The Problem With Harley Quinn

[Robanker]

And King bending over backwards to explain it away was too much of a step in the opposite direction in my opinion (a person named Poison Ivy has never killed anyone? Seriously?).

No, but she's brought Gotham to it's knees several times in the past and is one of Batman's greatest rogues somehow.

I think the fans who were outraged that she killed people are those who enjoy Ivy as Harley's accessory.

[SiegePerilous02]

And King bending over backwards to explain it away was too much of a step in the opposite direction in my opinion (a person named Poison Ivy has never killed anyone? Seriously?).

No, but she's brought Gotham to it's knees several times in the past and is one of Batman's greatest rogues somehow.

I think the fans who were outraged that she killed people are those who enjoy Ivy as Harley's accessory.

The paring with Harley can be both a blessing and a curse. It's benefited them both, but sometimes it seems Ivy can't stand on her own as much since it was created. I know this was a complaint when the DCAU was on, often Ivy would show up with Harley in tow and we got less of a chance to see Ivy as a force to be reckoned with on her own. Her best episode was also arguably "House and Garden," in which she flies solo (albeit with a nice nod to Harley at the end).

[Frontier]

No, but she's brought Gotham to it's knees several times in the past and is one of Batman's greatest rogues somehow.

I think the fans who were outraged that she killed people are those who enjoy Ivy as Harley's accessory.

In that instance I think it was just the hardline fans who don't want to see Ivy portrayed as a villain under any circumstance anymore.

The paring with Harley can be both a blessing and a curse. It's benefited them both, but sometimes it seems Ivy can't stand on her own as much since it was created. I know this was a complaint when the DCAU was on, often Ivy would show up with Harley in tow and we got less of a chance to see Ivy as a force to be reckoned with on her own. Her best episode was also arguably "House and Garden," in which she flies solo (albeit with a nice nod to Harley at the end).

Even in the DCAU at least it was clear she was running the show in her partnership with Harley, whereas in the comics it seems like she's mostly just there to support or prop up Harley aside from when King writes Harley as the only person who can redeem and save Ivy.

[LordUltimus]

Booster Gold in Harley Quinn #73: "You're a better person than most of my hero friends"

Really, Booster? REALLY?

[K. Jones]

Booster Gold in Harley Quinn #73: "You're a better person than most of my hero friends"

Really, Booster? REALLY?

Actually I gotta say, and I've not been reading Harley comics on purpose, but that writing is consistent and solid and in character.

...

Remember, Booster Gold is a f**king idiot. Let none of us forget that Booster Gold, has a good heart, but he is a complete moron with horrible judgment. More than that, I do think it's the kind of language you might hear when somebody is talking to somebody who has been through the wringer historically and is putting themself back together. Like I've heard that sort of kind hyperbole at AA meetings. "You're as good, or a better person, than a lot of those people out there" and so forth. Never sure if that's true, but it's definitely good, especially if you're say, an ex-hench-wench who dated the worst villain in history and accomplice to some really bad things, who failed at her career as bad as you possibly can, to hear something affirming that makes her actually value herself, or recognize that somebody else sees value in her.

So in that way, Booster, who is a complete dumb-ass, and is very incorrect, may be exhibiting some solid emotional awareness.

Harley Quinn is not the nicest person in the world and I don't ship that romance because I like her and Ivy, although I don't care that much about her and Ivy because frankly the writing hasn't really been there, mostly I'm just attracted to them both and enjoy seeing them depicted in close proximity and like the idea of not-that-nice but-kinda-nice villain girls kind of stopping with their raging villainy because they found a serious relationship that just eats too much time to be running around drugging men (bad) to clean up garbage dumps (good) or constantly dealing with fallout from an old relationship with a jerk. I mean I don't know how many people Ivy might have killed, but it does at least seem that when she seduces men, it's all the hypnotic drugged suggestive state initial effect and then tied up with some vines, and none of the sexual aspect of it. Like, she never actually turned out to be a femme fatale. Oh she's wicked femme. And she might have done some fatale. It just doesn't seem like she uses the femme to achieve the fatale. She just feeds people to monster plants. Far more brutal.

To my knowledge the only male dude Ivy has ever dated canonically is Count Vertigo, and that was in the high stress enviro of the Suicide Squad, imprisonment, international tension and bombs in the neck. Pretending to like men and then dusting them with spores so they trip balls and give her all the money kind of indicates more of a disdain for men than any kind of liking them. Well, men and women. Ivy doesn't really like many people at all. It'd be nice if she still politely said hi to Vertigo at Legion of Doom club meetings.

Like literally it's just Harley and Selina, yeah? And maybe ... The Carpenter? Depending very largely on just what The Carpenter's building materials are made of.

I also don't ship Harley/Booster because Tom King's Heroes In Crisis is the worst story I've ever read.

[K. Jones]

Admittedly I think part of the problem is that even fans seem mixed on what it is about the character that appeals to them. I think that has as much of an impact on all the different depictions on Ivy as different writers/editorials having their own idea on the character.

Of course I think this is probably true for a lot of DC's female villains.

It's so hard but maybe easy and unsurprising to pin down why they're schizophrenic about Ivy's depiction.

I often like fun villains because as much as I love heroes, it's the same reason actors love playing villains. An imaginary exercise in your Jungian dark side where you get to think evil or at least side with a bit of wickedness and get off on it in some way mentally. I grew up in the 90s, so I hate pollution and corporations and the system and the man, so of course the notion of eco-terrorism appeals to my "Yeah, somebody should just ..." instincts. These of course aren't instincts that if you act on permit you to fit into Society. But that's the whole point of Batman villains showing off those great Anti-Social behaviors. For whatever reason they can't fit into Society. That's what a criminal is. And I've certainly enjoyed and connected with actors and performances and fictional villains with far worse behavior than Poison Ivy. This is America. We hero worshipped like, Bonnie & Clyde and John Dillinger. They freaking killed people. But they were outlaws. Robin Hood killed people. Oh he killed the bad guys? The Sheriff of Nottingham was a cop. Robin Hood is a cop killer. (Corrupt cop, sure, context). What even is a villain?

So in the particular case of Ivy it's even better than the usual villains are fun bit. Ivy debuted in the very end of the Sixties same time basically as Barbara Gordon, and was created to be part of the '66 TV show but didn't make it in time. Part of the same ethos, though and the costume design of that first costume makes it seem pretty obvious. Which means right from the beginning Poison Ivy was born of Camp. There's plenty of off-beat stuff coded into Batman '66, kink and queer-coding are only some of it, although a delightful piece. Ivy remained pretty stock in appearances right up to around when I was born, though in her original appearance she was claiming to be DEADLIER than three other deadly women. But as things progressed into the 70s and 80s and 90s, she got Vampier and Vampier with every passing year. I love a good Vamp character. She was always kissing and seducing with pheromones or whatever, but basically it was all a tease, to turn men's libidos, their predictable hormones and drives against them, turning their perceived strengths into a weakness. Her costume got skimpier and skimpier, too. That's just how it went from 80s to 90s to 00s, though it does track.

Ivy debuted during Second Wave feminism and quickly eschewed the earliest tropey characterization to be something more of an environmentalist hippie criminal. At the time of course comics were mostly written by white men. But she was still pulling one over on all these men.

Ivy's softening occurred during The Animated, in and around Third Wave feminism, the mid-90s for a while. At the time of course, comics were written mostly by white men. But there's still been a pretty solid move toward less closeting and more openness about kink and fetishes thanks to edgier TV and whatever, cooler music, so the fact that Ivy's entire schtick is basically that of a DOM gained stronger subtext. (Ivy is a far better candidate for having been a Dom than Catwoman, but then, whips, vines, c'est la vie. Frankly I think all the Sirens when they were roomies were sleeping together.) Of course she kisses and messes with men's minds and takes what she wants and ties them up and gags them and beats them up. Interesting cross-section of Dom and Eco-Terrorist Hippie. Very weird. But it tracks.

Ivy's back-and-forth depictions are going on now during Fourth Wave feminism, where it's all about using the internet as a tool for empowerment and is pretty recent. Cosplayers and fan-artists who love Ivy loved her because she's campy, sexy, vampy, a red-head, a dominating presence who treats men like crap and probably sleeps with her women friends. Who are also probably bad people who have killed people. Just not very bad people who have killed innocent people. Trouble is right now, in large part because of Snyder, writers come in and just want to write Batman stories that are Horror or Monster stories full of excessive gore and dead people and the death of innocents to these monsters and whatever.

I wouldn't say those parallels are like, altogether purposeful. It's monthly comic writing. It's all a mish-mash of different creative voices, art depictions, zeitgeist and whatever else is going on. Of course Ivy was softened for the cartoon, it was for kids, and of course that personality is what got popular ... it was for KIDS. We grew up and think of Ivy as kind of only passionate about plants, and kind of blase like Daria about everything else. But definitely someone who brandishes sex appeal like a weapon with virtually no shame in taking advantage, or preying on predators.

[kjn]

Another way to view Poison Ivy's popularity is that she can be seen as good but not nice, which is a relative rarity in DC's universe (it's much more common with Marvel).

Many of the stories that fans of good Ivy points to has her killing people. But she kills corrupt murdering cops or CEOs who destroy the environment.

[Mistah K88]

Just like there's shades of grey to Ivy...I feel that every CEO of a corporation she attacks being the equivalent of a Captain Planet villain to be ridiculous. I don't know if her not understanding or not caring about what her victims intentions are what originally put her in Arkham.

[SiegePerilous02]

Just like there's shades of grey to Ivy...I feel that every CEO of a corporation she attacks being the equivalent of a Captain Planet villain to be ridiculous. I don't know if her not understanding or not caring about what her victims intentions are what originally put her in Arkham.

I think her not doing much research and sometimes doing a "kill them all and let God sort them out" approach is one the main things that lands her in Arkham.

Her echo-terrorist bent didn't exist that much if at all before BTAS, and there they had her try to kill Harvey Dent after his new prison complex nearly wiped out a rare strain of rose. It didn't go into detail about if he even knew the roses were there or if she approached him to try to change his mind, but considering some of her other actions it does cast doubt on if she tried.

She later tried to kill of Bruce Wayne because his company partook in a project that involved slashing and burning a rain forest, but she didn't catch on that 1. Bruce had no knowledge of it and shut that down immediately once he found out about it and 2. she turned Alfred and his girlfriend into trees even though they were completely innocent just because they were connected to Bruce. In the same episode Batman even says her victims are all destructive (save Alfred and Maggie, he doesn't seem to happy with the rest beyond not wanting them to die), but so is she.

[Ascended]

I think we can liken Ivy to a certain strain of people we see these days; the reactionary and passionate, yet uninformed, activist.

Ivy's goals, at least the basic shape, are legit and positive. She wants to save the world, so she goes after polluters. But she's not really thinking it through or doing her research, she's just grabbing a hashtag and running with it and aiming her rage at people who *appear* to be guilty without actually finding out if they are.

Like the example from the cartoon where she captures Bruce Wayne for something he didn't even know about. Ivy doesn't care about doing the due diligence, she just wants someone to pay. Her inability to align her goals with the facts is basically what makes her a villain instead of an anti-hero. If she could take the time to go after the "right" people who are actually responsible for all the crimes against the environment, then she'd be in the same boat as characters like Jason Todd, Wolverine, and the Punisher. But she doesn't, she just grabs whoever is on a headline, and that person often isn't nearly as guilty as she thinks. Ergo; villain.

[LordUltimus]

Ivy can also get pretty rapey.

[John Venus]

No, but she's brought Gotham to it's knees several times in the past and is one of Batman's greatest rogues somehow.

I think the fans who were outraged that she killed people are those who enjoy Ivy as Harley's accessory.

The first Poison Ivy story I recall was B:TAS 'Pretty Poison' where she tries to kill Harvey over the extinct rose. There was no indication on whether she talked to Harvey over it, protested it or even tried to talk to him about making amends for his careless destruction. As Harvey was a good guy back then, it could be argued that he would have been open to it.

Other Poison Ivy stories I recall reading was I think in an Shadow of the Bat annual where she kisses a guy to make him jump over a building to distract Batman, she had also earlier killed a gangster then she kills two of her henchmen who turned on her. Granted they were pointing a gun at her but she already neutralized them with her plant powers, she didn't really have to kill them, she just thought they would make good compost. Then there was another story, where Jason Woodrou returned (the now infamous marujiana story) which recounted Ivy's origin and she shows her chocking out a guy and clearly using her powers to poison him.

My favorite Ivy story was the one written by Ann Nocenti. Anyway, I'm not bothered by Ivy killing people, I thought that was well accepted as her shtick. In earlier stories I was more bothered by her being Batman crazed but that seems well in the rear view mirror now.

I think the catch with most Batman stories were that while the Rouges had sympathetic reasons for their actions there were still lines they crossed which gave Batman and the good guys reason to try and stop them. Ras want to save the environment too, which is noble, but he also wants to do it by committing planet wide genocide. That's when he crosses the line and the good guys come after him. Same goes for Mr Freeze, saving his wife is noble but forcing Barbara into an open heart surgery was not and in the end, the kidnapping, bribery and attempted murder wasn't even necessary as Bruce Wayne ended up saving her anyway both as Batman and through Wayne Enterprises research division.

I think that with Ivy you have to define the line where she crosses too far and that's a hard line to define with alarm bells going off every other week of how humans are contributing to the destruction of the planet. People aren't in the mood for nuance. Still, even with the environmental activist movement there are plenty of differences of opinion and disagreements. I recently saw a meme calling out environmentally conscious liberals for promoting the Maltusian philosophy during the pandemic (it was another bs 'earth is healing itself' and 'less people means more good for the environment' crap) which pointed out that large corporations do more damage to the environment than the average person. I think Ivy can be depicted as having noble intentions and genuinely caring for Harley but also vindictive, spiteful and selfish. The goal of the climate activists is that our actions making the planet uninhabitable for *us*, Ivy doesn't care about people so much as she cares more about plants (and Harley, sometimes Selina) more than she does people.

A lot of people say they want to see Ivy be a WW rogues and while Diana and the Bat Rogues do mix well, I think a stronger case could be made that for her and Aquaman clashing. Even as far back as the 70's, Arthur has been a shown fucking up whalers and has a much stronger environmental theme to him than WW.

Personally, I like Ivy to be complex with a range of stories, one minute she could be fucking up an executive for covering up an illegal dumping on toxic waste disposals forcing Batman to reconsider his approach to crime fighting, next she has brainwashed a Vertigo or Dick Grayson into a boy toy henchman, next she is on a crime spree with Harley because she likes the thrill of it, next she is helping Ras on his latest scheme to wipe out humanity, she gets chewed by one environmentalist because they think she's doing more harm to their cause than good (has that story been done before?) while another sect adores her but ends up regretting it etc. Just my two cents.

[kjn]

I think a huge problem for Poison Ivy—and that also has spilled over onto Harley—is that DC's editorial side wants to force a specific vision of Ivy into their universe. But a large set of Ivy's fans have a very different vision of her, and by trying to force a distinct vision of Ivy onto them they not only causea lot of anger but also limiting the organic growth and change that could be done by writers given creative freedom.

In one way, Ivy makes a huge sense as a Batman villain, since he very much is her opposite, but the way that DC insists on centering Batman in any moral discussion means that she is pretty much doomed to be the hysterical or irrational woman. But looking at her origin and the way she has been written in lots of her better stories, Ivy has lots of similarities with the twin goddesses of Demeter and Persephone. She simply makes sense in the Wonder Woman universe, but it'd require that creators be given a lot more freedom to write both characters in order for it to reach its potential. Arguably, they should have a relationship similar to Magneto and Xavier, where they both hold many of the same goals and ideals, but have very different methods and tactics.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think a huge problem for Poison Ivy—and that also has spilled over onto Harley—is that DC's editorial side wants to force a specific vision of Ivy into their universe. But a large set of Ivy's fans have a very different vision of her, and by trying to force a distinct vision of Ivy onto them they not only causea lot of anger but also limiting the organic growth and change that could be done by writers given creative freedom.

In one way, Ivy makes a huge sense as a Batman villain, since he very much is her opposite, but the way that DC insists on centering Batman in any moral discussion means that she is pretty much doomed to be the hysterical or irrational woman. But looking at her origin and the way she has been written in lots of her better stories, Ivy has lots of similarities with the twin goddesses of Demeter and Persephone. She simply makes sense in the Wonder Woman universe, but it'd require that creators be given a lot more freedom to write both characters in order for it to reach its potential. Arguably, they should have a relationship similar to Magneto and Xavier, where they both hold many of the same goals and ideals, but have very different methods and tactics.

What version are they trying to force on us though? Keep in mind that the more evil/villainous versions (albeit ones that have moments where we can sympathize with her) largely predate later versions. It wasn't until Gaiman' stories that we really started to get a feel for her, and even then the environmentalist aspect wasn't a thing until it was brought over from BTAS. Fandom views on characters aren't always accurate either, and attempts to cater to fandoms can sometimes ruin writing. Though this is more of a problem in more "rigid" narratives than comics, such as the trends of bending over backwards to make abusive male villains sympathetic because a large subset of the fandom thinks he's hot, often at the expense of a female character. What we get with Ivy isn't nearly that bad, but we still have people freaking out on Twitter about Ivy killing anybody period, and I can't help thinking these people are completely out of touch with who she (largely) is, or are at least not asking for a truly organic character arc to move away from it. Just "she would never do such a thing." uh, yeah she would, especially if they were already threatening her.

It's not just Batman they center on in such discussions, his allies and other superheroes are usually presented as being right morally. Mostly because their established rogues victimize others in various ways, and while we can sympathize with some of their origins and reasons, that really isn't morally difficult to oppose. Batman has no issue with her cause, it's the feeding people to plants thing he doesn't let slide (nor should he). I don't know that she has to devolve to "hysterical woman" either, at least no more hysterical than his multitude of male villains.

I think part of the issue is that Ivy, of the three Gotham Sirens, is consistently the most ill defined of the three across versions, with motivations and levels of villainy constantly in flux. With current issues, it also makes sense to have a heroic figure champion that cause, but new characters are ridiculously difficult to get to catch on, and since Ivy is already iconic and popular it falls to her whether or not it makes 100% sense for her.

[kjn]

What version are they trying to force on us though? Keep in mind that the more evil/villainous versions (albeit ones that have moments where we can sympathize with her) largely predate later versions. It wasn't until Gaiman' stories that we really started to get a feel for her, and even then the environmentalist aspect wasn't a thing until it was brought over from BTAS.

Correct. But I also think it's telling that Ivy's popularity started to grow with a higher diversity in the type of stories that were told about her. I've mentioned a couple of those already. Also, I understand that her mini series sold decently to well, but has been left fallow since then, much like the Gotham City Sirens concept.

Fandom views on characters aren't always accurate either, and attempts to cater to fandoms can sometimes ruin writing. Though this is more of a problem in more "rigid" narratives than comics, such as the trends of bending over backwards to make abusive male villains sympathetic because a large subset of the fandom thinks he's hot, often at the expense of a female character. What we get with Ivy isn't nearly that bad, but we still have people freaking out on Twitter about Ivy killing anybody period, and I can't help thinking these people are completely out of touch with who she (largely) is, or are at least not asking for a truly organic character arc to move away from it. Just "she would never do such a thing." uh, yeah she would, especially if they were already threatening her.

"Accuracy" is a tricky concept to apply to fictional characters and universes, and you have no argument from me that there are examples of excessive catering to fans ruining writing (I even have a couple of favourite examples of that). But what we have with Ivy is, I think, the opposite problem: DC ruins the character by prioritising the opinion of its editors over that of creators and fans. (Some examples of creators with a more nuanced vision of Ivy are Stjepan Sejic, Gail Simone, Amy Chu, or Scott Snyder.)

I haven't read any no-killing Ivy discussion, the closest I've seen is the argument between murderess Ivy and King's retcon (whatever) that Ivy had never killed anyone in the New 52 timeline. In plenty of the lists of recommended Ivy stories I've seen, even by big proponents of a sympathetic Ivy, stories where she kills people can be highly rated. What matters is her motive and the situation.

But right now, there is a huge disconnect between Ivy is depicted and framed in DC's comics mainline ("in-continuity") and how she appears in other media or in Elseworlds stories.