|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 13, 2021 14:59:09 GMT -5
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. Well, no, we don't. You're arguing from something that might have happened, but didn't. Alan Scott in some random 1940s comic might have mentioned that he preferred men as his sexual partners, but he didn't. We all seem to accept that in the film version of "The Maltese Falcon, "Wilmer, as played by Elisha Cook, Jr., is a homosexual. We especially see that in retrospect as we are today more alert to clues and hints in the screenplay and source material than most of its original audience would have been. We never see Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr's characters in bed in "From Here to Eternity," but we are damn sure that they are sleeping together. Nowhere in Hitchcock's "Rope" do we learn that the two protagonists are gay and probably lovers, but we know they are, if onl;y from some of the cliched tropes of characterization that define them.. Now I have no idea whether some perspicacious writer actually dug back through the old GL stories to find any bit of information that might be used to discover a heretofore secret life of Alan Scott's. Maybe the writer did. I'm guessing that wasn't the case for reasons we all have mentioned previously. But given that we never saw Scott divulge any of his secret thoughts regarding his and Harelquin's sex life, how are we to know that like many a closeted gay or bisexual man in the 1940s, he married, had children, and for whatever reasons -- suppression, guilt, a fear of being found out, religious convictions -- he chose not to reveal it to anyone. It happens. He is still heroic and brave and principled, but he just happens to have kept a key part of his life a secret, perhaps even from himself, and definitely from the readers. We were/are never privy to every single thought a character has, just those that pertain to the story we're reading or those we've already read. And we have to give the medium itself some leeway, too; otherwise every panel would be filled with a stream-of-consciousness narrative and make the story too confusing and impossible to follow. Now, bear in mind, all of this has ahppened to Alan Scott without my having read any of these stories. They occurred after my comics reading and buying time. But they would not for one second reduce whatever enjoyment I derive from seeing a Golden Age GL cover or reading one of the stories. If anything, they might make such reading even more interesting as I look for sub-text to see if the writers who created this aspect of Scott's being actually saw something there in those old stories that served as even a modicum of a springboard for hos being gay. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 15:41:36 GMT -5
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. You seem to be either misunderstanding or ignoring the point. He has been changed because he wasn't gay before. It was never suggested anywhere, even in the characters own thoughts as printed on the page, for decades. Therefore, his history, his personal continuity, has changed. That is what matters to me, that is my priority. He's not the same character anymore. And whether you think it's right or not, I can no longer relate to him the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 13, 2021 16:14:29 GMT -5
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. You seem to be either misunderstanding or ignoring the point. He has been changed because he wasn't gay before. It was never suggested anywhere, even in the characters own thoughts as printed on the psge, for decades. Therefore, his history, his personal continuity, has changed. That is what matters to me, that is my priority. He's not the same character anymore. And whether you think it's right or not, I can no longer relate to him the same way. Based on what? There is absolutely no indication of his sexuality in those old Golden Age comics. No, I haven't read them a ll, but I'm pretty sure he never married, never had kids. All that stuff was retconned (off-screen, for that matter) as well. Did that change him from the Alan Scott you knew? I guess you're glad the Idris Elba James Bond hasn't happened, because as we all know, Bond is Connery... er, Moore.... er, Craig.  Checking out now. No more points to make, too much life to live. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 16:22:28 GMT -5
You seem to be either misunderstanding or ignoring the point. He has been changed because he wasn't gay before. It was never suggested anywhere, even in the characters own thoughts as printed on the psge, for decades. Therefore, his history, his personal continuity, has changed. That is what matters to me, that is my priority. He's not the same character anymore. And whether you think it's right or not, I can no longer relate to him the same way. Based on what? There is absolutely no indication of his sexuality in those old Golden Age comics. No, I haven't read them a ll, but I'm pretty sure he never married, never had kids. All that stuff was retconned (off-screen, for that matter) as well. Did that change him from the Alan Scott you knew? I guess you're glad the Idris Elba James Bond hasn't happened, because as we all know, Bond is Connery... er, Moore.... er, Craig. Checking out now. No more points to make, too much life to live. Why do people keep mentioning the Golden Age stuff? My Alan Scott is the character I have been reading about since the seventies, the forty five years or so in which the majority of his actual character development happened, mostly in the eighties and nineties. Alan Scott, veteran superhero and married man with a wife and kids. That's "my" Alan Scott. That's what we've lost. That's what matters. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 16:35:28 GMT -5
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. You seem to be either misunderstanding or ignoring the point. He has been changed because he wasn't gay before. It was never suggested anywhere, even in the characters own thoughts as printed on the page, for decades. Therefore, his history, his personal continuity, has changed. That is what matters to me, that is my priority. He's not the same character anymore. And whether you think it's right or not, I can no longer relate to him the same way. I'm not ignoring or misunderstanding anything...being gay doesn't change any of your personal traits, and its the same for fictional characters. Alan (or Tim Drake or Jon)isn't any less heroic because he's gay. He's not any less brave because he's gay. He doesn't lose that dry sense of humor because he's gay. And those are the important attributes that define his character...so if they haven't changed well, the only thing you have a problem with is his sexuality which isn't a negative attribute for Alan as a character...but rather a negative attribute to ones world view that you personally have to reflect on. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 13, 2021 16:36:20 GMT -5
So, this Alan Scott? Like so many other gay people whom we just never realized were gay? I still don't get the big deal. But that's me, I guess.   |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 16:41:11 GMT -5
You seem to be either misunderstanding or ignoring the point. He has been changed because he wasn't gay before. It was never suggested anywhere, even in the characters own thoughts as printed on the page, for decades. Therefore, his history, his personal continuity, has changed. That is what matters to me, that is my priority. He's not the same character anymore. And whether you think it's right or not, I can no longer relate to him the same way. I'm not ignoring or misunderstanding anything...being gay doesn't change any of your personal traits, and its the same for fictional characters. Alan (or Tim Drake or Jon)isn't any less heroic because he's gay. He's not any less brave because he's gay. He doesn't lose that dry sense of humor because he's gay. And those are the important attributes that define his character...so if they haven't changed well, the only thing you have a problem with is his sexuality which isn't a negative attribute for Alan as a character...but rather a negative attribute to ones world view that you personally have to reflect on. I don't have to "reflect" on anything, and you are still totally ignoring what I consider the single most significant fact that the characters personal history and continuity have been changed! Continuity and history define character, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 16:46:32 GMT -5
So, this Alan Scott? Like so many other gay people whom we just never realized were gay? I still don't get the big deal. But that's me, I guess. Because he wasn't gay before, so he shouldn't be now. Not one thought balloon in the seventies, eighties, nineties or noughties even hinted at it. His personal continuity has been changed! Why are people not getting this? I am a completist when it comes to my favourite characters. I have every appearance Alan Scott (and Jay Garrick, and Ted Grant, and as far as I have been able to establish Carter Hall) have made since at least 1970, if not earlier. And Alan wasn't gay in any of them. Not until the Earth 2 series, and that was Alan in name only.This matters. Continuity matters. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 16:48:41 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring or misunderstanding anything...being gay doesn't change any of your personal traits, and its the same for fictional characters. Alan (or Tim Drake or Jon)isn't any less heroic because he's gay. He's not any less brave because he's gay. He doesn't lose that dry sense of humor because he's gay. And those are the important attributes that define his character...so if they haven't changed well, the only thing you have a problem with is his sexuality which isn't a negative attribute for Alan as a character...but rather a negative attribute to ones world view that you personally have to reflect on. I don't have to "reflect" on anything, and you are still totally ignoring what I consider the single most significant fact that the characters personal history and continuity have been changed! Continuity and history define character, as far as I'm concerned. They don't though, personality traits are what define both characters and people ... but heck even if we go with history it's not a salient point as it has been pointed out already that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have lived most of their lives with the world seeing them as straight only for them to decide to reveal that they are gay later on in life so it's not unrealistic or poor writing for a fictional character to do the same. So yeah, this really does come down to a you thing and not a problem with the character itself. Again, it's acceptable to feel like such a move is a hollow marketing move...but it's not okay to see homosexuality itself to be a negative which is how you are coming off. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 17:01:04 GMT -5
I don't have to "reflect" on anything, and you are still totally ignoring what I consider the single most significant fact that the characters personal history and continuity have been changed! Continuity and history define character, as far as I'm concerned. They don't though, personality traits are what define both characters and people ... but heck even if we go with history it's not a salient point as it has been pointed out already that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have lived most of their lives with the world seeing them as straight only for them to decide to reveal that they are gay later on in life so it's not unrealistic or poor writing for a fictional character to do the same. So yeah, this really does come down to a you thing and not a problem with the character itself. Again, it's acceptable to feel like such a move is a hollow marketing move...but it's not okay to see homosexuality itself to be a negative which is how you are coming off. it's nothing to do with homosexuality in itself, why are you not getting this? It would be exactly the same if a character who had been presented as gay for twenty years was suddenly straight. It's about continuity! Even if I could accept that these characters were hiding something about themselves from every other character for decades, they'd still have known it themselves and addressed it in their inner monologues. It's ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 17:06:21 GMT -5
They don't though, personality traits are what define both characters and people ... but heck even if we go with history it's not a salient point as it has been pointed out already that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have lived most of their lives with the world seeing them as straight only for them to decide to reveal that they are gay later on in life so it's not unrealistic or poor writing for a fictional character to do the same. So yeah, this really does come down to a you thing and not a problem with the character itself. Again, it's acceptable to feel like such a move is a hollow marketing move...but it's not okay to see homosexuality itself to be a negative which is how you are coming off. it's nothing to do with homosexuality in itself, why are you not getting this? It would be exactly the same if a character who had been presented as gay for twenty years was suddenly straight. It's about continuity! Even if I could accept that these characters were hiding something about themselves from every other character for decades, they'd still have known it themselves and addressed it in their inner monologues. It's ludicrous. As has been said, they wouldn't have to. How often was a comic book super hero's deep seated sexual views something that was important to the story being told? That answer? Never. So why would it be on the page? And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that because of social norms of the time it simply would not have been allowed even if a writer had wanted to. So yeah, history is moot...and trying to cling to it just makes it feel like it's an attempt to mask something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 13, 2021 17:15:23 GMT -5
I can't remember Alan Scott ever cogitating in his word balloons about his bowel movements. But one has to assume that it wouldn't be a shocker to see him sitting on the can in a funny-book. Or would that be violative of his deep-seated history and continuity?
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 13, 2021 17:17:09 GMT -5
it's nothing to do with homosexuality in itself, why are you not getting this? It would be exactly the same if a character who had been presented as gay for twenty years was suddenly straight. It's about continuity! Even if I could accept that these characters were hiding something about themselves from every other character for decades, they'd still have known it themselves and addressed it in their inner monologues. It's ludicrous. As has been said, they wouldn't have to. How often was a comic book super hero's deep seated sexual views something that was important to the story being told? That answer? Never. So why would it be on the page? And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that because of social norms of the time it simply would not have been allowed even if a writer had wanted to. So yeah, history is moot...and trying to cling to it just makes it feel like it's an attempt to mask something else. Yeah, I get that you're determined to believe that, for some reason. But whether you believe it or not, to me history matters. I am deeply emotionally invested in the personal history of thse characters going back over forty years. And I don't like them being changed. And don't appreciate someone who doesn't even know me trying to make out that it's all about his pet agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 13, 2021 18:25:39 GMT -5
As has been said, they wouldn't have to. How often was a comic book super hero's deep seated sexual views something that was important to the story being told? That answer? Never. So why would it be on the page? And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that because of social norms of the time it simply would not have been allowed even if a writer had wanted to. So yeah, history is moot...and trying to cling to it just makes it feel like it's an attempt to mask something else. Yeah, I get that you're determined to believe that, for some reason. But whether you believe it or not, to me history matters. I am deeply emotionally invested in the personal history of thse characters going back over forty years. And U don't like them being changed. And appreciate someone who doesn't even know me trying to make out that it's all about his pet agenda. ...it's not a pet agenda, it's basic human decency. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 13, 2021 18:47:44 GMT -5
I think this subject has just about run its course.
|
|
