Everyway I look, there’s articles about Superman being gay, or all this subtext about him being gay.
WTF?
When the hëll did this happen? Are these people all stupid or something.
BATMAN is gay.
Superman was the one who was a symbol of totalitarianism. Batman was the one who was the gay icon, hanging out in his mansion, wearing lounging pajamas or a smoking jacket and having fun with Ðìçk. For a while there Bruce Wayne was so synonymous with homosexuality that the very name “Bruce” had gay connotations (“Match Game” always used “Bruce” to convey gay guys in their questions, and the network insisted Bruce Banner’s name be changed to David Banner for the Hulk TV series.)
But when “Batman Begins” came out, there was no discussion of whether Bruce Wayne was gay. I didn’t see any articles along those lines; certainly not in the mainstream media, which is where I’m seeing it everywhere. I guess when you dress in black leather and scare the crap out of people, you’re just too butch to have anyone question your sexuality. But poor Clark…suddenly he’s a gay icon.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
PAD
• 
What I find interesting is that for many people, the definition of “gay” is some very amorphous, impossible to define sort of thing, being “gay” is a set of vague, subjective characteristics i.e. a muscular body and a penchant towards bright color schemes, and not at all “being sexually attracted to other persons of the same gender”. The character Clark Kent/Superman is obviously a heterosexual male who is attracted to women, and in fact, happilly married to one. But that doesn’t matter. He’s still “gay” because he meets some of these aforementioned vague criteria.
Superman’s cultural appeal is universal, he can stand for a lot of different things, if gay fans can see their experiences reflected in him as a character, I think that’s a very positive thing, but I also think everyone should see a bit of themselves in him. He is the best of what we are, what we *all* are, truth, justice and the uh…you know…all that stuff.
Those five years Superman was away were spent on on some Studio 54-style ultra-hedonistic planet.
Or… maybe not. It was just a thought.
It probably has more than a little to do with Singer’s homosexuality and Kevin Spacey’s rumored homosexuality. There was talk when Singer signed Routh that he did it because Routh was gay and was going to come out when the movie came out, some conspiracy theory bûllšhìŧ. But that hasn’t happened yet. Maybe they’re waiting for the opening numbers.:D
Sometimes people feel that they need to claim things for themselves. I saw an article once talking about how some gay people like to consider Spongebob Squarepants a gay icon because he’s so happy and lively. Sometimes they say that they’re trying to build their own culture. Sometimes they just want to make homosexuality seem like it is more normal by identifying it with common, American things.
In general, I think it’s an understandable practice. It’s not really a “gay” tendency at all. It’s just people trying to identify things they like with themselves.
In the case of Superman, it started with one particular gay magazine. They saw that Bryan Singer was gay. They heard his comment about much of the movie being from a feminine point of view, and then they ignored the fact that he was referring to Lois Lane. They used those facts to support an article about Superman being kinda gay in the new movie. Then other media jumped on it.
A little overzealous on that particular magazine’s part, I would say.
I have to agree with Coyote, my first thought was it was more to do with Singer’s involvement. I also seem to remember seeing a new trading card for the movie showing Clark changing into Superman as he emerged from a broom closet- I’m not sure if it was a real card or something the news people cobbled together, but regardless, it must have been a slow news day.
And in the interest of fairness Peter, don’t forget Wonder Woman in this discussion. After all, if it was good enough for the good Doctor Wertham…
“The Advocate” was the name of the magazine. I didn’t remember off the top of my head and had to look around the internet to find the name.
I’m not sure there weren’t any rumblings and rumors before their article, but I think they’re the ones who really got the press going about this.
I remember when “Bruce” was a shorthand for gay, but I question whether it came from the Batman connection. I’m not saying it’s definitely didn’t, though.
I do have the following factoid in my head, which also may or may not be true: the name “Clark” was picked for Superman’s secret ID because, in the late 1930s, it was a macho name, because of the biggest movie star of time, Clark Gable. Clark Kent, singlehandedly, over a period of decades, wussed up the name.
Wow… won’t they use just about anything to promote anything nowadays. I think there may be an element of closet stereotyping in whatever PAD was reading in that all us lads who read “men in tights” during our formative days must surely have been gay?? Good of you to bring the issue ‘out’ here.
Can’t wait to see the film when it ‘comes out’ in the UK
I am reminded of a Mad Magazine parody of the movie Superman II.
In the parody, when General Zod asks the President (at least I think it was the President) about Superman, the President tells him he “wears a cape” and “isn’t like other men.”
Zod replies, “Ah, yes, on Krypton we also have a gay rights movement.”
Mr. David,
Why do you say that Superman was a symbol of totalitarianism?!?!?!
I’m not critcizing your comment; I’m just curious.
HJ
People seem to assume Superman is gay since Brian Singer is gay.
This, of course, makes perfect sense. After all, PAD is able to turn green and rampage (Hulk), previously liberated his entire culture (M’Knzy Calhoun) and can make multiple copies of himself (Madrox). Actually, the last one makes sense, how the hëll else does he get all this stuff written?
// Why do you say that Superman was a symbol of totalitarianism?!?!?!
I’m not critcizing your comment; I’m just curious.
//
Seduction of the Innocent,(which PAD was referecing), was the origin of the Batman/gay rumors. In that book Superman was also stated to be symbol of totalitarianiam.
1Eh, I am so tired of this crap. Let sleeping dogs lie. I want to say I hate that you had to cancel HeroesCon. I was planning on getting at least my Hulk The End signed and if you would have let me, get the story Five Minutes, from the real Ultimate Spider-Man signed. That is such a great story. Who says that a married Spidey has no great tales to tell? Oh yeah……
Back to Batman gay, Superman gay. Batman Begins is more fetish is it not, or was that the last franchise of movies.
You are one of my favorite writers, keep giving us comics and novels. You are a storyteller extrodinaire!
“I remember when “Bruce” was a shorthand for gay, but I question whether it came from the Batman connection.”
I don’t think PAD was suggesting that Batman started that, just that he’s been on the receiving end of the association.
“Clark Kent, singlehandedly, over a period of decades, wussed up the name.”
I’ve never noticed people thinking that the name Clark was wussy. Just old fashioned. That happens to most names. There a name chart on the internet that shows name popularity over the last hundred years. The name “Velma” was actually hugely popular almost a century ago. Lots of names hit a height of popularity, then get unpopular as they’re overused.
Celebrity names like “Clark” are especially prone to this. Few people name their kids “Elvis” anymore either. So “Clark” would have been old fashioned (or wussy, if you prefer) by now even without Superman.
Superman *did* used to be about totalitarianism. He originally was a lot more political. Jerry Siegel thought that a lot of wars were started so that the leaders could make a profit. He wrote stories where Superman went to countries that were doing that and defeated their leaders. Superman was essentially the ultimate father figure, making sure that everyone did the right thing, or else.
Superman also had a tendency to humiliate people. If a con man was tricking greedy rich people, Superman didn’t just stop the con. He’d build a whole fake Metropolis as part of an elaborate hoax to make the rich people feel bad about being greedy enough to fall for the con.
I actually think it would be fun for Superman to get back to that. Make the mayor of Metropolis a crooked politician who gets under Supe’s skin. Supes gets so annoyed by the guy that he goes the extra mile. He doesn’t just stop the money laundering sceme, he publicly humiliates the crooked mayor in elaborate ways that only Superman could pull off.
I am reminded of a Mad Magazine parody of the movie Superman II.
I remember that one. I’m also reminded of the MAD parody of the Incredible Hulk TV series, which mentioned the whole Banner’s name change issue Peter referenced. “So why’d they change it to David?” “Well, the producers thought the name Bruce wasn’t manly enough.” Meanwhile, over a radio you can hear the announcer talking about Bruce Jenner winning the decathlon. “And that’s official: Bruce is the world’s greatest athlete!!”
TWL
That’s kind of funny considering I’ve read 4 articles comparing him to Jesus Christ.. so PAD sees articles about him being gay and I’ve seen him compared to the messiah.. WTF does that end up meaning. I think mass media and the internet have just given voice to a lot of really jacked up people who wouldn’t have had a voice a few years ago .. when it was harder to get things into print.
What a silly, bored society we live in today. Just makes me laugh thinking about it.
Before our sexual appetites kick in when we’re young, and after they subside when we get old, aren’t we all at least a little bit fággÿ?
The slash fangirl in my household suggests a lot of it may come from Smallville, where Clark/Lex subtext was sufficiently blatant that you basically couldn’t avoid it.
Dav2.718
It’s because of Smallville. It set up a whole Clark/Lex dynamic that even my DAD saw when he watched some of it.
// Superman *did* used to be about totalitarianism. He originally was a lot more political. Jerry Siegel thought that a lot of wars were started so that the leaders could make a profit. He wrote stories where Superman went to countries that were doing that and defeated their leaders. Superman was essentially the ultimate father figure, making sure that everyone did the right thing, or else.
Superman also had a tendency to humiliate people. If a con man was tricking greedy rich people, Superman didn’t just stop the con. He’d build a whole fake Metropolis as part of an elaborate hoax to make the rich people feel bad about being greedy enough to fall for the con.
I actually think it would be fun for Superman to get back to that. Make the mayor of Metropolis a crooked politician who gets under Supe’s skin. Supes gets so annoyed by the guy that he goes the extra mile. He doesn’t just stop the money laundering sceme, he publicly humiliates the crooked mayor in elaborate ways that only Superman could pull off. //
I agree with you it would be nice to have Supes go back to the golden age, where he would tear down a rotten tenament to force a corrupt landlord to build a new one, but I don’t think the original Superman was about totalitarianism so much as it was about childhood wish fufillment. All those things you mention, plus many more you didn’t, weren’t about being a father figure, there were a childs way or looking at the world. Bad people starting a war, go beat up the bad people, bad people taking advantage of old people, give them a taste of thier own medicine. it’s a simpltic black and white world view, specificlly a teenage boys world view. Not surprising that Supes was created by two teenage boys.
// The slash fangirl in my household suggests a lot of it may come from Smallville, where Clark/Lex subtext was sufficiently blatant that you basically couldn’t avoid it. //
More evidience that our society is more homophobic then it use to be, (not less). Once upon a time in pop culture two male characters could be very close friends and no one would even consider they might be more then that, (no one though that there was a “subtext” to the Lone Ranger and Tonto for instance, or even Batman and Robin for that matter until Seduction of the Innocent brought it up, after which it became like pink elephants, try as you might you couldn’t help but think it), nowadays it’s the first thing anyone thinks of.
It’s pretty much impossible to do any fiction with 2 male characters who are close friends these days without someone yelling “gay subtext”.
Personally I find it offensive, but that’s just me.
I think that outside comic-dom, a lot of people DON’T make the “Batman loves Robin” leap (though the Schumaker films might have made a blip on the gaydar for them). The average person on the street wouldn’t know the name Frederic Wertham.
I’m curious to know whether you’d agree with my assertion in the column I’ve linked here: That the choice to make Batwoman a lesbian was because of her alleged origins as a “beard” for Batman back in the wake of Wertham’s congressional testimony … sorta DC’s people getting the last laugh five decades later.
I’ve got to disagree with Darren Hudak on one thing, though: I seem to recall Lenny Bruce having a routine that suggested something between the Lone Ranger and Tonto.
I think that since the director is gay himself, we should let HIm comment and dammit, take his word for it! Puh-leeze.
From Bob Tourtellotte’s article at Reuters:
What about all that gay Superman chatter? “He is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I’ve ever made,” director Singer told a group of reporters recently.
Hmm… and our most macho actors are names that were always considered to be wimpy:
Bruce Willis
Sylvester Stalone
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Try http://www.superdickery.com for some hilarious outtakes from silver age Supes and Bats comics, mostly of Superman behaving really badly to Lois
“Why do you say that Superman was a symbol of totalitarianism?!?!?!”
Just confirming what Darren already explained: Wertham in “Seduction of the Innocent” asserted that Superman was a figure of totalitarianism. And yes, he also had a few things to say about Wonder Woman, citing sexual bondage and such, although honestly: You look at some of those Golden Age Wonder Woman stories, you have to concede possible points on that one. If Joss Whedon’s script has the sort of bondage moments those tales did, the film’ll be rated “R.”
PAD
// I’ve got to disagree with Darren Hudak on one thing, though: I seem to recall Lenny Bruce having a routine that suggested something between the Lone Ranger and Tonto. //
By the time Bruce did that routine the Lone Ranger and Tonto had been around for over 20 years, were pop culture icons, and were never though of as “gay” anywhere else. Bruce served the same function for The Ranger and Tonto as Wertham did for Batman and Robin or Eddie Murphy would later do for Ralph Cramden and Ed Norton. And for better or worse, like that pink elephant once the suggestions there it’s hard not to think about it. (And the Lone Ranger and Tonto are hardly the only male friends in pop culture, popular culture of the 30’s, 40’s and 50′, even the early 60’s was filled with male friends who seemed to do everything together. Even when there were wives or girlfriends in the picture the guys seemed to spend more time with thier guy friends, (which Murphy obviously picked up on in his Honeymooners routine). It was far more common in popular fiction for two guys to have adventures together then for a guy and gal to have adventures.
It was only when the comman folk became more aware of “homosexuality” during the sexual revolution, (when homosexuality started to become more openly discussed) that people began to think that two guys hanging out all the time was a little strange.
It always struck me as society being more homophobic, not less. “Oh my God, he’s close friends with another guy, they must be gay”. A non homophobic society wouldn’t even notice or think about it.
“A non homophobic society wouldn’t even notice or think about it.”
Well, that society might be less homophobic, but also more represive. Instead of condemming the gay couple that moved in down the street, they’d just lynch them.
The slash fangirl in my household suggests a lot of it may come from Smallville, where Clark/Lex subtext was sufficiently blatant that you basically couldn’t avoid it.
Note to my husband, posted in public:
I told you so.
Here’s the article in question, on the publication’s own website. Even the claim that
…isn’t true. Singer is mentioned once, to bring up that his bring his gay sensibility may help Superman look attractive. Despite the “Is Superman gay?” cover blurb, the article is really “why do gay folks like superheroes?” All the other reaction seems to be from people who just read the cover.
My mistake. I read an article about the article, and I should have double checked the information.
However, it is *completely* reasonable to hold a magazine responsible for a cover blurb. The fact that they phrased it as a question does not completely absolve them of responsibility. That’s a common trick used by every extreme of media to sensationalise something without accountability.
The cover blurb set the tone for the article, whether the article was balanced or not. That’s sensationalist.
Just to be clear, the title was sensationalist, but it was sensationalist in an *extremely* common way. I don’t mean to imply that they were doing something worse than what tons of other magazines and news agencies do all the time.
Maybe they are trying to get the Brokeback Mountain crowd to show..
“I wish I could quit you!”
“Um.. Lex…”
“I wish I could quit you!”
“Um.. Lex…”
OK, *that’s* something I’d forgotten about completely.
PAD, there is one way that Superman has been fending off homosexuality rumors for years. The fact that Lex Luthor is an L.L., just like all Supes’ girlfriends. I have seen people try to make that connection in the past. One time someone even tried to tell me that it was an Oedepal thing, since his father was Jor-“El”.
***Posted by Peter David at June 25, 2006 10:45 PM
Just confirming what Darren already explained: Wertham in “Seduction of the Innocent” asserted that Superman was a figure of totalitarianism. And yes, he also had a few things to say about Wonder Woman, citing sexual bondage and such, although honestly: You look at some of those Golden Age Wonder Woman stories, you have to concede possible points on that one. If Joss Whedon’s script has the sort of bondage moments those tales did, the film’ll be rated “R.”
PAD***
I read a history of Wonder Woman on the web some time ago (unfortunately I don’t have the link handy) in a column dedicated to the history of comics, and this writer stated that the bondage elements in the original WW comics were deliberate. WW’s creator (whose name escapes me at the moment) was a staunch femenist who used those elements as a ‘cover’ for his real message of women’s rights. The idea was that the bondage art stuff caught and held the young teenage boys’ intrests while the writer slipped them the women’s rights ‘mickey’ in the story itself.
Chris
Yes, he was a staunch feminist. He also had a few other things going on, though.
The guy lived with his wife, their kids, another woman, and the kids he had with the other woman. He was a really odd duck. And he was into bondage. So Wonder Woman getting tied up was a metaphore women’s rights in some places, but sometimes it was just someone getting tied up because Moutlon liked people getting tied up.
…And William Moulton Marston, creator of Wonder Woman, also created one of the first polygraph machines — sorta like the golden lasso compelling people to tell the truth.
Didn’t his wife and the other woman also wear some sort of bracelets all the time?
I’ve only read that the other woman, Olive Byrne, wore “heavy silver Indian bracelets.”
By the way, Superdickery dot com has a great “Seduction of the Innocent” collection of covers. Lots of Batman, but also some really good Superman covers. There’s one where Superman is being ridden by a cowboy. There’s another where Superman is taking off his shirt to reveal his costume to a young boy in bed.
I find it interesting that a character created by two Jewish men has, for some, taken on a messianic subtext. Nothing that I’ve read indicates that Jerry Siegel and Joseph Shuster had Jesus in mind when they created Superman.
Amy Pederson, a doctoral student writing her thesis in art history on comic books, asserts that Siegel and Shuster patterned Superman’s backstory after the story of Moses, not Jesus. Here’s a link to a CNN article I found where she’s quoted about that:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/14/film.supermanchristfigure.ap/index.html
Also, I don’t think Superman as portrayed by his creators, Siegel and Shuster, represented totalitarianism. Quite the opposite: they told many stories in which Superman would defend the powerless by confronting people who abused their power. Granted, Superman would unilaterally find some way to force the powerful to mend their ways, but we are talking about heroic fiction aimed at kids.
Mr. David, Mr. Hudak and Mr. Bryant,
Thanks for the information; I really appreciate it. Now that you’ve pointed it out, I recall reading about “Seduction of the Innocent,” but I never bothered to learn much about it.
I wonder if anyone on this blog has actually read the book, or portions of it. I am both a comic book fan and person who believes almost rabidly in free speech, so I am actually thinking about trying to pick up a copy somewhere, just to read it out of morbid curiosity. Maybe it would be interesting for a comic book fan from a historical perspective.
If I may go off topic for just a moment, I just wanted to pass along a tip to Mr. David. I know that you named one of your daughters Ariel. W.H. Auden wrote a wonderful set of poems entitled “The Sea and the Mirror,” as an allegory to “The Tempest.” Poem I in the set is a rather beautiful ode to Ariel. If you (or your wife or Ariel) enjoy poetry, I strongly reccomend that you check it out.
HJ
// I find it interesting that a character created by two Jewish men has, for some, taken on a messianic subtext. Nothing that I’ve read indicates that Jerry Siegel and Joseph Shuster had Jesus in mind when they created Superman. //
The Jesus story has elements of Hercules and Moses in it, Siegel and Shuster were inspired by mythology of all sorts, It’s not really surprising that people see elements of the Christ story in there, even though the new testement may not have been a direct inspiration for his creation.
If people hadn’t thought of it before, the first movie with the “I gave them you, my only son” line really put it in people’s minds and the advertising campain for the current movie also has Christ like elements in it as well.
Well, I don’t think the messianic subtext (not to mention the more up-front aspects, like having worsipers) to Superman is so much in the sense of being a Jesus figure, but being perceived as a savior in his own right.
Of course, there IS the whole coming back from the dead thing. Of course, I don’t recall Jesus getting into a giant fistfight with Pilate that collapsed buildings all over Jerusalem, so the parallels are kinda scarce…
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Peter David at June 25
“Why do you say that Superman was a symbol of totalitarianism?!?!?!”
Just confirming what Darren already explained: Wertham in “Seduction of the Innocent” asserted that Superman was a figure of totalitarianism. And yes, he also had a few things to say about Wonder Woman, citing sexual bondage and such, although honestly: You look at some of those Golden Age Wonder Woman stories, you have to concede possible points on that one. If Joss Whedon’s script has the sort of bondage moments those tales did, the film’ll be rated “R.”
As has been pointed out, William Moulton Marston (a practicing psychologist, BTW, as was, i believe, his wife) who created Wonder Woman, was a fairly Odd Character himself, but i recall reading somewhere that the inclusion of fetishistic elements in the character (unlike some other characters) was intentional — marketing, in other words. (And that Wertham had a stopped clock moment when he talked about Wonder Woman.)
Posted by Hal Jordan at June 26
Thanks for the information; I really appreciate it. Now that you’ve pointed it out, I recall reading about “Seduction of the Innocent,” but I never bothered to learn much about it.
I wonder if anyone on this blog has actually read the book, or portions of it. I am both a comic book fan and person who believes almost rabidly in free speech, so I am actually thinking about trying to pick up a copy somewhere, just to read it out of morbid curiosity. Maybe it would be interesting for a comic book fan from a historical perspective.
I read it when i was in high school (which is long enough ago [a bit over forty years] that at that point in time the book’s publication was more recent than my reading of it is now, if that makes sense).
I thought it was laboured and incredibly wrong-headed, twisting “evidence” to “support” the good doctor’s pre-determined “conclusions”. (“Intelligent design”, anyone?)
Will Eisner, in one of my favourite “Spirit” stories (before Will or someone rewrote it radically for reprint, dammit) both parodied the EC comics that (among others) Wertham is attacking, and included a reference to “Doctor Wolfgang Worry, the school psychologist, conducting his weekly book-burning…”
Wertham, himself, includes a reprint of a comic cover showing a thief rifling a doctor’s office while the doctor, a caricature of Wertham, sits boumnd and elaborately gagged in the background.
Ironically, in the Seventies, Wertham wrote a book on fanzines, which he apparently approved of: …published by Southern Illinois University Press in 1974: The World of Fanzines: A Special Form of Communication. It wasn’t a hatchet job at all. Quite the opposite: it was a love letter to comics fandom. { href=”http://art-bin.com/art/awertham.html”>Fredric Wertham — Anti-Comics Crusader Who Turned Advocate by Dwight Decker}
The man was a wack job.
(Incidentally, if you can find a copy of Mell Lazarus’s hilarious novel The Boss is Crazy, Too, which is set [in the late Wertham period] in the bullpen of a comics-and-sleazy-men’s-magazine publishing company run by one “Fulton A. Fineman”, you should read it. It actually gives some real insight into the early days of the present comics industry…)
Posted by: Hal Jordan at June 26, 2006 05:03 AM
I wonder if anyone on this blog has actually read the book, or portions of it. I am both a comic book fan and person who believes almost rabidly in free speech, so I am actually thinking about trying to pick up a copy somewhere, just to read it out of morbid curiosity.
I read it as part of a research project I did in college. The book went out of print long ago, and I was lucky that my college’s library was able to get one through an inter-library loan. It’s not an easy book to find.
“It always struck me as society being more homophobic, not less. “Oh my God, he’s close friends with another guy, they must be gay”. A non homophobic society wouldn’t even notice or think about it.”
We’ve moved from a society that was so deep in the closet that people didn’t think of hosexuality so quickly, to one in which people see it everywhere. Unfortunatly, homosexuals, in their understandable search for icons and wanting to make fun of homophobes, are complicit in this attitude of hidden homosexuality and inuendos. It seems they’ve romantisized the closet and the act of coming out of the closet so much that they forgot that the idea was to get rid of the closet altogether.
It’s also a little unfair to Brian Singer, who is very clear both in his life and his work when he want’s to present a message about homosexuality. It is probably unfair to other writers too, for their characters to be conscripted to a cause against their intentions. Even if the cause itself is good.
On a historical note, in Classical Athens, in which homosexuality was considered not only acceptable but admirable, they tended to interpret the relationship of Achilles (Brad Pitt) and his friend Patrocles in the Illiad (written earlier) as homosexual, although the original story did reflect the same kind of society.
Massianic messages are a very common aspect of Western culture and western stories. Jews living in Christian society are affected by that often.
// Well, I don’t think the messianic subtext (not to mention the more up-front aspects, like having worsipers) to Superman is so much in the sense of being a Jesus figure, but being perceived as a savior in his own right. //
A savior with the power to perform miricles, (including coming back from the dead) sent to earth by his dad in the sky, and raised by an unassuming God fearing couple to go out and save the world, yeah there’s nothing in there that would make people think of the Jesus story.
// Of course, there IS the whole coming back from the dead thing. Of course, I don’t recall Jesus getting into a giant fistfight with Pilate that collapsed buildings all over Jerusalem, so the parallels are kinda scarce… //
No, but just think of how much more fun Sunday school would have been if that was in there.
“Of course, there IS the whole coming back from the dead thing. Of course, I don’t recall Jesus getting into a giant fistfight with Pilate that collapsed buildings all over Jerusalem, so the parallels are kinda scarce”
What about all the appocalypse stuff. Isn’t there some action in that part of the story.
1I don’t think I’ll be able to go see the new Superman movie, which really depresses me. I watch One Live To Live, and Brandon Routh was on there a few years ago as a character named Seth. Seth was an incredibly wishy washy whiny little boy that completely annoyed me. I was so glad when they got rid of that character. With apologies to Brandon Routh, I can’t see ads for Superman without thinking, “Aack! Seth!”
On an oddly related note, there’s a guy on OLTL right now that bears a striking resemblance to Christopher Reeve.
“Thanks for the information; I really appreciate it. Now that you’ve pointed it out, I recall reading about “Seduction of the Innocent,” but I never bothered to learn much about it.
I wonder if anyone on this blog has actually read the book, or portions of it.”
Yes, I read it. I was shocked by the lack of scientific methodology. He drew the most inflammatory conclusions based on piss-poor research and lack of evidence.
What it boiled down to was this: He interviewed juvenile delinquents. He discovered they read crime comics. His conclusion was that there was direct cause and effect–that reading the crime comics turned them into juvenile delinquents. Not that their violent nature attracted them TO violent comics. That the comics CAUSED the violent nature.
Unfortunately, it’s a mindset that continues to this day.
PAD