Gallery told to drop 'gay' Batman

[shrunkenhead]

 

Homer's intent is debatable, and never classifies the relationship in the poem itself by using the terminology that would have "outed" the two for certain, nor is there a sexual act between the two even alluded to.

 

I have to respectfully disagree, and also add that there is very little serious debate about this within the scholastic community. In order to deny this aspect of the poem, you have to read it totally out of historical context (which the majority of American critics of the "new criticism" school did in the early 1950s. And unfortunately, their legacy is largely what is still taught in most mainsteam American highschools).

 

Also, there also is some not-so-veiled terminology in the original greek, that has been whitewashed by a number of famous translators. In the original greek, there is much reference to the "mentor" relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. And that's well-known code for a relationship between an older man and a young male that embodies two activities:

 

1) An intellectual/spiritual, mentally developmental exchange from one man to another

2) sodomy

 

Robert Fagles did a pretty good job correcting these translation cover-ups several years back.

 

 

If you didn't like Troy{/i}, you must have found Alexander more your speed

 

Nah, that sucked!

 

 

This view of the two as cousins, raised as brothers in the same household would explain the intense "love" between the two, Achilles' level of grief and passion for revenge in Homer's writings. I don't see why this view can't be as valid as the former (that they were gay lovers).

 

Sure, it can be as valid, but you must recognize that the reason it was done was because a man/man love affair in a movie of this sort would be perceived by mainstream (i.e. illiterate...oops, did I say that out loud?) America as, well, not very "manly." So what I'm saying is that it's folly to point the finger at a "liberal hollywood" that feels the need to whitewash texts thats are thousands of years old.

[Aman619]

....unless somebody can prove to me that there is in fact a "gay" gene. Maybe so...who knows, jury's not quite out on that one, i suppose.

 

Wouldn't a "gay" gene strictly speaking tend to breed itself out of the population after a few generations of un-closeted, un-restricted homosexual preference?

 

interesting point. the enduring fact of gayness being with us for all of civilization sure seems to argue for the "gene theory" as the cause. I really dont know. But I think youre right, that the recent open attitude of inclusion just might be its undoing, huh? I onic in the extreme.

[uclapeterg]

....unless somebody can prove to me that there is in fact a "gay" gene. Maybe so...who knows, jury's not quite out on that one, i suppose.

 

Wouldn't a "gay" gene strictly speaking tend to breed itself out of the population after a few generations of un-closeted, un-restricted homosexual preference?

 

It's a mutant gene... oh crahp! HOUSE OF M!

 

[Darthdiesel]

In order to deny this aspect of the poem, you have to read it totally out of historical context

 

It's a poem based on a story of a war much older than the pederastic times that the writer, commentators (aristotle, Plato, Aeschylus), and revisionist translators (Aristophanes, Aristarchus) all lived in. If one were to assume that Achilles and Patroclus actually existed, it would have been hundreds of years (12th or 13th century BC) before boinking your ward was en vogue for the ancient Greeks (500 - 200 BC), and as we can see from recent history, cultural trends turn on a dime. My point is, just because Greece in Aristotle's time saw pederasty as a common practice does not mean Achilles and Patroclus, who lived in an earlier period of Greece, must have been gay lovers as well.

 

(which the majority of American critics of the "new criticism" school did in the early 1950s. And unfortunately, their legacy is largely what is still taught in most mainsteam American highschools).

 

Unfortunate for whom? It is another viewpoint to study literary works, in which extra-textual sources are not considered. Not the way to look at everything, mind you, but sometimes, close reading provides a clearer message from the writer instead of considering his contemporaries' influences....

 

Also, there also is some not-so-veiled terminology in the original greek, that has been whitewashed by a number of famous translators.

 

Of this (whitewashing) there is no doubt (at least to me), but the following I have a problem with...

 

In the original greek,

 

We get a hold of Homer's notebook, did we?

 

there is much reference to the "mentor" relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. And that's well-known code for a relationship between an older man and a young male that embodies two activities:

 

1) An intellectual/spiritual, mentally developmental exchange from one man to another

2) sodomy

 

If you are thinking like a greek from Plato's time, that could be construed as "code"

 

Robert Fagles did a pretty good job correcting these translation cover-ups several years back.

 

 

Fagles' translations generally emphasize contemporary English phrasing and idiom over faithfulness to the original ancient Greek.

 

 

Sure, it can be as valid, but you must recognize that the reason it was done was because a man/man love affair in a movie of this sort would be perceived by mainstream (i.e. illiterate...oops, did I say that out loud?) America as, well, not very "manly." So what I'm saying is that it's folly to point the finger at a "liberal hollywood" that feels the need to whitewash texts thats are thousands of years old.

 

I saw your point in your response to Aman's post. I was just exploring your reasons behind your allusions that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus MUST have been a homosexual one. Maybe the whitewashing was done by David Benioff or his screenplay staff, who may be Catholic or Greek Orthodox...

[Aman619]

my guess is that the whitewashing was done for the oldest usual reasons ANYTHING is done in Hollywood: worldwide box office grosses... and the fear of alienating audiences. This may sound counter toi the great acceptance I have already posted about in modern society - - -but hollywood, as gay as many of its creative executives may be, just are NOT going to jeopardize bizness for personal crusading/causes. If the marketing and executives sense or deem a leading historical worldwide-famous character just shouldnt also be openly gay because that will hurt the film's chances for box office gross, it will be written out.

 

Its one thing to have secondary characters and a lead here or there on TV be outright queens, or just totally normal friends next door or coworkers except for their sexual preference on TV perhaps because TV is so segmented and audiences are small, or because its been done already.... But Hollywood just isnt there yet. In an Indy film, yes of course. But not in a 100 million plus gamble that is constructed to have near worldwide smash box office potential. Just my 2 cents. Maybe too, they shied away because as your discussion shows, it just isnt universally accepted that they WERE gay, is it? SO why take a stance when so much money is at stake?

[shrunkenhead]

Great post, Darth, I would've responded sooner but I've been involved in a heated debate with my wife on an entirely different subject.

 

it would have been hundreds of years (12th or 13th century BC) before boinking your ward was en vogue for the ancient Greeks (500 - 200 BC), and as we can see from recent history, cultural trends turn on a dime. My point is, just because Greece in Aristotle's time saw pederasty as a common practice does not mean Achilles and Patroclus, who lived in an earlier period of Greece, must have been gay lovers as well.

 

 

I see this as irrelevant. The Illiad, for all intents and purposes, is a work of fiction. Yes, it has historical antecedents, but there is no basis for conflating a historical Achilles with the Achilles of the Illiad. The Illiad is a Greek epic, and it's not "real," and that's the best we can do. I don't see the sense in speculating on a historical Achilles who would've lived hundreds of years before the composition of the Illiad, and applying it to the sexual proclitivites in the poem. That's not what the author(s) of the Illiad gave us. It's a Greek epic.

 

 

 

Unfortunate for whom? It is another viewpoint to study literary works, in which extra-textual sources are not considered. Not the way to look at everything, mind you, but sometimes, close reading provides a clearer message from the writer instead of considering his contemporaries' influences....

 

I certainly have nothing against the practice of close reading. I use it all the time. Clearly, it is the greatest gift of the New Critics. That said, to propose that literature can be looked at from this point and this point alone (and this is, I feel, is the problem with most American highschools) is a totally naive approach to reading texts. It's even more problematic when you consider the racism, sexism, and homophobia that the New Critics brought to the table when determining what "counts" as good literature (don't even get me started on the question of canonicity). If you read texts in a vacuum and apply the new critical line through and through, then you simply cannot arrive at an informed opinion about what you're reading. You only apply your own blindsided interpretation, and decide that what you've determined is "good." It's just not scholastically responsible.

 

 

We get a hold of Homer's notebook, did we?

 

Fair enough. I'm of the belief that there was no real Homer, anyhow, and that both Illiad and Odyssey are composite works. But regardless, you see the point I'm making about deliberate mistranslation.

 

 

Fagles' translations generally emphasize contemporary English phrasing and idiom over faithfulness to the original ancient Greek.

 

Yes and no, but I do see your point. Yes, he is all about phrasing, but he is certainly also very interested in recovering "lost" moments from the classic epics. He's real big on the violent imagery, for example, because he feels that the Illiad's blood and guts make for another whitewash. So I think it's a little unfair to say that he's just a phrasing guy.

 

 

 

I saw your point in your response to Aman's post. I was just exploring your reasons behind your allusions that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus MUST have been a homosexual one. Maybe the whitewashing was done by David Benioff or his screenplay staff, who may be Catholic or Greek Orthodox...

 

I still stick to my assertion that the relationship is absolutely homosexual. I really can't see any other way of reading it, unless you are being solely new critical, in which case you'd be imposing twenty-first century values upon a text from antiquity. Not a wise move, IMO.

 

And not that I'm just joining the herd here, but this is the critical consensus. To suppose that there is really a sincere debate about this point in scholastic circles really just isn't so, and I think it's unjust to the poem to suggest otherwise.

 

Sorry if this is boring the bejeezes out of everybody else.

[shrunkenhead]

my guess is that the whitewashing was done for the oldest usual reasons ANYTHING is done in Hollywood: worldwide box office grosses... and the fear of alienating audiences. This may sound counter toi the great acceptance I have already posted about in modern society - - -but hollywood, as gay as many of its creative executives may be, just are NOT going to jeopardize bizness for personal crusading/causes. If the marketing and executives sense or deem a leading historical worldwide-famous character just shouldnt also be openly gay because that will hurt the film's chances for box office gross, it will be written out.

 

Spot-on, Aman. That's why I think it's a little ridiculous when people wag their fingers at "liberal Hollywood." You just can't be that far to the left when you're censoring texts from antiquity. To me, Hollywood's treatment of the Illiad is akin to John Ashcroft buying drapes to cover up a pair of stone tits. Hardly a radical move.

[Comic Rush-migration]

If this is the case then that Spiderman avatar or gif I see sometimes on this forum should be taken off. Hahaha. You know the one where Spiderman is dancing very "gayish" so to speak or I think he's doing a rave line dance or something. I've seen it with multiple comic characters or anime charcters as well.

 

Can someone post it?

[verygoodplus]

Can someone post it?

 

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, alright.

 

 

 

 

 

[Darthdiesel]

Great post, Darth, I would've responded sooner but I've been involved in a heated debate with my wife on an entirely different subject.

 

So, was it Brad-gelina or Brad-ifer?

 

 

Sorry if this is boring the bejeezes out of everybody else.

 

 

This may have to be further discussed at a forum dinner. I will have to concede that your post had some excellent points but we can't really resolve this until we sit dow and watch a Troy/Alexander/History Channel documentary marathon, bombed out of our minds on Ouzo and Sambuca

[Sal]

....unless somebody can prove to me that there is in fact a "gay" gene. Maybe so...who knows, jury's not quite out on that one, i suppose.

 

Wouldn't a "gay" gene strictly speaking tend to breed itself out of the population after a few generations of un-closeted, un-restricted homosexual preference?

 

interesting point. the enduring fact of gayness being with us for all of civilization sure seems to argue for the "gene theory" as the cause. I really dont know. But I think youre right, that the recent open attitude of inclusion just might be its undoing, huh? I onic in the extreme.

 

no.

 

it's plausible that a "gay gene" would be the same as a "sickle-cell anemia" gene, in that one may be a carrier for it, but in order to pass it on to children, both parents have to be carriers.

 

i think a "gay gene" makes sense from a logical standpoint. it's like, oh i dunno, red hair, or green eyes, or any other of a myriad of characteristics that appear in a small minority of the population.

 

of course, all of this is way off topic for a comic book board. good show

[FlyingDonut]

I will leave the final word to Pope Benedict XVI:

 

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law. "

[arexcrooke]

I will leave the final word to Pope Benedict XVI:

 

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law. "

I agree with The Pontiff.

[shrunkenhead]

we can't really resolve this until we sit dow and watch a Troy/Alexander/History Channel documentary marathon, bombed out of our minds on Ouzo and Sambuca

 

 

Sounds good to me, I'll buy the first two rounds!

[Norrin_Radd]

[*] Views on Homosexuality in today's culture.

 

[*] Trademark enforcement.

 

[*] Classic literature and their translation into cinema.

 

[*] Alcoholic consumption.

 

 

This thread has it all!

[october]

[*] Views on Homosexuality in today's culture.

 

[*] Trademark enforcement.

 

[*] Classic literature and their translation into cinema.

 

[*] Alcoholic consumption.

 

 

This thread has it all!

 

[Weird]

 

 

Here's the site. Just in case anyone is particularly dense, some of the stuff is obviously NSFW.

[october]

On top of the stupid subject matter, that guy can't draw or paint worth a .

[Zonker]

no.

 

it's plausible that a "gay gene" would be the same as a "sickle-cell anemia" gene, in that one may be a carrier for it, but in order to pass it on to children, both parents have to be carriers.

 

i think a "gay gene" makes sense from a logical standpoint. it's like, oh i dunno, red hair, or green eyes, or any other of a myriad of characteristics that appear in a small minority of the population.

 

 

Huh? I fail to see how those are at all comparable. Recessive traits like red hair or green eyes put no one at a disadvantage reproductively. Even sickle cell anemia isn't a serious reproduction disadvantage. On the other hand, I can't think of a more serious barrier to passing on one's genes than an exclusively homosexual orientation, freely exercised. (except perhaps for highly fatal childhood diseases)

 

Not saying it's wrong, just saying I can't imagine genetics being the sole determinant here. Seems to be a HUGE natural selection disadvantage.

[delekkerste]

Does anyone know what the asking price has been for these?