So, in case you were stuck in a cave with no wi-fi access these past few weeks (and after getting a connection you decided to skip everything else and come read my blog), you probably heard that author James Robinson has recently announced with DC comics their decision to take Alan Scott, the original Green Lantern, and make him gay in this Earth-2 series, to the surprise of many. And, since then, the internet has been going through a huge discussion on the implications of this decision, with many readers being for and against this event.

The people against this change typically fall into four large categories (with some sub-groups). First you have the complete scum of the Earth who are offended by the very idea that some men may prefer the cock over a nice pair of tits. There's no hope for these people, and they should be shunned at any and all times, and if you don't like that idea please stop reading and leave without commenting, I do not want to hear it.

Next up, you have the people who can can't help but whine about how comics are undergoing a form of Affirmative Action, and are doing so much in the name of diversity that the books are suffering from it.

Then you get the more or less straight ally group, who have no problem with his sexuality, but instead debate whether or not it's right to change him from a straight, married man with two children into a homosexual, as they feel that it isn't right to make a character into something that contradicts his original creation, which is a fair, if complex, issue.

Finally, there's the group who dislike the change for similar reasons to the above, but are mostly against the fact that they feel Earth-2 was always meant to be the world where all the Golden Age heroes got a chance to have their adventures continued. Of course, this isn't exactly true, but we'll get to that later.

Now, I for one am feeling a bit neutral to positive about this change, mostly because of the creativity behind it. James Robinson is a fantastic and well received writer, his work on Cry for Justice not withstanding, and is well known for revamping several gold and silver age characters, such as Starman, and making them much more popular and relevant then they were before. Not only that, but as he's pointed out, he was also one of the first comic writers to actually show a gay couple sharing a kiss in one of his books, which right there adds a little optimism to how much respect he'll give to the character as he's writing him.

Of course, the only thing that's really keeping me from fully getting behind this change is the two-page preview that was released so far. Now, I really liked issue 1 of Earth-2. I thought that in a single issue they told a story much more complete, satisfying, and emotionally wrenching than the first 8 issues of JLA, which in itself is a huge accomplishment. The new origin for Jay Garrick, and how it ties in with Wonder Woman lore, really picked my interest, and the designs I've seen of Alan in costume look incredible at the moment.

None of that is the problem. My first issue with it is the fact that those two pages I've read... were ok at best? For someone that keeps claiming that the fact he's gay is only going to be an aspect of that character and not something that defines him, Robinson certainly didn't hesitate to use an over-sized panel very clearly displaying Scott as a gay man as he lovingly kissed his boyfriend, which to me goes against the idea of just having it be a normal, everyday thing. I would have been more accepting of this if it was a normal panel, a brief glimpse of them showing affection without any fanfare, to clearly show that yes, we've reached a point where two men can publicly declare their love without making it a big thing.

But admittedly I'm getting INCREDIBLY nit-picky.

My other issue was also with the writing, which seemed overly flirty in a way that really felt kind of forced, which again is distracting when the author is claiming something to be not a big deal, and then making this such an up-front part of those pages that it's hard to just put in the back of your mind and keep reading, you are basically forced to pause for a bit and go "yeah, I get it, they're gay" and keep going with that mind set until they are finally off panel.

Of course, I am jumping the gun a little here, since I haven't read the whole book, but it has put me in a bit of a cautiously optimistic state of mind, rather than full on acceptance and maybe even excitement. Time will tell if it holds up.

One thing I do really enjoy about this change is the fact that Alan Scott is by all accounts the leader of the JSA, something that is pretty much unheard of in any medium. Since when is the gay man the fearless leader in any mainstream piece of fiction? Sure, he's probably not the first, but this is pretty high profile, and it is pretty damn impressive in and of itself.

And honestly, the world needs this. When you look at gay characters in comics throughout history, most of them haven't gotten the best treatment. There were several good articles floating around the internet about the exact same thing, so I won't delve too deep into this, but in general if you were to make a Women in Refrigerators sort of blog about all the LGBTQ characters who have been killed, were villains, or were negative stereotypes, you would be able to see quite clearly how much more likely it is for a homosexual to suffer some terrible fate than a straight person would.

Of course, these past ten years have seen HUGE steps forward in terms of inclusion and equality. Renee Montoya's coming out was both shocking, tragic, and well received, as has the creation of Kate Kane, the current Batwoman. Apollo and the Midnighter, while a bit silly due to how much they flirt with each other, is still fairly entertaining in it's simplicity (it's Superman falling in love with Batman, if you haven't realized the whole joke), and even minor characters like the cop and doctor in Scarlet Spider get believable and non-offensive relationships.

This isn't to say that things are perfect though, which is why I feel this change is necessary. Let's for a second look at DC's only other openly gay character that emerged after the reboot, Bunker from the Teen Titans.

I keep hearing people praise him as a great character, and that he's somehow a positive example of a gay teenager. And this isn't just random commentators, IGN ran an article last week about LGBT characters in comics that gave him a positive write up, which is strange considering I've heard on the IGN Assemble podcast how much the writers and editors for the site DESPISE the DCnU Teen Titans.

But Bunker really isn't that good a character. So far, we've seen him as a quip machine with a saucy Latino accent, and that's really it. He comforts all the girls when they feel bad, they all open up to him and use him as a rock while he deals out sage advise, and Skitter even seems attracted to him for a time even though he's gay. He wears freaking purple, for god's sake.

Do you see where I'm going with this, Don't you?

Come one, do I have to spell it out for you?

Really?

Ok.

He's the Gay Best Friend.

And I can say so much about this subject, but as usual, Patton Oswalt says it best:

If you couldn't be bothered listening to this, I'm gonna just paraphrase two lines that really sell the whole issue I have with the trope:

"It's 2011, I might as well put on Blackface and tap dance"

"In movies, all gay characters are these magical, intelligent quip machines which, if your gay, has got to feel really dehumanizing after awhile"

And that, friends, is the heart of the issue. He's a stereotype. He's a CLICHE. He is not a real character, he's a caricature of what Scott Lobdell might feel a real gay character would be like. And that's not cool at all.

There's another term for this phenomena. It's called the Pet Homosexual. And if you can't tell what that means and why it's bad just from the name than, well, carry on then.

Now, some people might argue that he's not a "negative" stereotype per se, but look at it this way. If you say all Black men have big dicks, or that all Asians are smarter than other races, it's not a "negative" thing to say about someone, but we'd sure as hell still call you racist for saying these things.

And that's why I feel it's important to include a powerful leader figure into the DCU in some way or another, because let's face it, we really need these types of characters as opposed to... others.

Which segue-ways quite nicely into one of the bigger arguments against turning him gay, the notion that this is somehow affirmative action.

Now, this isn't the first time DC were accused of this over the course of the reboot. When JLA was announced, people got upset over the inclusion of Cyborg in the team which, I gotta say, is in some ways justified. There was no real reason why Victor Stone had to be but on the team over Martian Manhunter other than being black, which DC pretty much admitted, though in the end I let it slide since, despite everything, Cyborg has proven himself in the past to be a worthy hero in his own right, and his role as tech expert for the team fills a position that Manhunter could not, as he was basically just psychic Superman.

But despite this, I keep seeing whenever a gay character is introduced to a team or a black guy shows up in a book there's always a group of people who just shriek that companies are being "too diverse". In fact, I've even heard some people claim that some companies were being "too tolerant", though I have a deep suspicion that those particular people are just crazy racists.

To this I have only one reply: Gays make up just around 7 % of the population. Asians make up over half the world. Hispanics outnumber Caucasians in certain states. How many of these individuals do you see in comics? I'd say if you were to combine all those groups I named, you would barely equal 5% of the amount of white superheroes, even if you were to remove all the aliens. Stop complaining because the little guys get one more representative.

Now, as for the idea of making established characters gay, the whole issue gets a little murkier, and it gets harder to explain my own thoughts, so bear with me for a while.

The first thing that I thought of when I read the news was the whole controversy that came up when Peter David decided to make the character Shatterstar bi-sexual and put him in a relationship with Richter in X-Factor (which you should be reading, by the way). Rob Liefeld, Shatterstar's creator, immediately spoke out against this decision in a not so open-minded way. Now, I'm not calling Liefeld a homophobe. I've never met the guy, and he did have a bit of a point when he claimed that he always intended Shatterstar to be completely asexual, and that making him "queer" was not something he intended for this character, but that's the thing with company owned characters. Liefeld gave his creations to Marvel, allowing them to do what ever they wanted to, no matter what. Grant Morrisson's Animal Man run deals with this exact idea, where a character can be changed completely as they got passed from writer to writer, and as a result complete shifts in continuity could be made just because some man with a typewriter decides so. Since Liefeld relinquished control of the character, he lost the right to really be upset if someone did something to him that he doesn't agree with. At the same time, Shatterstar's sexuality was something that, when introduced, felt much more like the evolution of the character, and was something that fit in nicely with what was previously established. I am reminded of a comment I read on some comment section somewhere about this topic, where someone noted that Liefeld's reaction was like that of a parent whose child just came out to them: he never intended for his "son" to be gay, no one does, but it happened, so you've got to move on.

Plus, who the hell cares if a Liefeld character got changed? It's not like he's known for creating original characters with DEPTH (Cable and Deadpool don't count and you know it).

In this way, Alan Scott is similar to Shatterstar in many ways, but of course there is a key difference. Namely, the fact that Alan Scott was already clearly defined as straight for almost 70 years, unlike Shatterstar, who was only vaguely defined for less than 15 years. And this is something where there is no right answer. Going back to the Morrison run I mentioned before, the idea that huge changes can be made to a character based on a writers whim is one that I happen to agree with, especially after a reboot, but that raises many questions. If I say that sure, someone can go against decades on continuity and make Alan Scott gay, can I still get mad at how Scott Lobdell changed Starfire into a vapid, mindless bit of eye candy (at least at the start, though she hasn't quite been redeemed just yet)? It boils down to what the change implies, and how you, the reader, personally feels. I still claim that the change to Starfire is one of the biggest offenses in recent comic book memory, since it changed her from a lighthearted alien princess who preached about love in all it's forms into a large chested nympho who slept with Roy without recalling his name, forgot about her friends, and slaughtered a man who dared show her mercy, but somehow I'm completely ok with making the old, wise, straight Green Lantern into a younger gay man in a new world. You have to decide yourselves which is a good thing, and which isn't.

As for the idea that Earth-2 should be the place where the JSA get to continue their adventures (which applies to earth 2 as a concept and not just The homosexuality debate)... I never understood this argument. Earth-2 was "invented" in the 1960's as a way to explain how the original golden age incarnations of certain heroes could have existed while their newer counterparts also co-inhabit this supposedly shared universe. That's all it was. By the time we had any idea Earth-2 existed besides a single Flash comic, Wolfman was already destroying it, combining the world with Earth-1 to make things easier to understand. For a time, the JSA didn't even exist, then it existed side by side with the Justice league, before again being separated back into a multiverse, and so on and so forth. I don't know where this idea that it's a sacred ground came up, where it's the safe haven for golden age characters to continue their adventures, but this idea can't be more than 10 years old, and i think people need to just let it go.

So those are my thoughts. In the end, until I read the issue, I can't confirm if the new change will be a good decision or not, but at the same time there's no reason to take up arms whenever a company gets ballsy enough to shift the status quo, popular opinion be damned. Most of the people complaining are straight males, don't pretend for a second like your lives aren't blessed just by virtue of being born with the most advantageous gender and sexual orientation, and let writers tell what could very well be a great story. At least give it a chance.

Very cool! :) Thank you for writing this, it was a pleasure to read.

Awesome script, but sorry i dont have a name for any of it.

@AweSam said:

Greetings big wall of words, we meet again. You know the deal; I don't read you, you don't bore me.

"Look here, a stranger posts something I have no urge to read

I better tell him about it, because clearly he was writing it to suit MY tastes and interests."

@CircularLogic said:

@AweSam said:

Greetings big wall of words, we meet again. You know the deal; I don't read you, you don't bore me.

"Look here, a stranger posts something I have no urge to read

I better tell him about it, because clearly he was writing it to suit MY tastes and interests."

How... how did you know?

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

Nice reading. People need to learn to accept the change eventually. I can't wait to read the second issue.

@Redberry said:

Nice reading. People need to learn to accept the change eventually. I can't wait to read the second issue.

Why should we accept change when its not good? Changing Alan Scott to be a gay character isn't progressive or anything. Its a marketing ploy that will fail. If they really believed in having gay characters they would introduce new ones, but that is to hard so we'll just change an already established character because its so much easier and we'll still get a pat on the head by the "tolerance" crowd.

@Nova`Prime` said:

@Redberry said:

Nice reading. People need to learn to accept the change eventually. I can't wait to read the second issue.

Why should we accept change when its not good? Changing Alan Scott to be a gay character isn't progressive or anything. Its a marketing ploy that will fail. If they really believed in having gay characters they would introduce new ones, but that is to hard so we'll just change an already established character because its so much easier and we'll still get a pat on the head by the "tolerance" crowd.

Because there is nothing you can do. There are many things changed about the new 52, and Alan being gay is just one of them. There's no point in sulking because the stuffs happen in the new 52 is the new canon. The character can be looked at as a separate character from the golden age.

@Uno_Oscuro said:

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

Word of it advice, you just reek of insincerity when you use the word "homos".

Just saying that slurs kinda detract from whatever point you were going to make

@CircularLogic said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

Word of it advice, you just reek of insincerity when you use the word "homos".

Just saying racial slurs kinda detract from whatever point you were going to make

I agree with your statement, but homosexuality is not a race, so it's more along the line of offensive language.

@Redberry: Yeah, i noticed it too immediately after posting, I edited it to just slurs

@CircularLogic: Good write up. Only thing I really disagree with you on is having a gay couple have flirty dialogue. Honestly, I think it's good to show any couple flirting and stuff like that. A lot of the time gay couples or characters are called gay but you never see them really express their sexuality on panel like a straight couple or character. For me those two pages we saw makes them more real and not just an idea.

@Uno_Oscuro said:

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

I agree. Now I am totally disgusted with all the crap that DC has done over the past year and a half with the New 52 garbage, changing the logo to an eyesore, and now this. It's like DC has given us long-time readers a big middle finger.

@JonesDeini: I have no problem being flirty, I really just had a problem with how it didn't really seem to fit, or, more to the point, it was poorly written flirtyness. But again, haven't read the issue, so maybe it'll read smoother in context of the rest of the issue.

A well articulated piece. I'm not saying I agree with all of it (though I do admit that I agree with most of it), but at the very least you've done a fantastic job of articulating your thoughts clearly and respectfully (well, that one c-word aside :-p). So nice work in that respect. In fact, I have very little to which I feel I need to respond, even on those points where I might disagree...

The one piece I will respond to is the presence of communities according to their proportionality in the real world... I would argue that much of the reason why there is not a proportional representation of various racial communities, (as there has been an increased proportional representation of homosexuals) is mostly due to the lens over which the sphere of the comic world applies, namely North America. I'd like to imagine that their actually is a pretty wide superhero community beyond the reader's viewpoint, and that there are a host of heroes worldwide that more appropriately represent the global community. I'm one of those readers that would actively read further documentation of those heroes; sales statistics suggest that I am, however, one of very few. DC made a very admirable attempt to bring a representation of Asians in the superhero community (although your mileage may vary on those interpretations) but the fact is that they did put some steam behind some new Asian creations that unfortunately fell rather flat in a very quick run. They actually took a huge investment risk by naming The Great Ten as a ten-issue miniseries; unfortunately the readership was so minimal that they had to admit a moment of embarrassment and abbreviate their plan. Similarly, while somewhat of a parody (and at the same time providing an incredibly realistic an accurate cultural commentary) the Super Young Team met some really abominable sales statistics... and both of these were groups that got central exposure in the company's big front and center events of the time period, namely 52 and Final Crisis. August General in Iron, unfortunately, has jumped into the now disbanding Justice League International, which again has attempted to provide at least some semblance of a larger global community of superheroes. While I'm all for it (again, see above that I would buy it), it seems that the current readership is not actually interested in such a global roster, at least actively holding down titles.

Similarly, it may yet come to pass that the "exodus" of readers may reflect that readers are authentically not interested in reading about gay superheroes. By this, I'm referring of course to the seemingly endless number of "I hate DC, I'm quitting" posts that are arising... what I'll note is that we've seen these posts before, but the general sales statistics indicate that any alleged exodus either does not occur, is met by an equal number of new readers, or provides only the routine attrition of readership which naturally returns over time. Of course, if there is truly an uproar, we'll see it, the company will acknowledge it and attempt to redirect. (I only say this so that perhaps some of those readers might minimize their melodrama). If there is truly no market for gay characters in comics, then we will see a reduction of their presence in comics... an element I would be a touch saddened by, but at the same time it would do little damage to my overall interpretation of the scene, in that I would simply assume that such characters were no longer in the 'publication lens' rather than the global presence beyond the page.

@Redberry said:

@CircularLogic said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

Word of it advice, you just reek of insincerity when you use the word "homos".

Just saying racial slurs kinda detract from whatever point you were going to make

I agree with your statement, but homosexuality is not a race, so it's more along the line of offensive language.

Actually, you're both wrong. "Homo" is not a derogatory when used in the proper context, in fact, calling a gay guy "gay" or "homo" is generally accepted, it when you use it in an obviously hostile way, for example. Calling a jewish person a "jew" is not rude, or mean, unless, I was obviously doing it with intention of harm. Which, by my statement, it was obvious that I meant no ill will towards anyone.

@TheOptimist: Great points about representation, though I think that most need to remember the fact that in North America whites are quickly losing their status as the majority, especially to the ever growing Hispanic population, but at the same time were dealing mostly with characters and settings created to match a point in time where the idea that whites literally were everything important in the world was pretty widespread. That's why I support adding more people of diverse backgrounds coming in as often as possible, because popular culture has always been slow in reflecting real life. Of course in comics it's difficult to introduce new characters at all, let alone gay ones, but Batwoman has been VERY well received, so it all falls down to the writer to make us care.

As for the old readers getting offended and leaving... Well I think that's to be expected. The fact is, DC's model of doing all they could to appeal to old fans was clearly not working for them. As many articles and figures have shown, most comic readers were long time followers, not newcomers, so whenever they left just because they outgrew comics or couldn't afford them, there was no one to come and replace them. I personally really got into DC with the reboot, since I just feel that most books pre-reboot just weren't as good as now. Besides the Stephanie Brown Batgirl and Secret 6, I was only reading Batman and Green Lantern and no other B-list or C-list character, unlike now where I'm reading things like Swamp Thing, Animal Man etc. which long lost the ability to support their own titles years ago. Appealing to old comers got them in trouble, changing things has been shown to be very successful. Now if you want to argue that some characters were done a disservice with their changes, thats fine, but until I've read earth 2 #2 I'm withholding judgement, but I'm optimistic

@CircularLogic said:

@TheOptimist: Great points about representation, though I think that most need to remember the fact that in North America whites are quickly losing their status as the majority, especially to the ever growing Hispanic population, but at the same time were dealing mostly with characters and settings created to match a point in time where the idea that whites literally were everything important in the world was pretty widespread. That's why I support adding more people of diverse backgrounds coming in as often as possible, because popular culture has always been slow in reflecting real life. Of course in comics it's difficult to introduce new characters at all, let alone gay ones, but Batwoman has been VERY well received, so it all falls down to the writer to make us care.

As for the old readers getting offended and leaving... Well I think that's to be expected. The fact is, DC's model of doing all they could to appeal to old fans was clearly not working for them. As many articles and figures have shown, most comic readers were long time followers, not newcomers, so whenever they left just because they outgrew comics or couldn't afford them, there was no one to come and replace them. I personally really got into DC with the reboot, since I just feel that most books pre-reboot just weren't as good as now. Besides the Stephanie Brown Batgirl and Secret 6, I was only reading Batman and Green Lantern and no other B-list or C-list character, unlike now where I'm reading things like Swamp Thing, Animal Man etc. which long lost the ability to support their own titles years ago. Appealing to old comers got them in trouble, changing things has been shown to be very successful. Now if you want to argue that some characters were done a disservice with their changes, thats fine, but until I've read earth 2 #2 I'm withholding judgement, but I'm optimistic

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@Redberry said:

@CircularLogic said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

Word of it advice, you just reek of insincerity when you use the word "homos".

Just saying racial slurs kinda detract from whatever point you were going to make

I agree with your statement, but homosexuality is not a race, so it's more along the line of offensive language.

Actually, you're both wrong. "Homo" is not a derogatory when used in the proper context, in fact, calling a gay guy "gay" or "homo" is generally accepted, it when you use it in an obviously hostile way, for example. Calling a jewish person a "jew" is not rude, or mean, unless, I was obviously doing it with intention of harm. Which, by my statement, it was obvious that I meant no ill will towards anyone.

Well, by definition in a "proper context" it would be definition be "proper"... but having a slight hunch (as well as prior knowledge) I decided to test your premise that calling a gay guy a "gay" or "homo" is generally accepted... I used my handy-dandy gay friend and pushed the question to him. While certainly not reflective of the entire community, I thought I'd pass along the response, just out of interest's sake. Again, simply one account, but I thought it worth sharing. Again, his words, not mine:

Being called "homo" is offensive. I can't think of any time where I would think it is okay. That might just be me. No 'homo community', no 'a homo', nothing. That just doesn't work for me. Now, being called "gay" is really a lot more about the context. For instance "he's a gay" I don't respond to that well. There is just some subtly to me that is off putting there. But being described as gay? Yes, I am a gay man. Really no other way to say it. But to be described as a 'homo man', that would sound offensive to me, which is probably why I don't really hear that. Just my quick thoughts.

So, there's his thoughts. Take it with however many grains of salt you'd enjoy, but I thought having a 'community rep' speak would provide something.

What I find amusing is that no one outside of Comic fans knew who Alan Scott was now they're all up in arms about well known characters turning gay over him

I think it would have been better to make Power Girl gay, no real established relationships or children. Plus she is a Kryptonian, and there was a substantial amount of Les Yay! with Atlee.

@joshmightbe said:

What I find amusing is that no one outside of Comic fans knew who Alan Scott was now they're all up in arms about well known characters turning gay over him

That was just an excuse to dislike homosexuality. A lot of people who don't even read comics get up in arm about the Green Lantern movie even though the wuss in the movie is Hal not Alan.

@Redberry: It'd be one thing if it were a Jade or Obsidian fan or even an anti New 52 guy but I can't take someone seriously whose just freaking over someone they never heard of being gay.

@sunhawk said:

I think it would have been better to make Power Girl gay, no real established relationships or children. Plus she is a Kryptonian, and there was a substantial amount of Les Yay! with Atlee.

Supposed that DC doing it for publicity, they wouldn't get any coverage that way because "lesbians are hot". I believe it's more James Robinson's decision because he always wanted a gay character in his book, and he said there would be a gay character even before began writing for the Earth-2.

@Redberry said:

@joshmightbe said:

What I find amusing is that no one outside of Comic fans knew who Alan Scott was now they're all up in arms about well known characters turning gay over him

That was just an excuse to dislike homosexuality. A lot of people who don't even read comics get up in arm about the Green Lantern movie even though the wuss in the movie is Hal not Alan.

Actually, One Million Moms (a recognized anti-LGBTQ hate group who in fact have less than a million members, most of whom, including their founder, are men) was forced to shut down their Facebook page because backlash against their post about this story was so strong they couldn't handle all the spam. So right there, score one for DC comics. That alone makes the reboot worth it for me.

@joshmightbe said:

@Redberry: It'd be one thing if it were a Jade or Obsidian fan or even an anti New 52 guy but I can't take someone seriously whose just freaking over someone they never heard of being gay.

Did you watch the Green Lantern trailer? It's scared me that someone call a gay person a "f" get top comment. They actually think Hal is the gay one. People don't read comics have no right to comment on the issue because they don't support the comic industry, so why should DC care what they think anyway?

@Redberry said:

@sunhawk said:

I think it would have been better to make Power Girl gay, no real established relationships or children. Plus she is a Kryptonian, and there was a substantial amount of Les Yay! with Atlee.

Supposed that DC doing it for publicity, they wouldn't get any coverage that way because "lesbians are hot". I believe it's more James Robinson's decision because he always wanted a gay character in his book, and he said there would be a gay character even before began writing for the Earth-2.

The thing is, lesbians are far more accepted by people than gay men. Plus, I seen (and actively sought out) enough Powergirl porn on the internet, I can keep my erotic fantasies separate from my reading material, despite what DC thinks about most straight men.

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I'm just hoping it becomes a part of the character, and the character doesn't become a part of it. I'm excited though, cause I liked Earth 2 a lot.

Though, all this LGBT talk in comics makes me want Wiccan and Hulking back in my life... Best couple in comics to me.

@CircularLogic said:

@TheOptimist: Appealing to old comers got them in trouble, changing things has been shown to be very successful. Now if you want to argue that some characters were done a disservice with their changes, thats fine, but until I've read earth 2 #2 I'm withholding judgement, but I'm optimistic

I'm optimistic too! Yay! Yeah, I have to agree completely that the "old fan service" method was really problematic... sales didn't really build, fans still managed to get upset about every which thing... honestly, many old fans (and new fans who will soon become old fans) will complain just to complain... but I'm hoping that there are those of us out there who hold on to that optimistic viewpoint... yay positive fans!

@CircularLogic said:

@Redberry said:

@sunhawk said:

I think it would have been better to make Power Girl gay, no real established relationships or children. Plus she is a Kryptonian, and there was a substantial amount of Les Yay! with Atlee.

Supposed that DC doing it for publicity, they wouldn't get any coverage that way because "lesbians are hot". I believe it's more James Robinson's decision because he always wanted a gay character in his book, and he said there would be a gay character even before began writing for the Earth-2.

The thing is, lesbians are far more accepted by people than gay men. Plus, I seen (and actively sought out) enough Powergirl porn on the internet, I can keep my erotic fantasies separate from my reading material, despite what DC thinks about most straight men.

You're a straight guy? I have the impression that you were a girl for some reasons. No offensive. You're pretty progressive compared to a lot of straight guys I met. I gotta say. :p

@Redberry: While I do approve of negativity toward Hal Jordan in general (I seriously despise Hal) In this case I have to take offence as a comic fan and as a reasonable human being

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I think people need to wait. The universe itself is still very new. They said they would revive Wally eventually. I'm hoping to see Obsidian again, too, so I hope they would find some ways to bring back old characters.

what if they made an alien member of the JLA an omni-sexual? like say Martian ManHunter could become the groups version of Captain Jack Harkness (Dr.Who). He could love anything as long as it is sapient.

@sunhawk said:

what if they made an alien member of the JLA an omni-sexual? like say Martian ManHunter could become the groups version of Captain Jack Harkness (Dr.Who). He could love anything as long as it is sapient.

Marvel did it.

@Redberry said:

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I think people need to wait. The universe itself is still very new. They said they would revive Wally eventually. I'm hoping to see Obsidian again, too, so I hope they would find some ways to bring back old characters.

they may...but they still won't be the Wally, Donna, Obsidian, and Jade from before...they'll be dramatically different simply for new fan sake...there's been absolutely no mention of Donna or Wally in the New 52 so it's hard to imagine that either operated as they're previous identities as Kid Flash or Wonder Girl also Barry Allen never died in the new timeline so Wally most likely never became the Flash....Alan Scott is gay now and much younger so it's going to be hard for them to get Obsidian and Jade in there since both of their powers are directly derived from the Star Heart...so like I said if they do introduce them then they're going to be completely different characters just for the sake of roping in new fans

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I get that. I'm a longtime fan as well, and even though I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum in that I am completely embraced in the loving warmth of the New 52... I still share some of those thoughts and concerns... I echo @Redberry's patience, while simultaneously realizing the frustration a fan can do so in experiencing it... even if there is a plan in place, and even if things will work out eventually... right now it might suck... unfortunately, there isn't really anything more to be done about that... I also loved prelaunch Sboy (and admit that current Kon is one of those places where I think post is worst than pre)... my favorite character (Cylcone) and many others have yet to appear (and honestly Wally and Donna will return long before my D-list love, sadly)... I do want to note that its suggested that Dick Grayson actually was a member of an early incarnation of the TT... just without the name... (or maybe even with, we just don't know enough about it... all our info is really culled from online interviews, which are not really canon, after all). I think the thing that distinguishes us is that for me, the Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Aquaman, Snyder Batman have all been worth it for me, and feel like some of their success was due to the 52 opportunity... there are many more pros in my column as well... but basically what I mean to say is that I understand. I may support the New 52, and basically anti-rant about it... but that doesn't mean that I disagree with your points about it. I'm hopeful that with time, those issues will be resolved.

@TheOptimist said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@Redberry said:

@CircularLogic said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

I'm okay with homos in comics, its cool with me. But when they just throw a gay character in or just make an established character gay for no real justification, it ticks me off.

Word of it advice, you just reek of insincerity when you use the word "homos".

Just saying racial slurs kinda detract from whatever point you were going to make

I agree with your statement, but homosexuality is not a race, so it's more along the line of offensive language.

Actually, you're both wrong. "Homo" is not a derogatory when used in the proper context, in fact, calling a gay guy "gay" or "homo" is generally accepted, it when you use it in an obviously hostile way, for example. Calling a jewish person a "jew" is not rude, or mean, unless, I was obviously doing it with intention of harm. Which, by my statement, it was obvious that I meant no ill will towards anyone.

Well, by definition in a "proper context" it would be definition be "proper"... but having a slight hunch (as well as prior knowledge) I decided to test your premise that calling a gay guy a "gay" or "homo" is generally accepted... I used my handy-dandy gay friend and pushed the question to him. While certainly not reflective of the entire community, I thought I'd pass along the response, just out of interest's sake. Again, simply one account, but I thought it worth sharing. Again, his words, not mine:

Being called "homo" is offensive. I can't think of any time where I would think it is okay. That might just be me. No 'homo community', no 'a homo', nothing. That just doesn't work for me. Now, being called "gay" is really a lot more about the context. For instance "he's a gay" I don't respond to that well. There is just some subtly to me that is off putting there. But being described as gay? Yes, I am a gay man. Really no other way to say it. But to be described as a 'homo man', that would sound offensive to me, which is probably why I don't really hear that. Just my quick thoughts.

So, there's his thoughts. Take it with however many grains of salt you'd enjoy, but I thought having a 'community rep' speak would provide something.

Well, at this point it is what it is. I had a gay friend, well I wouldn't say friend, but we got along well, in high school who I called homo, and he would go "You know it" not taking it in a bad way. I guess its a matter of opinion, but now the thread is getting thrown slightly off topic, due to a simple mishap. The point was that it was obvious I had no mean intent about it, and it was clear the other two guys thought I did. I was just trying to address the topic at hand about my precious comics, but of course, it has to be blown out of proportion, not that you were doing that, but just saying.

@danhimself said:

@Redberry said:

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I think people need to wait. The universe itself is still very new. They said they would revive Wally eventually. I'm hoping to see Obsidian again, too, so I hope they would find some ways to bring back old characters.

they may...but they still won't be the Wally, Donna, Obsidian, and Jade from before...they'll be dramatically different simply for new fan sake...there's been absolutely no mention of Donna or Wally in the New 52 so it's hard to imagine that either operated as they're previous identities as Kid Flash or Wonder Girl also Barry Allen never died in the new timeline so Wally most likely never became the Flash....Alan Scott is gay now and much younger so it's going to be hard for them to get Obsidian and Jade in there since both of their powers are directly derived from the Star Heart...so like I said if they do introduce them then they're going to be completely different characters just for the sake of roping in new fans

which is the core problem of new 52. DC is rebooting for the sake of trying to lure in new readers. when all they need to do is advertise more and in more places, get comics on shelves in places where normal people are. Imagine if Detective comics was on teh rack next to the tabloids and women's mags at the supermarket? it would sell a lot more because everyone loves batman and it woudl be a great impulse buy for children. what will be next? another red and blue supermans? comics only ever get into the general public awareness when they do something drastic to iconic core characters. meanwhile they seem to be trying to run them selves out of business by limiting their market presence to nerd caves.

@TheOptimist said:

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I get that. I'm a longtime fan as well, and even though I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum in that I am completely embraced in the loving warmth of the New 52... I still share some of those thoughts and concerns... I echo @Redberry's patience, while simultaneously realizing the frustration a fan can do so in experiencing it... even if there is a plan in place, and even if things will work out eventually... right now it might suck... unfortunately, there isn't really anything more to be done about that... I also loved prelaunch Sboy (and admit that current Kon is one of those places where I think post is worst than pre)... my favorite character (Cylcone) and many others have yet to appear (and honestly Wally and Donna will return long before my D-list love, sadly)... I do want to note that its suggested that Dick Grayson actually was a member of an early incarnation of the TT... just without the name... (or maybe even with, we just don't know enough about it... all our info is really culled from online interviews, which are not really canon, after all). I think the thing that distinguishes us is that for me, the Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Aquaman, Snyder Batman have all been worth it for me, and feel like some of their success was due to the 52 opportunity... there are many more pros in my column as well... but basically what I mean to say is that I understand. I may support the New 52, and basically anti-rant about it... but that doesn't mean that I disagree with your points about it. I'm hopeful that with time, those issues will be resolved.

I have my moments of support but every time I think about it I feel the same way I did when I initially read the news of the reboot....like I want to scream....I really like the new Teen Titans book and the Superboy book but for me it's still like reading an alternate timeline book and I'm still waiting for the next issue of the books I loved....Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Aquaman, and Snyder's Batman have all been amazing but like I said they could have just as easily been told in the old timeline...Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could have all been launched right after Brightest Day and would have made complete sense....Snyder's Batman could have just been Snyder's next arc in Detective Comics all they would have had to do was have an issue or two explaining why Dick ditched the cowl

@sunhawk: Well... I agree with you about the need to provide wider coverage... but they ARE reaching some different sources... plenty of decent media coverage... USA Today, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, Maxim, Crave, Complex, Chicago Tribune, and others have all covered comic books, not just because of "issue" elements like Alan Scott...

Not to mention the additional coverage by "Nerd Caves" which do cater to additional audiences, like AICN, i09, Wired, MTV, iFanboy, CBR and of course ComicVine...

I mean, TheAdvocate, Out Magazine and others, including a couple of basically NRA magazines covered niche-books, completely throwing me for a loop...

They can't exactly demand a place at the checkout counter... but they did manage to negotiate their way back to a major presence in bookstores... they've widely expanded in Hastings bookstores and B&N... plus, they're launching the new ad campaign for BW... (I'm gonna start referencing it that way in an attempt to minimize "OMGhatred" posts regarding the subject)... so they're trying.

@sunhawk said:

@danhimself said:

@Redberry said:

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I think people need to wait. The universe itself is still very new. They said they would revive Wally eventually. I'm hoping to see Obsidian again, too, so I hope they would find some ways to bring back old characters.

they may...but they still won't be the Wally, Donna, Obsidian, and Jade from before...they'll be dramatically different simply for new fan sake...there's been absolutely no mention of Donna or Wally in the New 52 so it's hard to imagine that either operated as they're previous identities as Kid Flash or Wonder Girl also Barry Allen never died in the new timeline so Wally most likely never became the Flash....Alan Scott is gay now and much younger so it's going to be hard for them to get Obsidian and Jade in there since both of their powers are directly derived from the Star Heart...so like I said if they do introduce them then they're going to be completely different characters just for the sake of roping in new fans

which is the core problem of new 52. DC is rebooting for the sake of trying to lure in new readers. when all they need to do is advertise more and in more places, get comics on shelves in places where normal people are. Imagine if Detective comics was on teh rack next to the tabloids and women's mags at the supermarket? it would sell a lot more because everyone loves batman and it woudl be a great impulse buy for children. what will be next? another red and blue supermans? comics only ever get into the general public awareness when they do something drastic to iconic core characters. meanwhile they seem to be trying to run them selves out of business by limiting their market presence to nerd caves.

Actually, they used to do that... back in the 90's. Unfortunately that era also caused the industry to collapse, and now it's not profitable to stick them in spinners anymore, since they won't sell.

Things are/were so bad, you could go to any local comic con and find that despite all the cosplayers, movies, dvds and writers involved with comics, you wouldn't see people actually selling any books.. at freaking Comic-con.

It's not how they sell things thats the problem, its what.

@Redberry said:

@CircularLogic said:

@Redberry said:

@sunhawk said:

I think it would have been better to make Power Girl gay, no real established relationships or children. Plus she is a Kryptonian, and there was a substantial amount of Les Yay! with Atlee.

Supposed that DC doing it for publicity, they wouldn't get any coverage that way because "lesbians are hot". I believe it's more James Robinson's decision because he always wanted a gay character in his book, and he said there would be a gay character even before began writing for the Earth-2.

The thing is, lesbians are far more accepted by people than gay men. Plus, I seen (and actively sought out) enough Powergirl porn on the internet, I can keep my erotic fantasies separate from my reading material, despite what DC thinks about most straight men.

You're a straight guy? I have the impression that you were a girl for some reasons. No offensive. You're pretty progressive compared to a lot of straight guys I met. I gotta say. :p

I'm Canadian. That's how we roll :D

DC can not continue down this path, or in a couple years we will end up with another electric blue superman.

DC needs to drive a truck full of money to joss wheadon's house and get him to write up some movies for them. There hasn't been a good DC movie in forever other then the Keaton batmans and the nolan batmans.Green lantern was horrible, superman returns was horrible, man of steel will be horrible.

@CircularLogic said:

@sunhawk said:

@danhimself said:

@Redberry said:

@danhimself said:

the only problem I have with it is that it seems like they're changing everything about every DC character in the hopes of bringing in new readers but they're completely ignoring those of us who have loved and been reading these character for years and decades...for me it's not just Alan Scott being gay...it's Superboy not being the Superboy that I loved, Wally West and Donna Troy no longer existing, Dick Grayson was never a member of the team that he helped found, and tons of other things....sure there have been some amazing stories that came out of the reboot but I can't help but feel angry that they had to get rid of so much that I loved just so Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Aquaman could succeed and Scott Snyder could write an awesome Batman story despite the fact that all of the great stories from the reboot could have been just as easily told in the old timeline without changing a single thing about the story....sorry I got off topic but whenever the subject comes up I can't help but rant...even though I brought it up

I think people need to wait. The universe itself is still very new. They said they would revive Wally eventually. I'm hoping to see Obsidian again, too, so I hope they would find some ways to bring back old characters.

they may...but they still won't be the Wally, Donna, Obsidian, and Jade from before...they'll be dramatically different simply for new fan sake...there's been absolutely no mention of Donna or Wally in the New 52 so it's hard to imagine that either operated as they're previous identities as Kid Flash or Wonder Girl also Barry Allen never died in the new timeline so Wally most likely never became the Flash....Alan Scott is gay now and much younger so it's going to be hard for them to get Obsidian and Jade in there since both of their powers are directly derived from the Star Heart...so like I said if they do introduce them then they're going to be completely different characters just for the sake of roping in new fans

which is the core problem of new 52. DC is rebooting for the sake of trying to lure in new readers. when all they need to do is advertise more and in more places, get comics on shelves in places where normal people are. Imagine if Detective comics was on teh rack next to the tabloids and women's mags at the supermarket? it would sell a lot more because everyone loves batman and it woudl be a great impulse buy for children. what will be next? another red and blue supermans? comics only ever get into the general public awareness when they do something drastic to iconic core characters. meanwhile they seem to be trying to run them selves out of business by limiting their market presence to nerd caves.

Actually, they used to do that... back in the 90's. Unfortunately that era also caused the industry to collapse, and now it's not profitable to stick them in spinners anymore, since they won't sell.

Things are/were so bad, you could go to any local comic con and find that despite all the cosplayers, movies, dvds and writers involved with comics, you wouldn't see people actually selling any books.. at freaking Comic-con.

It's not how they sell things thats the problem, its what.

ugh spinners are awful, go to any department store with comics in spinners and its a library/daycare for grade schoolers while the parents shop. i do like how DC is trying with the digital distro.

Too much!

@Redberry said:

Nice reading. People need to learn to accept the change eventually. I can't wait to read the second issue.

Why should we accept change when its not good? Changing Alan Scott to be a gay character isn't progressive or anything. Its a marketing ploy that will fail. If they really believed in having gay characters they would introduce new ones, but that is to hard so we'll just change an already established character because its so much easier and we'll still get a pat on the head by the "tolerance" crowd.

@spiderbat87: Most likely the same way people are reacting to Alan Scott being made gay, its a lose lose for DC. They could have easily introduce a new gay character and made them a prominent member of JSA, but they didn't they took a beloved Golden Age character and basically spit on his fans and said "He's our character we'll do what we want." Just like they did with The Question and Blue Beetle, hence why I am not getting to worked up over the whole thing, because DC has been garbage for a good long while now.

@Kal'smahboi: I don't thing people are in an up roar over Mister Terrific, because for the past decade and a half he's been black and the original was dead at the time. So you can't really compare the two, now if you said they were going to make Hawkman black just because then you'd probably the same negative reaction because its a change for changes sake nothing else.

Hey word of advice its NEVER OK TO BE GAY....NEVER