Grant Morrison on the DC heroes

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

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 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.

But no one is suggesting that. That's my point. If writers are disconnected from the "hero" part of superheroes and you don't like that, I understand that. But are these writers saying that cops and fireman are also psychologically skewed or sexually weird or whatever else? Where are they connecting these ideas to the heroic impulse? It seems like they are simply focusing on a different aspect of the genre than you are. Risking their lives and righting wrongs is not the only thing these characters do, and some writers are focusing on other elements.

You seem to be taking it as an insult that anyone who focuses on these weirder elements of the genre are somehow insulting the very idea of heroism. But that's like a reader of Superman comics in the fifties reading an issue involving Superman playing a prank on Lois Lane that turns her into a giant bug or something and then saying, "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 make a fool out of your girlfriend. It's absurd in all too many cases."

An apt analogy, I know.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

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

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.

Okay but not sure how this ties into whether or not a character is gay.

Linda · 13 Jan 1966

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

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

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 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.

It took me all afternoon, but I've managed to rewrite the code for my IMWAN account so that it automatically sets the Foe flag whenever "conflate" or any of its declensions is posted.

I'll miss you!

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

Is he talking to Batman? If so, hear, hear.

Flameboy · 26 Dec 2006

Linda wrote:

It took me all afternoon, but I've managed to rewrite the code for my IMWAN account so that it automatically sets the Foe flag whenever "conflate" or any of its declensions is posted.

I'll miss you!

Now do something about "psycho-sexual."

Thanks.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

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."

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.

No, Allen referenced Harry Potter as great because it's not weighed down with "gay baggage" and then I mentioned that the wizard dude is gay -- to which Allen replied, "Not addressed in the books." I pointed out the same holds true with Batman.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Li'l Jay wrote:

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

Quote:

The Code of Doc Savage:

Let me strive, every moment of my life, to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, that all may profit by it.

Let me think of the right, and lend all my assistance to those who need it, with no regard for anything but justice.

Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.

Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens and my associates in everything I say and do.

Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.

I always thought Doc seemed kinda gay. He never goes for any ladies, prefering only the company of his five male sidekicks. Then he goes a way to his fortress for months at a time to "experiment".

I mean, come on.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Linda wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

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

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 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.

It took me all afternoon, but I've managed to rewrite the code for my IMWAN account so that it automatically sets the Foe flag whenever "conflate" or any of its declensions is posted.

I'll miss you!

I now regret this entire conflagration.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Don't player-conflate.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

If you have conflaters, you must be doing something right.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Conflaters gonna conflate ...

Linda · 13 Jan 1966

Rafael wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Only with Batman. I bet they do it to watch all the uptight Americans flail their arms in an insecure bout of homophobia.

I approve of this. It's amusing.

Let's be honest, it's not nearly as amusing as the volcanic rage that erupts from fans of the "Freudian Brits" whenever their idols' unquestioned genius is questioned.

The current comic scene is so shrunken and inbred, it's like we're fed some faux outrage every day to hype this book or that. This article/interview is about as controversial as the "GD" thing (which is to say, not very), and it's becoming discernable as a pattern for how Grant Morrison promotes his mainstream work. Or rather how DC promotes him when he works for them.

The way Morrison talks about his plans for titles is usually very engaging and appealing. It doesn't need DC's adolescent, snickering "he said Batman's gay, heh heh" shit to be attached to it. Let the man's words stand on their own. He's more mature than all of DC editorial put together. I wish he'd stop doing books for them.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

I imagine Grant threw in the gay stuff without DC editorial's prodding.

Gerry · 09 Jan 2005

Supergods, all I'm saying . . . .

Linda · 13 Jan 1966

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

I imagine Grant threw in the gay stuff without DC editorial's prodding.

His viewpoint isn't confrontational in and of itself, I don't think. I didn't feel like he was being nasty or anything. Just explaining how he sees things.

The way it's being presented is toxic, though. It's that passive-aggressive game where you're not allowed to disagree with a viewpoint -- people can't say "Batman isn't gay" without one of DC's editors or creators tweeting "homophobia!" in response -- then it escalates into the trending, viral stuff they wanted in the first place.

Personally, I'd sooner answer that Morrison is good but DC comics are mostly shit. Do they have a clever response that will put "uptight Americans" who feel like I do in our places? You know, the 99% of Americans who don't buy DC because their comics are mostly shit? They could call us shitphobic.

Bolgani Gogo · **Joined:** 11 Aug 2004 **Posts:** 15285

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

Is he talking to Batman? If so, hear, hear.

Naw, Punisher-Girl.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Linda wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

I imagine Grant threw in the gay stuff without DC editorial's prodding.

His viewpoint isn't confrontational in and of itself, I don't think. I didn't feel like he was being nasty or anything. Just explaining how he sees things.

The way it's being presented is toxic, though. It's that passive-aggressive game where you're not allowed to disagree with a viewpoint -- people can't say "Batman isn't gay" without one of DC's editors or creators tweeting "homophobia!" in response -- then it escalates into the trending, viral stuff they wanted in the first place.

Personally, I'd sooner answer that Morrison is good but DC comics are mostly shit. Do they have a clever response that will put "uptight Americans" who feel like I do in our places? You know, the 99% of Americans who don't buy DC because their comics are mostly shit? They could call us shitphobic.

We are in agreement.

Li'l Jay · 28 May 2006

Ocean Doot wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

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."

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."

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.

Through this post and the others, you're making it out of bounds to disagree with Grant -- I don't think he misunderstands anything, or doesn't know what words mean. I fundamentally disagree with his observation about the essence of the character, and also disagree with the notion of a "gay" aesthetic or behavior that is separate from homosexuality itself. Not in the sense of "I am am the authority, and I declare that line of reasoning null and void," but in the sense of "I am a person, and I disagree."

Undue emphasis on the fetish aspects of costumed superheroism reveals a fetish in the author and audience, more than one that characters like Batman must have. I blame the typical. current day reader as much as anyone.

Allen Berrebbi · 07 Sep 2004

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Li'l Jay wrote:

Ocean Doot wrote:

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."

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.

No, Allen referenced Harry Potter as great because it's not weighed down with "gay baggage" and then I mentioned that the wizard dude is gay -- to which Allen replied, "Not addressed in the books." I pointed out the same holds true with Batman.

When did I say HP was great because of the lack of gayness?

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Linda wrote:

people can't say "Batman isn't gay" without one of DC's editors or creators tweeting "homophobia!" in response -- then it escalates into the trending, viral stuff they wanted in the first place.

Is that a thing? Because I can't imagine DC being very pleased with this interview and I can see Dan DiDio calling a press conference ASAP to reassure fans that Batman, in fact, isn't gay.

Quote:

Personally, I'd sooner answer that Morrison is good but DC comics are mostly shit. Do they have a clever response that will put "uptight Americans" who feel like I do in our places? You know, the 99% of Americans who don't buy DC because their comics are mostly shit? They could call us shitphobic.

I think Hanzo erred by confining the reaction by nationality. I don't think it is.

Linda · 13 Jan 1966

Rafael wrote:

Linda wrote:

people can't say "Batman isn't gay" without one of DC's editors or creators tweeting "homophobia!" in response -- then it escalates into the trending, viral stuff they wanted in the first place.

Is that a thing? Because I can't imagine DC being very pleased with this interview and I can see Dan DiDio calling a press conference ASAP to reassure fans that Batman, in fact, isn't gay.

Well, I think the desire for an outraged reaction is DC's and not Morrison's. If so, then how they officially respond to such a reaction is simply another part of the overall promo campaign. Like when they fanned the media flames in regards to Superman renouncing his U.S. citizenship, then officially made reassuring statements which were chock full of "Truth, Justice And The American Way". There's no reason to consider anything DC says to be sincere or genuine at this stage of the game.

No, I'm not saying we've been CONNED.

Just that it's all misdirection to try to steer the conversation away from the fact that most DC comics are shit.

Quote:

Personally, I'd sooner answer that Morrison is good but DC comics are mostly shit. Do they have a clever response that will put "uptight Americans" who feel like I do in our places? You know, the 99% of Americans who don't buy DC because their comics are mostly shit? They could call us shitphobic.

I think Hanzo erred by confining the reaction by nationality. I don't think it is.

"Uptight heterosexuals" would certainly work just as well in this scenario.

WO · 02 Sep 2004

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

WO wrote:

This is a big part of what's wrong with modern super-hero comics. It's not the only thing but still.

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

You read a boat load of homophobia into my post which wasn't there. I have no problem with a gay superhero. I do have a problem with discussing and writing about the sex lives of what should be all-ages super heroes. The only people who care about this shit are the ever-aging and ever-shrinking audience. Keep catering to them and writing this crap and sales will continue to shrink. But it's probably too late to fix it anyway so fuck it. As long as it makes the fanboys happy, right?

Grant Morrison on the DC heroes

Who is WANline