OK, I just had a really, really, really weird thought. I hate it when a character’s ethnicity, gender, and sexuality get re-conned. There’s the whole ‘love and marriage’ issue at DC now. Well, what if this happened- You know how Hawkman and his love Shayera always get resurrected and find each other? Well, what if Shayera came back as a GUY? Can you imagine? I would read this to see where it went. What if they both kept getting drawn together by circumstance, but were both straight? What if one of them was into it, but the other wasn’t? What if they were both tempted, but having to fight it? What if they DID fall head over heels? OK, discuss…
Did you know that in 1987, during the last DC reboot, that there was only ONE marriage in the new DCU? Yes, that’s right. No Mera. No Hawkman or Hawkgirl. No Atom and Jean. No Flash and Iris. No Superman and Lois. Marriage has never really been a DC trope for thirty years. Ralph and Sue were it for a very long time. In 1989, this was in full effect, and that’s exactly where we are now in the new timeline. The only reason you know or care is because the Batwoman issue got the conversation going. I keep hearing ‘Save Kate and Maggie’. No one’s taking them away from you. No one at all. ‘DC Comics and Dan DiDio are homophobes’. No, they introduced the first OUT gay character in comics’ history, long before it was in vogue, and later gave us the first mainstream comics title with a gay lead, not to mention a plethora of gay characters in twenty-five years. ‘Gay marriage is important in comics, because it’s new and needs to be shown. We’ve always been victimized and seen as miserable in past literature.’ That is victim culture rhetoric, and it’s kind of pathetic. Stonewall was 40+ years ago. Let go. We are at the point that over 70% of the population is ok with gay marriage. At that time, we weren’t even open to the possibility of being out of the closet for the most part. Yes, there is still discrimination, but we’ve come a LONG way, and it’s time to look where we are NOW and move forward from here. If you want equality, then accept the fact that you don’t get everything you want just because you wish it were so. The last 3 engagements and the last 2 weddings in comics were gay. Heteros haven’t had any in years. 4 weddings if you count the Apollo/Midnighter flashback (another DC property). If you want to hate DC for a number of reasons, they may be sound ones; I’m not a fan of a lot of the current fare myself. But after JH Williams himself came to their defense and said they were by no means so, and you KNOW it, and all the evidence points to the fact that this company has been pro-gay in the past, and you are still looking for reasons to call them anti-gay or homophobic, ask yourself- do you want to hate them just to hate them or do you want to know and face the truth? Do you want to be cool on the internet and show through intolerance how tolerant you are? Are you going to keep ‘lawyering’ the situation, just so you can be succinct with your initial reaction, even if evidence has shown that you were wrong, rather than being a grown up and having some humility? The label of homophobe in our culture is not a snapshot event that incurs loss of employment or status, it’s one you carry for LIFE. Think about that. Do you really have so much rage towards someone you’ve never even met that you want their whole life down the drain? If so, you are the problem and not the solution and you FOSTER homophobia. Yes, YOU.
So, marriage is the comics topic de jour. I’ve read so many treatises on the subject this week, I almost forgot we’re getting ready to enter a skirmish we can’t hope to win or change here real soon, but that’s a topic for another blog and another day- I don’t write until I let my anger subside as a rule. Anyhow, you’re all hip, I’m sure, to the whole DC debacle about Batwoman and Maggie not being permitted to walk down the aisle by the powers that be at the WB. I’ve gone on enough about that, myself. A lot of others are still at it, going in all directions imaginable. The conversation I’m most compelled with is marriage in comics in general, and the notion of comic companies being anti-marriage to begin with. I say it’s a 50/50 split between them and fans. I don’t think the latter are too crazy about it either. A lot of for-instances have been spouted this week. Pete and MJ, Clark and Lois, Ralph and Sue, and Carter and Shayera to name a few. My opinion on these? Spider Man and a hot model wife who entered a marriage knowing her man loved a corpse more than her didn’t do it for me. Peter is the ultimate martyr; has been from day one. This good fortune foiled the deal. There was chemistry (that word is important here) for sure, but it ultimately pigeon-holed him; couple that with outing himself as a vigilante wall-crawler in Civil War, and a re-canonizing had to happen (it took a moronic story to get there, to be certain). Superman and wife were pretty much the gold standard. 50 years of dating leads to a well-informed choice, for sure. Mr. and Mrs. Elongated Man were the pick of the litter for me personally. Chemistry, compatibility, and shared ambition- the works. The Hawk-couple were together from the get-go, even before they were born, in fact. What do all of these have in common? They’ve all gone away- every last one of them. That’s just DC, but that’s who we’re obsessing on this week, so let’s stick with it. As earlier said, I don’t think fans necessarily dig it- as an add-on, anyway. Characters who are connected from day one seem to hold up better in the court of fandom opinion, but apparently not in the minds of comic publishers. Here’s my theory on their end- if it’s not good on TV, then why would it be in comics? We always get lumped in as a demographic with other media. It’s assumed we want things that TV watchers, movie goers, magazine readers, and all matter of media junkies do. Plus, they want those teeny-boppers who obviously wouldn’t want that ESPECIALLY if they were raised on the boob-tube. Publishers try to insert the ethos into our fare because the idea that intellectuals love good stories and art is not something that’s made it to the boardroom. What happens when that POV prevails? Disaster.
Let’s look at TV marriage. The common view is this- dumbass who can’t tie his shoes marries a castrating bitch who has to tie them for him. It’s been going strong for twenty years or so. Everybody Loves Raymond (my guilty pleasure, won’t lie), King of Queens and such CBS fare became a standard setting formula. Notice how many commercials are some slack-jawed moron trying to navigate around a kitchen while some shrew rolls her eyes? The one with the fat guy trying to yank a ham out of the fridge to ostensibly eat the whole thing while the harpy on the couch screeches “What are you doing in there??” and re-directing him to the fat-free yogurt makes ME want to outlaw the very institution as a pre-emptive measure. This has become the model. Dangerous, because this is what kids believe, and grow to ape, like the folks in the Fifties who believed that vacuuming in pearls and such were what was going on in other houses. Let’s look at one of TV’s absolute biggest success stories in years: Modern Family.
Three couples in the same brood, each with their own dynamic. Claire and Phil, relatively dumb overgrown man-child with controlling bitch, and children who all somehow speak really quickly and cleverly. Yes, there’s some romantic tension, but it’s often outweighed with the dynamic of the establishment. Gloria and Jay, a sex-bomb married to a wealthy older man, with some heat thrown in to make it non-sinister. Then, there’s Cam and Mitchell, the ‘modern’ of Modern Family. Accolades abound. Cheers from the peanut gallery, and awards from GLAAD and the ‘community’. Yes, they are a comical delight with their child who, like the rest, muses like a tiny adult. However, the schism between them and their family is obvious. There is no way these two people are having sex. Not at all. They are basically two non-conventionally attractive (unlike the others, mostly) men who are basically flitting little housemates who bought themselves a kid. The only evidence that either have functional gonads is the occasional presence of a hot young guy and their competition for attention from the object. They scarcely, if at all, even kiss. Obviously, this is non-threatening enough for a lot of heterosexuals to decide the whole thing is ok, as long as they don’t have to picture anal sex in their heads. Tie it together, and you’ve got America’s view of a modern family (in case you’ve not seen it, there’s a narrative by a father figure at the end about the beauty of family that weaves the plots together via montage, a 5 second gag, then a horrible thing called “Suburgatory” comes on and you want to set yourself on fire- don’t forget- ABC on Wednesday night). Those are sitcoms, and there are dramas where everyone cries, talks about their feelings, and drinks mondo wine. These have some marriages that stay in tact, but that’s rare. Try to name a Hollywood blockbuster in recent years with a positive take on marriage, just try. When it’s done, it’s either ‘it’s hell, but it has it’s moments’, or an inane family-movie itself. Personally, the only couple in TV/movie history that pegged it for me and made it look desirable was The Addams Family- undeniable mutual attraction that empowered it’s parties and demonstrated an us-against-the-world comfort zone anyone would dream of having. But, the mundane hellish image is what has captured the media and the imagination. This is what number crunchers think we want, breathe, and believe. The pickle they’re in is that they don’t understand the wants of action fans to begin with, and how could they shoehorn in a concept as such. Add to that the fact that most action movie heroes are too cool for matrimony. This is also what indoctrinates us and our beloved medium. That’s why the topic is generally nullified altogether.
As I said earlier, in the court of comic reader opinion, they stand up when the preacher says “…forever hold your peace”. The escalation in sales for Spidey’s “Brand New Day” is reflective of the statement. What do you do to bring marriage into the equation and make it work? I look at great married couples I know. They have ups-and-downs to be sure. They have scary blow ups sometimes that make the neighbors nervous and wonder if they should call close friends and advise them of potentially good real estate coming available. That said, the ones who succeed have chemistry. True chemistry, not the cleverly written fantasy of pop-fiction. This element is visible, and almost tangible. It’s a shared experience. There’s subtle affection; pats on the leg, rubs on the back or shoulder, knowing glances, and the like. It’s also obvious to anyone who has ever had it that these people have sex with each other often and they LIKE it. A number of them have a comfort level where one or both of them can comment on the attractiveness of outsiders and pose no threat. Chemistry is multi-faceted and fascinating. I said earlier that Ralph and Sue Dibney were the closest the genre ever came to demonstrating this. Not all the way, but damn close. I’ve even fantasized about a Detective-style book with them that makes this apparent, and drives the two and their mission to solve mysteries as a team. This logic never gets a fair trial, due to the nervous nature of today’s publisher. They are so afraid of risk, they end up doing stuff that’s even riskier (and often wretched) trying to figure out us strange creatures that dig ass-kickers in tights. Further still, how they feel about a gay marriage in a titular character when the only example they have is a prissy fat man and a nervous nelly lawyer probably drives them to breathe into a paper sack, when they have to fit it into a world of bulging biceps and amazing breasts.
I hope the day comes when someone finally figures out that comics do not necessarily equate into the popular media lexicon and they decide to free us of it’s trappings. I would love to see some characters in love showing us something we might actually want to have. Until then, I’d say spandex and boots is a great way, as in the real world, to stay single. Save the Marriages!
DON’T FOREVER HOLD YOUR PIECE- GIVE ME COMMENTS/DISCUSSION/FEEDBACK.
So, this is not a sequel to an earlier post, but an addendum and maybe even an apology. I criticized DC for the practice of fast-tracking the nuptials of Kate Kane and Maggie Sawyer, and running with the gay marriage scenario to the point of cliche’. Now this happens. Turns out, W. Haden Blackman and JH Williams III were actually the ones who wanted this, not DC. In that case- here it is- maybe this was a wise decision on DC’s part. Maybe they didn’t want to paint a character into a corner. Maybe they didn’t want to have to do something bad to Kate or Maggie to keep the title fresh. I cannot even pretend to know the long-term vision of these two creators; not at all. I know them to do quality work, and I have a healthy respect for both. Perhaps they had an image in their heads of a type of couple we’ve not seen before, and again, I can only muse with conjecture here. Still, my first reaction to the proposal was pretty much an eye-roll after Kevin Keller, Northstar, and the introduction of gay Alan Scott, which was met with an almost instant proposal which met with a dead fiancee. As for their other charges, I can’t really speak to those very much. I do know that DC had plans with Killer Croc as part of the “Forever Evil” entire-line-over-sweep, and perhaps their ideas clashed with the big picture plan. Who knows? As for the corruption of the forward concept of the book, I can only imagine. I know they wanted a constantly forward-moving approach for the title/character, but sometimes, that’s not the very best thing. Characters whose stories move too quickly, and the titles they appear in, need a certain time in space that’s not in constant motion. It allows them to become cemented. It makes for great done-in-one stories (a concept nearly dead in the soap-opera driven mainstream market), and can be an injury to folks stepping on at mid-point who don’t know the total history of the character. I’m not anti-progress at all, but icons become icons when there is a stability in the mythos. Constant changes can derail the potential of a character, especially when you consider the time/space nature of ongoing titles, given the difference in comic-time and real-time. Enough about that, let’s talk about reaction.
I’ve already seen the torches being lit on social media against DC. It’s no secret to anyone who has visited this page that I’m less than delighted with what’s happened to the Tiffany’s of comics in the past couple of years. That said, if you think boycotting DC over this as a statement for gay rights is the answer, I would ask you to relax your knee and think about what I’ve said in the prior paragraph and decide if that’s the best thing to do. I have plenty of reasons to not be down with DC right now. Plenty. Homophobia is not one of them. I saw gays in comics from DC first. No, I didn’t like ‘Extrano’, but he beat Northstar out of the closet. Mindi Meyer’s brother Kevin. Obsidian. Phil Jiminez. The second Ice. Pied Piper. Mallah and the Brain (!). The Enigma. Maggie Sawyer. Batwoman. Tasmanian Devil. Starman. Bunker. Yes, it’s still a minority, but that’s what we are. We had to start somewhere, and there are ebbs and flows and we can look at victories and losses. However, I say Handle With Extreme Caution here. Calling someone anti-gay or homophobic is a BIG accusation. Huge, in today’s culture. Again, I’m not on board with a lot of the decisions they’ve made, I’d like to see them change, and so would a lot of others BUT let’s not throw this accusation in with the lot to fortify a point. If you don’t like the New 52, or Dan DiDio, or Scott Lobdell, fine. Don’t use this as ammo against them unless you can REALLY back it up. It’s not a fair way to fight.
For me, I hope this isn’t the doom of Batwoman. I don’t know how Greg Rucka would feel right now about anything. I’ve not heard a word yet, and this is largely HIS baby. I would really like to see him come back and do some nurturing. I’m afraid of what lesser creators might do with this potentially legendary character. Either way you split it, she won’t be married. Save Batwoman!
COME OUT OF THE CLOSET AND LET ME HEAR YOU. LEAVE COMMENTS/ARGUMENTS/FEEDBACK IN THE COMMENTS COLUMN. THANKS!
I originally did a post about this subject that was actually a bit hasty and not so thought out. I got a great single criticism for it, and when I delved into the respondent’s comments I realized that I wasn’t really looking at the situation with total self-honesty. That’s why I gave it a total re-write with a more fully realized take on the matter.
Who would you choose to give your love to if you were Superman? Would you pick Lois Lane, Wonder Woman, or neither? I’m just saying neither because it’s always an option, but it’s probably not one that’s going to be offered. In simpler times, it was examined ad nauseum. Lori Lemaris, Lana Lang, Luma Lynai, and every other girl who initialed her documents like Lex Luthor (I left out Barda, who he made a porno flick with. He was under mind-control then) got an issues worth of wooing. These days, it always boils down the former two. On the one hand, there’s Lois, the first and foremost. You know her, but here’s a sketch in case you were looking for a way back to your lost world online and Googled the word alien and ended up here: Earth woman, very assertive and empowered, diligent reporter who is very interested in seeking out and exposing truth at any cost, fearless, apparently pretty attractive, and is portrayed in most cases as being very balanced in terms of anima/animus. Wonder Woman? Depends on canon, so let’s go with a composite: Somewhat otherworldly, very assertive and empowered, diligent fighter, crusader for truth, gorgeous, very balanced in terms of anima/animus, not very likely to get killed by anything less than cosmic-level threat, wears costume and belongs to team of other superheroes that he belongs to as well. Well, I actually don’t have an answer I like when I look at it that way. Not the one I want to give, anyhow.
What do I want the answer to be? Lois OR neither. What I’m not into is Clark and Diana. Not NOW anyway. I was, back in 1988 when Action Comics #600 came out. The story is classic. After a few months of buildup, the two finally meet through parties close to the lady who contact Clark Kent, and task him with setting up a rendezvous. They meet at night in a private spot and immediately, they lock in a passionate embrace and kiss. This actually takes place before the issue, and when we open the cover to the actual book in question, we see a look of wide-eyed horror on Di’s face. Not good. Darkseid shows up and rudely interrupts their date and when it resumes the consensus is that he’s a doey-eyed farmer boy and she’s a nigh-goddess member of royalty and that a romance would be Super-ficial. Done. I, as a hormonally led teeny bopper was almost apoplectic. They gave up THAT easy? Not even a second date?? I felt robbed. The main reason for my zeal was how enthused I was about both of these characters. It was a brave new world then. Supes was a year into the classic John Byrne revamp, with Diana the same but with George Perez. They were exciting times, and I wanted even more excitement. There was Lois in the background, fairly devastated, and I did feel sorry for her, no doubt. Still, I thought a year of this at least could be smashing fun. Throughout the canon thereafter, the specter was there, stronger and lesser depending on the time, but never quite gone. I had some hope throughout and it morphed into incredulousness. Clark married Lois in two venues of media, and it STILL bugged me. She just seemed like the right choice and no one wanted to admit it. The creative decision concerning the pair was that they would become very best friends. This only happened, of course, when it was in HER book. External to that, it was either Bats or Jimmy or whoever. Still just seemed like a way to side-step something so damned obvious; in fact, bursting at the seams. In one storyline, the JLA winds up trapped on Asgard for a THOUSAND years. He’s with her the whole time, and nothing happens at all. They return at the time on Earth that they left, and he tells Mrs. Kent nothing. She finds out from Di, who proceeds to tell her that for that whole 10 centuries, he never stopped talking about Lois. Sweet? Sure. I loathe that story just the same. See, I want my Superman human, and given that we KNEW he was attracted to the princess, it made him seem ridiculous. Further, who would even want to be loved THAT hard? I mean, it’s easy to say, but if your partner was trapped somewhere for a thousand years would you not be wigged out by the fact that they never stopped blabbing about you, or didn’t stray with arguably the most attractive person alive, as beautiful as Aphrodite? I’d have to say I appreciate the gesture, but that doesn’t even seem right or righteous. Pragmatic little me, I guess. Diana had even stated that she was a know-nothing fool when she shunned him for being a hick. Again, super-human is fine, inhuman is another affair altogether.
So what’s my beef with the joining finally taking place? I’m not as much angry as I am apathetic, where the two central figures are concerned. I gave them a year to wow me. I went in with the excitement I had back around ’87, to be honest. I was ready for a new golden dawn, and was frankly getting bored with the DC Universe in general. So many Crises, an erratic, constantly re-tooled JLA, JSA was not the same after Johns left, Wonder Woman was rutted to distraction, and it needed to go fresh. Others whined when the news came out, but not me. I was totally the cheerleader. I finished my first issues with some hope and some concerns. I gave it a year, then I just decided I wasn’t into it at all, for reasons I can’t begin to cover here. I view it peripherally now, mainly online, some reviews and previews, and scans at the comic shop. Moreover, I have not seen Wonder Woman develop to the point that I want her sucked into a romance-action title. I don’t even know who she is yet, and from what I’m reading, no one else seems to either. The ire I have is, as usual, with company Creative and the tentacles of Warner Brothers. They made no secret before the line was launched that Supes wouldn’t be hooking up with Lois and that would leave time for Diana; totally pre-asserted. I felt my eighteen year old self stirring in newfound anticipation and by the time the story was set up, I was over it, and it’s nature as a flaccid marketing ploy was pathetically obvious. There’s a definite lack of excitement about it everywhere I’ve looked. I’ve seen no one voice a note of zeal or endorsement about this new title, it’s very “because NO ONE demanded it!”. Further, I’ve spent the better part of 40 years awaiting the return of Sensation Comics. Only seemed fair the the distaff Trinity member should have a second title to expand her mythos with. Now, it’s gonna be another damned Superman book. That kind of makes me ill. My ONLY hope, were I still invested, would be that when the relationship inevitably crumbles it would become a World’s Finest team with her in place of Ol’ Pointy Ears. I guess that’s something, even if it’s ultimately too little, too late.
So, as stated, he could choose nothing. Does he need an ongoing lover? Some heroes have them, some don’t. Some have slews of romantic liaisons, so why couldn’t he just be a serial monogamist? I don’t see him ever being loose or the cheating two-timer (though these days, who knows…) but it might be interesting for a few years to see him deal with a berth of different women of different stripes both as Clark and his high-flying alter ego to show us some decent character examination.
Of course, in the end it’s got to be the reporter. It just does. Again, the staff made it clear that this relationship wasn’t going to be there in the reintroduced story-line. Makes sense, given the marriage of the previous one. Super-hero marriages don’t usually make it for the longest haul, and are usually scratched when revamps occur. They were hitched for 15 years after dating for 60, so I think waiting a while to jump back in wasn’t really a bad decision. I do know that editors and writers are keeping Ms. Lane in the front of the bus story-wise, and that’s good. No matter the relationship, she should be there. What route will it take when the day comes? No idea, and I hope by then shifting will occur that re-invests me in the line so I can watch and enjoy. As far as versions go, I’m very enamored of the on-screen relationship from “Man of Steel”. I like the idea of Lois being the one who knows Clark, the real one- not the glasses wearing buffoon whose daily proximity to her makes her look like a fool. The dynamic therein is so intimate and understandable. That relationship is unfortunately not what’s been set up in the root media here. When they do come together, will it be fresh and exciting, or will it be more of the same from 75 years? Hopefully not. I’ve had this little idea for a few years now on how to spice up the affair. Allow me to be totally self-indulgent and lay it on you. Bear with me, and don’t dismiss it from the first sentence, please. What if they gave LL a little super-power? When I say a super-power, I don’t mean make her more like him, not at all.
Don’t make her a card-carrying super-heroine. I’m thinking something VERY specific, and it’s not a power that would make her every day advantaged by a long shot, and would embellish the nature of their union. Here goes: what if, by some accident earthly or otherwise, Lois developed an immunity to all things Kryptonian? What if she couldn’t be penetrated by heat or x-ray vision? What if, when slapped by one of the former natives, it was like she was being slapped by a human? If Kal catches her falling from a building they could both fall to their deaths, since he would be vulnerable and unable to fly when physical connection=loss of flight=no more damsel in distress. When in his woman’s arms, he’s a normal man, and only then. She’s the only person he’s truly human with. There’s some heart for you. If he goes rogue, she might be the only one on Earth who can subdue him and kick his Super-ass. Supergirl smarts off? Pop her one. Krypto misbehaves-grab that mongrel by the scruff and spank his tail. It takes away the archaic elements of our girl. It makes her free from the prying nature of her lover’s powers, even when unintentional. It makes the relationship itself more multi-faceted, and levels the playing field. The idea is pregnant with prospective story lines. Lois gets brought in by a covert agency to avert Kryptonian threats. Possessed or controlled Lois is the enemy he can’t beat with infinite advantage when she ambushes him, and she’s off the radar of his empowered ears. Phantom Zone jail-break? Here’s your next line of defense. She’d still be subject to being preyed upon by the average super-villain, and would have to use her noggin. Superman showing up to save the day would mean NO physical contact for him to get the job done with yellow-sun dependent abilities. No more carrying her to the skies, just two lovers on a stroll, holding hands. I could go all day.
There are so many needless revisions and omissions going on in mainstream comics re-boots these days, and few really fuel new and exciting aspects of the characters they would have us to believe they are trying to improve. I want character driven, not just sales driven and everything that’s happening seems so transparent and faddish. I guess to some extent it’s been that way for a long time, it just seems so much more-so now, and maybe that’s just the hell of wisened aging. Seems like a hefty amount of readers are seeing it too, and they could be in the same boat. Maybe it’s a little of all. I think if the people behind the decisions looked at the heaps of material that’ve become legend and are selling at 75 bucks a pop in Absolute editions and such, they’d see that stepping back from the hard-sell and letting creative types bring flair to older concepts like the Kent/Lane love story, they’d get a more devoted and excited audience. I haven’t abandoned hope, I’m just holding onto my wallet until something wows me back into the fold. Save the Super-Love!
LEAVE ME A LOVE NOTE OR A BREAK-UP LETTER- I LOVE FEEDBACK.
Batwoman, for me, has been the answer to a prayer. A front and center character, not a cypher, not a team element, but a hyper-competent mover and shaker with real mythos-supported depth who also just happens to be gay. Total win, there. Northstar, the pioneer, was one of a group. His sexuality was a behind the stage controversy and it took three writing cycles to get him out. Afterwards, he got killed twice. I’d say because writers just didn’t want to deal with him, or editors, whatever.
Then came Extrano, the gay Guardian. As a teenaged gay, I wanted to hide back in the closet over him. He was like Super Steppin’ Fetchit to me. Grossly exaggerated, exponentially effeminate, suffering from AIDS, the works. I realize New Guardians was about people who became demi-gods and not superheroes, but the advancement of the character based on his preferences, while there were no classic style characters that were gay left me feeling as a reader rather marginalized.
Lots of experiments in between, to mixed results. THEN, came Kate Kane. This was a character I already had an affection for, as she was a total reboot of the original ’50s Batwoman, Kathy Kane.
She was also a compromise for us Babs Gordon Batgirl fans when she was busy being Oracle. AND she was openly gay AND was doing her thing because she was a victim of discrimination and this was her way of defending the masses against injustice, among other personal grudges. In the meantime, the gay marriage issue has become front and center, and comics have thrust themselves into it to a fault. Northstar got hitched.
Archie comics introduced Kevin Keller and in less than a year we got a time-machine invite to his wedding. Then, DC reintroduced Alan Scott as a gay man (and made damn sure the press knew about it), then, surprise-surprise- he’s getting married.
Now, Kate is set to follow suit with Maggie Sawyer, a 25 year gay character mainstay, whom she’s been dating for less than two years. Any comics reader with barely a pedigree knows that in comics time, that’s like two months maybe. In my lifetime, I’ve seen Superman marry Lois after a fifty year courtship. Peter married Mary Jane after roughly 30. Green Arrow and Black Canary, the same. Atom and Jean? Barry and Iris? At least a decade. The only short date-to-altar Super-hero scenario I can think of is Hawkeye and Mockingbird, and it was to underline their impulsive natures (and make them a ref to GA and BC). Now, Batwoman’s getting the fast track. Why? Because gay marriage gets sales and attention. PERIOD. Doing this as a stunt for press and accolades is like having a black character get shot in a hoodie and calling the NAACP to tell them about it. It’s opportunistic and shows me you don’t care about anything that’s been built with this character anymore. Not at all. Not to mention, every single marriage I’ve sited here is OVER. Re-booted out, or dissolved. Comics fans don’t really like married heroes. Some do, I’m sure, but that’s not really the norm. Characters like Animal Man are exempt, because they’re family men and established as such from the get-go. Reed and Sue in the same vein, and they were a couple from the first issue. Notice how all of the other Bat-family are single folk? Because matrimony would be the end of their careers. My theory? They’ll get married, and in less than five years, Maggie, one of the most venerated gay characters in the industry, will get killed.
It’s the perfect solution to the finite nature of supermarriage, and it’ll be the same device that’s done to Batman and other male characters where a loved one gets killed (usually a woman) to drive them deeper into mission obsession. OR they’ll adopt a baby and grab more press, then Kate will be thrust into single motherhood. Just watch. So now, we’ll get to lose an iconic character to follow through with a double standard bearing, sales-bump inducing story. I hope this time GLAAD will sit this one out and quit throwing awards every time a queer comics story makes the byline. This shouldn’t receive awards, it should receive indifference. The only characters getting married anymore seem to be gay, and it’s no longer noteworthy. Plus, it just appeals to folks who are already comfortable with the idea and challenges no one. Thanks for the effort, DC, in making this character who she WAS and supporting her. Next thought? How about a character introduced and handled by a great creative team, who we get to know as an a full-fledged super-hero complete with their own code of conduct, trappings, powers/weapons set, and then in say issue #5, we get introduced to their love interest, who just happens to be of the same gender? No preaching to the choir, setting a new standard, and actually integrating the concept into the ethos with no stereotype? I’d buy that.
NOTE: I’ve just learned that Alan Scott’s fiancee apparently got “fridged”, as they call it in the business, which is what I predicted for Maggie here.
DON’T STAY CLOSETED WITH YOUR OPINIONS-I’D LOVE TO HEAR THEM, DISCUSS THEM OR ARGUE THEM.
OK, I just had a really, really, really weird thought. I hate it when a character’s ethnicity, gender, and sexuality get re-conned. There’s the whole ‘love and marriage’ issue at DC now. Well, what if this happened- You know how Hawkman and his love Shayera always get resurrected and find each other? Well, what if Shayera came back as a GUY? Can you imagine? I would read this to see where it went. What if they both kept getting drawn together by circumstance, but were both straight? What if one of them was into it, but the other wasn’t? What if they were both tempted, but having to fight it? What if they DID fall head over heels? OK, discuss…
Saving Wonder Woman 