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

[MajorHoy]

I don't know, but I'm happy for them to try it and see.

And, speaking as an older reader, I'd rather they DIDN'T force radical changes like sexuality on Golden Age characters but instead introduce new characters for that era if they feel a need to address such issues (as they did back in the 1980s All-Star Squadron when they added Amazing Man and Tsunami to deal with past racial issues).
I'm one of those people already about to give up on DC and don't even know if I'll stay around until they address the JSA situation (if/when they ever get around to that), so it may all be moot anyway.

[CaptCleghorn]

And, speaking as an older reader, I'd rather they DIDN'T force radical changes like sexuality on Golden Age characters but instead introduce new characters for that era if they feel a need to address such issues (as they did back in the 1980s All-Star Squadron when they added Amazing Man and Tsunami to deal with past racial issues).
I'm one of those people already about to give up on DC and don't even know if I'll stay around until they address the JSA situation (if/when they ever get around to that), so it may all be moot anyway.

Amazing Man and Tsunami were big steps towards reflecting some of the issues of the day. If talking about race, new characters are probably the best way to go. Making Sandman out to be black and hiding in a full face gas mask seems too much even for my SJW feelings. Homosexuality is a different story. There are those who can speak to the history and number with far more accuracy than I, but it was often hidden. And outing an existing character is a powerful statement and frankly, shouldn't be done lightly. But it would be a stronger statement than using a new character.

At some point in time, we're going to need to agree to disagree on this.

[MajorHoy]

. . . Homosexuality is a different story. There are those who can speak to the history and number with far more accuracy than I, but it was often hidden. And outing an existing character is a powerful statement and frankly, shouldn't be done lightly. But it would be a stronger statement than using a new character.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the argument is that people who are homosexual, either openly or closeted, are "born that way".
I also thought that was the argument used against so-called "conversion therapy".

How is having a writer who probably wasn't born until AFTER a Golden Age character was first created/published deciding that now, in the 21st century, it's okay to go back and retroactively make that character "always gay" alright?

Either the character was created that way or not.

[CaptCleghorn]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the argument is that people who are homosexual, either openly or closeted, are "born that way".
I also thought that was the argument used against so-called "conversion therapy".

How is having a writer who probably wasn't born until AFTER a Golden Age character was first created/published deciding that now, in the 21st century, it's okay to go back and retroactively make that character "always gay" alright?

Either the character was created that way or not.

That's your argument? How the character was created? Rod Reilly never had a sister in any of his original stories. The original writers never gave him a sister. But a sister given to him decades later is OK with you, but Rod being a closeted homosexual isn't?

One can go over every single panel Rod Reilly ever appeared in and not find anything that invalidates a sister or a closeted sexuality. Why are you OK with one, but not the other?

[iron chimp]

That's your argument? How the character was created? Rod Reilly never had a sister in any of his original stories. The original writers never gave him a sister. But a sister given to him decades later is OK with you, but Rod being a closeted homosexual isn't?

One can go over every single panel Rod Reilly ever appeared in and not find anything that invalidates a sister or a closeted sexuality. Why are you OK with one, but not the other?

its just bad story telling to reveal to reader that someone who has existed for say 50 years in fiction without any foreshadowing at all is now gay. It's about as realistic as revealing they are a clone, a skrull, or their own evil twin and as such will have no emotional resonance with the reader and the character will be consigned to a dusty draw when the storyline doesnt take. And then people turn around and say "well you had your gay character, but the community didnt support it" when the reality is the execution is just ham fisted nonsense.

[CaptCleghorn]

its just bad story telling to reveal to reader that someone who has existed for say 50 years in fiction without any foreshadowing at all is now gay. It's about as realistic as revealing they are a clone, a skrull, or their own evil twin and as such will have no emotional resonance with the reader and the character will be consigned to a dusty draw when the storyline doesnt take. And then people turn around and say "well you had your gay character, but the community didnt support it" when the reality is the execution is just ham fisted nonsense.

Which is why the selection of characters is important. The point is that there were NO signs and this wasn't a possibility even well into the modern age. And no matter what you do, you risk failure with comic books. Every book ever no matter what the topic has that risk.

Roy Thomas gave Rod Reilly a sister. Not a major change to his stories.
James Robinson made the Spider out to be a bad guy. Much bigger effect on him.

Were these bad story telling?

There are many other examples of retroactive changes. Any one change is not going to please everyone and I'd argue against many of them. But a blanket refuting of outing a Golden Age character seems far more homophobic than story driven. I'm cool with a gay Alan Scott or a gay Rod Reilly. I'd argue endlessly against a gay Jay Garrick or a gay Kent Nelson.

[MajorHoy]

Roy Thomas gave Rod Reilly a sister. Not a major change to his stories.
James Robinson made the Spider out to be a bad guy. Much bigger effect on him.

Were these bad story telling?

In Danette's case, was there anything in the old comic book stories that said he didn't have any family? In that case, I just let it be.

Now, as to Alias the Spider, . . .


I did NOT like that change in alignment once I learned about it.

[CaptCleghorn]

In Danette's case, was there anything in the old comic book stories that said he didn't have any family? In that case, I just let it be.

Now, as to Alias the Spider, . . .

I did NOT like that change in alignment once I learned about it.

Danette wasn't a contradiction in anything that had been published, but then again, in actual cases of hidden sexualities, neither were some of the Golden Age characters. And the Spider was definitely one of, if not the severest changes in a Golden Age character.

[Aahz]

But honestly characters like Spider and Firebrand are so obscure, that it isn't really much of a difference if you use them or create new characters.

[MajorHoy]

But honestly characters like Spider and Firebrand are so obscure, that it isn't really much of a difference if you use them or create new characters.

Define "obscure".

Some of us may have grown up reading various reprints of the old Golden Age Stories, so they may not be quite as "obscure" to us. I wasn't really reading comic books during 1995-2010, so some of the characters created then that didn't last long would be more "obscure" from my standpoint.

[iron chimp]

Which is why the selection of characters is important. The point is that there were NO signs and this wasn't a possibility even well into the modern age. And no matter what you do, you risk failure with comic books. Every book ever no matter what the topic has that risk.

Roy Thomas gave Rod Reilly a sister. Not a major change to his stories.
James Robinson made the Spider out to be a bad guy. Much bigger effect on him.

Were these bad story telling?

There are many other examples of retroactive changes. Any one change is not going to please everyone and I'd argue against many of them. But a blanket refuting of outing a Golden Age character seems far more homophobic than story driven. I'm cool with a gay Alan Scott or a gay Rod Reilly. I'd argue endlessly against a gay Jay Garrick or a gay Kent Nelson.

My mistake. I thought this was a serious discussion. Enjoy

[CaptCleghorn]

My mistake. I thought this was a serious discussion. Enjoy

Indeed. Next time, bring actual reasoning.

[iron chimp]

Indeed. Next time, bring actual reasoning.

I wish i still had the wide eyed innocence to be entralled by clone and evil twin reveals but i actually enjoy long form story telling with foreshadowing that takes the reader on an emotional journey with the character. But then thats homophobes for you

[CaptCleghorn]

I wish i still had the wide eyed innocence to be entralled by clone and evil twin reveals but i actually enjoy long form story telling with foreshadowing that takes the reader on an emotional journey with the character. But then thats homophobes for you

The Golden Age with its plethora of 6 to 8 page stories and the constant reset to point one with no actual development of characters is the complete opposite of long-term developmental story-telling. If that's what you like, it's surprising you're even here.

[iron chimp]

The Golden Age with its plethora of 6 to 8 page stories and the constant reset to point one with no actual development of characters is the complete opposite of long-term developmental story-telling. If that's what you like, it's surprising you're even here.

And thats why even today batman, superman and all other characters from golden age only have 8 page stories with no continuity or history. That 8 page im out the closet reveal is going to be a real rollercoaster ride.