Should they kill off Harley at some point?

[SiegePerilous02]

Not even DC would be dumb enough to kill off an investment like Harley.

I hate what they've turned her into over the years, but she clearly makes money.

[lucius121]

Harley is one of the few DC characters I actually like so I’m against the idea. At this point for me the vast majority of DC characters have become boring and stale literally going over the same stories over and over again, mostly because certain fans are obsessed with nostalgia and throw a fit whenever there’s real change to a character. The fact that these nostalgia obsessed fans don’t like Harley is probably one of the only reasons she has been allowed to grow as a character.

The majority of criticism comes from people who have never read her solo and know virtually nothing about the character apart from her origins in BAS and her appearance in crossovers, judging any character based on such limited evidence is obviously going to lead a massive misconception.

[Clark_Kent]

She's been dead before. Had a whole adventure getting out of hell and everything.

[Citizen Kane]

As soon as Harley got her own book, I knew DC had completely lost the plot with her. I wouldn't say she needs to get killed off, but she needs to go back to just being a Gotham rogue or, at the very least, a character in the Suicide Squad.

[Clark_Kent]

As soon as Harley got her own book, I knew DC had completely lost the plot with her. I wouldn't say she needs to get killed off, but she needs to go back to just being a Gotham rogue or, at the very least, a character in the Suicide Squad.

Are you talking about her own New 52 book? Or her early 2000's solo title?

[lemonpeace]

kill her? no, DC pushed her HARD, try are not going to throw all that work and built fandom away. Even if they did kill her, she'd just be brought back because DC can't handle death in their storytelling in any meaningful way.

I do think she needs to return to villain, doesn't have to be as Joker's squeeze, because trying to make Harley Quinn this "feminist" icon anti-hero is.....problematic. grain of salt, for I am a cis black man, but Harley Quinn the hero feels like Sansa Stark, in the sense that she feels like a "male-gazian" facsimile of a very particular brand of feminism. it feels disingenuous.

not to say there can't be empowerment taken from Harley's story, and I say that despite not reading every single thing she's been in, but the things that character has done, as been complacent in, and who that character is supposed at their core make her a weird choice for me to be considered one of the many characters that's been described as the "4th pillar" of the DC universe, especially as a female character; particularly because there are plenty of other female characters that predate her who could've fill that role.

[Swallowtail]

DC pushed her HARD, try are not going to throw all that work and built fandom away.

DC wishes it could build the sort of fandom Harley has. DC didn't need to push her. They just road that wave.

[lemonpeace]

DC wishes it could build the sort of fandom Harley has. DC didn't need to push her. They just road that wave.

eh, not to say Harley didn't have a inherent interest when she was introduced but her status in the comics today is largely due to how much DC marketed her after her initial success when she was intergrated into the page from the animated series. there was a point in time where Harley was everywhere in the DCU, that wasn't naturally occurring nor an accident. it's less so they "rode the wave" and more so that they saw a small character who fans liked and deliberately doubled down on that character; it's the deadpool effect. the difference being the undertones of social commentary, which I love in comics but it doesn't exactly land the way DC wanted it to in regards to Harley; for me at least.

I think fans need to divorce themselves from this idea that these characters arrive at this higher status of utility off the strength of the character alone, especially at DC. Interesting characters don't fail because they are inherently bad and popular characters don't always become that way because they were I inherently well-crafted or profitable, a lot of it has to do with how DC handles that character's appearances on the page, which covers they're on, how many properties are they in, etc.

[mathew101281]

Why would DC kill off their 2nd most popular characters? And one of the few characters that actually sells? Make coherent arguments people.

[Citizen Kane]

Are you talking about her own New 52 book? Or her early 2000's solo title?

Her New 52 book. To be honest, I was not aware she had an earlier series. The more you know, I suppose.

[9th.]

Her New 52 book. To be honest, I was not aware she had an earlier series. The more you know, I suppose.

Yeah her first solo was in the early 2000s, it had a decent amount of issues.
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/harley-quinn/4050-9494/

[byrd156]

Even if you don't see her appeal, a lot of people do. She has many, many fans. Why would DC want to piss them off?

Tell that to the Titans fans.

She'll die at some point and be back like a few issues later.

[witchboy]

Her New 52 book. To be honest, I was not aware she had an earlier series. The more you know, I suppose.

I LOVED her original solo series. She was a lot closer to original concept, was zany and fun. After her break up with Joker she tries to rob Wayne manor and then creates a new identity and moves to Metropolis.

[Ascended]

eh, not to say Harley didn't have a inherent interest when she was introduced but her status in the comics today is largely due to how much DC marketed her after her initial success when she was intergrated into the page from the animated series.

What you're saying is that DC recognized an increase in demand, and responded by providing an increase in supply.

That's actually what business is *supposed* to do. We don't see that at DC all the time, but this is what it looks like. DC didn't do anything wrong with Harley, for once they actually gave the fans what they were asking for.

She's died in the past and I'm sure will die again in the future for some cheap, stupid short-term shock value gimmick, but until/unless her popularity and value decrease substantially she's not actually going anywhere. Nor should she; she offers something that no one else in DC offers, and that's worth keeping around.

[lemonpeace]

What you're saying is that DC recognized an increase in demand, and responded by providing an increase in supply.

That's actually what business is *supposed* to do. We don't see that at DC all the time, but this is what it looks like. DC didn't do anything wrong with Harley, for once they actually gave the fans what they were asking for.

She's died in the past and I'm sure will die again in the future for some cheap, stupid short-term shock value gimmick, but until/unless her popularity and value decrease substantially she's not actually going anywhere. Nor should she; she offers something that no one else in DC offers, and that's worth keeping around.

I can't say there was all that much of a demand, I wasn't necessarily following comic all that much till relatively recently, what I can say is there was a time where Harley was pushed very vehemently by DC to the point of oversaturation similar to Deadpool at a point. Now, I also wouldn't say that a bad thing, in fact I agree that DC as a business give the treatment to other characters more regularly, my point is that Harley Quinn's status as it didn't just happen and it was deliberately built up by DC. Which, looping back to my original post, is why it wouldn't make sense for DC to kill her off (in any meaningful way) and wasting all that work they invested into the character getting her exposure and building out her fanbase.