A friend forwarded me the link to this Comic Book Resources forum thread, wherein Ethan Van Sciver, best known for extremely detailed drawings in comical books and for deciding that Green Lanterns all have a little Lantern logo made out of energy floating in front of their chests, pontificates on matters political and economical.
It is always interesting to see a comics professional reveal themselves as a right-wing nabob, but my favorite bit comes when, after Van Sciver asserts that the United States is a good place to live in terms of having a high degree of social mobility and people rapidly point out that compared to most other first-world nations the USA actually is notso-hotso on the social mobility scale, that he resorts to sarcasm and moving the goalposts.
Still, I would encourage Van Sciver to blather some more about his political and economic philosophies, because he has a long way to go before he can catch up to the likes of John Byrne or (glory hallelujah!) Dave Sim. YOU CAN DO IT, LITTLE TROOPER!
Related Articles
52 users responded in this post
Damnit, and I like his art so much.
Bah, that’s too bad… he draws such pretty floating logos too. 🙁
I can enjoy Fables while still finding Willingham’s politics to be full of shit. I can do the same for Van Sciver’s art…
Woody Allen’s a total jerk for marrying his own stepdaughter, but I’m still entertained by his work.
I can do the same here.
The only exception I’ll always make to this rule is Chris Benoit. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to watch his work ever again.
It’s times like these I’m glad I look past the clippings. I read the whole thread, and besides telling that one guy to get a job, Sciver was a cool guy. He found plenty of people to disagree politely with, and the rest of the board is following suit in his amicability. This Sciver guy is no John Bryne or David Sim.
I am so sick of this mentality some readers have about creators, like how their opinions on Israel should affect if they buy She-Hulk or not. Seriously? If you look into anyone’s politics long enough you’ll find something to disagree with. Unless they are shoe-horning their views into the work, get some better dissonance with your comic buying, people.
Mostly true, LurkerWithout, except for the time Bigby decided to draw a lengthy Israel/Fabletown metaphor.
And Thriller’s still my favorite album. What’s that? The guy singing does what in his spare time? Can’t hear you, la-la-la….
PAD’s She-Hulk run failed because it wasn’t as fun as Dan Slott’s. Srsly.
What difference does it make if Van Sciver’s conservative? This would be like basing your opinion of the entire Bush Administration solely on his ability to draw Green Lantern.
The Bush Administration wishes that opinions of it were based on Ethan Van Sciver’s ability to draw Green Lantern.
Hey Dane, Here’s a nice site for you.
http://www.stephenkasner.com/lucas/
When you can hang up a piece of murderabilia in your home, then you can talk down to others about why people should separate the art from the artist.
Until then, kindly STFU
Ethan Van Sciver is just another “jeffersonian” right-wing idiot who will never come to terms with the reality that it was the Jefferson ideal for government to evolve with the needs of the society and as such if he isn’t seeing a direct beneficial result from his tax dollars, then by his 4-yr old grasp of socioeconomic structures, it must not have been spent on the right things.
This may not keep me from buying another issue of Cyberfrog, but it would keep me from showing up at any of his public appearances – if I ever cared to in the first place.
MGK, I keep telling you. You really need to read the 4-issue series of Oktane that Dark Horse did back in the 90’s. You’d love it.
Zenrage, busting out serial killers is a bit of a straw man argument here. Serial killers don’t just have disagreeable views; they have committed illegal, reprehensible acts.
I still maintain that people boycotting work from creators creates more unnecessary barriers than any kind of “stand” they think they are making. Ethan’s catty attitudes towards Denmark has no effect the level of his art. A writer’s dickishness in an interview/message message board isn’t going to detract the script. Let’s stop pretending it does, or at least learn to separate our feelings about the person to our buying decisions.
I am able to separate a guy’s political views from his artistic abilities. For example, I still like Oliver Stone’s Platoon and Wall Street even though I think he is a far-left whack job.
However, I do agree that I cannot watch Chris Benoit’s past matches without getting a funny feeling in my gut.
“Ethan Van Sciver is just another “jeffersonian” right-wing idiot who will never come to terms with the reality that it was the Jefferson ideal for government to evolve with the needs of the society and as such if he isn’t seeing a direct beneficial result from his tax dollars, then by his 4-yr old grasp of socioeconomic structures, it must not have been spent on the right things.”
Did you read the entire thread? That’s not what he was saying. He was saying that he’d rather be in direct control of where his money, which he earns, goes as opposed to entrusting it to a government that has shown that it can’t be trusted with the decisions that it makes with said funds. The more money a government has to play with, the more trouble it can get into, as it were, as opposed to having limited funds and being forced to make better decisions with it. As a citizen of this country, and as a tax payer, he has every right to feel that way- especially after the last 8 years or so and the position our economy is in at the moment. I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with his POV, but I felt you were misinterpreting, or at the very least shortchanging a bit, what he was saying.
Dane, all actions are the result of what we can validate and apply from our personal viewpoints. Serial killers are just a much a result of their philosophies as liberals, conservatives and intellectual boobs like Ethan Van Sciver are. And their respective interactions with society has just as little to do with whatever artwork they produce.
However, purchasing the artwork puts money in the hands of those with disagreeable philosophical opinions and insures that any actions based on those opinions will be, at least partially, funded.
There is simply no reason to separate the art from the artist.
So, any other lies you want to sell us today? Or do you want to keep pretending you can maintain any position you haven’t yet established?
That’s… a bit extreme. Serial killers are sociopaths, Ethan Van Sciver is, as you say, just another yutz. I draw the line, generally, at issues where reasonable people can disagree, and conservatism vs. liberalism is far from a closed subject.
Plus there’s the whole collaborative nature of comics to think of- if he does the art on a series that’s written by, say, Gail Simone, should I punish her?
Zenrage, are you honestly saying that buying comics written and drawn by people with differing political views than yourself is equivocal to supporting serial killers? Really? One, you’re jumping to an extreme example, especially considering that, as far as we know, none of the comic writers or artists currently working at DC or Marvel are whacked out serial killers or political terrorists. Find one that is who is using their five figure (if they’re lucky) comic book salary to fund heinous acts against humanity and then you may have a point. Two, that serial killer’s artwork looks like shit, and any retard looking to pay any kind of money for it deserves to get slashed themselves. They want to look into the mind of a crazed pysche? Go to the local mental hospital and buy a few of their finger paintings. It’ll be just as good and you could probably work something out with the orderlies and get a “nut job special”.
“Serial killers are just a much a result of their philosophies as liberals, conservatives and intellectual boobs like Ethan Van Sciver are.”
The difference being is that serial killers are mentally unstable in one way or another. While you could argue that most politicians (or people obsessed with politics and believe that anyone who disagrees with their views are evil) are as well, having differing philosophies doesn’t automatically make you that way- especially in this case. Again, you’re jumping to extreme comparisons that are actually hurting, as opposed to helping, your argument.
Ethan Van Scriver is a right wing Indian prince?
Wow. That is so cool.
The serial killer argument still ain’t working for me here. If you really don’t want to accept the difference between an artist’s beliefs and an artist’s actions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
“And their respective interactions with society has just as little to do with whatever artwork they produce.”
I agree with this.
“However, purchasing the artwork puts money in the hands of those with disagreeable philosophical opinions and insures that any actions based on those opinions will be, at least partially, funded.”
Where do you draw the line though? Walt Disney was a raging anti-Semite (and Henry Ford, and Edison, and plenty of other captains of industry and business). Does that mean it’s morally wrong for your kids to see Tug Boat Willy or Snow White? Do you go as far as boycott the entire present-day Disney corporation? This world is filled with people that disagree with you. Paying a doctor who believes in Scientology doesn’t mean you’re funding Scientology. It means you’re paying a guy that treated your fever and strep throat. What people do with their own time and money is their own business, as long as they are not hurting anyone in the process.
“There is simply no reason to separate the art from the artist.”
No reason at all? Though I can see the reasoning in it, I get really uncomfortable with the assumption that art is always an extension of the artist’s beliefs. Artists can and do separate themselves and their views from their creations all the time. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t get nearly as many crime dramas as have now on the stands. Look at the show Dexter, a show done in the mindset of killer.
I find compartmentalization pretty important in who I respect, especially when they are distant figures. Alan Moore has said some fairly dickish things about America in interviews, some deserved, some not so much. That still doesn’t get rid of my respect for him for the Swamp Thing comics I have or the Watchmen. I found Lost Girls to be pretty awful, but that won’t stop me from looking at his future work due to the rest of his record.
Similar deal with David Sim. I’m saving up for his collected Cerebus, but that doesn’t mean I’m supporting his view that women are a “black force” or whatever he called them. It means I like his work, and I wish to buy it and study it for it’s merits as an independent comic. (I understand that this will become problematic as he does start bringing in some of the anti-woman themes later on, but I’ll live with it. If I stopped reading every book because I found something offensive in it, my reading list would be very boring indeed.) Even Ghandi was pretty racist guy, but that doesn’t mean he and his work should be shunned. That baby with the bathwater way of thinking is just as immature as thinking you have to believe women are soulless to really “get” Aristotle’s teachings.
“So, any other lies you want to sell us today? Or do you want to keep pretending you can maintain any position you haven’t yet established?”
Come on, man. If a nutjob like Ethan Van Sciver can be civil, surely you can give the same courtesy to me. What lies did I bring up before, besides me disagreeing with you? All I’ve done so far is say not buying something because the creator has differing tangential views feels unnecessary, and that your serial killer argument isn’t rhetorically valid. Maybe I could have explained my beliefs more thoroughly (which hopefully I’ve done here), but that certainly doesn’t vilify me as a liar.
I lol’ed at this blog, after one of my friends fwded it to me. I didn’t realize I was sooo very important, and my political views, which more or less than 50% of Americans hold, are so frightening as to warrant a blog by an anonymous person declaring that they’ll boycott my work until I agree that huge tax increases are wonderful and that my country sucks! 🙂
Please, I’ll continue to speak whenever or wherever I’d like, and I invite you to do the same. I think even most fair-minded liberals are alarmed by you!
Best,
Ethan Van Sciver
Whoa, just got an apology from the guy who runs this blog, disavowing the guy who started this posting. That’s wonderful. And I really do believe that at some point, we’re all going to grow up and actually tolerate each other’s differences without wanting to throw temper tantrums. This country is big enough for all of us, and it’s a bit silly to get the vapors every time someone expresses a view you may personally disagree with.
Again,
Ethan Van Sciver
Ethan, I just want you know know I called you a nutjob in jest. I think you are pretty rockin’ artist. Jeffersonian government kind of failed when we hit the industrial age, but there’s nothing wrong with lean government.
And you agreed to recommend him to your bosses to write Legion, right? Right?
Ethan Van, you so cra-zay!
He’s got a long, long, convoluted, psychotic, misogynistic trail to follow before he gets anywhere within SPITTING distance of Dave Sim.
Dave Sim CRAZY.
It’s great to find a place in which middle-wing or left-wing nabobs can get their bits in about a FORUM THREAD… . I hate to say it, but bring on the Pepsi-Sun posts!
Dane, I’m the one who brought up Israel in that thread, and I explained why it was a problem for me. There are some issues where I’m able to say “let’s agree to disagree.” Taxes, abortion, gun control, the death penalty sometimes, gay marriage (so long as I’m not dealing with a rabid homophobe but rather somebody who just feels uncomfortable with the idea; after all, we can’t control what we get squicked out by), to name some.
But there are two things that I can’t agree to disagree about. The first one is torture. The second one is the killing of civilians when it is not necessary, as was done in Iraq and in Gaza, both of which I opposed.
I also explained that I might have been able to accept Peter David’s opinion if he weren’t so myopic. If he had said, for instance, “I feel terrible that civilians are being killed as a result of the IDF’s efforts to stop the rocket attacks, and I wish there were a way to avoid it. But I believe this is the only option Israel has.” Of course that is not what he said. He said instead:
He also said this:
Goddammit…I screwed up another post.
This is probably evident to you, but just to make sure there’s no chance at all of a misunderstanding: the last two paragraphs in that block quote are my words, and the first paragraph is Peter David’s words.
Lol, it’s funny how once the person in question pays a visit people’s scripts get flipped real quick. 😉
Actually, in my mail I made sure to be clear that the original post was mine and that I stood by it; Ethan was unclear as to whether or not he understood that Zenrage (whom I do not agree with) does not speak for the site, and I wanted to make sure he knew where I stood.
Rest assured that I still think Ethan’s politics are somewhere in between “uninformed” and “somewhat nuts.”
Rob Brown, thank you for the response, especially since I probably came off a bit acidic there. I really can’t lie here — I can’t relate to your thinking process. There are things I care deeply about too, but if someone disagrees with me and creates a work I’m interested in, I’m going to buy it. I feel like Peter’s statements aren’t as bad as you’re perceiving them, but see you do care about those issues, and I respect that.
And that’s the thing: You’re entitled to those opinions because these creators put their personal beliefs out there in the first place. Creators are just as culpable in this when they bring up their politics to the public. If the internet has taught me anything, it’s that if you state an opinion, be prepared to defend it, and if it’s a problematic opinion, be prepared to be hated. As great as the internet is for the exchange of ideas, I feel like many creators would be better off being a little more distant and professional when dealing with the horde. Sort of like the old saying, “Don’t hang out with your heroes, you’ll only be disappointed.” I met George Perez for five minutes and only have fond things to say about him. Now every time Dan Slott posts on Scans Daily it feels like a new opportunity for someone to hate him, and I’d rather not deal with that baggage in the first place.
Well, I’m out. I’m late for my serial killer pottery auction.
Yeah, I agree that bringing up serial killers was a bit much. It’s tempting to present an extreme example like that to make a point, but in the end it seems like you’re blowing things out of proportion.
The saying about hanging out with your heroes makes a lot of sense. There are some things I’d be happier if I never knew.
Really, I don’t see anywhere in the initial post anything about a potential boycott of van Sciver’s work. He just seems to be saying that the guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to politics, but is opening his mouth anyway. Which, yeah, seems pretty darn accurate to me. (Nothing personal to him, or anything.)
“Really, I don’t see anywhere in the initial post anything about a potential boycott of van Sciver’s work.”
No, that was Zenrage.
I just wanted to say that Zenrage is super duper awesome and I totally support his “don’t compensate people for work they do if opinions they hold of things that are irrelevant to the work they do differ from your own” policy. Since I think my boss is an idiot, and he disagrees, I will refuse to get paid.
“I just wanted to say that Zenrage is super duper awesome and I totally support his ‘don’t compensate people for work they do if opinions they hold of things that are irrelevant to the work they do differ from your own’ policy. Since I think my boss is an idiot, and he disagrees, I will refuse to get paid.”
Eh, I can see both sides. Zenrage was a bit dramatic, but I can echo at least some of the sentiment.
Let’s take Orson Scott Card, for example. He wrote one of the seminal sci-fi series of all time, but his statements about homosexuality don’t exactly make me want to give him money for ANY reason. Sure, “Ender’s Game” might be brilliant (and apparently is, if I’ve heard right), but I have no real desire to read it due to what I know of the author.
Incidentally, I love how ANYTHING that echoes the non-screaming liberal viewpoint gets AUTOMATICALLY decried.
thisguyvx: Personally I found the Ender’s Game comic to be unbelievably boring. And I read all of the latest Punisher: War Journal and New Warriors and am still reading Avengers/Invaders for some reason.
[…] on the Ethan Van Sciver thread from […]
Rob Brown wrote:
“The second one is the killing of civilians when it is not necessary, as was done in Iraq and in Gaza, both of which I opposed.”
It’s also done repeatedly in Israel…
“It’s also done repeatedly in Israel…”
Not that the Glorious Martyrs of Blowing Shit up Brigade is likely to have any supporters reading this.
Ender’s Game is not brilliant.
And as far as boycotting someone’s work on account of their politics…are there better grounds on which to base a boycott?
“And as far as boycotting someone’s work on account of their politics…are there better grounds on which to base a boycott?”
The poor quality of the work in question?
That’s not boycotting, that’s budgeting.
Absolutely not. I hate Hamas targeting civilians as much as I hate the IDF bombing areas with civilians in them to get at Hamas.
That being said, over the last few months a lot more civilians have died because of the IDF’s actions than because of Hamas’ rockets.
This makes me a little sad, actually.
I am a stone-cold, tree-hugging, whale-saving liberal, and I can say without hesitation that Ethan Van Sciver is one of the kindest, smartest, and most decent professionals I have met in my entire career in comics. We agree on almost nothing politically, but his positions come from a place of honest thought and concern and he backs them up with solid arguments, which is a lot more than some of us accomplish even at the best of times. I also have found him open to discussion and debate even on the most intensely held beliefs.
In short, he’s not the bogeyman portrayed by some here, not in any regard. He’s not a guy with his hands over his ears. He’s not the guy who doesn’t listen.
His opinions are different than mine, but, come on, really? Do we have to compare serial killers to a guy just because we disagree with him? Besides, I’ve seen John Wayne Gacy’s Green Lantern and there really is no comparison. I’ll give you Charles Manson’s beloved run on Jughead’s Joke Book, but that’s as far as I’ll go.
Ethan is one of the best people I know, and it’d be a shame if squabbling over politics precluded people from getting to know someone great like that. It just seems a bit silly.
Gail, while I agree with the whole serial killer thing being ridiculous, people have a right to decide who their money goes to–and as Chris, the OP of this wasn’t so much asking for a ban or boycott as rolling his eyes and going “Here goes someone else with Opinions when maybe they should be keeping their mouths shut”–that’s even more moot.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that Ethan is ZOMG a horrible person (other than the serial killer arguer, which very few seem to agree with). This is the internets after all, and it takes a real good puppy-flogging for people to genuinely think someone is reprehensibly evil or moronic.
However, it being the internet means writers–even ones that are decent human beings–are not immune from their politics and opinions being criticized and decried as idiotic if people find said opinions idiotic.
I wouldn’t hazard to say that writers of comics and books should be silent on their opinions–they have just as much a right to express them as anyone else. I suppose it’s more that they should get into it with the forewarning that looking like an idiot could earn them a reputation that could lose them money, or just earn them a reputation, and the better way to avoid that reputation is not for you to tell people it’s wrong for them think the person is idiotic, but for the original person to choose their words far more carefully or not speak in the first place.
That’s an unfortunate reality, and while I’m sure you’re defending him out of a good place, it often just comes off as touchy and sensitive to defend a friend over the internets.
Why should anyone bother to get to know him? While I personally enjoy his art, he’s no more special than anyone else on the internet. I personally won’t stop buying the books he’s on, I sincerely doubt he’s a horrible person, but if I don’t agree with his politics or rhetoric, there’s no reason why people should /like/ him either, or bother to.
And generally, that is the issue at hand with stuff like this, and why creators comes to blogs like this, and why their friends comes to defend them. People are allowed to not like his opinions, people are allowed to not particularly like him. If he wants to be liked or wants his opinions to be liked, he should present his opinions better or keep in mind that, unfortunate as it is, it might be better to not present them at all.
There is often a choice between being liked and being outspoken. Some manage to be liked AND outspoken, but boy, do you have to be a very intelligent person and choose your words carefully and wisely to pull that off.
So basically, I’m arguing against the whole “bogeyman” thing. He’s not being presented as a “bogeyman” here, he’s been presented as someone that’s argued shoddily on the internet. It happens. He’s not immune from it, and neither are you. Neither is Chris, and neither am I.
It’s not something that needs to be defended by you, and in fact makes you look slightly silly doing it, albeit not as silly as it could make you look because you did so politely and out of obvious good will.
But I simply have to argue the implied supposition that we SHOULD want to get to know him. It seems silly to presume anyone should have to like someone they don’t know if they disagree with them. I agree that actively DISLIKING him as a person is silly, but a state of general apathy beyond caring about him because he’s another human being is perfectly acceptable.
You lot need to stop trying to be LIKED so much and trying to convince others to like people you like. It tends to have the reverse effect. I’d have more respect for the both of you if you just presented your opinions, however flawed they are, defended them as best as you could, and not sought out places to defend yourselves and defend each other when it’s the ideas and opinions themselves that need the most attention.
Er, and I meant to say “writers and artists of comics” or “creators” rather than just writers. Long day of work has taken its toll on my concentration.
*but if I don’t agree with his politics or rhetoric, there’s no reason why people should /like/ him either, or bother to.
*but if people don’t agree with his politics or rhetoric, etc.
–Seriously, here, this is exact proof why choosing your words carefully is wise. This is the LAST time I write a comment after a ten-hour shift. >_
I’d be interested to see how those who say you shouldn’t make an effort to defend yourself would react if their name came up in a very poor light several times in forums in which you weren’t even involved.
A lot of people disagree as to whether there was anything wrong with anything Ethan said or not (and in fact if you read the entire thread you’d see that he explains this oh so controversial portion of the conversation ad nauseum)- but there are always people in the middle who are easily swayed, and if there are way more people speaking about Ethan in a negative fashion, those middle grounders who never heard his name until they started reading say “wow, this guy is a dick” and “express themselves with their wallets” as so many people have claimed to do here. It seems only logical that Ethan would come along and defend his reputation, and I applaud Gail for having the guts to stand up for a friend *even though she herself makes a point that she disagrees with his political stance*.
Even in the Peter David case, it seems absurd to me to distance yourself from the man’s work simply because you don’t like the way he debates or his stance on foreign affairs. Unless David is out bombing people himself, or shoving his views down your throat by introducing an Israeli superteam, I just can’t see what difference it makes (now as a fan if you believe he is slamming you for not “getting” his stuff, that’s something that’s actually related and I can somewhat understand). You either like the way the man writes or you don’t – trying to punish him for an UNRELATED OPINION is childish at best. That being said, I could come a lot closer to understanding someone having mixed feelings about David than Van Sciver who essentially did nothing. You want to boycott him because he’s a “right wing nutjob”? What’s next, digging up personnel files on all the people who work at fruit of the loom to make sure the person making your underwear isn’t at odds with your personal agenda? I really believe there are some people here who just get off on firing away at someone with name recognition..to me that’s sad.
I fail to see why Ethan Van Sciver’s politics matter at all, uninformed or not. This is a man whose entire job consists of being whipped by Geoff Johns until he draws a satisfactory number of green and yellow rings flying between battling aliens. Whatever one feels about an artist’s beliefs informing his work, I just fail to see how it’s relevant in this scenario.
And is anyone honestly surprised that DC books are occasionally produced by people who have a conservative bent to their politics? This is a company whose entire philosophy for the past five years has been “Young People Suck.” They’re not exactly a shining emblem of progressive thought. If you really need your comics to be a bastion of uninformed, pandering liberalism instead of uninformed, pandering conservatism, well, that’s why they created Vertigo.
Is he high? I understand he likes arguing with people but why the hell is he having a political debate with comic book readers on CBR? Do writers/artists want their fucking work boycotted?
I personally don’t care what he said or not, and I’m not going to get mad as long as his artwork on the Flash stays at his usual level, but god, this is ridiculous.
HE’S ON THE INTERNET! OUR INTERNET! HOW DARE HE EXPRESS A DISAGREEABLE OPINION!?!
Seriously though… why is this behavior lauded from people in creative fields of the arts – writing, music, art – and yet applauded coming from actors?
Seriously, one of the biggest factors in my decision to live outside the US was ridiculous bipartisan squabbling.
And yet, nobody minds worshiping grandstanding assholes like Sean Penn as though they’re renowned scholars of political studies. PROTIP: People don’t major in drama because they were getting bored at their MENSA meetings.
Anyway, personal peeve.
While it’s always sad to see someone express an idea, and then deviate into catty retorts rather than rhetorical debate… welcome to real people. It gets easier to stomach over time. A trick I’ve found? Treat OMG SERIOUS debates about politics and religion with the attitudes you’d take to approach debates about sports.
We live in a day and age where everyone’s opinion MATTERS, everyone is a unique and special snowflake, and what offends me simply MUST be offensive on some broad scale that YOU don’t understand. Choose a side and live within those bounds, or blow them off completely, and lose face.
I’d rather walk on coals than eggshells, personally… but to each his own.
[…] Mightygodking on Ethan Van Sciver Commenta 18th February , 2009 http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2…-the-internet/ […]