posted
David Gerold's Facebook post on the subject. I like it.
quote: DC Comics has hired Orson Scott Card to write the first issue of a new Superman book.
Because Card is on the board of directors for the National Organization of Marriage (an organization that wants to keep gay people from marrying) and because he has written some very aggressive anti-gay screeds, many LGBT (and straight) fans of Superman are outraged. There is even an online petition asking DC to drop Card.
DC has replied:
“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
They are correct. As much as I disagree with Card's position on homosexual relationships, I do not feel he should be penalized for his political views. It would be as wrong as an anti-gay group petitioning a publisher not to publish a book of mine because I am gay. It would be censorship based on enmity. No one should be penalized for their political views, no matter how egregious any of us might judge those views.
It is our responsibility as rational people to engage in reasonable and rational discourse on difficult issues. It is only when people actively work to hurt others that we have a responsibility to halt or prevent that harm. But we are never justified in penalizing each other based on beliefs. If it's wrong in one direction, it's wrong in the other direction.
Let me say it in the clear. I despise Card's position on marriage equality -- but I do not despise Card. He is an intelligent man and a gifted storyteller. As an American citizen, protected by the US Constitution, he is entitled to freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to publish, etc. That I disagree (aggressively) with what he has said does not give me license to demand that his rights be infringed or that his ability to find work be compromised. I expect the same respect in return.
I do not expect that Card's political beliefs will be part of his Superman story. That's not Superman and I think Card understands that. And the good folks at DC likely understand that too. I hope he writes a good story. I also hope that someday he will recognize that some of the things he has said, some of the things he has advocated, are simply not in keeping with Jesus' commandment that we love one another.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Wow, that's crazy. I may not agree with OSC's views on a few things, but it's not fair to make such an uproar about something they haven't even read yet.
They are making an uproar that dc is hiring someone with views and involvement in political efforts at discrimination that they consider so offensive that they don't want dc to involve themselves with him.
Thus is totally understandable? He's a director at NOM, right?
Yes, I suppose, but does any of that matter if the comic refrains from touching on those issues? If it's just Superman being Superman, who cares what the personal opinions of the writer happens to be?
Maybe I just don't see what the big deal is. I like OSC's books and I choose to read them because I enjoy them, but I don't agree with his opinions on homosexuality or politics. As long as he keeps his opinions out of his stories, I'll continue to read them.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
There's a way I could demonstrate both the big deal and simultaneously how people can look at this and wonder why people are "making such a fuss" over it, but it would involve what would seem like callous hyperbole.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: ]No. Fail. Try again. I used what I said to illustrate a fair criticism of the news story. You just did it as a personal shot at me. That's your typical MO but it's even more bizarre in light of your recent behavior.
If I want to take a personal shot at you, I got way better material. your judgment of their success and/or prominence re: comic book circles is off, and either way is a nice distraction from the meat of their criticisms or why they're talking about this in the first place.
Yeah, I'm sure you've got better material... Their prominence re: comic book circles is hardly even relevant to the broader discussion. Whatever limited power they may have to dissuade people from reading a comic book written by OSC is inconsequential.
"Why they're talking about this in the first place" is much less discussion-worthy than you (or The Guardian) are making it out to be. If Card had already written it, and had included material or themes you don't agree with, I could see a reason to start this circus. But trying to make hay over his mere selection is nonsensical. DC's response was spot-on.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trying to twist DCs arm is stupid. Vote with your dollar. But we want to read this bullshit, so while I get the fuss is about, I still say go **** yourself if you demand that he's fired.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Victor Medina: I started an online petition supporting OSC. Please add your name and tell others about it! BleedingCool.com mentioned it, and criticized it, saying it asked for a PayPal donation. I don't know where that came from. There's no donation requirement, and I'm certainly not asking for any money, only your signature!
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Why they're talking about this in the first place" is much less discussion-worthy than you (or The Guardian) are making it out to be. If Card had already written it, and had included material or themes you don't agree with, I could see a reason to start this circus.
Whether or not YOU see a reason to object to DC's decision to hire on OSC for this is what is actually irrelevant here, and is a function of, much as I hate to reference it, your privilege blindness. You are not an arbiter as to whether or not the objections of gay people and people against discrimination against gays are "discussion worthy" or if they have a reason to voice their objection and ask DC not to hire him, and you can certainly tell us how much you think the complaints are invalid, but that's about it.
The terminal weakness of your dismissal of concern is short-circuited by the fact that speech rights cut all ways. People are allowed to petition a company not to hire someone, and for all your judgment on high about how relevant individual complainers or the issue is, what they're doing is just as valid as dc's final decision whether or not to keep him on this project.
I do indeed. I, for instance, keep in mind when seeing you discussing your periodic forays into the issue of gays and gay rights that you were one of two people who signed up with Sa'eed with literal homophobia — like as in you are literally afraid of gays and you straight-up proved it — and that you desire segregating and discriminatory solutions that feed on this, like the one where you expressly desire gays flat out are forced to use different segregated public restrooms because you are scared of being ogled by scary gay men and think the solution is the enforcement of laws keeping them out of straights-only public restrooms. So, in earnest, we know how far down the rabbit hole goes with you and the issue of homosexuality.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The terminal weakness of your dismissal of concern is short-circuited by the fact that speech rights cut all ways.
You're drawing the wackiest conclusions from my simple comments. Free speech cuts all ways. Yeah, no kidding. I didn't say otherwise. I defend their right to not like OSC and actively seek to hinder his employment. I still think this is an over-reaction and that their view ignores other critical factors. Those two obscure web figures said DC's decision to hire Card was "weird" and "embarrassing." It's neither, unless your viewing it with their very myopic reference point. I'm not dismissing their dislike for OSC. I'm stating that the DC/Superman/Card situation is not defined by their disdain for the author.
And that's a completely dishonest portrayal of the discussion about restroom use. Your heaping dose of slanderous bias was more than evident. Way to provide all the context, chief. This isn't the first time I've seen that degree of manipulated reality from you.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:. I still think this is an over-reaction and that their view ignores other critical factors. Those two obscure web figures said DC's decision to hire Card was "weird" and "embarrassing." It's neither, unless your viewing it with their very myopic reference point.
That's completely false. Like, not even remotely. The decision is certainly controversial enough that you don't need their reference point at all to find the decision to be either weird or embarrassing. Like I said, not understanding this as anything other than an illegitimate silly hoopla is simply a function of your privilege blindness. It only boils down to that you pretty much disagree with the idea that the complaints they have against card are reasonable, and that goes to the second can of worms.
quote:And that's a completely dishonest portrayal of the discussion about restroom use. Your heaping dose of slanderous bias was more than evident. Way to provide all the context, chief.
hmm, ok!
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: disregarding the poster, i think this is an important issue to address as it has implications outside of the military. it goes beyond the debate of gays and alleged gay rights and involves privacy in general. western society permits the segregation of restrooms, locker rooms, etc based on both gender and sexuality. if its illegal for a male, straight or otherwise, to enter even a womens restroom -let alone a shower area of a womens locker room- why is it not illegal for a lesbian to do so? or perhaps why are current laws, if such exist, not enforced? many locker room and changing facilities, both private and public, dont have individual stalls etc. the best examples i can think of are high school and college locker rooms. i dont want to workout on campus then got ogled by a gay guy while im showering or be victim to anothers public exhibition. in a twisted crusade to remain politically correct and protect the rights of everything under the sun, our society is denying basic rights of privacy to a very large segment of the population. and its a poor legal precedent to permit "sexual predators masquerading as protected [homo]sexuals". this issue is ripe with lawsuits, litigation and legislation and should be addressed.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: so too must we segregate homosexuals from straights, otherwise straight people will be made uncomfortable by the gays looking at them in the showers/dorms with longing eyes.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont want to workout on campus then got ogled by a gay guy while im showering or be victim to anothers public exhibition.
What is this, Homophobia on Parade?
What are the gays supposed to do? Wear something that identifies them as gay?
how does speaking out on privacy constitute homophobia? if your wife, daughter, sister or mother was made to feel uncomfortable or disgusted by a guy creeping around the shower area of a local gym what would you call that?
what are the gays supposed to do? that is what is being alluded to in the op. no one is asking for there to be some sort of patch with a phallic symbol for the gays so they can be identified before entering a restroom. but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities. there will be dishonest people and sexual predators who disregard the laws but the current double standard shouldnt be sanctioned by the government.
quote:but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities. there will be dishonest people and sexual predators who disregard the laws but the current double standard shouldnt be sanctioned by the government.
Yeah I sure willfully misrepresented you there, buckaroo, chum, tiger, pal, buddy, champ, etc
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah I sure willfully misrepresented you there
Yeah, you did. Because you said my position was this:
quote:you expressly desire gays flat out are forced to use different segregated public restrooms because you are scared of being ogled by scary gay men and think the solution is the enforcement of laws keeping them out of straights-only public restroom
When it is actually this:
quote: it goes beyond the debate of gays and alleged gay rights and involves privacy in general.
quote:how does speaking out on privacy constitute homophobia? if your wife, daughter, sister or mother was made to feel uncomfortable or disgusted by a guy creeping around the shower area of a local gym what would you call that?
You're probably not even conscious of the dishonest distortion that forms the foundation of your opinions. It comes from you playing the "This is what you really said!" game. It ends up with you trying to say 2+2=5 and the person responding to you pointing out the logical bridges just aren't there.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities.
posted
I can't stand separate facilities at all. As a father who takes his 1 year old son and 3 1/2 year old daughter out a lot, I really rely on places like the mall that has the family bathrooms. I really get angry when a women's room has a changing table and the men's doesn't.
The thought that gay and lesbians should have separate facilities is just ignorant.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Straight men are attracted to women. Straight women are attracted to men. If they went to the same bathroom the feared results may be unwanted attention, lude thoughts, and possibly public sex or even rape. So for this reason we keep them segregated.
However, homosexuals are attracted to their own sign. So putting all the gay men in one room where they are dropping their pants, or all the gay women in one room would more likely be lude thoughts, unwanted attention, and possibly public sex or even rape.
Now, since we don't have many cases of gay people raping folks in bathrooms, or even having sex in bathrooms (some do, but so do some heterosexual couples) the present system works fine.
Actually what this boils down to is some hard facts for some people to realize.
1) Gay people don't want to be ogled by strangers any more that straight people. Nor do they ogle.
2) Your private business in a public restroom is not the center of attention of anyone else in that restroom. You don't have anything others have not already seen on friendlier people. You are not that important.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Yeah, you did. Because you said my position was this:
I said your position was this
quote:you expressly desire gays flat out are forced to use different segregated public restrooms because you are scared of being ogled by scary gay men and think the solution is the enforcement of laws keeping them out of straights-only public restroom
and you said this:
quote:what are the gays supposed to do? that is what is being alluded to in the op. no one is asking for there to be some sort of patch with a phallic symbol for the gays so they can be identified before entering a restroom. but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities. there will be dishonest people and sexual predators who disregard the laws but the current double standard shouldnt be sanctioned by the government.
and this
quote:i dont want to workout on campus then got ogled by a gay guy while im showering or be victim to anothers public exhibition.
Basically you're saying exactly what I said you said. To protect straights such as yourself from certain privacy risks, like your fear of being ogled by those gays, your solution is that gays are forced to use segregated bathrooms.
Like, it's right there, clear as crystal, "by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities." a solution you want in part because you are afraid of being ogled by gay guys, and this drives the notion that a requirement for privacy mandates gays-only and straights-only restroom facilities.
I will remember this incident each and every time you bring up the tired canards about my "manipulated reality."
quote: It comes from you playing the "This is what you really said!" game.
Is that game
1. knowing what you actually said 2. describing what you actually said and 3. being able to point to what you actually said
a game?
Because if so, yeah, I'm playing that "game." Your usual go-to strategy here of claiming willful misrepresentation gets real tired when it becomes obvious that you legitimately did post this. That you are the kind of person whose heterosexism is so pronounced (for this and multiple other reasons) that you want homosexuals segregated to separate bathroom facilities.
Can't make that up for you. Don't need to.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will there be separate bathrooms for people who are more attracted to the opposite sex, but enjoy seeing naked people of the same sex anyway? What about bisexuals? Or asexuals, do they get a stall somewhere they can share and avoid everybody?
I don't understand people who believe sexuality is a binary thing. It's a spectrum. Most things having to do with human are.
Re: OSC on Superman. I respect the rights of people to boycott and to call for others to boycott. I do not respect the calls for DC not to hire him. That's discrimination, which is kinda what they were fighting against. Saw a quote earlier today and can't remember where now, but it was basically "We're the left, we don't blacklist."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not respect the calls for DC not to hire him. That's discrimination, which is kinda what they were fighting against
Calls to boycott a product made by a person because of their views and calls for a company to dismiss a person based on their views are both "discrimination," and I don't see where they become markedly different in terms of what freedom of speech actually provides you. While I don't really think that DC shouldn't hire OSC and I'm sure they understand the public relations risk with signing on a director of the national organization of marriage with his history of writings and statements on the subject of homosexuality, I cannot categorize either as illegitimate activism against someone.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't agree with his conclusions, I do think that Capax is being intellectually consistent in a way that the status quo is not. If one thinks that gender segregated bathrooms are a good idea, then they also ought to think bathrooms segregated by sexuality are a good idea.
I mean, what's the argument for gender segregated bathrooms? I can't think of any valid argument that wouldn't also apply to sexuality-based-segregation, if such a thing was possible.
But, I think both of them are pointless and silly. The answer isn't more segregation, Capax, it's less.
Sam, I'm curious what you think about the status quo? Do you agree that unisex bathrooms make more sense and there's no good reason to have gender segregated bathrooms?
I'm not asking you to push for change, mind you, since it's sort of a minor irrelevant issue. Why crusade over bathrooms? I'm not pushing for change either. But, as a matter of intellectual consistency, gender segregation is, I think, a wrong approach. What do you think?
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I think that everyone should have their own bathroom.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Saw a quote earlier today and can't remember where now, but it was basically "We're the left, we don't blacklist."
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Saw a quote earlier today and can't remember where now, but it was basically "We're the left, we don't blacklist."
Hah, really?
I wish I could say there was some side somewhere that doesn't black list.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was there a similar backlash against Marvel? Is this just because of how huge Superman is in the media? Is it all a Disney conspiracy to reduce sales of a competitor?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if he should be removed from the project, but I really do think he will take over characters and lecture the reader about marriage and babies.
I'm not kidding. He has done this in pretty much every one of the latest books I've read by him. He'll have Superman flying around going "I must rescue these people, but remember, get married heterosexually and have babies because that is really the only way to raise children and have a stable family."
It rankles. So I simply do not read him anymore.
But I also think people are a bit gentler on homophobic people than racist people. It's not much different to me though.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not respect the calls for DC not to hire him. That's discrimination, which is kinda what they were fighting against
Calls to boycott a product made by a person because of their views and calls for a company to dismiss a person based on their views are both "discrimination," and I don't see where they become markedly different in terms of what freedom of speech actually provides you. While I don't really think that DC shouldn't hire OSC and I'm sure they understand the public relations risk with signing on a director of the national organization of marriage with his history of writings and statements on the subject of homosexuality, I cannot categorize either as illegitimate activism against someone.
I'm not sure what "illegitimate activism" is, really. What I believe is that everyone is free to express their opinions, and no one should be hired or fired based on their opinions. Boycotting a writer's work is your opinion, expressed in dollars. Not hiring someone because of their opinions is workplace discrimination.
(Calling everything discrimination leads to splitting hairs. Just about everything we do is discrimination of one kind or another. I won't loan my car to a casual friend so therefore I'm discriminating against him.)
Calling for Card to remain unemployed is an attack on the person, in my view. Attacking someone's beliefs, I'm fine with. And the end result may be the same; if OSC's Superman doesn't sell because of this it's unlikely DC will hire him again.
Me, I'd like to read it, at least the first one. I'm here -- most of us are here -- because of my considerable admiration for OSC's writing, and I'm an optimist. The fact that much of his commentary (and some of his fiction) has, in my view, gone off the rails these past years doesn't necessarily mean he has nothing left to say that I want to hear.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, an even better idea: David "Trouble with Tribbles" Gerrold is suggesting that rather than fire OSC, DC should then hire an openly gay writer (i.e. Gerrold) to write another Superman story.
"I'd like the opportunity to write for you the very best Superman story ever."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ah, an even better idea: David "Trouble with Tribbles" Gerrold is suggesting that rather than fire OSC, DC should then hire an openly gay writer (i.e. Gerrold) to write another Superman story.
"I'd like the opportunity to write for you the very best Superman story ever."
Superman goes back in time to have sex with himself.
They are stupid. Perhaps these folks protesting him have a point. Give him money and he'll give it to those nutwits. They are just not very convincing in their positions.
And for the record I am african American and totally in support of gay marriage. Not just because I'm 40% lesbian either.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: NOM is trying to take away "freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to publish, etc."?
Link?
Did you find any evidence of NOM trying to curtail gays' rights to expression, worship, or being published?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps these folks protesting him have a point. Give him money and he'll give it to those nutwits. They are just not very convincing in their positions.
Same thing goes for this site, though. By supporting this site through posting, you invite others to respond and (implicitly) provide revenue for Orson Scott Card. Some of those folks may click on the advertisements, or buy OSC books...
It doesn't even matter, really, what you say here (in terms of arguing against OSC's position on marriage and gender)-- by accessing this site you contribute to the hits advertisers look at to gauge site profitability. You implicitly support OSC's operation here, and thus his career, and thus his viewpoint. Theoretically, you could try to be so toxic a presence as to drive folks away from the site (Stephen actually tried that) and decrease OSC's revenue that way; but there are a number of mitigative steps he could take to circumvent that strategy.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The heartbreaking thing about that, Scott, is that you and I both know some really valuable posters who no longer post at Hatrack for precisely that reason.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The heartbreaking thing about that, Scott, is that you and I both know some really valuable posters who no longer post at Hatrack for precisely that reason.
posted
I think it's silly, sure. But I think it's more silly than refusing to buy any comic book OSC produces -- if you think he's really harmful -- and telling companies that hire him to produce work that you won't buy that work because he's the person they chose to produce it. I've never had any problems with boycotts (as distinct from blacklists, which are the exact opposite), if only because they're one of the few ways to actually provide meaningful feedback to the market.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, I'm curious what you think about the status quo? Do you agree that unisex bathrooms make more sense and there's no good reason to have gender segregated bathrooms?
I'm going to be very afraid of an "intellectual consistency" which results in "segregate gays to their own restrooms to protect the straights" and this is because said intellectual consistency was laid bare to have a fundamental underpinning that is not intellectual at all.
We will probably have unisex bathrooms at some point in the future, but given the distinct lack of social parity and existing social concerns for women and the fact that given current circumstances, that kind of concerted overhaul would not come to much of anyone's real benefit means that the priority of pressing for unisex bathrooms is low to the point of vanishing point on "things that deserve our energy and attention as prominent social concerns"
Whereas, on the other hand, a proposal that privacy concerns* dictate that the law needs to demand gays be segregated to separate gays-only bathroom facilities purely to protect straights from their "ogling" is all the way off on the far end of the scale for discriminatory terrible policy based in homophobic entitlement that bear the exact same fruit as policy attempting to keep teachers from teaching about, mentioning, or even saying the word 'gay' in schools or calling for anti-homosexuality laws to remain, to keep gays hidden from and less likely to corrupt moral society.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As always, I'm interested in discussions of what is right, and what is true, and what is, as I said before, consistent. That interests me more than matters of what we need to do as society or whatever. I certainly don't think we need a big push for unisex bathrooms. The status quo is convenient, even if it's inconsistent and illogical.
So thanks for answering my question... I think? You agree that there's no argument for why gender segregated bathrooms make sense that wouldn't equally apply to segregating by sexuality, right?
The obvious ones that come to my mind... sexual harassment, intentionally exposing oneself, etc... all of those could be logically applied to gay/straight integrated bathrooms. Straights don't have a monopoly on sexual harassment.
They're all lousy reasons, though. Just to be clear. Are there any reasons that aren't lousy?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm not sure what "illegitimate activism" is, really. What I believe is that everyone is free to express their opinions, and no one should be hired or fired based on their opinions.
Basically, you've just described it in a nutshell. If you think that nobody should be hired or fired based on their opinions, then activism that calls for that to happen is illegitimate to you.
Of course, in regards to OSC, that's a bit of an irrelevant issue, because people who want OSC to be removed can say they want it for reasons that go beyond just having opinions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: They're all lousy reasons, though. Just to be clear. Are there any reasons that aren't lousy?
Well, here's an incomplete introductory example which is a way of demonstrating "problems in practice not accounted for in the intellectual ideal." Pretend I own a bar downtown near the college and it's usually frequented by college-age kids. Imagine how absurdly difficult it would be to persuade me that voluntarily adopting a unisex bathroom facility would not be a hideous epic terrible disaster.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure I couldn't read if I stopped reading things that bigots happened to write.
Instead, I find that refusing to read works that have bigotry alive and well in them (to a point where its inherent in the work) has been working out well for me.
Anybody who wants to stop reading Card because he's a bigot, even if they don't think bigotry is intrinsic to his work (I, personally, don't think much of his work was horribly so prior to Empire), should stop reading misogynist authors and racist authors as well. And, I think that would lead to a significant emptying of bookshelves everywhere.
Thought experiment: If we vote with our dollars, And do so in such a way that somebody else - who is a bigot - doesn't even have the chance of making money because they disagree, and then that person goes broke - Have we just taken away, in a sense, their ability to vote?
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, unless OSC has Superman beating up on Batman for hitting on Robin, I don't think this will make a big difference.
Unless Superman fights the villain Gary Gayman, who seeks to destroy Western Civ by having us all gay-sex our way into never creating the next generation, this will not make a difference.
Unless Superman is going to use his Super Manliness Power to save San Francisco from its reputation, it will not make a difference.
Unless Superman has a true team-up with Wonder Woman to defeat the Lesbos Influence on Amazon Isle, it will not make a difference.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm interested in seeing is whether Card can write a hero who doesn't think he's the smartest and noblest person in the room.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I'm interested in seeing is whether Card can write a hero who doesn't think he's the smartest and noblest person in the room.
What's funny about that is that Superman actually is the smartest and noblest person in the room.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not always. But, more importantly, it is vital that he never think so. Superman is so noble that he is humble; like Captain America, he's the ultimate Boy Scout. Leaving aside the questions of whether Superman is actually smarter than Batman, Lex Luthor, etc., and actually a better person than Wonder Woman or Jimmy Olson, it's unquestionable that he would never say or think so. More importantly, he's not manipulative and introspective in the way that almost all Card heroes are; he is not the sort of person to say something just to mislead someone else into behaving according to some other master plan.
I'm not saying that he's stupid, or incapable of setting up the occasional trap for the bad guys -- especially if it involves turning their own over-complicated machinations against them. But in the DC Universe, Batman is the scheming hero and Wonder Woman is the brutally realistic hero; Superman is both direct and (sometimes naively) idealistic, two things that Card's heroes almost never are.
I say this as an enormous fan of Alvin, far and away my favorite Card hero -- who IMO in the later books becomes increasingly less Superman-like (and more, say, Green-Arrow-like.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I'm interested in seeing is whether Card can write a hero who doesn't think he's the smartest and noblest person in the room.
What's funny about that is that Superman actually is the smartest and noblest person in the room.
Smartest? sometimes, but not in the presence of JLA level people. Most noble? definitely.
Does Supes know this? No. And that is what ensures that he is the most pure moral compass possible.
My favorite examination of who and what Superman is.
quote: It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him.
posted
My problem with "Superman vs. the Elite" is that the Superman who teaches them a lesson on the Moon -- the one who's willing to appear temporarily brutal and evil for a moment -- isn't actually a Superman I recognize. The Superman who plows through them like a vengeful god and demonstrates just how easy -- and repellent -- such a godhood is would, in my opinion, be far too repelled and horrified by the act to make the demonstration. If I had to pick one person in the JLA who would not do something like that, it'd be Supes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Their prominence re: comic book circles is hardly even relevant to the broader discussion. Whatever limited power they may have to dissuade people from reading a comic book written by OSC is inconsequential. 
