|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2023 2:16:59 GMT -5
I never got the impression that the Joker raped Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. Sure, the thought crossed my mind as I first read it, but was quickly dismissed. First off, as chadwilliam pointed out - doesn't Bullock tell Batman what happened as far as the evidence suggests when he visits her in the hospital? I'm pretty sure the doctor explains that she'll never walk again and Bullock adds something like, "something else you should know - we found a camera lens, we think he took some photos". Now, I'm thinking that if she were raped Bullock's little bit of additional info there would have mentioned rape - ie. "we think she was... violated too". That he makes no such comment suggests to me that there was no rape. I mean, why mention the fact that The Joker took pictures but leave out the more heinous act of rape? That right there is pretty good evidence that rape was not intended to be read into the story. But there's more. The Joker undressing her and taking photographs was to mentally torture Jim Gordon. He is forced to see graphic images of his daughter shot and possibly killed. The fact that she's naked in the photos is both force Gordon to see her as vulnerable and defenseless, but also to show how terribly wounded she was, with Gordon having to look at the horrific damage to her body, and Gordon couldn't stop it from happening. Presumably, the Joker expected Batman to see the same images and have the same reaction. Rape didn't figure into it; the Joker had no interest in Barbara at all except for how he could use her to hurt Gordon and Batman. Lastly, with that kind of injury, there could not have been too much time for Barbara to have been taken to the hospital before she would have died. It's very unlikely that the Joker would have time to undress her, take numerous photographs of her in different positions, and then rape her before she died right there on the floor. So no, no rape. For whatever that's worth - it's still a crap story. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2023 2:25:40 GMT -5
I know we're supposed to read the ending as Batman and Joker killing each other No, no we're not. It was written as, if not bonding, then the two finding a brief moment of common ground. Or something. It's deeply psychological, you know. The idea of Batman killing Joker in that scene didn't start making the rounds until long after the story was published. If you read the ending as the two bonding for one absurd moment, then it's exceptionally disturbing how quickly the wrongs done to Barbara get forgotten once there is no longer a conflict for her victimization to drive. This issue of the Comics Journal came to that exact conclusion, but with a much more damning condemnation. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2023 2:33:59 GMT -5
We've had this argument before and I'm not going to rehash it; but, I do not see evidence of Levitz having any agenda against Batgirl. I don't think Levitz necessarily had anything against Batgirl per se. I think he wanted exactly one Bat-character on Earth-1 - Batman - and exactly one Bat-character on Earth-2 - Huntress. Hence getting rid of Batgirl and killing Earth-2 Batman. It's also possible he wanted to be able to say "Hey, I killed Batman! The original one, at that!" but it's also possible that wasn't the case. But it wasn't really necessary to kill the character, since he had been retired already. As for getting rid of Batgirl, maybe they only wanted to sideline her and Alan Moore's story gave them an opportunity to do it, so they made the story into official continuity. Maybe they did want to kill her but as shaxper pointed out, there may have been licensing issues with that. But not that long after Batgirl was removed, a new Huntress series debuted (albeit a revised version of the character. Also written by someone else, but Levitz had a pretty full plate by then). Now if you'll excuse me, I need to polish the tinfoil on this hat. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,812
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2023 8:01:15 GMT -5
I think we are never going to agree on what motivated Levitz' decisions relating to Batgirl as editor. To my mind, you are inferring motivations based on the weak story, without much supporting evidence from behind-the-scenes. I'm not certain his reasons were petty; I'm just relatively certain he did it purposefully. Chris makes a compelling argument, but I've also always read deeply into the shift that came about in Detective Comics #487, where both Robin and Batgirl are suddenly very inept, and Levitz replies to a letter about allowing Robin to grow up further with this comment:  It is absolutely possible I read too much into that statement, but it suggests to me that Levitz wanted to return Batman to the center of the Batman Family, whereas he was being overshadowed by Batgirl and Robin prior to that moment. We know anecdotally that Batman Family with them at the center was far outselling Detective Comics and Batman. While I disagree that Batman had to be the most prominant part of the Bat titles, I would hardly argue that seeing it that way was petty. Narrow-minded, maybe. Moore pretty much takes full credit for the decision to cripple Barbara Gordon. That it was approved might be indicative of that, though. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,812
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2023 8:14:19 GMT -5
Powerful review, Shaxper - well done. Some thoughts... I would argue that Barbara Gordon was sexually assaulted but not raped - I don't think Moore would have played coy with this detail if she had been; I think it would have been mentioned. In fact - and I really don't want to go online and read this trash again so I'll go by memory alone - doesn't Bullock tell Batman what happened as far as the evidence suggests when he visits her in the hospital? I'm pretty sure the doctor explains that she'll never walk again and Bullock adds something like, "something else you should know - we found a camera lens, we think he took some photos". Now, I'm thinking that if she were raped Bullock's little bit of additional info there would have mentioned rape - ie. "we think she was... violated too". That he makes no such comment suggests to me that there was no rape. I mean, why mention the fact that The Joker took pictures but leave out the more heinous act of rape? My reasons for believing it was rape are two-fold. The first is that the entire point of this story appears to be that there are no limits to what The Joker will do. The safeguards have been disabled. Thus, if he is going to strip Barbara Gordon naked and we are going to cut away, there's every reason to believe he will take it as far as he can. If we didn't see Barbara for the rest of the story, I would have presumed he killed her too and maybe ate the flesh off her bones afterward. The second is Brian Bolland's comment about the cover being the most disturbing part of the story because, "the cover is the moment when the very worst thing in the story is taking place. You're seeing it from the other direction. You're looking at something that is now very familiar and iconic and all that; a bit of fun really. But, when you think about the story, you think, 'Hang on a minute; that's the moment where we probably go a little too far.'" How would photographing her naked be worse than paralyzing her for life? He almost certainly implies that something far worse happened in those moments. Agreed. Yes. As a kid, I was uncomfortable with the nude photographs of her suffering, but just assumed it was being done to disturb Commissioner Gordon. Babs was a tool to drive the plots of male characters. We were never invited to consider Babs' experience, and that would include sexual assault or rape. I don't have a problem with rape and sexual assault happening in comics. It makes sense that it would. Where I struggle is: 1. if it is presented WITHOUT the creative team taking time to explore the emotional ramifications and to treat it as an appropriately heinous act that leaves emotional scars for life. 2. if it doesn't also happen to the men. Seriously, if the Joker is perverse enough to rape Barbara just for the sake of being a sadistic monster, why wouldn't he be perverse enough to rape Jim, Jason (when he gets him alone in two months' time), or even Bruce? I was tempted to go there, and even to include your previous argument about this (I wouldn't have even known Wein confirmed saying this and apologized if you hadn't posted the very link I used as a source here), but I didn't feel it was relevent to the conversation. I agree that nothing else we know about Wein supports seeing him in such a light and that anyone taking something we say behind the scenes at our workplace out of context could make any one of us look equally monsterous. Still, I led with Wein's quote because it shows a powerful indifference to the character, even if it wasn't intended to show contempt and violent mysogyny. Agreed. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,812
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2023 8:18:08 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the only reason Sharon Wright was writing under Grell's name so readers would think Grell was still writing the book. She and Grell divorced and she began writing under her own name in the 80s. I enjoyed her work on Black Canary in Action Comics Weekly. I'm not familiar with anything else she did for DC, though. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 3, 2023 11:03:46 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the only reason Sharon Wright was writing under Grell's name so readers would think Grell was still writing the book. She and Grell divorced and she began writing under her own name in the 80s. I enjoyed her work on Black Canary in Action Comics Weekly. I'm not familiar with anything else she did for DC, though. She was writing Warlord, for a while, under Mike's byline. The Black Canary stuff openly and an issue of Green Arrow. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 3, 2023 11:28:01 GMT -5
There were few female viewpoints, at DC, at the time. Jenette Kahn didn't seem to get involved in the stories or set any agenda to recruit more women, as pros or readers...Other than Kahn, you had Barbara Randall Kesel and Karen Berger and that was it. I have no proof; but suspect Dann Thomas and Sharon Wright (Grell) were treated as wives and their status on books was considered to be humoring their husbands. Also, for what it's worth, I was recently listening to an interview with some editor at DC (geez! I cannot remember who or even what he had edited), where the interviewee mentioned Jeanette Kahn making a push for the editors to hire more female talent. Presumably this would be around the time that Mindy Newell joined the staff. No love for Janice Race or Laurie S. Sutton? If I recall correctly, the only reason Sharon Wright was writing under Grell's name so readers would think Grell was still writing the book. She and Grell divorced and she began writing under her own name in the 80s. Also, Colleen Doran was also doing some work for DC at the time, but nothing regular. No, just 56 year-old memory and a long day at work. Also, I am hazy on timelines of who worked at DC and when. Race and Sutton were primarily working on books outside my general reading, though I had forgotten that Sutton was editing Legion, during the Great Darkness Saga (though to be fair, I could only quote Levitz & Giffen on those issues). More women were on staff towards the end of the 80s than the beginning. What's sad to note is the number that subsequently departed DC, within a relatively short span. Randall and Berger had relatively long tenures, with Randall there from 1982-1991, when she went to Dark Horse and oversaw their Comics Greatest World stuff, and other projects, and Berger was there 1979 to 2013, for the longest tenure. Back Issue #54, from Twomorrows, has some interviews with Randall, Jill Thompson and Gai Simone, while Comic Book Artist #10 had an article with Marie Severin, Ramona Fradon and Trina Robbins, about their experiences, with the earlier generation of women in comics. You also have several female colorists working for both DC and Marvel, which seemed to be the one area where women were more prevalent. Tatjana Wood, Adrienne Roy, Michelle Wolfman, Glynis Wein and more my addled brain can't recall. A common thing I have seen in interviews, though, is the "boy's club" atmosphere, at various stages and that many of the women's concerns were brushed aside by their male colleagues. Hardly unique to comics but rather sad, on the whole. I don't know why I expected better of them....probably a naive idea that people publishing stories about heroes and heroic ideals might actually absorb some of that. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 3, 2023 11:31:30 GMT -5
In the post-Crisis continuity Barbara knew Batman was Bruce Wayne? 🤔 Shaxper addressed this in his following post but I'll add that The Killing Joke was in the planning stages at least as early as 1985 when it was mentioned in the Batman letter pages. I believe that it may have been intended as an Annual at that point though I can't imagine DC would have gone along with that when they read the script. So written Pre-Crisis, which is why it has so many Pre-Crisis elements in it - even Harvey Bullock wasn't being used in the main titles in 1988 - but released Post, probably due to how long it took Bolland to pencil it. I wouldn't ascribe any more meaning to the Old Look Batmobile being used other than Bolland or Moore liking it and wanting to use it. Maybe Batman was in a fun mood that day. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,812
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2023 11:34:32 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the only reason Sharon Wright was writing under Grell's name so readers would think Grell was still writing the book. She and Grell divorced and she began writing under her own name in the 80s. I enjoyed her work on Black Canary in Action Comics Weekly. Whoops. Just went back and read my old ACW reviews, and I guess I remembered that very wrong. I actually couldn't stand Wright's work. I was never a fan of Newell's either. I guess that, while I really respect DC's attempt to seek out female perspectives and voices in the mid 1980s, I also think there was some unintentional sexism in that. You wouldn't pick Bill Mantlo and David V. Reed to speak for all male characters, so why assume that Wright and Newell could? There are A list creators and there are D listers, regardless of gender. DC needed GOOD female writers; not just female writers, and I feel they made that mistake time and again. Remember Jodi Picoult on Wonder Woman? "She's a successful (non-comic) writer, and she's a woman, so of course she can write Wonder Woman." No. I even think Gail Simone was overrated and over-utilized as THE writer of DC's female characters in the early 2000s, but she was at least above average. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2023 12:00:54 GMT -5
My reasons for believing it was rape are two-fold. The first is that the entire point of this story appears to be that there are no limits to what The Joker will do. The safeguards have been disabled. Thus, if he is going to strip Barbara Gordon naked and we are going to cut away, there's every reason to believe he will take it as far as he can. If we didn't see Barbara for the rest of the story, I would have presumed he killed her too and maybe ate the flesh off her bones afterward. Just because there's no limit to what he could do doesn't mean he will break every limit every time. As despicable as the Joker is, he has never been characterized as a rapist, and since the story lacks any real indication otherwise, I don't see why it should be assumed he is a rapist, any more than if we hadn't seen Barbara for the rest of the story that we should assume he's a cannibal. Also, by this reasoning, since Alan Moore was the one writing this story as if he had no limits on what he could do, could we assume that he did intend a rape, and DC stopped him? It would fit his writing style - after all, he's written about rape before in other stories, so why not this one? But no comments by anyone involved ever suggested that Moore ever intended this (at least, nothing I've ever seen. If anyone has info otherwise, shout out), so why assume it's there? The second is Brian Bolland's comment about the cover being the most disturbing part of the story because, "the cover is the moment when the very worst thing in the story is taking place. You're seeing it from the other direction. You're looking at something that is now very familiar and iconic and all that; a bit of fun really. But, when you think about the story, you think, 'Hang on a minute; that's the moment where we probably go a little too far.'" How would photographing her naked be worse than paralyzing her for life? He almost certainly implies that something far worse happened in those moments. Going by your last sentence there, I think you are taking Bolland's statement too precisely, in terms of chronology. I don't believe Bolland was saying "And the second after Joker uncapped that camera, the worst thing in the story happened." The "moment" Bolland is referring to here is that Barbara Gordon has just been shot through the spine and is lying on the floor bleeding out, in excruciating pain, and seeing the Joker standing over her and her father a helpless prisoner who might also be tortured or killed at any second, and there's nothing she can do about it and no one there to help them. To add to that, raping Barbara would serve no purpose in the Joker's goal or hurting Batman. It's a terrible thing, but eventually a strong woman like Barbara would recover from it and move on with her life. But by crippling her, it's different. Every day that Batman sees Barbara in a wheelchair, every time he sees her unable to move on her own like everyone else, even if Barbara herself eventually comes to terms with it, it's Joker throwing it in Batman's face that he couldn't protect her. And as for this - "How would photographing her naked be worse than paralyzing her for life? He almost certainly implies that something far worse happened in those moments." - I can't speak for women or anything like that, but I'm pretty sure that the worst happened before Joker pulled out his camera, and that the majority of women would agree that as horrible as rape is, being paralyzed for life is worse. I'm not writing all this to defend Moore (I'm really not that big a fan of his), or to push some kind of "there was no rape" to defend the story, or anything like that. I'm writing this because you seem to be so stuck on this one thing that you are overlooking other things and getting a distorted picture. Yes. As a kid, I was uncomfortable with the nude photographs of her suffering, but just assumed it was being done to disturb Commissioner Gordon. Babs was a tool to drive the plots of male characters. We were never invited to consider Babs' experience, and that would include sexual assault or rape. No disrespect intended, Shax, I think you're a really smart guy and pretty good person and I appreciate your insights on things, but being "invited to consider Babs' experience, including sexual assault and rape" sounds really strange. Where I struggle is...if it doesn't also happen to the men. Seriously, if the Joker is perverse enough to rape Barbara just for the sake of being a sadistic monster, why wouldn't he be perverse enough to rape Jim, Jason (when he gets him alone in two months' time), or even Bruce? Even if we assume it did happen to Barbara, why assume it didn't happen to Gordon? Gordon did wake up naked with a collar around his neck being dragged around on a leash, and Joker had him alone for a longer time than Barbara, more than enough to drag Gordon under the big tent, as it were. But ignore all that. The point of the Joker's actions was not violation, or gratification. It was humiliation and proving his point that the world is a random, senseless place. And showing Batman that he was utterly powerless to protect the ones he loved. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2023 12:27:05 GMT -5
In the post-Crisis continuity Barbara knew Batman was Bruce Wayne? 🤔 Shaxper addressed this in his following post but I'll add that The Killing Joke was in the planning stages at least as early as 1985 when it was mentioned in the Batman letter pages. I believe that it may have been intended as an Annual at that point though I can't imagine DC would have gone along with that when they read the script. So written Pre-Crisis, which is why it has so many Pre-Crisis elements in it - even Harvey Bullock wasn't being used in the main titles in 1988 - but released Post, probably due to how long it took Bolland to pencil it. Correct, Moore wrote it in 1985. Alan Moore described it as "a year to write, two years to draw." Funny thing though... in Killing Joke, she knew he was Bruce Wayne, but in an issue of Suicide Squad a few years later, Batman talks to Barbara, who is in a wheelchair as a direct consequence of the events of KJ. But then she says Batman never let her know who he really is, and Batman offers to reveal his identity right then and there. So clearly some kind of post-crisis revision there! After all, DC couldn't let anything slide through untouched. In fact, I clearly remember that day in summer 1988 when an angry Marv Wolfman showed up at my house carrying a cheap label maker, grabbed my brand-new copy of Killing Joke, and post-crisis'ed my copy of the book right in front of me, and asked me if he knew anyone else who had a copy.  |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on May 3, 2023 13:17:22 GMT -5
Shaxper addressed this in his following post but I'll add that The Killing Joke was in the planning stages at least as early as 1985 when it was mentioned in the Batman letter pages. I believe that it may have been intended as an Annual at that point though I can't imagine DC would have gone along with that when they read the script. So written Pre-Crisis, which is why it has so many Pre-Crisis elements in it - even Harvey Bullock wasn't being used in the main titles in 1988 - but released Post, probably due to how long it took Bolland to pencil it. Correct, Moore wrote it in 1985. Alan Moore described it as "a year to write, two years to draw." Funny thing though... in Killing Joke, she knew he was Bruce Wayne, but in an issue of Suicide Squad a few years later, Batman talks to Barbara, who is in a wheelchair as a direct consequence of the events of KJ. But then she says Batman never let her know who he really is, and Batman offers to reveal his identity right then and there. So clearly some kind of post-crisis revision there! After all, DC couldn't let anything slide through untouched. In fact, I clearly remember that day in summer 1988 when an angry Marv Wolfman showed up at my house carrying a cheap label maker, grabbed my brand-new copy of Killing Joke, and post-crisis'ed my copy of the book right in front of me, and asked me if he knew anyone else who had a copy. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 It's actually a bit strange. It's totally irrelevant to the plot that Barbara knows that Batman is Bruce. It was a fix they could have made literally at the last minute. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2023 13:41:10 GMT -5
It's actually a bit strange. It's totally irrelevant to the plot that Barbara knows that Batman is Bruce. It was a fix they could have made literally at the last minute. There was no point in "fixing" it. First, the story was supposed to be - and at the time of its release was billed as - an out-of-continuity story. Second, DC had just gone through a major PR debacle by losing Alan Moore (along with alienating Frank Miller, Howard Chaykin, and very nearly losing Marv Wolfman*) shortly before the book was released. They were also just beginning to roll out V For Vendetta, which DC knew would be the last thing they would ever get from Alan Moore. They did NOT want to get any more negative publicity, or give Moore any more ammo about "altering his work", not even something so small as changing whether Barbara knew Bruce was Batman or not *Wolfman didn't quit DC, but he pretty much restricted his DC work to Titans-related material and began picking up assignments from independent publishers. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,812
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2023 14:04:14 GMT -5
Yes. As a kid, I was uncomfortable with the nude photographs of her suffering, but just assumed it was being done to disturb Commissioner Gordon. Babs was a tool to drive the plots of male characters. We were never invited to consider Babs' experience, and that would include sexual assault or rape. No disrespect intended, Shax, I think you're a really smart guy and pretty good person and I appreciate your insights on things, but being "invited to consider Babs' experience, including sexual assault and rape" sounds really strange. What part? My wording? We are not asked to consider her perspective and experiences, including whether or not she was the victim of sexual assault and/or rape. It only matters in terms of what impact it has on her father. Is that better? No naked pictures. We don't see the Joker himself removing his clothing, and though he is naked and wearing bondage attire, nothing about his nudity is ever sexualized the way those pictures of Barbara are. Plus Moore has a clear m.o. (that you've acknowledged) with using sexual violence and rape against women as a plot point. To date, I don't believe he has ever done this to a male character. Whereas I believe the Joker got gratification from committing violations that induced humiliation. Wow, that was a mouthful. |
|
doesn't Bullock tell Batman what happened as far as the evidence suggests when he visits her in the hospital? I'm pretty sure the doctor explains that she'll never walk again and Bullock adds something like, "something else you should know - we found a camera lens, we think he took some photos". Now, I'm thinking that if she were raped Bullock's little bit of additional info there would have mentioned rape - ie. "we think she was... violated too". That he makes no such comment suggests to me that there was no rape. I mean, why mention the fact that The Joker took pictures but leave out the more heinous act of rape?
