and it is . . . .

Speedy.

No, not the Speedy you remember who is now Arsenal

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041013/D85MOUP83.html

Eh, I wouldn't have put it past Kevin Smith. He gave it to Karen page before he killed her.

And yes, I mean it in all the ways you can read that statement.

Joe Zhang wrote: Winick ... I wish his stories were as attention grabbing as his subject matter.

He's not bad when he's not focusing on his causes although, thinking about it, I've dropped pretty much everything after he started on a title; GREEN LANTERN, THE OUTSIDERS, GREEN ARROW.  I haven't had a chance to read his work on BATMAN yet, so I reserve judgment. I really enjoyed his creator-owned THE ADVENTURES OF BARRY WEEN BOY GENIUS, and have heard great things about PEDRO AND ME, so maybe that's where his talent is best showcased.

While I do like Winick's superhero stuff, I wish he'd drop all his hero titles and devote himself to producing nothing but Barry Ween.

Then, the world would truly be a better place.

Is she a sidekick for Ollie Queen or Conner? (is that his name? The son, whatever his name is)

Plenty of people have the virus without it having more than a 'be careful and manage your health' impact on their lives. It'd be nice if this was the case with this character, and the possibilities were portrayed, rather than an inevitability.

I'm enjoying GOTHAM CENTRAL.  Granted, Batman isn't the central character in the book, but I like the way he's been portrayed.  I also enjoy DETECTIVE and GOTHAM KNIGHTS.  BATMAN, with it's rotating creative team, has been hit-or-miss for me.  I really enjoyed Loeb/Lee's "Hush" run, but thought Azzarello's stint was underwhelming.  Like I said, I haven't had the chance to read Winnick's run, so I can't comment on it.  In general, however, I've enjoyed reading the various Bat-books since the fall and rise of Gotham City several years ago. Your mileage may vary.

That's not entirely accurrate.  SHe probably didn't have it.  Mysterio had a fake doctor in a white coat tell her she had it, and she believed it because of her drugs and sleeping around.  Mysterio said "Maybe she did, maybe she didn't.  You think she'd at least get a second opinion."

My problem with this storyline is this:

1. If she is cured by some cosmic being, how much of a downer is that for the people who really have it? No GL is going to fix them. It almost seems too trite for me.
2. If she dies a heroic death, wouldn't we have seen that coming a mile away? How many (cough cough) moments are we going to have in battle? I'd want her off the team if she couldn't scrap and I was a teammate.  
3. Why would someone whose immune system is compromised be allowed to play at being a super-hero. Are there no other ways in the DCU for her to make a difference? How about retiring and educating others?
4. I sure wouldn't want to explain his origin to my daughter. "You see, Jasmyne, Speedy was a ho and drug user who is using the last years of her life to fight crime and not be skanky..."

I just think HIV is a topic that may be crossing the line in some ways. Some may say that HIV-+ people want to see a hero with a similar affliction but I am a mulatto and I have lived my entire life without ever wanting to see a hero with sickle cell anemia. It just seems like he's writing himself into a corner, either making her die some heroic death or ignoring the reality of the disease.

I hope it works out for him plot-wise because I think his intentions are honorable.

Sure plenty of people have the virus without much of an impact on their lives, but how many of those people get into fights with sharp implements on a regular basis? If you're wearing tights and the logo on the cover says "Green Arrow", odds are pretty good that you'll be bleeding a lot.

I wouldn't want to bring any young girl into combat, but definitely not a young girl that I would be afraid of carrying if we were both bleeding.

John Byrne wrote: Giving a character HIV opens several different doors, none of which it would be all that advisable to step thru. For instance, there is the eternal problem of time as it is portrayed in comics. Once upon a time, this was no problem at all, since the passage of time was simply ignored, and imho the books were all the better for it. But in the past few decades it has become all the vogue to make some kind of acknowledgement of "real time", and so all manner of graphs and charts and sliding scales have been concocted to work out how "comicbook time" relates to "real time". Make someone HIV positive, and the first thing you'll crash into is this aspect. If the character is "managing" the problem, do they essentailly live forever? People with HIV survive for decades, in some cases, which would translate into more than the lifetime of most readers in "comicbook time". If, on the other hand, the illness is given a "realistic" arc and the victim lives only a few years, "real time" what does this mean in terms of "comicbook time"? Has the disease advanced rapidly, or has "real time" elapsed in the story? If so, what about the ripple effect? Has real time elapsed in all the other books as well? (Suppose Speedy takes three years, "real time", to die. Currently, in DOOM PATROL, I have Nudge, who is 15 years old. Would I be compelled to have her age to 18 while the Speedy story unfolds in another title, unconnected to DP?)

Winick has said (spoilers about long term aspects of the storyline, I guess, so I'll go into invisitext mode to be safe) that he has no intention of having the character take ill or die from AIDS on his watch.  He mentions the comics aging factor as well, about how some characters have been around for 60 years and haven't aged a day (although some fudging is done like with Dick Grayson growing up to become Nightwing).  There's more information in the following Comic Book Resources inverview.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=4298

John Byrne wrote: Giving a character HIV opens several different doors, none of which it would be all that advisable to step thru. For instance, there is the eternal problem of time as it is portrayed in comics. Once upon a time, this was no problem at all, since the passage of time was simply ignored, and imho the books were all the better for it. But in the past few decades it has become all the vogue to make some kind of acknowledgement of "real time", and so all manner of graphs and charts and sliding scales have been concocted to work out how "comicbook time" relates to "real time". Make someone HIV positive, and the first thing you'll crash into is this aspect. If the character is "managing" the problem, do they essentailly live forever? People with HIV survive for decades, in some cases, which would translate into more than the lifetime of most readers in "comicbook time". If, on the other hand, the illness is given a "realistic" arc and the victim lives only a few years, "real time" what does this mean in terms of "comicbook time"? Has the disease advanced rapidly, or has "real time" elapsed in the story? If so, what about the ripple effect? Has real time elapsed in all the other books as well? (Suppose Speedy takes three years, "real time", to die. Currently, in DOOM PATROL, I have Nudge, who is 15 years old. Would I be compelled to have her age to 18 while the Speedy story unfolds in another title, unconnected to DP?) The second problem is that Important Deaths (which this must surely be, or why do it?) create "Historical Moments" which some writers feel they cannot ignore from that point. (Death of Gwen Stacy, anyone? Death of Phoenix?) This also plays against "comicbook time", since the modern audience seems largely unwilling to accept throw-away references such as used to be the solution to time in comics ("It's been weeks since… " "Months ago, when we last encountered…") Five years after Speedy's death, there will be many (especially in the vocal online community) who will be demanding that those five years be in some way acknowledged -- and, alas, there will be writers and editors who will agree. Finally, a Ronald notes, these kinds of afflictions have no place in "universes" populated by super beings such as we see at Marvel or DC. There is no reason for anyone to ever die of cancer, for instance, since Reed Richards came up with three separate cures while seeking a solution to Captain Marvel's problem. In a world where magic exists, Barbara Gordon should not have spent two seconds in that wheelchair, let alone two decades.   HIV should simply not exist. Now -- it would be "unrealistic" to say that, in fact, it doesn't exist. This is one of the mistakes many writers and editors make, chosing to treat the comicbook "universes" as if they are "parallel dimensions" to our own, and thus removing a degree of identification for the readers. (When I was a kid, reading comics, I did not think of Superman, Batman, the FF, Spider-Man et ai as existing "somewhere else". I didn't think much about it at all, in fact -- largely because the books themselves did not expect me to.) Whatever Judd Winnick has planned, it may very well turn out to be a strong and memorable story. The question, tho, is whether this is the right stage upon which to play it.

Wow!!!

What an answer!!!...