Interesting subtext between Huntress and the Question....

[richardak]

In the recent Question back-up feature in Detective Comics, the new Question, Renee Montoya, teamed up with the Huntress, Helena Bertinelli.  What makes this interesting is that, while they don't know each other all that well, they were both close, at different times, with the previous Question.  This leads to what, to me at least, is a very interesting conversation between the two of them:


What makes this such an interesting conversation is that Helena is saying that Charlie/Vic tried to save her, and succeeded.  It must be noted that she measures this success in terms of her physical and emotional well-being: she's still here.  Now consider this scan from Batman/Huntress: Cry for Blood, which was, as far as I know, the last meeting between Helena and Charlie/Vic:

Here, Helena has just successfully murdered Santo Cassamento, and in such a way that the law can't touch her.  Charlie is especially angry because she tricked him into helping her, in such a way and so that neither he, nor Batman, Robin, Nightwing, nor Oracle would realize what she was up to until it was too late.  Charlie is damning her, and she insists that she has been a damned soul for a long time.  So here, it definitely looks like he has failed to save her.  In this case, though, they are discussing salvation and damnation in the traditional Catholic sense of going to heaven or hell when she dies. 

So the question (sorry) is, has she revised her thinking, such that she now believes that she can still be saved, in the sense of going to heaven, or, has she come to be so at peace with the inevitability of her ultimate damnation that she is, in effect, only worried about her temporal welfare.  Just what does she mean, exactly, when she tells Renee that, since she's still here, Vic must have saved her? 

It should be noted, as an aside, that both these comics were written by the same author, Greg Rucka, so I don't think any of this is at all coincidental.  I just thought it was a fascinating conversation with a very interesting subtext. 

Comments

I don't follow the comic much but...

[funbox]

In mmy time watching scans daily, I can't really recall her actually KILLING anyone. She threatened to of course, but her teammates always seemed to stop her. So, when HAS she killed someone, besides the No-Man's land arc?

Re: I don't follow the comic much but...

[richardak]

It's a little bit funny, because I just recently responded to a similar point in another discussion thread, but here goes: she killed Stephen Mandragora, she killed (although she didn't pull the trigger herself) Santo Cassamento, she killed a group of gangsters in the beginning of her 1994 miniseries, she killed Archer Braun, she killed the guy who stole Barda's mega-rod in an issue of JLA (the Giffen-DeMatteis run), and, as you say, she killed people during the "No Man's Land" arc. So she's killed a fair number of people, especially by DC superhero standards.

Re: I don't follow the comic much but...

[funbox]

Thanks, it just seems to me that she's slowed that down a little bit these days

Re: I don't follow the comic much but...

[requiem2adream]

... I don't remember Helena actively killing anyone during the NML series.

[darkknightjrk]

Hmmm...I think the big difference between Helena in Cry for Blood and Helena in the Question co-feature is that in the latter she had spent at least a few years working up a bond between Black Canary and Oracle. Having friends who care about you, even then when the Birds were more or less broken up, can make all the difference about your self-worth.

[richardak]

No question (sorry again) that's been a huge influence on her. But I wouldn't say the issue is necessarily her self-worth. Remember, she does have people who care in Cry for Blood: Vic definitely cares, Richard Dragon cares, Robin cares, even Nightwing cares.

The issue, as I see it, is whether she now believes that she can go to heaven, or does she still believe that her actions have damned her? And is she so accepting of the latter possibility that she's able now to be happy in the moment, regardless of what's awaiting her in the afterlife?

[darkknightjrk]

Well, maybe a good way of answering that is considering if she's killed since Cry for Blood. I'd think if she didn't think she could be saved, she would continue to kill--but with this, it looks like what she did was the last time she ever truly felt the need to kill (barring stupid OOC moments like that Streets of Gotham arc a while back).

[richardak]

Are you referring to the story in which she tried to kill Man-Bat? Because she didn't actually kill him, but she certainly tried. And there have definitely been times since Cry for Blood when she has tried to kill someone, or has had to be stopped from killing someone, and I don't think those were out-of-character moments at all. For example, she tried to kill Sovereign Brusaw, but her crossbow jammed, and later Black Canary had to stop her from killing Yasemin; more recently, Oracle had to talk her out of killing Penguin. On the other hand, she was susceptible to being talked out of killing Penguin, so there is that.

[darkknightjrk]

I think the Streets example was a bit different--the other instances you mention is Helena either witnessing a horrible act or having her and her own threatened or hurt. In Streets, though, she just saw Man-Bat flying around and assumed she would have to kill him, despite his face-turn being fairly well-known.

[omgwtflolbbqbye]

Actually I think in the SoG story she decides she needs to kill Man-Bat after she (thinks that she) sees Man-Bat about to kill a woman during their chase across Gotham.

But she does go on a narrative rant about how she wants to kill all the other criminals that the Bat-Family only deem fit to lock-up.

[richardak]

As I recollect, omgwtflolbbqbye is correct, that she didn't just randomly decide to kill Man-Bat, but thought she saw him try to kill someone else.

The thing is, though, I didn't think that was out of character. The way I interpreted her character-arc in Birds of Prey was that she decided not to kill people not because she had a moral problem with it, but because she knew that Canary and Oracle would refuse to work with her otherwise, and she valued them as colleagues, and Canary too much as a friend (and I think she ultimately came to value Oracle as a friend too), to jeopardize that. When the team fell apart anyway, she had no reason to be restrained anymore.

Obviously, that's a subjective interpretation, but that's how I saw things.

[shadowpsykie]

i think the Key is, during her time with the Birds... she actually LET them in... she may have cared for charlie, and others... but she never let them in like she did the birds...

but it was charlie i believe that first planted the seed inside her that she was more than she gave herself credit for.

so in this case, i think yes, charlie did save her, body, and soul. (i;m a little sad he has not seen her as she is now, i think he would have been proud :( )

[salinea]

I think it's one of those things that you look back at differently in retrospect.

At the time, Helena was spiralling in a self-destructive way; and even when Vic helped her, she still ended up killing the guy, which felt to both of them at the time that she was rejecting his help. But after a while she did build a more stable life for herself (with BoP playing a big role) and I bet that in retrospect, what Vic did helped a lot getting her there.

I don't think it's a mere question of religious salvation vs psychological/physical well being; though that's how it's formulated in one versus the other. Helena thinking herself damned is also a expression of self-loathing & anger at the time. Her saying "well I'm there" now, concentrating on the positive, it's also a kind of philosophical acceptance of herself and where she is at this point of her life spiritually. If I'm not mistaken, in other team-ups with Renée (though i'm not sure if they're before or after this scene), she's also seen to be more at peace with her religion.

(I need a Helena icon).

[richardak]

I have to question your use of the word "mere," but I think you hit the crux of the matter when you say that it's "also a kind of philosophical acceptance....she's also seen to be more at peace with her religion." The thing is, acceptance and being at peace do not mean that she doesn't still think she's damned; it's possible that she may just be at peace with that fact. Remember what she said when she killed Mandragora in Year One: "This is worth going to hell for."

[salinea]

Yes, sorry, I meant "not only" or "not exactly". Or something >_>;

Someone with better knowledge of Catholicism corrects me if I am wrong; would it not be considered a sin in itself for a Catholic to think that they are beyond redemption?

The thing is, acceptance and being at peace do not mean that she doesn't still think she's damned; it's possible that she may just be at peace with that fact.
True. I don't know which it is for Helena.

(I can has Helena icon! :D)

[icon_uk]

would it not be considered a sin in itself for a Catholic to think that they are beyond redemption?

I'm not sure it's seen as a sin to believe you're beyond redemption, just a human failing, and an incorrect one.

[salinea]

Thanks!

[junipepper]

Actually, I think it's a sin against Hope (Hope being one of the most important theological virtues).

I've done a fair amount of reading about world religions, but am not a Catholic, so I could be wrong. Easily.

[shadowpsykie]

suicide is a sin against hope.

feeling you are beyond redemption skirts the line dangerously close because this usually leads to suicide.

[elf]

would it not be considered a sin in itself for a Catholic to think that they are beyond redemption?

The sin of hubris, maybe; "I'm so bad even God couldn't fix me." But I suspect anyone who thought that, wouldn't be worried about whether or not it was a sin. And if they later repented of whatever convinced them they were damned, thinking they were unredeemable in the interim wouldn't be a major concern.

[heckfire]

SO, by saying you've sinned beyond redemption, you're sinning MORE. *headdesk* That's why I'm functionally agnostic, folks...I believe in God, not the churches.

[elf]

Not my theology; my gods tolerate hubris as long as it entertains them. From what I know of Catholic doctrine, it'd be a sin to assume one is unredeemable, but that's probably minor in comparison to whatever sin(s) one committed to reach that conclusion.

[heckfire]

VERY valid point, there...I suppose the "sin of unredeemability (sp?)" is sorta there to keep people from saying "Fuck it, I'm going to Hell anyway" like Huntress did. Better to offer an out that allows for redemption (by guilting it on the sinner still, but that's Catholic doctrine for you) than to just toss them to the proverbial wolves, huh?

[richardak]

Indeed: "For forgiveness is with You, that You may be feared." --Psalm 130:4. The point is that, as you say, without forgiveness, what stops someone from concluding he has nothing more to lose?

And aren't you supposed to feel guilt when you do something wrong?

[salinea]

... yes, truly, saying that someone is never unredeemable is horribly intolerant of any Church (note that the only people who said this was a sin were people who ware not Catholics, myself included).

[richardak]

I'm not a Catholic, or any variety of Christian, but my understanding is that the answer is yes. To say that one is beyond forgiveness is a form of the sin of pride: one says, in effect, that one's own sin is so monumentally and uniquely bad that even G-d cannot forgive it. To put it another way, it is to claim that G-d's mercy is not infinite.

[perletwo]

Pointless aside: Cully Hamner has such a nice way with drawing people in street clothes. The girls' outfits fit them properly, have a very 'everyday' style, are different enough to suit each character, they even have little fashion detailing bits in there like the chunky zippers and the notch in the side of Nee's jacket hem. Very cool stuff.

[kusonaga]

Pointless but so so so true. Love Hamner.

[cypherfdp]

DCAU made me love Huntress/Question.

[perletwo]

Motto. I wouldn't'a picked Amy Acker (who I love) for Huntress, but she and Combs sold the hell out of that relationship. :D

[heckfire]

Thirded. The "Orange socks" bit sold me, but the scene in the Watchtower med-bay closed the deal.

And Combs is a VA god in my eyes, now.

[proteus_lives]

Fourth.

It's obvious, with hindsight.

[psychopathicus_rex]

I think it's more that Vic was the first one to genuinely TRY to help her. The Bat-clan had had plenty of team-ups and so forth with her over the years, but the mainstay of their relationship with her was Bats going 'step out of line JUST ONCE, and we'll take you down'. Vic didn't see her as a potential menace - or not JUST that - he saw her as someone in need of help, as he had been once. It's no coincidence that he took her to his old teacher - he was going 'I was a lost soul once, and this helped me - maybe it'll help you, too.' It didn't really work - at least, not as well as he would have liked - but she was definitely on a self-destructive spiral before he intervened, and while he didn't exactly stop it, he slowed it down enough for her to examine her life a bit, and perhaps be better-adjusted about things. Her life is not as empty and bitter now as it was before he intervened - that's something, I'd say.

[fifthie]

Yeah this is definitely a really interesting and complex bit of characterization.

I guess I read her remark about how she's "still here" in a broader sense, like, she's still who she is, she's still fighting the good fight, for a given value of good, she hasn't spiralled completely out into anger and vengefulness. Maybe not as saved as Vic would have wanted, but certainly not as damned as she would have been without him.