sistermagpie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sistermagpie) wrote2010-12-23 10:42 pm
sistermagpie) wrote2010-12-23 10:42 pm
The Way of the Bat
So I keep throwing myself into hopeless conversations on tumblr--it's not a platform that's made for conversations anyway--and this one was about Batman the rich fascist who beats up poor people. It got me thinking about two things, one Batman related and one more general, and I’ll talk about the Batman part here first. It’s not that I don't think there's a lot of gross things you get when you seriously examine the whole premise of Batman? But I just think it's sloppy and inaccurate to dismiss the character that way, especially if you're going to take any corrections about social programs etc. as rabid defense of the character.
But I think it's also just that I don't look at Batman as some sort of world savior or a symbol of what the world really needs? He's not a political character for me at all. He doesn't represent vigilantism being good or being tough on crime being good. He's not a symbol for anyone of "what we should be" in terms of how he spends his money or how he chooses to "do good" in the world. To me the Way of the Bat, for lack of a better name, isn't a political thing or a hero thing...it's a religion. No, not a religion for me, not something I believe in or follow in my life, but a fictional religion about whose small collection of followers I read. I haven't really said this ever because it sounds really weird, but for me this analogy makes the most sense of the story.
I'm not reading about the saviors of the world here any more than I am when I read about a secret cult of Catholic monks. Not that I don't think there's anything that can be inspiring about this particular Bat-cult. There are things you can take from it for your real life. But that doesn't mean you’re in the cult. In their world it makes sense, since they have these demonic forces to fight.
The origin story being this: you've got the wealthy prince who lives in the protected world. Then one night he leaves the mansion and walks in the dangerous corner of the city with his parents. There he sees this thing we'll call crime, injustice (chaos, death). That’s the beginning of his enlightenment. He commits himself to this new way of study, eventually becoming the Batman. He dedicates his entire life to fighting that crime/injustice he saw. Everything about his life is subsumed to his mission. The mission not being just some practical idea of reducing crime by X percent, but almost a spiritual idea.
Alfred, who wasn’t traumatized, sees something in this beyond his young boss needing to get over the one mugging. It's more than that because it transforms Bruce into something else. Maybe he can't put his finger on what, but being Alfred he sees this is more than an unhealthy obsession. And he dedicates his life to him, honing his own skills to perfection much the way Bruce does.
Dick Grayson is maybe the real test, brought in as a kid and raised in the Way. He has a similar “awakening” as Bruce, but his origin has a couple of things that make him very different. He starts out his path making a vow on a Bible by candlelight, then pretty much submits to Bruce completely as a teacher. But Dick shows something important about the Way of the Bat. Because even though he's following the same path as Bruce, he has to break away from him to complete his education. Because it's not about being Bruce/Batman. Trying to be someone else would keep you from reaching your own fullest potential. So Dick goes away to become his own greatest potential, but never waivers from the religion. Ultimately, he even reaches the level of Batman himself, while retaining those important differences in temperament, skills, and understanding of what injustice means.
Of course there have been others like Dick since then--Jason got cut short through death and hasn't gotten back on the path. We don't know what he would have become. Tim commited intellectually to the idea first and is still working on that from his natural position of remove. Cass was at times written as more the opposite, written as instinctively wanting it and then struggling with some of the unfamiliar disciplines required. Damian seems to get this aspect and want it, but it's unclear if his ego would prevent him from really getting there. (Yes, I know Bruce has a huge ego, but his ego's still all about the Mission. He submits his ego entirely to The Bat.)
There's obviously plenty more people in the Bat-verse and Bat-family, and they are also dedicated to being vigilantes and stopping crime, but I think these are the ones who have drunk the Bat Kool-Aid. The others are not about Bruce's cult. Sometimes they’re openly against that. In fact, his immovability makes Bruce a handy antagonist (same with his followers to a lesser extent at times) and is probably the only thing strong enough to hold up the stunted personality that’s been pushed in the comics. He’s got this pocket of medieval going on that makes no sense in the modern world, training this little band of boys by day; knights templar by night. For me, it only really makes sense like that.
I can’t speak for everybody who reads the comic and what they like about it, but I think if it was just about beating up people there’s far better comic characters for that. Especially every one who kills people. I think the whole “I’m Batman” thing is more about the human abilities pushed beyond the limit through crazy study and work. And I guess I want to hold on to that because comics have gotten more violent and I hate that they’ve gotten so into that 24-style “beat it out of them” thing instead of detective work, and I don’t want to hand the character over to that alone because that’s never been what he was about to me.
But I think it's also just that I don't look at Batman as some sort of world savior or a symbol of what the world really needs? He's not a political character for me at all. He doesn't represent vigilantism being good or being tough on crime being good. He's not a symbol for anyone of "what we should be" in terms of how he spends his money or how he chooses to "do good" in the world. To me the Way of the Bat, for lack of a better name, isn't a political thing or a hero thing...it's a religion. No, not a religion for me, not something I believe in or follow in my life, but a fictional religion about whose small collection of followers I read. I haven't really said this ever because it sounds really weird, but for me this analogy makes the most sense of the story.
I'm not reading about the saviors of the world here any more than I am when I read about a secret cult of Catholic monks. Not that I don't think there's anything that can be inspiring about this particular Bat-cult. There are things you can take from it for your real life. But that doesn't mean you’re in the cult. In their world it makes sense, since they have these demonic forces to fight.
The origin story being this: you've got the wealthy prince who lives in the protected world. Then one night he leaves the mansion and walks in the dangerous corner of the city with his parents. There he sees this thing we'll call crime, injustice (chaos, death). That’s the beginning of his enlightenment. He commits himself to this new way of study, eventually becoming the Batman. He dedicates his entire life to fighting that crime/injustice he saw. Everything about his life is subsumed to his mission. The mission not being just some practical idea of reducing crime by X percent, but almost a spiritual idea.
Alfred, who wasn’t traumatized, sees something in this beyond his young boss needing to get over the one mugging. It's more than that because it transforms Bruce into something else. Maybe he can't put his finger on what, but being Alfred he sees this is more than an unhealthy obsession. And he dedicates his life to him, honing his own skills to perfection much the way Bruce does.
Dick Grayson is maybe the real test, brought in as a kid and raised in the Way. He has a similar “awakening” as Bruce, but his origin has a couple of things that make him very different. He starts out his path making a vow on a Bible by candlelight, then pretty much submits to Bruce completely as a teacher. But Dick shows something important about the Way of the Bat. Because even though he's following the same path as Bruce, he has to break away from him to complete his education. Because it's not about being Bruce/Batman. Trying to be someone else would keep you from reaching your own fullest potential. So Dick goes away to become his own greatest potential, but never waivers from the religion. Ultimately, he even reaches the level of Batman himself, while retaining those important differences in temperament, skills, and understanding of what injustice means.
Of course there have been others like Dick since then--Jason got cut short through death and hasn't gotten back on the path. We don't know what he would have become. Tim commited intellectually to the idea first and is still working on that from his natural position of remove. Cass was at times written as more the opposite, written as instinctively wanting it and then struggling with some of the unfamiliar disciplines required. Damian seems to get this aspect and want it, but it's unclear if his ego would prevent him from really getting there. (Yes, I know Bruce has a huge ego, but his ego's still all about the Mission. He submits his ego entirely to The Bat.)
There's obviously plenty more people in the Bat-verse and Bat-family, and they are also dedicated to being vigilantes and stopping crime, but I think these are the ones who have drunk the Bat Kool-Aid. The others are not about Bruce's cult. Sometimes they’re openly against that. In fact, his immovability makes Bruce a handy antagonist (same with his followers to a lesser extent at times) and is probably the only thing strong enough to hold up the stunted personality that’s been pushed in the comics. He’s got this pocket of medieval going on that makes no sense in the modern world, training this little band of boys by day; knights templar by night. For me, it only really makes sense like that.
I can’t speak for everybody who reads the comic and what they like about it, but I think if it was just about beating up people there’s far better comic characters for that. Especially every one who kills people. I think the whole “I’m Batman” thing is more about the human abilities pushed beyond the limit through crazy study and work. And I guess I want to hold on to that because comics have gotten more violent and I hate that they’ve gotten so into that 24-style “beat it out of them” thing instead of detective work, and I don’t want to hand the character over to that alone because that’s never been what he was about to me.
no subject
This is definitely a case of someone who sounds like they can't be gotten through to with any Earth logic that I follow. I mean, to say that about a comics character.... is like accusing Bruce Banner of doing omg-unethical science or something, which doesn't follow FDA guidelines for safety.
The problem with superhero comics, it seems to me, is that I don't think they stand up to 'normal' literary analysis, especially not sociological analysis-- simply because you invent a world, invent logic, invent chronology, invent standards & axioms like 'this is why this makes sense', and that's just it-- period. There's no room for 'but logically...' in superhero comics. I don't get, honestly, what would even be the interest anyone would have in having such a conversation and why they feel they need to involve superhero comics in it. It's not as if they have any huge influence on the public anymore. Moreso than religion, the whole conceptual framework reminds me of dreamworld 'logic', where (say) you can will yourself into being a bat, or flying, or turn into your mother. It's this whole other archetypally charged wish-fulfillment layer on top of 'reality'.
So 'cult' is one way to frame this concept and 'dream' or 'archetypal reality' is another. You enter a world where belief rules, and story is real-- and what do you call that? In reality, that's how a cult (or just religion) operates, but in alt-reality, it's simply how 'the truth' reveals itself, maybe. I mean, within the comics, is Batman wrong? In a story with a cult follower, you could sort of tell they're insane. But is Batman insane within the comic? It's a serious question.
I feel like (from what I know) there's an ambiguous answer there, but the answer is mostly 'no, he really is operating logically-- and mostly honorably-- within the cracked-up constraints/mirror-world rules he's presented with'. I mean, he's not trying to lower actual crime because he's fighting for a concept (Truth and Justice), because he's fighting other concepts (Chaos and Death and Madness). In the world of concepts, of course (it seems to me) and on his own terms, Batman wins. Of course, first he creates his own terms, and the whole world of Gotham exists to support them. This seems to be how superhero narratives work-- their worlds exist to support their existence. The world of a superhero is really what justifies, defines and creates them and vice versa (they define and create it). Thus, Batman is Gotham (a genus loci-- the spirit of place), and Gotham is Batman. If Batman didn't exist, wouldn't Gotham dream him up? This seems to be why 'Batman' could be other than Bruce. Probably this is true of any superhero except say, Superman (whose whole point is his singularity).
Maybe I'm wrong (but about what?). I just can't help but see archetype rather than character. I feel like the people who see realistic critiques to be made within Batman are translating Batman reality to their reality, and maybe not even noticing. Maybe they can't relate to Batman reality, I don't know. But he (Batman) can't survive in our reality-- he can't breathe our air. I think 'Watchmen' is a good example of what happens when you bring real-world functionality (of even a basic sort) to superhero behaviors. You get 1) psychosis; 2) Armageddon; 3) death. So either Batman is crazy or he's right, and he's the only hope for Gotham, somehow. How? By existing. :)
no subject
I hate to say that somebody is analyzing things too deeply, but I don't think that's exactly what's going on here. It's more not really analyzing fairly, which was in some part at least what people were objecting to with it. I mean, you can argue over different ways to view this particular archetype, but this one doesn't really seem to resonate with why people like him as opposed to, I dunno, Charles Bronson in Death Wish. All this focus on Batman beating up random junkies holding up people on streetcorners when that's never the focus of Batman stories.
no subject
The origin story being this: you've got the wealthy prince who lives in the protected world. Then one night he leaves the mansion and walks in the dangerous corner of the city with his parents. There he sees this thing we'll call crime, injustice (chaos, death). That’s the beginning of his enlightenment. He commits himself to this new way of study, eventually becoming the Batman. He dedicates his entire life to fighting that crime/injustice he saw. Everything about his life is subsumed to his mission. The mission not being just some practical idea of reducing crime by X percent, but almost a spiritual idea.
Honestly, the reason I've always figured so many people like Batman is because it's a fantastic origin story and because it's a regular man, not a super-powered individual, who takes it upon himself to work as hard as he possibly can to make himself the best he can be for a very certain role and to improve the lives of other people.
The oddest part of the argument to me was the thing about how the lesser characters, say, somebody Batman rescued, didn't get more focus, or their own story, but were only part of Batman's story. The comic is called Batman for a reason, and it's not like I think there are people clamoring for more stories like that. He sells the stories. He's the one the people interested in the comic want to read about.
no subject
I mean, you can say something about superheroes following in the capital-P Progressive tradition, as does a lot of modern liberalism, where the haves want to help the have nots, but only within a moral structure that the haves seek to impose on the have nots. But that wouldn't be a critique of Batman as a character, but rather of the entire superhero comic genre, or at the very least, the entire set up of the Batman universe as you say. I mean, Batman exists in a universe that needs and rewards him. So sure, the idea of the strong/smart/important man who just knows better what everyone needs than they do themselves is kind of fascist, but in a way that isn't particularly interesting, and it's sort of "analysis 101" to point that out. I mean, Superman is called Superman; getting all Nietzsche on him is really only being incredibly literal.
In other words, I agree totally with what you're saying here, and Meg, and the original person wasn't saying anything that interesting, wasn't saying it very well, and was acting as though they were the first person to say it, like ever—and that Meg was disagreeing.
no subject
no subject