Comic Book Resources

I love how Willingham pretty much implies that liberals are responsible for 'superhero decadence', when you can really trace it back to Frank Miller (who's, what, a hardcore libertarian?) and Alan Moore, who I guess is pretty damn liberal. But still, most of the most upbeat/heroic/inspiring superhero stories recently are from dudes like Morrison and Waid who are as left-leaning as they come. Tying partisan politics into the eternal fight over how superheroes should be portrayed in comics seems like a pretty unnecessary and irrelevant complication.

I'm torn. I do love pure heroic ideals in my superhero comics -- in fact, I've gained a greater appreciation for Superman as an adult, as he stands for doing the right thing just because it's the right thing to do, and he help out. However, I have an issue with turning a more virtuous code of conduct into jingoism. Indeed, Tintin's a great example of a crusading hero. And indeed, he's Belgium.

Also, I fail to see how multiculturalism is un-American. Last I checked, one point of pride this nation's always had was its big pot approach to populace. At least, that's something I appreciate about it.

Oh man, I really like Fables, too, and now I feel like it's soiled.

This is all conservative sour grapes because while Bush got hammered by Marvel, it's clear they're setting Obama up to be a big hero, possibly as a tie-in to the resolution of the Civil War-Secret Invasion-Dark Reign trilogy.

I think there is room for superheroes with shades of gray and those without. Traditionally speaking, Marvel comics has had murkier waters since the heyday of Stan & Jack, where DC was home to the steadfast heroes who were never wrong. I think, to some extent, DC has damaged their own iconography by trying to stay relevant in the face of more three dimensional characters. But that damage isn't permanent, nor is it going to be repaired by a retreat to the days when superheroes waved the American flag.

The walls between nations are falling at a rapid pace, and American superhero comics need to adapt and grow into something that fits the world we live in today or become irrelevant. Hope is not dead, nor is the American Dream. I feel that this past political season has been ample proof of that. Americans can still inspire without denigrating other nations in the process. Perhaps superhero comics could benefit from a more earnest examination of the hope the Obama campaign engendered, rather than a story where Spider-Man saves the President-elect.

Is this going to start a superhero culture war?

I like how black and white moral superheroes is a pro-American ideal, while heroes having gray areas is foreign erosion of our culture.

Damn that 1980s British invasion!

I've enjoyed Fables and made it a point to swallow the bitter pill of Willingham's evident conservatism. It seems healthy, socially and aesthetically, to be able to read a writer with whom I deeply disagree, to find ways of enjoying and engaging with his work. However, this is just too much: a healthy difference of opinion is one thing, but these statements are just jingoism. I won't waste time and money on that.

The Ultimates run Willingham seems to be characterizing as disconnected actually depicts Captain America reconciling the fact that America is not just one thing all of the time; that America can still be great even when it owns up to its mistakes. It's disappointing that the writer of Fables -- one of my favorite comic books -- is unable to perceive such a plainly laid out "complexity" -- it's not like Mark Millar is famous for his subtleties, you know?

Additionally, I don't know what superhero comics Willingham's been reading, but didn't the whole Marvel Universe just get together to defend their homeland from violent religious zealots? He sounds like John Byrne, railing ignorantly against the strawman idea of superheroes turned into pornographic icons only Howard Chaykin could love. Sad.

well, that should make racist nationalist comic book fans happy. Now they don't have to be scared of Mexican superheroes or, white jesus forbid, black ones. how unamerican.

America is a continent, not a country. GET IT ALREADY.

And surely, high moral standards are not only found in comics produced in the US and their characters, let alone in the real population. All around the world we can see examples of it, both in and out of comics.

Also, If not multicultural, then what is the United States?

I think this is a lot more interesting of a quote:

I’m going to shamelessly steal a line from Rush Limbaugh, who said, concerning a different matter, “Go ahead and have your recession if you insist, but you’ll have to pardon me if I choose not to participate.”

Rush Limbaugh? I didn't think anyone intelligent took that man seriously.

I wonder what happened to Bill.

I can understand the desire to have Superheroes act more, well, HEROIC. The Marvel Universe has taken a lot of their characters and made them seedier, their actions less heroic. Sure, you'll get Marvel arguing that this is keeping in tone with what Stan Lee did back in the day, making heroes with feet of clay and human failings. And this can be a good thing sometimes. For a little while. But as with all things, if taken to excess things can do more harm than good. The Authority was an intriguing experiment- heroes that acted with a villains ruthlessness in order to save the day. But spreading this moral ambiguity across the board taints the other heroes who motivations were more noble. I can understand the desire to make Iron Man a more interesting character, but I can no longer say he is an admirable hero. But, as with all things there is a time and a place. The moral ambiguity and "superhero decadence" that was came about at the beginning of the new century is starting to show its age. People are desiring more inspirational heroes, heroes that ACT like heroes. All there needs to be is one instance to set the comics industry on its ear, and show an example the rest of comics can follow.

...And this coming from the guy who's taking over the most "decadent" book - as he terms it - on the market today: JSA. I *really* worry about that book now.

Our superhero comics simply reflect our times. Our society is completely fragmented, which results in complete stasis and inaction, bringing about decadence and hopelessness.

Conservatives are the saddest bunch of people, who want to control society and shape it into their version of how things should be. Whereas liberals see how things are, and want to make things better for everyone.

In terms of stories, no matter what your political or societal leanings are, it doesn't prevent you from telling entertaining stories. And at this time, readers want to read superhero stories that deal with the complete
uncertainty that grips us right now.

What's the next war/terrorist bombing? The next corporate collapse? The next political scandal? The next mother to kill her own children? The next natural disaster?

So writers can't write about how things used to be in the comics. Why? Because it would be false, and most readers don't want to be lied to.

That said, some whimsy and good deeds are good for the soul. In moderation, haha.

"I can understand the desire to have Superheroes act more, well, HEROIC. "

Exactly. I think this is the point willingham was trying to get across. THe people that commented on his piece with comments regarding Blue Beetle I think are misinterpreting what he's said.

"Conservatives are the saddest bunch of people, who want to control society and shape it into their version of how things should be. Whereas liberals see how things are, and want to make things better for everyone."

Not trying to attack or anything, but that seems like an awfully one-sided quote. I can see the conservatives twirling their mustaches now. How exactly do liberals make the world better, without shaping it into their vision of how things should be?

It's amazing that he would take the attitude, "well, this is terrible for superheroes, but perfectly okay with my fantasy series which deconstructs the fairy tales most kids know through Disney films nowadays!" I do have to admit knowing that there is a likely right-wing subtext to Fables does take the wind out of its sails a bit - it's been an enjoyable series.

The culture war has been going full tilt in America for a couple decades now. It's inevitable that it will touch, in some way, every medium we have.

That said, this offends me as a writer. It's the job of a writer to tell a story, to make people think about different topics and ask certain questions. What Willingham is suggesting is propaganda, which I would venture to say is thoroughly un-American.

If I remember my ELEMENTALS lore, the team's chief nemesis was Lazarus--you know, the guy a certain messianic figure brought back from the dead over 2000 years ago. Toward the end of the series, there was a team of "heroes" spawned by a "Rapture"-like event that the Elementals had to put down. How very NOT conservative of Mr. Willingham, especially during the Reagan era.

(A handful of years later, DC balked at releasing a comic that would have depicted Swamp Thing as the cross to which said messianic figure was nailed--a move that prompted the immediate departure of Rick Veitch from the title, as it derailed the time travel story he had been writing. But I digress.)

So almost 30 years ago, the ELEMENTALS saw print (and Veitch's SWAMP THING didn't), but would such concepts be tolerated today? Do you imagine for one second that there wouldn't be an immediate backlash from the religious right--or, perhaps, the politically correct, namby-pamby left? Current conditions puts the lie to the assertion that today we're as liberal-leaning as the conservative media outlets imagine us to be--when obviously, we're not as liberal-leaning as we were a short 30 years ago! No, not a single comic book company would put themselves on the line to publish ELEMENTALS or Veitch's SWAMP THING in 2009.

And then there's Willingham's adult-oriented (i.e., porn-laced) IRONWOOD. Oh, man. Gooooood times!

So, I think it's unfair and shortsighted to slap a label on Mr. Willingham that attempts to reduce him into some kind of static "constant" that renders his work, both past and present, irrelevant. It's obvious that his creative outpourings reflect thinking and feeling that exists on a continuum and that are affected by the reality in which he is immersed ... just like everybody else. I enjoy FABLES, and I happen to agree with him that there we've lost sight of what "heroism," "courage," "patriotism" and "sacrifice" mean, both personally and culturally. Without such polestars or magnetic lures, our compasses are spinning out of control, and current superhero comics exactly reflect that lack of direction. What else explains it?

But I don't care what Mr. Willingham's personal politics are. In the end, does it matter? A good story well told transcends the fleeting, shifting sands of politics, which are, after all, "accidents" of time and geography. And Mr. Willingham is an excellent storyteller. The comic book industry is better for his presence and insight, and I look forward to the steps he'll take to transform the medium again.

"Not trying to attack or anything, but that seems like an awfully one-sided quote. I can see the conservatives twirling their mustaches now. How exactly do liberals make the world better, without shaping it into their vision of how things should be?"

It seemed like an awfully one sided quote, because it was.

Both sides have their ideas on how to make the world a better place. Both sides think they have the answer.

The answer, as with most things, lies in moderation.

As for the article, To a great extent I agree with it. Heroes used to stand for something. *Something* And it was very easy to pick out what that was. Patriotism, truth, justice, the American way....those "old Ideals" are not about being liberal or conservative. It's something that we, as members of the USA (umm for those of us that are) are supposed to be striving for: Democracy for all people. Freedom for all people. A chance at a better life. A chance to live your dreams.

Heroes used to stand for that. Their role, plain and simply, was to protect people from evil. Evil being someone, or something that could take away our basic freedoms.

I would hope, and assume that liberal or conservative, everyone could agree on that.

"Is it America’s fault Belgium doesn’t produce comic books?”

Not Only, as robot & has pointed, belgium is the country where Tintin was born, but it is a country with a long tradition of publishing comics, plus, along with France, it boasts one of the strongest comic publication industries of Europe. In fact, Europe produces quite a number of comics, and European readers not only read local production, but a good deal of USAmerican comics (both mainstream superheroes and independent comics) and Japanese.

Whether Mr. Willingham believes it or not, comics not only exist in the USA, but almost everywhere in the world... in Japan or France, for instance is a thriving activity not only meant for teenaged geeks, but a respected medium which boasts readers of any condition/age.

I loved Ted Kord, but the New Blue Beetle's got uniformly good reviews, so it's possibly something there beyond the new Beetle having Hispanic roots (hum... like interesting scripts).

I love Fables, but as far as opinions and manifestoes go, I think that Robert Kirkman's appeal for author owned books is a more interesting option than Willingham's ideological complaint. maybe because Kirkman's opinion really makes a statement about how the industry is ruled... If Kirkman wants wholesome, all-american comics, well, all he has to do is preach with the example and write them himself... otherwise this "Superheroes are so goshdarn gritty now" sounds hippocritical... He was the one who suggested that Snow-white had been gang-raped by the seven dwarves, after all.

I'm waiting Willingham to be the first to give the good example he demands and write Jack of Fables as if he were a Boy Scout.

I'm also tired of the relentless darkness of comic books these days. I'm tired of Marvel slowly destroying the Avengers (I'm starting to believe this is all a five or ten year plan which will end with a rebirth of the team, but only at the cost of a large chunk of their readership) and DC's constant murder of their young heroes. The nihilism *is* depressing but I don't think some return to "traditional comic values" is correct either.

There has to be some middle path. I see moments of it in Geoff John's work, or the gritty heroes with (occasional) hearts of gold found in Ed Brubaker's work. The hope AND realism of Matt Fraction and Jay Faerber is incredibly inspiring.

There is something between "grim and gritty" and "unrealistic golden age jingoism" and we need to support the creators who provide it.

And here I was thinking that fiction was supposed to help us find new ways to think, as opposed to just telling us what to think. Silly me...

Virtuous does not automatically equal American. Conservative does not automatically equal virtuous. American does not automatically equal conservative.

As a friend of Bill's, I've always thought it was the mark of his skills and vision as a writer that his personal politics were not visible in his stories. I've seen him accused of being a liberal based on his work before, even.

As for this argument? Who cares? Left/right, conservative/liberal... who wants to wear those labels anymore? The country's falling apart while people pick sides and point fingers... brilliant.

Ironic, that commenter's negative reaction to BLUE BEETLE, considering (1) Willingham writing partner Matt Sturges is the current writer and (2) the current storyline has SCRUPULOUSLY fairly addressed immigration issues from "liberal" and "conservative" vantages.

In short, Willingham's saying "Do as I say, not as I do."

I agree that heroes need to be more heroic. They need to be an icon of what good should be ... having morals, overcoming evil and making the world a BETTER place to live in. Sure, a bit of intrigue is good. But having a whole title devoted to the Thundbolts/Dark Avengers? Is this really necessary? Or what about the Dark Side Club ... why? Sure it's okay to have shades of gray with your superheroes, but it's wrong to glorify them. Is The Punisher really a good guy? Does he need a series? Really? I long for the days that Frank was a foe that caused moral dilemma. The same thing with characters like Lobo, Vigilante, Venom, Deathstroke, and the whole execution of The Ultimates. It's funny ... the more I look at comics these days, the more I get trades and the "younger" audience comics ... at least those are fun.

That is just a bunch of silliness from Willingham. What has really made superheroes more popular in recent years isn't that they are grim and gritty. What has made them popular is that superheroes are finally being portrayed as human beings, who, as in The Elementals, battle the evil despite their flaws. This is what lends hope to people. It gives the message that they too have the ability to be more than the mistake laden, flaw burdened people that they are, but can gain redemption despite their transgressions and feelings, and become heroic.

"Left/right, conservative/liberal… who wants to wear those labels anymore? The country’s falling apart while people pick sides and point fingers… brilliant."

That's fine, coming from THE MAN WHO KILLED AMERICA!!!

Heh. Couldn't resist.

Lessons on heroism from a guy who used to write and draw porno comics. Irony is not dead after all.

Rob McMonigal
Oh man, I really like Fables, too, and now I feel like it’s soiled.
andy khouri
He sounds like John Byrne, railing ignorantly

^ What they said.

And,
"A more virtuous — more American — point of view."
That sentence came out so wrong... If it was a Colbert quote I'd find it funny. Is there a chance he was being sarcastic and this BS manifesto is to be taken with, uh, a boulder of salt?

>> Whether Mr. Willingham believes it or not, comics not only exist in the USA, but almost everywhere in the world…>>

Bill didn't say anything about Belgium. Go look again.

>> In short, Willingham’s saying “Do as I say, not as I do.”>>

I didn't see any such thing. I saw Bill saying, "This is what I'm gonna do." He didn't tell anyone else they should do it too.

I disagree with Bill politically, but I love his writing. I'd hate to limit myself to reading only the work of people I agree with.

But then, I'm a liberal who's written a lot of morally-confident superheroes over the years, and who used "and the American Way" as an important element in TRINITY, not just about Superman, but Batman and Wonder Woman as well. Go figure.

If Bill wants to write morally-confident superheroes, well, good. People who like what he does will like the result, and people who don't can read the work of writers who want to do something else. Variety is an excellent thing, and I hope there are large enough audiences to support lots of different approaches, within the superhero genre and beyond it.

kdb

Oh wow!

This is such a deeply emotive topic for me. I consider myself to be the left-leaning, and foreign kind of character that would be accused of somehow polluting the integrity and courage of superheroes as I seem to think is envisioned by Willingham.

I'm not going to attack him as somehow being crazy, or mistaken for having conservative values. That's his prerogative, and his right to support or promote a political vision I may not agree with.

I don't think any kind of ad hominem assault on his character, or the cultural/social impact of his politics is fair or productive.

BUT, I would question the implicit assumption that a politics other than his own makes for heroes who are less of anything.

Existing in a complex, morally ambiguous universe does not equal a lack of heroism, or a lack of code or morality on the behalf of the heroes.

Does the actions of a hero in the face of uncertainty not indicate a higher faith in the positive outcomes of their actions? When things seem the most uncertain, when things are the most obscure, and unclear, does it not make the heroes MORE heroic for having the temerity and tenacity to act?

Why is it somehow seen as implicitly LESS heroic to act in full knowledge of the complexities of the world one's actions takes place in, than if one were to do so in full awareness of these complexities?

Maybe it's just me, but I would find it much more heartening to place my faith in heroes who KNEW they were taking on these issues... I would be able to believe in these heroes, whereas the "more" heroic kind as envisioned by Willingham would just pass me by as a self-absorbed spectacle.

Also, to be contentious, why is Bill himself inscribing his preferred kind of heroes in a way that suggests that heroes who are patriotic, heroic and have an unshakable code can't exist in a complex morally ambiguous world without that somehow undermining their values? Isn't that actually a self-defeating argument...?

"Left/right, conservative/liberal… who wants to wear those labels anymore? The country’s falling apart while people pick sides and point fingers… brilliant."

Ed, the country is falling apart because of the criminal behavior of George W. Bush and the Republican Party over the last eight years; it's rather important to know that so that people don't entrust such animals with power in the future.

As for Willingham: I'm glad that he's come out with views; now I know to add him to my list of comics creators whose work I will never spend a dime on.

Great comment, Mr. Busiek. Now I like you even more.

Ok, I'm not going to run around it i see this desperate attempt by so many to have their superhero comics "Save Them" stand up for some political view that's going to some how influence every one to act a certain way as a complete and utter lack of spine! ITS A STORY its make believe. guess what if you want the world to be better stop looking to superman to save you stop looking for spider-man to teach you and your kids how to be a good person look to your self. Comic books like movies and Television and video games are entertainment! Thats it! sorry i know I'm going to be a lone voice here but suck it up, shake it off be man. The world is in peril and its not going to get better just because Superman is flying around with a flag or tellin' kids to drink their milk for god sakes.

I have to believe that people are running around so scared of everything so out of their minds of the prospect of things going south, or sacred to death of these scumbag terrorist that they just don't know what to do with them selves. Cowards wanting to run away into a goddamn comic book 'cos they just can't take it. Guess what back in the 30s the world was scared up back in the 40's 50's the world was screwed up Not amount of safe and patriotic entertainment is going to change that. All that's going to do is make YOU feel better and safe but it wont solve anything. My problem with the way America is isn't with any game or TV show or comic YOU all of YOU need to look to your selves to blame. And this isn't how i feel about just republicans but liberals as well. You sit there and blame everything for things that only human action is to blame, I read Superhero comics and i see the same brave and selfless people i have always seen, its just that their world has gotten a little darker, and the stories are challenging the reader to think a little bit is that so bad? Its just a story stop looking for media to save you life take some responsibility and save your own.

I love this country and i don't need my comics to tell me to love this country or to belive in god or anything i NEED ME thats all Grow up.

I don't know. Superheroes have been doing the "dark, gritty, edgy" thing for the past 20 years, ever since Dark Knight and Watchmen. And now those kinds of stories can seem as weak and predictable as the old-fashioned upstanding superheroes, especially since a lot of writers seem to automatically equate "dark" with "realistic."

What we need are good new ideas. Watchmen worked because no one had done superheroes in that way before. We need a new kinds of superhero stories, and new ways to tell them. That's innovation. Sticking in the same ruts for another twenty years: that's decadence.

Sounds like he's attacking Ed... He killed off one of the most conservative heroes ever and replaced him with Bucky who clearly has issues of doubt (Thinks he can't live up to the title) and self-loathing (Hates his past as the Winter Soldier) BUT...C'mon man, these are comics to entertain the masses not columns in the New York Times to inform them and I for one find stories about Bucky becoming a great hero right before our eyes through his trials and tribulations a LOT more interesting than big brother Steve being preachy and all-knowing.

Let Steve R.I.P. and let the new generation of creators be heard. You don't have to agree with them after all.

Quote: “different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view.”

To equate "American" with "virtuous" has one funny touch about it. That's for sure.
With all due respect for the people of the USA, who I have a lot of sympathy for. This kind of patriotism will always appear strange to me.

Other than than, Mr. W. didn't offend anybody, so why bother. His opinion isn't mine, but it doesn't hurt. I love his Fables-book. One of the best there is.

Translation:
Support Israel.

I do appreciate the viewpoint some writers (and others) have expressed, that basically the specific politics of the work of art aren't ultimately important. But in Fables #50, Willingham very clearly suggested that Fables is a political allegory: Fabletown is Israel, the Empire is the neighboring Arab states. Re-read if you don't believe me--there's a whole speech by Bigby about it.

I find such one-dimensional politics to be repugnant--it may just be art, but those are real bodies in Gaza (700 and counting). I'd rather not keep my comics in a preserve of aesthetic reverie or pure entertainment at the expense of an intelligent engagement with real people, real politics and real power. Willingham has invited a political reading of his work all along, and the more extreme he reveals his politics to be, the more reaction he'll get. It's only logical.

"Ed, the country is falling apart because of the criminal behavior of George W. Bush and the Republican Party over the last eight years; it’s rather important to know that so that people don’t entrust such animals with power in the future. "
^
^
The best part about Obama being elected is that I won't have to listen to another 4 years of this drivel. Seriously people, the man is talking about writing better superhero comics. THAT'S A GOOD THING! If you don't like them then don't read them. I, for one, will, and kudos to Ed and Kurt for weighing in on this.

"As for Willingham: I’m glad that he’s come out with views"
^
^
It's not been a secret what Bill's views are. You know what else isn't a secret? The fact that he is a superb writer! Frankly, if I were reduced to reading books by writers whose political views I agree with, my pull list would be about 3 books long. The point here is better heroes equal better books. Again, I don't see a problem with that.

Man, there are a lot of intolerant liberals in this thread. I guess free speech should only apply to liberals, right?

I've only read a little of Fables, but to you guys who've told me it's an allegory for Israel kudos.

I'm now feeling a bit dubious about it.

I'm from a long standing family of Jewish Leftists and Israel is a contentious issue for me personally. If that's really the subtext to his musings it makes me feel really uncomfortable.

Just my thoughts...

The "OMG I"LL NEVER READ WILLINGHAM AGAIN!!!!!" crap is ridiculous. Look at yourselves in the mirror. You are everything you accuse the other side of being. You are the flipside of the coin.

nick

"I do appreciate the viewpoint some writers (and others) have expressed, that basically the specific politics of the work of art aren’t ultimately important. But in Fables #50, Willingham very clearly suggested that Fables is a political allegory: Fabletown is Israel, the Empire is the neighboring Arab states. Re-read if you don’t believe me–there’s a whole speech by Bigby about it. "

Does Fables #50 contain a good story?

If it does then what is the problem? What if everything in the story was the same but the Fables were Palestine instead?

>> What if everything in the story was the same but the Fables were Palestine instead?>>

Or a tiny village in Gaul, surrounded by armed camps of Romans...

kdb

I'm forced to agree as there does seem to be a trend with superheroes nowadays to make them appear less-than-super in the moral sense. No character is ever good to the core--writers enjoy interjecting elements of doubt and mistrust to taint the motivations of characters because that makes the characters "interesting". But that's a popular trend that extends way past comics. Take any modern history class and the popular thing to do is be "critical" of historical figures like Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, and even Martin Luther King--all individuals the American culture once considered heroes. It's trendy for historians to put MLK under the microscope and say he wasn't all that great a person, he was an adulterer, blah blah blah. So it makes sense that this kind of cynicism has made it's way into mainstream comics because that's what's being encouraged in our culture.

No one in real life is perfect, but that's what makes comics so great: the heroes can be as totally idealized as readers want them to be. And I want to read about heroes that are true and honest and patriotic and GOOD. Call me old fashioned, but I like goody-two-shoes boy scouts who stick to the Ten Commandments and remember to call their moms on Mother's Day. And by that same token, I want to read about villains who are totally evil and vile, so that when someone like Captain America is kicking his ass, I'm there cheering right along.

And yes, I think a part of what's fueling the trend of tarnishing the good guy image is liberal ideology. Far left-wing teachings don't allow for many moral absolutes because the ideology is based on an individual's social desires (what makes a person happy, what a person wants, what a person wants to achieve, etc.). So what's "evil" to one person might not be "evil" to another, therefore nothing can or should be called "evil" in the first place. Same thing applies to anything that could be called "good". Okay, I'm starting to digress here, but after having just finished a semester long discourse on different ideologies, it's hard for me to stop speaking the lingo.

>> And yes, I think a part of what’s fueling the trend of tarnishing the good guy image is liberal ideology.

You do know, don't you, that Superman and Captain America were created by liberals?

kdb

While we all "think" we know exactly what Bill W's politics are, people commenting here need to know how to separate the commentators and the quote from James Hudnall from the original column from Bill.

You're confusing the issue by reading someone else's opinions into the original piece.

"You do know, don’t you, that Superman and Captain America were created by liberals?"

Very true Kurt. However, today's liberal and yesterday's liberal aren't exactly the same species.

It just seems that Big Bill is having a crisis of concious. He's that old man sitting on his rocking chair talking about "the good old days". Not really disclosing that the good ol' days consisted of some pretty horrible periods of intolerance.
This is why i'm not too interested in these "perfect" hero stories. I see on the news, everyday, horrible things happening. I want a hero that even if he's not perfect, is still trying to make the world a little better.
As for the "backed by a deep virtue and unshakable code"..the only people I see with those self professed ideals are some of the same people blowing other people up or touching alter boys in their no-no's. So he can have that virtue and run with.

"As for the “backed by a deep virtue and unshakable code”..the only people I see with those self professed ideals are some of the same people blowing other people up or touching alter boys in their no-no’s. So he can have that virtue and run with."

Since when did murder and rape become virtuous?! Are you serious?!!!

You know, I'd be okay with comics being more American if by that it was meant tolerant and protective from ideological tyranny- as it should be. As it stands it appears that's not the case, the case instead being a vehicle for one conservative viewpoint. America should be a place for everyone's ideas amd freedom, and if that's what the Justice League meant, I wouldn't mind it being the Justice League of America.

>> However, today’s liberal and yesterday’s liberal aren’t exactly the same species.>>

One could say the same thing, with bells on, about conservatives. But I don't think "liberal" is even a species, nor is "conservative." Waaaaay too much variation in the ranks, and neither group breeds true.

As a liberal today, I probably share more of Jack Kirby's political opinions than people who assume that New Deal Democrats and modern liberals are alien to one another would imagine. And Goldwater and Eisenhower wouldn't recognize much of the outgoing administration as Republicans.

Both change and continuity can be found in any group.

And as a conservative, Kurt, I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why the parties are called Democrat and Republican, and not Liberal and Conservative.

I am amazed at the venom towards Bill's comments, he was simply articulating his belief that stories regarding superheroes have become darker and that these heroes who clearly stood for something superman, truth, justice and the american way, Peter Parker, power & responsibility. etc... have drifted away from their moral centers that defined them. In some ways I enjoy these stories as long as the character is acting in character, I thought the whole spider-man/civil war unmasking was totally out of character.

Those of you who have taken to name calling (on both sides) strike me as knee-jerkers who beliefs have been challenged and do not know how to engage an intellectual argument regarding the merits of one man's opinion.

People like you (on both the right and left) who generalize, marginalize and belittle people who have a differing opinion and are simply expressing that opinion in a polite and articulate, non-threatening way are the problem with mankind. You strike me as intolerant and unwilling to consider what the opposing viewpoint might be.

As for those of you who point fingers solely at the republicans, I suggest that you pay attention to the news there are plenty of men and women in both the major political parties that have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing, not just republican's.

And contrary to one posters viewpoint or opinion George bush has yet to even be indicted by any American court for any criminal acts.

As a somewhat conservative person, I am close friends with many progressive individuals, and while we almost never agree we at least still respect each other to listen to the others point of view, and are still friends after our very heated discussions.

So if you disagree with Bill's opinion, that is certainly your right as an American to do so, but if you cannot articulate why it is that you disagree with it, especially without engaging in derogatory name calling akin to "democrats/republican's=nazi's" then you might be as intolerant or more so than the person you are disagreeing with.

Best Regards

" No one in real life is perfect, but that’s what makes comics so great: the heroes can be as totally idealized as readers want them to be. And I want to read about heroes that are true and honest and patriotic and GOOD. Call me old fashioned, but I like goody-two-shoes boy scouts who stick to the Ten Commandments and remember to call their moms on Mother’s Day. And by that same token, I want to read about villains who are totally evil and vile, so that when someone like Captain America is kicking his ass, I’m there cheering right along. "

Apart from any partisan ideology, isn't this an admission that you want to read stories that confirm exactly what you know you believe to be ideal, instead of stories that challenge your beliefs? The role of the writer, after all, is to give us different perspectives than our own...

@ Anne.

Sorry, but I can't agree.

As someone who is also knee deep in various forms of political/social philosophies as a part of studies I just don't equate far left political leanings with rampant individualism.

I'm not saying you're wrong with that perspective, but it's just not my own interpretation.

Rampant individualism is, for me at least, a product of a self-absorbed consumer culture, that has the power to cross over all forms of political ideologies. Both certain kinds of Right and Left politics neglect the importance of the values of community, self-sacrifice, and loyalty, which are IMHO very important if not some of the most important values we have. I'm personally as little a fan of both Gordon Gecko style 'greed is good' individualism, as I am of "just do what feels right to you" liberalism.

I think the issue is not so much about how it is liberal values that undermine the "true" heroism of superheroes by making them self-conscious, or aware of their own implication in a complex morally ambiguous world.

I think it is wrong to equate either complexity or a lack of heroism with either Left or Right politics. This is an unfair argument against both sides, as for one side of political divide the concept of what IS right just means different things. This isn't to day that Willingham is wrong, and that a more self-declared moral certainty is necessary as a counter, or that it is liberal insistence on moral ambiguity is wrong.

I think ironically, the division between Left/Right is enough to produce the complexity and moral ambiguity even before their particular meaning of heroism is expressed by either side.

This is where I will criticize Willingham, as he's not arguing for a more productive form of debate between all parties, as in many ways this would involve both sides accepting the differences between the two as being legitimate expressions of important ideas for both respective parties. What the meaning of his statement is really is "people need to have the same politics as me or shut up".

As I see it, the issue is that it is unfair to argue that morally ambiguous superheroes aren't actually as heroic as ones who are certain they are right.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for certainty either, I'm just suggesting that to make the equation moral ambiguity = unheroic is a bit too unfair. Both kinds of heroism can, and are, different forms of heroism, and deal with the role of being a hero in different ways.

In many ways, aren't we actually stopping the morally ambiguous heroes from being heroes in their own right by saying it isn't heroic to be a hero in a morally ambiguous world...?

>>"Bill didn’t say anything about Belgium. Go look again."

You're right, I was mistaken.

>>"Variety is an excellent thing, and I hope there are large enough audiences to support lots of different approaches, within the superhero genre and beyond it"

Maybe that is the real issue... and the truth is, there's actually a lot of variety available: sometimes if people complains about the Superhero books they buy and don't like it would be better giving up the books they find unsatisfying and try to other types of comics: maybe there are genres and excellent stories around just waiting for their audiences... It was by dropping collections I did no longer like, and trying something else, that I could afford to purchase, and discover, "Invincible" and "Fables", which I like.

kdb: "I didn’t see any such thing. I saw Bill saying, “This is what I’m gonna do.” He didn’t tell anyone else they should do it too."

He didn't say things "must" be done a certain way, but he was certainly suggesting it.

My problem was Willingham complaining about certain writing choices, but then exempting himself from those complaints because Fables isn't a superhero book. That seems like a bit of a cop-out.

Waitaminute, he's taking over JSA?

I mean, there's a couple non-white characters on that team. I guess he could have the white ones meet and kick all the non-white ones out of the team.
Or maybe even have the old school white characters go back to the 1940's white way of thinking, and they can just lynch or put all the non-whites in a camp of some kind. Good ol' fashion Americanism for all you Obama supporters, HA!! (sarcasm, people.)

Stick to writing comics, Bill. And just be happy you got a job.

"As I see it, the issue is that it is unfair to argue that morally ambiguous superheroes aren’t actually as heroic as ones who are certain they are right.

I’m not saying that there isn’t room for certainty either, I’m just suggesting that to make the equation moral ambiguity = unheroic is a bit too unfair. Both kinds of heroism can, and are, different forms of heroism, and deal with the role of being a hero in different ways.

In many ways, aren’t we actually stopping the morally ambiguous heroes from being heroes in their own right by saying it isn’t heroic to be a hero in a morally ambiguous world…?"

Interesting point Luke. I agree that morally ambiguous characters can be very heroic. However, is part of that heroism to inspire people to improve? I think what's at the heart of this argument is whether or not we want our superheroes to be a shining beacon on the hill, or down in the muck with the rest of us. I think these are themes worth exploring, and indeed, have been explored since the first "anti-heroes" burst onto the scene. In fact, if there wasn't something appealling to it, there probably would be no market for the flawed hero. I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I for one enjoy both type of story, from Johns's JSA stories, to Ennis's great Punisher run. Doesn't it really come down to buying what you like?

Man. Belgium? Of all the countries, you picked the European country with the most significant comics history?

Way to undermine your point, Bill.

Man, it's great to whine about "superhero decadence" when you suckle from the teat of DC comics. When you ow your latest job to Geoff Fucking Johns.

ya know, back when Elementals was published, the letter columns were typically full of Bills Opinion on varying subjects, and there was always arguing, and mad people.
Bill once told a reader that he was no longer allowed to read Elementals.

I did not always agree with his point, but I LOVED hearing(reading) it.
YAY!!! The old days are back!!!!!!!! GO BILL!!! Give em hell and take no prisoners and I will keep following you.

I just don't get all of these posts sticking up for Belgium. I don't think Bill was really trying to dog them. And really, though from what I'm reading here about Belgium's comics prowess, I can't say I've ever read any of them. Is anyone here really saying that Belgium is in the same league as the US in comics creation?

I'm a bit weirded out that he thinks Superman's no longer as much as a hero because he doesn't say "and the American Way", thinks Ultimate Cap was showing heroism because he said something derogatory about France in response to a villain, and says he had Robin be a steadfast hero because he got involved in a military operation. I'm not sure why those are supposed to be thinks that indicate Big Heroism or superheroes being "done right".

>> What the meaning of his statement is really is “people need to have the same politics as me or shut up”.>>

I must have read a different editorial, or else I missed the part where Bill told anyone to shut up, or said anything about making the JSA all-white, or that there can't be anything morally ambiguous in comics, or even that Captain America's a conservative hero and Ed Brubaker's lefty slime for kakking him. I just see people assuming these things and then jumping on Bill for it.

I'm also a little surprised that I've seen so many people online complaining that SUPERMAN RETURNS presented a whiny deadbeat-dad Superman, or that the ending of CIVIL WAR made a mockery of Captain America as a character or that superheroes have gotten too dark and destructive and so forth and so on, and much of the other stuff Bill said. I expect that if Bill had presented all of those opinions without mentioning politics, many people would be cheering him. But attach politics to it, and he's the bad guy, even to people who may not have liked the same parts of SUPERMAN RETURNS or CIVIL WAR that he seems not to have liked.

I think JSA has been a pretty dark book at times, but I don't recall the JSA heroes being particularly morally corrupt. They seem pretty staunchly good-guy heroes. Similarly, Bill's run on ROBIN did have Robin as a solidly-moral hero, but it didn't prevent the book from having moral questions, or darkness to it -- Bill's comments were about how he wants to write the heroes, not how he wants to write the villains.

>> He didn’t say things “must” be done a certain way, but he was certainly suggesting it.>>

Was he? And if so, was he suggesting that it be in the way so many people here seem to be certain he was prescribing? Does anyone for a second believe that writing good-guy heroes means making them all-white? Can they find that in anything Bill said?

>> My problem was Willingham complaining about certain writing choices, but then exempting himself from those complaints because Fables isn’t a superhero book. That seems like a bit of a cop-out.>>

It doesn't to me, any more than it would seem like a cop-out to say that I think there should be more outer space adventure in superhero comics, but that if I was writing DAREDEVIL I wouldn't put in a bunch of aliens.

Different kinds of stories get different approaches. I think Wolverine's a pretty great character, but I don't want Captain America to act like him. I think James Bond stories aren't the same kind of thing as Nancy Drew stories. Bill's responding to how some superheroes have been presented in superhero stories, and then saying that FABLES is different because it's not a superhero story. Bigby Wolf is not a superhero. Jack of the Fables isn't one, either. Both of them, however, have a moral clarity that suits their character -- Bigby has great clarity on his his stance as a partisan, a soldier and a spy. Jack has great clarity on his lack of principle and self-interest (not a terribly positive moral clarity, but it's pretty dang clear).

But not everything should be done the same way. When I write Superman, he goes out of his way not to kill. When I write Conan, not so much. And if you asked me if Superman should kill, I'd say no -- but that I don't think Conan should be written the same way as Superman, because it's a different kind of book.

kdb

Further, if I'm reading the this correctly, the comments about Blue Beetle and Belgium are attributed to anonymous internet posters, and not Mr. Willingham. Is that correct?

>> Belgium? Of all the countries, you picked the European country with the most significant comics history? Way to undermine your point, Bill.>>

Bill didn't say anything about Belgium. Go look again.

kdb

Kwaku and Kurt,

I find it hard to re-adjust the political allegory of Fables in a way that will demonstrate what I am getting at. Please, forgive a gross oversimplification, I'm just trying to get the point across: what if Fabletown were coded as a group of middle-class Germans, struggling after WWII and the Empire were coded as being a group of Jewish conspirators?

The fact is, the allegory relates to--but grotesquely simplifies--real relations. It's not the fact of writing an allegory that bothers me, let me be clear. It's the mishandling of real politics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very misunderstood in the States, even though we give about $3 Billion dollars a year to Israel as well as extraordinary diplomatic cover. I think it is absolutely irresponsible of a writer to use real politics IF THEY CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THOSE POLITICAL REALITIES WELL. And Willingham simply doesn't.

Let me be clear: I'm not condemning the man for having politics, nor for having politics that are different than mine, but for completely lacking insight into a situation that he chose to bring into his comics.

I hope I'm getting this across and being clear, because I really believe it is a subtle but important point that often goes unaddressed.

Oh, and glad my concerns resonated with you Luke.

>> I just don’t get all of these posts sticking up for Belgium. I don’t think Bill was really trying to dog them.>>

Bill didn't even mention Belgium.

>> Is anyone here really saying that Belgium is in the same league as the US in comics creation?>>

There are leagues now?

I don't think Belgium has produced anything that equals the Lee/Kirby FF. On the other hand, I don't think America has produced anything that equals TINTIN. The two are different games entirely, not competition in the same league.

kdb

@Dan:
WHAT? I'm not fan of the guy (Willingham) but in no way did he get his career from Johns, Johns wasn't even 'huge' when Willingham was around, infact i think he was into his FLASH run.

Willingham pretty much got his career from FABLES and ELEMENTALS.

to everyone;
this is the sound of you not changing willingham's opinion.

I also think you're getting your minis mixed up:
Day of judgement - What Johns wrote when he was starting DC (Essentially Spectre: Rebirth)
Day of Vengeance - Infinite Crisis mini which Willingham wrote, a lead-in to IC.

@edc:
This is me not changing my opinion on Willingham.

We aren't trying to change Willingham's opinion, we're just trying to post our own about his opinion: get it?

>> Let me be clear: I’m not condemning the man for having politics, nor for having politics that are different than mine, but for completely lacking insight into a situation that he chose to bring into his comics.>>

It may be that you're seeing that Bill saw Israel's situation as a parallel to Fabletown, and are then expecting FABLES to be a treatise on Israeli politics, rather than something that resonates with it in a symbolic way for than having a one-to-one correspondence.

If nothing else, the Empire seems not to have oil (or even an allegorical parallel), doesn't have a multitude of official and unofficial administrative structures instead of the single top-down empire it had, and the Arab world doesn't have any giant robot emperors or fleets of dragons. The whole "cut off the head and chaos results" plotline seems to parallel liberal thoughts about Iraq more easily than it does conservative thoughts about Israel, but then, noting that doesn't lead me to look for the rest of it to fall in line, it leads me to be interested in the story as something that resonates with current events without being a speech about them.

kdb

As Kurt Busiek has pointed out several times (and was noted in the post, but apparently wasn't clear enough) the parts about Belgium and Blue Beetle were in the comments section, not in Bill's piece. I've updated the post so hopefully that's a little bit clearer.

@ R Lee.

Whilst it is fair to argue that it's about buying what you like, I find agreement with Willingham in seeing that fashions and trends (and I'm don't use these words dismissively, but descriptively) will determine and limit what is actually available to buy.

I always think that reasonable debate is valuable as it opens up the horizon of thought and can really make a big impact on creativity and ideas in a really positive way, but I think that ultimately requires a very deep level of personal respect and introspection that is not always consistent with eat answers.

In this respect, I don't feel like the problem is a lack of, or abundance of any particular kid of hero. It's about how the kinds of heroes interact in the realm of ideas. Not literally how the characters themselves interact on the page, but the higher debate that goes on in places like this, between creators and readers.

I'd also say that I don't understand why an uncertain, mucky hero can't also be a shining light...? Won't a more uncertain hero, who is always going through a process of learning different and varied lessons from both their mistakes, and having their prejudices challenged or even confirmed, be as valuable a hero and/or role model or moral compass as one who doesn't...?

>> I’m not fan of the guy (Willingham) but in no way did he get his career from Johns, Johns wasn’t even ‘huge’ when Willingham was around, infact i think he was into his FLASH run.>>

I believe he's crediting Bill's latest assignment -- JSA -- to Geoff, since presumably Bill wouldn't have the gig if Geoff hadn't left.

How that creates some sort of political equivalence between Geoff and Bill, or Bill and DC, I dunno. I've worked with Geoff and work for DC, so I guess that means Bill and I are politically identical. Or, rather, not.

kdb

Why does a writer have to be attacked for having an opinion? I don't see liberal writers get this kind of a thread when they make political statements (such as characters endorsing political candidates on the cover of their comics).

>> the parts about Belgium and Blue Beetle were in the comments section, not in Bill’s piece.>>

My favorite was the guy who said:

"The only noise you should be hearing out of bastard-child Lois Lane in Superman’s presence is 'slurp slurp slurp.'”

Yeah, there's a guy who understands Superman and shares his values...

kdb

"I don’t think Belgium has produced anything that equals the Lee/Kirby FF. On the other hand, I don’t think America has produced anything that equals TINTIN. The two are different games entirely, not competition in the same league."

Well put Kurt, especially since you are correct in that Bill said nothing abour Belgium...or Blue Beetle....or numerous other things alluded to in this thread. I for one appreciate your comments and opinion, as well as Bill Willingham's. The story and how it resonates with you individually should be what counts!

Thank you all for your responses. I have no idea what the Belgium argument is all about, since I never mentioned Belgium. And I am dismayed about the notions stated above that teams, like the JSA, that contain other than white characters are somehow un-American in my mind. Really? Do you really believe I or any other average conservative writer believes so? And no, I did not tell anyone to do as I say or do as I do, I simply stated, for the record what my future plans would be.

And yes, even though he was and continues to be my friend, God will surely smite Ed Brubaker for killing Captain America. He told me so in our regular morning memo.

Belgium has better overall quality, but less output, since they're much smaller than the US.

>> I don’t see liberal writers get this kind of a thread when they make political statements (such as characters endorsing political candidates on the cover of their comics).>>

Erik got plenty of flak for that, from conservative readers.

Liberal readers felt that Erik should be entitled to his opinion, and bashing him for not sharing the opinions of some of the readers was untoward.

For the sake of good manners, we'll imagine that none of the people in those threads are reversing their stance now that it's a conservative who expressed his opinions.

kdb

The thing is this: real world politics shouldn't serve as window dressing in a fantasy story. There are lots of ways to integrate politics into comics, but I don't think allegory is the finest of them. Nor do I think that integrating real politics symbolically is adequate. Real people aren't symbols and don't fit the symbols of good and evil, Fabletown and Empire that Willingham has developed. Honestly, re-read issue fifty then check out the news from Gaza--it doesn't make you even a little uncomfortable?

As for how the story in Fables continues to unfold, I've not read the latest trade. I actually didn't care for The Good Prince and haven't decided yet if I want to pick it up or not.

Thanks for the chat, Kurt. Very nice to share thoughts with such a veteran. Do you find it helpful, worthwhile, interesting to engage fans in this manner? I"m not often commenting, but I wonder if it isn't just maddening for a creator to participate!

Actually NORTH AMERICA is a continent. SOUTH AMERICA is a continent. GET IT ALREADY?

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a country, not a playground for the entire world's illegal immigrants or sanctimonious Internet commenters from outside it's borders. Whenever you feel like you have the solution to what wrong with us, how about you fix your own damn countries' problems/faults/transgressions before deciding what is best for us?

“OMG I”LL NEVER READ JOE MALIK AGAIN!!!!!”

Here in the third world, folks, we are sick of american values. That's another world for imperialism. We can apreciate a cynical view of super heroes, like The Authority, but we can no more believe that all american is good. Never more.

@ Kurt Busiek

Fair point. I was probably taking Willingham's contention unfairly when I made the "shut up" remark. I'm not trying to attack him, and I don't think the trend towards moral uncertainty is not self-evident. I agree with him that there are morally ambiguous heroes, I guess my contention is that moral ambiguity is actually no impediment to true shining light heroism.

I also don't think superheroes need to be of one kind or another, but that it is the debate between the kinds of heroes that keeps comics exciting and enthralling as a medium. I mean, where else do we have such a open and public discussion over the meaning of heroism than in our medium...? There's got to value in that just in and of itself...?

I also have to say that it is also a great comment on our own little part of culture that we can discuss in open, and non-insulting ways the value of the medium and the superhero genre in specific.

I always like to indulge the idea that ideas are always more important that they may seem at first sight and this debate is very fun to me! (I know, it's quite nerdy of me!)

But seriously, I just think that any proclamation that makes it easy to define one thing against another as in some way forced into opposition with one another is a bit frustrating. I don't like dismissing what Willingham says just for the political implications that are made, and I hope that I do him a good service by really trying to engage with his ideas, even if my overall conclusion is one of disagreement.

This would be my overall assessment, that it is not the specific kind of hero (or political inclination of the writers/artists thereof) that determines the value of the hero as a hero, but the way the overall debate about heroism is not made to conform to one specific definition of heroism.

In this way I feel I can both back Willingham for making a criticism, but totally disagree with what he's actually saying...

I think it is a given that Liberals are the most prominent readers of comic books. Given that, why isn't Judd Winick the best selling writer in comics?

All I care about is good stories in my comics.

If Bill Willingham wants to write good stories, hot damn, go to it.

If he wants to inject politics into a storyline, he can feel free... but the story better be damn good.

But the last time I read a Willingham book with injected politics, it was the "DC Universe Decisions" miniseries, which was a great big bucket of rancid doggie diarrhea. Sure, maybe that was all Judd Winick's fault. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

But as bad as that series was, I'd like a little further reassurance that Willingham can write a *good* political story before I just take him at his word on this one.

(The entire "Big Hollywood" website seems to be built on a foundation that John Rogers has pretty decisively smashed numerous times -- his most recent take on the "Hollywood is full of evil liberals" meme is here: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/01/big-hollywood-and-why-i-admire-david.html )

I just want to put in my two cents, after having read through this whole discussion. First and foremost, I suggest anyone who wants to discuss the editorial actually go to the site and read it in full. It's a much larger piece than what is seen here, and addresses some of the very issues people are bothered by. He specifically talks about the Superhero genre, and states that his future efforts in that arena will be centered on bringing this philosophy to the fore.

Most of the more inflammatory comments that stirred up the hornets nest are actually made via comments, posted by readers, just like we're doing right here. The comment on Belgium, the inane remarks on multiculturalism, and the seemingly rascist remark in regards to Blue Beetle all come from people JUST LIKE US.

And I think that is the most important thing to remember. In reading this, people seem to equate ethical and moral stances as political leanings. An easy mistake to make in this era. Liberalism and Conservativism (is that even a word?) are not one size fits all categories. I have my moral and ethical beliefs (these are actually two seperate categories, by the way. The differences are quite important, if still tied together), and they operate in tandem with my political beliefs. None of them allow for me to call someone names simply because they have different beliefs than I do.

I do, however, reserve the right to be bothered and disgusted by bigotry, religious discrimination, and general intolerance. Attacking multiculturalism as a sickness is particularly worrying, as it makes me wonder just how much people know about the actual country they live in. I've been an U.S. citizen all my life, as have the last seven generations of my family. But that history doesn't mean I understand the American Dream better than a recent immigrant from Brazil. I am no more entitled to my opinion than any other citizen is, because we all stand equal under the Bill of Rights, if not in the eyes of individuals. Everyone should be able to express their views, and everyone should respect that right, whtether or not they agree.

Sorry, got to rambling. I apologize.

My point, I suppose, is that everyone needs to be informed, and be adult, when discussing something like this. Nobody will be converted through insults, bullying or bashing. People from every camp, extreme, and faction has something that they feel slighted over, but they also have a lot more in common than they want to admit. We all want security, prosperity, and peace of mind. While we all might disagree on certain hot issues, there are a lot more issues that we all could move forward on together. Once we've solved our common problems, like education, health care, and the War on Terror, then we can get down to dealing with the more divisive issues like comic books.

Thanks for your time, and have a great day.

>> The thing is this: real world politics shouldn’t serve as window dressing in a fantasy story.>>

I disagree. I don't think that fantasy stories should be barred from mentioning politics. social issues, history or anything else, or using them as inspiration. But then, I wrote ARROWSMITH, a fantasy take on World War One, so there's politics and history all through it, and some stuff lines up well and other stuff doesn't.

And I have a story in mind that I'd like to do someday that's far-future SF, but is rooted in the life of JFK, between about 1940 and 1960, using political issues and historical material sweepingly as part of it all.

I don't think real world politics are somehow so sacrosanct that they can't be addressed in fantasy, or can't have fantasy rooted in them. David Gemmell's Rigante novels are riven through with Celtic history and politics, and they're fine fantasy novels....and neither Gemmell nor I were the first to do something like that.

>> Honestly, re-read issue fifty then check out the news from Gaza–it doesn’t make you even a little uncomfortable?>>

Not at all. Maybe that's because you see the series as about Israel, and I see it as a parallel -- a fantasy with some similarities, but not a prescription. I don't for a moment think that Israel should build a ship out of flying carpets and go bomb all the warpgates between the Arab world and Earth, either, and don't think Bill was suggesting that they do.

>> Thanks for the chat, Kurt. Very nice to share thoughts with such a veteran. Do you find it helpful, worthwhile, interesting to engage fans in this manner?>>

Sometimes. I don't think of it as "engaging fans," but as talking to people. Talking to people is fun.

kdb

>> The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a country, not a playground for the entire world’s illegal immigrants or sanctimonious Internet commenters from outside it’s borders.>>

Yeah! We should totally kick Superman out! Send him back to Krypton and tell him to get in line!

kdb

Wow, this is some interesting reading. It's astounding how many people seem more interested in arguing the points they seem to wish Willingham was making as opposed to responding to what was actually said.

Kurt is a super guy for addressing all the bunny trails as he has done.

It's interesting how polotics and religion, two things you're not supposed to talk about, interact with art, especially in an industry where characters dress up like flags and concepts. I don't really think that a story can be moral or immoral, just well done or poorly done. The depictions of evil or moral ambiguity, or even moral absolution I suppose, must justify themselves in the course of the story. Do such themes serve the story? Does such a world view service the artist's intent? However, I will say that iconic superhero stories can often sell morality very well, but that the ability to do so would be hindered if you cut out all the dark/angsty characters.

Captain America's conflict with the Punisher, was one of the highlights of CIVIL WAR. There you have a man dressed in the flag of the country he is leading a rebellion against, yelling at a man dressed in the skulls that reflected the severity of the situation. Where else can you have a conversation like that. Why wouldn't you want Captain America yelling at that man?

But if I could have my druthers, Superman would always be able to make the hard moral choices that I couldn't face. Batman would always choose to spare the Joker's life, even though I think that's a totally stupid idea. Captain America, this means Bucky, would always take a bullet for my right to ferociously disagree with him. Just because something is expressed through a clear absolution doesn't mean that it is uncomplicated.

I just would like to point out that DC has a character that is very clear in his moral purpose:

Green Arrow

Love him or hate him, he is that shining beacon on the hill.

>>And yes, even though he was and continues to be my friend, God will surely smite Ed Brubaker for killing >>Captain America. He told me so in our regular morning memo.

LOL! You are made of win, Mr. Willingham.

You guys are all awesome!! And typical of left-wing tolerance for other ideas. Plus, and this is the best! any conservative comic fans pretty much have to "suck it" and take what they can get from the vast majority of leftist comic book creators, yet one guy proclaims his conservative leanings, and you'd think by the way you all are acting that he wanted to introduce a comic-book version of the Fairness Doctrine and force all comics to be from a conservative POV -- instead of just saying that he, as a comic book creator, will tell the kinds of stories he wants to tell. get over yourselves.

Kyle Latino, your post was great!

"“DC Universe Decisions” miniseries, which was a great big bucket of rancid doggie diarrhea. Sure, maybe that was all Judd Winick’s fault. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit."

HEE HEE!

Only a moronic conservative would argue superhero genre needs to be more "heroic". He wants it more "American"?? t's not an american world anymore. Half the creators in comics aren't american. Sorry. Many many talented folks come from *the rest of the world* now. So put up with more complex, nuanced, perspectives from outside the bubble. Want simplicity & moral judgements from the olden days? Well read old comics. We don't live in a morally just world. Thanks to conservatism, we've seen that there is no black and white, only shades of gray. It's fitting that mature, thoughtful stories of this century reflect that. Everything is more sophisticated now.

At the end of the day, the characters being bitched about are old. Sure, they're icons but after 40-50 years things get stale and need to evolve. Or better yet, stop doing them. Start some new things. Y'know, like they did in the 50's before they had the likes of Superman, Batman, Cap and other superheroes to incestuously rehash endlessly. He just sounds like a pissy naive conservative trying to change the subject from the complex world around us left shattered by the very ideology of the conservative Republican party.

There might be something to be said here for "letting work speak for itself."

Before reading this thread I would never have assumed that Bill Willingham was liberal OR conservative. Based on his work I'd just assume he was a guy who had some fascinating, valuable things to say about politics, the plight of refugees, and a hundred other important topics. That's what's great about art - it doesn't have to be democrat or republican. It can just convey ideas. Those ideas don't even have to be statements. They can be questions!

But when an artist explains what they are trying to do, or what they intend to do, it seems to muddy the waters somehow and place barriers between them and their audience. It's ironic that explaining one's intentions makes things more confusing.

If Mr. Willingham had just DONE what he said he's going to do in this editorial instead of letting us know his intentions, the same people bashing him here probably would have been singing his praises as a writer that puts the 'hero' back in superhero.

I don't know what the answer is. Mr. Willingham is certainly entitled to his political life and to express his values in a public forum. I just think this serves as a perfect example of why so many artists often respond to questions about their work with "Well, what did YOU think I was trying to say?"

I am quite surpised that nobody has pointed out that Belgium didn´t create Tintin...Hergé did it.( And there is also a guy called Peyo that created the Smurfs).

I applaud Mr. Willingham! Although I did not seem to get the same message that many others did from what he said. Nowhere did I see a political agenda, either liberal and conservative. If Marvel or DC publishes it (with the exception of some of their imprints) the work should be more all ages than it currently is and there is very little heroic about some of the uber-voilent characters in many mainstream comics today. Anyone read X-Force? I am not saying that it is not a well written title but the main focus of the characters seems to be thier willingness to kill.

Over ten years ago I was managing a bar and was in there on my day off having some drinks and talking to a regular who taught at the local college and she asked why in my thirties I still read comics. I gave her a list of answers but one that I gave she liked so much she asked to use in class. I told her loved the "heroic ideal", unfortunately that seems to have become (even at the time) less of a standard for today's superheroes. At least in the way I meant it.

"Here in the third world, folks, we are sick of american values. That’s another world for imperialism. We can apreciate a cynical view of super heroes, like The Authority, but we can no more believe that all american is good. Never more."
We in the first world say, Shaddup, and tell your kids to finish making my shoes.
And I want some color, no fricking shades of grey...

I didn't mind Willinghams comments but who the fuck is James hunsdall?

@GodOfCheese:
"We in the first world say, Shaddup"

Stopped reading after that.

Occasionally, when an artist says what they were doing, the audience doesn't hear it. For instance, the whole idea that Fabletown's war was meant as some sort of allegory to Israel is, as it turns out, complete vapor.

From http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/bill_willingham

AVC: You've come under fire for the series' politics at times, like ... having Bigby Wolf lay out the parallels between Fabletown and Israel. Does it surprise you when people get upset about these things? Do you see them as controversial when you're writing them?

BW: The Israel analogy, probably at the time I was writing that, I thought it would be controversial, because just the mention of Israel in any context is a hot-button issue. But once again, I thought even the people upset that that analogy was used understood the analogy. Bigby made his point of the little guy with vast forces arrayed against him. Some wackos online who don't sign their name to what they write have said that I'm a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda, and things like that. A paid mouthpiece, which would be wonderful. I haven't gotten any pay yet, but if any of my Israeli commanders are listening, the checks arriving would be a nice thing. So, yeah, the controversy on that didn't surprise me, the Israel thing. A little more heated than I expected, but then most things are.

AVC: You've said in the past interviews that you're unequivocally pro-Israel. Do you think of Fables as communicating a political message, or as being persuasive in any way?

BW: No, I actually thought that that would be the best example in politics today to use as an example. Maybe my fondness for Israel helped in deciding that that was a good example to use, but no, Fables is not didactic in any way. At least, not intentionally. I don't expect people to read that issue, bop themselves in the head, and say, "Oh my God, I've been so stupid about my politics in Middle Eastern affairs. I'm going to change my tune right now, because, Bigby would want me to." I don't expect anything like that, and I wouldn't put that line in almost any other character's mouth, just because I couldn't imagine other characters thinking along those lines. Whereas Bigby was a guy who we've already established that historically, he went to war several times, and was involved in World War I and II. He would be the type of character who would think along those lines.

***

Apparently, what all this boils down to is:

1. Bigby made an analogy comparing Fabletown to Israel because it's in character for Bigby to do so.

2. Bill is pro-Israel.

These two things got turned into FABLES being an allegory for Israel, and some sort of comment on Gaza, rather than an analogy drawn by a character for whom that would be a logical analogy to draw.

kdb

I come back, read 108 responses, and this has just turned into a liberal versus conservative slap fight with Kurt Busiek standing in the middle going "no, no, this is retarded?" Damn, Robot6 commenters.

Where the hell was Willingham smack talking black people? In my original comment I thought Willingham was making the (to me uncomfortable) implication by putting this post on a conservative site and conflating morally strong superheroes with America, he was projecting conservative values on superheroes. Even if that's the case, I really, really doubt that's going to turn into Alan Scott telling all those darkies to get off his team, culminating in Black Reign II, where the black ex-JSA members set up shop in Kahndaq and try to take down the Justice Society, and I'm flabbergasted as to why anybody thinks a dude is *hateful* just because he's conservative.

Also, extrapolating Willingham's conservative viewpoint to a vendetta against multicultural superheroes (as some of the commenters on the linked site did) is hilarious, considering his boy Sturges wrote the damn book for a while, and even Fables has been equitable about the various world mythologies.

I read it as "this is how I like the superhero genre and this is how I want to write superhero comics." Fables isn't a superhero book and neither is Ironwood. I read many different genres of fiction, and I don't have the same expectations from all of them. I like character development and moral ambiguity in literary thrillers and the clear-cut moral stances and pure violence in pulp adventures. I like both, but don't think either would be better served by applying the tropes of the other at the expense of its own.

I like old-fashioned heroism - so I'm hoping to see it reflected in JSA.

If I don't find what I like there, I'll read something else.

"Sure, they’re icons but after 40-50 years things get stale and need to evolve." Xenu05

Would you buy the same thing, depicting the same hero, with the same unwavering ideals for 20+ years? I think that I would get tired of the same unchanging characters after a few years.

I have recently gone back and read the old Fantastic Four from the Lee/Kirby era. I get bored of reading very quickly. They are interesting stories with first appearances of characters who I am very interested in, but the story doesn't move quickly. I have come to the conclusion that the stories were written in the 60's. There is a HUGE cultural divide between me and someone who grew up decades before I did. People buying comics in the 1960's loved it.

If we do not reinvent our heroes then they will get stale. How many times have DC and Marvel "rebooted" their heroes? Why do they reboot at all if everyone knows them so well and likes them so much? Why was Frank Miller's run on Daredevil such a huge deal? It wasn't because he stuck to the way Matt Murdock was portrayed before.

After all of that, please don't assume that I want heroes to change and evolve constantly. There is always room for the upstanding hero. All of us have grown up reading and hearing about the upstanding hero who always does the right thing. These heroes were created in the 1930's. Our social culture is different now, so our heroes are different. They reflect the times. Those heroes were based on the social culture of 80 years ago, and the times have changed.

Has anybody tried imagining what the internet would be like without Kurt Busiek?

Me neither because that's the stuff nightmares are made of. Seriously Busiek should be getting paid for this.

Couple of points:

I don't care if immigrants come here to live and love this country. It's those that come here ILLEGALLY and demand the rights of citizens that annoy me.

As for conservative v. liberal: I think that BOTH sides have valid views on various issues. It's the total intollerance that the extremes of either side constantly push which makes it so hard for both sides to work TOGETHER for the greater good.

I would like to lock Chris Mathews and Rush Limbaugh in a room and not let em out until they begin to find some middle, common ground to work from.

Tom Hunter, Superman is the definition of an illegal immigrant. He just border-hopped from a really, really, really high altitude.

@ Kurt Busiek

I'm glad you posted that. It's very useful for us to know his position vis-a-vis directly what was said by him about certain political issues, and the way he presents ideas in his story.

But, I have to disagree that it exonerates him from any kind of authorial culpability. I don't think that simply making a statement about how it's up to the audience to decide how to receive a story is unfair. Can you say that all ideas are allowed the same degree of access to public space?

What if a comic portraying the positive sides of the Holocaust was produced (I'm not drawing literal parallels between Israel and the Holocaust, or affirming that I agree with this as an even correct understanding of the situation), but what I am suggesting is that there are limits to what is acceptable from a moral and ethical perspective.

I'm not going to say that I think that Bill has crossed this line, or that he's done something immoral, but just wanted to articulate in an abstract way that there are things that will cross over these lines for some people.

In some ways the moral discontent Bill feels about the lack of shining light moral superheroes is from the same domain of moral interpretation that others feel his work, and/or perspective might upset.

In this way, I feel that it requires a lot of moral commitment to support morally ambiguous superheroes. As such, I feel like arguing that it is not fair to dismiss the criticisms of Bill's work on a political level as not being answerable on those same terms.

If Bill is asking for a reconsideration of the values embedded or embodied by superheroes, knowing what his values are helps. It would also be unfair not to allow for there to be a continuum of relations between Billiingham's politics and his art... I would presume he has more integrity than that.

At the same time, it is always possible to argue that an artists has the right to experiment with ideas, and thoughts that aren't their own, but if it is clear that an artist has a certain set of ideas, and that they reference those ideas in the context of their work does that not make it fair to point out those ideas as a point of contention...?

Seriously, what would you think if a brilliant Mexican scientist's village was being raided by cocaine lords or something and he shot a rocket with his son in it over the border, and he was raised in Texas?

>>Further, if I’m reading the this correctly, the comments about Blue Beetle and Belgium are attributed to anonymous internet posters, and not Mr. Willingham. Is that correct?

Correct, and I tried to state as much but people don't pay attention!

Ah well, I tried.

I don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on this one, Kurt. It seems perfectly clear to me from reading Fables and from the interview above that Willingham is, as you note, pro-Israel. Furthermore, there is a relationship between his creative vision and this real situation. In this case, I find the relationship of fiction and reality to be shallow, likely because Willingham is too one-sided in his views to produce truly nuanced art on the subject (since he has clearly stated his preference for one side). This is perfectly fair grounds to judge his art, since he has invoked these issues and since they suffuse this work.

Thanks again for being generous with your time. I'm off--

>> It seems perfectly clear to me from reading Fables and from the interview above that Willingham is, as you note, pro-Israel.>>

Sure.

>> Furthermore, there is a relationship between his creative vision and this real situation.>>

In this case, the relationship is that Bigby noted a parallel, and drew an analogy. Not an allegory, an analogy.

>> In this case, I find the relationship of fiction and reality to be shallow, likely because Willingham is too one-sided in his views to produce truly nuanced art on the subject (since he has clearly stated his preference for one side).>>

Or perhaps, it's because you're trying to take a few lines of dialogue to mean that the whole series is an allegory, and then figuring it's not a very good allegory. Which isn't surprising, since it isn't one.

What you see as a failure to achieve truly nuanced art on the plight of Israel as expressed through Fabletown may be because there's no attempt to draw any such thing; the comparison is an analogy, given by Bigby because that's how he'd see it, and not meant to be taken as a way to decode the story.

kdb

Mr. Willingham, Mr. Busiek and Mr. Burbaker,
I think the three of you write great comics and I will read them as long as I enjoy them no matter what your political philosophies are. Bill, I'm especially looking forward to your JSA.

>> Can you say that all ideas are allowed the same degree of access to public space? >>

I'm honestly not sure what that has to do with the subject. Has anyone suggested that Bill was arguing for or against any version of that idea?

>> What if a comic portraying the positive sides of the Holocaust was produced (I’m not drawing literal parallels between Israel and the Holocaust, or affirming that I agree with this as an even correct understanding of the situation), but what I am suggesting is that there are limits to what is acceptable from a moral and ethical perspective. I’m not going to say that I think that Bill has crossed this line, or that he’s done something immoral, but just wanted to articulate in an abstract way that there are things that will cross over these lines for some people.>>

So you're not arguing that Bill's actually done anything you object to, just that it's possible for someone, somewhere, to do things you object to.

I don't think I could argue with that, even if I wanted to.

kdb

Right on, Mr. Willingham! I think that's one thing I appreciate so much about DC. The staple characters are less morally gray than those over at Marvel.

@ Kurt Busiek

Sorry. I feel like I'm losing some clarity. It's pretty late my side of the Atlantic.

Bill has argued for superheroes to embrace a moral traditional set of American conservative values, and has in some ways documented a fall in these as he sees it, from mainstream superhero tales.

Yet, to argue against his stories on the grounds that it contains values some would object to on moral grounds, is the same gesture he's performing when he argues against the moral ambiguity of superheroes.

So in my mind, to object to his stories on the grounds that he has embedded them within his own conservative ideals is not an unfair thing to do, given the remit of the debate he initiated.

Man, I'm gonna miss Ed Brubaker.

Come on, Kurt: the very first volume is "Legends in Exile" and the fables basically celebrate passover every year (Remembrance Day, isn't that it?). Don't act like I'm trying to force a reading of the work; call up your friend and I bet he'll cite a dozen instances where his interest in Israel and Jewish culture shaped his writing. Even if I'm uncomfortable with how this manifests at points, I think it's also the reason for much of Fables' unique charm--Willingham has a real feeling for people living in diaspora and has produced some really great comics about it. It's why I kept reading long past the point where this all became clear to me. He's a damned good writer.

>> Come on, Kurt: the very first volume is “Legends in Exile” and the fables basically celebrate passover every year (Remembrance Day, isn’t that it?). Don’t act like I’m trying to force a reading of the work; call up your friend and I bet he’ll cite a dozen instances where his interest in Israel and Jewish culture shaped his writing. >>

I'm not arguing with that. I'm differing with you on the idea that he didn't get it "right," somehow, because his influences inform the fantasy without being a treatise on the influences. It's not an attempt to engage with real world situations; it's a story that's influenced by Bill's interests, but goes onward from there, rather than hewing to strict allegory.

kdb

>> Bill has argued for superheroes to embrace a moral traditional set of American conservative values,>>

Has he? Even his most sweeping statement on the subject is, "But for me at least the superhero genre should be different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view." He identifies that as a statement "for me, at least," and calls it his mission statement.

He does say that he thinks that superheroes have gone too far into a dark area, but again, that's his taste, not an argument that everyone else has to do it his way. He even came onto this blog and said, "And no, I did not tell anyone to do as I say or do as I do, I simply stated, for the record what my future plans would be."

So it seems he wants _his_ superheroes to embrace those values -- though even there, I doubt Bill would write all superhero characters the same; perhaps he simply has a range in mind that he's shooting for.

>> So in my mind, to object to his stories on the grounds that he has embedded them within his own conservative ideals is not an unfair thing to do, given the remit of the debate he initiated.>>

Has anyone been arguing that it's unfair to argue with the ideas in a story, positive, negative, liberal, conservative or whatever?

kdb

Man, I'm just surprised that we have Kurt Busiek, Ed Brubaker and Bill Willingham (probably among others, i skimmed parts of the posts) commenting about this issue.

And to compliment something said before, I did not know Willingham was a conservative until someone pointed it out to me, having read only read Fables and not any of his other works before.

@ Mr. Kurt Busiek and Mr. Bill Willingham

After reading the comments here, I would like to invite you, Mr. Busiek, and you, Mr. Willingham, to come to my store, Criminal Records in Atlanta, GA, to debate the topic of moral ambiguity and superheroes. I will even have it moderated, as people are often passionate about the things they love. If you do not wish to debate, Mr. Busiek, I would be happy to have you moderate, as you have done so eloquently here. After reading the shear number of comments here, and on Mr. Willingham's article, I am sure that this is a topic that people would love to hear more about, myself included.

"And yes, even though he was and continues to be my friend, God will surely smite Ed Brubaker for killing Captain America. He told me so in our regular morning memo." -Bill

HA...knew it...he's just trying to put pressure on Ed to bring Steve back! Just kidding.

"As for this argument? Who cares? Left/right, conservative/liberal… who wants to wear those labels anymore? The country’s falling apart while people pick sides and point fingers… brilliant." -Ed

Well after reading much of this thread it would seem many people care...and I actually learned a couple things so it has to be worth something.

Hey CougarTrace, I just wanted to point out that the only foreign terrorist attack to happen on our soil was under George W. Bush's watch. And then he decided to ignore going after the perp of that crime and lied to the American pulbic about the "need" to go to war with a country that had NOTHING to do with that attack, a disasterous war that's mostly left a nation in shambles, resulted in more American deaths than 9/11, in addition to tens of thousands of Iraqis, and has only encouraged more terrorist activity in that region. Not to mention pretty much turning most of the world against us.

Yet you seem to think that President Obama is somehow going to destroy this country? I'd say your boy George has done an awfully good job of that himself, given the war and the economic collapse of recent months, squandering a budget surplus, and the peace and prosperity, that he enherited.

Try a little harder next time, won't you?

Someone here referred to Captain America as a "conservative" superhero. Really? I'm not sure how that jibes with his stance in Civil War, not to mention the whole CREEP storyline that ran around the time of Watergate. That parallel was obvious.

I'm not an expert on all things Cap, but Kurt's pointing out that Cap was created by liberal tells me that Cap's not some jingoistic right-wing ideologue. I'd argue that Cap's on the side of what's fair for all people, and that upholding everyone the Constitution and everyone's right to freedom is what he's all about.

Didn't Cap admit he was wrong at the end of Civil War and turn himself in?

Maybe it's wrong of me but I've always thought Cap to be a soldier first, you know, part of the military. Those guys usually are not too liberal. Besides I wasn't even alive when said liberal created him.

From the original article: "DC’s greatest icon, Superman, one of the handful of fictional characters known throughout the world, no longer seems to be too proud of America."

This is a particularly telling line from the cited text. If Superman isn't proud to be an American, are his writers? Are his readers? Certainly since 9/11, or rather after the temporary patriotic/religious fallout thereof, being a proud American seems to have more to do with opinions about terrorism and Iraq than they do about America. It was once American to want to be an astronaut, what is our national goal now? Eradication of terrorist? We used to hunt for our dreams in the stars, but all we found were moon rocks. So were does America look for dreams now? In the holes and caves of Afghanistan? Among the dunes and poverty of Iraq? I know I am tired of hearing that we have "God on our side," (as Dylan put it). I'm tired of the pride in my country being tethered to the "Patriot Game" (as the Irish folk Dylan swiped from put it). There is a feeling that pride in America puts you as a piece on the game board for the talking heads to scoot around. Any body been abroad after 9/11? You're either apologizing for or defending the War on Terror everyday you're out there. Patriotism seems to make one unpopular, or manipulative rather than inspired. But if the flag doesn't inspire people, let's look at the S-Man.

Superman started by fighting gangsters, Nazis, and politicians. His enemies were those of America in the 1940's, but what has the character really been about? Seigel and Shuster said, with the initial run, everyone needs a father, and the one they gave us was bulletproof, unlike Jerry's own. Dini and Ross said, in PEACE ON EARTH, that you can punch out all the terrorists in the world, but you can't feed whoever is left. Busiek said, in SECRET IDENTITY, that sometimes you have to fight against the system you're protecting in order to protect anyone. Morrison said, with ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, that just because you can throw all of your problems into the sun doesn't mean that you can actually solve your problems that way.

As cornball as it sounds, Superman is the ultimate immigrant/orphan story. His Kryptonian rocket must have sailed passed the New York harbor because every great Superman story since has said, in some form, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Superman, Batman, Captain America, Wonder Woman, heck even Aquaman stand as our new colossi, crying that poem with their silent lips.

Wow, I really need a date. Haha

I just want to thank you all for the interesting reading. I find it amusing that a professional COMIC BOOK WRITER says "I'm going to write these type of comics like this, b/c that's how *I* think they should be written", and everyone galvanizes one way or another.

I'd like to extend a hearty THANKS! to Mr. Busiek...not for his thoughtful & thought provoking posts (though they've been great), but for acknowledging us comic fans not as fans, but as "people". Too many times us hardcore geeks are looked down with disdain by those we hold in reverance; thanks for saying "hey, you guys are people too, and I like talking to you."

Also, it's great to see Bru, Kurt and Bill's posts here. I'm a big fan of all of theirs. As such, I'll read their books, even if they're "secretly" alluding to something else, something I may not agree with. You guys keep 'em entertaining, I'll keep buying them.

BTW, when did we become so closed minded where we won't even entertain the notion of LISTENING to opposing views?

Enjoy your comics folks!

"You do know, don’t you, that Superman and Captain America were created by liberals?"

...Were they liberals at the time, tho? Siegel & Shuster, maybe, but I suspect Simon & Kirby were a bit more right-wing at the time.

This has been a fascinating discussion (particularly with Mr. Busiek's input), and just as-- coincidentally-- I'm beginning a long-delayed read through Mr. Willingham's "Fables" in trade form. I had no idea of Bill's politics when I started, and I wonder how his post at BigHollywood will inform my reading of the material.

What's really interesting to me is that a "conservative" comics writer should be such a rara avis that a simple statement of intent like this can kick up such a furor. A conservative myself (or a liberal in the classical sense of the word, as I like to think of it), I've never let the preponderance of modern liberal views in comics effect my enjoyment of them.

I will say, though, that Mark Millar's wretched, ham-fisted holocaust tale in "Wolverine", drawing a parallel between the Third Reich and the Bush Administration nearly put me off Marvel altogether. But only nearly, as I'm a certified Marvel zombie. It did put me off Millar, who I already thought was vastly overrated.

However, why a much more oblique and innocuous Israel/Palestinian allusion in Willingham's book would put anyone off of his wonderful series absolutely baffles me.

And @ Shaun, a point of history: you've apparently forgotten al-Qaeda's 1993 attack on the World Trade Center as well as the late-90s embassy bombings (which are technically American soil). Not that it should matter who was president on either occasion when our people and interests were threatened. Right?

Again, a great discussion. Here's hoping it continues in this illuminating way. I would like to second Brubaker's stay in Perdition for killing Steve Rogers-- even though Cap's still a fantastic book, and the only comic I read regularly now.

"moral traditional set of American conservative values"

And which "conservative values" would those be?

Attempting to pick up underage boys via text messages?

Attempting to find gay sex in a men's room?

Lying this country into a war?

Destroying the economy?

Destroying the environment?

Racism?

Xenophobia?

For a party that crows about their "values", they sure have a funny way of practicing them.

Bill Willingham...the man who had a superheroine having sex with a dolphin and had a teen girl be tortured to death with a drill has a problem with how comics have shown superheroes.

Good to know.

Very interesting, and sadly true. Comics are all about genres, keep dark to the dark genre. For far too long, superhero comics have been nothing but dark. The only good comic to properly utilize superhero themes while maintaining current is JSA

I encourage everyone to join an ongoing discussion and dialogue about comics at the following friend feed room. It tracks the latest news, and also provides round-table discussions.

http://friendfeed.com/rooms/comics-books

I've managed to read the comments that everyone has taken the time to write, and I have enjoyed many of the ideas that have been brought up. Thinking about how and why I started reading comics, I've realized that I like moral ambiguity in heroes and I like moral steadfastness in heroes. I enjoy Steve Roger's strict moral code, but I also enjoy the moral ambiguity of Frank Castle’s crusade. In the hands of skilled writers they come alive. We had people outside of our clique in society stop and take notice of deaths of major icons like Superman and Captain America. Is our discussion about writer's politics or our fear of losing our personal visions of these characters?

I believe the latter. Personally I am fickle. I have flitted from comic to comic like a fly at a picnic. I read comics. I’m not a collector who bags and backs. Stories are important, so I follow stories and heroes that resonate to me. Frankly, the hero is more important than the writer or artist to me, sometimes. I sometimes follow heroes to the end of their story no matter who writes or draws. I have a complete run of Starriors and Strikeforce: Morituri and Captain Carrot because of this compulsion. As long as I relate to the character, I will buy it, read it, and recommend it to friends. (Having a midlife crisis? Read Green Lantern: Mosaic) Mr. Willingham’s comments strike me not as coming from his strict moral sense as a person or a writer with a mission to convert us to his particular ideology. I cannot see the plight of Israel in Fables, but I see myself and my friends in high school who felt alienated surrounded by people who did not understand us. I see people who are idealists in a society that is unforgiving. Allegory or analogy, I bring it to the table more than the writer. He’s trapped by my interpretation of his work. He gets one shot to communicate to me. I get limitless rereads to interpret his work. That is my power as a reader. Mr. Willingham, to me, spoke as a person who cares about the heroes and about his craft. He’s concerned about his profession. He has a belief about heroes. I can respect that.

Heroes should be different than our expectations of ourselves. Steve Rogers cannot be morally ambiguous. He must fight the good fight. I demand it. The only thing that makes Winter Soldier interesting is how he struggles to live up to Roger’s Strict moral code. Isn’t that what I would do in his place? And Deadshot’s moral compass that spun like a fan throughout his tenure on Ostrander’s Suicide Squad, I would love to have his wavering loyalty and freedom of action. He has to be ambiguous. He must be a wildcard to build anticiaption in the reader. We try to stuff everything in a right or wrong context in our world, and it doesn’t work. Even bastions of moral absolutism have faltered through the years. Superman however, for me, always stood for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Comics are a religion. We believe in characters and argue over interpretations that do not fit our narrow views.

A poster above said that he was not going to read Willingham’s work because of Willingham’s political views. It is sad that the poster’s beliefs can be swayed so easily by implied dogma. I just do not know what to say. I hope they reconsider their knee-jerk reaction.

Mr. Willingham, Mr. Busiek, and Mr. Brubaker, you will write. I will read. We will agree and disagree about characters. Thanks for taking the time to hone your craft. We envy you in our fanboy tantrums--you do what we dream to do.

It is late. I am sleepy and rambling, and I hope that others can add coherency to my intent.

kind of funny considering the best superhero story ever was written only in 2007 - Sinestro Corps War and that had a true superhero who is acting like a true superhero - Hal Jordan.

I find it interesting to see creators like Kurt Busiek defending Willingham considering he has to ignore their work on Superman to make his argument work! After all, criticizing Superman for not being iconic enough doesn't work if you acknowledge things like the "Up, Up & Away" storyline, not to mention his attempts to adopt a son and create a family! And he insinuates he did something special with Robin, when Chuck Dixon, who wrote the book longer than anyone, never had Tim Drake as anything less than a true blue hero. He also has to ignore the long runs of Mark Waid and Ed Brubaker on the regular universe Captain America and focus only on the Marvel Knights incarnation and Ultimate line. He couldn't be twisting or ignoring facts more to suit his agenda if he were running for office.

To anyone who knows comics, this is nothing but complete silliness and the man is just embarrassing himself.

I'd argue that the superhero is in nature a conservative concept. That which values individual duty and responsibility rather than delegating that to the state.

You could even argue it's a neocon concept, one that values immediate physical intervention rather then drawn out negotiation.

That superhero comics have been written by liberal writers and have had liberal storylines only attests to the flexibility of the genre.

"for me at least the superhero genre should be different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view."

This is the part that really bothers me, as a non-American.

Anyway, I'll continue reading Fables for as long as it stays awesome. It's the book that got me back into comics, after all.

Politics? I don't find superhero comics to be as much political as ideological. And the creators themselves can and should be able to express their stories however they see fit to a certain extent. This shouldn't be a liberal/conservative/Democrat/Republican debate. Throw out all labels altogether ... stories should transcend.

Like a few posts have said, it kinda boils down to story. I personally agree with some of Willingham's post - I do think comics are going through a very dark phase. Look at the "big events" - Final Crisis (with an examination of evil) and Secret Invasion (about a brutal war) - these are dark events with some brutality. But I don't find much of it to be cynical. Some of it's great, some of it's not. I do think some comics are a little brutal - X-Force for example seems to be a little sadistic - and I find that there are plot points with some heroes I don't like but I definitely think a lot of what I've read has been done with respect - just veering in a different direction. I hated that Steve Rogers was killed but Captain America was - and is - a great read. (and sort of aporpos of our times). I just think when you're making a long-term ramification for a character or a line, it should be considered heavily. So are some heroes acting less heroic? Well ... Reed Richards turned Skrulls into cows! I think the tone has shifted and the violence has been portrayed more realistically and been more extreme and prevalent. And sometimes it may get to be too abrasive.

But all I can say as a huge fan is I think many of the creators (including Bill Willingham, Ed Brubaker & Kurt Busiek) are doing great work and it's great to read so many thoughtful posts ...

Holy moley-- did Rich Johnston nail down the essence of the superhero in a few short, succinct sentences...

Although, I wouldn't call the superhero, by nature, a "conservative" concept, but simply an American one. Obviously, the superhero is (the relatively young) America's contribution to world mythology, along with the cowboy and hard-boiled P.I.

It's only a "conservative" concept insofar as the American Left, or modern "liberalism" has diverged from those traits which we might call traditional Amercanism-- or, as Mr. Johnston put it: "individual duty". The same sort of qualities that have been in evidence throughout American literature and culture, but have become antiquated as we cede more and more responsibility for our lives to the government.

But I also agree with Rich that there is great flexibility in the genre, particularly when it comes to iconic, inherently patriotic (and political) characters like Superman or Captain America. There's a lot of great storytelling possibility to be mined from giving these icons something to push against in whatever the contemporary political climate may be.

Conflict is where great drama lies, after all. Cap giving up his mantle in the post-Watergate era to become Nomad, or in the '80s John Walker era made for good goddamn stories-- I could give a shit whether I agreed with Engelhart or Gruenwald's political views or not. It worked, and it worked because Steve Rogers' decisions seemed like the ones that Steve would make.

Personally, I've always thought that Cap would be a man of his time, the skinny kid in Depression New York, dying to get overseas and "use immediate physical force" against Hitler's Germany. Taking a "realistic" view of his politics, that would make him a FDR (or, later, Truman) Democrat. Good on national defense , but a softy at heart, four-square in favor of the "social safety net". Which today would make his closest political analogue... Joe Lieberman. Chew on that.

But, evidenced by the many false starts a "Captain America" title had after 9/11 ("Cap goes to Guantanamo!'), it doesn't do to put Cap in a strictly real world situation, despite his Hitler-punching origins. He fought the Secret Empire instead of Nixon, he fought the Serpent Society instead of Reagan-- to a kid reader, it was all open to interpretation.

The genius of Brubaker's current run has been not to fall into the trap of the ripped-from-the-headlines conceit of his immediate predecessors. Our present war against a stateless, faceless terrorist organization had already been anticipated in fiction (SPECTRE, HYDRA, COBRA), and it seems to me Ed recognized that fact and used it. Timely-- yet timeless to the future kid reader somewhere down the road.

Too bad the state of the world couldn't be handled so elegantly in "Civil War", written by the human toothache who is Mark Millar. Instead of a timeless-- yet timely-- yarn we were treated to an on-the-nose critique of policy issues we'll have most likely forgotten about five years from now.

Honestly, does Cap's objection to the Super Hero Registration Act (ahem, Patriot Act-- sorry, Millar) make him a modern-day Liberal? If he were such, wouldn't he be actually enforcing gun control-- especially if those guns were somebody's hands, and those hands could level whole city block's? Wouldn't he, really?

Anyhoo, it seems to me there's a right way to do political allegory in a superhero comic, and a wrong way. And there's been a long line of Cap writers who have understood this, Brubaker among them.

He will still burn for contributing to Steve's murder, though.

Good night, and thank you.

"Bush kept us safe. The blame of 9/11 and our economy should be placed on Clinton and Greenspan. Slick Willy had the information to stop the terrorists and he did nothing…"

Typical radical right historical revisionism, DunceTrace. Bush ignored numerous intelligence agency warnings about Bin Ladin and the PDB of August 6, 2001 that warned of Bin Ladin's intentions. The economic crisis we're in is due to the Bush Junta's and the GOP's massive deregulation of the U.S. financial industry. Of course right-wingers like you have never let things like facts, figures, or morality interfere with the spread of that venereal disease you call an ideology.

"Man, there are a lot of intolerant liberals in this thread..."

Hey Tom Strong, liberals have been tolerant of you right-wing scum for decades. We've been the ones who tried to agree to disagree while working to make this country a better, more equitable place to live. We've fought and bled and died for this country, unlike so many right-wing chicken-hawk keyboarders.

What have we gotten for our trouble?

Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, McVeigh, Rudolph, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bush. The shredding of our Constitution. Accusations that we're traitors. Threats of violence and actual violence against our persons and property. Hurricane Katrina. Two disastrous wars abroad.

Every time a person votes for a Republican he's shooting himself in the foot and hitting the rest of the U.S. with the ricochet. And every four to eight years Democrats have to come along and clean up your party's messes -- but instead of taking the opportunities we've had to grind you and your ilk to powder, we've been tolerant.

I'm quite done with being tolerant. And if the last election is any indication, the majority of America feels the same way.

I don't understand the mindset that being proud of being an American means you're automatically disrespecting everybody else. The fact is, the vast majority of comics are produced in the U.S. and the vast majority of readers (especially of Marvel and DC) are in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with standing up and waving an American flag and standing for Truth, Justice and the American Way. I think comics do need to get back to that, at least the mainstream superhero comics. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks (with or without cause) the American Way is the best way, it means looking out for the little guy. Making sure people get a fair shake in life. And trying to spread freedom around the world. I'm not talking about the George Bush way or the Bill Clinton way or the Barak Obama way. They're just Presidents, here today gone tomorrow. I'm talking about the American Way. We don't always get it right. We've made alot of mistakes and treated alot of people badly along the way. But we're figuring it out, slowly but surely. And we'll keep perfecting it til we get it right. Whether you're liberal or conservative, I think everybody is in favor of that. There is plenty of room for the adult, darker, nastier comics too. But let's get that flag back in Superman's hand.

Amen, brother.

This is all commentary on a site that (while years ago, so maybe aboslutely none of the morons involved is left now) involved my getting "banned" for not admitting that Geoff Johns hated homosexuals because he didn't retroactively make any of the golden age JSA characters gay. Seriously. So this amount of insane "putting-words-into-others'-mouths" is actually rather tame for the Internet.

And like Willingham, I've been accused of being a commie-pinko-leftist AND a neocon-right-wing-fascist during the course of the same argument. People like to launch into diatribes and make whatever they're quoting seem to fit, regardless of how much bending and breaking of the original message it takes. Just ignore the extremist jerks - they thrive on attention.

"I just would like to point out that DC has a character that is very clear in his moral purpose:

"Green Arrow

"Love him or hate him, he is that shining beacon on the hill."

I'm not so sure about that. GA Ollie Queen started life as a multimillionaire or billionaire, so cue cries of "limousine liberalism" from righties. Of course, GA (according to writer Mike Grell) only took up his superhero career to avoid his duties as a corporate executive and heir to a large company. Add to that the fact that he wasn't portrayed as a *liberal* crusader for the working class until he lost his fortune -- and while he embarked on his newly-justified crusade he neglected his teenage ward (who subsequently became a heroin addict). Then there's his near-constant portrayal as a hot-headed, loud-mouthed, womanizing sexist who cheated repeatedly on the woman he professed to love.

Not exactly a flattering portrayal of DC's only unabashed liberal.

Disappointing Bill.

Here are my thoughts:
http://geekwhisperin.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/comics-politics-screw-you-bill-willingham/

Whether left- or right-wing, whether they wrap themselves in the flag or burn it, makes no difference. Superheroes sell the fantasies of infantile omnipotence and narcissistic inflation. "I'm magical, with unique powers that let me satisfy my desires in ways no-one else can, and I can get away with aggression." Debates about their morality or their politics misdirect attention from superheroes' actual function: to regress the reader to a state which is pre-moral, pre-political. The real question is not who would the superhero (or their creator) vote for, but rather, is the regressed reader emotionally old enough to vote?

Ed Brubaker wrote:
>As for this argument? Who cares? Left/right, conservative/liberal… who wants to wear those labels >anymore? The country’s falling apart while people pick sides and point fingers… brilliant.

I wholeheartedly agree that "conservative" and "liberal" have been threadbare as meaningful signifiers, and have been for many decades, and I also endorse a common understanding and working together. Of course.

As for what Brubaker calls finger-pointing, however, others are rightfully calling that a demand for justice, a quest for accountability, and an interest in understanding who's done what in order to avoid repeating these mistakes, and so on. To reduce all of these things merely to petty recriminations is just well-short of the mark.

Perhaps the war in Gaza now should be a reminder that we must let go of thoughts of revenge, and in this case not engage in partisanship, as painfully impossible as it seems, lest we become mired in a similarly horrific cycle for the rest of our lives, like that one composed of blood and murder turning now in Gaza. I happily agree that a loftier spirit than the one typically found in binary, political debates is necessary to get ourselves out of this mess. Nonetheless, none of that means I'm wholly willing to let bygones be bygones with the Bush administration. The truth of the lives ruined by this outlaw administration must be told, or the lives we live in the absence of that truth are all cheapened and that much more absurd.

As malleable a concept as the truth is, the pall over America and the world will only begin to lift in earnest once we begin to embrace humility and admit our culpability in the world's wrongs.

Rich Johnston said:

"I’d argue that the superhero is in nature a conservative concept. That which values individual duty and responsibility rather than delegating that to the state.

You could even argue it’s a neocon concept, one that values immediate physical intervention rather then drawn out negotiation."

Sure. But from my perspective, saying "With great power comes great responsibilty" is the same as saying "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." And wasn't the American Way that Superman first protected the New Deal liberalism of FDR? What is liberalism or classic Progressive politics, other than a striving for justice, for the poor, oppressed or disenfranchised? An ideal not always, or even very often achieved. But the point of an ideal is the striving, I think, as much as the achievement.

I don't have a problem with Willingham's comments, I have a problem with the company he keeps. The last writer who kept that kind of company, sidelined a fictional character named Thunder that didn't line up with his very specific viewpoints on human sexuality and racial politics.

I thank Willingham for saying what he has, it is a welcome message, but the message was tainted by the medium. And it makes me wonder what will happen to Jakeem Thunder, Lightning, Mister Terrific, Amazing Man, Crimson Avenger, Judomaster, and Obsidian when he takes over the Justice Society of America.

Rush Limbaugh, seriously Bill?

re Jared Logan's observations:

>>"There might be something to be said here for 'letting work speak for itself.'

>>"Before reading this thread I would never have assumed that Bill Willingham was liberal OR conservative. Based on his work I’d just assume he was a guy who had some fascinating, valuable things to say about politics, the plight of refugees, and a hundred other important topics. That’s what’s great about art - it doesn’t have to be democrat or republican. It can just convey ideas. Those ideas don’t even have to be statements. They can be questions!

>>"But when an artist explains what they are trying to do, or what they intend to do, it seems to muddy the waters somehow and place barriers between them and their audience. It’s ironic that explaining one’s intentions makes things more confusing...."

It brings to mind a scene in which an art patron is appreciating a painting "for its deep use of browns and nonconformity of shapes. Look at how the swirls seem to draw you down into the piece. It's full of movement." ... Then the artist steps up to proudly explain that he was trying to capture the essence of his own fecal matter as it went down the toilet.

Bill Willingham has written some of the more Morally grey characters ever. He admits this and offers no apologies. He intends on writing differently now. Seems simple. But over a hundred comments and only a few of you understand this. It boils down to yet another lib vs. con argument.

God bless the internet.

That's just great. I'm gonna comment with my gut reaction, so forgive me if I am repeating others.

I'm a severe lefty. Bill's a righty. But, that hasn't stopped me from reading his material. No, that would be his holier-than-thou attitude. The man is just a bag of douche. I'm reminded of the convention my friend attended back in the heyday of Elementals where Willingham accepted the money up-front for a sketch of Fathom, then got shitty with the man when he came back to pick it up six hours later... with no one else's commision ahead of him. He literally berated my friend to another fan in line for checking to see if he was done yet. Then there was the time when I was just getting back into comics, and I had no knowledge of Dave Sim's personal issues. I asked if anyone could fill me in on his alledged woman-hating, and Bill took it upon himself to sarcastically and caustically make me feel like a piece of shit for even asking.

He's just a dick.

Honestly, Fables bored me into dropping it. His team book with Blue Devil (the title escapes me) was utter garbage. House of Mystery has done nothing but disappoint me. Ironwood, his extremely graphic porn comic, which featured extremely detailed fellatio IIRC between a human male and a female centaur, had no direction (and quite the odd storyline for such a pronounced conservative to be promoting). Now, he's going to get the Justice Society of America canceled with his family values-rich-white America version of the team. DC would do better to just take that horse behind the shed, and shoot it, as far as I'm concerned.

I remeber the shine and sparkle of comic books began to fade for me around the age of 14. Thank the Lord I discovered Swamp Thing, Miracleman, The Sandman, Hellblazer, Watchmen, Arkham Asylum, Animal Man, The Enigma, and The Question. Not exactly the bastions of the Right. Not exactly Family Values. Not exactly Mom, baseball, and apple pie. Their adult, lefty, dark, and somewhat violent topics are what brought me back from the comicsless abyss. Sadly enough, Elementals can be counted as one of those morally-corrupting series that changed my life, as well.

Thank you, Mr. Willingham, for attempting to make the comics industry as exciting as a glass of tepid water, and thank you for simply making me embarassed that I ever supported you financially. Well played, sir. Well played.

What are "American" values? What are "Belgian" values, for that matter? (Anyone know anything about plucky little Belgium? They started the First World War by getting invaded. Cheese, chocolate, beer, Flemish, Walloon, any of this make sense, anything? Bueller? Get over the stupid Simpsons gag by Groundskeeper Willie, of all characters which I KNOW was about the French, not the Belgians. Did you know they speak French in Belgium? Indeed they do. Sheesh. Read something other than comics. Please.)

Superheroes (and in this I include Tintitn, of whom I admit I am not a fan. Never liked it. I am aware people love it but I don't. Neither here nor there.) have their OWN set of values - yes, Truth, Yes Justice. American Way? That was the invention of a radio copy-writer in the '40's. So it's Not Canon. So all fan-boys CALM THE F@CK DOWN.

Bill Willingham can write what he wants. You like, you buy. You don't like, you don't buy.

When he says heroes should be heroes, he's right. the DC Universe is very dark and rape-y these days. Marvel's not much better. Then again, look out the window. The world is dark and rape-y. Warren Ellis himself was recently heard to complain about an episode of Law & Order where someone was sodomized with a violin bow. "And they call ME a bad man."

Doesn't anybody rob banks anymore? Does every villain have to be some cackling lunatic who just ... won't ... stop? Most criminals I ever met have been lazy. Give 'em a power-suit, power-set, a gimmick, an alias, they'll go "Sweet! I'm gonna get me some money!" Which they'd spend or lose because CRIMINALS ARE LAZY. And cowardly and superstitious, right? It's the old Good vs Evil dance. Ain't it great? There are limitless possibilities to it, as any comics fan can attest.

Superheroes are people who try to make the world a better place. Call it escapism, call it narcissistic power-fantasy, call it what you like. You like, you buy.

Much love to Kurt Busiek. And Ed Brubaker, even though he killed Captain America* and then let Alex Ross give Bucky a gay new suit, even though Steve is TOTALLY going to come back, he's not dead, no one ever dies in comics and besides NAMOR'S GOT THE BODY, PEOPLE. Do the math.

* as if anyone could kill Captain America. Not even Tintin. Now THERE'S a fight I'd like to see!

Okay. I feel better now. I want to apologize for commenting so rashly. I'm sorry for the namecalling. Maybe Bill isn't a dick or a douche. There certainly are individuals testifying their good friendships with the man, so I will openly and freely admit I don't know the man from Adam. I am also not embarassed as I stated before.

What I will say is that the man was a dick TO ME. That's the real qualifier.

Personally, I don't care for his writing, and I have great love for the JSoA. I also do not like supporting a man who made me feel so small for hunting for the truth behind the whispered rumors I had heard. For me, it's a conflict of interest.

If I offended anyone with my narrowed vision and inflammatory words, mea culpa.

Willingham manages to turn me off every time I hear him speak. I used to be an avid reader of 'Fables' until I read that it was meant as a parallel to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the Fables are the Israelis. This is of course meaningless to many since it's 'art', but it helps to support the myths of this conflict, which ignorant people like Willingham spread such as Israel is fighting a defensive war (rather than land it wants), that it is defenseless (yet has the most potent military force in the region and nukes), was the David to the Arab world's Goliath (in fact when founded they had a larger force than the combined Arab armies), and he also ignores the imperialist aspect of the enterprise and how the great powers created a country that already had an indigenous population and so on. I don't think we have to agree on this conflict as there are probably many comicbook creators on both sides of that conflict, BUT when I hear Willingham saying things like this in addition, I realize I made the right decision. No more faux patriots and neocons who think war is the answer along with flag waving. The real world is more complicated and with globalization and an interconnected world, I'm glad old-fashioned patriotism isn't as popular as it once was. I much prefer to look at other countries as my brothers and sisters and myself as a citizen of the world.

I think he was stating that he wants to leave darker themes to non-super hero books, including Fables. He wants super heroes to be less conflicted about their beliefs and will write them that way when he has the opportunity. I wish him well and I think he will produce some great stories from the perspective.

Nothing shocking here and the market will decide what type of books readers want.

Reading things from only people you agree with will get quite boring very quickly. Don't judge Willingham by the way others are interpreting his editorial.

Xero
January 11, 2009 at 5:31 am

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don’t have a problem with Willingham’s comments, I have a problem with the company he keeps. The last writer who kept that kind of company, sidelined a fictional character named Thunder that didn’t line up with his very specific viewpoints on human sexuality and racial politics.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thank Willingham for saying what he has, it is a welcome message, but the message was tainted by the medium. And it makes me wonder what will happen to Jakeem Thunder, Lightning, Mister Terrific, Amazing Man, Crimson Avenger, Judomaster, and Obsidian when he takes over the Justice Society of America.

Rush Limbaugh, seriously Bill?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Has there been anything to suggest Willingham will write non-White characters badly. This seems to be coming out of nowhere.

@JR:
its called a joke, get it?.

@A_Ritchie:

thats not rich johnson, THATS A SKRULL!

1. I find it dangerous for a writer of such a formative medium to equate heroism to the united states. heroism is a relative concept to the cultures that embrace said behaviour. to the radicals, the suicide bomber is the biggest hero of them all. to us, he is a terrorist. -- heroes like thomas jefferson had slaves. -- revolutionary heroes who fight the establishment are heroes...or are they?

2. comics might have had their biggest growth spurt in the united states, but they are DEFINITELY not a united states invention nor are they a sole exclusivity of the united states. as an example, here in my country, Monica and her friends have 7 monthly comics totally locally made, and each title sells around 1 million issues, with the flagship title (monica) selling 2.5 million monthly. Disney and Superheroes barely get to 500 thousand copies sold ( if anyone wants, i can track down the statistics). We still get comics sold in magazine stands all over the country, and CBShops are rare (and only in large urban centres). DC and MARVEL get their 'fame' here through television and cinema.

3. As a fellow commentor said, fiction could show us new ways of thougt, so we must celebrate its openness.

4. From what i remember hearing from oh-so-proud united staters, the US of A is a 'multicultural melting pot' though i believe the best metaphor would be the quilt, where they must live together without really mixing. after all, ghettoization is quite common in the US.

5. I still enjoy fables, but i will be reading it with a much more critical and pre-warned eye.

Let's leave the name-calling and personal insults out of this, please ... there's obviously plenty to say on this without going that route.

My only real gripe with Willingham's article is the "more american" part. More american than what? I'm scottish myself, and my favourite comic book character is Superman. If I aspire to superman's level of morality, does that mean I should aspire to be more American? Ask everyone in the world what America means to them,and you'll get millions of different answers. Superman is an international character now. yes, he has his origins in America and the original american ideals of acceptance and tolerance and freedom, but he's grown into a symbol of international GOODNESS. To state that you're going to make him and/or other heroes more "american" in their morality will have wildly different effects on each member of your readership. And another note - All Star Superman, maybe the best Superman story of the past 20 years (or ever, for that matter). Written by a non-american.. was he trying to write to a more american code of values? I wonder.

There's a certain appeal to fictional characters "fighting for the right". This is as opposed to real-life characters who are convinced they're right and use it to justify torture, looting the treasury, starting wars based on lies and stealing elections. Those kinds of people tend to have no sense of reality or morality and are extremely dangerous. It's better to keep such thinking within the pages of comic books.

Captain America disagreeing with government policy is a tribute to the US in and of itself. The simple fact that a character named Captain America can be draped in the American flag and openly express disagreement with the government only underscores the values that the character embodies.

Dragonflye, since I have never, not once, charged or accepted money up front for a sketch, I think you must have me confused with someone else, or are perhaps simply making up this story. I'll let the rest of your comments speak for themselves.

@Brian Hancock: "I think he was stating that he wants to leave darker themes to non-super hero books, including Fables. He wants super heroes to be less conflicted about their beliefs and will write them that way when he has the opportunity. I wish him well and I think he will produce some great stories from the perspective."

That's what I got out of it as well. I wish him the best. Honestly, I'd rather something be a good story than "light" or "dark" or what have you. As for Mr. Willingham's personal politics, I disagree with many of his expressed opinions, but I still love Fables (You don't have to be a Libertarian to like Eastwood movies...). Different strokes and such.

I disagree with many of the comments to the editorial on "Big Hollywood" which I don't feel the need to respond to and wouldn't frequent the comments section or much of the site in the future because I'll just get annoyed. I do think Chuck Dixon's claims of comics being out of touch and too "edgy" as a reason for circulation decline is waaay off base and don't mind saying so. Circulation is declining (much like in nearly any media market now) because there is a wider swath of product than there used to be(i.e. why read comics when you can play video games or watch one of 800 television channels), not to mention the over inflated price.

Isn't comics just following the general trends in Literature, Art, Philosophy, etc.? The anti-hero/non-hero is a fixture of stories these days. He may not like post-modernist trends, but they aren't going anywhere.

I think it is more than fine for Willingham to promote his idea of what the hero should be. Its his job as an author. But do we only want one kind of superhero in our comics? I love the idea of seeing the world of superheroes as a larger discourse. I love seeing Garth Ennis, Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison, Robert Kirkman, and whoever else (including Mr. Willingham) provide alternative interpretations of what heroes are and should be. I don't reject Willingham's idea of what superheroes should be, only that he thinks his perspective should be the only one.

And one more thought on multiculturalism. I live next door to an African American woman with two young boys. I've been wanting to buy them some comics but have struggled to find a book that suits them for where they are and who they are. The more diverse our heroes become, the more people will come to comics, and we'll be all the better for it.

As someone who likes BWs stories I have to say that I really don't care about BW's political opinions unless they make him start writing bad stories. I do however agree that the moral line for many "heroes" in todays comics seems to be eroding.

In the latest issue of "Avengers Initiative" a skrull who has chosen to fight against his own kind in the war, who has been a member of the initiative, and who had just helped to save the lives of his entire team, is shot in the head by 3-D Man who shrugs and says "what...he's a skrull".

In what way would you consider killing an ally who had just saved your life heroic??

The "American Way" is an ideal, a moral clarity to live up to, not a political stance.

An addendum: It was unfair of me to accuse BW of saying his perspective is the only one because he didn't say that. I would, however, disagree with anyone that believes the morally unambiguous hero should be the only one in our books.

I for one identify a lot more with someone who can work through moral ambiguity and make choices when there isn't a clear distinction between right and wrong.

In contrasting the two parties, it's good to remember:
Clinton got his semen on a dress. His immediate predecessor inflicted his on the whole country.

Wow. I can't believe I just spent so much of my morning reading something so long that gets me so worked up.

And by this point, it really has little to do with Willingham's statements, real, alleged, or mistakenly pinned on him by people who don't know how to process what they read in any productive way.

Most of what's giving me the twitches are stemming from the gross and hateful ignorance on well-lit display here. I suppose I should thank Bill Willingham for (unintentionally?) inspiring debate, even if a good chunk of it isn't really productive, or ultimately related to the state of superhero comics.

I shouldn't be surprised, really. Everyone knows, or should know, that you're not supposed to discuss politics or religion in polite company. That last qualifier probably makes the whole statement irrelevant, but you get my drift...

What I should be even less surprised at is that it sunk to this level this quickly amongst so many on the internet, where thinking things through has about as much place near your computer as a Vic 20 Tape Drive.
Which is strange, since typing out unthinking vitriol takes a lot longer than just blurting it out verbally, but actually saying it out loud would require someone to hear you, ideally the target of your woefully misguided anger, and that's just not how we do things online, is it?

In fact, if this were, say, a panel at Comicon, I doubt someone would just stand up and tell the "third world" to "suck it" or whatever the hell that was, especially in a room full of people. No, the internet is a good medium for people to spout off anonymously (and before you argue, how many people are using aliases here? Even I'm not giving my name away, considering how many of you people are hateful to a frightening degree) in ill-though-out, half-informed ways. I'm really trying to stay away from the phrase "ignorant cowards", because some people will take it far too personally, as opposed to a blanket statement that covers most of the people participating in a staggering number of internet discussions all over the world, but it's not far off, and I'll certainly cop to some hypocracy in that regard.

Hell, I could ask why the more impassioned people seem to get, the worse the spelling, grammar, etc seem to get in these posts?

At this point, I'd like to commend the professionals in the room: Mr. Busiek, Mr. Brubaker and Mr. Willingham, for not only participating in this near non-discussion, and for doing it with such level heads. Is this the kind of stuff you have to put up with at conventions, or are people generally more civil and well spoken? Because I'd just stay home, were that the case, and save myself the headache.

While I suppose making the original statements on what I assume is a political website may have been a mistake of sorts (at least as far as this particular kettle of fish we're in right now goes), I don't know as I've ever really thought about the politics of Fables. I've managed to enjoy it for its entire run as, basically, a massive-scope fantasy story where a bunch of underdog, oppressed characters are trying to fight an Evil Empire. It's actually a fairly common fantasy theme, you know. Lord of the Rings...kind of fits. There was a land war in the Chronicles of Narnia, if I remember correctly (though I've probably just accidentally opened the Religious can of worms in referencing C.S. Lewis), and I think the Lloyd Alexander books had something to do with deposing a horrible ruler...

Does this mean that the original Star Wars trilogy is some specific and horrible piece of propaganda?

And man, do some of you people really, really like Palestine. I can't profess to having "picked a side", myself, as I'm probably woefully ignorant of the full backstory behind this particular current event.

That's not an invitation for you all to play human textbook with me, either.

I guess the inherent problem here is, we all only have one thing in common: we seem to like comic books.
Everything else about us is probably completely different, whether it's where we live, what we do for a living, our political ideologies, or what we get out of looking at abstract paintings. Some of us might even buy comics just to look at the pretty pictures.

At its base, what I'm interpreting from it is, Willingham's statement was that the all-audiences stuff, the "gateway" comics that the kids get to read (if they can afford the modern prices, but that's a different problem for a different day) might be a bit...morally vague, compared to what they used to be. Which is a fine point to make. I mean, I don't know as it's as bad as all that, but it's his opinion.

Where I start to worry is when some guy in the comments section says he stopped reading the JLA when they took "America" out of it, and that someone would stop reading comics when Blue Beetle is one of a few comics that actually reflect the very real cultural diversity of the U.S.A...more frightening still is how some people out there seem to agree and extrapolate on these opinions.

And somehow, it's become a "Bush vs. Obama" throwdown. First of all, this "dark age" started when Reagan was in office, partly by people who were living under Thatcher in England, and I still utterly love "V for Vendetta". But it continued through Bush, Clinton and Bush 2, and hasn't stopped. There's been about 23 years of grim 'n' gritty, introspective and dark superhero comics, and I really don't think that it can come down to something as simply stated as "who's the government right now?"

These things tend to reflect the times they're written in. Superman? Product of the Depression and all the anxieties held therein. Captain America? World War 2 - part propaganda and part wish fulfillment on behalf of all the people who couldn't serve when they wanted to.

Now, it could go either way: there's a recession on, but there's also all this new hope from your new President (yes, I said "your", and despite all the super-divisive crazy you people seem to have, I wish that Canada had one political leader that could inspire us to care -- ours are all bland, political oatmeal).

So, it could inspire a Depression-Era level of escapism and fantasy wish-fulfillment, it could go darker, reflecting the mood of the country, or it could reflect the joy, optimism and hope apparent on your Election Night and the weeks that followed.

And as far as "the American Way" goes, I don't see Superman as embodying a country as much as embodying a general, worldwide ethos of "being raised right". Isn't half the point that Superman was found by good people and raised with good values? And they're not specifically "American" values, but they can be found all over America.

Whatever. I could go on, but I've already written a damn book here, and I've got things to do. I would like to encourage everyone here to go out and buy yourselves some Astro City trades, because Kurt Busiek has been exceptionally patient and level-headed during this discussion. Oh yeah, and it's brilliant, too.

And if I'm going to do that, I have to tell those of you old enough to enjoy it to go and read Brubaker's "Criminal", because it's just about the best damn thing you're going to read, and it does you the favour of turning you onto other great movies, books, etc.

Oh man. A+ on the Asterisk reference.

I was really let down by Willingham's recent work on one of the Batman books where he made Dr. Leslie Thompkins the psycho responsible for killing Spoiler by withholding treatment. From what I understand it's now been retconned about a year or two after the fact, and that irritates the hell out of me.

Was that a DC editorial decision that they redid due to fan backlash? Was it Willingham's idea of a good plot point? Did anybody really think that was a good idea? Why go with the obviously bad idea at all, since it was apparently whitewashed out of continuity.

Anyhow, I hope his run on JSA works out better.

Well I for one am looking forward to Willingham's run on JSA. He has shown that he can handle a massive cast very well and Fables and Jack of Fables are my two favorite series.
As an Israeli-American I did love the Israel analogy in Fables. It was awesome.

While it is possible that Mr. Willingham is what Garry Trudeau once called a "Jingoistic, Self-Regarding little conquer monkey", I am a "Volvo- Driving, New York Times Reading, Howard Dean supporting Liberal from the San Fransisco Bay Area currently living in Washington, DC"... So I have nothing to talk about.

Mr. Busiek, I love all of your work and I can not wait to find out what your next series is.
That is all.

"I was really let down by Willingham’s recent work on one of the Batman books where he made Dr. Leslie Thompkins the psycho responsible for killing Spoiler by withholding treatment. From what I understand it’s now been retconned about a year or two after the fact, and that irritates the hell out of me.

Was that a DC editorial decision that they redid due to fan backlash? Was it Willingham’s idea of a good plot point? Did anybody really think that was a good idea? Why go with the obviously bad idea at all, since it was apparently whitewashed out of continuity."

Yes it was me who wrote that story -- at least part of it. The decision to make Dr. Thompkins was either an editorial decision or the group decision (I forget exactly which, since it's been a while) and it fell to me to actually write the scene. No, I didn't think it was a particularly good idea, but (full disclosure) I wasn't that much a fan of the Thompkins character in the first place, so I didn't say, "Hell no, I won't be a party to doing that to a beloved character!" This incident, plus the whole death after torture of Spoiler thing, are among the many reasons I have decided to make sure that I actually control the stories I decide to write in the future, since they are going out under my name.

I floated the idea of letting Spoiler live and letting her stay as Robin for awhile, since the sales and national attention took quite an uptick at that point, and since the Robin I really wanted to write (male or female) was one who was still in the process of learning the job -- not someone who substantially already knew the job. But DC had other ideas, and these are after all their characters. The death of Spoiler plans were locked in by then and couldn't be changed.

As far as someone coming along afterwards and rewriting all of that out of continuity, that's fine with me.

It was interesting following this conversation. I suspect I now owe Kurt a sensible mid-sized sedan for all of the yeoman's work he did above keeping the record straight. And to the fellow who offered the forum for Kurt and I to debate, there's two things wrong with that: 1) finding something I strongly disagree with Kurt about, and, 2) debating with Kurt at all. He's too well-spoken, while I am ... let's call it less so. Now if we could handicap the debate by allowing body-checking...

I must take my leave and go work now. Enjoy the rest of this conversation in my absence.

Robot 6, it's like you brought the old pre-revamp Talk@Newsarama posters out of the woodwork with this blog post!!!

My problem with superhero decadence isn't so much with the moral ambiguity as it is with the disturbing emphasis on sadism, gore, and horror. Stuff like Superboy ripping limbs off, or Blob eating Wasp. Mainstream superheroes seem to be taking more cues from horror movies, for some reason. Just who are these books aimed at?

Ambiguity, on the other hand, isn't actually anything new. It's a simple fact of human existence, and you find it in the great works of literature, going right back to the Greek myths and the Bible. People are flawed, and don't always make the right choices. That's simple truth. Not to say that moral certainty is a bad thing in a hero, but it's not really necessary for a good one.

Besides, it's pretty much built into the concept of superheroes to begin with. They're vigilantes, after all.

One last thing: is anyone out there seriously so thin-skinned that the thought of a Hispanic Blue Beetle is such a grave offense to your dignity?

>> I suspect I now owe Kurt a sensible mid-sized sedan for all of the yeoman’s work he did above keeping the record straight.>>

I'd settle for copies of MYSTERLY RIVER, MONSTER-MAKER and HYDE & SEEK. Those aren't easy to find...

>> And to the fellow who offered the forum for Kurt and I to debate, there’s two things wrong with that: 1) finding something I strongly disagree with Kurt about, and, 2) debating with Kurt at all.>>

Yeah, if we debated politics, we could find some areas of disagreement, but it'd be boring and no fun. If we debated comics, I think we'd have a hard time finding anything but minor points of contention.

>> He’s too well-spoken, while I am … let’s call it less so. Now if we could handicap the debate by allowing body-checking…>>

Then you'd go down hard, Willingham. You don't have the ankles for it.

kdb

Oh, that horrible multiculturalism! It all started with Joe (Robbie) Robertson and that T'Challa character! How dare those creators present non-white characters! And what's this about voting rights, anyway?? It's time to take back America so we can have heroes like George W Bush running things again!

The only thing I really disagree on is the final line where Bill says, "But for me at least the superhero genre should be different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view."

I disagree because I don't believe these ideals or virtues to be exclusively American. That's a small nitpick, because I agree that superhero comic books have lost some of their valor.

And it boils down to character, not politics.

This is funny, and scary at the same time. It's the "Robot 6" author who selectively posted the replies from the Bighollywood site. He chose the comments about the Belgium comics and multicultural heroes purposely, because HE doesn't agree with those poster's views. Comments from posters unrelated to Willingham...posting there own opinions...

A more fitting title to this blog entry would have been "I Don't Like The Opinions Of Some Posters Who Posted About An Article On Bighollywood.com. So There! - By Robot 6 author."

So, what we get is the Robot 6 author's already filtered & biased presentation of an article from Bill Willingham...which is already intentionally presented to generate controversy. And all the knuckle-heads come out of the ether and whine, and bash, and spew against Willingham with misdirection; albeit to the delight of the Robot 6 author. It was his intention from the onset to smear Willingham, by including & using posted opinions from unrelated people in his article.

It's pathetic and an embarrassment to Comic Book Resources.

@Nick S

"The only thing I really disagree on is the final line where Bill says, “But for me at least the superhero genre should be different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view.”

I disagree because I don’t believe these ideals or virtues to be exclusively American. That’s a small nitpick, because I agree that superhero comic books have lost some of their valor."

I don't think Willingham said they were exclusively American, but I presume he wants American heroes to have higher standards, loftier standards and be more virtuous I think all Ame. ricans could be better with all three. I would hope if Willingham was writing a hero from another nation, he would expect similar high standards. Not sure and I don't want to speak for him.

Nick --

For me, at least, the virtues of "the American Way" make no claim to be "exclusively American," merely American. Just as calling pork fried rice "Chinese food" doesn't imply that no other cuisine uses rice or pork.

After all, the virtues of the American Way are drawn from many sources -- our democracy has roots in Greece, our legal system is openly and clearly built on English Common Law, and more. That we identify the particular agglomeration of virtues as "the American Way" (and different people will have different lists of what's in there) makes no claim that they are exclusive, merely that America's built on them. The "exclusive" part may be something you're perceiving, but it's not there in Bill's statements.

Recently (like, on TV this morning), Barack Obama said the following:

"During the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn’t have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that’s what I intend to carry forward in my administration."

When he refers to "our core values and ideals," he's talking about America. But did anyone, anywhere, think that he was claiming exclusivity on those values?

If so, when he went on to refer to "creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system," they must have been startled that he let the English in.

But when the US's founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they didn't think they were taking all these ideas from history and philosophy, and therefore everyone else who'd been using them would have to stop.

"American values" are commonly taken to mean "those higher values exhibited (or at least aspired to) by America and Americans." There's no "only by Americans" in there.

There can't be. We built our particular recipe out of stuff that predates us.

Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!

And three cheers for the Magna Carta!

kdb

Willingham's half onto a good idea here, only instead of "no more superhero decadence", it should be "no more superheroes".

I think it really is worth reading the original article to understand what BW was saying. It has been a little skewed by its presentation here. One line worth repeating is:

"For now, I invite others in my business to follow suit, as their own consciences dictate. We’ll talk more about this later."

I hope (and think) that he was inviting comic book creators into a larger dialogue. BW, maybe you could host a round-table panel at an upcoming con?

What I'd really like to hear him speak to, is how to keep the stories from becoming static and repetitive when you remove moral ambiguity. Maybe his upcoming run on JSA will be his answer...

"I’d argue that the superhero is in nature a conservative concept. That which values individual duty and responsibility rather than delegating that to the state. You could even argue it’s a neocon concept, one that values immediate physical intervention rather then drawn out negotiation."

- Rich Johnston

That's a fair point and I can definitely understand where that reading comes from but I never see it like that. Superheroes use their powers solely for altruistic purposes, specifically helping those who are non-powered. The notion that it's the obligation of the strong to uphold and support the weak is very much in line with leftist ideology.

Conservatives, at least in a practical sense, usually adhere to more of a "to the victor go the spoils" philosophy. To the conservative, the rugged individualist serves society by serving himself... in his self-preservation, he inspires others to do the same, creating a society where people are their own heroes.

Sorry to play devil's advocate but I see superheroes as being the ultimate liberals, even from their inception. Superman originally fought for the rights of the Depression-era downtrodden and championed FDR-style social consciousness in a time where unity was the utmost priority. Right-wing union busters were more likely the enemies in those days. Even Silver Age characters had a lefty streak. In the phrase "with great power comes great responsibility" the responsibility being referred to is the responsibility to society and those unable to defend themselves. It's a championing of the powerful to protect and uphold the powerless, to put a fine point on it.

Just thought I'd mention my thoughts on your comment in particular... I'm not even getting into the whole Willingham discussion.

While this has all made for fascinating reading I still don't quite get what all the fuss is about.

Bill Willingham wants to write super-heroes who act like super-heroes. I assume that means that his (and Matt Sturges') JSA won't be behaving like the Authority or the Ultimates.

Sweet! I'm in.

Good luck. I'll be reading!

"I hope (and think) that he was inviting comic book creators into a larger dialogue. BW, maybe you could host a round-table panel at an upcoming con?"

Exactly! I feel that he, millar, fraction, johns, busiek, and brubaker would make for an excellent discussion. and oh by the way:

"I’m quite done with being tolerant. And if the last election is any indication, the majority of America feels the same way."

Seriously?!?!

"In the latest issue of “Avengers Initiative” a skrull who has chosen to fight against his own kind in the war, who has been a member of the initiative, and who had just helped to save the lives of his entire team, is shot in the head by 3-D Man who shrugs and says “what…he’s a skrull”.

In what way would you consider killing an ally who had just saved your life heroic??"

To be fair, Crusader NEVER told any of his teammates that he was a Skrull. So, he was partly responsible for be the victim of friendly fire.

Note that the half-Skrull Hulkling survived the "Secret Invasion" because he was upfront with his heritage and allegiance to Earth.

Just to be very clear, Willingham said nothing at all about Belguim or The new and surprisingly very good Blue Beetle, right?

Like some above, I question the inclusion by the author of the forum posts talking about stuff Willingham never mentioned. I don't think there was a negative inent, but it did serve to confuse the debate.

Looking purely at Bill's statement about his desire to see less darkness and nihilism in comics, I can agree to some extent. I have no wish to take a political view or make a political stand. I find left and right politics both tedious and polarising. (There must be a better and alternative way!) Anyway, back to Bill's actual point. Grant Morrison's recently completed All-Star Superman run was a complete blast of fresh air and a return to good old-fashioned heroics. Absolutely loved it. I want to see more of that kind of comic. But I'm a believer in diversity. Which is where I agree with Kurt Busiek and cannot come into full agreement with Bill. Dark comics like Thunderbolts and Secret Six (both of which are written with humour and intelligence) will always find an audience. I won't be on board, because that isn't my kind of gig comic-wise. But there's room for all tastes. I just hope that 2009 sees more positive comics like All-Star Superman.

As I mentioned earlier and even tried to clarify a bit more in my post, the comments about Blue Beetle and Belgium were from others commenting on the piece at Big Hollywood. As you say, Scott, there was no negative intent against Mr. Willingham when I included them.

Way to go Bill!!!

A wonderful and dead on observation on the state of the stuff to start a thread that has brilliant posts and poopy ones side by side. I started collection in 1968 and stopped collecting regularly about the time Image took over several Marvel titles. There were no more "A" class titles and the competition among writers to desecrate the franchise more than the next guy was a predictable swirly for the whole industry.

The target age for the audience has changed, of course, getting much older, since I started collecting. And comics grew up in a world on a war footing when the best way to land in jail was to publish something objectionable to FDR and J Edgar Hoover. I thought Mark Millar's lasting contribution to the first two Ultimates series was to give a far more complex and rounded portrait of Steve Roger's and Nick Fury than the mainstream without losing the heroic core. That Ultimate Steve kept the lid on the Hulk is Bruce Banner news at a time when it would have sunk the Ultimates project altogether in the first series was a matter of having his priorities straight. Bruce's repeated malfeasance and insubordination should not have been allowed to sink the program. The payoff, of course, came at the end of the first series when that translates to the Ultimates being in position to save the Solar System. As a veteran Steve understands that you cannot allow an individual's delinquency to neutralize the whole team. It is not as if they were letting him run free at the time.

And, of course, I enjoyed the restoration of Hal Jordan from the host of travesties visited on him. But otherwise not much has drawn my interest in over a decade. Miller's latest Batman effort was a complete disappointment on all levels. Poor Jim Lee, stuck drawing that sick rubbish. And then the theatrical desecration of the Spirit, one of the best-loved characters of all time. "Civil War" has done the same for Marvel, and of course "Secret Invasion", just as Crisis killed my Earth-2 fix and the "Manhunters" crossover trashed DC.

The upshot: my kids, from K through high school, don't read this stuff, at least not beyond the occasional parent-recommended title. They don't like the "mainstream" any more than I do, and save their money for game consoles and Terry Pratchett novels. Their friends neither. My eldest was offended by the ethical dishonesty of the Dark Knight movie, sacrificing the reputation of a real hero to defend the reputation of a fallen hero, where I was merely annoyed. And I've noticed that the local grocery stores have dropped carrying comics the last year or two. And shelf space for graphic novels has shrunk a couple of times at the chain book stores.

Right now, the only titles I am keeping an eye out for are Thor, Ultimate Fantastic Four, and Orson Scott Card's Ultimate Iron Man in graphic novel form. And I keep up with the previews on PBR. And I've been adding the new Spirit archives.

Thanks for the good words Bill, I'll keep an eye out for projects where you have editorial control.

Observing this conversation from a comfortable distance (Ireland), I find myself shaking my head and lamenting the US. So much of this 'debate' has ignored the substance of the point being made and instead has chosen to fight the conversative vs liberal war all over again for the umpteenth time, with each side showing themselves to be as intolerant and unsavoury as the other. There is nothing so revealing of a weak mind than the absolute conviction of certainty evident in so many of these posts. No-one has a monopoly on wisdom. Quite the opposite, all of us are far more likely to have a monopoly on getting it wrong, such is the nature of the human beast and that dodgy software we call our brains.

For the record, I wasn't aware that Bill Willingham was coming from where he is politically, and I think it's a little bad sad that he is now channeling that into his writing and looking to lead the charge for, it seems to me, a return to one-dimensional characterisation in superhero comics. Life is not black and white, everything is shades of grey and it seems reasonable to imagine that it's not a failing of superhero comics to reflect that. There's nothing wrong with portraying a lead character as morally certain and steadfast in that, but isn't the prospect of all superhero comics subscribing to that more than a little bit dull? And I know Kurt Busiek (another writer I admire) has stressed that Mr. Willingham was not saying all superhero comics should be written that way, but merely stating that he intends to write them that way from this point onwards... but I'm not sure how true that is. I think perhaps Kurt is being charitable to a peer. Or perhaps Bill didn't write that part as carefully as he might have done, because to me it reads very clearly - Bill isn't saying he thinks superhero comics should be a certain way, he's saying they should be a certain way... not much room for latitude there, it's an absolutist statement; and absolutism is the last refuge of a limited mind. Obviously Bill Willingham possesses anything but a limited mind, Fables alone is ample evidence of that, but in this situation, he does himself and his intelligence a disservice. He basically says that innovation and challenging characterisation is fine... unless it's in superhero comcis. And that is utter and complete nonsense, in my humble opinion.

On the point of making comics more *cough* American... well... as a non-American, I find that utterly offensive and indicative of a cultural insularity that ill behoves a man of Bill's obvious intelligence. I know Kurt sought to deal with this earlier in saying that it didn't imply exclusivity of virtue, but I think that's debatable to say the least. It was an uncomfortable line for an international eye to read and feeds into a negative stereotype that prevails on this side of the word about a certain strain of mainstream American opinion.

On a broader level, I'm with Ed Brubaker - the global economy is burning to the ground around us, isn't it time to move beyond labelling and all the baggage that implies and focus upon what people say not where you think they're coming from when they say it?

Feel better now for getting that off my chest... Venting, you can't beat it!

I stopped reading most of the superhero books I use to read, which was pretty much all of them. I was tired of the death and rebirth every five years, shorter in some cases. They became too corporate, to unchangeable to care about. I do love Fables! These are very old characters who change every day and in every story, because the corporate machine didn't care about them. But when Superman is a multimillion dollar franchise you really can't change him too much or he'll become less viable. I do have my "guilty pleasure" superhero books, but for the most part I switched to more fringe books; Goon, Doktor Sleepless, Hellboy for example. I don't think books should necessarily take a more American point of view, they should take a point of view that best explores the story. When the current (real life) "American way" is corrupted and burdened with negative connotations it's hard have your heroic character stand for the American way.

Politics do not belong in comics for this very reason. We, as an industry, cannot afford small minded people on either side of the spectrum being babies who can't tolerate a differing opinion and stop buying comics based on the creator rather than the work. Do you really care who the kid who put your Big Mac together voted for? Comics can never be any more mature than the buying public. If this thread is any indication, we need a lot more kiddie comics.

Thank Heaven for Mr. Kurt Busiek, the voice of reason.

Some very interesting discussion going on here and I appreciate the comments from Bru, Willingham, and Busiek as well as many of the rest of you. For me I might find little hints at Bill's ideology poking through in issues of Fables, but only knowing his viewpoint ahead of time. For me I don't so much care about political viewpoints in the writer or artist I am reading so long as it doesn't severely influence their work. As a bleeding heart hippie liberal on a personal level I might agree more with Kurt and Mark Waid or Erik Larsen and Peter David but if Peter David wrote a heavy handed story in X-Factor about the team going to Guantanamo with the assistance of Cindy Sheehan I'd probably toss it.

I might disagree with Willingham's political beliefs and I might think his notion of turning the clock back 50 years to more or less make his superhero stories as wholesome as Leave it to Beaver is silly, but it doesn't change the fact that Fables and Jack of Fables are two of the best books on the market and I will always respect the man for his contribution to the medium. Should it matter to me as a liberal that Ethan Van Sciver is an Ann Coulter loving Conservative? Of course not, he draws a pretty wicked Green Lantern. It has been said already but if we only read books, listened to music, or watched movies or TV shows produced by those who think like we do then our collection would be mighty small.

Keep up the great work guys!

Brad

" He wants super heroes to be less conflicted about their beliefs and...I think he will produce some great stories from the perspective."

Conflicted characters generate greater tension and greater reader empathy and have stronger motivation. A character who must act because he is tortured by an inner dilemma is far more compelling than a character who must save Manhattan from aliens/zombies/werewolves because "I'm a hero and that's what heroes do." Making characters less conflicted makes stories less compelling.

>> Thank Heaven for Mr. Kurt Busiek, the voice of reason.>>

Thanks. But keep in mind, I think politics have been part of comics since before Thomas Nast, let alone when Captain America bopped Hitler in the nose back in 1940.

I don't think things should be banned from comics (or books, or plays, or movie, poetry, whatever) because someone fears someone else will use it badly. Anything can be done badly, but banning it takes it away from those who'll do it well. And the people who'd do it badly will simply do other things badly instead.

"I love how Willingham pretty much implies that liberals are responsible for ’superhero decadence’, when you can really trace it back to Frank Miller (who’s, what, a hardcore libertarian?)"

The grim and gritty thing may have indeed been started by Miller, but it had its antecedents in the comics of the late 70's and early 80's. And Miller, by his own admission, was a liberal on most issues until 9/11. During the 80's, he considered patriotism silly (which was very apparent in the Dark Knight storyline itself).

"There can’t be. We built our particular recipe out of stuff that predates us.

Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!

Uh, that didn't predate us, Kurt. That's the French Revolution, which came after the American Revolution, and because of the peculiar ideas about "freedom" resulting from the French revolutionary terror, we've never used that motto.

Mr. Willingham,

Whether you remember it or not, this did happen at a Mid-Ohio-Con in the late '80s.

I'm guessing you also don't remember the Dave Sim situation from the Comic-Con boards in the late '90s?

Considering the irrellevancy to the majority topic of the article and this comment section, I will save my comments on the personal matter for another time. I will, though, be reading these comments from this point on if you choose to reply.

jeremeyes wrote:

"well, that should make racist nationalist comic book fans happy. Now they don’t have to be scared of Mexican superheroes or, white jesus forbid, black ones. how unamerican."

Actually, critics of non-White legacy heroes like Blue Beetle aren't exclusively White or even conservative. Sure, there are Black comic fans who applauded when the original Firestorm is replaced with a Black guy.

Then, there are Black fans who viewed the new Firestorm as a half-hearted attempt at diversity by DC. Such fans would prefer publishers to create NEW non-White superheroes.

Blogger Rich Watson expounds on this point in his commentary on the recent DC/Milestone merger:

"Something else about this deal bothers me. DC executive vice-president Dan DiDio insists that it's not about wanting to diversify the DCU, but it's about bringing great material into the DC universe, and being able to add value to everything we do. Well, that sounds all nice and noble, but riddle me this: why is it that whenever DC decides to throw a bone to readers of color, they put their best efforts into making legacy characters connected to pre-established ones? Green Lantern II (John Stewart). Mr. Miracle II. Steel (originally one of the replacement Supermen and who is still considered part of the Superman family). Mr. Terrific II. Jakeem Thunder (successor to Johnny Thunder). Firestorm II. And to go beyond black characters, there's Atom III (an Asian-American), Question II (a Latina), and Batwoman II (a lesbian).

Remember Muhamamad X? Skyrocket? Orpheus? Chances are you don't. These were original heroes of color created within the DCU but were given little chance to shine for very long and now linger in superhero limbo. Sure, someone could use them again, but it's so much easier to buy someone else's characters, especially when they come with their own built-in fanbases. Typical corporate mentality."

Read the rest of the blog post here:

http://www.popcultureshock.com/blogs/milestone-does-not-belong-within-the-dcu/

Not surprisingly, some Black fans opposed to non-White legacy heroes have decided to starting creating their own comics.

In short, it's simplistic to declare "evil" White conservatives are the only ones offended by non-White legacy heroes.

UnimaginativeName wrote:

"On the point of making comics more *cough* American… well… as a non-American, I find that utterly offensive and indicative of a cultural insularity that ill behoves a man of Bill’s obvious intelligence. I know Kurt sought to deal with this earlier in saying that it didn’t imply exclusivity of virtue, but I think that’s debatable to say the least. It was an uncomfortable line for an international eye to read and feeds into a negative stereotype that prevails on this side of the word about a certain strain of mainstream American opinion."

So, are manga offensive because they are so unapologetically Japanese in look and cultural outlook?

I just find it interesting that it's ALWAYS is the American comic creator who has to apologize for showing in pride on the positive aspects of his culture.

...You know, what strikes me as odd about this thread is that with all the vitriol, hatred, denoument and outright flaming going on, John Byrne and Gail Simone aren't in the middle of it

>> Uh, that didn’t predate us, Kurt. >>

I know. Didn't post-date us by much, mind you.* But by then, I was simply calling out something that exists elsewhere. We import, export and share ideas and ideals -- that's part of the American Way too, and it's not exclusive either.

If the idea that "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land" was exclusive to America, we wouldn't have been able to nick it from the Magna Carta.

And if the idea that "All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents" was exclusive to America, it wouldn't have made it into THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN two years after the US Constitution was written.

And we've never used that motto because it's in French, and is the official motto of France, the Terror notwithstanding. But the ideas of freedom, equality and brotherhood are definitely a part of the ideals America espouses. We still make no claim to exclusive ownership of them.

kdb

*although not, apparently, in precisely that form. While there were a number of similar slogans during the French Revolution, the motto didn't get cemented in that form until the Nineteenth century, well after the Terror.

@ UnimaginativeName

According to your worldview, the Iron Man movie should have been a flop because of the title character's following traits:

*American patriot and proud of it

*Respect for the U.S. military

*Anti-terrorist and proud of it

*REALLY proud capitalist

Instead, Iron Man was one of the biggest hits globally last year. More amazingly, like the Dark Knight, liberals loved the film despite its conservative overtones.

The evidence indicates that an unabashedly American superhero can sell overseas as long as its entertaining and well-crafted.

Well, entertaining, well-crafted, and willing to show that the turning point in his life was realizing that he was part of a vicious circle involving the Military Industrial Complex, and creating a better weapon to try and rectify a life partly wasted.

He still got to revel in being a genius capitalist living a fantastic lifestyle. I mean, he was all those things you said, but just remember that bit where he decided that his company was part of the problem when it was somehow decided that profit was so important that it sold weapons to anyone with enough filthy lucre in hand.

Which is why he wound up being heroic, though the wake-up call he got did, admittedly have to take the form of Stark shrapnel in his own heart, followed by being held hostage. A bit more of a slap in the face than, say, a 60 Minutes Expose.

Having said that, Iron Man was possibly the most enjoyment I've gotten out of a Summer Blockbuster in a while, Downey and the rest of the cast was amazing, and I very much look forward to watching it again and again.

And the evidence does indicate that a well-crafted movie can indeed be a big hit overseas, if there's a great script, a great cast, an enormous special effects budget, big ol' explosions, and a giant slobberknocker between two dudes in robot suits.

Don't know as anyone in Europe was thinking too much about the potential "Liberal/Conservative" readings, really. I know everyone around here that I've talked to never once brought up the politics of the thing.

That was more of a Dark Knight discussion, and even then I didn't hear too many people leaving the theatre completely blown away by the ramifications of its Anarchy vs. Martial Law subtext. In fact, I doubt the word "dichotomy" was uttered anywhere near it. Mostly, they were talking about the pencil bit. But, even then, no-one was talking about how that was a subtle analogy for George Bush (the Joker) grabbing America (that dude) by the hair and totally ramming it into that pencil (which is, like, all the bad stuff he's done and junk, see?).

*L* Naw, I'm just kiddin' with you. I still don't get why you people don't see how your ultra-passionate stances on the whole Bush v. Obama thing boil down to the fact that you all love your country, but seem to think that different things are what's best for it. Your goal is what's best for your country and the people held therin? You're all patriotic Americans, just with a different idea of what America is. I'd say that's what makes it great, but you people are verbally ripping on each other over the way superheroes might be portrayed and what it means for your country.

Thanks, Drs. Wertham.

You want a film analogy? It's Kramer vs. Kramer, and your extreme factions are the parents.

and that's why I should've been in bed hours ago. Why so serious, indeed?

>>Yeah! We should totally kick Superman out! Send him back to Krypton and tell him to get in line!

kdb >>

Well Kurt, Superman is a fictional character. Keep that writing thing going, your stand-up isn't going to pay the bills.

Non-fictional illegals put a drain on our resources, contribute nothing to our economy, and don't give a whit about our values or sovereignty. If they can't respect our laws, and be expected to contribute in a positive way to society as we all are supposed to do, why do they deserve the benefits of living in our country? Not every American citizen is the bastion of respectability or dedication, but the ones that aren't and our burdens to bear.

I have no problem with any other cultures or countries as long as I don't have to involuntarily give them a part of my hard earned paycheck. Millions of American citizens are originally from another country, but the difference between them and the unwelcomed visitors is that they followed our rules, went through the process, and became accepted LEGAL citizens. It might not be such a complicated process if some of the people weren't jumping the fence instead of walking through the gate.

If every single one of them put their hearts and souls into being American citizens in the same manner that Superman fictionally fights for truth and justice, no one would have a problem with it. But that isn't reality.

What if your neighbor just decided one day that he liked your house better, broke in and declared he will be using your flat screen and would be eating the food you worked to pay for?

Oh and by the way, I'm a Native American. So drop the implied racist sentiment. You're better than that.

Dragonflye, Once again I repeat that you must have me confused with someone else. I have never once taken money in advance for doing a convention sketch. Not -- one -- single -- time. Having been burned by a creator who took my money in advance, then never got to the sketch. I vowed that I would never take sketch money in advance, should I ever break into the comics field. And I never have.

Also I attended Mid Ohio Con once and once only in my life a few years ago. Never in the 80's, late or otherwise. So that's twice you're wrong. This is actually a fact you or anyone else can check (I assume the Mid Ohio Con maintains records of guest lists for past cons), so please do so before you continue accusing me of something you imagined, or that someone else did. You're zero for two, so please stop it.

And I have no idea what Dave Sim thing you're talking about, so that's zero for three.

I'm not content to let you continue to come back again and again with vague insinuations, all the while hiding behind a false name. This is why I swore off arguing online long ago. Should any others of you wish to continue to take me to task for sins real or imagined, let's do it under fair rules of discourse or not at all.

As for this Dragonflye fellow, I believe I've given him more than reasonable attention. I trust the rest of you will understand if I decide to ignore him from now on.

It's funny. I've been writing with Bill for years, even before we started co-writing Jack of Fables. As long as I've known him, he's been an unapologetic conservative Republican, and I've been a bleeding-heart liberal Democrat. We've argued over politics a time or two, but not as often as you might think, and we agree on all sorts of things. One thing we've never argued about, ever, is the extent to which the politics of one or the other of us might be influencing a story that we're telling together. Nothing of the kind has ever come up. Not once. Ever. The only serious fight we've ever had over a story was whether most readers would know what "cheaters" are. (They're an old slang term for sunglasses, for the roughly 80% of you who don't know -- I won that one HANDS DOWN.)

So, for the record, Bill has yet to insist that we remove all racial minorities from the JSA (I mean, come on. Seriously?). So far as I know, he hasn't written any dialogue arguing against a two-state solution in the middl east. I haven't written a storyline where Courtney pushes for war crimes prosecution against the Bush administration. We are not our politics. Our goal as storytellers is to tell good stories, and for the most part, that means getting our SELVES out of the way. We might all moralize a bit here and there around the edges, but that's not what we're here for. In a superhero story, the hero is first and foremost a model of what is noblest and best in humanity, an apotheosis of our own aspirations. And despite how it sometimes seems, our noblest ideals are mostly the same: honesty, kindness, justice, mercy. These are universal virtues, and everyone has access to them, regardless of their party affiliation.

Now if I can just get Bill to come down on the correct side of this global warming thing . . .

And Bill, stop posting right before me. It's weird.

You misspelled Middle East. No more partnership with a hack like you.

I think that what Bill calls "decadence" is more correctly called "realism." The trend is generally credited as having started with Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's Spider-Man/Peter Parker; a character who, in an example of the ever present conservative (i.e. unrealistic) influence in comics, was deemed too moral by the powers that be to go through a divorce but just fine for making a deal with the devil. Most people stopped believing in the existence of a human moral paragon past the age of twelve, thus most comic readers would likely look upon a perfectly moral person as unrealistic. This isn't really a bad thing. After all, if Superman can have these impossible superpowers why can't he be impossibly moral?

The difference between Bill's superman Ed's Cap, then, boils down to a matter of taste. If one tends to prefer a healthy dose of realism in his superhero comics, he'll like the "liberal" heroes. On the other hand, those who think it's rather ridiculous for a super-hero book be realistic will prefer the work of Bill. People who like good story telling can enjoy both.

Keep going Bill, I'll keep reading.
P.S. Arrowsmith ruled Kurt.

I miss the times when Bill Willingham was a pornographer.

And seriously, that message board comment about Belgium not producing comics cracks me up. "Man, is it the USA's fault if Hong Kong does not produce kung-fu movies? DUH!"

For those interested in knowing more about Belgium's long and celebrated comics tradition, UK publisher Cinebook publishes quite a lot of Belgian (and french) comics:
http://www.cinebook.co.uk/index.asp

Blake & Mortimer, Largo Winch, The Bluecoats and Yoko Tsuno are all great examples of the traditional Belgian comics. All are strongly recommended!

And if you have the opportunity, visit Belgium's capital Brussels, also known as the world capital of comics, and see its famous "comic struip tour", where you go over the city seeing the many giant painted murals with images of the most famous Belgian comic strip characters:
http://www.brusselscomics.com/en/route_bd.cfm

The guy who said that remark chose REALLY BADLY the country. Belgium is probably the place where more comics are produced in relation to the population size in the whole world!

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

I can think of exactly one time where Bill's politics spilled over into his writing. There's a bit in Fables where Bigby likens Fabletown to Israel when talking up how strongly they would retaliate against any attack. What immediately rang in my head was, "Wait, did the Fabletowners drive the New Yorkers who used to live on their block into refugee camps?" Otherwise, the themes in his work tend to be more human than anything else, transcending political ideology.

That being said, my favorite heroes are those who successfully pierce the miasma of doubt and ethical compromise by virtue of their dedication, morality, and hope. The obstacle of the former makes the latter more profound.

Cap Lives!

Not sure if someone's already mentioned it on this thread but in response to the people who have been saying that real-world social and political issues have no place in superhero comics I'd point out that in only 12 pages of the first Superman story in Action Comics #1 Superman stops someone from being wrongfully executed, beats up an abusive husband, foils an attempted rape and terrorizes a war profiteer. To make a more reasoned argument, I don't think you can really construct stories about 'heroism' without promoting certain moral values, and outside of an EXTREMELY restrictive range of stories those values are going to be political.

I agree with Bill...I'd like a little less nihilism with my superheroes. If our heroes are lacking in the finer virtues in life, then what do we have to aspire to? Right now, the bar has been set pretty low.

I would argue that the popularity of heroes like Spiderman and Iron Man is not just that they share our human failings, but that they manage to overcome them for the greater good.

I think some modern writers have mistaken the turmoil of inner growth for moral ambiguity.

It really makes me cringe when I see Americanism being naturally equated with virtue. Just a little more self awareness, please. Study any US foreign policy lately? And what does that make other countries. Non-virtuous?

general comments (too many ideas to actually craft anything but aphorisms)

-- i disagree with mr. busiek's comment on the "american way" because, being a person from outside the 'centre' (= europe, the united states), it is very clear to us that the discoursive strategy of metonym is used very politically and ideologically.

just follow this simple argument: how would united staters react if their 'way of life' were described as the French Way, or the Korean Way or even (absurdity sake's) the Iranian Way? REGARDLESS of the content (truth justice fairness dueprocess), the blanket name is offensive. WE value the same values; why should they be named following a culture which is not mine. The global media power, and the high technical quality of united stater's cultural products is clear and mesmerizing... This is probably at the core of these so-called "culture wars" that were invented by Samuel Huntington.

Most countries and their citizens value peace, justice, etc. What we don't value is having these values named that way. For us, "the rest of the world", this reeks of imperialism.

Why is there no effort in united states media and culture to call this "the way" or "justice and peace ideals" or anything else? I'll leave you to ponder, for my opinion is made, and maybe discussing this would derail the conversation more than it would be agreeable.

-- Comics are a gigantic machine of the imaginary, and as such, embedded in mammon. Yet, comics are also a form of narration, which does not DEPEND on commerce to exist. I find it problematic to 'identify' the evils of superheroing as being simply a question of what kind of values are being espoused in the pages themselves.

superheroes are (IMHO) in NO way liberals. Their sole purpose is to maintain whatever status quo is there. Rarely do the challenge the quo, and it is quite common to read stories where heroes have to defend something they don't believe in simply because that is what is there. It is also quite telling that we don't see the heroes in iraq, yet they were all affected by 9-11. Selective? of course... all fiction is selective...yet, the choices themselves are quite telling, too.

It is funny to see that (independent of whatever reasons) it is mostly the villains that actually make the stories move. Heroes are not at all proactive... and even when they are, the authors choose (or are told to) bring things back to how they were... check the authority taking over the world and not succeeding, witness "heroes against hunger (remember that?).... with their powers, heroes could make a real difference...and even some villains too.... but NO, the villain is never right, and any tentative to talk is ALWAYS ruined by some villainous scheme and slugfest ensues.

maybe superhero comics like these, with clear cut lines will keep on thriving, but i believe it will be exclusively for younger audiences, where values are still being built. IMHO, i can't see any pre teen or teen accepting clear cut evil and good so easily, in this world of ours, where megainformation is available in a click.

cheers,
rio

I love dark superheroes and dark, gritty stories. And I hope MArvel keeps doing exactly what they'r doing. Love it! I also love the mutlculturalizing going on at DC. Oh no! Firestorm's not Ronnie Raymond anymore! I cared so much for that character! Boo Hoo! All cops and firemen aren't white males. So superheroes should reflect that diversity if they expect to keep a lot of their readers. By the way superheroes usually protect the world; not just America so why would a man from Krypton, a Greek Amazon, and a man who hates crime in all its forms focus solely on America. Same thing with the Avengers. The Masters of Evil aren't just a threat here. They threaten everyone.

I realise the comments about Belgium are totally off-topic, but even so...

Aside from all the points previously made, and not regarding quality, and keeping in mind that American comics and European comics are quite different...

The best selling Belgium comics OUTSELL the bestselling American ones by quite a margin. For example, Kiekeboe sells 82000 copies...on average...not including sales of back issues, which are a lot stronger in Belgium since comics aren't serialised)...and Belgium has just 10 million inhabitants. In Belgium, you can read comics and still be taken seriously. Everyone does.

As I said, totally off-topic, but man, that was a bad example.

I confess, when I read Bigby's little polemic about Israel I took that as an indication that Bigby was hopelessly naive when it came to modern geo-politics.

Dear Bill,
Isn't what you do with FABLES pretty much the same as what you are complaining regarding current Superheros?
Let's be honest, if originally there had been a comic book industry centered around those fairy-tale characters what would fans of those original fairy-tales feel if they now saw what happened to those characters in your book?
Following your logic, for example, having Prince Charming betray Snow White and have them divorce, isn't that a total betrayal of who those characters were in the first place?

Bill,

Short and simple here....you keep writing and I'll keep reading. You've entertained me for over 20 years, I look forward to more, amigo.

Beau Smith
The Flying Fist Ranch

Exploring the amiguities of superhero morality helps to understand why that morality is so important (depending on whose morality it is I suppose). The sweet is not as sweet without the bitter. The light is not as bright without the dark. The Conservativism is not as conservative without the liberal. Experiencing the otherside helps you understand where you stand. I would have assumed an author would understand this more then anyone. This doesn't sully my thoughts of Fables, which is a very thoughtful piece of fiction... Though it doesn make me question Willingham's position on other issues.

I for one am all for Superhero decadance. The Boys has been a consistant fun, entertaining and thought provoking read.

Hey Willingham, evidently you don't read Geoff John's work, which promotes the ideals you say are missing in comics, all without sounding trite and simple. Or pretty much any of Brubaker's superhero work, which shows men and women striving to achieve these ideals through the gray ambiguities of modern life.
But really, I don't care what you read. You should care what I read. Which won't be any of your books. I don't read books by people who want to promote an agenda. Or who would have told Picasso to be less political.
KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF MY SEQUENTIAL ART. If you want AMERICAN and WHOLESOME, write it yourself. Don't try to tell me that superhero comics are "decadent" because they don't line up with your trite worldview.

I agree that superhero stories are best when the characters have a clear moral stance. But should superheroes actually return to their wartime propaganda roots? Fiction is fiction - the truth it reveals is personal, not political. Heroes have the ability to inspire and thrill us, but should they really be preaching to us, and informing us about our morals and ethics?

It holds true no matter what side of the political fence you're on. When an author shows their own political bias in their writing, the story suffers.

Upon reading Bill's follow-up responses - I understand his point-of-view much better. The confusion seems to be from the way this piece has been framed, and some of the follow-up comments. It often happens when something smells of conservatism that people of both extremes come out of the woodwork and hyperbolize the discussion.

Is that the right way to use the word 'hyperbolize'?

"Old fashioned ideals of courage and patriotism, backed by a deep virtue and unshakable code, seem to be… well, old fashioned."

I'm of the same mindset - to a point. Yes W put a nail in the coffin but seriously this has been a viewpoint that has been around since the 1960's so just attributing it to today is shortsited.

"He goes on to say that while he’ll continue to explore “gray areas” in books like Fables, the superhero genre should be “different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view.”"

I think being confronted with realism and conflicting ideals in "gray areas" is part of what makes modern comic storytelling so interesting. There are large essays on why real world events should not cross over into comics and I'll defer to those who are better informed on the topic by just saying I agree that our fictional world should reflect the essence, but necessarily the exact details, of what we see outside our window.

What is missing from that form of realism in comics is a firm, compelling, and reinforceable stance in the creation of a "why" - why does and should the hero stand in opposition to the ideas and notions that constantly try to drag us down: isolationism, fear, dehumanizing violence, fascism, exploitation. Just letting a hero wallow around in those topics is decadent and I can understand why some feel that it has been taken to excess. In the past it was enough just to say the hero opposed such things because doing so "was the right thing to do" but that doesn't fly anymore. We the audience demand more; maybe we should know what is right just cuz it is “right” but I guess we need to be convinced nowadays - that's a topic for another day.

Today though, the problem is that too many stories get bogged down in telling a right of passage arc about how to justify doing the right thing without ever arriving at a satisfying conclusion. Hence the wallowing. But read All-Star Superman or Action Comics #775 and then ask yourself why aren't more super-hero stories like those heroic stories? Well aside from the fact not every hero is or should be Superman - it's hard. Really, that is it. It's not easy and not everyone can do it. And if a creator can't, or doesn't want to, make that type of story the alternative is to have a hard-boiled super-hero who never softens - a one-note wonder of the early 90's that has been played out. Unfortunately a large bevy of creators today came from that time and old habits die hard. I don’t mean to insult creators but with a collection in excess of 7000 books that spans 30 years I feel I have read enough to levy that opinion as qualified (if not at least quantified).

Now where I don't agree is that this as prevalent as some think. Warren Ellis is a creator often pummeled for that decadence - yet his heroes are anything but. I wasn't always in his corner but years of reading his creations have convinced me the man really does have more than just a shred of humanity and he shows it through his creations. The Authority he created is extreme but that is wholly different than being decadent or anti-hero but I think too many people don't see that and have used that creation to justify sub-par creations since then. We are also blessed to have creators like Brubaker, Rucka, Johns, Busiek, Simone, Waid, Morrison - these people are super stars for a reason (Miller doesn't belong in that same group IMO because he has only one archetype that he's overplayed even if it is one pretty damn good archetype). They write their heroes to be heroes for a reason and when they do decide to break them or beat them down, these creators bring a vision and skill that elevates those heroes back in the best way possible that actually reinforces the essence of heroism.

Three small comments - #1” "the vast majority of comics are made in America': HAHAHAHA!! The top selling comic in Spain last year sold more than the entire run of Secret Invasion. #2) Super-heroes do not follow the standard hero story because they do exactly what many above have complained about - they maintain the status quo. That's the nature of the beast and relates directly to the opening comment I made about how comics should only reflect, not mirror, the real world. #3) Talk all you want about how “American” values are everyone’s values; however, the very use of the term “American” is centric and condescending. To paraphrase a previous poster, we might just as well call them “Magna Carta” values. Until we get away from that terminology and use one that embraces all humanity then get used to the rest of the world getting their panties in a wad over it.

To try bring the discussion back to things that Bill actually said, rather than things others have said about what they think he said:

"But for me at least the superhero genre should be different, better, with higher standards, loftier ideals and a more virtuous — more American — point of view."

This is the part I don't get. Bill pointed out that Millar's Ultimates was too grim and un-heroic, but then celebrates the line where Captain America bashes France. He also mentions specifically that if he gets a chance, Superman will explicitly be saying that he fights for 'the American Way'. Will we also be seeing Superman talking smack about France? I thought Superman defended the planet Earth, not just America.

Kurt and Ed and others have come on and explained how reasonable and moderate Bill has been to work with, but that just doesn't jibe with this editorial. Bill has stated that he's publicly taking a new direction, and he's challenging others to follow his lead. He holds up 'Robin goes to Afghanistan' as an example of a story he's really proud of, something that's showing the kind of heroism he's encouraging in others.

Kurt said that Bill's not telling other people what to do, he's just saying what he's decided to do. But that's not true. Bill could just make the decision, and write whatever kind of stories he wanted. He's written an editorial, and he states that he wants to affect the industry, and he's 'leaving it to your own conscience' to decide whether or not to follow his lead. That's not very laisser-faire of him. He's made it a public mission.

So he's indicting comics creators for letting the 'hero' out of superheroes, and his remedy is to give them a '...more virtuous - more American - point of view'. He could have left 'American' out of it. There's virtuous ideals in South America and the UK and Canada and Mexico ...etc - but Bill is singling out America, and mentioning Afghanistan and Rush Limbaugh and France-bashing... sorry, but you lost my vote, Bill.

I would hold up Millar's Captain America as a great depiction of a pro-american hero. He loves his country, and knows he's got to get his hands dirty now and then to protect it. It's not dressed up and made pretty with a waving flag and a tidy slogan. It's more complex, and it's the kind of storytelling America needs and deserves. Same with Ed killing Cap. It's one of those stories that is not simple, and it provokes thought.

A superhero can have a strong moral stance, but still reside within a complex world - this is what Millar and Brubaker have achieved with their Captain America stories. Keep the world complex, keep the decisions difficult, keep the shades of grey... keep the relevance.

I wonder how many of the folks upset about Mr Willingham's remarks made the same initial mistake I did? When I first read this (and did not immediately link and read the original), I assumed in the back of my mind that he had made the remarks about Belgium and Blue Beetle and such. I wondered how he could keep a job with DC if he stopped reading their comics because Blue Beetle became "multiculturalized" and then came out and actually wrote it "out loud", as it were.

From the content of the posts above, it appears others labored under the same misapprehension.

Of course he said nothing of the sort. And as someone who, at least superficially, seems to have more in common with Kurt Busiek and Matt Sturges (judging from their remarks above), I still applaud Mr Willingham for having the courage of his convictions to take control of what he does and do what he deems proper, especially in an industry where from the outside looking in, others don't have the option much less the desire.

Sorry as I am for the loss of Geoff Johns on JSA, I am now even now looking forward to the Willingham/Sturges helmed title.

I disagree with the Blue Beetle comment. As he's one of the new cultural heroes who is actually worth a shit.

the rest all suck, but Jaime is the best thing that came out of that whole mess.

TopJack: Can't we ever talk about politics without someone accusing someone else of 'hating america'? You sound like a goof.

Amen.

There is an object lesson about the world of comics right here.

I'm a bit biased here, being Willingham's friend, but I've worked on a couple of projects with Willingham including a pitch using the VETERAN character he introduced in his run on ROBIN. (That VETERAN pitch was shot down because we did not have enough characters that would act as a 'balance' for the conservative hero of the series. At least that was the impression that I came away with after the meeting with Didio.)

Due to the success of FABLES, he has a little safe harbor in Vertigo. That won't keep him from getting a side project shot down over there, but he has steady employment. Chuck Dixon, as a guy who has to keep pitching, does not seem to enjoy that same luxury. That is the difference between the two. Bill has an ownership stake in FABLES that affords him the luxury of being able to speak his mind.

That alone is a lesson on ownership. What you do with that leverage is your call.

So Willingham got old and boring and now wants the world to follow?

No thanks.

FYI, as mentioned earlier, personal insults, name calling, etc. are neither necessary nor welcome. One comment has been deleted.

TopJack: I don't care what party you think you agree with - when you go off like that you're only impressing yourself; to everyone else you just look like another lunatic who's foaming at the mouth.

If you really are a 'liberal' then try acting like it.

To start things out, I'd like to say I consider myself an anarchosocialist. Yes I like Chomsky , Orwell, and other lefty things. I am also born and bred citizen of the U.S.A.

Secondly, I'm not going to rant about my political position in this response. I'm not talking about Israel, 9/11 or any of that crap. I may a small aside that betrays my POV, but not paragraphs of crap, no worries.

Most of the things people have objected to are actually comments by other readers rather than Mr Willingham [who I'm calling BW from here on since I'm lazy]. There are several issues brought up by his statement. I'll explain my take on a few below.

The question basically is how realistic and morally complex do you want your superhero stories? Superhero stuff used to be very exclusively for kids. Now most readers are older and so the writing grew up to adjust to the market.

But that wasn't necessarily the right move. I like manga. I know it is sacrilege to some, but some of it is quite good. One of the things they did right is in their marketing. We typically see Shoujo [young girl comics] and Shonen [young boy comics]. But the also have Seinan [male 20s-30s targetted] comics. Older American superhero comics were much closer to Shonen and now they're closer to Seinan. But it's really 2 different markets and I think superhero comics would benefit from a clearer division.

Marvel is doing it somewhat with Marvel Adventures and DC with their animated TV spinoff comics. I think these need to be expanded to really grow the next generation of comic book fans. Why is manga so popular? I think because it's written for the younger fan. So I'm thinking a two tier system. I think BW would feel more at home writing the simple clear good vs evil stories of the superhero stories we grew up on and rely on other genres to explore more realistic and flawed heroes. Basically I'd go for a Marvel Adventures level and then Ultimates Marvel level. I'd say the Marvel adventures should be slowly expanded and Ultimates slowly shrank based upon sales, because you really need to bring in the youngsters if you want this industry to keep going.

I actually agree that grim and gritty has become too predominant. I thought Alan Moore really made an excellent move with ABC comics and bringing it a little more into balance. There have been others of course. So I wouldn't mind heroes being consistently good. But what is good? That is pretty subjective. Everyone agrees on the Golden Rule, but beyond that opinions vary. Libertarians think taxes are theft. Far Lefties [like me] think rich people are leaches off of workers. There is a world of different heroes available and writers cannot and shouldn't completely eliminate their POV from their works.

Rich Johnston was quite correct. The superhero is largely a conservative concept. But there are really 2 models that COULD be used for superheroes.

1 - The standard has been King Arthur/the protector of the status quo. The word is just fine except for evil criminal types and your job is to put the criminals in their place and put things back to the basic good. This is usually a fave of conservatives because by nature they think the status quo shold be maintained or that society has decayed and we need to go back in time to a better moral age.

2 - Protector who doubts - Most superheroes these days written by liberal or semi-liberal writers will be essentially the protector model superhero who occasionally faces off the authorities or corrupt powerful people. Like most liberals they think the status quo is okay, but we have to tinker around the edges to fix the injustices that have creeped into the halls of power. It's not only about greedy thugs and insane masterminds.

3 - My preference is the Robin Hood model/The revolutionary protector of the weak from the strong and powerful. Most far lefties think the status quo is pretty screwed up and it was largely worse in the past and things are slowly [perhaps too slowly] getting better. Therefore heroes largely fight the government, big business, and the military. We have Zorro, Robin Hood and Anarky from DC comics as reps and that's about it.

I think BW likes #1 and is annoyed with all the #2s these days and doesn't actually see any #3s to complain about because there aren't any.

I understand the distaste for liberal or centrist superheroes.

Superheroes generally are crusaders for something and if they are hit with too many bouts of self doubt they won't seem very superheroic.

#1 and #3 are crusaders for opposite things and so are both more heroic in that they may have doubts about the means on occasion but they are more certain about their ends. Justice through tradition vs Justice through revolution.

#2's sometimes don't even seem to understand their own ends. They are very subject to be viewed as namby pamby/wishy washy, because they are standing up for a system they are not even sure they believe in. True believers are usually more interesting heroes because of their passion.

So those are my meandering thoughts.

I agree with Nick P about superhero comics for kids - DC and Marvel seem to be responding to the need for a clear line of comics that are written for kids - hopefully they'll continue to develop that. The kids' comics are more like what Willingham seems to be talking about - simpler moral dilemmas - less complex characters. More 'heroic' in a basic sense.

I don't think Alan Moore would necessarily agree that Rorschach was "proven right" by the story; I'm always bewildered by right-wingers who seem to immediately identify Rorschach as the obvious hero. He was certainly portrayed as sticking to the courage of his convictions even to the death; whether or not it was a good or responsible idea is left to the reader to decide.

It's fairly obvious at least that Rorschach's cultural paranoia, antisemitism, and general bigotry are not endorsed by Moore at all.

According to DC: Decisions, the JSA in general - including Power Girl (!) - are security-first Republicans.

Expect this to become evident in Willingham's run.

Okay.

This has officially become the most interesting part of the internet for me as of late. To everyone who has contributed to this topic in a constructive, or imaginative way, or who has given their "2 cents" I salute you.

Given that I believe this topic is becoming a mediation on the meaning superheroes vis-a-vis Willingham's contention I will now go all out and throw my gauntlet down.

Firstly, I think I should be clear about what/why I have a dislike of Willingham's association of certain moral principles with an idea he has about America.

The issue is in the contemporary context, and I mean this in a loose sense, perhaps the last thirty years or so, is that the notion of America, or America as an ideal, has been used as a rallying cry for actions, both national and international, that have resulted in massive amounts of barbarism.

From Vietnam to Iraq, as the easiest examples to hand, but also including Nicaragua and the Balkans, the idea that America automatically represents the notions of "Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!" has been used as the implicit assumption, and even explicit rhetoric, for some of the most heinous acts of military barbarity that the world has ever seen.

For some of those outside of the US, which includes myself, excusing the representation of honourable ideals as America by arguing that they are shared ideals beyond the national boundaries of the US in itself is not the problem. The problem is that these ideals can be used as a Trojan horse, presenting an action as seemingly motivated by altruistic, or commonly held sacred values, when they are in fact motivated by much baser, profane desires for power, wealth, or bravado.

I'm not suggesting that these ideals aren't of value, but they remain, and in my opinion are in some sense ghettoized there, as nothing more than ideals. Good notions, that people should live up to, but never really fulfill, or enact.

To then characterise these concepts as the mechanism for the valuation of fictional stories, or as a moral motivation for a polemic, just continues the moral posturing, and gesturing that is always done in the context of conquest and bloodshed. It is not so much that Willingham is consciously or deliberately advocating a justification for the actions which some may find questionable perpetrated by the US in the last few decades (and before for that matter), it is that his rhetoric just sounds like his is singing from the same score sheet.

For me, as a non-American (in love with American culture and people, sometimes literally!), I find the way he deploys the concept of morality troubling not so much in that I do not share those ideals, but that I do not know how far Bill actually BELIEVES in THESE ideals.

Arguing for a particular style of morality is meaningless if the means by which this morality is made to become normative is not made clear. This means, for me at least, Willingham's conservatism shades my interpretation of exactly what it means when he states his moral perspective, as it evokes a political lineage and heritage into which he has inserted himself by choice. His morals may be universal, but that does not make his means so.

From an outsiders perspective, without clarification from him within the context of means, I cannot trust that he really aims for the same ends. As such, I cannot simply accept that I should just feel okay about his polemic by assuming it is a mere matter of personal choice, or perspective, as I cannot guarantee to myself, that he reaches for the same goals in actuality as I do.

I'm not saying this prevents any kind of future mutuality, but I cannot simply accept that it is okay for him to make what I feel are insensitive and historically ambiguous comments.

In the context of the superhero narrative, the idea that our heroes should conform to a set of ideals that are, as of yet, historically unfulfilled, seems just, well, fundamentalist. I'm not suggesting that superheroes shouldn't be heroes, or moral, but why frame these morals in a particular national rhetoric? It seems excessive, provocative, and willfully divisive to do so... especially given the complex and nuanced debate that permeates the globe vis-a-vis these ideals. Again, I'm not arguing against Willingham's ideals per se, but more with the rhetoric he deploys to express these ideals, as it is the same rhetoric used by those who then demonstrate that their commitment to these ideals often involves imposing a certain interpretation of them on others from down the barrel of a gun.

The style of superhero that involves a morally ambiguous and morally uncertain depiction of their activities is for me, a much HIGHER form of moral contemplation and meditation than those which are framed within the confines of a particular national rhetoric, as they require the deliberate and difficult commitment to self-analysis, introspection and willingness to change approach that comes with a philosophical rather than fundamental adherence to a certain interpretation of morality.

It is much harder to maintain a commitment to the spirit of a morality, than it is to follow a prescriptive set of moral rhetorics that pre-define the terrain of action. To be moral, without committing to a defined set of pre-suppositions is much harder, and requires much deeper understanding of the meanings of a morality, than does adhering to a doctrine or inherited set of social prejudices.

It was Descartes who used the image of the blind-man walking with a stick as an analogy for man's understanding of the universe for a good reason. To argue that we inherently possess a vantage point from which to assess the entire terrain of values, morals, or ethics because of the contingent factors of place, or historical epoch of birth, is to my mind, an act of egoistic chauvinism. We can never really know that we are correct without first making the mistakes involved in bumping into things in the dark. As such, for me, a true morality understands that mistakes, and uncertainty are not separate to knowledge or correctness, but are part of continuum.

A superhero that grasps the journey, or path to moral enlightenment understands that morality is not prescriptive, but learned, and struggled with. For example, would Spider-Man have learned the lesson of power and responsibility if he HAD NOT been indirectly to blame for his uncle's death...? Even people who are Evil, (and even as an ardent Leftist, I use and believe in the presence of Evil), are capable of learning the error of their ways...? Is not the truth of Wolverine's story that of a man atoning for his past...? A man who recognises his own potential for evil, and so strives to fight against it at all times, questing to rather fulfill his equally present potential for good?

These heroes cannot believe in a simple, obvious morality, because their morality is based upon the changing of their perspectives upon themselves. It is the moment of doubt about their place in the world and their assumed justifications for it, inherent to the moment at which these heroes turned TOWARDS a morality, that actually founds their morality. So stating that one can eliminate the doubt from their moral map of the world would strip them totally of moral value, from their subjective perspective and ours.

Superheroes that KNOW they are right , are inherently NOT moral, because they are not motivated by a commitment to the real implications of their actions, but the commitment to a set of abstract written rules. As such it is a dogma, not a true ethical, or moral stance. Was that not part of the message of Christ that he brought for the Jews...? That their commitment to the written laws of the Sabbath actually placed a greater emphasis upon the laws of man, than a commitment to a real understanding and acceptance of the necessities of True Faith...? I'm not a Biblical Scholar by any means, but this was always a story and interpretation that I liked...

The presence of doubt at the heart of a morality is not the annihilation, or abdication of a commitment to a moral perspective, but the necessary founding moment of true moral commitment. It requires learning, and commitment to knowing that one does not automatically occupy a morally pure position, but that one can only aspire to a higher morality, and that this aspiration will never manifest itself in a uniform arithmetic of action.

Well, I think I've said too much...

@ Nick P

Just felt like giving a fellow lefty a shout... Hi!

Liked you post...

Conundrum:

How do you view "morality"/Morality acting through the 3 point model you proposed...?

LUKE:

despite my jealousy at not having had a shout-out to meself, i must say that you didn't say too much. au contraire, i think you could go on and on. your post was one of the most intelligently crafted lessons in morality, ambiguity, and stigma that i have ever had the pleasure of reading. you have put words to my thoughts.

may i use it in my english as second language classes?

@ rio

Dude. Wow. Er, can't think of anything more complimentary. Please, if it's here, use and abuse as you wish!

Consider this as an implicit shout out, as I've just read your post, and I think we're very much on the same page, but I fear if I was to be too explicitly complimentary to too many people, we would all be denounced as agents orchestrating a Trotskyite, Far-Leftist Anti-American plot to overthrow democracy and build statues of Stalin in Times Square...

I just thumbed through the "Wolves" trade after work a few minutes ago, just to see if I was completely ignoring hidden politics during my first reading many, many months ago.

Turns out, whether I agree with the guy's politics or not, Fables pretty much rocks.

@Luke: Very nice

@P_B: I have no problem with the JSA being 'security-first republicans'. Whoop-de-doo. If it's a well-written story, I'll enjoy it.

story = (character + dilemma) x confrontation / resolution

If JSA turns into an armed forces recruiting pamphlet, or a parable about the second amendment, then it will suck. If it's a well-written superhero story about a bunch of heroes that have a certain political slant, it will potentially be very awesome. (anyone read 'The Authority'?)

Superheroes are one of the great mythologies of our times. Throughout history, there have been stories told in serialized form about warriors and monsters with superhuman abilities. Mythology always reflects the nature of the culture. You can understand lot about the Vikings from their myths. Same is true of the Celts, and the Chinese, and the Zulu ... and the Americans.

The USA is a nation that is still young, by the measure of a civilization. Not even a thousand years old yet. American Mythology reflects that - it's a nation in flux.

Modernity, Post-Modernity, Hypermodernity... culture keeps shifting. New technologies, new nations, new power-structures, new global threats. Things are complex. Power and corruption and heroism and all issues that matter a great deal to everyone, they've always been present in the mythologies of the world, and they are especially relevant to Americans these days. The desire to simplify things is very understandable. To quote the theme song from 'All in the Family':

Boy, the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade.

Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.

Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.

Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.

And you know who you were then. Girls were girls and men were men.

Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.

Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.

Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.

Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.

Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.

I don't know just what went wrong. Those Were The Days.

(by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse)

If you're bemoaning HIS simplistic world view, it's pretty hypocritical to instantly write-off everything he does just because you may not agree with his politics.

You CAN love the art and hate the artist.

Hell, if it turns out that Phil Spector actually shot that lady, would it make you stop tapping your feet when the Ronettes come on the radio?

I was already a fan of Mr. Busiek, but after reading his comments here, I can genuinely say I respect him as well.

And while I may strongly disagree with Mr. Willingham's views, it doesn't impede my enjoyment of his work. There has always been, and will continue to be, a need to disassociate an artist from his or her work. Even if one is lacking in the skills to distinguish between the two, you still have the freedom of choice.

Those who enjoy the morally upstanding hero may do so, and continue to read Mr. Willingham's work, and those who don't have the freedom not to. It seems quite simple, without having to drag one's own personal politics into the mix.

As has been said before me, a good story is a good story.

And there we go again: that assumption that the left doesn't stand FOR anything, and that, conversely, nihilistic, morally-ambiguous comics must be the product of left-wingers.

Funny, though: of all the characters on the comics shelf today, the one who, for me, has the GREATEST "moral clarity", the one who demonstrates, time and again, the strongest gut feeling for right and wrong, good and evil, is Jaime Reyes, the "multiculturalized" Blue Beetle that caused one of those commentators such distress.

I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too...

The funniest thing about this "furor" Mr. Willingham stoked is that people are getting offended that Mr. Willingham thinks that heroes should act heroic.

In addition to church, family and friends, my morals were formed by heroes in literature. Superheroes are the perfect moral role models. If you want a mouthpiece for your political views, create a character that espouses them, don't try to shoehorn them into Superman or Captain America stories.

And to those who say that old-fashioned ideals are outdated, apparently high sales figures are out-dated too. Comics sold the most when heroes acted heroic (and briefly when they had foli-stamped hologram implanted covers like in the 1990s).

I don't think that drawing superheroes like Captain Puerto Rico (whoops, I meant to say America, Captain America) or the Green Lantern waving the flag and shouting things like "USA, USA, USA!!" is going to make anyone more inclined to buy comics, though you might want to give some serious consideration to things like believable storylines, well publicized events that promise the earth and ultimately don't deliver, and maybe even pay attention to continuity once every so often, rather than carry on the tradition of ignoring the fans in order to fulfill some odd desire to be incredibly short-sighted and stupid.

@ Richard C Meyer

I'm not sure that you are correct to associate high sales figures with the heroic posture of the superhero.

The period in which comicbooks were achieving almost ubiquitous appeal was pre-Wertham. I'm not saying that comicbook sales weren't influenced by the superhero genre, but the field of play for ideas and stories and meditations on morality was not limited by any appeal to a sense of moral exactitude.

The appeal was the salacious, sensationalist aspect of the crime/horror genre. It was the morally/politically inspired backlash that resulted in the wholesale slaughter of these morally dubious types of stories that prematurely ended the ascendancy of the comicbook into the ubiquitous media status that TV, music and film now occupies.

This is why I'm am unsure about legitimising a moral turn is really in the best interests of the industry as whole.

It is fine to request or appeal to higher morality, but I cannot see any appeal to morality as meaning any kind of return to form, in sales or otherwise. Arguing against the kinds of stories we have today from the idea that they are transgressing some form of assumed benevolent morality is the same kind of argument used by Wertham to denounce comics as a malevolent artform.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it an interesting paradox that the line of argumentation that is most often used to support or defend Willingham is something along the lines of "he's just a normal guy, with opinions, that may or not be present in his text, and I may not agree with him at all but what really matters is the quality of his stories and his craft"...

I find it strange that what constitutes fairness is not actually an engaged attempt to test Willingham's hypothesis through debate and discussion. Why does merely deferring to the text seem like such a fair option...? Willingham isn't...? He's analysing and proposing a different methodology with regards to the processes and perspectives put into play during the creation of a superhero story...not merely judging a story on it's own insular merits. He even went so far as to suggest to was a mission, with mission statements, so why does that not mean he's preparing for the moment to declare "Mission Accomplished"...?

He's not standing in that distanced manner from the value of the stories beyond the mere factor of "enjoyment" or the pleasure of reading. He respects that the form means more than that. I think that it is an utterly dismissive thing to do, and does not address the real concerns of Willingham's contention to support him in such a superficial manner. This matter must have been of some kind of concern for him to feel motivated to make an intervention in such a manner. Why just brush it under the carpet. If I were in a similar position, and then made a point of delivering such a mission statement, albeit potentially very different to his, it would be deeply frustrating for me to have what I was saying simply excused as some kind of idiosyncratic divergence from the real work of churning out stories for you.

What I get of great value and importance from what he has said is that is has opened up a greater dialogue about the meaning of superheroes than he may have even intended to. In some ways, and I mean this at least partially ironically, he's performed a revolutionary act. So, I think it unfair to treat what he's said at some kind of ironic distance, rather than seriously and thoroughly.

At the same time also, simply brushing under the carpet, so to speak, from a critical perspective, his statements, results in the ultimate fulfillment of his desires. If one were to ignore, or even ironically accept his proposal like "I don't believe him, his politics are wrong, but still I buy his books as long as the story is good" is just going to result in him getting his way. Incrementally, this will mean in a general shift, over time, if this approach is taken with any author, regardless of their personal politics, towards a homogenised landscape, as familiar voices find allegiance and perpetuate one another.

Willingham rightfully identified a trend he does not like, and acted against it accordingly, so why do we just have to assume we cannot occupy an alternate role.

Sorry, I'm blah, blahing again...

@Chris Burnham: I agree. It would be a mistake to judge Willingham's work before he even writes it. I'm only responding to the content of his editorial.

And I don't entirely disagree with the spirit of what he's saying. I can't really sit down with my kids and feel cool about reading Ultimates with them. That doesn't make it a bad book, and it doesn't make it un-heroic. It makes it 'mature'.

I really enjoyed Jeff Smith's 'Shazam' book. It's a very heroic story, in the sense that Willingham seems to be talking about, but we don't need to see Capt. Marvel flying off to Afghanistan or waving a flag.

@Luke: 'Blah-Blah-ing' is very different than what you're doing. You're adding very well-written and well-thought-out statements to the discussion. Thank you!

You can look at this through the lens of Superhero movies, which depict the genre in the most accessible form. The two biggest icons at the moment are Iron Man and the Dark Knight.

Iron Man is pretty straightforward, and pretty 'heroic' even though he's perhaps a flawed person. He is atoning for his past mistakes by going and killing the badguys. The badguys are bad, and the goodguys are good.

Bolan's Batman is misunderstood and conflicted. He doubts his mission, he looks for a way to give it up. His opponents are equally complex, Two-Face and Joker and R'as al Ghul have very strong points of view, and they feel they are acting out of some form of justice.

Is this really new?

I thought one of the reasons Steve Ditko quit Spiderman was over a political philosophy disagreement with Stan Lee. Stan wanted the Green Goblin to be someone Parker knew and Steve, as a follower of Ayn Rand, thought the Goblin identity should be someone unrelated to Parker.

It all seems to be about good story telling anyways. When the DC universe was filled with almost uniformally do gooder, it was pretty bland which made Watchman and the Dark Knight Returns so interesting. By the nineties the opposite was occuring, with ever character being Dark and/or Extreme. This made Morrison's Justice League and Waid's Kingdom Come so compelling.

Some people are steadfast in their version of morality, some are conflicted. Good stories should be the same way.

Mr. Willingham,

I checked the guest lists of Mid-Ohio-Con, so sure was I in this situation, and now I must eat a bit of crow. You, indeed, were never at that particular convention in the '80s. Though why my friend was purchasing a sketch of your character, Fathom, from another artist who treated him poorly and berated him, I can offer no reason.

I will stop any form of repeating this story, as you have requested, ever again. Just for your knowledge, this comments section was the only time this "legend" has been uttered by myself. I do formally apologize, and hope you will take my next part as seriously as possible as it happend to me, and my account is firsthand.

I was freshly getting into comics again after a long bout of disatisfaction with investment directed sales tricks by the companies I loved. I was hunting for others with my interest via the internet, when I happened upon the ComicCon boards. I had just recently purchased a Cerebus telephone book, and was getting quite interested in its author and artist, Dave Sim. I had only heard murmurs of him being hateful towards women in general. I opened a thread titled "Is Dave Sim a Woman Hater?" hoping to get some information from someone (possibly a professional) who could give me the truth or the truth about some false accustations against Sim. By the second reply, you (unless someone else was posting as Bill Willingham) jumped all over my back. Namecalling, cutting sarcasm, and caustic barbs were employed to make me feel like the shit on the heel of your shoes simply because I had asked a question. I had not stated an opinion on the matter at all. I was just curious. This attack hurt me deeply, as I was someone who had collected Elementals fervently, until the relaunch and other creators taking over. I was still a fan prior to this incident, as I had purchased Ironwood, and I was hunting around for anything else you had put out. I believe Pantheon was being talked about at the time. Not only had one of my teen idols made me feel like an idiot piece of crap, he had done so on a board where I had not established myself yet, and others could plainly witness my humiliation. I have been harboring a large resentment toward yourself since that time, which would have been around 1998-1999. Now if you wish to tell me you were not posting as Bill Willingham on the ComicCon boards at that time, I am more than ready to believe you. If you choose to ignore this comment, I can hardly blame you. However, I do want you to know that words can cut quite deeply, and yours were quite cutting at the time.

Whether you reply to this or not, please know that I have based my opinion of you on this interaction, and would be willing to change my mind if you claim otherwise. Or maybe you won't give a damn, and I could harly blame you for such. I'm sure one semi-anonymous comics fan isn't high on the list of worries for you after one of his claims has been disproved.

Again, I apologize for the initial false accsation.

Moral clarity is fine. It's a perfectly good way to do superheroes.

But it's just another alternative - not the opposite of some supposed "decadence".

Also, it certainly doesn't equal "conservative". There are a great many immoral and vicious conservatives and a great many courageous and moral liberals.

In fact, you could even argue that liberalism lends itself to moral heroism even more than conservatism. Why? Because it demands that you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do - not because it's traditional or because God or your dad told you to. Look at "Twelve Angry Men" for a brilliant example of liberal moral clarity.

@ crackwalker

Cheers for the kudos man! My trepidation only comes from trying to initiate and participate in a similar debate on another comicbook website and being taken to task by the other respondents for taking the topic of racial diversity in Superman comics too seriously (naming no names...ahem*newsarama*ahem)...

I'm glad that everyone here seems so much more interested in the debate. I've found the quality and depth of ideas and commitment given by people to this debate on this site both refreshing and exciting. I'm a relative hermit when it comes to 'net participation, but this debate has really made me enjoy and look forward to returning here.

I do somewhat feel like we are limited here though, and I'm worried about what happens when this story becomes "old news", and participation in it dies down. I think from my perspective the influx of new perspectives and ideas is what is keeping this debate fresh and interesting... alongside the input from those who have demonstrated a commitment to being here for the long haul!

I like your inclusion of movies here, as I think this is an important aspect of the debate. There are different pressures and factors in producing movies in the superhero genre and I think it would be interesting to bring into contact with the questions here the specific impact a shift in medium might make on the nature of the stories being told...

Any thoughts...?

CBR

I forgot to mention I haven’t read a lot of Willingham’s work. I have 1 issue of The Elementals and wanted more but either couldn’t afford or find it at the time. An allowance only goes so far ya know.

I bought the 1st collection of Fables and I thought it was interesting and had potential, but I ain’t rich so I can’t buy everything. A good story does rule all, but it is affected by your POV. I don’t search out lefty writers, but I tend to like their stories better because the truth in it resonates with me. I will probably not like much of Willingham’s stuff as it comes from a POV I think is wrong. My faves are Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, Warren Ellis and Howard Chaykin. They think more like me and so I like their stuff better as long as it is well crafted. I used to like Frank Miller more than I do now, probably because my politics has changed.

Back to Bill Willingham - Having so little of his work I just took the essay at face value.

@ Luke Evans

Re: America as an ideal, patriotism, etc. – As a lefty I believe in fairly common lefty beliefs.

I do not think there is much good use to patriotism. It by its nature says that we are better than them. That we are more human than them and prepares the people of a nation to dehumanize others so they don’t feel so bad when their government hurts outsiders. Patriotism is a tribalistic, largely negative force. It increases some bonds within the group but innately weakens bonds with outsiders. I believe people are essentially the same and universal human rights should be universal. I’m sure there are patriots who believe in universal human rights, but when it comes to action it is weakened by the very nature of patriotism. It is unavoidable.

And so when Willingham encourages patriotism, I think it’s bad. But I am sure he thinks my opinions are just as wrong. So what do you do when you do when you disagree about good and bad? You discuss and try to make the other side understand if they are open to it or you can just demonize the others side. I ‘m not a big fan of demonization so that’s where I am.

In the end the discussion usually rests upon a single crux. Conservatives usually believe people are innately evil and must be forced to be good through fixed and eternal rules and authority. Lefties usually believe people are innately good or are shaped primarily by environment and if you fix the system you will get a better society. Conservatives tend to be pessimistic about human society and that you need harsh guardians to protect the small amount of moral people from the corrupted masses. Utopia is impossible and should not even be pursued – just stave off greater corruption and decadence from making things worse. Lefties are more optimistic and tend to think you need to tinker with the system to approach [or possibly attain utopia]. This colors everything.

RE: doubt and the grayness of true morality - I agree that mature people have doubts about morality, struggle, and are often better for it. I agree that someone who is loyal to wrong positions despite all evidence to the contrary isn’t a great hero in the real world. They lie to themselves and stick their fingers in their ears rather than contemplate that they are wrong and need to alter their position. As an agnostic and lefty I basically accept that if new evidence arrives I may have to alter my sense of ethics or morality to adjust to reality. I think I'm right, as everyone does.

But for kiddy stories you don’t want to spend too much story time on constant moral quandries and hemming and hawing by the hero. They just don’t have the attention span and it may kill the fun and the adventure in the story. You have to write for the audience in some respect. And too much philosophizing will bore the crap out of kids. I’m not saying I’d write conservative kids’story, but they would be simpler and at least somewhat more black and white than a story geared at an older audience. It's really mostly about action.

Re: 3 types of heroes and morality – It’s been a long time since I had a philosophy class and I’m very fuzzy on the difference between morality and ethics, etc so I’ll just try and answer what I think you want to know. If I don’t get it right just ask more questions to clarify.

My 3 point model really comes from my perspective as would be expected, since everything we write is colored by our perspective.

There are two real things working together here. There is morality and the concept of the hero. Superheroes, like other heroes are selfless people who go beyond ordinary efforts to help the world. They do this by enforcing their own personal moral code on the world.

But what makes up their moral code? That varies from superhero to superhero and represents the character’s and often the writer’s moral code.

[Since I only really know the US superhero settings this whole convo will really be about US Marvel/DC superhero comics]

The Status Quo Protector [SQP]– This character is completely dependent on what the status quo is, so this would be different in Stalin’s USSR, China, or Scandinavia for example. For the USA, undiluted SQP is politically conservative and I’d say Rorshach is a good example, if a bit insane. The Superfriends to a good degree as well. Although there is a range and some would be more Libertarian and some more Blue-dog democrats, etc. Capitalism is good. The poor and criminals are to blame for their situations. Poverty=laziness. Unions=laziness. Republicanism is good [not the party but the system of representative based democracy]. Criminals, madmen/psychos, and would-be dictators are the primary foes. The SQP protects middle and upper class people from the innately criminal and morally deficient poor who want money without earning it. The government and big business largely has the public good in their hearts except for a few bad apples. The government may or may not be depicted as incompetent depending on how much the writer is an objectivist.

The Protector Who Doubts [PWD] – Like SQP he basically thinks the status quo is okay, but sees more flaws in society. For the USA, is politically center-left and so ranges from Clinton/Corporate Democrats to let’s say The Green Party/Dennis Kucinich. I’d say most superheroes these days are somewhere in this range and mostly closer to Clinton than Kucinich. Capitalism is essentially good or TINA [there is no alternative] and the excesses of capitalism need to be curtailed by regulation and some social programs. The poor are partially to blame for their situation. Criminals have choice to be criminals or upstanding working class folks who deserve some kind of social welfare. Republicanism is good, but may be weakened by bribery. Criminals, madmen/psychos, and would-be dictators are the primary foes. Will have more issues based stories [racism, homophobia, environment] and has a great deal more deluded or extremist-idealist enemies. The hero has sympathy for the Enviro-terrorist’s causes but the fellow has quite clearly gone too far. The SQP would just say these kind of villains are just evil or crazy as they don’t think the environment needs protecting. The PWD protects the upper, middle, and honest working class against criminals and extremists. Government and business are essentially good, but must be more closely watched for corruption than the SQP would endorse. They believe there are a bigger number of bad apples than the SQP. The government is the friend of the people except when controlled by corrupt wealth or extremists.

The Revolutionary [R] – Unlike SQP and PWD feels the status quo is innately unjust. For the USA, this would largely be a left wing POV. I’m going to represent the more anarchist wing as I don’t really like the Stalinist wing at all. There is Robin Hood, Zorro, and Anarky and that’s it as far as I can tell. Capitalism is innately immoral and needs to be abolished and replaced with a more fair system. Poverty and criminality are automatically created by Capitalism and so the system is mostly to blame although personal responsibility does have its place as well. Republican democracy doesn’t work and generally works as a plutocracy or as I like to call it a bribe-ocracy under capitalism. The primary foes are the government, the rich and organized crime. The government is mostly controlled by big business and both are very corrupted by their wealth and power.

The SQP [conservative] thinks the PWD [liberal] is soft and somewhat deluded.
The SQP [conservative] thinks the R [far lefty] is completely deluded, mad, or evil.

The PWD [liberal] thinks the SQP [conservative] is somewhat deluded or not empathetic enough to the plight of the poor or too extreme. DD vs Punisher perhaps?
The PWD [liberal] thinks the R [far lefty] is deluded and far too extreme. They should be more moderate and reasonable.

The R [far lefty] thinks the SQP [conservative] are deceitful hypocrites or honest dupes.
The R [far lefty] thinks the PWD [liberal] are deluded and/or too cowardly to challenge the status quo and be an R [far lefty].

You see how the POV completely determines what is or is not correct for a superhero to do. As a conservative Willingham thinks the SQP is the only properly heroic position and that the PWD are not truly heroes as they don’t match his standards. Until the 1960s the SQP was the main of superhero. In the 60s and 70s the PWD began to arise and is now dominant. And so of course he’s annoyed as he doesn’t agree with the premise of the liberal hero – they’re just wusses.

As a far lefty I find the R is the only true hero, so I have to settle for lesser and deluded heroes in most of my comic reading.

The R is allowed and heroic within mainstream comics as long as the status quo is a dictatorship of some kind or under an occupying force. E.g. Star Wars, Robin Hood, Zorro, Killraven. The R is a villain or deluded extremist as soon as the status quo of the story is even remotely close to our status quo.

The superhero by not doing anything about the possible injustices of the status quo implies that the superhero believes the status quo is just and so automatically endorses a mainstream/centrist political POV. Ignoring politics is equal to endorsing what’s going on and so is innately a political position. We’re just used to superheroes endorsing mainstream politics. Ignoring evil is not heroic nor moral and so superheroes are all Conservatives or at most Liberals because they do not see the evil in the status quo. Standard superhero comics are political, period [from my POV].

Peace, love and chicken grease.

@crackwalker

We are sympatico my friend. Your posts mirror my POV on this subject exactly. So to hopely expand on the
points you made: i believe the root of the problem is the glamorization of evil in pop culture. Dark is hot. Dark
is cool. Take the vampire film Twilight, for example which no one protested the content or subject matter. Then take Harry Potter, a romantic hero if i ever saw one, is demonized.

In myth and legend the none of the heroes are squeeky clean; Hercules, Arjuna, Kullervo ( the inspiration for
Anakin Skywalker) and King Arthur were all flawed and Dark in their own ways. However, overcame their
flaws and did the right thing anyway. Thats why we still read about them today. But, in pop culture we emphasize the Dark to the detriment of the heroic ethos.

So the comic publishers being a business started playing to the audience " give them what they want" they
thought. Its that simple. Now of course when you dedicate yourself to shear profit motive in a creative medium there is always a backlash. No one wants to follow the beat of one drum all the time.

So here we are at a time of a potential paradigm shift in our culture which will play out across the board.
What do we do now? Where do we go? And that is a perfect place for artists to exist. Now is not the time
to retreat into dogma. No, now is time to play in the margins abit more, open things up. Experiment with
the medium.

As far as Willingham is concerned i haven't read any of his work since Elementals. I'll watch porn rather than
read it in comic form, thank you very much. I don't like hypocrites.

Some posters have also made some unfortunate comments about "multiculturism" in America. They need
to read more history. If they did they would know that the colonists were from all over Europe not to mention
the Africans (a totally different discussion, ok) so we've always been diverse in that way.

There are good comics out there and others not so much. Death of Cap = good. Batman R.I.P. = bad. Sinestro Corp War = great . Secret Invasion = huh? Read what you like forget the the rest. Comics is
NOT the place to hammer out your political and ethnic frustrations.

btw, if memory serves Cap was born on the Lower East Side in Manhattan to Irish parents in the early 20th
century. He would have grown up a FDR Democrat not a Republican.

Wow. I never thought I'd say this, but the 'liberals' in this thread really need to calm down.

A lot.

I consider myself largely a liberal, but I'm fairly disgusted by the ways in which people here have tied themselves in knots to criticize Mr. Willingham's work.

Kudos to Mr. Busiek for playing 'moderating influence' here. It's clearly needed, and for a reader of the comments, its much appreciated.

The ugliness on display here is shameful. Willingham has done nothing but announce his own plans for his own books, while using that announcement as a question to the larger industry: Why can't we write some more 'heroic' superheroes?

That people seem not just willing, but eager, to think the worst of the man's writing and person based purely upon (a) general professed conservatism and (b) previously-expressed support for Israel strikes me as the behavior of men and women who are increasingly unable to feel moderately about much of anything.

Why is it so difficult to maintain basic human decency and civility over these things?

The art form has evolved from patriotic stories of beating the hell out of Hitler and moved on to dramatic stories about people. In that regard we might actually have somewhat left the idea of the sterotypical "super-hero" and moved on to Super People. People who have superpowers not necessarily granting them higher status than any of their underpowered peers.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. In fact I appauld an industry that can break it's own standard and be progressive and not continue to publish the same stuff that they did decades ago. Times change and this art form needs to change with the times.

I loved Shadowpact and Willinghams work on that book (editorally modified as it was) and I'm all for creative license and even for nostalgia but when Superman goes back to being a cookie cutter image of the perfect American life it won't be the same Superman that I know.

The Superman I know is the one that has developed and changed and had to think and had to believe and didn't just mindly follow an American ideal as the highest authority. Instead he faught for something bigger and better than the American way. He fought for truth, justice, and the human condition. Something far better than anyone before.

As for Captain America. He changed as well. He became more patriotic, not following his governments words for everything but instead giving us the perfect picture of a revolutionary who believed in the actual American ideas and would fight for them. Not just mindlessly support whichever rules and battles America loved. In the Civil War series for instance he fought for the freedom of American citizens and their liberties as higher and mroe important than the laws governments pass.

So Mr. Wilingham while our Superheroes have changed to Superpeople it's not because they don't fight for something greater, it's because they fight for something greater than America. Greater than politics. It's because our stories aren't focused on Super Heroes who are going to save us from the world's problems but instead it's about people who have their own problems. We like that, we can relate. They stand for something greater than we are, greater than any one country, or any one idea.

@Jesse Custer

The difficulty lies in the fact that many people have allowed themselves to be polarized about everything. The "If you're not with us you're against us" type of thinking thats been hammered into our collective heads
over the past couple of generations. My only issue with Willingham is why did he decide to announce his
chance of heart in such a "Hollywood celebrity-like" way. If you're going to chance the way you do things
just change the way you do things, period. Don't make a big song and dance about it. Willingham has
always been a sort of self-imposed lightning rod if i remember correctly.

of course, crackwalker. didn't say i had a problem with it.

I actually disagree most with the "smack dab in the midst" part. If anything, we're a few years past its peak.

ThinkPig wrote:

"In fact, you could even argue that liberalism lends itself to moral heroism even more than conservatism. Why? Because it demands that you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do - not because it’s traditional or because God or your dad told you to. Look at “Twelve Angry Men” for a brilliant example of liberal moral clarity."

One major part of modern liberalism is that government should be really large to solve our problems. But wouldn't that stifle people's desire to be self-sufficient? Do we REALLY need the government to tell us what food to buy our kids or what doctor to go to?

Also, wouldn't a large government also promote laziness and ignorance rather than a thrist for adventure and knowledge? The humans turned blobs in the hit film "Wall-E" are an extreme version of this idea.

And if the government is expected to handle every problem, then wouldn't superheroes be considered unnecessary?

Just something to think about.

villainous wrote:

"I love dark superheroes and dark, gritty stories. And I hope MArvel keeps doing exactly what they’r doing. Love it! "

Frankly, I'm enjoying books like Invincible Iron Man, X-Men Worlds Apart (Storm's mini-series) and Adam: Legend of the Blue Marvel precisely because they're more hopeful, yet challenging. Like gangsta rap music, the once daring "grim and gritty" trend in comics has gotten stale.

"I also love the mutlculturalizing going on at DC. Oh no! Firestorm’s not Ronnie Raymond anymore! I cared so much for that character! Boo Hoo! All cops and firemen aren’t white males. So superheroes should reflect that diversity if they expect to keep a lot of their readers."

There are two flaws with your argument.

First, you don't have to be White to snub the new Firestorm viewed the new Firestorm as a half-hearted attempt at diversity by DC. Such fans would prefer publishers to create NEW non-White superheroes.
Blogger Rich Watson expounds on this point in his commentary on the recent DC/Milestone merger:

“Something else about this deal bothers me. DC executive vice-president Dan DiDio insists that it’s not about wanting to diversify the DCU, but it’s about bringing great material into the DC universe, and being able to add value to everything we do. Well, that sounds all nice and noble, but riddle me this: why is it that whenever DC decides to throw a bone to readers of color, they put their best efforts into making legacy characters connected to pre-established ones? Green Lantern II (John Stewart). Mr. Miracle II. Steel (originally one of the replacement Supermen and who is still considered part of the Superman family). Mr. Terrific II. Jakeem Thunder (successor to Johnny Thunder). Firestorm II. And to go beyond black characters, there’s Atom III (an Asian-American), Question II (a Latina), and Batwoman II (a lesbian).

Remember Muhamamad X? Skyrocket? Orpheus? Chances are you don’t. These were original heroes of color created within the DCU but were given little chance to shine for very long and now linger in superhero limbo. Sure, someone could use them again, but it’s so much easier to buy someone else’s characters, especially when they come with their own built-in fanbases. Typical corporate mentality.”

Read the rest of the blog post here:

http://www.popcultureshock.com/blogs/milestone-does-not-belong-within-the-dcu/

Second, the increasing racial diversity in DC Comics hasn't caused a massive increase in comic fans of any race. Black consumers, for example, don’t have a CLUE that DC’s more diverse comics exist because of poor marketing and distribution. Writer Christopher Priest explains in greater detail:

http://www.digital-priest.com/comics/adventures/chips3.htm

So, this racial diversity debate in comics is more complex than it is often portrayed.

Fred 2:
Everything you say about big, controlling government being a defining, intrinsic aspect of liberalism is a plain, out and out lie.
Also, the blob-people of Wall-E are an extreme example of the results of corporatist control, so that's another non-point on your part.

While I've enjoyed many comic-based movies and shows, I cannot consider myself a comic book fan. I've only read a few that belonged to friends. I enjoyed them and would likely read them if money were no object...but it is. So my comic-related entertainment tends to come in the already-paid-for medium of TV. My point is that while I enjoy comics I cannot comment on any shift in the product itself that Willingham is describing.

What I CAN comment on is the tendency of art to imitate life. Perhaps comics reflect the nation's psyche. 60 years ago we were coming out of a just war fought against fascists who committed genocide. We were right to feel assured of our moral superiority. But now? How can anyone argue in any seriousness that moral clarity and courage are "American" traits in comics? Are they "American" traits at all? We're torturing people. We're locking up people who may not have tried to hurt a single American soul. Yet nearly half the country evidently believes they deserve that treatment.

I mean, it's been over 60 years since we were in a declared war. Since WWII we've been in a state of nearly perpetual military conflict, yet no war has been declared. It's because they were and are morally ambiguous wars of choice. Excuse us for not buying into this "American Exceptionalism" bullshit the right is pushing these days. We've seen too much of what goes on around here to put any stock in it. Maybe that's why the comics aren't bright and cheery. Maybe that's why we may have flawed heroes and villains whose villainy spawns from a reasonable grievance.

I remember someone decrying the change from "Casablanca", in which the lead puts duty before love, to "The English Patient", in which the lead chooses the opposite. What do you expect? The latter was made during a time in which the people choosing to go to unnecessary wars make billions from the dying. The "My country, right or wrong" attitude needs to go.

I've always been curious about conservatives and "V for Vendetta". V is a terrorist. Yet he fights a righteous battle. How do conservatives reconcile these facts?

Jack, I agree regarding Fred's "corporatist control" claims. Liberals wanting government to tell you what doctor to see? Not true. But in any case, that's what the insurance companies tell you already.

Bill Willingham should get together with Kurt Busiek and do an Astro City spin-off. Do something sunny and idealistic about superheroes while at the same time questioning the very archetypes we hold dear and twisting them in new dimensions.

Were there any series besides Astro City that did the Reconstruction thing in response to Watchmen?

"I’ve always been curious about conservatives and 'V for Vendetta." V is a terrorist. Yet he fights a righteous battle. How do conservatives reconcile these facts?"

V isn't a hero, and V FOR VENDETTA is a deeply flawed work. Best example: Evey's torture, which should by all right have either permanently repulsed her or turned her into into a Patty Hearst-style brainwashed zombie. This action on V's part should've been the point where he really WAS revealed to be one of the story's villains, indeed that the cast was composed almost EXCLUSIVELY of villains, save for one victim (Evey). Instead, Moore chokes at the clutch, unwilling to acknowledge the full moral dimensions of the story that he was telling -- which still, mind you, would have been an entertaining story. Instead, the final third of the book basically runs off the rails because of Moore's need to present V in a good (or at least "better") light. Mind you, Alan Moore has always sucked at story endings.

Probably not the answer that you wanted... but then, you're operating from a shallow, flimsy definition of "conservatives" to begin with. Which kind of conservative are you talking about? Paleo-cons? Neo-cons? Social conservatives? Libertarian conservatives? Rockerfeller conservatives? There are a wide number of factions within the basic philosphical framework, and each disagrees with the others on a wide variety of subjects.

Come on -- if I were to state that all liberals were research-lab-bombing ALF terrorists who spit on U.S. servicemen for kicks, how accurate would I be? Obviously not very, despite the fact that there ARE liberals who aren't too far from conforming to this stereotype. (I spent six years in Seattle; I've met a few, believe me.) Likewise, there are some pretty nutty conservatives out there. (I grew up in Arizona; again, I've met my share.) Should the outliers define the whole? The answer in both cases is obviously "Hell, no."

@ Dirk Deppey.

I think the example of "V For Vendetta" is an interesting one. I'm quite sure that at the time it was written Moore was influenced by Anarchist politics, so although it is fair to read the characters ambiguously I think V is very much meant as an actual hero.

The particular torture scene is perhaps the most important one of the story, and I think to characterise such a situation as producing extremism, whilst not incaccurate, misses something.

The point I would make is to reference the notion of the Master/Slave dialectic as employed by the German philosopher Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_dialectic#Death_struggle). In this concept the stuggle for recognition between two conscious minds takes the form of a "death struggle". This is a struggle in which both Master and Slave fight for recognition from the other and as such only achieve self-consciousness through this struggle with another being.

In this scene, Evey is forced by V's wager to confront her imprisonment, her lack of freedom. She achieves her self-consiousness, and therefore her freedom to truly choose who she wises to be, in the face of her imprisonment. Her choice of death rather than compliance is a sign she has accepted her own imprisonment in a "system", and the beginnings of her finding how to take her freedom for herself, rather than assume it as a given. It mirrors Socrates decision to face execution in ancient Greece rather than punishments such as exile, as this would mean he would have abandon the beliefs he held and the Athens that he loved.

In this sense. Evey is not a victim, but discovers through her subjection to brutality, that it is others who would make of her a victim. Her willingness to embrace death is not a sign of compliance, or resignation, but the first awakenings of her consiousness to the real power over her own life and death she possessed all along. She moves at this moment from the victim rescued by V at the beginning of the story, from an object of a male heroes story, to a being ready to asume her full subjectivity.

This is where I think that V is actually one of the most moral heroes in any fictional story, as he put Evey into situation where she picks her moral commitments over her own life. I'm not saying I condone this, but it is a powerful message (somewhat lost in the movie due to too much kung-fu and Portman's atrocious accent ) I also think that this is ultimately the message of the story, not anything critical of the "system" from a simple Leftist perspective, but closer to a Feminist story about the ubiquitous brutality faced by women everyday.

It's also a tale about the nature of Evil, but not that evil is a form of extremism, but that Evil is everywhere, and as such is the base foundation of life, not a violent exception. Hannah Arendt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt) oultined this idea in her analysis of Nazi Germany when she coined the phrase Banality of Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_Evil). In the context of the V story, the real evil is not the actions of the "extremist" characters, such as V, but those that allow the everyday perpetration of violence by the state and other mass-representative institutions to continue. It is the detached, and supposedly objective, bureacracy of the state that allowed the systematic violence of the Holocaust to continue in Arendt's view, because the violence occurs in the peripheral vision, and at arms length, of those who actually run the system that perpetrates it. In Moore's V, Evey is awakened to this notion of Evil by V, who engages her in a forced recognition of these levels of systematised violence.

In the story is V brutal...? Yes... Is it a villainous brutality...? Not so sure.

I also like this idea of the Banality of Evil as an idea that could unite the far left and the far right against the Libreral/Conservative moderates. I find a distrust of the organised state to be a key idea in both forms of "extreme" politics.

I also think that vis-a-vis Willingham's initial contention about morality, or lack thereof, is implicitly flawed. Not because it is about a continuum of superheroes ranging from the morally pure to the morally incorruptable, but the problem is that he misidentifies the heroes that do not share *his* definition of morality as somehow possessing none.

The characters who behaves in a manner that may not seem morally justified, or morally correct, or could be identified as possessing some kind of "lack" in the space of their character should be, may be exercising another form of morality altogether, and one that it feels like, is simply not recognised by Willingham.

(See above V contention for how that may play out...)

For example, take the Punisher. Does he not possess one of the most stringent, and rigid moral codes of any hero in the medium...? He kills, sure, but he does so because his "victims" have broken a moral code he deems to to higher that the prohibition upon killing. In some senses, I feel like he's the most *heroic* of all hereos, because he not only defends a higher morality, but does so in the name of the institution of the family. I mean even his name... "Punisher"... he isn't called the executioner, he's higher in the moral world than that. He punishes, he carries out punishment, on those who have trangressed a moral boundary or written law, he doesn't wait for them to face trial, or be sentenced and then stick a needle in their arm whilst they're strapped to a chair... he finds them and delivers a judgement upon them based upon his own internal commitment to a moral ideal...

1) As far as I can tell, if you're going to have a moral code, it has to come one of two ways: Either you develop it on your own, based on experience, or you adopt someone else's.

2) I stopped reading most mainstream comics because the characters were so miserable that I didn't want to spend any time with them.

3) I don't think the country is falling apart. The idea that there was ever one, true, monolithic "America" is an historical illusion.

4) Belgians make okay comics but great beer.

Now everybody get back to work.

Luke: A real-world analog to your argument. A couple of years back, the CIA deported three Canadian Muslims to Syria, where they were tortured in the hopes of learning more about Al Qaeda. Alas, they weren't terrorists at all, and a diplomatic firestorm was (quite rightly) the result.

Let's say that they WERE Al Qaeda, and the CIA had them tortured not in order gain information but to teach them that freedom and democracy were preferable to blowing up innocent civilians -- that is to say, that (like Evey) they were unthinking participants in an evil system and that a little old-fashioned "dunking the head in water until they almost drown" (REAL drowning, not the simulated version produced by waterboarding) was seen as the perfect way to make them see the light. That would have been okay, then? Because that's where your argument seems to lead.

I don't buy it for a second. There's no "moral ambiguity" whatsoever in the situation scripted by Moore. V uses physical and (Moore hints) sexual assault to brainwash an innocent civilian. Period, full stop. Hell, V was LESS justified than the CIA, insofar as the Agency at least thought (wrongly) that these guys might have knowledge that could prevent a terrorist attack, whereas V simply knew that his worldview was right and that psychologically and physically torturing a young girl was therefore justified in order to make her see the light that only he possessed. Is tortured justified if you know you're right, then, even in the absence of any potential physical threat from the subject being tortured? If Dick Cheney had tried such logic out in public, how many minutes do you think it would have taken for Congress to file articles of impeachment?

Damn, that's one messed-up argument you have there.

i'm not sure why anyone who's read FABLES would think for a second that mr. willinghams' resolution means that he's going to be writing flat superhero stories wallpapered in some glaring shade of wing-ism. i'm not sure he could if he wanted to. he enjoys complex plots, point-of-view interplay, and nuanced characterization too much.

i'm not sure why anyone would reflexively object to his wish to associate a brighter and more positive flavor of superheroism with 'the american way' than has been the norm, lately. seems like whichever side of the left/right fence or the america's-great-just-as-she-is/america-could-stand-some-improvement fence you happen to be on, you could see that as being a positive or hopeful thing. while you're waiting to see what kind of stories the man's actually going to write.

personally, i'm up for seeing a broader resurgence of, uhm, well...actual heroic values and struggles, internal and external, in superhero comics. just seems like it's about time.

just my two cents.

I do not believe people are objecting to the idea that heroes should be heroic. They are objecting to two things mainly - (1) the implied idea that good heroes are conservative heroes, and (2) two-dimensional good guys. I see no reason to assume the latter. The former is reinforced by Bill's comments regarding a shot at France by Captain America. It borders on jingoism. I used to love describing the French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but the right wing in this country shredded that fun with their march to Iraq and the slaughter of so many Iraqis. When the retards in charge start eating freedom fries, it makes me sad for my country.

So, I agree entirely that left and right should get behind heroic heroes, but the context of the stated idea is offputting.

V was a hero in the context of the story. However, he wanted to share his experience with Evey, and he did subject her to a lot of torture, which was wrong. She did not freak out or become a zombie because she did get his experience at that point and understood V a lot better.

There is no excuse for the CIA torture. Torture should only be performed if there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat and a reasonable belief that the subject has information that could prevent it. Jack Bauer type situations.

However, Jack Bauer situations simply do not exist in the real world, no matter how much conservative whackos want to believe otherwise. Even then, the torturers should be prepared to stand trial and not weasel their way out of responsibility just like Jack is on the show.

Rounding up Arabs who resent you blowing up their town and calling them insurgents and terrorists does not justify torture.

@ Dirk Deppey.

I agree that torture is never an option. Ever.

I totally see your point there. I'm sorry if I came across as endorsing those methods. You have given me alot to think about there, and I do think Io should reassess how I present my argument.

I'm not saying that I disagree at all and I'm also not saying that I think that V is right. I'm saying that he's moral. As my later point about the Punisher was suggesting, morality can be the very basis for very violent and heinous actions, and I also used this point to talk about Willingham's argument that superheroes needed a more moral outlook, involving a more obvious difference between good and evil.

I guess I was just trying to argue that moral purpose can be discovered through struggle and hardship, and combat (at least in the figurative sense). I don't think that behaviour like V's would work to offer someone the space to make sane, reasoned decisions and would rather result in mental and physical pain that would stay with the victim for a lifetime.

At the same time, I do take the torture scene as an analogy, not as a literal depiction of how to engage someone in a real, lived manner. I feel like Moore uses the scene as a way of individualising a collective process. It is for an extreme projection of the kind of ubiquitous violence that goes on at an everyday level, and that part of the process of finding freedom is to accept one's status as being un-free. That identification of the forces and processes that define, or seek to define, the limits of one's field of action are only overcome through accepting them in an act of self-consciousness, before they can be overcome. I'm not saying that I don't think this is a brutal process, or that V is a villain, as I also see these conditions as a fundamental condition of life. Not a desirable or warranted condition, and by no means distributed universally, or equally, but in some ways an inescapable fact. As I don't believe in the actual manifestation of divine forces upon the world, I can only see the pain and hardship that exists in the world as a product of human actions, and human interventions. In this sense I see torture scene as depiction of how people behave when brutalised. In the story it is individualised, but I was just trying to argue that a certain kind of brutality exists at an social level, and that it can produce the response of extremism, not as an aberration, but as a reasoned through response for defending oneself, or as a way of fighting against the broader forces that resulted in the founding brutality.

I'm not saying I fully endorse this, but I see it as less of a product of indoctrination, and more of a response to a situation. More of an internal product of a person than as an idea forced upon them from the outside. I'm not saying this justifies any of these outcomes. I also think that V is meant to be viewed as an idea or ideal, much like Batman is presented in 'Batman Begins'. V is like a totem, or spirit that haunts the real world of the story. He's the spirit of extremism that exists as a product of the everyday violence, much like Batman is supposed to be an embodiment of justice in a corrupt world. That's why Evey decides against taking of his mask, as it would negate his embodiment of the idea she she's him as representing. I'm not saying I think this is a good model for basing political action on, but I interpret Moore as crafting a story that deals with the origin of extremism in a brutal, but poetic way. Whether it works effectively...? After reading what you've said I see your point and am now more inclined to think maybe not.

Your real world example is a very good complication of this matter.

Jack Norris wrote:

"Fred 2:

Everything you say about big, controlling government being a defining, intrinsic aspect of liberalism is a plain, out and out lie."

Isn't welfare a liberal idea in which the government replaces fathers as providers for their kids?

That sounds like government control to me.

"Also, the blob-people of Wall-E are an extreme example of the results of corporatist control, so that’s another non-point on your part."

Liberals don't own corporations? Since when. A great example is Oprah, a liberal who owns a massive corporation that has great influence over aspects of American society. Like book sales, beef sales, and presidential campaigns.

As for Wall-E, Buy N Large and the global government had became synonymous in that futuristic world. So, the blob humans are living under-and dependent on-a "big goverment" system.

Wall-E's director,Andrew Stanton, further delves into this topic in an interview with WORLD magazine:

WORLD: The depiction of humanity is pretty stark in this movie.

STANTON: Well, when I started outlining humanity in the story, I asked myself: What if everything you needed to survive—health care, food—was taken care of and you had nothing but a perpetual vacation to fill your time? What if the result of all that convenience was that all your relationships became indirect—nobody's reaching out to each other? A lot of people have suggested that I was making a comment on obesity. But that wasn't it, I was trying to make humanity big babies because there was no reason for them to grow up anymore.

Read the full interview here:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14127?CFID=9866289&CFTOKEN=11233462

Just wanted to say the previous poster CougarTrace was an imposter and not me. Going through an investigation now.

[...] run on Justice Society of America. The editorial has drawn many fine and interesting comments on this blog, on the original editorial, and is now filtering out to the blogging/podcasting communities. The [...]

[...] Comic Book Resources has an article on the editorial, (with commentary by others, including comic book writers like James Hudnall, and Kurt Busiek). [...]