|
While there are many things happening in comics lately, there seems to be one that is catching the attention of readers and the general public alike right now, and that is gay characters. Now, the reality is that gay characters have been in comics for a while. Still, the initial "focus" on a gay character that I can remember was when Northstar was officially revealed to be gay 20 years ago. This was definitely a major occurrence back then. However, does it make sense for gay characters to be a "big deal" now? I would have to say it has to do with the way you view it.
There are two major spotlights going on in DC and Marvel right now regarding gay characters. For Marvel, it will be the wedding of Northstar. In my opinion, it's actually kind of a nice way of coming "full circle" 20 years after the original announcement of his sexual orientation. For DC, the spotlight is on an established "icon" character being reintroduced as gay. This character has been revealed to be Golden Age Green Lantern Alan Scott. Are these events genuine revelations that are being shared and published by the mainstream media, or are these gimmicks that Marvel and DC are pushing through the mainstream media? In my eyes, the wedding of Northstar is genuine. DC changing Alan Scott's sexual orientation is a gimmick.
Northstar is an established gay character, so there is no major revelation or bonus points for Marvel in addressing it or acknowledging it. At least not from me. While Marvel does seem to have swept it under the rug over the years since the original revelation, the mindset that they did so really only works if it's shown that people who are gay regularly push that element of their identity. I don't believe that's the case any more than straight people push that element of their identity. I'm straight and I know that's not the case for me. I know gay people (and bi) and none of them push that element of their identity that I've seen. It's known, but it's not like it's a point of regular discussion. So, while it could be said that Marvel has avoided the subject, I think that's only fair to say if you think gay or straight individuals should be making a point of discussing their sexuality on a daily basis. I'm guessing most of you don't think that. But what about spotlighting the wedding? Why is that genuine?
Marvel has a habit of making a big deal of weddings, and depending on the character the mainstream media has a habit of making a big deal of those stories. The wedding of Spider-Man was a big deal. It was carried by the mainstream media as was Superman's wedding. Sure, Superman isn't Marvel, but my point is on the issue of mainstream media publishing articles on the weddings of major characters. They do it. It's been established. Companies will also do it in-house. When the Black Panther and Storm got married it was discussed and pushed by Marvel for quite a while. So, once again a spotlight on a wedding is something established in that fashion.
Now you combine two elements as far as Northstar's wedding goes. First, while Northstar is not a "major" character in the Marvel Universe, the revelation of his sexual orientation was a major announcement for its time. You take that character and have him get married . . . you have a perfect combination for mainstream media coverage. Even if it wasn't pushed by Marvel before Astonishing X-Men #50 hit the stands I feel confident that the media would have picked up the story and ran with it as soon as they heard about it. The way Marvel or the mainstream media has pushed Northstar's wedding does not take away from its genuineness. But, DC's changing the sexual orientation of an established character is different.
When DC relaunched with the "New 52" concept many things were allowed to change. We've had changes in costumes, personalities, powers, and teams. The New 52 kept some factors of the past, but it was not simply a reset or a revamp. It was largely a reimagining. It has been familiar characters in familiar settings with just enough change to make people uncomfortable (and sometimes confused). Not all of these changes have been received well, but when doing something like the New 52 you can't simply waiver. You have to go with your plan and sometimes push harder. If you don't, nobody will take what you're doing seriously when you attempt to make major changes in the future.
DC revealing an icon character as being gay in this new universe is another big change, but it's not genuine. It's a gimmick. Why is it a gimmick? Because it's part of a gimmick. It's rooted firmly in the New 52, and I don't think anyone would argue that the whole New 52 concept is a gimmick. The New 52 may have been a necessary gimmick in DC's eyes, but it's still a gimmick. So, as long as you're going for major change you might as well go big or go home, right? To me, that is what DC is doing in making an "icon" character gay.
DC has established gay characters, but they've never had an icon that was. I'd say the closest they've come is the current Batwoman. Could DC wait and see if Batwoman's popularity continues to grow? Sure. In fact, that can still happen. However, DC is changing the formula. It's pitting the established fondness and familiarity of an "icon" against a reimagining of their sexual identity. While there were a few rumors about which character this would be, we now know the "icon" is Golden Age Green Lantern, Alan Scott.
While there are folks that are concerned about the change in the character's sexual orientation, from what I've read (even before the confirmation) the majority seem concerned about a fundamental change to the character's identity in general. Well, I'm sorry to tell some people this, but being gay doesn't make you any less of a hero. At least no more than it makes you any less of an employee, boss, teacher, soldier, etc. Does this mean he might show an interest in a male hero he never would have before? Possibly. However, if the character never had that type of behavior towards female characters in the past it's nothing more than an assumption that it would happen towards male characters. Again, the sexual orientation may have changed, but that doesn't mean that Alan Scott's core identity did. Let's get back to the gimmick aspect though. Specifically, did DC go "big enough" in who they chose to reintroduce as a gay character?
Well, Alan Scott is not one of the "big three". If the character revealed to be gay was Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman, that would be going REALLY BIG. DC could have gone with a second-tier character like Green Lantern Hal Jordan, Aquaman, a former Robin, or many others. They didn't do that either. They went with a Golden Age character that was being not only reintroduced, but reimagined. Still, there is a fair amount of significance to Alan Scott. That shouldn't be overlooked. The character has been around for just a bit over 70 years. That history has now been wiped out. You're talking about a character that had two children that turned into heroes in their own right, Jade and Obsidian (who was himself gay). You're talking about a major member of the JSA. You're talking about a character that was a mentor to Kyle Rayner during that character's growth as Green Lantern. You're talking about the father of one of Kyle Rayner's girlfriends (again, Jade). That's a lot of history gone (a lot of Green Lantern history that is important to me personally). That history is now wiped out. It's erased in all but back issues and trades collecting them. BUT, all of that has NOTHING to do with him being gay. Rebooting the character changed all that, not his sexual orientation.
I do think it could be argued that there was potential in seeing a lot of Alan Scott's story/history play out in a modern era. Some are saying that's not possible now. Well, I hate to burst the bubbles of those people, but that's not true. There is still the potential for him to have kids. There is the potential for him to have already had kids. The reality is that gay people can have kids. Much to the shock of some, it has happened in the real world. So, those arguments don't seem to be coming so much from a place of critical thinking as much as a place of people just being critical.
So what have we looked at now in regards to DC's spotlight? We have an established character having their sexual orientation changed. They've been called an "icon" by DC, but if that's the case to most current comic readers is highly debatable. DC could have gone big by choosing a major character, but they went with someone who has major history in the DC Universe instead (prior to the New 52). It's still a major change, but in a safer fashion. Plus, let's be honest. DC fudged how "major" the character was by choosing one that has the same superhero name as another character that is currently growing in popularity . . . Green Lantern. This brings me back to DC's spotlight on a gay character in this instance being a gimmick. However, that doesn't mean it's going to end up being such a bad thing though.
I think there is a lot of potential for this change to Alan Scott to be a good thing. Why? One word. A word that embodies the initial fear/concern of a reimagined character that would later turn out to be a beloved character. The word? Starbuck. Yes, folks I'm talking about Kara Thrace. The intriguing character of the reimagined 'Battlestar Galactica' series. When people first heard that the character of Starbuck was going to be female, a lot of concerns were voiced. I myself was concerned. I'll admit that. It seemed like a gimmick. Heck, it was a gimmick. People seemed to be shaking things up just to shake them up. However, after seeing the character in the original miniseries, I was hooked. I had to understand the character more. I continued watching once the series kicked off and that reimagining of the character of Starbuck is definitely one of the most memorable characters in sci-fi for me. Did that make the initial change of the character's gender seem like less of a gimmick? Sure. That doesn't mean it wasn't one though.
This is the potential that DC now has in its hands. What begins as a gimmick doesn't need to be viewed as one forever. It can be something impacting and poignant. What the change in this "icon" is seen as down the road sits squarely on DC's shoulders though. You can argue that it's up to the writer, but what DC dictates are things that can, cannot, must, and must not be done with the character are the major factors. DC has an opportunity here. I sincerely hope they don't squander it. Not just for themselves, but also the readers (no matter why they like or identify with the new Alan Scott).
So, regardless of why these companies have spotlights on these characters, it's something that is getting people talking. To me, that's a good thing. I can accept that some people don't want "real world" issues in their comics, but personally it doesn't ruin anything for me if they do have such issues. I've seen comics come from a fringe hobby to something more accepted and perhaps even mainstream. The success of 'The Avengers' on the big screen is proof of that. It makes sense that as comics are more "accepted" that they start containing elements that connect with a variety of readers. Can these issues be more subtle? Sure. But, just because they can be, doesn't mean they should be.
Finally, I'd like to address some of the more recent "fringe" remarks I've seen in regards to these spotlights that DC and Marvel are putting on gay characters. I've read comments where people have stated they would stop reading a title because a gay character's sexual orientation was directly addressed in some fashion. I've also read comments where people said they were going to quit reading comics from Marvel and/or DC, or quit reading comics altogether because of these spotlights. Well, I scrutinize these people's motivations the same way I just did Marvel's and DC's. Are they genuine or gimmicks? Let me tell you, if someone has been reading comics from Marvel and DC for a while and they're just now taking a "stand" against stories focusing on gay characters . . . I'd guess their motivations and/or outrage is a gimmick. If it was genuine, they would have distanced themselves from these companies long ago. These companies spotlighting gay characters have ended up spotlighting some people's lack of integrity. If they want to be genuine in some outrage they should show some outrage towards themselves for all the excuses they made to keep reading comics from companies that they knew had gay characters, and therefore had the potential to focus on them.
|