Rich Johnston hates conservatives?
What a surprise.
It's not that I care about his largely uninformed rants about how evil conservatives are (he thought Marvel comics was giving into evil by printing the war comic Combat Zone: True Tales of GI's in Iraq which is an okay comic, told fairly well. Yeah, it's got an agenda, but it doesn't sink to the level of propaganda like the new Black Panther series).
Anyway, Alan Moore once wrote a decent comic called V for Vendetta. It's not as great as his best work (Watchmen, Swamp Thing), but competent work from Alan Moore reads better than 90% of the comic books out there.
It's a good read - standard sci-fi trope of a loner fighting against a future dystopian/totalitarian government. But, as with all Moore creations, the wonderfully bizarre, yet somehow ordinary characters carry the day.
It's being made into a movie with Natalie Portman, so it's all the buzz among comic fans and followers. (Of course, considering how badly the Hollywood factory has screwed up Alan Moore's other comics From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I'm not holding my breath for a faithful adaptation).
So of course, this allows for weird, bizarre and paranoid leftist rants. Much like how, over at the Internet Movie Database, the "user comments" for Dr. Strangelove are a hotbed claiming that Gen. Jack D. Ripper is really George W. Bush, etc.
I have no real argument here, since it's hard to argue with paranoid fools, but there you go. Comics, by and large, are created by liberals. Alan Moore is very liberal, but he's also a gifted writer/creator and his works are (overall) brilliant, so I don't mind.
However, we should allow the conservatives to have a voice. For all of Rich Johnston's complaining about how in the USA and Britain there's some sort of subtle censorship going on, he's one of the loudest voices FOR censorship in comics. He wanted Orson Scott Card off Ultimate Iron Man, and ranted and raved about how Marvel comics was being taken over by neocons (a typical liberal bogeyman) because of one comic about the Iraq war. Somehow, he missed all the anti-Iraq war comics Marvel was putting out (including the brief stint Captain America had under the Marvel Knights label).
It's not that I care about his largely uninformed rants about how evil conservatives are (he thought Marvel comics was giving into evil by printing the war comic Combat Zone: True Tales of GI's in Iraq which is an okay comic, told fairly well. Yeah, it's got an agenda, but it doesn't sink to the level of propaganda like the new Black Panther series).
Anyway, Alan Moore once wrote a decent comic called V for Vendetta. It's not as great as his best work (Watchmen, Swamp Thing), but competent work from Alan Moore reads better than 90% of the comic books out there.
It's a good read - standard sci-fi trope of a loner fighting against a future dystopian/totalitarian government. But, as with all Moore creations, the wonderfully bizarre, yet somehow ordinary characters carry the day.
It's being made into a movie with Natalie Portman, so it's all the buzz among comic fans and followers. (Of course, considering how badly the Hollywood factory has screwed up Alan Moore's other comics From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I'm not holding my breath for a faithful adaptation).
So of course, this allows for weird, bizarre and paranoid leftist rants. Much like how, over at the Internet Movie Database, the "user comments" for Dr. Strangelove are a hotbed claiming that Gen. Jack D. Ripper is really George W. Bush, etc.
I have no real argument here, since it's hard to argue with paranoid fools, but there you go. Comics, by and large, are created by liberals. Alan Moore is very liberal, but he's also a gifted writer/creator and his works are (overall) brilliant, so I don't mind.
However, we should allow the conservatives to have a voice. For all of Rich Johnston's complaining about how in the USA and Britain there's some sort of subtle censorship going on, he's one of the loudest voices FOR censorship in comics. He wanted Orson Scott Card off Ultimate Iron Man, and ranted and raved about how Marvel comics was being taken over by neocons (a typical liberal bogeyman) because of one comic about the Iraq war. Somehow, he missed all the anti-Iraq war comics Marvel was putting out (including the brief stint Captain America had under the Marvel Knights label).
posted by John Phelan at
5:46 PM
5 Comments:
I don't hate conservatives.
I don't want Orson Scott Card off Ultimate Iron Man.
I didn't say how Marvel was being taken over by neocons.
I didn't miss any of Marvel's publishing schedule.
By
Anonymous, at 2:10 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
John Phelan, at 5:17 AM
Rich -
I'm glad you came by to visit. But I'll let my readers decided for themselves. I linked to your column, they can also go here:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2025
and here:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=34272&page=1&pp=15&highlight=orson+card
and see if I am inaccurate un my understanding of your views.
Perhaps I have read you wrong, but your implications were clear. Conservatives have no place in the comic business.
The only conservatives you seem to approve of are ones that are really slightly left of center - basically, only conservative relative to your views, but liberal compared to the vast population.
By
John Phelan, at 5:18 AM
You are inaccurate in the understanding of my views, yes.
Conservatives have a central place in the comics business. For a start, the superhero concept is an inherently conservative one. And we all need superhero comics.
Conservatives I approve of *personally* is a totally different thing. But you're off here, the Democrat Party in the US is a conservative one, only to the left of the Republican Party in the US - compared to the vaster population.
By
Anonymous, at 4:48 PM
I don't agree. The strong man imposing his will on the world is an inherently liberal one, as it leads to fascim. (Ezra Pound was enamored of this idea, which is why he supported a leftist like Mussolini -also, Hitler was a socialist).
I don't believe I misunderstand your views, but like I said, people can decide for themselves. If I'm wrong, so be it.
I also think using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" on a world wide stage renders them meaningless, as British conservatism has differnt aims and operates in a different climate than American conservatism. European liberalism has a much more classical "liberal" component than American liberalism.
Also, your comment on "compared to the vaster population" shows a decidedly Eurocentric view, as it ignores Muslim and Asian countries, which completely skew and muddle the definitions.
I think it's only really useful to consider "liberal" and "conservative" within somewhat limited contexts.
By
John Phelan, at 6:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home