Longbow Hunters (Black Canary's Rape)
ROBINSON, STEPHEN ER
raped in Longbow Hunters.
All the evidence points to the contrary. Her brutalizer tells
his partner that he should get "some of this while she still
has a face."
Also, Dinah's assault left her unable to conceive, meaning
some sort of sexual assualt took place (even if she wasn't
raped, per se).
And she was unable to be intimate with Oliver for quite awhile.
This is common post-rape trauma.
Black Canary had been fighting crime for quite a while. I'm sure
she'd been beaten within an inch of her life before. But rape
or any sexual assualt would be traumatizing enough to explain
her inaction for the issues after Longbow Hunters.
Stephen
Nyx Nshd
Longbow Hunters. All the evidence points to the contrary.>
Twas I who said she wasn't. And I agree that all evidence points to the
contrary, but the writer said she wasn't. He wrote the scene! Maybe he
just got sick of people yelling at him for it and decided to deny it, but
there it is.
<Her brutalizer tells his partner that he should get "some of this while
she still has a face.">
Yes, that does seem to be a referance to rape. It does not, however, prove
that she *was* raped, but that the sick bastich was asking his partner if
he *wanted* to do such a thing.
<Also, Dinah's assault left her unable to conceive, meaning some sort of
sexual assualt took place (even if she wasn't raped, per se).>
Either that or that Grell didn't want Dinah to have a kid, regardless of
whether or not it would work that way. After all, he had her lose her
scream because of that, and there was no throat cutting or throat related
damage...
<And she was unable to be intimate with Oliver for quite awhile. This is
common post-rape trauma.>
Yes... it's also explainable as a loss of trust in men, one of which tied
her from the ceiling and cut her up. Or as an insecurity at her body,
which is a common response from people who suffer great injury resulting
in severe scarring.
<Black Canary had been fighting crime for quite a while. I'm sure she'd
been beaten within an inch of her life before.>
Yes, but she hadn't been tied up from the ceiling and slowly cut up by
someone who was obviously enjoying it. It wasn't the pain or the brush
with death that scarred her mind, it was the experiance of being slowly
tortured by a madman. I mean, if you take someone and smack them around it
won't be nearly as traumatic as if you tie them up and slowly peel their
finger nails and toenails back, then..
Well, you get the point.
<But rape or any sexual assualt would be traumatizing enough to explain
her inaction for the issues after Longbow Hunters.>
Actually, she was inactive just because Grell wanted to ignore her. I
mean, she was active in JLI, without a problem... Or was that before LBH?
Anyway, the point is, I agree, the scene implied that she was raped. And
I'd always thought she was, but Mike Grell and Mike Gold denied that was
the intention, so what can I say? Grell *did* write the scene, after
all...
-Nyx
Marc Singer
Nyx Nshd <nyx...@aol.com> wrote:
>< must disagree with whoever has said that Black Canary was not raped in
>Longbow Hunters. All the evidence points to the contrary.>
>
>Twas I who said she wasn't. And I agree that all evidence points to the
>contrary, but the writer said she wasn't. He wrote the scene! Maybe he
>just got sick of people yelling at him for it and decided to deny it, but
>there it is.
>
><Her brutalizer tells his partner that he should get "some of this while
>she still has a face.">
>
>Yes, that does seem to be a referance to rape. It does not, however, prove
>that she *was* raped, but that the sick bastich was asking his partner if
>he *wanted* to do such a thing.
>
><Also, Dinah's assault left her unable to conceive, meaning some sort of
>sexual assualt took place (even if she wasn't raped, per se).>
>Anyway, the point is, I agree, the scene implied that she was raped. And
>I'd always thought she was, but Mike Grell and Mike Gold denied that was
>the intention, so what can I say? Grell *did* write the scene, after
>all...
Even if they *never* intended to have Black Canary get raped, this still
doesn't contradict the argument that the treatment was misogynist: the
scene still has all the "advantages" of showing sexualized violence and
implying rape, but the creators can't be blamed for actually including a
rape. Intentionally or not, it seems all the evidence points to the fact
that the violence was sexually motivated and linked, and ultimately the
words and pictures on the page are going to carry more weight than the
author's later statements. Intentional or not, a rape scene is a rape
scene.
Marc
Nyx Nshd
doesn't contradict the argument that the treatment was misogynist: the
scene still has all the "advantages" of showing sexualized violence and
implying rape, but the creators can't be blamed for actually including a
rape.>
I never said that it wasn't misogynist, all I did was contridict the
statement that BC was raped. But frankly, I don't see it as misogynist
just like I don't see GA's later treatment as misogynist.
<Intentionally or not, it seems all the evidence points to the fact that
the violence was sexually motivated and linked, and ultimately the words
and pictures on the page are going to carry more weight than the
author's later statements.>
Well, all the evidence points to her being raped. However, if one assumes
that she wasn't, the scene is seen in an entirely differant light; one
that doesn't involve sexually linked violence, but simply violence.
Perhaps it was just badly executed.
<Intentional or not, a rape scene is a rape scene.>
I disagree. How can a scene be a rape scene if there is and has been no
rape?
Nyx
"I try to draw the line, but it ends up running down the middle of me,
most
of the time." - Ani DiFranco
Nyx Nshd
>statement that BC was raped. But frankly, I don't see it as misogynist
>just like I don't see GA's later treatment as misogynist.
<Misandrist?>
Right. Shoot me for not paying attention to what I'm saying. ;>
<Anyway, if the scene *is* heavily sexualized, and even you say that you
picked that up the first time around, whereas GA's torture had no
implications of his sex being a factor at all, then it seems like sex and
the abuse of a particular sex really do play into it.>
Honestly, I didn't think of the scene as a "let's beat up the girl" scene.
I saw it as a "Let's give Ollie a major shock and turn his character
around" scene. It was a blatent plot device, but I didn't think it was
particularly sexist. I got the impression instead, that they'd have done
the same thing to Ollie to force the same change on Dinah, had it been
Dinah's book.
<My point is, if the violence really *is* sexually linked, really is
happening because BC is a woman, then the scene is still sexually charged
and still misogynist, regardless of what Grell later said.>
Yes, but I don't think it's safe to say that it happened because Dinah is
a woman. I think it's safe to say that the "want a piece of this" comment
was thrown in because she was a woman, but I definately find the claim
that the whole *scene* was just because Dinah is female to be suspect.
<A scene that implies rape unintentionally still implies it. And when
most readers pick up that implication, then I think it's something you can
meaningfully address as a specific part of the work.>
Well, yes, there I agree.
><Intentional or not, a rape scene is a rape scene.>
>
>I disagree. How can a scene be a rape scene if there is and has been no
>rape?
<I was generalizing to make a point, not talking about the specific scene.
To apply it to Longbow Hunters, "Intentionally or not, a scene which
strongly hints at rape and violence against women still strongly hints at
rape and violence against women." I like the shorter version better. :)
Ah, okay. Even so, I don't see how a rape scene can be a rape scene
without a rape. An *implied* rape scene, okay, but not a rape scene...
Nyx
Shawn Dawson
>I never said that it wasn't misogynist, all I did was contridict the
>statement that BC was raped. But frankly, I don't see it as misogynist
>just like I don't see GA's later treatment as misogynist.
>
>rape?
Let me preface this by saying I haven't followed this entire thread.
However, The Green Arrow was my favorite series for years, and I
can comment on whether or not BC was sexually attacked. The answer
is yes.
For support of this statement, I remember a love scene between
Ollie and BC in a book after the attack. I can't remember the
issue, but basically, BC wanted to have sex with Ollie, but
couldn't do it because of what happened to her. Ollie was
understanding and all. This scene makes sense if she
had been raped or otherwise sexually attacked, but doesn't make
sense if she had been simply tortured.
The attack hurt her emotionally, and impacted her relationship
with men, even one as loved and trusted as Ollie.
-Shawn Dawson
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Tradition, my friend ... like fratricide and regicide ...
- and switching sides to save your own skin" - Zula -
-
- Shawn Dawson (sda...@netcom.com) Keeper of the Cimmerian Flame
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nyx Nshd
<Let me preface this by saying I haven't followed this entire thread.>
I can see. ;>
<However, The Green Arrow was my favorite series for years, and I can
comment on whether or not BC was sexually attacked. The answer is yes.>
Actually, the answer is no, according to Mike Grell, who wrote the scene
in question.
<I can't remember the issue, but basically, BC wanted to have sex with
Ollie, but couldn't do it because of what happened to her.>
I believe that was #1.
<This scene makes sense if she had been raped or otherwise sexually
attacked, but doesn't make sense if she had been simply tortured.>
Untrue. That can, as I said to begin with, be chalked up to insecurity in
her body (common among burn victems, or others who have heavy scarring),
or mistrust in men (turning against the group of people to which an
attacker belongs is common in victems of violent crime), or simple mental
damage.
<The attack hurt her emotionally, and impacted her relationship with men,
even one as loved and trusted as Ollie.>
Rape certainly isn't the only form of attack that can cause such a
response.
Nyx
Marc Singer
Nyx Nshd <nyx...@aol.com> wrote:
><Even if they *never* intended to have Black Canary get raped, this still
>doesn't contradict the argument that the treatment was misogynist: the
>scene still has all the "advantages" of showing sexualized violence and
>implying rape, but the creators can't be blamed for actually including a
>rape.>
>
>statement that BC was raped. But frankly, I don't see it as misogynist
>just like I don't see GA's later treatment as misogynist.
Misandrist? Anyway, if the scene *is* heavily sexualized, and even you say
that you picked that up the first time around, whereas GA's torture had no
implications of his sex being a factor at all, then it seems like sex and the
abuse of a particular sex really do play into it.
><Intentionally or not, it seems all the evidence points to the fact that
>the violence was sexually motivated and linked, and ultimately the words
>and pictures on the page are going to carry more weight than the
>author's later statements.>
>
>Well, all the evidence points to her being raped. However, if one assumes
>that she wasn't, the scene is seen in an entirely differant light; one
>that doesn't involve sexually linked violence, but simply violence.
>Perhaps it was just badly executed.
Maybe. If *everybody* perceives a sexual element to the torture though, if
that element really is there, then I think you can still say it's sexist/
misogynist/whatever, even if the author didn't specifically mean to imply
it. My point is, if the violence really *is* sexually linked, really is
happening because BC is a woman, then the scene is still sexually charged
and still misogynist, regardless of what Grell later said. A scene that
implies rape unintentionally still implies it. And when most readers pick
up that implication, then I think it's something you can meaningfully address
as a specific part of the work.
><Intentional or not, a rape scene is a rape scene.>
>
>I disagree. How can a scene be a rape scene if there is and has been no
>rape?
I was generalizing to make a point, not talking about the specific scene.
To apply it to Longbow Hunters, "Intentionally or not, a scene which strongly
hints at rape and violence against women still strongly hints at rape and
violence against women." I like the shorter version better. :)
Marc
Brian Lintz
Nyx Nshd <nyx...@aol.com> wrote:
>
><However, The Green Arrow was my favorite series for years, and I can
>comment on whether or not BC was sexually attacked. The answer is yes.>
>
>Actually, the answer is no, according to Mike Grell, who wrote the scene
>in question.
Actually, the answer depends on what you are referring to. If you mean,
in official DCU continuity, did Dinah get raped, then the answer is no.
Grell and Gold said so, and that's that. But if you ask, was Dinah raped
in _The Longbow Hunters_, then the answer is yes. Whether intended or
not, rape is implied in that scene. I doubt anyone can read the story
and not infer that she was raped. It doesn't matter what Grell said.
If you saw something happen on panel and the author later said it
didn't happen, who is right? The author wrote it and denied it, but
you SAW it, so it happened. Just like things that were retconned
out of existence still happened, even though DC says they didn't.
Brian Lintz
li...@cis.udel.edu
fredrick b. chary
the other parts of me took it out back and beat it unconcious and then locked
it in the basement :)
Brian Lintz <li...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu> wrote:
>Actually, the answer depends on what you are referring to. If you mean,
>in official DCU continuity, did Dinah get raped, then the answer is no.
>Grell and Gold said so, and that's that. But if you ask, was Dinah raped
>in _The Longbow Hunters_, then the answer is yes. Whether intended or
>not, rape is implied in that scene. I doubt anyone can read the story
Okay, to be perfectly strict with language here, it was not. Mike Grell
knows *precisely* what he was attemtpting to portray in that scene and
he has been consistent in saying that it was *not* sexual assault.
Now, you might have *inferred* rape, but that has nothing to do with the
implications of the scene.
>and not infer that she was raped. It doesn't matter what Grell said.
Well, prepare to be astonished, because I didn't. Look at the scene again.
She looks like she's been crucified.
>If you saw something happen on panel and the author later said it
>didn't happen, who is right? The author wrote it and denied it, but
>you SAW it, so it happened. Just like things that were retconned
>out of existence still happened, even though DC says they didn't.
This is precisely what I don't like about modern literary critical theory.
In this case "reader-response criticism" as it's called. It places the total
responsibility for what a story says on the reader. This is what
deconstructionism has wrought: a total lack of faith in the external,
holistic elements of the story and a reliance on tearing it apart in an
attempt to encounter the text at some more "desirable" level. And yes, I
claim that you make the elements desirable on your account. Why? Because you
are saying that the reader gets to choose at some point. How does the
reader choose? It seems to boil down to predilection. Well, I don't buy it.
The author's opinion matters. If he told the story unclearly, then that's a
flaw but it doesn't change the events.
Mike, using Fred's account.
(Oh, elmo reminded me this morning that the only reason I am supposed to post
is to say things that he agrees with, so if he doesn't like this post, I'll
have to recant :))
Marc Singer
If not an outright claim that there are no "external, holistic" elements
of the story, because the story is never an isolated whole that can be
external or holistic. However, that *doesn't* mean modern litcrit ignores
the story and just reads what it wants -- the text is still the center and
wellspring of most analysis. So just because you disagree with a reading
doesn't mean it isn't looking at the story. :)
And yes, I
>claim that you make the elements desirable on your account. Why? Because you
>are saying that the reader gets to choose at some point. How does the
>reader choose? It seems to boil down to predilection. Well, I don't buy it.
>The author's opinion matters. If he told the story unclearly, then that's a
>flaw but it doesn't change the events.
But even your own post contradicts this, Mike. Sure, you start by refuting
the charges of rape on the grounds that "Grell said it wasn't there," but
you finish by saying "Look at the scene again..." Going back to the text
and not Grell's statements outside it.
"Authorial intent" is simply no grounds for making an argument about
literature, especially when the clues to the author's intent don't even come
from the text in question. Grell can say that Longbow Hunters was meant
to imply Dinah was the child of time-travelling aliens, it's what's in the
actual pages that matter. Now, if you want to look at LBH and say that you
interpret it as not implying rape, that's one thing; saying that Grell's
statements outside the text negate that implication is quite another.
As Brian wisely observes, Grell's statements fix DC canon and continuity,
but not what the story actually shows or implies. I'll agree that Black
Canary was never raped *in DC continuity*, but in continuity or not, a rape
scene is a rape scene.
Marc
Johanna Draper
> But the other parts of me took it out back and beat it unconcious and
> then locked it in the basement :)
This sounds just like what we're talking about. :)
>Brian Lintz <li...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu> wrote:
>>Whether intended or not, rape is implied in that scene.
>Now, you might have *inferred* rape, but that has nothing to do with the
>implications of the scene.
Except that comics, as a visual language, use cultural referents so we all
can follow the scenes, and what was portrayed was similar to general
cultural pointers that signify "rape".
> This is precisely what I don't like about modern literary critical
> theory. In this case "reader-response criticism" as it's called. It
> places the total responsibility for what a story says on the reader.
No, it doesn't. It looks at what a reader takes away from a story in an
attempt to understand why the reader reads a story (in the original study,
it was romance novels). It *does* *not* deny what the text itself says. In
fact, Janice Radway (one of the pioneers) was criticized for prejudicing
the text in her conclusions.
Johanna
fredrick b. chary
>fredrick b. chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>> You know, part of me said, "Mike, don't get involved in this thread."
>> But the other parts of me took it out back and beat it unconcious and
>> then locked it in the basement :)
>
>This sounds just like what we're talking about. :)
Yes, I suppose, but I wouldn't care for the inferences people might draw
from such a comparison :):):)
>>Brian Lintz <li...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu> wrote:
>>>Whether intended or not, rape is implied in that scene.
>>Now, you might have *inferred* rape, but that has nothing to do with the
>>implications of the scene.
>
>Except that comics, as a visual language, use cultural referents so we all
>can follow the scenes, and what was portrayed was similar to general
>cultural pointers that signify "rape".
Doesn't make any difference. He can infer anything. The word "imply" places the
movtiation squarely on the author. Grell has been consistent about what the
scene was meant to imply. And I *never* thought it was rape, so I didn't infer
it and my culture is roughly the same as the target audience.
>> This is precisely what I don't like about modern literary critical
>> theory. In this case "reader-response criticism" as it's called. It
>> places the total responsibility for what a story says on the reader.
>
>No, it doesn't.
Well, actually, that was a bit strong, how about this, it places so
much responsibility on the reader that the motivations of the author no longer
matter for the purposes of understanding text as such?
> It looks at what a reader takes away from a story in an
>attempt to understand why the reader reads a story (in the original study,
>it was romance novels).
Not quite, at least not my understanding of it as I have seen it used.
Typically it concentrates on the relationship, the encounter, if you will,
between the reader and the text.
> It *does* *not* deny what the text itself says.
No, but it *does* force the text into a *very* secondary position compared
to reader's response.
> In fact, Janice Radway (one of the pioneers) was criticized for prejudicing
>the text in her conclusions.
As justifiably so. She sort of wimped out, imo. I have a lot of problems
with Derrida and Quine, including that they go off into a sort ontological
poverty in which we can't be certain of anything which is how all this stuff
started to begin with, but at least they stick to their guns. :)
Iain McCord
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>As Brian wisely observes, Grell's statements fix DC canon and continuity,
>but not what the story actually shows or implies. I'll agree that Black
>Canary was never raped *in DC continuity*, but in continuity or not, a rape
>scene is a rape scene.
was because that was the plan. The whole thing was a sting operation that
went wrong. The scene in question was a sick form of foreplay, and Dinah
was going to be raped. She was rescued before that happened. That is what the
story shows, and implies.
Ken Small
fredrick b. chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>This is precisely what I don't like about modern literary critical theory.
>In this case "reader-response criticism" as it's called. It places the total
>deconstructionism has wrought: a total lack of faith in the external,
>holistic elements of the story and a reliance on tearing it apart in an
>are saying that the reader gets to choose at some point. How does the
>reader choose? It seems to boil down to predilection. Well, I don't buy it.
>The author's opinion matters. If he told the story unclearly, then that's a
>flaw but it doesn't change the events.
Actually, that's what New Criticism has wrought. Deconstructionism
comes decades later. New Criticism has been largely debunked, and
the modern critical thought (or at least 5 years ago :) ) says that
meaning is both a product of the author *and* the reader-- and that
makes perfect sense to me. If the author did not intend a rape
but the reader saw one, that's different than the author intending
one and the reader seeing it, and different than the author intending
one and the reader not seeing it.
--
Ken Small
kens...@mcs.com
Magic 8-BALL sez: Outlook good
goku...@gmail.com
> I must disagree with whoever has said that Black Canary was not
> raped in Longbow Hunters.
> All the evidence points to the contrary. Her brutalizer tells
> has a face."
> some sort of sexual assualt took place (even if she wasn't
> raped, per se).
> This is common post-rape trauma.
> her inaction for the issues after Longbow Hunters.
>
niggers