The Comics Professor

So who had "Brian Michael Bendis moves to DC Comics" in the pool? Anybody?

Some random thoughts on the jawdropping news — at least for readers of superhero comics — that superstar Marvel Comics writer Brian Michael Bendis has signed an exclusive contract with DC Comics...

Wow. I mean WOW. This is huge.

I count myself as a huge Bendis fan. Daredevil was the first Marvel book I read, and as I followed Ed Brubaker and Michael Lark's run I also went back to read all the Miller and Smith, and then all the Bendis, and loved it. Then came his Avengers in the run-up to Secret Invasion, which is my favorite Bendis event, especially the carefully laid groundwork leading into it and the support stories in the Avengers books that ran alongside the main series. Dark Avengers and Siege were fantastic, especially with his multilayered Norman Osborn, but his Avengers titles began to get tired for me soon after The Heroic Age began. I soon gleaned on to his X-Men books (which I almost never read) and Guardians of the Galaxy. After the Marvel Universe died (but didn't really OK never mind hey look Miles is here everybody yay), his Iron Man work was brilliant, especially in the recent developments with Riri Williams and Victor Von Doom, and of course I love Jessica Jones (in all her Bendis incarnations) and Miles Morales, his two best creations. (Didn't like Civil War II, but oh well.)

In short, he represented a lot of Marvel was to me for the last 10-12 years, and I will miss his voice there (even if it has become less pervasive in the last couple years as his big franchises wound down).

Two obvious questions going forward are:

What happens to his Marvel books? I assume he'll stay on Iron Man until #600 (when Tony Stark will presumably return), after which the book will go to a heavy hitter like Jason Aaron (my first choice). The inevitable Ironheart book will hopefully go in a new, emerging writer, as should happen also with the Miles Morales book. Jessica Jones is too connected with Bendis (and Michael Gaydos), though, so I don't see anyone taking that over, unless she's wrapped into a joint book with Luke Cage. Defenders could go on with someone else, but it never received Legacy renumbering, so I expect it will be cancelled (especially now that the show is a memory) or re-oriented more towards the rotating line-up of the classic book (at which point it will be renumbered). I would also nominate Mr. Aaron for that. (Or anything. That fella's great.)

What will he do at DC? The best guess is Batman, whether one or both of the existing books (in which I would expect Tom King to jump to Marvel full-time) or a newly created book. Bendis has often expressed his desire to write the character (which was his sole DC credit to this point), and it makes sense given his focus on street-level heroes at Marvel, but personally I don't see Bendis' voice fitting the Dark Knight. (But I imagine this was the lure that got him to jump ship.)

The best fit in my opinion would be a restored Legion of Super-Heroes book: huge team (like the Avengers or X-Men), an entire world for him to play in and develop (like X-Men and Guardians of the Galaxy), and so much dialogue to write. (I love his style of dialogue, which would work much better with Legion or Titans than Batman.)

My fantasy pick? Restore Green Arrow to his old, ornery glory and give him to Bendis. Call it Old Man Ollie if you want. (I really want my Ollie back, and I think Bendis would be great. The return of three-alarm chili!)

In general, I do have reservations. I don't think it's particularly novel to say that Bendis is an intrinsically "Marvel" writer, much like writer and penciller Jack Kirby was before he jumped ship to do New Gods and more at DC, and more recently when penciller John Romita Jr. moved to DC to draw Superman. Frankly, I wonder how the patented Bendis voice will fit at DC. (But then again, Kirby didn't do too bad!) Given my poor opinion of the state of DC at the moment, I'm inclined to welcome any shake-up. But I also wonder if the addition of such an "outside" voice, as talented and inventive as he is, would get DC even further off-track at a time when they need to find their center (as promised by Geoff John's Rebirth one-shot). I would prefer that they engage Mr. Johns to devote himself to focusing the line (rather than messing with what should never be touched), and find a corner of the DCU for Bendis to play in where he can indulge himself fully (as they did with Kirby). Again, I think the Legion would be perfect for this, or maybe a new or reimagined parallel Earth. (Earth-B, of course.)

What do you think?

A return to form: Waid and Samnee's Captain America #695 (and a bit of catching up)

A year and a half ago, Steve Rogers spoke those two words that changed the Marvel Universe and launched a secret empire... but more on that later. Suffice it to say our hero was not the same, until he was.

Today, with the release of Captain America #695—renumbered a la "Marvel Legacy" to include most of the previous issues of Captain America with the notable exception of the run of Steve Rogers: Captain America that featured the Hydra version—Mark Waid, Chris Samnee, Matt Wilson, and Joe Caramagna return the Sentinel of Liberty to his past glories.

The issue reads more like a re-introduction of the character and a reminder of what he stands for than the start of a new arc, and serves well as a standalone issue meant to re-assure loyal readers that this is the Steve Rogers we know and love. The story has its own sense of legacy as well, as Steve Rogers, fresh from his defeat of the false Cap, visits the site of a decade-old battle from the days soon after he was defrosted. Few remembered him then, but he is now well-known—and at least in this town he is celebrated, despite the recent experience with his doppelgänger. (One assumes the rest of the first arc will show him encountering a bit more caution and hostility from his fellow Americans, as should be the case.)

The fervor that we see surrounding Captain America in this town, and Steve's discomfort with it, reminds me of the "Cap-mania" from the beginning of Waid's "Heroes Return" run, and this is just one of the meaningful character touches in this issue. If you miss Cap saying typical Cap things, this issue will not disappoint, especially the sentiment expressed on the final two pages, always one of my favorite aspects of Captain America. It isn't just Waid's words that restore our faith in this Cap, but also Samnee and Wilson's depiction of him in his simple, classic, three-colored costume, along with Samnee's characteristic clean lines and Wilson's bold color choices. Back are the cavalier boots and the wings on his head, so his fellow Avengers can once again call him "Winghead." (Sometimes it's the little things that make comics great, after all.) No need for a combat helmet or chinstrap for this Cap, who recognizes the symbolism of simplicity and the confidence it inspires in those he's saving—as well as those he's inspiring to help others.

I look forward to seeing where Waid, Samnee, Wilson, and Caramagna go in exploring more of Captain America's trip through his country to help restore his name and legacy, but I appreciate that they took this first issue to simply celebrate who Captain America is and will always be.

----- ----- -----

So... about the last year and a half...

I'm hesitant to talk about "Hydra-Cap" and Secret Empire, especially because it's over, and there's little reason to dredge up the past. (See also: Civil War II.) But I do have some thoughts, and I guess it's only appropriate given that my last post was on the occasion of the first issue of that story.

In that post, I defended what I thought Nick Spencer was trying to do. As the story progressed, I admired how he spun out the story little by little, even after the second issue abruptly revealed the secret behind Cap's transformation. Even after the storyline blew up into A Marvel Event, I appreciated how he seemed to go all in, pushing the premise as far as it could go, even having Hydra Cap lift Mjolnir, suggesting that he night be worthy in some sense even if he had evil ends. (Let me give a shout out to my friend Armond Boudreaux, who wrote a number of excellent posts about this storyline over at A Clash of Heroes.)

The Secret Empire series started exceptionally well, with an amazingly multilayered roll-out and perfect pacing in the first half, but then collapsed in the second half as the creators seemed to be pressured to come up with an ending that put all the pieces back in the box and restored Captain America to his former glory. (We all remember the assurances from Marvel Comics that everything would be fine and it would all be over soon, not exactly a sign of confidence.)

The final issue of the main series (Secret Empire #10) was when the creators dropped the ball. As I wrote about the first issue, I hoped that Spencer and the rest of his term were setting up "an epic redemption story":

And when Steve recovers from the brainwashing, false memories, hypnosis, or Cosmic Cube shenanigans, even though he shouldn't hold himself responsible, he will. He tortures himself much more than anyone else could when he is forced to compromise his principles, even if he could not control it, because he feels he should have been able to control it.

I'm not upset by this comic because I see it as Steve Rogers' greatest test ever, a test I'm confident he'll pass, but not without going through hell first. And that could be a truly amazing story.

But that isn't what happened. As we now know, Steve didn't battle back as I'd hoped, the essence of who he is overcoming Kobik's reprogramming to reassert his true character by sheer force of will. Instead, a new Steve Rogers formed out of Kobik's memories emerged to defeat Hydra-Cap, who is the Cap we see in the new comic. This familiar Cap didn't struggle to come back, unless we consider the version we saw in Kobik's dream-like memories, but that Cap was never corrupted in the first place. He bears no personal responsibility at all for what happened, although he will still have to work to get his good name back after it was usurped by the imposter.

In the end, there was no redemption story at all, and that is the greatest disappointment of all.

(To be fair, the Secret Empire: Omega issue that served as the story's aftermath was excellent, especially when Hydra Cap explained that he didn't force anything on the America people—instead, they handed him all the power he wanted, which made the real Steve Rogers question what the American people really want from their government and from him. Perfect, and perhaps Spencer's most spot-on political statement in the entire story.)

I like to think that, had Spencer kept the story within the pages of the two Captain America comics, it would have had a more satisfying resolution. Perhaps it got away from him when it was blown into an event and had to change to fit that model and get ready for Generations and Marvel Legacy. We'll probably never know, and... that's fine. As I said above, it's behind us. If nothing else, at its best the storyline was a fascinating reflection of the political situation we find ourselves in. Was the damage to a beloved character worth it? I don't think so, but I also think people will forget about it soon enough, and we'll think of it like we think of Teen Tony Stark, the Invisible Woman's 90s costume, or One More Day. (Unfortunately, we're still living with the last one.)

----- ----- -----

Finally, while I've got you here—and it has been a while—let me say a few words about what I've been up to since I last posted.

The quick answer is I've been working on other things, some of them related to superheroes. This includes writing a chapter for Wonder Woman and Philosophy, available now, edited by Jacob Held; editing Doctor Strange and Philosophy (out in early 2018) and writing a chapter for it; and writing an entire book on a superhero and philosophy, which I'm currently doing final editing for (and is planned for release in 2019). All of this, plus my non-superhero writing and my day job, has kept me busy. (If it helps, I haven't blogged much on anything for a long time, other than my monthly-ish posts at Psychology Today.)

The longer answer has to do with my state of mind about current comics, which isn't entirely positive. I may have more to say about this in a later post, but I'm largely disenchanted with new comics, with rare exceptions such as Dan Slott, Mike Allred, and Laura Allred's recently-concluded run of Silver Surfer, which is one of the most satisfying and emotional reading experiences I've had in a long time. (The last issue, shown to the right, was so magnificent that I'm still thinking about it, and probably will for a long time.) But most of the comics I buy these days—usually about 50 a month—I'm just not enjoying, despite the craft and devotion being put into them. There is fantastic work being done, but the quarter of my monthly pull that blows me away doesn't make up for the three quarters that don't.

I've been thinking a lot lately about diving back into the past comics I love, whether Captain America, Batman, the Fantastic Four, or others, and blogging in a more systematic way about them, taking each issue or storyline and writing about what I love about it, whether there's something of philosophical interest there or not. Maybe I'll just geek out about how cool the art is, or how a moment made me laugh or cry. Maybe I'll even do a podcast about them, something like The Fantasticast or the Nerdsync podcast—not that I can do that any better than Stephen and Andrew or Scott do, but I'd do it my own way, whatever they may be. Just an idea I've been knocking around, something to get excited about.

And don't we all need that?

On Captain America: Steve Rogers #1: Why I'm optimistic (spoilers)

Wow, people haven't been this angry about a Captain America book since he was killed in 2007. And understandably so, because in today's Captain America: Steve Rogers #1, something even worse happens to the Sentinel of Liberty: he is revealed at the end of the comic to be a Hydra agent, and apparently has been so for some time.

Before I give my feelings on that, let me say the rest of the comic was fantastic. Steve back in action, Sharon Carter and Rick Jones guiding him from afar, Free Spirit and Jack Flag back at Cap's side... just wonderful. Steve back in action, being the hero, taking too many risks, and especially Steve and Sharon's loving and mutually admiring relationship, all depicted wonderfully in both Nick Spencer's dialogue and Jesus Saiz's artwork.

But, of course, that's not what the furor is about. In flashbacks, we see young Steve and his mother Sarah befriend a mysterious woman who lures them into a Hydra meeting, a seed which bears fruit in the final page reveal: Steve saying "Hail Hydra."

Shocking. Disturbing. Revolting. Antithetical to the character. An insult to his Jewish creators.

All this is true.

So why aren't I more upset?

Because I'm confident this WTF ending is setting up a storyline for the ages. Let me explain...

I read a lot about writing fiction—definitely more than I actually write fiction—and one of the most frequent tips to motivate your story is "torture your babies." In other words, imagine the worst thing you can do to your beloved main character and then make him or her face it.

One of my Twitter friends said Cap's main virtue is his integrity, without which he's nothing. I would agree: that's basically chapter 4 of my book.

So what's the worst thing you can do to Cap? Worse than killing him (which has been done... ahem... to death), worse perhaps than even killing his loved ones? Make him compromise his integrity. Make him into the opposite of what he is, an agent of tyranny instead of its tireless opponent.

That's how you really hurt him. Whoever did this to him in the story—the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, Doctor Faustus, Kobik the Cutest Cosmic Cube Evah, take your pick—knows that. And Nick Spencer, Jesus Saiz, and their editors Tom Breevort and Alanna Smith know that too. They're making Cap face his greatest internal threat yet: a danger to his own identity. The fact that this goes against everything Captain America stands for isn't a problem—it's the point.

And that's how you set up an epic redemption story, which is what I hope Spencer and Saiz are going to give us. And when Steve recovers from the brainwashing, false memories, hypnosis, or Cosmic Cube shenanigans, even though he shouldn't hold himself responsible, he will. He tortures himself much more than anyone else could when he is forced to compromise his principles, even if he could not control it, because he feels he should have been able to control it.

I'm not upset by this comic because I see it as Steve Rogers' greatest test ever, a test I'm confident he'll pass, but not without going through hell first. And that could be a truly amazing story.

New interviews and articles about Captain America: Civil War and my book, A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War

It's been an exciting couple of weeks around the release of Captain America: Civil War, with several articles, interviews, and a review of my book A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Civil War appearing online. I collect them all on the dedicated page for the book at profmdwhite.com, but I thought a Comics Professor blog update was called for as well.

1. I did two interviews about the movie, its relation to the comics, and the ethics and politics behind both:

"A Philosopher Watches... Captain America: Civil War," interview with Skye Cleary for the Blog of the APA (American Philosophical Association), May 10, 2016

"The Post-9/11 Ethics of Captain America: Civil War," interview with Katie Kilkenny for Pacific Standard, May 9, 2016

2. Michael Dudley of the University of Winnipeg reviewed my book for the Winnipeg Free Press on May 7, 2016 in "Civil discourse: Comics book series says plenty on liberty, security and morals," containing the immortal attribution, "something of a rock star in the world of comics." (I wish!)

3. Finally, I wrote two pieces based on my book and the Civil War comics (before the movie came out):

"What Can We Learn from Watching a Superhero Civil War?" Psychology Today blog, May 3, 2016

"Captain America: Civil War -- conflicted heroes and a clash of philosophies," The Guardian, April 21, 2016

~~~  ~~~  ~~~

Even though it's "old news" by now, I'm also very happy with my chat with Scott Niswander for his Nerdsync podcast:

~~~  ~~~  ~~~

As always, if you like any of this stuff, let me know on Twitter and check out my book, A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Civil War, available now!

My thoughts on Captain America: Civil War (No spoilers!)

OK, no surprise... I loved Captain America: Civil War. I was fairly certain I'd like it, of course, but it surpassed my expectations, which were well heightened by all the positive  comments from everyone who saw it before me. (And that seems to be everyone I know. I will have my revenge, mark my words.)

So here are some scatted thoughts, as usual... (If I had no shame I would title this post "7 Things I Loved about Captain America: Civil War... and 1 I Didn't," but with any luck Google will pick up on that anyway.)

1. The movie was very well paced, and I was never tempted to check the time, which is impressive for a 147-minute movie. There was a point at which I thought the movie could have been essentially finished, except there was a scene from the trailers that hadn't come up yet, but this was a minor lull.

2. Despite the inclusion of a dozen heroes, several of them appearing throughout the film, the Russo brothers did a great job keeping the focus most of the time on Cap and the main secondary characters, Falcon, Bucky, and Iron Man. There were times that it did feel like an Avengers movie—especially during the fight scene between the two teams, which was much longer (and better) than I expected—but these spots were occasional enough that the movie still felt like a Cap movie. (Although, to be fair, there was enough substantial Iron Man content that it almost could have been titled something stupid like Captain America v Iron Man. Like anyone would do that.)

3. The story itself was not as close to the comics version as I expected—and I didn't expect it to be very close at all—but I think the changes worked well within the context of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For instance, as many people noted ahead of the film, not many of the heroes we've seen in the films have secret identities, so that aspect of the comics story wouldn't translate well to the film, and it was wisely left out. Nonetheless, the movie did touch of several iconic images and lines from the comics, which I found enormously gratifying (being rather fond of the comics, as you may have heard). Would I have loved more explicit discussion of the issues underlying the conflict? Of course, but I was satisfied with how much there was, and the dialogue on this front was concise and on target, hitting the most important points of the debate. (I expect to be talking more about that aspect of the film in the near future.)

4. The action scenes were simply incredible, both those with two characters as well as a dozen, and felt more visceral than Whedon's in the two Avengers films, even when all the heroes were onscreen at the same time. Maybe it was the Russo brothers' more subdued color palette, or the slight jerkiness of the camera (which, to be honest, became somewhat tiresome), but these scenes were more reminiscent of a war movie (appropriately enough) than a traditional superhero film. Kudos to everyone involved in these scenes, most of all the sound people—every time one of the heroes got hit, was thrown in a wall, or fell 50 feet to the ground, I flinched thanks to the combination of performance, cinematography, and especially the sound effects. (But at the same time, even when Cap and Iron Man went all out on each other, there was none of the senseless brutality we saw in that other superhero battle movie this year.)

5. Black Panther... ah, my king! He could have easily been the star of this movie if any of the other characters had let me down, and I am looking forward even more (if that were possible) to his solo film. Chadwick Boseman gave T'Challa a thoroughly regal demeanor, with the perfect combination of determination, class, and fierceness. The Panther's movements were magnificently graceful, especially the way he would land after a jump or being thrown. And even with his short time in the film, we saw his character experience growth.

6. I am a big fan of both Tobey Maguire's and Andrew Garfield's portrayals of Peter Parker/Spider-Man (though not necessarily of every film they were in), and Tom Holland's version adds yet another unique take on the character. He played a relatively small role in the movie, and didn't have much to do with the Civil War storyline itself (unlike in the comics, where he was a major player), but we see much more of him than I expected, in and out of costume.

7. The Stan Lee cameo was perfect. 'Nuff said.

If I have one criticism with the film, it's with the ending. I can't say much more without giving anything away, so I'll just say that I thought some things were left unresolved, but I trust the Russo brothers to be setting up their first Avengers film (which cannot come soon enough).

The ending notwithstanding, I thought the movie was exceptional. It was more of an action movie than a political one, but there was enough of the latter to make this fan of the comics story happy.

-----

As I mentioned, I have a number of interviews planned over the next week in which I'll speak to the ideological debates in the movie and the comics, so stay tuned, both here and on Twitter. And don't forget to check out my book, A Philosopher Reads...Marvel Comics' Civil War: Exploring the Moral Judgment of Captain America, Iron Man, and Spider-Man, available now!

Now available, in print and ebook: A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War

At long last, today is the release day for A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Civil War: Exploring the Moral Judgment of Captain America, Iron Man, and Spider-Man, published by Ockham Publishing in both paperback and ebook.

Comic book readers and moviegoers love to see superheroes fight, whether to protect innocent people from supervillains or to save the world from invaders from outer space. But superheroes also fight each other, and if we can look past the energy blasts and earth-shattering punches, we can find serious disagreements over principles and ethics. This was certainly the case when Captain America and Iron Man went head-to-head over liberty and security in Marvel Comics’ epic Civil War storyline, a fictional allegory to post-9/11 America (as well as the basis for the third Captain America film).

In his latest book, Mark D. White, author of The Virtues of Captain America and editor of Iron Man and Philosophy, carefully leads you through the ethical thinking of the three characters on the front lines of the Civil War:

Iron Man, who has taken charge of the US government’s efforts to register and train superheroes to enhance safety and security

Captain America, who leads the resistance against registration in the name of individual liberty and privacy

Spider-Man, who is torn between his two mentors and has a uniquely personal stake in the battle

In his characteristically light and humorous tone, White lays out the basic ethical foundations of each hero’s thinking and highlights the moral judgment each must use to put his ethics into action. He also explains how the Civil War affected the three heroes after the battle ended and how the experience continued to test them in very different ways as events in the Marvel Universe continued to unfold. Finally, he uses examples from Civil War to show how conflicting principles such as liberty and security must be balanced in the real world, lest both be lost.

Written in a style that will be easily accessible to those new to philosophy or superhero comics, A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics’ Civil War will be a fascinating read for diehard comics fans and philosophy buffs as well.

If you want to find out more about the book, there are several places to look (and listen):

• My podcast with Nerdsync, in which Scott Niswander and I covered many of the topics and issues in my book, the Civil War comics, and what we could surmise about the upcoming movie, and still only seemed to scratch the surface!

• The lectures I gave at Northwood University on the topic of superheroes, liberty, and security, the video of which can be found here (although the player can be very touchy with respect to browsers, with Internet Explorer and Edge working the best, and Firefox sometimes).
• Comics Worth Reading generously ran a brief excerpt from the book on their website (and The Philosopher's Magazine is planning on doing the same in an upcoming issue).
• Finally, Troy Powell (a contributor to The Avengers and Philosophy) interviewed me about the book for Graphic Policy.

I am available for interviews, podcasts, signings, or lectures—just contact me at [email protected].

If you read the book, please let me know what you think, either in the comments here; on Amazon, Goodreads, or elsewhere; or on Twitter (@profmdwhite) or email ([email protected]).

The return of Steve Rogers as Captain America, and pondering the issue of "Marvel multiples"

Like the subject of this post, this old man was nearly off to bed when the news came across the wire that Steve Rogers would once again wield the shield as Captain America following the upcoming "Avengers: Standoff" event. Rogers will star in a new title, Captain America: Steve Rogers, while his successor, Sam Wilson, will continue to serve as Cap and feature in his own title, which launched several months ago. Both titles will be written by Nick Spencer, and Rogers' title will be illustrated by Jesus Saiz, which is encouraging news on both writing and art fronts.

Naturally, I'm glad to see Classic Cap back in action, and I also like that Sam is continuing in the role—and although I fear it's inevitable, I hope he doesn't become a second-tier Cap and fade from the scene once Steve returns. (More on multiple Caps and other heroes below.) As Spencer says in the news release/interview, he is planning to tell very different stories with each, continuing to address current political controversies with Sam's book and focus on old-fashioned superheroics in Steve's. (I trust this won't be a strict division, and would be disappointed if it were.)

When asked why this was the right time (in story) for Rogers to come back as Captain America, Spencer answered:

The country is as divided as it’s ever been, and Steve is one of a kind; he’s a unifying figure, someone we can all look up to, [and] someone we can all put our faith in. It’s no secret the Marvel Universe is about to enter a period of serious conflict with Civil War II looming on the horizon, and as such, it feels like the perfect moment to bring Steve back into fighting shape.

I always appreciate when creators bring out Rogers' ability to unify people, as I emphasized in The Virtues of Captain America (see also this post at Psychology Today). It will be interesting to see what role Rogers plays in Civil War II, where it seems Iron Man will face off against Captain Marvel, rather than Captain America as he did in the original Civil War. Of course, Cap was anything but a unifying figure in that story, but some time later he did help bring the Marvel heroes together to confront Norman Osborn at the end of his "Dark Reign," restoring the moral center that had been lacking in the Marvel Universe since his "death." (For more on Steve's entire arc during that period, see A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War, on which more here.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

More generally, the presence of two Captains America at the same time in the Marvel Universe adds to a growing number of "multiples": two Spider-Men (Peter Parker and Miles Morales), two Hawkeyes (Clint Barton and Kate Bishop), two Human Torches (Jim Hammond and Johnny Storm), and possibly soon two Wasps (Janet van Dyne and the mysterious new character debuting in Marvel's Free Comic Book Day offering), assuming the original sticks around. It is also not unlikely that the Odinson will eventually once again be worthy and serve alongside the current Thor, Jane Foster.

We in the real world all understand the value of an established name (or "brand"), and we've all heard the difficulties comics companies have creating new characters who catch on. As a result, we get "new" characters with familiar names: Sam as the new Cap, Jane as the new Thor, Kamala Khan as the new Ms. Marvel... only Tony Stark escapes this, perhaps because Tony Stark is as popular, if not more so, than Iron Man himself (thanks to Robert Downey, Jr.). This "recycling" of characters also helps increase diversity and representation, which is difficult to do with more original characters who have trouble catching on with the reading public, and that's a big positive result of the practice.

All good... until the powers-that-be want to bring the originals back, while retaining the goodwill, publicity, and sales they gained with the new, fresh approaches. So we get two Caps, two Spideys, and so forth.

The Distinguished Competition has done this at times too, but they handle it in a different way. This was in no small part because there was a longer tradition of legacy characters at DC (at least until the New 52), which usually meant one person adopted the mantle from his or her predecessor rather than operating at the same time, which was more rare: the Flashes Jay Garrick and Barry Allen (or Wally West or Bart Allen), for example, and the thousands of Green Lanterns buzzing around the universe (a handful of them on Earth). And when DC brought a classic version of a hero back, they usually dismissed or diminished the newer version, even after years of building a devoted fanbase—such as when Wally West and Kyle Raynor were shunted to the side when Barry Allen and Hal Jordan were brought back, which upset a great number of readers who had grown up with the younger characters.

The closest DC came to the current Marvel situation, appropriately enough, was during a storyline eerily similar to one at Marvel: Dick Grayson, who won the "Battle for the Cowl" after Bruce Wayne's "death," continued to operate as Gotham City's Batman after Bruce returned and started "Batman Incorporated" to globalize his trademarked brand of crimefighting. (Comics!) Not only did this parallel the situation at the time with Steve Rogers and his former sidekick Bucky Barnes (although they didn't serve as Cap at the same time other than a brief time during the Siege of Asgard, immediately after Rogers came back from the dead), it also closely resembles the current status of the two Spider-Men, with Peter Parker playing global entrepreneur while Miles Morales sticks closer to home.

There is nothing wrong per se with multiples: it allows various iterations of the general concept of a character, such as Captain America, Spider-Man, and Hawkeye, to play out at the same time, similar to different versions of Superman or Batman in different media. The only difference is that the Marvel multiples operate in the same continuity, the same "earth," even the same city or side-by-side. While this may potentially lead to some confusion among ordinary folk in the Marvel Universe as well as ours, it will be more interesting to see how it plays out in terms of sales, and this is what concerns me.

The market has supported books with new versions of Cap, Thor, and Ms. Marvel, and it has supported multiple books with one version of a character, like Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman. But will it support multiple books with different versions of the same character, like the two Cap books coming soon? On the bright side, each could capture its own audience, and the fact that both characters are named Captain America will prove trivial. But I can also see the readership wanting to buy just one book with (a) Captain America, not appreciating the different characters and approaches in each, and whichever Cap appeals to them more will get the majority of sales while the other fades and is cancelled. And while the new, fresher, more diverse versions of Cap and Thor have devoted fanbases, I'm guessing the classic versions will get the majority of readers in the end based on mere familiarity if not devotion. (At least readers will have a choice, unlike with Wally West and Kyle Raynor at DC.)

I wish the very best to the two Captains America and their respective titles; I hope they both find their readership and that they share many of their readers. I know I'll be reading both. But at the same time, I'd rather be reading two books titled Captain America: Sam Wilson and Steve Rogers: Super-Soldier, or The Falcon and Captain America. I have nothing against legacy characters, even I miss seeing my favorite bearer of a particular mantle, but I don't want to see a comics shelf dominated by multiple versions of the same characters. I have to believe that if Marvel and DC put enough creative and marketing effort behind truly new characters, they can break through.

But maybe that's my foolish idealism. You can blame that on Steve Rogers, one of the people named Captain America.

Announcing my first self-published book: A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War

UPDATE: See new publication and ordering details—new post coming soon with new cover!

It's finally here, my long-promised book on Marvel Comics' Civil War storyline and my initial foray into self-publishing with Amazon's Kindle Direct, publishing on February 3 and available now for pre-order: is now being published by Ockham Publishing in print and ebook formats and is available for pre-order on Amazon:

A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War: Exploring the Moral Judgments of Captain America, Iron Man, and Spider-Man

From the promotional copy that someone other than me definitely wrote:

Comic book readers and moviegoers love to see superheroes fight, whether to protect innocent people from supervillains or to save the world from invaders from outer space. But superheroes also fight each other, and if we can look past the energy blasts and earth-shattering punches, we can find serious disagreements over principles and ethics. This was certainly the case when Captain America and Iron Man went head-to-head over liberty and security in Marvel Comics’ epic Civil War storyline, a fictional allegory to post-9/11 America (as well as the basis for the third Captain America film).

In his latest book, Mark D. White, author of The Virtues of Captain America and editor of Iron Man and Philosophy, carefully leads you through the ethical thinking of the three characters on the front lines of the Civil War:

Iron Man, who has taken charge of the US government’s efforts to register and train superheroes to enhance safety and security

Captain America, who leads the resistance against registration in the name of individual liberty and privacy

Spider-Man, who is torn between his two mentors and has a uniquely personal stake in the battle

In his characteristically light and humorous tone, White lays out the basic ethical foundations of each hero’s thinking and highlights the moral judgment each must use to put his ethics into action. He also explains how the Civil War affected the three heroes after the battle ended and how the experience continued to test them in very different ways as events in the Marvel Universe continued to unfold. Finally, he uses examples from Civil War to show how conflicting principles such as liberty and security must be balanced in the real world, lest both be lost.

Written in a style that will be easily accessible to those new to philosophy or superhero comics, A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics’ Civil War will be a fascinating read for diehard comics fans and philosophy buffs as well.

Although I've wanted to write about Civil War for a long time, and touched on it in The Virtues of Captain America as well as essays for Iron Man and Philosophy and Spider-Man and Philosophy, the late October 2014 announcement of Captain America: Civil War kicked plans for a full-length treatment into gear.

I originally planned to focus on the larger political issues in the book, but then decided to change the focus to what I really enjoy writing about: the characters themselves. This allowed me to explore the three heroes' different ethical frameworks, the way each used his judgment to put their ethics into action, and how their choices affected them during the Civil War as well as afterwards. Iron Man had the longest arc, which carried him through World War Hulk, the Secret Invasion, Norman Osborn's "Dark Reign," and the Siege of Asgard. Cap's and Spidey's arcs following the Civil War were shorter, for different reasons, but are just as fascinating, with Cap's nicely dovetailing with Iron Man's during the Siege.

As you might guess from the title—and especially from the banner atop the marvelous cover designed by the incomparable S.L. Johnson, a wonderful collaborator and adviser on this project whose work you can see here—I have a mind to publish more A Philosopher Reads... ebooks on various superhero characters and storylines in the future. (The title was inspired by books like this and is meant to suggest that this is only one philosopher's reading of Civil War, and is in no way definitive, much less comprehensive.) I will continue to publish superhero-related books with traditional publishers when our interests coincide; I'm working on one at the moment and in discussions to do another. But the self-published ebook format allows me the freedom to write on whatever I want, regardless of the availability of "promotional moments" like films or TV series, and at whatever length I choose; A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War is the same length as The Virtues of Captain America, but future ones may be shorter if appropriate. (But my epic treatment of Green Arrow's classic Van Dyke will naturally be a three-volume set.)

The other person without whom I could never have done this is my intrepid copyeditor Louise Spencely, who also worked on The Virtues of Captain America and Superman and Philosophy. Not only does she find all of my embarrassing typos and unforgivable offenses to grammar, logic, and common sense, she also "gets" my style and voice and helps it come out more clearly. On the top of all this, she was invaluable to helping me format the manuscript for Kindle, not only on technical matters but also finding the most attractive font and layout. (You can learn more about her here.)

If you liked The Virtues of Captain America or my essays in various books in the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series, or if you love Civil War and these characters as much as I do, or even if you just like a little philosophy with your superheroes (or vice versa), please check out A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War: Exploring the Moral Judgment of Captain America, Iron Man, and Spider-Man and let me know what you think!

Civil War II: How the comics sausage is made...

These days, comics companies love to leak big story details to the press, usually the day the comics hit the stands shops, and sometimes even the day before.

But today, Marvel Comics went several steps farther. In a piece in the New York Daily News written by a reporter "embedded" in an editorial retreat, not only did Marvel reveal that they will kill a major character in the Civil War II storyline coming this spring, but they also pulled the curtain back on the planning behind it, and in doing so, they showed an alarming amount of disregard for fans who are vested in these characters and this universe ("all-new and all-different" as it is)

The concept behind Civil War II is actually a very good one and seems like a worthy successor to the original Civil War (which I love and have written about quite a bit). As the article reveals:

“A mysterious new Marvel character comes to the attention of the world, one who has the power to calculate the outcome of future events with a high degree of accuracy,” according to the synopsis. “This predictive power divides the Marvel heroes on how best to capitalize on this aggregated information, with Captain Marvel leading the charge to profile future crimes and attacks before they occur, and Iron Man adopting the position that the punishment cannot come before the crime.”

That's a fantastic premise and, like the original Civil War, a very timely one. (Most importantly, I could write a lot about it!) It's interesting to ponder how they'll get futurist Tony Stark to reject a technocratic method of crimefighting, but that's what complex characters are for.

More specifically:

As the story unfolds this new seer predicts the hero in question will be the cause of a major incident of destruction in three days, requiring the other good guys to make a tough call. The writer just hasn’t figured what or how bad that cataclysm will be.

The article goes on to describe the process behind deciding which hero will cause the destruction and which will take that hero's life for it. After both Spider-Man and the Human Torch were proposed to be the inciting factor, Marvel editor-in-chief Axel Alonso and Civil War II writer Brian Michael Bendis found the perfect candidate. As the article says:

After hours of occasionally heated debate, Bendis and Alonso reveal they had a eureka moment during a 10-minute break and came up with the perfect superhero to sacrifice and an even better candidate to murder him. The answer actually gets a loud ovation from the crowd.

"A loud ovation." I'll just leave that there.

In terms of the process itself, none of this comes as a surprise to anyone who reads not only modern superhero comics but also the massive amount of news and leaks in the comics press (enough to choke Galactus after a cleanse). But it is unbelievable that Marvel Comics would be so brazen about revealing that this is how they make decisions, and with what glee they agree to kill a major character.

What sort of message was Marvel hoping to send with this article? "Look how cool we are, no one is safe, we can kill anybody anytime?" This isn't Game of Thrones, where most characters seem to have invented simply to die on another character's sword. If we're to take "major character" literally, then this will be a character that many fans around the world are vested in. That fans cosplay. That kids roleplay with action figures, video games, or such a towel tied around their necks. And that people like me write books about, mainly to inspire other people to read the comics and learn moral lessons from them.

(If anyone wonders why I write about superheroes themselves and their adventures, rather than the people who create the characters and the stories, as many traditional comics scholars do, this is one reason.)

Listen, I'm not naive. I've been reading comics a long time, and as I said before I'm glued to the comics news sites. By now I have a pretty good idea how these decisions are made. But to see one of the Big Two comics companies announce in a major newspaper to a wide readership how they make a decision to kill a major character, essentially bragging about how they do it... it's disturbing, to say the least.

I don't even have that much of a problem with how the decision itself was made, or why. Such a major death will certainly motivate the story, and they seem to have gone to some lengths to find a character whose death would fit the story. (Compare to Dan Didio's plans to kill Nightwing in DC Comics' Infinite Crisis... just because.) I would have liked a less obvious motivation, but these days, it's par for the course. (More on that later.)

But why would they reveal their thinking months before the storyline even starts? Duh, to get clicks and eyes, of course, but it seems like overkill: too much and too early. More generally, though, why would they let everyone know that they made the decision this way instead of maintaining the fiction that "the story dictates that this was the character who had to die"? The truth often comes out after a storyline is completed, and they make great little tidbits of trivia for diehard fans, like a "making of" featurette on a DVD. At that point, the story has had whatever impact it will have, and behind-the-scenes features are a nice little bonus for the fans without affecting how they read the story the first time. But to give these details out months before the story starts weakens any legitimate emotional weight the story might have had. Maybe it's just me, but I want to enjoy the story as a story before I know how and why it was made the way it was.

And this doesn't even touch on the question of whether using character deaths as a promotional selling point for comics is in good taste given recent events in the real world. That barn door has been open for a long time, but it would be nice if someone actually tried to close it. There are many brilliant creators in comics today, and don't tell me they can't find another way to motivate a story other than death.

Representatives of both the Big Two comics companies like to say how superheroes comprise our modern mythology. However, that also makes the Big Two the stewards of that mythology and the characters that ground it, and stewardship implies responsibility. Create characters, change characters, kill characters... they're all fine if done well, but please do so with a little more respect for those who want to revel in the mythology. Let us enjoy the show without telling us ahead of time where the strings are.

Watch out... nuanced discussion of moral perspectives in Captain America: Sam Wilson #2

I clearly remember seeing the internet headlines on a Wednesday morning several weeks ago when the first issue of Nick Spencer and Daniel Acuña's Captain America: Sam Wilson was published, screaming about "Captain Socialism," which were joined later that day (naturally) by Fox News. The irony, of course, was that the alarm was completely unfounded, that all Sam Wilson said in the comics was that he planned to get more involved in politics than his predecessor Steve Rogers did (with all details given off-panel), and it was the press and the American public in the comic book that overreacted by accusing Sam of being anti-American, socialist, traitorous, etc. Were Spencer and Acuña engaging in a bit of playful trolling based on a too easily predictable real-world media reaction which they actually predicted in the same comic? (I hope so.)

Beneath the hype and hysteria, though, it remains that Sam Wilson is a different Captain America, forging a new path that diverges in some important ways from the one tread for decades by Steve Rogers. And even more impressive, Spencer and Acuña have achieved this distinction while staying true to Rogers' well-established characterization. (This contrasts with comments made by a previous creative team who, in the process of explaining the difference between Sam and Steve, oversimplified Steve's views to obscure the fact that Sam was going to be little more than a carbon-copy Cap with wings and a bird.)

Along the way to pointing out Sam and Steve's subtle differences, Spencer and Acuña also toy a bit with the segment of modern comics readership who like to jump to conclusions based on a handful of preview pages and solicitation text and fueled by internet speculation (and, in no small part, the marketing efforts of the comics publishers). Our creative team does so not only with Sam's internal dialogue but also in his exchanges with the dudebros seated on either side of him on an airplane, who take everything they read on Twitter to be the whole story and refuse to listen to Sam's mroe elaborate explanations. As Sam thinks to himself, "it's a complicated, messy story"—and Spencer and Acuña do a masterful job of peeling back the layers to this story (with many more still to be revealed, I'm sure).

The complicated and messy part I was most pleased to see dealt with the difference in Sam and Steve's moral perspectives, a difference which is nowhere near as simple or stark as the final scene of the first issue (or the cover of the second one) would have us believe.

Two scenes in Captain America: Sam Wilson #2 show this very well:

1. In these panels, a reporter asks Steve what he thinks about Sam's new political stance:

He simply nails it: Sam is his own Captain America and he can choose how to play that role, whether or not it's how Steve played it in his heyday or how he would play it now. Steve also struggled with the call to political activism in the past, such as when he wanted to support Andrew Bolt's congressional campaign (early in Mark Waid's Heroes Return run). His solution was to remain neutral as Captain America but work for the campaign as Steve Rogers (regardless of whether people knew they were one and the same—recall that he also made a big fuss about surrendering at the end of the Civil War as Steve Rogers, not Cap). Would Sam make that same decision? Perhaps not, but Sam is not Steve, and it was great to see Steve acknowledge that for the press (in the Marvel Universe as well as ours).

2. After SHIELD catches a man who released secret files describing a proposal to use Cosmic Cube fragments to make subtle changes to reality, Maria Hill makes clear she relishes the thought of submitting him to military tribunal. While Sam and Steve both oppose this project and personally make sure SHIELD scraps any plans to pursue it, they disagree on what should be done with the whistleblower (let's call him "Snedward Owden"), with Sam much more concerned about Hill's plans than Steve is.

Here we see Steve and Sam differ in terms of their confidence that the whistleblower will receive fair treatment and impartial justice at the hands of SHIELD and/or the military, and also their roles regarding the law (on which more below). Sam describes their essential difference of opinion the following page, an important yet nuanced disagreement that feels natural within the context of the two characters' backgrounds and which could lead to some fascinating character beats in future issues:

I could quibble a bit with Steve's statement above that "we don't get to put ourselves above" the law, especially after admitting his past civil disobedience to Sam (and emphasizing his willingness to be held accountable for it). Perhaps this is a result of Steve's official SHIELD role as chief of civilian oversight, just as his appointment as head of global security following the Siege of Asgard made him more assertive regarding Tony's exclusive use of the Iron Man armor (as seen in the first issue of Avengers Prime). Or maybe he feels it's his responsibility as chief of civilian oversight to monitor the tribunal, requiring a certain degree of faith in a process he'll be involved in. After all, unlike the registration act (and earlier government policies he regarded as unjust), he does not see any problem with military tribunals per se that warrants disobedience—especially if he's on the scene. Even if this does signal a shift in Steve's views, it is not a shocking or abrupt one. (This, of course, assumes that this is the same Steve Rogers we know from the 616 Marvel Universe, and not some New 52-style slight-of-hand where, post-Secret Wars, he's "basically the same character but different—just keep reading!" That remains to be seen.)

Only two issues into their run, Spencer and Acuña have fulfilled the hopes I had for Sam Wilson as Captain America since his "appointment" was announced. They've begun to give Sam a unique perspective on serving as Captain America that represents an interesting alternative view on the role that offers endless story possibilities, without watering down or stretching the concept of Cap itself beyond recognition. As well as further discussion with Steve, I hope we get to see some of Sam's internal struggles with his new stance, in which he questions how far Captain America can and should go in support of a particular position. This is not to say he shouldn't be more political than Steve was, but I would like to see him acknowledge and confront the fact that it is a different role for Captain America (rather than simply defending it to others).

Personally, this is the most excited I'm been about the Captain America title since Steve took up the shield after Bucky "died" during Fear Itself. (It's worth mentioning at this point that young James was a different sort of Cap too.) While a part of me longs to see Steve "enyouthened" and back in the star-and-stripes at some point, the rest of me looks forward to a long, insightful, and enjoyable run of Captain America: Sam Wilson from Spencer and Acuña.

-----

If you're interested, I discuss judgment and compromise, principle versus politics, and civil disobedience in chapters 5 and 6 of The Virtues of Captain America: Modern-Day Lessons on Character from a World War II Superhero.