Is Stephanie Brown a True Robin?

[sunofdarkchild]

Had DC been serious about making her Robin I think she would have been a breakout character instead of the niche character she became as Batgirl. The idea of a girl being Robin in-continuity would have been huge, much bigger than being Batgirl #3. Big missed opportunity for DC, but that's what happens with a pigheaded and stupid editorial.

Morrison would say she was really Robin. Didio would say she wasn't. In the end it doesn't really matter. She should have been, but DC was more interested in Bat-dick and shock-deaths than character development or branching out.

[millernumber1]

Had DC been serious about making her Robin I think she would have been a breakout character instead of the niche character she became as Batgirl. The idea of a girl being Robin in-continuity would have been huge, much bigger than being Batgirl #3. Big missed opportunity for DC, but that's what happens with a pigheaded and stupid editorial.

Morrison would say she was really Robin. Didio would say she wasn't. In the end it doesn't really matter. She should have been, but DC was more interested in Bat-dick and shock-deaths than character development or branching out.

Very true. The sales were also on the side of making Steph Robin for "real," (though again, I think she was "really" Robin already), but they were tapering off, I believe because it was clear (from reviews I tracked down from the period) that readers knew it was temporary. If it had been a new status quo, with no "one disobedience and you're fired" ultimatum at the beginning, I think it would have stayed much steadier.

[darkseidpwns]

Was Henshaw a true Superman? was Eradicator a true Superman, were Azrael and Bane true Batmen? I dont think so. Same applies to Steph.

But really, did the nasty biased editorial not screw those guys as much as they did Steph?

[sunofdarkchild]

Was Henshaw a true Superman? was Eradicator a true Superman, were Azrael and Bane true Batmen? I dont think so. Same applies to Steph.

But really, did the nasty biased editorial not screw those guys as much as they did Steph?

Azrael was a true Batman, appointed by Bruce himself. The fact that he went off the rails doesn't change that. Steph was also appointed to be Robin by Bruce himself.

Eradicator and Henshaw did not have that. They were entirely self-appointed, and once Henshaw was revealed to be a villain that was the end of that.

[darkseidpwns]

Azrael was a true Batman, appointed by Bruce himself. The fact that he went off the rails doesn't change that. Steph was also appointed to be Robin by Bruce himself.

Eradicator and Henshaw did not have that. They were entirely self-appointed, and once Henshaw was revealed to be a villain that was the end of that.

They can be appointed by God himself, it doesn't change the fact that they were given the mantles to prove that they're NOT Batman, Superman and Robin.
The entire purpose of the stories and writers, editorial was to prove that said mantles belong to Bruce, Clark and Tim. They used the replacements as a demonstration of what Superman/Batman/Robin shouldn't be.

[sunofdarkchild]

They can be appointed by God himself, it doesn't change the fact that they were given the mantles to prove that they're NOT Batman, Superman and Robin.
The entire purpose of the stories and writers, editorial was to prove that said mantles belong to Bruce, Clark and Tim. They used the replacements as a demonstration of what Superman/Batman/Robin shouldn't be.

If we could apply that standard to the presidency...

[millernumber1]

Was Henshaw a true Superman? was Eradicator a true Superman, were Azrael and Bane true Batmen? I dont think so. Same applies to Steph.

But really, did the nasty biased editorial not screw those guys as much as they did Steph?

That is certainly one way to look at it. I flip the script and say sure, they were true inheritors of their roles. Though comparing Steph to a villain who steals a role is more than a bit tendentious, and enough to dismiss your argument as stated out of hand.

Yes, they were screwed by editorial - though I'm not sure that Azrael was really screwed until the end of his 100-issue series.

I don't think Steph fans would still be mad if we'd gotten 100 issues of a solo Steph series immediately following War Games. Instead, we got a half-hearted resurrection after 4 years of antagonizing fans, followed by 2 blissful years of a solo, followed by "It never happened, now read our mediocre grim crap and be happy."

Azrael was a true Batman, appointed by Bruce himself. The fact that he went off the rails doesn't change that. Steph was also appointed to be Robin by Bruce himself.

Eradicator and Henshaw did not have that. They were entirely self-appointed, and once Henshaw was revealed to be a villain that was the end of that.

Agreed.

They can be appointed by God himself, it doesn't change the fact that they were given the mantles to prove that they're NOT Batman, Superman and Robin.
The entire purpose of the stories and writers, editorial was to prove that said mantles belong to Bruce, Clark and Tim. They used the replacements as a demonstration of what Superman/Batman/Robin shouldn't be.

Steph was not given the mantle to prove she wasn't Robin. She was explicitly given the mantle to make her death hurt more (Willingham and Didio have confirmed this). You are making factually incorrect assertions about statements on record. Alternative facts, we might even say.

[darkseidpwns]

How were they screwed by the editors? Azraels creator and the guy who wrote those 100 issues was the head editor of the Batbooks.
Steph was a Tim character, why are we losing sight of that? her job was to serve Tim's arc. Similarly Henshaw and the other 3 Supermen were meant to serve Kal's arc. I think its really that simple, arguing over who gave who, villains or heroes etc is pointless. These stories were about Wayne, Kent and Drake. The others were part of those stories but it was never about them.
So you admit in your own post that she became Robin for a temporary stunt?

[millernumber1]

How were they screwed by the editors? Azraels creator and the guy who wrote those 100 issues was the head editor of the Batbooks.
Steph was a Tim character, why are we losing sight of that? her job was to serve Tim's arc. Similarly Henshaw and the other 3 Supermen were meant to serve Kal's arc. I think its really that simple, arguing over who gave who, villains or heroes etc is pointless. These stories were about Wayne, Kent and Drake. The others were part of those stories but it was never about them.
So you admit in your own post that she became Robin for a temporary stunt?

You were the one indicating that they were screwed by editorial. I agreed that you could look at it that way, but 1) Steph's not a villain, and 2) Azrael, the only really non-villain of the bunch you shotgunned into the thread, got an ongoing for 8 years.

Steph started as a Tim character. Doesn't mean she can't evolve past that. Dick started as a Bruce character. I don't think people would say the same now.

Arguing over stealing vs. being given/earning is hardly pointless. Arguing over whether Steph was a hero or a villain is crucial, since villains are heroes are given very different treatment.

I've never claimed that editorial didn't view Steph as Robin as a temporary stunt. My claim is that fans have valid arguments for viewing it as more than that. The author's not dead, but they do take naps.

But honestly, you're bringing four examples that have much less connection to the question at hand, three of whom are villains, and don't see why that's important at all. So clearly, you have nothing to add to the discussion other than your assertion that Steph never grew out of a supporting role.

Lastly, Robin was Tim's title, but War Games was a Bruce/Batfamily/Steph story, in that order. Each of those perspectives shaped the way we viewed that story. Steph was not serving Tim's story in War Games - she was serving Bruce's and her own.

[Aioros22]

I find is always strange that Steph and Jason are allways said to be the reckless and disobedient Robins, and Dick isn't as is even often said to be the perfect Robin.

If you look at modern stories from his time as Robin Dick as reckless and disobedient as them or even maybe even worse.

Case in point:





And no. that`s not Jason in the ad.

[sunofdarkchild]

Steph wasn't created to be a Tim character. She was created to be a one-off character for a Cluemaster story, and Dixon liked her so much he brought her back and put her where he thought she made the most sense. Writing her in Robin was about writing her, not about using her for Tim's development. And after Dixon left Lewis made her the full-fledged co-star of the book and just as much the main protagonist as Tim was.

[millernumber1]

Steph wasn't created to be a Tim character. She was created to be a one-off character for a Cluemaster story, and Dixon liked her so much he brought her back and put her where he thought she made the most sense. Writing her in Robin was about writing her, not about using her for Tim's development. And after Dixon left Lewis made her the full-fledged co-star of the book and just as much the main protagonist as Tim was.

Agreed. Steph's pregnancy, for example, was definitely not about Tim - he had his own plotlines. That was a Steph story.

[dietrich]

Jesus this thread is ridiculous.

[Aioros22]

They all are, chum.

[dietrich]

They all are, chum.

Yes some more than others.