Fan Artifact Presentation: The Marvel Universe Wiki
March 30th, 2008 by FletcherFletcher Wortmann and Dylan Smith
Week 10: Sub-creation, Seriality, and Media Franchises
In July of 1940, the Marvel Comics publishing corporation hit upon a breakthrough gimmick to increase sales. The company published the adventures of several popular superhero characters (The Sub-Mariner, Captain America, The Human Torch) independently. In issues 8 and 9 of Marvel Mystery comics, it was decided that The Sub-Mariner and The Human Torch would meet and fight one another. It was an effective marketing ploy, as fans of one character were compelled to buy any additional comics featuring their favorite hero, and their exposure to another character might convince them to buy that characters title.
It was with this simple gesture that the ‘Marvel Universe’ was created. Since then, Marvel has created any number of popular characters (Spider-Man, the X-men, the Fantastic Four). The same publishing rules applied, as a popular character could ‘guest star’ in another’s title to help boost sales, and so all of these characters were shoehorned into the same fictional universe. Unlike the fictional worlds of Star Wars or the Lord of the Rings, which are guided by the vision of a single creator, the ‘Marvel Universe’ thus developed as a mishmash of different characters and ideas. The X-Men (science-fiction mutants) would interact with the Silver Surfer (an alien), Dr. Strange (a magician), and Howard the talking anthropomorphic Duck. Marvel represents the development of a complex, fan-friendly fictional universe as an explicitly economic publishing strategy.
This brings us to our fan artifact for the week. A quick search on Google reveals two major Marvel Comics wiki sites: the Marvel Database (http://en.marveldatabase.com/Main_Page), a fan-run wiki focusing on the Marvel characters, and ‘Marvel Universe’ (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Main_Page) an official wiki included as part of Marvel’s official web site. The two sites demonstrate how corporate involvement can influence fan productivity. The official Marvel site includes animated graphics, character statistics and ads for subscriptions to Marvel comics. The unofficial site lacks these things, but features more extensive articles on a greater number of characters. The official site also requires that any edits are approved by site editors hired by Marvel; users who contribute information may be rewarded by being hired as editors or being allowed to participate in special promotions on the Marvel web site. Interestingly enough, the official web site also seems to omit some information about the characters. The ‘Marvel Database’ cites a comic where Spider-Man reveals that he was once sexually abused as a child; the official ‘Marvel Universe’ page makes no mention of that issue.
Discussion Questions:
1. With the conception and flourishing of this shared universe, in what ways has it created both masculine and feminine forms of fandom? Does it favor one over the other?
2. What is the sentiment on Marvel sanctioning one of the wikis? Is this good because Marvel is acknowledging the popular wiki system and seemingly ensuring its accuracy? Or is it bad because it is another example of the corporations trying to make money (there are many ads) off a clearly fannish activity?
3. What is the effect of the omission about Spider-Man’s childhood trauma? Is this is an example of the creators having final say in their creations, or an innocent way to keep our beloved icons “pure”?
4. Could these wiki’s be seen as an economic threat to Marvel? With all this information easily obtainable and in great detail, is it worth spending the money on the actual comic books?
5. Who would win in a fight between Dr. Doom and Magneto? Show your work.
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
3) Well, there’s the fact that the only issue in which it was *ever* mentioned that Peter Parker was molested as a child was a one-shot that wasn’t in any major stream of canon. They probably don’t mention that Spiderman once saved a kid’s track career by convincing him to quit smoking, either, because that was also only in a one-issue after-school-special type giveaway. In some sense this really has more to do with the convoluted question of what counts as canon in the Marvel and DC universes than about representations of the character (I mean, seriously, they have to have a disambiguation page for Spiderman because there are so many different canonical versions of the character).
4) Well, that depends on your goals, doesn’t it? If people treated comic books like Galaxy Quest-style historical records, with the primary goal of obtaining information about the universe therein, then no, but I think no matter how much trivia-trading goes on in comics fandom, the first reason to read comics will typically be for the pleasure of the story.
5) Okay, working with the assumption that Magneto can manipulate all metal, regardless of whether or not it’s paramagnetic, Magneto would clearly win because Dr. Doom wears a suit of metal armor. That would be like Magneto vs. Wolverine. If Doom took off the armor, then it’d be really dependent on the environment, because Doom can use gypsy magic offensively without any other materials but Magneto really needs some metal around to do anything useful. (I like how the Marvel Database lists “diplomatic immunity” among Doom’s abilities, by the way.)
3) Re: Spider-Man’s childhood trauma: Damn. I figured no one would call me on that. Yeah, the incident in question occured in a promtional comic produced with the National Coalition for the Prevention of Child Abuse. I understand that the cannonical status of such works is questionable; I thought it was an interesting example, however, of how corporate-owned icons may be used in contreversial or ill-advised ways, and how the internet and fan culture can preserve what said corporate owners might like us to forget. Also, if anyone ever observes me discussing Spider-Man’s early sexual experiences on an internet message board again, whether or not it occurs in an academic contest, please put me out of my misery and have me destroyed painlessly.
4) You’d be surprised. There are a number of places on the internet where one can find meticulously detailed plot summaries of comics as they are released. Comicbookresources.com was where I went to get my fix back in high school; I would be excited every Wednesday, not to read new comics, but instead to read other people’s summaries of new comics so that I could keep up with the current status of the characters. That was what was important to me, and I believe a number of other fans operate in the same way.
For example, a great deal of online discussion centers not on the quality of the comics themselves, but on the effects of the plot on the status quo of the characters. (example: look up ‘civil war’ or ‘brand new day’ on the comicbookresources message boards. These are two recent Marvel storylines that were very poorly received by fans. There are numerous posts by people who freely admit that they have’nt read the actual comics, but nonetheless feel justified in complaining about the treatment of their favorite characters, simply because they’ve read plot sumnmaries online.) I’d be curious if anyone has encountered this behavior in any other fandoms. The first example that comes to mind is that of a sports fan who might not watch every game, but instead would read commentary in the paper the next day.
3) Yyyyeah, sorry about that. Although I do think you bring up a good point about corporate control of public icons. I mean, the link I posted at the beginning of the semester, http://www.superdickery.com, documents a whole bunch of times when Superman acted in a way directly counter to DC’s characterization of him. In some sense, though, I think DC and Marvel have set up a system where they need to be able to reboot characters periodically so that they can keep the canon going indefinitely (we’ve already discussed several instances of this), and I think it’s arguably part of the bargain between producer and consumer in this case that allowing reboots with relative impunity is part of suspension of disbelief.
4) Yeah, I’ll concede that. The economy of Marvel and DC is a little bizarre at the moment. I’m almost certain they make most of their profits from licensing and other media (primarily the movies) rather than the comics themselves, so whether or not that’s an economic *threat* to them is kind of debatable, especially since DC is owned by Time Warner. I think they see the fact that Jerry Siegel’s heirs now have partial rights to Superman as a much larger threat: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html
Regarding corporate approval of a Wiki, I think it’s generally a good thing. Since edits must be approved by Marvel employees, the entire wiki will likely be received as some form of Canon. Thus, regular users can submit information that eventually becomes canon. That seems pretty cool, compared to, for example, Star Wars, where any canon outside of Lucas requires complicated licensing and commercial interest.
Lucas isn’t going to rubber-stamp some fan tidbit — they have to be novels, story collections, or marketing ploys, all with commercial intent.
1) I think that the wiki provides a universe that caters to both masculine and feminine fans, and that is why it has been so successful. Ir provides access to statistics about the characters, as well as plot development and even how the character has evolved from generation to generation. The ‘winner’ seems to be more based on which type of fan is contributing more at any given time.
2) What is interesting about the corporations attempting to make money off fannish activities is that they are losing money to the same fannish activities. Take what Fletcher mentioned about reading summaries of comics online instead of buying them. The internet world of fandom has taken a lot of revenue from the corporations–perhaps that is how they justify trying to monopolize their fans’ actions and embrace the new style of consumption. Does this make the wiki less fannish in nature? Does emotional-attachment change when money is involved?
Or is the argument that once money is involved fake-fans become involved and taint the wiki? (But if we cant tell the difference, does it matter? At least for the purpose of the wiki?)
Sorry, that was a lot of questions at the end there!
1. I agree with your comment fully. I don’t think that the creation of a Marvel Universe prefers a certain type of activity. It seems to afford the opportunity to approach it with both approaches to reading texts. The idea of a wiki format seems to be fairly gender neutral, but I’d be interested to see how that form as opposed to other forums actually flesh out in terms of gendered participation.
2. I think that Marvel probably gets enough money from revenues to offset those potential harms, or else they wouldn’t endorse it. However, I do think the idea of creating an archive of information has implications for the original fantext. If as Fletcher says, people can know the text through the wiki, then it may change the nature of the fandom. Can one be a fan of a text they don’t really participate with? I don’t think it will really change legitimate fans behavior, maybe just enhance their relationship with the text. But for the more casual consumer it seems that this could change the nature of how people relate to media.
5) Well…it depends. First off on whether Doom’s armor is affected by Magneto’s power. If so, then it’s a simple fight, Magneto is less then a second. Yet, if Doom, being Doom like Doom is, has enchanted his armor, then it’d be interesting. Magneto, though powerful, has little experience with magic, Doom, on the other hand, has gone to hell to rescue his mother’s soul and is one of the most powerful mystics in the Marvel Universe. Of course it would all be moot anyway as the Doom Magneto is fighting would only be a Doombot and the real Doctor Doom would be halfway around the world plotting the demise of “RICHARDS!” *shakes fist in air, angry voice, lightning flashes*