Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,915 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 17, 2015 12:33:24 GMT -5
So, I was wondering: Are Batman fans sociopaths?
I'm only kind of joking here. Before I get into the meat of my question, though, a little context.
As some of you know from reading other threads here - and other sites online - DC has got themselves embroiled in another controversy over an inappropriate cover, in this case, a variant cover for Batgirl #41 that references the Killing Joke, where Batgirl was assaulted and degraded by The Joker as a plot prop to see how it affected Jim Gordon. For The Joker's 75th anniversary, DC put together a line of Joker covers to celebrate the character, and I guess they thought that Batgirl was the perfect title to celebrate Joker's greatest moment - shooting, crippling, stripping naked and photographing Barbara Gordon. Because how unbelievably disgusting is the whole concept of marketing and selling a cover that celebrates that?
Now, I try not to get involved in internet arguments for a lot of reasons, the main one being that they pretty much are pointless. But the one thing I cannot let pass is that very specific convergence between women's rights and comic books, because these are two things I care a lot about.
As a result, I've found myself in a kerfuffle on another internet forum, arguing - pretty much with no backup from anyone else - with a large group of irate Joker fans who think that DC's decision to cancel the variant cover is kowtowing to "the PC Police," "social justice warriors" and "radical feminists" who have turned us into "a nation of wimps" by forcing "censorship" on us, which is in direct contrast to the lessons we were supposed to learn from the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Yes, a number of them actually referenced Charlie Hebdo when declaiming DC and Rafael Albuquerque for pulling the cover. And it's pretty clear from their comments that the majority of the people defending the cover are right wingers; they pretty much did everything but claim that Obama took the cover away just like he's going to take away our guns.
This really got me wondering: What kind of people were going to order this variant cover in the first place? I mean, seriously, what kind of person sees that image, is reminded of the Killing Joke, and thinks to himself, "I just have to have this! Finally, a cover acknowledging how awesome Joker is and how great it was that time he graphically assaulted Batgirl!"
Now, I've never liked The Killing Joke and I've never understood its popularity beyond the fact that it came out just before Batmania swept the country, and that the art is really good. I found the Batgirl scenes to be disturbing - which they were intended to be - but not disturbing in a good way, but rather in the usual, real world sense of the word. And while I don't mind Joker, and enjoy him in his movie appearances, I am not now nor have I ever been a big Joker fanatic. But obviously, a lot of people love Killing Joke and love Batman and The Joker.
So all of this really has me wondering. What kind of people are Batman fans? What kind of people are Joker fans? Are Batman and/or Joker fans actually sociopaths? I have a hard time seeing any reason why someone would order this Batgirl variant cover unless they were on Joker's side, in terms of thinking Joker is awesome or a badass or whatever because of what he did and what he does. The cover - and the people who would buy it - seem to be celebrating Joker's psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies.
I also wonder if other characters and character archetypes attracts certain types of fans. It would make sense in a way if this were true, but is it? And how do different characterizations over the years affect this? In the post-DarkKnight, post-Killing Joke era - post-1988 - does Batman attract a different kind of fan than he would have previously?
To summarize:
Do Batman and the Joker attract a disproportionately large number of sociopathic fans compared to other heroes and villains?
If so, is this something inherent in their characters, or is it due to the direction of the books after TDKR and Killing Joke?
Do other heroes attract specific types of fans based on their characterizations? If so, which ones and who?
Finally, if anyone here was planning to buy that Batgirl variant, by all means, please explain to me why, because I'm honestly curious why anyone would buy it unless they collect everything drawn by Rafael Albuquerque or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 12:42:21 GMT -5
It's a well-done illustration; that's really all that matters to me. I won't be getting it because I don't buy new comics, but I wouldn't fault anyone who did.
Why is Batgirl a sacred cow who can't be placed in a threatening situation like other characters?
Maybe if I hated "The Killing Joke," I'd be bothered, but I thought it was a great book.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,915
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 17, 2015 13:14:08 GMT -5
It's a well-done illustration; that's really all that matters to me. I won't be getting it because I don't buy new comics, but I wouldn't fault anyone who did. Why is Batgirl a sacred cow who can't be placed in a threatening situation like other characters? Maybe if I hated "The Killing Joke," I'd be bothered, but I thought it was a great book. But it's not a threatening situation "like other characters." It's a situation that ends with her being shot, paralyzed, stripped naked and photographed for psychotic kicks. That's the story and the context of the cover. That's what happens next. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 17, 2015 13:20:26 GMT -5
I imagine I could google the image and find it fairly easy ... but yeah not on my work PC, I bet.
Without having seen the cover in question, but having read the Killing Joke, I can imagine to some degree what it is. Just based on that, I wouldn't care to own it either. But, I don't think owning a cover depicting something close to a scene from Killing Joke labels the owner as a degenerate person. We are all entertained by things that we wouldn't do in real life, from things as small as getting drunk off your ass and gambling away all your money, or degrading a woman. I personally have a cap on the degree of violence that I can handle in any entertainment medium. Others can stomach more, some less.
It's easy to see things through our own eyes and say that someone is ____ed in the head because they watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or I Spit On Your Grave (a movie I stopped 15 minutes into) for entertainment. I don't understand it, but I don't think it's always a harbinger to a person's actions upon digesting that kind of entertainment. Does it happen? Sure. As an avid gamer since the mid 80's I've seen a lot of crap pinned on games. And while you'll ever see me playing Mortal Komabt, Manhunt, or Postal, and I turn my head from the TV at death scenes from Dead Space, Gears of War, Army of Two and Dark Sector (all of which you can see gameplay of on youtube) I do enjoy the gaming part of it. If there is an option to censor the gore I do, if not I watch what I can or stop playing the game. I may be getting off track ... sorry.
I don't think DC should have pulled the cover just because people were outraged about it. Obviously from the start they thought it go over well with most comic buyers. That though may say something as to what comic readers are demanding and or consuming. But that may be off topic. As long as there were measures taken to keep it out of underage hands (adult comics were behind the counter of comic shops in the 90's were I went) I don't see why some people get to force the decision on what others get to have for their entertainment. It goes the same in the positive way on other subject matters of comics. If you want to cowtow Marvel and DC into doing things you want in their comics, you then shouldn't have the voice to prevent others from having the comics they want because you don't like the content. Children should be policed by their parents as to what they are able to view and adults should be able to make their own decisions on what they want to be entertained by, but not from the censored selection of entertainment that some arbitrary group has allowed out because they have a choke hold on entertainment makers.
In the end despite anything we allow into our brains, I think that the blame for people's actions, should be on them, not the material that they consume.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 13:26:40 GMT -5
It's a well-done illustration; that's really all that matters to me. I won't be getting it because I don't buy new comics, but I wouldn't fault anyone who did. Why is Batgirl a sacred cow who can't be placed in a threatening situation like other characters? Maybe if I hated "The Killing Joke," I'd be bothered, but I thought it was a great book. But it's not a threatening situation "like other characters." It's a situation that ends with her being shot, paralyzed, stripped naked and photographed for psychotic kicks. That's the story and the context of the cover. That's what happens next. If a cover referencing that story is to taboo to print, why isn't the actual comic where the story happens too taboo to print? That's what I'm wondering. The cover is offensive, but not the material it vaguely references? Because remember, nobody who hadn't read The Killing Joke would even get what that cover represented. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 13:28:35 GMT -5
I imagine I could google the image and find it fairly easy ... but yeah not on my work PC, I bet. It's a scared looking Batgirl with The Joker leaning over her shoulder. A pistol in one hand, and with the other he's using his finger to draw Joker lips on Batgirl's face in red paint, or blood. It's an unsettling image, but not graphic, and not any more unsettling than any number of DC superhero covers over the years. But to the credit of the people who dislike it, it is not in the tradition of this new lighthearted Batgirl series, and does seem out of place on this title. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 13:40:23 GMT -5
But it's not a threatening situation "like other characters." It's a situation that ends with her being shot, paralyzed, stripped naked and photographed for psychotic kicks. That's the story and the context of the cover. That's what happens next. You're filling that in. The cover alone doesn't depict anything any worse than what Joker has done to countless other characters throughout the years. This same thing happened last year with the Spider-Woman cover, which outraged feminists because they couldn't get their bodies into the same position Jessica Drew could. And that got pulled, too. I'm tired of the censorship. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,915
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 17, 2015 13:41:44 GMT -5
I imagine I could google the image and find it fairly easy ... but yeah not on my work PC, I bet. It's a scared looking Batgirl with The Joker leaning over her shoulder. A pistol in one hand, and with the other he's using his finger to draw Joker lips on Batgirl's face in red paint, or blood. It's an unsettling image, but not graphic, and not any more unsettling than any number of DC superhero covers over the years. But to the credit of the people who dislike it, it is not in the tradition of this new lighthearted Batgirl series, and does seem out of place on this title. To be clear, my problem with the cover is less about the image itself and more about the context. This is a variant cover. The Joker does not actually appear in Batgirl #41. As a result, the image of him threatening her - or dominating, more like, given that she is whimpering and crying and apparently entirely in his power - has no relation to the story in Batgirl #41. If this same image were on a new story, it would still bother me to a degree, but not nearly as much, because what happens in the story could explain it and give it a different context. But since this cover doesn't have anything to do with the issue it's appearing on, the only context for it is the events of The Killing Joke, which I think is obvious by the fact that The Joker is wearing his outfit from The Killing Joke. Also the artist said as much in his statement. Batgirl is basically in one scene in The Killing Joke, the one where she's shot, crippled, stripped naked and photographed. The only context for this cover is that it is explicitly referencing what Joker did to her in that story - and not just referencing, celebrating, as the whole point of Joker Month is to celebrate the character's 75th anniversary. The cover is well drawn. And perhaps in a different context, where it's attached to a new, different story, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it's a cover specifically exploiting and marketing the infamous degradation of a female character as a sales point. That I have a big problem with. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,915
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 17, 2015 13:43:42 GMT -5
But it's not a threatening situation "like other characters." It's a situation that ends with her being shot, paralyzed, stripped naked and photographed for psychotic kicks. That's the story and the context of the cover. That's what happens next. You're filling that in. The cover alone doesn't depict anything any worse than what Joker has done to countless other characters throughout the years. This same thing happened last year with the Spider-Woman cover, which outraged feminists because they couldn't get their bodies into the same position Jessica Drew could. And that got pulled, too. I'm tired of the censorship. Yes, I am filling that in because I've read The Killing Joke. And because it is clearly meant to be an homage to the events in Killing Joke, given that the Joker is dressed in his Killing Joke costume and the artist explicitly stated it was an homage to The Killing Joke. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 13:46:11 GMT -5
I imagine I could google the image and find it fairly easy ... but yeah not on my work PC, I bet. It's a scared looking Batgirl with The Joker leaning over her shoulder. A pistol in one hand, and with the other he's using his finger to draw Joker lips on Batgirl's face in red paint, or blood. It's an unsettling image, but not graphic, and not any more unsettling than any number of DC superhero covers over the years. But to the credit of the people who dislike it, it is not in the tradition of this new lighthearted Batgirl series, and does seem out of place on this title. With this I think you've hit on one of the big issues that people have with this cover. If this particular cover were the cover for a new printing of the Killing Joke, there probably would have been little to no uproar. But to reference the story where Batgirl was violently wounded, degraded, and maybe even raped as a cover on what is purporting to be a "lighthearted" series is seriously tone-deaf on DC's part.
Here's the cover: 
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 17, 2015 14:07:03 GMT -5
Okay that's ____ed up. I am with Scott in that it's disturbing and vile, but I already said what I feel about censorship. If people want to buy that cover, it's their money and they should be able to buy it. Why they would want to, I dunno. Kudos if you will to the artist ... only for the fact that image is now embedded in my brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 14:07:23 GMT -5
But it's not a threatening situation "like other characters." It's a situation that ends with her being shot, paralyzed, stripped naked and photographed for psychotic kicks. That's the story and the context of the cover. That's what happens next. You're filling that in. The cover alone doesn't depict anything any worse than what Joker has done to countless other characters throughout the years. This same thing happened last year with the Spider-Woman cover, which outraged feminists because they couldn't get their bodies into the same position Jessica Drew could. And that got pulled, too. I'm tired of the censorship. Censorship is a bad thing for artistic expression. Which neither of these were. They are corporately commissioned commercial art that was made for one purpose, to sell comic books. When it became apparent that the content of this commercial art was becoming a negative instead of a positive, the companies, for commercial reasons, pulled them. Don't mistake commercial art for artistic expression. They're two different things that may occasionally converge, but at heart are completely different.
Also, the Spider-Woman issue wasn't because "outraged feminists couldn't get their bodies into the same position". It was because no one could unless they were a contortionist who was butt-naked and spray painted red (because even spandex wouldn't allow a butt to do that). It took the usual male-fantasy-fulfillment to ridiculous levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Mar 17, 2015 14:08:51 GMT -5
To me, the real horror of that cover was seeing Barbara in that hipster inspired costume.  |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 17, 2015 14:33:14 GMT -5
I thought the cover was pulled at the request of the artist? Granted, he asked for it to be pulled in response to the backlash, but still I think it's overstating things to call this censorship. The purveyors of the product released the image, the potential responded unfavorably (to say the least), and the purveyors decided not to release it. Is that censorship? To me, censorship implies a restriction that is imposed by an outside entity.
I have read The Killing Joke, but I don't think I would have necessarily gotten that reference from the cover. From what I recall from the story, Joker's assault upon Barbara Gordon was performed while she was at home in civilian garb, not in her Batgirl persona. Apart from that reference, the only way I would have parsed this cover is 1) it has Joker on it because it's his 75th anniversary, and 2) it's a Batgirl book so she should be on the cover as well. Now I suppose a rather obvious question that could be asked is, "Why not have the cover show something more in line with the spirit of the book, like Batgirl beating up the Joker in a cartoonish fashion?"
I think what makes this cover disturbing is that it shows *Batgirl*, not Barbara Gordon, being terrorized by Joker. Part of the appeal of female superheroes is that they defy the stereotype of being damsels in distress who need a man to save them, and that women are strong and capable too. Showing Joker in the midst of violating Batgirl basically tears down that whole edifice and reduces the female superhero to another victim.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 14:59:29 GMT -5
Censorship is a bad thing for artistic expression. Which neither of these were. They are corporately commissioned commercial art that was made for one purpose, to sell comic books. When it became apparent that the content of this commercial art was becoming a negative instead of a positive, the companies, for commercial reasons, pulled them. Don't mistake commercial art for artistic expression. They're two different things that may occasionally converge, but at heart are completely different.
Also, the Spider-Woman issue wasn't because "outraged feminists couldn't get their bodies into the same position". It was because no one could unless they were a contortionist who was butt-naked and spray painted red (because even spandex wouldn't allow a butt to do that). It took the usual male-fantasy-fulfillment to ridiculous levels.
It's still censorship, just by a different avenue. When another party shuts someone down, it's censorship. Plenty of people are fine with the cover, and I bet if they went ahead with it, it still would have sold out since it's a variant with a smaller print run. There's also the chilling effect. If artists start to become afraid of this kind of backlash, they will stop making the art they want to make. In any medium. The fact that the artist asked them not to use the cover because he was pressured is profoundly sad. As for Spider-Woman, yes that was the issue. A computer artist even created a model that supposedly showed how it was "impossible." Well, Spider-Man gets into a lot of positions that are impossible for the average man, too. These are super-heroes, a lot people seem to forget... |
|
