Yup, a disabled super hero that can control steel with his mind! Pretty cool stuff. Of course, I would probably make legs, but I am no Muslim [sic] super hero. If you want to learn more about the “Silver Scorpion,” MSNBC has the story here. I might just start my own comic with a Muslim [sic] Woman that has X-Ray eyes so she can see through her full burka while following her husband around.In case it's not obvious, I posted this mostly for the sake of sharing the humor of that last comment.
I stopped caring about comic books about 40 years ago -- even then, and even as a kid, I simply grew to be disgusted with the "liberal" political indoctrination that was more and more prominent in them. If I still cared about comic books (and if I didn't already know that they long ago ceased to be about fun stories), I might have shared this in an attidude of "Can you believe this? Propaganda as comics?"
16 comments:
Bah, they're late-- that Xmen comic with the ugly bird guy, before they got rid of most of the mutants (so rumor tells me-- I don't read them anymore) there was a gal in a full burqua who turned into sand.
Ah her name is "Dust.
I'd recently read some reference to that super-(sand)BaggedLady (possibly at iOTW, or maybe on your blog).
Concerning this guy's missing legs, I couldn't help but wonder: "How?"
Why, of course he's missing his legs-- how else to counter that the folks over here who have most obviously been involved with the followers of Muhammad are missing limbs?
Betcha it's from American military actions, either directly (our missile) or indirectly (a bomb left because the horribad Americans stopped the geno-- I mean, the flawed-but-ours prior Leader.)
Mostly, I just find the character design off-putting. The hero form that is. I think only Silver Surfer is more silver than that guy. And while I can appreciate wanting to make a hero with a disability, I don't think there's any way to make a wheelchair look superhero-actiony.
The two wheelchair-bound 'superheroes' I can think of who fill that role basically have powers that are sitting-friendly. (Oracle and Prof Xavier.)
Foxfier,
Oh, I understand why the propagan ... er, the artistes have made the character legless.
What I meant is, in the character's back-story, how did he lose his legs. There are two generaly categories:
1) he was an innocent victim; perhaps he stepped on an IED set by "the insurgents;" perhaps "the insurgents" cut off his legs to punish his father for something; or perhaps (and I suspect this is it), as you suspect, he was an "innocent" "victim" of American "imperialism."
2) he was, himself, "an insurgent" who was hoist by his own petard.
Crude: " And while I can appreciate wanting to make a hero with a disability ..."
Now see, that whole "we need to build kids' self-esteem" mind-set is a major reason I stopped reading comic books when I was still at "comic book age."
"... I don't think there's any way to make a wheelchair look superhero-actiony."
My mother was "disabled" hew whole life -- since we have no need to mince words about her condition, we openly and bluntly admit that she was crippled -- and spent the last years of her life mostly in a wheelchair. And no, I can't see "any way to make a wheelchair look superhero-actiony."
On the other hand, considering how fast my mother could run when she was younger and on crutches, perhaps I ought to suggest to someone that their next "disabled" "super-hero" be on crutches.
*thinks a moment* MOST of our greatest heroes (and villains) have been disabled, or weak, or uncool, or orphans.
Captain America: couldn't qualify for the army during WORLD WAR II. This is when 15 year olds were able to lie and get in!
Iron Man: dies without his machine helping.
Professor X- He's the most powerful mutant on earth.
Anybody who's "bionic"-- that's the whole idea.
Batman and Superman are both orphans, as are at least a half-dozen others.
Shoot, before they went with the whole "Mutants are homosexuals" notion, being a mutant was a social disability.
Is there any super that didn't overcome a major personal issue?
*googles to see if anyone's made a list*
Er... didn't find a list, but did find a page talking about how bad it is that they keep using disabled folks as Supers, because it's a cheap ploy.....
Oh! Dare Devil, and the Oracle! There's even a (rude) word for it-- "supercrip."
Ilion,
Now see, that whole "we need to build kids' self-esteem" mind-set is a major reason I stopped reading comic books when I was still at "comic book age."
Sometimes a disability is just part of a character, a part of their history, etc. I don't think Daredevil is meant as some inspiration to blind people (well, not originally, anyway - I could imagine someone tried that angle in this or that comic), but his blindness is an interesting character trait. Just as I doubt his character was made to "show that lawyers can be heroes too" or somesuch.
Crude: "Sometimes a disability is just part of a character, a part of their history ..."
You're not getting my point, just as Foxfier isn't.
Nevertheless, no doubt it is true that sometimes a disability (that word, by the was, is a euphamism) is just a part of the character's history (especially 40 years ago). But, that's not the case here, and more and more that wasn't the case when I was a kid.
For instance, Foxfier mentions that "Captain America: couldn't qualify for the army during WORLD WAR II" -- I never knew that. It *obviously* was just a "background fact;" the character obviously didn't brood about it; the writers obviously weren't on a crusade to propagandize their (hopefully) impressionable customers about the "social injustice" of not inducting someone who doesn't meet the Army's standards.
For instance, Foxfier mentions that "Batman and Superman are both orphans;" now, of course I knew that. But thus was still just a "background fact" about the characters; they didn't brood about it; the writers didn't tie everything in their stories to that one fact. Whatever else the writers were doing (and increasingly propagandizing about), they weren't propagandizing about the "social injustice" of being an orphan.
Now, as I said, I stopped reading comic books 40 years ago -- and thus, I have never read any "gay" superheroes. Nevertheless, I am confident that for most (or all!) the current crop of "gay" superheroes, that fact is all that matters about the character's past and actions and character. That is, the writers are offering entertainment geared toward the mindsets and hero-fantasies of young boys, but rather are intending to propagandize their customers about the "wickedness" of American culture.
You're not getting my point, just as Foxfier isn't.
No, I get it. I didn't mean to imply I thought this character's disability was meant to merely be part of his story. Clearly it's something more than that, hence the weird forcing of that damn superchair.
Really, you don't have to convince me that propaganda is a central concern with modern media. It took me years to even look at comics for a number of reasons, one of them being the agenda pushing. I had a knack of picking up the one comic book on the rack that just went insane with this sort of crap, more than once. (Like when Batman is being tasked with arresting some woman because she was going to marry Swamp Thing but everyone was angry because they considered this bestiality, and Batman refuses to stop Swamp Thing because.. blah blah, the gay marriage and gay rights parallels were just laughable.)
This happened more than once, and it kept me from reading any comics books for years. Hell, just look at what happened when Obama was elected - there he is in Marvel Comics. Hey, look at that, Obama is a Spider-Man fan! Isn't he great! (This was back when Obama was popular, for some ungodly reason.)
I mean, it was ridiculous ass-kissing for a number of reasons. But what made it particularly ridiculous was that - sorry, this is getting kind of comics-nerdy here - it was all going down right as Norman Osborn (you know, the Green Goblin? The guy who threw Spiderman's girlfriend of a bridge and she ended up getting her neck snapped?) was made head of SHIELD, and Spider-Man and the other Avengers were outlaws. So, it plays out as, "Hey Spidey! I'm a huge fan of yours! You should come by the White House sometime for dinner. The guy who heads up SHIELD says he'd love to meet you! He says you both have the same taste in women!"
Let me second that I get what you're saying, and I'm also bothered by it-- I'm just pointing out that it's kind of like kids at school all rebelling...by dresssing the same and listening to the same music. >.<
Daredevil was an awesome superhero whose blindness is just part of his background, not really manipulation involved. (May have been designed to show that kids growing up in horrible backgrounds can be hugely successful...but that was a "hey, it's cool, and" thing, not a "oh, the whole point is this, let's see if we can make it cool?".)
The ham-handedness is what bugs me. Tell a story, and work your stuff into that-- don't try to build a story around the points....
"May have been designed to show that kids growing up in horrible backgrounds can be hugely successful."
Daredevil? Hugely successful?
I like Daredevil a lot as a character, actually. But I gott say... if anything it shows that kids growing up in horrible backgrounds may eventually, with a lot of dedication and hard work, grow up to lead a life of nonstop misery and woe.
(As for successful, a favorite Daredevil moment of mine is when The Wrecker beats the hell out of him and angrily yells something like, "You think you can beat me? YOU AIN'T EVEN IN THE AVENGERS!")
I just has a horribly wicked thought about this fellow's super-power.
Hehe, I actually meant the being a well respected lawyer thing-- not much was made of it, except for incidentally. ("You're from Hell's Kitchen?")
DD being a total martyr is a different matter, related to him fighting for good, rather than his success. ^.^
Sparky Sparky Boom Man?
(Hey, can't screw up the character any more than the rest were screwed in the live action film.....)
Post a Comment