Grant Morrison thinks Batman is gay!

[the G-man]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

Do you take every word so literally?

Morrison's a professional writer. If he uses a word or constructs a sentence I assume he knows what it meant and that he meant what he said.

Anyway if we want to be so anal and literal - he beats up a junkie in a story with Jason Todd, he asks the guy if he's a pusher after kicking in his door and then punches him so hard that he knocks him out (the guy offers no resistance or threat to Batman). It's part of a story-line where Pushers are selling drugs at Todd's school.

So, in other words, the only "junkie" he ever beat up was a drug dealer, selling to kids? If so, he wasn't beaten up for being a junkie or being poor. He was, as is typical of Batman, beating up a criminal for being a criminal.

[StarTrek1701]

Methos wrote:

---

Allow me... it happened in the Catwoman comic, which is a lot more adult than the rest of the Batman publications lol



M

Both of them have their cowls on whilst fucking raw.

Kinky.

[the G-man]

Actually, if you look at that pic, Batman's hips are about a foot away from his waist. She schtupped him in two!

[lvsxy808]

It seems to me that it's clear he's not trying to claim that the character of Batman or of Bruce Wayne is of homosexual orientation. He's saying that the construction of the character has much in common with what otherwise might be seen as stereotypical (and rather outdated) traits of the homosexual man.

His life is built on a dual identity - one face for the daytime corporate business world, and another for the nighttime where he dresses up in weird outfits and prowls the streets looking for other unsavoury characters. He has an older mentor who he relies on to keep his secret. He has a younger protege who came from a similar difficult family background, and who he teaches in the ways of the night-people.

That's the kind of stuff Morrison is talking about, to my mind. Not saying that the character is an actual homosexual.

It's like Raj from the Big Bang Theory. People say he's gay because he likes chick-flicks and pot pourri. Those are incidental things. Yes, he may be playing the "gay role" (again, defined in hugely and rather offensively stereotypical terms) but he is doing so while not being an actual homosexual.

That's the way comics were written back in the day, the way all sci-fi and fantasy works. You cloak the issue you actually want to address in tights and a cape, so that people are distracted by the outer covering while the internal issues creep in unnoticed. The X-Men was a totally gay metaphor story decades before any actual homosexual character appeared in its pages.

.

[the G-man]

That's the way comics were written back in the day, the way all sci-fi and fantasy works. You cloak the issue you actually want to address in tights and a cape, so that people are distracted by the outer covering while the internal issues creep in unnoticed.

I seriously doubt that Bob Kane or Bill Finger were thinking of this as a homosexual metaphor. Really, it was just a case of trying to do a modern day "Zorro."

Most of the allegedly homosexual subtext in the old Batman books was obviously a combination of changing word meanings (for example, "queer" and "gay" meaning "strange" and "happy" back then) and the fact that it was written for little boys who wouldn't be caught dead reading about kissing "yucky girls" and to whom wrestling and sleepovers was still asexual.

I'd also point out that, if secret identities and kid sidekicks are automatically [metaphorically] gay then pretty much every comic book superhero ever written pre-Fantastic Four, including Superman (and Jimmy Olsen), is just as [metaphorically] gay. So, unless Morrison thinks they're all [metaphorically] gay, it is just another example of him not understanding Batman and taking the cheapest and easiest, Schumacheresque, analysis of the character available as his hook.

If anything, golden age and silver age Batman is about arrested development and extended adolescence: a grown man who suffered a trauma as a child who spends his life playing with "toys" from the batcave and having adventures with another kid, while doing his best to eschew his "work" (Wayne foundation) and family responsibilities and having an older parental figure still taking care of him.

[JD]

I really don't think that someone criticizing something like this means that they don't like or understand the character, sometimes it is the people who are closest to the character that have the most right to criticize them. I haven't read any of his stuff yet, but I was under the impression that Morrison was one of the most popular Batman writer of the best couple decades. Obviously some people must think he understands and likes Batman. If he hated him or didn't understand him, I wouldn't think DC would be bringing him back to finish off his Batman stuff.

[the G-man]

Morrison sells but I think we all know that just because something's popular doesn't make it good.

I would also point out that the number of issues of Morrison's "hot" bat-titles sold per month would have probably gotten the book cancelled for low sales in decades past.

[JoeZhang]

Which is a straw-man because you could say that of pretty much any title sold in 2012 - time moves on.

[the G-man]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

Which is a straw-man because you could say that of pretty much any title sold in 2012 - time moves on.

At the same time, one could wonder if the incessant need since the 80s to turn every superhero into some sort of "metaphor" for adults hasn't helped create the downtown. In which case, it isn't a 'straw man' argument.

More to the point, however, as I said before, even if we concede Morrison's Batman sells well does that mean it is, per se, well done or better than some other version of Batman? Does it mean, per se, that a popular version of Batman means the writers understand Batman?

After all, to this day, the 1966 TV version of "Batman" is still quite possibly the most commercially successful version of the character in any media: Millions of first run viewers of all ages, a movie based on the show, unprecedented product tie ins, a huge cultural impact that continues to this day (see the newspaper articles that still reference "Biff" and "Zap" in articles about comic books for just one example), successful syndication and theme song that is instantly recognizable forty six years later (and has been covered by artists as diverse as the Who, the Jam, Link Wray, Iggy Pop and the Royal Philharmonic).

That success notwithstanding, is anyone here going to argue that Bill Dozier and Lorenzo Semple Jr. "understood" Batman better than Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart and/or Paul Dini?

[sidious618]

Believe it or not it's possible to have different interpretations of characters than you do and still be a great writer.

[the G-man]

And its also possible for an interpretation to be the wrong one, even if someone is a good writer.

Again, to use Lorenzo Semple Jr as an example:

In addition to the Batman TV show, the man wrote the screenplays for Papillon, The Drowning Pool , the Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. Any one of those movies alone would seem to qualify him as a "great writer."

But does that mean he "understood" Batman?

For that matter he wrote the widely-reviled 70s "King Kong" remake. Since he's a "great writer," do we have to assume he "understood" King Kong?

Of course not.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Morrison's a smart guy, and of course he's right.

But man, talking about Batman being gay makes the fanboise nervous.

[Professor Zoom]

the G-man wrote:

---

And its also possible for an interpretation to be the wrong one, even if someone is a good writer.

Again, to use Lorenzo Semple Jr as an example:

In addition to the Batman TV show, the man wrote the screenplays for Papillon, The Drowning Pool , the Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. Any one of those movies alone would seem to qualify him as a "great writer."

But does that mean he "understood" Batman?

For that matter he wrote the widely-reviled 70s "King Kong" remake. Since he's a "great writer," do we have to assume he "understood" King Kong?

Of course not.

Actually, I would say Semple understood Batman. He understood Batman for the time that he was writing him in. As did Kane... (lol, Kane writing Batman...) in the time he was writing Batman, as did Miller, Morrison, for the times they were writing Batman.

There is no one singular "understanding" of Batman. That's why as a character he has been successful for so long. Because he can be reimagined and reinterperted for each present.

So, yeah. Semple got Batman. As does Morrison. As will the next "successful" writer.

[JD]

^Scott Snyder? Most people seem pretty happy with what he's been doing in "Batman".

[Professor Zoom]

JD wrote:

---

^Scott Snyder? Most people seem pretty happy with what he's been doing in "Batman".

Sure, why not... I don't have a strong opinion about him specifically.

I guess what I'm challenging is this idea of "getting Batman." What and who Batman is changes with time. There is no singular "getting Batman."