News Ticker

“No Laughing Matter: A Comic Fangirl’s Concern About the Joker Variant Cover Cancellation”

By Sharon Rose


In the sea of controversy surrounding the Joker variant cover for Batgirl #41 drawn by Rafael Albuquerque, which was pulled by DC Comics per the request of the artist after an outcry on Twitter about the violence and possible reference to rape, I am intrigued that this cover, specifically, has caused outrage in the waves of extremely violent covers and interior panels in existence that depict far worse brutality against female (and male) characters. Perhaps it is the library worker in me who is sensitive to, and concerned about, censorship, or maybe it is the artist in me who had a moment of pause about a creative work being suppressed due to public pressure, but the restriction of this cover has given me trepidation.


When I look at this Joker cover, here are the thoughts that are running through my head as a comic book fangirl, as an artist, as a woman, and as a person who has loved ones who have experienced abuse and rape: This is a cover that is intended to be a homage to the Joker’s 75th anniversary. This iconic character is a homicidal maniac. He is a deranged serial killer. The Joker causes pain and suffering in his path, and he is nothing short of terrifying. In my opinion, this cover is tame compared to other covers I see on the shelves every week during my trip to my local comic shop. This cover is not showing the Joker raping Batgirl, it is showing the Joker with a captured Batgirl, drawing his iconic-and-horrifying smile on her face in blood. No sexual act is literally drawn here. This cover is showing the Joker as a MONSTER, in his true form as a monster, as in, this violent act against Barbara should evoke an emotion of anger or outrage because violence of this nature is bad…and the Joker is bad…and this shows just how bad he is. I don’t believe this cover is intended to glorify this violence. In Albuquerque’s own words, he said: “My Batgirl variant cover artwork was designed to pay homage to a comic that I really admire, and I know is a favourite of many readers. The Killing Joke is part of Batgirl’s canon and artistically, I couldn’t avoid portraying the traumatic relationship between Barbara Gordon and the Joker.”

Barbara and the Joker have this insane history. To me, this image shows how strong Barbara really is, because regardless of the psychotic horror she’s been through with this maniac, she has overcome. She still chooses to don that cape and fight against crime knowing that, any night, she could find herself in the grips of a monster, and die. But she chooses this path of justice anyway. I have read in more than one social media outlet comments about the expression in her eyes being a deciding factor in many people’s opinions about whether this cover is acceptable to them; that is, if her eyes had instead showed an expression of anger or rage instead of fear, there perhaps wouldn’t have been a protest. I respectfully disagree with this distinction. Being a hero isn’t about not being afraid. (And Batgirl does look scared in this illustration, and rightly so.) Let me repeat that: Being a hero is not about not being afraid. Being a hero is about choosing to do the right thing, even if you’re terrified, perhaps all the more so in the middle of one’s terror. Batgirl isn’t Batgirl because she never experiences fear; she is Batgirl because she is strong enough to choose to fight against the evil of others in spite of her fear. I think Albuquerque’s cover shows the relationship of these two iconic characters beautifully, and strictly from an artist’s standpoint, I think the cover is a lovely composition, technically and creatively.

If it were BATMAN on the cover, as in Batman who was drawn in this manner, or even Robin (i.e., a man and not a woman), would there have been the same level of outrage? I don’t want to speak for others, but I can’t help but wonder if there wouldn’t be. In fact, the drawn violence likely could have been much worse (e.g., Batman beaten to a bloody pulp) without resulting in public outrage. And violence against a man is JUST AS BAD as violence against a woman. Violence is violence.

Y the Last Man #5

In Y: The Last Man, Yorick (the last man on earth) endures many violent encounters with women, including being kidnapped by his “therapist” and threatened with rape. Many covers in this series are incredibly graphic, for example, Y: The Last Man #5 depicts Yorick naked, suspended from chains. Robert Kirkman’s Invincible series has no shortage of graphic covers and interior art, and the same can be said for The Walking Dead.

inv110(Click here to see why Invincible 110 was so controversial ~Aitch)

Comic book covers related to the world of Gotham City and Batman are no strangers to violent imagery. In Batman: The Dark Knight #3, Batman is seen strapped to a bomb. In Batman: The Dark Knight #23.4 (The New 52 villain’s cover, Joker’s Daughter #1), Batman is seen chained, in pain, behind Joker’s Daughter, who is wearing the skin of her father’s face as a mask. The Batgirl series itself has had – and recently, mind you – covers depicting Barbara Gordon in scary or brutal situations. This seems to counter the commentary on Twitter that the decision to pull the cover wasn’t one of censorship, but rather due to selecting art that better matches the current storyline.


The New 52 cover of Batgirl #31 shows our heroine, complete with scared grimace, tangled in a terrifying headlock with a knife violently held to her throat by Ragdoll. Issue #21 shows Batgirl again held against her will, knife to throat, a bloody heart drawn on her cheek, in the grips of a dangerous criminal. One could argue that the expressions of fear and hostage-like situations illustrated on these recent covers are not so different from the variant cover that has caused outrage.


There are real monsters in this world. I don’t dismiss the very real terror of rape, or the trigger response of an image that could bring up painful memories of a traumatic experience. There are women whom I love dearly who have had experiences with such monsters. Choosing to never depict or talk about these monsters in art or writing will in no way prevent monsters from existing, however. If we chose to never present these issues in comics, writing, or art, because it is uncomfortable, this would be a very bad thing indeed, as it would remove opportunities for necessary, real discussion about these situations.

It concerns me when an outcry for cover censorship isn’t being applied to similar covers showcasing the same level of violence for different genders. I can walk into a comic store and point out no fewer than 5 volume or issue covers that showcase brutality and physical violence of men against women, women against women, men against men, and/or women against men, which should evoke the same level of outrage, based on the rationale for the objection of this cover. As a consumer, I have the right to purchase or not purchase issues; if a cover offends me, I do not have to buy it. If a shop chooses to not carry a given title or issue in their store, they have the right to not stock it on the shelves. If there really is this much concern, then should it not be applied across the board, rather than in a pick-and-choose manner?

I am not discounting the fact that this cover upset and offended some people based on their interpretation and responses to this art. Art has a way of doing that. Comics have a way of doing that. But just because some did not approve of this image, is that reason enough for an image to be banned? This is, in part, why the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was created, to protect the rights of the comics medium, regardless of content, to exist. DC Comics has stated that they only pulled the cover per the request of the artist to do so, but I am sure the pressure from the public prompted the artist to make this request, and this leaves me in a state of unease. Even if I personally did not like this cover (and I actually like it quite a bit), I would still defend its worth, its right to represent the Joker on his 75th anniversary, as an expression by this artist. With that, I will leave you, dear reader, with the words of Neil Gaiman, from his journal entry “Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?”:

“You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you’re going to have to stand up for stuff you don’t believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don’t, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person’s obscenity is another person’s art.

Because if you don’t stand up for the stuff you don’t like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you’ve already lost.”

Instagram: @sharonrosecosplay10.6
Twitter: @SharonRose10_6
Tumblr: sharonrosecosplay10-6

About Armand (1271 Articles)
Armand is a husband, father, and life long comics fan. A devoted fan of Batman and the Valiant Universe he loves writing for PCU, when he's not running his mouth on the PCU podcast. You can follow him on Twitter @armandmhill

27 Comments on “No Laughing Matter: A Comic Fangirl’s Concern About the Joker Variant Cover Cancellation”

  1. I agree that there is a lot of violence being portrayed against women (and men) on comic covers, but even in your Y example Yorrick appears to be struggling against his bonds. The ladies I know who pick up Batgirl do so because she is a strong character overcoming terrible odds. The slight cover tweak that’s going around, ( in which she looks angry instead of terrified, demonstrates exactly how the original cover fails both the character and the people who read her book.

    This isn’t censorship, this is the fan base of a pop culture figure being upset with abuses that are endemic to the comic world. The whole point of the new 52 was to lose some of this garbage in a reboot.

    These books are about heroes, that’s why their fans read them, but it’s interesting that there are so many stepping up to defend the victimization of a character they are otherwise in no way invested in.

    The real argument against this cover, to me at least, is Gotham Central #10.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Garbage as in her decades long past with a character?

      If this was a Batgirl homage cover I can understand the outrage, but it’s the damn Joker. He literally crippled this character in the past. Worse has happened. Worse has been implied.

      This, to me, is the beginning of a bad turn for censorship where one can cry shame and lots follow.

      What happened to “You can’t please all the people all the time”


  2. Great article Sharon, you are right on.

    Being afraid of a monster isn’t the same as not being strong or a hero.


  3. The cover wasn’t pulled because people complained. It was pulled because the people who complained were threatened online with rape and violence.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. straycatalpha // March 20, 2015 at 1:18 pm //

    A smart essay that counters knee-jerk feminism with pragmatic feminism. Sees the forest for the trees.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Good article. I agree with a lot of what the you said Sharon about heroism and batgirl’s history, though I did notice though that none of the pictures you cited of violence towards men included the men looking frightened or traumatized. I do think there’s something there about the fact that women are allowed to feel fear or cry but if male superheroes cry its gotta be out of rage or anguish, not fear. Of course this is is a much more deeply rooted thing than just comics, but this cover does make the point rather clearly.

    Also not sure this counts as censorship, since it was public outcry and the artist responding to it rather than say, DC comics (at least in the official story) or the cops shutting it down. I think it’s worth noting that what made Lenny Bruce’s story so intense was not just that clubs wouldn’t hire him (because clubs don’t hire a lot of people), but that they wouldn’t hire him because his shows were getting shut down by the police and he was getting arrested for profanity. That is censorship. Not sure about this.


  6. Could you put up some examples of these “worse” covers involving men? I’m curious.


  7. Thank you for this!!!!!!!! Censorship is so wrong! Much love!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. We covered this on our FOX TV Show Nerd Bar Live – we talked about is Bullying for a good cause still Bullying? We concluded it is still bullying and not the way to get your message out. If the concerned people would have used their energy to say something positive rather than bullying something they clearly did not truly understand – they would have had a better received message. We understand DC and the Artist pulling the cover for business reasons and possibly safety reasons. We are still none the less disappointed that they gave in to bullying.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. lonestarr // March 21, 2015 at 12:53 am //

    The crazy rage in the backlash against it being pulled is enough for me to be okay with it being pulled.


    • The crazy rage against the cover is enough reason to keep it. Both sides are going to fight for what they want, why is it only okay for one to do so?


  10. A-FREAKIN-MAZING post! I love listening to excellent logos, and you’ve got it 100 times over.


  11. Your article is great, this situation is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in at least 5 minutes. The cover was perfect.


  12. This isn’t censorship. It’s just not. The Gaiman quote is great, and *is* about censorship, but he’s not talking about media criticism, he’s talking about *laws* banning a work. If the government tried to ban the cover, yes, that’s censorship. But the artist listening to criticism and saying “Oh, wow, that’s not how I intended it, but I can understand where you’re coming from; I’d prefer my piece not run after all” is not censorship, it’s exhibiting empathy.

    Personally, the cover doesn’t bother me, but if other people are upset by it, especially if they’re fans of the book, then maybe it’s the right call. Ultimately, I think the artist gets to make that call, not the rest of us. If he’s decided that there’s merit to the criticism, then it’s his call to ask DC not to run it.

    If we cry “censorship!” every time that fans of a work complain about it, then what we’re really arguing is that nobody is allowed to be critical of a piece. That strikes me as a bit absurd.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. While some of the other covers do indeed show Barbara being afraid, one big difference I’ve seen between those and the topic of this discussion is that, while she’s scared, she’s not helpless. Just standing there helpless while her face is being mutilated doesn’t strike me as in character for Batgirl.

    I think Albuquerque made the right call.


  14. Sharon, if you truly understand comics as little as this post seems to indicate, you are not and have never been a “fan girl”

    Liked by 1 person

  15. While the cover does not bother me, I can appreciate the creative team on Batgirl having a problem with the way it portrays her, especially given the lighter tone of her book since they took it over. In the end, Raphael Albuquerque asked it be pulled, which is hardly censorship, it’s one artist taking another artist’s concerns into account and making a decision about his own work.


  16. Ultimately, the creative team — who actually produce the cover this cover was meant to accompany — did not want this cover attached to their work. It undermines the tone they are working their asses off to bring to the book. So, who’s creative freedom are you supporting by insisting this image be attached to their work without their knowledge or consent?


  17. Sharon, thanks for this sensible, well-thought out article.

    I understand that some of the people against the cover complained because it did not reflect the tone and content of the book with the new team. What they need to remember is that many, many comic covers do not reflect what happens in the book. Additionally, this is a variant cover, and they are often even further removed from the content. Do books with Skottie Young “baby” variant covers have cutesy early-reader stories in them? No, so those do not reflect the content or tone of those books either.

    I asked on another board, why is the Batgirl variant unacceptable, yet this one from Batman 37 is:

    I also hearkens back to a terrible act by the Joker – when he beat and killed Robin (Jason Todd). This cover shows the violence in process – Joker has just swung the crowbar, there’s blood on it and an incapacitated Robin. Why is it acceptable to have him beating a child (and a male no less)? “Oh, Batman is coming to his rescue.” Well, this doesn’t exactly reflect the story either, because Batman did not save Robin – he was killed in the Joker’s explosion. Just like the Batgirl cover, although it recalls her history with Joker, is not something that happens in a story.

    Lastly, I dislike censorship as well. Let the cover be printed. I’m sure some of the people who tweeted #changethecover also tweeted #iamcharliehebdo, which I find contradictory and hypocritical.


  18. Yeah, totally don’t agree. Some decent points but overall not my cup of tea


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: