Friday, June 1, 2012

FFS Friday!

I had something else planned for today, but this headline caught my eye this morning.


Second of all, understand that I have no issue with gay people or the LGBT community. None whatsoever. I feel that what you do is your biznass. What I DO have an issue with is using sexuality for shock value.

DC has caught some heat for it's "New 52", the rebooting of basically every superhero they have. Apparently, in the reboot of Green Lantern, DC is making the decision to make Alan Scott (the original Green Lantern) openly gay.

Here's why this is FFS worthy. Green Lantern is one of the few superheroes that can manifest itself in a different person. The ring has been with no less than SIX different people during the original DC run.

So, if DC wanted to make an openly gay superhero (that could change hosts), why not just introduce a NEW Green Lantern? Some reboots of classic superheroes this sexuality shift could be difficult, but the "he who holds the ring" status of the Green Lantern lends itself to easily creating a new persona whenever artists feel the need for a fresh start. Or...why can't there be a BRAND NEW openly gay superhero?

It's a huge honor for the LGBT community to have a hero with the status of Green Lantern, but if DC was really committed to honoring gays with a superhero, and they weren't just in it to raise eyebrows and sell comics, why wouldn't they invest time into creating an awesome storyline with an awesome new superhero to give the gay community a superhero they could rally behind?



  1. Three percent of the population is gay. So that would mean 3 percent of super heroes are gay. Green Lantern is one of the lucky 3 percent I guess.

    1. Thank you for commenting! In the future, please don't be hesitant to post your name. If you want to say something rationally, which you have, then I welcome your opinion. If you want to be intolerant of others and hateful, I won't stand for it.

      Now, is it only 3%?? That seems low. Anyways, technically, Alan Scott would be part of the lucky 3%. Green Lantern, who is a gay superhero, would be a part of the lucky minutia of a percent, since the superhero population of DC comics is minute in comparison to the general pop of Gotham, Metropolis, Coast City, etc.

      My problem is that DC took a route to create a shock campaign. Hypothetically, since the ring chooses it's bearer, what happens when the artists and writers decide to go a different route? Will it be insensitive to the gay community to kill off or replace Scott? Will it be a corporate decision solely to sell more books? Will DC kill off Scott with a hate crime, therefore aggrandizing bigotry? Sooner or later, DC is going to change the Green Lantern to a new host, as shown by the previous 6 hosts. I feel it would have been a more appropriate gesture to create a whole new openly gay character that is going to stick around. This move is solely to sell books.