Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,528 
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 13, 2021 9:14:38 GMT -5
Not necessarily wanting to speak for tingramretro, or anyone else who has a problem with this sort of thing, but I think the most important thing to remember is that these are fictional characters. They are not real people. If a real, live human being comes out as homosexual or bisexual then of course there should be a willingness to support, accept and understand them (unless you're a total asshat). But if you have followed a beloved fictional character for years and years and then some writer or editorial team suddenly decides to have him/her come out as homosexual/bisexual it is a deliberate decision made by those creatives working on the character. And it's a decision that doesn't in any way have to be taken. In comics, it is likely that readers have seen these characters act in a way representative of a certain sexual orientation and been privvy to their innermost thoughts for years, without even the remotest suggestion of them being closeted. Therefore, suddenly changing their sexuality is a fundamental change to that character's makeup that is obviously going to rankle with some long term fans (yes, I believe a person's sexuality is a fundamental aspect of their psychological makeup – right after gender in terms of importance). So, I think it's reasonable for fans of these characters -- and even casual observers -- to be somewhat cynical and annoyed about the motives behind such dramatic changes, whether it's "outrage marketing" to drive up publiscity/sales, or empty "virtue signalling", or whatever. However, most importantly, it is a mistake to automatically conflate a person's attitudes towards a previously heterosexual fictional character suddenly being revealed to be homosexual or bisexual with their attitudes towards a real human being who comes out. It amounts to he same thing though, fictional or real...nothing has changed about the character from when you thought they were straight to learning that they are gay. It doesn't make them less heroic, less intelligent, less humorous or any other characteristic that made you like them in the first place just because they are now gay. The only difference is that they're attracted to a different sex, and if that's a deal breaker then yeah that does say something whether its a fictional character or not. I'm afraid I disagree, old friend. Someone saying, "I hate the way that DC made Robin gay in the comics; it just came out of nowhere!" is not the same thing as saying "I hate all homosexuals". Not at all. Fictional characters don't have feelings. Fictional characters can't be victims of discrimination or hate crimes. Furthermore, a real person's sexuality is pre-determined by their genes, hormones and nature (or God, if you're that way inclined). Robin's sexuality is determined by whoever is writing the Batman comics that week. Sure we know there is a slightly cynical reason for making a character gay, and a little exasperation and eye rolling at that corporate decision because it seems hollow is to be expected and is indeed acceptable, but when you get into more than that? That the character is ruined, "taken away" from you and causes resentment simply for being gay? That's a completely different kind of reaction and one that shouldn't be accepted. Well, what can I say? Comics fans are passionate about the characters they've followed for years, I guess.  To be clear, I have no problem with writers changing the sexuality of any fictional character, but I'm just trying to explain what I think it is that upsets some people about it. I do, however, have a huge problem with giant multi-national corporations exploiting real social injustice and a need for greater diversity in society just to make money and sell more of their product...but that's a side discussion to this. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 9:20:00 GMT -5
It amounts to he same thing though, fictional or real...nothing has changed about the character from when you thought they were straight to learning that they are gay. It doesn't make them less heroic, less intelligent, less humorous or any other characteristic that made you like them in the first place just because they are now gay. The only difference is that they're attracted to a different sex, and if that's a deal breaker then yeah that does say something whether its a fictional character or not. I'm afraid I disagree, old friend. Someone saying, "I hate the way that DC made Robin gay in the comics; it just came out of nowhere!" is not the same thing as saying "I hate all homosexuals". Not at all. Fictional characters don't have feelings. Fictional characters can't be victims of discrimination or hate crimes. Furthermore, a real person's sexuality is pre-determined by their genes, hormones and nature (or God, if you're that way inclined). Robin's sexuality is determined by whoever is writing the Batman comics that week. Sure we know there is a slightly cynical reason for making a character gay, and a little exasperation and eye rolling at that corporate decision because it seems hollow is to be expected and is indeed acceptable, but when you get into more than that? That the character is ruined, "taken away" from you and causes resentment simply for being gay? That's a completely different kind of reaction and one that shouldn't be accepted. Well, what can I say? Comics fans are passionate about the characters they've followed for years, I guess. To be clear, I have no problem with writers changing the sexuality of any fictional character, but I'm just trying to explain what I think it is that upsets some people about it. I do, however, have a huge problem with giant multi-national corporations exploiting real social injustice and a need for greater diversity in society just to make money and sell more of their product...but that's a side discussion to this. The thing is though, expressing," Hey, this came out of no where and really took me by surprise" is MUCH different than saying that the character is ruined and that something has been taken away from you because they've made a character gay. One is just a slight disappointment in a corporate decision and the other is attaching negative qualities to a character based on them being gay and whether fictional or not that kind of reaction is wrong as being gay is not a negative attribute and no amount of passion excuses that. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,528
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 13, 2021 9:27:29 GMT -5
I'm afraid I disagree, old friend. Someone saying, "I hate the way that DC made Robin gay in the comics; it just came out of nowhere!" is not the same thing as saying "I hate all homosexuals". Not at all. Fictional characters don't have feelings. Fictional characters can't be victims of discrimination or hate crimes. Furthermore, a real person's sexuality is pre-determined by their genes, hormones and nature (or God, if you're that way inclined). Robin's sexuality is determined by whoever is writing the Batman comics that week. Well, what can I say? Comics fans are passionate about the characters they've followed for years, I guess. To be clear, I have no problem with writers changing the sexuality of any fictional character, but I'm just trying to explain what I think it is that upsets some people about it. I do, however, have a huge problem with giant multi-national corporations exploiting real social injustice and a need for greater diversity in society just to make money and sell more of their product...but that's a side discussion to this. The thing is though, expressing," Hey, this came out of no where and really took me by surprise" is MUCH different than saying that the character is ruined and that something has been taken away from you because they've made a character gay. True enough. What can I tell you, comics fans are prone to over-reacting? One is just a slight disappointment in a corporate decision and the other is attaching negative qualities to a character based on them being gay and whether fictional or not that kind of reaction is wrong as being gay is not a negative attribute and no amount of passion excuses that. Again, I dont really accept that parrallel, I'm afraid. I think it's entirely possible to dislike a previously straight fictional character suddenly being written as gay without it necessarily translating into any real world bias or homophobia. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 13, 2021 9:50:11 GMT -5
These are corporate owned characters who are, by and large, decades divorced from the hands of their creators. Every single thing about them is forced and every thing about them is viewed through a marketing lens because their very existence is to make money for the shareholders. It is no more forced for Jon Kent (a character about which I know absolutely nothing more than the name) to be outed as bisexual than it was for the Fantastic Four to all be straight, white heroes. Because there was absolutely no other choice for the the FF than to be straight white heroes. It was 100% forced by the dictates of the market in 1961.
Beyond that, people accept ridiculously "forced" concepts in popular culture all the time. Particularly in comic books. The very concept of a super-team of the likes of the Justice League is inherently forced. It was forced in its genesis (lets put all our heroes together to sell comics) and it has always been forced in its execution (Superman and Wonder Woman will clearly need Green Arrow's help to defeat Desparo).
I understand identifying with a fictional character. I have identified with Atticus Finch at times. But the only dead certainty with corporate comic book characters is that some creator is going to come along and change things to try to drum up sales. Because that is the only reason they (the characters) exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 13, 2021 9:56:13 GMT -5
That a character whom readers have always seen as heterosexual reveals his or her true sexuality after many years is as much a mirror of real life as coming out at a young age.
I know almost two dozen friends, acquaintances and former students who have over the last 20 years or so changed their sex. One was my daughter's best friend when they were in grammar school. She lived with us off and on for quite a while becuase her single mom was terribly ill. My boys always had crushes on her, she never picked up a boy's toy, fit the complete stereotype of a "little girl."
My daughter, meanwhile, refused to wear dresses from an early age, didn't give a tinker's dam about fashion, make-up, Barbie, etc., was and still is a massive abseball fan, played four years of varsity softball in high school and wore exactly two dresses I can recall... to her proms.
She was very much a "tomboy," to use the old designation.
When her old friend announced that he was transgendered, we were all gobsmacked. But the story of his journey is fascinating, at times heartbreaking, and thoroughly illuminating.
As are the stories of the others we know whose lives have been changed for the better by at last being able to live the life they'd never thought they could.
Most are in their 30s now, but one is just this month turning 67. She (now) is a distinguished radiologist (treated my wife 15 years ago, just before her transition), a pilot, an excellent athlete (we were teammates on the same men's softball team for close to 20 years), a grandfather, married for years to a female doctor. She made the difficult decision to transition when she was in her late 50s. Again, everyone was surprised, but once she told her story, well, it was one more example of how intriguing we hairless apes really are.
Were we all supposed to say to the woman she became, "This isn't right; you can't just change the narrative I've always accepted and make things so complicated!"
That's real life, with real risks, real fears and real anxieties. Fiction isn't like that. Yes, some of this is undoubetdly based in pragmatism, but then again all facets of entertainment rely on the "very special episode" style of publicity about current issies. And if some good comes of it, all the better.
Billy Wilder did a take on Sherlock Homes and Watson as closeted lovers; in the Downey movies he's a Victorian James Bond. Iago has been reimagined as having a suppressed love for Othello that reveals itself as hatred; Mercutio's love for Romeo is often seen as romantic, not filial. Is Dracual a blodd-sucking monster or an erotic lover awakening female sexuality and threatening the mores of a buttoned-up age?
Even comic book characters can't remain static. If you want the Superman you like, read the stories from x-number of years ago that you most enjoyed. No harm done, but --word of warning, word of advice, to quote Keith of "The Office" -- reading only about people like ourselves is a dead end. Fiction allows us to experience vicariously the lives of others, and it is especially enlightening to experience the lives of those who are not like us. It widens our view of the world, rather than narrowing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 10:04:33 GMT -5
The thing is though, expressing," Hey, this came out of no where and really took me by surprise" is MUCH different than saying that the character is ruined and that something has been taken away from you because they've made a character gay. True enough. What can I tell you, comics fans are prone to over-reacting? One is just a slight disappointment in a corporate decision and the other is attaching negative qualities to a character based on them being gay and whether fictional or not that kind of reaction is wrong as being gay is not a negative attribute and no amount of passion excuses that. Again, I dont really accept that parrallel, I'm afraid. I think it's entirely possible to dislike a previously straight fictional character suddenly being written as gay without it necessarily translating into any real world bias or homophobia. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The bolded part is the difference, as again that's disliking the choice to write a character a certain way which is a completely different thing than a negative reaction to a character because they are gay. The former is a negative reaction to an editorial decision which is okay while the latter is a negative reaction to homosexuality itself which isn't okay. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,333
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 13, 2021 10:24:49 GMT -5
I understand identifying with a fictional character. I have identified with Atticus Finch at times. But the only dead certainty with corporate comic book characters is that some creator is going to come along and change things to try to drum up sales. Because that is the only reason they (the characters) exist. Yes, and this very debate was, in a way, engineered to drum up sales. If DC were trying to create real advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community, if they were truly invested in changing hearts and minds, they would have done a story where one of Superman's friends comes out, Superman has to explore how he feels about this as a character we can all identify with, and maybe then comes to the realization that he has questions about his own sexuality, perhaps at the end of a multi-issue story arc, where we have had time to absorb all of this while still wearing his shoes, so to speak, and while being guided by the narrative in terms of how to begin feeling about this issue. To bluntly inform the fandom that he is now bi elicits a more volatile response -- you're either with him or you're not, long before you've read the story. At the very least, this takes away the creative team's ability to change hearts and minds. Instead, it just fans flames. That being said, to quote a fictional character we apparently both identify with, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view—until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." As much as those of us in favor of the change want others to walk around in the skin of someone who is bisexual, let's also remember to walk around in the skin of someone who struggles with this, not because they are intolerant, but because this is unfamiliar territory to them, and because outlets like DC would rather bludgeon them with in-your-face, with-us-or-against-us, pro-LGBQT+ propaganda that can make them feel attacked and defensive than actually help them learn how to understand and empathize with the LGBQT+ community. Our man Atticus would never stand for such behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2021 10:57:47 GMT -5
Is it really a cash grab though? If they do nothing, they are accused of not doing enough for the gay community. If they do something, they are accused of cashing in. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It doesn't bother me, it's not the Clark Kent Superman I grew up with, it's Jon Kent, so different variables are permitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 13, 2021 11:14:20 GMT -5
I understand identifying with a fictional character. I have identified with Atticus Finch at times. But the only dead certainty with corporate comic book characters is that some creator is going to come along and change things to try to drum up sales. Because that is the only reason they (the characters) exist. Yes, and this very debate was, in a way, engineered to drum up sales. If DC were trying to create real advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community, if they were truly invested in changing hearts and minds, they would have done a story where one of Superman's friends comes out, Superman has to explore how he feels about this as a character we can all identify with, and maybe then comes to the realization that he has questions about his own sexuality, perhaps at the end of a multi-issue story arc, where we have had time to absorb all of this while still wearing his shoes, so to speak, and while being guided by the narrative in terms of how to begin feeling about this issue. To bluntly inform the fandom that he is now bi elicits a more volatile response -- you're either with him or you're not, long before you've read the story. At the very least, this takes away the creative team's ability to change hearts and minds. Instead, it just fans flames. That being said, to quote a fictional character we apparently both identify with, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view—until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." As much as those of us in favor of the change want others to walk around in the skin of someone who is bisexual, let's also remember to walk around in the skin of someone who struggles with this, not because they are intolerant, but because this is unfamiliar territory to them, and because outlets like DC would rather bludgeon them with in-your-face, with-us-or-against-us, pro-LGBQT+ propaganda that can make them feel attacked and defensive than actually help them learn how to understand and empathize with the LGBQT+ community. Our man Atticus would never stand for such behavior. Doing a nuanced story about one of Superman's friends may be nice, in theory, but it really doesn't do much besides create a (possibly) nice story. It's not going to generate any headlines, or sales or anything much else. And, honestly, this is Jon Kent. The character is all of six years old (I had to look it up). And it looks like he's been re-booted once or twice since then. There's virtually no history there to cause consternation. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 11:31:00 GMT -5
Not necessarily wanting to speak for tingramretro, or anyone else who has a problem with this sort of thing, but I think the most important thing to remember is that these are fictional characters. They are not real people. If a real, live human being comes out as homosexual or bisexual then of course there should be a willingness to support, accept and understand them (unless you're a total asshat). But if you have followed a beloved fictional character for years and years and then some writer or editorial team suddenly decides to have him/her come out as homosexual/bisexual it is a deliberate decision made by those creatives working on the character. And it's a decision that doesn't in any way have to be taken. In comics, it is likely that readers have seen these characters act in a way representative of a certain sexual orientation and been privvy to their innermost thoughts for years, without even the remotest suggestion of them being closeted. Therefore, suddenly changing their sexuality is a fundamental change to that character's makeup that is obviously going to rankle with some long term fans (yes, I believe a person's sexuality is a fundamental aspect of their psychological makeup – right after gender in terms of importance). So, I think it's reasonable for fans of these characters -- and even casual observers -- to be somewhat cynical and annoyed about the motives behind such dramatic changes, whether it's "outrage marketing" to drive up publiscity/sales, or empty "virtue signalling", or whatever. However, most importantly, it is a mistake to automatically conflate a person's attitudes towards a previously heterosexual fictional character suddenly being revealed to be homosexual or bisexual with their attitudes towards a real human being who comes out. It amounts to he same thing though, fictional or real...nothing has changed about the character from when you thought they were straight to learning that they are gay. It doesn't make them less heroic, less intelligent, less humorous or any other characteristic that made you like them in the first place just because they are now gay. The only difference is that they're attracted to a different sex, and if that's a deal breaker then yeah that does say something whether its a fictional character or not. Sure we know there is a slightly cynical reason for making a character gay, and a little exasperation and eye rolling at that corporate decision because it seems hollow is to be expected and is indeed acceptable, but when you get into more than that? That the character is ruined, "taken away" from you and causes resentment simply for being gay? That's a completely different kind of reaction and one that shouldn't be accepted. No, it is a completely understandable reaction, because that character HAS been changed and is no longer the character I related to. Did you miss the part about being privy to the characters innermost thoughts? That's what thought balloons did. We knew exactly who Alan Scott thought he was and how he felt for decades. If he actually was gay all that time, I think he'd have mentioned it at least once, at least to himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 13, 2021 11:33:25 GMT -5
Latest news: Jon Kent #1 reboot slated for spring, 2022. Ten variant covers available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 13, 2021 12:34:59 GMT -5
Is it really a cash grab though? If they do nothing, they are accused of not doing enough for the gay community. If they do something, they are accused of cashing in. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It doesn't bother me, it's not the Clark Kent Superman I grew up with, it's Jon Kent, so different variables are permitted.
True, I wouldn't call it a cash grab myself, since very few comics make any kind of money worth mentioning anyway. However, part of the interwebs is clearly talking about it, so it's free publicity for Warner's IP. Free advertising in the media usually translates into more money down the line. As Oscar Wilde said, “there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” When it comes to featuring bi characters to better reflect reality, I'd say the simplest way is just to feature bi characters, without notifying the press; otherwise it's more about a publicity stunt than about character development. DC did it with Lightning Lass and Shrinking Violet in the early '90s; heck, the LoSH even had a main character who was trans, and basically only LoSH readers knew about it. Of course, those were the pre-internet days: it took quite a lot for superhero comics to be mentioned in newspapers or TV. And strangely enough, the sex life of imaginary characters never made the headlines! |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 13, 2021 12:37:57 GMT -5
(...) being privy to the characters innermost thoughts? That's what thought balloons did. That's my main gripe about the Gwen Stacy/Norman Osborn story. No, wait. My main gripe is that it's yucky. But my second main gripe is that we knew what Gwen was thinking at the time, and neither Osborn nor Gwen's pregnancy ever showed up in those thought balloons. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 13:28:39 GMT -5
(...) being privy to the characters innermost thoughts? That's what thought balloons did. That's my main gripe about the Gwen Stacy/Norman Osborn story. No, wait. My main gripe is that it's yucky. But my second main gripe is that we knew what Gwen was thinking at the time, and neither Osborn nor Gwen's pregnancy ever showedo up in those thought balloons. You are aware that story has just been addressed and retconned out, yes? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 13:53:14 GMT -5
It amounts to he same thing though, fictional or real...nothing has changed about the character from when you thought they were straight to learning that they are gay. It doesn't make them less heroic, less intelligent, less humorous or any other characteristic that made you like them in the first place just because they are now gay. The only difference is that they're attracted to a different sex, and if that's a deal breaker then yeah that does say something whether its a fictional character or not. Sure we know there is a slightly cynical reason for making a character gay, and a little exasperation and eye rolling at that corporate decision because it seems hollow is to be expected and is indeed acceptable, but when you get into more than that? That the character is ruined, "taken away" from you and causes resentment simply for being gay? That's a completely different kind of reaction and one that shouldn't be accepted. No, it is a completely understandable reaction, because that character HAS been changed and is no longer the character I related to. Did you miss the part about being privy to the characters innermost thoughts? That's what thought balloons did. We knew exactly who Alan Scott thought he was and how he felt for decades. If he actually was gay all that time, I think he'd have mentioned it at least once, at least to himself. He hasn't been changed though, like I said does being bi make him less heroic? Is he less intelligent now that he likes men and women? Is he less funny? Those are the characteristics that defined the character...and literally (underlined and enlarged because it's not hyperbole but the actual literal fact)none of them change just because his sexual identity did. |
|
