Green Lantern is Gay

[LadyRhian]

So what does this mean for his wife, and his kids.

That's the thing about changing the sexuality and/or race of a established character, it creates ripple effects that force the change of other characters. I have no problem with gay characters I just wish they wouldn't change already established characters to add more "diversity". If you need to have a character to be gay create a new character, like Obsidian.

Also look at it from the reverse can you imagine if someone decided to change an established gay character and make them straight?

Being gay does *not* mean you cannot have kids, guys. Do I really NEED to say this? Or cannot marry a woman, for that matter.

 

[General Vengeance]

Now the big question is will this actually help sales of the Green Lantern comic book? Or if sales slip even further, with this just turn out to be a dream in a alternate universe.

 

[faefrost]

So they retconned out a long standing Gay character and then simply turned his father, the traditionally more right wing and conservative type, gay in their new incarnation? Wow! That's just wrong in so many ways. regardless of which side of the political spectrum you reside.

At least over at Marvel Northstar being gay was organically built into the character from pretty much the first panel he ever appeared in. (not kidding about this). It wasn't blatant. It wasn;t out of the closet, but it was there. In much the same way that the Thing, Benjamin Jacob Grimm was created as a jewish character. It was a part of how the writers envisioned the character but it was not a core of the story. When the subject finally came up, you could easily look back and see how it was there all the time.

The same was true with Obsidian, the gay son of the conservative Green Lantern. It was subtle. It was occasionally painful, but it felt a hell of a lot more real then this "beating the audience over the head with a bat to make some politically correct point" crap. And I just don't understand? It literally gained DC nothing on any front. Yes they proclaimed a gay character. But by doing so it insures that their more longstanding gay character no longer exists. so an even trade. They sought to have a "major" superhero come out of the closet. But really? Alan Scott? He hasn't been a major superhero in almost 70 years. readers of the books know who he is, but no one outside of a comic shop would ever recognize his costume or know his name. So mainstream attention, zero beyond some artificial and pointless outrage for a week or two. And at the end of the day the contrast between the older 1940's era "old school" superhero struggling to come to terms with his gay superhero son, was a much more interesting story than 'OMG the old Green Lantern is Gay!!!" could ever be. It felt more real, and not simply a retread of a 4 color version of a Glee story.

 

[spectrenihlus]

So what does this mean for his wife, and his kids.

That's the thing about changing the sexuality and/or race of a established character, it creates ripple effects that force the change of other characters. I have no problem with gay characters I just wish they wouldn't change already established characters to add more "diversity". If you need to have a character to be gay create a new character, like Obsidian.

Also look at it from the reverse can you imagine if someone decided to change an established gay character and make them straight?

Being gay does *not* mean you cannot have kids, guys. Do I really NEED to say this? Or cannot marry a woman, for that matter.

Did I say it did? No it creates inconsistencies with the established lore. Yes it is a reboot however they still use the previous background for his character and besides it all just feels forced on him. Here is a writer on the best way to write a gay character

I didn't want to make a character gay unless it felt organic. So, the list was pretty short. Then I remembered when Obsidian was in the JLA years ago and Gerard Jones, the writer, danced around the issue. I went back and read all my Infinity, Inc.'s and although Todd dated women, it was always a mess. Andreyko said that DC was supportive, wanting a "visible gay character" and that it was "a general void in the DCU that needed exploration". Geoff Johns, longtime writer of JSA, also stated his support for the idea.

That is describing Green Lantern's son obsidian. He was written from his inception with the intent of making him gay. Here however I will describe Alan Scott's marriage

Years later, after the death of his first wife Rose Canton, Alan Scott realized that he had loved Molly all this time and they got married. As the years passed a problem developed for the two; the Starheart (which gave Scott his powers) had reversed his aging processes, so he was physically a young man while Molly had since aged into an old woman. In despair over the rift this had caused between them Molly sold her soul to the demon Neron in return for youth in Underworld Unleashed: Abyss - Hell's Sentinel #1. Her body became that of a young woman (who had the power to create nightmares) but her soul remained in the underworld. Scott fought his way through Hell to obtain it and, with the help of the young Green Lantern Kyle Rayner, returned it to the Harlequin's body. This resulted in re-aging Molly, but making her whole once again. Some time thereafter, Scott himself was returned to his true physical age, as well. Mayne and Scott remain happily married to this day.

Does this sound like someone confused with their sexuality to you? No. This is pure a simple a gimmick.

 

[spectrenihlus]

So they retconned out a long standing Gay character and then simply turned his father, the traditionally more right wing and conservative type, gay in their new incarnation? Wow! That's just wrong in so many ways. regardless of which side of the political spectrum you reside.

At least over at Marvel Northstar being gay was organically built into the character from pretty much the first panel he ever appeared in. (not kidding about this). It wasn't blatant. It wasn;t out of the closet, but it was there. In much the same way that the Thing, Benjamin Jacob Grimm was created as a jewish character. It was a part of how the writers envisioned the character but it was not a core of the story. When the subject finally came up, you could easily look back and see how it was there all the time.

The same was true with Obsidian, the gay son of the conservative Green Lantern. It was subtle. It was occasionally painful, but it felt a hell of a lot more real then this "beating the audience over the head with a bat to make some politically correct point" crap. And I just don't understand? It literally gained DC nothing on any front. Yes they proclaimed a gay character. But by doing so it insures that their more longstanding gay character no longer exists. so an even trade. They sought to have a "major" superhero come out of the closet. But really? Alan Scott? He hasn't been a major superhero in almost 70 years. readers of the books know who he is, but no one outside of a comic shop would ever recognize his costume or know his name. So mainstream attention, zero beyond some artificial and pointless outrage for a week or two. And at the end of the day the contrast between the older 1940's era "old school" superhero struggling to come to terms with his gay superhero son, was a much more interesting story than 'OMG the old Green Lantern is Gay!!!" could ever be. It felt more real, and not simply a retread of a 4 color version of a Glee story.

Exactly, could you imagine if they did the reverse and made Obsidian or Batwoman straight? If that's not ok then changing a character who has always been written as straight should not be ok either.

 

[cainx10a]

Congratulations are in orders. Why wasn't it Superman???

 

[NeutralDrow]

Really? Alan Scott?

Good. I'd certainly call the original Green Lantern "iconic," but he can still certainly use the exposure boost. He's awesome enough to deserve it.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

My thought process:

Green Lantern is Gay.

Wow, never would of thought Hal Jordan - O wait, it's not that one.

Well, this will be interesting to see how DC does John Stewart as - O, not him either

It's Alan Scott... ok, so its Green Lantern but not the Green Lantern of the movie or the Justice League cartoon.


Is it just me or does this feel like DC was trying to promote the whole "iconic" part too much. If there are two renditions of the hero, both of which appear in broader media, then how iconic is this one? Especially if DC has other versions to fall back on if the story doesn't pan out.

 

[duchaked]

*looks at the Green Lantern voiced by Nathan Fillion*
naaahhhh

*but then looks at the Green Lantern played by Ryan Reynolds*
oh okay

still, I was thinking Robin heh
but honestly this hardly rocks the boat at all, DC. but it's one way to get some attention I suppose

 

[NeutralDrow]

Is it just me or does this feel like DC was trying to promote the whole "iconic" part too much. If there are two renditions of the hero, both of which appear in broader media, then how iconic is this one? Especially if DC has other versions to fall back on if the story doesn't pan out.

I can think of two possibilities.

1) DC legitimately equates the word "iconic" with "long-standing part of DC comics," and Alan Scott is the original, Golden Age Green Lantern. He's almost as old as Superman and Batman, and he was introduced in the same year as the golden age Flash (Jay Gerrick, rather than the more well-known Barry Allen).

2) They were playing it up to get peoples' attention, knowing the choice would create controversy and anticipating that the response would be "Alan Scott? Who the hell pays attention to Alan Scott, any more? What's he even up to?" *reads*

Personally, I think it's the first one, though I'm probably biased.

Besides, Alan Scott is the other rendition of Green Lantern. Hal Jordan and John Stewart are in a way the same rendition (Green Lantern Corps members, with a specific version of the ring) with different characters, same with Kyle Rayner (who I knew about long before Stewart) and Guy Gardner.

 

[Dylan Voyda]

So he is gay and he is losing the green and purple outfit.

As much as I love the old golden age characters, as awesome as Earth2 is as a book. As much as I can't wait to see this new version of the character shine his light in the darkness. As Iconic just about all the imagery surrounding the JSA can be at times. I still feel I missing something.

And to everyone who is saying that Alan Scott is not an iconic character. There would be no Green Lantern Corps without first having Alan Scott and his magic ring.

I even like is saying more "And I shall shine my light over the dark evil, For darkness can't stand the light, The light of the Green Lantern."

He is iconic in his own way and in a way that fits the more literal version of the word iconic.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Exactly, could you imagine if they did the reverse and made Obsidian or Batwoman straight? If that's not ok then changing a character who has always been written as straight should not be ok either.

False equivalency: making Obsidian or Batwoman straight wouldn't be motivated by the need for having more straight people in comics. That's not exactly a minority group that requires more representation.

I'm not happy that it's Alan Scott specifically because he's such a minor character in the overall DC hierarchy, but if this is the only way to get some diversity into the painfully-homogenous DCU (and it is, because new characters just don't go over as well with existing readers), then that's how it has to be.

 

[LadyRhian]

I wish they'd stop BEATING ROUND THE BUSH and make Wounder Women a lesbian *teehee* still, Green Lantern, thats impressive on their part.

They sorta already mentioned this. In one WW comic, she decides to romance her new partner, and she tells him that she's having to adapt her people's culture to romance with a man, because it's normally done between two women. She may be Bi, but since Paradise Island is all-female only, apparently all the romances there are between two women.

 

[Strain42]

I guessed Green Lantern, but not this Green Lantern.

So...I dunno if I won the pool or not.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Does this sound like someone confused with their sexuality to you? No. This is pure a simple a gimmick.

You do realize that all that lore about Alan Scott's relationships with women is no longer canon, right? DC may have been ludicrously clumsy about the reboot, but one thing they've been clear on is that there is no "Old DCU" anymore, so none of that information you've provided means anything in the current state of affairs.

 

[lord.jeff]

Exactly, could you imagine if they did the reverse and made Obsidian or Batwoman straight? If that's not ok then changing a character who has always been written as straight should not be ok either.

False equivalency: making Obsidian or Batwoman straight wouldn't be motivated by the need for having more straight people in comics. That's not exactly a minority group that requires more representation.

So majority bad, and minority good. I agree with spectrenihlus point, it should matter what you're switching around, it defeats the point of having established characters if your just gonna switch out major portions of their personalities for a crappy political statement.

 

[LadyRhian]

So what does this mean for his wife, and his kids.

That's the thing about changing the sexuality and/or race of a established character, it creates ripple effects that force the change of other characters. I have no problem with gay characters I just wish they wouldn't change already established characters to add more "diversity". If you need to have a character to be gay create a new character, like Obsidian.

Also look at it from the reverse can you imagine if someone decided to change an established gay character and make them straight?

Being gay does *not* mean you cannot have kids, guys. Do I really NEED to say this? Or cannot marry a woman, for that matter.

Did I say it did? No it creates inconsistencies with the established lore. Yes it is a reboot however they still use the previous background for his character and besides it all just feels forced on him. Here is a writer on the best way to write a gay character

I think it was implied in the very first sentence, as if gay men or gay people in general can't have opposite sex spouses or children. What does it mean for his wife? Her husband is attracted to other men. What does it mean for his kids? Their father is gay. That's all it means.

I didn't want to make a character gay unless it felt organic. So, the list was pretty short. Then I remembered when Obsidian was in the JLA years ago and Gerard Jones, the writer, danced around the issue. I went back and read all my Infinity, Inc.'s and although Todd dated women, it was always a mess. Andreyko said that DC was supportive, wanting a "visible gay character" and that it was "a general void in the DCU that needed exploration". Geoff Johns, longtime writer of JSA, also stated his support for the idea.

That is describing Green Lantern's son obsidian. He was written from his inception with the intent of making him gay. Here however I will describe Alan Scott's marriage

Years later, after the death of his first wife Rose Canton, Alan Scott realized that he had loved Molly all this time and they got married. As the years passed a problem developed for the two; the Starheart (which gave Scott his powers) had reversed his aging processes, so he was physically a young man while Molly had since aged into an old woman. In despair over the rift this had caused between them Molly sold her soul to the demon Neron in return for youth in Underworld Unleashed: Abyss - Hell's Sentinel #1. Her body became that of a young woman (who had the power to create nightmares) but her soul remained in the underworld. Scott fought his way through Hell to obtain it and, with the help of the young Green Lantern Kyle Rayner, returned it to the Harlequin's body. This resulted in re-aging Molly, but making her whole once again. Some time thereafter, Scott himself was returned to his true physical age, as well. Mayne and Scott remain happily married to this day.

Does this sound like someone confused with their sexuality to you? No. This is pure a simple a gimmick.

I will add that being gay only means you are sexually attracted to other men. Nothing says a gay man cannot love a woman, or even marry her or have kids with her. It just means... he's attracted to other men first and foremost.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

So they retconned out a long standing Gay character and then simply turned his father, the traditionally more right wing and conservative type, gay in their new incarnation? Wow! That's just wrong in so many ways. regardless of which side of the political spectrum you reside.

I agree, and here's why:

The article says that he is being

"retooled" as a younger, gay character.

Although somewhat vague, I take this to mean that he's not from the 1940's.

This leaves us with a dilemma:

If I'm misreading things and he is from the 1940's, that's WAY worse than anything you mentioned: it's whitewashing history. No one in the 1940's could be openly gay: they had freaking laws against "sodomy". If he was openly gay people would want him arrested for it, which would be a recurring conflict in almost every issue. There would be no way that you could just say that he was gay and not have it be an important aspect of the character without completely ignoring the historical intolerance of the era. (Or maybe Earth 2 was less intolerant, but even then it seems like a disingenuous way to skirt the issue.)

On the other hand, if he is being retooled as a contemporary character then it seems they have to eliminate the entire storyline with his son being gay. And as you so succinctly put it:

And at the end of the day the contrast between the older 1940's era "old school" superhero struggling to come to terms with his gay superhero son, was a much more interesting story than 'OMG the old Green Lantern is Gay!!!" could ever be. It felt more real, and not simply a retread of a 4 color version of a Glee story.

This is clearly just a cheap publicity stunt. They already have other gay characters and they aren't really making the popular/well known (outside of comic book circles) version of the Green Lantern gay. Obviously I can't speak for gay people, but I would definitely understand if they found this offensive.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

So majority bad, and minority good.

If you have to boil it down to brass tacks, then yes: it's 2012, and there is no good reason why I should be able to count the number of prominent gay superheroes on one hand.

 

[VoidWanderer]

While I applaud them not making Wonder Woman gay, going along the little respect I have for the DC Superheroines since they hit 'F5', I am judging this solely on Starfire from the Red hood comic, so if I am wrong please tell me good news, I find this a cop-out.

If all of them were gay, then I would applaud them properly on this, but to say a version of a character who is chosen by the power ring is gay and make a big deal about it, is weak.

If they made Superman gay, I would've been truly impressed.