| Posted: 20 March 2025 at 6:56pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
@Ron: Malcolm X, Schindler's List, etc., are in a different category because they're explicitly and centrally about the experience of being a black man in mid-century America and a Jewish European during the Holocaust, and I DO think those types of identity-centered stories are best handled by people with a personal experience and cultural heritage of them. Theme and intent are key considerations in things like this.
Northstar is about representation, not experience.*
And certainly, if JB had set out to make an ongoing, serious (ie, not with humorous intent like his pre-pro 'Gay Man' strip) series centrally about gay life with Jean-Paul as the protagonist, yeah - that'd be super iffy.
But that's not what he did and, crucially, not what the essayist and others are taking issue with; they're saying point blank that as a straight male writer/creator of an ensemble superhero book, even creating and writing a character who happens to be gay - even as that identity is never remotely close to being what the book is about - is somehow wrong. That's where I have real issues, because the reverse implication is that if a gay writer did a Spider-Man run, that they'd be incapable of doing so because Peter Parker is straight. It's an absurdly reductionist approach to art.
JB also created Kitty Pryde, the first identifiably Jewish character in mainstream comics. As a young Jew reading those books, I appreciated seeing a little of my own identity reflected on the page and never for a half-second thought (even now) that she was in some way inauthentic. Now, if JB had decided he wanted to make a sequel to A Contract with God starring Kitty... that would have been odd and kinda presumptuous. Because it's no longer a Jewish character in a story that has nothing to do (mostly) with her Jewishness, but a story that's 100% about her experience as a Jew. Not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, but it raises the stakes on both the artist and the work they create.
Jean-Paul is a weightier symbol because of his being first in line. But JB certainly can't be held responsible for what later writers did to put their own take on the gay experience via their presentation of the character.
*And, yes, representation shouldn't just be on the page but behind it as well. Just not always, only, and exclusively a 1-to-1 match up between the creator and their creation.
Aside: Washington was likely talking explicitly about the controversy of Norman Jewison leaving Malcolm X, and probably also as a sidebar about Spielberg directing The Color Purple.
Edited by Dave Kopperman on 21 March 2025 at 1:40pm
|
