Is Stephanie Brown a True Robin?

[dietrich]

It`s not the tenure itself that would be debated (because in that term, there`s none) but how valid some points brought in to qualify characters. For example, the "disobeying" rule of thumb.

If Steph isn`t considered a "true" Robin it got little to do with breaking rules since they all done it, including Dick. Most, if not all, tangled with death or got benched one time or another. That`s a qualifier and I don`t feel anyone is sacred to be above discussing.

I get what you're saying and you are correct in parts. The disobeying orders point is a nonsensical one to make cos it does apply to all of them and even in Batman 16 Dick repeats it and Duke after protesting ends up doing so. However it is blasphemous to me that Dick Grayson's Robin was just compared to Steph's. That to me should not happen. Maybe I'm too much of a fanboy and hold his tenure in too high an esteem but that's how I feel i can't help it but it just doesn't sit right with me.

The very fact that this thread is a thing answers the question of is Steph a true Robin. If you even have to ask then the answer is no.

When I think of Robins she does not come to mind. I'm okay with her time but for some reason I always have to be reminded that Step actually was Robin.

[sunofdarkchild]

In-universe she was. Batman made a point of only calling her Robin until he fired her, and outright stated she was a real Robin. But out-of-universe she wasn't. It was never anything more than a cheap ploy to try to make her death more impactful since they couldn't count on good writing to do the job in that era and Didio wouldn't know what good writing is if it bit him in the butt.

War Games is about Batman's failure. His allies leave him when it is all over because they have had enough of how he treated. Even Tim doesn't come back and stays away.The public and the police turn against him. He doesn't stop Black Mask from taking over the underworld. He lets a teenage girl he doesn't trust do the same thing to him Ra's al Ghul did in Tower of Babel, showing that he never learned from that disaster. And most damning of all, the existence of the story is an indictment of his entire career. He became Batman in order to fight the mob. It would be one thing if Gotham was brought to its knees by a supervillain like Bane or the Joker. But for a gang war, a regular gang war between mob bosses, to be that bad when he is on his 4th Robin means that Batman has never made a dent in the power of the mob during his entire career. He is a complete and utter failure who has done nothing to make Gotham a better place in the 15 years he has been operating.

[darkseidpwns]

In-universe she was. Batman made a point of only calling her Robin until he fired her, and outright stated she was a real Robin. But out-of-universe she wasn't. It was never anything more than a cheap ploy to try to make her death more impactful since they couldn't count on good writing to do the job in that era and Didio wouldn't know what good writing is if it bit him in the butt.

War Games is about Batman's failure. His allies leave him when it is all over because they have had enough of how he treated. Even Tim doesn't come back and stays away.The public and the police turn against him. He doesn't stop Black Mask from taking over the underworld. He lets a teenage girl he doesn't trust do the same thing to him Ra's al Ghul did in Tower of Babel, showing that he never learned from that disaster. And most damning of all, the existence of the story is an indictment of his entire career. He became Batman in order to fight the mob. It would be one thing if Gotham was brought to its knees by a supervillain like Bane or the Joker. But for a gang war, a regular gang war between mob bosses, to be that bad when he is on his 4th Robin means that Batman has never made a dent in the power of the mob during his entire career. He is a complete and utter failure who has done nothing to make Gotham a better place in the 15 years he has been operating.

All this is true, hence why War Games is ignored.

[millernumber1]

A poll which Steph is handily losing and this a site of hardcore comic nuts.

War Games was about a girl who screwed up in a desperate gamble to become Robin then dies so that the real Robin could come back and get some manpain/development. The point is rather clear. I'm pushing an agenda past the text? when its you guys talking about some fantasy of Chuck's that never made it to print as facts.
I gave suitable examples, Azbat and Eradicator are valid examples, you're just clinging on to Henshaw with the strawman logic of "he's a villain". If Steph is a true Robin then Eradicator is absolutely a true Superman. Only difference is that he doesn't have insecure fans who're worried about his importance to the Superman mythology.
Troll Steph fans? how many of you are even here on this forum? 2? what would I even gain from it? its not even as if the poll is going in a direction I dont want, c'mon.
At the end of the day Steph fans hate War Games, they hate what it did to her, they want it to be forgotten/retconned/buried and yet when DC does pretend it doesn't exist then the fans whine about her not being acknowledged as Robin even though that is directly linked with War Games? what kind of logic is this? this more than anything puzzles me. It comes across as a spoiled brat whining away illogically till he gets what he wants.

Believe me I have no problem with DC acknowledging her as Robin but her legacy as Robin is War Games so in order for her tenure/arc to be considered complete that also needs to be brought up every time her tenure as Robin is brought up. That period is understandably controversial which is why DC just ignores the entirety of it.

It's not "handily losing" - it's a 60/40 split currently.

Azbat and Eradicator in their stories are not on the side of good. At best, they're tormented antiheros. At worst, they're killers who are firmly on the "bad guy" side (for those stories - Azrael at least has other stories much more heroic, but Knightfall was not one of them).

Steph fans hate War Games, but I don't want it forgotten - I want it redeemed. Her Batgirl series was a big step in that direction - Steph's history was acknowledged, and she was presented as having learned, but also as having been done wrong by - but the erasure of all her history, the bad and the good, leaves us back at step one. What I don't want is every time Steph's time as Robin comes up, people say, "Oh, right, she's the screw up." No, she's the Robin Bruce screwed over.

The very fact that this thread is a thing answers the question of is Steph a true Robin. If you even have to ask then the answer is no.

When I think of Robins she does not come to mind. I'm okay with her time but for some reason I always have to be reminded that Step actually was Robin.

No, that's not true. If you don't think she's a true Robin, that's fine - but there are a lot of fans who do - obviously not the majority, but way over 10% on this forum. I've already voiced my disagreement with the OP of the thread, who phrased the question in a way I think isn't legitimate - making a distinction that only applies to Steph.

And that last sentence is exactly why we bring it up - because we hope that newer fans, or fans who aren't aware of her history, will seek it out, and fall in love with Steph as Robin as well. And burn at the injustice that is War Games/Crimes.

In-universe she was. Batman made a point of only calling her Robin until he fired her, and outright stated she was a real Robin. But out-of-universe she wasn't. It was never anything more than a cheap ploy to try to make her death more impactful since they couldn't count on good writing to do the job in that era and Didio wouldn't know what good writing is if it bit him in the butt.

War Games is about Batman's failure. His allies leave him when it is all over because they have had enough of how he treated. Even Tim doesn't come back and stays away.The public and the police turn against him. He doesn't stop Black Mask from taking over the underworld. He lets a teenage girl he doesn't trust do the same thing to him Ra's al Ghul did in Tower of Babel, showing that he never learned from that disaster. And most damning of all, the existence of the story is an indictment of his entire career. He became Batman in order to fight the mob. It would be one thing if Gotham was brought to its knees by a supervillain like Bane or the Joker. But for a gang war, a regular gang war between mob bosses, to be that bad when he is on his 4th Robin means that Batman has never made a dent in the power of the mob during his entire career. He is a complete and utter failure who has done nothing to make Gotham a better place in the 15 years he has been operating.

A good distinction - but I think the point is that fans of Steph as Robin think that the latter can change, given that writers and editors change, even if it takes 30 years. Is our energy misplaced? Should we focus on getting DC to recognize Steph's time as Batgirl instead? Maybe, but I think her WHOLE history is important, and even the terrible times like War Games have their moments I love (now that Dixon retconned it so she didn't die).

As for your analysis of War Games as Batman's failure - that's exactly on point. It's a story that had some potential, but the conclusion shows that the editors and writers had no idea how to make a story that meant anything more than cheap tragedy and spitting in fans's faces. (in before: "Then why do you want to remember it?" Because if we forget, it will happen again.)

[bluesean12]

The answer is No

For me, to be a Robin, your name has to be synonymous with the mantle. Whenever someone says names like Tim Drake or Carrie Kelly, you have to think Robin. Robin is part of who they are, not just their history.

For Stephanie, you just don't get that same connection. Sure, she was Robin, but Robin isn't who she is. Stephanie can easily exist and not be a completely different character without her time as Robin (as she does in current continuity). She isn't really defined by her time as Robin like the others are, and to say she is the "fourth Robin" is kind of insulting to those who actually contributed to the mantle.

To call Stephanie "one of the Robins" is like saying Dick and Gordon are Batman just because they officially held the mantle (in continuity, no less!), and if you think "oh, he's Batman!" when you hear Dick Grayson or Commissioner Gordon, you should probably get your head checked.

I came to this forum because I wanted to confirm that everyone understood what a true Robin is, but I was hugely disappointed when I saw that 40% of voters said Stephanie is one of the Robins.

I hope this will change people's minds


PS
I just read the OP's response (i didn't before cause it looked too long ) and I realize I'm kind of just repeating his points (because he is spot on!).
But now I am extremely baffled as to how anyone can disagree with him! idk it just seems obvious that Steph's time as Robin was largely inconsequential and merely a "bump in the road" as the OP cleverly put it and in no way meant to be considered as meaningful as the true Robins' time in the mantle

[bluesean12]

So the "No" argument is basically "she was never intended to be Robin long-term, therefore she's not"? Do I have that right? Because that's prioritizing the metatextual circumstances rather than the in-story ones, and I can't get on board with that. She served as Robin, therefore she's a Robin. It's really that simple.

To use a parallel, imagine saying that an Army private who got killed on their very first mission "wasn't really a soldier."

read the OP again

its not asking if she served as Robin or not (she obviously did)

Its asking if you can consider her a true Robin, which is definitely more complicated and less black and white than you are entailing

Using your parallels, when asked "who is Batman?" would you reply with a list including every single character to done the cowl, or would you reply with the obviously correct answer of Bruce Wayne? While others like Dick Grayson, Commissioner Gordon, and even Damian Wayne have served as Batman, I don't think they can be considered true Batmen(?).

Likewise, Stephanie's time as Robin was largely inconsequential and less meaningful to the legacy of Robin than the main four, and her character is able to happily exist without ever donning the Robin uniform, so therefore, she isn't really a true Robin. It's really that simple.

[Assam]

The answer is No

For me, to be a Robin, your name has to be synonymous with the mantle. Whenever someone says names like Tim Drake or Carrie Kelly, you have to think Robin. Robin is part of who they are, not just their history.

For Stephanie, you just don't get that same connection. Sure, she was Robin, but Robin isn't who she is. Stephanie can easily exist and not be a completely different character without her time as Robin (as she does in current continuity). She isn't really defined by her time as Robin like the others are, and to say she is the "fourth Robin" is kind of insulting to those who actually contributed to the mantle.

To call Stephanie "one of the Robins" is like saying Dick and Gordon are Batman just because they officially held the mantle (in continuity, no less!), and if you think "oh, he's Batman!" when you hear Dick Grayson or Commissioner Gordon, you should probably get your head checked.

I came to this forum because I wanted to confirm that everyone understood what a true Robin is, but I was hugely disappointed when I saw that 40% of voters said Stephanie is one of the Robins.

I hope this will change people's minds


PS
I just read the OP's response (i didn't before cause it looked too long ) and I realize I'm kind of just repeating his points (because he is spot on!).
But now I am extremely baffled as to how anyone can disagree with him! idk it just seems obvious that Steph's time as Robin was largely inconsequential and merely a "bump in the road" as the OP cleverly put it and in no way meant to be considered as meaningful as the true Robins' time in the mantle

1) It's hilarious that the two Robins you name dropped are the non-canon one, and the Robin who actually DID have his time as Robin removed with the Nu52.

2) You a Wally West fan by any chance? Because Wally West acknowledges Steph as a Robin.

StephWally.jpg

This panel is from BEFORE Damian became Robin.

[darkseidpwns]

Canon doesn't mean anything when it comes to recognition. I wish it were in many cases,like Darkseid being considered a God instead of alien overlord but Darkseid is largely recognized as the latter.

[millernumber1]

Canon doesn't mean anything when it comes to recognition. I wish it were in many cases,like Darkseid being considered a God instead of alien overlord but Darkseid is largely recognized as the latter.

Really? I thought he was considered one of the New Gods...which has God in the name?

[darkseidpwns]

Really? I thought he was considered one of the New Gods...which has God in the name?

People think he's an alien tyrant, thanks Superman.

Constantly being reduced to being on Superman's level plus not being part of established mythology plus the fact that the NGs' tech and equipment instead of magic swords just generate said impression. DC can fix the equipment and Superman parts.

[millernumber1]

People think he's an alien tyrant, thanks Superman.

Constantly being reduced to being on Superman's level plus not being part of established mythology plus the fact that the NGs' tech and equipment instead of magic swords just generate said impression. DC can fix the equipment and Superman parts.

I have to admit, I don't really see the problem, but I'm not really into Superman's stories (or cosmic stories, actually), and I've never read a Fourth World story (though I probably will read Mister Miracle by King and Gerards). He's called a New God, he's evil, he constantly causes problems. Eh.

[millernumber1]

The answer is No

For me, to be a Robin, your name has to be synonymous with the mantle. Whenever someone says names like Tim Drake or Carrie Kelly, you have to think Robin. Robin is part of who they are, not just their history.

For Stephanie, you just don't get that same connection. Sure, she was Robin, but Robin isn't who she is. Stephanie can easily exist and not be a completely different character without her time as Robin (as she does in current continuity). She isn't really defined by her time as Robin like the others are, and to say she is the "fourth Robin" is kind of insulting to those who actually contributed to the mantle.

To call Stephanie "one of the Robins" is like saying Dick and Gordon are Batman just because they officially held the mantle (in continuity, no less!), and if you think "oh, he's Batman!" when you hear Dick Grayson or Commissioner Gordon, you should probably get your head checked.

I came to this forum because I wanted to confirm that everyone understood what a true Robin is, but I was hugely disappointed when I saw that 40% of voters said Stephanie is one of the Robins.

I hope this will change people's minds


PS
I just read the OP's response (i didn't before cause it looked too long ) and I realize I'm kind of just repeating his points (because he is spot on!).
But now I am extremely baffled as to how anyone can disagree with him! idk it just seems obvious that Steph's time as Robin was largely inconsequential and merely a "bump in the road" as the OP cleverly put it and in no way meant to be considered as meaningful as the true Robins' time in the mantle

read the OP again

its not asking if she served as Robin or not (she obviously did)

Its asking if you can consider her a true Robin, which is definitely more complicated and less black and white than you are entailing

Using your parallels, when asked "who is Batman?" would you reply with a list including every single character to done the cowl, or would you reply with the obviously correct answer of Bruce Wayne? While others like Dick Grayson, Commissioner Gordon, and even Damian Wayne have served as Batman, I don't think they can be considered true Batmen(?).

Likewise, Stephanie's time as Robin was largely inconsequential and less meaningful to the legacy of Robin than the main four, and her character is able to happily exist without ever donning the Robin uniform, so therefore, she isn't really a true Robin. It's really that simple.

Why do you want to take away from other people's enjoyment of a character and story? The OP says "Consider," indicating that it's a matter of perspective, but you are insisting that it's an empirical fact. When I think of Robin, I always think of Steph (the fact that I have a copy of Robin #126 hanging on my wall behind me right now may have something to do with that) in addition to all of the other Robins. Steph's time as Robin may be inconsequential to you, but it's not to me, or 40% of the people who answered this survey. She was included in the Brave and the Bold tie-in comics Calling All Robins, so clearly Sholly Fisch thinks so as well. Your arguments are incredibly contradictory - you say "it's more complicated and less black and white" and then treat everyone who disagrees with you as if they are deniers of reality, instead of people who genuinely value Steph's time as Robin (or Dick's time as Batman, etc).

Additionally, I do think of Dick, Jim, Terry, and Jean-Paul when I think of Batman. Are they THE BATMAN? No. But were they Batman? Absolutely. And I'd probably be hard put to say that Bruce is my favorite Batman, considering how much I love the Batman Reborn era.

It's also much ruder to say "You (real person in real life) need to have your head checked" than "You (fictional character) share this role with another fictional character." Seriously. If you don't value Steph's time as Robin, that's perfectly fine. You have an ally in Dan Didio. But invalidating other people's fandom like this - not cool.

[Fergus]

read the OP again

its not asking if she served as Robin or not (she obviously did)

Its asking if you can consider her a true Robin, which is definitely more complicated and less black and white than you are entailing

Using your parallels, when asked "who is Batman?" would you reply with a list including every single character to done the cowl, or would you reply with the obviously correct answer of Bruce Wayne? While others like Dick Grayson, Commissioner Gordon, and even Damian Wayne have served as Batman, I don't think they can be considered true Batmen(?).

Likewise, Stephanie's time as Robin was largely inconsequential and less meaningful to the legacy of Robin than the main four, and her character is able to happily exist without ever donning the Robin uniform, so therefore, she isn't really a true Robin. It's really that simple.

I don't think this poll is indicative if comic readers. When you talk about what it means to be Robin adding Steph to that makes the whole thing less special but sadly this is the reality of the bat family these days. . What was once exclusive and meaningful is now pretty much open to the masses.

It's so non exclusive that the popular kids like Dick, Damian and Jason have distanced themselves.

[Fergus]

Why do you want to take away from other people's enjoyment of a character and story? The OP says "Consider," indicating that it's a matter of perspective, but you are insisting that it's an empirical fact. When I think of Robin, I always think of Steph (the fact that I have a copy of Robin #126 hanging on my wall behind me right now may have something to do with that) in addition to all of the other Robins. Steph's time as Robin may be inconsequential to you, but it's not to me, or 40% of the people who answered this survey. She was included in the Brave and the Bold tie-in comics Calling All Robins, so clearly Sholly Fisch thinks so as well. Your arguments are incredibly contradictory - you say "it's more complicated and less black and white" and then treat everyone who disagrees with you as if they are deniers of reality, instead of people who genuinely value Steph's time as Robin (or Dick's time as Batman, etc).

Additionally, I do think of Dick, Jim, Terry, and Jean-Paul when I think of Batman. Are they THE BATMAN? No. But were they Batman? Absolutely. And I'd probably be hard put to say that Bruce is my favorite Batman, considering how much I love the Batman Reborn era.

It's also much ruder to say "You (real person in real life) need to have your head checked" than "You (fictional character) share this role with another fictional character." Seriously. If you don't value Steph's time as Robin, that's perfectly fine. You have an ally in Dan Didio. But invalidating other people's fandom like this - not cool.

Why don't you think of Damian as Batman may I ask?

I liked that Brave and the Bold issue but the fact is that if count Steph then do you count Duke and the we are Robin kids?

[adrikito]

Additionally, I do think of Dick, Jim, Terry, and Jean-Paul when I think of Batman. Are they THE BATMAN? No. But were they Batman? Absolutely. And I'd probably be hard put to say that Bruce is my favorite Batman, considering how much I love the Batman Reborn era.

Is the same with the batgirls...

Barbara Gordon? I consider Steph and Cass as Batgirls too because I saw both girls using the mantle of batgirl(plus of batgirls volumes with them).. I can´t ignore this.

Sorry for forget the original batgirl and Helena... I don´t saw them as batgirls in the comics, but they are batgirls too.