Stephanie Brown

All right. Let's talk about Stephanie Brown.

I said all this many times before on messageboards, but I guess the point of a blog is that I can write a (hopefully) definitive version.

I became a fan of Steph in the first comic with her I read - Batgirl #20. The idea of a pretty blond girl who dresses like a hooded ugly gnome and hides her face because she feels the dark determination to fight crime, but isn't very competent at it (yet) - and that that girl still has soft toys in her frilly bedroom - was instantly appealing to me. Because even though Steph was a funny, optimistic character, her nightly adventures spoke of a bitter, unhappy part of her life, but one she was determined to face.
The next appearances in the Batgirl series impressed me even more. (Her role in Robin I liked less I admit, especially the "dear diary" stuff.) I had just started to read Batman comics, and I could relate very well to an outsider who hopes to become part of the Bat-family and is desperate to gain Batman's approval. It was a real inspiration to witness her developing friendship with Cassandra, and her iron resolve to improve herself by extremely hard training to be finally good enough to become Batman's sidekick. The stories seemed to promise she would manage to achieve that, and I couldn't wait for it.

Then came the issue of Gotham Knights where Batman told her coldly that she didn't have the skills and the talent and should go home. A blow that came totally out of nowhere. (Speculation is that Dan DiDio had just taken over and changed editorial plans.) I'm not exaggerating much when I say that I felt as if I had failed an exam myself. An experience not unlike having a novel rejected. ;) The bitter taste of defeat. A life's dream shattered. Being a loser. A failure.
But Steph didn't give up. And suspected with good reason that Batman had hidden motives in rejecting her. Which was proven more or less correct when he offered her to become the new Robin when Tim quit, and nonchalantly waved Alfred's surprise aside with the remark that skills can be taught and that he (suddenly) admired Steph's determination.
Well, we all know how that turned out. Batman changed his mind again and fired her a second time. Not because she would be lacking talent this time. No, because she disobeyed an order when she had to improvise alone in a life-and-death situation, and wanted to save his life instead of waiting quietly in the Bat-plane.

So, what does a failed teenage sidekick do? Well, start a desperate stolen plan to rid the city of crime once and for all of course, with a gang war that will kill hundreds! Too bad that everything goes wrong, and she is also tortured and killed herself.

So what is my opinion of the War Games event where that happened?
Of course I would have prefered if Steph had survived and would still be around today. But her tragedy might actually have been a good story. Her desperate attempt to prove herself to Batman, initiating a process that spins totally out of control and turns into a bloodbath, her heroic attempt to do what she can to still save the day...
Does sound almost like a classical greek drama if you put it like that. But sadly, there a some points to mention:
- The whole War Games event didn't impress me, not even as an uncomplicated action story. Everyone fighting everyone, each gang against all the others just is a recipe for random fight scenes without dramatic suspense, and the events added to change that (the hostage crisis at the school, the gathering in the stadium, the attack on the clocktower) were not very interesting.
- The logical flaws. Let's face the elephant in the room: Did Batman's plan include a bloody gang war, and did Steph accept that hundreds would die as a consequence? In other words, was she unscrupolous or just naive and stupid?
I refuse to believe the former, and the fact that she was shocked about the initial massacre seems to prove that. But: If Batman's plan didn't include any of that, WHY ON EARTH DID EVENTS STILL FOLLOW THE PLAN? Why was Batman able to predict that the electrical power would be cut soon, just as in his plan?
Sorry, that makes no sense at all. And that is not some minor detail, that is the very center of the whole event, and makes the whole event fail. At least in my opinion.

So Steph didn't get a satisfying end to her story. No closure. The events don't feel based on character development, but on forced editorial interference.Her death could have been a tragic yet emotionally satisfying story. But like this, I just feel cheated. I want Steph back!

The topic that keeps Steph in the headlines these days is if she should get a memorial in the Batcave, and if the fact that she doesn't proves sexist tendencies at DC.
While I of course applaud the support the character gets, I admit I feel a bit unsure if it's really a good idea to turn her into a political symbol. Sure it's important to protest against sexism in comics, but I sometimes wonder if all the protesters who demand a memorial for Steph today did give a damn for her comics when she was still around...

But whatever. When the discussion reaches this point, inevitably the question is raised if Steph did deserve a memorial or not. Here is my opinion:
People who oppose the memorial claim that Steph wasn't really part of the Bat-family, and was a failure and a screw-up anyway. Or was she?
Let's look at the facts. Batman decided to personally train her twice, and both times fired her a bit later. Why this to and fro? Shouldn't Batman be able to make up his mind?
It's not unreasonable to assume he had hidden, emotional motives. Alfred suggests that he accepts her as Robin mainly to send a message to Tim. So if she was not good enough, Batman deserves to be blamed because he built up her hopes only to crash them again. He should have realised how desperatly she wanted to belong, and how the rejection could drive her over the edge.
If she WAS good enough and he fired her without good reason, he is to blame even more. And remember, he didn't fire her because of a lack of talent the second time, but because she disobeyed an order. Something his other sidekicks surely have never ever done.
So the "failure" argument is at least questionable. Even more important is that Batman was responsible for Steph, as an adult who guarded her through highly dangerous situations, and emotionally as a surrogate father, whether he realised that or not.

Another argument against the memorial is the claim that her time as Robin was too short and irrelevant.
I can't dispute that Jason was Bruce Wayne's ward and actually a part of his family, so he surely had a closer personal connection to him. Maybe that justifies that only Jason got a memorial. But Jason's memorial is not for a son, but for a "soldier". And Steph was part of the extended Bat-family since the mid-90s, and for a few months WAS his sidekick and closest co-worker. Heck, she even saved his life in Detective #796!

But those are all in-story considerations. What about the point of view of the DC editors?
One argument I have heard is that a memorial would confuse new readers. Steph's story is over, let's move on and don't reference past continuity for no good reason.
I can respect that opinion. Similar things happen all the time. Who still remembers that James Gordon run for mayor in the 90s and his wife led the police department? Does it make sense to mention stuff like that in today's comics? I read No Man's Land and enjoyed that the consequences of the earthquake still were mentioned in the comics for years after that. But after some time that has to stop, or it will get even more difficult for new readers. Not to mention that the "illusion of change" in superhero comics that always returns to the old status quo after a while will feel even more forced when the past revolutions of the wheel remain too visible.

But would a simple glass case with an uniform in the background of the Batcave really trouble new readers? And some past events get referenced, they become defining for the character. Like the dead Jason. I never read a story with him alive, but as a dead Robin he had an enormous influence on the Batman stories, and I never felt confused by that.
Sure, only a few events can be chosen to become such central part of the myth. I actually would hesitate to use Steph in a similar way as Jason was, as one of Batman's greatest traumas. But all that is a bit besides the point. Even if the memorial would be hardly ever shown or mentioned in future stories, it would provide closure to a story that is still itching like something unfinished. It would demonstrate respect for the fans who loved Steph and bought and supported her comics, and make them feel less like victims of a cynical editorial bait-and-switch.
And I haven't even mentioned the most important argument for the memorial yet: Batman PROMISED Steph on her deathbed that she would be remembered and become part of the legend. That certainly raised expectations, and makes wonder if Batman was lying to her, or simply is too much of a jerk to honor his promise. Is that the message DC want to send? And that story is collected in a trade and will make future readers wonder the same thing.

But actually, while a memorial would be nice, it is not the reason I wanted to talk about Steph. It is that she was an awesome character. Her mixture of teenage enthusiasm and a dark past made for great stories and a unique point of view in the Bat-titles. Steph was funny, but not campy. Being a superhero was not easy for her. Her story was about the desperate wish to belong, to train and work very hard to achieve an almost impossible dream. Something we all can relate to I think - at least I can.

And I miss her very much.