Tick, tock....
Since then, we've seen Batwoman only in a handful of issues of 52, and one token guest appearance in the Crime Bible mini-series. Both by Greg Rucka.
Crickets chirping...
And that's it. Period. No new series or mini-series in the near future. Nada. In the year of a new Batmovie, when anything vaguely Bat-related is going to gussied up and put into a trade or a prestige edition or a mini-series, a brand new, exciting Bat-character is going to be completely ignored. This despite all the trouble they went to get the mainstream press to take notice. It's as if after announcing the new Captain America, Marvel suddenly said, "Ahh, never mind."
But really--it's not because she's a lesbian. Really. No, seriously.
Except...
This is Gotham City. Home of the Batman (Goddamned or otherwise). And let's look at how Batman typically reacts to new vigilantes in his town. From last week's Robin #171 (really? Is it #171 already? Sheesh, I'm gettin' old...):
We've all seen this a hundred times, right? A new vigilante dares to set foot in Gotham, and Batman shows up or sics his minions on them, seemingly within minutes, and gives them The Speech: You're an amateur, this is my town, get out. Hell, he gives The Speech to established heroes he already knows when they dare to trespass his turf.
And you'd think that, since someone was using his Bat-motif, he'd be especially interested.
But in all the time since he returned to Gotham after 52, not only hasn't he sought out Batwoman to give her the speech, he's not even MENTIONED or acknowledged in ANY WAY that there is a Batwoman. Not a single mention. Nothing.
Does anyone believe for an instant that, if we had a heterosexual vigilante running around Gotham ripping off Batman's act, Bruce wouldn't have shown up, at least to spy on them or warn them? Hell, a minor leaguer turns up in Robin, and he's ready to run her out of town by the next issue. But with Batwoman...?
Sounds of the ocean...
Let's see...DC announces a new gay character, and then suddenly shrugs and decides to do nothing with her. And Batman completely ignores her existence, despite that being completely atypical for him.
I'm not sure one can infer anything other than this: that DC is so homophobic (or more likely, scared of homophobic backlash), that they won't even let Batman mention a gay character. And if they have to have him act completely out of character to avoid meeting or even mentioning that gay person, well, so be it.
I really can't see any other conclusion.
That's sad. And it's chicken-shit.
"I'm not sure one can infer anything other than this: that DC is so homophobic (or more likely, scared of homophobic backlash), that they won't even let Batman mention a gay character. And if they have to have him act completely out of character to avoid meeting or even mentioning that gay person, well, so be it."
ReplyDeleteI doubt that DC, top to bottom, is "homophobic" (whatever that even means anymore). Here's what I think happened:
DC, in an effort to keep Greg Rucka happy, let him do his gay Batwoman thing. Rucka becomes increasingly snide in interviews regarding his DC experiece (for reasons we're not privy to...but it seems to have started following the creative pressure cooker of 52), so DC (understandably) doesn't feel like rewarding a mouthy pro with a high profile project featuring his Lipstick Lesbian. Predictably, Rucka leaves DC for greener pastures (i.e. Marvel) to write gritty street level crime stories until our sun goes nova.
Here's my big problem with your chronology, Mark. CNN et al didn't have investigative reporters snooping around the DC offices. DC sent out press relases and artwork, including the fact that she was gay, to publicize the event.
ReplyDeleteOne would think that they wouldn't put so much corporate effort merely to keep someone happy (ie, I saw no press reportage of self-indulgent recent outings by Morrison, Miller, et al). It's not as if Rucka were that important to DC's grand scheme.
And, according to an interview with writer Devin Grayson at CBR, it wasn't even (solely)Rucka's idea; she was asked by DC to develop the character and mini-series:
“ I thought we were on to a nice solution when DC asked me to develop a new, contemporary Batwoman who would be a lesbian from the start.”.
So rather than "Rucka's lipstick lesbian," this sounds like something DC wanted to do.
My guess? They actually did plan on using the character. But either some threatened boycotts by certain groups, or pressure from upstairs at T-W-AOL, caused a rapid rethink. Maybe they didn't want any silly controversy during the life cycle of the new bat movie.
Homophobic from top to bottom? Obviously not. But someone high up decided to do and publicize this project, and someone higher up decided to make it disappear. And as I said, that smacks of homophobia or fear of backlash.
"And as I said, that smacks of homophobia or fear of backlash."
ReplyDeleteOr, another possibility, once they rolled out the much-ballyhooed Batwoman character, maybe they realized she wasn't that compelling of a character, for either the fans or the creators. In other words, beyond the fact that she was "gay, gay, gay", what are we left with? A wealthy woman who suddenly shows up with a bat suit, equipment and the name "Batwoman". Was there a compelling back story there? Was there the usual effort put into making this an interesting person with an interesting new approach to fighting crime in Gotham. Did she have other goals or motives?
Sadly, none of this was really explored. Instead, I got the feeling we were all supposed to make the character a success because she was a high profile homosexual character. DC thought this would sell books...it probably didn't, so they put her on the back burner with all the other sucky back burner characters who can't sell books.
So, instead of playing "pin the tail on the homophobe", maybe critics of how the Batwoman character was handled might want to allow for the fact that she wasn't really that compelling of a character in the first place. It was an experiment....a bold experiement..but an experiment that didn't pan out (as often happens in the creative arts).
I have a feeling that we're going to be arguing in circles here, especially as neither of us actually knows what the heck actually is going in the vast corporate empire over there. But let me dash off a couple of final points.
ReplyDeleteOf course the character/backstory was unexplored; the format of 52 pretty much precluded that, and that's why DC commissioned a mini-series so we could explore those things. The "she didn't sell" idea would seem to apply to other horrendous concepts that DC did spun off into mini-series (The Four Horsemen?? Really?!?) and continuing series (Infinity Inc? Seriously?) You could hardly say those concepts increased sales on 52, or have sold well on their own. (And since Batwoman appeared on exactly 2 covers of 52, it'd be pretty hard to make any determination about how the character "sold").
And I still find all the pre-publicity somewhat telling. DC made an institutional investment in pushing this character, which they just don't do for a "back burner" character. You don't flush away boatloads of free publicity you deliberately sought by giving a character 5 or so brief appearances in the B story of someone else's mag and then nothing else (hardly a "bold experiment"). That's not how these companies operate. You don't generate that level of publicity without being committed to giving that character a fair run. They never did.
And DC has certainly had fair opportunity to respond to these charges, and offer some explanation of why the sudden reversal of plans. And the only response ever given is, "Nope. Next question." They'll explain why Manhunter was cancelled twice, or even to respond to the "why no trophy case for Stephanie" debate.
They could just say the things you've been saying, that she didn't sell or didn't work out creatively. But they just remain silent. They refuse to use the excuses available. And that's why this speculation takes place.
And holy moly, when did DC, the most anal-retentive continuity porn company, ever let any character completely vanish, for sales or creative reasons? without
"You don't flush away boatloads of free publicity you deliberately sought by giving a character 5 or so brief appearances in the B story of someone else's mag and then nothing else (hardly a "bold experiment"). That's not how these companies operate. You don't generate that level of publicity without being committed to giving that character a fair run. They never did."
ReplyDeleteI think whatever publicity they generated was intended to move issues of 52, which at the time was a high risk experiment that needed any kind of sales bump they could generate. I believe the homosexual Batwoman was designed to do precisely that. I don't for a minute believe they had any serious long term plans for such a character (despite their half-hearted plans for a mini-series or whatever).
I'll also stick to my assessment that Batwoman was also a sop thrown to Greg Rucka. Reading between the lines in various interviews with his collaborators, they guy seems a little tough to work with....and giving him Rene Montoya and a lesbian Batwoman to play with for 52 might have placated him. As you said, we really have no idea what actually happend behind the scenes, but after so many years of observing this field and its varied creators, I've gotten a sense for some of the behind the curtain stuff. Nothing specific or especially accurate, I admit, but enough to know there were probably some misunderstandings and bad assumptions made with Batwoman and her post-52 future.
"It's not as if Rucka were that important to DC's grand scheme."
I think for awhile, it actually was important to keep Rucka on board. If you recall, Didio built around himself a select group of "Golden Boys" who (at one point) were supposed to be, to borrow a term from the Disney empire, "Imagineers", who would map out the creative plans for the DCU. I recall hearing how many of DC editorial staff bristled at such a set-up and, lo and behold, that model seemed to have quietly fallen by the wayside and Didio's gang of Merry Men now simply hired hands (more or less). During this period, Rucka was clearly one of "The Chosen", along with Morrison, Waid, and Geoff Johns (Winnick was in there, too....for about 15 minutes. No idea what happened there). So, yeah...Rucka actually was an important part of the plan for awhile, and he seemed to embrace that role for a time...but at some point, Rucka started mouthing off in interviews, which told me that something had fractured the close-knit "creative pod". What that was...who knows...but I think the "back-burnering" of Batwoman and the slow fade of Rucka's profile at DC aren't completely unrelated.
I think the main problem with the character of batwoman is that she's just not an interseting character, in fact she' pretty much bruce wayne to the extent that in 52 someone mentions that her family owns the half of gotham that the wayne family doesn't.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need this character and i personally don't want this character, she's boring and not treading any new ground aside from her sexuality, which i could care less about (same if she was hetero for the record, it's not a selling point for me)
I would much rather see a montoya Question series then another batman one.