superhero for gays

A Superhero for Gays?:

Gay Masculinity and

Green LanternValerie Palmer-Mehta and Kellie Hay

When I was a kid reading comics, I used tosometimes think ‘‘they saved the mother andkid from the falling building, but would theyrescue me if they knew I was a fag?’’ I nowhave an answer for that. (Letter 17)

The US comic book industry has addressed anumber of pressing social and political issues in itsnarratives through the years, including alcoholand drug abuse, racism, environmental devasta-tion, gun control, and poverty. In the process, theindustry has provided a rich tapestry of Americancultural attitudes and philosophies that reflectvarying approaches to issues that continue tohaunt, confound, and rile the American public.With its pulse on issues relevant to US publicculture, it is not surprising that the complexitiesof gay identity and antigay hate crimes have beenincreasingly explored by industry leaders, DC andMarvel Comics, since the late 1980s. While thereare many comic book companies, DC Comics andMarvel Comics are consistently the nation’s toptwo comic book producers, controlling approxi-mately 60% of the market (McAllister 19). Thesetwo leaders in the field have introduced variousgay and lesbian characters in their mainstreamcomic books since 1988, most of them in minorroles (Franklin 224). In 2001, the long-standingcomic book Green Lantern, reaching approxi-mately 65,000 readers every month, introduceda well-adjusted, proudly out central character,

Terry Berg, in its issue #137. The issue won anaward from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance AgainstDefamation (GLAAD) for being the year’s bestcomic book. DC Comics pushed the envelopeeven further in the September and October 2002issues of Green Lantern by becoming the firstmainstream comic book to focus a major two-partstory line on a central character, the aforemen-tioned Terry Berg, whose experience of antigayviolence leaves him on the verge of death.

The Green Lantern hate crime story line hasreceived considerable attention in a range of me-dia outlets; news stories have appeared in suchmainstream venues as The New York Times(Gustines) and CNN.com (‘‘Comic’s Gay’’). Ad-ditionally, the Green Lantern’s writer at the time,Judd Winick, was featured on an episode ofMSNBC’s Donahue discussing the debut of thestory line. Out magazine’s December 2002 issuefeatured Winick drawn in comic art being hailedas a straight alliance. Further, Out exclaims thatthe writer of Green Lantern is a ‘‘superhero togays and lesbians’’ (Champagne 86). In a tele-phone interview, Winick lamented the fact that‘‘hate crimes only come on the radar when peopleare beaten and murdered, when it also exists on adaily level.’’ With this story, Winick said that hehoped ‘‘to create dialogue’’ about the topic and toprompt people to ‘‘think twice, check their mind-sets, challenge their behavior.’’ Bob Schreck,

Valerie Palmer-Mehta and Kellie D. Hay are assistant professors of communication in the Department of Rhetoric, Communicationand Journalism at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. The authors wish to thank the GLAAD Center for the Study of Media& Society for funding an earlier version of this article. The authors also wish to thank Van Cagle, former project coordinator of theCenter, for his integral support of the project and for offering insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

390 The Journal of American Culture � Volume 28, Number 4 � December 2005

editor of the Green Lantern, states, ‘‘It’s a storythat needs to be told . . .. We’ve tried to reason-ably, intelligently educate people that we’re not allon one note’’ (Gustines). As if to underscore thesalience of the topic, as the first installment of thetwo-part story line hit the stands in September2002, the Associated Press reported that threemen in West Hollywood had been victims of anti-gay violence (‘‘Gay Man Beaten’’).

The Green Lantern hate crime story line pro-vides a compelling opportunity to examine readerresponse to an important moment in the historyof the US comic book industry. It also presents anopportunity to contribute to what is presently adearth of research on masculinity in general, andgay masculinity in particular, in mainstream com-ic books, a point that we establish in the nextsection. In order to assess reader reaction to theantigay hate crime story line, we analyze twenty-nine unpublished letters1 written in response tothe story line provided by Bob Schreck and JuddWinick. In our analysis of the letters, we arguethat there was a meaningful level of understandingregarding issues of concern to the gay communityamong these particular letter writers. To begin, weprovide an overview of the burgeoning researchon masculinity studies and locate gay comic bookmasculinities in that literature. Next, a synopsis ofthe hate crime story line is supplied to establish acontext for analyzing the letters. Finally, wepresent and examine the letters, which aregrouped according to content and tone.

The Representation ofMasculinitiesin Comic Books

The morphing state of masculinity has been anissue of mounting dialogue for more than threedecades in the United States, and more recently, inglobal contexts (Connell 39–66; Pease and Pringle1–17; Kimmel, ‘‘Global’’ 21–38). Arthur Brittancontends that the role of US men and what itmeans to be ‘‘masculine’’ came under intensescrutiny as a result of second-wave feminists’ in-terrogations of the gender order and patriarchal

ideology, as well as challenges to heternormativitybrought forth by the gay rights movement of the1960s and 1970s (179–86). As early as the 1970s,men began to examine their roles in society morecritically in response to these challenges, evenprompting an independent field of study (Craig2). These explorations have produced self-helpbooks (Farrell), men’s movements and scholarlyanalyses of the movements (Kimmel, The Politics;Messner; Schwalbe), autobiographies dealing withthe negotiation of normative expectations forAmerican masculinity (Bouldrey), and New Jour-nalism biographies on twentieth-century Ameri-can men, such as Elizabeth Gilbert’s analysis ofEustace Conway IV, an environmentalist chal-lenging notions of hegemonic masculinity andits relationship to consumerism. Both MichaelKimmel’s Manhood in America and E. AnthonyRotundo’s American Manhood investigate thecultural and social history of US masculinityand the ways in which the construct has trans-formed through time. Additionally, David Gil-more has provided a cross-cultural analysis ofmanhood, while others have focused on culturallyspecific dimensions of American masculinities,such as black masculinity (Carby; Majors andBillson), Jewish masculinity (Brod), and gay mas-culinity (Nardi). Of course, collections haveemerged that provide frameworks for theorizingmasculinities (Brod and Kaufman) and research-ing masculinities generally (Kimmel, Hearn, andConnell; Beynon; Connell 3–36; Whitehead).

One area of considerable growth in the re-search on men and masculinities in the past dec-ade has been in the realm of popular culture. Someof this scholarship has focused on the represen-tation of men and masculinity in a medley ofpopular culture artifacts, from porn (Simpson131–49) to music (Collins 149–80) to sports media(Sabo and Jansen 169–84). Others have focused onthe representation of masculinity in television andfilm (Holmlund 141–56; Lehman; Pfeil; Shugart67–91; Silverman) and advertising (Dotson).Scholarship that focuses specifically on the rep-resentation of the male body in the media also hasemerged (Bordo 168–228; Jeffords; Tasker 73–90).Analyses of the so-called crisis in masculinity and

391A Superhero for Gays? Gay Masculinity and Green Lantern � Valerie Palmer-Mehta and Kellie Hay

the framing of white masculinity as ‘‘wounded’’ inpopular culture have provided yet another per-spective on contemporary US masculinity (Rob-inson; Savran; Tasker 109–31).

Even though there has been a remarkable ex-pansion of scholarship on men and masculinity inthe past several decades, there still exists a lacunain research on the representation of masculinity incomic books. This is somewhat surprising, as‘‘classical comic book depictions of masculinityare perhaps the quintessential expression of ourcultural beliefs about what it means to be a man’’(Brown 26). While a respectable number of schol-ars have focused their attention on male charac-ters in comics, thus providing analyses that areimplicitly about masculinity, the explicit focus ofthe research lies elsewhere, and consequently, theendeavor does not contribute substantially to ourunderstanding of the function of gender in Amer-ican culture. For example, Michael Straub, in hisexamination of the comic book Maus, discusses‘‘what it means to have a Jewish identity in a post-Auschwitz age’’ (37). While the article is, first andforemost, about Jewish identity, Straub draws hisobservations from a story that focuses on a manand his father, a Holocaust survivor, and theirnegotiation of life and relationships. Inevitablythe article suggests something about masculinity,but this is implicit. Such is the case with a varietyof other research on comics whose primary con-cern includes such things as the representationof war (MacCallum-Stewart 1–18), nationalism(Edwardson 184–201), the struggle between lib-eral ideology and counterculture approaches toradical change (Moore 263–78), and the Americanmonomyth (Lang and Trimble 157–73).

Few scholars have studied, as a primary focusof investigation, the representation of masculinityin general (Glasberg 25–32; Pecora 61–77; Brown25–42), and the representation of gay masculinityin particular (McLelland 13–25; Franklin III 221–50; Sewell 251–74), in comic books. In his analysisof sexual stereotypes in the Archie comic booksseries, Ron Glasberg argues that the white malecharacter, Archie, exists ‘‘in a wish fulfillmentof eternal youth where he stands at the thresholdof a choice he never has to make’’ between the

characters Veronica and Betty, who respectivelyrepresent ‘‘material success and interpersonalintimacy’’ (31). Those men in the comic whohave matured and gained the capacity to makesuch choices are represented as losing their power,‘‘and that loss comes from having made a choice inwhich one valuable option is gained at the expenseof another’’ (31). Glasberg contends that suchrepresentations unfortunately suggest to malereaders that ‘‘maturity is an inevitable defeat’’ (32).

In her analysis of comic books as socializingagents for young men, Norma Pecora contends thatcomic books with superheroes like Superman andBatman have served as ‘‘important symbols of‘maleness’ in American culture since Superman wasintroduced in 1939’’ (61) and that ‘‘little haschanged’’ as late as the 1990s (77). The many andvaried characters presented in comic books throughthe years ‘‘have functioned in a world that is maleand white, where the women are either young andbuxom or old and frail—but never equals’’ (61).‘‘Images of racism and anti-feminism are still verymuch part of the comic book culture’’ as people ofcolor and women are typically relegated to thebackground or are villains or trim (76). This is atrend, Pecora argues, that has continued throughthe years, and young men ‘‘are still offered culturalrepresentations that reinforce maleness as machis-mo’’ and masculinity as violence oriented (77).

Jeffrey A. Brown analyzes the representationand reception of alternative black masculinitiespresented in three comic book series—Icon,Hardware, and Static—by Milestone Comics, ablack-owned and controlled publishing company.The Milestone characters are read in the contextof characters from Image Comics, an emergingindustry giant that, Brown argues, ‘‘set a newstandard of hypermasculinity’’ through ‘‘the ob-vious overpresence of masculine signifiers’’ suchas ‘‘exaggerated representations of the male hero’sbody as a mass of veiny muscles’’ (33) and thepresentation of ‘‘brainless brawl after brainlessbrawl’’ (36). Brown’s subjects commented on theways in which Milestone’s characters were moremultidimensional than those in Image Comics,saying such things as, ‘‘It’s nice to see cool broth-ers in the comics who can think their way out of a


rough spot. You know, Icon’s a lawyer; Hard-ware’s an all-purpose science super-genius; andStatic, well, he’s just a high school kid . . . but thesmartest of them all’’ (36). Drawing on ethno-graphic data from an ethnically diverse group,Brown reports that the Milestone representationsare effective in presenting alternative masculinitiesbecause they ‘‘incorporate previously disassociat-ed concepts of softness with hardness, of mindwith body . . . the Milestone books work to infusegentler, more responsible, and more cerebral qual-ities within the codes of dominant masculinity’’(41). While fans recognize that the images ofmasculinity that Milestone presents are ‘‘differ-ent,’’ they are amenable to this change, Brownasserts, because of Milestone’s merging of someaspects of traditional comic book masculinitywith newer, more progressive elements.

While Glasberg, Pecora, and Brown focus onheterosexual white and black masculinities, MarkJ. McLelland analyzes the representation of younggay Japanese males and their love affairs inJapanese comic books (manga) directed towardwomen, and he discusses the reasons behind Jap-anese women’s affinity for these particular repre-sentations. McLelland argues that gay men inwomen’s manga are depicted as favorably femi-nine and androgynous, as ‘‘beautiful youths’’ whocould be ‘‘best friends or even ideal partners forwomen’’ (13). In contrast, gay magazines made byand for gay males in Japan depict hypermasculinegay men negotiating a homosocial world, far awayfrom women and their concerns (14). McLellandcontends that Japanese women find satisfaction inthe depiction of gay male love affairs as depictedin this medium because heterosexual relations inJapan are limiting to women (24). ‘‘Heterosexualsex in Japan is structured in relation to two strongparadigms: the sex trade and the family’’ (22),neither of which is terribly satisfying for women.Indeed, ‘‘unreproductive sexual practice outsidemarriage is represented as dangerous [for women],the results of which are damaged morals as well asdamaged bodies’’ (24). Alternatively, ‘‘‘licensed’sexuality which takes place within marriage leadsto a wife becoming a mother whereupon she isdesexualized’’ (24). The representation of love be-

tween men in the women’s manga gives hetero-sexual women an opportunity to fantasize aboutsexual relations in a more free and satisfying waybecause the sexual relationships between men aredepicted as ‘‘both caring and enduring, based onlove not sex’’ (16), and there is no anxiety aboutbecoming pregnant or playing a subservient rolein the relationship or in society, issues that adultheterosexual Japanese women regularly face.Ultimately, McLelland questions whether theserepresentations of gay sexuality have anything todo with gay male culture at all. Rather than mir-roring gay culture, these depictions seem to reflectthe ‘‘concerns and fantasies of the women whoavidly produce and consume them’’ (24).

Edward Sewell examines the effects of author-ship in his analysis comparing the representation ofqueer characters in US alternative publicationsproduced by queer cartoonists with that of queercharacters created by heterosexual cartoonists inUS mainstream comic strips. Sewell suggests thatthe representations of queers that heterosexual car-toonists produce often lack important elements ofthe queer lifestyle. Specifically, the queer charactersproduced by heterosexual cartoonists tended tohave no distinguishing characteristics that woulddifferentiate them from heterosexual characters,and they also were presented as nonthreateningand ‘‘thoroughly assimilated’’ (271). In contrast,Sewell’s analysis of queer characters in the alter-native comic strips found that queer cartoonistsfocus not on ‘‘assimilation into a dominant culture,but rather on the creation of a thoroughly queerculture that often is in opposition, if not directconflict with, the dominant heterosexual culture’’(271). Queer cartoonists create a world that ismostly inhabited by queers, and the characters aretruly distinct from their heterosexual counterparts,thinking and acting differently. Sewell contendsthat queers need a ‘‘queer space’’ like that found onthe Internet, where queer characters are ‘‘allowedto live in a queer world doing queer things with thedominant culture playing a marginalized role’’(271). He longs for the day that we might open ourlocal mainstream daily newspaper and find an‘‘authentically queer2 comic strip, by an openlyqueer cartoonist’’ (271).


Finally, Morris E. Franklin III provides one ofthe most comprehensive analyses of the GLBTcommunity in comics to date in his investigationof the emerging representation of gays and lesbi-ans, as well as coming-out narratives, in US comicbooks in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Franklinanalyzes published letters to the editor that reactto these representations, as well as the editors’published responses to the letters. In his closereading of the letters, he demonstrates that a rangeof communication practices are at work, includingself-disclosure, confrontational arguments, praiseand blame of the editors, and morality debates.He also reveals the varied reactions that theserepresentations elicit and the tensions that courseacross audiences, between readers, and with theeditors. The supportive and critical positions inthe letters made several readership patterns clear;comic book readers are active and engaged withcomic book texts and their makers, and gay read-ers in particular have little tolerance for stereo-types and flat, one-dimensional gay characters, asthey recognize the material and identity stakes atplay when GLBT issues surface in comics.

While the aforementioned articles stake outimportant ground, there is still a lacuna in theliterature regarding the representation of gayAmerican masculinity, antigay hate crimes incomic book culture, and audience response tothese representations. The hate crime story line inGreen Lantern and our unmitigated access to theunpublished letters written in response to this pi-oneering depiction provide a compelling oppor-tunity to make such a contribution. By examiningthe letters, we may gain a sense of how fans arereacting to the representation of gay masculinityand the antigay hate crime in this particular main-stream outlet. Before presenting the letters, weprovide a synopsis of the hate crime story line inissues #154 and #155 of Green Lantern.

GreenLanternHate CrimeStory Line

At the end of issue #153, which is entitled‘‘You Can Never, Never, Never Go Home

Again,’’ Kyle Rayner, who is the alter ego ofGreen Lantern (in the same manner that ClarkKent is the alter ego of Superman), receives aphone call from his friend John Stewart indicatingthat something bad has happened to seventeen-year-old Terry Berg. Terry is Kyle’s assistant atwork and one of his close friends. In the last panelof the issue, Kyle bows his head and says, ‘‘Oh,God,’’ as a tear rolls down his face (22). It is notuntil issue #154, entitled ‘‘Hate Crime: Part One,’’that the reader learns what has happened to Terry.The cover of issue #154 shows two large, muscle-bound white males baring their teeth, with bloodspattered on their arms. One of the men is pullingTerry’s head up by his hair and both men areholding him, presumably under his arms. Thereader would not recognize that this is indeedTerry, except for his characteristic blond locks andthe cliffhanger in issue #153 warning that some-thing terrible will happen to him. Blood is drip-ping profusely from around Terry’s nose andmouth, and it looks as though one of his teeth ismissing. The area around his left eye is swollen,and his clothes are torn and spattered with blood.

The first panel on the first page of issue #154shows Terry’s boyfriend, David, with tearsstreaming down his face. Distraught, he explainsthat he and Terry were walking home after vis-iting a dance club. David was charged up from thefun they were having, and this prompts David tolean over and kiss Terry while they are out in thestreet. David laments having engaged in this pub-lic display of affection because, although at themoment it appeared that they were alone, threemen have witnessed the kiss and begin whistlingat them. This by itself concerns Terry and David,but then they hear the men shout the word‘‘faggot’’ and start running toward them. Fright-ened, Terry tries to get a signal on his cell phoneas he and David start running, with the three menin hot pursuit. In a panic, Terry and David decideto split up in order to distract their pursuers. Themen follow after Terry, chase him down, and beathim ruthlessly. Moments later, David musters thecourage to go back and look for Terry. When hefinally finds him, David is able to recognize Terryonly by his shoes because he is so badly beaten.


Once Terry is in the hospital, we learn that hesuffers from a skull fracture, a broken arm, twobroken legs, four broken ribs, and a collapsedlung, and he is also in danger of losing his left eye.He is on a respirator, in a coma, and struggling forlife.

Everyone, especially David, is deeply shakenby what has happened. The situation is madeworse for David because Terry’s father refuses tolet him into Terry’s hospital room to see him. Inissue #155, entitled ‘‘Hate Crime: Part Two,’’ Jen,Kyle’s girlfriend, confronts Terry’s father in orderto gain entry for David. Terry’s father exclaims,‘‘I do not want him in the room with Terry! Youhear me?! I’m his father, and the final word endswith me! He’s [referring to David] lucky I let himstay in the hospital!’’ Jen protests, saying,‘‘Mr. Berg, this isn’t helping anyone. Please. Dav-id has the right to see Terry. He’s his boyfriend.’’Mr. Berg replies,

You shut the hell up with that kind of talk!All this business is what got Terry attackedin the first place! Because of people like him![Mr. Berg points to David] If Terry hadn’tmet him then he’d be home right now. Noneof this would ever have happened. No onewould have laid a finger on him! He’d besafe. He wouldn’t . . . be here in this god-forsaken hospital . . . he’d be home. (Winick,‘‘Part Two’’ 2–3)

In this angry statement, Mr. Berg blames Davidfor the crime rather than the three perpetrators,and he even suggests that David is the reason thatTerry is gay.3

Shortly after the incident, a police officerquestions Kyle, asking him if Terry uses drugsand suggesting that Terry might have tried to‘‘pick up’’ the perpetrators, thereby prompting theattack (Winick, ‘‘Part One’’ 9–10). Kyle is enragedby this line of questioning which, similar to Mr.Berg’s statements, attempts to blame the victims.During the interview, the officer is called away byanother officer. Kyle eavesdrops on their conver-sation and finds out that one of the three perpe-trators has been caught and is being held at Riker’sIsland House of Detention. He also hears that ifthe perpetrator who is caught does not inform on

his accomplices soon, the other two may never becaught.

Using his super powers, Green Lantern entersthe prisoner’s cell and demands to know wherethe other two perpetrators are. When the prisonerrefuses, Green Lantern lifts him out of his bed,turns him upside down, and threatens to break hiswrists. After both of his wrists have been broken,the perpetrator finally tells Green Lantern the lo-cation of his accomplices. Green Lantern huntsthem down and beats them both brutally in re-taliation. While Green Lantern could have beatenone of the perpetrators to death, he stops himselfat the last minute by punching the brick wall be-hind the man’s head, leaving the man physicallyand mentally traumatized but not dead. After-ward, Green Lantern, now back to his Kyle Ray-ner alter ego, returns to Terry’s bedside and says,‘‘I did my part, now you’ve gotta do yours’’(Winick, ‘‘Part One’’ 22). Terry still has notemerged from his coma.

Drawing on comic book story lines and graph-ic art, audiences engage in, react to, and imaginethemselves in the life-world of comic texts. As canbe seen in the letters that follow, comic bookreaders are actively involved in the productionand consumption of comic texts; they are busyself-fashioning story lines to suit their interests asthey share their ideas about character and plotdevelopment. We turn now to our analysis of theletters that Green Lantern fans sent to the writerand editor of the comic book. We trace the com-peting ideological positions that exist across read-ers and examine the underlying assumptions andpolitical stakes that emerge.

Audience Response: Letters to theWriter and Editor

The following unedited excerpts are takenfrom the unsolicited and unpublished letters writ-ten to the editor and writer of Green Lantern.Thirty-one letters were sent in response to thehate crime story line. Twenty-six (84%) of the


letters came from males, two (6%) came fromfemales, and three (10%) were from individualswhose genders could not be identified. In whatfollows, the letters are grouped according to theircontent and tone. A total of 6.45% (n 5 2) of theletters were not categorized or analyzed becausethey did not fit into a clear category. One of thetwo uncategorized letters was a request to use thecover of issue #154 as a visual aid in a speech for auniversity speech team (Letter 31). The writer ofthe second uncategorized letter simply stated thatafter the September issue, he would no longer bereading the Green Lantern, but he did not specifywhy (Letter 30). The rest of the letters are cate-gorized as follows: resistance to gay issues beingprobed in a mainstream outlet, concern aboutGreen Lantern’s vigilante violence, concern aboutthe representation of GLBT characters, and, thelargest category, appreciative letters. In what fol-lows, an examination of each of the categories isprovided.

Resistance to Gay Issues BeingProbed in aMainstreamOutlet

A total of 16% (n 5 5) of the letters expressdissatisfaction with the story line because it fo-cuses on an issue of concern to the GLBT com-munity, and these authors are not sympathetic tothe community. Three of the five letters provideemphatic statements about the immorality of ho-mosexuality and the influence that such a topicmight have on young readers. In the first letter, aGreen Lantern reader asserts,

I am astonished and outraged by your writ-ing. In issue #154 you created a scene thatsickened me. This is a book that kids readand you’re telling them that it’s o.k. to begay. In issue #137 you had GL himself saythat being gay is not a sin. You have made amockery of Christianity. Leviticus 18:22clearly states that being gay is an abomina-tion unto the Lord. If you are a Christianyou need to take another look at the Bible

. . . I will not support a company that let’syou write garbage like that. (Letter 10)

The second letter also evokes images of immo-rality and concern for children:

Isn’t the real world immoral enough withoutbringing this into the imaginary. And to topit off he [Terry] had a crush on the maincharacter, this is one of the worst things youcould have done. I was unaware of the newcharacter last year, and I do wish to thankyou for saving me money by not having topurchase anymore DC Comics so my kidswon’t have to be exposed to this trash.(Letter 11)

The third letter expresses concern with the storyline because ‘‘adolescents should not have to dealwith gay bashing’’ (Letter 12). The reader contin-ues, ‘‘The notion that a gay comic is cute and ap-propriate for any child is outrageous’’ (Letter 12).All these letters echo the same sentiments: thoseof moral outrage and concern for the pollution ofchildren. Implicit is the assumption that childrenare the primary readers of comic books. Althoughconventional wisdom suggests that adolescentsare the main audience of comic books, FranklinIII reports that the actual age of most readers isbetween twenty-five and forty (248). Underneaththis child protection rhetoric is an unfortunatereality—the GBLT community and representa-tions of it are not perceived as socially legitimateor ethical. What is more, Christianity is hailed asthe moral backdrop that justifies the omission notonly of gay social issues surfacing in the realm ofrepresentation but also gayness itself.

Regardless of how the story had been written,the previous Green Lantern readers would nothave been happy with it. In the following letter,however, the reader suggests that he would havebeen more tolerant of the issue had it been writtendifferently:

Oh boy, here comes the obligatory homo-phobic violence issue! ‘‘One shocking mo-ment’’ indeed. I seriously doubt that any ofyour readers haven’t seen this one comingsince the last time you preached the joys andwonders of homosexuals to us. I suppose we


could always hope that the issue will be dealtwith in a manner that includes good writing,accurate human portrayals, and a touchinglesson in comparative morality. Unfortu-nately, it has already been proven that theonly thing we can expect is a good messageturned into a hammer with which you willbludgeon your readers to death. You’ve suc-cessfully turned Terry into my least favoritecharacter in all comics. Rather than feel anx-iety for his fate, I find myself hoping he’sbeaten severely enough that I’ll never have toread about him again. (Letter 9)

This writer suggests that had the story line beendealt with more skillfully, he might have beendrawn in. However, the hostility that permeateshis letter makes this assertion untenable. On theone hand, he claims that this story ‘‘could havebeen a touching lesson in comparative morality,’’yet the statements that come before and after itare much harsher. His opening remarks suggestthat he is tired of GLBT issues before opening thisissue of Green Lantern. Without giving any con-crete examples of poor writing or inaccurate por-trayals, he simply alleges that Green Lanternreaders have been ‘‘bludgeoned with a hammer’’(note the metaphor), and he even expresses a wishthat Terry would receive the bludgeoning—butwith a fatal outcome. Rhetorically, this reader’s‘‘lesson in comparative morality’’ is curiously un-dercut by images of imagined violence and mur-der and by a tone of sarcastic superiority andcontempt.

The last letter is akin to the preceding one; thereader expresses dissatisfaction with what shefeels is writer Judd Winick’s tendency to focus ongay issues:

Why is Winick so hung up on drivingthrough this gay agenda (everyone must lovegays) of his? I mean I’ve given this a lot ofthought and instead of preaching love forgays and how difficult they have it.Shouldn’t he be preaching (yes and I domean preaching cause that’s what he does)on tolerance and love for everybody. I meanthe way he and gay activists tell it. I as aheterosexual must be having a swell time,with no problems. Well the exact opposite is

true . . .. Why doesn’t Winick give it a restwith this tiresome ‘‘love gays’’ story line.And just preach tolerance for everyone.Whether you like them or not. (Letter 13)

Again, this is a mixed letter. While peppered withhostility to the GLBT community, the writersuggests that there should be tolerance for every-one. There is an understated context about whichgroup of people have been more wronged. This isa common strategy, conscious and unconscious,for rejecting gay issues. As a heterosexual, shecontends that gay people are not the only peoplewho suffer, that straight people have problemstoo—yet the reader does not consider the waysin which the lives of straights and gays mightbe different based on dominant cultural normsregarding sexuality in US society.

Concern about Green Lantern’sVigilanteViolence

Nineteen percent (n 5 6) of the letter writersexpress concern with the vigilante violence thatGreen Lantern engages in to avenge Terry’s at-tack. While most of these letter writers indicatethat they understand why Green Lantern waspushed to act as he did, they all suggest that hisbehavior was inappropriate for a superhero, anextraordinary being who is supposed to be be-yond such base human responses. For example,one letter writer laments that ‘‘Green Lanternused to be so much more than a petty thug’’(Letter 5). Another letter writer suggeststhat Green Lantern has taken a ‘‘fall from grace’’(Letter 7), and yet another writer begs, ‘‘Pleasedon’t make him a bad guy’’ (Letter 4). A fourthwriter argues,

Just because he is a superhero doesn’t meanthat he can take the law into his own hands,even though he does it everyday fightingsuper villains. This was a different situation.The bad guys weren’t super villains, theywere just some stupid kids who did some-thing they never should have done. So whatI guess I’m really saying is that unlike most


people I wasn’t bothered by the gay factorin issue 154, but I was bothered by Kyle’sresponse. (Letter 8)

A fifth letter writer is disturbed by the premed-itation that Green Lantern engages in before tor-turing the thugs who beat up Terry:

Face it, the character [Green Lantern] took adefenseless individual, albeit one who wasguilty of a horrific crime, and tortured him.This wasn’t a heat of the battle moment, norwas it an accident. Rayner went to the jail,set up a cover screen, hooked the bad guy uplike a slab of meat and slowly broke hiswrists. How do these actions make him anybetter than the thugs he was going against? Itdoesn’t, for it puts him at the same level.(Letter 6)

The sixth writer suggests that ‘‘it was not so greatto see vigilantism and sensationalism at theirworst in GL 154’’ (Letter 3). He explains, ‘‘grant-ed, without any argument, it was immoral for thethugs to beat up Terry.’’ But he also argues that itwas immoral for Green Lantern to beat them upas well. The writer describes himself as a liber-tarian, and ‘‘accordingly, I hold the belief thatforce is only justified in self defense. Non-aggression, as a matter of principle is morallybetter than aggression.’’

These letters express concern for the characterTerry, and they acknowledge that antigay violenceis wrong. At the same time, the fans are deeplytroubled by the methods that Green Lantern em-ploys to avenge the attack and what such a courseof action might suggest about the moral groundsthat have historically governed superheroes. Theconcerns of these readers come through clearly inthe above excerpts, and the investment they havein the integrity of Green Lantern as a superhero isstriking. They are not hostile, only deeply con-cerned about issues of character and ethics. Thesecarefully crafted, thoughtful messages indicatethat such fans are not only engaged readers, butthey are also committed to constructing writerlytexts. They write back hoping for constructiveinterventions, working with and against the grainof the text.

Concernwith Representation ofGLBT Characters

A total of 6.45% (n 5 2) of the letter writersexpress concern with the ways in which theGLBT community is portrayed in the media, andin particular, in comics. The first letter writer ex-hibits anxiety regarding what will happen to Terryin the forthcoming issue. He has read the teaser inissue 153 that suggests that something terriblywrong has happened:

I trust you to do the right thing with ourcharacters, like Terry in the upcoming issue154 . . .. Now on the backside of a GLAADaward and inclusive, insightful writing weare again held hostage by time until nextmonth and [issue] 154 to hear about Terry.But again, I trust you to do the right thingwith our book. We do need Terry to keep onshowing us something, every month, butcrises make the universe interesting, so Itrust. (Letter 2)

The comment that ‘‘we do need Terry’’ suggeststhat the reader is concerned that Terry will die inthe forthcoming issue. The reader perhaps recog-nizes that historically, in the media, the bodies ofwomen, minorities, and the gay community haveborne the burden of society’s ills, and they havedied disproportionately in comparison to straightwhite male characters. Writer Judd Winick rec-ognized this pattern in the media and early ondecided that would not happen to the characterTerry. ‘‘That’s the cliche in all mediums. Who diesin movies? Gay people, people of color. Killinghim seemed like too much. We wanted a little bitof hope’’ (Gustines).

The second letter writer also has read the teaserat the end of issue 153 and is anxious and some-what pessimistic regarding what is going to hap-pen to Terry:

NO. No, you are NOT going there. I justfinished reading GL #153 . . . and I think it’svery obvious . . . that Kyle’s young gay as-sistant Terry has either been injured or evenkilled as a result of a hate crime act . . . Iapplaud the fact that you at DC have even


attempted to present the topic of homosex-uality in your various titles. But let me alsotell you that you have not always beenkind and certainly not helpful in doing so.(Letter 1)

The fan refers to various gay characters who haveemerged in comics through the years and lamentsthat many of them have been portrayed in a verystereotypical fashion. He worries that the samewill hold true for Terry:

And now we have Terry, a regular non-metagay character who is probably about to fallvictim to yet another gay stereotype. Allgays are not disease ridden, all gays are notfem or butch, all gays are not borderlinepsychotic, and all gays are not potential vic-tims of a violent demise (any more than an-yone else is!). Yes, I know that this is justcomic book fiction, but there are people whobelieve everything they read. The stories inyour books are capable of spreading verydangerous and false information . . .. Pleasebe careful where this story is leading.(Letter 1)

For some people, their only exposure to the gaycommunity is through the media. Hence, theirperceptions of the community are based largelyon what they read or view. It is not surprising,then, that this reader would show concern re-garding the way in which Terry’s situation will behandled, especially since Terry is one of few char-acters in the mainstream media who has beenportrayed in such a positive manner.

Appreciative Letters

Fifty-two percent (n 5 16) of the letters, morethan half of all letters received, express appreci-ation that DC Comics was bold enough to pro-vide a story line that deals with an antigay hatecrime. Comments ranged from ‘‘thank you forhaving the courage to release such a controversialcomic’’ (Letter 14) and ‘‘this is so progressive’’(Letter 15), to ‘‘it’s too important to hide eventslike this in the closet’’ (Letter 21) and ‘‘this . . . is

an unprecedented step forward in comics as awhole’’ (Letter 20). Some readers even recountedtheir own experience of harassment or violence:

I’m also a 25 year old gay man. I came out at16 and was subjected to some of the brutalityyoung queers face in America. I was ha-rassed, though thankfully never physicallyattacked, through high school. During thattime, I longed for positive queer charactersto help me justify myself and my feelings.I found a handful, but also discovered thatqueer characters who survived to the end ofthe novel were exceedingly few . . . . When Iwas a kid reading comics, I used to some-times think ‘‘they saved the mother and kidfrom the falling building, but would theyrescue me if they knew I was a fag?’’ I nowhave an answer to that. My hope is that acloseted teenager will read that comic bookand think ‘‘someone will fight for me. Some-one who is respected and powerful will standup for me and my rights’’ . . .. My hope isthat a homophobe will pick up that comicand think. (Letter 17)

Self-disclosure is a powerful communicationpractice for this reader, one that both accom-plishes catharsis and holds up hope for gay youth,providing an interesting contrast to the earlierreaders’ tales about the pollution of childrenthrough gay texts. Rather than tainting children,this reader suggests that such representations willprovide support for gay youth and perhapsprompt empathy among other readers for thecomplexities in life that the GLBT communitymust face.

Another reader was moved to recount his ex-perience of antigay violence on a New Jersey citystreet twelve years ago:

Nobody saved me that night. Clothing wasripped. Bones were broken. I had two blackeyes, and a scar on my forehead that remindsme of the incident twelve years later. I grewup on comic books, and I never rememberedSuperman or Batman or the Flash fightingone fag-basher. But I did remember theyfought for justice, and so the next morning, Iwent down to the police station to report thecrime. I was still wearing the ripped andbloody t-shirt [that had the name of a gay


political organization on it]. The police of-ficer asked, ‘‘Don’t you think you were ask-ing for it, wearing a t-shirt like that?’’When I asked if I could file a report, he toldme that it was useless. He said that hewas tired of defending people like me.(Letter 16)

The candor and emotion in this letter demon-strate the power of the Green Lantern storyline. It is rare that people feel safe enough to re-count such a horrific experience, let alone to anaudience that they have never met. The story lineseems to have had a greater effect than one couldanticipate: it has created a forum where individ-uals can discuss antigay hate crimes and a spacewhere individuals who have been the victim ofharassment and violence may share their experi-ences.

The words of a high school student help illu-minate the positive influence that the comic bookhas had in the student’s school:

As the President of my high school’s Gay-Straight Alliance, I have never been moreproud of mainstream comic books than I amnow. We discussed the issue of hate crimesand gay bashing in our club and all agreed itwas laudable that Judd Winick and his teambrought these truths to the limelight. Sincesuch occurrences are not rare, and the threeincidents of gay bashing that occurred in thelast month in West Hollywood show this, itis important that readers who are the maintarget audience for these books know whatthe current state of living gay and ‘‘out’’ is.(Letter 18)

In contrast to one of the former letter writers whostated that ‘‘adolescents should not have to dealwith gay bashing,’’ it appears that these particularadolescents are not only already aware of antigayviolence but that they also want and need to talkabout these issues in a mature manner. Ratherthan being a source of turmoil or negativity, inthis instance, the story line has served as the im-petus for a cathartic discussion regarding the re-alities of the everyday lived experience of the gaycommunity and their friends and family.

GayMasculinity inMainstreamComic Books

Based on this analysis of the twenty-nine let-ters, we argue that there is a notable level of un-derstanding regarding issues of concern to the gaycommunity among these particular letter writers,pushing open new possibilities for future repre-sentations of gay masculinity in mainstream com-ic books. The range of responses was varied, butoverall, the letters suggest that these readers were,in large part, supportive of the character TerryBerg and the antigay hate crime story line beingaddressed in this mainstream comic book. Otherletter writers openly stated that they were notbothered by the fact that Green Lantern wastouching on an issue of importance to the gaycommunity, but they were concerned with way inwhich the hero was handling the situation. Thesereaders understood why their hero would be out-raged at the perpetrators of the crime, but theywere pushing the writer and editor for a moreevenhanded and nonviolent resolution, in keepingwith the tradition of the conduct of superheroes.Other readers pushed the envelope even further,arguing for more humane and multifaceted rep-resentations of the GLBT community in GreenLantern and other comic books. Ultimately, onlyfive of the twenty-nine letters expressed dissatis-faction with the story line because it dealt with anissue of concern to the GLBT community.

Edward Sewell longs for the day when peoplewill pick up their daily mainstream newspaperand find a queer comic strip authored by a queercartoonist. Although this day has not yet come,the representation of Terry Berg in Green Lanternreflects an effort to bring a regular gay characterand the complexities of gay identity to the fore-front of an American mainstream comic book.Sewell was concerned about the ways in whichauthorship influenced the representation of theGLBT community; the character Terry Berg rep-resents an interesting amalgam of experiences in-volving the gay community and their allies. Theoriginal idea for the character emanated fromconversations between Schreck, the editor of


Green Lantern, and Ron Marz, the former writerof the comic book. Schreck wanted to introduce acharacter who ‘‘coped with his confused feelingsabout his sexuality, much as Mr. Schreck, whosays he is bisexual, did while growing up’’(Gustines). When Marz left Marvel to work ex-clusively for CrossGen Comics, Schreck hiredWinick to write for Green Lantern and to culti-vate the character. Winick, who has been in thecartoon industry since 1998, is also known for his1994 role as one of the San Francisco roommateson MTV’s The Real World. While there, he be-came friends with one of the roommates, PedroZamora, an AIDS educator. Through the courseof their friendship, Winick witnessed firsthand thecomplexities that Pedro faced both as a gay maleand as someone who struggled with AIDS in USculture.4 While the hate crime story line beganwith Schreck’s idea, based on his personal expe-riences, it took form with Winick’s writing, whichdrew upon his friendships with the gay commu-nity, and finally, it was influenced by Cathy Ren-na at GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian AllianceAgainst Defamation, an organization that worksto ensure the fair and accurate portrayal of theGLBT community in the US media. As a result,the story reflects the experiences and concerns ofan interesting array of people who are either partof or deeply care about the gay community. Ul-timately, their cumulative efforts produced a storyline that, based on the preceding letters, receivedlargely positive feedback from the Green Lanternreadership.

It is refreshing to note that, in the year 2002,even mainstream corporations such as DC Com-ics were willing to take risks and engage in po-litically volatile social issues. As they did so, theyrisked reduction in their market share, losing ad-vertisers, or negative publicity. Our study, on theother hand, paints what may seem an overlybright picture of a readership that largely ap-proves of these efforts and is mainly troubled bytheir superhero’s descending to exact revenge onthe perpetrators of the hate crime. This rosy as-sessment must be tempered by the self-selectednature of our respondents; they were the readerswho cared enough to write a letter. Our assess-

ment must also be tempered by our contemporarysociopolitical environment—one in which elevenstates passed legislation to ban same-sex marriage,the nation at large re-elected a president whosupports a constitutional amendment to bansame-sex marriage, and broadcast networks areincreasingly hesitant to air commercials and pro-gramming that might be deemed offensive becausethey reach out to the gay community. Such a mi-lieu prompts the question, What will the futurehold for the representation of gay masculinity inAmerican comic book culture, or American pop-ular culture in general? Future studies might focuson the ways in which representations of theGLBT community may be influenced by the con-temporary retreat from gay rights.

In the ebb and flow of American politics, a fewsteps forward often are followed by a backlash.Backlash cuts at least two ways, like power andresistance. Reactionary policy will likely call out abroader audience than the GLBT communityalone; indeed, the Green Lantern story line ex-amined here provides one example of a counter-hegemonic text created by a network of gay andstraight allies. Whatever the outcome of our cur-rent climate, comic book culture will continue toaddress social issues and social policy, making thetension productive between comic art and publicsites of struggle. We are called to reflect on whatthese representations mean, and what they meanto our common humanity.

Notes

The authors would like to thank Judd Winick and Bob Schreck forallowing us to have access to the letters. We also would like to thankJudd Winick for making himself available to answer questions wehad about the text and his motivation to write particular scenes.

1. To ensure the anonymity and privacy of the letter writers,their names have not been used.

2. While we recognize Sewell’s concerns about eliding differenc-es, we challenge the notion that there exists an ‘‘authentic queerness’’and an essentialist or unitary notion of homosexuality (or hetero-sexuality). As Steven Seidman remarks, ‘‘The questioning of the no-tion of a core homosexual identity is at the heart of queer theory’’(253). Indeed, the notion of an ‘‘authentic queerness’’ might evenviolate the very concept of queerness, which seeks to blur boundariesregarding sexuality.


3. The decision to have David’s complicity questioned by Terry’sfather (and even David himself) and to have Jen explain that thesituation was not his fault was a conscious decision made by writerJudd Winick. In the authors’ telephone interview with Winick onOctober 3, 2002, Winick explained that he made this decision be-cause blaming the victims was ‘‘the most realistic thing to occur.’’ Hewanted to underscore how harmful such a perspective is to the vic-tim. Winick continues, ‘‘With younger gays and lesbians, they maythink they have to be cautious [when it comes to public displays ofaffection]; [they] don’t want to flaunt it, push it. That’s wrong! But inday to day life, what is the end result? Mild affection almost got himmurdered. I thought a young guy would think to blame himself.Even so, it doesn’t make it your fault—that’s why Jen says to David,‘it isn’t your fault.’’’ Further, Winick thought to involve Mr. Bergbecause his response reflects many parents’ reactions when obstaclesarise in the lives of their GLBT children. Winick continues, ‘‘Terry’scoming out was successful—until it comes to his family life. Theyweren’t very supportive, but when Terry becomes hurt, then thetruth really comes out. Families are okay when they don’t have todiscuss it, but when it becomes an obstacle, then the truth comes out. . .. The father was looking for someone to blame.’’ Winick’sthoughtful consideration of the complexities of GLBT family liferesults in a story line that explores the tensions felt by family mem-bers and concerns felt by victims while also pointing out that the hatecrime was not caused by the victims.

4. In 2000, Winick published the book, Pedro and Me, whichrecounts his friendship with Pedro.

Works Cited

Beynon, John. Masculinities and Culture. Buckingham, UK: TheOpen UP, 2002.

Bordo, Susan. The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and inPrivate. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 1999.

Bouldry, Brian. Monster: Adventures in American Machismo. SanFrancisco: Council Oaks Books, 2001.

Brittan, Arthur. Masculinity and Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1989.

Brod, Harry, ed. A Mensch among Men: Explorations in JewishMasculinity. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press, 1998.

Brod, Harry, and Michael Kaufman, eds. Theorizing Masculinities.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

Brown, Jeffrey A. ‘‘Comic Book Masculinity and the New BlackSuperhero.’’ African American Review 33 (1999): 25-42.

Carby, Hazel V. Race Men. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1998.

Champagne, Christine. ‘‘Judd Winick.’’ Out Dec. 2002: 86.

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Sexual Politics. New York: Routledge,2004.

‘‘Comic’s Gay Character to Be Hate Crime Victim.’’ CNN.com. 14Aug. 2002. 20 Aug. 2002 hhttp://asia.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News/08/14/gay.comics.api.

Connell, Robert W. The Men and the Boys. Berkeley: U of CaliforniaP, 2000.

Craig, Steve, ed. Men, Masculinity and the Media. Newbury Park,CA: Sage, 1992.

Donahue. MSNBC. 15 Aug. 2002. Secaucus, NJ.

Dotson, Edisol W. Behold the Man: The Hype and Selling of MaleBeauty in Media and Culture. New York: Harrington Park Press,1999.

Edwardson, Ryan. ‘‘The Many Lives of Captain Canuck: National-ism, Culture, and the Creation of a Canadian Comic Book Su-perhero.’’ Journal of Popular Culture 37 (2003): 184-201.

Farrell, Warren. The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Dis-posable Sex. New York: Berkeley Books, 1994.

Franklin, Morris E., III. ‘‘Coming Out in Comic Books: Letter Col-umns, Readers, and Gay and Lesbian Characters.’’ Comics andIdeology. Ed. Matt McAllister, Edward H. Sewel, and Ian Gor-don. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. 221-50.

‘‘Gay Man Beaten in West Hollywood.’’ New York Times. 24 Sept. 2002.24 Sept. 2002 hhttp://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-LA-Hate-Crimes.html?ex=1033919667&ei=1&en=8d24a6f4b05c7432i.

Gilbert, Elizabeth. The Last American Man. New York: Viking,2002.

Gilmore, David. Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts ofMasculinity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1990.

Glasberg, Ron. ‘‘The Archie Code: A Study in Sexual Stereotyping asReflective of a Basic Dilemma in American Society.’’ Journal ofPopular Culture 26 (1992): 25-32.

Gustines, George Gene. ‘‘A Comic Book Gets Serious on GayIssues.’’ New York Times. 13 Aug. 2002. 13 Aug. 2002 hhttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/13/arts/13COMI.html?ex=1030248203&ei=1&en=75caf6737523ef14i.

Holmlund, Chris. Impossible Bodies: Femininity and Masculinity atthe Movies. London: Routledge, 2002.

Jeffords, Susan. Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the ReaganEra. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1994.

Kimmel, Michael, ed. The Politics of Manhood: Profeminist MenRespond to the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement (and the Mytho-poetic Leaders Answer). Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1995.

———. Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: TheFree Press, 1996.

———. ‘‘Global Masculinities: Restoration and Resistance.’’ AMan’s World: Changing Men’s Practices in a Globalized World.Ed. Bob Pease and Keith Pringle. London: Zed Books, 2001.21-37.

Kimmel, Michael, Jeff Hearn, and Robert W. Connell, eds. Hand-book of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 2005.

Lang, Jeff, and Patrick Trimble. ‘‘Whatever Happened to the Man ofTomorrow? An Examination of the American Monomyth andthe Comic Book Superhero.’’ Journal of Popular Culture 22(1988): 157-73.

Lehman, Peter, ed. Masculinity: Bodies, Movies, Culture. New York:Routledge, 2001.

Letter 1. Bob Schreck, t.s. 8 Sept. 2002. Green Lantern UnpublishedLetters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University, Departmentof Rhetoric, Communication and Journalism, Rochester, MI.

Letter 2. ———. t.s. 17 Aug. 2002. Green Lantern UnpublishedLetters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University, Depart-ment of Rhetoric, Communication and Journalism, Rochester,MI.

Letter 3. ———. t.s. 5 Oct. 2002. Green Lantern UnpublishedLetters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University, Depart-ment of Rhetoric, Communication and Journalism, Rochester,MI.


Letter 4. ———. t.s. 14 Sept. 2002. Green Lantern Unpublished Let-ters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University, Department ofRhetoric, Communication and Journalism, Rochester, MI.





Letter 9. ———. t.s. 28 Aug. 2002. Green Lantern Unpublished Let-ters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University, Department ofRhetoric, Communication and Journalism, Rochester, MI.

Letter 10. ———. t.s. 24 Sept. 2002. Green Lantern UnpublishedLetters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University, Depart-ment of Rhetoric, Communication and Journalism, Rochester,MI.






Letter 16. ———. t.s. 2002. Green Lantern Unpublished Letters to theEditor and Writer. Oakland University, Department of Rhetoric,Communication and Journalism, Rochester, MI.

Letter 17. Judd Winick, t.s. 28 Sept. 2002. Green Lantern Unpub-lished Letters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University,Department of Rhetoric, Communication and Journalism,Rochester, MI.

Letter 18. Bob Schreck, t.s. 26 Sept. 2002. Green Lantern Unpub-lished Letters to the Editor and Writer. Oakland University,Department of Rhetoric, Communication and Journalism,Rochester, MI.





MacCallum-Stewart, Esther. ‘‘The First World War and BritishComics.’’ University of Sussex Journal of Contemporary History 6(2002): 1-18.

Majors, Richard, and Janet Billson. Cool Pose: The Dilemmas ofBlack Manhood in America. New York: Lexington, 1992.

McAllister, Matt. ‘‘Ownership Concentration in the US ComicBook Industry.’’ Comics and Ideology. Ed. Matt McAllister, Ed-ward H. Sewell, and Ian Gordon. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.15-28.

McLelland, Mark J. ‘‘The Love Between ‘Beautiful Boys’ in JapaneseWomen’s Comics.’’ Journal of Gender Studies 9 (2000). 13-25.

Messner, Michael A. Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997.

Moore, Jesse T. ‘‘The Education of Green Lantern: Cultureand Ideology.’’ Journal of American Culture 26 (2003):263-78.

Nardi, Peter. Gay Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.

Pease, Bob, and Keith Pringle, eds. A Man’s World? Changing Men’sPractices in a Globalized World. London: Zed Books, 2001.

Pecora, Norma. ‘‘Superman/Superboys/Supermen: The Comic BookHero as Socializing Agent.’’ Men, Masculinity, and the Media.Ed. Steve Craig. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992. 61-77.

Pfeil, Fred. White Guys: Studies in Postmodern Domination andDifference. London: Verso, 1995.

Robinson, Sally. Marked Men: White Masculinity in Crisis. NewYork: Columbia UP, 2000.

Rotundo, E. Anthony. American Manhood: Transformations inMasculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era. New York:Basic, 1993.

Sabo, Donald, and Sue Curry Jansen. ‘‘Images of Men in Sport Me-dia: The Social Reproduction of Gender Order.’’ Men, Mascu-linity and the Media. Ed. Steve Craig. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,1992. 169-84.

Savran, David. Taking It Like a Man: White Masculinity, Masochism,and Contemporary American Culture. Princeton: Princeton UP,1998.

Schwalbe, M. Unlocking the Iron Cage: The Men’s Movement,Gender Politics, and American Culture. New York: Oxford UP,1996.

Seidman, Steven. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. 3rd ed.Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.

Sewell, Edward. ‘‘Queer Characters in Comic Strips.’’ Comics andIdeology. Ed. Matt McAllister, Edward H. Sewell, and IanGordon. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. 251-74.

Shugart, Helene. ‘‘Reinventing Privilege: The New (Gay) Man inContemporary Popular Media.’’ Critical Studies in Media Com-munication 20 (2003): 67-91.

Silverman, Kaja. Male Subjectivity at the Margins. New York: Rout-ledge, 1992.

Simpson, Mark. Male Impersonators: Men Performing Masculinity.New York: Routledge, 1994.


Straub, Michael E. ‘‘The Shoah Goes On and On: Remembrance andRepresentation in Art Spiegelman’s Maus.’’ MELUS 20.3 (1995):33-46.

Tasker, Yvonne. Spectacular Bodies: Gender, Genre and the ActionCinema. London: Routledge.

Whitehead, Stephen M. Men and Masculinities: Key Themes andNew Directions. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2002.

Winick, Judd. ‘‘Hate Crime: Part One.’’ Green Lantern #154. Ed.Bob Schreck. New York: DC Comics, 2002.

———. ‘‘Hate Crime: Part Two.’’ Green Lantern #155. Ed. Bob.Schreck. New York: DC Comics, 2002.

———. Telephone interview. 3 Oct. 2002.

———. ‘‘You Can Never, Never, Never Go Home Again . . .’’ GreenLantern #153. Ed. Bob Schreck. New York: DC Comics, 2002.


superhero for gays

Documents