Batman Is A Bad Person

I’m not trying to do anything. It is a literary device (which is similar to “protagonist” but distinct because it includes the ability to achieve amazing feats). And Batman is a literary character.

1 Like

@Izzy11 Fair enough. I think the reason I’m also focusing in on Batman and not other characters is his popularity. As i say at the end of my original post, he is one of the most significant figures in pop culture. I think there’s more responsibility that comes with a character that is a figure head in comics. I mean, how many times have you seen a kid where a green arrow shirt over a Batman shirt.

@AlexanderKnox I can’t find the distinction between hero and protagonist as a literary device that you describe online. From what I read, they just define the hero as a main character. In the context of a literary device, they’re used interchangeably with no focus on “feats”. I’d agree with you if the word hero wasn’t used in comics the same way it’s used out of them. People call characters like Batman and Superman a hero in the same way they call a firefighter one. This is a very common occurrence. I’ve went ahead and cited examples of what I’m talking about below for clarity. :slight_smile:

“Hero” as a Literary Device:

Examples of Batman Being Called a Hero Beyond The Literary Device Definition:

  • Being called “The hero we deserve,” in The Dark Knight.
  • “Isn’t that what being a hero means? To inspire people, give them hope in the darkest of nights (excuse the bad pun) and inspire them to fight for what’s right, and for what they believe in?” (Why Batman Has Defined What It Means to Be a Hero)
  • “There are many heroes, both fictional and real, but they all have certain qualities that make them heroes. Qualities that I think make a hero are courage, responsibility, and good judgement. One hero I think has all these qualities is Batman.” (Batman | MY HERO)
1 Like

:face_with_monocle: Well, given how you’ve talked about him in the past I’d say it’s been a loose grip buddy. :laughing:

I don’t have the time at the moment to read through your post here bud, but will later tonight. I will say…
“Batman Is A Bad Person”

“No Colonel Sanders, You’re Wrong!”

On a less serious note: I hope you’ve been well and had a good Thanks giving! :hugs:

3 Likes

The composite hero of the monomyth is a personage of exceptional gifts. Frequently he is honored by his society, frequently unrecognized or disdained. He and/or the world in which he finds himself suffers from a symbolical deficiency. In fairy tales this may be as slight as the lack of a certain golden ring, whereas in apocalyptic vision the physical and spiritual life of the whole earth can be represented as fallen, or on the point of falling, into ruin.
Typically, the hero of the fairy tale achieves a domestic, microcosmic triumph, and the hero of myth a world-historical, macrocosmic triumph. Whereas the former—the youngest or despised child who becomes the master of extraordinary powers—prevails over his personal oppressors, the latter brings back from his adventure the means for the regeneration of his society as a whole. Tribal or local heroes, such as the emperor Huang Ti, Moses, or the Aztec Tezcatlipoca, commit their boons to a single folk; universal heroes —Mohammed, Jesus, Gautama Buddha—bring a message for the entire world.
Whether the hero be ridiculous or sublime, Greek or barbarian, gentile or Jew, his journey varies little in essential plan. Popular tales represent the heroic action as physical; the higher religions show the deed to be moral; nevertheless, there will be found astonishingly little variation in the morphology of the adventure, the character roles involved, the victories gained.

Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, p. 35.

4 Likes

Oh are y’all getting into Campbell’s work? Me studied mythology once upon a time. James Campbell-The Hero’s Journey/The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Carl Jung-Man and His Symbols, breaking down archetypes the Self, the Persona, the Shadow and the Anima/Animus. These authors work Campbell having many others, are fantastic for understanding the structure and psychology of stories and there characters. Many authors and scholars have used their work to analysis stories and their culture along with providing a blueprint for which authors can build upon for their characters.

Okay heading back to the WaL.

2 Likes

Well, of course I went to Campbell. Superheroes are modern mythology. :wink:

2 Likes

Thanks for sharing that! I retract my statement about there not being a literary device distinction. I was 100% wrong. I stand by my other point tho that the non literary device distinction has been used in and outside comics to describe bruce.

3 Likes

Also, true haha. I did have this conversation in a hot takes thread a while back. But ive been meaning to do a full thread with expanded thoughts on it since I joined DCU over a year ago. But i havent talked about it outside of that thread to my knowledge until now.

2 Likes

This is true, and I may have been engaging in a bit of pedantic arguing there. :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

It happens. I learned something today so I think it all came out positive. Thanks for participating in the thread!

3 Likes

I kinda agree with you it depends on who writes him tom king for example writes him as as abuser so does Scott Lobdell I thank his name is however regular people can’t handle Gotham enemy’s I used to love Bruce and Batman character thats changed alot in the last couple of years The Bat Verse has aways been my fav bad writing has made me almost hate Bruce scenario with character I like like the robins

1 Like

I agree with you up until the point of Gotham not being able to handle these villians. I think the problem with that is that these villians could be prevented in the first place given the proper resources. It could also be argued that Bruce is responsible for bringing these villians out in the first place as a response to him becoming batman.

1 Like

If we do want to discuss what happens INSIDE the stories, it’s worth pointing out this moment from the first issue of the New 52 Batman series:

And what happened as a result of this endeavor? He was targeted by a secret society of rich old people in Gotham with a zombie ninja army. As much as I think that the “Court of Owls” arc blundered its execution, I do think it offers a possible solution to your problem: Bruce is a billionaire, but he’s only one billionaire in a city teeming with corrupt one-percenters. His efforts to do things the right way are ever frustrated by the other Old Money types who pull the strings, so he’s never able to hang up the cowl.

4 Likes

" His parents died when he was so young. Shot. Killed right in front of him. He was raised alone. A kid in a huge mansion. With his memories of his mother and father. He had love, and they took it from him. He should be a killer. He should want to tear the world apart for what it did. And yet he took that pain. That shock of death. And he turned it into hope. "

— Superman

batman-2016-36

5 Likes

@AlexanderKnox Maybe, but if he really gives up after one attempt then that’s not much of a try in my eyes. Fixing Gotham is not going to be easy, but I do believe there is a right way of doing so. But, if we’re judging this one attempt on fixing it through charity and welfare as proving it’s ineffective, then Bruce playing as Batman against the same villains and same problems for 80 years should be more than enough evidence to show that his current solution isn’t working either.

@TheRealDetectiveChimp A bad person is capable of doing good things. Just because an abusive father buys his daughter the birthday gift she wanted doesn’t absolve him of the years of trauma he gave her. What you’ve shown me in these panels do nothing to address the larger, more systemic, issues with the Batman character which I laid out above. The Superman quote is nice, but it doesn’t address the billions of dollars and other support systems he had in place (ie. Alfred) to prevent him from taking a much darker path. Not to mention that the path he’s taken (as I lay out in my original post) is not a good nor healthy one.

1 Like

I agree that Batman is a bad person. While I think he’s a hero, and a damn good one he constantly proves to be physically abusive to those he claims to care about, lies and keeps things from those he’s supposed to be working with, he expects very highly of those around him without truly giving the same in return, he’s selfish - he doesn’t do what he does for others, but because that little boy in the alley couldn’t do anything to stop it so now as an adult he can, overall Batman just proves to be a toxic piece of ■■■■.

2 Likes

@EverAJ I figured I’d see you in this thread haha! I agree with you. I didn’t even begin to touch his abuse to the Batfamily, but that is definitely an issue. You say he’s a hero though, so I need to ask. Do you disagree with my definition of hero or do you think he actually fits it more than I gave him credit for.

2 Likes

LOL :joy::joy::joy: I have a distinct disdain for Batman (and a little for Damian too) rn so this is definitely a thread for me.
Honestly, 50/50. There are moments when he fits it and moments when he doesn’t. It really depends on the writer imo. But overall he seems to do some good so I’ll just go with hero. I hope that makes sense.

2 Likes

Yeah, I get that. A lot of people have brought up that it depends on the writer. I think that I could be holding a pretty high standard for the character, but I think that’s fair given his HUGE status in pop culture, comics, and the DC Universe overall.

2 Likes

I agree. You should hold him to a higher standard considering that he’s DC’s marketing strategy? Need to prop up a character to make them cool? Add Batman. Need a movie that’s automatically gonna bring in box office? Add Batman. Need a story to reach more people? Add Batman. So I think it’s fair to hold him to a higher standard than others cuz not everyone gets that much shine or effort.

2 Likes