Pretty, Fizzy Paradise

I'm back! And reading! And maybe even blogging! No promises!

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Let's Open the Closet Door:

Blog@'s got something interesting up over this way.

That novel sounds really interesting actually, though I don't truly know if I'd go buy it. I tend to prefer outright superheroes in comic form since the medium suits them better than standard novels, IMO.

Still it really sounds like an interesting story. They also link a New York Times interview here.

Definitely definitely interesting stuff. Personally I'd love to see more gay/lesbian heroes running around. I think Montoya and Batwoman in Crime Bible's a good start, and whenever the heck Manhunter comes back, Todd and Damon are adorable there.

I'd like to see some younger gay heroes too, really. That's the one thing I think Marvel's doing a little better on, what with Karolina, Wiccan and Hulkling. (I don't count Xavin, because in my interpretation, he seems to self-identify more as male and thus in my opinion he's a straight man shapeshifting into a woman for his girlfriend who is a lesbian. Which is kind of convoluted.)

DC's got some great new teenaged heroes right now: Firestorm, Blue Beetle, Miss Martian, even Supergirl now that her portrayal's starting to even out. It's a shame that none of them are gay...

Heh, given their track record with Supergirl, I'm surprised no one's tried it...

I was thinking though, you know, it'd be fairly easy for a writer so inclined to write Tim Drake as gay. Tim's had close relationships with girls before, Ariana, Steph, Darla, Zoanne (maybe?), but he's definitely got problems connecting with them emotionally. Heck, there was that time when kissing Steph that he was keeping track of the time with a part of his brain. And well, I hate to overgeneralize, but I think most straight boys kissing a girl like Steph wouldn't be counting minutes. Of course, there's the thing with Cassie, but that could be read as being more about Kon than Cassie.

I'm not saying it proves anything of course, but I don't think it'd be hard to spin it that way. An outright gay Robin would have a pretty interesting effect on the media. Especially since Tim Drake's pretty settled into his role. He wouldn't be able to be shunted aside like Kate Kane.

You know who else would be fairly easy to write as gay? Sandy Hawkins. He's not a teen, but it'd be pretty easy. I mean, he did have that crush on Kendra, but well, Hawkgirl's pretty much the definition of an "unavailable woman". Also, honestly, that whole fantasy after he was resurrected and she kissed him on the mouth...and that's IT...

That was awfully chaste for a twenty-five year old young man, in my opinion. He could at least have imagined her in something other than her usual clothing. I mean really. It's your brain, dude. You get a pass.

I'm not saying it'd prove anything, again, but it'd be pretty interesting to have one of the original JSA members, even if he's one that barely gets any speaking lines, end up being gay. There could be interesting elements on what it was like being a homosexual teenager in the 1940s. Heck, it might give him something to do aside from say creepy prophecy and whap people with earth stuff in battle. (And by extension, maybe Obsidian would get to do more too, seeing as how he'd already gone through the self-realization/coming out bit... A voice of experience would be an improvement on being wallpaper security.)

Also, how cool would it be to have two gay characters on the same team who AREN'T involved with each other? I mean, it does happen sometimes. Gay people being friends/colleagues without being involved, but you'd never really think it from comics.

Actually we're really lucky that Ice came back. Because if she were still dead and I were writing comics, I would totally try to make Guy Gardner gay.

I mean think about it. He's lecherous around women, but surprisingly handsoff. He tends to get nervous or not know how to react when on the recieving end (Veronna, R'amey). His most significant relationship post-Ice was...well, sleeping with Fire in mutual expression of love/grief for Ice. And Martika who was mind-controlling him.

It would totally fit in with the portrayal of his family life, with his father's very hypermasculine attitude, constantly favoring the bigger stronger athlete/cop older brother over the sensitive younger one. If there's ever been more of a formula for deep repression, I've never seen one. Heck, look at their names. "Mace" and "Guy". If that doesn't scream "Roland Gardner has ISSUES", I don't know what does.

Guy's behavior could SO easily be extreme over-compensation...It could make a lot of sense.

...

...

And the fanboys would FREAK OUT. And I would laugh and laugh.

Though now that Ice's back, I wouldn't do it. I love that couple too much to break them up.

...

...

There's always bisexuality?

25 Comments:

  • At September 04, 2007 9:20 AM, Blogger universalperson said…

    I think I now have the material that allow one dememented blogger to eat the fruits of his cold logic.

    I would like to see the list of characters from Mr. Moore.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I never even considered the Robin thing before, but it totally works. Wow.

    That would be pretty cool. They'd never do it in a million years, but it would be cool nonetheless.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 11:33 AM, Blogger SallyP said…

    You LIKE giving me heart attacks don't you? And yet...and yet...!

    Frankly I'm convinced that Hal will jump ANYTHING or ANYBODY. Except Brik apparently, which just sucks for her.

    But I can totally see Tim.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 11:43 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    You LIKE giving me heart attacks don't you? And yet...and yet...!

    ...maybe a little. :-)

    Hal's a bit too conservative for the "will jump ANYTHING" column to me.

    ...well, at least not without some existential "I'm not gay!!!" crisis afterward.

    Hal Jordan IS the master of afterthought.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 11:49 AM, Blogger Zaratustra said…

    In a repetition of the Arisia thing, Hal will bone a womanly-looking alien that will turn out to be the male of the species later.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 11:54 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    In a repetition of the Arisia thing, Hal will bone a womanly-looking alien that will turn out to be the male of the species later.

    ...

    You know, I'm really surprised this hasn't happened yet.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 12:18 PM, Blogger SallyP said…

    It IS a hilarious thought however.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 1:54 PM, Blogger elias A. said…

    I don't think it was confirmed that Batwoman will be in Crime Bible, was it? Everyone just sorta assumes it...

    Even Montoya's involvement sounds rather unpersonal from what Rucka said in his recent interview. I wouldn't be surprised if he avoids anything about her status quo and personal life there.
    Maybe the reason is that they still haven't figured out what to do with Batwoman. Yes, she will appear in Gotham Underground, but that's probably just a cameo.

    And I liked that Gotham Central had two lesbian women (Montoya and Sawyer) who were not in a relationship, not even friends.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 2:06 PM, Blogger elias A. said…

    Oh, and a gay Robin? Not a chance in hell. Seduction of the Innocent, anyone?

     
  • At September 04, 2007 3:02 PM, Blogger Ununnilium said…

    Yeah, IMHO, a gay Robin would just be too obvious. (Unless it was a lesbian Robin, but that's another can of beans.)

    I do love the "Hal gets Bridgeted" idea, though.

     
  • At September 04, 2007 3:41 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    elias: I vaguely remember it revealed in some convention panel.

    Though to be fair, I'm not sure entirely where I heard it so I can't provide a link.

    We'll see soon enough. :-)

    (They rarely forego pre-established love interests in even "inpersonal" series though, so it's a reasonable guess she'd be there.)

     
  • At September 05, 2007 2:56 AM, Blogger Evan Waters said…

    The way I see it, Booster Gold has to be pansexual in much the same way as Captain Jack Harkness from DOCTOR WHO and TORCHWOOD. He's from the future, people are just more flexible when it comes to... dancing.

    Therefore he can chase chicks and still pine after Ted.

    ("Bridgeted?" What's the reference there?)

     
  • At September 05, 2007 7:46 AM, Blogger LurkerWithout said…

    I don't think it was confirmed that Batwoman will be in Crime Bible, was it? Everyone just sorta assumes it...

    Rucka's said on his journal that she'd be in Crime Bible...

     
  • At September 05, 2007 9:10 AM, Anonymous gloss said…

    how cool would it be to have two gay characters on the same team who AREN'T involved with each other?
    As much as I love Billy and Teddy, that scenario would be *awesome*.

    I'd love Tim Drake to come out, for all the reasons you list here, and more. The boy's emotional responses to Dick Grayson, Kon-El, and Bart *alone* support a queer reading, especially when compared to his fidgetiness around women from Ariana to Catwoman to Cass.

     
  • At September 05, 2007 12:45 PM, Blogger Adalisa said…

    Making Tim gay would be the easiest thing in the world if DC wanted to. I mean, out of all the people Tim has lost, including his girlfriend, who does he try to bring back? Kon. And, mutually? When Tim had to stop being Robin, who was the one who kept badgering him, who kept calling him, who shared all his secrets? Kon. It's sort of a pity they would never go there.

     
  • At September 05, 2007 1:22 PM, Blogger belle-belle said…

    I think you have the right idea here: DC should really try having one of its existing characters come out, rather than just inventing a new gay character for that sole purpose. (I realize that Kate Kane was based on a pre-existing--and limbo'd--character, but I don't really think she counts. She was reinvented more or less entirely, after all.)

    I realize that this would piss off a lot of fans, but . . . it's realistic. Plenty of people don't figure their sexuality out until later on in life. They also sometimes hide it, of course, or try to change it. And while a move like this would anger fans, the character in question would have a solid background and a full personality already in place. There would be a lot of room for nuance and development that characters like, say, Batwoman, just don't have. (I don't mean to continually knock Batwoman, but honestly, a character like that is much HARDER to work with and establish, and I'm not surprised that she seems to be fading into the background so much. Though I'll be happy if she recovers and thrives.)

    And yes, what about bisexuality? Because while "turning" a formerly-accepted-as-straight character gay could be a bit hard to defend, it's easy enough to argue that a character has been bi all along, and simply hasn't acted on it on-panel. Just because, say, Tim has only been seen to date Stephanie (I think? I'm not a consistent DC reader), doesn't mean that he might not *also* have interest in boys. (As you say, it would be so easy!)

    Considering how much subtext fans seem to be able to latch onto between characters of the same sex . . . how hard would it be for a writer to reinterpret preexisting material the same way?

    (Personally, I really think that Marvel should do the above with Kitty Pryde. She has ridiculous subtext with practically every female character she spends time with; I've thought about writing an essay about it a time or two. That's the other thing, also . . . the character "revealed" as gay or bi ought to be major enough that he or she can't just be shunted aside after the publicity's over. I like Northstar quite a bit, but we just don't see much of him, and has he ever had a date?)

     
  • At September 05, 2007 1:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    They will never make Tim gay.

    I totally agree though that it would be very easy to write a story where he comes out as gay. All the background (as you pointed out) is there and it could make perfect sense without going against any continuity.

    I wonder, though, if DC ever *considered* it?

     
  • At September 06, 2007 1:35 AM, Blogger Timothy Liebe said…

    Evan, don't know Booster Gold real well - but why do I suspect w/that premise he'd end up being rewritten to be JUST like Captain Jack? ;) Which I would totally read, b/c Jack rocks - or at least he did on DOCTOR WHO, b/c TORCHWOOD hasn't premiered on BBC America yet, and Tammy and I missed DOCTOR WHO Series 3 on SciFi Channel. :(

    A bisexual Robin makes perfect dramatic sense - but in this political climate, and with that fan base, I have to agree that Time-Warner will never go for it. ::sigh::

    Best,
    Tim Liebe
    Dreaded Spouse-Creature of Tamora Pierce - and co-writer of Marvel's WHITE TIGER comic (#6 out now - no, REALLY!)

     
  • At September 09, 2007 8:15 AM, Blogger zhinxy said…

    Booster coming out would rock my world.

    And I've seriously, no joke, interpreted Tim as bisexual for YEARS. And if you find a bigger Tim Drake fan than me, that fan needs therapy.

    Will they come out and say it in the comics? Probably not.

    Then again, have they ever, in the comics, said flat out that Joker and Ivy's mutual sidekick is bisexual?

    If it can be obvious for the Harley, it can be obvious for the Tim...

     
  • At September 10, 2007 6:35 PM, Anonymous R. J. Sterling said…

    This is a general comment on Ineternet comics fandom.I read and collected comics many years ago, before Al Gore invented the Internet. My contact with other fans and exposure to their opinions was limited to the letters pages in the comics. I see now that those were the Good Old Days. Recently I've been reading some comics and buying some trade paperbacks. This led to seeking information on more of the same via the Internet. You people amaze me with what you argue about, and argue about, and argue about, ad nauseam. Many of you seem to have no sense of humor whatsoever. Everything in comics and relating to comics seems to be a matter of life and death to you. I've never seen a better example of a joke than the Mary Jane Watson washerwoman statuette, and sadly I've never seen a better example of a joke that so many people seem to have failed to get. I can only think that people who fight so hard for every last inch of ground on matters such as these have no real problems in their lives. Okay, I'm ready to get what you young people today call 'flamed'. Do your worst. I promise to stay good-humored and refrain from name-calling. I likely won't be able to respond soon if at all due to the fact I don't own this computer, but I'll try to catch up at some point. Thank you for your time. I'd like to point out that I used my real name and not one of those cute Internet pseudonyms.

     
  • At September 10, 2007 10:14 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Aww, a "this is what's wrong with general internet fandom" type troll. Isn't it cute?

    And using a real name too! Wow! I've certainly seen the error of MY ways! :-)

     
  • At September 11, 2007 5:19 PM, Anonymous R. J. Sterling said…

    That's an awful lot of sarcasm all at once, 'Kalinara'. It works better in small doses, like belladonna. I don't think I'm what you people call a troll, though, because as I understand it, that's what you call people who want only to start arguments; although I might say it's unproductive to compare people who disagree with you to monsters. Thank you for calling me cute, though; lately women have been saying I look like Dennis Quaid, and it's making me insecure because I don't think he's particularly good-looking. If you'd like me to remove my comment, I'll be happy to; of course you have the right to censor what appears on your 'web log'.

     
  • At September 11, 2007 5:30 PM, Anonymous R. J. Sterling said…

    I should make it clear that I chose this location as the venue for my remarks purely by chance. I tried at 'Ragnell's'web log, but something about the computer I'm using didn't work right there. I chose this spot at 'Kalinara's' quite at random. I thank her for providing me space, and if she wishes, I will happily yield it.

     
  • At September 11, 2007 6:06 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    R.J: Sarcasm aside, I have two pieces of advice for you if you have any ambition toward being taken seriously on the internet.

    1) Look up common internet parlance. "Troll" is not a reference to the monster, it is a reference to the kind of bait fishing. Loosely rendered, it indicates someone who posts something solely for the sake of causing an argument or getting people angry.

    While that may not be your cause intentionally, a non-sequiter accusation in the comments of a post without anything to relate it to the post at hand is common "troll behavior".

    2) I would recommend NOT choosing entries at random soapbox points on someone else's blog. It merely looks foolish, particularly if the topic of your soapbox-diatribe has little if anything to do with the post at hand. Moreover, it hardly makes your host inclined to do anything more than laugh at the foolish person wasting energy ranting at the heavens when they could be doing something constructive. Or they may delete your comments out of hand, depending on their tolerance for other people's soapboxes.

    My recommendation would be to start a blog yourself and use that as your soap box, if you link to the posts in question that actually apply to your criticism, then you will certainly be read, as most of us use a trackback feature.

    Establishing a presence in comments sections by actually discussing the topic at hand is a good way to begin making a name and gathering an audience as well. If we like what you say, we'll follow you back.

    However, just commenting in a blog post at random, without relating your accusation at all to your host is presumptuous, both in assuming that you can use another person's soap box as your own and also that your input is so vitally important or insightful that we all would be very grateful to read it.

    A word of advice: no matter how insightful your comment is, someone's undoubtedly expressed it before you. Your best bet is to make it unique by relating it to the particular post at hand, or to save it for your own damn blog.

    Also, as final sidenotes. I don't really care if you appreciate my sarcasm or not. My blog means its my privilege.

    I also wouldn't recommend touting the fact that you use your real name either as a selling point, since a) pseudonyms are a recognized form of creative credit and addressed, used long before Babbage ever looked twice at an adding machine, b) many of us actually do use our real names in some capacity (for example Ragnell and I both use our full names in columns at Blog@Newsarama), c) it's commonly recognized that even a silly pseudonym does not negate any insight or relevance made by the person, as well, that use of a "real name" does not actually impart any additional insight or relevance, d) the implied backbone inherent in using one's real name is lessened by the fact that I'd imagine that looking in the phone book, we'd see quite a number of "R.J. Sterlings" indicating that really, you've sacrificed no more assumption of safety as any of us, and e) that's even presuming R.J. Sterling isn't a pseudonym itself.

    For the record, with regards to e), we really don't care if it is or isn't.

    I hope some of this is helpful to you, however, I respectfully re-iterate that the best way to promote your opinion is to get your own damn blog rather than weaseling your issues into someone else's comment section.

    Thank you,
    Kalinara

     
  • At September 12, 2007 4:39 PM, Anonymous R. J. Sterling said…

    'Kalinara', it was good of you to take the time to attempt to instruct me, and I appreciate the thought you put into it. I reiterate that I selected this particular place for the remarks that I felt I needed to get off my chest due to a combination of inexperience and the apparent inadequacy of the computer I was using at the time. I commented on the particular comics-related matter that I did only because I had just the day before read about it and fully acknowledge its irrelevance to those currently under discussion here. I am in fact aware of the meaning you Internet folk assign to the word 'troll' but still feel that it invites inevitable comparison to a monster. I'm cognizant of the historical provenance of the pseudonym but hold to my own certain opinions on it. I'm rather less concerned with being 'taken seriously' by y'all than you seem to suppose, but again, thank you for the time you devoted to advising me. Of course you're entitled to use hefty doses of sarcasm and I never intended to assert otherwise; I was saying there's not always a need to trowel it on so heavily. Finally, for the foreseeable future I can't imagine myself establishing a web log. Such remarks as I've made were planned as a one-shot deal. With all due respect, and appreciation for the chunk of your brief day you spent typing for my benefit, starting my own damn blog would turn me one of you! I would inexorably find myself participating in the behavior of which I've accused others whose raving and squabbling I've read, and that is something I've no time or desire for. Signed, R. J. Sterling

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home