The Queer Crusader

Batman and Robin kissing, as realized by Mark Chamberlain.

This is an item from late April, but I think it’s so good that I’m going to throw it up now:

Prompted by writer Grant Morrison’s assertion that “Gayness is built into Batman. … Batman is very, very gay. There’s just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he’s intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay.”; Comics Alliance writer Andrew Wheeler put together this barnburner of a post, giving context and explanation in defense of Morrison’s words.  There are pretty great tidbits in it:

When we talk about Batman’s gayness, we talk about presentation and perception. Writers as diverse as Bill Finger, Alan Grant, Devin Grayson and Frank Miller have all said that Batman is not gay; but they have all been asked the question. It’s not a question that generally gets asked about other heroes, but in the public imagination it’s one of the first questions asked about Batman. Psychologist Travis Langley, who co-wrote a book on the psychology of Batman, says it’s the question he was asked most often when he told people what he was working on.

and, after establishing Batman’s popularity among closeted gay men in the 1940’s:

We reject or deride the sexualization of Batman’s relationship with Robin precisely because of the worrying implications of eroticizing Robin, but that reading takes the roots of Batman’s gayness in the wrong direction. For gay readers in the 1940s, the introduction of Robin to Detective Comics did not sexualize Robin; it sexualized Batman. It created what Wertham called “a wish dream of two homosexuals living together,” a visible idealization of a same-sex relationship in an era when homosexuality had no mainstream recognition. The gayness of Batman was not just a joke about sidekicks, it was a scrap of identification for a starved gay audience. Robin established Batman as an early totem for a nascent and repressed gay subculture.

I think this is spot-on (though take a look at the original article’s comments to find plenty that disagree). A little over a year ago, in a post on Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog, I made this comment:

I have nothing to contribute regarding In Memorium, however I do identify with l robert’s observation that “We each have a natural instinct to claim that love as “our own” in some way.”

Consider the great discrepancy between how heterosexual and homosexual relationships are modeled in the culture. Kids are exposed to normative models of heterosexual relationships constantly. Many are never exposed to homosexual relationships at all. Thus a young gay person’s understanding of themself goes hand in hand with an understanding that they are outside the mainstream.

That may seem like Queer 101, but it’s important to keep this in mind because I think it produces a (perhaps lifelong) hunger for representations of people like you in the relationships you want to be in. And because those themes have only been written about openly in Western culture in the past couple of hundred years, a lot of borrowing goes on.

Forgive the self-plagiarism, but I think the point stands. Please, read the Comics Alliance post.

postscript

in looking for a picture, I came across this:

also this Wikipedia page: Homosexuality in the Batman franchise.

Samuel Barber

Reed’s chamber choir is doing the Samuel Barber choral song set “Reincarnations” this semester. I had heard the pieces last year at the Chanticleer concert I blogged about last year. At the time, it didn’t make much of an impression on me, but as I have been listening to the pieces these past couple of days, I’m appreciating how good they are, and exactly why I love Samuel Barber’s music (it must be said that I think one of the reasons I didn’t think much of the piece at the time was that Chanticleer is an all male chorus. I really think that something in the piece is lost when there aren’t sopranos screeching in the ether.).

I’ve always found vertical harmony more interesting than voice leading. I guess there’s something to be said for the idea that those two things cannot be separated, but one of my favorite things about the late Romantic period and 1930’s-50’s Americana is the big, meaty, interesting chords they use and the sudden changes in tonality they bring. I sometimes wonder if that perspective is an artifact of my immersion in rock and pop right as I gained critical maturity. Barber’s use of vertical harmony is always interesting. His most famous piece, Adagio for Strings is basically just beautiful chords moving from one to another.

Barber also makes me think about what it means to be a genius. I’m taking a class on Minimalism right now, and one of my teacher’s favorite aphorisms is that, “All great composers have been avant-garde.” Barber was never really avant-garde. His music used all of the techniques available of the time (according to Wikipedia, he even wrote some atonal music late in his career) but he was never known for pushing the boundaries of the tonality of his time. He worked in traditional genres and orchestration arrangements. And yet, I think some of his music is truly sublime, and near-perfect. Now, it’s possible that it’s just too early to say that Barber will be remembered by music history. It’s also true that he is probebly not the first name that pops up in someone’s head when talking about 20th century composers. But I do think that to ignore him becuase he wasn’t avant-garde would be a mistake, because his music is well crafted, unique, and genuine.

This is a little bit of a non sequiter, but that last idea reminded me of an article that I once read somewhere that framed the conflict between Schoenberg-style serialism and Coplandesque simplicity as one between straights and gays. Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Berg, all straight. Barber, Copland, Berenstein, huge queens. It’s not a serious argument, but sometimes I wonder if that delicacy and sensitivity to aesthetics found in their music is a wierd expression of the person. Probebly not. There were/are gay serialists, and the whole idea rests on stereotypes. Still, I wonder if my aesthetic preferences have something to do with the way that they wrote their music.

*The CD that the above YouTube video steals from is The Dale Warland Singer’s Reincarnations, which is top notch. I cannot reccomed it highly enough. I would have embedded the other pieces in the set, however they are not all available on YouTube, and the live versions there are a little inconsistent. Here’s the two other pieces in renditions that are not too bad:

Reincarnations I: Mary Hynes

II: The Coolin’