By Andrew A. Smith
Tribune Content Agency
March is “Women in Comics” month in the comics industry. So, naturally, instead of a celebration, there’s a huge controversy over the portrayal of a woman in comics.
The woman in question is Batgirl. And the controversy involves a cover with The Joker standing behind her, smearing a smile on her face with something red (Lipstick? Blood? Strawberry jam?) from her right, while holding her immobile with a hand dangling over her left shoulder, which is in turn is holding a gun pointing suggestively downward. Batgirl, for her part, is clearly paralyzed with terror, with tears welling visibly in her eyes.
Creepy and horrific, yes. But, unfortunately, it carries a lot more weight than that. Because long ago, comics legend Alan Moore wrote a story called The Killing Joke, in which the Clown Prince of Crime shot Barbarba Gordon (secretly Batgirl) in the spine, paralyzing her. He then stripped her and took photos of her naked, bleeding body in an attempt to drive Barbara’s father, Commissioner Gordon, insane.
Barbara eventually got better – hey, it’s comics – and now her book has taken an entirely different tone. Batgirl is a truly upbeat book, celebrating the new social media culture and a young college girl’s place in it. This new Dominoed Daredoll wears a costume put together from sales shelves (she wears yellow Doc Martens, for example) and is engaged as much with college hi-jinks as supervillains – and is a far cry in tone and content from those Killing Joke days. Batgirl, you might say, has gotten a lot better, and we’re not just talking about her physical wounds.
But here we have a cover which harkens back to those grim times, and to a story where the female lead’s only role was to suffer and provide motivation for the males leads. And instead of the peppy, happy Bat-Chick of today, we have one who is deprived of agency, who is being held captive by her sexual abuser and who is terrified to tears.
Wow, who decided to strip Batgirl of her strength and self-confidence?
Well, nobody, actually. The cover is part of “Joker Month” at DC Comics, where 25 titles in June will ship with a regular cover, and also a variant cover involving The Joker. This was dreamed up and commissioned by DC’s marketing department, and the creative teams on the actual books weren’t consulted. An excellent artist named Rafael Albuquerque (Ei8ht, American Vampire) was asked to draw a variant cover for Batgirl #41 that had nothing to do with the book’s innards, but simply used The Joker in some fashion. And, being a comics fan himself, Albuquerque drew a cover tipping his hat to that famous Alan Moore story.
But once an image of the cover was released with DC’s June solicitations to retailers, the Internet broke in half. And when Albuquerque realized how many people saw the cover as an attack on women – during “Women in Comics” month, no less – he asked that the cover be pulled, and DC agreed.
"My intention was never to hurt or upset anyone through my art," he said in a statement to comicbookresources.com. "For that reason, I have recommended to DC that the variant cover be pulled."
That should have been that, except we’re talking about the Internet. Before you can say “J’accuse,” a backlash to the backlash erupted, with people complaining that DC was hypersensitive, that it was giving in to a vocal minority, that it was surrendering to censorship. At least two petitions have been launched to have the variant cover released.
Now, I work in journalism, so I’m a big fan of the First Amendment. But here’s the thing: The First Amendment isn’t an absolute. It doesn’t protect you from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, or using “fighting words” to create a conflict. And the First Amendment mainly protects you from the government’s “prior restraint” on what you want to say or print – that is to say, stopping you beforehand. Afterwards, you may face all sorts of legal consequences, both from the government or other citizens, depending on what you said or printed.
In other words, all this talk of “freedom of speech” and “censorship” in regard to the Batgirl cover is just so much hot air. The government isn’t involved, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
I’ll grant there is some validity to charging that one set of fans has deprived another set of fans of something they want (although why they want it, I cannot say). But it wasn’t that set of fans who pulled the cover. They expressed their opinion – as have their opponents – and it is the artist himself who decided that what was best for him, his career and his reputation was to spike it. Frankly, Albuquerque has the most at stake, so I defer to his position without hesitation. I don’t see any other position to take, if you have any respect for art or artists. And isn’t that was the debate is about?
Which isn’t to say you can’t see the Batgirl #41 cover if you want to. You can look at it with this article. You can Google it easily, and even print it out if you like. Blow it up and hang it on your wall. Mail it to your pen pal in Malaysia. Use it for bull-fighter’s cape. Do whatever you like with it. But don’t scream “censorship” when that hasn’t happened.
Further, you can follow the controversy online if you want to know more. In addition to the aforementioned information on Comic Book Resources, you can check out the pro-cover petitions at iPetitions and Change.org. Entertainment Weekly’s Joshua Rivera has a thorough summary. Comics Alliance’s Janelle Asselin posted an informational and insightful essay. And there’s an ongoing discussion and debate right here at this site that is as polite as it is interesting.
And, you know, despite all the controversy, it may actually be a good thing that Batgirl #41 stirred up a hornet’s nest. For one thing, it would probably have passed without comment some 20 years ago. Progress: It always takes itsy-bitsy steps.
Meanwhile, “Women in Comics” month was never meant to be about content – it’s about creators. So it’s progress of another sort that there are sufficient women writing, drawing and editing comics that they can have a month to themselves!
Nowhere is this more evident than at Previews World, the website for Diamond Comic Distributors Inc., the primary distributor of comics in North America. At last count, PW’s section on “Women in Comics” month had interviews with 34 different female creators. Naturally there are high-profile types like writer Gail Simone (Secret Six, Red Sonja, Tomb Raider, see photo) and illustrator Jody Houser (Orphan Black), but also many editors, publishers, colorists and more.
Then there are the female fans, whose ranks are growing faster than a speeding bullet. One group to keep an eye on is The Valkyries, a collection of women who work at comic shops whose purchasing power and recommendations can give a book “the Valkyrie bump.” Find out more about them at Bewarethevalkyries.com and on Facebook, Tumblr, and on Twitter at @LCSValkyries.
Then, of course, there are the books themselves, where we find ourselves in a world with more comics headlining strong female characters than ever before. But that’s another column!
Reach Captain Comics by email (capncomics@aol.com), the Internet (comicsroundtable.com), Facebook (Captain Comics Round Table) or Twitter (@CaptainComics).
Replies
If you have something to say about this specific article, say on. But if you want to address the controversy, please GO HERE for a terrific discussion.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/25/feminist-superheroes-s...
Perhaps Marvel encouraged these pieces if they were written up for this particular month. But journalists still need something to work with.
I remember posting a mainstream article here a few years ago that just run the Big Two into the ground for being backward, uninviting and focused exclusively on the peculiar tastes of the committed fanboy.
https://captaincomics.ning.com/forum/topics/pow-zap-blam-comics-defi... I certainly agreed with that article as a reflection of those times, but to the arguments of the time that these things are subjective, at least it looks pretty clear to me that at least journalists who are fans now have a reason to praise Big Two comics in mainstream articles that they didn't have before, or a reason even to ring superhero comics to the attention of a more mainstream audience. The only exception from the 'bad times' I can think of was Marvel being praised for Miles Morales, but that was more praise for a single editorial decision rather than a whole wave of a new type of approach.
I've had a number of debates with people who lambaste the Big Two for canceling all genres except superheroes to make more money. That is simply not the case. The superhero became essentially the only genre left standing in the 1970s due to sales, not editorial decision. If Night Nurse had been a hit, Marvel would still be publishing it. Some people mistake effect for cause.
And as a result of superheroes being the only genre left standing in the 1970s, the Big Two were loathe to experiment outside that genre. Just as publishers learned in 1954 to avoid controversy, they learned in 1978 whom they could count on to buy their books when the fair-weather fans drifted off, and that was fanboys. Publishers catered to fanboys -- who pretty much wanted some variation of Superman, Batman or Spider-Man (and later Wolverine) in all their books -- because those books sold. Any book that stepped outside of those parameters was usually canceled within a year, not because publishers were bigots or misogynists, but because books featuring white, male superheroes sold, and those featuring women and minorities didn't.
Again, if Ms. Marvel had been a hit, it would never have been canceled. Again we're talking effect, not cause.
So my reaction when DC tries something like Batwoman is to be amazed at their courage. Not moral courage (because corporations don't have morals), but economic courage. They're not feeding an existing market so much as trying to create one -- and they're more than likely to fail and lose money. of course, on the off-off-off-chance they succeed, they will win big. That's a pretty hard pitch to sell to the CEO.
So kudos to the Big Two for trying to break out of the white, male superhero straitjacket. I'm impressed every time they try.
And I know they don't mean to be misogynist. That costs sales. But because of tin ears up and down the chain, they often are. Hence, Batgirl #41.
That's my perception, anyway.
Wait, WHAT!? This was canceled!?
Captain Comics said:
I think you're joking, but if not, then I'll clarify that I'm talking about the Carol Danvers Ms. Marvel of the 1970s and '80s, which got canceled at least twice that I recall. The new Ms. Marvel is doing quite well. It's usually in the top 20 in print, and while it's impossible to verify, Marvel keeps saying the new Ms. Marvel has exceptional e-sales.
Which, to return to my point, demonstrates that publishers have no problem publishing non-white, non-male, even non-Christian characters -- if they sell.
I actually wasn't joking, Cap! I am happy to know that you're talking about the earlier version of the title. I was going to say, "I thought it was doing so well and that it had found an audience!"
Captain Comics said: