 |
|
|
||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
|
        |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
||
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|||
|
CREATORS SPEAK OUT Are comic companies doing enough to portray gay characters in a positive way? Do you think they have an obligation to do so? Joe Phillips: I think Comic companies are always open to different character types, i.e.: black, gay, handicapped. It all depends on the situation. I don't think any of the major comic companies want to put out Captain Gay but if a member of the Justice Friends happens to like Christopher Lowell then that's a good story and a good comic. Remember comic companies are out to make money. If gay sells then they'll do it. Howard Cruse: I think that all artists are called at some level to reflect in their work the spectrum of reality that they experience in life. If they they think that they are not experiencing gay people along with everything else, then they are not very perceptive and are unlikely to merit a lot of respect as artists. As far as comic book companies are concerned, the real issue is: do they see themselves as enablers of serious art or simply as manufacturers of a commercial commodity? If the latter, then I suppose they have no more obligation to include gays than do the makers of Play-Doh, and they hold no interest to me as a consumer. DC Comics, to its credit, has tried to be more inclusive and thus represent reality more than is commercially required. (I'm prejudiced in their favor, of course, because they published Stuck Rubber Baby; but that's not their only bragging point.) For that, I tip my hat to them and am more likely to be intrigued by their titles in general. The same goes for other publishers who go beyond to call of duty to make genuine art possible in the comics medium. Jose Villarrubia: Most definitely not. I think that the powers that be still consider comics to be for children and adolescents and are petrified of the backlash of including sexuality, let alone homosexuality in their books. It seems that the trend right now is that it is permissible for some companies to include gay characters as long as they are not shown engaged in any kind of physical contact beyond a chaste kiss on the cheek. Obviously they don’t have a legal of financial obligation, but I think that ethically they should stride toward a more realistic representation of minorities in general and gays and lesbians in particular. Eric Shanower: I don't know what enough is, but comics with gay characters portrayed positively are published by Fantagraphics, Black Eye, Slave Labor, DC, Image, and others. This seems like a good thing to me. I think more stories portraying gay characters in an HONEST way--whether positive or negative--would be more of a good thing. But at bottom, publishers have no obligation to portray anything-a publisher's only obligation in our society is to make a profit. The portrayal of any subject lies ultimately with creators. Creators have an obligation to portray the manner in which each sees the world (I'm not excluding fiction in that statement), and of course the world includes gay people. Creators have an obligation while creating to be open to every facet of our universe, although the facets dealt with in a particular story will be dictated by that story and necessarily limited in scope. There has certainly been a bias against gay characters in stories published throughout history-including stories told through comics. This will only change as society changes. Robert Rodi: I don't read enough comics to know, but I think it's more important that gay characters be portrayed realistically than positively. Greg Fox: I believe they could do a lot more. As far as an obligation? Well, I believe they feel obliged to portray other minorities in a positive light, so why not gay characters, also? Which isn't to say they've done nothing. They have made some attempts. But in my opinion, they've offered us crumbs.... and I'm not satisfied with crumbs, thank you very much. It's not enough. Devin Grayson: It's hard to talk about the moral obligation of comic book companies without looking at the larger context of the entertainment industry as a whole. What really pains me is that positive representation of gay life continues to be an issue at all -- and it certainly still is, which at one level means no, absolutely not, no one is doing enough. There have been some important breakthroughs, but I find it baffling, truly baffling, that there are still people in America who feel it is their right (and even moral obligation) to criticize love and attraction between consenting adults. How can this be an issue in the twenty-first century? I'm very concerned about the environment, for instance. But I do understand why humanity has found that a difficult issue to work with -- we're coming up against human greed and laziness and shortsightedness, and that's going to take a while to overcome; you can see why we haven't been able to master that one yet. But that there are (more or less) educated adults concerned about how other adults express love to one another in the privacy of their homes. I just don't even know what to do with that, I can't comprehend why the nation's majority of smart, open-minded people haven't categorically overrode the nonsensical squeamishness and ugly prejudice of the ignorant. As an industry, yes, we are afraid of the ignorant and the hateful, and we do still pander to them on a corporate level, and I find that incomprehensible. If we are going to claim, at any level, to be engaged in the creation of an art form (and that in and of itself will spark argument in the industry between the creative and corporate tiers), then absolutely, we are obligated to challenge the ignorant and the fearful in support of societal compassion and diversification. Everyone is. Is it a little scary to know that certain people may not buy a book because they're offended by the content? If you're in the business of making money, than yes, that's scary. But isn't it a whole hell of a lot scarier to know that every time you compromise said content to appease those people, you're actively contributing to their ability to scare you next time? It's easy for the comic book industry to say that they're not political by nature, and at some level that's true. But on another, more important level, commerce is, at its heart, a political animal. And the choices you make -- in creating, in editing, in publishing -- absolutely do matter. Roberta Gregory: I don't think there is really any obligation to do so, unless there has been a clamor for representations. Most comic companies are geared towards an adolescent hetero male audience, and they are probably one of the most homophobic groups out there. I don't think the publisher cites some demographic study saying there has to be some more representations of alternate sexual orientations among characters. I would imagine most of the representations come from gay or gay-friendly creators trying to have a more balanced view of the world, as they perceive it. I am not too sure if there are negative representations of gay characters, as a matter of fact, but I do not read a whole lot of comics, and am a bit behind in news of the industry. Marc Andreyko: I don't think comic companies are doing enough to portray gay characters - positive or negative. I think publishers fail to realize that there is a huge gay readership in comics. (Lotsa well-muscled men in tight outfits? come on....) I'm not one of these guys who think that every gay character has to be a saint, but I would like to see more gays of all kinds in comics. The positive reaction to Apollo and the Midnighter has helped, as has the growing number of out creators. I think Phil Jimenez in particular has done more for gays in comics then just about anyone in recent memory. I think companies have an obligation to publish good material first and foremost. I also believe that companies are more skittish about gay characters than the public. Isn't it odd that a kiss between two gay characters can be edited out, but in PREACHER you can have a character lick feces out of a retarded man's butt? [Editors note: Jenny Sparks #2 had a last page embrace and kiss edited out at the last minute.] Brad Rader: It goes without saying that publishers could do more to portray gay characters in a positive way. However, I also have no problem with them being portrayed in negative and ambivalent ways also, as long as there are plenty of examples thereof. I'm reminded of my reaction to the film "Basic Instinct", which really pissed me off when it came out. Now, however, I love the Sharon Stone character. I guess the difference is, now that there's a lot more variety of gay portrayals, gay villain characters don't bother me at all. In fact they are often the most interesting characters. Ariel L Schrag: If you are referring to superhero comics I don't give a shit what they do because that's not art anyway. Other comics which are art should have no obligation outside of what the specific artist feels like writing. Tommy Kovac: Unfortunately, I don’t know a whole lot about the larger comic companies, since I tend to read more small press stuff. But it seems to me that it’s up to the individual artist to portray gay characters positively, and then all the comic publisher has to do is recognize a good story, and not be afraid of printing it, just because it may have some gay characters, or gay situations. My publisher, Slave Labor Graphics, is really good about that. They didn’t actively set out to publish a bunch of gay artists, but they do have a good representation, I think. There’s three or four of us that I know of. Dan Vado (of SLG) never blinked an eye about my Stitch storyline having a gay protagonist, and in fact helped me a little with the ending in issue 4 to make it a little "more romantic" and those were his own words. But I do wish I saw more comics out there that had gay characters NOT in overtly sexual situations. You shouldn’t have to look for ‘adult comics’ to find openly gay characters. Sharon Cho: Yes and no to both questions. I believe that comic companies aren't out to portray gays in any light; but they're not going to stand in the way (much) when gays are in stories they publish. They as always, try to put out good stories, and if there are gay characters in these stories, okay. But they have to walk a line between portraying gays and assumed public perception. As for obligations, no. I don't believe anyone is under ANY obligation to portray gays in either positive or negative ways. However, if writers, artists, editors and publishers feel that the world is wrong in it's current perceptions of acceptable or unacceptable gay behavior, then these creators have an obligation to THEMSELVES to try and portray gays in a positive light since they can reach so many people. Chris Cooper: I think they have an obligation to portray gay characters, period. It's a distortion of reality to pretend we don't exist, which is largely what happens now, at least in the mainstream superhero genre. As far as positive or negative portrayals go, I'm fine with either, as long as there's a sense of balance: if you do a negative portrayal, steer clear of the stereotypes, and be sure to include a positive portrayal to balance things out. If there were reasonable numbers of positive portrayals in comics, you wouldn't have to worry about each and every negative one. But with so few, you damn well better make sure, that if it's negative, that there's a damn good reason for it and that it's presented in a context that clearly and unambiguously makes it clear that the vast majority of gay people are just as human and moral as everybody else. Terrance Griep Jr.: Comic book companies are obligated to turn a profit, period. It makes sense that, as a means to that end, they would want their characters to reflect their audience. Like all American mass media, comics are getting better; in many ways, comics outpace the others. Adam Dekraker: I think DC Comics has done a really great job in the last 15 years or so. It's still sad that most of the characters they've introduced don't really get the spotlight and are relegated to supporting roles, but it's a business, and we've gotta face facts. Right now a mainstream gay superhero title will not sell with the numbers necessary to keep it afloat. It's a practical business decision. Some companies could do a lot more work. Marvel has perhaps the highest profile gay character in Northstar, and has done nothing significant with the character in years. Do they have an obligation to do so? Nah, but it would make good business sense if they did it right. A lotta gays already read comics. And the gay community as a whole tends to vote with their dollar. If you marketed to the gay and lesbian community not already reading comics, I think you'd find at least moderate success if you've got a quality title. But there are so many factors that go into getting a book created, approved, published, and on the stands. It's easy to say, "Hey, make more gay Comics" when it's not your companies' profits at risk. Bevis Musson:To an extent yes I think that some of them are showing gay characters in a good light. The situation isn't perfect, there's still a hell of a long way to go, but things are changing gradually. Mainstream comics are still quite far behind in showing any kind of diversity (I'm thinking mostly of DC and Marvel's mass appeal lines here) but the smaller companies and the slightly less mass-market lines are showing a change. Comics like Sandman and The Dreaming have had a large number of very different gay characters, some nice some unpleasant but almost all believable. I think in a lot of ways that's what's missing from most comics, a willingness to show different kinds of gay people. Gay characters don't just need to be heroes. They should be able to be villains or crabby or mean or whatever. The point is that being gay shouldn't be the main point of a character, it should just be a factor, in the same way that Superman has black hair and is married or Professor X is bald and in a wheelchair. It's unfortunate when you look at characters like Northstar or the Pied Piper that despite the fact that they are written as gay characters that has almost become the main thing about them. They are the gay characters, not characters who happen to be gay. As to whether companies have an 'obligation' to portray gay characters I'm not really sure. I think that they have an obligation to show diversity, whether that be in terms of sex, sexuality, religion, race or whatever. Even today the majority of big comic characters are straight, white, middle class men. Partially it's because the really successful characters have been around for so long and come from a time when it really was just boys that read comics. But you only have to look at the way that DC consistently fails to promote Wonder Woman in the way that she deserves to see that there is still a presumption that only straight male characters are going to be popular. Maybe with the success of characters like Apollo and Midnighter in The Authority will make companies realise that the public is ready for and wants to see different kinds of characters. The comics reading public is hugely diverse these days and that should be reflected in the comic characters. We're never going to be happy with the range of characters we have, they'll always be someone who feels that they aren't being represented, but there is a sense that the companies may not be doing as much as they could be to show the diversity of the human condition.
|
We
asked 16 of the top gay creators in the comic industry their thoughts,
and here’s what they had to say.
