Kent Mansley and Dean McCoppin

A Jonnie Primer

Perhaps the biggest question I receive about my fascination with The Iron Giant beyond my fixation on Kent Mansley as a singular character is why I adore pairing him with Dean McCoppin. My passion reads as inane, most times, because much of the transformative context I have created (with wonderful co-authors) is either inaccessible or exists only in text format. My thoughts on the two of them as a pairing have evolved over the course of 10+ years as well, which has resulted in my hesitancy to promote the novel-length fic I co-wrote in my teen years. Thus I persist publically like a rancorous fool most times– a performance I lean into for the sake of humor, but one I wish to insist is founded in rational assessment of the text. While most can come to understand my love of Kent as the same one might have for any other variety of pathetic villain, the pairing of him with the most beloved character from the movie (aside from the titular Giant) remains a big head-scratcher.

And understandably so! As I have a confession to make: I initially started shipping these two as a joke. A funny little crack pairing to giggle over on occasion morphed into serious textual analysis over the course of years, with the genuine intention arriving first and the reading developing second.

Here I will lay out a longer version of my argument for enjoying the pairing on intellectual merits– or, at least, what I hope are such. Of course any fandom activity is at least a little self indulgent; I just find indulgence in the critical, academic analysis as much as I do a nonsensical AU (of which for these two I have several).

Why Them? - Thematic Resonance

Kent and Dean are not merely just the two similarly-aged men in the movie. Sure, this makes them the most “obvious” choice to ship if one simply scours media for new puppets for their yaoi stage. (And even then that is unfortunately not really the case– people are, for whatever disgusting reason, more predisposed to pairing Hogarth and Dean). It was for that very reason I myself initially balked at the idea of imagining them in a romantic endgame scenario; it felt gauche, a trite spin on such a beautiful work of art.

But it didn’t take much thought before I realized the truth of the two of them as a duo: they are the most thematically juxtaposed characters in the movie. Pairing them then moved from the realm of shits and giggles and into genuine, reflective interaction with the work.

Consider the following: if Dean is the vehicle through which the film’s main theme– “You are who you choose to be” –is expressed, who is the one character that stands in stark opposition to it? Kent!

Even those who hate his character can admit this; heck, they might do so readily, citing it as the reason for their ire for him! But for me, it is their roles as thematic symbols in the plot that creates magnetism between them. I don’t mean to cast shade onto Annie– she is, effectively, a minor antagonist given she too stands in soft opposition to this theme. But it is inarguable that Kent does so far more, by necessity as his role as the primary antagonist. (This is, however, one of the reasons I adore them as a trio).

More granularly Kent and Dean stand as thematic symbols of mainstream and alternative America, respectively. Kent is clearly the embodiment of McCarthyist America– rational only so far as it serves the ends of a conservative, capitalist state. And Dean is outright stated to be a beatnik, though the exact nature of his subversive politics are left only implied. Even so it is enough for him to represent a sliver of the alternative view, even having lines that imply he is queer friendly (“By night known as Hogarth. Got it.”), and be willing to have his mind changed about the potential threat the Giant posed. Conversely, Kent demonstrates he is all too able to understand the Giant independent of Hogarth’s intervention (“Of course! Food for the metal eater.”) but that for him, understanding simply informs how to more thoroughly dispose of that which threatens his worldview.

Looking outside of the text and to supplementary insight provided by its authors this is further shown to be the case. Regarding Kent:

And regarding Dean:

If one wanted to pry further– and being deeply invested as I am, I do –one can see this intent to juxtapose the two shine even further in the July 1997 draft of the script. In it Kent is an even more prominent fixture of the narrative, serving as a grim potential replacement for Hogarth’s father. While the death of Mr. Huges looms large over the movie even in its present state it is as a shadow, a presence felt rather than given form. In this earlier iteration it is much more apparent, and as such Dean and Kent are positioned even more so as two opposing poles of morality. This can be seen in even one snippet from the screenplay (which I recommend reading in full even if you don’t buy my argument here, it’s a fun look at what the film evolved from):

Simply put, Kent and Dean are a dyad– if not romantically a pair, then most certainly thematically and plot wise they are inseparable. Remove one from the plot and the story simply falls apart both mechanically (Kent is the driving antagonist and Dean is an invaluable ally to Hogarth) and thematically (Kent demonstrates the consequences of not being who you choose to be, and Dean illustrates the benefits).

Now it would simply be in bad faith not to mention the fact that further headcanons inform my reading of these two as well; of course ‘headcanon’ is merely the fandom term. They are simply just additional readings upon which these are stacked.

For Kent I believe it adds layers to his character to indicate that he is bisexual. While obviously in real life not everyone who is, in simplest terms, Republican  secretly what they hate, it is a character decision I feel adds nuance to his relationship to the movie’s main theme. It suggests that Kent is so opposed to the idea that that which he fears is in reality not so terrifying because it would mean that he has spent his whole life up to that point not living honestly, not living in a way that reflects his own choices. Not only does that underscore the very ideal of masculinity he is meant to be a dark reflection of but it is simply on its face a tragedy. That perhaps the reason for all his power grabbing is an effort to grasp at the kind of control and freedom that he feels is otherwise out of his power to attain.

And for Dean, it is worth noting that I, a Black person of Louisiana Creole descent, headcanon Dean as such, with the addition of being biracial where I am not. Reason being is because the additional positioning of Dean as a multiracial white-passing person further emphasizes his otherness not just in the film as a new arrival to Rockwell– his accent (as inherited from Harry Connick Jr. who thankfully did nothing to hide it) and beatnik disposition already accomplishing this –but to America and American identity as a whole. It is simply that I have additional personal experience that allows me to examine him through this lens, though I feel that it is really not much of a stretch to draw this conclusion! It further emphasizes why it is important that he of all characters is the one to deliver the principle thematic statement of the movie. As virtue of being who he is, Dean has implicitly had to choose to define himself not by how the world sees him, but how he himself wants to be.

At any rate, whether one takes into account authorial intent and supplementary material or not, in drawing further conclusions from this reading of the two as thematic symbols, a question arises.

What does the romantic pairing of the two of them signify?

Choosing to Be - A Post-Movie Narrative

Corralling the elephant out of the room, realistically I think that Kent is likely either executed or imprisoned for life after the events of the movie. Barring that I like to think his life plays out something like this:

Is it probable that Kent and Dean end up together? Likely not. But it is possible, if only because we make it so. With that aside– considering the possibility, there is a primary way I tend to envision it.

While the concept of a mid-movie situationship between the two is alluring, I consider it more of an AU scenario. I find it most satisfying and cohesive with the thematic statement of the movie to imagine a scenario where the two reconnect after the events of the film. I posit them thusly in the following states in the year 1959:

Kent, who has been denied the catharsis of punishment by the state and has been effectively banished from D.C., falls into the throes of a self-hating depression. To disconnect from reality he turns to a number of distractions, eventually taking to drink and drugs in an effort to waste away through unchecked hedonism. He is unable to admit or confront the feelings of guilt and shame that manifest through such behavior and would rather die than do so. He wanders across America in search of an absolution or condemnation that will not arrive.

Dean, even after a relationship with Annie fizzles out, is fairing far better. The two remain fast friends and Dean continues to be a positive presence in Hogarth’s life, and perhaps more importantly he has been accepted into the wider Rockwell community. Art has become a more prominent stream of income in addition to the junkyard and his Rolodex continues to brim with clients. So many, in fact, that deliveries of commissions can take him on road trips out of the state, offering a wonderful middle ground between having roots planted somewhere and the freedom of free roaming.

It is on one of said deliveries that Dean bumps into Kent. Taking pity on the poor bastard, Dean takes him in. Together, the two embark on a journey of healing Kent from the deleterious effects of his self-harm regime and Dean from the psychic wounds Kent inflicted on him and the town two years prior.

There are numerous other details, but the best way of summarizing it I think I’ve provided thus far is “horse girl movie, but Kent is the horse”. It is not a story of redemption; is the horse redeemed for changing its nature, or simply rewarded for choosing to be vulnerable and kind? Such change is possible in even the worst, most bestial of us– and it transpires in Kent.

Conversely, Dean is afforded a catharsis for the actions Kent undertook during the film; how often is it that one can question intimately those who have wronged them, and impress onto them the extent and reality of their harm? Especially outside of the framework of punitive justice? Kent, denied such consequences by the system, pushes Dean to the limit for the damnation he feels he deserves– and Dean, unwilling to give into a primal thirst for revenge, offers him the chance to change instead.

In a rejection of his previous worldview, Kent does. He becomes who he chooses to be: a better man.

Additionally, their pairing becomes allegorical for the sociopolitical changes of the United States from the late 50s and into the 60s. The dominance of conservatism over the mainstream begins to erode around this time– beyond the obvious way it highlights the xenophobia of the time, I think the inclusion of Sputnik as a thematic symbol also highlights this. Even if the United States is purported to have “won” the Space Race, there is no getting around the fact that the USSR did it first. The death toll had been struck.

Kent developing feelings for Dean is a parallel to this. His eventual acceptance of them– after throwing the hissy fit of the century, much like the US’s attempts to quash socialist and communist decolonization efforts along with domestic civil rights movements –suggests that a future outside of the shadow of American hegemony is possible. That even the most malignant among us can come to love themselves in ways that do not demand subjugation as well as love openly the most marginalized without the fear of judgement.

In contrast, Dean’s developing feelings for Kent can signify a reconciliation with identity as an American, and all that that implies (har har). For Kent to love and embrace him for his otherness, for his beatnik disposition, for his Blackness and further his being biracial, can represent an America that, at long last, comes to fully appreciate the contributions Black Americans have made to our cultural fabric, and that sociopolitical thought outside of the conservative norm is not destructive but rather constructive to a better future. America, the nation-state, is not worth saving– but her people are.

This is all just a meditation on them getting together; while we venture even deeper into the territory of the transformative, plenty is to be suggested by their being together as well.

Summarily they, eventually and not always gracefully, become Hogarth’s gay uncles; Dean already assumed a similar position; even with his dating Annie I’d argue he was never really a paternal sort, but with him coupled with Kent it reconciles the conflict of whom would come to have the greater influence in Hogarth’s life. Neither was really going to step in as a new Mr. Hughes, but together they can support him all the same. Together, they both live the ethos of being who they choose to be!

On a grander scale this reconciliation is mirrored with the two’s relationship as a couple to the rest of Rockwell. Rockwell from its inception is meant to be a microcosm of America, the name Rockwell itself being a reference to the master of Americana Norman Rockwell. It follows, then, that a Rockwell that is able to accept the two not only as a pairing of former enemies but as a gay couple is a suggestion at a larger America that is also as accepting. There is the more surface reading of a tale about gay acceptance here, but beneath that surface Kent’s re-integration into broader society is a story of restorative justice. It also speaks to the town’s embrace of Dean– in this reading a Black man –in that he’d have enough influence to begin such a re-integration. Rockwell then reflects their coupling thematically; as they two have grown and changed to be with one another, Rockwell grows and changes to allow them to be together.

In any relationship it is inevitable its parties change one another, and especially from a narrative perspective Kent and Dean should be no different. One way I like to imagine they affect one another is in the form of artistic pursuits; Kent encourages Dean to apply his dratfsmanship skills and create newspaper cartoons, and Dean encourages Kent to pursue the hobby of mystery writing. It’s a great way to illustrate the way they are able to grow and change beyond the conflict that had brought them together and further serves the analogy their pairing represents. It further demonstrates how their growth and change as individuals mirrors the cultural growth and change possible in America as a whole, and how the exchange of ideas between all her peoples can lead to a new, beautiful tapestry of culture.

And of course, the home they share is a symbol of their relationship as well. This one is rather straightforward– the literal construction of an addition to the scrapyard tin can is perhaps the ultimate representation of Kent and Dean building a new America. The original foundation is still there– the memory of the predecessor will always remain at the very least –but it has been appended to, grown upon, embraced as the base for something greater. And most importantly, it is something they do together; the scrapyard is no longer just Dean’s home, but conversely Kent recognizes he is, prior to the addition, still technically a guest. But the addition cements Kent as a permanent resident, a person with stake in stewarding the land, and reflects Dean’s full and unconditional trust in him to do right by such an investment. Simply put: they love each other, and as such they will respect each other enough to work through their growing pains to build something greater than the sum of their parts.

This is just a highlight of themajor ideas presented by these two characters and their relationship. There are more minor ones to consider: the contradictory lure of danger (I compared them to a horse girl movie, but really Kent is more like a tiger kept in one’s house– and the film shows us that Dean is prone to doing this already!), repression vs. free expression, the reality of class in America both then and now, individualism vs. communalism, the nature and purpose of art, as well as every other minor theme the film itself brings up (anti-war, gun control, grief, etc). A whole bevy of narrative potential abounds with these two and their relationship.

And, of course… There is the added benefit that I find them both attractive and wouldn’t mind if they banged. I am, after all, a sucker for enemies-to-lovers.

But I hope that this diatribe has illustrated that the majority of my argument now, if not initially, comes from a place of literary merit and intellectual good faith. That my shipping of these two is in well-intended conversation with the original work. Am I arguing that Brad Bird should have, ackchyually, ended the film with their getting together? Not at all, as I hope that my acknowledgement of what likely happened to Kent is any indication. The movie is my favorite for a reason; it is for all intents and purposes perfect as is.

But am I arguing that it’s not as bonkers of a pairing as it seems on its face to be? That there is a deeper conversation with the work to be had by considering it? That it’s insane there is more fanfic by separate people for a pairing that involves a child and his guardian than there is between these two? Yes, yes I am.

And thus it is for all these reasons and more that I like the pairing of Kent Mansley and Dean McCoppin. End scene.