Ok…I’ve put off talking about it, but I’ve gotten enough emails, heard enough comments, had enough school visits canceled that I know it’s time.
For those of you who don’t know, I wrote a book called Sidekicks, in which we meet Bright Boy (a.k.a Scott Hutchinson), the teen-aged sidekick to superhero Phantom Justice. Bright Boy has been a sidekick since he was 8… he’s now about 13 or 14, and he’s been forced to wear the same bright, snug-fitting costume for the past 6 years. Not a problem when you’re 8; big problem when you’re 13. So right in Chapter 1, Bright Boy has to dive off a building and save a beautiful woman from falling to her death. As he’s holding this woman he’s just saved, he notices that her clothes are torn and disheveled. He can see her bra. She’s in shock, so she’s kind of out of it…but she’s also appreciative to this person who just saved her life... so she’s running her fingers through his hair, breathing heavily on his neck, whispering into his ear how amazing he is…
Scott, despite a very concerted effort to stop it, gets an erection. He’s embarrassed, and confused, and is trying to figure out how to get out of this scenario without this woman thinking he's a complete perv, when a news helicopter appears and starts taping him… and because the tights don’t hide anything, Bright Boy’s “reaction” is soon being broadcast over news stations all over the country. Bright Boy becomes a laughingstock. Kids at Scott’s school (who don’t know he’s Bright Boy) make endless jokes about it, people on tv make fun of him, supervillains take pot shots in order to distract him. Scott, who had never really cultivated a life outside of being Bright Boy, is now faced with an unexpected dilemma: neither one of his identities is comfortable. He starts to question everything about himself, his life, and the people around him…
The origin of this story was a thought I had when I was ten years old. I remember getting out of bed and going downstairs for a glass of water one night (while my parents were still awake and watching tv). I was wearing nothing but my jockey shorts. I remember my parents acting like there was nothing out of the ordinary with my “outfit” (or lack thereof), but I had this sudden feeling that I was wearing wayyyyy too little to be walking around with other people about (even if they were just my parents). I felt really funky, and exposed... Also at the time, I was a full-fledged Batman freak... and being that this was the early eighties (and the Batman comics from the 70s were still pretty available), the DC writers/artists were continuing the process of aging Robin up. I remember shortly after my “Jockey short debacle” (as it will forever be known to me), looking at a comic of a late teen/early 20’s Robin and thinking, “Man, he should really cover up.” Here he is fighting hardened criminals – thugs, thieves, murderers – and he's wearing the tiniest pair of green jockey shorts imaginable. And no one mentions it? I mean, not one street tough has something to say about Robin’s itty-bitty bikini bottoms? Especially with all those high kicks he was throwing around? I couldn’t even go downstairs in my own house dressed like that…
All right...so, as that idea percolated in my head for the next 25 or so years, I read such brilliant works as The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, which were some of the first stories to really question the motives of superheroes in the very worlds that those heroes inhabited (instead of just real world pundits talking about how comic books rot kids’ brains...). These two stories explored the now-ubiquitous question - would the world really be a better place if these heroes actually existed? And that got me thinking about motivations. What would motivate a real person in our world to try to become a superhero? And what are the acceptable motivations for a superhero, as far as the public is concerned? Altruism, definitely...(Hello, Superman...) Revenge, sure...(Batman, in a safe way...The Punisher in a less black-and-white, more post-Vietnam, shades of gray kind of way). Responsibility, both personal (Spider-man), and social (Green Arrow). Thrill-seeking was also okay (Iron Man). There were others, of course...but there were two motivations that were definitely frowned upon...making money (although Luke Cage, Hero for Hire flirted with that idea), and sex. Under absolutely no circumstances was a superhero supposed to get any sexual thrill from dressing up in tights and running around the city (The Watchmen did an AMAZING job at addressing this). Ick. It calls into question not just the heroism of that specific hero, but the concept of superheroes as a whole. What are their motivations, really? Is that guy or woman saving me doing it for his or her own pervy reasons? It’s uncomfortable, and I think it touches a nerve (just replace “superhero” with “police officer” in that scenario to see what I mean...)
So, take my perception of how superheroes would be received today (akin to celebrities with super powers), and add one ill-timed sexual response (Bright Boy’s erection...kind of like Janet Jackson’s “Boob-gate”)… add to it a common narrative that celebrities and sports stars have to deal with all the time (are they mentors to children or not?), but multiply it by a thousand… because superheroes by their very design are supposed to be mentors. They’re designed to be the ideals (physically, mentally, but most importantly, MORALLY) that the public strives for...and how would the public react if they thought those paragons of morality had their own creepy agendas as their main motivation? I think the public would freak out a bit. They'd literally play the slip up over and over again (See "Boob-gate"), and every talking head in the world would have a chance to weigh in…setting up the ironic situation of a powerful superhero being picked on and bullied by the very public he’s chosen to protect.
As for Scott’s take on it all, he’s confused, as any kid going through that is -- as I was -- and in my opinion, it would get A LOT of his attention, too. Why am I doing this whole hero thing? Is it for the thrills? Is getting an “inappropriate erection” really a sign of a moral failing, or is it just an isolated event? Can I keep that from happening again? Do I want to? Am I really a “perfect” person, like everyone wants their heroes to be? Or is the answer more complex than that?
Eventually, the least likely person in Scott’s life helps him to realize that it’s not the “accidental erection” that’s a statement about his motivations and morality…nor is it the public’s reaction to it… What’s going to define Scott/Bright Boy as a person and a hero is his own moral compass… and the more we learn about Scott, the more we realize that he has nothing to worry about.
To me, it all starts with that “accidental erection,” and it’s a moment important enough to merit the attention. It’s an exploration of motivation that lots of boys go through at that age...but add to that the whole narrative of acceptable superhero motivation, and I think it becomes a much bigger story.
Now, the comments I’ve gotten have suggested that Scott getting an erection is totally inappropriate for a kid his age, or for a kid his age to be reading about. As a former teen boy, I respectfully disagree. I remember suffering through my first “inappropriate reaction” when I was eleven. By the time I was thirteen, there were so many that they’ve faded into memory. It happened. A lot. The best you could do was cross you legs, readjust the books you were holding, or count on the fact that very few people would be looking directly at your crotch. (I also learned that sometimes your efforts to cover-up did nothing more than draw attention to what you were hiding… If you need a quick definition for irony, there it is…)
It’s also been suggested that I created this scenario as a half-baked way to get in as many lowbrow jokes as I could. I hope it’s apparent from all I’ve written above that very few people have ever accused me of under-thinking something. And although those jokes were fun to write, the main focus of them was always the emotional response they provoked from Scott.
Someone whose insight I greatly respect suggested to me that some of the discomfort may be because there aren’t a lot of middle-grade books that deal with male puberty. She reminded me that the topic of female puberty comes up in books aimed at girls aged 9-13 (Are You There God, It’s Me, Margaret?, Walk Two Moons, the Winnie series, etc…), and is generally more accepted. Now, I certainly don’t want to suggest my writing is on par with Judy Blume, Sharon Creech, or Lauren Myracle (it ain’t). And please don't think I'm pointing fingers in a "gender politics" kind of way, because I'm not. What I am curious about though is that Sidekicks is meant to take on the topic of puberty from a male point of view, and I wonder if there’s something about the very nature of male sexuality that makes it less comfortable to discuss.
I don't have the answers...but I am interested in the discussion. Thoughts?
For those of you who don’t know, I wrote a book called Sidekicks, in which we meet Bright Boy (a.k.a Scott Hutchinson), the teen-aged sidekick to superhero Phantom Justice. Bright Boy has been a sidekick since he was 8… he’s now about 13 or 14, and he’s been forced to wear the same bright, snug-fitting costume for the past 6 years. Not a problem when you’re 8; big problem when you’re 13. So right in Chapter 1, Bright Boy has to dive off a building and save a beautiful woman from falling to her death. As he’s holding this woman he’s just saved, he notices that her clothes are torn and disheveled. He can see her bra. She’s in shock, so she’s kind of out of it…but she’s also appreciative to this person who just saved her life... so she’s running her fingers through his hair, breathing heavily on his neck, whispering into his ear how amazing he is…
Scott, despite a very concerted effort to stop it, gets an erection. He’s embarrassed, and confused, and is trying to figure out how to get out of this scenario without this woman thinking he's a complete perv, when a news helicopter appears and starts taping him… and because the tights don’t hide anything, Bright Boy’s “reaction” is soon being broadcast over news stations all over the country. Bright Boy becomes a laughingstock. Kids at Scott’s school (who don’t know he’s Bright Boy) make endless jokes about it, people on tv make fun of him, supervillains take pot shots in order to distract him. Scott, who had never really cultivated a life outside of being Bright Boy, is now faced with an unexpected dilemma: neither one of his identities is comfortable. He starts to question everything about himself, his life, and the people around him…
The origin of this story was a thought I had when I was ten years old. I remember getting out of bed and going downstairs for a glass of water one night (while my parents were still awake and watching tv). I was wearing nothing but my jockey shorts. I remember my parents acting like there was nothing out of the ordinary with my “outfit” (or lack thereof), but I had this sudden feeling that I was wearing wayyyyy too little to be walking around with other people about (even if they were just my parents). I felt really funky, and exposed... Also at the time, I was a full-fledged Batman freak... and being that this was the early eighties (and the Batman comics from the 70s were still pretty available), the DC writers/artists were continuing the process of aging Robin up. I remember shortly after my “Jockey short debacle” (as it will forever be known to me), looking at a comic of a late teen/early 20’s Robin and thinking, “Man, he should really cover up.” Here he is fighting hardened criminals – thugs, thieves, murderers – and he's wearing the tiniest pair of green jockey shorts imaginable. And no one mentions it? I mean, not one street tough has something to say about Robin’s itty-bitty bikini bottoms? Especially with all those high kicks he was throwing around? I couldn’t even go downstairs in my own house dressed like that…
All right...so, as that idea percolated in my head for the next 25 or so years, I read such brilliant works as The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, which were some of the first stories to really question the motives of superheroes in the very worlds that those heroes inhabited (instead of just real world pundits talking about how comic books rot kids’ brains...). These two stories explored the now-ubiquitous question - would the world really be a better place if these heroes actually existed? And that got me thinking about motivations. What would motivate a real person in our world to try to become a superhero? And what are the acceptable motivations for a superhero, as far as the public is concerned? Altruism, definitely...(Hello, Superman...) Revenge, sure...(Batman, in a safe way...The Punisher in a less black-and-white, more post-Vietnam, shades of gray kind of way). Responsibility, both personal (Spider-man), and social (Green Arrow). Thrill-seeking was also okay (Iron Man). There were others, of course...but there were two motivations that were definitely frowned upon...making money (although Luke Cage, Hero for Hire flirted with that idea), and sex. Under absolutely no circumstances was a superhero supposed to get any sexual thrill from dressing up in tights and running around the city (The Watchmen did an AMAZING job at addressing this). Ick. It calls into question not just the heroism of that specific hero, but the concept of superheroes as a whole. What are their motivations, really? Is that guy or woman saving me doing it for his or her own pervy reasons? It’s uncomfortable, and I think it touches a nerve (just replace “superhero” with “police officer” in that scenario to see what I mean...)
So, take my perception of how superheroes would be received today (akin to celebrities with super powers), and add one ill-timed sexual response (Bright Boy’s erection...kind of like Janet Jackson’s “Boob-gate”)… add to it a common narrative that celebrities and sports stars have to deal with all the time (are they mentors to children or not?), but multiply it by a thousand… because superheroes by their very design are supposed to be mentors. They’re designed to be the ideals (physically, mentally, but most importantly, MORALLY) that the public strives for...and how would the public react if they thought those paragons of morality had their own creepy agendas as their main motivation? I think the public would freak out a bit. They'd literally play the slip up over and over again (See "Boob-gate"), and every talking head in the world would have a chance to weigh in…setting up the ironic situation of a powerful superhero being picked on and bullied by the very public he’s chosen to protect.
As for Scott’s take on it all, he’s confused, as any kid going through that is -- as I was -- and in my opinion, it would get A LOT of his attention, too. Why am I doing this whole hero thing? Is it for the thrills? Is getting an “inappropriate erection” really a sign of a moral failing, or is it just an isolated event? Can I keep that from happening again? Do I want to? Am I really a “perfect” person, like everyone wants their heroes to be? Or is the answer more complex than that?
Eventually, the least likely person in Scott’s life helps him to realize that it’s not the “accidental erection” that’s a statement about his motivations and morality…nor is it the public’s reaction to it… What’s going to define Scott/Bright Boy as a person and a hero is his own moral compass… and the more we learn about Scott, the more we realize that he has nothing to worry about.
To me, it all starts with that “accidental erection,” and it’s a moment important enough to merit the attention. It’s an exploration of motivation that lots of boys go through at that age...but add to that the whole narrative of acceptable superhero motivation, and I think it becomes a much bigger story.
Now, the comments I’ve gotten have suggested that Scott getting an erection is totally inappropriate for a kid his age, or for a kid his age to be reading about. As a former teen boy, I respectfully disagree. I remember suffering through my first “inappropriate reaction” when I was eleven. By the time I was thirteen, there were so many that they’ve faded into memory. It happened. A lot. The best you could do was cross you legs, readjust the books you were holding, or count on the fact that very few people would be looking directly at your crotch. (I also learned that sometimes your efforts to cover-up did nothing more than draw attention to what you were hiding… If you need a quick definition for irony, there it is…)
It’s also been suggested that I created this scenario as a half-baked way to get in as many lowbrow jokes as I could. I hope it’s apparent from all I’ve written above that very few people have ever accused me of under-thinking something. And although those jokes were fun to write, the main focus of them was always the emotional response they provoked from Scott.
Someone whose insight I greatly respect suggested to me that some of the discomfort may be because there aren’t a lot of middle-grade books that deal with male puberty. She reminded me that the topic of female puberty comes up in books aimed at girls aged 9-13 (Are You There God, It’s Me, Margaret?, Walk Two Moons, the Winnie series, etc…), and is generally more accepted. Now, I certainly don’t want to suggest my writing is on par with Judy Blume, Sharon Creech, or Lauren Myracle (it ain’t). And please don't think I'm pointing fingers in a "gender politics" kind of way, because I'm not. What I am curious about though is that Sidekicks is meant to take on the topic of puberty from a male point of view, and I wonder if there’s something about the very nature of male sexuality that makes it less comfortable to discuss.
I don't have the answers...but I am interested in the discussion. Thoughts?
RSS Feed