In “1954: Censorship and Queer Readings” by Will Brooker, Brooker illustrates the importance of Batman and Robin’s relationship being seen from more than one perspective. Brooker says, “While there is no ‘correct’ way to see this relationship, it can feasibly be read as ‘gay’” (108). I can completely understand the context where readers interpret Batman and Robin’s relationship to be gay but I also can see the other side as well. It seems as if Batman and Robin share a father-son relationship but after going over some particular instances within the different comics, Brooker illustrates how it can be interpreted as a homosexual relationship. It seems very unlikely that an older man would stay with a young boy as he grows up which is why they made Robin go to college to rid the comics of being viewed as two older men living together. More specifically, Brooker emphasizes, “The critics who attempt to ‘prove’ that Batman is heterosexual are doing the character a disservice by denying his availability to multiple readings; their denials seek to make Batman a far more boring cultural icon than he really is” (127). This view really interested me because I would have never thought of Batman being seen as homosexual or heterosexual would contribute to him as an icon. Now after reading this article, I have a better understanding of why depicting Batman as one or the other can be considered a disservice to him being an icon. Everything is interpreted differently through the eyes of the reader which makes the interpretations of Batman to vary.
What made many believe that Bruce and Dick were lovers was the fact that they fought crime and then went home together and shared meals. From that view, I can understand why people see it as them having a homosexual relationship because they’re living together. I agree with Brooker when he says, “Attempting to deny and censor the ‘gay Batman’ only made this interpretation more visible; accepting it, and drawing it into the mainstream portrayal of the hero as one facet of his complex cultural persona, can only make the Batman more rounded as a fictional character and richer as a popular icon” (169). Nobody really knows if Batman is intended to be viewed as heterosexual or homosexual which makes him an interesting superhero. He provides the reader with multiple interpretations based on what they see and read.
In “Batman, Deviance and Camp” by Andy Medhurst, Medhurst explains how Dick Grayson was sent off to college because Batman and Robin’s relationship was no longer seen as being a father-son relationship. He also says, “To avoid being thought queer by Wertham, Bruce and Dick should have done the following: never show concern if the other is hurt, live in a shack, only have ugly flowers in small vases, call the butler ‘Chip’ or ‘Joe’ if you have to have one at all, never share a couch, keep your collar buttoned up, keep your jacket on, and never, ever wear a dressing gown” (151). I found this to be comical considering they can’t do anything normal for fear of being seen as queer. It’s unfortunate that people associate everyday things to having to be in a homosexual relationship. Although it’s possible that they were, Medhurst points out the obvious which is anything they can do can be interpreted differently and seen as just another thing that proves they are in a relationship.
In the “Draped Crusaders: Disrobing Gender in The Mark of Zorro” by Catherine Williamson, Williamson says, “The “secret identity” trope reminds me of two often times related but not interchangeable phenomena, drag and the closet: drag: because of the way superheroes use clothing and performance to signify an ironic relationship between gender and sex; the closet because of the way secrecy and silence permeate all corners of superhero characterization, including—and especially—sexuality” (3). Williamson’s article interested me because I found it to be very informative especially about clothing and the secrecy behind superheroes identities. It never dawned on me that secret identities can be seen as hiding their sexuality as well. Although this may not be the case in every comic, the significance of changing into a costume and changing their name’s does make me curious as to what else they could be hiding or trying to keep a secret.
In “Secret Skin” by Michael Chabon, Chabon illustrates how superheroes, “… excel because they cannot help it, or because it would be wrong not to, or because they need to prove their worth, or to exonerate themselves, or to repay the debt they feel to society, their parents, the wizard in a subway tunnel who endowed them with magic might” (15). Superheroes all have a purpose to fight crime for a reason which is what makes each of them different from one another. For instance, Batman fights for justice because his parents were murdered by criminals. Chabon interestingly points out, “A superhero’s costume is constructed not of fabric, foam rubber or adamantium but of halftone dots, pantone color values, inked containment lines, and all the cartoonist’s sleight of hand. The superhero costume as drawn disdains the customary relationship in the fashion world between sketch and garment. It makes no suggestions. It has no agenda” (18). The costume isn’t even really a costume, it’s a figment of an artist’s imagination. It’s not intended to suggest anything or have an agenda like the characters wearing the costume. The costume is simply meant to conceal the identity of the superhero but Chabon points out how the costume also gives away the identity of some superheroes by containing secret narratives. I never realized but Chabon illustrated how the S on Superman’s chest doesn’t stand for Superman but instead is “coat of arms of the ancient Kryptonian House of El” (21).
What made many believe that Bruce and Dick were lovers was the fact that they fought crime and then went home together and shared meals. From that view, I can understand why people see it as them having a homosexual relationship because they’re living together. I agree with Brooker when he says, “Attempting to deny and censor the ‘gay Batman’ only made this interpretation more visible; accepting it, and drawing it into the mainstream portrayal of the hero as one facet of his complex cultural persona, can only make the Batman more rounded as a fictional character and richer as a popular icon” (169). Nobody really knows if Batman is intended to be viewed as heterosexual or homosexual which makes him an interesting superhero. He provides the reader with multiple interpretations based on what they see and read.
In “Batman, Deviance and Camp” by Andy Medhurst, Medhurst explains how Dick Grayson was sent off to college because Batman and Robin’s relationship was no longer seen as being a father-son relationship. He also says, “To avoid being thought queer by Wertham, Bruce and Dick should have done the following: never show concern if the other is hurt, live in a shack, only have ugly flowers in small vases, call the butler ‘Chip’ or ‘Joe’ if you have to have one at all, never share a couch, keep your collar buttoned up, keep your jacket on, and never, ever wear a dressing gown” (151). I found this to be comical considering they can’t do anything normal for fear of being seen as queer. It’s unfortunate that people associate everyday things to having to be in a homosexual relationship. Although it’s possible that they were, Medhurst points out the obvious which is anything they can do can be interpreted differently and seen as just another thing that proves they are in a relationship.
In the “Draped Crusaders: Disrobing Gender in The Mark of Zorro” by Catherine Williamson, Williamson says, “The “secret identity” trope reminds me of two often times related but not interchangeable phenomena, drag and the closet: drag: because of the way superheroes use clothing and performance to signify an ironic relationship between gender and sex; the closet because of the way secrecy and silence permeate all corners of superhero characterization, including—and especially—sexuality” (3). Williamson’s article interested me because I found it to be very informative especially about clothing and the secrecy behind superheroes identities. It never dawned on me that secret identities can be seen as hiding their sexuality as well. Although this may not be the case in every comic, the significance of changing into a costume and changing their name’s does make me curious as to what else they could be hiding or trying to keep a secret.
In “Secret Skin” by Michael Chabon, Chabon illustrates how superheroes, “… excel because they cannot help it, or because it would be wrong not to, or because they need to prove their worth, or to exonerate themselves, or to repay the debt they feel to society, their parents, the wizard in a subway tunnel who endowed them with magic might” (15). Superheroes all have a purpose to fight crime for a reason which is what makes each of them different from one another. For instance, Batman fights for justice because his parents were murdered by criminals. Chabon interestingly points out, “A superhero’s costume is constructed not of fabric, foam rubber or adamantium but of halftone dots, pantone color values, inked containment lines, and all the cartoonist’s sleight of hand. The superhero costume as drawn disdains the customary relationship in the fashion world between sketch and garment. It makes no suggestions. It has no agenda” (18). The costume isn’t even really a costume, it’s a figment of an artist’s imagination. It’s not intended to suggest anything or have an agenda like the characters wearing the costume. The costume is simply meant to conceal the identity of the superhero but Chabon points out how the costume also gives away the identity of some superheroes by containing secret narratives. I never realized but Chabon illustrated how the S on Superman’s chest doesn’t stand for Superman but instead is “coat of arms of the ancient Kryptonian House of El” (21).