The morality of Marvel
So, I've been thinking for awhile now. I've reread a few of my older What if comics, and I've even gone so far as to read a few of the newer comics out there I don't have subscriptions too. While it is clear some things fall under an overarching guidelines (like unquestioning support for the Drug War), others are left to individual writers. Still, I think you can learn a bit about the basic mindset of Marvel writers if you do enough research. So, that's what I've done, so you don't have to. I'm a wonderful person!
So, what did I learn? For the most part, it isn't that bad. There are two What ifs where an evil Captain America makes America a racist and evil nation. But, in both worlds, nationalization of industry or job protection acts hurt minorities and end up being the first evil actions of the new racist government, so, it seemed to me that it was more anti-Nazi than straight up anti-right wing or anything (and the job protection act thing was the sort of thing we might really pass in America, so I was actually a bit impressed by that one, which was easily the better written story).
Other than that though, when it comes to morality, I'm not impressed. There are two stories in particular that have me shaking my head. One What if has the idea that the super soldier serum is made public, and regular people begin using it. However, some people are too poor to buy it, so the Roxxon corporation (if you can't tell, it is supposed to be Exxon, the oil company) makes a cheaper drug that requires boosters. Still, some don't want it or can't afford it. So, you have a nation of people addicted to a drug and divided between the haves and have nots. Not a utopia, but, where's the fire? The majority are healthy, and no one is discriminated against because of race. It is just that Roxxon charges for their miracle cure. So, apparently, the better world is one in which the serum is stripped from humanity forever rather than given only to 80% of the people. I just thought that was dumb.
The second What if is similar, and exposes a simple strain of anti-freedom prejudice in Marvel writers. Just like in the previous story, there is a technology made available, and because it causes problems, it must be destroyed. The idea is that Iron Man makes his tech public and sells it to the army, construction companies, medical firms, and the police. However, eventually, the evil US government, with talk of fairness, allows other firms to produce tech along similar lines. Now, first off, I'll admit I don't like the idea of stripping Stark Industries of their patents, ESPECIALLY not in the name of fairness. However, the problems this is supposed to create are ridiculous. All of a sudden, criminals are almost unstoppable, and America's enemies are producing the best Iron Man armor. Which is gibberish; why would releasing a new tech shift the balance of power to criminals OR America's enemies? This is the story that really cheeses me, because it is not just anti-freedom in that it seems to feel that the government alone is responsible enough to do some things for us children, but it is also anti-technology, seeming to say that some technologies should be kept secret, even if they have myriad constructive and productive uses.
The final one that gets me is a recent Cable/Deadpool. It is a dumb comic all around, about a revolution in a tiny European nation and the new government, but the thing that really gets me is that the heroine (voice for the writer at this point) basically says that censorship and making it illegal to teach history is a good thing, while letting kids get drunk (which they already do in most of Europe, where the story takes place) is a bad thing. So, freedom=bad and government=good. Nice. Thanks. Who are these people who look at the big scary world and say, why can't government take away more of my choices so I don't get so confused?
Oh, right. A good number of them are Marvel writers.
So, what did I learn? For the most part, it isn't that bad. There are two What ifs where an evil Captain America makes America a racist and evil nation. But, in both worlds, nationalization of industry or job protection acts hurt minorities and end up being the first evil actions of the new racist government, so, it seemed to me that it was more anti-Nazi than straight up anti-right wing or anything (and the job protection act thing was the sort of thing we might really pass in America, so I was actually a bit impressed by that one, which was easily the better written story).
Other than that though, when it comes to morality, I'm not impressed. There are two stories in particular that have me shaking my head. One What if has the idea that the super soldier serum is made public, and regular people begin using it. However, some people are too poor to buy it, so the Roxxon corporation (if you can't tell, it is supposed to be Exxon, the oil company) makes a cheaper drug that requires boosters. Still, some don't want it or can't afford it. So, you have a nation of people addicted to a drug and divided between the haves and have nots. Not a utopia, but, where's the fire? The majority are healthy, and no one is discriminated against because of race. It is just that Roxxon charges for their miracle cure. So, apparently, the better world is one in which the serum is stripped from humanity forever rather than given only to 80% of the people. I just thought that was dumb.
The second What if is similar, and exposes a simple strain of anti-freedom prejudice in Marvel writers. Just like in the previous story, there is a technology made available, and because it causes problems, it must be destroyed. The idea is that Iron Man makes his tech public and sells it to the army, construction companies, medical firms, and the police. However, eventually, the evil US government, with talk of fairness, allows other firms to produce tech along similar lines. Now, first off, I'll admit I don't like the idea of stripping Stark Industries of their patents, ESPECIALLY not in the name of fairness. However, the problems this is supposed to create are ridiculous. All of a sudden, criminals are almost unstoppable, and America's enemies are producing the best Iron Man armor. Which is gibberish; why would releasing a new tech shift the balance of power to criminals OR America's enemies? This is the story that really cheeses me, because it is not just anti-freedom in that it seems to feel that the government alone is responsible enough to do some things for us children, but it is also anti-technology, seeming to say that some technologies should be kept secret, even if they have myriad constructive and productive uses.
The final one that gets me is a recent Cable/Deadpool. It is a dumb comic all around, about a revolution in a tiny European nation and the new government, but the thing that really gets me is that the heroine (voice for the writer at this point) basically says that censorship and making it illegal to teach history is a good thing, while letting kids get drunk (which they already do in most of Europe, where the story takes place) is a bad thing. So, freedom=bad and government=good. Nice. Thanks. Who are these people who look at the big scary world and say, why can't government take away more of my choices so I don't get so confused?
Oh, right. A good number of them are Marvel writers.