-
[QUOTE=Doctor Bifrost;3466057]Batwoman is her own name.
She may have been inspired by seeing Batman at work, but she chose the name for herself. She did not ask for his much-valued permission. Anymore than the original, Kathy Kane, did.
He can certainly kick her off the team that, in the story titles, is called "the Bat-men." If he wants to, he can arrest her for killing someone and turn her over to the police. But she has fought crime under the name Batwoman for a good long time now - most of it not under his direction, which, frankly, was better for her character and her stories - and she has not ceded the authority to Bruce Wayne to dictate her name.[/QUOTE]
But don't you see the hypocrisy of it all, looking at it from both the comic world and the real world. In the comic world she stole Batman's symbol, image, likeness and name for herself and then proceeds to say "you don't tell me what to do", and that she alone will determine what Batman's symbol means to her. In the real world Batwoman fans think she's this badass who is better than Batman and that she doesn't need to be connected to Batman's world nor does she need his approval or permission to do anything. Dispite the fact that she is only relevant as a character explicitly because she is tied to Batman. Kate Kane could have been created with any other name or symbol, her entire history could be the same but she would not have a bat symbol on her chest and she would not call herself Batwoman. And where do think she would be as a character if that were the case? She is leaching of Batman's popularity and prominence and her fans refuse to acknowledge that fact. Instead it's all about how badass she is and how she doesn't answer to Bruce and doesn't need permission to wear his symbol. In fact, some seem to think that Bruce doesn't even own his own symbol, dispite having created it. Look if people love Batwoman that's fine but don't dismiss Batman as irrelevant to her existence when she is taking his symbol, image, likeness and name for herself and would most likely be nothing without them.
-
[QUOTE=The tall man;3466202]But don't you see the hypocrisy of it all, looking at it from both the comic world and the real world. In the comic world she stole Batman's symbol, image, likeness and name for herself and then proceeds to say "you don't tell me what to do", and that she alone will determine what Batman's symbol means to her. In the real world [B]Batwoman fans think she's this badass [/B]who is better than Batman and that she doesn't need to be connected to Batman's world nor does she need his approval or permission to do anything. Dispite the fact that [B]she is only relevant as a character explicitly because she is tied to Batman[/B]. Kate Kane could have been created with any other name or symbol, her entire history could be the same but she would not have a bat symbol on her chest and she would not call herself Batwoman. And where do think she would be as a character if that were the case? [B]She is leaching of Batman's popularity[/B] and prominence and [B]her fans[/B] refuse to acknowledge that fact. Instead it's all about how badass she is and how she doesn't answer to Bruce and doesn't need permission to wear his symbol. In fact, some seem to think that Bruce doesn't even own his own symbol, dispite having created it. Look [B]if people love Batwoman that's fine[/B] but don't dismiss Batman as irrelevant to her existence when she is taking his symbol, image, likeness and name for herself and would most likely be nothing without them.[/QUOTE]
So in other words, this is about Batwoman fans preferring Batwoman in some/or more ways to Batman. :p
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;3466411]So in other words, this is about Batwoman fans preferring Batwoman in some/or more ways to Batman. :p[/QUOTE]
No! It's more about her fans elevating her above Batman dispite the fact that she is copying him and nothing about her is original. And denigrating Batman in the process.
-
[QUOTE=The tall man;3466202]But don't you see the hypocrisy of it all, looking at it from both the comic world and the real world. In the comic world she stole Batman's symbol, image, likeness and name for herself and then proceeds to say "you don't tell me what to do", and that she alone will determine what Batman's symbol means to her. In the real world Batwoman fans think she's this badass who is better than Batman and that she doesn't need to be connected to Batman's world nor does she need his approval or permission to do anything. Dispite the fact that she is only relevant as a character explicitly because she is tied to Batman. Kate Kane could have been created with any other name or symbol, her entire history could be the same but she would not have a bat symbol on her chest and she would not call herself Batwoman. And where do think she would be as a character if that were the case? She is leaching of Batman's popularity and prominence and her fans refuse to acknowledge that fact. Instead it's all about how badass she is and how she doesn't answer to Bruce and doesn't need permission to wear his symbol. In fact, some seem to think that Bruce doesn't even own his own symbol, dispite having created it. Look if people love Batwoman that's fine but don't dismiss Batman as irrelevant to her existence when she is taking his symbol, image, likeness and name for herself and would most likely be nothing without them.[/QUOTE]
It's seems to me that your central issue, here, is that somebody, somewhere, is claiming that Batwoman is better than Batman, and you just hate that. Since I'm not somebody who is claiming that, I can't help you with it.
I completely agree that, from a publishing/marketing point of view, DC is leveraging (not "leeching") Batman's popularity to sell Batwoman. No question. But that has no in-story effect on what Kate "owes" Bruce, or whether she needs to follow his orders. They are fictional characters; they don't know about their publication history or their sales figures. (And, again, you seem to think that people who agree with Kate over Bruce on the killing of Clayface - or even just think she has a point - are belittling Batman, want to get rid of Batman, don't understand that the character of Batwoman wouldn't exist in comics without Batman being there first, etc. That's got nothing to do with anything I say, or most people here are saying.) The Joker had his own comic once, which definitely existed only because [I]Batman[/I] comics existed first - but that doesn't mean the Joker was Batman's underling, who needed to do what he said. Jason Todd/Red Hood exists as a comic book character only because Batman came first - but he has also spent a lot of time not being Batman's "underling" and doing things that Batman did not approve of. And, in fact, Batman had - on occasion - both [I][B]far more reason[/B][/I] and just as much opportunity to shut Jason down, but he "gave him a pass" - something that you make unconvincing excuses for.
As far as Kate's concerned: she saw Batman in action, was inspired by him, and took on the identity of Batwoman. She did not ask his permission, and she accomplished a great deal long before she ever become entangled in his Batfamily. She certainly admires him, and in many ways aspires to be like him. But not in all ways - she aspires to be like herself, too. She never agreed to be his minion, and she has to - and gets to - make her own split-second moral decisions.
If Batman wants to say, "How dare you? Take off that symbol and stop calling yourself Batwoman!" then, as a character, it may make sense for the writer to write him saying that. And if Batwoman wants to say, "No! I've been using this name and this symbol for a long time, and doing good with it, and I don't need your permission! And I didn't do anything wrong - what would you have done, in my position? And what would have been the consequences?" then, as a character, it may make sense for the writer to write her saying that. That's what makes conflict between characters. I don't need to think that either one of them is 100% right or 100% wrong to follow the story.
And I [I]certainly[/I] don't need to think that Batman is 100% right because "I'm a Batman fan and he's the best hero ever and he's been published since 1939 and Batwoman is an inferior vigilante!" Or think that Batwoman is 100% right because "I'm a Batwoman fan and she's a badass and who died and made Bruce BatGod, anyway?!?" These have nothing to do with which character is making more sense, or - more to the point - whether the characters are acting in character, and in a way that advances the storyline.
You seem to want to map the conflict between Bruce and Kate, within the world of the story, onto some angry conflict you see between Batman fans and Batwoman fans, in The So-Called Real World™ outside the story. And I suppose that, if I thought the writer was hamfistedly and annoyingly playing to that, I might have something to say about it. But I don't, so I just don't see the point.
-
[QUOTE=The tall man;3466536]No! It's more about her fans elevating her above Batman dispite the fact that she is copying him and nothing about her is original. And denigrating Batman in the process.[/QUOTE]
I think Batman can take care of himself.
He is by far the most popular - or, at least, best-selling - character in the DCU. I don't know why the fact that a handful of Batwoman fans "belittle" him should bother him. Or you.
And your don't seem to hesitate to talk about Batwoman in strikingly negative and belittling terms, no matter how her fans might feel about somebody denigrating one of their favorite characters like that.
I also don't think that most people, even most Batwoman fans, who think they she was in the right in this story are necessarily "belittling" Batman. Certainly not in general. This is a specific story. Frankly, I think an argument can be made that the [I]story itself[/I] belittles Batman, by having him angrily and self-righteously shout "There's always a better way!" without coming up with an example of what that better way might be.
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;3462991]He won't though, not permanently, or DC would have to either toss-out/kill-off a character, or reboot her with a new identity.
Besides, what exactly is Bruce supposed to do short of killing her if she refuses. Locking her in Arkham or Blackgate for being Batwoman runs the risk of his own (and the batfamilie's) identities getting-out, not she'd reveal that sort of thing willingly. Otherwise he'd have to do what he did with her father, which is all kinds of wrong. If he chases her out of the city she will still be Batwoman, just not in Gotham - which is what she does in her solo anyway.[/QUOTE]
Logically he has NO leverage over it whatsoever:
-He's not going to kill her because, well that's why he's getting on her case to begin with (she killed someone).
-He tries to send her to Arkham or Blackgate, well that risks his and the other's identities getting out to.
-He tries to expose her publically, ditto.
-He looks her up in the Batcave or something, that's not a permanent solution and if someone (like his JL buddies for example) find out, he's in trouble.
-He makes her leave the city, well she could either tell him to buzz off and stay, or just fight crime as Batwoman in other places (which she's already done before).
-Etc.
To quote The Joker "You have NOTHING to threaten with."
-
-
I don't elevate her above Batman and I truly don't see her as copying him. More like homage. She's very original - that could be why she isn't more popular.
As a person who once read Batman every month, all his titles, B & B, original Outsiders, JLAaaaaze, etc, etc. - I just got tired or bored of Batman. It is kind of what happened with me and X-Men too, I just felt I had read enough of their stories and that is why I prefer Batwoman. There just is so much more I want to see done with her character.
With Bruce and most of the rest of the Bat-family, its been played all too often.
-
This idea of using story/character elements to bash opposing sides of fans is dreary. I reluctantly was sucked into it several years ago with Mutant Marvel fans who wanted to burn any and all people who liked Wanda or felt her character just hadn't suffered enough after de-mutanizing other characters . . .
I guess I would have to say maybe the experiment didn't work. Keep Batwoman stories in Detective but rotate arcs with other Batfamily members so everyone has a chance to have their own stories:
Cass as Orphan or Black Bat or whatever, could use at least a 3 issue story. Likewise Tim and Step and so on. The team could dissolve and we could see each member deal with that and resolve any or their own issues, then maybe a year or so down the road find a story to bring them back together.
-
[QUOTE=Oberon;3467918] Keep Batwoman stories in Detective but rotate arcs with other Batfamily members so everyone has a chance to have their own stories:
Cass as Orphan or Black Bat or whatever, could use at least a 3 issue story. Likewise Tim and Step and so on. The team could dissolve and we could see each member deal with that and resolve any or their own issues, then maybe a year or so down the road find a story to bring them back together.[/QUOTE]
You didn't look at the newest solicits, did you?
-
As a whole, I was pleased with this arc. The Clayface stuff was pretty well handled and the conflict between Bruce and Kate was nicely constructed. The art was irregular, with so many shifts and change in quality and I can’t foresee yet what is Tynion’s endgame with First Victim, but he still has some months to wrapp up everything and, while I don’t care about FV and the Victim Syndicate, I like the direction the characters from the Gotham Knights seem to be aimed at. I hope the art can be more stable in the months to come