So apparently Alex Ross is going to clarify the statement he made to Wizard Magazine about DC Comics' Obsidian being rescued from "further molestation" and "fun, creative" storytelling by being added to the cast of the new Justice Society of America. That's a good thing, because some people are a bit upset by the apparent swipe at Marc Andreyko's characterization of Obsidian as a gay man - myself included.
Then again, there's been a lot of discussion on the GLA discussion list from members there who think those of us who have concerns are simply blowing-it out of proportion and that we are overreacting to Ross' statement. They are saying that we don't know for certain that Ross was referring to Marc Andreyko's characterization of Todd Rice as gay when he made his statement - he could have been referring to something else all-together.
They have a point. Ross was just vague enough that to a casual reading any anti-gay subtext could slide right on by.
Frankly though, I just don't know what else he could have been referring to. I've never read an interview where a comic professional used the word molestation to refer to the work of another writer when dealing with a comic character. It's an intensely-negative sexual term normally used to refer to sexual predators - so its not a huge leap in logic to infer that Ross was criticizing the new sexual status-quo that Marc Andreyko has written for Obsidian - especially since he's the only writer besides Geoff Johns who has used the character anywhere in years, and he was as recently as a few months ago a supporting character in his excellent Manhunter series.
I was molested myself as a kid, so that's a very loaded term to me and it always makes me a bit crazy when I hear a straight person equate homosexuals with sexual predators. That seems to be what Ross was implying in his statement - that Andreyko was akin to a sexual predator who had corrupted the character of Todd Rice by writing him as gay and placing him in a gay relationship.
That's such a harsh statement. I hope-to-hell he simply mis-spoke and that my own history with the reality of sexual molestation is influencing my interpretation of his statement beyond all reality. I hope I'm totally wrong. I really do. Not-the-least because it means I won't be able to buy any more Alex Ross projects and I'm a complete fan of his artwork and talent. Damn.
If I'm not complety out-to-lunch though... then why couldn't Ross - and by extension Johns, since he claimed to be speaking for him in the interview - why couldn't they have let well-enough alone and allowed a blossoming of diversity in this teeny-tiny corner of the DC universe to flourish, without opposition? What the hell is so wrong with a legacy superhero with ties to the Golden Age being written as a gay man?
When are gay men finally going to be portrayed as heroes?
Seriously, when are we going to be portrayed in the media as anything more than comic-relief, the best friend of the plucky heroine or experts on fashion/makeup/clothing/superficial-crap?
Why aren't there any gay heroes on the Heroes tv series? Why aren't there any gay heroes on Smallville? Why aren't there any gay heroes on Battlestar Galactica? Why aren't there any gay heroes on Lost? Why aren't there any gay heroes on 24? Why aren't there any gay heroes in every permutation of CSI ever dreamed-up? Why is formerly-gay Captain Jack in Torchwood the only one on that team of bumbling perverts who hasn't gotten laid? Why aren't there any gay heroes in the Justice League? Why aren't there any gay heroes in the Avengers?
Why does Gay = Coward?
Further Reading:
Ross Joins High Society - Wizard Universe
Alex Ross controversial interview - CBR Forums
Dear Obsidian - One Diverse Comic Book Nation
Ross on Obsidian: Nothing "Fun, Creative" - Prism Comics
Casualties of Editorial Malpractice III: The Infinitors - The Quarter Bin
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Alex Ross Thing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe
13 comments:
Well said, Ray. I'm glad that Alex Ross is going to clarify what he said and I hope to high heaven that it has nothing to do with Marc Andreyko's characterization of Obsidian. I, personally, don't think we are overreacting, though, because, given Obsidian's only major appearance lately has been in Manhunter (and that issue of 52), it would seem odd that Ross would not be talking about Marc.
BTW, where did you get the info that Alex Ross will be clarifying his statement? I should probably post a link from my site as well. Let me know, k?
There was a gay character on Heroes. Somewhere along the line, he was turned straight. No one connected to the show seems to want to admit who made that decision or why.
I met Alex Ross some years ago.That is when I realized not only is he an arrogant asshole that wants everything done his way all the time, but he is most certainly anti-gay.He may not be a homo-phobe, per se', but he has no love for us.It's a shame,I was a fan before that.I know some say that shouldn't sway my opinion of his work, but,would a black person support a member of the KKK? I think not.....
Loren: Andy Mangelis - who holds the 'you're being hysterical drama queens' opinion mentioned on the GLA discussion list that he's talked with Ross at length about this, and that Ross plans to talk to Wizard again about what he actually meant the first time around. So we'll just have to wait and see.
Dorian: That kid on Heroes wasn't a 'hero' though - he was regulated to supporing best-friend-of-the-plucky-heroine status. You'd think with a cast as large as theirs there would be at least one gay person worth getting superpowers ...
T.N.: Yeah - I don't expect to be in total agreement with every comic book creator out there on social or political issues but considering the high geek-to-norms ratio of fans at the conventions they might realize that there is a good chance they have gay fans who might notice when they slam gay storylines in the press.
But I suppose Manhunter's lower sales makes it easier to disregard its fan-base.
On the Alex Ross issue: It's always a larger philosophical challenge for me to separate the art from the artist -- in some mediums that's not appropriate, and in others impossible. In this case what I'm really happy about is that the queer comic fans on the whole aren't letting it slide. Silence is the Voice of Complicity, as the bumper sticker says.
On the 'Heroes' tv show front... I live in L.A. and I know someone who works on the show -- it's a very diversity friendly creative force behind it, and they're just trying to balance the story telling of a large, complex, ensemble cast, for the most part. It's only the first season, after all -- give them a chance to develop some clout. TV is not an industry that allows fledgling shows to take too many chances.
-- jauntyjohn
I love this blog. Just love it. It caters to everything I enjoy about being human. My sexuality, my lust for hot men, and my love of comics.
This post was excellently written and really puts into words my feelings about comics and tv shows. If the only place we're going to get "regular" parts on is the LOGO channel... well that's not going to do any good. Frankly, I think Ross made a big mistake. People are majorly upset, so DC is going to force him to "clarify" his statement by saying he has no hard feelings against gays and that he was referring to something else entirely. Screw that, we know.
In any case, let's not forget one man, one man who realizes gay people exist for more than straights' humor. Joss Whedon. His Willow is the only gay character I can think. We'll always have that lol.
Captain Jack has always been bisexual. And he certainly seemed to get it together with his Welsh butler at the end of the Resurrection Glove episode.
my dos centavos. i really want to buy JSoA one, but given Ross' statements, I can't fork the money to support it.
glad he is getting shit for what he said, shows comics main demographic isn't just straight males. it's a bit more diverse than that.
Captain Jack is neither Bisexual nor Gay -- he's "sexual." He seems to have no preferences at all as long as what he's doing is intelligent, and he's reinforced that on the show.
You also forgot to mention that Toshiko had a lesbian relationship that they referred to as love in one episode, and Gwen had one hell of a steamy on-screen kiss. (Owen even "invited" a man for a threesome.) Of all shows on TV I think it's the most liberal without being a show aimed at the LGBT community.
Also, you forgot Hex. Dead (semi)heroic lesbian ghost! I don't know that there were any real heroes on that show, but she was as close as anyone else
Over on Postmodernbarney dot com (so sue me, I'm not queen of the hyperlinks -- you can type it yourselves lol) an excellent point is made on the Ross quote issue -- read it for yourself, as my boiling it down won't do it justice, but basically pmb's premise is that most fanboys/girls want comics to be, at heart, like they were when we started reading them, and Ross is no exception to that, thus his comment was less about sexuality per se than about the creative force behind it not doing it 'right' -- oh blech, I'm making it sound stupid or pompous, and it's neither (well, that point anyway, PMB himself calls his blog smug lol). But it did make me consider the 'molestation' term in a non-sexual way -- the only line of reasoning that does, actually.
-- jauntyjohn
Hey JJ - I'm pretty sure it will be explained-away as Ross' (and most fan-boys') desire to see their favorite characters set-in-stone and never altered past their original conception - and that's probably what he meant - mostly.
But he was still being very rude about Marc Andreyko's writing on Manhunter and using that word - 'molested' - was just so unfortunate. He was talking to a Wizard staffer, so Im sure there was a bunch of straight-boy nudge-nudge wink-wink sarcasm for the intended audience and he might not have realized how offensive it would come across until the words were out of his mouth.
But he was also out-right saying that Obsidain had been added to the cast of Justice Society specifically to keep him from being written as gay - there's really no other way to read his statement. And that's a problem.
Hey gayglow - Has Whedon ever written a gay man? I loved Willow too, but the only gay guys I remember on Buffy was possibly Andrew - whose potential gayness was just played for laughs, and then eliminated all-together when he was revealed as straight. When is there going to be a n actual gay man in genre television who is written as the hero and not just for jokes?
Hey Jack and Charles - again - yay for the ladies - I'm all for the lesbians on tv written as strong and heroic - but gay males just never get placed in that role, and it pissing me off.
Even Captain Jack - I love John Barrowman (squee!), but Captain Jack's sexuality was played for punch-lines on Dr Who so that he could flirt with both Rose and the Dr., and I loved every minute of it - but since he's now headlining his own show as heroic team leader he's been neutered. He's not really gay or bi or anything now... he's just Jack.
Meanwhile every other cast member has jumped the bones of every random guy, girl and alien that has wandered by. There's been a bunch of lesbian action, but the closest that Jack has gotten is a 'kiss' with Ianto that was played as a resuscitation effort, and the very sly stop-watch gag - which again was played very subtley. His attraction to men has beeen no-where near as overt and obvious as all the sweaty hetro and lesbian action on the show. That sucks.
It seems like Captain Jack has been effectively 'de-gayed' in order to sell him as the heroic team leader - and the two character traits shouldn't be mutually-exclusive. Im betting we will never see a scene with Jack and Ianto casually chatting together in bed the way all the other cast members have with their assorted straight/lesbian/alien partners. Darnit.
Post a Comment