The "retroactively making old DC characters gay/bi/biracial" thread

[Ascended]

Or would the Amazing Man approach be better? What would that look like? Street-level? Mystical? Sci-Fi? How would you justify nobody having heard about them before now, or would you just chalk it up to time shenanigans ala Triumph?

I think there are plenty of ways to retroactively add someone, regardless of what "sphere" they operated in (space, magic, street, etc). The world is a big place, not all the heroes know each other. And if you're introducing a new hero who was a PoC or female or some other demographic that the 1940's marginalized (which is basically everyone) it'd make sense for this character to avoid the spotlight and try to remain unnoticed.

Hell, such a hero might not even be seen as such by the public. You think if a black man started wearing a cape and saving people in 1942 that people would cheer for him? Or do you think they'd label him as a villain who probably started all the trouble just so he could make himself look good?

Since we're on the topic, I really did enjoy what Cooke did with John Henry in New Frontier. That was sad, but well done.

Actually, Triumph might be a good idea come to think about it. Maybe you could retcon the retcon and have him become a forgotten Golden Age character, too. That poor bastard just can't catch a break being stuck in a time loop at the dawn of various heroic ages, but doomed to be wiped from history again and again.

That's a cool idea. I always liked the concept behind Triumph, but DC never really did him justice.

Hmm....you know, I wonder if you could take a Triumph who debuts with each new heroic age, only to be forgotten, and tie that to Pariah; destined to watch worlds die and never be able to save them. Could be interesting, if Pariah was, I dunno, a future version of Triumph or an alternate reality version or something.

Or maybe that's a bad idea, I'm still working through my coffee and just spitballing.

I haven't seen anyone acknowledge yet that gay Alan Scott is not JSA Alan Scott. They're two different characters.

I don't think anyone is confused about that. But the trait could easily cross over from the New52 version to the classic one.

Now, I haven't read a ton of Allan's classic stories. I know he was married (twice) and dated around a bit but have never actually read the pages. All I have is his modern appearances to judge things by. And in those appearances, I could believe he was a closeted gay man. His wife is rarely mentioned, seen even less, and doesnt appear to be any kind of motivator for Allan. Whether he had a "grand true love" in the Golden Age ala Lois Lane or not, for the past twenty-some years his love life has barely been a factor.

I put more stock on modern interpretations than ones from seventy-plus years ago, though I still value the older material of course. But if there's a popular JSA member who's original history would "fit" the idea of a closeted LGBT person better than Allan? Then that's where the change/s should be made. But it should be a Golden Age character who still matters. No one is going to care if the Golden Arrow was gay. But Hourman or Sandman or Jim Corrigan? That'd be a change worth making.

[KC]

I am not a fan of making pre-established characters gay/bi etc. If DC wants characters like that, I think they should create new characters. The new characters might not get popular, but that's the business and it is still better than changing pre-established characters.

[MajorHoy]

. . . Actually, has Roy Thomas ever chimed in about Gerard Jones outing Obsidian as gay? I never read much Infinity Inc. so I can't say whether Thomas was pulling something similar to what Byrne was doing with Northstar over in Alpha Flight.

That's a bizarre thought right there: the idea that an admitted child pornographer was possibly the one to first write Obsidian as a gay character.

[Rakzo]

Oliver Queen should be Bi. It just makes sense for him.

[Aahz]

For the people saying that a more minor character should have the coming out of the closet storyline, you do get the problem with that right? With a character like Invisible Hood, the instant the current writer is done, he's gonna go bye bye and be replaced with someone the new writer actually cares about. DC actually has a lot of LGBT heroes. The problem is that the vast majority of them are never used. Having a JSA staple be gay adds to the minuscule number of LGBT characters we actually get to see on regular basis.

Thats the problem if you want to change a character that around for so long, you either have to ignore years of established stories and characterisation or you have to take a character that doesn't have much established stories and characterisation.

And again, Alan simply has the most interesting story to tell here. An old man coming out as gay to his gay son? That's genuinely interesting drama.

Honestly apart from Rene Montoya, I can't really remember any coming out storyline that was interesting.

[Trey Strain]

Oliver Queen should be Bi. It just makes sense for him.

Maybe he could be one of those guys who is gay but denies it and covers up for it by being excessively macho. And then he could be forced to come to terms with it.

[Lightning Rider]

Your thoughts are always appreciated. I am in agreement over turning Wally West in a black juvenile deliquent being a particularly dumb move, which they have admirably course corrected by bring back the classic Wally while simultaneously revamping young Wallace into a much better character.

I think Dick Grayson being Romani also works given his circus carny background and I think further additions, rather than subtractions or subtitutions, are the way to go. If Iris West suddenly started being portrayed as having slightly darker skin tone because she's biracial like her TV counterpart, would anyone except for a few Alt-Right fanboys really care? Would that really change her established character in any negative way? Would revealing that Lois Lane's rarely-seen mother is Korean actually change her character in such a way that would make her less interesting or would it open her up to potentially new stories that creators could explore. It would certainly make her relationship with her parents more meat and add new layers to her father, Sam Lane, whose distrust of Superman too often gets played off as simple racism.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. And as Ascended put:

I agree with that.

Like MajorHoy, I don't really like past continuity being screwed with too much. I don't like retcons and reboots. Embrace it all, all the mistakes, all the wrong headed cultural norms, and make it work for you. Don't be lazy and pretend it was different/better than it was, just make it good *now.*

However, where he and I disagree is that I've no issue with additional layers being added, as long as it's not taking anything away. It's completely possible that one (or more) of the Golden Age heroes was secretly gay (or whatever) and kept it a secret, perhaps even refused to admit it to him (or her) self. Knowing what we know now, it's just very likely statistically. So with Allan, yeah I can totally see (with hindsight) him having been a gay man in all those stories. And I think it adds a lot of potential to the character. I don't see anything being removed; the man could still have loved his wives. Just not in "that" way. All his adventures remain utterly unchanged. But it adds something new you can do with him now. And it makes the DCU a more diverse place, which is a great bonus.

Taking things away is really where things get messy. Adding layers and nuances that help modernize characters whose origins are very culture/time-specific should be welcomed.

[Shockingjustice]

I am not a fan of making pre-established characters gay/bi etc. If DC wants characters like that, I think they should create new characters. The new characters might not get popular, but that's the business and it is still better than changing pre-established characters.

That's the problem. These characters fall into limbo and then whats the point of making them. One of the very few gay male teens DC has, Bunker, hasn't been seem in years.

[Lightning Rider]

It reminds me. Apparently Hal Jordan is Jewish in the main continuity? I've seen it mentioned by readers here and there. When did that happen/first get brought up? Even if Hal came from a Jewish background I can't exactly see him actually care about religion regardless of which, unless it was something he and his Dad loved to spend time doing together, because man Hal is all about his Dad.

Same for Barry Allen? I know the Justice League movie said he was but apparently fans have said he was prior to that?

Yeah I'm curious about this two. Both are Jewish yet don't seem to practice. I mean even when alone they give each other Christmas presents. Not that it means a whole lot but they aren't seen indulging in Jewish things together or separately.

[Ascended]

Taking things away is really where things get messy. Adding layers and nuances that help modernize characters whose origins are very culture/time-specific should be welcomed.

I think the only real rule that matters is "dont change what's on the panel, add to what's between panels." A JSA member being gay doesn't have to change anything about their past stories. It's just a new wrinkle added to what is already there.

Changes always hit fandom hard, but it seems that we only get *really* pissed off when things are taken away from us. I'd think making a JSA member gay would be one of the easiest ways for DC to expand its representation. Early Golden Age stories usually didn't dig into the hero's personal life too deeply, and most modern stories don't deal with the love lives of senior citizens, so saying one (or more) of them were in the closet should go down fairly easily among the fans. There'll be some noise about it, but there always is, and I suspect most would of us would just roll with it, assuming the character/s in question didn't have a firmly entrenched and well publicized "Lois Lane" equivalent (like Jay and Joan) or a long history of dating the opposite sex and sleeping around (like Wildcat).

That's the problem. These characters fall into limbo and then whats the point of making them. One of the very few gay male teens DC has, Bunker, hasn't been seem in years.

That is a problem. In an ideal world I'd agree with those saying "just make new characters" but that doesn't actually work. And DC has to deal with the realities of their market.

[KC]

That's the problem. These characters fall into limbo and then whats the point of making them. One of the very few gay male teens DC has, Bunker, hasn't been seem in years.

The point of making them is so DC has gay/bi characters without having to change pre-established heroes who have never been written as being gay/bi. Whether they get popular or not is a different point.

[Assam]

The point of making them is so DC has gay/bi characters without having to change pre-established heroes who have never been written as being gay/bi. Whether they get popular or not is a different point.

The point is that representation is important. And DC "having" LGBT heroes is meaningless if they aren't ever going to be used.

Here's a question for you, and anyone else whose against Alan being gay: Why is being a heterosexual important to Alan Scott's character?

[KC]

The point is that representation is important. And DC "having" LGBT heroes is meaningless if they aren't ever going to be used.

Here's a question for you, and anyone else whose against Alan being gay: Why is being a heterosexual important to Alan Scott's character?

The point is DC shouldn’t change characters from how they have been portrayed just to shoehorn in representation.

Never really been a Alan Scott fan, so I can’t really answer that.

[Assam]

The point is DC shouldn’t change characters from how they have been portrayed just to shoehorn in representation.

Never really been a Alan Scott fan, so I can’t really answer that.

There's no such thing as shoehorning in representation. "Forced Diversity" is a myth made up by bigots.

Okay, then let me ask other questions: If you don't care about Alan Scott, why do you care? Is is simply the principal of the thing? If so, why does that bother you?

[KC]

There's no such thing as shoehorning in representation. "Forced Diversity" is a myth made up by bigots.

Okay, then let me ask other questions: If you don't care about Alan Scott, why do you care? Is is simply the principal of the thing? If so, why does that bother you?

Yes, there is such a thing as forcing representation. It is done by changing characters in a way that is not organic with the character or in a way that goes against what has been previously established just to make more representation. There is nothing bigoted about being against this.

This thread is not just about Alan Scott and I was talking generally.