Question for Comic Book Fans

[walmer92]

Hi comic book fans. I've been reading some essays about the Civil War that left me wondering how the writers had completely missed the point of the series. I then realised that most of my opinion - after reading - has been shaped by the Stony Fandom, so I wanted to ask your opinion.

The gist of the essay I was reading was that the Civil War was actually attempting to reconcile people - specifically Americans - to the Patriot Act. They saw the attempt to, for example, associate the pro-registration group with the anti-gun movement as a way to target liberals who might otherwise sympathise with a marginalised group - the unregistered heroes. They saw the issue as being, essentially, between authoritarianism vs liberalism, which is not essentially inaccurate (in my opinion), but then attempts to boil down every character's motivations to fit that narrative, ignoring what for me was the core of the issue - that it was complex, and so much so that people's reactions to it were not always predictable.

For me the biggest mistake was that they thought the government was ultimately portrayed as the 'good guys', and saw Cap's surrender as a win for conservatism. Personally I found it hard to approve of the government's (and Tony's) side, and I have become more sympathetic to it through reading fic than I was after I finished the comic. But even so, the majority of Stony fic illustrates the basic idea that even if Tony had a good point buried underneath what he did, the majority of actions taken were simply morally wrong. He had more of a moral foothold in his personal arguments with Steve, far less when it came to his actions for the government, unless you are able to view them in the light of being the lesser of two evils.

And Cap's surrender (again, to me), was never an acknowledgement that his point of view or side were wrong, rather that between the two sides they had damaged the people they were trying to protect, and that by being willing to surrender to prevent more violence, he regained some of the moral high ground he might have lost. His death on the steps of the courthouse then raises him up to matyr status, taking the much of the wind out of the government's sails. To me this suggests that the comics are actually making the point that wrong side won - the writer's of the essay that bother me apparently associate victory with being right, which I thought the comics were very brave for not doing.

I did wonder when reading this essay if it had been written soon after Civil War, but it was written in 2014, so it either ignored or was unaware of subsequent events. The Initiative Program followed by Norman Osborn's tenure as head of SHIELD seem to continue the theme that government breaches of civil rights - similar to the Patriot Act - are a bad thing, and Cap's resurrection in conjunction with Osborn's fall, followed by the fall of the Registration Act, supports this.

I could go on for some time about my thoughts on the Civil War, and how it ties into modern politics, but I would really like to get some other fan's opinions on the concept of Civil War as an apology for government breaches of personal rights. If anyone wants to let me know what they think I would be extremely grateful. Thanks!

Comments

[green_grrl]

To me the message is that when people get very, very entrenched in "sides" the consequences are misery, regret, death, etc.

Civil War is such a Rorschach test—it is very easy to find analogies and patterns in it to compare to all different kinds of real-life examples. And there are people who defend both sides of those real-life examples, as well. (This came up again fairly recently in Marvel's Agents of SHIELD when there were huge discussions on fan boards about whether SHIELD was right or wrong to want to create a registry of Inhumans, who had been in hiding in the Himalayas. There were passionate arguments on both sides.)

I don't know enough about the Civil War writers to know whether they had an idea of Right or Wrong going in, or were intentionally creating a specific analogy, but readers will form their own opinions anyway. I agree with you that it is unlikely that the writers intended to portray Government Side = Good. But I think it's far more likely that they picked a difficult problem with bits of right and wrong on both sides, then used that as a means of creating a huge amount of dramatic tension for the characters we love.

Not making an analogy to current politics ;-), I think it's the polarization of the two sides and how deeply Tony and Cap entrenched in those sides that caused the death, destruction, and pain. Listening more to each other could have prevented a lot of the issues. But as my dad likes to say about tv dramas, "Then there wouldn't be any story."

[chemically_yours]

I've always felt that the ultimate point of Civil War was that in the end, it doesn't really matter who is "right" and who is "wrong" on any issue, because when both sides fight and escalate then everyone loses. Each side will have its extremists and it's important not to lose sight of the real heart of the issue and be consumed by the need to be the winner. The key to finding success in all things in life is in learning how to compromise. The "Civil War What If" comics I think really bring this point home since the only universe where everyone is alive and happy is the one in which Steve and Tony actually talk and listen to each other and work to confront the concerns of both sides.

[garrideb]

There's actually a panel from shortly after Civil War, from the Iron Man series, where Tony says that, because he supported superhuman registration, both liberals and conservatives think he's on their side. He's says something like, "because I support the SHRA, liberals think I'll support gun control, and conservatives think I'll support the Patriot Act."

And that really drives home the point that the SHRA does not work as a direct analogy for real-world issues. If you want to just talk about the core Civil War series, maybe you can make a good case that it's supposed to mirror the Patriot Act, but the more tie-in series you consider, the muddier the analogy gets. I don't think the writers of all the different tie-in stories agreed on what the SHRA meant.

I agree with the other commenters that -- although one side lost and one side won -- neither side was supposed to be "right" or "wrong".

I will say that I can not reconcile Tony's actions in making a mindless clone of Thor as a weapon with the Tony Stark who, you know, DOESN'T MAKE MURDER CLONES OF HIS FRIENDS, so I usually pretend that never happened. Ugh.

I have been rereading the Iron Man: Director of SHIELD run lately, and I do think some of the political messages of that are a bit disturbing, such as: you should let SHIELD invade other countries even if they have no proof of the WMDs that they say are there, because Tony Stark knows everything. Even if he has no proof.

I didn't mind the plot so much, because Tony and SHIELD have always been morally gray, but I didn't like that, after the fact when Tony had gotten proof by disobeying orders and invading other countries, the public response was, Oh, never mind then! You're our hero again! That did feel like it was justifying the lack of proof (or the fabrication of proof) of WMDs.

[sineala]

If the article you read wasn't John Darowski's "I would be the bad guy: Tony Stark as the villain of Marvel's Civil War" in the anthology The Ages of Iron Man, I highly recommend reading that: it's an interesting essay on Civil War as a political metaphor and why Tony may or may not be perceived as a villain due to his actions despite Marvel wanting the sides to come out equal.

(An interesting bit of trivia is that they were originally planned to lead the opposite sides, which to me makes a whole lot more sense, but that's another topic.)

I think, as garrideb says above, that it's a mistake to think of CW as a direct analogy for real-world politics because of the unclear consensus as to what the SHRA actually was across the various tie-ins. I mean, did the SHRA merely require all superhumans to register with the government, or did it conscript them into working for SHIELD? Because that is a pretty big difference, and I think it would be easy to find people who would support one of those things but not the other. And, comics being what they are, you're really only going to find the portrayal that's the most sympathetic to Tony in the Iron Man tie-in issues... and why would you, the hypothetical reader, seek those out if you've already decided Tony's the villain?

The other reason it doesn't necessarily work (at least for me) is that 616 isn't our Earth. Earth-616 is a world with a long tradition of superheroes, and when Civil War wants you to think about how you feel about people's personal liberties being curtailed and whatnot, it's doing so in a fictional context of a world where, essentially, superhero vigilante justice has been endorsed for decades and decades. That's not exactly the world I live in. So if I look at Civil War and I'm supposed to use my RL views on the Patriot Act to inform my opinion -- well, I can't, really, and it's sort of weird that suddenly I'm being asked to question one of the mainstays of superhero comics. Is it all right for Captain America to punch the bad guys? Well, gosh, it sure helps that Captain America lives in a world where the bad guys are definitely bad and he will always be the moral center of the universe. How is that supposed to help me think about the Patriot Act? The real world doesn't come with the same kind of narrative moral guarantees that the good guys know what's best.

Also, FWIW, as far as I can tell, Steve surrendered but never actually admitted (or whatever verb you want to use there) that his side was wrong. He died before his trial, and when he received his pardon the Registration Act was already gone. I read his surrender as him only attempting to prevent more violence. All the later references to CW by him seem to indicate that he believes that because he was pardoned, it's over, and he has atoned as much as necessary; I kind of wonder what would have happened if he'd actually stood trial. It would have been interesting to see him live under the SHRA by choice as opposed to being active resistance.

(And of course Tony no longer remembers, so whatever Tony learned from the experience is moot.)

I think the fact that we can still discuss this over a decade later at least shows that they did a pretty good job not clearly favoring one side.