Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively,
Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.
Links
Style Credit
- Style: Link to Delicious tags for Tabula Rasa
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags


no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 01:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 01:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 01:32 am (UTC)Part of me thinks one of the reasons why Snyder used the obviously pseudonym-ish name of "Harper Row" (seriously? Why not create a villain called Scribners while you're at it) is to point to how she's taking the place of another character.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 09:18 am (UTC)Hawkman has had so many bloody iterations I can believe there may well have been plans for version 452.4 at the time they said it, but something fell through, possibly they had to take the writer who was tasked with managing it to the funny farm for a nice rest because, frankly, trying to make sense of Hawk-history would drive the Joker sane.
Or the honest answer may be "This character has been frelled around with so much, that s/he's currently toxic to the DCU narrative", but that's not something that you can say as a company rep.
Even if they said "We have no plans to use them", then that would provoke the fans of the character (who probably weren't enough to save the title last time) to say there's a vendetta, or that the publishers have no confidence in the character (which may be true, but not what you say to the public). A vague "We have plans" leaves it more open to interpretation. In the words of Charley Mouse "It sounds good, without actually tying us down to any particular meaning"
Not using Billy/Captain Marvel/Shazam might have had something to do with someone at DC trying to get definition of what name they can use, or not wanting to use a character name they'd need to change within three months of starting up the title. The decision to change the name from "Captain Marvel" to "Shazam" would not be one to be taken lightly, and may have needed a lot of legal work and research.
I'm not saying that there aren't dick-ish statements being made, and quite probably a few hidden agenda, but I can't always assume that the hidden agenda is automatically maliciously derived.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 02:43 pm (UTC)Good times!
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 07:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 09:42 am (UTC)Plus, Snyder had to have been told 'no' before most of the Court stuff was even set in motion, given Harper was present in Batman #1, so it's a decision that's over twelve months old and not even worth getting angry over. As it is, I'm glad Snyder's just introduced a new female character into the titles, given so many have been shunted off - not just our two former Batgirls.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 02:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 04:38 pm (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4vI9LF4
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 08:07 pm (UTC)