Why Does DC Hate Alan Scott?

[ComixMaven]

CaptCleghorn: If it were just Molly Maynne, you might have a point. But that's not the case. From at least his third-ever story, Alan Scott was presented as being flagrantly, even aggressively heterosexual. He letched after Irene Miller even before they were coworkers, ending their first extended encounter with a blatant pass. He kissed her on several occasions, both in and out of costume. And both during and after Irene, he had an eye for pretty girls (sometimes to her annoyance). His marriage to Molly was absolutely NOT one of "convenience and image" - there are many many published issues, starting with Infinity Inc Annual 1 and running through both Green Lantern Corps Quarterly and Justice Society of America (the aborted 1992 run) and elswewhere, to show that it was based on deep and genuine mutual love.

The only hook DC has ever had to LGTBQ Alan is the opening sequence to his origin story - which has been repeated several times with never, ever a hint that there was anything more to it than a couple of business partners who were also good friends. Tynion deserves to be smacked upside the head with a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and then forced to read the chapter where Dagny, Hank et al participate in the first test run on the John Galt Line. You see, that's what that was all about - Being There on a momentous occasion. BUT - we've gotten so far away from those days that nobody can imagine any longer why a white-collar guy (civil engineering was and is a white-collar profession) would want to "get his hands dirty" (Tynion very stupidly Lampshaded that WILDLY ANACHRONISTIC attitude).

Now, I like the idea of having a closeted Golden Age JSA member - but it shouldn't be Alan Scott! It doesn't fit him, it doesn't work, it would be a travesty on the order of Green Lantern: Evil's Might, where Alan's name was slapped onto a character who had to have been based on Guy Gardner at his worst. (The "Earth-2" situation was actually rather similar - a character with the same name who was otherwise a blank slate DC could write whatever it chose on. Even then, they finked out on any further delvings into the character's private life.)

It's either-or: either DC ERASES 80 years of Alan's history to please a small minority of SJWs, or it quietly moves its attention to someone more suitable. The only way they can have it both ways is if Alan is mostly straight and Jimmy was an "If It's You It's OK" exception. But then they wouldn't have what they claim they want, an opportunity to explore a closeted gay hero in the 1940s - because that's not what he would be. He'd be a mostly-straight man with one episode he just doesn't talk about.

So, who would be a better choice? My personal preference would be for Charles McNider (the original Dr. Mid-Nite). If DC wants him still around to provide social commentary, all they have to do is retcon out that very minor aspect of Zero Hour. He's been "under suspicion", if you like, longer than Element Lad, and with rather more reason. No known wife, no known children, not even a proper (i.e. well and truly kissed) girlfriend, little or nothing known about his private life, and occasional (very rare) hints that he wasn't quite 102% het (vs a couple of stories that attempted to "straight-wash" him).

The original Mr. Terrific (Terry Sloane) is another, if very minor, possibility - that beeswax in his origin story about his contemplating suicide because he had nothing left to achieve sounds like an alibi covering...what? If he's been absent too long - that's what retcons are for.

It's even possible to make a case for Hourman (Rex Tyler) as a self-hating bisexual, who was afraid that his son might have inherited his "problem". (Rex, last I heard, was still around, having been bailed out of Zero Hour by Tyler-droid.)

Any of the above, or any of several other possibilities, would be far more malleable to DC's desires than a man with an 80-year history of being 102% straight in the shade and then some.

[EmeraldGladiator]

well said Maven well said from your lips to DC's ears. especially the part about "It's either-or: either DC ERASES 80 years of Alan's history to please a small minority of SJWs, or it quietly moves its attention to someone more suitable."

[dr-brainwave]

DC hate Alan Scott? Realy?

You think they love Rex Tyler? or Al Pratt? or Ted Knight? or Johnny Thunder? or Wesley Dodds?

If DC hate Alan Scott (and Jay Garrick for that matter) then they abhor the "other" original JSAers.

[EmeraldGladiator]

DC hate Alan Scott? Realy?

You think they love Rex Tyler? or Al Pratt? or Ted Knight? or Johnny Thunder? or Wesley Dodds?

If DC hate Alan Scott (and Jay Garrick for that matter) then they abhor the "other" original JSAers.

there is a difference between indifference and ignoring as opposed to character assassination. At least the characters mentioned can easily be dusted off and brought back and used if resurrected but character assassination has to be undone and in comics it is way easier to raise the dead than to undo some bad writing/character assassination (ask Hank Pym).

[The no face guy]

I don't understand why changing Alan Scott's sexuality would be seen as treating the character badly?

It is after all the 21st century, so why is the possibility of him being same sex even an issue?

Yes you could argue it was done for SJW reasons, but Alan has always been a peripheral character in modern comics, so I doubt there are many hardcore fans upset that the timeline was changed to negate his children.

I'm good with whatever direction DC wants to go with Alan, provided it look and sounds like him, and they don't kill him off, when they replace a character outright, than you have a gripe.

[Shadowedeyes]

The reason Alan Scott is the one changed because he's a big deal. Dr Midnite isn't. Mr. Terrific(the original) even less so, given that Michael Holt has pretty easily taken up the role with little complaint I've seen. It is a fairly substantial retcon, I agree, but he offers a golden age hero who is a big name and fairly powerful to boot. Most of his love interests are fairly minor in the grand scheme of things, the biggest loss are his children, which they can make work even with the retcon.

[ComixMaven]

It's not a "retcon", it's outright character violation. If you lot are so desperate to have a Gay Big Name, why don't you pester DC to Gay-ify Batman? There is NO bigger name at DC Comics than that - not even Superman.

It wouldn't work, you say? It's against all his history, you say? Well - EXACTLY THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF ALAN SCOTT.

[ComixMaven]

The reason Alan Scott is the one changed because he's a big deal. Dr Midnite isn't.

It would be fairly easy for DC to make Mid-Nite a big deal, if they wanted to. He was already about as close to a Batman Expy as you could have in the Golden Age without actually being Batman - he even, sometimes, worked out of Gotham City.

DC will never, ever Gay-ify Batman - they don't take that kind of risk with their biggest cash cow. But a Batman Expy - they've already had one, in the Midnighter, but he's not Golden Age and he's not been seen lately either.

[Johnrevenge]

It would be fairly easy for DC to make Mid-Nite a big deal, if they wanted to.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a04c...itemid=8872690

[Will Evans]

It's not a "retcon", it's outright character violation. If you lot are so desperate to have a Gay Big Name, why don't you pester DC to Gay-ify Batman? There is NO bigger name at DC Comics than that - not even Superman.

It wouldn't work, you say? It's against all his history, you say? Well - EXACTLY THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF ALAN SCOTT.

Not really. We’ve seen Bruce Wayne cross-media so much that that there’s an understandable element to his sexuality.

Alan has only appeared in comics, off and on , over the decades since his creation. With no cross-media appearances, accept Smallville and Stargirl, where they haven’t gone into his background.

[Noodle]

It's not a "retcon", it's outright character violation. If you lot are so desperate to have a Gay Big Name, why don't you pester DC to Gay-ify Batman? There is NO bigger name at DC Comics than that - not even Superman.

It wouldn't work, you say? It's against all his history, you say? Well - EXACTLY THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF ALAN SCOTT.

How would it be a "violation" if everything in Alan Scott's history can still have happened if he was a closeted homosexual?

I'd also be 100% OK with a LGBT Batman.

[The Darknight Detective]

Not really. We’ve seen Bruce Wayne cross-media so much that that there’s an understandable element to his sexuality.

Alan has only appeared in comics, off and on , over the decades since his creation. With no cross-media appearances, accept Smallville and Stargirl, where they haven’t gone into his background.

Yeah, they're not remotely comparable popularity-wise. Everybody knows who Bruce is, but the name Alan Scott doesn't mean anything to most people beyond the comics world.

[ComixMaven]

How would it be a "violation" if everything in Alan Scott's history can still have happened if he was a closeted homosexual?

But that's just it - it CAN'T.

A "closeted homosexual" Alan would not have gotten involved with Irene Miller at all - he might have helped out her brother, but then goodbye, sayonara, sorry, you're not my type. He would have been totally uninterested in the Harlequin except to apprehend her and put her behind bars - a radically different dynamic. There would have been no smoldering romance to rekindle years later. And, most disturbingly, he would not have been susceptible to Rose Canton's charms (alias or no alias) - she might have had to drug and rape him for Jade and Obsidian to exist (IF they could exist at all). And we have had way too much goddamn rape in DC Comics as it is!!!

No, what you lot are clamoring for is an Alan Scott with at least half the panels in his adventures from the Golden Age to just yesterday ripped out and replaced with - nothing.

[Holt]

Is it true DC made him gay in the main universe too? Or is he still married and have kids?

One doesn't preclude the other. Especially for a man of Alan's age.

[ComixMaven]

Alan Scott/Green Lantern is a Big Name, so it's OK to make him have been Gay All Along; Alan Scott/Green Lantern is NOT a Big Name, so it's OK to make him have been Gay All Along.

Do you lot ever listen to yourselves?

All that seems to matter to you is that he have been Gay All Along, even though that means a radically different person - with a radically different history from his first appearance onward - under the mask.