Marvel PR and the Diversity Issue
What are discussions about inclusivity actually talking about?
Despite Marvel’s patchy track record with representations of socially marginalized peoples, the company has recently been heralded in the popular press as welcoming a new age of “diversity.”
Still, last week the company received some criticism for its upcoming inclusion of rap parody variant covers, featuring Marvel heroes posed in homages to classic hip-hop album covers. Laura Hudson wrote an insightful piece for Wired about that particular train wreck, discussing concerns which were raised in the popular sphere about the appropriation of black culture in the service of profit, meanwhile drawing attention to the lack of black representation on the production side of comics (in the form of writers, artists, editors, etc.).
Marvel’s editor-in-chief, Axel Alonso, responded to the criticisms, promising that the company’s “diversity” issues will be addressed.
“We talked about how that this initiative would likely be a lightning rod for a broader discussion about diversity in comics, and I said so be it, that’s a good conversation to have.”
But Alonso also criticized those who criticized the covers, citing that they were “handing out snap judgments like they just learned the term ‘cultural appropriation’ and are dying to put it in an essay.”
This kind of derailing isn’t a particularly new tactic for distracting from the topic at hand, instead making it about the personal shortcomings of those doing the criticizing. Cultural appropriation is a very real phenomenon and it does no one any favors to characterize the term as a catchphrase without actually addressing the issue. Nonetheless, the discussions eventually died down.
However, last night Comic Book Resources published its weekly “Axel in Charge” feature containing yet more statements from Alonso regarding “diversity” at Marvel. What followed on social media drew out a number of issues which I’d like to explore. These issues relate to the ways in which “diversity” is positioned in the popular media and how this speaks to concerns about business, specifically the commodification of marginalized identities in a culture which is often presumed to be multicultural or postracial.
The key points of “diversity” referred to by Alonso in the interview are:
- There’s going to be an announcement regarding “titles, artists and writers” during Black History Month.
- The “lull in African-American writers” is “temporary.”
- The “influx of female writers” has been influential.
- Hercules, a Marvel character who, it has been implied, is bisexual will be relaunched and “is straight.”
We can spend hours picking apart these statements. Why wait until Black History Month to make these big announcements? How could you possibly justify that without making it sound like you’re capitalizing on an important cultural event created by and for people who have been so oppressed by white people throughout history? Why has there been a “lull” in black writers? Where have they been all this time? Have they been sleeping? Why is the inclusion of a handful of female writers in the Marvel line-up considered an “influx” when they are clearly still outnumbered by men?
Possibly the most troubling statement was the news that Hercules, a character previously considered bisexual, will be relaunched as heterosexual.
People quickly expressed their concerns and several high-profile comic book writers took the time to respond on Twitter, notably Dan Slott, who is perhaps most well-known for his work on several Spider-Man titles. I’m going to focus on some of Dan Slott’s tweets as public discourses about “diversity” and the ways in which these sentiments connect to wider issues about the rights of those who are socially disadvantaged in contemporary Western culture.
Throughout the evening, Slott made a number of points which basically boil down to the following.
1. Being Marvel’s editor-in-chief is hard, whereas criticism against a creative work is easy.
Initially, Slott argued this point with a quotation from Franklin Roosevelt’s “Citizenship In A Republic” speech from 1910.
Nonetheless, his main point remained, as illustrated by subsequent Tweets.
This point is particularly jarring, considering the way in which Slott seemed to believe that Alonso having a hard job somehow makes him exempt from criticism. I couldn’t understand what the presumed difficulty of one (Alonso’s job) had to do with that of the other (cultural criticism). But then I thought about it for a while and came to the conclusion that Slott understood criticisms of the specific representations within Marvel’s books to imply that Alonso was doing a bad job.
In this context “diversity” = “doing a good job.” Slott was defending Alonso’s work ethic, arguing that the job is hard and we should cut him some slack, when actually nobody ever suggested that his job wasn’t hard. Nobody even said anything along the lines of “he’s doing a bad job, please fire him immediately.” The issue of whether or not Alonso has a hard job isn’t actually relevant to whether or not people express their disappointment with a representation. Imagine a filmmaker saying to Roger Ebert “but making films is hard so you should be nice!!!!!” after receiving a scathing review from the critic.
This is a sentiment which I’ve observed increasingly. It’s the idea that “diversity,” or racial, sexual, gender inclusivity (with, I might add, attention to mental and physical disability being conspicuously missing from these discussions) boils down to “good writing” or “good storytelling.” Such ideas were expressed by Dorian Lynskey in a Guardian piece about feminism and superhero comics. Regarding the recent success of Marvel’s new superheroines, he states, “the success of Ms Marvel and Captain Marvel has little to do with identity politics and everything to do with great storytelling.”
Actually, the success of these books has everything to do with what is commonly shorthanded as “identity politics.” This denial is a symptom of a “post-” age (postfeminist, postracial, postgay), in which public media discourses no longer present “identity politics” as a political issue of the marginalized few, but rather incorporate all kinds of feminist, anti-racist and gay rights sensibilities. But this serves a capitalistic purpose in that it is perceived to address a wider audience. Meanwhile, representations themselves can still remain stereotypical and offensive, while actual sexism, racism and homophobia remain rampant in wider culture.
This idea of “diversity” as good writing is somewhat of a paradox considering the ways in which race and gender and sexuality specifically aren’t talked about in contemporary Western culture, are taboo. The act of saying something is racist is considered racist because, hey, we’re all the same, we’re all just people, #AllLivesMatter. I’ve written elsewhere that the critical reception of Kamala Khan can be summarized by the phrase “she’s a Muslim, but she’s actually just like everyone else.” Such discourses erase the specificity of people’s identities and experiences of being socially marginalized. This sort of multicultural assimilation actually does more harm than good.
2. Marvel is a business. If books featuring marginalized peoples don’t sell, then there’s no point in the company investing in them.
All of this is positioned in relation to the act of selling, which brings us to Slott’s other point in which he highlights that selling comics is the priority when it comes to being inclusive.
Slott suggests that Marvel is only interested in producing “diverse” books if they sell well. Fans need to buy the products featuring women/people of color/LGBT characters in order to express their desire for them. But as a number of commentators said, how can we do that if they barely exist? This creates the self-fulfilling prophecy that inclusive books don’t sell well.
Another problem arises when actually considering the representations. According to Slott’s logic, I as a fan have the duty to financially support the books that feature “diverse” characters. Fair enough, but what if the portrayals of black people are drawing from established stereotypes about black people? Do I want to support a book that builds on racist discourses? Readers thus find themselves at somewhat of a crossroads.
Slott’s use of the “it’s just business” rationale brings about yet more issues. People’s identities being characterized as commodities so unquestioningly might actually be part of the problem. Slott essentially says “we don’t want characters with these identities because they don’t sell.” OK, but Marvel makes millions from licensing and merchandise alone. Marvel’s income doesn’t predominantly come from comic book sales. Captain Marvel’s sales have been passable but by no means spectacular, and yet Marvel decided to keep the book going. We’ve seen it’s possible for them to do that.
So what does it mean when someone says “we don’t want this because it doesn’t sell”? It means they don’t want it because it’s worth less. Marginalized people are literally worth less.
Assigning financial value to people’s actual lived identities is troubling enough, but it corresponds to the social experience of being marginalized. Consistently, people of color are made to feel worthless, LGBT people are made to feel worthless in a culture which privileges those who happen to be, well, not them. Slott’s statements function within the discourse that success is measured by profit, but there is so much more at stake when it comes to inclusivity and representations. For some it can be a real lifesaver, as argued throughout the evening by Andrew Wheeler, editor-in-chief of Comics Alliance.
What all this resonates with is the tangled mess that the “post-” age has fostered. It’s the idea that the vague notion of “diversity” is incorporated into popular media in order to appeal to more people, but when issue is taken with specific representations and a call to concrete action is made, popular discourses are reluctant to address the topic head on. As a result, people’s identities become erased in favor of overarching debates about “quality” and whether or not a product sells. Comics are a tricky terrain to navigate at the best of times, but as I’ve discussed, the issues raised within these public discourses illustrate that there is much more at stake than just funny books.
If you found this post interesting or informative, please recommend using the buttons below.
