Comic Book Resources

“If that’s the case, though, then why do the Times piece in the first place? ”

That’s a question more fairly asked of the New York Times, isn’t it? It’s not like DC wrote that article. My sense is that the big NYT write-up surprised both Marvel and DC, who scrambled to capitalize on it.

I’m just sayin’.

-E

Personally, I don’t think every character needs (or can carry) a solo title. Besides, hasn’t Batwoman been working with (or for) the Birds of Prey lately? I recall an issue of Countdown or Gotham Underground where she was “dispatched” by Oracle.

I’d actually love to see DC bring back Gotham Knights–I miss seeing all of the various members of the Bat Family working together.

[…] The Whole Batwoman Thing 24 02 2008 http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/02/24/the-whole-batwoman-thing/ […]

DC issued the press releases.

Personally, I don’t think every character needs (or can carry) a solo title. Besides, hasn’t Batwoman been working with (or for) the Birds of Prey lately? I recall an issue of Countdown or Gotham Underground where she was “dispatched” by Oracle.

With the exception of scattered appearances (and those directly contradict what Rucka’s trying to do with her and Renee Montoya in Crime Bible), Batwoman hasn’t had anything to do with Birds of Prey.

DC simply came up with what they thought was a cool idea for a character, but then didn’t bother doing anything useful with her. Is this any different than Forerunner in Countdown?

I have to agree that the character probably can’t support a solo title. There just doesn’t seem to be any great depth to the character, either, and holes in the concept.

“Lesbian Batgirl” seems to be the entire character concept at this stage, appearances of the character have not let the character grow beyond that so far.

As a point of interest, just where did this apparently spoiled rich girl learn to fight and get her equipment from?

A gay character. Daring.

Maybe there’s just not enough demand for a solo title. If it’s not profitable…

I think Batwoman was mostly just a foil/plot compliment for Renee Montoya but since Rucka didn’t reup his exclusivity and seems to be focusing on Daredevil, what’s the point of doing a monthly series with her if Rucka is not going to write it since she’s another of his babies that no one either wants to write or can’t write.

More to the point, is she really that interesting? Once you get past the whole “she’s making out with Montoya” shock value, so what? There’s lots of other DC heroines that fill any niche you could carve out for her.

Oh and I think her skills are a result of being a thrill seeking playgirl while the gadgets were paid for by her money.

A gay character. Daring.

Well, here in America it is, at least a little bit.

Shame. I was really looking forward to this. (Not so much for the character or the writer, mind.)

I’m an American.

I wanted that Rucka/J.H. Williams series so bad.

From reading his blog, I understand that Williams is already several issues into a Batwoman miniseries, and the idea that DC is just going to sit on that much Williams art really fries my ass to the point where I am considering boycotting their product entirely.

Maybe they realized there’s not that much to the character.

I realize that we know next to nothing about the character but I wish people would stop referring to her as “the gay Batwoman.” Can’t she be “the new Batwoman”? or just Batwoman? No matter how the character was handled we shouldn’t allow just her sexual orientation to define her. I know we don’t have a whole lot to define her but still…

Really, there’s no other way to define her, since all of her ’story’ (despite how little there is) is predicated on her sexual orientation. Well, Infinite Christmas did reveal her as Jewish… We could call her the Jewish Batwoman! I don’t think that’d solve the problem, though…

From reading his blog, I understand that Williams is already several issues into a Batwoman miniseries, and the idea that DC is just going to sit on that much Williams art really fries my ass to the point where I am considering boycotting their product entirely.

Oh that suuuuuucks.

I’m not “boycotting” exactly, but a new JHIII book would have doubled my DC purchases.

Yeah, I’m not fussed about the character one way or another, but it definitely sucks that we’re missing out on that much JHIII art. Hopefully we’ll get to see it somewhere…

I went back and checked Williams’s blog http://www.jhwilliams3.com/
and it appears I misremembered. The last reference to the “unnamed project” as he has been referring to it is on November 29, when he says he is about halfway through the first issue. So maybe not several issues, depending on when DC decided to suspend or cancel or whatever the hell they’re doing with the project. Still annoying, though.

What always bothered me about the character - is that she started off as a gay character, rather than as a character that happened to be gay. I don’t introduce my friends by their sexuality first & foremost, DC shouldn’t intruduce their characters that way either. When they do that all the end up being is their sexuality first, and then whatever else they are. I much preferred DC’s devlopment of Montoya and her sexuality, letting us know her first as who she was - and then letting us know what kind of person she liked to curl up with late at night.

As a result of how they did things, DC could almost never release a solo book about Batwoman - while would have no problem releasing a book about Rene Montoya aka The Question - yet both are lesbians. Go figure.

Why is it that every strong female character DC created in the last 15 years have to be a lesbian? Maggie Sawyer in the Superman books and Renee Montoya in Batman became almost interchangable characters until Montoya became the Question. I don’t have a problem with a lesbian character, it just seems to me that these non-superpowered strong female types could also be straight. I mean at least one of them.

ny_jet:
No, they haven’t, no they weren’t, it seems that you do, and sure, they could, and, what’s more, plenty have been.

Can we avoid calling the guy a bigot? No? Too much?

Why is it that every strong female character DC created in the last 15 years have to be a lesbian?

Kate Spencer? Sasha Bordeaux?

Courtney Whitmore? Maxine Hunkel? The new Shining Knight and Bulleteer? Spoiler? Veronica Cale? Silver Shannon from the Power Company? Cassie and Helena Sandsmark? Dr. Morlo from Impulse?

Well, as Rucka was the driving force behind the character, and he no longer wants to work for DC, I can see that the character would slide into non-use.

I think the question here is not so much whether or not Batwoman deserves her own book (debateable; write any character well enough, and they’d “deserve” a book), but why DC would take massive mainstream exposure for one of their new characters and almost instantly flush that down the toilet. Seriously, when was the last time a new character for Marvel or DC got a write-up in the NYT? Never?

Why DC would take massive mainstream exposure for one of their new characters and almost instantly flush that down the toilet.

Probably because of negative feedback. And it could’ve come from concerned parents, institutions and/or higher-ups at Time-Warner.

I mean, everybody’s heard the saying “any publicity is good publicity”, right? Well, that may not apply to Batman, Superman, Mickey Mouse or any other “age friendly” property. When it comes to those characters, people want their mythos pure as snow; and “negative publicity is NOT CONSIDERED good publicity”. In fact, it can get you fired.

Now, I don’t think that’s the case with Batwoman. But you have to admit that, to the world at large, Lesbian characters are perceived to be pandering to schoolboy fantasies… and as a result, are taken “less seriously” than their male gay counterparts.

So, from a business standpoint, I can see why some people would ask: “What’s Batwoman’s purpose? What does she bring to the table? By being gay, it’s obvious that she won’t be considered a potential love interest for Batman; and any tension or conflict that she could provide, could be construed as Batman being politacally incorrect!!!”

In the end, and I could be wrong, I think her purpose was to infuse the 52 Comic Book series with a “Bat-Presence” that was lacking on account of Batman, Robin and Nightwing being away.

If her story didn’t catch on, and writers are not interested, I could see her falling through the cracks. The fact of the matter is that DC had a more profitable franchise with their new Batgirl Character and revitalizing her should be their top priority.

Consequently, Batwoman will have to wait.

Shameful. There’s no other word.

it just seems to me that these non-superpowered strong female types could also be straight. I mean at least one of them.

Like Barbara Gordon?

I’d note that DC *did* say from the beginning that they were planning to take it slow with Batwoman, and not rush into a new series or anything.

I don’t think anyone expected them to take things quite *this* slow, but at least it’s not completely out of left field.

Is anybody really shocked by terrible business moves by DC at this point?

A Rucka/JHWIII Batwoman series is a 100% sales success for at least the first arc, especially with good timing.

So what does DC do? Let all the hype fade away, and put out a Batgirl series by a guy whose Robin writing people hated.

I seriously think they hate money over there.

The character itself was just a cheap ploy to titillate teen boys with her rampaging lipstick lesbianism.

Glad the character’s “buried”, so to speak.

>I’m an American.

My condolences. But don´t lose hope.

It could very well be that Time-Warner is worried about there being a controversy surrounding the character right when the movie hits the theater. It could be that Rucka won’t have the time to do this series now that he’s not exclusive. It could be that, with all this waiting, the moment was lost.

Maybe they’ll get around to a mini-series after the movie hits. Maybe she’ll just wind up in Birds of Prey.

But, as she stood, she was just a shallow character. Gay, rich, and Jewish. That’s all we really know about her. Her having been involved with a character that has more depth doesn’t mean she gets some of it through osmosis.

But, as she stood, she was just a shallow character. Gay, rich, and Jewish. That’s all we really know about her.

She wasn’t just a gay rich lesbian who used to date Montoya, she dresses up in a bat costume! It’s not like she was just Montoya’s favorite hot dog vendor who she sometimes slept with. She’s been in what, 3 issues? 6? And the appearences were mostly ensemble books, not Batwoman: Origins. Of course that’s all we know about her. I would like to have seen more.

I’d say “undeveloped” rather than “shallow.” Her level of development is consistent with having made a handful of appearances as a supporting character; it doesn’t mean there’s anything innately wrong with the character, just that it hasn’t been done yet (which is kind of the point of the complaint, really). After all, “gay, rich and Jewish” is one more thing than we know about the first Batwoman, and two more than we know about some supporting characters who have been around for years. (Off the top of their heads, can anyone give a personal detail about Dr. Jenet Klyburn that isn’t intrinsic to her usual plot role?)

“Well, as Rucka was the driving force behind the character, and he no longer wants to work for DC, I can see that the character would slide into non-use.”

I believe he recently said he has three DC projects he is working on. He will work at DC, he’s just no longer exclusive (Same for JMS at Marvel).

As for the book, I guess it’s because of the reaction when she was created. Wether it was DC’s fault or not, the initial reports focussed on her sexuality and little else, so people just saw it as the creation of a gay character over a character who is gay (If that makes sense ). Also, after that it seemed as if DC didn’t really hype her that much, there was an initial fanfare and then nothing else.

I agree on the poster earlier (sorry for no direct quote or name, but I’m at work and don’t have time to scroll back up) but the character is merely undeveloped, she’s not 2D, we just haven’t seen enough about her to get a proper idea of her motivations and personality.

Oh by the way, more recent strong straight female characters Manhunter,Jess Midnight, Sasha Bordeaux, oh and rejuvenated characters like Black Canary, Power girl ,both have really been fleshed out and matured recently in their team books, as have Stargirl, Fire, Enchantress, the list goes on.

Batwoman has potential but that’s all it is, you can’t say she’s a good character yet, but on the other hand you also can’t say she’s a bad character or that she has nothing new to bring to the table.

“>I’m an American.

My condolences. But don´t lose hope. ”

Excellent.

Yeah, its sucks to be living in such a liberty-ridden, prosperous nation.