Did DC err in making Alan Scott gay?

[Reality]

It's kinda sad, to me, that Molly wasn't a bigger presence in Alan Scott stories, because, seriously, Harlequin is such a good character/costume/concept.



So, pre-Crisis, or pre-Flash of Two Worlds?

I agree, and would have loved to see the unused gay Harlequin of Infinity Inc used by Robinson as a stand-in for Molly. But then they pissed him off and ruined Earth 2, so the whole thing is moot to me.

I like gay Alan better, though, because he had more character drama than old man Alan. It was a better read.

[t hedge coke]

They should return him to the way he was created. It's pretty f'n weak.

So, a young man, living in the early 40s, who never met any Green Lantern Corps, never served on any superhero team, has no children, but also never lost his solo title to a super smart dog?

That "way he was created"?

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

Alan Scott in the Golden Age.


All-American-Comics-Vol.-1-16-1940.jpg

[dancj]

As of this posting, 50 percent of the respondents say it wasn't in error and 36 percent say it was. That's a clear lead for the no's, but not enough for anyone to claim with a straight face that this question should never have been raised and discussed. A significant minority are not on board with it, so maybe it could have been done in a way that would have won more of them over.

To be in any way meaningful this poll needs a lot more options:
1 - NU52 should never have happened
2 - He shouldn't exist at all any more
3 - He should still be straight (family man or not)
4 - He should still be a family man (gay or straight)
5 - He should still be a straight family man.
6 - He should still be old (gay or straight, family man or not)
7 - He should still be old and straight (family man or not)
8 - He should still be old and a family man (gay or straight)
etc...

Only then would you have an idea whether people are voting against the gay part as opposed to any of the many other things they changed about him. I suspect that number would be pretty low.

[Carabas]

Ideally, Alan Scott would have been an old veteran superhero andfamily man, happily married to Jay Garrick.

However, 2012 DC being obsessed with youth, New 52 Alan Scott was always going to be a young rookie, so the family man thing was right out, regardles of his orientation.
DC now hates families. Apparently there is only one confirmed marriage in their universes: that of Buddy Baker. That's not by accident.

Families complicate everlasting ongoing books, so DC and Marvel seem to have decided to simply not to do families anymore after the Spider-Man: One More Day debacle.

[Trey Strain]

If I were a comics creator, I'd be embarrassed to admit that I were too inept to create a minority character that I could get over with the readers, and that instead I was going to take an existing character that was already over and turn him into a minority representative. '

Readers are entitled to not embrace that approach and to expect better from the creators. That's a perfectly valid attitude.

[MajorHoy]

If I were a comics creator, I'd be embarrassed to admit that I were too inept to create a minority character that I could get over with the readers, and that instead I was going to take an existing character that was already over and turn him into a minority representative.

Damn, that's extreme, isn't it?

The problem isn't always that the writers are "too inept to create" new characters (no matter what the sexual orientation or racial background may be); sometimes, the readers only care about another Batman or Spider-Man title and don't give a f#@& about new characters that aren't legacies of pre-existing ones. It seems like it's very rare you get a brand-new character from DC or Marvel that is popularly accepted by the buying public. Even Marvel's most recent break-out star, Ms. Marvel, is a new character with an old name.





Doesn't matter how well received a new character may be among the critics . . . it seems there are some buyers who won't take a chance on something totally new.

[lorddominicus85]

Damn, that's extreme, isn't it?

The problem isn't always that the writers are "too inept to create" new characters (no matter what the sexual orientation or racial background may be); sometimes, the readers only care about another Batman or Spider-Man title and don't give a f#@& about new characters that aren't legacies of pre-existing ones. It seems like it's very rare you get a brand-new character from DC or Marvel that is popularly accepted by the buying public. Even Marvel's most recent break-out star, Ms. Marvel, is a new character with an old name.





Doesn't matter how well received a new character may be among the critics . . . it seems there are some buyers who won't take a chance on something totally new.

Exactly. History shows whether people want to believe it or not that brand new characters do not gain traction with the majority of readers because we've been trained by decades of comic books to not care about new characters. So Marvel introduces a totally new character in Daken, the bisexual son of Wolverine, they gave him an ongoing for nearly two years and eventually the comic lost traction, lost readers and died a slow death. As great as the character is, as great as Daniel Way and Majorie wrote him, even Bendis wrote him, his solo book could not justify it's own existence because the readership has been taught to not care about new characters. The second his book went from Dark Wolverine to being called Daken it dropped in readership because readers will only support major names. Mitniter is having the same problem where the readers are bailing because we've been taught that his cancellation is an eventuality.

As for this whole poll thing, honestly who cares? They aren't the same Allan Scott, as Convergence has already shown us the original straight Allan Scott still exists out there in the multiverse with his family and everything so debating whether or not it was a mistake to create a new Allan Scott who happens to be gay in place of the old one is a pointless argument and one I find to be offense. How is it a mistake to bring diversity to your line up of characters? Is it a mistake for Ice Man to be gay too? Is it a mistake to have any gay characters? Even if the original Allan Scott were written to be gay there are plenty of people who don't come to terms with their sexuality until late in life. Having a character no matter how old or popular be gay isn't a mistake, creating new diverse characters isn't either but unfortunately new characters don't sell books and this is a business where making money is the bottom line.

[Carabas]

If I were a comics creator, I'd be embarrassed to admit that I were too inept to create a minority character that I could get over with the readers, and that instead I was going to take an existing character that was already over and turn him into a minority representative. '

Readers are entitled to not embrace that approach and to expect better from the creators. That's a perfectly valid attitude.

That is assuming that this hypothetical creator has editorial permission to make a new character instead of reusing and old name, or that this creator would be willing to give one of his own creations to DC, where he'll never reap the benefits if it would turn out to be popular (and where this new character will likely be killed off or retconned out in one of the next events, popular or not).
Nevermind that when working for DC/Marvel your primary audience actively hates new characters.

If I were a comics creator there'd be not enough money in the world to get me to work for DC or Marvel.

[t hedge coke]

If I were a comics creator, I'd be embarrassed to admit that I were too inept to create a minority character that I could get over with the readers, and that instead I was going to take an existing character that was already over and turn him into a minority representative. '

Readers are entitled to not embrace that approach and to expect better from the creators. That's a perfectly valid attitude.

a) That isn't what happened, something most comics fans versed enough to understand alternate Earths seem to grasp.
b) I don't even like a lot of James Robinson's work, but he's had several better ideas than you so far.
c) Robinson has made it clear that he's perfectly willing to be a writer for hire when hired for work for hire comics, so clearly he's not embarrassed by it, even when he's unhappy with comics, because it's a job.
d) "Readers" aren't complaining about this. They may, in large numbers, be critical of many things, or refuse to embrace certain changes, but as far as this thread goes, you seem to have a particular issue that, at best, other people agree with some small part of. Acting as if you are the voice of silent majority or the truth won't make it so.

[mathew101281]

No making him younger was the issue. That took his two children out of the picture which was a bad idea. As far as replacement characters goes. If you hate replacement heroes you should probably be supporting new characters, you probably don't so the whole situation is your fault pretty much.

[The Darknight Detective]

Doesn't matter how well received a new character may be among the critics . . . it seems there are some buyers who won't take a chance on something totally new.

I think it's more a question of: which title that I currently read now will I drop for a new comic book? Of course, there are some who will expand their reading budget to meet that new demand, but I think they are a small minority.

[MadFacedKid]

As silly as I think it is that DC made Alan gay my main problem is he went from weilder of special unique Magic ring to host of the Green. I think making Alan Scott the Avatar of the Green was a ridiculous decision and just puts lanterns in a mythology that has no reason to be so interconnected with them.

[GlennSimpson]

As silly as I think it is that DC made Alan gay my main problem is he went from weilder of special unique Magic ring to host of the Green. I think making Alan Scott the Avatar of the Green was a ridiculous decision and just puts lanterns in a mythology that has no reason to be so interconnected with them.

Well, other than resolving the coincidence of the names, he had no reason to be pulled into the Oan Guardians Green Lantern mythology either.

[BatmanJones]

If I were a comics creator, I'd be embarrassed to admit that I were too inept to create a minority character that I could get over with the readers, and that instead I was going to take an existing character that was already over and turn him into a minority representative. '

Readers are entitled to not embrace that approach and to expect better from the creators. That's a perfectly valid attitude.

1. He's not an existing character. He's an existing name and power set. Everything else about him is different. Many have made this point. You've conveniently ignored them.
2. You've also ignored several people asking you why being gay means he can't be a family man.
3. You've also ignored my question as to why you are always so eager to make fundamental changes to existing characters (Alan is one only in name) but this particular change, making a character gay, makes you ask if it was in error.
4. In another thread you suggested it would be better to make Kyle Rayner gay than the new Alan Scott. I replied "Why? This should be interesting." You ignored that question too.

For someone that posts here maybe a dozen times daily (or so it seems) you sure are good at dodging questions.