Philippos Fourty-Two ([info]philippos42) wrote,
@ 2007-09-03 02:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:batman, kim yale, oracle, ostrander, suicide squad, the killing joke

In which I am unaccountably vicious to a fellow Supergirl fan because she defended The Killing Joke

(Edit #2, almost midnight, 4 September: There's a reason I titled the post that way. I was taking a slight dig at my own rantiness. I had the adjective phrase as "totally vicious," modified it to "harsh," & now am going with my first impulse of "unaccountably vicious" since that's what most of you comment on. But really, it's one bit in the whole thing! I was just sort of incoherently going over my dislike of Denny-edited Batman versus my like of Ostrander/Yale.

(So if you're here for your dose of recreational outrage, the line is at the bottom. I have my apology here, & I expect a little bit of snark, if not full fury & lather, at that post as well.)


This is chock full of spoilers, but they're for comics 16+ years old & mostly out of print.

Go see what set me off: "In some ways, Babs had it easier."

Done? OK.

1. Suffering of characters is often a legitimate & necessary part of storytelling. Fair enough. But what the story says about suffering matters. Alan Moore & his British ideological kinsmen take the perverse position that one just stands there & takes it.

I suppose that's to be expected in a country where it's a crime to defend yourself from a robber.

I think Paul Hogan was wrong about Americans having questionable sanity, being descended from adventurers. Most of the sane British stock apparently left those bloody dark islands long ago. (Hmmm, Neil Gaiman lives in the US now, does that mean he's becoming sane in our sunnier climate? Nah. It's just a shame the degenerate progeny of our ancestors' useless cousins are invading our shores now. And we foolishly fear the Mexicans!)

OK, I'm kidding. I think it's mainly just British comic-book writers that embrace that trope. And American editors & fans, unfortunately.

2. But to say that Jim Gordon suffered more is total nonsense. They both went through traumatic experiences, & they both had a loved one go through a traumatic experience.

But Babs was crippled.

Oh, that's right, women don't need legs, right? That athleticism she was so proud of, well, she could "grow beyond that." It's an opportunity!

How fully one must have had to internalize sexist literary tropes to think, "Jim suffered more."

Shelly, I know this is out of the blue, but do you have daughters? Do you see them as a function of their father? 'Cos I just had this creepy feeling that you would defend your husband if he abused your daughter.

3. I read The Killing Joke when it was more or less new, as I recall. The characterization was...different, for a Batman story. Did Bruce & Barbara call each other by their first names before that? And we were supposed to sympathize with the Joker, somehow. I wonder how many people kept sympathizing with him even as he kidnapped, stripped naked, sexually abused, tortured--can I just fucking say raped!--Jim Gordon.

Wertham was right about rape fantasies in comics. And the people who published this were part of the problem.

(I liked Son of the Demon a lot better.)

4. On the other hand, I managed to put together a complete run of Ostrander & Yale's Suicide Squad, even though I only bought three (two?) issues before it was cancelled. Now that was, at times a nasty, bloodthirsty book, with other people's characters, their brainchildren, being killed off mercilessly, or (a few times) retconned into...strange & treasonous things. I'm not going to defend it as having a terribly constructive attitude toward shared continuing characters.

But the women were not props. The main character was a woman. And DC's category-happy loose-leaf Who's Who called her "Supporting Cast," 'cos she dressed like a bureaucrat, not an acrobat, & they just didn't get it.

Anyway, Suicide Squad was a monthly book, & some of the stories are clunkers. It had a body count, it could come off as sadistic, &--parts of it are heartbreaking.

I still miss Flo (as does Oracle if there's any continuity). I hear Briscoe screaming "Shivaaa!" at the ever-so-wrong end. I see Shrike going home to Jesus, & think at least she had a good death (& now the tears are in my eyes, because that always brings tears to my eyes).

And I'm still mad about Ravan failing in his quest. Mad not at the writers, but at poor, silly Adam Cray, which then reminds me of how he died, & now I'm mad about that.

And then I see the good stuff: Dybbuk's wedding. Amanda Waller quitting the bloody game at the end. Count Vertigo standing up, saying, "Mortals have killed gods before," then falling down from loss of blood. I'll let the other two "up" scenes be a surprise.*

(Werner Vertigo's hybris apparently got Vlatava destroyed in the Ostrander-written Spectre, which I still haven't read. I really could cuss Ostrander out for frighteningly over-the-top brutality in his writing, of which I know some scary examples. He also did a mercifully forgotten retcon wherein one version of Hawkman killed his own wife. But anyway, Werner got a cool moment.)

If I'm mad at the writers for Suicide Squad, though, it's mostly for things done early on. Casting Karin Grace as a Manhunter & summarily killing her; what happened to Eve's brother & the Land of Nightshades.

Oh, OK, the Apokalips arc in the middle of the series still pisses me off the most. Because I wanted to believe that a certain person wasn't that evil. Because the Squad were so outclassed & had no business there. Mostly because of Flo & Briscoe, though. It hurts.

5. But here's the thing: The "adult" Batman novels of the late 1980's, except for Son of the Demon, were exercises in bringing in someone from outside, who had never written & would never write the regular series, to do a one-off Batman story. Maybe even a "what if." Alan Moore never had to take responsibility for the regular Batman series. Ostrander & Yale, whatever their faults, did.

"Kill your darlings," Kim (or was it Bob Greenberger?) said, & they knew it was their own babies they were messing with. In time, I think they found a stride. At least my favorite Thuggee cult leader got more time to shine than some of the other characters did. Even the traitor had time to make the story work by getting the Squad, & us, to trust her.

That's serial storytelling.

...

Edit #1, (afternoon, 3 September): When I posted this last night, I started with the idea that I had a point. But fortunately I’m not in a debate, so I can let my position be overwhelmed by facts.

Here’s a big fact: While I found The Killing Joke disturbing on first reading, I sort of accepted it as making a kind of storytelling sense at the time. I was just along for the ride. But years later, Ostrander & Yale, in a story in one of those Batman family anthologies, reframed the end of that story from Barbara's perspective, & that cemented for me that Bruce messed up. I'm not sure to what degree I'd already come to see leaving the Joker alive as a betrayal of Batman's "War on Crime" or of Barbara specifically. But I think I had already turned on Batman.

And it’s Batman as a premise that suffers.

___

* I'm kidding. I think there were four up scenes. ;p



(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]bluefall
2007-09-03 09:36 pm UTC (link)
Killing Joke gives me absolute fits. Because on the one hand, it's the most textbook refrigeration ever. A smart, powerful, competent woman does something stupid and gets shot, humiliated, and permanently destroyed in the space of two panels. Because she's crippled and not dead, she can't even be resurrected - this is truly the end of Batgirl, a twenty-year-old character and a marquee member of her franchise. And not only does the end of everything she's ever been not have anything to do with Babs, it doesn't even have anything to do with the man it affects. Joker shoots and strips Barbara to get to Jim who he only cares about because of Batman. It's like a Russian doll of fridging.

But on the other hand, TKJ was the best thing that ever happened to Babs as a character. Batgirl was a grown woman using someone else's shtick, a copycat and one of a million silly vigilantes in funny tights with kung-fu grip. Her sphere of influence was pretty much Gotham and even there she was third on the list. Oracle is maybe the only truly unique hero to come out of mainstream DC in forty years, one who fights in a completely new way on a completely new battlefield. Her sphere of influence is the entire DCU - in fact she may well be the most powerful character on the roster, even above Supes and Wondy and the Lanterns. It is *she* who ties the Bat-books together, not Batman, and I don't think there's a single major property (Bats, JLA, JSA, Titans, Supes, Wondy, you name it) that she hasn't appeared in. Stripped of her "female Batman" tag, she's a feminist icon in a way she never was before, and she's disabled but it's not a disability superpower, which is more huge than I think even I understand.

And while the current awesomeness of Oracle has nothing whatsoever to do with TKJ and is the result of the authors who came after, cleaning up the mess Moore left, there's no denying that had Babs not been fridged, Oracle would not have happened. And so I'm left with crediting some of the most appalling writing in the history of Batman with the reason I read DC in the first place. I mean, crippling Babs was wrong on every level, and just because some good writers found a way to spin gold out of it doesn't make it any less wrong, but still, it made Babs what she is, y'know? It seriously gives me fits.

(Reply to this)


[info]mechanicaljewel
2007-09-04 05:31 am UTC (link)
Here's the thing.

First, keep in mind that Alan Moore never intended for TKJ to be part of continuity. To him it was a one-shot in which he could deconstruct the Joker and his relationship to Batman. The decision to keep Babs crippled in continuity was an editorial one.

Now, read the last page of TKJ again. The words and the pictures and the onomatopoeias. Absorb that page. Are you sure he leaves the Joker alive? Or did Batman shove the Joker into oncoming traffic?

I'll grant you, it is funny what DC Editoral chose to leave in continuity.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]philippos42
2007-09-04 05:33 am UTC (link)
That's the British sense of "funny," right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mechanicaljewel
2007-09-04 05:45 am UTC (link)
Hey, I'm leaving for the UK in less than a week, I need to learn how to talk like them. So my official answer is:

Indeed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]morchades
2007-09-04 07:47 am UTC (link)
"Shelly, I know this is out of the blue, but do you have daughters? Do you see them as a function of their father? 'Cos I just had this creepy feeling that you would defend your husband if he abused your daughter."

Dude, that is out the blue, and I don't see where you came to that conclusion since the implication I got from Shelley's essay is that Jim had it worse because it was worse for a parent to know the child was hurt than a child to see the parent hurt. A far cry from valuing a husband over the kids.

(Reply to this)


[info]kalinara
2007-09-04 07:49 am UTC (link)
"Shelly, I know this is out of the blue, but do you have daughters? Do you see them as a function of their father? 'Cos I just had this creepy feeling that you would defend your husband if he abused your daughter"

Whoa. That's really out of line.

Especially since, I read Shelly's statement about Babs having it in some ways a little easier as having to do with the fact that while she undeniably suffered, she wasn't suffering with the knowledge that her child was being hurt because of her.

I'm not saying that this is true for everyone, of course, but personally, I would far rather be crippled myself rather than have the knowledge that my child was crippled solely to get at me. I don't have children but I feel strongly enough about the hypothetical to concretely make that statement.

Even if that's not the case, we've got a lot of damages here to quantify up on both sides. Yes, Barbara was crippled. Yes, she was hurt horribly and had pictures taken. And her wounds will never truly heal.

By the same respect Jim was tortured, sexually assaulted, and tormented with the knowledge that his daughter was being horribly injured too. It's not paralysis, but these are still wounds that will not heal easily if at all. (Yes, later books will not treat Jim's wounds as having been as severe or incurable as Barbara's. But that does not reflect on an interpretation of the original text.)

Personally, I don't think I could make a judgment about which person was hurt worse, since pretty much anything listed sounds like something out of a nightmare. But everyone's allowed to have differing opinions about that.

No one says you have to agree that Jim "had it worse." No one says you have to like it. But what the hell gives you the right to say that kind of thing to anyone? Just because she has a different interpretation of a FICTIONAL STORY?

Oh, and by the way? Casting implications on a woman's suitability as a mother simply because she disagrees with you? Trying to say that she doesn't value daughters as much as a husband who'd abuse them, when there was nothing in her post valuing adults or men over the sanctity of children? Because god forbid, she think Jim had it worse in that situation than his daughter?

That's far more sexist than a thousand Killing Jokes could ever be. Congratulations.

(Reply to this)


[info]philippos42
2007-09-04 08:44 am UTC (link)
Out of line? Maybe. But I took Shelly's argument to be that a daughter's suffering is worse for the father. OK, she said, "In some ways." Which is sort of narrowly true, but that's like saying, "In some ways, Hiroshima suffered from bombing less then Dresden."

Yeah, Jim is now a parent with a crippled child. And it's his own fault for not having proper protection for his family which he knew were targets. He's going to have to live with that until senility or death robs him of his memory.

But considering that he has utterly failed to protect the general populace of Gotham from multiple long-career serial killers & terrorists--whose identities are known!--I never thought I'd say this, but let the jackass suffer. Maybe one day the guilt will wake him up, & he'll stop relying on a glorified professional wrestler to "fight crime" in his city. Maybe at the least he'll resign or just finally put a bullet in his addled brain for guilt, because he apparently can't manage a police force worth a tinker's dam.

He suffered more in some ways? I don't care. 'Cos in all the other ways, Barbara suffered, & suffers, more.

Jim is walking around, being classic Commissioner Gordon. Barbara is being Oracle, who's a cooler character now by many accounts. But you know what makes Oracle cool? It's not the over-the-top sudden computer god status. Dixon did OK with that, but she's often just stupidly written & overpowered, like most DC heroes.

The real reason is metafictional. She's the Batman character the Batman editors didn't want, & she came back stronger.

And no way does that reflect well on Denny, or Len, or that-guy-who-created-Axel-Pressbutton.

I originally titled this post, "In which I am totally vicious to a fellow Supergirl fan because she defended The Killing Joke."

I changed it, on the theory that if I were being totally vicious, I wouldn't just be rambling on about general things that came to mind like I did with only one dig at the target.

But that line of my post is why I titled it that way. It just struck me as odd that someone would argue that Jim suffered more. This is her next line:
It is a fact, unfortunate perhaps, that the best way to strike at someone indirectly, is to go after a loved one, and if there are mostly females in that person's life, it's the females who get to suffer so the males can suffer emotionally.
Yeah, whatever. It's all dramatic license, they're fictional characters, no real crime has been committed. But make no mistake, this book was part of an editorial policy to remove all girl sidekicks with prejudice. Aquagirl & Supergirl died in Crisis on Infinite Earths. Then Batgirl was shot. Shelly should know this. She boycotted DC over part of it. And I can understand that she's trying to be fair-minded now; I do it myself, hedge like a scientist or a lawyer.

But somehow, it sounded like the classic case of a woman defending misogyny because she's internalized misogyny. Clearly it was about misogyny in literature, but I wondered how she saw abusive, misogynist men in real life. Because that is, unfortunately, a very real phenomenon. I decided I had to put that out there, I had to ask. I would have liked to make it more of a question, but it's not me that needs the answer. We have to ask ourselves, are we seeing things as sexist society wants us to see them?

So I said it, to, if she reads this, put the challenge in her mind. And if I said it rudely, well, I'm a jerk like that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kalinara
2007-09-04 09:35 am UTC (link)
Dude. Even if she was saying that the child's suffering was worse for the parent (Which is a concept that is not actually gender specific, regardless that this particular example involved a father and a daughter)...

You out right said you got the feeling that she would BE OKAY WITH HER HUSBAND ABUSING HER DAUGHTERS.

How is that, by anyone's standards, an okay thing to say?

You're assuming that because SHE disagrees with YOU, SHE's the one internalizing misogyny. It couldn't possibly just be that a woman is disagreeing with you about whether something's sexist.

It's that a woman is disagreeing with you because of internalized misogyny.

And also, she's disagreeing with you, so she must be a bad mother, and it's perfectly okay for you, a stranger, to say such a thing to a woman you don't know...

I'm sure you're a nice person and all, but that's still pretty fucking sexist in my book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]philippos42
2007-09-04 08:57 am UTC (link)
But yeah, since I'm exactly the kind of person to utter those kinds of lines myself, I shouldn't jump down her throat for it. I don't agree that it makes me sexist.

I suppose, more to the point, I expect people to be physically self-concerned to the degree that their own legs not working, ever again is a bigger & more constant psychological issue than what their own neglect & arrogance did to another person. Yes, it's his daughter, but it's still a matter of something he has to come to be aware of intellectually, outside himself, rather than a betrayal of his own body.

But hey, I'm neither a parent nor a psych major, so I could be wrong about all that.

(Reply to this)


[info]nitf
2007-09-04 12:06 pm UTC (link)
"Shelly, I know this is out of the blue, but do you have daughters? Do you see them as a function of their father? 'Cos I just had this creepy feeling that you would defend your husband if he abused your daughter."

As someone who also wrote in strong disagreement of that very column Shelly wrote, I have to agree that what you said was pretty fucking low. It's like something out of the "Karl Rove School Of Debate". Nobody deserves that.

Please try to avoid crap like that in the future.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mapletree7
2007-09-04 07:02 pm UTC (link)
Totally out of line. You should apologize.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nitf
2007-09-05 04:12 am UTC (link)
I'm hoping you mean that philippos42 should apologize to Shelly, and not that I should apologize to philippos42. Because I can tell you right now that the second one is NOT gonna happen.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]madthinker12357
2007-09-04 02:03 pm UTC (link)
"Wertham was right about rape fantasies in comics. And the people who published this were part of the problem."

Pardon me for sounding a little behind the times (OK, waaaaaaay beind the times) but what was Wertham's theory on rape fantasies in comics?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]philippos42
2007-09-04 11:41 pm UTC (link)
Basically, Wertham was disturbed by the use of abduction of nubile women, with (in his mind) implied rape, in crime comics of this day, which were sold to children & juveniles.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]madthinker12357
2007-09-05 12:15 am UTC (link)
So he saw all abduction as implying rape and thought that children would realize the implication and be emotionally damaged by that? Is that what you are saying?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

No, that's not what I'm saying.
[info]philippos42
2007-09-05 02:12 am UTC (link)
No. He saw a sexualized subtext to things that were happening in violent comics. He wasn't against sex in comics. He wasn't against erotica. He was mostly against violence.

I think it was the idea that women are there to be taken advantage of; that men can force their will on women, or just kidnap them to use sexually, & that's somehow OK. And that is an idea with deep roots in our culture, & there have been forms of it in comics both before & after Wertham, & in fact in Comics-Code-approved books.

But I think society eventually caught up with what Wertham was saying about pop culture. At least some of us are now more concerned with socially problematic themes in literature. Comics have dealt with the threat of public scrutiny by hiding in a quasi-underground distribution system that protects them from having to face moral outrage.

(Note: This is thirdhand. I don't have a copy of Seduction of the Innocent, so I'm going on an analysis in an old Amazing Heroes by Kim Johnson or somebody. So take my description of Wertham's views with an ounce of salt.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: No, that's not what I'm saying.
[info]madthinker12357
2007-09-05 02:20 am UTC (link)
So you're saying that he saw a kind of "pro-rape" message in comics, which you think is still there, and the message is shown via abductions, which have a sexual subtext. Is that right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

...
[info]philippos42
2007-09-05 02:34 am UTC (link)
I think we've graduated to evisceration. It's gone from a juvenile carelessness that fails to see women as human beings to an anti-feminist, anti-woman exercise in killing symbols of women as a way of attacking strong women by proxy.

While Gail may have stretched a couple of things in her WiR list, I largely agree with her. If you want to spam me on this, I can just block you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ...
[info]madthinker12357
2007-09-05 12:41 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to spam you about this or that this has something to do with WiR. I don't believe either is true. For me it is interesting to see that someone agrees with Wertham, who is usually castigated by comics fans. I often think that people really do agree (at least in part) with Wertham, but when you ask them, they deny it. You are the first person I've seen who seems honest about that. I'm just interested in finding out what it is you agree with.

When you wrote "I think it was the idea that women are there to be taken advantage of; that men can force their will on women, or just kidnap them to use sexually, & that's somehow OK," it looked to me like you were saying that you thought there was a pro-rape (i.e. rape is somehow OK) message. I know that is true of the Gor books being printed by Dark Horse, but I'm not sure I've seen somene accuse comics generally of that. And saying "Comics have dealt with the threat of public scrutiny by hiding in a quasi-underground distribution system that protects them from having to face moral outrage" is something I've never seen anyone say before.

You can, of course, block me, but if you just ignore me like you don't want to talk about this, I won't keep bugging you about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-09-04 07:55 pm UTC (link)
Jim really did suffer in that Moore-mess. And quite a bit of his suffering was his own, not on account of his daughter. I don't like the implication that his suffering outweighs that of Babs in the LONG run, but within the pages of TKJ itself, one can argue he's the one that got it worse. (I wouldn't argue it, but it doesn't burn me up if someone does.)

And there was nothing in Shelly's post that would indicate that she valued daughters less than fathers, or even that she "saw them as a function of the father."

Telling someone you feel they would condone abuse is waaaaaay out of line for LJ fan drama. I think you seem like a really decent guy, I've enjoyed reading your journal, but I think you need to apologize here.

(Reply to this)


[info]gottaluvit123
2007-09-05 03:44 am UTC (link)
*Shelly, I know this is out of the blue, but do you have daughters? Do you see them as a function of their father? 'Cos I just had this creepy feeling that you would defend your husband if he abused your daughter.*

Whoa, a disgusting and dispicable comment that there can be no justification for making.

(Reply to this)

Really funny news
(Anonymous)
2007-09-09 07:32 pm UTC (link)
Look what i've found about subj
http://incest-rape.info/rape/date-rape.html
what do u think ?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

What is wrong with you???
[info]philippos42
2007-09-12 05:11 am UTC (link)
I'm wondering if I should delete your comment. But no, I'll just leave it with a note that WOW, THAT'S TOTALLY NSFW, IRRESPONSIBLE, & DISGUSTING!

So this is what I get now, huh? I'm a target for rape-voyeur spam.

Yeesh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Please, help me, brothers!!!
(Anonymous)
2009-05-02 09:13 am UTC (link)
Hi, my friends! I want to download program X-Rumer 5.0 Palladium for FREE. Have you any url???
I'm so need this magic program! It's can break captchas automatically! Activate accounts via email automatically too! Absolutely great software! Help me!
And did you hear news - price for XRumer 5.0 Palladium will grow up to $540 after 15 may 2009... And XRumer 2.9 and 3.0 - too old versions, it's cant break modern catpchas and cant break modern anti-bot protections. But XRumer 5.0 Palladium CAN!!!!
So help me for download this great program for free! Thanks!

(Reply to this)


(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…