| Author |
|
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Purveyor of Rare Items
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
|
| Posted: 06 September 2013 at 3:11pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Lance Hill wrote:
| You must have hated Spider-Man. |
|
|
Why do you say that? Peter Parker's sexual orientation had NOTHING to do with why I enjoyed the stories and the storytelling that happened in those books when I read them.
The character relationships added "texture" and the possibility of tension to the stories, but the stories were NOT about Peter's sexual orientation.
Aunt May being in danger could add tension to the story.
Peter trying to stop a villain quickly in order to make it on-time for a date with Mary Jane added tension to the story.
Peter having Gwen Stacy as a love interest and putting her in peril added tension to the story.
These are relationship elements.
Kathy Kane and Maggie Sawyer meeting for coffee to discuss details of a crime and kissing when they part is just another relationship element that can add texture and context to the story, but their sexual orientation has nothing to do with why I might or might not want to read that particular superhero comic.
Their marriage could be as interesting as I found the marriage of Lois and Clark to be (I thought that added an interesting angle to Clark and Superman, to be honest), so go ahead and marry Maggie and Kathy off, but make sure that remains as a relationship aspect that helps add texture and tension to the superhero stories to be told, rather than allowing the sexual orientation to become "the thing" that defines the character(s) and the book (and thus cheapens them in general by leaning heavily on the sensationalism of that ONE fact, rather than allowing that "fact" to add depth and texture to the characters and the stories).
Kathy Kane and Maggie Sawyer getting married is just a further relationship element that can add depth and texture to the stories to be told, but again their sexual orientation has nothing to do with why I might or might not want to read that particular superhero comic.
Seeing them in bed together (or seeing Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne in bed together) -- especially in some specific sexual position -- is a specific and overt demonstration of their sexual orientation, and that is something that I feel would add nothing of storytelling value to a superhero story.
Mainly for me, though, I think I enjoyed Spider-Man and all the other comics I read because I could identify with the characters and with the "human" aspect of their plights, including their relationships. As a thoroughly hetero guy, I don't see much that I can identify with when it comes to gay or lesbian characters, so I have no problem with the fact of Northstar being gay or with Kathy Kane being a lesbian, but unless the writers can tell interesting superhero stories about those characters and the people in their lives that I can relate to (which means that their sexual orientation would "merely" be a fact of the character, and not what the entire story was about), I don't see the attraction when it comes to making their sexual orientation THE thing that defines the characters or makes them interesting to me.
In fact, it was Northstar's mutant superpower that made him interesting to me, much like how Peter Parker's spider-powers made him interesting to me, and it would most likely be Kathy Kane's "bat-family" crime-fighting aspect that would make her interesting to me. Again, their relationships (and the facts of how those relationships came to be) add texture and tension to the storytelling, but take away the spider powers, mutant abilities, and "bat-family" crime-fighting aspects, and they become much less interesting to me, especially when I go there first by looking for superhero-oriented entertainment.
Kind of makes me think that maybe I haven't outgrown comics yet, but perhaps they have outgrown me.
Matt Reed wrote:
| The new Batwoman has been out for awhile. When I did read comics that featured her several years ago, her sexual orientation wasn't the focus but just an aspect of her character like Peter Parker dating Betty Brant or MJ. I didn't have a problem with it at all. |
|
|
Yeah, I've been aware of the "Batwoman is a lesbian" thing since her introduction -- I've never read any of the stories, so I'm glad that it sounds like the lesbian aspect has been handled like a simple "fact" rather than as the defining POINT, but the character has received so much hype BECAUSE OF the lesbian aspect that it's always seemed like more of a "gimmick character" to me, and therefore it's failed to elicit more than a yawn from me as a superhero/comic book fan but (currently) a non-comic reader.
[EDITED FOR TYPOS]
Edited by John Bodin on 06 September 2013 at 3:13pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 06 September 2013 at 4:59pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Marriage is something that should be used seldom in superhero comics. Most people in the real world that get married are decidedly unexceptional in terms of living adventuresome, dangerous lives, so it's understandable that the comforts of marriage and settling down would appeal to them.
With superheroes, I rarely see it as a good idea when a hero marries a civilian. One of the main reasons Reed and Sue works in the FF is because they're both superheroes who share an origin story. They both have the capability and drive to live the adventure, so to speak. I'm not saying that most heroes should give up on love, but the very premise of the superhero lifestyle is about selflessness and sacrifice so, yeah, marriage is one of the things that you'd probably have to forget about if you were fighting crime and getting stuck in deathtraps 24/7.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: 07 September 2013 at 3:55am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I don't read this as a "leaving because they wouldn't let us do a gay marriage storyline" --- I read most into their comments about last-minute/constant editorial changes on previously agreed to storylines.
Marc
Edited by Marc Baptiste on 07 September 2013 at 3:57am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Purveyor of Rare Items
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
|
| Posted: 07 September 2013 at 4:38am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I think you're probably right, Marc -- which means that the REAL story (editorial incompetence?) gets lost and probably wouldn't get reported on by the mainstream media without the "lesbian" aspect.
If you wouldn't write the story about the creative team leaving if it was a "conventional" heterosexual marriage story scuttled by idiotic editorial decisions, then you're just using the LGBT aspect for its sensationalistic value, which further undercuts the efforts of LGBT folks to gain more mainstream acceptance.
That "headline-grabbing" sensationalistic aspect tends to further marginalize LGBT efforts by putting them in the same intellectual category as "sideshow freaks" that the media thinks we love to to stare at, transfixed in amazement and horror.
That's the kind of B.S. that just fuels divisiveness, which doesn't help anybody.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
|
| Posted: 07 September 2013 at 4:52am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Reed and Sue. Lois and Clark. Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey. Ben and Alicia. Hawkeye and Mockingbird. The Vision and the Scarlett Witch. The thing about those couples is that the Big Two have broken up every relationship BUT Reed and Sue*.(of course, Millar kind of tried to do that with Civil War). I think that DC doesn't want a major marriage in their titles right now. They're perfectly happy with people getting their arms ripped off and stuff. They may also be avoiding it so it doesn't look like they're copying Marvel so close to Northstar's marriage. *Even though I read the Fantastic Four, Marvel has de-emphasized The Thing so much these days, I'm not sure of the current status of Ben and Alicia.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8369
|
| Posted: 07 September 2013 at 7:27am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I don't read this as a "leaving because they wouldn't let us do a gay
marriage storyline" --- I read most into their comments about last-
minute/constant editorial changes on previously agreed to storylines.
==========
Marc, that's how I read it as well. The editorial changes are there main
beef, the marriage was just the headline catcher. Others leaving DC
have publicly made mention as to the editorial problems the company
is having with nothing being done or said. Why? Because it's been
insulated within the comicbook community. This one left the
reservation, so to speak, because of the headline.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
|
| Posted: 07 September 2013 at 9:01am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
DC seems very much the sort of place right now where the higher-ups, who are much too busy to do the books themselves, simply hire "little people" to fill in the panels and the word balloons, all with the clear understanding that they do so at the behest and pleasure of the higher-ups, who are the only "actual" contributors. No one is seen as a "writer" per se. Merely a placeholder who imprints the books with the creative vision of the higher-ups. Certainly, there are those who can "write" and very often are allowed to do so. "Everyone, a round of applause for the fellow who thinks he's written a story this month! Well done! Remember, however, that "your" story only exists because WE allowed it to, finding it to be in keeping with the true creative vision of the title, that is to say, our's." The important thing for anyone in such a lowly position is to know when to STOP "writing" and do the job they were actually hired to do, which is whatever the higher-ups tell them to do, thereby taking the book in the only creative direction it will ever be allowed to go, the direction envisioned by those too busy to ever go near the book itself. Now that everyone understands this, the amount of creative feather-ruffling should begin to tail off. Just know going in, you're not writing the book. As artists, you're probably not drawing it either. You're just there doing the scutwork for the people who actually are writing and drawing it, albeit by proxy. They will let you know when to change things.
Edited by Brian Hague on 07 September 2013 at 9:03am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
