When the news broke earlier that co-writers JH Williams II AND W. Haden Blackman (and not just Williams, as some sites reported) had quit Batwoman due to editorial interference, it was clearly going to be a big issue for the day. What’s been most worrying THOUGH is how quickly people have attempted to spin this into a story about homophobia — rather than a story which is more accurately about editorial edict.Both are obviously issues, but they have different ramifications. By focusing on an issue which is only tangentially related to the real issue, we’re doing Batwoman’s creative team and even DC Comics a major disservice. This isn’t an outright attack on homosexuality, but an attack on creator-control. It’s important that we focus on what’s actually going on here, rather than escalating a false claim about DC as a company.
In the joint letter posted to their websites this morning, the co-writers specifically noted that their reason for leaving the book was because of editorial differences. They included several examples of such differences, which meant several of their storylines had to be altered – their planned Killer Croc origin storyline which had been in the works for months, their current arc on the series…. and the wedding between Batwoman and her fiancee Maggie Sawyer.
This has been the part of the letter most people have brought attention to. Yet when asked immediately afterwards by Andy Khouri, Williams made it clear that DC were unhappy with the MARRIAGE part of the storyline, rather than the GAY part.
@andykhouri But must clarify- was never put to us as being anti-gay marriage.
— J.H. Williams III (@JHWilliamsIII) September 5, 2013
This has been reiterated by DC themselves – when I asked them for comment, they sent the following response:
As acknowledged by the creators involved, the editorial differences with the writers of BATWOMAN had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character.
While DC has been guilty of many things, an anti-gay agenda hasn’t been one of them in recent years. Batwoman has been one of their most critically acclaimed books (making the creative change even tougher to take) winning several GLAAD awards along the way. While the gay character Bunker in Teen Titans hasn’t been without problematic portrayals, he was also an attempt to integrate the DCU.
On Twitter, the issue was discussed by Williams, journalist Andy Khouri and out writer Jim McCann:
While potential homophobia is a legit issue to question, it doesn’t seem to be the case, and it has diverted attention from what the real problem here would be – that DC appear to have an editorial system which is strangling creators, and forcing them to leave. Andy Diggle, Gail Simone, Joshua Hale Fialkov, Rob Liefeld and more have spoken at their unhappiness with DC’s editorial team over the last year, with the majority of them quitting books because of the problems. It’s got to the point where one prominent DC writer actually DMs his friends to say that his script hasn’t been edited.
Dark Horse’s Scott Allie also took to Twitter for a series of much-recommended posts about the subject, which you can find here. He points out that an anti-marriage policy isn’t a bad policy for a company to have – the problem is when editors don’t implement policy clearly. As has been stated by the creators but subsequently overlooked by many, the issue here is that DC’s editors allowed the story to move forward, when they knew ultimately it wouldn’t be allowed to go anywhere. As noted in conversation with Gail Simone:
@GailSimone@theJohnChihak Gail is right, but it still should not be a story to be avoided, but embraced fully.
— J.H. Williams III (@JHWilliamsIII) September 5, 2013
While it’s tempting to dump on DC for everything they do, it’s important to stick to the subject here, a problem which is real and tangible, rather than a problem being trumpeted by various well-meaning people. LGBT representation is an important issue – but it’s a tangential aspect of this storyline, rather than the main focus.
I find difficult to say if I would agree or disagree with DC comics positions hearing just one side of the story ( the creative team side ). From their description the storyline was approved and changed on the last minute disregarding consequences or previous printed issues leading to it.
What sounds as a fair criticism, not unheard of, about editorial decisions made by the wrong reasons that won’t lead to a final better product.
But maybe the DC editors had other more pressing issues and reasons why they opted out of it? We don’t know, there is not that side of the story to compare and make an informed opinion.
Potentially they could even be right
Loose guidelines are fine, but if DC wants strict guidelines and more particular stories told, then the editors should write the books. They would save money that way.
————————————————————————————————-
Hey, Mike, things are bad enough as it is. Please don’t give those editors any ideas. Next thing you know, Snyder’ll be replaced on Batman by ‘ol Bobby Harris himself.
How far up their asses is are the heads of DC editorial?
This is like in if in 2008 they had a black president in the running for office and losing or having him in office and getting killed in a big crossover, then turning around and telling fans to to be up set and that they “aren’t against black presidents or President Obama, they’re against presidents in general.”
Utter f*&#ing cop out.
I’m not Marvel fan anymore either, but they’ve put gay couples in the center of their books and covers. Freaking Archie has has a gay wedding issue. Archie is more with the damn times than DC. Plus DC started this reboot saying, first sentence of their first news article, that it was about diversity. Guess that was all a load of batguano. Sticking a black guy on the Justice League was enough for them, I guess. (Oh and DC just revealed the black guy was the traitor on the team. BRILLIANT!)
The biggest thing in this article to me is that people remember Bunker. joking aside, this *were with the times* kind of story telling has always been grating for me(its a very sterile wink to the reader) and this debacle is rather silly. grain of salt and move on.
“(Oh and DC just revealed the black guy was the traitor on the team. BRILLIANT!)”
Unless we were reading completely different books, uh…no they didn’t.
You know what’s grating and dumb to me? Not being with the times and vetoing the logical conclusion to a story you’ve set up and telling a writer they can’t continue with the natural progression of the story you already published and got publicity for. How is that not the silly thing to talk about? Why is talking about it something that is silly and something that we should ‘move on’ about?
Really. Isn’t a company that just sticks its head up its own ass and ignore trends in its own field and America as a whole something to complain about? Again, Archie is a more proactive company aware of modern America than DC Comics. Now I often argue that DC is about traditional heroes and heroism. Part of that heroism of DC is fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. In recent years it has been shown across the country that allowing gay marriage is part of that. Though I guess DC isn’t interested in that.
Instead let’s have a month of overpriced 3D covers featuring creepy villains and have a content drawing Harley Quinn naked and trying to kill herself. That sounds more like what America wants to DC? Brilliant.
Wow, a Big 2 company is anti-changing-the-status-quo. Is water still wet?
Xenos, I’ve given up on Marvel/DC , they clearly enjoy shooting themselves in the foot and i’m going to save my blood pressure for better things. how is this a surprise to anyone when they were not too long talking about wanting a more editorial writing approach so they can better “Pivot”. This is a continuation of DC being DC and I’m not buying into the artificial drama. It’s their IP and their choice to go in whatever direction they want. Vote with your wallet(Econ 101: value is subjective) if you don’t like it, no need to rally the “activists” for another hackneyed and pointless cause.
“This is like in if in 2008 they had a black president in the running for office and losing or having him in office and getting killed in a big crossover, then turning around and telling fans to to be up set and that they “aren’t against black presidents or President Obama, they’re against presidents in general.””
YES, THAT’s what this is like! Or it’s like if they wrote a story about a black president coming into office only to preside over an even greater economic downturn for the black community, and then become a warmonger.
Oh wait…
Jason, we wrote naked for the artist, because Harley is in a bath tub, and we did not want her wearing the Harley suit. Also, the page is over the top humor and she is talking to the reader how silly she feels. Make sense?
[...] Let’s get this straight: DC is anti marriage, not anti GAY marriage (comicsbeat.com) [...]
Just stumbled across this today…any future articles about creative churn and editorial meddling at DC could probably just link to this exhaustive, constantly updated list and save time.
http://guttersandpanels.com/gutters-and-panels/2013/3/23/the-new-52-timeline-of-departures
This all says more about the “creators” who stay at DC doesn’t it? The term “creators” gets used pretty liberally around here.
Vic Jorry your comments are fantastic and completely reinforce my concept of the halfwits that read DC.
Isn’t the suggestion that blocking a lesbian from getting married (rather than, say, engage in a legal civil union) isn’t about the sexuality of the character a bit disingenuous?
I mean it would be one thing if the standard of DC’s super heroines are lesbians.
But, this edict comes down particularly hard on DC’s lesbian superheroines, and more especially on DC”s lesbian characters with their own monthly title. Because, quite frankly, they’re not quite so represented.
And so, you can’t hardly take it on face value that an anti-marriage policy sans the character’s sexuality per se is what drove this decision. After all, many, many of DC’s characters have been married, even with the policy in full effect. But, how many of those are lesbians?
Rather, of the universe of all of DC’s lesbian superheroines, are any of them married? Batwoman was clearly a reasonable choice.
Silly But True