(no subject)
It's not very often that something happens to jolt my idolising of a favourite author. Whilst I am very well aware that writers are human like the rest of us, the fact that I rarely have favourites makes me feel smugly cocooned from feelings of betrayal that may arise from dreadful faux pas by such favourites. For instance when Frank Miller turned out to be utterly crackers, I was mightily relieved that any infatuation with his style and works had gone right out the window when Dark Knight Strikes Again was published. How I've humbly realised my hypocritical ways when Darwyn Cooke became a topic of discussion these past few days.
I first read the news on Twitter (a tweet from James Robinson) about how Darwyn Cooke was not homophobic. That in turn led me to search.twitter.com to dig on further, leading me to surmise that these homophobic things Cooke was alleged to have said were not homophobic, but alas still full of heterosexual privilege. Cooke noted that he wouldn't have liked to see comics cater to perverted 45 year old men and make Batwoman gay... because it was lazy writing. From the search results, I saw that people on Twitter glomped onto the first part and howled that he was homophobic. (source: http://www.4thletter.net/2010/08/darwyn-cooke-on-cape-comix/ Beware: there is Comic Sans)
First: As a queer person I must admit there is something in his rant that's spoke to me - namely the suspicion (whereas for him it's outright derision and belief) that DC Comics made an old character Kathy Kane into a lipstick lesbian for sales. Now most would claim Kathy, now 'Kate', is actually a new character with new backstory etc created by the writer Greg Rucka, who is known for his LGBT sensitive work.
Second: But from 50+ year old Cooke's POV, it's all sensationalistic, lazy editorial (he claimed writing, but to me it makes sense to rage against the editors who okayed the character precisely because they wanted to market Batwoman to those 45 year old pervy guys) because it's still using the same template character. Why not create someone entirely different rather than co-opt one that has already existed?
But boy, the way Cooke chose to rant against that exploitation was ughh... Privilege, and a lot more than a smidgen of angry-old-man-yells-at-kids-to-get-off-the-lawn.
Third: I've met Cooke a few times at different cons making small talk, and have been to many panels with him as a speaker, and find it difficult the idea of him being homophobic. Granted it's maybe all superficial, but I simply do not believe that he is. That said, if I could meet Cooke again and had the chance to discuss this episode I would begin by asking him: what if Kathy back then was a lesbian? Who is to assume that the character wasn't? And why is fleshing out a background character with her sexuality decried as lazy writing when it's not done as shock value (as a way to attract readership, well, that might be a good point)? Because I have read Batwoman and it's not exploitative, not at all geared for those pervy men. It's got beautiful, almost shocking art that's not a series of gratuitous pinup shots. It even has well-rounded characterisations and intriguing plots that make you root for the hero and look forward to buying another issue month after month.
So it's a little hard to read how a small majority of people are so quick to label him homophobic when things can be so easily taken out of context. There's much more here to his comments, which Cooke himself adds in a response to the 4thletter! entry:
Hi David
I see this little sound bite is making the rounds and there seems to be some confusion regarding some of what I said.
My comment about making a character a lesbian has outraged some so I thought the following clarification might help-
Consider this- After sixty years of being a lesbian, a beloved character is made straight for sales or creative purposes- wouldn’t that be wrong as well?
I think gay characters are an important and welcome part of any contemporary expression. What I want is to see creators and publishers creating new characters that are gay and lesbian, and spend the decades needed creating and supporting stories about these characters. It strikes me as opportunistic and somewhat wrongheaded to take someone else’s creation and after decades of established character action make that drastic a change.
I’ve always believed that if another creator’s character can’t bear the spectrum of expression I need to reach, then I don’t use that character. Find another or create a new one.
If you tie my comment into the context of the other things I’m saying, I’m also not sure what the corporate motivation is for such changes. If we look at the reading demographics for superhero comics, this becomes an intriguing
topic.
Hope this helps add some understanding to my point. Feel free to post this around to other sites that may find this of interest.
Best,
Darwyn
Unfortunate that this soundbite has managed to be the end all of this situation, but what also emerges is an opportunity for discussion. However, other than this entry, I most certainly will no be involved in the discussion. Not because I'm unhappy, but because as a former reader and fan of US comics, I have know from experience that these sort of discussions can't be held in comic forums (see: Scans Daily 1.0).
I first read the news on Twitter (a tweet from James Robinson) about how Darwyn Cooke was not homophobic. That in turn led me to search.twitter.com to dig on further, leading me to surmise that these homophobic things Cooke was alleged to have said were not homophobic, but alas still full of heterosexual privilege. Cooke noted that he wouldn't have liked to see comics cater to perverted 45 year old men and make Batwoman gay... because it was lazy writing. From the search results, I saw that people on Twitter glomped onto the first part and howled that he was homophobic. (source: http://www.4thletter.net/2010/08/darwyn-cooke-on-cape-comix/ Beware: there is Comic Sans)
First: As a queer person I must admit there is something in his rant that's spoke to me - namely the suspicion (whereas for him it's outright derision and belief) that DC Comics made an old character Kathy Kane into a lipstick lesbian for sales. Now most would claim Kathy, now 'Kate', is actually a new character with new backstory etc created by the writer Greg Rucka, who is known for his LGBT sensitive work.
Second: But from 50+ year old Cooke's POV, it's all sensationalistic, lazy editorial (he claimed writing, but to me it makes sense to rage against the editors who okayed the character precisely because they wanted to market Batwoman to those 45 year old pervy guys) because it's still using the same template character. Why not create someone entirely different rather than co-opt one that has already existed?
But boy, the way Cooke chose to rant against that exploitation was ughh... Privilege, and a lot more than a smidgen of angry-old-man-yells-at-kids-to-get-off-the-lawn.
Third: I've met Cooke a few times at different cons making small talk, and have been to many panels with him as a speaker, and find it difficult the idea of him being homophobic. Granted it's maybe all superficial, but I simply do not believe that he is. That said, if I could meet Cooke again and had the chance to discuss this episode I would begin by asking him: what if Kathy back then was a lesbian? Who is to assume that the character wasn't? And why is fleshing out a background character with her sexuality decried as lazy writing when it's not done as shock value (as a way to attract readership, well, that might be a good point)? Because I have read Batwoman and it's not exploitative, not at all geared for those pervy men. It's got beautiful, almost shocking art that's not a series of gratuitous pinup shots. It even has well-rounded characterisations and intriguing plots that make you root for the hero and look forward to buying another issue month after month.
So it's a little hard to read how a small majority of people are so quick to label him homophobic when things can be so easily taken out of context. There's much more here to his comments, which Cooke himself adds in a response to the 4thletter! entry:
Hi David
I see this little sound bite is making the rounds and there seems to be some confusion regarding some of what I said.
My comment about making a character a lesbian has outraged some so I thought the following clarification might help-
Consider this- After sixty years of being a lesbian, a beloved character is made straight for sales or creative purposes- wouldn’t that be wrong as well?
I think gay characters are an important and welcome part of any contemporary expression. What I want is to see creators and publishers creating new characters that are gay and lesbian, and spend the decades needed creating and supporting stories about these characters. It strikes me as opportunistic and somewhat wrongheaded to take someone else’s creation and after decades of established character action make that drastic a change.
I’ve always believed that if another creator’s character can’t bear the spectrum of expression I need to reach, then I don’t use that character. Find another or create a new one.
If you tie my comment into the context of the other things I’m saying, I’m also not sure what the corporate motivation is for such changes. If we look at the reading demographics for superhero comics, this becomes an intriguing
topic.
Hope this helps add some understanding to my point. Feel free to post this around to other sites that may find this of interest.
Best,
Darwyn
Unfortunate that this soundbite has managed to be the end all of this situation, but what also emerges is an opportunity for discussion. However, other than this entry, I most certainly will no be involved in the discussion. Not because I'm unhappy, but because as a former reader and fan of US comics, I have know from experience that these sort of discussions can't be held in comic forums (see: Scans Daily 1.0).