For those out of the loop, DC Comics is preparing variant covers for its June 2015 cover-dated books. The theme is The Joker, or more specifically, I believe, celebrating his 75th Anniversary as a character.

On last Friday, DC issued images of the upcoming variants for each of the books being published (or cover-dated) that month. Rafael Albuquerque was commissioned to draw the variant for Batgirl #41.

This is the image he created and what DC solicited last Friday:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/imgsrv/imglib/0/0/1/BG-Cv41-Joker-variant-solicitation-88c4e-31e8d.jpg

Welp, the Internet erupted.

There's been a social media campaign to get rid of the cover (#changethecover) due to its depiction of the book's heroine as a victim. This is especially in light of the most recent "rebooted" tone of the book which depicts a modern-day, vibrant, assertive female hero. Those on this side argue that it's tonally different than the current direction of the book, that this variant and the original story it references ("The Killing Joke") has some sexual assault connotations, and that other covers show The Joker in a fun light. Among other arguments.

There's also been support for the variant cover image as it specifically references (e.g., Joker's outfit in the image, the gun) the most iconic interaction between Batgirl and The Joker, "The Killing Joke" graphic novel, in which The Joker shoots and seriously wounds (paralyzing) Batgirl/Barbara Gordon. Those on this side argue against censorship, the limited supply of variant covers making this cover less visible had a campaign not been started, and that the variants are to speak to The Joker's history. Among other arguments.

Per the cover artist (Albuquerque), apparently, death threats were made against those calling for the cover's recall, not to him. Presumably, this was via social media, though nothing concrete has surfaced online that I've seen. Consequently, Albuquerque encouraged DC to pull the cover.

On this past Monday, three days later, DC decided to pull the variant cover.

The book's current creators also voiced their displeasure with the cover and noted they had no creative input into the variant. Which is the norm, I believe.

Here's direct quotes from Albuquerque and DC's official statement: http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/dc-comics-cancels-batgirl-joker-variant-at-artists-request

So, what's PTP think?

And don't think it should have been pulled.

There's a lot of things that I can get behind, but this is stupid.

Would we EVER see Batman w/tears in his eyes? Between the bondage and the obvious fear portrayed on her face can you imagine any super hero being portrayed as such?

Comics are about escapism. Maybe women don't want to be reminded of the possibility of being victimized sexually in their hero escapism fantasies.

I totally get it.

It's problematic, but I don't know if it rises to the level of CONTROVERSY & OUTRAGE.

I ain't a lady, though.

On the anniversary of Venom, would they post Venom, smiling, fucking with a sobbing and afraid Peter Parker? Absolutely fucking not.

Comics fans do have their fair share of overblown outrage stories. This isn't really one of them.

you equate that batgirl cover as equivalent to one of spider-man being sodomized?

note: I'm not arguing FOR the cover, but still, why not let it be problematic on its own actual merits rather than make up stuff?

If there was a famous moment like Joker assaulting Batgirl for a male hero, they wouldn't pose the rapist next to a sobbing version of the male hero. They just wouldn't.

I'm not saying the cover would be sodomy. I'm saying, the exact same set of circumstances, with a male hero being sexually assaulted. Do they put that rapist on the cover smiling while tormenting his sobbing male victim? No. They wouldn't.

1. you can't tell folks what they should/shouldn't be offended by

2. bondage? where exactly?

3. the joker draped over your shoulder with a gun is kinda a frightening situation no?

4. whether that batgirl cover worse than these or not is debatable (if one wanted to have that debate) but they did/do happen:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8N8ZkVSJx-0/UCWMKljsyfI/AAAAAAAARw8/3lgnFfWFjAY/s1600/Joker+036.jpg

http://www.comicseeker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/batman_1891.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/0/4/24856-3816-27645-1-superman.jpg

>1. you can't tell folks what they should/shouldn't be
>offended by

I'm not.
>
>2. bondage? where exactly?

He's holding her at gunpoint - is that not bondage?
>
>3. the joker draped over your shoulder with a gun is kinda a
>frightening situation no?

Absolutely.
>
>4. whether that batgirl cover worse than these or not is
>debatable (if one wanted to have that debate) but they did/do
>happen:
>
>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8N8ZkVSJx-0/UCWMKljsyfI/AAAAAAAARw8/3lgnFfWFjAY/s1600/Joker+036.jpg
>
>http://www.comicseeker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/batman_1891.jpg
>
>http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/0/4/24856-3816-27645-1-superman.jpg
>

These covers kinda prove my point. Not ONE of them is crying - and frankly only ONE of them depicts fear at all.

I doubt that's what the artist intended, but this shit doesn't exist in a vacuum.

>I doubt that's what the artist intended, but this shit
>doesn't exist in a vacuum.

^^^^^^

The character's history is the history. You can't not consider it when making a cover.

It ain't rocket science.

But with the history you've got to keep that in perspective.

that's the point.

a book featuring the implicit sexual assault of batgirl by the joker.

the outrage train has gone completely off the tracks. people's eyes just reflexively protesting anything that feels like it maybe might could be offensive to anyone

It really sums up the character. Those people who don't like the cover pretty much don't like the character.

the artist asked that DC not release the cover because opponents of the cover were getting death threats.

That's pretty level-headed.

And I like that cover. But I like crazy killer joker

funny how now we are swinging the pendulum right back to the reason that was implemented

s'a trip to observe

for grins, this was the original criteria:

* Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
* If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
* Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
* Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
* In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
* Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
* No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.
* All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
* All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.
* Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
* Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
* Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
* Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
* Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
* Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
* Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
* Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
* Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
* Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

all this wrong-headed moral outrage gonna really sting when the book burnings start

Comics, like other art forms, have their share of blind outrage (the idiotic Spider-Woman cover controversy, for instance), but this was legitimately problematic.

There's a world of difference between uninformed and idiotic outrage... and legitimate, informed, and understandable outrage. The two shouldn't be conflated.

moreso because while the point of conflict made light of gender inequality, the wronged side went over the boundary of socially acceptable behavior (death threats) to self-police.

granted sexual assualt / misconduct is nothing to make light of and as a straight man it's easy for me to say this, but two wrongs don't make a right.

* counter point *

also, is this comic for adults or children? if it's also read by children, then by all means, this cover ought not be released. but if movies like the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Boys Don't Cry can use sexual assault to drive a narrative I don't see why an adult couldn't read the context and intent of the cover.

They both agreed that the audience and tone of the book made the cover inappropriate.

http://www.comicvine.com/batgirl/4050-42604/

Would it be OK, if instead he was just beating the shit out of her (in a completely non sexual way) or maybe just shooting her in the head?

is inflicting evil shit on people.

So writers/artists can't depict stories where something bad happens to Heroines?

It ain't that complicated. The fact that Heros take on Supervillians sans tears is what separates them from normal folk.

You can keep making this silly-assed argument, but it's always gonna be wrong.

I assume you really don't believe that male superheroes are never portrayed in vulnerable positions...that's asinine to the point of not even being worth discussion

be a regular human (albeit highly skilled at fighting and such) she still feels physical pain and can be killed.

In real life if you beat somebody enough/make them think you're about to kill them, chances are a few tears are going to flow, I don't care how tough you are.

The joker fucking paralyzed her in The Killing Joke

of course if she has a tear in her eye she's obviously still fucked up over that whole ordeal and has left her mentally scared a bit.

Batman had his back broken
Superman died

Don't act like bad shit don't happen to male super heroes.

I swear this internet outrage is getting out of hand
disgusting

The tone and direction of the book isn't about that anymore.

The artist agreed and requested it be pulled.

The writer agreed also and backed him up.

Cameron Stewart

@cameronMstewart · 1 day ago
The cover was not seen or approved by anyone on Team Batgirl and was completely at odds with what we are doing with the comic.



Whats the problem?

>The tone and direction of the book isn't about that anymore.
>
>The artist agreed and requested it be pulled.
>
>The writer agreed also and backed him up.
>
>Cameron Stewart
>
>@cameronMstewart · 1 day ago
>The cover was not seen or approved by anyone on Team Batgirl
>and was completely at odds with what we are doing with the
>comic.
>
>
>
>Whats the problem?

I don't think this Batgirl here is Barbara Gordon/Oracle.

EDIT: So, it is Barbara Gordon/Oracle. This "New 52" has me all turned around.

...again.

Or Superman fearing a re-match with Doomsday.

But when it's a female superhero, she's so scared she has a tear in her eye? Yeah, that's sexist.

Why is this so hard to understand?

>...again.
>
>Or Superman fearing a re-match with Doomsday.
>
>But when it's a female superhero, she's so scared she has a
>tear in her eye? Yeah, that's sexist.


http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--71DRT7Dv--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/dpujxu72za0jm4epuetz.jpg

the argument against the Batgirl cover is so frustratingly specious

Most of the complaints seem centered around the general idea that the cover is rapey as much as anything else, and I don't really see that either. And in the story it was referencing, Babs was crying... with good reason. The way people are reacting, it's like it's not okay for a hero/ine to be portrayed as scared.

I get it, it just seems a bit heavy-handed to me, especially when there's stuff like Ame-Comi Girls on the DC shelves. The Catwoman and Outsiders NU52 reboots caused a furor, but none of that stuff got pulled. But who am I to judge whether someone should be offended or find something sexist.

That said, everyone involved agreed to pull it rather than offend some readers, and that's great. Albequerque's statement was quite gentlemanly and the whole thing seems to have been handled quite well.

...shot her. Again, I cannot think of a single male superhero who they've depicted being paralyzed with fear and sobbing at the prospect of confronting someone who's hurt him in the past. They're shown being about to rise above/no show any fear, because they're superheroes. Even Daredevil, the whiniest superhero ever.

Problem is that the way the joker is written can be inconsistent (which, funny enough, is part of the characters feel). He can pop in the cartoon fine, or push a comic book movie almost to R territory and stlll have plenty of fucked up room to spare.

Artistically its FANTASTIC, but I understand DC's call. This isn't supposed to be a one off super twisted story, its a regular issue with the joker probably at cruise control

assault even being implied in it. So I don't really know where all that's coming from. Just strikes me as a reference to a famous story in which Joker shot Barbara Gordon (if memory serves, he didn't know she was Batgirl) at her home.

*edit* okay, I forgot about the pictures.

For the record, Gail Simone referenced the Killing Joke relatively recently in Birds of Prey, when the Joker tracked Oracle down and put things together that she was the young girl he'd shot all those years earlier.

I like the cover quite a bit, agree that it disagrees with the tone of the book but at the same time variant covers celebrating an anniversary almost never do. Doesn't strike me as a big deal (there are far more cringeworthy covers from every publisher on a regular basis), doesn't strike me as a huge deal that it was pulled either.

I never agreed with that take before I saw the original artwork, but after, yeah...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/markcassidycbm/news/?a=90787

But I feel like the artwork says different.

I'm glad that people are taking violence against women seriously, that folks from all sides of the industry (e.g., creators/fans, men/women, etc.) are weighing in, and that folks are giving serious thought about how women are traditionally portrayed in comicdom. It's an important conversation to have and always will be. I do still think the cover is fine as is and should not have been pulled.

I realize folks have strong opinions on this, but I'll still give my reasoning for being okay with the cover.

I think context is extremely key here.

The themed variant covers are celebrating The Joker, a character that has a range of interpretation from a simple prankster to a sadistic killer, and, oftentimes, a combination of those two extremes. That means the variant cover should be open to any canonical interpretation of The Joker.

In this particular instance, it was for the cover of Batgirl, a hero he's had an iconic, albeit violent, interaction with (The Killing Joke). In that context, it makes sense to reference that. Not that it had to be referenced, nor should it be the exclusive reference point for these two characters, but it is fair game. And it's clear that the variant cover is indeed SPECIFICALLY referencing that interaction (e.g., Joker's clothing in the piece, the use of the gun). The variant cover isn't a random pairing of Joker and Batgirl with threatening connotations just for the sake of it, it's a callback to a specific interaction between those two characters.

I also think it's important to note that in the variant, unlike in "The Killing Joke" story, Barbara is fully in costume as Batgirl and, while certainly depicted as afraid/terrified, she isn't physically bound nor is the gun pointed at her directly. The implication is that she is terrified/traumatized, which again speaks to a past interaction that would trigger such emotions, not a random reaction to The Joker.

Let me also say, I don't think that "The Killing Joke" or Barbara-as-a-victim should be the ONLY artistic depiction whenever these two characters interact (e.g., on a cover, interior story), but I don't think it should be excluded. It WOULD be a problem if this were the "umpteenth" time Barbara was artistically framed as the terrified victim. It would certainly disservice her as a heroine and as a human being unwilling to conquer her fears. But she's faced The Joker after "The Killing Joke" and defeated him, and would most certainly do so again.

I wouldn't expect the same piece using Wonder Woman or Starfire, and not just because those characters could superhumanly defeat The Joker, but because they haven't had this particular interaction with him. Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised if a Joker-themed cover with Jason Todd/Red Hood referenced "A Death in the Family" – which has happened. Or if a themed variant cover featuring Bane referenced him breaking Batman's back. Or one featuring Doomsday referenced him killing Superman.

As for being tonally different than the current run of the book, most variant covers are. The purpose of a variant has been to feature the book's character within the context of the variant's theme or setting typically without regard for the book's tone. Variants serve the variant's theme with the title character positioned in context to that. And that's what's being done here, with the added historical reference to the title character and variant subject.

And to be clear, I'm generally against variant covers as a consumer (though I've loved the art it generates), I haven't been reading this run of Batgirl, and I wasn't planning to cop this variant cover at all. I'm just against pulling the variant on principle.

Not that there couldn't be an instance where I would side with an artist for wanting a commissioned work removed. But in this particular instance, I disagree.

The artist, Albuquerque, told CBR, "My intention was never to hurt or upset anyone through my art. For that reason, I have recommended to DC that the variant cover be pulled." The full quote is here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/dc-comics-cancels-batgirl-joker-variant-at-artists-request

If the only reason he requested it be pulled is because a group of people were hurt or upset at the solicited image...well, that's an incredibly slippery slope in my opinion. If that's the barometer for being able to pull a comic book cover – particularly in the present social media age, where opinions can receive an unprecedented amount of attention – I don't think that bodes well for the future.

There's absolutely no way to control or even measure what's hurtful or upsetting to (segments of) an audience in a medium where the art and dialogue run the gamut of the human experience (even in light of many being superhumans). Then there's the argument of how much audience hurt/upset is acceptable?

I do think (personal morals injected here) that DC does have a responsibility to be tasteful, particularly with respect to comic covers, as it's the first thing seen by a consumer. But, as I stated above, within the context in which the cover's presented, I think it's fine.

Again, I'm not advocating violence against women and, again, I think this is a healthy and needed conversation to be had within this industry.

While I respect DC for not wanting to encourage the proliferation of death threats or violence (however weak they might have been), I disagree with DC deciding to pull it based off of Albuquerque's reasoning.

And as I said, there may very well be an instance where I would side with an artist for wanting a commissioned work removed, but not in this instance.

...you just never hear about it. Does material get produced that eventually gets removed or redone by the artist themselves because of offensiveness. YUP. All the time. Kurt Busiek was running virtual seminar through twitter on this when outrage over the outrage reached peak neckbeard...

"I can’t argue what should and shouldn’t be an issue for you. Merely that comics publishers have been reacting to reader reactions for a long time now, and the changes social media brings to it change the speed more than the effect."
https://twitter.com/KurtBusiek/status/577681018620014593

"I’m standing up for “this cover doesn’t actually fit this book.” If used elsewhere, it could work just fine."
https://twitter.com/KurtBusiek/status/577655415674003456

"I’m arguing that packaging serves a purpose and it’s appropriate to make choices about it."
https://twitter.com/KurtBusiek/status/577671814370865152

"Publishers hear opinions, and have opinions, and make their choices. This is how it’s always been"
https://twitter.com/KurtBusiek/status/577683862676901888

The artist now knows the audience for the comic since he didn't before he was hired to do it. At least the one the current creative team wants and have been getting more sales on a regular basis because of it. And they agreed that it wasn't the right tone for the direction of the book.

He also goes into a lot more detail in an interview translated here...
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/03/18/albuquerque-was-asked-to-make-batgirl-cover-more-extreme/

"I think those who know the “Killing Joke” got the point. But again, young people aged 14 to 17 years does not have the obligation to know, and I think both myself and the publisher, even unintentionally, were wrong in thinking that the image would be appropriate."

" I see many people commenting on freedom of expression and that I gave in to pressure. I have always defended minorities. I think is the right and moral thing to do. I do not think a comic that aims to raise women´s self-esteem should have an image that may suggest otherwise. In another comic, maybe that image made sense. Not for the current Batgirl comic. Freedom of expression also means not saying what you do not want to say, and it was exactly the right that I exercised here."


Where's the slippery slope...?

they've given the book a complete overhaul, walking it back from being grim and gritty to a book that's much more lighthearted and one in which batgirl has resolved her issues with her killing joke past.

this cover is regression for their take on the character.

the mood of the comic, that's their creative choice, and I'm not buying the issue either way.

However I do have issue (no pun intended) with the idea that the cover is sexist. It's not like she's on her hands and knees begging for mercy while tears are streaming down her face.