The Four Color Media Monitor

No sooner did the news of Jim Shooter's passing come out, shortly afterwards, as this biased-looking Bleeding Cool article says, there's LGBT advocates tearing down on Shooter, accusing him of homophobia over the story he oversaw in the Rampaging Hulk title around 1980, involving 2 homosexual rapists threatening Bruce Banner at a YMCA club:

This week saw the passing of Jim Shooter, writer, artist, editor, publisher and Editor-In-Chief at Marvel, Valiant, Defiant and Broadway Comics. Among all the tributes made to the man and his impact on the comic book industry, caused it, as Bleeding Cool described it, to "grow up", there are plenty of anecdotes that swing all over the place regarding the man. And more often than not, as well as discussion about his rules, there using the word, "complicated". Former Marvel/DC writer, editor and gay activist, founder of the Gays In Comics panel at San Diego Comic-Con, and for years the most prominent out creator in mainstream comics, Andy Mangels picked up on that yesterday, posting to Facebook an article he wrote for Amazing Heroes about gay culture in comics back in the nineties, and then posting further;

"REGARDING JIM SHOOTER'S DEATH …
I'm seeing a lot of tributes, and a lot of them using the word "complicated." Well, I'll add one more word: Homophobic In Rampaging Hulk magazine in 1980, Shooter wrote a damning story about Bruce Banner almost being raped at the YMCA by two lisping, mincing, queens. So horrific was it that it made newspaper and magazine stories at the time (Advocate, Village Voice, and Omni among them). I later wrote about in Amazing Heroes #143-144 and again in The Advocate. Throughout the years, Shooter was alternately defensive, angry, and defensively angry about people's reactions to the blatantly awful story. On his blog (especially in the comments), he defended it, even against the words of gay ex-Marvel editor Roger Klorese."

I wonder if this same kind of despision strongly hinted at would've been seen if Shooter had published a story about lesbian rapists? Speaking of lesbians, you don't usually see this kind of fuss made about Mystique and Destiny, the 2 villainesses who led the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants during the 80s. Otherwise, they wouldn't have lasted beyond a few issues, if they even made it to the drawing board. That said, this Mangels sounds like quite an entitled ideologue who doesn't want to recognize that LGBT can do bad things, and that's what this story was about as explained in the following coming from his blog at the time. First, the query was asked:

"I would love to know more about was your involvement in The Hulk magazine #23, the story where Bruce Banner is nearly raped in a YMCA shower. From memory, the story was quite controversial and resulted in an outpouring of mostly negative letters that were published in the letters column for two issues. I would love to know what your inspiration to write the story was and the fallout that occurred afterwards."

Shooter's answer was:

"A friend of mine at the age of 15 — maybe 16, not sure — had been attacked in exactly the same way at the McBurney "Y," and escaped, as Banner did. That scene was a small bit, not by a longshot the focus of the story. I was a charter subscriber to New Woman Magazine, which had run a series of articles about rape, and in particular one about "Post Rape Syndrome." Many rape victims are in shock during the actual attack, almost numb and disbelieving. Their reactions — anger, horror, humiliation, the whole emotional gamut, often do not set in until afterward. I thought, what if, for once, Banner did not turn into the Hulk when it was convenient, but only afterwards, when the reactions set in, when it wasn't convenient. The bad guys, to me, were just that — bad guys. Marvel was an equal opportunity employer. Anyone could be a bad guy. It never occurred to me that a couple of bad guys could be interpreted as a sweeping indictment of gay people. As far as I know, we received a total of six letters regarding that issue, two positive, two neutral and two negative. I believe we printed all of them. I wrote personal replies to the negative ones. The comment I received that meant the most to me was Stan's. He was worried when he heard about the story. In particular, he was worried that it might offend the producers of the Hulk TV show. Then he read it. He called me (he was in LA) and said it was the best comics story he ever read. Stan, as you know, is prone to hyperbole, but clearly, he liked it. He also told me not to worry about the reactions, if any. He said he would stand by the story. So do I."

"There was spillover into a second issue's lettercol, comments on the comments. A reporter from the Advocate came to interview me. The first thing he asked was why Marvel was anti-gay. I said we weren't. Why then, he asked, didn't we have any gay characters? I said we had lots of them. He asked which ones. I said, "You can't tell, can you?" He folded up his notebook and left. And wrote the story he always intended to write anyway."

So, is there something inherently wrong with wanting to address the fact that homosexual rape exists? That's what these charlatans seem to be implying. Over here in Israel, there was a scandal involving a LGBT activist who was accused by at least 5 men of raping them, and the worst part is that the leftist district attorney refused to indict him, thus throwing his victims under the bus. In the ultra-Orthodox community, there was a scandal involving 2 once-revered - and now deceased-by-suicide - figures who it turned out had committed both heterosexual and homosexual rape. If Mr. Mangels believes it's unacceptable to make a point how nobody, no matter their sexual preferences, is incapable of committing heinous acts of sexual violence, then he's excusing those particular offenders too. What a disgrace. Here's what Bleeding Cool quoted from Mr. Klorese:

"In your recollections of the HULK story, you talk about your handling of the rape as based on a true incident, as if that somehow absolves you for responsibility for its effect. And you talk about the letters received as "two positive, two neutral, and two negative" — probably accurate, but oversimplified — and say "I believe we printed all of them. I wrote personal replies to the negative ones." There's the oversimplification. First, even accepting the rape as a value-neutral story point — which is not easy — you omit the fact that you portray the rapists as fag stereotypes, right down to the lisping "oh, pith." Second, at a time when there were few if any VISIBLE gay characters in mainstream comics, presenting rape as the ONLY same-sex sexual interaction is thoughtless at best. And as for your "you can't tell" witticism, that's the point. Saying that the "good" gay characters are the invisible ones, the ones who can't be seen with a same-sex partner behaving in as PG a manner as their opposite-sex-pairing peers, sends gay and questioning readers a hell of a message: hide who you are, that's how to be "good." If, of course, they even heard your hushed-up message. (Remember, this is the era in which we first saw Nightwing and Starfire in the sack — nobody was even asking for that, just a little discreet interaction on the order of the kids in the first few issues of YOUNG AVENGERS.)

"As for the letters: I wrote one of those, and I suppose you're counting it as negative, since you did reply — with basically a "my toys, my rules" response, to the effect of "I told my story — sorry you didn't like it." But as for the actual printed letter: I wrote a letter praising you for trying to write about more adult topics, but taking you to task for the specifics. Once Ralph Macchio got done with it — ironic that it should be Ralph, since Marv Wolfman called me just after Ralph was hired and told me he would have hired me for the gig had I not just gone back to college, but, hell, no complaints now! — what appeared was… the part of the letter praising your efforts. No criticism."

So in other words, what he was saying is that even if the story draws from a real life incident, it's still inherently wrong to address the subject? For shame. I realize there were times when Shooter came off sound like "it's everyone else's fault but mine", but this guy's doing no better. Shooter's reply was the following:

"When I wrote that scene, I wasn't thinking about "its effect" beyond the way it served the story and established critical things about Banner/Hulk that were germane. As I said, it never occurred to me that there was any "effect" to worry about. Clearly there was, and maybe I should have been more aware. Sorry. I portrayed the bad guys in that scene as they were described to me by my friend, call him MJ, with whom I was staying at the McBurney Y. He obviously didn't hear anyone say pith after he escaped. I originally wrote "piss." Worried about using that, I made it "pith." Lynn Graeme, the editor — I always had an editor — specifically mentioned that as being sardonically sinister, in character for that bad guy. So I left it. I'll concede now, in retrospect, that it was a bad idea. Sorry.

"When I wrote the story, I wasn't thinking about what was or wasn't going on in mainstream comics. I was thinking about that story. It didn't appear in "mainstream comics" anyway. It appeared in a Code-free magazine. I didn't ponder what was going on in mainstream magazines, either. I was just trying to write a good story based on experiences I was close to. I wish I had been smarter, wiser, more conscious of what that little bit might mean in the great context of comics publishing, but I wasn't. The preceeding sentence was not written in a snarky way. I mean it. I wasn't as aware as I should have been, or someone better prepared than me might have been. But I was younger then, and so was the world. That's the only excuse I can offer. Sorry. As for my "You can't tell…" witicism, as you call it, the point is that I knew the guy was going to write his article as he did. It wasn't an interview. It was a fishing expedition to see if he could get me to say something damning he could use. My "witicism" made it clear I wasn't going to, so he left. You missed the point. I think it's quite a leap to say that I was sending a "hide who you are message" in a statement that wasn't made publicly. "If, of course, they even heard your hushed-up message." Well, it wasn't a message. There was no message I was sending, except, I suppose, to the Advocate reporter that he wasn't going to get what he wanted out of me. I'm guessing he wanted an Al Campanis style meltdown. And if you're talking about a message that you think I'm trying to send now by quoting that "witicism…." Come on. Here in the 21st Century? Really? You are correct that most mainstream American comics were still just beginning to deal with sex at all in any way more deeply than seen on I Love Lucy. At first, we mostly weren't very good at dealing with sex of any kind in a more sophisticated, mature, wiser way. I thought the first few attempts at gay relationships done in comics were clumsy and heavy-handed. Slowly, I think, we have improved."

"I told my story. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I wish I had it back to do over again and make it better. For that matter, I wish I had every story I've ever written back to do over and do better. Nonetheless, as I said, I stand by that story. I think it's a good story. Remember, the attack at the "Y" was a bit. The story was not about that bit. I didn't know your letter was truncated. Sorry. Here's a question: would you feel differently about the story if it came out now, at a time when gay relationships spanning the spectrum of the human condition from wonderful to otherwise, are frequently portrayed on mainstream media? Just one more thing: Never, when this subject has been raised has anyone expressed any concern for or interest in the real-life victim. Never a "was he hurt?" or a "that must have been terrifying," or a "was he traumatized?" Does no one care? I have made plenty of faulty judgments in my life, some of them in the Hulk story in question. I bet you've made a few, too. I can assure you of this: There was no malice, no prejudice and no ill-intent."

From what I can tell, if Shooter was apologizing for anything, it was changing a crude word to something he thought less crude. That's probably the only thing to be dismayed at. But with that noted, if a Moslem had published a story deemed anti-gay, would Mr. Mangels and Klorese have kept quiet, in sharp contrast to this case? Sadly, the chance of that is quite likely, so what's their point? No wonder the whole appalling idea of "classicism" has become so common. But, as is also noted in the article, when Shooter oversaw the Valiant brand, there were stories involving gay characters. Seriously, did he have to go to such lengths just to "prove" he's not what they accused him of? Nope.

And on that note, there's also this puff piece, which as some may realize, is bound to be "clickbait", something Bleeding Cool's writers certainly seem to love doing, but if true, suggests Shooter regrettably wasn't above doing something icky:

In 2007, the late Jim Shooter returned to DC Comics to write the Legion of Super-Heroes again, after 31 years. However, the run was heavily edited and truncated, with the final issue having no declared writer, just Jim Shooter saying it wasn't his draft that was published. Years later, he would run his original pitch document. And in the light of certain statements made about Shooter on his passing, it is interesting to see that one of the scenes cut by DC Comics from his final issues would have established the Legionnaire Invisible Kid, usually portrayed as a young man, as a trans woman.

The Invisible Kid, Lyle Norg, was originally created by Jerry Siegel and Jim Mooney for Action Comics #267 in 1960. Jim Shooter originally wrote the character back then along with the rest of the Legion, the character was revealed to be gay in the backmatter decades later, in a relationship with Condo Arlik, Chemical King, but never really followed up on the page.

It's just like a shoddy writer of Rich Johnston's sort to use illogical language like "reveal" instead of "established" or "canonized" in description of a fictional character. And just like him to insult the memory of Superman's co-creator for the sake of this puff piece. Johnston presents the following allegedly from a pitch/draft about Invisible Kid, which says:

"Invisible Kid's new body is really new—he is now a she!!! A girl! And a hot one at that! IK arranged with B-5 to borrow gender factors from, um another encoding to change him. The outside, the sheathe of flesh is different, but the inside, IK's essence/mind/spirit, whatever, is as it always was. And now, the outside matches the inside better. Call her Stealth or Covert. She looks sort of like…a lot like Gazelle.

Now, I don't know if this is the real deal when it comes to script pitches and drafts, but this is still as embarrassing as it sounds. And lest we forget, Shooter, as noted before, once made a condescending remark about Dream Girl, in example. So, coupled with all the above, it wouldn't be surprising if he really was willing to pander to the perverse, sadly enough. Just because this is sci-fi, that makes it instantly acceptable? Nope.

Now, if we were to bring up something more positive about Shooter, here's what writer D.G. Chichester had to say about his experiences:

Jim always treated me graciously and professionally. His sense of humor stood out, too. When everyone at Marvel were learning to juggle, I noticed Jim’s fumbling efforts and suggested “Juggling for the Complete Klutz” — earning a priceless look from Archie Goodwin but laughter from Jim himself. Two particular professional interactions with Jim were especially meaningful. When I finished that spring stint at Marvel, I would be going home for summer since I had another job lined up and still had schooling to finish at NYU. During that spring fling, among my other tasks I had I’d taken on some grunt editorial work on Bernie Wrightson’s graphic novel Hooky: a Spider-Man meets monster riff. [...]

That summer, out of the blue, I received a bonus check for that additional work signed by Jim Shooter. Whether via Lynn or Jim himself, there was recognition that I’d gone above and beyond. That few hundred dollars meant a lot at that point and warmed me up to Marvel even more when they later extended an offer for me to return in the fall as an assistant editor at Epic.

From what Chichester says further, it sounds like the New World acquisition put the kibosh on the possibility he could get the job, since they undoubtably were responsible for Shooter's dismissal. And to be sure, it can be validly argued whether being bought by what was then a corporate owned studio hurt Marvel more than helped, even though it was actually years later when they were bought by Disney that things began to go even more south than before. This is definitely also the situation with DC as owned by Time Warner today.

As I said before, of course Shooter was bound to have been a divisive figure. But no less troubling are ideologues who feel entitled to properties they didn't create, and if Stan Lee was willing to stand behind Shooter on his Rampaging Hulk storyline, one must rightfully wonder if they're already turning against him too. But then, isn't that why they'd do well to stop obsessing themselves over companies and characters they didn't create, if they don't like the way they were originally structured? I think it's high time some common sense sunk in.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of LGBT, history, Hulk, Legion of Super-Heroes, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, msm propaganda, politics, violence