Wither Goest Batwoman?

It's been confirmed again by DC that there is no Batwoman series or mini-series in the near future.

Just what is so damned difficult in getting this series off the ground, other than the fact it stars a gay member of the Batman franchise?

If her sexuality wasn't an issue, and DC really wanted to make a series starring her, they would have done it already. I mean, they're doing a new Ambush Bug series -- and Ambush Bug was rumored to be a character they would NEVER use again, due to Keith Giffen's constant pokes at Time Warner's expense during the original run.

Of course, there might be other (sometimes related) complicating factors:

* The Dark Knight movie coming out this year, and fears of "confusing the brand."

* The new push DC is making with the Batgirl character (finally wising up to the fact that the classic Batgirl is a licensing goldmine and it might do well to reintegrate her into the DCU).

* Greg Rucka's departure.

In all of this, I have to ponder what became of the Batwoman mini-series Devin Grayson was supposed to do, and how long-time DC writer Grayson was allegedly treated:

“I won't pretend not to be resentful of how badly DC treated me in that exchange, but the majority of my concern and sympathy goes out to the character, who was basically thrown away by a company which had a lot of support to make her successful and unique. My experiences up to that point had been much more positive, although admittedly less ambitious, and it was really sad and discouraging to see the ball so badly dropped.”

I find the fact that there is still no Batwoman series in the works incredibly disappointing, though hardly surprising.

I guess maybe there is just no place in the heart of the mass-market for entertainment starring a self-confident out lesbian:

"Converting People To The Religion Of Crime Through The Lesson Of Lust"

You know, God bless this new "Crime Bible: The Five Lessons Of Blood" miniseries starring Question & Batwoman, but read this blurb:

"The Dark Faith spreads throughout the DCU as the Daughters of Lilith take the forefront in a recruitment drive to convert people to the Religion of Crime through the Lesson of Lust."

and look at this cover:
This is extremely steamy stuff.

Which is absolutely fine, unless this ends up reading like a pulp fiction throwback "lipstick lesbian" adventure with more to titilate the boys in the audience than anything else. I have faith in Greg Rucka that this probably will not be the case. But...

I think it's the combo of the cover -- which is tastefully done but with a heavy sexual vibe -- and the unfortunate blurb which sounds overtly sexual & sleazy.

See, combine the image with the words:


Symbolically, who are the "Daughters of Lilith?"

Lilith is a demonic figure from Babylonian times who was considered evil because she couldn't bear children, couldn't "copulate normally," and brought disease, infertility, and unhappiness wherever she went. (there is debate whether she was originally considered a positive goddess-figure before the "patriarchy" got their hands on her, but that's a debate for another day).

In folk-tradition she is the first wife of Adam who had the audacity to claim they were equal; when he balks, she dumps him and goes away to live on her own. Which of course makes her an evil baby-killing demon, which is largely how she was perceived.

In modern times, feminists have attempted to "take back" Lilith by naming magazines & music fairs after her.

Lilith, with her shunning of Adam, her unwillingness to accept her dictated societal role as babymaker and passive helpmeet, and her association with radical feminism, has been associated with, among other things, lesbianism.

Now, does the "Dark Faith" & "Religion of Crime" of the "Daughters Of Lilith" put them symbolically at odds with organized religion? Why would they be at odds?

What is the symbolism of "recruitment drive" and "convert people" in relation to stereotypes and slander against homosexuals?

So the "Daughters of Lilith" are of the "Religion of Crime" and are actively trying to "convert people" and get "recruits" to their "Dark Faith" through the "Lessons of Lust."

Again, this is not to say that this is what "Crime Bible" is all about. But as I said, this ad copy does a disservice to the book. And associating the figure of Lilith with evil has a little bit of societal baggage attached to it.

The Bureau Of Missing Batwomen Department

"Batwoman's Kryptonite = Homophobia"

There is a smokin' interview with Devin Grayson on the site After Ellen that pretty much confirms all my theories & suspicions regarding the "burying" of Batwoman:

“I won't pretend not to be resentful of how badly DC treated me in that exchange, but the majority of my concern and sympathy goes out to the character, who was basically thrown away by a company which had a lot of support to make her successful and unique. My experiences up to that point had been much more positive, although admittedly less ambitious, and it was really sad and discouraging to see the ball so badly dropped.”
--Devin Grayson

According to the interview, after eight months in development she found out that her proposed "Batwoman" series was kaput not through the courtesy of a phone call -- but through a newspaper article.

Please add the "Batwoman" debacle as an addendum to the previous "Countdown to Change" post. Then hustle over to Greg Rucka's LiveJournal for his own laments concerning Renee Montoya (both stories found via Journalista)

A Tale Of Two Lesbian Superheroines

1. Batwoman: I gots nothing other than: stabbed, bound to a table, smoochies with new Question. Where is she now? Where is her series?

2. Quasar (Phylla-Vell): Has a four-issue limited series coming out.

Phylla who? Quasar gay what?

As I said in an earlier post, the the differences are:

* Quasar is not a top tier character -- she is second/third tier, like other gay characters such as Pied Piper, Hulkling, Holly Robinson, Moondragon, etc. So there is a feeling of more freedom to be bold, to be creative, to be more diverse. Batwoman, as "Wikipedia" describes her, is "the female counterpart to DC Comics' popular superhero Batman."

* Quasar is not "marketed" as a gay character. That is to say, there is not a publicity campaign focusing specifically on her sexuality. Like Hulkling & Wiccan from "Young Avengers," the sexual preference of the character is just one facet of a multi-layered character. In contrast, Batwoman was specifically "pushed" in the media as a lesbian character first, superheroine second.

But I think since DC initially traded off of the publicity surrounding Batwoman's sexuality, I would hope that they have a series starring her in the works soon and are ready to promote it. Yes, there may be fears that having a character so "close" to the Batman brand (if only by name and design) be gay might spark controversy -- might set off the "Boycott Tinky Winky" contingent.

On the other hand, America loves "Ellen." If the networks were chicken-shits they never would have found this out and made lots of money.

So grow a pair and give "Batwoman" the spotlight again. And give her good stories. If I want to read slash fan-fiction with a liberal dose of girl-on-girl bondage scenes I can get that for free online.

Why The Current Batwoman Is "Invisible"

Before I continue I want to say that this examination as to perhaps why the much-touted lesbian Batwoman reboot has been somewhat hidden does not reflect my personal view on the subject.

My personal view: there should be major superheroes of all stripes, colors, creeds, religions, and sexual orientations. *Major* superheroes, not just publicity stunts and second-stringers.

But if I had to read the business end of it and divine why the highly publicized Batwoman character seems to be a bit on the invisible side -- as lamented by poster "BR" on the Beat (found via the ever-stalwart Manstream Awards) -- the following is what I would guess:

Batwoman is essentially the female counterpart of Batman. Not thematically, not as-written in the comic books, but to the general observer. You've got a "Bat-Man" and a "Bat-Woman."

Batman is, in a strictly corporate sense, a Brand.

I know it makes you get the heebie-jeebies to hear it that way. It's rather gauche. "Batman is not Nike!" you might exclaim in horror. But here is a better example.

Time-Warner is the mega-corporation that owns the candy-bar company. The candy-bar company is DC Comics. The candy bars are Batman, Superman, et al.

Batman is a Brand.

Had DC's first major lesbian superheroine not been part (by default) of the Batman family, she most certainly would be getting more exposure now. Heck, had she been a non-"Bat" named character but still part of the Bat's Fam she would be getting more exposure right now.

But her name is "Batwoman." To the public whose only contact with comic book lore is through movies, TV series, and the occasional cartoon, Batwoman would be very closely linked to Batman. And Batwoman is a lesbian. Homosexuality intimately linked with a million-dollar Brand. And the corporates get the shakes about things like that.

When Renee Montoya "came out" in the pages of "Gotham Central," it caused a little bit of a "burp" for the Powers That Be. I'm not talking the usual Powers That Be. The usual PTB's are a bit more liberal than that. I'm referring to the PTBs beyond the PTBs. And here's why.

Renee Montoya was in the "Batman Adventures" cartoon. "Batman Adventures," part of the overall marketing/licensing machine that aggressively catered to kiddie konsumers at that time. And now a lesbian was being attached to that machine.

Horrors!

So how did "Gotham Central" ultimately get away with this?

Foist, you have editors with BALLS OF STEEL. (or a womb of steel. whatever works for you.)

Second, you have a President who has worked with and known and respected a great number of "out" members of the industry, and to whom the idea of shooting down the Montoya storyline based merely on sexual preference issues might have seemed somewhat distasteful. This is purely conjecture on my part, but I do know that if the Prez is against it, it just ain't going to happen.

Third, you play this game where you sorta "ease" the storyline in there without too much fanfare or initial attention. You don't jump up and down and scream "LESBIAN PLOTLINE! GET YOUR FRESH LESBIAN PLOTLINE HERE!" You more sorta walk softly and whistle and pray that it gets through.

So that was Montoya.

With Kane, you have several complicating factors:
1) "LESBIAN PLOTLINE! LOOK! LESBIAN PLOTLINE HERE!"
2) Her name "Batwoman" intimately connects her with the Batman Brand
3) She's been positioned as a "lipstick lesbian," thus weakening the support from groups like, I dunno, WOMEN, who might have championed the character.
4) She was initially aggressively promoted through the mainstream media, which must have sparked a small but passionate patch of feedback from the Usual Suspects who hate Tinky Winky and want to re-program Spongebob so he's more of a manly sponge.

My guess? Batwoman is not being used to her full potential because of a fear of "affecting" the overall Batman brand by association.

And that's sucky.

What I think will happen for Kate Kane further down the line?

Most likely, her name will be changed away from the "Bat." Then she might be allowed to flourish as a strong "B-list" character.

The deep cynic in me can also anticipate a scenario where she's just either retconned or killed off completely or hardly used at all.

But I will bet you dollars to donuts on the name change somewhere along the line.

And yes, this is all cynical.

And no, this is not the way it *should* be. And if you're pissed and you want get angry about it, do so.

Paging Alison Bechdel.

Next Week: "Why Stephanie Brown Will Never Have A Trophy Case"

and the week after that: "Captain America really dead? Are you f**king kidding me?"

and the week after that: "Lost: My Youthful Idealism. Small and furry with big expressive eyes. Answers to the name "Champ." Startles easily."