly, and that goes for both sides of these arguments. Like, how do you know see it's -meant- to be kinda creepy?