Before
we go off to the races let's establish where the starting blocks are.
For the purposes of this post let's assume that Harley Quinn is
definitely, canonically bisexual: that every joke and innuendo in
print and on screen the last twenty-plus years has been made in
earnest; that the scene in Harley &
Ivy where they seem to be sharing a double bed is not about
lacking rent money; and that Harley isn't just being catty when she
takes note of Power Girl's curves in Harley Quinn #11.
So, for our purposes today it is 100% established fact
that Harley is bi and that at one time at least she and Poison Ivy
were lovers. All clear?
Okay, so this was all kicked off by someone telling me
Batwoman was cancelled. Between that, the continued absence of Renee
Montoya in the New 52 and Alan Scott's increasing backgrounding in
the Earth 2 titles that leaves Harley as the only headlining queer
character DC has and she's not even out.
But does she need to be?
Let me be clear: queer characters who are out? Good and
definitely needed, should be more of them. The Batwoman title in
particular will be sorely missed. What I'm arguing here is that
perhaps the current portrayal of Harley's queerness has some value in
and of itself beyond fun innuendo.
I should like at this stage to point out that whilst I
don't view Harley as “out” I don't view her as closeted,
especially under her current writers Amanda Conner and Jimmy
Palmiotti. Anyone who has read their Power Girl run or Painkiller
Jane (most any of their work, really) knows that these are creators
who are very comfortable with sex as a subject. As creators they
proceed from the idea that sex and sexuality are major parts of the
adult human psychology and they're unafraid to tackle that. In
Painkiller Jane the main character's bisexuality is a simple fact
portrayed as attraction completely divorced from gender (according to
Palmiotti) whilst their Power Girl directly addresses the fact of her
physicality and how it is perceived by her and others.
With Harley they mainly address her sexuality with
jokes. Yes, they're presented as Easter Eggs for fans but there's
nothing particularly subtle about them (one of them's a beaver joke,
for goodness sake!) but I like it because its not presented as an
issue at all, just a fact of Harley's personality. It helps that
they've reverted her to the carefree, often childlike Harley from
before the New 52: no impulse control, no baggage, no sense of limits
and because we're talking about the writers we are that attitude
informs how her sexuality is represented. Even if we took Harley to
be bi (and we are today, remember) I honestly don't think she would
ever feel the need or desire to identify that way, or any way, it
just isn't her.
It would be easy for me to segue here into one of those
tangents about how we don't need labels and I would like that to be
the world we lived in (I do, it must be admitted here, identify with
one of the... less choosy sexualities and am therefore biased) but on
the macro scale I think that's generations off. For the time being, a
period probably far longer than our lifetimes, labels serve an
important purpose whilst we sort out the social issues surrounding
them and probably will continue to serve a purpose long after.
But in this one case whilst we have characters like
Batwoman, Bunker and Alan Scott proudly identifying and representing
perhaps it serves an equally useful purpose for there to be a
bisexual character to whom sexuality is not an issue at all. There's
something beautifully Utopian about this carefree, anarchic spirit
not even acknowledging genders and labels or even really the need to.
Right now, I admit, its just jokes but I honestly
believe one day someone will write an explicitly queer Harley. After
all, she's gone from straight to implicitly bisexual on the strength
of little more than fan 'shipping entering the mainstream. One day
the next generation of fans will take over and to them Harley will
just be bisexual. When that day comes I just hope they
continue with Harley's sexuality in its present context, that it just
is; not an issue to her; not a source of internal conflict; its just
her; don't use the labels and just show it in action.
Because of the character's history DC has a chance to
present a queer character whose sexuality isn't a revelation on any
level because for two decades various levels of authorial intent are
on their side. Not even in the “plausible deniability” vein of
Comics Code era characters like Northstar where it was a matter of
censorship, here its a perfectly natural act of literary evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment