""So Rob never got around to answer if he would have had the same reaction had Shatterstar kissed a chick with boobs and a virginia, since his character was designed originally to be asexual, that is to say with no sexual orientation or desire whatsoever.""

One of the Best comments on the page I think and would be interesting to see a response to that.

Right, Marvel owns the character and their writers can't check with the original creators of each character every time they want to make a change; it's just logistically impossible. I am guessing Liefeld thought this character revelation would be obviously against his intent.

One approach would be to say that yes, Shatterstar still is specifically asexual but has fallen in love with Rictor and is physically affectionate towards him as an expression of love to Rictor--it doesn't come from a physical desire that Shatterstar holds.

Peter David is not a bad writer in the least, and he seems respectful of character, although I am not a scholar of his work. Personally, I'd like to see where he goes with this.

I think Liefeld's desire to "de-gay" Shatterstar is the part that irks me. I can understand being a little peeved at someone changing a character you've created, but I don't want to read about a character just for creators to go "mine!" and "no, mine!" over and over again. Plus, there's a dirth of gay characters out there, so threatening to get rid of one or to de-gay one is just disheartening.

It's tempting to read anti-gay feeling into Liefeld's desire to 'de-gay' SStar, because he could have said 'de-emotionalize' or something else that wasn't gay-specific.
But I get the feeling that this has more to do with ego than anything else. I was never a fan of Liefeld's X-Force (you think Chris Claremont might have something to say about writers/artists making changes in someone else's creation?) or of the Image books in general, which often seemed like the author's vanity projects.
I would say that Liefeld and company should be glad that a character of theirs is being used in current continuity, rather than being forgotten.

Outstanding post. Funny thing about this logic (if we can call it that), is that Lifield created a character that, aside from a few Mojoworldian curse words, HAD no personality or interests in anything besides...well his sword. Depth and character development for a character that could have easily been retired to bad hair and 90s shoulder pad hell? The man should be pleased, not revolted.

And the subtext in the comment is interesting. I wonder if he would de-gay these friends he mentions so fondly. Or children if he has them against the "intentions" of their creation. Stories change, sexual orientations aren't fixed nor exist in vaccums. This sort of talk seems rooted in heterosexist paranoia. "Any character I create is an extention of my on masculinity and therefore cannot be gay" Way to be regressive. Which, shouldn't be too suprising given the era from which the character we're discussing claims his so called popularity from.

This is something I've always found hillarious. Someone creates a character, knowing full well, and hoping beyond hope, that the character lives on beyond them.

By the nature of writing a comic they are attempting to contribute to and in thier own way, change an established and growing universe of stories.

Rob obviously understands this as in the mid 90's he took off, abandoned his creations to the world (or at least the marvel offices) and went to play in his own yard.

Good on ya. But why do you think, after that, you should be able to come back and say "Hey you, other creator who took my abandoned story and gave it new life so something I created can live on and entertain people, stop making the character relevant!"

If you didn't want him to change you could always have killed him off, locked him up, gotten rid of him, done something rather than just left him for someone else to pick up later... And let me tell you right now, it's unlikely anyone would have thought to bring Shatterstar back to life... I mean... Shatterstar.

You abandoned him. You abandoned that story. Didn't even end it, but ran away from it. So-- too bad. Really.

Now to try and come back and alter it only becuase you're not a fan of what was done? Pfah. Feel like someone is afraid of collaboration and growth. Does he also reject the changes made to Cable? How about Rictor becoming powerless. He could just as easily say "I created Rictor, he'd never be powerless."

A great way to put this: The best thing about comic books is that hundred upon hundreds of creators are all building the same story together. It is also the worst thing about comics.

Lastly, it was more than a hint, even if you didn't know it Rob, Rictor and Shatterstar were giving off the vibe even when you wrote them.

I'm sorry the majority of readers didn't understand what you were going for. But that's not really our fault. And that you have to publicly state you didn't mean what we thought you meant sorta seems to indicate a failure on your part.

Just saying.

Speaking of Alan Moore, look at the great work he did on the early 80's Swamp Thing. Moore certainly took that character in a very different direction...probably quite different from what the creators of the character intended, and for that I heartily thank him.

Hey, sometimes redirection can work wonders (aforementioned Swamp Thing), and sometimes not (remember the electric Superman?)...still, Dame Leifield needs to pick up her monocle, pack up her umbrage, and get over herself.

I registered at his forums as "gaycomicsfan" and, without ever posting, was banned. He claims to have no problems with gay people... yet he won't even let them browse his forum. What a pathetic man. Although I had no plans to buy any of his comics, I'll be sure not to in the future.