Comments on: The Deniability of Chuck Dixon http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/ One of many voices that speak out against problems of the portrayal of gender, sexuality and race in comics. I just happen to be a male, white middle class member of the primary comic book target demographic. Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:14:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Designated Sidekick: The Candy Floss Aneurism. » The paper mirror http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/comment-page-1/#comment-16242 Designated Sidekick: The Candy Floss Aneurism. » The paper mirror Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:24:38 +0000 http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/#comment-16242 [...] I have to admit to being both clueless and getting the point in parallel. It’s not an acheivement, it’s a mistake of assumption that because I read that as a post from a fan of comics, so would everbody else. We’d all pick up the column, see that point, get that point, and go “Yes, this is what comic creators need to think about. Telling stories that resonate with the readers through characters they can identify with in their own lives” . After all… back in January, I was after the same thing Some of those more and more readers might actually want to see characters that speak to their lives, their desires, their hopes and their dreams. When I was in high school, having Oliver Queen and Dick Grayson was to have characters who I could identify with, and to use to pin my fantasied reality of an ideal world to my reality. I wanted to be Oliver Queen, muckraking journalist by day, costumed crime fighter by night. I had that character, and the white male middle class entitled and privileged costumed hero to call my own. [...] [...] I have to admit to being both clueless and getting the point in parallel. It’s not an acheivement, it’s a mistake of assumption that because I read that as a post from a fan of comics, so would everbody else. We’d all pick up the column, see that point, get that point, and go “Yes, this is what comic creators need to think about. Telling stories that resonate with the readers through characters they can identify with in their own lives” . After all… back in January, I was after the same thing Some of those more and more readers might actually want to see characters that speak to their lives, their desires, their hopes and their dreams. When I was in high school, having Oliver Queen and Dick Grayson was to have characters who I could identify with, and to use to pin my fantasied reality of an ideal world to my reality. I wanted to be Oliver Queen, muckraking journalist by day, costumed crime fighter by night. I had that character, and the white male middle class entitled and privileged costumed hero to call my own. [...]

]]> By: Designated Sidekick » Shades of Gray http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/comment-page-1/#comment-2003 Designated Sidekick » Shades of Gray Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:29:34 +0000 http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/#comment-2003 [...] My reason for wanting to see an improved lot for female characters in mainstream comics has been documented before here on DS. Whether or not my fellow bloggers, my CEO, my readers or anyone else produces content for niche non-mainstream markets doesn’t matter a rat arse to me. [...] [...] My reason for wanting to see an improved lot for female characters in mainstream comics has been documented before here on DS. Whether or not my fellow bloggers, my CEO, my readers or anyone else produces content for niche non-mainstream markets doesn’t matter a rat arse to me. [...]

]]> By: arielladrake http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/comment-page-1/#comment-1316 arielladrake Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:41:15 +0000 http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/#comment-1316 The problem with the 'leave it to elseworlds' approach, as great as elseworlds can be, is that it still treats homosexuality as some automatically moral/political theme where heterosexuality is not. Because really, the only reason most characters have a 'straight continuity' is because compulsory heterosexuality has been the norm for some time. I'd hazard a guess that most creators didn't necessarily make conscious decisions for characters to be straight, they're simply assumed to be, the same way it's assumed in real life: we're assumed to be straight unless we either fit stereotypes (wherein the lack of assumption that we're straight is usually played as an insult at least half the time) or talk about our sexual orientation or, y'know, display any kind of affection towards partners in public, and then we're berated (or worse) for doing either of those last two, because apparently straight people kissing doesn't make one's head immediately fill with images of P-i-V sex, but make the people the same gender and suddenly kissing automatically induces images of people going for it. And don't get me started on the idea that we need to keep gay characters out of main continuity so it can remain 'sanitary'. The inverted commas makes me think that's not your actual view, tomorrow4eva, and if that's the case this isn't aimed at you, but I'm not sure I have words for how noxiously insulting that concept is, just generally. The problem with the ‘leave it to elseworlds’ approach, as great as elseworlds can be, is that it still treats homosexuality as some automatically moral/political theme where heterosexuality is not. Because really, the only reason most characters have a ‘straight continuity’ is because compulsory heterosexuality has been the norm for some time. I’d hazard a guess that most creators didn’t necessarily make conscious decisions for characters to be straight, they’re simply assumed to be, the same way it’s assumed in real life: we’re assumed to be straight unless we either fit stereotypes (wherein the lack of assumption that we’re straight is usually played as an insult at least half the time) or talk about our sexual orientation or, y’know, display any kind of affection towards partners in public, and then we’re berated (or worse) for doing either of those last two, because apparently straight people kissing doesn’t make one’s head immediately fill with images of P-i-V sex, but make the people the same gender and suddenly kissing automatically induces images of people going for it.

And don’t get me started on the idea that we need to keep gay characters out of main continuity so it can remain ‘sanitary’. The inverted commas makes me think that’s not your actual view, tomorrow4eva, and if that’s the case this isn’t aimed at you, but I’m not sure I have words for how noxiously insulting that concept is, just generally.

]]> By: Taz http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/comment-page-1/#comment-1294 Taz Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:42:21 +0000 http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/#comment-1294 I completely agree with the idea that they're trying to please everybody-a winkwinknudge to people who see it and plausible deniability for those who don't. It's a weak-ass apporoach to creating and maintaining a character-look at Hulkling and Wiccan over in YA: They could've gone on with the subtext, and kept those readers determined to not see it. But they didn't. I respect Heinberg, et al all the more for taking a stance- saying this is what our charzcter is, what we meant for him to be. Doubtless, the readers that could not abide the idea no longer read the title, but those of us who do know the characters we are becoming invested in. Unlike the fans of Nightwing, who suffer inconsistent characterization which strips away the very qualities we love him for. T_T At first I didn't really get your beef with regards to the quote about Maggie Sawyer. Then I applied it to something I do get: I love Maggie because she is a kick-ass woman in power. If it were said that she is kick-ass first and woman second, I would be deeply offended at the failure to recognize being female is a part of her character, her draw to fans-something we can relate or look up to. You couldn't say that Renee Montoya was Hispanic third and gay fourth (besides being an officer and a female;the more-give me a word-marketable? qualities first) because being part of both of these groups formed important parts of her character, such as her personal growth and relationship to her family. I get you now. At first I was thinking along the lines of "Well, at least she isn't Lesbian first, second and third, socialite fourth, and Batwoman fifth." ^^ I completely agree with the idea that they’re trying to please everybody-a winkwinknudge to people who see it and plausible deniability for those who don’t. It’s a weak-ass apporoach to creating and maintaining a character-look at Hulkling and Wiccan over in YA: They could’ve gone on with the subtext, and kept those readers determined to not see it. But they didn’t. I respect Heinberg, et al all the more for taking a stance- saying this is what our charzcter is, what we meant for him to be. Doubtless, the readers that could not abide the idea no longer read the title, but those of us who do know the characters we are becoming invested in.
Unlike the fans of Nightwing, who suffer inconsistent characterization which strips away the very qualities we love him for. T_T
At first I didn’t really get your beef with regards to the quote about Maggie Sawyer. Then I applied it to something I do get:
I love Maggie because she is a kick-ass woman in power. If it were said that she is kick-ass first and woman second, I would be deeply offended at the failure to recognize being female is a part of her character, her draw to fans-something we can relate or look up to. You couldn’t say that Renee Montoya was Hispanic third and gay fourth (besides being an officer and a female;the more-give me a word-marketable? qualities first) because being part of both of these groups formed important parts of her character, such as her personal growth and relationship to her family.
I get you now. At first I was thinking along the lines of “Well, at least she isn’t Lesbian first, second and third, socialite fourth, and Batwoman fifth.” ^^

]]> By: tomorrow4eva http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/comment-page-1/#comment-1288 tomorrow4eva Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:16:46 +0000 http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/#comment-1288 The ambiguous stuff feels like they're trying to make every character be everything to everybody. Just do elseworlds if you want to explore different concepts with well-known characters and not have it affect their continuity. I love elseworlds. That way we get our 'sanitary, relatively-kid-friendly' continuity, and can go nuts with different genre takes or political/moral themed stories. The ambiguous stuff feels like they’re trying to make every character be everything to everybody.
Just do elseworlds if you want to explore different concepts with well-known characters and not have it affect their continuity. I love elseworlds. That way we get our ‘sanitary, relatively-kid-friendly’ continuity, and can go nuts with different genre takes or political/moral themed stories.

]]> By: one diverse comic book nation » THE SHORT STACK: Diversity On The ‘Net - THE CHUCK DIXON EDITION http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/comment-page-1/#comment-1286 one diverse comic book nation » THE SHORT STACK: Diversity On The ‘Net - THE CHUCK DIXON EDITION Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:06:48 +0000 http://www.girl-wonder.org/designatedsidekick/2007/01/08/the-deniability-of-chuck-dixon/#comment-1286 [...] The Deniability of Chuck Dixon - Dr Stephen Dann from Designated Sidekick takes issue with a couple of Dixon’s statements — mainly “Maggie Sawyer, in Superman, was obviously being portrayed as a lesbian. But there was a level of deniability because she wasn’t always being shown in romantic clinches with her girlfriend” and “When I was writing Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon’s romance I stayed away from stating that they were in any kind of sexual relationship. You could absolutely imply it. But you could just as easily tell yourself they were saving it for marriage.” He wonders why deniability is so important to Dixon. (from Designated Sidekick) [...] [...] The Deniability of Chuck Dixon – Dr Stephen Dann from Designated Sidekick takes issue with a couple of Dixon’s statements — mainly “Maggie Sawyer, in Superman, was obviously being portrayed as a lesbian. But there was a level of deniability because she wasn’t always being shown in romantic clinches with her girlfriend” and “When I was writing Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon’s romance I stayed away from stating that they were in any kind of sexual relationship. You could absolutely imply it. But you could just as easily tell yourself they were saving it for marriage.” He wonders why deniability is so important to Dixon. (from Designated Sidekick) [...]

]]>