The sexiest vampiress in the known universe, Lamia, will be coming to you very soon courtesy of yours truly! Lamia is an homage to the fabulous vampiress vixens of the 1970s, and what's even sweeter, she comes complete with a cute gay best friend, Antonio.
The both of them get into all kinds of adventures and mischief. Lamia will be posted online as a webcomic, and that will be collected into the standard edition of the comic, released regularly. There will also be a 'director's cut' version, which will feature extra pages of additional story and sexier content! Both editions will be available in hard print copy and in high-quality digital copy.
If you'd like a sneak preview, skulk on over to http://lamia.comicdish.com and download the free wallpaper pack!
It's my sincere hope to have Lamia start by my favourite holiday -- Halloween, or Samhain as it's better-known!
Keep checking back for more updates! I think you're going to like Lamia. I know she likes you!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Science Fiction, Double Feature: Why Rocky Horror is a Masterpiece
I was not one of the johnny-come-latelies to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I saw it at quite a young age, and long before it really hit the mainstream and suddenly everyone was doing callback parties for Halloween. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, not at all; everyone should know this film. Everyone should appreciate it, and everyone should be aware of its significance.
I'm also extremely fond of Shock Treatment, which was a film too far ahead of its time to be appreciated when it was released. It's a pity, since in many ways it's actually more polished and slicker than Rocky Horror, but it was often compared to its predecessor (to which it was not a sequel) unfavourably when in actuality they were two very different works that are incomparable. It's better to consider them siblings. Shock Treatment is especially important in this day and age of 'reality TV', king-for-a-day celebrity, and music video culture, which it more or less entirely predicted.
But today I'm going to talk about Rocky Horror, why it is special to me, and why I think it should be special to you, too. Especially at this time of year, my favourite holiday Halloween and my favourite season of autumn, it is important to remember the things like this.
From the very beginning, Rocky Horror seems like a story that is little more than a musical pastiche of 1950s Americana. However, as it continues, it quickly becomes clear that it is a deeply subversive work, one that calls more or less everything about that period's values into question. Brad is hopelessly lost in self-denial of his true desires, but until his and Janet's ordeal, he was never in any situation to discover them. You can notice it even as early as 'Dammit Janet'. Similarly, Janet easily begins to come into her own once her inhibitions have been chipped away, coming to the realisation that she isn't happy to be a demure, retreating, virginal trophy.
Frank and the strange cast of characters who greet us on our journey through the film's chronicle are eye-openers. It is especially noteworthy that Frank is bisexual and a crossdresser. Tim Curry's perfect portrayal makes Frank into an icon, a larger-than-life figure that is more godlike than anything human, so much so that it makes his show-stopper 'I'm Going Home' all the more poignant.
All the subtleties in the background, all the details, all the little things...you could watch the film hundreds of times and never catch them all. It's amazing how painstakingly the film is constructed and, even with the help of the commentary from Richard O'Brien and Patricia Quinn on the DVD, there are so many things there that it is impossible to note them all in a single viewing, or even in several.
But the thing that always gets me, which I didn't understand for some time, is the special magic of Rocky Horror. Viewed as it is, it seems a bit downbeat and depressing. There has been this explosion of identity, this vital party wherein every single person involved has had to face his or her true self and realise what it is he or she really wants, and who he or she really is. And then, just as quickly as it had begun, it ends again. Fortunately, it avoids the hackneyed plot device of everything going 'back to normal'; it's clear from 'Super Heroes' that everything has changed, which is confirmed by the reprise of 'Science Fiction, Double Feature'.
But how can it be salvaged? Part of the reason why it's important it seem downbeat is because in the films of the 1950s, anything deviant from the norm -- especially aliens from outer space -- always had to be defeated and the status quo preserved. It's just another aspect of the film's subversive nature. It is important that as the audience, we sympathise not with the two supposed protagonists Brad and Janet, but with anyone else. Brad and Janet are as much the antagonists as anything, the oppressive force of 1950s American conformism. We cheer when they themselves are subverted and their strong aspirations of mediocrity dashed irreparably. Any who identified with them at the outset are forced to question themselves through Brad and Janet's own experiences.
But we are not Brad or Janet. We are the Transylvanians, the creatures of the night who make a party of things when 'sensible folk' don't dare step out. We are the ones who spend our nights in this strange and wonderful mansion, where anything and everything could and does happen. There is nothing beyond imagining in Frank's mansion.
And that is why it must go the way it goes. The night must end, and day comes again, so that light can be cast on the reality of Brad and Janet's situation. They must understand what they did, what they always were, and what they have awakened themselves to see. It was always there, it was always them, and now, can they ever conform again? Even if they try, they can never, ever forget what happened. Even if they pretend, they will know they are pretending. What is seen cannot be un-seen. What is experienced cannot be taken back.
But we creatures of the night, who have seemingly been defeated and our plans foiled...what of us? We know ourselves, although every journey through Frank's discovery and floor show changes us. We notice new things, about everything else and about ourselves.
The night goes and then comes again. Even if we have gone through it once, we will go through it again. It will come again. And that is the most comforting thing of all. It's a show, a show for us. It's a party for us. The players do their part, and then it all happens once again. When the sun sets and darkness falls again, Frank and the rest throw another party. It's not a linear experience. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a cycle. Like so many of the best stories in the world, it can be seen as a metaphor for the endlessly-repeating cycles of nature. Of night itself, where anything is possible. And to some, that unlimited potential is so scary.
To me, it is comforting. It is always sad to me that night has to end. It is like being afloat in a magical world of unlimited potential, and then daylight comes and shows you exactly where your boundaries and limits are. But night...night is a different story entirely.
It's why I embrace Rocky Horror so wholeheartedly. I know that, after the last note fades and the lights are out in the Criminologist's study, it only needs the urging from me to start it up again. Frank and Columbia and the others pick right back up and start again. And even before we had VHS and DVD, that was still what it meant to me. All it needs is for night to come again, for everything to start again.
In all the periods of my life, Rocky Horror has been there for me. Ever since I saw it for the first time, it has given me the assurance that I am not alone, and that even if we are all aliens and outsiders, we at least have each other, and we throw great parties. In the darkest time of my life, I watched Rocky Horror almost daily, just for that reassurance. It seems like, no matter how bad it gets, Frank and the rest are always there for me. And they never fail to cheer me up and to strengthen me.
From the first notes of 'Science Fiction, Double Feature', the tone is set by some of the most iconic science-fiction actors and films referenced in the lyrics. But Rocky Horror itself is one of the most iconic science-fiction films ever made. And it isn't just sci-fi. It's so much more than that, it's difficult to pin down into any singular genre.
If you haven't seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show, you need to see it. And you need to see it, not at a mass showing with all the callbacks and props, but at home, perhaps with friends, and plenty of snacks and fun. I'm not much of a fan of the showings, but they can be fun. However, I think the first experience needs to be a personal one. See it. Embrace it. And as Frank so famously says:
Don't dream it, be it.
Words to live by.
I'm also extremely fond of Shock Treatment, which was a film too far ahead of its time to be appreciated when it was released. It's a pity, since in many ways it's actually more polished and slicker than Rocky Horror, but it was often compared to its predecessor (to which it was not a sequel) unfavourably when in actuality they were two very different works that are incomparable. It's better to consider them siblings. Shock Treatment is especially important in this day and age of 'reality TV', king-for-a-day celebrity, and music video culture, which it more or less entirely predicted.
But today I'm going to talk about Rocky Horror, why it is special to me, and why I think it should be special to you, too. Especially at this time of year, my favourite holiday Halloween and my favourite season of autumn, it is important to remember the things like this.
From the very beginning, Rocky Horror seems like a story that is little more than a musical pastiche of 1950s Americana. However, as it continues, it quickly becomes clear that it is a deeply subversive work, one that calls more or less everything about that period's values into question. Brad is hopelessly lost in self-denial of his true desires, but until his and Janet's ordeal, he was never in any situation to discover them. You can notice it even as early as 'Dammit Janet'. Similarly, Janet easily begins to come into her own once her inhibitions have been chipped away, coming to the realisation that she isn't happy to be a demure, retreating, virginal trophy.
Frank and the strange cast of characters who greet us on our journey through the film's chronicle are eye-openers. It is especially noteworthy that Frank is bisexual and a crossdresser. Tim Curry's perfect portrayal makes Frank into an icon, a larger-than-life figure that is more godlike than anything human, so much so that it makes his show-stopper 'I'm Going Home' all the more poignant.
All the subtleties in the background, all the details, all the little things...you could watch the film hundreds of times and never catch them all. It's amazing how painstakingly the film is constructed and, even with the help of the commentary from Richard O'Brien and Patricia Quinn on the DVD, there are so many things there that it is impossible to note them all in a single viewing, or even in several.
But the thing that always gets me, which I didn't understand for some time, is the special magic of Rocky Horror. Viewed as it is, it seems a bit downbeat and depressing. There has been this explosion of identity, this vital party wherein every single person involved has had to face his or her true self and realise what it is he or she really wants, and who he or she really is. And then, just as quickly as it had begun, it ends again. Fortunately, it avoids the hackneyed plot device of everything going 'back to normal'; it's clear from 'Super Heroes' that everything has changed, which is confirmed by the reprise of 'Science Fiction, Double Feature'.
But how can it be salvaged? Part of the reason why it's important it seem downbeat is because in the films of the 1950s, anything deviant from the norm -- especially aliens from outer space -- always had to be defeated and the status quo preserved. It's just another aspect of the film's subversive nature. It is important that as the audience, we sympathise not with the two supposed protagonists Brad and Janet, but with anyone else. Brad and Janet are as much the antagonists as anything, the oppressive force of 1950s American conformism. We cheer when they themselves are subverted and their strong aspirations of mediocrity dashed irreparably. Any who identified with them at the outset are forced to question themselves through Brad and Janet's own experiences.
But we are not Brad or Janet. We are the Transylvanians, the creatures of the night who make a party of things when 'sensible folk' don't dare step out. We are the ones who spend our nights in this strange and wonderful mansion, where anything and everything could and does happen. There is nothing beyond imagining in Frank's mansion.
And that is why it must go the way it goes. The night must end, and day comes again, so that light can be cast on the reality of Brad and Janet's situation. They must understand what they did, what they always were, and what they have awakened themselves to see. It was always there, it was always them, and now, can they ever conform again? Even if they try, they can never, ever forget what happened. Even if they pretend, they will know they are pretending. What is seen cannot be un-seen. What is experienced cannot be taken back.
But we creatures of the night, who have seemingly been defeated and our plans foiled...what of us? We know ourselves, although every journey through Frank's discovery and floor show changes us. We notice new things, about everything else and about ourselves.
The night goes and then comes again. Even if we have gone through it once, we will go through it again. It will come again. And that is the most comforting thing of all. It's a show, a show for us. It's a party for us. The players do their part, and then it all happens once again. When the sun sets and darkness falls again, Frank and the rest throw another party. It's not a linear experience. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a cycle. Like so many of the best stories in the world, it can be seen as a metaphor for the endlessly-repeating cycles of nature. Of night itself, where anything is possible. And to some, that unlimited potential is so scary.
To me, it is comforting. It is always sad to me that night has to end. It is like being afloat in a magical world of unlimited potential, and then daylight comes and shows you exactly where your boundaries and limits are. But night...night is a different story entirely.
It's why I embrace Rocky Horror so wholeheartedly. I know that, after the last note fades and the lights are out in the Criminologist's study, it only needs the urging from me to start it up again. Frank and Columbia and the others pick right back up and start again. And even before we had VHS and DVD, that was still what it meant to me. All it needs is for night to come again, for everything to start again.
In all the periods of my life, Rocky Horror has been there for me. Ever since I saw it for the first time, it has given me the assurance that I am not alone, and that even if we are all aliens and outsiders, we at least have each other, and we throw great parties. In the darkest time of my life, I watched Rocky Horror almost daily, just for that reassurance. It seems like, no matter how bad it gets, Frank and the rest are always there for me. And they never fail to cheer me up and to strengthen me.
From the first notes of 'Science Fiction, Double Feature', the tone is set by some of the most iconic science-fiction actors and films referenced in the lyrics. But Rocky Horror itself is one of the most iconic science-fiction films ever made. And it isn't just sci-fi. It's so much more than that, it's difficult to pin down into any singular genre.
If you haven't seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show, you need to see it. And you need to see it, not at a mass showing with all the callbacks and props, but at home, perhaps with friends, and plenty of snacks and fun. I'm not much of a fan of the showings, but they can be fun. However, I think the first experience needs to be a personal one. See it. Embrace it. And as Frank so famously says:
Don't dream it, be it.
Words to live by.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Hi, I'm Gay: A Writing Guide
Since Hollywood, comic books, and various other media seem unable to get it down, after a conversation with a friend, I thought I would offer a few tips on how to write characters who are gay. Things I say to do or not to do are just opinions and just rules of thumb, not written in stone and not unchangeable -- most important of all is doing what feels right and what reads right, and what seems to be most effective for the story and genre.
I may not be considered an authority on anything, I honestly don't know. But speaking as someone for whom 'gay' is a social label (one of several), I know what I like.
- If the be-all and end-all of the character is 'a gay guy', toss the concept out. Start over again and develop the character from the beginning. Sexual orientation is an important part of a person, but it isn't the sum total of any person's being. If you're just tossing in this character simply to be a gay presence, you should examine why you feel you want to do that and then ask yourself, who is this character? No-one is just a set of genitalia, to be defined solely by sexual preference. It is just one part of a whole.
- Gay characters do not have to be either irrepressibly cheerful or utterly miserable. In any world, but especially fantasy worlds and settings, consider the logic behind any circumstances where the character is discriminated against or treated poorly. Just because there is high discrimination against non-heterosexuals in this world doesn't mean it's going to be that way by default in any other. The best-known example of this clumsy treatment is Mercedes Lackey's writings, where the main character is a dismal gay guy. Don't feel you have to prove that 'gay' is a misnomer when it comes to homosexuals. It generally makes your work tolerable only by teenagers desperate for any identification, or by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
On the other hand, irrepressibly cheerful gay guys often come off as trying way too hard. We have problems like anyone else does. Even in a world where gay guys aren't discriminated heavily against, problems must exist. Bad days happen; we aren't always going to be rays of sunshine, as much as we might like to be.
A character can be convincingly mostly cheery or depressive, though. It's just that if a character's raison d'etre is ebullience or misery, they're going to come off as questionable. And if the readers come up with questions about the motivation behind the character's mood and those questions aren't well-addressed in your narrative, it's going to become weaker in their eyes.
- Don't throw in stereotypical health problems because you think it will be engaging to a gay audience. Chances are it won't. If you're not aiming for a gay audience and you throw it in anyway, chances are high that someone in the audience will, regardless, find it cliched and probably very, very presumptuous, or even offensive.
- Gay men are not all feminine, or in touch with their feminine sides. Some are more macho than heterosexual men. There is no such thing as a 'typical' gay guy.
This doesn't mean there aren't mincing camp queens around. There are a lot of them. But it also bears thinking about why these men act so iconoclastic to traditionally expected 'masculine' behaviour. Some act that way as a reaction to what they have been pressured into their whole lives, others because it is truly more comfortable for them. Why would your character act this way? If you don't know, you should think about it.
There's nothing wrong with queeny guys. It's just that they've been far overdone, sometimes in offensive ways, up to now. Some gay audiences will find them irritating and will question the motives of the writer. It is, in some ways, comparable to the presentation of characters of colour in roughly the first half of the 20th century; some of the situations and characters were true to life, but a good many of them were also written by an author simply mashing together stereotypes with little understanding of the reasons behind it, usually only including the characters due to it being a popular trend. Because of that, many of these portrayals are viewed as uncomfortable or even offensive today.
- Similarly iffy are the promiscuous party boy, the body maniac or narcissist, the diva...these have all been overdone. Proceed with care if you intend to try and present them again.
- Be very careful about using epithets. These are words that are offensive by nature. They are generally only permissible when trying to convey some message with the situation, or to teach a lesson. Most gay people will not be comfortable with the 'f' word -- the one that is generally only acceptable when referring to a cigarette. Similarly, don't use the word 'gay' to mean 'stupid' or 'unacceptable' -- many gay people take exception to this, and justifiably. If you don't understand why, simply insert one of your own social labels in there. 'That's so Jewish.' 'That is just the most Chinese-American thing I have ever heard in my life.' 'How black.' It's a really ugly misappropriation of a word by the ignorant.
- Gay people do not exist solely to dole out meaningful advice and life lessons to their heterosexual friends. It happens sometimes, but it's getting a little old for that to be the new standard role for any gay characters. The trope is called the 'magical negro' (and I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive, that's just its name) because of the prevalence of black characters being cast in this role for some time after trend shifts meant they could no longer be caricature comic relief. The same shift of trends seems to have landed gay characters squarely in the position of existing solely to give profound, life-changing advice to their straight buddies.
While it's true that many gay people do actually have a lot to say on the subject, most of the time the characters are not allowed any real lives of their own. Most gay characters still are never allowed to have actual relationships and are basically just accessories to the more 'acceptable' straight characters' lives.
- Gay people aren't all about sex any more than straight people are. Although it is a sexual orientation, that doesn't necessarily refer to sexual intercourse, but instead to sex as in gender. With any character, sexuality or lack thereof is an important part of the character, his or her motivations, and aspects of life. Many gay guys are more comfortable in a mature way with sex, as in sexual intercourse, than their straight friends, simply because it is one of the things that most gay men have to come to terms with during their own self-realisation. One of the only universal unifiers between gay men is a love for other men. Historically, one of the points of unity was the admiration of the male form and the male sexuality.
Many gay men have a more informed approach to sex, but that doesn't mean they're all sex maniacs, or even that all of them have sex at all. Similarly, however, it doesn't mean they don't. If you want to throw a gay character into your story but can't bear to think about him having sex, maybe you should consider whether or not you really can handle having him there.
- Gay men and straight women often get along well. However, that doesn't mean that they're interchangeable or that they experience the same things emotionally, sexually, or otherwise. They have many commonalities, but don't make the mistake many writers do and think that they are basically just the same thing in a different shape. They're not. Men who would rather be women (and vice-versa) are transgender, not gay. It is a very important distinction. Most gay men are happy to be men who like men and don't want to be women, and don't identify as female. Drag queens -- men who dress and often perform on-stage as female characters -- are not necessarily transgender either. In fact, they don't even have to be gay. There are plenty of straight guys who love to wear women's clothing and have absolutely zero desire to actually be female.
If you find yourself writing a gay male character as basically a woman with a penis, there's something wrong. If you find yourself writing a gay male character as endlessly admiring women and desiring to be a woman, ask yourself whether or not you might just want to write a transgender character instead, and do your research. It is a whole different, and of course beautiful, world. Just don't mix them all together and expect no-one to call you on it.
- Most important of all, develop your character organically. Develop his hopes and fears, his triumphs and his tragedies. Don't just fill him full of character flaws, because that tends to be nothing more than a handy way to attempt to cover up weak writing. If he's just a placeholder, ask yourself if making him gay serves any real purpose.
Saying that an otherwise unexceptional character is gay, for no reason other than to make him stand out, usually comes off as desperate and ultimately uninteresting. If the character isn't making an impression, saying that he is gay may win him some fans, but they will quickly give him up if he doesn't grow a personality as well. While it is potentially interesting for a character to have an unexpected sexual preference, ask yourself: what does this contribute to the story and to the character? Does it really have any role? Is there any real reason for it to come up? As someone who has been through many, many dates, I can say that just being gay does not make someone interesting, kind, engaging, deep, or appealing.
These are just my thoughts, and I hope they might at least give you a few thoughts of your own about writing characters who are gay and actual people too. The depth that should be developed with any character must of course be developed regardless of sexuality. That is just one aspect of many that can enrich characters.
And as always, I'd love to hear from any of you with thoughts or ideas about this topic. Let me know your approaches to characters and their sexualities as an aspect of their identities!
I may not be considered an authority on anything, I honestly don't know. But speaking as someone for whom 'gay' is a social label (one of several), I know what I like.
- If the be-all and end-all of the character is 'a gay guy', toss the concept out. Start over again and develop the character from the beginning. Sexual orientation is an important part of a person, but it isn't the sum total of any person's being. If you're just tossing in this character simply to be a gay presence, you should examine why you feel you want to do that and then ask yourself, who is this character? No-one is just a set of genitalia, to be defined solely by sexual preference. It is just one part of a whole.
- Gay characters do not have to be either irrepressibly cheerful or utterly miserable. In any world, but especially fantasy worlds and settings, consider the logic behind any circumstances where the character is discriminated against or treated poorly. Just because there is high discrimination against non-heterosexuals in this world doesn't mean it's going to be that way by default in any other. The best-known example of this clumsy treatment is Mercedes Lackey's writings, where the main character is a dismal gay guy. Don't feel you have to prove that 'gay' is a misnomer when it comes to homosexuals. It generally makes your work tolerable only by teenagers desperate for any identification, or by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
On the other hand, irrepressibly cheerful gay guys often come off as trying way too hard. We have problems like anyone else does. Even in a world where gay guys aren't discriminated heavily against, problems must exist. Bad days happen; we aren't always going to be rays of sunshine, as much as we might like to be.
A character can be convincingly mostly cheery or depressive, though. It's just that if a character's raison d'etre is ebullience or misery, they're going to come off as questionable. And if the readers come up with questions about the motivation behind the character's mood and those questions aren't well-addressed in your narrative, it's going to become weaker in their eyes.
- Don't throw in stereotypical health problems because you think it will be engaging to a gay audience. Chances are it won't. If you're not aiming for a gay audience and you throw it in anyway, chances are high that someone in the audience will, regardless, find it cliched and probably very, very presumptuous, or even offensive.
- Gay men are not all feminine, or in touch with their feminine sides. Some are more macho than heterosexual men. There is no such thing as a 'typical' gay guy.
This doesn't mean there aren't mincing camp queens around. There are a lot of them. But it also bears thinking about why these men act so iconoclastic to traditionally expected 'masculine' behaviour. Some act that way as a reaction to what they have been pressured into their whole lives, others because it is truly more comfortable for them. Why would your character act this way? If you don't know, you should think about it.
There's nothing wrong with queeny guys. It's just that they've been far overdone, sometimes in offensive ways, up to now. Some gay audiences will find them irritating and will question the motives of the writer. It is, in some ways, comparable to the presentation of characters of colour in roughly the first half of the 20th century; some of the situations and characters were true to life, but a good many of them were also written by an author simply mashing together stereotypes with little understanding of the reasons behind it, usually only including the characters due to it being a popular trend. Because of that, many of these portrayals are viewed as uncomfortable or even offensive today.
- Similarly iffy are the promiscuous party boy, the body maniac or narcissist, the diva...these have all been overdone. Proceed with care if you intend to try and present them again.
- Be very careful about using epithets. These are words that are offensive by nature. They are generally only permissible when trying to convey some message with the situation, or to teach a lesson. Most gay people will not be comfortable with the 'f' word -- the one that is generally only acceptable when referring to a cigarette. Similarly, don't use the word 'gay' to mean 'stupid' or 'unacceptable' -- many gay people take exception to this, and justifiably. If you don't understand why, simply insert one of your own social labels in there. 'That's so Jewish.' 'That is just the most Chinese-American thing I have ever heard in my life.' 'How black.' It's a really ugly misappropriation of a word by the ignorant.
- Gay people do not exist solely to dole out meaningful advice and life lessons to their heterosexual friends. It happens sometimes, but it's getting a little old for that to be the new standard role for any gay characters. The trope is called the 'magical negro' (and I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive, that's just its name) because of the prevalence of black characters being cast in this role for some time after trend shifts meant they could no longer be caricature comic relief. The same shift of trends seems to have landed gay characters squarely in the position of existing solely to give profound, life-changing advice to their straight buddies.
While it's true that many gay people do actually have a lot to say on the subject, most of the time the characters are not allowed any real lives of their own. Most gay characters still are never allowed to have actual relationships and are basically just accessories to the more 'acceptable' straight characters' lives.
- Gay people aren't all about sex any more than straight people are. Although it is a sexual orientation, that doesn't necessarily refer to sexual intercourse, but instead to sex as in gender. With any character, sexuality or lack thereof is an important part of the character, his or her motivations, and aspects of life. Many gay guys are more comfortable in a mature way with sex, as in sexual intercourse, than their straight friends, simply because it is one of the things that most gay men have to come to terms with during their own self-realisation. One of the only universal unifiers between gay men is a love for other men. Historically, one of the points of unity was the admiration of the male form and the male sexuality.
Many gay men have a more informed approach to sex, but that doesn't mean they're all sex maniacs, or even that all of them have sex at all. Similarly, however, it doesn't mean they don't. If you want to throw a gay character into your story but can't bear to think about him having sex, maybe you should consider whether or not you really can handle having him there.
- Gay men and straight women often get along well. However, that doesn't mean that they're interchangeable or that they experience the same things emotionally, sexually, or otherwise. They have many commonalities, but don't make the mistake many writers do and think that they are basically just the same thing in a different shape. They're not. Men who would rather be women (and vice-versa) are transgender, not gay. It is a very important distinction. Most gay men are happy to be men who like men and don't want to be women, and don't identify as female. Drag queens -- men who dress and often perform on-stage as female characters -- are not necessarily transgender either. In fact, they don't even have to be gay. There are plenty of straight guys who love to wear women's clothing and have absolutely zero desire to actually be female.
If you find yourself writing a gay male character as basically a woman with a penis, there's something wrong. If you find yourself writing a gay male character as endlessly admiring women and desiring to be a woman, ask yourself whether or not you might just want to write a transgender character instead, and do your research. It is a whole different, and of course beautiful, world. Just don't mix them all together and expect no-one to call you on it.
- Most important of all, develop your character organically. Develop his hopes and fears, his triumphs and his tragedies. Don't just fill him full of character flaws, because that tends to be nothing more than a handy way to attempt to cover up weak writing. If he's just a placeholder, ask yourself if making him gay serves any real purpose.
Saying that an otherwise unexceptional character is gay, for no reason other than to make him stand out, usually comes off as desperate and ultimately uninteresting. If the character isn't making an impression, saying that he is gay may win him some fans, but they will quickly give him up if he doesn't grow a personality as well. While it is potentially interesting for a character to have an unexpected sexual preference, ask yourself: what does this contribute to the story and to the character? Does it really have any role? Is there any real reason for it to come up? As someone who has been through many, many dates, I can say that just being gay does not make someone interesting, kind, engaging, deep, or appealing.
These are just my thoughts, and I hope they might at least give you a few thoughts of your own about writing characters who are gay and actual people too. The depth that should be developed with any character must of course be developed regardless of sexuality. That is just one aspect of many that can enrich characters.
And as always, I'd love to hear from any of you with thoughts or ideas about this topic. Let me know your approaches to characters and their sexualities as an aspect of their identities!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Plight of Gay Youth
Today I wanted to take the time to address a very real problem that is finally receiving some notice, and it's long past time. Intolerance is at the highest point it's been in ages, and of course that has an effect on youth. They see intolerance from older people and in the world, and they think it's okay. The misuse of the term 'gay' to mean 'stupid' or 'bad' is as hurtful as any other epithet, but since it's gays, it's largely dismissed.
Because, you see, it's not trendy anymore like it was for a few minutes in the 90s. The American view of reality is distorted; you get 'reality' television that all of its viewers know isn't real, for example. That's not the be-all and end-all of things, but a vast amount of the American population, especially the younger part of that, is heavily influenced by what is trendy or popular.
There have been a huge amount of suicides amongst gay youth who were bullied. This is intolerable. But what's being done about it? The only thing I can find is a video movement called 'It Gets Better', to encourage gay youth and let them know that things improve, down the line.
But is this really true? I don't think so. I want to encourage them like anyone else, but if someone is depressed and upset enough to seriously consider ending his own life, it's not going to help him to basically be encouraged to put it off. If they're that unhappy, it's just delaying the inevitable because it really doesn't necessarily get better. Maybe if you're rich, or pretty, or you fall in with the right crowd; maybe if you're incredibly lucky, or you happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Basically you just get older and the struggles usually get less immediate and more frustrating. You grow into a world where you are a second-class citizen and actually having rights like everyone else is an everyday battle. You're accused of being everything from unnatural to evil. And gay culture isn't that much better -- in a lot of the popular gay culture, your existence might as well end at 30, or if -- god forbid -- you're black.
In the media, gay characters have slowly become included, although it's important to note, it isn't like the 90s, where apparent novelty meant that gay characters could feature on-screen and actually be fully-realised people. Now gay characters tend to be reduced to the status that most characters of colour did in the earlier half of the 20th century: the 'magical negro', a trope wherein the character is basically created to support a more 'acceptable' mainstream character by dispensing advice. And because of the American tendency to see things as media portray them, that's unimpressively where we are.
Lady Gaga and Katy Perry can cry about it all they want, but what have they done besides bemoan it? Them, Ellen, the rest...at least one MMA fighter presented his email address and offered to fly to the school of any bullied gay kid that wrote him, and talk to the bullies about why what they're doing is wrong and what they should do instead. We need more things like that.
If I had the money -- and believe me, I wish I had money -- I would establish a fund encouraging gay youth to hold their school system accountable, to tell them what they need to do and how to do it. One of the most important things here is for them to feel empowered, and they are going to have to start lodging formal complaints about their clearly lacking school systems and start initiating lawsuits against them. The educational system in the United States, as in pretty much the entire rest of the world, is a horrible mess.
This situation can only be improved by hitting them where it hurts, and that is by lodging formal complaints with the schools, the school boards, and going to media like newspapers and making a big stink about it. If necessary, the schools should be taken to court as well. While it is the responsibility of parents to raise their kids right (and chance would be a fine thing), the responsibility of stopping bullying amongst schoolchildren lies squarely with the schools and their personnel. If that isn't being done, they aren't doing their jobs. And when it gets to where children are taking their own lives rather than face another day of bullying, those personnel are being negligent in their duties.
I don't know if it would be helpful to take the bullies to court. It likely would just lead to lives of resentment because they probably are too stupid to understand that what they're doing is horrible and hurtful, or maybe they're just looking for any attention, which they never got from their parents. The parents aren't always responsible for their children turning out as bullies, though, I will admit. Is it a solution to bring the parents to court as well? I can't say. But it is unquestionably a failing on the part of the school systems and their personnel.
There are so many things that need to be improved in this country, and in this world. We need to empower our youth. And when we're talking about bullied gay youth, it's intolerable if they're not supported. They need to feel like they have options, and that they are being supported by something that can accomplish things. A fund to support and to inform gay youth about complaining and getting action from their school system needs to exist, especially now. One of the leading causes of despair is a feeling of futility and helplessness; this is especially strong when trapped in the grasp of the educational sytem. It's unfortunate, but we will need some serious funds for this sort of thing and someone who knows what he's doing to set it up.
I would like to hear others' thoughts about this as well. These are just my personal thoughts on the matter. I would like to encourage everyone, of course, to encourage and to support gay youth, to be there for them, and to encourage them to take action if they are being bullied or being discriminated against. It is never too early to teach social activism, and when you belong to a highly-discriminated-against minority, it is more of an essential life skill. Gay youth need to learn not to accept discrimination or poor treatment, and what they need to do to stop it. They need to learn that the kind of behaviour being allowed by their school system is not acceptable under any circumstances.
Intolerance has cost us so many lives that might have been brilliant leaders and breathtaking artists, people who could have shaped this world into something better. Matthew Shepard is one of countless youths whose lives have been cut short because of irresponsible parenting, ignorance, intolerance, and the predominant American mindset of 'if it isn't trendy, it isn't worth anything'.
Let's try to get out of that mindset. And let's try to be a little more there, and a little more accessible, for gay youth who need that encouragement.
Because, you see, it's not trendy anymore like it was for a few minutes in the 90s. The American view of reality is distorted; you get 'reality' television that all of its viewers know isn't real, for example. That's not the be-all and end-all of things, but a vast amount of the American population, especially the younger part of that, is heavily influenced by what is trendy or popular.
There have been a huge amount of suicides amongst gay youth who were bullied. This is intolerable. But what's being done about it? The only thing I can find is a video movement called 'It Gets Better', to encourage gay youth and let them know that things improve, down the line.
But is this really true? I don't think so. I want to encourage them like anyone else, but if someone is depressed and upset enough to seriously consider ending his own life, it's not going to help him to basically be encouraged to put it off. If they're that unhappy, it's just delaying the inevitable because it really doesn't necessarily get better. Maybe if you're rich, or pretty, or you fall in with the right crowd; maybe if you're incredibly lucky, or you happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Basically you just get older and the struggles usually get less immediate and more frustrating. You grow into a world where you are a second-class citizen and actually having rights like everyone else is an everyday battle. You're accused of being everything from unnatural to evil. And gay culture isn't that much better -- in a lot of the popular gay culture, your existence might as well end at 30, or if -- god forbid -- you're black.
In the media, gay characters have slowly become included, although it's important to note, it isn't like the 90s, where apparent novelty meant that gay characters could feature on-screen and actually be fully-realised people. Now gay characters tend to be reduced to the status that most characters of colour did in the earlier half of the 20th century: the 'magical negro', a trope wherein the character is basically created to support a more 'acceptable' mainstream character by dispensing advice. And because of the American tendency to see things as media portray them, that's unimpressively where we are.
Lady Gaga and Katy Perry can cry about it all they want, but what have they done besides bemoan it? Them, Ellen, the rest...at least one MMA fighter presented his email address and offered to fly to the school of any bullied gay kid that wrote him, and talk to the bullies about why what they're doing is wrong and what they should do instead. We need more things like that.
If I had the money -- and believe me, I wish I had money -- I would establish a fund encouraging gay youth to hold their school system accountable, to tell them what they need to do and how to do it. One of the most important things here is for them to feel empowered, and they are going to have to start lodging formal complaints about their clearly lacking school systems and start initiating lawsuits against them. The educational system in the United States, as in pretty much the entire rest of the world, is a horrible mess.
This situation can only be improved by hitting them where it hurts, and that is by lodging formal complaints with the schools, the school boards, and going to media like newspapers and making a big stink about it. If necessary, the schools should be taken to court as well. While it is the responsibility of parents to raise their kids right (and chance would be a fine thing), the responsibility of stopping bullying amongst schoolchildren lies squarely with the schools and their personnel. If that isn't being done, they aren't doing their jobs. And when it gets to where children are taking their own lives rather than face another day of bullying, those personnel are being negligent in their duties.
I don't know if it would be helpful to take the bullies to court. It likely would just lead to lives of resentment because they probably are too stupid to understand that what they're doing is horrible and hurtful, or maybe they're just looking for any attention, which they never got from their parents. The parents aren't always responsible for their children turning out as bullies, though, I will admit. Is it a solution to bring the parents to court as well? I can't say. But it is unquestionably a failing on the part of the school systems and their personnel.
There are so many things that need to be improved in this country, and in this world. We need to empower our youth. And when we're talking about bullied gay youth, it's intolerable if they're not supported. They need to feel like they have options, and that they are being supported by something that can accomplish things. A fund to support and to inform gay youth about complaining and getting action from their school system needs to exist, especially now. One of the leading causes of despair is a feeling of futility and helplessness; this is especially strong when trapped in the grasp of the educational sytem. It's unfortunate, but we will need some serious funds for this sort of thing and someone who knows what he's doing to set it up.
I would like to hear others' thoughts about this as well. These are just my personal thoughts on the matter. I would like to encourage everyone, of course, to encourage and to support gay youth, to be there for them, and to encourage them to take action if they are being bullied or being discriminated against. It is never too early to teach social activism, and when you belong to a highly-discriminated-against minority, it is more of an essential life skill. Gay youth need to learn not to accept discrimination or poor treatment, and what they need to do to stop it. They need to learn that the kind of behaviour being allowed by their school system is not acceptable under any circumstances.
Intolerance has cost us so many lives that might have been brilliant leaders and breathtaking artists, people who could have shaped this world into something better. Matthew Shepard is one of countless youths whose lives have been cut short because of irresponsible parenting, ignorance, intolerance, and the predominant American mindset of 'if it isn't trendy, it isn't worth anything'.
Let's try to get out of that mindset. And let's try to be a little more there, and a little more accessible, for gay youth who need that encouragement.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Indie vs Marvel and DC
I don't usually take time on this particular blog to speak about things like this, but I feel it is important to cover this topic, especially right now.
Marvel and DC, if you weren't aware, are the two largest comic book companies in the United States. They publish primarily superhero-based comics, and it is their output that has a significant effect even on independent comics and creators. Along with Diamond Distribution, they form a triumvirate stranglehold on the market, and it is because of that I come to you now with my appeal.
This is aimed at all of you who enjoy comics as a medium, but especially those of you who come here and are gay, or read my work because it features non-heterosexual characters portrayed in a positive light.
I know some of you still buy Marvel and DC comics. You still want to support your local comic shops, or you've had a subscription forever and have become used to it, or you like the character and are hoping that the title will improve, month after month. I'm not going to tell you to stop buying and expect you to actually do it. That's unrealistic for me to expect.
However, I would like to ask you to consider your purchases more carefully. And there are many reasons why I would like to do that.
The first is that the big two companies influence other comic creators. It can be viewed as simply as 'if you buy their comics, you won't have enough to support the independent, accessible creators that really care about you as an individual'. It's all too common that creators of online and independent comics get the shaft because people spend wads of cash on things they often enjoy less, and when it comes time to donate to their favourite comic or to buy a printed book from them, they don't have enough. Though I might also mention that even $5 is enough for most independent creators. If multiple people are generous, $5 from many adds up and helps them to afford the supplies they need to continue making comics. The big two, on the other hand, don't have these kinds of budget woes. If you don't buy the comics right when they come out, they'll still be there in a month and their staff will still have enough to buy their supplies.
The other and less obvious influence is that good or poor choices by Marvel and DC have a marked influence on the market for comics altogether. Their questionable moves have made many creators suffer, both independent and otherwise, and they keep doing these things because people keep irrationally throwing money at them.
I will be very frank here: things are not going to change. Things are not going to improve. The title you have been following for years in the hopes that it will improve, someday, is not going to get better. In fact, none of it is going to go anywhere until and unless people speak with their wallets and say 'I don't like this' and stop buying it. If you're complaining about it and still paying for it, you're not doing any good. You're still a part of the problem.
They have spent decades alienating all of the fans who were fans during the Silver and Bronze Ages, in the misguided mindset that readers want to see incessant mega-crossovers and visceral violence, where heroes stopped being heroic and every month holds a new, horrible, casual death, thinking that this will sell, sell, sell! And now they're finding that people don't actually like it -- after years of complaining and driving away everyone who had a grievance -- and attempting to get those fans back.
The good series and the consistent series always get put on hiatus or cancelled, and it's not due to lack of support by the readers and consumers, it's due to personal bias by the management. There have been numerous titles put out by both Marvel and DC that have done exceptionally well, especially in the economic climate, and gathered vast, strong followings that were cancelled or put on indefinite hiatus because someone higher-up just didn't want it to overshadow yet another 'dark' or 'ironic' book.
And if you think they care about you, they don't. While independent creators and labels generally do care deeply about every reader -- we know where our livelihood comes from and do this out of love and desire to create and entertain -- Marvel and DC don't. They don't at all. If you think they do, you're deluding yourself. And if you think they're going to bow to any pressure other than monetary, you're kidding yourself even more.
I'd just like to take the time to cover a couple of examples that illustrate this very well indeed.
The most compelling reason never to buy Marvel comics again is summed up in two words: Freedom Ring. An exciting character who happened to be gay and was given a novel power, he was met with enthusiastic approval and support...
...and killed off in one of the most horrible ways any character has ever met his end, not more than 5 issues later. Many readers were outraged, some put off Marvel permanently. The company was met with several threats of boycott. And why not? The incident was the comic book equivalent of a hate crime. There was no reason to do what they did.
So naturally Marvel immediately tried to backpedal and claimed that they had intended to kill him off from the very beginning, but they only made him gay at the last minute.
And?
Does that excuse that sort of treatment? It doesn't, and it doesn't change what they've done.
They've never backpedalled enough to actually bring him back and give him decent treatment. Oh, and in case you didn't glance over at the ComicVine page I linked, they also had him paralysed almost immediately, for no good reason either. It's not really unreasonable for readers to get the impression that this virtual violence against a gay character was a thin veil for a much uglier reality: the well-known homophobia that has existed in Marvel practically since the beginning.
But wait, you say, they have a policy now that any character can be made gay! They made Rictor and Shatterstar gay lovers!
And?
The policy is nothing more than damage control spin doctor magic in a desperate attempt to reclaim the massive alienated audience. Jim Shooter's policy in the 80s was that of strict homophobia, and the 70s were no different, with several stories openly demonising gay characters. The 90s had a desperate attempt to garner a gay audience with a disastrously tacky coming out story with Northstar, a character whom we all knew was gay and who made it abundantly clear long before then. And the only reason they haven't utterly done away with him -- and they've tried -- is because he's become Captain Gay, poster boy for gay characters and representative of all of them.
They don't care about you. And they especially don't care about you if you're gay. The Freedom Ring story would have been blatantly offensive no matter who they put in it and no matter what their sexual orientation. However, making him gay -- and then handicapped -- and treating him so badly is inexcusable.
Pair that with the overly litigious nature of Marvel, and you have a company that not only doesn't care about their readers, but is openly hostile to them. They are well-known for getting fansites shut down and loosing their overactive lawyers with threats aplenty to readers and fans. Regular readers of the popular Scans Daily community are all too familiar with their stunts.
DC's recent Blackest Night was unspeakably offensive in more or less every was possible, but one of the most offensive actions took place in a tie-in called, ironically, 'Cry for Justice'. One of DC's very few non-heterosexual (and non-promiscuous) characters, Tasmanian Devil, was brutally murdered and made into a rug.
A rug.
That's about as much as they care about you.
Before anyone asks why I should complain about that when characters everywhere are getting killed off, let me say that I disagree with almost every one of the disgustingly casual write-outs comics have been doing in the past 20 years especially. It doesn't matter who it is. But the fact is that they've chosen to do this especially to some of their already minuscule number of characters representing the gay readership, most of whom barely see any appearances at all.
Another classic antic from DC was allowing Chuck Dixon, who is well-known as a homophobe and a bigot in general, to write Connor Hawke, a character created to be different, built up to be the next best thing of DC: a new Green Arrow who was neither a womaniser nor promiscuous. He was presented as a naif essentially, fresh from a monastery and not the type of man to chase skirts, as his father had done.
Praise came in from everywhere, especially the gay community, who were enthusiastic that a hero could be shown that didn't have to be the kind of tiresome collector of sexual conquests as most superheroes had become. Naturally, some wondered if he might be non-heterosexual, especially since DC had not really kept up with the times very well and had a decisive lack of non-stereotypical gay characters. Pretty much the only one even discussed at that point was the Pied Piper, a Flash villain.
Dixon, who had inexplicably been given the reins to the Green Arrow title, did a predictably poor job. As if his bad writing wasn't enough, his bad personality added to that: he lashed out at gay fans and became well-known for his homophobia and opinions that non-heterosexual characters didn't belong in comic books. Drugs, teenage pregnancies, and everything else he wrote, apparently, was a-okay, but in his words, homosexual characters were unacceptable for comic books, especially when they're read by young people.
Kyle Rayner, another character built up to be the next big thing as the new Green Lantern, was a hard luck guy who honestly didn't have much personality. He was an artist, and a comic artist, which enabled most of the writers to write from (idealised) life. As their forebears had done, Connor and Kyle became close friends.
What many people don't know is that DC intended to make an event to remember out of their unique relationship. Connor's pure outlook and Kyle's social awkwardness would come together in a kiss. It may or may not have led to a relationship between them.
However, chiefly due to Dixon's constant remarks and threats, they did not do it. Rather than discipline one of the worst writers in the company's history, they instead allowed the two characters never to have their moment. It is perhaps unsurprising that both of them have been replaced and have faded into obscurity. And it is a very sad thing.
It just tells you where you stand in their esteem. Rather than oppose one obnoxious man, they chose to offend hundreds, if not thousands, of fans, readers, and most importantly, buyers.
I would just like to say that most independent comic creators aren't like that.
Unless you're dealing with someone who is a real homophobe nutjob -- and they're probably going to be that pretty obviously in their work -- most of the time, what you see with us is what you get.
We know where our bread and butter comes from. It comes from the readers who are supportive of our work. It comes from the people who support us not only professionally, but personally, and socially.
It comes from all of you.
So, while I can't tell you to stop buying Marvel and DC and start letting them know why, I can at least encourage you to buy less of their output. But do let them know why. That's important. It doesn't really matter how many do; they don't care about that, clearly, if their actions up to now are any indication. We don't have to be in the hundreds to make a difference. Being hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily get their attention. If just a few will firmly let them know, maybe they will take notice. Maybe they won't, but the attempt should be made.
But we will take notice. We independents, we creators who care about our readers and their support. We do care, and we do take notice. And while it is important that we stretch creatively and do what we have to do, it is so very, very important that we do right by you.
I just want you to think about this, and I hope very much that you will.
Marvel and DC, if you weren't aware, are the two largest comic book companies in the United States. They publish primarily superhero-based comics, and it is their output that has a significant effect even on independent comics and creators. Along with Diamond Distribution, they form a triumvirate stranglehold on the market, and it is because of that I come to you now with my appeal.
This is aimed at all of you who enjoy comics as a medium, but especially those of you who come here and are gay, or read my work because it features non-heterosexual characters portrayed in a positive light.
I know some of you still buy Marvel and DC comics. You still want to support your local comic shops, or you've had a subscription forever and have become used to it, or you like the character and are hoping that the title will improve, month after month. I'm not going to tell you to stop buying and expect you to actually do it. That's unrealistic for me to expect.
However, I would like to ask you to consider your purchases more carefully. And there are many reasons why I would like to do that.
The first is that the big two companies influence other comic creators. It can be viewed as simply as 'if you buy their comics, you won't have enough to support the independent, accessible creators that really care about you as an individual'. It's all too common that creators of online and independent comics get the shaft because people spend wads of cash on things they often enjoy less, and when it comes time to donate to their favourite comic or to buy a printed book from them, they don't have enough. Though I might also mention that even $5 is enough for most independent creators. If multiple people are generous, $5 from many adds up and helps them to afford the supplies they need to continue making comics. The big two, on the other hand, don't have these kinds of budget woes. If you don't buy the comics right when they come out, they'll still be there in a month and their staff will still have enough to buy their supplies.
The other and less obvious influence is that good or poor choices by Marvel and DC have a marked influence on the market for comics altogether. Their questionable moves have made many creators suffer, both independent and otherwise, and they keep doing these things because people keep irrationally throwing money at them.
I will be very frank here: things are not going to change. Things are not going to improve. The title you have been following for years in the hopes that it will improve, someday, is not going to get better. In fact, none of it is going to go anywhere until and unless people speak with their wallets and say 'I don't like this' and stop buying it. If you're complaining about it and still paying for it, you're not doing any good. You're still a part of the problem.
They have spent decades alienating all of the fans who were fans during the Silver and Bronze Ages, in the misguided mindset that readers want to see incessant mega-crossovers and visceral violence, where heroes stopped being heroic and every month holds a new, horrible, casual death, thinking that this will sell, sell, sell! And now they're finding that people don't actually like it -- after years of complaining and driving away everyone who had a grievance -- and attempting to get those fans back.
The good series and the consistent series always get put on hiatus or cancelled, and it's not due to lack of support by the readers and consumers, it's due to personal bias by the management. There have been numerous titles put out by both Marvel and DC that have done exceptionally well, especially in the economic climate, and gathered vast, strong followings that were cancelled or put on indefinite hiatus because someone higher-up just didn't want it to overshadow yet another 'dark' or 'ironic' book.
And if you think they care about you, they don't. While independent creators and labels generally do care deeply about every reader -- we know where our livelihood comes from and do this out of love and desire to create and entertain -- Marvel and DC don't. They don't at all. If you think they do, you're deluding yourself. And if you think they're going to bow to any pressure other than monetary, you're kidding yourself even more.
I'd just like to take the time to cover a couple of examples that illustrate this very well indeed.
The most compelling reason never to buy Marvel comics again is summed up in two words: Freedom Ring. An exciting character who happened to be gay and was given a novel power, he was met with enthusiastic approval and support...
...and killed off in one of the most horrible ways any character has ever met his end, not more than 5 issues later. Many readers were outraged, some put off Marvel permanently. The company was met with several threats of boycott. And why not? The incident was the comic book equivalent of a hate crime. There was no reason to do what they did.
So naturally Marvel immediately tried to backpedal and claimed that they had intended to kill him off from the very beginning, but they only made him gay at the last minute.
And?
Does that excuse that sort of treatment? It doesn't, and it doesn't change what they've done.
They've never backpedalled enough to actually bring him back and give him decent treatment. Oh, and in case you didn't glance over at the ComicVine page I linked, they also had him paralysed almost immediately, for no good reason either. It's not really unreasonable for readers to get the impression that this virtual violence against a gay character was a thin veil for a much uglier reality: the well-known homophobia that has existed in Marvel practically since the beginning.
But wait, you say, they have a policy now that any character can be made gay! They made Rictor and Shatterstar gay lovers!
And?
The policy is nothing more than damage control spin doctor magic in a desperate attempt to reclaim the massive alienated audience. Jim Shooter's policy in the 80s was that of strict homophobia, and the 70s were no different, with several stories openly demonising gay characters. The 90s had a desperate attempt to garner a gay audience with a disastrously tacky coming out story with Northstar, a character whom we all knew was gay and who made it abundantly clear long before then. And the only reason they haven't utterly done away with him -- and they've tried -- is because he's become Captain Gay, poster boy for gay characters and representative of all of them.
They don't care about you. And they especially don't care about you if you're gay. The Freedom Ring story would have been blatantly offensive no matter who they put in it and no matter what their sexual orientation. However, making him gay -- and then handicapped -- and treating him so badly is inexcusable.
Pair that with the overly litigious nature of Marvel, and you have a company that not only doesn't care about their readers, but is openly hostile to them. They are well-known for getting fansites shut down and loosing their overactive lawyers with threats aplenty to readers and fans. Regular readers of the popular Scans Daily community are all too familiar with their stunts.
DC's recent Blackest Night was unspeakably offensive in more or less every was possible, but one of the most offensive actions took place in a tie-in called, ironically, 'Cry for Justice'. One of DC's very few non-heterosexual (and non-promiscuous) characters, Tasmanian Devil, was brutally murdered and made into a rug.
A rug.
That's about as much as they care about you.
Before anyone asks why I should complain about that when characters everywhere are getting killed off, let me say that I disagree with almost every one of the disgustingly casual write-outs comics have been doing in the past 20 years especially. It doesn't matter who it is. But the fact is that they've chosen to do this especially to some of their already minuscule number of characters representing the gay readership, most of whom barely see any appearances at all.
Another classic antic from DC was allowing Chuck Dixon, who is well-known as a homophobe and a bigot in general, to write Connor Hawke, a character created to be different, built up to be the next best thing of DC: a new Green Arrow who was neither a womaniser nor promiscuous. He was presented as a naif essentially, fresh from a monastery and not the type of man to chase skirts, as his father had done.
Praise came in from everywhere, especially the gay community, who were enthusiastic that a hero could be shown that didn't have to be the kind of tiresome collector of sexual conquests as most superheroes had become. Naturally, some wondered if he might be non-heterosexual, especially since DC had not really kept up with the times very well and had a decisive lack of non-stereotypical gay characters. Pretty much the only one even discussed at that point was the Pied Piper, a Flash villain.
Dixon, who had inexplicably been given the reins to the Green Arrow title, did a predictably poor job. As if his bad writing wasn't enough, his bad personality added to that: he lashed out at gay fans and became well-known for his homophobia and opinions that non-heterosexual characters didn't belong in comic books. Drugs, teenage pregnancies, and everything else he wrote, apparently, was a-okay, but in his words, homosexual characters were unacceptable for comic books, especially when they're read by young people.
Kyle Rayner, another character built up to be the next big thing as the new Green Lantern, was a hard luck guy who honestly didn't have much personality. He was an artist, and a comic artist, which enabled most of the writers to write from (idealised) life. As their forebears had done, Connor and Kyle became close friends.
What many people don't know is that DC intended to make an event to remember out of their unique relationship. Connor's pure outlook and Kyle's social awkwardness would come together in a kiss. It may or may not have led to a relationship between them.
However, chiefly due to Dixon's constant remarks and threats, they did not do it. Rather than discipline one of the worst writers in the company's history, they instead allowed the two characters never to have their moment. It is perhaps unsurprising that both of them have been replaced and have faded into obscurity. And it is a very sad thing.
It just tells you where you stand in their esteem. Rather than oppose one obnoxious man, they chose to offend hundreds, if not thousands, of fans, readers, and most importantly, buyers.
I would just like to say that most independent comic creators aren't like that.
Unless you're dealing with someone who is a real homophobe nutjob -- and they're probably going to be that pretty obviously in their work -- most of the time, what you see with us is what you get.
We know where our bread and butter comes from. It comes from the readers who are supportive of our work. It comes from the people who support us not only professionally, but personally, and socially.
It comes from all of you.
So, while I can't tell you to stop buying Marvel and DC and start letting them know why, I can at least encourage you to buy less of their output. But do let them know why. That's important. It doesn't really matter how many do; they don't care about that, clearly, if their actions up to now are any indication. We don't have to be in the hundreds to make a difference. Being hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily get their attention. If just a few will firmly let them know, maybe they will take notice. Maybe they won't, but the attempt should be made.
But we will take notice. We independents, we creators who care about our readers and their support. We do care, and we do take notice. And while it is important that we stretch creatively and do what we have to do, it is so very, very important that we do right by you.
I just want you to think about this, and I hope very much that you will.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Regarding Pandemonium Renaissance
You know, it's been a while since I worked on Pandemonium Renaissance, which is one of the most cherished works I have ever done. I felt that everyone deserved a little update on what's going on with the title, which is not cancelled or ended.
I actually was about to pick up work on it again before the problems happened with SmackJeeves, but since that happened, the delicate inspiration I have always needed for Pandemonium Renaissance was a little damaged. I certainly didn't want to continue it at SmackJeeves, but at the same time I wasn't up to creating a whole new site at ComicDish and I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with it.
However, I have now decided, and I've begun work on it.
What I will do is, I am going to do full-page, glorious art nouveau pieces and tell the story in poetic language. I intend to colour as many of the pieces as I can and make a gorgeous picture storybook. I plan to release it in paperback and in hardcover. If the response and support are good, I'll also be willing to collect the SmackJeeves run into a comic for you to purchase as well.
The storybook Pandemonium Renaissance will be more like something that Luceferos and friends put out to tell their story and to show you how beautiful, how glorious Dis really is, and how magnificent the Abyss is. I was always challenged and, to some extent, frustrated by the comic format for the story, and I think the new format I am currently implementing will be much more suited to the story. It will also very likely lead to some new and gorgeous posters being made available for your enjoyment.
Of course, if this idea takes off and is met by significant support, I have other ideas too, like a festive grimoire, and other fun and beautiful things to enjoy. I know Pandemonium Renaissance was and is loved by many, and I never want to disappoint them. The story is my way of conveying to the world what I have seen in my visions and dreams. So I am sure you understand when I try to convey that it must be the absolute best I can do.
My plan is to take this Autumn and dedicate it to creating Pandemonium Renaissance as a storybook for all of you. Ideally I would like to have it available for the holiday season this year, but that may not be possible since it does take significant time, energy, and attention to do each and every piece of art, and I did ideally want to colour them all. I will not rush myself on this, because I don't want anything less than the best I can do, and I'm sure you don't either!
In any case, Autumn is dedicated to Pandemonium Renaissance. I finished inking the first picture for the book today, and I think it's going to be great fun and quite a healing experience to do. I'll be keeping you updated as regularly as possible, and I think you'll be surprised and impressed at what I've been doing lately!
I actually was about to pick up work on it again before the problems happened with SmackJeeves, but since that happened, the delicate inspiration I have always needed for Pandemonium Renaissance was a little damaged. I certainly didn't want to continue it at SmackJeeves, but at the same time I wasn't up to creating a whole new site at ComicDish and I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with it.
However, I have now decided, and I've begun work on it.
What I will do is, I am going to do full-page, glorious art nouveau pieces and tell the story in poetic language. I intend to colour as many of the pieces as I can and make a gorgeous picture storybook. I plan to release it in paperback and in hardcover. If the response and support are good, I'll also be willing to collect the SmackJeeves run into a comic for you to purchase as well.
The storybook Pandemonium Renaissance will be more like something that Luceferos and friends put out to tell their story and to show you how beautiful, how glorious Dis really is, and how magnificent the Abyss is. I was always challenged and, to some extent, frustrated by the comic format for the story, and I think the new format I am currently implementing will be much more suited to the story. It will also very likely lead to some new and gorgeous posters being made available for your enjoyment.
Of course, if this idea takes off and is met by significant support, I have other ideas too, like a festive grimoire, and other fun and beautiful things to enjoy. I know Pandemonium Renaissance was and is loved by many, and I never want to disappoint them. The story is my way of conveying to the world what I have seen in my visions and dreams. So I am sure you understand when I try to convey that it must be the absolute best I can do.
My plan is to take this Autumn and dedicate it to creating Pandemonium Renaissance as a storybook for all of you. Ideally I would like to have it available for the holiday season this year, but that may not be possible since it does take significant time, energy, and attention to do each and every piece of art, and I did ideally want to colour them all. I will not rush myself on this, because I don't want anything less than the best I can do, and I'm sure you don't either!
In any case, Autumn is dedicated to Pandemonium Renaissance. I finished inking the first picture for the book today, and I think it's going to be great fun and quite a healing experience to do. I'll be keeping you updated as regularly as possible, and I think you'll be surprised and impressed at what I've been doing lately!
Monday, July 5, 2010
Stop the Witch Hunts. Take a Stand.
Recently it was mentioned that yet another crusade has been announced, to 'combat child porn'. While I completely agree with stamping out pornography that exploits children, I suspect that -- as usual -- the crusade's announced intention is nothing near its actual goals.
In the past decade, adult entertainment has been increasingly discriminated against and 'ghetto-ised', that is to say, it has been forced into a sort of ghetto, an area where similar things exist in a sort of insular world from the rest. Because of a completely frivolous law demanding ridiculous amounts of documentation for adult film actors, some studios suffered massive losses, and all studios in the US today are forced to file much greater documentation for their employees than practically any other industry.
What especially irks me is that the adult industry is often presented as some sort of mafia-run, crime-affiliated, exploitative, illegitimate business that is conducted in shady warehouses and seedy motel rooms. The adult industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, with some studios that produce films comparable to Hollywood quality, such as Digital Playground's big-budget extravaganzas. Maybe once upon a time, adult films were associated with illegality...chiefly because they were made illegal by the same puritanical sorts that seem to be on the same soapbox now. Even nudity, which is not adult material (and the Supreme Court even said so when a nudist film finally brought it to court), was harshly dealt with, especially male nudity. Double-standard, anyone?
It's always the same buzzwords; adult content is purportedly 'endangering' others. As if it's some sort of a weapon. When I was in middle school, some friends of mine at the time purloined a porn mag and flashed a peek of the centrefold at me. I was nonplussed, but mainly because of the massive airbrushing. I wasn't 'endangered', I didn't shrivel up and require hospitalisation, and I don't even remember what she looked like now anyway. Endangering someone means that you are putting them in danger, which means that they may suffer injury, possibly serious. If you are letting your 12-year-old son drive your motorcycle on a cliffside, you are endangering him. If he discovers your vibrator in your closet, he's just embarrassing you.
Canada, England, and a few other completely insane countries have even gone so far as to outlaw any drawn images that may be considered pervy, which contain subjects who 'look' underage. Considering this includes fictional characters, such as aliens and magical beings who may look 19 for pretty much ever, it's rather ridiculous. How do you apply age to a fictional character anyway? I know people in real life who were late bloomers and looked 15 until they were 25. The creepy types who pushed these laws through apparently would like to restrict these people from engaging in any adult behaviour if they 'look' underage. By what standards are we exactly judging this, though? Art styles vary wildly. I have seen art that has depicted fully adult characters, even 40+-year-olds, who are drawn in a style that makes them seem much younger. I have, conversely, also seen art styles that depict supposed middle-schoolers so that they look like collegiates.
And what about the masters like Caravaggio? Are we going to stamp out masterpieces of art because they have subjects who 'look' too young? And shall we destroy Parrish and his gorgeous oeuvres for the same reason? It's inane and ludicrous.
This isn't about protecting or endangering anyone. It's about lazy parenting and lazy lawmaking. Most of all, this only punishes those who already abide by the law and work to put an end to true exploitation and unscrupulous such activities. This is comparable to running a campaign to have cheese removed from grocery stores because you don't think your children should have it. And it's comparable to actually getting cheese removed, or restricted for purchase, simply for that reason. If you don't want your children to have cheese, how about just not buying them cheese and monitoring them, guiding them, being a parent to them so it doesn't become a part of their lives until they are at a point where they can decide for themselves about it?
I am an adult. I have the right to my own entertainment. I am not saying that adult films should be sold in every store, or that children should be able to go out and buy their own. But I am saying, it's time to take a stand. Lawmakers and fanatics need to back off. It's trickling down to the rest of us; I'm not in the adult entertainment industry, but as an artist, I am affected. Every artist is. It's time for parents to be responsible for the children they just had to have. I am through sacrificing rights and privileges for someone else's inability to be a responsible parent.
The attempt to encourage adult sites towards the .xxx domain suffix should be vehemently resisted. While they cite that it will make filtering those sites easier for schools and parental controls, it will also make it easier to further restrict and eliminate adult sites altogether. Many sites with adult content already work with these filters and controls. And if they do not, it is the job of the people who update the controls to find which sites need to be added. It is simply more laziness, more irresponsibility, and an uncomfortable attempt to place everyone involved in a single place for convenient disposal or further marginalisation.
Furthermore, websites that refuse to link to any sites that use the words 'boy', 'girl', 'teen', et cetera are only contributing to the problem. So now words are also endangering? When I say 'I'm going to have a night out with the girls', it means I am going to go out with my friends who happen to be female. I don't mean I'm going to go cruise the elementary school to take some kids to the coffee house. Similarly, when someone says 'I'm going out with the boys', it tends to mean 'I'm going to go out with my male friends'. For example, famous singing group, the Oak Ridge Boys, were well into adulthood and no-one thought the name was misapplied. Sites that advertise 'hot boys' are generally assumed, by most adults with any degree of common sense, to feature attractive adult men. And last but not least, 18 is the age of majority in most places, though 16 is the age of consent in most places. Therefore, some adult stars are teens. Let's not make 'teen' any more demonised than it already is, as a term. What's next? Twink? The more people pre-judge these words to be bad in meaning, the more it will further be promoted.
It's time to put your foot down. The media buzzwords about children being 'endangered' and women being 'exploited' (it's always like this; as if there are no men in adult film) need to stop. We need to make it clear that this is ultimately only detrimental for society and culture, and furthermore lazy and irresponsible on the part of authorities. As an artist, I refuse to be further censored just because someone who had to spawn some offspring can't do his or her job. I already have a more difficult time of things because some of my comics have adult content, meaning I can't use most printers for my work. I am discriminated against because of that adult content, when I have to take measures to make sure this account or that account aren't linked to it. That is, frankly, unacceptable. And I say that it needs to stop. Now.
Please do take a stand. Write your lawmakers, write your representatives, or even phone them and say this must stop. Saying you're doing something to 'protect children' or 'protect women', and so forth, is just a cheap and frankly exploitative way to get votes and support. It also makes it easy to try and demonise anyone who questions your goals, casting them as some sort of criminal or child-hater. News flash: not everyone likes children, and it's not a bad thing if you don't. But just because you don't want to pick up the slack from lazy parents doesn't mean you don't like children. If anything, it means you don't like lazy parents.
Let's take a stand and prevent this from going any further. It needs to stop right here, right now.
In the past decade, adult entertainment has been increasingly discriminated against and 'ghetto-ised', that is to say, it has been forced into a sort of ghetto, an area where similar things exist in a sort of insular world from the rest. Because of a completely frivolous law demanding ridiculous amounts of documentation for adult film actors, some studios suffered massive losses, and all studios in the US today are forced to file much greater documentation for their employees than practically any other industry.
What especially irks me is that the adult industry is often presented as some sort of mafia-run, crime-affiliated, exploitative, illegitimate business that is conducted in shady warehouses and seedy motel rooms. The adult industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, with some studios that produce films comparable to Hollywood quality, such as Digital Playground's big-budget extravaganzas. Maybe once upon a time, adult films were associated with illegality...chiefly because they were made illegal by the same puritanical sorts that seem to be on the same soapbox now. Even nudity, which is not adult material (and the Supreme Court even said so when a nudist film finally brought it to court), was harshly dealt with, especially male nudity. Double-standard, anyone?
It's always the same buzzwords; adult content is purportedly 'endangering' others. As if it's some sort of a weapon. When I was in middle school, some friends of mine at the time purloined a porn mag and flashed a peek of the centrefold at me. I was nonplussed, but mainly because of the massive airbrushing. I wasn't 'endangered', I didn't shrivel up and require hospitalisation, and I don't even remember what she looked like now anyway. Endangering someone means that you are putting them in danger, which means that they may suffer injury, possibly serious. If you are letting your 12-year-old son drive your motorcycle on a cliffside, you are endangering him. If he discovers your vibrator in your closet, he's just embarrassing you.
Canada, England, and a few other completely insane countries have even gone so far as to outlaw any drawn images that may be considered pervy, which contain subjects who 'look' underage. Considering this includes fictional characters, such as aliens and magical beings who may look 19 for pretty much ever, it's rather ridiculous. How do you apply age to a fictional character anyway? I know people in real life who were late bloomers and looked 15 until they were 25. The creepy types who pushed these laws through apparently would like to restrict these people from engaging in any adult behaviour if they 'look' underage. By what standards are we exactly judging this, though? Art styles vary wildly. I have seen art that has depicted fully adult characters, even 40+-year-olds, who are drawn in a style that makes them seem much younger. I have, conversely, also seen art styles that depict supposed middle-schoolers so that they look like collegiates.
And what about the masters like Caravaggio? Are we going to stamp out masterpieces of art because they have subjects who 'look' too young? And shall we destroy Parrish and his gorgeous oeuvres for the same reason? It's inane and ludicrous.
This isn't about protecting or endangering anyone. It's about lazy parenting and lazy lawmaking. Most of all, this only punishes those who already abide by the law and work to put an end to true exploitation and unscrupulous such activities. This is comparable to running a campaign to have cheese removed from grocery stores because you don't think your children should have it. And it's comparable to actually getting cheese removed, or restricted for purchase, simply for that reason. If you don't want your children to have cheese, how about just not buying them cheese and monitoring them, guiding them, being a parent to them so it doesn't become a part of their lives until they are at a point where they can decide for themselves about it?
I am an adult. I have the right to my own entertainment. I am not saying that adult films should be sold in every store, or that children should be able to go out and buy their own. But I am saying, it's time to take a stand. Lawmakers and fanatics need to back off. It's trickling down to the rest of us; I'm not in the adult entertainment industry, but as an artist, I am affected. Every artist is. It's time for parents to be responsible for the children they just had to have. I am through sacrificing rights and privileges for someone else's inability to be a responsible parent.
The attempt to encourage adult sites towards the .xxx domain suffix should be vehemently resisted. While they cite that it will make filtering those sites easier for schools and parental controls, it will also make it easier to further restrict and eliminate adult sites altogether. Many sites with adult content already work with these filters and controls. And if they do not, it is the job of the people who update the controls to find which sites need to be added. It is simply more laziness, more irresponsibility, and an uncomfortable attempt to place everyone involved in a single place for convenient disposal or further marginalisation.
Furthermore, websites that refuse to link to any sites that use the words 'boy', 'girl', 'teen', et cetera are only contributing to the problem. So now words are also endangering? When I say 'I'm going to have a night out with the girls', it means I am going to go out with my friends who happen to be female. I don't mean I'm going to go cruise the elementary school to take some kids to the coffee house. Similarly, when someone says 'I'm going out with the boys', it tends to mean 'I'm going to go out with my male friends'. For example, famous singing group, the Oak Ridge Boys, were well into adulthood and no-one thought the name was misapplied. Sites that advertise 'hot boys' are generally assumed, by most adults with any degree of common sense, to feature attractive adult men. And last but not least, 18 is the age of majority in most places, though 16 is the age of consent in most places. Therefore, some adult stars are teens. Let's not make 'teen' any more demonised than it already is, as a term. What's next? Twink? The more people pre-judge these words to be bad in meaning, the more it will further be promoted.
It's time to put your foot down. The media buzzwords about children being 'endangered' and women being 'exploited' (it's always like this; as if there are no men in adult film) need to stop. We need to make it clear that this is ultimately only detrimental for society and culture, and furthermore lazy and irresponsible on the part of authorities. As an artist, I refuse to be further censored just because someone who had to spawn some offspring can't do his or her job. I already have a more difficult time of things because some of my comics have adult content, meaning I can't use most printers for my work. I am discriminated against because of that adult content, when I have to take measures to make sure this account or that account aren't linked to it. That is, frankly, unacceptable. And I say that it needs to stop. Now.
Please do take a stand. Write your lawmakers, write your representatives, or even phone them and say this must stop. Saying you're doing something to 'protect children' or 'protect women', and so forth, is just a cheap and frankly exploitative way to get votes and support. It also makes it easy to try and demonise anyone who questions your goals, casting them as some sort of criminal or child-hater. News flash: not everyone likes children, and it's not a bad thing if you don't. But just because you don't want to pick up the slack from lazy parents doesn't mean you don't like children. If anything, it means you don't like lazy parents.
Let's take a stand and prevent this from going any further. It needs to stop right here, right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)