Something that annoyed me about the Batwoman article in the New York Times...

I can't really say anything about the character, as she hasn't made her debut yet. I think the costume is pretty cool looking. As for the gay thing? Not an issue. However, there was something in the article that annoyed me...

Here is a quote, "I'm glad we're at the point when they're being rolled out without flourish - not 'Minority Heroes Attack!,' "

Says Judd Winick................in a New York Times article about the debut of a new gay comic book character.

How does that even remotely make sense?

Besides, beyond just the sheer absurdity of trying to claim that you're just casually introducing diverse superheroes while you're debuting them in the pages of the Sunday New York Times, I don't even think Winick's point on its OWN makes sense.

I don't think it matters whether the diverse characters are rolled out in a flourish or not, just whether they are done WELL or not.

That was the problem with Arana (which was mentioned in the article) - a ton of hype, but not a good book.

Batwoman already has a better costume than Arana did, so here's hoping she is better written, as well!

Amazon Prime Unveils Major SDCC Plans for The Boys, Carnival Row & More

More in Comics