FlipBoard
Thankfully DC never meddled with the pointiness of Batwoman’s breasts.
Batwoman has been somewhat of a mixed bag since the beginning of the New 52. The writing has been a bit rough without Greg Rucka (who also quit DC a couple years ago) and frequent story and art fill-ins have messed with the book’s flow, but still, it certainly has been a unique title. A strange soapy, supernatural mix with some incredibly beautiful art that seemed to sit apart from most of the New 52 universe.
Well, seems as through some big changes are in store for Batwoman’s weird little world, because creators J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman have walked off the book…
Williams and Blackman are laying the blame on frequent “eleventh hour” editorial changes to stories that had been in the works for months or even years. According to the two, DC Editorial nixed a Killer Croc origin story, significantly altered the ending to the current Batwoman arc, and refused to let Batwoman marry her fiancée Maggie Sawyer.
Obviously it’s the last one that’s grabbing most of the headlines, but Williams has gone out of his way to point out that the wedding wasn’t banned because of any sort of anti-gay marriage stance by DC — they just don’t want any of their top heroes married to anyone, because apparently marriage is dumb and boring (even when it involves sexy lesbians).
So far DC’s only statement on the situation is to reiterate the whole “we don’t hate gay people” thing…
“As acknowledged by the creators involved, the editorial differences with the writers of ‘Batwoman’ had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character.”
Don’t worry DC, we know you don’t hate gay people. Creative people on the other hand, well, sometimes I’m not so sure.
Williams and Blackman will end their run with issue #26 of Batwoman. Where the title goes from there is anyone’s guess as DC hasn’t announced any replacements yet. If Batwoman continues on whoever takes over has their work cut out of them, as the weird, beautifully illustrated world Williams and Blackman built is going to be tough for anyone else to inhabit.
![[avatar]](https://profilecdn-woven.netdna-ssl.com/photo/3998/profile)
oh, didio’s made plenty of statements about it on twitter.
Well, sort of — “Everything’s great and we still love Batwoman, let’s move on!” aren’t the most satisfying statements though.
I have to disagree with the blanket marriage ban. Buddy Baker’s marriage is part of what defines the guy, and I find it hard to believe he’ll stay broken up with his wife. Similarly, Wally and Linda made for some pretty spectacular stories.
Yeah, I dunno, it seems like it’s just an accepted fact at DC and Marvel that married superheroes are boring and no fun, but I really don’t know what evidence there is of that. I never had any problem with married Spider-Man or Superman and like you say, it’s been one of the best aspects of a lot of characters (add Mister Miracle and Big Barda to the list).
Yeah, Spidey and Supes are slightly boring without their marriages in my opinion. It’s like the editors want to keep playing out the old “will they/won’t they” trope which I think just about everyone is sick to death of.
To be fair, there are always going to be those guys who whine that they can’t relate to the god-like superbeing because he can score with girls. I just don’t think those guys should be listened to, myself…
These damn boring marriages! There’s never any conflict in them! And don’t get me started on kids. It’s not like they make things hard.
I don’t get the anti-marriage thing. Some characters feel better married, like The Flash should always be married that’s part of who he is.
Amen. Bruce Wayne being married would never make sense. Diana being married would never make sense. But it works for Flash, Elongated Man, Animal Man, etc. It’s wholly dependent on the character. I think Kate Kane has enough “newness” to her to adapt to being married. Hell, it’s 2013…time to update peoples.
I would take the character much more seriously if there was an effort to de-sexualize the costume. Like if she taped her breasts down and hid her hair to obfuscate the identity more. The whole ‘cowardly and superstitious’ thing works better when crooks can’t immediately go, “oh the red hair it’s X member of the Bat family”.
Well to be fair, aside from the lower half of her face Batwoman’s costume shows zero skin, and her boobs, while often very uh, alert and ready for action, aren’t the giant round Jello-molds most female superheroes get. She’s certainly sexy, but not in the usual “porn star body in a bikini costume” way that makes it hard to take some female heroes seriously. Also, she doesn’t really do the “preying on criminal’s fears” thing so much — she just jumps in and starts breaking legs.
canttellifserious.jpg
As much as I empathize with Williams and Blackman, and as much as I like Batwoman, editorial gets what editorial wants and to hell with everybody else’s plans. Hopefully they find another good team to work on the book.
So they can chase them away too before their run even starts? AGAIN?
Ugh. Seriously, DC needs to stop these last-minute, 11th-hour editorial changes. I don’t read Batwoman anyway, but I would be livid if they did the same to Wonder Woman
Can you really say “Batwoman creators” when they essentially rebooted a character from the 40’s, put her in a modified Batman Beyond costume, and then said “BTW, lesbian”?
If I get a job with DC and decide I’m going to make a “new” character from the past called, oh, let’s use Iron Munroe, and roll him out with a new look and decide that, “BTW he’s gay,” did I “create” the character?
Yes. Rucka and Williams have poured a lot of heart into the current Batwoman. She’s one of my favorite characters in the DC Universe. Her sexuality definitely isn’t a mere “BTW”.
The art on Batwoman is truly fantastic. It’s one of the titles that I buy from the back issue bins, just because it’s so fucking pretty.