"Batgirl" Variant Cover Cancellation Sparks Further Debate Among Comic Pros and Fans

[nepenthes]

When did variant covers become integral to what the book is?
Variant covers are any random thing the company wants.
Variants are marketing tools for bigger orders and more money for stores.
When did the creative team suddenly gain the power to make decisions on what variant covers are allowed in their books?

I've explained this at length and it seems you don't even want to even try to acknowledge as you keep asking the exact same questions.

When Grant Morrison says "Batman is gay" in an interview, or really any Morrison interview, that plays into how the fandom relate to his comics. On the flipside consider the very real effect that the Scott Snyder plot dump interviews have had on how we receive his books. Sure, they're just interviews, but without them both runs would have would've been a very different experience for those who were exposed to both.

Fans also react to early promotional or concept art, i.e the new Lobo.

Rumours and leaks influence early perceptions, or even consider the planned death of Grayson in Infinite Crisis, which was overturned but still left many Grayson fans very anxious for a long time after.

Character designs blow-up in social media and cosplay and elevate the character to broader recognition among new audiences i.e Harley Quinn, new Batgirl.

Nothing that comes out of these companies is just "any random thing" - not even one advance promotional image that only exists online - it all contributes to how the fans engage with the core products and it's really just a very basic principle of marketing. And in response to this content columnists will promote viewpoints and analyses and yeah, Twitter and forums have a very real and valid role in shaping fans perceptions and being a conduit for audience cultivation and audience feedback. And if none of this were true and I'm simply talking out my arse, then this blow up never would have happened, because it's just a variant, right?

[Immortal Weapon]

It was good decision to cancel this cover. The torture porn aspect of the cover is not a very good fit for the books current direction and I’m not sure how good a decision it was to choose a sexual assault as a way to ‘celebrate’ the Joker.

There is no sexual assault in TKJ. The worse you can agrue is sexual exploitation when Joker took pictures of Babs. That's not assault in any meaning of the word.

[Robotman]

There is no sexual assault in TKJ. The worse you can agrue is sexual exploitation when Joker took pictures of Babs. That doesn't assault in any meaning of the word.

There doesn't need to be actual penetration for it to be sexual assault! The Department of Justice's definition: Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

If a woman has her clothes torn off against her will (as Babs did) by a group of men that's sexual assault. And then Joker took pictures of her naked and helpless to top it off.
Joker would have to go door to door in his neighborhood and declare himself a sex offender.

[nepenthes]

There is no sexual assault in TKJ. The worse you can agrue is sexual exploitation when Joker took pictures of Babs. That's not assault in any meaning of the word.

In the US and many other countries, if a person is kidnapped and forced against their will to be photographed in sexual positions, the perpetrator will 100% be charged with sexual assault.

[Sighphi]

I've explained this at length and it seems you don't even want to even try to acknowledge as you keep asking the exact same questions.

No we see this differently and i am trying to get to the middle and this is why i am asking these question.
You say that the cover affects everything while i am asking when did variants covers become something other than random crap created to make money. This is what i am looking for. When and why did suddenly something that doesnt really reflect anything with the book now does.

The when seems to be just now.

When Grant Morrison says "Batman is gay" in an interview, or really any Morrison interview, that plays into how the fandom relate to his comics. On the flipside consider the very real effect that the Scott Snyder plot dump interviews have had on how we receive his books. Sure, they're just interviews, but without them both runs would have would've been a very different experience for those who were exposed to both.

Fans also react to early promotional or concept art, i.e the new Lobo.

Rumours and leaks influence early perceptions, or even consider the planned death of Grayson in Infinite Crisis, which was overturned but still left many Grayson fans very anxious for a long time after.

Character designs blow-up in social media and cosplay and elevate the character to broader recognition among new audiences i.e Harley Quinn, new Batgirl.

Nothing here is on the same level or a limited edition cover that will be hardly seen.

Nothing that comes out of these companies is just "any random thing" - not even one advance promotional image that only exists online - it all contributes to how the fans engage with the core products and it's really just a very basic principle of marketing. And in response to this content columnists will promote viewpoints and analyses and yeah, Twitter and forums have a very real and valid role in shaping fans perceptions and being a conduit for audience cultivation and audience feedback. And if none of this were true and I'm simply talking out my arse, then this blow up never would have happened, because it's just a variant, right?

This blowup happened for the same reason the last blow up happened. Because a certain section of the internet wants to push their agenda. Within the comic sphere people already know what variants are. Variants are not liked by certain folks because of what they represent and how they can be used. The last thing comic reader discuss when talking about variants is how the variant reflects on the book. At most people laugh at them. Like they did with that Fear Itself, i think it was, variant cover with Deadpool looking like Ali G.

BTW, why did my response to Joker's post get deleted?

[Striderblack01]

I'm legit curious.

To the people who see hints of sexual assault in this cover, is it that it's referencing a story where the assault happened, or it it that the Joker is painting his trademark smile with his index finger? Or both?
If it's the latter, then, man, that's such a fine line. If he had left a gap between the index finger and Barbara's cheek, then no assault connotations?
If it's the former, then under what circumstances should sexual assault be addressed in comics? Should it be at all?

One thing that I keep hearing is about her portrayal as a victim.
Given the violent events of the TKJ, is fear an appropriate response for an empowered superhero to show?
(not feel, because everyone should feel afraid, but show with your body)
If Babs had an angry expression on her face, would this cover had been more acceptable?

----
Just to give you a quick sense of where I stand on this specific cover:

I loved the cover; it's an amazing piece of art.
I agree that Barbara is portrayed as a victim, and, given the story it's referencing, am somewhat fine with it.
I don't see anything sexual or torture porn-ish about it, hence my curiosity towards those that do.
I don't see it as glorifying the Joker, though he is in a position of power.
I agree that it is antithetical to book and with DC in it's decision to pull it.
I don't consider that action to be 'censorship'.

[Matt]

BTW, why did my response to Joker's post get deleted?

I deleted it. I am keeping this discussion on topic and, hopefully, in the proper tone.
No, this is not up for discussion.

[The World]

Nothing that comes out of these companies is just "any random thing" - not even one advance promotional image that only exists online - it all contributes to how the fans engage with the core products and it's really just a very basic principle of marketing. And in response to this content columnists will promote viewpoints and analyses and yeah, Twitter and forums have a very real and valid role in shaping fans perceptions and being a conduit for audience cultivation and audience feedback. And if none of this were true and I'm simply talking out my arse, then this blow up never would have happened, because it's just a variant, right?

The viewpoints has been to get rid of something they had no intention of purchasing in the first place. I don't see what's reasonable about that? It's not really sticking to just variant covers to comic books people like, it's spread to the comic books themselves.

[numberthirty]

It's odd that folks seem dead set on making this about art and not business.


This cover was not commissioned as a work of art to be displayed in a museum. It was meant to be a way to sell more of an issue that a company sells to try to make a profit. Art is, at best, a secondary concern.


It is pretty clear that the artist took a look at the way it might hurt the company he works for, and made a logical call. The company was obviously in complete agreement with that call.

[nepenthes]

The viewpoints has been to get rid of something they had no intention of purchasing in the first place. I don't see what's reasonable about that? It's not really sticking to just variant covers to comic books people like, it's spread to the comic books themselves.

If I'm interpreting your post correctly you're wondering why they should remove covers in response to outcry from people who don't even read the book? If so my answer would be that any official association with this cover, even in the online space of tumbler, twitter, opinion articles etc - has potential to turn away new and prospective readers. People whose early exposure to Batgirl is now an image that recalls that classic time she was sexually assaulted, in an aggressive undermining of all the various and circulating New Batgirl imagery i.e. yellow Martins, selfies, hipster gal pals etc, that have been massively successful in outreaching to a new audience for Batgirl. All that fun stuff is The Brand now.

Second, if the image yanks the chain of the actual creative team on the book?...I'd say that also a very compelling reason to dis-endorse. So it's not just about removing it from actual sale and from the mitts of variant collectors, it's about DC and the creators unequivocally declaring to everyone who happens to be watching that yeah, on second thought, this is not what the new book is actually about.

Third, when hype for the new Black Canary, Starfire, Prez ect ramps up in a couple months, new and prospective readers will be less inclined to expect that the books will portray strong female characters one month, anguished sex attack victims the next.

[numberthirty]

Exactly.

What is the upside to selling a variant cover at the expense of potential readers and the companies' relationship with it's creative team?

[ispacehead]

Again, there is a freedom of expression issue (no matter who made what decision and why) that some are posting about.

It isn't really an issue though.

The piece is still available for viewing. It simply won't be used as a promotional tool for this book.

[The World]

If I'm interpreting your post correctly you're wondering why they should remove covers in response to outcry from people who don't even read the book? If so my answer would be that any official association with this cover, even in the online space of tumbler, twitter, opinion articles etc - has potential to turn away new and prospective readers. People whose early exposure to Batgirl is now an image that recalls that classic time she was sexually assaulted, rather than any of the various and circulating New Batgirl imagery i.e. yellow martins, selfies, fun gal pals etc that have been massively successful in outreaching to a new audience for Batgirl.

Second, if the image yanks the chain of the actual creative team on the book?...I'd say that also a very compelling reason to dis-endorse. So it's not just about removing it from actual sale and from the mitts of variant collectors, it's about DC and the creators officially declaring to everyone watching that yeah, on second thought, this is not what the new book is actually about.

I'm talking about people just specifying ahead of time that they want the regular cover not the variant upon purchase. I'm assuming that people in the in this outcry at least know what is going on within the book. You can't really help people that are turned away without even bothering to do some minimal amount of read up on a story or at least taking a look inside before making some kind of judgement.


Increasingly it seems like the method of voting with your wallet is being left behind for the concept of simply making sure the product doesn't exist at all if it offends your sensibilities. It seems childish.

I will say that Rafa's opinion is the reason I'm not really pursuing this much, I respect his decision but this idea that if you're loud enough you can shut down whatever isn't going to stop here. The only reason I even came back here was because of that indie comic I saw that got kiboshed for cultural appropriation even before they released the first issue.

[ArthurCurry]

Second, if the image yanks the chain of the actual creative team on the book?...I'd say that also a very compelling reason to dis-endorse. So it's not just about removing it from actual sale and from the mitts of variant collectors, it's about DC and the creators unequivocally declaring to everyone who happens to be watching that yeah, on second thought, this is not what the new book is actually about.

This point is brought up a lot. But we don't really know how often, if ever, the creative team needs to approve of a variant before it goes to press. If this is a nonstandard thing, then the excuse that they didn't approve of it doesn't hold much weight. Because I'm sure other creative teams would reject variant covers on their titles. The fact that variants come from a different department suggests that editorial does not have to sign off on variant designs. If all a creative team needs to do is say it doesn't match their tone then maybe we found a way to get rid of all variants.

[The World]

Exactly.

What is the upside to selling a variant cover at the expense of potential readers and the companies' relationship with it's creative team?

I don't really understand, we're never going to know what the effect would have been because it got blocked before it was even put into motion. We don't know if it would have tanked the series, the usual DC variant month bump, or would have resulted in a permanent bump via a few joker heads jumping on and deciding they liked the art, writing, concept, etc.

That movie Frozen was getting torn apart on twitter and especially tumblr all the way up until it's eminent release. Just about every issue you could name got attached to this movie come opening night; it was considered anti-feminist, rapey, had poor depictions of depression, it was racist, it destroyed the original work it was based off, etc, etc. Come opening weekend it seemed like Disney had all but abandoned the little title minimal advertising on seemingly every front; today it's one of the biggest movies Disney has ever made with a sequel in route.