Comic books politics: A case study on Ethan Van Sciver | Opinion
Logan Walters, Staff Writer
FSView
Sept. 23, 2026, 9:01 a.m. ET
Comic books have always been a political medium. As early as the 1960s, Marvel’s X-Men series provoked questions as to whether social outcasts and those different from ourselves are worthy of participating in a society with equal rights and privileges. Like a lot of art, the politics surrounding comic books are primarily left-wing, strongly influenced by progressive social ideology and a push toward inclusiveness for all readers.Large creators such as Daniel Warren Johnson, Scott Snyder, and Tom Taylor have been adamant about promoting liberal and left-wing values both inside and outside their work. But what happens when a creator in a largely left-wing medium comes out as politically right-wing? Comic book artist Ethan Van Sciver faced this exact question.
Van Sciver was one of the most popular comic book artists of the 2010s, collaborating with writer Geoff Johns on an era-defining Green Lantern series and a widely favored Flash mini-series, but that quickly came to an end when he started doing online political commentary and was <a href="https://boundingintocomics.com/uncategorized/cbr-polygon-writer-kieran-shiach-campaigns-dc-comics-fire-artist-ethan-van-sciver” rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>socially blacklisted from professional comic work for his far-right views.
Despite his right-wing politics, it seems unfair to judge a political perspective in a medium that is inherently tied to the voice telling the story, especially when institutional judgment could leave such a person without a job. There also doesn’t seem to be a rigid line between ideas that are worth punishing someone over and socially permissible ideas, so exercising any form of judgement is extremely arbitrary.
Art within the artist
The age-old question of separating the art from the artist asks whether someone can enjoy the artistic works of a disagreeable human being, such as Hitler, by separating who he is personally from the artistic skill showcased in his painting.
In comics, the question is different. Comics aren’t just skillful artistic creations; they’re stories being told through the experiences and styles of a writer and artist who use their personal lives to influence the kinds of stories they want to tell.
Because of this, removing an objectionable comic creator is removing a different perspective from telling a story and therefore limiting the differentiation of stories in the medium. Even if the audience considers the creator a bad person, or a person with harmful views, the question becomes: at what point can the audience judge what types of people can and cannot tell stories?
If the comic creator circle only allowed stories that promoted progressive social values, although it would seem positive on some utilitarian axis, the result is a boring, monotonous repetition of stories that have been told time and time again.
It seems that removing people like Van Sciver who promote unpopular political views leads to a 1984-style precedent of a “Big Brother” who only allows creators that the populous deem “worthy” of creating stories, and that isn’t a society maximizing freedom of speech.
Abstract judgement
As mentioned before, Van Sciver was blacklisted for his far-right views, but at what point can you not flip the script on far-left political commentary in comics?
Daniel Warren Johnson openly supports violence against members of Immigration and Customs Enforcement through his art, while Van Sciver references Nazi imagery in his.
One can think that one of these is acceptable and the other isn’t, or that both are unacceptable, but how does one measure at what point violent rhetoric is too far?
There haven’t been any calls to cancel Johnson, and for good reason: he’s an incredible artist with incredible work who has the right to express his views through his work.
If it came out tomorrow that he was a hidden Nazi, and that all his left-wing political messages were just pretend messaging, does this make him worth cancelling?
If so, a very scary line is drawn regarding types of violence acceptable against people for views that cannot change.
The philosophical dilemma
Beliefs and worldviews aren’t choices; they’re just environmental products. Someone becoming a fascist is not a product of them being an inherently evil person, but rather a product of them being exposed to pro-fascist information and ideology.
To be extremely clear, this is not a justification for holding a certain view. Using this deterministic line of thinking is meant to open the door to empathetic reasoning, not empathy for the person’s beliefs.
For instance, if someone becomes a murderer as a result of uncontrollable environmental circumstances, then even though we can condemn murderers, there’s a certain question as to whether we can be angry with those who act due to their environment for these specific actions.
It would be better if Van Sciver didn’t grow up as a Mormon and didn’t begin promoting far-right politics, but to be angry at him for being a product of his environment is not helpful, and likely just perpetuates his feelings towards hating the left.
So, there is nothing wrong with criticizing Van Sciver, and in fact, it may even be beneficial, but to eliminate his voice from the comic book world sets a dangerous precedent about controlling ideas, and it sets a weird boundary for creative direction.
Logan Walters is a Management Information Systems major at Florida State University and a Staff Writer for the Views section of the FSView & Florida Flambeau, the student-run, independent online news service for the FSU community. Email our staff atcontact@fsview.com.
