>If I, as a straight man, were to write about a "gay
cowboy", wouldn't it be nothing more that my own alienated
picture of what a gay person was? Wouldn't this still be
feeding into stereotyping?
Why? Can't a writer or artist depict something he's not? Obviously the idea that I can create only types that belong to groups I belong to leads to pomo absurdities -- if I had the talent, which I don't, could I write only about left wing straight male middle-aged Jewish midwestern ex-philosopher lawyers orginally from the South? Let people depict what they have the range and power to depict, whoever their creators may be.
And even if the picture is an "alienated picture" of what an X is, does that mean it's worthless? Tolstoi's picture of Natasha in W&P collapses, in the end, into a nightmare of antifeminist domesticity, as I see it. But that doesn't mean that T couldn't do women -- Natasha for most of W_P's 1500+ pages is great, and this is also the creator of Anna Karenina. Moreover, even Natasha's collapse depicts a certain female type (as well as a male image of women) that is worth understanding.
No one should compare Marvel comics with Tolstoi. Comic book characters are typically, well, comic book characters, not famous for deapth of subtlety, and should be judged by the appropriate standards. In that vein, if there's a moderately postive picture of a gay cowboy who may be a tad lavender, as long as that's shown to be normal and natural, what's yer beef?
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021216/1a3f52a8/attachment.htm>