T.M.I. A lot of what's wrong.

Again, I refer to Harry Potter. No sex stuff, no agendas, just pure escapism. That's what superhero comics from the big two should be, in my opinion. Not all comics, indies can do what they want, but the icons

Seriously. The idea of a heroic gay guy? Ridiculous.

Didn't the writer of Harry Potter come out and say the main wizard teacher was gay?

Which was a mistake IMO but I was referring to the books and movies

I forget which books or movies Grant Morrison had Batman engage in homosexual acts in... care to refresh me?

Excellent question. Thanks.

I would say none. So, I see no evidence of Batman being a homosexual in the comics.

Which goes to the heart of the wrong thinking by Grant. He is hung up on the idea that wanting to "hang out with the old guy and the kid" springs from an urge to engage in homosexual acts, or that his behaviors are in some way common to one who would engage in homosexual acts. It seems to be a misapprehension of what it means to be gay.

I'd say that's fair but I'm not sure how it's "what's wrong with comics today".

I never said it was what's wrong with comics or they portray Batman in the books as gay. But superhero comics have become more sexualized, where before you used your imagination now you see them fucking or it's obvious they just did. And my point is its not needed, you can do good stuff, like HP, without it. And to me, it's more harmful and only pleasing to the existing aging fanbase.

And conversations about whether Batman or even Wonder Woman is gay doesn't bother me. It's just conversation, people do it everywhere. My British reference was more of an amused curiosity than a judgement. Ifind it funny how someone like Moore's mind works, like with his Lost Girls.

Many contemporary authors seem to be unable to process the heroic impulse as . . . . heroic. Sacrificial. Doing the right thing because it's right. Sticking up for the powerless because you have power. I'm sure they would give lip service to that, but in their creative process they seem to search for "yeah, but what really makes them do that?" (Nothing wrong with searching for that through story). And all too often, the answer they come up with is something that does not have to do with being heroic -- either sexualizing it, or making it some twisted, disfunctional pathology. The same way modern stories tend to make great soldiers into some sort of pathological killer ( on some level).

Whatever it takes for the writer to get going on his spark, so be it. I'll judge them by what he puts on the page. But the result is laughable many times.

I'm liking Mark Waid's comics more and more.

I'd argue that he's using the word "gay" in more of a literary/critical way. He says right in the quote that obviously the character is heterosexual. But the "text" of Batman is gay. Or queer, in the sense of "queer theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

In other words, it's not Morrison who's "hung up" on the idea that Batman wants to "engage in homosexual acts." The hang-ups are among the people who hear Morrison say "Batman is gay" and start panicking and saying, "But ... but ... he likes to have sex with ladies!!!"

Granted, part of it is Morrison's off-handed delivery. But he's made a specific point of saying that Batman is "obviously" heterosexual as a character. So if we were to unpack the statement "Batman is gay," it doesn't mean "Bruce Wayne is a homosexual." It's "The concept and the text is queer/homoerotic."

He's not even suggesting that's the only way to read the text. He says it's gay in "many ways," but he doesn't say "all ways" ... which implies that there are ways in which it isn't.

All of which is moot if you're like Wayne and arguing that fussing over the "sexuality" of superheroes and their stories is a waste of time at any rate. But if one is just bothered by seeing "Batman" and "gay in the same sentence, then one oughtn't blame Morrison for that.

I feel you're conflating two separate issues. I don't think anyone is looking at the "heroic impulse" aspect of superheros and thinking, "Why are they like that? They must have crazy, psycho-sexual thing happening." I think that line of thinking stems from the fetish-y aspects of superheroes. It's not "Look at that guy standing up for what's right -- that's pretty queer." It's "Look at that guy in the skintight costume. He is not dressed in a way that we in the literary field refer to as 'heteronormative'."

You may still find that laughable, but I think attributing it to an inability to "process the heroic impulse" is unfair.

I saw that, and understood what he was trying to get across. Hanzo went in the direction of literal depiction of homosexual acts being the test of whether there was anything to criticize about it, and I achieved a reversal -- that that would also open Grant's thinking to challenge, as containing some baggage of its own.

There's a great contradiction embedded in the entire discussion -- "he's gay, but of course he's hetero, but I meant gay as a you know . . . abstract idea, and if by the way if you react negatively to that, then ha-ha you are a homophobe and it's fun to watch you overreact, because of course he's heterosexual."

I mean, that's just my opinion. I read about $50 worth of comic books a month, and have been for about the last 7 years. I'm not basing that on parsing words on their internet interviews. I'm making a broad critique of what seems to be happening on the page.

Superhero comics have become much too disconnected from authentic heroism. Perhaps a tendency to focus on "fetishes" like costumes are one manifestation of that. As if risking your life every single night, getting beaten and bloodied, giving up a normal life to tirelessly defend others and oppose wrongdoers, might be connected to a desire to wear a skin tight costume. It's absurd in all too many cases.

Just for that, you get a unprompted does of the Code of Doc Savage:

It was a mistake because...

You say you got what Morrison meant, but you were the one who said that he seems to have a misapprehension as to what the term means. My point was that I don't think he does. I would challenge the flip tone, but not idea he's expressing.

The point of saying "Of course he's heterosexual" is because of the character is -- as far as a character in serial fiction can be, definitively, gay or straight. The use of "gay" to describe a piece of art or a text is a perfectly valid use of the term. It is "abstract" in the sense that a book is not "gay" because it wants to have sex with other books, and a painting is not gay because it wants to have sex with other paintings. (MIND READING.)

But there is plenty of precedent for that use of the term to describe art, so how does Morrison using it in this way suggest a misapprehension?

Also, you're being somewhat flip yourself with the "you know" straw man. It's easy to make your other side sound stupid by having them say "you know" a lot.

"I'm not bothered by Batman being gay because I'm, you know ... against gay people or anything. I just think that ... you know, it shouldn't matter. The point is he's, you know, a hero, so why does it matter?"

I call this "You-Know Straw Man Syndrome," and it is one of the gayest syndromes a person can have.

There is a strange, elusive substance in this universe known only as WIN.

The above post is made entirely of it.