By [ad_1]
The Washington Post wrote another gushing take on the oh-so important bisexual son-of-Superman, Jon Kent, and got another statement by Tom Taylor, who had the gall to say:
“This was an opportunity to do something different, something not seen before. And to have this Superman represent people who haven’t been represented before and haven’t been able to see themselves in Superman,” said Tom Taylor, who writes the Jon Kent series, which is mostly illustrated by John Timms. “To pitch something like this [to DC] is a little bit daunting. You go, are they going to go with this? Because historically, I have had queer characters erased or rejected [at other publishers]. But there’s been a real shift, a really welcome shift in comics.”
What does he mean they’re unable to see themselves in Superman? According to his twisted vision, the Man of Steel must reflect LGBT ideology, it’s clear. Put another way, this seems to be Taylor’s idea of Aryan Superiority. Very sick. Basically, he wants to pander to people who otherwise would never read the Man of Steel to begin with. Which is not how to market stories.
Just as DC’s straight heroes aren’t defined by their sexuality, Taylor wants to make sure the same courtesy is given to DC’s new Superman. Which is why Jon and Jay kiss in the fifth issue, and not when the series debuted in July.
“First and foremost, I wanted to establish [Jon Kent] as Superman,” Taylor said. “I didn’t want the narrative to be DC Comics creates new [bisexual] Superman. I wanted it to [later] be Superman comes out, because … that is much more powerful. The next issue isn’t going to be some big speech about it. The kiss is just something that happens in the comic.”
Plus, this Superman is not just a champion for LGBTQ causes — earlier issues have included his activism on climate change and immigration.
I miss the parts about writing merit. All that matters to them is the political agenda platforms, which contradicts Taylor’s claim this “just happens”. Because if he could indulge in politically motivated storylines in one of the first issues, it’s a foregone conclusion it’ll happen again in later issues.
But now, here’s where EIC Marie Javins, in one of the few interviews I’ve seen her give to date, really lets know just how extreme her leftism really is:
DC Comics editor in chief Marie Javins has worked on Jon Kent’s story since she edited his debut — Dan Jurgens’s 2015 comic “Convergence: Superman No. 2.” She says it was a memorable day when DC Comics publisher Jim Lee took the news of their new Superman’s reveal to higher-ups at Warner Bros. and was greeted with nothing but support. It was the confirmation that this new direction made sense for a character that represents a generation that’s willing to be vocal in their beliefs.
“Gender and sexuality is so much more fluid to young people today. Our fans know that. Our retailers know that. Our staff knows that. It’s not like we’re all off in this little bubble and don’t know 20-year-olds,” Javins said. Jon Kent’s sexuality “makes perfect sense in the context of the world that he lives in.”
Superman’s shift is part of a larger attempt to diversify DC’s trinity, along with the new Brazilian Wonder Woman, Yara Flor, and the Black Batman, Jace Fox. Javin notes that it’s the biggest change in the threesome since the 1990s, when Superman famously died and was replaced with four others, and there were new takers for Batman and Wonder Woman as well. But whereas those newbies were temporary replacements, DC’s new trinity will build their legacies alongside the original real deals.
“It’s a great opportunity for us to reinvent the wheel without the destruction of the old wheel. We’re just building on stuff that already exists,” Javins said. “We still have our classic characters that everyone can read. And to me that’s really important. You don’t want to take someone who has been a certain person their whole lives and then imprint your own values on that character. You want to have new characters where it’s a more organic evolution of their personality.”
Yikes, so she buys into that horrific propaganda about sexuality hook, line and sinker. And maybe, most irritating of all, she’s using arguments already made by detractors to defend their direction, sanctioned predictably by the very conglomerate that should never have come to own the publisher, as they have for nearly 50 years so far. Sorry, but that’s no excuse for producing forced activism and propaganda, something Marvel practically did with the Marvel Knights Captain America series nearly two decades ago.
Besides, Javins is doing little more than lecturing us, and practically making it sound like gender/sexuality is nothing more than a “construct”, which seems to be a common belief being shoveled by the left today. And doesn’t building on what already exists confirm what’s gone wrong? Worst, she’ll no doubt resort to the classic defense that comics have “always been political”, without making distinctions between what’s good or bad. That’s precisely why it’s tasteless to build activist vehicles on what already exists, because it’s hijacking the franchises for the sake of narrow agendas. Let’s also remember they never abandoned the retcon to Alan Scott, the 1st Green Lantern, or his son Obsidian, which is exactly why Javins’ statements fall flat.
At least with this, we get an important idea what Javins is really like. A most truly awful ideologue, and a tragedy she’s now in charge of DC as the main editor. And the Superman franchise now joins only so many famous creations now tarnished by this terrible social justice propaganda. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster deserve far better.
Originally published here.
[ad_2]
