I just found it interesting that the initial reaction to this was "this is what's wrong with comics" and when pressed to elaborate, some people started going on tangents about how writers don't understand true heroism -- which has nothing to do with what Grant Morrison said at all.

Your points here about sexualizing kids' heroes seem far more on target and relevant to what Morrison actually said. The ones bringing up heroism make it seem as if heroism and homosexuality are somehow at odds with each other -- I don't think that was their intent, but it seemed unrelated to what Morrison actually said.

That's my opinion as well -- hence my skepticism at "this is what's wrong with modern comics". If Morrison had Batman banging dudes in thw actual comics, we'd be in full agreement -- showing Batman having sex with anyone should be off limits.

That's why Morrison saying this isn't "what's wrong with modern comics" in my book -- he hasn't shown Batman engaging in sex acts in his comics, which is all that matters. What's in the comics.



I think that it's important for people who feel homosexuals should be a normal, integrated part of society -- it's an example of "these people are like us, they can be heroes too".

One of the problems with talking about homosexuality is that the sex part seems to be what most straight AND gay people tend to emphasize. Making a hero homosexual should be no different than making a hero heterosexual. In all-ages comics - which is what the DC and Marvel Universes should be - a gay character is shown to be or a desire to be in a relationship with ones own gender. Those relations should be portrayed the same as their straight counterparts. The act of sex should never be portrayed, intimated or even discussed by their publisher or the creative talent involved.

I find this adorable.

(That don't make me gay or nothing, right?)

Agreed.

It makes you uber-gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Geoff Klock makes an interesting point in his book about how Frank Miller had, in "The Dark Knight Returns," an implicit refutement of the Wertham paranoia about what Batman/Robin were getting up to. By making Robin a girl, he takes away the homosexual possibilities, but she's still a young girl, and so nothing happens. Their relationship is aggressively non-sexual (with Batman referring to her as a "soldier" and such). But Miller still gets the "gayness" in there, by transferring the homoerotic tension to the Batman/Joker dynamic. (Hence stuff like the Joker calling Batman "darling" and making a moment out of the Joker applying his red lipstick, and Batman's narration to the Joker during their fight, "there's nothing wrong with you that I can't fix ... with my hands."

It was a great, convincing take on the whole thing, I thought. YMMV, of course.

Does Klock mention Arkham Asylum?

Well, not every character can be as fascinating or enduring as Captai Marvel or Savage Dragon.

I didn't object to the character being gay, I thought making a point about it in interviews, like his sexual orientation was an issue instead of just part of who he was, was wrong but looking back at it again, and the context, I can look at it differently.



"Bad Fan Fiction" is one of the silliest and most meaningless criticisms that can be made about something, even if you graciously that the HP Universe is Rowling's to do whatever she wants.[/quote]

Not for me.




I agree somewhat. It's ok for them to be protective of their character. the problem is in how they exercise that protection. It's more like Linda said where it's bullshit and blowing smoke rather than caring about Batman the character. But then again it's a giant company that owns him now. And occasional employee may care but the company cares about quarterly results.




I prefer that version too.




Yes, the number one reason stated why he is gay, #3, makes him a pervert and pedophile not just gay. And all the so called pro-gay people who bring this up don't get how anti-gay their reason sounds. It's usually about him living with a young boy as the reason. To me, THAT'S more homophobic than some of the reactions. Any man who has an interest in a young boy is gay?

For me, those 4 reasons show him, if I was going to indulge in fan psycho-babble (which can be fun in conversation but not something i would write into the book), as someone who has arrested development. He is still a kid inside, he never grew up past the age of the boy who's parent died.

The other way to go is that he has been so traumatized by the act, that he is deathly afraid of anyone he loves getting hurt or taken away from him. So he stays distant and avoids long term relationships. Except ironically with his sidekick which he sees as himself and he becomes his own father that he lost and tries to heal the boy he was.

That's true. Batman certainly isn't up to the task.

We can all agree that once Robin turned into Nightwing, he was fair game for Batman to buttsecks.

Guys with mullets don't get buttsecks. There might be a party in the back, but no self-respecting gay wants to attend.

Batman has no self-respect, that much is clear.

He cut that mullet. Jeez, it was the 90s.

It's very difficult for a lot of people in the media to differentiate it. They feel that homoSEXUAL means you accent the latter since the ONLY thing about them, is their sexual orientation, so beat people over the head with it. They're blank slates without it. So how could you have a gay character in a comic and not bring it up or show, imply whatever. So to people like you and me, who just plainly object to sex of any kind being portrayed, intimated or even discussed in the all-ages character books, we get the pc response like "what are you ashamed, do you think it's not beautiful etc."

I don't care if they create new gay characters in the books, just do it with some depth, not as a cliche or as a pr stunt. Do it like you said, like any other superhero creation where their sexual orientation is not part of the character's creation. It just is. Like the kids in YA. And then once you do, and you write a Batman, Superman etc. book, keep the sex out of it. All of it. And if you feel the need to do it, then write your own knockoff like Apollo and Midnighter or whatever. And there you can do whatever you want. But if you truly want a comic industry that the young will come back to it an will appeal to the young and old, emulate other stuff that does a great job with it, like HP.

With the understanding that we're not fighting, but just talking ... (Just two dudes talking, with no homoerotic subtext or anything) ... I still disagree.

In short .. I don't think the implication is "This is what makes this guy tick," I think it's "This is what makes this guy unique."

In long ...

Morrison was running down a list of superheroes and what he sees as distinguishing characteristics. I don't think anyone would have wanted him to say, "Well, Batman is a brave hero who risks his lives for others. Superman -- brave hero who risks his life for others. Wonder Woman? Ah, I'm glad you asked -- she's a brave hero who risks her life for others. Green Lantern is a particularly noteworthy one, as he's a brave hero who risks his life for others." I think the context DID suggest stuff beyond a basic conceit (of the genre, if you will) that is fairly universal. To wit:



So, like you said -- the skintight costume is a common element. (I picked it because I wanted something innocuous that was less charged than homosexuality.) But another common element amongst superheroes is: Having girlfriends. Another one: NOT having a boy sidekick or a butler (or "gentleman's gentleman," as I prefer to call mine). These are elements that make Batman different from other superheroes. The "gay" implications of that have been fodder for comedy for years: Like that panel that gets posted with the Justice League being told that they have poisoned "everyone they touched." ("Lois, I've doomed you!" "Carol Ferris, you're going to die!" "Robin! What have I done to you!") I don't think anyone fails to understand that he is "hanging out with" Alfred and Robin because they are all fighting crime together. There is a textual level on which we are to understand that Batman is straight, but he doesn't have a girlfriend (unlike Superman or Spider-Man) because he is just THAT driven and has made this sacrifice for his cause. That's the text, sure. But the sub-text ...

And Morrison's point was simply to say that the homosexual subtext in Batman is part of what makes him *unlike* other superheroes, and part of what makes him one of the more popular ones. (Because, after all, there are a ton of superheroes out there.) You might think Morrison is ignorant for pegging the "gayness" as the reason that Batman is liked, but it seems fair to say that *something* about Batman makes him special, as he's one of the most popular characters in his genre. In a milieu where ALL the headlining protagonists are extraordinary people performing acts of heroism, what are the elements that make one more popular than the other?

The Freudian Brits think it's the implicit sexual subtexts. They might be wrong. But I'd argue it's a point apart from the characters' heroism or lack thereof. It's a distinct element in my mind, as separate as powers or costumes. (i.e., if you like Spider-Man better than Batman because you think spider powers are cooler than a utility belt, you are not suggesting that people with utility belts are unheroic; or if you prefer Green Lantern to the Flash, it's not because you think people who dress in green are more heroic than people dressed in red). This seems particularly so in Morrison's context, where he seems to be talking about "gayness" more in aesthetic terms than psychological ones.



They may not have questioned the motivation of the hero, but then a lot of them didn't seem to even be about the heroes being heroic at all. To be honest, I've not read many myself, but it was something I noticed in Alan Moore's pastiches in "Supreme," all of which seemed to be based on actual Superman stories from the 50s. (Like the imaginary story where Superman splits into Blue and Red and then one of them marries Lana and one marries Lois. Or the one where there's an alternate reality Superman in a world where polygamy is legal, so he's married to both Lois and Lana. None of those stories seem at all about fighting crime. Although you can't deny, those premises are about as heterosexual as you can get. AMIRITE?)

I think the reason I brought it up is because the idea bothers me a little bit, moreso than the modern "calling into question a hero's sanity" trope ever has. I mean, which lessens heroism more: A guy who beats up thieves and murderers, even if part of why he does it is that he is "addicted to violence," or a guy calling himself a hero who spends all his time playing headgames with his two girlfriends?

Just fodder for more convo. Or not, if the subject has wearied you.

Also, you never answered me about Man-Thing. I think his nose looks like a penis. Thanks.

He might, but it doesn't get any lengthy analysis.

Back in the '70s, you knew that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson were dating. You'd see them on a date, hanging out somewhere, but that was the extent of it.

When the original clone saga was resolved in 1975, Peter Parker shows up at Mary Jane's door, saying that the Gwen clone is gone and that he's over the whole thing. Mary Jane wants proof. Pete responds by going inside and closing the door. End of story.

At eight years old, I didn't read anything into that. Now, of course, I know better.

I don't need a blow-by-blow desciption (pun firmly intended) of what Superheroes do in their private moments with girlfriends and wives. I agree with the opinion that superheroes should be all ages material. And I think that can be done without reverting to a 1950s mindset in order to do so.

Marvel did it quite well back in those glory days of the seventies, IMO.

Agree. Focus on the SUPEHERO elements, its why we buy these comics.

If they had done comics where they focused mainly on the romantic aspects of the heroes' lives, I would have been bored by that as a kid.