MovieBob said:
MovieBob gives you another reason as to why comics are weird.
I think MovieBob has given us another reason as to why comic books are of little cultural relevance.
There are a couple ways to look at this:
1)
The General Impact View: the good thing about it is that it portrays a (relatively) iconic character as gay, which promotes a positive, inclusive image that will make homosexual people feel less like a social outlier and more like an accepted member of society.
Sure, I get it. The problem is that this is probably a pretty weak general impact. The impact could have been much larger if DC were willing to step up to the plate and write something truly controversial. Instead they chose to play it safe and add a token gay character without directly confronting the issues that face gay people in modern society. This brings me to #2...
2)
The Artistic View: when you consider it from the motivations of DC it just seems like a really shallow attempt to appease certain demographics and receive praise. While I can see one appeal for treating homosexuality like it's no big deal, the problem with this is that it kind of is. There is still a huge cultural and political divide over what rights gay people should have, as well as the nature of romantic and family relationships. If DC was
really courageous they would tackle these issues head on with stories like the one about the original Scott having to accept his son.
This ties into the very nature of comics as an artistic medium. The greatest forms of art and literature don't just follow cultural trends with marketing ploys;
they lead and help create new cultural trends. The only way to do this is to be original and to not be afraid to shock people. The way to do this isn't to have token gay characters or have a gay wedding: it's to actually generate a discussion between the two sides of the issues and then point to a solution.
Appeasing a primarily liberal audience doesn't do anything. In fact, it's indicative of the polarization that is destroying our country (America). The proliferation of partisan media outlets is the foremost cause of this degeneration. When each side is only exposed to media sources that espouse their own values while caricaturing the other side, it's no wonder that we've become ever more polarized.
If DC was truly bold they would create a character that had anti-gay biases but that was still human and relatable. Someone's whose biases are based in deeply held religious or cultural beliefs. Someone who could represent the portion of society that opposes homosexuality without becoming a straw-man. Maybe then this character could have a sincere conflict between his/her deeply held traditional values and the need to recognize the rights of his gay counterparts. Perhaps in the end the character realizes that the broader societal context of the situation demands that he/she recognize and accept his/her gay counterparts, even though this conflicts with his/her religious/cultural convictions.
The fact that DC doesn't seem willing to engage in this kind of story writing shows an immaturity on their part. What made
The Watchmen so good, imo, is that it had an at least somewhat morally ambiguous ending. Rorschach's position was (once again imho) supposed to be somewhat identifiable. You had a genuine conflict between deontological and utilitarian ethics. I think it was left up to the reader who to side with. Handing down mores to an audience that likely already agrees with you isn't going to raise what you're doing above the level of mere entertainment.
