Comic Book Queers did a podcast recently on how Wonder Woman's fanbase was largely gay (I have no idea how true that is, but I guess it's possible) and that they weren't happy that the new 52 WW has been written more for hetero audiences. I've thought that this WW series was by far the most interesting that I've seen, so they may be on to something there. If DC thinks they can make both audiences happy by giving Diana a shot of gayness, then you could be right about that. I haven't got to JL 9 yet, so I have no opinion on what happened there!
I've often wondered, since I thought (and forgive me for not knowing a lot of Wonder Woman history) that the Amazonians didn't like men. I've kind of just figured they didn't like men...at all. I certainly have no insight, but it would kind of make sense to me if it were her.
While they are at it why not make Superboy a compulsive masturbater and write a story about Fire & Ice finding out Booster Gold gave them herpes? Gay people need heroes they can relate to so do compulsive masturbaters and herpes carriers. What about guys with micro-penis? Why not find out that Batman has been stuffing his pants due to his abnormally small wang, the REAL source of all his anger? And lets not forget transvestites, maybe Green Arrow should get arrested cross-dressing and working as a hooker. DC has become a sad joke since the reboot so why not fully commit to the joke.
So if this really is about "creating diversity" and not "creating publicity and sales," then why did they make their only prominent overweight character skinny?
So if this really is about "creating diversity" and not "creating publicity and sales," then why did they make their only prominent overweight character skinny?
So if this really is about "creating diversity" and not "creating publicity and sales," then why did they make their only prominent overweight character skinny?
Wait - there was a fat superhero?!
I didn't say super hero, I said character. Amanda Waller.
What about a Mormon superhero? DC has several gay and lesbian characters but no Mormon. What about Asian? They only make up 25% of the planet why are there no prominent Asian faces among DC superheroes? And of all the characters in DC there is only one Jewish character. Why hasn't Ray Palmer discussed being Jewish? If every character must discuss their sexual identity they why not have every character discuss their spiritual identity? When was the last time a character was shown going to a place of worship other than throwing a villian through a stainglass window? They wear capes and spandex why not just assume they are all gay or even better decide there is no need to discuss where every single superhero is putting his penis at night? Remember a time before facebook, twitter and reality t.v. when everyone didn't need everyone to know everything about themselves? Why does every masked hero with a secret identities need to then share their sexual preferences?
I look forward to the day when the sexuality of any person (real or fictional) is not newsworthy in any way.
Exactly. And if people thought it really shouldn't be an issue for a character to be straight or gay, they wouldn't need to discuss it on a comic con panel as some sort of big idea. They'd just write the stories. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby didn't have to go around and talk about anti-Semitism.... they wove the topic into their story lines seamlessly.
RE: Wonder Woman. I have read very few Wonder Woman stories, mostly Golden Age reprints. If I had to think about it..... I guess I would assume she was gay or bisexual. She an Amazon as ChrisSnell said. Its implied. But I don't care, she's just a great character.
While they're at it.... maybe we can finally get a Moron superhero, one that believes in Scientology, maybe one can be a birther, maybe one can convert to Islam and become a lone wolf sleeper cell. Tongue firmly planted in cheek :))
It has nothing to do with facebook and twitter, I don't get that comment at all. Since long before either of those existed, there have been stories written about the personal lives of the characters, which would include "where they put their penis at night." Romantic relationships of lead characters has been a part of fiction for years. The only thing social media has changed is that now real people broadcast their personal lives as if it was a movie. But the movies (and books and comic books, etc.) have been going to those places for centuries.
David D - I agree with everything you're saying - however, for me - Its not about a character being gay.... I could care less. To me its comes across as trendy and trying to be relevant for the sake of being relevant. It has more potential to come across as demeaning - regardless of the issue. I have little faith in the creators pulling it off. Age has made me cynical. :)
Am I the only person that thinks Batwoman is a major character in the DC Universe?
I hear you-- and I didn't think you had a problem with it. I guess my point is that their attempt to catch up with modern times may be a trendy thing to do. But I still think it is worth doing.
(And I also think it is strange that, at least in this one report, they seem to be ignoring that Batwoman is already in their universe, and- as she has her own book, even- it is strange that they don't credit her as a major character.)
I look forward to the day when the sexuality of any person (real or fictional) is not newsworthy in any way.
Exactly. And if people thought it really shouldn't be an issue for a character to be straight or gay, they wouldn't need to discuss it on a comic con panel as some sort of big idea. They'd just write the stories. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby didn't have to go around and talk about anti-Semitism.... they wove the topic into their story lines seamlessly.
And I agree that the truly modern thing would be for it to not even be noteworthy. Better to let the characters matter of factly be who they are, and get on with telling stories that involve all sorts of characters, that have all sorts of facets to who they are.
Unfortunately, there will be third parties who will make hay and try to drive site traffic out of things like this. So no matter how the execution in the books of the inclusion of characters might be, there will always be someone who will try to make it the lead of a blog post, as soon as they sniff the opportunity.
This is a good case of that, actually-- whatever that panel was about (Bleedingcool doesn't tell us, or report on what else they were there to discuss) this issue came up because someone asked them about it. That answer became the lead that Bleedingcool ran with because, well, clearly it is the thing that will get people talking. It is not like that was the purpose of the panel, or that it was even presented as a Big New Idea. Rather, it sounds like someone questioned their policy, as they had explained it in an interview in The Advocate. They answered that they had changed their minds about that policy. Bleedingcool ran with it, and here we are talking about it. See what I mean?
David D - I agree with everything you're saying - however, for me - Its not about a character being gay.... I could care less. To me its comes across as trendy and trying to be relevant for the sake of being relevant. It has more potential to come across as demeaning - regardless of the issue. I have little faith in the creators pulling it off. Age has made me cynical. :)
Am I the only person that thinks Batwoman is a major character in the DC Universe?
I hear you-- and I didn't think you had a problem with it. I guess my point is that their attempt with modern times may be a trendy thing to do. But I still think it is worth doing.
(And I also think it is strange that, at least in this one report, they seem to be ignoring that Batwoman is already in their universe, and- as she has her own book, even- it is strange that they don't credit her as a major character.)
She was already gay back pre-DCnU. I think they're talking about changing characters.
And as a side note, I think Batwoman is the perfect way to write a gay character. She's definitely a lesbian, the writers don't back down from it. But at the same time, they don't feel the need to remind you that she's gay every issue. The end result is that Batwoman is a character rather than a statement. My gay friends don't feel the need to remind me every day that they're gay any more than I feel the need to remind them every day that I'm straight. It just is who we are. Sure, there are some flamboyant people who make it constantly known, but there are also horny straight people who make it constantly known, but it doesn't mean everyone has to be like that.
I get that is the change in policy, I was just surprised that this upcoming reintroduction will be, they claim, their "most prominent" gay character. I guess we'll see, I was just surprised as I think Batwoman, having her own title, and given the press reaction at the time, was pretty prominent.
I look forward to the day when the sexuality of any person (real or fictional) is not newsworthy in any way.
Exactly. And if people thought it really shouldn't be an issue for a character to be straight or gay, they wouldn't need to discuss it on a comic con panel as some sort of big idea. They'd just write the stories. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby didn't have to go around and talk about anti-Semitism.... they wove the topic into their story lines seamlessly.
And I agree that the truly modern thing would be for it to not even be noteworthy. Better to let the characters matter of factly be who they are, and get on with telling stories that involve all sorts of characters, that have all sorts of facets to who they are.
Unfortunately, there will be third parties who will make hay and try to drive site traffic out of things like this. So no matter how the execution in the books of the inclusion of characters might be, there will always be someone who will try to make it the lead of a blog post, as soon as they sniff the opportunity.
This is a good case of that, actually-- whatever that panel was about (Bleedingcool doesn't tell us, or report on what else they were there to discuss) this issue came up because someone asked them about it. That answer became the lead that Bleedingcool ran with because, well, clearly it is the thing that will get people talking. It is not like that was the purpose of the panel, or that it was even presented as a Big New Idea. Rather, it sounds like someone questioned their policy, as they had explained it in an interview in The Advocate. They answered that they had changed their minds about that policy. Bleedingcool ran with it, and here we are talking about it. See what I mean?
Speaking as the person who started this thread, I should clarify something. Despite my sarcasm in the original post (which is making fun of those types of people which should be obvious), my main concern with this has nothing to do with a gay character. For me, that isn't newsworthy. What is newsworthy and that I have mixed feelings over is the changing of an established character in order to meet some sort of gay quota. To go with two of the characters that have been rumored, if they introduced a new Flash who was gay or a new Robin who was gay, I wouldn't consider it newsworthy at all. If they change Wally West or Tim Drake (and I know Tim Drake has already been in the New 52, I'm just using the two most prominent characters people have guessed at), that just doesn't really sit well with me unless they make it a really compelling story any more than it would sit with me if they changed any other aspect of their character.
Re: KyleMoyer
I get that is the change in policy, I was just surprised that this upcoming reintroduction will be, they claim, their "most prominent" gay character. I guess we'll see, I was just surprised as I think Batwoman, having her own title, and given the press reaction at the time, was pretty prominent.
I honestly I think there needs to be more male and female characters that are gay in comics. Of the 100's of books are made every month I bet 99% of the characters are straight. So while I applaud them adding to the diversity of the line, this does seem like more of a publicity stunt than really trying to make their comics more diverse.
I guess I would feel a little better if they said "we are going to add 15 gay and lesbian characters to make our world more in line with the real world, we are really excited about it." Instead I'm hearing the monster truck man voice saying "we are making the BIGGEST change EVER! Come see the LARGEST character in DC HISTORY as we make them GAY!!! It's controversial!!! Spread the word Internet!" My just two cents.
I look forward to the day when the sexuality of any person (real or fictional) is not newsworthy in any way.
Exactly. And if people thought it really shouldn't be an issue for a character to be straight or gay, they wouldn't need to discuss it on a comic con panel as some sort of big idea. They'd just write the stories. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby didn't have to go around and talk about anti-Semitism.... they wove the topic into their story lines seamlessly.
Righto. And those stories still ring true, and have real weight and substance, while the schlock they are producing now is only serving to gain a short 15 minutes of fame, and then be forgotten forever.
Trust me, 90% of everything DC has produced in the last 5 years will be stuffing the back issue bins a few years from now, in exactly the same way you find 90's comics stuffing them today. Pure crap with no intrinsic or redeeming value.
I think it is just a shameless ploy by DC to try to look hip and get some more books sold. I don't think they actually really care about the gay community at all. This is just a business move. I'm not gonna knock them for that, we are talking about it and books will sell, I just don't think their heart is where they say it is. Plus, hasn't Marvel been slipping in gay characters for over 2 decades now? I just think DC didn't do it the right way. I think it is like a reverse-homophobia. DC is like "Look at us, we are going to exploit our love of the gay community for money."
Couple other comments: You are an idiot Grant Morrsion. I'm glad I don't like your stupid stories.
I think Wonder Woman is the most likey. We haven't considered chicks that much on the thread. And, if she wasn't gay, she would be doing it with that Army dude by now.
Grant Morrison is an idiot.
Also, I predict a bunch of weird sketch requests spawned out of this news.
So if this really is about "creating diversity" and not "creating publicity and sales," then why did they make their only prominent overweight character skinny?
Same reason they made their beloved and primary handicapped character walk again.
I think it is just a shameless ploy by DC to try to look hip and get some more books sold. I don't think they actually really care about the gay community at all. This is just a business move. I'm not gonna knock them for that, we are talking about it and books will sell, I just don't think their heart is where they say it is. Plus, hasn't Marvel been slipping in gay characters for over 2 decades now? I just think DC didn't do it the right way. I think it is like a reverse-homophobia. DC is like "Look at us, we are going to exploit our love of the gay community for money."
If that were the case, then wouldn't they have done this-- and done it louder-- back when they were launching the New 52? Wouldn't they have made a bigger thing about the gay character in the relaunch of Teen Titans? Or tried to get a second round of press going about Batwoman, who finally got an ongoing title that continued to go in the New 52?
Again, for context, Bleedingcool did not report on a DC "Hey Come Hear Us Tease an Upcoming Gay Character!" panel. They were having a panel about something else. Someone asked them a question about their stated policy. They answered that they have changed their mind about that policy. Bleedingcool made it a lead and ran with the story.
Maybe that is "shameless", I don't know. But there have certainly been more shameless attempts to grab headlines in comics than answering a question at a panel. I would think if DC wanted to be shameless, they would have done an exclusive with LA Times Complex blog or Gustines at the NY Times to get the ball rolling on this story. They didn't do that this time. I think I have seen publishers, including DC, do a much better job of saying "Look at Us!" than this.
I would also say, for context, that both Marvel and DC have been including gay characters over the years. This is nothing new for either of them. The only thing that changed is that a policy they previously stated of not switching the sexuality of established characters in the course of the New 52 relaunch has changed. And now they will. Given that was something, in a way, that Marvel has already done (e.g. Colossus in the Ultimate Universe), and DC has probably done at some point in its history (and, in some ways, some could say having a new version of Batwoman and a new version of The Question in the old DCU could be seen as a version of this) it is really nothing new in any way. Even if you see this as just an attempt to be hip, it is not even a new version of THAT.
It is just being reported as something new or shocking, because there are some (e.g. Bleedingcool, and the various websites that followed on with their story) who have a gain in stirring things up, getting the comments buzzing, and seeing where some outrage might stick.
I think those of us who know our comics should know that this is old news and not some new sign of anything. Don't believe the hype and the headlines.
As far as whether an interest group is being exploited? I don't know. Is inclusion exploitation? Certainly all for-profits want to sell as much as they can to whoever they can. From that prism, any attempt to target a demographic, be it a gay readership, a readership of color, or, hell, even just targeting males between the ages or 18-34, could be seen as exploitation if you look at it a certain way. The idea that nearly all of these comics have violence and lots of male point of view characters, from a certain point of view, could be seen as just trying to exploit a male readership.
If the stories end up being just pandering to what they think certain demographics want, then sure. But I would say that is not exploitation, it is just bad work. That is true of any kind of pandering. But if you are telling the stories that readers want to buy, I think that is just them doing their job.
Whether it is the former or the latter, we can't know until we see the work.
Why not just do what Authority did with Apollo & Midnighter in the first half of the series, write them like normal human beings. Rather than having the type of dialog from Gossip Girl and Glee (like they do Bunker and Ultimate Colossus) they had normal conversations like a couple and let people figure it out on their own... like in real life. Not like the second half of Authority when the new writer suddenly has Midnighter talking like a creepy power top and Apollo seems like he belongs on a home decorating show. But instead they will make some big show of it as a marketing ploy to try to save an unpopular book.
Why not just do what Authority did with Apollo & Midnighter in the first half of the series, write them like normal human beings. Rather than having the type of dialog from Gossip Girl and Glee (like they do Bunker and Ultimate Colossus) they had normal conversations like a couple and let people figure it out on their own... like in real life. Not like the second half of Authority when the new writer suddenly has Midnighter talking like a creepy power top and Apollo seems like he belongs on a home decorating show. But instead they will make some big show of it as a marketing ploy to try to save an unpopular book.
I think it is too soon to know what they will do. For all we know right now, it may play out organically, as it did with Apollo & Midnighter. We won't know until the comics are made.
I think it is too soon to know what they will do. For all we know right now, it may play out organically, as it did with Apollo & Midnighter. We won't know until the comics are made.
Name the wager and I will bet you they have him or her come out of the closet with a last page splash of a kiss or some glee worthy monologue or worst have him or her make everything into a sexual innuendo like Marvel did with X-Statix.
Comments
RE: Wonder Woman. I have read very few Wonder Woman stories, mostly Golden Age reprints. If I had to think about it..... I guess I would assume she was gay or bisexual. She an Amazon as ChrisSnell said. Its implied. But I don't care, she's just a great character.
While they're at it.... maybe we can finally get a Moron superhero, one that believes in Scientology, maybe one can be a birther, maybe one can convert to Islam and become a lone wolf sleeper cell. Tongue firmly planted in cheek :))
:D
(And I also think it is strange that, at least in this one report, they seem to be ignoring that Batwoman is already in their universe, and- as she has her own book, even- it is strange that they don't credit her as a major character.)
Unfortunately, there will be third parties who will make hay and try to drive site traffic out of things like this. So no matter how the execution in the books of the inclusion of characters might be, there will always be someone who will try to make it the lead of a blog post, as soon as they sniff the opportunity.
This is a good case of that, actually-- whatever that panel was about (Bleedingcool doesn't tell us, or report on what else they were there to discuss) this issue came up because someone asked them about it. That answer became the lead that Bleedingcool ran with because, well, clearly it is the thing that will get people talking. It is not like that was the purpose of the panel, or that it was even presented as a Big New Idea. Rather, it sounds like someone questioned their policy, as they had explained it in an interview in The Advocate. They answered that they had changed their minds about that policy. Bleedingcool ran with it, and here we are talking about it. See what I mean?
And as a side note, I think Batwoman is the perfect way to write a gay character. She's definitely a lesbian, the writers don't back down from it. But at the same time, they don't feel the need to remind you that she's gay every issue. The end result is that Batwoman is a character rather than a statement. My gay friends don't feel the need to remind me every day that they're gay any more than I feel the need to remind them every day that I'm straight. It just is who we are. Sure, there are some flamboyant people who make it constantly known, but there are also horny straight people who make it constantly known, but it doesn't mean everyone has to be like that.
I get that is the change in policy, I was just surprised that this upcoming reintroduction will be, they claim, their "most prominent" gay character. I guess we'll see, I was just surprised as I think Batwoman, having her own title, and given the press reaction at the time, was pretty prominent.
Ha! Why not make Mary Marvel gay...they've done everything else they can possibly do to her!?
* obligatory NTTAWWT...but still... :)
I guess I would feel a little better if they said "we are going to add 15 gay and lesbian characters to make our world more in line with the real world, we are really excited about it." Instead I'm hearing the monster truck man voice saying "we are making the BIGGEST change EVER! Come see the LARGEST character in DC HISTORY as we make them GAY!!! It's controversial!!! Spread the word Internet!" My just two cents.
Trust me, 90% of everything DC has produced in the last 5 years will be stuffing the back issue bins a few years from now, in exactly the same way you find 90's comics stuffing them today. Pure crap with no intrinsic or redeeming value.
Couple other comments:
You are an idiot Grant Morrsion. I'm glad I don't like your stupid stories.
I think Wonder Woman is the most likey. We haven't considered chicks that much on the thread. And, if she wasn't gay, she would be doing it with that Army dude by now.
Grant Morrison is an idiot.
Also, I predict a bunch of weird sketch requests spawned out of this news.
Again, for context, Bleedingcool did not report on a DC "Hey Come Hear Us Tease an Upcoming Gay Character!" panel. They were having a panel about something else. Someone asked them a question about their stated policy. They answered that they have changed their mind about that policy. Bleedingcool made it a lead and ran with the story.
Maybe that is "shameless", I don't know. But there have certainly been more shameless attempts to grab headlines in comics than answering a question at a panel. I would think if DC wanted to be shameless, they would have done an exclusive with LA Times Complex blog or Gustines at the NY Times to get the ball rolling on this story. They didn't do that this time. I think I have seen publishers, including DC, do a much better job of saying "Look at Us!" than this.
I would also say, for context, that both Marvel and DC have been including gay characters over the years. This is nothing new for either of them. The only thing that changed is that a policy they previously stated of not switching the sexuality of established characters in the course of the New 52 relaunch has changed. And now they will. Given that was something, in a way, that Marvel has already done (e.g. Colossus in the Ultimate Universe), and DC has probably done at some point in its history (and, in some ways, some could say having a new version of Batwoman and a new version of The Question in the old DCU could be seen as a version of this) it is really nothing new in any way. Even if you see this as just an attempt to be hip, it is not even a new version of THAT.
It is just being reported as something new or shocking, because there are some (e.g. Bleedingcool, and the various websites that followed on with their story) who have a gain in stirring things up, getting the comments buzzing, and seeing where some outrage might stick.
I think those of us who know our comics should know that this is old news and not some new sign of anything. Don't believe the hype and the headlines.
As far as whether an interest group is being exploited? I don't know. Is inclusion exploitation? Certainly all for-profits want to sell as much as they can to whoever they can. From that prism, any attempt to target a demographic, be it a gay readership, a readership of color, or, hell, even just targeting males between the ages or 18-34, could be seen as exploitation if you look at it a certain way. The idea that nearly all of these comics have violence and lots of male point of view characters, from a certain point of view, could be seen as just trying to exploit a male readership.
If the stories end up being just pandering to what they think certain demographics want, then sure. But I would say that is not exploitation, it is just bad work. That is true of any kind of pandering. But if you are telling the stories that readers want to buy, I think that is just them doing their job.
Whether it is the former or the latter, we can't know until we see the work.