Lesbian Marriage Too Tough For Batwoman, Authors Leave

[Gearhead mk2]

Exactly, it probably wouldn't be a big controversy. Making Alan Scott gay wasn't a big controversy. So maybe that's not the reason they don't want her married! We have no idea what the writers had planned, how they wanted to handle it. It might have been terrible or it could have just been too big a shake up for the character. There are other possibilities. Can people stop acting like it's definitely the gay thing. Lots of characters don't get married to their SO.

Ok, that's fair enough, But even if it was poorly handled, they should have at least put it out there so people could judge it on their own or maybe broken it off in-story instead of some exec going "Let's drive away two good writers by constantly screwing them over at every turn and trying to stop two girls kissing at the altar".

 

[mjharper]

This news sucks. Batwoman was a great series which I enjoyed immensely.

Even if the decision not to show marriage wasn't an anti-gay stance, it's still stupid. One of the things which distinguished Batwoman from the other New 52 line-up (I haven't read Animal Man, so can't comment on that) was the sheer fact that the relationships were done so well. Kate felt like an actual well-rounded (if not well-adjusted) person beyond having plenty of money, tonnes of gadgets, and kicking ass. She was a mature character whose sexuality was actually expressed through relationships, rather than T&A.

Sure, the art was fantastic. But I'll miss the the characterisation more, I think.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Erm... having a prominent, admirable, lesbian character wasn't controversial?

Anyway...

We live in the era of Ellen DeGeneres on one side of the Atlantic and Claire Balding on the other, so no, that's not controversial at all.

It's weird though that DC has become so risk averse, this is the company that let Alan 'completely fucking crazy' Moore write for their flagship characters and has an openly gay Green Lantern. It's not as if comic book continuity is set in stone anyway, there are so many retcons and counter-retcons you need a flow chart just to track one character.

I suspect there's more to this than just cold feet upstairs about plot arcs, although I doubt it has anything to do with the writers and everything to do with the egos of higher ups.

I don't recall saying anything about this being the writer's fault.

I put the blame squarely on DC Comics, as in the organization itself.

Though quite frankly, I don't think we should be surprised.

This is the same company that LOVED Frank Miller's work.

Yeah... seriously... I don't think the guy could write a story with women in it without them being whores or the word 'whore' being used at some point to save his life.

 

[MCerberus]

Hey DC, you remember when every single issue had to have some DRAMATIC OR CONTROVERSIAL moment in order to sell books to potential collectors? You remember how that lead to the comics crash? stop it.

Besides, The Question has always been the better lesbian.

 

[RJ 17]

Exactly, it probably wouldn't be a big controversy. Making Alan Scott gay wasn't a big controversy. So maybe that's not the reason they don't want her married! We have no idea what the writers had planned, how they wanted to handle it. It might have been terrible or it could have just been too big a shake up for the character. There are other possibilities. Can people stop acting like it's definitely the gay thing. Lots of characters don't get married to their SO.

Ok, that's fair enough, But even if it was poorly handled, they should have at least put it out there so people could judge it on their own or maybe broken it off in-story instead of some exec going "Let's drive away two good writers by constantly screwing them over at every turn and trying to stop two girls kissing at the altar".

They might have other plans for the character. There is no reason to believe it had to do with "two girls kissing at the altar." There's plenty of examples of writers not getting to do what they wanted to do because they don't own the characters and don't have to worry about the character's futures. Hell the Watchmen came about because DC didn't want Alan Moore screwing up a bunch of their characters so he created new ones. It happens all the time. The only difference here is it involves the word lesbian and people love a chance for a bit of moral outrage.

Well I came into this article expecting pretty much what I've seen thus far: everyone immediately assuming it was shot down because DC doesn't want gay-marriage. Personally I shared your viewpoint: nothing in the article specifically says it's because of an anti gay marriage stance held by DC and that all this hubbub regarding it could very well be completely unfounded.

After doing a bit of digging, I found a nugget of evidence that supports your position:

That's right, while Batwoman has proposed to Maggie twice ? twice on panel ? DC not only refused to let the wedding be depicted on panel, but refused to let them be married at all. "[We] were told emphatically no marriage can result," said Williams on Twitter. He later added it was "was never put to us as being anti-gay marriage."

(Source: http://io9.com/dc-wont-allow-batwomans-gay-marriage-to-be-depicted-1257106266 )

Now the piece that comes from is, itself, an opinion piece in which the writer makes the same assumption that most of the responses to this article have made, going on to say "Although how refusing to let people marry - even fictional ones - is not anti-gay marriage is beyond me."

Furthermore, coming from Blackman's blog as linked in this topic's main article:

We?ve always understood that, as much as we love the character, Batwoman ultimately belongs to DC

Just wanted to throw you a bone since you seem to be the only one in here suggesting that this might not be some vast anti-gay conspiracy and DC's attempt to grab a bunch of "Fox News watchers" as part of its target audience. It seems to me more likely that DC is balking at the concept of marriage in general, not so much that the one in question is going to be between two lesbians.

 

[mjharper]

@RJ17: I don't think it was specifically anti-gay either, just for the record.

But that doesn't stop it being stupid. With so many comics focussing on T&A, with early New 52 characters courting soft-porn (I'm thinking Starfire), it's a shame when DC won't allow a mature character in a mature series to behave in a mature manner and actually have a relationship that involves commitment rather than titillation.

I'm almost more annoyed with the blanket 'no marriage' stance than I am by the supposed 'no gay marriage' stance, because that hinders ALL characters.

 

[Drauger]

I read Batwoman and being frank I'm kind of tired of Kate being in such a serious relationship, and I as a fan wouldn't like her getting married, I believe this is the reason why DC don't want her married, funny how must people jumps on the " against gay marriege" wagon so easily.

 

[RJ 17]

@RJ17: I don't think it was specifically anti-gay either, just for the record.

But that doesn't stop it being stupid. With so many comics focussing on T&A, with early New 52 characters courting soft-porn (I'm thinking Starfire), it's a shame when DC won't allow a mature character in a mature series to behave in a mature manner and actually have a relationship that involves commitment rather than titillation.

I'm almost more annoyed with the blanket 'no marriage' stance than I am by the supposed 'no gay marriage' stance, because that hinders ALL characters.

And THAT is a perfectly acceptable criticism. I was just helping out Spot since he seemed to be the only one pointing out that this might not be about gay marriage, but rather marriage in general. Seeing as how the majority of people that have posted in this topic have assumed it's because DC is anti-gay, I felt that Spot could use some back-up.

Now being upset about DC's refusal to try and make marriage in general work is a completely different story and one that is fair for discussion. Just because it hasn't worked in the past doesn't mean they should just give up on the concept entirely. I'm not huge into comics, but evidently these two writers were very good at what they did and maybe they could have pulled it off where others have fallen short.

 

[jaymiechan]

well, when you can say DC wants to be more stagnant that freaking Archie Comics, you know it is a sad day.

 

[Mariahsyn]

When they made Kate Kane (Batwoman) a Lesbian it was a publicity stunt to try and draw people in to read the comics. It made such a buzz when it was announced. The same thing with the Flash it would be good PR for DC but when it comes to gay marriage they toss on the brakes.

If the writers had to fight to get an engagement, what you have is a clear sign that DC isn't progressive because once a publicity stunt is over there is little use for the stunt aside from holding it up to critics and saying "seeeee? we dont have a problem! really!" with a big false grin that they secretly hope nobody will see through.

I do not blame the writers for leaving the project.

I blame someone at DC for being a small coward.

 

[Sicht]

When they made Kate Kane (Batwoman) a Lesbian it was a publicity stunt to try and draw people in to read the comics. It made such a buzz when it was announced. The same thing with the Flash it would be good PR for DC but when it comes to gay marriage they toss on the brakes.

If the writers had to fight to get an engagement, what you have is a clear sign that DC isn't progressive because once a publicity stunt is over there is little use for the stunt aside from holding it up to critics and saying "seeeee? we dont have a problem! really!" with a big false grin that they secretly hope nobody will see through.

I do not blame the writers for leaving the project.

I blame someone at DC for being a small coward.

Wasn't Kate Kane always a lesbian? The one who slid down the batpole in the 70's was a different person who was reintroduced after over 30 years, 7 years after the creation of Kate Kane, both called Katherine Kane. But Kate has always been a lesbian. Again making major changes to a character (such as having them get married) is the kind of thing publishers are reluctant to do because too many changes make the character harder to pick up for new writers. Whereas if the status quo never really changes then the character stays easy to write.

Oh and the Flash isn't gay.

she only became a gay character in 2006 during infinite crisis as a way to rework her back story. My only issue with making character's gay is mainly alan scott. they took all the things his son in the original 52 had for character development axed him and fused his thing with his father's while also destroying the original story of a man who grew up during ww2 coping with his son being gay because of the era he grew up in. I like alan scott and his son and the dynamic that went on there but i think it robbed the series of jade and her brother(too lazy to remember or look name up) because of the new 52 and it's stunt pulling hijinks(they only really made alan scott gay because they had no intentions of bringing his son back because alan was too young and they did a circus of it of hyping a green lantern character(which most lantern fans when they hear an announcement regarding green lantern they never thing of alan scott) and then saying it was alan scott messing with people's expectations while generating alot of media buzz to boost comic sales.

 

[oldtaku]

Marriage is for stability, which is anathema for a comic book. It's a cheap gimmick up there with 'The Death Of'.

The wedding always ends up being this stupid spectacle issue with everyone happy and crying and even the villains showing up to play nice when you know it's all going to end horribly later. Until the breakup, plots are constrained because marriage makes things staid and boring - that's what it's /supposed/ to do. Old heroes are sometimes allowed to get married and mostly stay happily married, like Reed and Sue Richards once Namor got over his thing for her, but writers can't resist f@#$ing with that at some point either.

I'm sure the writers really cared for the character, but it sounds like DC was trying to keep them from fanficing her. Lesbian or not, it's a bad idea.

 

[waj9876]

...Meh.

I can see a few perfectly good reasons why they might be hesitant to have them married. For one, nearly every major wedding in comics has been an absolutely HORRIBLE move. And this would be a controversial one.

On the other hand, I don't read Batwoman. I didn't even know there WAS a Batwoman comic. So I have no idea if it could work or not.

So my answer to this is meh.