Skip to content

The DC Relaunch Week Three: The Sexuality of Superheroes

19
Share

The DC Relaunch Week Three: The Sexuality of Superheroes

Home / The DC Relaunch Week Three: The Sexuality of Superheroes
Column New DCU Guide

The DC Relaunch Week Three: The Sexuality of Superheroes

By

Published on September 23, 2011

The DC Relaunch Week Three: The Woman Problem
19
Share
The DC Relaunch Week Three: The Woman Problem

This week, DC launched twelve new series, and I’m practically at a loss for words. Not because this week, overall, was considerably better or worse than the previous two weeks, but because the comics this week show a troubling schizophrenia on the part of the DC editorial team. This is the week that saw Wonder Woman #1 and Catwoman #1 debut. New series featuring the two most prominent DC female characters. One of them is magnificent, the other is abominable.

If you’ve been reading my DC Guide this summer, you know which one I expected to be good, and I was absolutely right, or, if I was wrong, then it was because the finished first issue was even better than I expected. Wonder Woman is clearly the best comic of the September relaunch, certainly the best so far, and it doesn’t look like anything next week will likely be of that level of quality.

Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang bring back the mythical roots of the Wonder Woman franchise, and, as promised, they do it in the vein of a “horror” story. There’s a genuine sense of peril in this first issue, as young Zola tries to fend off an interloper. There’s a centaur attack. A magic key. Terrible bloodshed. And a portrayal of Wonder Woman as a beautifully tough heroine. She is a warrior, but a brutally graceful one. And though Chiang seems incapable of drawing anything less than gorgeous women, the character doesn’t feel objectified. It’s a comic that I would gladly let my daughter read, even with all of the explicit violence in the comic, because it shows the nobility of heroism. And it sets the stage for a story much larger than what we see in the first twenty pages.

The reason this week is so difficult to write about isn’t because Wonder Woman is such a good first issue (though it is). It’s because Catwoman is so bad and the way it’s bad is so frustratingly illustrative of one of the major problems of the direct market comic book industry that the conversation will inevitably veer off into the direction of sexual politics and objectification and sexism and pandering. And while that conversation is necessary, and I’ll get to it soon enough, it pushes aside most other DC comics of the week, and makes them seem insignificant by comparison because they don’t play a part in the dialogue about sexuality in mainstream comics. Or, maybe even worse, it forces that lens onto the rest of the comics, even if they are mostly innocently going about their business of alien exoskeleton technology or lamentations about the good old days at the circus.

So before we get to the problem points, let’s do a quick rundown of the good and the not-so-good of the Week Three DC relaunch wave. Though Wonder Woman is the clear winner of the week, Batman #1 was a close second. Scott Snyder’s script set up a mystery and presented a more jaunty take on the caped crusader than we’ve seen in recent years, and the biggest surprise of all was the strength of Greg Capullo’s art. I significantly underestimated what he would bring to this series. It’s not going to be the case where we have to tolerate his art just to get a good Snyder story. Not at all. Capullo brings personality to the characters and his Batman has a thick, bouncy quality that’s perfect for swinging from rooftops and yet menacing enough to look impressive in the shadowy alleyways. Capullo is better than just tolerable. He’s an excellent addition to the DC stable.

After that, Birds of Prey and Blue Beetle were the next best DC titles of the week, with Duane Swierczynski writing a clean, effective introduction to the new status quo for the Birds, and giving them an explosive finale to issue one. Tony Bedard’s new Blue Beetle provides a new origin for Jaime Reyes, but the rest of the first issue will feel familiar to readers of the previous Beetle series. It’s the same old Jaime and his family, even if they look a little different under Ig Guara’s pencils and Pete Pantazis’s coloring is too overbearing. But Birds of Prey and Blue Beetle are fine first issues. Clear relaunches, easy for new readers to jump on board.

Captain Atom was better than expected, with Freddie Williams II bringing a completely new art style to the book. Where he used to use clean lines and rounded forms, Williams II brings an inky blackness to this comic, providing far more interesting textures on every page than we’ve ever seen from him. This is a nice-looking comic, and though the story errs on the ponderous side, it’s a huge improvement from J. T. Krul’s other DC relaunch book, the bland and lifeless Green Arrow from Week One.

Click to enlargePlenty of other issues this week were completely readable, though I wouldn’t go out of my way to recommend any of them. Nightwing is action-packed and filled with circus references. DC Universe Presents: Deadman is somber and attempts to make some kind of statement about identity and it’s another comic filled with circus references. Supergirl looks pretty good, but the story moves too slowly. Green Lantern Corps is alternatively hammy and shocking, and that’s not a pleasant tonal mix. Legion of Super-Heroes may have some potential, but it’s hard to tell beneath all the characters even I don’t care much about and the coloring that looks even too garish for a Wildstorm video game spin-off comic.

Then we get to Red Hood and the Outlaws, one of the few brand-new concepts for the September relaunch, even if it’s really just a collection of three seemingly random superheroes. If Catwoman #1 is going to be Exhibit A in my forthcoming “here’s where everything goes wrong” diatribe (coming before the end of this week’s post!), then Red Hood is surely Exhibit B. It’s not quite as horrifyingly tasteless as Catwoman, but maybe that’s because I can see an element of parody behind it, whether intentional or not. In Red Hood and the Outlaws #1, we get to see the rebooted Starfire. The former long-time member of the Teen Titans is now presented as a dim-witted alien sexpot who cannot tell one human male from another. She’s pure male fantasy. A beautiful, hyper-sexualized woman who openly solicits sex without any emotional strings attached. That happens on the page by the way. No subtle innuendo from Scott Lobdell. No dignified visual presentations of the character by Kennth Rocafort.

Yet, I can’t help but read it as a commentary on the implicit sexuality of the character dating back to the Marv Wolfman/George Perez days. In those comics from 25+ years ago, Starfire was a flying, glowing Barbarella with a naïve demeanor. There was no doubt that she was presented, within the story and to the reader, as a sex object, even if it was done in a more innocent manner than we see here. It’s difficult to raise objections to the characterization of Starfire when this is just an exaggerated, more explicit version of who she was before. It’s an interpretation that identifies the elephant in the room and labels it “elephant, in room, pay attention, it’s sexy and dumb.”

It still makes for a sleazy, insipid comic though.

Not as sleazy or insipid as Catwoman #1, a comic which I quite erroneously predicted would be “clean family fun” when I previewed the series this summer based on initial speculation and Judd Winick’s own statements. The cover certainly hints at what’s inside—that’s no metaphorical image on that issue #1 cover, just a skanky-looking Catwoman dripping jewels on her breasts. Keep this in mind: I’ve read plenty of Judd Winick comics, and I have mostly disliked them all, but this first issue might be the most off-putting thing he’s ever written. Like Red Hood, it takes the implicit and makes it explicit, but such a move does not make for a comic that you’d actually want to read.

Unless you shop at a comic book store, where, when asked about this week’s DC books, and I mentioned that Catwoman was like DC’s version of softcore porn, the two male customers in the store immediately rushed over and pulled copies of issue #1 off the shelf and purchased them. No joke. So it’s not as if Judd Winick and artist Guillem March’s take on the character will necessarily prove to be unpopular. It seems that the concept of a softcore Catwoman has its appeal in certain quarters, namely the quarters where comic book readers shop for monthly comic books, secretly hoping that Catwoman and Batman will finally get explicitly sexual, for several pages.

So what exactly is my problem with this comic that begins with a four page sequence depicting Catwoman running from bad guys while trying to get dressed and ends with her undressing Batman with the internal monologue stating, “…it doesn’t take long…and most of the costumes stay on”? Is it that the comic dares to show the sexuality behind the superhero façade? Or the comic panders to the direct market audience so overtly—an audience that has sustained the careers of Billy Tucci and Jim Balent and countless others of the sort? Or that it’s just a poorly executed comic?

Can I choose all three? Is that allowed?

Click to enlarge
Because, yes, it does show the sexuality behind the superhero façade, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. The Catwoman character is predicated on the sexual tension between her and Batman, and while it may be daring to completely invalidate that by actually consummating their relationship in the opening issue, it also turns the character into nothing but a fetishized object. She is not even a character in this first issue, just an embodiment of sexuality and violence. Click to enlarge

And it panders, like crazy. Maybe it aims to be some mature Sex and the City or True Blood version of the DC Universe, but it falls more in the range of, “ooh, we’re being naughty.” It’s not a more sophisticated take on the characters or concepts (and maybe Sex and the City and True Blood aren’t either), it’s just more overt. Not clever, just semi-nude and aggressive about it.

And, finally, it’s just not a good comic book story. Guillem March clearly has style, and his art is the only possible interesting thing about this opening issue, particularly his use of color, but his art is in the service of a story that’s corrupt to the core. It has no substance beyond its titillation. It doesn’t have any particularly interesting storytelling structure, it doesn’t give the characters anything worthwhile to say, and the new supporting cast that’s introduced is as doll-like as the rest of the “people” in the story.

Catwoman #1 is a terrible, soulless comic book.

And it came out from the same company, in the same week, as the equally violent yet well-crafted, elegant, impressive Wonder Woman #1.

“Here’s how it’s done!” shout Azzarello and Chiang.

“Girls are for sex!” reply Winick and March. And Scott Lobdell cheers for joy.


Tim Callahan would like to remind you that you should really check out Wonder Woman #1 and Batman #1, along with the best of previous weeks, like Frankenstein, Animal Man, Swamp Thing, and Batwoman. Erase Catwoman from your mind, if you can.

About the Author

Tim Callahan

Author

In addition to writing about comics for Tor.com, Tim writes the weekly "When Words Collide" column at Comic Book Resources and is the author of Grant Morrison: The Early Years and the editor of Teenagers from the Future. He sometimes blogs at geniusboyfiremelon.blogspot.com, although these days he tends to post his fleeting but surely incisive comic book thoughts as TimCallahan on Twitter.
Learn More About Tim
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
13 years ago

Wonder Woman was one of the DC comics I hadn’t really considered until I read that it was heavier on the myth than on the super-heroics; I picked it up yesterday & was glad that I did. Catwoman wasn’t really on the list, tho I feel the urge to look now. The same urge I get to rubberneck when there’s an accident on 95 or to try for the sly over-the-shoulder glance when “that girl” walks into the bar…

Avatar
coryj
13 years ago

Schizophrenic indeed. That perfectly describes the DC Relaunch. But all the good issues were easy to predict because they were all done by great creators.

Scott Snyder
Jeff Lemire
Brian Azzarello
Grant Morrison

What exactly was DC trying to prove with, who are in my opinion, substandard creators on all these new number 1’s? JLA was bad, Green Lantern was badly written, Aquaman is unreadable, Detective Comics is pointless, Nightwing is so boring I don’t even remember what it was about.

Chad Nevett is right about Geoff Johns. I can’t believe Johns ever got a job writing comics, let alone getting to the top of the heap at DC.

Avatar
coryj
13 years ago

But, yes, WONDER WOMAN was awesome. I hope Azzarello stays on for a good while.

Avatar
13 years ago

Heh.

“Click to enlarge.”

Heheh.

Avatar
Jack Stark
13 years ago

This whole Catwoman debacle seems, to me, as prudishness dressed up as feminism – wonder woman is a great empowering example if she is presented as a cold, emotionally distant soldier.

But show catwoman as a woman who actually likes sex? Oh, now she’s a “skank”. Heavens forbid if an adult woman is treated as a sexual being – a woman that’s interested in casual sex is an ‘object’ now? Sexuality is demeaning? Isn’t a woman entitled to use her body any way she may want to?

Yes, it is pandering. The people buying it enjoy sex (or would like to have some) too, and so will your hypothetical daughter. But this relaunch has been steeped in another type of pandering that is a lot more damaging (especially to young people), the massive use of good ol’ hyperviolence as a way to drive sales. And no one bats an eye to that.

So, it’s fine if you wanna show something like detective comics #1, but showing some tits is completely inimaginable. Sex isn’t dirty or demeaning – your sanctimonius hypocrisy is.

Avatar
Michael M. Jones
13 years ago

It was good to see what you thought of these series. I reviewed this week’s offerings as well, or at least as many as I picked up.

My main objection with Catwoman isn’t that she’s having sex. Hell, I don’t even care that she’s having sex with Batman. It seems wrong, somehow, to show the two of them getting it on, semi-anonymously, mostly in costume, on a rooftop in a moment of angry passion. And showing it so blatantly. Batman’s one of DC’s holy trinity, after all, and unlike certain other heroes, isn’t usually influenced by his appetites. It the batsuit, he’s more than human, and leaves things like the libido at the door. Or at least that’s how I always pictured it. I guess he has needs too.

As for Red Hood and the Outlaws, it makes me sad that they were able to improve both Roy Harper and Jason Todd and redeem some of their less dignified portrayals of late, and at the same time they erased so much of what made Starfire an interesting character. Earthlings all look alike, huh? Sigh.

Avatar
13 years ago

Starfire was always a weird mix of ingenue and sexpot, but her deep emotional involvement with her friends and her lovers was an integral part of her character from NTT #1 onward. The presentation in Red Hood #1 isn’t a parodic exaggeration; it’s a complete reversal.

And the problem with Catwoman isn’t that she’s having sex (Bruce and Selina were clearly having sex on Earth-1 30 years ago); the problem is that Catwoman is presented for pages at a time as a purely sexualized object rather than a sexual agent. Laura Hudson’s brilliant essay points out that for the first several pages, we see sexualized, scattered, barely clothed parts of Selina’s body but never see her in full, or her face, until after we’ve been treated to a tour of all of her secondary sexual characteristics.

There’s a difference between “sexually liberated woman” and “sex toy”, and both of these comics know which side of the line they’re on.

Avatar
seth e.
13 years ago

womzilla beat me by seconds! to recommending Laura Hudson’s essay. Not much to add, but with the exception of a couple of fun titles, the idea that this reboot has any intention of reaching out to new readers is looking more and more like feeble lip service.

Avatar
Alger Newberry
13 years ago

Seriously? Now don’t get me wrong. I think Brian Azzarello is genius writer and I love pretty much everything of his I have been able to get my hands on. I fell in love with Cliff Chiang’s art from his work on the 90’s Vertigo miniseries “Beware the Creeper.” They put out a quality issue that I would get. But lets be honest. Narratively speaking, “Catwoman” was leaps and bounds above “Wonder Woman.” So much so, it was kind of depressing. In the long run I know Azzarello will pull it out, but “Catwoman” was right out of the gate clear and concise, marrying exciting images of Catwoman running from thugs who want her dead, with in depth introspection that key us into what is going on, how these events came into motion, and more importantly how the character feels. We get to know Selina Kyle pretty well. In “Wonder Woman” that marriage of elements I described above is an accrimonious divorce. There are allot of well plotted, well drawn action sequences, but there is no explanation of events or exposition of plot in general. Just a bunch of frantic events thrown at the reader leaving us to pick up the pieces. The most damning is a third absense: characterization. I have friends who are jumping on this title totally fresh and they, like myself, have no idea who this character is. You say that she is a female warrior who displays strong femininity, and I’ll agree that is true, topically. We only see her wake up strangling this Zola girl, get up, throw on some clothes, and then cut up two demon centaurs. There is no interaction, or showing of her as anything but an Amazonian warrior. They mention her “father,” but do not take the time to tell us if he is Zeus or how her origin differs from her original genesis from clay. For all we know, once her armor comes off, she might be an even bigger “skank” than Selina. What your review is pretty much saying is that women should be seen and not “gotten to know” like Wonder Woman’s first issue which lacked any characterization. “Catwoman” which was demonized was a book that dared to show a woman intimately, displaying her thoughts, her desires, her drives (yes, even her sexuality, Heaven forbid), and her past. But the thing about it was it felt real. Selina felt like women I have met. Maybe that’s a bad thing. Maybe we need to go back to the 60’s when women knew how to be behave and what their place was. Being strong isn’t just putting on armor and dismembering people like Diana. Stength is being who you are, unapologetically, and not bowing to others’ constraints. Its sad when honesty and independence are construed as “bad writing.”

Avatar
13 years ago

Oh jeez, there’s a bit of sex (or rather something resembling a little hint of sex) inside and Americans pee their pants out of shock…what an outrage !!!
Every superhero/female superhero runs around in tights….but don’t you dare show a nipple (yeah, talking about you too Janet Jackson) and the whole country goes bollocks. Show all the violence you want, the bloodier, the better…….but no titties people, that’s not done.
And what the hell are we even talking about with this Catwoman comic…..its quality storywise/artwise left open for debate and nothing to do with “the problem” at hand.

You are definitely right, Wonder woman is way more elegant with her big fat boobs almost falling out of her American-flag clad costume. And I’m sure that kid in above picture is just looking at her innocent brown eyes instead of these mommas almost banging him in the face……elegant indeed. But hey, luckily the story is better too.

Avatar
Justus GS
13 years ago

*Sigh*

The issue isn’t that women are being shown having sex, or being promiscuous, or even that sex is occurring. It’s that women are being shown as objects. Catwoman is shown for two pages as gratuitous fanservice in red laungere before we even see her face. We see her breasts and her butt before we even see what her face looks like. Women should have sex however they see fit (consentually, of course). But Catwoman is not being drawn as a strong, positive character, she’s being drawn as a male fantasy for the straight male readers that make up most of the audience.

Here’s another article on the subject that I found interesting.
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/22/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/

Avatar
Pendard
13 years ago

I’m a little confused by why everyone is so surprised that Batman and Catwoman are sleeping together. I mean, they were pretty clearly hooking up in Batman, Inc. #1, and the Batman titles in the new DC Universe (along with Green Lantern) are continuing unaltered. So why all the shock?

I didn’t buy Catwoman and I don’t plan to. I suppose it could be done so tastelessly that its offensive, like the horrible Batman/Black Canary hookup in All Star Batman and Robin — but that was bad because it was written in a ridiculous way, not because those two characters had sex. I can’t see what’s so wrong about exploring Catwoman’s sexuality, and her sexual relationship with Batman. The character has been portrayed as a dominatrix, as Batman’s wife on Earth-2, as a bullwhip wielding pyscho in black vinyl who can’t stop dry humping Batman in Batman Returns, and as a friend with benefits in recent Batman titles. This is hardly the first time the topic has come up. What am I missing?

Avatar
Simmered
13 years ago

Tim, you WAY oversold Wonder Woman for me. Maybe I would’ve liked it more if you hadn’t called it the best of the launch, but it’s definitely not.

Obviously, best of the week, though.

StephenAryan
StephenAryan
13 years ago

I’m very puzzled by some of the responses to this article. Especially those like coryj who can apparently travel in time as he has already read Aquaman even though it doesn’t come out until next week. Amazing stuff. Tell us all your secret.

I think Azzarello works best on his creator owned titles, like 100 Bullets. I didn’t enjoy or buy into his interpretation of Superman or Batman, so I’m struggling to build up enough enthusiasm to read this. How long he stays on the book will definitely depend on the fan response as there’s already been one shuffle with JT Krul stepping off Green Arrow, which has been panned by most readers.

With 52 books to launch in one month there were always going to be a couple of titles that slipped through, and not just those where the quality is up for debate. DC took a huge gamble and they needed to do something, and so far the response has been incredibly positive. I just hope the really hideous stuff doesn’t take the shine off DC comics in general for old, and more importantly, new readers because without them the industry would continue to shrink.

Avatar
Joe Parrish
13 years ago

Tim, I really think you are wrong as well, thought yes they could have shown a little less skin, being a Catwoman fan forever this was one of the best takes I have seen in a long time. Why you might ask because if you would get past the fact that she was half dressed and having sex, you would see that she is finally back to being Selina Kyle, and as much as you don’t like it she has always been a sexual creature like it or not, she has used her femine wiles since Batman 1 back in the forties to get Batman and other men to do what they want, and if showing a little skin gets her close enough to her prey to take care of them to steal or to hurt them like they hurt her in a fight you use everything you can to win. Could it be used a little less probably and most likely should but come on you could not have read an issue of Catwoman before if you did not know she would do this and it takes nothing away from her being a strong woman. I have not read Wonder Woman and though I enjoy Brian’s writing and feel he did this to try something out of his usual norm, I have to say I would rather have him writing one of his books not Wonder Woman. Art wise I thought it was weaker than Catwoman as well and thought Chiang art work has been better elsewhere and really find it funny when you are so angry about how Catwoman is dressed when Wonder Woman is clearly nude in one scene when she drops her sheet to get up.

MatthewB
13 years ago

So much discussion of the new Catwoman devolves into dressed-up versions of “But I like it, so it must be good.” No one wants to admit that something they like might not be good (in both the aesthetic and ethical senses) but sometimes it’s true.

Avatar
Joe Parrish
13 years ago

Much like MatthewB says “But I like it, so it must be good.”, yeah that is true however Just because everyone seems to hate it does not mean it is bad. The opening scene that seems to cause the most problems for everyone to me is she is escaping her home and like it or not was not fully dressed, I don’t know about you but if I had someone trying to break into my home I am sure I am not going to yell wait a minute I need to finish getting dressed. Ed Brubaker and Darwyn Cooke had her half nude more than once, and what you think of as pornographic I have to say this is not it. Where Wonderwoman fully nude in the scene I looked at, killing which even with her being an Amazon is not part of her and with art that was bleah at best. And to finish I found it funny in all of the bad reviews of Catwoman I read one really took the cake for me when IGN did not like it for many of the reasons mentioned yet even though he may have nothing to do with it being badmouthed for showing some skin on the same page as an ad for there Babe of the day. This book started a new story, started a new caper, and made me want to read more where even with the name of Brian Azzarello could not make me want this book, and she is usually in a one piece all the time.

MatthewB
13 years ago

@18. Joe Parrish – Yes, she’s fleeing her home, but let’s not pretend the writer and artists just stumbled onto that scene as it was already in motion. She could have been wearing a long flannel nightgown or baggy sweatpants. The way she is depicted is a carefully calculated choice. Porn? No, not by most people’s standards, but cheap, pandering fanservice – absolutely.

Avatar
13 years ago

MatthewB@17 – The rest of the discussion appears to be “But Catwoman’s character has always been objectifying porntastic fanboy pandering! It’s empowering!” And apparently that’s supposed to be true of all the female DC characters, since we’ve already seen the same argument applied to Starfire and Wonder Woman.