Comic Book Resources

I wouldn't want to insist on having knowledge of the author's intention or anything else external to the story itself, but if we do have it, then why not use it? Sometimes it helps!

Oy, now this happens? What awful timing.

Usually I go by what's actually printed in the book - after all, how often do things like the above example happen? Even in the internet age, do we really see leaked scripts all that often? Even if the writer goes out and tells everyone about some change that was made, it becomes more of a trivia piece than anything else.

For instance, look at Mark Waid's butchered Captain America script: it's interesting to learn what happened, but it doesn't ultimately change anything (other than making the editors look bad)...

I go with what is published.

While the background things are interesting, they don't affect my enjoyment of the actual product.

Drafts, revisions, interviews etc. are good tools for telling me something about the writer or about the creative process, but I don't think they necessarily tell me anything about the text itself.

I go with what's published. Just because I read so many titles a month that if I tried to find out the creative, editorial and artisitic thinking behind every issue I don't think I'd have a job, wife or kids any more...

It is nice to be able to dig into some of the deeper details on some more controversial or spectacular issues, but I do tend to go with the printed version...

Ironically I usually end up buying the Director's cuts of movies on DVD...

And before I jump onto any bandwagon, I do *try* and read the phrases in context...

This, for example, could be words from a character that you are *supposed* to find obnoxious and offensive...

I go with what's published. Mostly it's because that's the only thing I'll see years from now if I were to re-read it. In addition, I feel that a story should stand on it's own for good or bad. For example, knowing the story behind the problems with Batman:The Hill still doesn't make it a good book. On the flip side, if Uncanny 501 was good (I have yet to read it) then this script wouldn't take away from that in my mind although it would change my opinion about the scripter.

Crikey. And just when we were all getting along so swimmingly...

Yeah, I usually just take what's written on-panel as canonical. If one took too broad an approach to how they read and was always wondering what what the true "intent" may have been by the product or its creators then, well, you could never *ever* read anything by Chris Claremont because your brain would turn into Goober Grape from wrapping your mind around the hidden subtexts and aborted plot lines.

There are things I'd say in private among friends that I'd never say in public because I know my friends won't immediately brand me a racist, sexist, or homophobe because of a few word choices. And sometimes the politically incorrect terms are just easier to use ("african-american" is just annoying if you have to say it more than once). And the writers/editors/artists may have a close enough relationship that they'll use the stuff not intended to be read by the public like that.

Interviews are a different matter though, because the public filter is back on, and anything the interviewee says is something meant for public consumption. So I'll base any opinion on the scene in question (which I haven't read about until this) on what's in the book and any public statements about it.

I tend to read comics while using my brain. And anyone with an operational brain could tell you that, regardless of the Hellfire Cult's motives for beating people in public, it's bloody obvious that the creators intend you to think they are WRONG to do so.

I can't help but overthinking the comic usually. If there's an interview, I'll certainly read it and probably look at a comic differently because of it. I generally like reading Grant Morrison comics before and after I have him tell me what the hell I was supposed to get out of what I just read: "Oh wait, Metron giving Antrho fire made him into the first superhero. I can see that now."

Unless it happened in the actual comic, it doesn't matter. Someone can talk about what they intended to happen all they want. It's what actually happened that matters.

Also, if you can't get the story by what's in the book, then at least two people aren't doing their jobs right, maybe more.

+1 to Balckjack's comments. See the item for yourself and judge it in context.

Pretty strongly textualist as a reader over here. I only grow interested in the author's intentions at all if a) I can tell it's a very fine piece of work with parts that appear to be potential for multiple interpretations, or b) if the work, viewed by itself, is essentially incoherent.

will green lantern show up?

i would say that i weigh any background info on the comic heavily into the reading experience. i don't do it consciously per se, but i have a hard time separating the creation from the creative process.

Would anyone happen to have the scene with lines edited and non-edited, for a side-by-side comparison?

Being as Matt Fraction is one of my best friends, and as I'm co-plotter of said X-Men issue, allow me to laugh in the face of anyone who thinks that either Matt or I are homophobes or ignorant idiots.

I guess I could point out my GLAAD award, or all the gay and lesbian characters Matt has written without making it an afterschool special, but that seems like it would be too much.

As long as we've got you here, Ed, could you possibly elaborate on what the whole thing might be about? Because I'm a bit confused.

Usually, I'm a textualist. I'm simply more concerned with what's presented that what might have been presented or why it was presented that way.

Which isn't to say I'm never interested in authorial intent, or that authorial intent isn't a worthy form of criticism. I just don't let it inform my reading of the text, usually, and certainly rarely upon first reading. Sometimes it's nice to go back and read something knowing what was originally intended, but changed for whatever reason. But first time through, it's all about the text.

This is probably why I enjoy Director's Cuts of movies, but only if I've seen the original version already. And if I can help it, I like to have both in one DVD package.

I always interpret the subtext. Always, always, always. It's just how I read comics, especially ones from a big mainstream publisher, because there's always something "left out" or tweaked for publication.

Claremont is a gold-mine of an example for this.

I don't think anyone for a minute would project that Brubaker OR Fraction are "homophobic." That's a base charge, and it's an unfair charge altogether.

The scene reads terrible in the context of the book, and is clearly a gay-bashing. Which can happen. But in the context of the book itself it comes across way wrong.

BUT. I am a reader of subtext. I never take the page literally, as written. I'm not a continuitywonk.

No one said homophobic. Crass and stupid, maybe.

It's pure afterschool special, Ed. Amplified by gratuitous porn. Boo to you both.

Ed, Mr Brubaker, sir,

While you're at it, on behalf of all non-homophobic, straight men here...

GET NORTHSTAR A KISS FROM A MAN SOON!!!!!

Have you seen how many ^&%$^&$ comments there are on the Northstar thread???

PLEASE!!??!?

Sorry.. I'm going back to my aardvark/porpoise porn...

Teebore: yup! gotta have the original as a comparison to go with the Director's cut... Alien Quadrilogy is good for that, as well as Blade Runner The Final Cut... The first one makes Alien³ SO MUCH better!!

Queer isn't gay-bashing. A lot of people refer to themselves as queer no matter what sexual preference they are. The LBGT community is taking this word back and in many cases may often be the preferred word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

I think the more important issue is that FOR GODS SAKES ITS 2008 ARE PEOPLE STILL TRIPPING OVER EACH OTHER ONLINE TO POINT OUT SLIGHT OR IMAGINED INSTANCES OF BIGOTRY TO TRY AND MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK GOOD IN A DISPLAY THAT AMOUNTS TO LITTLE MORE THAN "OOH LOOK AT HOW TOLERANT I AM"?!?!?!

Seriously, I'd rather hang at a Klan rally than with a group of sanctimonious self-righteous-indignation-spewing internet PC cops...

"Have you seen how many ^&%$^&$ comments there are on the Northstar thread???"

It´s just because many comics fans haven´t kissed as many girls as the gay ficitional character has. That´s the reason for all the hate.

I think Mr. Brubaker that you misunderstand the point. Use of queer or gay in connection to the word freaks, during or followed by a bashing in comics isn't an instant allegation of homophobia, rather it points out a writing problem. Introduce a gay and have him beat up (or captured and experimented on the case of Civil War: Runaways or literally having a spike rammed through your anus to kill you as in the case of Freedom Ring) and that becomes a character existing to promote another character's story. When this happens it looks _bad_ when another gay character, however small, is created to be gay bashed.

And Ed, regardless of the script containing those words, you _did_ have a gay bashing in there. I know you despise and disclaim the idea of metaphor but a cigar is only a cigar when it actually is a cigar and sometimes not even then. This screams gay bashing and it reads almost like it was done just because the X-men moved to a 'gay' city and will be using the gay Karma.

This isn't an allegation of homophobia and _ no one_ has said so, and it's disappointing that you'd render and dismiss all of this as some over sensitive squabbling.

I think, Kirkman's statement here is one that more clearly states the problem:

"Frankly, with the SMALL amount of gay characters in comics in general, and how unfortunate the portrayals have been thus far, whether intentional or not--I completely understand the backlash on the death of Freedom Ring, regardless of my intentions. If I had it to do all over again... I wouldn't kill him. I regret it more and more as time goes on. I got rid of what? 20% of the gay characters at Marvel by killing off this ONE character. I just never took that stuff into consideration while I was writing."

This was in response to the backlash over the death of his character Freedom Ring, whose death went on to service the story of his friend Crusader. It's Women in Refrigerators all over again.

To me it's the final product that matters. That's what will be read and referenced from now on. Sometimes knowing the facts and the "may-have-beens" behind the story is fun (or shocking) but in the end they don't matter.

@Chris Heide: Really? A *Klan* meeting? Lemme toss you a life jacket because I think you just went overboard.

If a writer has a character say vile things it DOES NOT MEAN that the writer believes the vile words.
======================
I believe if you are going to discuss an "alleged first draft" of a script, you should provide a link to the script so that those who haven't seen it are not commenting blindly on what they 'thought' the scene meant.
======================
Unless a person has a physical copy of the first draft, then what you might see on the internet MIGHT just be a fake put up to cause mayhem. How many times do we see a picture of something seemingly unreal, and then start to think it might be Photoshopped? The same can happen much easier with words. I can type that I got an email from Ed Brubaker. Some might believe it. But it's not the truth.
======================
There is nothing---absolutely nothing---wrong with having a gay bashing scene in a comic book, provided that the scene is an important part of the story. It might not be appropriate for certain comics (Franklin Richards or Tiny Titans, for example), but such a scene is not automatically a bad scene.

If a writer has a character say vile things it DOES NOT MEAN that the writer believes the vile words.

You mean that *racist* Mark Twain really meant that Jim in Huckleberry Finn was a noble character? That despite all the negative words used towards Jim, he is actually supposed to be seen as a good man?

YOU SIR HAVE OPENED MY EYES FOR THE FIRST TIME!

Brian, isn't this a bit much? It's kinda uncool to say Fraction used the words "'queers' or 'queer freaks', I forget which one". Even with the edit, it's still a bit vague and unfair to Fraction.

Yeah, I've got to say, I have a REALLy hard time believing Matt Fraction would use those words, unless they were in the mouth of a villain. I mean, seriously, that would mean he'd have to be pretending to be a COMPLETELY different kind of person whenever he goes on forums etc. Either the script is fake, or it's being deliberately misread.

(I mean, come on, he's friends with Warren Ellis. And Ellis is pretty famously intolerent of homophobia, as well as racism and sexism. This just doesn't ring true)

I agree that without a link it's hard for those of us that haven't seen the "script" or issue itself to really know what's going on in this particular case. Was it a character in the story saying "queer freaks," or was it in the panel description like "Cyclops is in a room with a bunch of queers?" Pretty big difference.

But I also get that the point of this post is whether we're textualist or intentualist. I almost always go textualist. I'm a writer myself, and I feel that if your intention doesn't come through in the writing itself, then you didn't do a good job in the writing. Granted, with things like comics where there's artists and editors and others involved, the intention could get muddled. But for the most part I think if it isn't in the story itself, it doesn't really matter.

Yeah, it was a line of dialogue.

The notion of it being anything other than a line of dialogue is so ludicrous, it never occurred to me that anyone would read it that way. Sorry 'bout that.

That sure does explain some reactions that were puzzling me.

That makes total sense, Brian, I'm just saying the vagueness of your piece (before the most recent edit) was a bit unfair to Fraction, since it invited argumentative people to make that leap in logic.

Nah, I gotcha, Rohan, in that evidently more people than you read it that way, so yeah, if it gave people that impression at all, that's unfair to Fraction.

If it's a bad guy character saying it, why is there such an issue about it?
Presumably the character will be beaten for the good guys, and the fact he is wrong in his views would get shown.
What's wrong with him saying the line?
(I ask because 'queer freaks' is pretty low key compared to what most homophobes would say).

I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
Of course the epilogue of #500 is meant to be read as gay bashing. The Dazzler fan with his pink-haired fairy friend ? The bashers have a shot at 2 "freaks" with one stone : the mutant and the "queer".
Since when is it wrong for despicable characters to say despicable things ? Red Skull or Zemo would be very hard to write, then… Would it be more acceptable to show only fictional minorities striving for respect and security ?

It's been a long time since mutants have been a viable metaphor for gays, and they should be (among other things). Who else than gays is hated world-wide by some christians, jews, muslims, blacks, whites or asian ?

On the other hand, I do understand it's a painful trend to see gay characters pop up on the page just to be bashed, killed or tortured. (Which is not the case yet in this story so far).

As for the ACTUAL point of this thread, I usually read what's on the page. I'm only interested in the mechanics of creation after a very good reading with artistic merits.

There's no need to be in Frank Miller's kitchen to know he's mysoginistic, homophobic and freaked out by handicapped people… Sometimes the printed thing speaks volume.

Of course the epilogue of #500 is meant to be read as gay bashing. The Dazzler fan with his pink-haired fairy friend ? The bashers have a shot at 2 “freaks” with one stone : the mutant and the “queer”.

There are plenty of readers who would (and do) disagree with you on that point, which is why I thought it interesting to see what texts people who differed on the meaning of the scene would allow to change their mind.

Would stuff outside the text like an edited line count? Or does it have to be literally IN the text?

It's called a victim hard-on, Fox.

I like the idea that it has to be in the text (or that it can be reasonably found within the subtext) to 'count', purely because a work can sometimes take on meanings the author didn't intend, IMO.

I agree with Rohan. Otherwise, how many sub-plots or alternate endings would count just because the author thought about it for a while ?

I'm not a native english speaker, so sometimes my statements are a little bold. Maybe I should've said : "The scene can easily be read as…" Likewise, I may have a wrong understanding of some characters' language patterns ("OMG, OMG…")
Although the edited line tends to confirm it was the original intent, I usually consider it to be better writing when multiple readings are allowed.

Also, Dazzler may be considered a little campy in the real world — hence the cliché and the dispute —, but she doesn't seem to be in the MU with fans like Cyclops or Juggernaut…

Michael : "It’s called a victim hard-on, Fox."
I'm afraid I don't see what you mean, really.

I prefer to go off of what's on the page rather than authorial intent. I like being able to make up my own mind on what a story means to me before someone starts telling me what's it's supposed to be; I'm very much of the opinion that once a piece of work is released to the public, the writer's interpretation doesn't count for much more than anyone else's.

Personally, Karma's intro as the X-Men are about to engage in their revenge tromping -- "This is Karma; she likes girls." -- bothered me a lot more than any slurs coming coming out of the mouths of fictional bigots would have. I rolled my eyes so hard I nearly strained something.

I don't mind if they had used the word "queer" in this context. It's by a bunch of villains. What are they going to call them, "you dorks"?

Personally, knowing a story or text was changed doesn't affect my enjoyment of a story. I do find it interesting as trivia, ie, Jean Grey wasn't meant to die during the Dark Phoenix Saga, the Mutant Massacre was originally to involve James Jaspers and the Fury, etc.

Funnily enough, I wasn't originally offended by this - bemused, yes but not offended since it's just a mis-step. However, after I re-read the issue I looked at what it would've been were I to put the word back in the sentence it was edited out of ... it's kind of ugh. I didn't quite realise the entirety before. This is the line but putting the word back in:

Damn freak with wings just walkin' down the damn street like she ain't nothin'. An' of course the queers eat it right up.

Ouch. It almost feels like some kind of snark about queer readers eating up the stuff in the comic [and the 'eating', lulz]. I know it definitely isn't that because Fraction seems like a nice guy but ... wow. Lucky that was edited out.

Grumpy Fox---

A "hard on" in this context means you are already mad and looking for a place to explode. That you have pre-determined that someone is going to offend you that day, so you have your response ready to use. You can just be looking for any fight or it can be a specific subject. Also called having a chip on your shoulder. True example: I think many auto drivers are damned stupid, so I am always ready to tell these stupid drivers just how stupid they are.

Not to get all Adrian Monk on you, but if you don't mind, Brian, I'd much rather the Fridays archive stay as things I actually write.

I suspect that if you went in to edit something in this post, it switched it up on you. This new WordPress does that.

That's all. Just a bit of housekeeping. Carry on.

Yeah, oddly enough, that happens frequently, Greg.

Your category is just magnetic, I guess!

I must be in the minority--because I would have preferred the "queer" slur been left in. I don't get the inkling that the writers are homophobic for having the villains (who engage in brutal beatings) say it. If anything I think leaving it in would have heightened the sense that aside from being racist assholes, they are just all around hate-filled, disgusting bigots. When you have characters throwing the word around in a bid to be cool or demasculinize one another--then yeah, it's rather lame. In this case I would have preferred it left in though.

The scene is quite easy to see as a "gay bashing metaphor"--but it still shocks me that so many readers (from reading the CBR forums on this issue alone) cannot see the similarities in between homophobia/anti-mutant hate and/or mutants/gays. When the books have been ripe with those parallels for years. Legacy Virus--AIDS. Mutation at puberty that causes teens to go into denial & secrecy & develop a fear of being hated/ostracized--gays discovering their feelings/longings during puberty & going into denial and developing fear as a result.

There are readers of the issue who CANNOT see any inkling that the male Dazzler fan could be gay (apparently he wants to get into Pixie's pants by attending a Dazzler concert--even though he talks like a jazzed-out queen that just saw their favorite diva icon). That's why I wish in some cases the parallelism went a little further than just allusion--and I wish the original line had been left in there to indicate such. Make it so that readers can't stay in that bubble where "mutant problems ONLY relate to real world racial problems."

As far as the scene itself played out, I had no problems and saw it what it was meant as. My only qualm is that I wish the "queer" slur had been left to heighten the emotion of the scene and to squash some of the ludicrous "interpretations" about the parallelism & to an extent the male character. But then again if readers have it set in their mind that "A =/= A" then even that may not have helped, lol.

erm ... how come nobody went for the obvious ...
I swing both ways when it comes to being intentionalist or contextualist
depends on how good it looks

and for the hard of feeling - that's just a joke people!

At the big comics companies in particular, where editorial is often heavy-handed, it's illuminating to know what happened behind the scenes to change the work before we see it. Usually it makes the writer look better and the company look cowardly or stupid. In this case, I would say it was the latter.

It sounds like "queer" was going to be used as an insult and meant to show the speaker is the bad guy. Jjust using a word in dialogue isn't the same as the author using it, themselves, and is hardly proof of any bias or bigotry.

But I agree with Flanuer that it's sad, yet again, to introduce gay characters (or even just "extras", if you will) just to have them victimized. That has nothing to do with the word choice and everything to do with the plot itself. (Sorry, Ed!)

The saving grace, of course, is that it may be the first in a long line of gay references that vary widely and are not so formulaic. (They are in San Francisco, after all.)

Hardly the right foot to start off on, though, in my opinion. Like Northstar's planned AIDS diagnosis, it seems more predictable and lazy than anything else.

I've not had the benefit of reading the issue in question, nor much of Matt Fraction's writing. Apologies to Fraction if he reads this. I do agree with the comments from zan and Flanuer though. In a fictional world I think there would be villains who don't think negatively about LGBT people. Scandal's and Knockout's relationship didn't seem to pose a problem for the other villains in Secret Six.

I am one of those people who read that scene and assumed the male character was just trying to get in Pixie's pants. I had no thought that he might be gay... I thought the Hellfire Cult was hating on him for being a mutie-lover. So, I fail to see how that scene was "obviously gay bashing". Hell, even if the word queer made it through the editors, it wouldn't be gay bashing as much as "these guys are bigoted @$#%s".