My thoughts on this nonsense...


http://nitzthebloody.blogspot.com/2011/06/gail-simone-talks-batgirl-and-why-able.html

"I've encountered people, even people with disabilities who want to see Babs healed and out of the chair. I tend not to see them as people whose opinions are worth acknowledging. Their opinion is rooted in escapist wish fulfillment, trying to imagine a world where disabling injuries can be magically healed."

What an arrogant, douchebaggy thing to type. You totally disregard people's desire to have hope for a fictional character to succeed in overcoming impossible odds, which at its essence is what superheroes are about.


I'm usually not a Simone fan, but I read the Newsarama article and it was enough to win me over. I'll be picking up Batgirl #1 in September.

You've written a beautiful article. I agree 100% with you.
Sure, I love and miss Babs as Batgirl, but there are some changes that should never revert.
I am glad Hal and Barry are back. I'm glad they brought back the Multiverse, the Anti-Monitor and the Green Lantern Corps.

Yes, I missed all of those and am a big Silver Age fan boy. But there are still plenty of stories they could mine from those concepts. And no, I do not want to lose Wally or Kyle in the process.

But Barbra Gordon's change, while tragic, became a strong iconic symbol for the handicapped everywhere. She grew into something far more important than all those other things I just mentioned. It became a necessity to keep her that way.

Now, I still believe this whole reboot is a gimmick. But I could be wrong. If it's real, several things will revert back after the readers vote by keeping their cash. I pray this reverts back.
Again, I LOVE Barb in the bat suit, but it has to be a flashback or alternate Earth.

The main Barb HAS to remain crippled and strong, an example to all.

I think the point you make would have been better expressed without insulting Nitz.

My own views on this are coloured somewhat by my dislike for second-string knockoff characters who are only there to "extend the brand". Iron Man sells? Put Jim Rhodes in armour and he can be an "almost as good as Tony Stark" armoured warrior. People read Superman? Let's have a girl version who's nearly as strong, smart, and heroic.

The problem is, to protect the principal character, who is usually by default the best-selling and most popular charcter, that's who has to be "top hero" when the chips are down. When Luthor's taken over the world it's not Supergirl everyone's looking in the sky for. There comes a time when the "knock off" hero has to step aside when it's time for the big boys to play. Dramatic neccessity.

Worse, because most Marvel and DC icons were created in the 40s to 60s they're almost all white and male and mostly American. Nearly all "major" female heroes and many non-white heroes are versions of already established white male ones. Don't believe me? Ask Supergirl, Batgirl, Huntress, Hawkgirl, Zatanna, She-Hulk, Ms Marvel, the Wasp...

Or to put it another way: count the number of male versions of existing female superheroes there are, or how many white heroes took on the costumes identities originally established by non-white ones. It won't take long.

Then we come to Barbara Gordon. She started out as the worst kind off knock-off; mousy librarian with a Batman crush dressed like her hero to emulate him. Her costume was a feminised version of his, her skill set a cut-down version of his. Even her early rogues gallery was female version of Batman's, like the Joker's daughter. Worse, she lacked Batman's compelling origin motivations. Babs fought crime because her dad was a cop, because she was a bored librarian, and because she thought the dark knight was cute.

Then a bad thing happened to her. As I recall The Killing Joke doesn't go into what Joker does to her, except it involved shooting her in the belly, stripping her off, and taking some photographs. It was a nasty scene - I can see why it provoked a feminist backlash although it's tame by today's standards - all the more so because it involved the darkest side of Batman's world finally catching up with one of the tweeist parts.

But from that writers constructed a new status quo for Barbara. Oracle does things that Batman doesn't in ways he doesn't. She occupies a unique corner of the DC universe as characters like Nick Fury or Dr Strange do at Marvel, turning up to offer an assist to further the plot, bringing a very specialist input that they do better than anybody else. Barbara got out from under the shadow of the bat and became something unique driven by a dark origin to trancend her tragedy.

Her disability was a key part of that. There are dozens, probably hundreds of heroes running around kicking bad guys. There are very few who live with a handicap and manage to be heroes in spite of it. Surely we can spare one character to be a great and present reminder that disability doesn't have to define one?

Yet many writers seem to have a problem with this. How many times have Xavier's legs been cured now? I can see the "wish fulfillment" of seeing Barbara cured - she's a character we like and it would make her happy - but after that story, what then? Why not fix Banner's Hulk control problem, and Cyclops' eye beam curse, and Daredevil's sight? Why not resurrect Thomas and Martha Wayne so Bruce feels happier? Sometimes it is the tragedy of a character's situation that makes them compelling; remove the problem and you remove the unique appeal.

In summary, I think this is a retrogressive step. Unique Oracle becomes generic second-tier Batgirl. I hope that the creators can and do tell great stories with her; I fear that all they'll manage after a short-term win is to condemn Barbara to obscurity again - or another tragic accident.

Recovering from a severe sports injury through hard physical training and rebuilding muscles that atrophied would qualify as overcoming impossible odds. Using a purple ray or other deus ex machina to fix an otherwise irreparable spinal injury is an easy fix. It doesn't resolve the conflicts Barbara has to face, it just removes them.

I should also note that the challenges posed by disabilities can be as much social as they are physical. There's a heavy stigma attached to any impairment, and having fleshed-out sympathetic primary characters like Barbara in Birds of Prey is an important tool to combat societal prejudice and help the disabled receive better treatment in day-to-day life.

Meaning what exactly? We don't know how she's regaining the use of her legs, or if she actually ever lost them in the first place. So this point has nothing to do with my issue with what you said.






Again nothing to do with my problem with what you posted.

Obviously I didn't. How about you don't advise me how to post and I'll do the same for you?

You were talking about how I was apparently arrogant for dismissing people who want to see Barbara overcome her paralysis. I'm working under the assumption of that hypothetical scenario(which is very possible, and something Simone supports due to her complaints about how other characters recover from death or permanent injury), and addressing the asinine nature of that escapist fantasy, the kind that pretends disability is just an inconvenience to be fixed by deus ex machina.

Until scientists in reality invent the purple ray, that's not going to happen. And even if it did, many people with disabilities see their conditions as a badge of pride, something that has made and continues to make them better people.

If this is a complete reboot that makes an Ultimate-style DC Universe, I'm wouldn't be as opposed to Barbara Gordon returning to just being Batgirl, though I doubt we'll see a disabled character gain equal prominence.

..."douchebaggy and arrogant".... Nitz is entitled to his opinion. If you disagree with him, perhaps you could have told him in a civil manner that didn't leave you looking like a total d-bag in return.

The guy you only posts when he sees some perceived injustice.

Fuck you, "Sheriff".

Well, you probably shouldn't assume so much then.

Well, then: you can just blow me.

Don't know what's making you so angry in your life, but hope you resolve it and move on.

I'm not trying to be a "sheriff". Nitz is my friend and I thought you were being an ass to him completely unprovoked. The guy was stating an opinion and you attacked him.

Also, don't try to pull any cards on me. I've been posting here since 1998. Sorry if you caught me during my latter lurking years, newbie.

Yes, but quality counts more than quantity, you hack.

Right. And I'm sure you know all about quality.

You can say whatever you want about my writing, but I see you're insulting Ian below too (this place must not mean too much to you the way you're telling every longtime poster to "f off") and I've seen your stuff and I've seen Ian's stuff and he can write rings around you. He's also not a complete psychopath too.

nt