DC Comics Cancels "Batgirl" Joker Variant at Artist's Request

[Aaron Kashtan]

With all due respect to the moderators, the attitudes expressed in this thread are an example of why I've stopped posting actively at CBR. I've been a comics fan since I was seven years old and I've been posting at CBR since about 1998, and I completely sympathize with #changethecover. I believe that the original cover was offensive to precisely the target audience that Batgirl is trying to cultivate. It's a reference to The Killing Joke, which is a brutal, misogynistic work and one of the low points of Alan Moore's career, and it reminds readers of an unfortunate moment in comics history that they'd rather forget. And it depicts Batgirl as a victim of male violence. So I believe people were right to be unhappy with the cover. And the withdrawal of the cover is only censorship in a very narrow sense.

Yet the consensus within this thread seems to be that the cover was withdrawn because of whining and censorship and complaining, and that the proponents of #changethecover were getting angry over nothing.

Instead of accusing #changethecover proponents of being whiny censorship advocates, maybe you all could try to understand where they're coming from.

[Mad Love]

I don't understand why all of a sudden variant covers have to match the tone and look of the title. They often don't. None of the bombshell covers did. Or what about the movie-inspired covers? Variant covers are variants.

[hunter_peterson]

On board with all of this, except the idea that it takes more than a classroom's worth of people to convince an artist they've let in elements they wouldn't consciously want.

Right now I'm in graduate school for fiction-writing. It takes a single female reader to point out, "Hey, this character seems a little reductive," or whatever else to make me go, "Oh, sh*t, you're right," and change it; if I had the audience an artist at a major comic-book company does, I can see wanting to respond to a large enough amount of social media reaction if you think the points are valid and what the work does is harmful in ways you didn't intend. Maybe this wouldn't have felt as salient (or not have been enough to derail published solicits) without threats against those who complained entering the scene, but I could believe it either way. Likely both were on Albequerque's mind when he made the request.

I don't think it does feel salient. The threats are just internet bullying, the easiest kind of bullying to avoid. Blocking is a thing, I encourage its use.

And it doesn't take a female reader to point that out, it takes an observant one. And because there's literally nothing actually HAPPENING in the cover, saying violence of any kind is depicted is just stupid. That isn't what violence is.

[Cipher]

What does "this is going on with it?" mean. You didn't answer the question.

What is it about the cover that creates a problem for people that cannot be solved by not buying it?


Maybe I need to phrase it differently.

What problem does other people having the ability to buy this variant cover create?

I meant it generally as in, any unintended negative element, but more specific to this case: "Hey, did you realize you built some uncomfortable victimization imagery into this piece?"

And, yes, people could have not bought it. But it's also possible in this case the team involved really did come to see value in those complaints that led them to pull (probably compounded by death threats against those who complained about the cover).

I have taken a look at some of the hashtaggery going on now, and yeah, I think it became a little over-the-top. But I can definitely believe there was some authentic artist regret here. We'll likely never know for sure.

And it doesn't take a female reader to point that out, it takes an observant one.

Absolutely. Hence not everyone feeling iffy about this cover being a woman (though I'm certainly more likely to defer to them; the blog post in favor of keeping the cover from a woman writer earlier makes some good points, although ultimately I don't fall totally in line with it).

And this both isn't a story nor are the people complaining readers, so their opinion is doubly less important. Not all opinions are equal, even if you can equally espouse them.

No; it's an image and the people complaining are viewers. Morever, it's an image intended to sell a product and the people complaining are potential buyers. Moreover-moreover, it involves management of a cultural icon, so the field of interested parties is a bit broader.

[Dzetoun]

There are still a lot of people who hate the constant imagery and jokes about Jason Todd's death in both the exterior and interior DC book. The same thing with Damian's death scene. The whole trying show people who are outraged out Batgirl are hypocrites by insinuating they didn't care about Jason and/or Damian is a faulty argument because a lot of people DO care about Damian and Jason and do not like when their death scenes are glorified or otherwise taken lightly. It's a shame that Kubert variant flew so far under radar because I know a good chunk of the batman/Jason todd fandom (both men & women) would be pissed that it made it through the cracks.

As you say, that variant largely flew under the radar, as did all the variants in that particular series. But I think Claude has also put his finger on an important difference. Whereas the controversial Batgirl cover seemed to be celebrating The Killing Joke, the Kubert cover actually represents an alternate version of A Death in the Family. It seems that Kubert has drawn an alternate world where Batman arrives in time to save Jason from the Joker, who seems unaware of the avenger about to attack him from above. As such, regardless of what Kubert intended, it can be seen not as a celebration of A Death in the Family but a criticism of it, and thus it escapes the onus of "approving of" or "glorifying" or "profiting from" Jason's death.

[sneakyflute]

With all due respect to the moderators, the attitudes expressed in this thread are an example of why I've stopped posting actively at CBR. I've been a comics fan since I was seven years old and I've been posting at CBR since about 1998, and I completely sympathize with #changethecover. I believe that the original cover was offensive to precisely the target audience that Batgirl is trying to cultivate. It's a reference to The Killing Joke, which is a brutal, misogynistic work and one of the low points of Alan Moore's career, and it reminds readers of an unfortunate moment in comics history that they'd rather forget. And it depicts Batgirl as a victim of male violence. So I believe people were right to be unhappy with the cover. And the withdrawal of the cover is only censorship in a very narrow sense.

Yet the consensus within this thread seems to be that the cover was withdrawn because of whining and censorship and complaining, and that the proponents of #changethecover were getting angry over nothing.

Instead of accusing #changethecover proponents of being whiny censorship advocates, maybe you all could try to understand where they're coming from.

How do you know the fictional violence was a product of misogyny?

[Kid A]

Instead of accusing #changethecover proponents of being whiny censorship advocates, maybe you all could try to understand where they're coming from.

Yeah, the lack of empathy from people in this thread, as well as the whole "lolstfu SJW" attitude is just gross. I think I need to leave this thread now.

[teddyeatsyourface]

I don't know what kind of comic book community some of y'all run with, but the Harley Quinn stuff, Morrison's Damian beatup fest, and Jason Todd have caused outrage with a large number of fans when it happened in panel. This trying to claim that no one cared about those moments is nothing but a poor attempt to reveal a double-standard that does not exist. or at least exist in the capacity that is trying to be shown.

[hunter_peterson]

Isn't possible Albuquerque read the criticisms and thought they might have a point? I don't think you can assume Abuquerque "caved" in any way. If anything, it sounds like Abuquerque just didn't want to be associated with the people "defending" his cover. And who can blame him?

I think he just didn't want to be associated with the controversy on either side. Which is reasonable, so I understand that DC respected his wishes, but it should never have come to that point.

And considering the criticisms aren't valid, and the vast majority of comic readers seem to think they had no point, I doubt that the artist does think they are valid. This just reads as washing his hands of it.

[Striderblack01]

Well.
That escalated quickly.

On the cover:
The artwork is beautifully rendered and terrifying.
Batgirl is absolutely the victim here, as well she should be, given the story it is referencing, and I didn't find any elements of a sexual nature the way others did.
Albuquerque aptly encapsulates the horror of one the grimmest chapters in the Bat-Family without fetishizing the victim or in any way condoning violence.
That is key: the piece is referential but not celebratory or exploitative.
It is, in my opinion, a rousing success.

As an aspiring artist, I'm especially sensitive to 1st Amendment and censorship issues.
However, DC's decision to pull the cover at Albuquerque's urging sounds a lot more like a company trying to please its fans rather than one being forced into compliance under a large financial threat or by a government body. In fact, none of the parties involved seem to be facing any kind of meaningful repercussions should the cover in question be released.
So I can't really agree that any censorship is taking place here.

Ultimately, DC may have been right to pull the cover.
Not because of the outcry or the death threats (which everyone agrees are always deplorable), but because it may not fit the tone of the book it would've tried to promote.
I am pretty bummed we won't get to enjoy a particularly effective work of art.

Maybe it'll be a poster at some point.

[thecrimson]

Yeah, the lack of empathy from people in this thread, as well as the whole "lolstfu SJW" attitude is just gross. I think I need to leave this thread now.

I don't think I fall into that. I can easily understand where certain people against it might be coming from after some thought. I still would have preferred the variant cover not be cancelled.

[hunter_peterson]

None. How many people actually requested DC pull it, though? Or was it more just a widespread reaction of, "Hey, this cover is in bad taste. I'd really respect DC more if they chose not to run things like this."

And, I mean, I would. It doesn't mean I need one image banned, but it'd certainly be cool if DC were aware enough to stop sending those kinds of messages before they got to solicits or print.

I think people are (probably) reading into a rhetoric of "WE MUST BAN TOGETHER TO BAN COMICS COVERS," whereas the reality is more along the lines of, "Hey, DC, this is kind of icky; I wish you would think about not doing these kinds of things again."

And if the artist and/or publisher see value in those complaints, what's the problem?

It was definitively NOT widespread. They said "dozens." That represents less than $200 to DC, probably. They lose nothing by not acknowledging them.

[solletaire]

I like how people are resorting to "No one complained about X" type of posts. As if it's the job of people who didn't like this cover to be constantly aware of every potentially offensive cover DC has released.

If we have to be completely politically correct, the whole idea of having a month with variant covers celebrating and highlighting one of the most vicious psychopaths in comics is plain wrong. Take that as you will.

[numberthirty]

It's a reference to The Killing Joke, which is a brutal, misogynistic work and one of the low points of Alan Moore's career, and it reminds readers of an unfortunate moment in comics history that they'd rather forget. And it depicts Batgirl as a victim of male violence. So I believe people were right to be unhappy with the cover. And the withdrawal of the cover is only censorship in a very narrow sense.

While I see where you are coming from, I'm pretty sure not all readers see it as "male" violence in anything like the classical definition.

It's not like it is Black Mask who was torturing Barbara.

[Mad Love]

I meant it generally as in, any unintended negative element, but more specific to this case: "Hey, did you realize you built some uncomfortable victimization imagery into this piece?"

And, yes, people could have not bought it. But it's also possible in this case the team involved really did come to see value in those complaints that led them to pull (probably compounded by death threats against those who complained about the cover).

I have taken a look at some of the hashtaggery going on now, and yeah, I think it became a little over-the-top. But I can definitely believe there was some authentic artist regret here. We'll likely never know for sure.

Nope, because uncomfortable victimization was the whole point! This was a variant cover that celebrates the Joker - NOT Batgirl. It's for Joker's 75th anniversary. Clearly this cover shows Joker being the frightening villain that he is. This celebrates him as a Villain. The whole perspective and power dynamic of the artwork intentionally favors the Joker because it's for his 75th anniversary!

He didn't change his mind because he realized it was offensive. He changed his mind because other people were offended and were tweeting him and causing all these negative blog articles to be written.