Batwoman: Greg Rucka x IGN

June 12th, 2009 by | Tags: , , , , ,

IGN interviewed Greg Rucka about the upcoming Batwoman feature in Detective Comics. There are a couple of things I wanted to pull out and call attention to.

You know, nobody wants to read, and we certainly didn’t want to write an after school special. But as you’ll see in the origin, there is a moment when she has to pay a huge price for the fact that she is gay. She has to sacrifice something of incredible value to her just to be true to herself.

Ten bucks says that she falls victim to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The concept art mentions a military background, and Rucka emphasizes that she isn’t Batwoman for the same reasons as Batman. Say if she were driven to serve, and it was something she truly believed in, and she was bounced out of the military? She gets back to Gotham, does the alcoholic thing for a while, and suits up, because she’s going to help people one way or another. Sound plausible?

But she is the first mainstream superhero who starts out of the box gay. And arguably she’s going to be the most prominent gay superhero.

What definition of mainstream is Rucka using here? There were a few characters in X-Statix a few years ago, and fifteen years ago we had what’s probably the best gay couple in comics– Donner & Blitzen, from Milestone’s Shadow Cabinet and Heroes.

Milestone isn’t obscure– it was published in cooperation with DC Comics, is fondly remembered by many, and sales don’t appear to have been too bad up until it closed its doors. What’s up with that?

As an aside– I don’t know if you noticed this, but IGN managed to misspell Renee Montoya’s name throughout the interview. Good going, guys. Way to, I don’t know, keep up the high standards.

Similar Posts:

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

10 comments to “Batwoman: Greg Rucka x IGN”

  1. The last Batgirl mini was a bullshit comicbook, so they sure aren’t worried about either the quality of bat-fem tie-ins or the importance of the actual storyline and what it contributes to the character mythos – which leaves a rather thin area of possibility about what may have caused them to pull the original Batwoman mini by an openly bisexual writer.
    Rucka IS a good writer, but future Batwoman projects are tainted for me by the non-appearance of the original mini, no matter how much I try to keep an open mind about the quality of the new series or the motivations of DC management.

    Thanks but no thanks, DC.

  2. Apollo & Midnighter were also lead characters in one of the most influential, if not biggest, comics of the 90s, Ellis’ Stormwatch/Authority run.

  3. I hope the character gets a fair shot. I think there was a lot of misplaced scorn towards her due to all the hype that, like Rucka says, wasn’t even DC’s doing, it was the media’s. There was also a sense of aggressive indifference, if that makes sense, where a lot of people online were like “why should I give a shit about the character if DC have taken so long to do something with her?”, which sorta meant that anytime she was used, they felt she was overblown because she was underused and didn’t “deserve” that treatment.
    The military thing does sound plausible from what you say, but I don’t know if it fits in with the supposed “rich daddy’s girl who doesn’t seem to be out of the closet” secret ID she was depicted with in 52. Speaking of loose ends from 52/the missing year, are they ever going to explain what happened to bring Gordon back as commish and Bullock as a detective?

  4. Keep it classy IGN.

  5. I’ll bet that Batwoman beats the new Batman up, so Rucka can cement her as badass. You know, in that thing that writers do, where they make someone else’s character look shabby to make theirs look good.

  6. @Matt:

    just to be devil’s advocate, they weren’t 100% flat out gay when they first appeared in Stormwatch, it was heavily implied to anyone with a brain but it wasn’t flat out stated till Authority launched.

  7. Nathan – But clearly Warren Ellis knew they were gay, so what does it matter? By now there’s a few mainstream superheroes who were created as gay – add Hulking and Wiccan to those already mentioned. You’re right, though, that it’s the only (possibly) accurate distinction Rucka could be making; that she’s the first character who readers knew was gay from day 1. (Now I’m intrigued to read her first appearance – does she swing in, punch a baddie and say “P.S. I’m a lesbian”?)

    It seems like a bullshit distinction to make – a character who announces (however literally) their sexuality in panel 1 is surely more open to charges of gimmickry than otherwise? I wish Rucka the best with this, though, and I’ll certainly be buying it. I’m sure his claim was more a clumsy attempt at establishing the character as “groundbreaking” than a heartfelt statement.

    P.S. That’s a great theory re: the military, David, and would make for a compelling story.

  8. mainstream could mean “outside the Wednesday crowd.” This character has the “Bat” which is as close to mainstream as any name right now.

  9. Yeah, if that’s what he meant I don’t buy that either – a Batwoman is about as recognizable as a Batgirl or a Nightwing, only without the benefit of being a recurring character on a TV show at some point. If that’s the criteria, Milligan’s X-Force were X-Men, and Hulkling starts with “Hulk”.

  10. I hope I’ll die before the Batdog.