walmer92 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
walmer92) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
cap_ironman2017-06-11 05:02 pm
walmer92) wrote in cap_ironman2017-06-11 05:02 pm
Entry tags:
Question for Comic Book Fans
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!
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!
no subject
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.