I think it was interesting that the debate ended up as a kind of political referendum, even though there wasn’t an explicitly or directly overt political statement being made.

Willingham did not seem to make any overt political references to either the politics he believed the creators of the comics to have, or the politics he believed the creators to be imbuing their stories with.

Having said that, the issues he highlighted ARE political issues, especially in the context of how governments use moralistic, or values based, rhetoric to explain and/or justify their particular policies.

Willingham adopted a rhetoric that alluded to, at least IMHO, the rhetoric that has been adopted by the outgoing political establishment.

I would also point out that the incoming President is himself a user of values-based rhetoric, but he marshaled a different constellation of rhetorical flourishes, and so in many ways, appears to be adopting a different ethical/political position… in many ways I am skeptical of both styles.

The issue for me is not so much a political one from the perspective of who supports whom, but the matter of what is disguised by the rhetoric of what is said. I think Willingham is savvy enough to know that there are people who will see the aspect of his contention as it relates to his own personal politics, and I also think that he is not making his statement in an ‘innocent’ fashion.

The rhetoric of ‘values’ and the moral ideals behind it are inherently divisive, as the way one chooses to enact or support such a rhetoric is what is really at stake. To simply accept his definition of his values within the rhetoric of being, or possessing the quality of being, American is a very socially chauvinistic thing to do.

It sets up a situation where allegiance to those ideals is implicitly encoded as an allegiance to the idea of the nation he presumes them to be an inherent quality of… I’m not saying that the ideals he argues for are not of value, but by making them explicitly American ideals, automatically establishes a limit to who can ‘truly’ participate in them. As a non-American this makes it feel like my own participation in the medium, and that of others who fall into this selfsame category, is being white-washed out at best, or somehow made into being the pathological condition that resulted in the current decadence he seems to be decrying.

Whilst I am fully aware he includes himself in the process of this shift, it seems to me to be less of a “I stand by my convictions and support what I did” stance and more of a “I once was lost and have found my way” proclamation, which I think still allows he to stand by my contention that he doesn’t leave me much room within his rhetoric to find where I “fit in” to his mission statement.

I feel I have been left out, in my capacity as a non-American, by the wayside, despite the vast degree to which I think the values he supports are important and necessary components of the superhero genre.

And you apparently need better reading comprehension skills. You have no idea how many op ed pieces I read, how I interpret them, or any of the rest of what you stated. If you can’t handle valid criticism of your views then I suggest not posting them. All you’ve managed to do is continue being cranky on the internet and insist on your own interpretation as THE interpretations, regardless of facts or examples. Your responses say more about you than Bill, or even conservatives. They have as much right to express their opinions as the Huffington Post. Whatever agenda you glean from this particular piece is your own. I believe Bill stated his intent quite clearly.

In fact, I will direct you to Bill’s response in this very thread. He invited people, not demanded, that they join him. And, as I stated before, of COURSE the Limbaugh quote was deliberate. You choose to see it as some kind of radical conservative issue. I see it as an intentional poke by a social conservative to see how many knee-jerk liberals he could get in a huff. It worked.

Maybe it’s because I know Bill quite well, but you’re insisting on a view that is very limited and partisan. If you don’t like the kinds of comics Bill is proposing to write, don’t read them.

But if you’re arguing that his perspective is invalid because you don’t agree with his politics, or that there’s no room for “heroic” super-hero stories along with the grim and gritty, then I just have to wonder if your problem is with Bill or with stories in general. Such a limited idea of what is “allowed” seems kind of sad to me.

Like this: The notion that you can attach motives to heterogeneous groups consisting of millions or billions of independently acting individuals (ex: “Americans”, “the French”, “Muslims”, “humans”) is the height of asininity. (Exposing mistaken notions of unity and singularity among vast aggregates while using the word “asininity” never harms my self regard.)

A blanket statement like “every country has its problems” or “believing in a country is fascist” is just not going to cut it. Because when you factor in those two, then there’s nothing to believe in. What shall we strive for, general humanity? You can apply the same criticisms: “humanity is great, but what about all this time we kill each other? Clearly we should not believe in humanity.”

A nation is something that we work together to push forward in order to better everyone living under it. When Bill is talking about the “American Way,” he’s talking about the spirit of the community, how we’re always trying to overcome racism, discrimination, and making the world a better place.

Australians, Canadians, French, Brits, Swedes — whether you call it the “Australian Way,” “Canadian Way,” “French Way,” “British Way,” or “Swedish Way” — you gotta be proud for what you’re doing for society.

Hahahahahahahaha, if you need Fareed Zakaria to tell you that the United States doesn’t go a full presidency without instituting or maintaining some program of genocide or mass murder then you deserve to debate with someone who thinks “superhero decadence” is an issue worth writing about.

Black Lightning’s tailor was Peter Gambi, not Paul Gambi. I believe, but I’m not sure that Tony Isabella intended Peter to be Paul’s brother.

Speaking of characters that reflect positive values, I’d sure appreciate it if Mr. Willingham and Mr. Busiek would push DC to put out a collected edition of Tony Isabella’s Black Lightning stories. In both series, the character exemplified someone striving to do the right thing for the right reasons. It would be nice to see it back in print.

As someone who was appalled to read the story where Mr. Willingham made longtime Batman supporting character Leslie Thompson a cold-blooded murderer, I’m glad to read that he’s changed his mind about such things. Who knows, I may even give his superhero writing another chance, if he can follow through with his intentions.

Fables, as his own creation, I’ve always been fine with.

Finally, I’d just like to say “Kurt Busiek is wrong” again. I don’t get many opportunities to say that.

Once comic book villains started acting this way, the stories became much richer. I’m more interested in Magneto as someone who wants to liberate mutants than someone who heads a group that self-identifies as the Brotherhood of EVIL Mutants. In The Boys, which I read and enjoy despite its excesses, the idea that the JLA-like group of superheroes are irresponsible cowards and perverts, while the shady “Boys” are slightly more heroic in character, tells more truth about the world than some fantasy that life is black and white. There are more story possibilities and more opportunities for unexpected twists, rather than the same boring slugfests.

That’s my opinion, anyway. But honestly, at the end of the day, I’d rather read a good comic than a bad one, and Bill Willingham generally produces good ones. If he can make his ideas work creatively and tell good stories, I don’t really care if they reflect my personal philosophy of the world or not. If I notice that I’m being hit over the head with someone’s message, then clearly the creator isn’t really doing their job, and whether I happen to agree with the message or not isn’t going to improve my enjoyment.

I like where he boasts about that storyline even though it got crucified by most ‘Bat bloggers as being terrible, and it ended with 16-year old Tim Drake pondering having a fling with a female Marine in her mid-20s and he was involved with two different girls in Robin at the time and was still grieving over Spoiler’s supposed death.

That’s great. Let’s completely ignore the needs and desires of other peoples and force them to embrace the American Way, even if it isn’t the ideal scenario for them.

The people of Somalia are more concerned with ensuring that they experience ‘The American Way’ instead of, you know, getting enough food to survive the day.

Go read “The Post-American World” by Fareed Zakaria. Your view of America as a dominant player in the world, or as a “great, virtuous nation” is rapidly coming to an end.

(By the way, I like the notion of Goldilocks as a communist revolutionary. It’s the kind of absurdity that makes comics fun.)

Well, there you go … top that, Busiek!

If Willingham’s going to venture into politics, he needs to understand that he’ll face opposition as he airs his views and that if he advocates, say, social changes or legislation that will impact lives substantially, the negative reaction will be far more vitriolic than anything he encountered on this site.

SRS

I’ll take Bill W. and Dirk D. over Bill Kristol and David Horowitz ANYTIME!

“Why do political opposites feel compelled to make up quotes for someone from the other party, and then attack or ridicule the made-up quotes? ”

I don’t know, Russ. Maybe you have some insights?

Bill Willingham, you are truly the poor man’s Dave Sim. (Talented writer-artists known for their long running creator-owned series and outspoken right wing politics. Sure it’s tenuous, but it works.)

Besides, I’ve read lots of stories that were intended for children that are complex, dark, and otherwise not somehow subpar stories as you seem to be implying.

I don’t very much that Bill is ashamed of anything he’s written, including Ironwood. He’s simply making a statement about what kinds of superhero stories he’ll be pursuing. That’s hardly a call for a wholesale change of the genre, as he pointed out above.

Also, it’s ridiculous to say that the audience doesn’t want their superheroes or comics mixed with real world events. Spider-man exists in NYC, as do many others like the X-Men. It hasn’t hurt them. I mean, stories often parallel real world events or seek to explore them in that context. Why should we do away with that?

I mean, don’t read any of Bill’s work if you don’t want to. But don’t misrepresent what he’s saying just because you want to view it a particular way.

So perhaps just a single general post might be enough. First, thank you for your interest, positive and negative.

To those of you who said you’d be dropping Fables and other books of mine because of any combination of: My public statement; my politics; my temerity of actually quoting Rush Limbaugh; or whatever other reason, I hope you’ll reconsider, but as always, it’s entirely up to you. This is entertainment, not homework, so you aren’t required to buy and enjoy my work. Of course, if they ever do make me king of the world, that may change.

To those, here and on other boards, who opined some variation of: “Willingham wants to turn the clock back to the 50’s complete with (insert list of 50’s crimes cultural problems here),” that just isn’t the case. I don’t need to turn the clock back to find countless examples of people living lives of duty, honor and service to very good and decent causes greater than themselves. I’m surrounded by such people today, and can draw my inspiration from them without conjuring some idealized cardboard example from decades past. They still exist in America (and elsewhere of course) in abundance, in every town and city in the country. And these folks are anything but one-note, two-dimensional people. They are men and women in full, with as many intriguing nuances and complexities as anyone else. Great stories can and will be told about people such as this.

For those who think I desire a strictly black and white depiction of superheroes and the world in which they (fictionally) live: no, not at all. Far from it. I understand things are every shade of gray. But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t still strive for the white, or light end of the spectrum. (And I use ‘white’ here without any racial secondary meanings — so maybe I’ll use good and evil, rather than black and white). And, in my mind, the fact that the true good end of the dial can’t be achieved even makes the struggle to do so more ennobling and more worthy as the subject matter for my future work in the superhero corner of the funnybook business.

As far as any call to change all of comics, or all of superhero comics to my preferred template — well, I didn’t make such a call, so there we are.

What I did say was this is what I plan to do — all the while heavily implying that this is the kind of superhero comics I would like to see more of. But I never said and don’t believe that all other ‘takes’ on superheroes need to go away in favor of my preferred vision. By all means, let’s continue to have antiheroes and dark heroes and every other sort. I don’t even want to get rid of the type of books, like The Boys, for example, that I personally find objectionable. I’m pretty much an absolutist where freedom of speech and of the press is concerned. But I would like to see a better mix — a stronger showing, if you will, of the type of superhero books I prefer. I also think that would make good business sense, for far too many reasons to list here.

What about this American Way business? That’s simple. I believe the American Way is an ideal that still exists and is still worth pursuing and promoting. Call it the American ‘Ideal’ if the other word sounds too much like I am calling for America (the political entity) to go out a-conquering. I believe America, for all of its faults, is still the greatest force for good in the world, now and in all of history. Some of you believe otherwise. That’s allowable. In my mind the American Way is an ideal that doesn’t stop short of the US border.

As far as Captain America’s line about “Do you think this letter on my forehead stands for France?” There’s two things I really like about that line. First, it was funny. I do like funny, especially when it comes as a surprise as a counterpoint to drama. Is France’s reputation as a surrender-prone country (whether deserved or not) a suitable subject for comedy? Absolutely. Comedy isn’t a good environment for the thin skinned, too-easily-insulted, or other forms of delicate flowers. The line made me laugh. It still does. Second, it was the most recent example (in my memory — I am probably not as current on my funnybook reading as I should be) where Cap is unapologetic about his identification with America.

Finally, why did I think it was necessary to make this decision a public one (as opposed to simply keeping my decision private): that’s easy. In a very imperfect and flawed world, I am an excellent example of the flawed person. A private vow can easily be compromised or even ignored if keeping it proves too tough in the harsh real world comics production market. A public vow is less easy to mitigate or go back on. I suppose that’s why every culture has adopted varying practices of making important vows in public — marriage ceremonies come to mind as a good example. So it’s a matter of helping keep myself honest.

There. I’m certain I haven’t addressed every criticism above, but I think I’ve dealt with the bulk of them, and clarified a few things. Enjoy the rest of this discussion. I really should get back to work now.

BW

I’d buy Opie vs. The Beaver. Mostly to find out who would win the climactic throwdown.

The subtext I see in the piece is that Willingham is ashamed of having written morally ambiguous, potentially damaging material in children’s magazines and so to make amends and improve his public image, he’s announced, via an avowedly conservative media platform, that from now on, he is only going to write good, morally unambiguous, politically correct (for Republicans) superhero stories.

Why should intelligent adults want to read such stories? They don’t need morality lectures from either the right or the left, or superheroics mixed, unbelievably, with real-world challenges. What they want is entertainment.

The problem with “grim and gritty” is less the direction itself than the fact that (at Marvel, specifically) Bendis & co. are woefully incompetent storytellers. It’s perfectly possible for superheroes to have personal rivalries, feuds, and attitudes that color then in shades of gray, but to do so, they need to have realistic aspects to their lives that haven’t been provided by Bendis or anyone else. What readers have gotten, instead, is a chain of failed (from a critical standpoint) events that have degraded the Marvel Universe so much that Marvel should, arguably, scrap everything and start over. But, with the current crew, there would be no improvement.

Quesada had a similar focus on children as the audience when he was forced to comment publicly on “One More Day.” One would have thought, from Quesada’s CBR interview, that no one older than 14 or 15 read Spider-Man stories.

Whether Willingham, Quesada, and others depict children as the readership because they think that’s what the public at large believe or for other reasons, the results are the same: harm to the public image of superhero comics and thwarting of whatever potential for growth the genre has.

From a purely political standpoint, Willingham’s piece is tiresomely routine, produced by a political convert who has seen the light and is publicly vowing to change his ways. What’s noteworthy is his attempt to turn a genre into a mass of formulaic junk.

SRS

Willingham didn’t say bring back the comics of the 1950s — just like Al Gore never said he created the Internet. As a matter of fact, Willingham did not cite 1950s comics at all in any of his examples, nor did he even mention 1950s comics.

Why do political opposites feel compelled to make up quotes for someone from the other party, and then attack or ridicule the made-up quotes?

All is not completely dire in the comic book industry. For the most part superhero stories still involve the good guys battling the bad guys for identifiably good causes. And even in that story mentioned above where Captain America participates in the sinister cover-up, under the pen of the same writer, a few issues later he resurrects a shade of his former self (summons his inner John Wayne if you will) and tells an evil alien invader he’s fighting, “Surrender? Surrender??? You think this letter on my forehead stands for France?” (The letter is an ‘A’ for America, of course.) Good one, Cap.

Together with the comment previously in his piece, about his rather doubtful pride in sending a kid hero to a war zone accompanied by “PATRIOTIC MILITARY superheroes”, we are talking apples and oranges here.

1) could the industry need some positive, more cheerful examples again? Sure. Even Alan Moore said that… years ago, at the time he began his TOM STRONG comic books, which harkened back to older days. The LONE RANGER is another example, the old one at least (I cannot comment on the new rendition)

2) Is GOOD inherently AMERICAN MILITARISM? Uh, no. That is just grim’n'gritty with a political mask on. There ARE people in the rest of the world as well, you know. I’m one of them. And if Superman stands for something, then he should stand for the best in all of us, and not merely Kansas. Spider-Man should stand for all the nerds who understood that with “great power comes great responsibility”

And if Mr. Willingham lauds a line in a comic book that essentially says “you think you are talking to the frog-f**kers here, you are sorely mistaken”, then it doesn’t show he is INTERESTED in “brighter, more cheerful” superheroes…

… what he apparently is interested in is to say “Either you are with us or against us.”

Now, where have I heard that before?

Will there be a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, too?

And so, I can only do a quote, too, but this one from Grant Morrison, directed at Frank Miller over the proposed BATMAN: HOLY TERROR.

And while we’re on that subject…Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! … I’d be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb ‘vs’ Al Qaeda.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070705190553/http%3A//www.newsarama.com/dcnew/Batman/Morrison/Morrison_Batman.html

kdb

Not true. Busiek is not old, wrinkly, and going senile.