The Ranger's Marvel's most diverse team?

[chastmastr]

(Of course, that gets into the territory of whether or not everyone is ultimately bi, and the nature of sexual attraction in the first place, which might deserve its own non-comics-related thread, perhaps on an entirely different forum...)

But whether likely or not, fantasy or not (about, after all, a fictional character), the concept of a bi (or otherwise male-attracted) Wolverine certainly raises all kinds of interesting notions... hrm... :)

[gforce99]

Slott retconned him into being gay. I'm a huge fan of Slott as both a writer and as a person (based solely on my limited interactions with him on this site), but him retconning LL into being gay was (IMO) lazy writing (and for the record, I don't think that Dan is a lazy writer). If Dan wanted to include more gay heroic characters in the MU then he should have created a brand new gay superhero character.

Yeah seriously guys, one comment by the non-creator who has almost zero involvement with the char now, has very little baring. Now Marvel might like the diversity thing (seems to grab media attention) but this stuff is easily reversed or ignored in comics.

[JaggedFel]

I think Avengers Academy wins in a landslide. 2 LGBTs. 2 Hispanics. 1 Black and 1 Asian. Out of a core cast of 8 students. Plus 5 females vs 3 males. That is pretty much unprecedented.

[Jaded Devil]

Yeah seriously guys, one comment by the non-creator who has almost zero involvement with the char now, has very little baring. Now Marvel might like the diversity thing (seems to grab media attention) but this stuff is easily reversed or ignored in comics.

But on the other hand, it's not like anybody, including the original creator, has stepped up to say anything to discredit the idea (for all the good it would do, as in the case of Shatterstar). As long as it goes unaddressed, it kinda has to stand. Besides, I think these next couple issues of Scarlet Spider will be the first time Lightning has been used in anything other than a cameo capacity since the GLA mini...so if the subject comes up and he remains a gay character (and frankly, I can't see anybody backpedaling from that, in light of all of the positive press that came from the Northstar marriage), then that pretty much cements it.

[Huthaifa]

I'm sorry you have to be the target for this, but I feel like this needs to be said.

To say that a character is "retconned" into being gay, unless it's a complete revision of a character like Alan Scott, just seems insulting to the many men and women who realize their non-heterosexuality later in life. It happens, pretty often to due to the hetero-dominant culture we live in. And it happens for numerous reasons.

So, I side with Dan on this.

Love Slott and I agree with what a lot of what you say, buttttttttttttttttt........:) Take the case of Shatterstar. Rob Liefeld did not intend for the character to be gay, that was added on by a few different writers, and PAD just bit the bullet. You can call it fleshing out a character or retconning( which I dont think is a negative at all), but I think we are being true to the character and say their story was changed.

[Blade X]

I'm sorry you have to be the target for this, but I feel like this needs to be said.

To say that a character is "retconned" into being gay, unless it's a complete revision of a character like Alan Scott, just seems insulting to the many men and women who realize their non-heterosexuality later in life. It happens, pretty often to due to the hetero-dominant culture we live in. And it happens for numerous reasons.

So, I side with Dan on this.

Here's the thing that you and many others (both pros and fans) seem to have either forgotten or refuse to admit. When a creator creates a character, he/she knows what said characters gender,race,and sexuality is pretty much from the very beginning. When a latter creator gets to write said characters and decides to change their race,gender,and sexuality for any reason it is called a retcon. IMO, it's insulting to the creators of a character to have another creator decide to retcon the sexuality of a character just because they want to. I also have to wonder if you and many others would be all for a character's sexuality being retconned if the situation was reversed and a gay character was retconned into being straight or bi. After all, there are some gay people who are either just experimenting or are confused about their sexuality who then realize that they are either straight or bi. Creating new gay/lesbian/bi characters is the right way to do it, not retconning older characters.

[KurtW95]

I think Avengers Academy wins in a landslide. 2 LGBTs. 2 Hispanics. 1 Black and 1 Asian. Out of a core cast of 8 students. Plus 5 females vs 3 males. That is pretty much unprecedented.

And Mettle's half Jewish.

[Rasputin9977]

Yeah seriously guys, one comment by the non-creator who has almost zero involvement with the char now, has very little baring. Now Marvel might like the diversity thing (seems to grab media attention) but this stuff is easily reversed or ignored in comics.

It can be easily reversed. I mean do you have to be gay or lesbian to be in the gay/lesbian alliance?

I've forgotten about this series though. I think it was the mini in which Slott made fun of comics fans by implying we all live in our parent's basement or something like that.

[Blade X]

On a slightly off Marvel topic, John Byrne's TRIO comic is probaly the most diverse superhero comic on the stands today. The field leader of the Trio is an Asian woman,the 2nd in comman is a gay male Arab,and the youngest member of the team is a black teenager. Now that's what I call diversity and all of the characters are new.

[Blade X]

It can be easily reversed. I mean do you have to be gay or lesbian to be in the gay/lesbian alliance?

That's what I was thinking to. Heck, he could have been inquiring about the Gay/Lesbian Alliance for a friend or relative.

[Jaded Devil]

Here's the thing that you and many others (both pros and fans) seem to have either forgotten or refuse to admit. When a creator creates a character, he/she knows what said characters gender,race,and sexuality is pretty much from the very beginning. When a latter creator gets to write said characters and decides to change their race,gender,and sexuality for any reason it is called a retcon. IMO, it's insulting to the creators of a character to have another creator decide to retcon the sexuality of a character just because they want to. I also have to wonder if you and many others would be all for a character's sexuality being retconned if the situation was reversed and a gay character was retconned into being straight or bi. After all, there are some gay people who are either just experimenting or are confused about their sexuality who then realize that they are either straight or bi. Creating new gay/lesbian/bi characters is the right way to do it, not retconning older characters.

I don't know if it's insulting so much as just adding another layer to a character that has, for all intents and purposes, gone about as far as they could go in the manner they were originally presented, if that makes sense. Yeah, Liefeld was insulted that the decision was made to make a character he created gay, a character he claims "isn't" but never did anything during his time with the character to establish it one way or another. There's a big difference between walking around with the info in your head and putting it on paper. In my opinion, the "insult" speaks more to Liefeld's paper-thin characterizations and poor writing skills than a company disregarding the wishes of a character's creator.

Besides, in other cases, we don't even know if a creator has an issue with a change like that. As far as I know, the only creator to really speak up about something like that is Liefeld. I don't remember Roy Thomas saying anything about Obsidian coming out, or whomever created Living Lightning (Englehart?). What about Rictor from X-Force? And let's take it a step further: was Judd Winnick insulting Ron Marz by making Kyle Rayner half-Hispanic? Was Claremont insulting Stan Lee by making Magneto Jewish? Miller by making Daredevil Catholic? Or were they adding new layers to create new depth for the characters?

I absolutely get what you're saying and I think it's a valid point, but I just question how much of an "insult" it really is at the end of the day.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Here's the thing that you and many others (both pros and fans) seem to have either forgotten or refuse to admit. When a creator creates a character, he/she knows what said characters gender,race,and sexuality is pretty much from the very beginning. When a latter creator gets to write said characters and decides to change their race,gender,and sexuality for any reason it is called a retcon. IMO, it's insulting to the creators of a character to have another creator decide to retcon the sexuality of a character just because they want to. I also have to wonder if you and many others would be all for a character's sexuality being retconned if the situation was reversed and a gay character was retconned into being straight or bi. After all, there are some gay people who are either just experimenting or are confused about their sexuality who then realize that they are either straight or bi. Creating new gay/lesbian/bi characters is the right way to do it, not retconning older characters.

One size doesn't fit all. A person's sex and race cannot be changed.

However, a person decides their gender and sexual identity. That isn't set in stone, so to say that they decide to change either is not a retcon within itself. It doesn't add any retroactive continuity unless the writer wants to add extra stuff to fill out the characterization, but even then, the change isn't a retcon just the added history.

Frankly, I wish more writers would understand that fact, especially the fluidity of sexuality. But to the point of creator vision, firstly, it's only an insult if the creator says it is. Secondly, even if the writer says it is, as jaded said, they had better have backed it up on paper. And girlfriends/boyfriends don't work, as sociology has shown numerous times.

And honestly, it's Marvel/DC. Who really has the power anyway? The creators or the company itself?


BTW, the scenario you brought up about gay/bi characters switching to becoming straight? It's happened already in Legion of Superheroes (Lightning Lass and Shrinking Violet. I think it got switch back again though). I dealt with it fine, and I guess other fans have too since it wasn't a very controversial point.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

In the end though, I'm fine with more exposure of non-hetero characters at the expense of an annoyed creator, than the opposite or the status quo.

That's really all there is to it.

[chastmastr]

And, honestly, if all the other numerous retcons are fine, is there any reason to treat orientation as something separate?

[Legion_Quest]

Here's the thing that you and many others (both pros and fans) seem to have either forgotten or refuse to admit. When a creator creates a character, he/she knows what said characters gender,race,and sexuality is pretty much from the very beginning. When a latter creator gets to write said characters and decides to change their race,gender,and sexuality for any reason it is called a retcon. IMO, it's insulting to the creators of a character to have another creator decide to retcon the sexuality of a character just because they want to. I also have to wonder if you and many others would be all for a character's sexuality being retconned if the situation was reversed and a gay character was retconned into being straight or bi. After all, there are some gay people who are either just experimenting or are confused about their sexuality who then realize that they are either straight or bi. Creating new gay/lesbian/bi characters is the right way to do it, not retconning older characters.

No. I can't agree with this.

Creators create characters for Marvel and the readers, not themselves. In a shared universe, where many different writers and artists will come on board and use different characters, in order to progress a character or give them more depth or try and make them the next big thing or whatever, then each writer of that character has just as much say as the last.

The original creator may have envisioned one thing, but if the next one along wants to write something extra in, good for them. And so on.

As fans of the character or the creator, we may disagree with what changes or developments are made, but they aren't retcons in the traditional sense else basically every book ever written is a retcon of something previous. Very few books and characters remain totally suspended as what their original writers intended or wrote, because times change, people's tastes change and frankly, if everything and everyone stayed exactly the same, then characters would become stale so fast.

As for the issues in regards a gay character switching to bi or straight, that would be an interesting situation. Generally speaking, most people who are gay will know that from pretty early on, even if they dont want to accept it or are confused about it. Very, very few people who make the decision to acknowledge their homosexuality end up going back, because it isn't a choice; it doesnt work like that.

A teen character who is confused, who experiments, and then realises that no, wasn't for them, that would be a story probably quite true to life, but how people responded to it would depend on how it was written and presented. You couldnt really have a character who firmly said they were gay switch back because, as I said, homosexuality really doesn't work like that.

New gay/bi characters are the way forward (like Wiccan, Hulkling, Striker for example), and I see no particular reason why child characters can't come to terms with their sexuality as they grow up (Julie Power) because that's what happens when people grow up and their sexuality develops. I can see how the changing of a previously straight character to a gay one can be annoying, but unless that character was one that you were super attached to and identified with, I don't see why the fact that character has grown as a 'person' in realising what they are is really a problem, even when the original creator of that might character disagree, because they dont, in any way, own that character.