Have you had the chance to read the Fade from Blue series? This title was one of my first forays away from the super-hero genre and I was greatly suprised by how well written and illustrated each of the 4 lead female characters were.

@ liz & ScottyQuick. re: Lipstick Lesbians. Hmm. I’m not a fan of the term either, as it’s like many things, a fairly stereotypical way to view someone (real or on paper) but as I understand it the term kind of broadly means “a feminine lesbian” and to me, Kate reads that way, tux be damned. I don’t think short hair and alternative clothing keep her from being feminine, but I think knowing her way around a make up table the way she appears to, keeps her fairly locked into the broad definition of a more feminine lesbian. I like that Rucka and Williams put her in a tux in issue #3 as I think it works to breaking down those stereotypes – that Kate can wear makeup and be feminine and still prefer a tux to a gown – but in the first issue – I know Kate’s look was on one level a little disappointing to some people as it was so gorgeous and kind of typically feminine and had a bit of the male gaze present there. Maybe “lipstick lesbian” was the wrong term though…I’m happy to be rid of it. I’d like it if we could retire it entirely…

One basic complaint about the original review: it would be nice if Kelly Thompson would include a few sentence synopsis of the basic plot and story.

The reviewer identifies the character. The reviewer identifies the setting. But the reviewer never actually, um, details what this story is about.

Unless I’m dim and missed it.

first column, and i’m liking it already. i’ll definitely check out stumptown when i pick up dc this week.

Lipstick lesbians:
http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tila-tequila-stalker.jpg
http://www.allproblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/angelina_jolie1a_300x400.jpg

(actually, they’re bisexual, but the gist is there)

Kate’s wearing tuxes. She’s got shorter hair. Her skintone is white. She’s dressed in more alternative-style clothing. She’s not a lipstick lesbian at all (which is a term, it turns out, which neither Rucka nor Didio used or wanted to use, and was used by an inaccurate NYTimes article).

I like that. I like the way it flips the gaze around and puts the reader on the defensive.

It was both Rucka’s Montoya and Bendis’ Jessica Jones that first grabbed me when I got back into reading comics 6 years ago. Those characters gave me hope that females in superhero comics were evolving a bit. That’s not to say that we’re close to evening the field, but I do think that the female positive comic blogs and sites are giving a noticeable voice to a segment of the readership that has often ignored in the past. And, from what I observed, the new creator talent coming is far more conscientious than their predecessors of just a generation ago. Yay progress! And thanks for being one of those voices.

Also, I haven’t got my hands on Stumptown yet, but I’m really looking forward to reading it.

… rassum frassum makin’ me try harder and stuff now …

Superhero comics are cool but I reall do enjoy crime comics and comics with a more realistic spin. I also need some new books with cool heroines in them

I think far fewer people would have cried foul on this issue in Batwoman if this was something unique we were seeing – but our female comic characters almost uniformly use their sexuality as a weapon (I’m having trouble thinking of an exception – maybe Wonder Woman?). Again, for Kate, I think it probably made sense and was interesting, particularly because we know she’s just using every arsenal at her disposal, but because we see it constantly, even in the way that characters are drawn and costumed, it makes it frustrating and not unique to her – it makes her just like every other poorly written pornographically drawn superheroine from Poison Ivy to Jean Grey…resorting to “mysterious feminine wiles” to get the job done. And that irks.

Full disclosure: I wasn’t actually incredibly bothered by it, but I could see the point others were making.

s1rude: Thanks for the comment. As I said in my comment above, I really do believe the scrutiny is necessary – just that it often has unfortunate side effects.

Phil: I heard everything on Rucka’s Batwoman from it’s brilliant and perfect to “why does her father have to be here? Why does she need a MAN around in order to be a superhero?”. Which seemed a bit crazy to me, and like people (including myself to a degree) were just looking for things to have problems with. I think there was legitimate criticism/disappointment that Kate turned out to be a drop dead gorgeous lipstick lesbian…but I don’t think that’s Rucka’s fault and I think most people get that…DC doesn’t believe that we’re ready for a mainstream superheroine that doesn’t look like a stone cold fox…and probably too many people at DC fall into a “oooh hott lesbian action potential” category. It takes time to change these things.

In the meantime I think some people are upset about Batwoman for fairly legitimate reasons (the suggestion that there is some sexualization to Kate’s “interrogation techniques” especially in issue #1) and some are upset at things that are a real reach to me (the presence of her father in the book). I was on the fence with Detective Comics – thinking it was better than most the stuff I was reading, but watching it with a wary eye, until the most recent issue. I think Rucka and Williams nailed that last issue and I finally stopped holding my breath while reading it – I hope that continues!