This is just one more step along Harley Quinn's tawdry and smutty downward spiral. They took what was at first a decent female version of the Joker and decided to mutate her into a disgusting fan-service sex pot. I feel D.C. comics could seriously benefit from studying the cartoon the Burka Avenger.
The original Saturday morning children's cartoon version of Harley Quinn still exists.
Just because one version of the character exists doesn't mean that alternative versions of the same concept cannot be created and explored in different mediums. For example, while I was in my local comic book store last Friday I saw that DC had launched a limited run of Batman comics which are based on the version of Batman that appeared on televisions way back in the sixties.
Likewise not every comic book needs to be a thinly-veiled public service announcement that is suitable for children of all ages. The medium would be far poorer place if the industry were to install either officially or unofficially a new code of behaviour for comic books to best suit the easily bruised sensibilities of anonymous internet commentators.
What have they made her into? Did she kill herself at the end of Arkham City? No, she went even crazier and vowed revenge and kicked some arse!
I don't know what to think because part of my thinks she's crazy enough to do it if driven by grief but another part thinks she wouldn't, but rather go completely batshit insane and trawl the world for him even if all hope is gone.
She never learns, she keeps clinging onto false hope which I think is what has stopped her killing herself before over her unrequited love. She always goes back to him, it's more likely he would kill her without caring while trying to pull a plan off.
Harley appeals to me because I can empathise with her, as I'm sure many other women can. I've stupidly gone back to the same man again and again because I loved him that much, even though being with him was just destructive and bad for me.
There was times I did want to end it all because I was so stupid and hopeless back then but I managed to power through and so should Harley. She's a stronger character than this unless her new 52 reboot (I haven't had time to read any :<) has just changed her for the worst.
The way they've gone about it is wrong. Making light of it, then slamming in with electricals in the bath?
Bad taste IMO. If they must have a suicide, just make it dark or don't bother. DC don't shy away from some pretty dark material and making light of a suicide is just offensive to people who have lost loved ones through suicide.
I imagine there isn't many people who kill themselves by tickling a whales tongue or wearing chicken clothes to get eaten but they share the same suicidal thoughts and still want to end their life even if their techniques are different.
Naked =/= not sexualizing! ._. being naked is just a thing. How many of us sleep naked? If she was in a sexy outfit or had a buttplug shoved up her arse I would understand but people are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill over that bit. Unless what people are trying to get at is "Why naked in a bathtub with a toaster? Why doesn't she hang herself or blow her brains out?" which I understand but I'm sure whichever way she picked to kill herself, people would still moan about it.
Also, I imagine being naked would have more effect than wearing say, an outfit made out of latex or leather which she sometimes does? Isn't latex a poor conductor of electricity?
This is just one more step along Harley Quinn's tawdry and smutty downward spiral. They took what was at first a decent female version of the Joker and decided to mutate her into a disgusting fan-service sex pot. I feel D.C. comics could seriously benefit from studying the cartoon the Burka Avenger.
The original Saturday morning children's cartoon version of Harley Quinn still exists.
Just because one version of the character exists doesn't mean that alternative versions of the same concept cannot be created and explored in different mediums. For example, while I was in my local comic book store last Friday I saw that DC had launched a limited run of Batman comics which are based on the version of Batman that appeared on televisions way back in the sixties.
Likewise not every comic book needs to be a thinly-veiled public service announcement that is suitable for children of all ages. The medium would be far poorer place if the industry were to install either officially or unofficially a new code of behaviour for comic books to best suit the easily bruised sensibilities of anonymous internet commentators.
And I'd counter that by saying the medium already is a far poorer place due to the sheer amount of sensationalist hacks who seem unable or at least unwilling to write for a female character without turning her into a tawdry fan-service whore. Notice how its always female characters that get to fight crime in spandex bikinis, and get treated like a piece of meat? Where's jockstrap Batman, or banana-hammock Superman, or leather bondage boy Aquaman? If sex truly sells books why are there no skimpily dressed male heroes? Is it just possible that those ideas are patently absurd and would serve only as titillation fodder and do absolutely nothing to round out their characters? I think it's safe to say yes. But I have to wonder, if such insight is completely clear when dealing with male characters, absurdly half naked female heroines always fall into the category of "creative freedom". And not what they actually are, pornography.
This is just one more step along Harley Quinn's tawdry and smutty downward spiral. They took what was at first a decent female version of the Joker and decided to mutate her into a disgusting fan-service sex pot. I feel D.C. comics could seriously benefit from studying the cartoon the Burka Avenger.
The original Saturday morning children's cartoon version of Harley Quinn still exists.
Just because one version of the character exists doesn't mean that alternative versions of the same concept cannot be created and explored in different mediums. For example, while I was in my local comic book store last Friday I saw that DC had launched a limited run of Batman comics which are based on the version of Batman that appeared on televisions way back in the sixties.
Likewise not every comic book needs to be a thinly-veiled public service announcement that is suitable for children of all ages. The medium would be far poorer place if the industry were to install either officially or unofficially a new code of behaviour for comic books to best suit the easily bruised sensibilities of anonymous internet commentators.
And I'd counter that by saying the medium already is a far poorer place due to the sheer amount of sensationalist hacks who seem unable or at least unwilling to write for a female character without turning her into a tawdry fan-service whore. Notice how its always female characters that get to fight crime in spandex bikinis, and get treated like a piece of meat? Where's jockstrap Batman, or banana-hammock Superman, or leather bondage boy Aquaman? If sex truly sells books why are there no skimpily dressed male heroes? Is it just possible that those ideas are patently absurd and would serve only as titillation fodder and do absolutely nothing to round out their characters? I think it's safe to say yes. But I have to wonder, if such insight is completely clear when dealing with male characters, absurdly half naked female heroines always fall into the category of "creative freedom". And not what they actually are, pornography.
Check your local library for popular urban fantasy fiction, or really any other sub-genre of mommy porn. If you thought the stuff that was written for frustrated housewives was terrible, just wait and read what authors write for the frustrated modern woman. Of course, if a comic book publisher approved even a single issue wherein even a quarter of the stuff that occurred to the character of Richard Zeeman in the Anita Blake series occurred to either a Lesbian, Gay or Bi-Sexual character, people just like you would absolutely lose your shit all over it. But you're not exactly going to lose any sleep when people write about terrible shit happening to a straight character, are you?
When you've finished cleaning up all the filth in your own yard, then and only then, can you come over and talk about the shit that's been collecting in mine.
You're at least a hundred years too early to defeat me, Psychobabble.
This is just one more step along Harley Quinn's tawdry and smutty downward spiral. They took what was at first a decent female version of the Joker and decided to mutate her into a disgusting fan-service sex pot. I feel D.C. comics could seriously benefit from studying the cartoon the Burka Avenger.
The original Saturday morning children's cartoon version of Harley Quinn still exists.
Just because one version of the character exists doesn't mean that alternative versions of the same concept cannot be created and explored in different mediums. For example, while I was in my local comic book store last Friday I saw that DC had launched a limited run of Batman comics which are based on the version of Batman that appeared on televisions way back in the sixties.
Likewise not every comic book needs to be a thinly-veiled public service announcement that is suitable for children of all ages. The medium would be far poorer place if the industry were to install either officially or unofficially a new code of behaviour for comic books to best suit the easily bruised sensibilities of anonymous internet commentators.
And I'd counter that by saying the medium already is a far poorer place due to the sheer amount of sensationalist hacks who seem unable or at least unwilling to write for a female character without turning her into a tawdry fan-service whore. Notice how its always female characters that get to fight crime in spandex bikinis, and get treated like a piece of meat? Where's jockstrap Batman, or banana-hammock Superman, or leather bondage boy Aquaman? If sex truly sells books why are there no skimpily dressed male heroes? Is it just possible that those ideas are patently absurd and would serve only as titillation fodder and do absolutely nothing to round out their characters? I think it's safe to say yes. But I have to wonder, if such insight is completely clear when dealing with male characters, absurdly half naked female heroines always fall into the category of "creative freedom". And not what they actually are, pornography.
Check your local library for popular urban fantasy fiction, or really any other sub-genre of mommy porn. If you thought the stuff that was written for frustrated housewives was terrible, just wait and read what authors write for the frustrated modern woman. Of course, if a comic book publisher approved even a single issue wherein even a quarter of the stuff that occurred to the character of Richard Zeeman in the Anita Blake series occurred to either a Lesbian, Gay or Bi-Sexual character, people just like you would absolutely lose your shit all over it. But you're not exactly going to lose any sleep when people write about terrible shit happening to a straight character, are you?
When you've finished cleaning up all the filth in your own yard, then and only then, can you come over and talk about the shit that's been collecting in mine.
You're at least a hundred years too early to defeat me, Psychobabble.
What happens in other kinds of prose is completely meaningless as this conversation is about comics. More to the point it's about the perversion of decades old well established characters for sensationalist reasons. And pointing out that there is a massive gender disparity when it comes to this kind of behavior from this particular publisher. It mainly boils down to the problem that it seems most of the writers D.C. has put on these books lack any real ability to do anything meaningful or interesting with characters that have existed and been beloved for decades, so they just go straight for gratuitous shock value. The thread subject and the new and ridiculous Joker are prime examples of this behavior. It seems like they saw what worked for the Kick Ass franchise and all decided to follow suit.
And what on earth are you talking about when you bring up some imagined bias over sexual orientation. Never has my argument been about or contained any mention of that. Nice attempt to sully my credibility with your imagined prejudices however. And since we are both comic readers the filth is in both our yards. While you may be contented to stand knee deep in excrement, and watch once beloved comic characters be dragged through the muck, I'm not.
And a hundred years to early to defeat you? Wait what? What does that even mean? And whatever it means does it still apply even if I'm suited up in the bespangled leather mankini of Professor Justice?
I don't see much problem with that; you can draw the bathtub scene in ways that don't show off a naked body but imply that it is naked. Show naked shoulders and the water is your standard opaque blue tarp water we all know from video games and, well, comics.
Oddly, no one seemed to have much problem with the abusive relationship she had with the Joker.
Other then the timing i can only see a big cup of morons trying desperately to find something to get riled up over.
Wrong answer. It's about credibility. You lack it. And you will continue to lack it as long as the wider feminist movement continues to show clear demonstrable hypocrisy and bias in their choice of targets in popular culture while claiming to promote equality. When you adopt an ethical or moral decision you can't be expected to be taken at all seriously if you then insist on fighting battles only when it is convenient and in your own personal best interests to do so.
Psychobabble said:
More to the point it's about the perversion of decades old well established characters for sensationalist reasons. And pointing out that there is a massive gender disparity when it comes to this kind of behavior from this particular publisher. It mainly boils down to the problem that it seems most of the writers D.C. has put on these books lack any real ability to do anything meaningful or interesting with characters that have existed and been beloved for decades, so they just go straight for gratuitous shock value.
You seek legitimacy and affirmation of your personal political beliefs by seeking to impose your politics on the entertainment of others. You do not want Batman to go back to his original roots anymore than I do. At least I don't think you or many other modern readers would particularly enjoy reading about the casually racist adventures of wartime-era Batman for example.
Psychobabble said:
The thread subject and the new and ridiculous Joker are prime examples of this behavior. It seems like they saw what worked for the Kick Ass franchise and all decided to follow suit.
If you're truly confident that everyone else thinks that the new Joker is as ridiculous as you claim then you should be pretty confident that DC will eventually wind back the recent changes and reestablish the character's default factory setting.
Psychobabble said:
And what on earth are you talking about when you bring up some imagined bias over sexual orientation. Never has my argument been about or contained any mention of that. Nice attempt to sully my credibility with your imagined prejudices however. And since we are both comic readers the filth is in both our yards. While you may be contented to stand knee deep in excrement, and watch once beloved comic characters be dragged through the muck, I'm not.
Problem #1. The sharp change of tone on panel 4 compared to the other panels.
In each of the 4 panels, Harley Quinn attempts to kill herself. In the first one, she tries to get strike by lightning. In the second, she tries to get eaten by alligators. In the third one, she tries to get eaten by a whale. And in the fourth? She...is going to electrocute herself in the bathtub. And that is the problem. The first 3 are examples of black humor. They are so outlandish they became quite funny. This is supported by the face she is supposed to be making in those panels. In the first one, she can't believe what she is doing. In the second one, she is annoyed that her efforts have been foiled. In the third, she is having so much fun tickling the whale she forgot her original plan.
The fourth one though, "We are watching the moment before the inevitable death" "She has resigned herself to the moment that is going to happen." There is no comedy, no jokes. The isn't an ounce of black humor. She is using a believable method of suicide with a fairly serious attitude. Where's the joke?
This isn't to say people can't depict suicide or realistic suicide in comics. But it has to fit the tone. This...doesn't. The mood whiplash is strong and seems to be done in an attempt to switch the reader's viewpoint from happy to worried.
I'll give you my favourite example of pure, black humour joke.
There's a joke sketch in Robot Chicken, only a few seconds long. It begins in a maternity ward, a number of people are looking through the observation window into the room with all the sleeping babies. They're all fawning over the babies, enamoured with their cuteness. Next a nurse walks in, and nonchalantly pulls the blanket over the head, of one of the babies that appeared to be sleeping. The previously happy crowd stands there with open mouths devastated and and in shock of what they just witnessed.
A dramatic shift in tone from the relatively mundane to the disturbing is a staple of black comedy, surely you've seen this clip before.
xaszatm said:
Problem #2: Specifying Naked in the description.
Now, many of you have said "Of course she is naked in the bathtub! She in the bathtub!" You are correct. It is normal for one to assume that someone in the bathtub should be naked...so why did DC feel obligated to right that detail down? After all, their is no mention of water in this scene. After all, she's in the bathtub! Why isn't water a part of the description. The people of DC clearly thought "naked" was important to put in the description.
This next part might just be the cynic in me, but after putting the words Naked and Harley Quinn in the same paragraph, how do you think Harley Quinn will be portrayed? There are ways of showing women in bathtubs without it looking sexual, but given DC's current treatment of women, I'm not holding my breath...
There's no doubt that the intention was to encourage panels with sex appeal.
xaszatm said:
The Combined Problem
Now with both elements in place, let's see what the problem is. DC is, in the same panel, attempting to show Harley Quinn trying to commit a realistic form of suicide (especially in comparison to the three previous panels) with Harley Quinn with a resigned face (in contrast to Quinn's energetic persona in previous comics and previous panels)
That's only half the story though, she has a resigned face, with the expression "oh well, guess that?s it for me." Which plays the suicide off as being inconsequential to Harley, which is absurd, a la humour.
That expression in response to serious physical injury possibly resulting in death, combined with the suicide angle. Makes it into a dark version of Loony Tunes style humour.
xaszatm said:
with one of the specific requirements being that she be naked. This is where people are getting "DC is sexualizing suicide." And I personally agree. While this may have not been the intention, the points are there.
I really don't think it's fair to judge a work before it's even been created, purely by the suggested parameters set out for it.
xaszatm said:
Also, to address some minor detail. Criticizers aren't saying that female comic book characters should be in full clothing without the smallest of skin showing. What they are saying is the requirement of nudity in a semi-serious suicide scene is not tasteful.
Are we saying that nudity should only be reserved for serious suicide scenes? Or the other way round?
Either way it doesn't matter. It is likely to be distasteful if that means that a majority of people would find it challenging. But I see nothing inherently wrong with that.
You would think such a large company wouldn't want to risk alienating large groups with works that would only be appreciated by smaller groups, but what direction they take matters little to me or the rest of us.
Of course it could be that the whole competition is just born of ignorance, but how would we know?
Unless DC release a statement on the subject, we wouldn't till the winner is released.
I like the combination of sex, suicide and desperation. Or, potentially, vulnerability, and suicide. Nudity doesn't need to be sexual. But since it's comics, it's pretty safe to assume that's the intent.
I'm not all that keen on this example, mainly because it seems kind of inconsistent and incongruous: The fourth panel they're asking for doesn't fit with the others. The others are black humour, portraying the ridiculousness of trying to kill oneself (In obviously silly ways) and not succeeding. The last one doesn't really have it. It doesn't do the absurd, it doesn't do the failure, it doesn't do the cheek, it's just apparently a suicide, in the nude. Which I'm totally cool with, on it's own. Mixing it with the others, not so much.
I'm also concerned about the specifying of nudity. It's just really odd to specify it.
I don't see anything to get particularly outraged over (Bar the suspicion that they're killing her off), but it doesn't exactly interest me. It feels like they've got one element too many.
Of course, if they went for this:
bartholen said:
Hence why I mentioned the "in character" part. Somehow I'd see it as fitting for a nutjob like her to not try to kill herself by electrocution, but perhaps by blunt force trauma by getting hit on the head too many times by falling toasters.
Whoa, this is wrong, fucking wrong. Jeez, I know I can't do much as one person, but I can and will avoid buying DC products. Damn I was looking forward to Arhkam Origins, guess I'm not going to get it now but for good reason. Supporting this company financially and even verbally or textually is not something I can even think of doing at all. Harley Quinn was a funny villain in the Batman Animated series from the 90s, cannot imagine her naked about to kill herself. Fucked up shit.
I disagree, the title is totally misleading. It's not what the brief asks for at all.
It asks for four different pictures of a specific character, one of which has her potentially contemplating suicide in a very specific way (toaster in the bathtub, a common suicide used in comedies). However tasteful that you may or may not think that it is, it's definitely in fitting with the character.
HAD they said: "We want you to draw a naked woman committing suicide. Doesn't matter who she is, or how she does it, just make sure she's naked and dead" then it would be a totally different issue. They don't.
DC is having a bad time lately. Yesterday Batwoman's authors quit because they couldn't show her lesbian marriage. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127492-Lesbian-Marriage-Too-Tough-For-Batwoman-Authors-Leave]
What? Really? Their going to throw a tantrum over something like that? Reminds me of Frank Miller when he tried to get "Holly Terror, Batman!" published.
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Apparently, DC decided to distract us from that shitstorm with another: They want naked pictures of Harley Quinn killing herself.
Seriously though, why would anyone think that sexualizing suicide is a good thing to do? I can not begin to even attempt to comprehend how someone, let alone a company, would agree with such an atrocious idea.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
but yeah, I'd assumed she might have tried if her plan to kill Batman failed.
