tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post7614128343355134334..comments2024-02-22T02:31:34.108+00:00Comments on Too Busy Thinking About My Comics: Why I Hate The Bat-man (Part 1)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-18739528958725889272012-06-30T23:21:45.550+01:002012-06-30T23:21:45.550+01:00Hello Kato:- I hope it didn't appear as if I w...Hello Kato:- I hope it didn't appear as if I was set on ignoring your concerns. I just thought it respectful to recognise our differences without insulting you by repeating arguments which have already failed to convince. I certainly have no problem with our having different views, and I appreciate the fact that you don't seem to either!Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-44333713992094073412012-06-30T23:03:50.595+01:002012-06-30T23:03:50.595+01:00There still seems to be some questions lingering t...There still seems to be some questions lingering that I truly thought not covered in your article brought up in a few of my points, but that's for another time. And thank you SIR, for your equal civility and very kind words. Best of wishes.<br /><br />Sincrely,<br />Kato :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-88593816320553608772012-06-30T07:38:57.835+01:002012-06-30T07:38:57.835+01:00Hello Kato:- Thank you for your interpretation of ...Hello Kato:- Thank you for your interpretation of those earliest Batman stories, and for the civil way in which you expressed a pretty fundamental disagreement :) Obviously, we disagree, and obviously it would be ridiculous for me to answer your points, because I've said my piece in the above! To repeat myself would just be rude. It's always interesting to note that the same material can carry quite different meanings to different readers, and I guess that's part of the appeal of the character which writers such as O'Neil and Morrison have always accentuated; the Batman can be pretty much whatever the audience wants to make of him. I like that :-)Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-49498922444620339852012-06-29T12:17:18.433+01:002012-06-29T12:17:18.433+01:00CONT-
...couldn't even fly.
So, I certainly ...CONT-<br /><br />...couldn't even fly.<br /><br />So, I certainly would side with you on the "bat-man's" trait of killing people as a necessary edit, a flaw to be corrected as many originals are simply rough drafts to be worked on, corrected and improved. But even with the 'kinks' being worked out in BobKane's comic, the CORE never changed and is the common denominator throughout Batman's entire history of existing.<br /><br />So that core includes the following fifteen: 1. A man with no powers. 2. A man who barely uses any tools or weapons and uses only his body and wits (Tarzan) 3. A masked vigilante who works outside the norms (Zorro) 4. A person with no resolve and seems to possess unlimited will power. <br />At this point, these listed four can actually apply to hundreds of other characters so if you stopped here you would not yet have reached the core of Batman, continuing then-<br />5. A man of sharp vindication or swift justice. 6. The spooky impression of a supernatural entity. 7. By FAR a rebel. 8. A man of kindness+respobsibility to cultivate a child and protect the innocent. 9. A man of no fear. 10. A shrewd, cunning man who uses fear against his fear-ridden opponent (The Shadow) <br /><br />So far these above listed has narrowed it down more to only a handful of characters, so not yet quite limiting it to only Batman just yet, but finishing off-<br /> 11. A man who sacrificed his whole life to honor the tragedy of his parents. 12. A man of uncomparable SELF RELIANCE. 13. A Master Scientist. 14. An athlete who has reached near superhuman levels. Both 13+14 however can be made simpler by combining them together as: A being who has reached human perfection. If we do not combine them though then moving to 15. Possessing immpeccable logic he is the World's Greatest Detective and a brilliant strategist. <br /><br />There are still yet others bullet points that would bring this Core to an even higher acuity: 16. The master of disguise. 17. The worlds greatest escape artist. 18. A man who has mastered many languages. 19. A personality of stoicism. 20. A hero who implements a bat theme.<br /><br /> Adding the bonus list truly rules out any other character thus leaving Batman standing alone as the only one who exists with these qualities that define his core. Bare in mind, none of these are trivial details (especially points 1-15) but actually they are the major basics. These are the core fundamentals the Batman was born with since issue one and has remained in him decades later, and still so even more decades later, never being altered. <br /><br />So to whatever anyone, like your article, would claim as the REAL Batman it would have to stay in the bounds of his core. Perhaps two or three of those listed may be slightly missing in the BobKane comic, but it is arguable that they're not missing. Either way, even with a few out, the majority of that listed is completely present in the BobKane comic thus showing the dominant core of the character, a CORE that exist in no other character. Even outside of comic books, there are no fictional characters to be found that possess ALL of these highly original traits that forever define the Batman.<br /><br />There are many characters who possess the first few, and even other characters that go as far to extend further on the list. But in regards to Batman autonomously, be it Batman in the 80's or Batman in the 40's with all the various stories and adventures, the core still remains untampered with (until you get into the realm of the media which flaunt a blatant and rude disregard for the comic book character).<br /> <br />Again, apologies for the lengthy response but as a Bruce Wayne-fan I can't help but write thoroughly. Thanks for the article and any support on Batman. May the comic books one day bring him back and rescue him from the movie toon media.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />"Kato"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-28020766333345952632012-06-29T12:15:47.759+01:002012-06-29T12:15:47.759+01:00Mr. Smith,
Greetings, my apologies for the length...Mr. Smith,<br /><br />Greetings, my apologies for the lengthy response but I reduced it as much as I could. As a big fan of Batman I feel compelled to supply you a response. At some point in your article you were describing the Bob Kane comics Batman as "The truth is, he’s a persistently stupid, vicicious..." and of course you described him as an idiot in the opening. He didn't seem stupid to me at all, as I remember he was very foxy and devilish. He cleverly knew how to escape a deathtrap using the deathtrap itself, sneaked up on people with stealth, and of course in the very first issue we see how intellegent he is when his identity is revealed at the end of the story; so a man who can fool them all.<br /><br /><br />The major thrust of the overall character or what the writer's intent to create was someone devilishly cunning and highly intellegent and dangerous. So I don't know if I could possibly at all agree with the early Batman, or original, as anywhere near stupid. (Admitedly, if you were to refer to the animated series character as stupid I would however be quick to agree lol)<br /><br />So that's my first observation, and as for the second: You also claim who the "real Batman" is. Discerning two batmen's with the Bat-Man and the Batman when you say "so essential a distinction that the two depictions stand not as similar takes on one essentially unchanging ‘core’ character, but as two utterly separate and antithetical superheroes."<br /><br />They are certainly not utterly seperate, as you put it. The two depictions (bat-man and batman)stand truly as variant takes on one essentially unchanging ‘core’ character. There is in fact a CORE that you seem to dismiss between the two and blatently sweep away as if it didn't exist. Between the earliest Bob Kane comics (and I do include the secret origin of Batman) and the later Batman comics (meaning the 60's, 70's, or 80's or even whatever) the CORE is always present (which I will state).<br /><br />So to say that bat-man and batman are utterly seperate and anithetical, I must say, is truly an exaggerated statement. Before I mention the characters core, it should be pointed out that ORIGINAL forms of a character are not necessarily the end-all-be-all. ORIGINALS are actually rough drafts, such as the original Iron Man was a grey tin bucket. The original Hulk was passive, harmless and could speak clear english sentences. Heck, even the original Superman couldn't even fly.<br /><br />CONTINUED-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-62352221995438892512011-05-18T23:34:01.141+01:002011-05-18T23:34:01.141+01:00Hello Andy:- Firstly, I'm sorry for the delay ...Hello Andy:- Firstly, I'm sorry for the delay in posting this. It was directed into the spam file of my account and so I never realised it was there.<br /><br />Secondly, I think you're right; the 68 Batman revamp, with Mr O'Neil as its guiding light, created the Ur-text of the Batman, but placing his sorrow and sense of social responsibility right at the front of the character. And of course, the way that DO took the origin and used it to make the Batman an entirely sane but entirely sorrowful man is what makes the character so marvelous. There were of course a good many stories from before which cast Bruce Wayne in that light, but DO nailed the mix and past it down in such a way that even the grim'n'gritty excesses can't stick for too long. (An irony then, that a great deal of the excessively bleak Batman occurred while DO was the character's editor.) <br /><br />As for the 39/40 Batman. I'd quite like to see him return exactly in that form for a one-shot or whatever. It could be fine satire, to watch the Batman who the Batman would be appalled by running around in a story by modern-day creators. If ASB was intended as that, it wasn't nasty enough ...Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-48556684969183638802011-05-18T10:42:55.621+01:002011-05-18T10:42:55.621+01:00Hello Cease-Ill:- the question you raise about how...Hello Cease-Ill:- the question you raise about how ideas change is one which fascinates me. In another life, I'd be a researcher of independent means who could really dig into the historical record where comics are concerned in general. As it is, I'm just playing around with the ideas, but I know that all I can do is play. Identifying the degree of change, let alone the reasons for it, is quite beyond my talents and resources :)Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-73980285620383472852011-05-17T13:29:07.954+01:002011-05-17T13:29:07.954+01:00I specifically remembered this blog, Colin, and, t...I specifically remembered this blog, Colin, and, taking a bit of time to enrich myself/ goof off, enjoyed your historical contrast and closer examination of the short-hand expression that not only defines much of the old comics fan experience, but also our understanding of so very many things in life. Entire countries are caricatured in a simple group of images; complex workings of staples of our society, understood vaguely on the strand of a single description---even, occasionally, a joke!<br /><br />The question of changing society beneath the story, its meta-text, is very interesting, but I wonder if it doesn't simply say more about the creators than the audience? Will certainly comb this one through again.Ceasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852602817305513997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-69997445913987937712011-05-15T19:40:08.423+01:002011-05-15T19:40:08.423+01:00I don´t know. I concur that the wish for the ur-Ba...I don´t know. I concur that the wish for the ur-Batman is not very helpful. On the other hand those stories are not very good or developed in in terms of characterisation. Of course this 1940 Batman is a bully but so is the Dark Knight. <br /><br />The 1940 Batman is a truly derivative character. There was The Shadow and The Spider. Not to mention the coincidence of The Black Bat. I trust there are well researched articles why those two characters have nothing in common except appearing within a few month. Still, the only new in the concept is the avenger of murdered parents angle. And even this got put in the foreground after O´Neil. The ur-Batman is an underdevolped concept.<br /><br />But I understand that the gun-toting Bat-Man is unsuitable for what was a kids medium. You just need to read a Spider-novel which is always a virtual slaughter or a less bloodthirsty Shadow to see that they are unsuitable as a one-for-one adaption at the time.<br /><br />But the evolution of Batman in the O´Neil era can be seen as a much needed maturation. I am not a fan of the silly camp Batman, and I am not a fan of the Grant Morrison Batman which I sampled and found disappointing to a confusing mess. Frankly I don´t get the obsession with the Silver Age. And I have no interest in the Batman Inc idea. This is again a case of the emperor´s new clothes.<br /><br />Of course I understand that the grim´n gritty Batman has become quite silly. It is no wonder that it all ended in ASBAR which for me still is a bad, sad joke. How this ever could get green-lit is beyond me but it is kind of consequent.<br /><br />Looking forward to your posts.AndyDeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806906746754478064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-47218405573865902862011-05-15T14:36:20.644+01:002011-05-15T14:36:20.644+01:00Hello Mr B:- Ironically, it's Spider-Man who a...Hello Mr B:- Ironically, it's Spider-Man who always complicates this situation for me. Because on the whole I've come to believe that there are no default versions of characters and that no-one, alone or with a group of like-minded folks, has a better claim where 'their' version of a property is concerned being seen as the definitive one. And then I think of the Lee/Ditko Spidey and I think "No, there really are objective grounds for believing that Spidey was only ever the real Spidey back there'. Objective grounds? Pah. I liked it better. And if I don't read Mr Slott's Spidey because I'm not very interested in the modern, adult Spidey-as-Avenger tales, it doesn't mean that his take is wrong. I'm just not very interested.<br /><br />In the end, Grant Morrison has the best attitude, regarding as he does the superhero being given much of its vitality by its capacity to be reinvented. I think it's a shame that the superhero must be reinvented within the wider context of an immersive universe, because outside of that straight-jacket, more might be achieved. But in the end, what we like is what we like. If THAT Batman is your Batman, then good luck to Yvonne Craig and your good self.(But no photos and transcripts, p-lease.)<br /><br />Alan Moore made a good point about the constant re-invention of characters meaning that the reader was likely to become more and more alienated. And yet, Miller's Daredevil was a revamping, and now it's the default take, rather than that of Gene Colan and 'Mike' Murdock, the dafteest alter ego's alter ego ever.<br /><br />By which I mean, we all want what we think is the best take and yet there's no way to fix a definitive version on these products. But I have found that alot of folks can't say what they want, although they're great at saying what they don't. So most of us struggle to say much of what we like beyond naming a run of issues and a few key creators. Keeping folks happy when they don't really know what it is that they want must surely be a thankless task for creators and editors alike.<br /><br />That Walt Disney was, shall we say, something of character, wasn't he? I guess I'm not really fan of his politics, or of that Mouse, to be honest.Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-14000268244750593172011-05-15T01:07:48.039+01:002011-05-15T01:07:48.039+01:00While I think there's always mileage in pointi...While I think there's always mileage in pointing out the proprietary feelings of comics fans when it comes to interpretations of characters and how they think "their" Spider-Man/Hulk/Batman/Superman is the real thing above all others, it's worth remembering that once you strip the presumption of geekiness on the part of fans away from the argument, all you have is a consumer who isn't interested in a retooled product - and that is perfectly fine as a rationale given it might not actually be "their" character, but it's definately their money.<br /><br />I have always wondered about the proprietary attitude from some quarters and wondered how it might work, however: if the married Spider-Man is more valid than the current singleton because readers grew up with him, then surely earlier versions are just as valid for even older fans? The jingoistic pro-Vietnam Spidey who loves Prez Nixon, for example? Or the commie-bashing Captain America? The Gun-toting Bat-Man? The Nazi-loving, union-busting, anti-Semite Mickey Mouse?<br />Which generation of fans can legitimately lay claim to any character if such a thing were possible and not in direct contradiction of the demands of the market and - dare I say it - POP?<br /><br />Personally, as much as I enjoyed Year One and the Nolan films, any version of Batman that wasn't made in the late sixties and starred the trouser-worrying Yvonne Craig is dead to me. That sucker is just plain bulletproof.Brigonoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284882511370405132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-29448274566280945872011-05-14T23:31:45.814+01:002011-05-14T23:31:45.814+01:00Charles, the problem is that if your supposition i...Charles, the problem is that if your supposition is right, and I really think that it may be, then ASB is actually very .... clever and ..... far cleverer than me, certainly, though that's not difficult. If it really is a continuation of the 39/40 Batman, then it's one great satire on the CCC and its preconceptions.<br /><br />Must find it, must read it again, must slam up the hand of penitence if you're right.<br /><br />If not, if it really is what it appears to be, then fine, I'm with you; snotty objections time!Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-64412195905419254842011-05-14T18:02:10.630+01:002011-05-14T18:02:10.630+01:00Man, if snotty objections to ASB is factually wron...Man, if snotty objections to ASB is factually wrong, who wants to be correct? <br /><br />- Charles RBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-75124070753059316172011-05-14T14:43:40.054+01:002011-05-14T14:43:40.054+01:00Charles, that jump in logic from the above to All-...Charles, that jump in logic from the above to All-Star Batman ... well, that's a holy $*!% moment for me too. I don't know more than two of the stories in that series; I couldn't stick it, to be honest, but now that I think of it, the Batman of January to April 1940 IS remarkably close to ASB in some key ways, and I had a keen sense that Miller had used those issues as an influence on Batman: Year One when I was reading them. Well, I'm going to have to dig out my skimmed but never properly read ASB hardback. I may just have had my snotty objections to ASB blown right out of the water! Good work, Mr Charles, and as always, I'm grateful for pointing out the significant possibility of very flawed thinking on my part!!!<br /><br />That first Batman isn't a brooding avenger, or rather not in the sense that we associate that concept with today. In some of the stories, such as those early '40 ones, he's just a laughing thug, picking fights for the sake of it and a host of things which I'm looking forward to discussing next week. Robin's character is closer on the whole to what we would expect as the strip settles down later in 1940, but there are some remarkable moments too, the one used in the piece being the latest one I could find. (I don't know much about Batman, I'm doing the best with what I can find, but I have tried not to bodge the research.)<br /><br />The point about Harry and Gwen is a good one. Gwen is SO different at first that she's obviously replaced by a Skrull or some such like when JR comes along. Good call, and I'll go check that site out.<br /><br />As a social scientist, I'm fascinated by how a common culture creates illusions which supersede the evidence before their eyes. Batman of 39/40 may look like we expect him to according to the CCC, but if the stories are read for what the say and show rather than for what's expected to be there, well, a different story emerges. I honestly do believe that that early Batman isn't anything like the general assumption of his character and actions, but of course the Batman experts and those who've read the material always knew it, or always knew enough to know I'm talking piffle! What interests me isn't claiming a breakthrough in Batman studies, 'cause that's obviously not true. But I am interested in how so many of us come to assume that something's true when it's patently not.<br /><br />Sadly, all I can do is try to note something of the surface of the process. There's no research grant for Batman Studies, ethnomethodology section :)Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-14178681501092177052011-05-14T14:19:01.905+01:002011-05-14T14:19:01.905+01:00Now I haven't read the early Batmans, so findi...Now I <i>haven't</i> read the early Batmans, so finding out he's not a brooding avenger and some Robin stories could be vicious is a bit of a surprise. The Batman stories we later see indicate the early days were completely different, don't they? And they'd have to be. The flashback stories Year One, The Long Halloween, and the Dark Moon Rising cycle by Matt Wagner <i>are</i>. (In fact, they're also different from <i>each other</i> despite each one deliberately trying to tie in to the ones before it...)<br /><br />Paul O'Brian had a good line with the X-Men: First Class stories - they're absolutely nothing like the Silver Age X-Men, but they are what, the way the X-Men have turned out, the Silver Age X-Men 'must' have been and can be assumed to have been. Website "Spidey Kicks Butt" also noticed how Gwen Stacy and Harry Osborn originally weren't Peter's friends at all, he didn't think much of them and vice versa, but few people remember that because the Lee/Romita version of college Spidey usurped the far shorter Lee/Ditko one - and which would the fan-turned-writer rather write about and the fan-still-fan read about? Same with Batman probably, most people don't want an early Batman that's a brutish dick. <br /><br />...holy crap, mid-writing it just occured to me that <i>All-Star Batman and Robin is exactly that and Miller was semi-accurate all along</i>. Damn.<br /><br />- Charles RBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-31385995696714930642011-05-14T12:51:06.630+01:002011-05-14T12:51:06.630+01:00Hello Automatic:- I do appreciate the kind words. ...Hello Automatic:- I do appreciate the kind words. The old blog's taken a real hammering in terms of visitors during the Blogger crisis and it's heartening to know that it's up now and folks can, if they choose to, read it again.<br /><br />That matter of "true" characterisation is a common problem, isn't it? I remember researching a piece in the Hulk, for example, and finding there were 6 quite different takes on the character in his first 6 appearances. I promise I'm not exaggerating. And yet I also collected four different interviews by professionals arguing that their take on the Hulk was one which reflected the big grey/green monster's first run. I think we long to believe that we can find a 'true' take on a character which no-one can ever ruin, and I think it's true for just about every human endeavour, which I'd not realised until typing this sentence; the real Jesus, the real Kennedy, the real Kal-El. You'd think no-one had ever watched Rashoman :)<br /><br />Mind you, I obviously hadn't. I made some aligned if not identical comments some 13 or so months ago on this blog, but I promise, I've learned my lesson!<br /><br />I'm sure childhood memories and a longing for certainty have a great deal to do with it, as you say. But I'm also sure that human beings have a general and typical capacity to match up what they believe inside their heads with what they perceive to be objectively true outside of them. The real Thatcher, the real Jack the Ripper, the real Pirates of The Caribbean ....Colin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246781681702128600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5618879740460069575.post-82837059025241745562011-05-14T12:38:52.626+01:002011-05-14T12:38:52.626+01:00Brilliant analysis! I think the frequently stated...Brilliant analysis! I think the frequently stated desire in comic fandom to regress the character to their 'true' characterisation is a very interesting one. It speaks very strongly to the idea of trying to resurrect some rose-tinted halcyon past. It'd be fair to say that the majority of superhero fans started reading superhero comics in their younger years. Does the frequently stated desire to take a character back to its roots just show a sense of trying to regain childhood wonder? After all, things were just so much more colourful and exciting in the past...londoncitynightshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05709416402447278223noreply@blogger.com