is lesbianism in comics something new, then? i always thought the valkyrie ( marvel ) was a lesbian. or maybe that was just me. certainly, there are a number of gay characters, so maybe i just assumed there are lesbian characters, as well.

I've seen this comment a few times. And though I haven't even read the issue in question, I've heard enough to disagree strongly, on two points:

1. If they were naked, the scene would be even MORE open to accusations of sexism/objectification.

2. Who says women don't sleep in bras? Certainly some women don't. But some do. It's a personal and physical preference. Perhaps it's rather unlikely for both women to have been sleeping in their bras (if both of them are depicted that way) but making a sweeping generalization about "what women do" isn't any more realistic.

Sorry, I disagree... women don't sleep in bras. Really, they should have been in nighties, t-shirts, PJs or the nick. Putting them in bras and panties is to refer to a very specific representation of lesbianism that is all about exploiting sex.

cheers

fashion prevails. the fashion today doesn't call for that sort of thing.

But we have no idea how those properties would have performed if Robin was left in them, so there's no point of comparison! Do we have any proof that those series would have tanked if Robin was left in them? If you look at the eras of Batman's all time highest circulation, Robin was a part of the book. It's a well-known fact that Batman really exploded into greater popularity than ever when Kane and Finger first introduced Robin. If Robin didn't work for selling books, why was his character ripped off so much? (Speedy, Aqualad, Wonder Girl, Superboy, etc.)

If that's so, then why have the most successful Batman projects of the last decade and a half all ditched Robin? He was barely in "Batman: The Animated Series." He was AWOL from the Burton movies and from the recent "Batman Begins." By any standard, these projects were far more popular and appreciated by a lot more people than any comic published by DC over the last ten years. In fact, kids today are more likely to have seen Robin on the "Teen Titans" cartoon - which keeps him well clear of Batman - than they are to have seen him running around as Batman's sidekick. Despite the conventional wisdom that Batman and Robin MUST go together, the truth is they've often been featured separately - and the projects most fresh in the public eye are decidedly Robin-free.

having said that, i'd like to apologise for killing off the original thread. it wasn't my intention. i'm new to the whole forum thing, and, to be honest, i wasn't aware that there were so many people out there who cared so passionately about a character who, for the better part of twenty-something odd years, i've had to keep pretty much to myself. sad to say, but forty-something comic book readers tend to attract some rather disapproving stares down my local.

thanks. joe.

Sure, Batman works as a "grim loner." Trouble is, "grim loner" has been a somewhat overpopulated stretch of comics real estate since, well, since around the time Wolverine showed up. "Batman the Grim Loner" is about as generic a comic as you're likely to find.

I think a good writer can make Robin work. The first big mistake that was made with Robin was aging him. He needs to be young enough to be reckless and impulsive and also to trigger Batman's paternal impulse. The only way to keep this kid from getting himself killed is to keep an eye on him, and the only way to do that is to take him on as an apprentice.

Robin is hardly Bruce's peer. From the outset theirs has been a mentor/trainee relationship with very strong parental overtones. Batman is who Robin aspires to be; Robin is a kid Batman's trying to teach to become like him. Where's the parity here? Robin isn't supposed to be on a level with Batman, remember: he was invented as a character for kids to sympathize with in response to the popularity of Captain Marvel.

I have no problem with Batman being a "grim loner"; that's what he's supposed to be. Without Robin, Batman still has a rich supporting cast (Alfred, Gordon, Leslie Thompkins, Bullock, Montoya, etc.) and the best rogue's gallery of any published superhero. None of these characters are going to exactly be his "peers," but surely that's the point: Batman's loneliness is essential to his character; it represents how he's sacrificed the normal, happy life he could've had for the greater good of everyone in his city. This is reflected pretty clearly in the fact that over the last decade and a half, as Batman built up a support network of fellow vigilantes, he became increasingly unlikable - because writers had to have him constantly pushing away all of his friends to preserve the loneliness essential to the character.

The most popular version of Batman out there right now is probably the Timm/Dini animated version, which was notably sparse in its use of Robin; most of the best episodes of that show let Batman run around solo without becoming the one-dimensional Punisher-figure you seem to think he'd turn into without a kid in brightly-colored shorts following him around. All the best Batman movies have dispensed with Robin, with the exception of the one that was supposed to be funny. This is no coincidence; Robin muddies the ton of Batman in rather obvious ways. If you want a sunny, campy Adam West/Silver Age-style Batman, then yes, it's appropriate to include Robin precisely because the pairing of Batman and Robin is ridiculous. But if you want readers to take the character seriously, Robin doesn't fit.

Well... yeah, it's just not an internet discussion without hyberbole (I'm kidding around here). But what I meant was "grim loner with little to no long standing support chracters to play off of outside their occassion guest star and team up pals" rather than "psychopathic killer".

Robin serves the role of being Batman and Bruce's peer. For a long while he was the only character that was active in both parts of Batman's life that acted anywhere near an equal. Gordon is largely Batman's friend, Luscius is Bruce's friend, Alfred's the confidant but serves more of a parental role than that of a peer. Not that the concept can't work without Robin, but what's often most interesting (yet not very helpfull combating the "Batman is gay" jokes) about the times where Robin is skirted to the sidelines is that his place in Batman's world is often filled by a well written romantic interest; Talia, Silver St. Cloud, Vesper Fairchild, etc. Since Bats doesn't have a Lois Lane his mythos often tends to be lacking in the long term but he hasn't suffored for it due to having the sidekick. I can remember alot of those issues between Jason Todd's death and Tim Drake actually putting on the costume that would be most distinctly his as being on the dull side, imho. Batman #455-457, and #465-466 felt like huge upswings in direction when I was reading the bulk of issues I had bought. Though that could be character preferences on my part too.

I dunno, I think there's a pretty big space on the "suspension of disbelief" meter between teen sidekick and purple aliens from venus and Robin doesn't strike me as being too big a leap given the rest of Batman's world. I certainly don't think he's anymore of a throwback than pulp noir is. Which was and to a large extent still is a genre tied to the forties, yet enough modern creators are fans of it to occassionaly work well in it (usually via short stories and minis) without feeling it's age. Certainly the dynamic duo concept could benifit from similar modern genre style tinkering.

And sorry about the huge thread drift with this too.

Yeah. You're going to get "hot girl-on-girl" action if you display lesbianism in superhero comics because superhero comic girls are hot whether it's a kiss or a love scene. You can show the same things with a heterosexual couple and no one cares, but if you show two women, people perceive that to be exploitation.

I didn't think the scene in 52 was gratuitously sexual. I think it could have just as easily been... Nightwing or Kyle Rayner in bed with a girl if the plot demanded it. As long as the character is treated with respect, it shouldn't be an impediment to credibility that they have a sexy scene. Now, if every other week in 52 Renee Montoya was in her undies with a girl, that might be a red flag.

Ghost is a good example. Sexy lesbian leading character who is very buxom. It borders on sexploitation, but it has some strong statements about the objectification and abuse of women in society. Meaningful and true characters and situations can be sexy without losing credibility... in my estimation, at least.

Now, the real challenge will be if DC can establish first rate gay male characters in superhero comics, have them date, kiss, and lay in bed together without having their 90% male heterosexual audience getting freaked out and worried that they'll become gay if they read it too much.

In short, I think DC is using "lesbian chic" as a safety net, but not as a form of exploitation. But in the end, the stories will prove to be the deciding factor.

Oh, that's perfectly silly. There have been hundreds of solo Batman stories written over the years, none of which ever portrayed Batman as a Punisher-style psycho (at least until the post-Jason Todd stories, in which Batman was deliberately written as a nut to justify the introduction of Tim Drake). Denny O'Neil famously wrote Robin out of his run back in the seventies specifically so that Batman could get back to his roots as a dark vigilante, and Robin was absent for the rest of the decade without any danger of Bruce Wayne going into a berzerker rage. Other writers since the Jason Todd and Tim Drake eras have been eager to marginalize Robin, and in general they've made for stronger, more atmospheric storytelling (see the Moench/Jones run). This is why writers like Matt Wagner keep wanting to handle Batman in his early, Robinless years - because the character is more appealing when he's reduced to the basic elements that work.

Were there fun, goofy Batman and Robin comics back in the Silver Age? Sure. But again, that stuff plays best as comedy, and today it's appreciated as such. As I've said before, I wouldn't object to a retro-style Batbook featuring Batman and Robin and the Batladies fighting pink aliens in a day-glo Gotham City, but in a comic where the character's supposed to be dark and menacing, his brightly-colored prancing teen sidekick doesn't really cut it.

Well that and I just like Robin more as a character than Batman on his own.

maybe it's a generational thing.