Recently Chuck Dixon came under fire for a scene in Batman and the Outsiders where he portrayed the character Thunder as “oversensitive” because she was offended when Batman referred to her lesbian relationship with Grace as a “special relationship.” At the time, Batman was berating her as not worthy of being on the team.
Now, putting aside the characterization and motives of Batman, and even the motives of Dixon in this scene I have to wonder what the editors were thinking when they let the scene get through. Actually, I have to wonder what they were thinking when they set this entire issue up. They have considerably less female heroes than male heroes. They have very few gay heroes (6, I think), and even fewer gay heroes who have been actually used in the past year. They have very few black heroes, and have had to dig around to diversify their major teams. And they have a team that was established by a writer who has trouble keeping his liberal politics from affecting his storytelling.
So what do they do? They find a writer who has trouble keeping his conservative politics from affecting his storytelling and have him relaunch the book. They use many of the same characters established by the liberal writer, in the hopes of keeping the liberal writer’s fanbase. Already they should have thought twice about that. But no, the editors approved.
That writer decides to cast the lesbian black character as the one who is expected to prove herself worthy of inclusion on the team, despite her being shown as an asset under the previous writer’s pen. A move likely to piss off all three demographics. They should have maybe talked to him about that. But no, the editors approved.
This writer sends a script through that describes the homosexual relationship in the book as a “special” relationship. He then has the greatest detective in the DCU claim he doesn’t notice sexual attraction, setting up the lesbian black character as one of those “overly offended PC types.” This writer has had trouble in the past with statements about homosexuality and fan reaction to those statements, so it is going to look very bad politically. Whatever his actual motives are, the characterization in that scene is guaranteed to piss off fans of both characters. They should maybe have considered editing the script for a less politically loaded word. Even just dropping the adjective and saying “relationship.” But no, the editors approved.
Then when choosing the preview pages, they decide to cut the scene off at exactly the point where the offense happens. This is guaranteed to annoy a large number of readers before they buy the book.
Now, all four of these very bad ideas may have seemed completely innocuous to the editors. Or they may have deliberately set things up to piss off a loyal fanbase in the hopes that controversy would sell more books.
Either we are dealing with rampant stupidity or a complete and utter disregard for their readers beyond the contents of their pocketbooks.
Cynically, we all know which we’re dealing with here. We all make jokes about fans who react to storylines as though they are designed to personally piss them off, but at some point we need to face facts and realize that entertainment is designed to evoke emotions. This is the point of writing. There are honest ways of doing this, skillful characterization and narration, a well-crafted plot. There are sneaky ways of doing this such as hiding things from the readers and dropping surprise twists at the end of every issue. There are joyful ways of doing this, ways that take your reader out of her real world frustration for a few minutes and make her live in a better world. There are respectful ways of doing this, ways that remind her of the horror and pain of every day existence but do so in a way that creates empathy between the reader and the writer. There are ways of making us want to buy something so we can be angry, sad, happy, scared or whatever the writer wants the reader to feel. They are ways of making horror and misery an escape.
And there are disrespectful ways of doing this. There’s ways of reminding people of shit they have to deal with every day. There are ways of preaching at the reader even though you know they don’t view things the way you do. There are ways of insulting the reader metatextually when you are supposed to be setting up a rapport with them. There are ways that make the reader pissed off at the writer and not the character or the situation in the story they’re supposed to be pissed off at.
From what I gather here, we’re supposed to be annoyed with either Thunder or Batman. A number of readers are instead angry at the writer. There were at least four chances to prevent that anger and redirect it at the characters and neither the writer nor the editors took the opportunities. Instead, it suggests that all concerned acted to increase that anger and provoke an outrage to sell books.
Which, when you think about it, is more offensive than any offhand interview comment.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
What if you’re not among the, what, 20% of comics readers who knows anything about Chuck Dixon’s politics? Is it still metatextually offensive? Or is the metatextual offensiveness limited to readers of comic news sites and blogs?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I think the “special” relationship was referring to their dating each other NOT the fact that she was a lesbian.
Dick Grayson had a relationship with all of his teammates in Titans, but special ones with Donna, Kory, Wally, etc…
Personally, it seems like you went into the book looking for a fight and after looking pretty hard, you managed to find one.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I think you’re overreaching here, man. Bats didn’t want her feelings for her teammate to compromise the team…it didn’t strike me as Batman’s homophobia as much as Batman’s disregard for people’s feelings…
November 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
When it comes to reading a Chuck Dixon comic, you only have yourself to blame really.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
As a lesbian and ethnic minority myself I have to say that I was neither offended or outraged at this comic. I think you have read far too much into the actual comic. While I don’t know the background of the writer, I personally didn’t get any ‘agenda’ the writer had from the comic. I will however not be reading the comic after #2 though, but that’s because it was a bit rubbish not because I found it anti-gay.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
“This writer has had trouble in the past with statements about homosexuality and fan reaction to those statements, so it is going to look very bad politically. Whatever his actual motives are, the characterization in that scene is guaranteed to piss off fans of both characters. They should maybe have considered editing the script for a less politically loaded word. Even just dropping the adjective and saying “relationship.” But no, the editors approved.”
Yeah, Heaven forbid if you have to read something that challenges your political outlook. As a conservative, I get used to the endless messaging and soapboxing in comics…but as soon as an uncloseted conservative picks up the writing pen, it’s “let loose the editors on the blasphemer!”
November 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I wasn’t offended or annoyed by the scene. What I WAS not offended, annoyed, but extremely disheartened by was Dixon’s motivation for writing it that way: to pick a fight with his critics.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Mark: Why should “conservative” mean “anti-gay”?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Who said it did?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Some guy named Mark Engblom.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
ZING!
November 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Given the usual standard of how these things are argued online, shouldn’t the only people allowed to comment on this, or “understand” it be homosexual people of African-American descent? After all, if a male tries to comment contrary to a female interpretation of a scene, he’s virtually always told that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, his gender isn’t allowing him to see the offense, or just dismissed becuase he’s male. Why isn’t that the case here? I’m with Roberta up there anyway – I didn’t see anything wrong with it. I mean…I could, I guess, if I looked hard, and wanted to be offended. Just not in the mood today, I guess.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I was just thinking about the nice ThunderxGrace scene in BATO #2. It was anything big but I thought it was nice.
I think the scene was writing so that if the ONLY reason you were reading it was to look for something, you would find it.
Also why is being a conservative such a bad thing? Isn’t that part of the diversity you wrote about?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I’m sorry, Lisa, did you even read the book in question?
Or Dixon’s response, which is in the second link you posted?
I’m no huge Dixon fan at all, but there’s definitely more offensive things than this jab (and really, it’s a jab at Dixon’s critics, not homosexuality) getting past editors in comics today. Why not focus on one of those topics, rather than trying to force an issue out of this?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Brain, if the ‘special’ comment was about them dating, why would Bats turn around and claim to have not known about the relationship?
So Ash, why jab at Lisa about reading a book when it’s much more obvious that Brian hasn’t? Also, taking at face value the notion that it’s a jab at Chuck’s critics (of course, you seem to be under the impression that you can only make a jab against one thing at a time, but we’ll leave that alone), even if you follow the line that editors aren’t supposed to edit to be “PC” or whatever, it’s dumb business sense to use the preview pages to piss people off rather than, y’know, market the damn book and make folk want to buy it. Particularly given the previous team on the series. Which, y’know, is part of Lisa’s point.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Kwaku said
“Also why is being a conservative such a bad thing? Isn’t that part of the diversity you wrote about?”
Well, “tolerant” people embrace diversity (racial, political, etc.)…unless you’re conservative or Christian. I was going to add White, but I recall that high-profile Black people have been crucified for not gleefully supporting gay activists’ agenda. Just ask Barack Obama or Donnie McClurkin. (Sidebar: I should note that many Black people including myself are against gay marriage.)
In short, “tolerant” people quickly become very intolerant if you are of the wrong faith or political persuasion. So, the flack Dixon is receiving doesn’t shock me.
I hope I cleared things up.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:34 am
Yeah, Fred, funny how some people get all upset and offended when told their relationships aren’t as important or real as someone else’s. How terribly unreasonable of them to expect such a basic human respect and not tolerate the belief that their rights are less than other people’s rights.
Eye-rolling arguments aside, many of you have somehow still managed to miss the point. (Maybe I need writing classes.) I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t liberal good, conservative bad. I suspect there would have been a fight if a Dixon-created book were taken over by Winick (and we’d see a few commenters switching sides here).
December 1st, 2007 at 8:06 am
“How dare you not tolerate MY intolerance! That makes YOU intolerant!”
December 1st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I readthis and had no idea about the the politics or any such matter. I just pased it off as hime being a little more protective of her since he was closer to Jefferson (Black Lightning) and thi was his kid. In the end, even though he’s had 3 kid targets, I believe he’s overly protective of people’s children. Call me naive. as for the “special” comment, Have you even thought someone was gay but never knew 100%? I would never bring it up because its not business at the time. It only becomes my business when – drum rolling – they actually outright and tell me. Otherwise I wouldnt pry.
This whole situation seems to be a mountain out of a molehill. Fanboys need to chill. The way things work out in comics, she will probably be the one to save the day and proof her “worthiness”
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think it’s important to remember that, when it comes to politics, Chuck Dixon is ALWAYS WRONG.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“Yeah, Fred, funny how some people get all upset and offended when told their relationships aren’t as important or real as someone else’s. How terribly unreasonable of them to expect such a basic human respect and not tolerate the belief that their rights are less than other people’s rights.”
I don’t recall gay people being enslaved, stripped of their culture, or forced to use subpar “for gays only” facilities. By contrast, from my parents’ generation back, Black people had to endure slavery, psychological warfare, lynchings, denial of gainful employment, lack of voting rights and countless racial slurs. That’s one difference between the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights movement.
Another big difference between the two movements is attitude. As embodied by leaders like Martin Luther King, the Civil Rights Movements emphasized how ending legal racial segregation would benefit everyone by making America the just society it was on paper. It also didn’t hurt that civil rights leaders frowned on censoring opinions from their opponents.
By contrast, the Gay Rights movement is about gay rights and to heck with how society at large is impacted. The movement’s motto seems to be “Accept
homosexuality…or else!” With such a viewpoint, gay activists are more inclined to censor those who disagree with them.
Hence, it’s not shock to hear about “down low” men marrying straight wives, who become unwitting human shields against “homophobia.” Why can’t such gay men avoid such deceitful, selfish practices by simply not marrying in the first place? Then, everyone is better off. Sadly, “down low” men are too much about “Me, me, me” to think that far ahead and thus leave many heartbroken wives and even children in their wake.
On that note, heaven help you if you question the morality of “down low” men or homosexuality in general. You’ll find yourself under prompt attack by gay activist fanatics. Barack Obama found this out when he attended a gospel concert whose lineup included ex-gay singer/minister Donnie McClurkin. Here are some of the comments:
http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2007/10/white-progressive-blogosphere-takes-aim.html
So much of White gay people being more “tolerant” of Black people than straight ones. What amazes me is how critics of Obama, McClurkin and Black people in general resort to the same racist stereotypes they accuse conservatives of. (Sidebar: This whole incident would have really shocked me if I hadn’t seen The Afro’s commentary on racist White gay people.)
Bottom line, it’s the image of hypocrisy, deceit and rampant censorship that makes the Gay Rights movement so unappealing. Hence, it hard not to sympathize with Dixon who simply expressed his right of expression as a comic creator.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Fred, you just made an interesting argument.
Your first paragraph is (and I may be mistaken as to the actual terminology) a “Red Herring.” This is when you bring up an unrelated subject to distract from another. You bring up slavery and race, unrelated to the subject of religion and sexuality and marriage, as an attempt to distract from the matter of religion and sexuality and marriage. You also use the severe nature of slavery to belittle the problems of gay people and draw sympathy away from them.
You should be ashamed of that paragraph.
The second few paragraphs are making a false analogy. The argument for gay marriage is that is it only just and fair and offers the same rights to gay couples as it does to straight couples. The argument against it goes “this is our religion and you need to abide by its definitions and expectations, no matter how much it hurts you.”
You may merely be mistaken about that one.
The second is called an “Appeal to Spite.” Its a logical fallacy that attempts to draw attention away from your lack of standing by pointing out something unrelated that the other party supposedly did wrong.
In your case, saying gay people are racists to justify your own prejudices.
It tries to distract from the fact that just as judging someone on skin color is wrong, so is judging someone based on their sexuality, and that the proper criticism for racism is to call someone a racist not to condemn their sexual orientation and everyone else who shares that orientation.
This you should also be ashamed of, because it is a dirty debate trick.
I would have to guess that the reason people dislike you so strongly has little to do with your religion and much to do with your conversation techniques.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Tell it like it is, Lisa! Tell it like it is.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Just for the record, historically, people have been legally executed for being gay since at least the time of the Old Testament. They’re still imprisoned and sometimes executed for it in places like Nigeria and regions of the middle east.
Also, since gays and lesbians exist within every other minority, there have been gays and lesbians who suffered– usually in silence, in fear of not only their enemies, but also fear of rejection from their friends and family– under the persecution endured by those minorities, including slavery and–explicitly– the Holocaust, which is where the pink triangle used in some gay imagery comes from, as it was what the Nazis made their gay prisoners wear in the concentration camps.
So let’s not play disingenuous games of “my minority suffered more than your minority, therefore your minority should shut up” in attempts to say the move for civil rights for gays and lesbians is somehow less valid than earlier civil rights movements. Martin Luther King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, had this to say about that kind of argument:
“But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.” — Coretta Scott King (March 31, 1998).
July 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Mark Engblom said; “Zing!”
Mark, c’mon, man. As a man approaching or at middle age, shouldn’t you start acting like an adult instead of an emo teen?
June 7th, 2010 at 2:49 am
I think it’s important to remember that, when it comes to politics, Chuck Dixon is ALWAYS WRONG.canon powershot s40 charger
October 14th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Intimately, the article is in reality the best on this valuable topic. I fit in with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the tremendous lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Good work and much success in your business enterprize!
July 1st, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Helpful info. Fortunate me I found your site by chance, and I’m shocked why this twist of fate didn’t took place in advance! I bookmarked it.