• ["Tom had a taste for younger Hispanic men in a flashback that aired after he died. It was tough to see one of Lost's iconic villains die, but like Sawyer said, he shouldn't have taken the boy. ..."] Bullshit! Sawyer decides to murder Tom for Walt's kidnapping, yet he never went after Ben for the same reason? Which goes to show that James "Sawyer" Ford was full of shit and a hypocrite to boot.

• Wiccan, as the son of Wanda and I'm not sure if I understand Mephisto (or Vision, I dunno), might maybe be able to hold his own against Will(even though right now his potential hasn't been harnessed to its fullest) but I think she's the most badass.

• You used "romantic" and "Redtube" in the same sentance. Shame on you.

• Agree! Teddy + Billy= cutest couple ever. And I love Batwoman and Question too!

• I can't help but feel that the inclusion of any anime/manga characters would be the inclusion of a whole other list's worth of anime/manga characters. As homophobic as Japanese culture is, they have a lot more out & prouds in comics. Personally, I was thinking of Leeron (TTGL). Or Choplin (Deadman Wonderland). But on a more American note, I was thinking of Cap Metropolis, Hooded Justice or the Silhouette. They wouldn't be the most dangerous on the list, but they could probably kick your ass.

• They could easily destroy you- wait, no. Edward is a vegetarian and if Bella had him anymore bitchwhipped.... And Jacob is just an angsty little boy, kick him solidly in the groin and he's down for the count.

• I totally agree, she need more attention after the series ended, and what better way that to call the attention of the gay community (we know they will buy anything that has the main character being gay). If she really though Dumbledore as gay, the she is a coward because she knew putting it on the book would hurt its sales

• Excellent detective work on completely missing the point. Conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, have a long and proud history of using laws as cudgels of normative behavior. The list of people who are oppressed by religious and conservative legislation, especially in the U.S. Is so long that there are startling numbers of CONSERVATIVES being marginalized by other conservatives. So the point being (and you're bright enough to get this without having it spelled out) claiming "cramming things down our throat" when you guys have made such actions into both art AND a beloved pass-time doesn't so much ring hypocritical as it does dadaesque absurdist self- immolation. Or maybe just a bold faced lie. Either.

• Sorry, I call bullshit on this one. I write. I write fantasy. I have constructed my own fictional world, and I can't find room in the story to fit every single little detail that may or may not motivate a character into the text. What actually makes it to the page is maybe 60% of what goes on in my head. And usually if the back story and sub context make it to the page in the first draft, it gets taken out in the second. Or third. Or fourth. Or fifth. The writer's responsibility when writing a book is telling a good story. Due to pacing and word economy it is not always possible to cram every detail into the finished product. You also have about five people standing between the author and the published book. Agent, Editor, copy-editor, proofreader and the owner and/or primary acquisitions editor for the publisher (depending on the size of the company). The author may have final say on what makes it into the finished book (and most authors don't) but all six will weigh in between the final manuscript and the final book. I can imagine an agent/editor/publisher taking one look at a beloved children's book character coming out as gay, and saying "Oh, fuck no." My point is that those after-publication interviews are the last chance the author has to point out the things they couldn't get into the finished book. I'd bet money Bloombury Publishing collectively shit themselves when Rowling gave that interview. Saying "Well, the author doesn't matter" because you don't like something is disrespectful towards the author. Rowling has a metric ton of money and doesn't really need respect anymore. Most authors still need their day jobs to buy cat food. Discovering that a reader dismisses you as unimportant re: your own book is pretty fucking discouraging when you've got a couple books to your name and you're still working retail.

• You forgot Northstar of Alpha Flight and X-Men fame.

• Love seeing Dumbledore on the list. I especially love the rumor that behind the scenes of 'Half-Blood Prince", which was filming when J.K. brough ol' Albus out of the closet, that Michael Gambon really camped it up off-screen. I haven't seen the extras, but Lawdy, I'm hoping that's there. And maybe it's me, but that still-frame of Voldemort's lookin' kinda fruity, too. And he would fuck you up nine ways to Sunday.

• I'm sort of confused by all the people claiming Dumbledore wasn't gay in the stories. I mean, he was always hanging out in Harry's bedroom and playing with his "wand". He and his little lightning-scarred stallion were obviously a "thing", and Harry's only female interest is the awkward and forced-feeling Ginny Weasley involvement, which seems more like her own long-term desire than his. Neither Harry nor Dumbledore seem all that interested in women, and both spend so very much time in eachother's private chambers... and yet, there's NO reason to think either one is gay? Yeah. Right.

• /Tim Drake/ Wiccan and Hulking! Thank you.

• I don't know which I like better — the actual list or the geek debate in the comments about which gay/lesbian hero was the baddest.

• I guess that's because HJ didnt really come off directly as a gay character. There were subtle hints in the movie, and some comments in the comic book, but most of the plot around him in the comics was about him having to hide that he was gay, thus setting up the deal with Silk Specter and Comedian.

• Well, Dumbledore's fabulousness is an undisputed fact, portrayed by the author in the books and in the movies. Now I'm remembering some wizard who wore dresses because he liked the breeze . . .

• Truly, the internet is a wondrous place! But Rowling's statement still isn't part of the series. What will be more memorable, more likely to be passed down to future generations? The books I think. Even archived material gets forgotten, unless you set about looking for something specifically. The books will always be around for folks to read for entertainment, and I think they have more influence than one comment the author made. I'm sure you can go back & read newspaper articles about things other authors have said about their characters, but who bothers to?

• Aren't they all lusting after that one human chick? They're not gay, just dooshbags.

• ever been to a phish show? They might as well rename the band "white dudes with dreadlocks convention"

• On second though, ignore that post. It's pointless. I just get tired of people who think "You can be gay, just not in my face" is acceptance and I couldn't find the energy to write a more constructive reply.

• I know exactly what you mean! I have the same problem with Christianity in movies. This may shock a lot of you, but as a gay progressive atheist I don't really care if you're Christian. Who you worship in the privacy of your own home is between you and that God. But when christians cram the 'God bless us' thing down queer viewers throat as if it's the norm for everyone, it feels forced and you shouldn't be surprised if people get annoyed by it.

• While I approve of gay dice being 4D's, to frm triangles, I'm disappointed that your pink gay dice do not glitter.

• Fantastic list. I agree with just baout every choice, though I would have put them in a different order.

• Jesse and Zidel pretty much covered your question, and besides I live in Eugene Oregon, which is a magnet for dready hippies so the ratio is probably skewed from the average. Even in my middle school/high school days in the early to mid 1990's (which is the same time frame as the books) it wasn't all that uncommon to see white kids with dreads and I don't imagine the UK was all that different. I think this goes to show that Lee's hairstyle was more worthy of mentioning that his skin color.

• Yeah, but then I posted the aggressive-aggressive comment to make up for it.

• Just to add but Obsidian was also in the JLA.

• All people have agendas, son. But I really doubt she just tacked on that he was gay. It sounds a lot like you had issues with old Dumbly there coming out. It is, in fact, hinted at. Have you literally never caught the Grindewald references? Are you shocked that he isn't a flaming queen? She just didn't make a big deal out of it. Many fans of the Potterverse aren't as inclined as you are to feel about text the way you do, that it is all up to interpretation- they asked about his personal life, because Rowling practically has dossiers on her characters. She mentioned that, well, Dumbledore wasn't into the gals. I honestly don't see the problem. You can care to disagree, but it does fit with his character, and he is written so as to fit that profile. Not all gay characters hit on the male lead and prance about with their sexuality- but he wasn't surprising. Flitwick, McGonagall, Draco- those would have been odd. Dumbledore? Bah, you're just raging. Er... /nerd rant

• Thanks for all the compliments and criticisms, everyone. A lot of characters that you guys mentioned were on the rough of my list (and a few you never mentioned), but I like the 15 we ended up with. To be honest, Hooded Justice never crossed my mind, even though I love Watchmen. As far as Northstar...personally, I love the character. I used him in the Best and Worst of Marvel last week. I do get tired that the only thing anyone ever talks about Northstar is about his sexuality. I just couldn't bring myself to put him on the list, for better or for worse. To me, he is much bigger than just the "gay" X-Man.

• Willow :D Tara should be inthere too, she totally axed a monster when he was trying to kill Willow </total Willow and Tara obsession> Awesome list. Wanna add that Sam Adama isn't that odd a name overhere *in the Netherlands* maybe he had Dutch or Scandinavian ancestors ;-p

• Willow :D Tara should be inthere too, she totally axed a monster when he was trying to kill Willow </total Willow and Tara obsession> Awesome list. Wanna add that Sam Adama isn't that odd a name overhere *in the Netherlands* maybe he had Dutch or Scandinavian ancestors ;-p

• Hooded Justice and/or Captain Metropolis! Granted HJ wasn't nerdy, but I can imagine theres tons of great fanfic about his weird sadomasochistic homosexualism, and how he enforced it on terrificly unlucky criminals, so that gives him nerd cred. Also, his costume was easily the best of the Minutemen.

• A very fine list indeed.

• Whoa! You used my list idea! I'm so flattered! Thank you very much for doing this. It's very true that in this day and age, so many people get caught up in such trivial matters like a person's sexuality, that some don't notice how some truly great bad asses are playing for the other team. Mystique, Anole, Graymalkin, and Northstar, a few of the Sailor Moon characters, and pretty much ninety percent of the vampire community are some pretty intimidating queens too. Thank you again!

• Actually, I live outside Washington, D.C. so it's a VERY diverse area, and I can also second this. I know more dreadlocked Whites then Blacks with dreadlocks. Even on my campus of 30,000+, you don't seem many. Counterintuitive I know.

• I feel a mighty Zim-like need to point this out. If a writer doesn't identify a character's sexuality, the character is simply assumed to be straight. So if a writer wants a character to be gay, the writer has to be explicit and say, "He/she is gay," or else everyone will just assume the character is straight--especially if the character is well-written and not a tired stereotype. Straight until proven otherwise, it's a prejudice we all have. Think about that the next time you get irritated because a character turns out to be gay. Why did you assume they weren't? Enough of that, though. Awesome list! Comics and anime are crammed so full of sexuality--all those tight costumes, all that violence. It's important that every now and again someone acknowledges teh sexy. And I always love to see Midnighter and Apollo make an appearance. Ellis's big reveal was done so matter-of-fact, like, "Yeah, they're gay for each other. And?" Warren Ellis, once again showing us how to do it right.

• "LATVERIAN ROMANCE IS NOT DEAD. ONLY YOU ARE."

• i was surprised North star did not make the list. . plus would have had bat woman hire on the list. at least midnight and appollo made the top tier

• No Hooded Justice? =P I liked the list and enjoyed reading it. Didn't know about Batwoman/Montoya!

• I know more then 4 white guys with dreadlocks. And around 3 white girls with dreadlocks. I've seen more white people with dreadlocks then black people =/

• My Gay dice is a pink 4-sided dice. When held properly it's an inverted pink triangle. This clearly makes it the gayest of gay dice(And increases the chances of every character being gay. The only way to make the chances higher is a gay coin flip.)

• Welcome to the internet, anything forgotten is archived. Dumbledore's homosexuality is available for anyone willing to look.

• Yeah. The writers got tired of having him pining for a 13 year old.

• Absolutely ECSTATIC that Willow is #1, cause lets face it - that girl DESERVES the #1 spot.

• That was my first thought, too, but I soon realized that he's not that nerdy. Still, he's so badass that he should make the list anyway.

• Badassery notwithstanding, are they actually gay? Crossdressers aren't necessarily homosexual (though I don't know about the subtleties of the word "okama"), and I can't for the life of me remember any sort of relationships with them. But then again, I have a terrible memory, and was reading One Piece in three different storylines simultaneously...so it is quite likely I am forgetting something!

• Badassery notwithstanding, are they actually gay? Crossdressers aren't necessarily homosexual (though I don't know about the subtleties of the word "okama"), and I can't for the life of me remember any sort of relationships with them. But then again, I have a terrible memory, and was reading One Piece in three different storylines simultaneously...so it is quite likely I am forgetting something!

• Bingo! When I started reading this list I was thinking, "O.K., when's Northstar showin' up.". Then I read #8 and realized he wouldn't be there. Oh yeah, and McQ, let me help, since you obviously missed it at least twice...."Northstar, a character who would be on this list if he wasn't constantly being captured, killed and brainwashed." You're welcome. :-)

• 1. I LOVE THIS LIST and it has nothing to do with who is or isn't on it. The very existence of the list is awesome. Thank you! 2. Very happy Captain Jack Harkness made it on the list. Would've loved to see Captain John Hart included. Given the ex-lover status and complete psychopathic bad-assery of the character, yeah. Good list, though.

• there are hints to dumbledores sexuality throughout the series. they are small, but looked at in the light of rowlings acknowledgment, they are clear.

• Well, this was in the Ultimate X-men, and the Ultimate universe began in oh, 2000ish?

• My gay dice are pink 69-siders.

• Well, I think it's silly and counter-productive to assume someone has absolutely no agenda simply because what she's doing agrees with YOUR world-view. So, there you have it.

• Peter David badassery ftw

• What about Shore Leave? Two words: Boom! Yummy. That is all

• Colossus was GHEY?!?!?! Shit...And to think of all the times I'd pick him on the XMEN video game at that chinese corner store when I was a kid...Jesus Appleseeds...

• Lee Jordan had dreadlocks. They said he did in the books. How many white dudes do you know with dreadlocks?

• Just like some of the Patronus' aren't thoroughly explained in the book. How did the directors/producers know to give Luna Lovegood a rabbit patronus? Because J.K. Rowling told them! Sometimes it breaks the story to give everyone a background story and list everyone's favorite animal, etc. I think the gay-ness of Dumbles was implied in the 7th book more than anything else with his relationship with Grindelwald. BUT! She never writes that Grindy-baby is some long lost love! And just because Jo isn't showing us a closet of old lovers from the past, doesn't mean Dumbles was a-sexual. I'm sure the old guy got his freak on.

• I totally forgot about him! Yeah, he should have been up there. For proof, look no further than the famous 'AIDS burger' debacle of series one. Maybe True Blood just isn't that nerdy. Lafayette himself certainly isn't.

• At the risk of starting a flamewar…for a guy that has a blog, Rob sure is obsessed with lists. That being said, I do care about Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel, and DC in this list, and I didn't know that you could make lists out of mundane things like ventriloquists and gay people. The Couples' Activities list was just weird, but I didn't really care. The Ninja Turtles list a few days ago was patently absurd in the way Adam Pawlus did it. Pathetic even. I don't know about Star Wars and Star Trek lists, but hearing the nerds argue back and forth in the comments, it just sounds forced to me. In the end, it just seems to me that in the case of these lists at least it just feels like they're in list-form merely for shock-factor reasons. This, if you ask me, does more to set the numerical agenda back than help it. This may shock a lot of you, but as a Christian conservative I don't really care if you write in lists. What you write in the privacy of your own home is between you, Microsoft Excel, and God. But when "bloggers" cram the list thing down mainstream America's throat, you shouldn't be surprised when there's pushback.

• ....Very appropriate list, considering the National Day of Silence is coming up this week : )

• What about "Lafayette" from True Blood. I thought for sure he would be on here.

• Yeah, but Rucka did wonders with that editorial mandate. She was conceived as a shitty character, but the creative team made her fantastic. Too bad Rucka's had a falling out with DC and won't continue it.

• I think he's referring to the bit about Northstar getting his ass kicked and being kidnapped/brainwashed so often as the reason why he didn't make the list of ass kicking gays.

• I would say that this was a part of Dumbledore's character that the author didn't feel the need to mention directly in the book, but that doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. The additional information about Grindlewald puts a different spin on that bit of Dumbledore's back story that wasn't elaborated upon in the books. It's an extra layer of knowledge about the character that readers can take or leave as they please. A similar thing came about with the minor character of Lee Jordan. It wasn't mentioned in the books that he was black, but that was shown in the movie. Rowling told the director that the character was black so the part was cast accordingly. She didn't feel that the characters skin color was was an important enough aspect to have it brought up in the book so it wasn't mentioned. Same with Dumbledore's sexuality.

• I don't really think it's parsing. To call it an announcement makes it sound like Rowling went out of her way to tell the world this in a press conference or web posting. That she revealed this while answering a fans question at a signing appearance puts it in a different light altogether. It also shows the importance (or rather lack thereof) that this bit of background had in the story.

• Where is Bon Clay or Emporio Ivankov?!?!

• Just agree to disagree on her motives, then, since neither of us can ever know for sure. As for the real issue, you can accept that Dumbledore is gay or not. Since it isn't in the text verbatim, though I disagree that it wasn't hinted at or that a seed wasn't planted, you can interpret the actual books any way you want. It's just silly and counter-productive to assign motive with no proof, simply because it affirms your worldview.

• Now I've got the image of Stephen Fry in a mask and cape running around a city in my mind, and it won't get out...

• This post structuralist theory sounds like bullshit to me. While a reader is free to draw their own meaning and interpretation the authors view does in fact matter. To suggest that that it doesn't seems ridiculous to me. The author is the best (perhaps ultimately the only) person to clarify the meaning of a story. If a story is written properly that shouldn't be necessary, but if that's not the case then the author should at least be able to say what was intended. Whether one wants to pay attention that is part of the story teller's function. To say that the author isn't obligated to explain is one thing, but to say that he or she has no right to do so is the most pretentiously absurd bullshit I've heard in a long damn time.

• I've been thinking about it and does Tom Friendly belong on this list? I fail to see how he "could easily destroy you". Unless you're talking about the emotional destruction Michael went through, but that's a stretch. Given the way ol' Friendly threw a football, I think I could take him in a fight.

• You're seriously parsing the word "announcement"? Sheesh.

• Our alliance was destined to be short-lived. I was just glad you stumbled onto the truth for once. :-) I'm getting "worked up" about a years-old announcement merely because the author of the post brought it up. It's not like I bought it up on a completely irrelevant post. My point was only that Rowling didn't have to attach any sexual-preference to Dumbledore at all (despite whatever fan question she was asked). It wasn't in the text. It wasn't even hinted at. It was a useless thing for her to do. I actually would have respected it more had she made him gay from the get go. But she didn't. She rope-a-doped her audience and it was cheap.

• I see your point, and saw it originally. I just disagree from a practical point of view. For the story itself, you're right, the author's intentions don't matter because the text is the text. As well, readers of the story will put their own interpretations to it, and that's fine. But, for me, personally, having extraneous info about a character can add layers and depth that otherwise wasn't there. One last point: What about works that have multiple printings that are different from their initial publication? Is it not in the author's right to modify their own text so it more closely aligns with their actual intentions? Which, then, becomes The Text? The original or the modified? This becomes even muddier when both versions are available. I'm going to stop there because I don't want to start accidentally defending George Lucas...

• So the rumors about Cable and Deadpool were true!

• Dave, now you're making me regret my previous defense. If Dumbledore being gay doesn't matter, why get so worked up over the years-old announcement now? It's not an agenda for a writer to conceive a character as a gay (for her/his own understanding of said character) without ever revealing that fact in the text. That it came out later publicly, in an off-hand comment (by Dan Radcliffe, I believe) that was then followed-up by an official announcement, also doesn't preclude any sort of agenda. Furthermore, had Dumbledore's sexuality been revealed in one of the books (and it's definitely hinted at in book 7) also wouldn't, necessarily, mean that JK Rowling was trying to cram her political/social beliefs down anyone's throats. It only means that Dumbledore, like so many people in real life, is gay and we don't even know it. Because why? Because it doesn't matter.

• Northstar is mentioned as who he'd dating, but Northstar is not on the actual list... There is a difference.

• Agree completely. There's hardly any subtext to support the statement that Dumbledore is gay. It is NOT in the books, and therefore not in the character. A tacked-on statement by the author does not make it part of the series. Literature doesn't work like that. Had she tried to depict him as an openly gay character, she would have lost a lot of conservative readers. Her statement means nothing, because it is not depicted in the story, and the story will survive long after people have forgotten what she has said.

• JK Rowling didn't do an "announcement". She was answering fan questions for an event, and somebody asked if Dumbledore ever found his true love. That's when Rowling answered the question before her, and then explained her answer. Frankly, there are many things Rowling knows about the characters that define them and their actions that she never tells anybody. A gryffindor boy has an elf for a father, and it's never spoken of yet she tells the director of the story so that he knows how to guide the actors. The same with Snape loving Lily (though that later is in the books) and Dumbledore being gay. I just want to know what other details she's left out.

• If you read Vigilante in the 80's, then you'll remember Cannon and Saber! They were both deadly assassins (Cannon is a swordsman and Saber is the gunman) who killed each other's boss in order to be together.

• Ah, no. My point was entirely about the literary theory of post structuralism, and that while what Rowling says is nice, as it gives *her* perspective, it has absolutely no bearing on what the book is *actually* about. Dumbledore is gay just as much as the books are an elaborate Marxist allegory, or as much as they consist of a few thousand pages of the escapist fantasies of a mentally unstable boy living in an abusive family. Even if Rowling explicitly addresses those latter two theories and says they're absolutely wrong, her viewpoint is completely irrelevant. The statement is kinda like if they found a secret journal of Samuel Beckett that explained exactly what Waiting for Godot was about - it's neat and interesting, but it adds as much to the story as spitting would add to the ocean. I kinda get off on that sort of thing, even if in reality it really bugs me (I'm perverse like that sometimes).

• I know in this post-fanfic world everybody who wants to can find "sexual tension" between any characters they like. However, Dumbledore was seriously pinging the gaydar. It's just like everybody knew Snape had a crush on Lily... the way it was written, you could just tell there was something else going on that wasn't being said. The same with Dumbledore and the recounting of having to kill Grindelwald.

• Like I said, context matters, too. But I get your point. Something where the point of watching is the mystery (Twin Peaks, Lost, Sixth Sense, etc.) shouldn't ever really go without a SPOILER WARNING. Unless, of course, you're like me and read all the Lost message boards, then it's quite alright to not include them because if you're reading that kind of stuff without having watched, again, it's your own fault.

• i assume you mean Lestat de Lioncourt, if so, you are most definitely right! :D

• Please read entry #8 instead of just looking at the pictures.

• Stephen Fry should be on this list. The man could destroy you with a single well-chosen, archly-delivered word.

• cool list... it's a shame though mystique didn't make an appearance. Not even an honorable mention? :/

• The ironic thing is your comment is just as passive-agressive as mine.

• Noble Causes?

• Hmmm, five years sounds good for most shows, but what about classic shows that have been out longer than many people have been nerds? What about a show like Twin Peaks where the entire point of the show is to find out who-dun-it? It's been around for more than five years but many of my nerd friends have never seen it and have no idea who the killer is...and I would be pissed if anyone spoiled it for them, five years or not.

• And then had the Sentry tear her head off. No one does foreplay like Doctor Doom.

• All it really takes to bring Willow down is reminding her that Tara is dead. On the other hand Dumbledore's death was set up when he put on a ring.... I'm going with Apollo. Anyone hardcore enough to give it to Midnighter is as badass as they come.

• That's debatable. Dumbledore may or may not have been intended to be gay from the start. Rowling says it was always there. No reason to cry foul. It isn't like she needed the advertising. And regardless of whether or not Ult Colossus sucks, he and Dumbledore are still more powerful than Batwoman, so... not sure what you're getting at. And despite starring in a well-written and beautifully-drawn series, Batwoman is a shitty character. In fact if you want to talk about artificial "gayness", Batwoman was designed as a lesbian first, character second.

• Your first paragraph actually makes my point. Dumbledore's sexuality has no bearing on his character or the story. There were no indications from the story that he was either hetero or homo and furthermore it simply DIDN'T MATTER! So, Rowling's announcement seemed absurdly contrived and as Zidel333 pointed out, pandering.

• Given that the series is told almost exclusively from Harry's point of view how was Rowling supposed to work in a believable revalation of Dumbledore's sexuality? A line like "Oh, by the way Harry did you know I'm gay." would seem out of place. Dumbledore didn't seem very out or or open about it and never really went in to detail on his personal life with Harry. He was always more busy with stuff like preparing him for battle with Voldemort. Also people tend to forget that Rowling revealed that info when a reader asked if Dumbledore had ever had a girlfriend, seems a pretty appropriate time to mention that he was gay.

• That's because Batwoman is friggin' awesome. And check that again: she's ahead of "Ultimate Colossus" and Dumbledore is only homosexual by author fiat rather than anything in the books themselves. Nothing wrong with that ranking.

• I thought all of Liefield's creations were "gay"!

• Actually, he's been gay for awhile (although the timing of the announcement was probably just shock factor). When they were making the fourth movie, Rowling told the director that Dumbledore was gay when he tried to add a line about a girl Dumbledore used to love.

• Actually, she knew it for quite awhile before she announced. When they were making the fourth movie, she told the director Dumbledore was gay when he tried to add a line about a girl Dumbledore loved.

• I agree with Dave. When you're writing comics or books as art for art's sake, you need to balance different personalities and aspects of characters. And more importantly, how you do it. J.K. Rowling's Big Reveal upset met on multiple levels, because she didn't have the cojones to write it in - AT ALL - in the actual book series. Instead she made an announcement, and it took off like wildfire. And then, gosh darn, she was surprised so many, many people were interested in the reveal. It's not so much that she revealed a big character was gay, so much as the matter of her revelation. In a similar vein, as a writer I find it very hard to keep my characters sufficiently different, explain said differences, and do it in such a way as to make it subtle and believable. Instead of not beating-the-reader-over-their-head-with-political-or-symbolic-purposes. I respect my (future) readers and their ability to analyze thoughtfully. Much like homosexuality, I do write about minority or discriminated social groups, in my case fat people and a fat POV way of looking at life. But I don't want the fat part of my stories to get in the way of the total story. I prefer subtlety, making small mentions and small thoughts instead of a full blow tirade or moral. It's the same way with homosexuality. If it the character development supports having that different social/gender/economic/sexual/physical status and it works within the parameters of the writing, great. If it feels contrived, or done just to cater towards certain groups to the point it's pandering...that's called bad writing my friend. Full stop.

• No, a magic tropical rain forest.

TotalComments: 100