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
(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
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.