So why didn’t the originally solicited story appear in this week’s issue of Superman? Over at Comics Alliance, Chris Sims builds a convincing case for it being the result of an overly cautious DC nervous about featuring a Muslim American superhero after the “Superman renounces his US citizenship” fiasco that followed Action Comics #900:
As much as I don’t buy the “it doesn’t work with Grounded” explanation, it’s far easier to believe that after Nightrunner and Action #900, DC didn’t want the hassle of dealing with an anchor leading off the news with “Superman renounced his American citizenship — and you won’t believe his new terrorist sidekick!” Not that Sharif is actually a terrorist, but the accurate description doesn’t spike ratings.
Not so, claims Bleeding Cool’s Rich Johnston, who has a much, much more surreal take on events:
[T]he story content change in Superman 712 has nothing whatsoever to do with the appearance of Sharif.And everything to do with the story starting with Superman rescuing a kitten out of a tree. Like in the Superman movie.And this caused considerable problems with certain DC executives. They thought it was too sweet, too innocent, too anodyne, and not the kind of Superman stories they wanted to tell. The kitten up a tree image symbolised for them what was wrong with the Superman books. It became totemic in the office, standing for far more than it could possibly symbolise. It had to go.
That the book also has a lead Islamic superhero character, the kind of thing that does get the attention they like, seems to have passed them by.
I have to admit, as much as I normally give the benefit of the doubt to DC on matters like this – Ineptitude and lack of awareness generally seem more likely to me than malicious intent when it comes to complete PR nightmares, I tend to find – there’s something that just doesn’t ring true in the slightest about Rich’s version of events: DC editorial was so hung up on getting rid of Superman saving a kitten from a tree that they (a) somehow missed that the story featured a Muslim character and (b) hated the idea of a kitten being saved so much that they killed an entire issue that was already completed and approved by the book’s editorial team? That doesn’t seem realistic to me, and let’s face it: There’s something far more appealing to DC as a company to be seen as “overly dedicated to being hardcore” as opposed to “so worried about being on Fox News that they’ll pull a story.”
Of course, we’ll never know the truth: No-one involved in the events will ever come forward and reveal all publicly – And nor should they, really; it’s not really any of our business, when it comes down to it – and so this becomes Schrodinger’s Conspiracy: If you choose to believe the “We can’t help it, we want Superman to be so tough that rescuing kittens is out” version, it’s there, and if you want to think that something more worrying is under the surface, there’s the other version. Everyone wins – aside from Chris Roberson and Eddy Barrows, who created the replaced story, and DC Comics, which comes off as reactionary and pretty dumb in either version of events.
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
The only problem is that Rich has (from what he’s said) multiple sources. And while Chris Sims’ article is excellent, he doesn’t mention any sources that support his theory. Nothing Roberson says backs it up.
So unless multiple people decided to yank Rich around, the more ridiculous explanation has more support.
Then again, it’s entirely possible that whoever decided to pull the story did it for the reasons Sims suggests, yet has told everyone it’s the reason Rich suggests.
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Right, Rich’s sources, like this one dude who told him something, and another dude who said something, and a third guy, too! For all anyone knows, Rich’s sources are as nonexistent as his class and his ethics.
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I don’t know Kyle; Sims names just as many sources as Johnston does, so his saying more than one person told him something isn’t really any more convincing than Sims’ extrapolation, which is at least supported by examples and logic. Reading Johnston’s piece, there’s no way of knowing if he talked to anyone (Sorry to be a jerk, Rich; I assume you did, but I don’t know you did) or, if they did, they were actually telling the truth.
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:54 pm
C’mon! Unless he swears on a stack of Korans otherwise, Rich’s piece has to be satire.
June 23rd, 2011 at 4:28 am
It’s not satire. I know, I know.
I got an email a week or so ago from a DC employee saying “Who knew a kitten could get Dan so mad”. I had no idea what this meant and got no responses from followups.
Yesterday I hear from another DC employee the kitten story. So I start emailing and calling. Many people hadn’t heard any Superman 712 issue, but those that had, all of them, confirmed that they’d heard the kitten story.
After publishing the story I then heard from others confirming the kitten story. Even Heidi MacDonald who tries to brings some balance to the whole thing, confirms she’s heard the kitten version from some sources.
And yes it’s insane. But this is the company who pulped a print run of Superman because Clark Kent was drinking a bottle of root beer on the cover with his dad.
And isn’t it telling that Superman editorial used a fill in story featuring a dog? Of all the stories they could have used? And one that itself had been replaced a number of times in the past?
I’m confident in my sources on this one. But I have been wrong before. Probably will again.
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:38 am
Does anyone else think that this story ended with Sharif dying? If so, it’d kind of makes complete sense why DC scrapped it.
Conservative news outlets would be mad that DC for creating a new muslim hero that was killed by Americans, while Liberal news outlets would be mad at DC for creating a minority character only for him to be killed. If this was the case, then DC scrapped the story because it would create a controversy that overshadowed the actual content/message.
However, I’m hoping they’ll publish the story in the eventual “Grounded” trade as a “missing” chapter.
June 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 am
Name your sources and then others can evaluate their likely veracity, Rich. Until then, no one has any reason not to think you’re just making things up.
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:25 am
I think people are making a mountain of a molehill with the whole thing, and this whole “DC is so cowardly they wouldn’t put a Muslim character” thing is old, considering they just had a Muslim Batman, a two parter with Power Girl that just wrapped last week featuring a Muslim hero that PG was even sponsoring for the JSA, the whole Goyer/Citizen situation, and a radical Christian terrorist in this week’s Green Arrow, the constant Church = Bad Guy motif and religion is root of all evils in the awesome and sadly canceled Azrael, among much else.
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:25 am
And people are hating on Rich, yet most of what he said about the relaunch wound up being 100% dead on even though people were making the same comments…
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I can totally see the kitten story being true. DC gets tons of criticism for Superman being cheesy, and here he is rescuing a cat out of a tree. Remember the whole Joe Quesada Superman comment? “Here’s DC with the biggest @%$# in comics, and they have no idea how to use it” or something to that effect. Well, stories with the most powerful and recognizable of your heroes saving kittens from trees isn’t going to alleviate that…
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Rich’s account sounds really stupid, as if DC was run by a cabal of morons. Therefore I believe it, given the rest of the decisions I’ve seen them make since 2001.
June 23rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
I’m siding with Rich on this. Honestly, what does he have to gain by making stuff up? I could see if people involved were trying to punk him (don’t even get me started on the asinine Frank Cho/Kurtz idiocy from years back), but what would be the point here?
Rich does the best job out of anyone else at reporting rumors. And that is his job – stop trying to make him seem like an inept reporter. He’s not a reporter, he’s a rumor gatherer, and he’s pretty good at it too, with a good track record.
He doesn’t say he’s 100% right, he puts stuff out there and lets you decide. Nothing wrong with that.
June 23rd, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Via DiDio’s facebook when someone asked about the kitten: “rarely comment on production problems but can’t blame the kitty. I’m a cat lover myself.”
June 26th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Read Busieks response to Rich Johnston
Oh and Johnston’s supporters are teh stupids
June 26th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
@T.
You’re the only moron around here, sorry.