![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Sep. 30th, 2016
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
espanolbotLinks to the previous comicbook storyline,
https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/6071012.html
https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/6088576.html
Spoilers for books 1 through 5 of the book series.
( Read more... )
https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/6071012.html
https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/6088576.html
Spoilers for books 1 through 5 of the book series.
( Read more... )
icon_uk...especially on scans_daily.
I'm actually a little surprised I'm the first to post this, but such is life.
In an interview with Comicosity, Greg Rucka confirmed that the Diana he and Nioola Scott are creating since Rebirth, is not 100% heterosexual!
And in other news bears do.... actually, no, this is important dammit, and deserves more respect that that.
I would strongly advise you to read the whole interview (actually, the whole article is interesting and does indicate some of the steps that DC has taken in terms of representation of late), but I think this is the bit to focus on for us;
Matt Santori-Griffith: I’m going to start off simple and to the point. The Wonder Woman that you and Nicola have introduced to us in “Year One” — is she queer?
Greg Rucka: How are we defining “queer?”
You’re applying a term specifically and talking to an ostensibly cis male (and white to boot), so “queer” to me may not be the same as it is to an out gay man. So, tell me what queer is.
MSG: Fair enough. For the purposes of this conversation, I would define “queer” as involving, although not necessarily exclusively, romantic and/or sexual interest toward persons of the same gender. It’s not the full definition, but it’s the part I’m narrowing in on here.
GR: Then, yes.
I think it’s more complicated though. This is inherently the problem with Diana: we’ve had a long history of people — for a variety of reasons, including sometimes pure titillation, which I think is the worst reason — say, “Ooo. Look. It’s the Amazons. They’re gay!”
And when you start to think about giving the concept of Themyscira its due, the answer is, “How can they not all be in same sex relationships?” Right? It makes no logical sense otherwise.
It’s supposed to be paradise. You’re supposed to be able to live happily. You’re supposed to be able — in a context where one can live happily, and part of what an individual needs for that happiness is to have a partner — to have a fulfilling, romantic and sexual relationship. And the only options are women.
But an Amazon doesn’t look at another Amazon and say, “You’re gay.” They don’t. The concept doesn’t exist.
Now, are we saying Diana has been in love and had relationships with other women? As Nicola and I approach it, the answer is obviously yes.
And it needs to be yes for a number of reasons. But perhaps foremost among them is, if no, then she leaves paradise only because of a potential romantic relationship with Steve [Trevor]. And that diminishes her character. It would hurt the character and take away her heroism.
Have to say, I do like that he asked how they were defining queer in context, just to make certain!
The whole "being gay does not exist in the sense we mean it" bit in another context would irritate me, but I can see in the context of the Amazons of Themiscriya, where millennia of an entirely female, immortal population would alter one's perceptions of relationship, it's a valid comment.
Your thoughts and opinions?
I'm actually a little surprised I'm the first to post this, but such is life.
In an interview with Comicosity, Greg Rucka confirmed that the Diana he and Nioola Scott are creating since Rebirth, is not 100% heterosexual!
And in other news bears do.... actually, no, this is important dammit, and deserves more respect that that.
I would strongly advise you to read the whole interview (actually, the whole article is interesting and does indicate some of the steps that DC has taken in terms of representation of late), but I think this is the bit to focus on for us;
Matt Santori-Griffith: I’m going to start off simple and to the point. The Wonder Woman that you and Nicola have introduced to us in “Year One” — is she queer?
Greg Rucka: How are we defining “queer?”
You’re applying a term specifically and talking to an ostensibly cis male (and white to boot), so “queer” to me may not be the same as it is to an out gay man. So, tell me what queer is.
MSG: Fair enough. For the purposes of this conversation, I would define “queer” as involving, although not necessarily exclusively, romantic and/or sexual interest toward persons of the same gender. It’s not the full definition, but it’s the part I’m narrowing in on here.
GR: Then, yes.
I think it’s more complicated though. This is inherently the problem with Diana: we’ve had a long history of people — for a variety of reasons, including sometimes pure titillation, which I think is the worst reason — say, “Ooo. Look. It’s the Amazons. They’re gay!”
And when you start to think about giving the concept of Themyscira its due, the answer is, “How can they not all be in same sex relationships?” Right? It makes no logical sense otherwise.
It’s supposed to be paradise. You’re supposed to be able to live happily. You’re supposed to be able — in a context where one can live happily, and part of what an individual needs for that happiness is to have a partner — to have a fulfilling, romantic and sexual relationship. And the only options are women.
But an Amazon doesn’t look at another Amazon and say, “You’re gay.” They don’t. The concept doesn’t exist.
Now, are we saying Diana has been in love and had relationships with other women? As Nicola and I approach it, the answer is obviously yes.
And it needs to be yes for a number of reasons. But perhaps foremost among them is, if no, then she leaves paradise only because of a potential romantic relationship with Steve [Trevor]. And that diminishes her character. It would hurt the character and take away her heroism.
Have to say, I do like that he asked how they were defining queer in context, just to make certain!
The whole "being gay does not exist in the sense we mean it" bit in another context would irritate me, but I can see in the context of the Amazons of Themiscriya, where millennia of an entirely female, immortal population would alter one's perceptions of relationship, it's a valid comment.
Your thoughts and opinions?
