|
|
Post by Pól Rua on Dec 30, 2014 3:16:34 GMT -5
You know why Bruce Wayne isn't in a sexual relationship with Dick Grayson?
Because he's a fantasy figure. For children.
He's not a grown man living with a small child... he's a CHILD'S IDEA of what a grown man is like. That's why he thinks that dressing in a Hallowe'en costume and punching the mentally ill is the best method for dealing with street crime. That's why he has girls around him, but he's not really interested in them. Because like a child, he likes girls sometimes, but he's still not sure why.
It's not psychosexual deviation... it's cooties.
Yes. If you view Batman through the lens of an adult with adult sensibilities, then sure, it's a weird arrangement, but that's not the character's intended target audience. It's the same reason he can go out every night and fight bad guys without crippling himself. Because kids are like that. They jump their bikes off homemade ramps and swing off ropes into swimming holes and eat dirt and fight and scrap... especially 1940's kids. And sure, they get injuries, but it's a scraped knee, or a broken arm in a sling for awhile, and then back to smacking your brother in the head with a stick while pretending to be Robin Hood.
It's also why he's a martial arts master, detective, scientist, genius and all-round swell dude.
Ever see a kid talk about his dad (or the guy he wishes his dad was like). Ten feet tall and made of steel. He can build a tree fort and fix a lightswitch. He can beat up YOUR dad for sure! That's where Batman comes from. He's the coolest uncle ever.
I like throwing stuff back and forth about whether this would work in the real world or not, or how this or that would work. It's fun.
But in the end, what your aim is is to tell good stories. And sometimes this element of realism helps. It adds to the verisimilitude of the piece, or it makes the story richer or more exciting or whatever. But in the end, it's a fantasy adventure piece. It's no more reflective of the real world than 'Dirty Harry' or 'Lethal Weapon' is of actual policework.
And if 'realism' is undermining your ability to tell cool, exciting, fun adventure stories, then it can go hang.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Dec 30, 2014 5:11:40 GMT -5
You're dead on right about everything and you especially nail the appeal of Batman (and why I believe continually casting Batman as a man in his 20s rather than his 30s or even 40s is wrong). Batman is a child's fantasy of adult life while Superman is more of the reality of adult life (mid-level office job, unrequited crush on co-worker, etc). But I specifically quoted the most pertinent part because a child of the 1940s has almost nothing to do with a child of the 2010s. Kids don't do anything anymore, except play video games and watch TV and hang out on the internet. They especially don't go outside and jump bikes off ramps or do anything dangerous because their useless mothers can't bring themselves to cut the umbilical cord. And when kids play video games they do so while screaming profanity and racial epithets into their headsets, and when they watch TV it's reality garbage starring sex tape queens and when they hang out on the internet they tweet mindless garbage and psychologically torment their peers and watch porn. Children of the 1940s might have been innocent enough to not draw a sexual connection between Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson but you'd hard pressed to find a kid under 10 who possesses such an innocent mindset, especially when warnings of creepy sexual behavior are drilled into their brains. Most kids would see Robin's originally costume and dismiss it as gay. And forget about those panels of Bruce and Robin sleeping in the same bed. Today's kids can still accept the wild adventures of Batman and Robin but they can't accept those little booty shorts. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 30, 2014 6:53:30 GMT -5
You know why Bruce Wayne isn't in a sexual relationship with Dick Grayson? Because he's a fantasy figure. For children. He's not a grown man living with a small child... he's a CHILD'S IDEA of what a grown man is like. That's why he thinks that dressing in a Hallowe'en costume and punching the mentally ill is the best method for dealing with street crime. That's why he has girls around him, but he's not really interested in them. Because like a child, he likes girls sometimes, but he's still not sure why. It's not psychosexual deviation... it's cooties. Yes. If you view Batman through the lens of an adult with adult sensibilities, then sure, it's a weird arrangement, but that's not the character's intended target audience. It's the same reason he can go out every night and fight bad guys without crippling himself. Because kids are like that. They jump their bikes off homemade ramps and swing off ropes into swimming holes and eat dirt and fight and scrap... especially 1940's kids. And sure, they get injuries, but it's a scraped knee, or a broken arm in a sling for awhile, and then back to smacking your brother in the head with a stick while pretending to be Robin Hood. It's also why he's a martial arts master, detective, scientist, genius and all-round swell dude. Ever see a kid talk about his dad (or the guy he wishes his dad was like). Ten feet tall and made of steel. He can build a tree fort and fix a lightswitch. He can beat up YOUR dad for sure! That's where Batman comes from. He's the coolest uncle ever. I like throwing stuff back and forth about whether this would work in the real world or not, or how this or that would work. It's fun. But in the end, what your aim is is to tell good stories. And sometimes this element of realism helps. It adds to the verisimilitude of the piece, or it makes the story richer or more exciting or whatever. But in the end, it's a fantasy adventure piece. It's no more reflective of the real world than 'Dirty Harry' or 'Lethal Weapon' is of actual policework. And if 'realism' is undermining your ability to tell cool, exciting, fun adventure stories, then it can go hang. What else is there to say? BRAVO!!! Krypto, Arms-fall-off Boy and the original Captain Marvel do not need an Identity Crisis to be fun, cool and exciting. Nor does any other character, come to think of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Dec 30, 2014 8:37:14 GMT -5
You know why Bruce Wayne isn't in a sexual relationship with Dick Grayson? Because he's a fantasy figure. For children. He's not a grown man living with a small child... he's a CHILD'S IDEA of what a grown man is like. That's why he thinks that dressing in a Hallowe'en costume and punching the mentally ill is the best method for dealing with street crime. That's why he has girls around him, but he's not really interested in them. Because like a child, he likes girls sometimes, but he's still not sure why. It's not psychosexual deviation... it's cooties. Yes. If you view Batman through the lens of an adult with adult sensibilities, then sure, it's a weird arrangement, but that's not the character's intended target audience. It's the same reason he can go out every night and fight bad guys without crippling himself. Because kids are like that. They jump their bikes off homemade ramps and swing off ropes into swimming holes and eat dirt and fight and scrap... especially 1940's kids. And sure, they get injuries, but it's a scraped knee, or a broken arm in a sling for awhile, and then back to smacking your brother in the head with a stick while pretending to be Robin Hood. It's also why he's a martial arts master, detective, scientist, genius and all-round swell dude. Ever see a kid talk about his dad (or the guy he wishes his dad was like). Ten feet tall and made of steel. He can build a tree fort and fix a lightswitch. He can beat up YOUR dad for sure! That's where Batman comes from. He's the coolest uncle ever. I like throwing stuff back and forth about whether this would work in the real world or not, or how this or that would work. It's fun. But in the end, what your aim is is to tell good stories. And sometimes this element of realism helps. It adds to the verisimilitude of the piece, or it makes the story richer or more exciting or whatever. But in the end, it's a fantasy adventure piece. It's no more reflective of the real world than 'Dirty Harry' or 'Lethal Weapon' is of actual policework. And if 'realism' is undermining your ability to tell cool, exciting, fun adventure stories, then it can go hang. THANK YOU!!!!! Cei-U! I summon that moment of "Wish I'd said that!" |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 30, 2014 8:45:11 GMT -5
But I specifically quoted the most pertinent part because a child of the 1940s has almost nothing to do with a child of the 2010s. Kids don't do anything anymore, except play video games and watch TV and hang out on the internet. They especially don't go outside and jump bikes off ramps or do anything dangerous because their useless mothers can't bring themselves to cut the umbilical cord. And when kids play video games they do so while screaming profanity and racial epithets into their headsets, and when they watch TV it's reality garbage starring sex tape queens and when they hang out on the internet they tweet mindless garbage and psychologically torment their peers and watch porn. Are there kids on your lawn right now?  |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 30, 2014 8:47:48 GMT -5
You know why Bruce Wayne isn't in a sexual relationship with Dick Grayson? Because he's a fantasy figure. For children. He's not a grown man living with a small child... he's a CHILD'S IDEA of what a grown man is like. That's why he thinks that dressing in a Hallowe'en costume and punching the mentally ill is the best method for dealing with street crime. That's why he has girls around him, but he's not really interested in them. Because like a child, he likes girls sometimes, but he's still not sure why. It's not psychosexual deviation... it's cooties. Yes. If you view Batman through the lens of an adult with adult sensibilities, then sure, it's a weird arrangement, but that's not the character's intended target audience. It's the same reason he can go out every night and fight bad guys without crippling himself. Because kids are like that. They jump their bikes off homemade ramps and swing off ropes into swimming holes and eat dirt and fight and scrap... especially 1940's kids. And sure, they get injuries, but it's a scraped knee, or a broken arm in a sling for awhile, and then back to smacking your brother in the head with a stick while pretending to be Robin Hood. It's also why he's a martial arts master, detective, scientist, genius and all-round swell dude. Ever see a kid talk about his dad (or the guy he wishes his dad was like). Ten feet tall and made of steel. He can build a tree fort and fix a lightswitch. He can beat up YOUR dad for sure! That's where Batman comes from. He's the coolest uncle ever. I like throwing stuff back and forth about whether this would work in the real world or not, or how this or that would work. It's fun. But in the end, what your aim is is to tell good stories. And sometimes this element of realism helps. It adds to the verisimilitude of the piece, or it makes the story richer or more exciting or whatever. But in the end, it's a fantasy adventure piece. It's no more reflective of the real world than 'Dirty Harry' or 'Lethal Weapon' is of actual policework. And if 'realism' is undermining your ability to tell cool, exciting, fun adventure stories, then it can go hang. This might be the best, most insightful thing I've ever read about Batman. Great post, Pol. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Dec 30, 2014 11:05:26 GMT -5
But I specifically quoted the most pertinent part because a child of the 1940s has almost nothing to do with a child of the 2010s. Kids don't do anything anymore, except play video games and watch TV and hang out on the internet. They especially don't go outside and jump bikes off ramps or do anything dangerous because their useless mothers can't bring themselves to cut the umbilical cord. And when kids play video games they do so while screaming profanity and racial epithets into their headsets, and when they watch TV it's reality garbage starring sex tape queens and when they hang out on the internet they tweet mindless garbage and psychologically torment their peers and watch porn. Are there kids on your lawn right now? Better not be, otherwise they'll be in my lawn and their ass will indeed be grass. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 30, 2014 11:17:48 GMT -5
You know why Bruce Wayne isn't in a sexual relationship with Dick Grayson? Because he's a fantasy figure. For children. He's not a grown man living with a small child... he's a CHILD'S IDEA of what a grown man is like. That's why he thinks that dressing in a Hallowe'en costume and punching the mentally ill is the best method for dealing with street crime. That's why he has girls around him, but he's not really interested in them. Because like a child, he likes girls sometimes, but he's still not sure why. It's not psychosexual deviation... it's cooties. Yes. If you view Batman through the lens of an adult with adult sensibilities, then sure, it's a weird arrangement, but that's not the character's intended target audience. It's the same reason he can go out every night and fight bad guys without crippling himself. Because kids are like that. They jump their bikes off homemade ramps and swing off ropes into swimming holes and eat dirt and fight and scrap... especially 1940's kids. And sure, they get injuries, but it's a scraped knee, or a broken arm in a sling for awhile, and then back to smacking your brother in the head with a stick while pretending to be Robin Hood. It's also why he's a martial arts master, detective, scientist, genius and all-round swell dude. Ever see a kid talk about his dad (or the guy he wishes his dad was like). Ten feet tall and made of steel. He can build a tree fort and fix a lightswitch. He can beat up YOUR dad for sure! That's where Batman comes from. He's the coolest uncle ever. I like throwing stuff back and forth about whether this would work in the real world or not, or how this or that would work. It's fun. But in the end, what your aim is is to tell good stories. And sometimes this element of realism helps. It adds to the verisimilitude of the piece, or it makes the story richer or more exciting or whatever. But in the end, it's a fantasy adventure piece. It's no more reflective of the real world than 'Dirty Harry' or 'Lethal Weapon' is of actual policework. And if 'realism' is undermining your ability to tell cool, exciting, fun adventure stories, then it can go hang. Wow....Can I just say that I love you? Like a deep, salty, unclean in the eyes of the lord, kind of manly love. That's seriously one of the best things I've seen written about comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Pól Rua on Dec 30, 2014 19:56:55 GMT -5
A lot of time, it can be easy to be too close to the subject in fan discussions, and you have to take a step back, and it's not just fans who fall victim to it.
A lot of pros like Roy Thomas, Geoff Johns or E.Nelson Bridwell (and that's just the tip of the iceberg) have tried to resolve seeming inconsistencies in fictional continuity when in the end, sometimes, the best response is... it's fiction.
Grant Morrison does this really well in one of my favourite answers to nerd questions ever.
Sometimes, the best answer is OUTSIDE the fictional world. One of the classic nerd arguments is "If Batman doesn't execute The Joker, isn't he culpable for the subsequent massacres the next time he escapes Arkham Asylum (which might as well have a revolving door instead of a gate)?"
It's easy to get trapped in "But if Batman kills, he crosses a line..." or "That would make him just as bad..." or whatever.
But the best answer is that The Joker is a great character. Sometimes, writers will make a hash of him and write shitty Joker stories, but he has amazing story potential. There have been SO MANY outstanding Joker stories, and nobody wants to never see the character again.
So in the end, the best answer is "Because that would mean we'd never get to read about him again, which makes for bad stories."
Which doesn't mean that 'in-world' discussions can't result in some GREAT storytelling, because that's absurd. It's great to let your thoughts wander, or look at an idea from all sorts of different angles to see if something amazing or wonderful appears.
But sometimes, you don't need to give Clark Kent hypno-specs, or blow up the multiverse to 'fix' stuff. Sometimes "Hey, it's comics" or "because it's fun" or "Let's never discuss this story again... under penalty of catapult" works better.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Dec 30, 2014 20:13:33 GMT -5
There are two ways of looking at a story. Theres the diegetic perspective, which is the internal logic of the story, and the non-diegetic perspective, which is the logic of the real world. The non-diegetic reason for why Batman doesn't kill Joker is because Joker is too good a character. The diegetic reason he doesn't kill the Joker is his own questions of how that would affect his place in the world. It's really a non-issue because Batman not killing The Joker is a big part of what makes that relationship work. The real issue is all of the other elements that surround the Joker, like why he's in Arkham when he doesn't meet the legal conditions for insanity.
As for continuity, it's an interesting difference between DC and Marvel. Every 25 years or so DC blows up their universe and starts fresh. They did it by establishing Earth-One and Earth-Two in 1960, they did it with Crisis in 1986 and they did it with the New 52 in 2011. On the other hand, Marvel doesn't do these reboots and their current policy is to ignore and quitely prune away the smaller elements that hold up continuity. But Marvel's policy has also changed over the years. In the early years Marvel was a trailblazer, telling stories in real time and having characters develop quite a bit in just a few short years. Continuity wasn't just a backstory, it was actually pretty tight. Then they switched from real time to a sliding timeline, the timeline got locked down to 13 years since FF #1 and the 8 years of real time are still there, squashing 46 years of stories into five years of continuity. Hence Marvel now ignoring much their own continuity, sticking with the landmark stories and letting the rest drift away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pól Rua on Dec 31, 2014 3:28:08 GMT -5
... Flash Gordon himself was more of a pentathlete as far as his physique went, there were quite a few heavier strong men in Raymond's masterful series. (But then, Raymond like using live models for his figures, so he probably relied on diffeent body types). *edit* I just remembered that Dave Gibbons used to draw heroes with middle parts thicker than usual in the 80s. Not plump men in tights, necessarily, but people who didn't fit in the standard bodybuilder look typical of comics. DC and Dark Horse did a Batman/Tarzan team-up 'Batman/Tarzan: Claws of the Catwoman' and I loved the way the artist drew the two characters. I dig when artists can differentiate characters like that, rather than giving everyone the same facial features and body type.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Dec 31, 2014 6:12:45 GMT -5
Artist did a nice job differentiating them by their formal wear as well. I'll have to check that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Dec 31, 2014 12:06:24 GMT -5
For some Bat-fans, seeing the possibility of a sexual/romantic relationship between Batman and Robin in a positive way is one of the essential fantasy aspects of those characters. Many gay Bat-fans do this to re-imagine the characters in ways that make them more attractive for them personally. In his essay "Batman, Deviance, and Camp" Andy Medhurst has written about how imagining a romantic relationship between Bruce and Dick helped him feel better about his own gay identity and less isolated. These fans aren't claiming Batman and Robin are "really" gay (as Wertham suggested) but that, because they are fantasy characters, we have more freedom to pretend that they are if (and when) we so choose. And we can maintain different and competing interpretations of a character simultaneously (e.g., I love both Adam West's "Bright Knight" and Frank Miller's "Dark Knight"). One of the pleasures and freedoms offered by fantasy is its ability to be read in a variety of (often contradictory) ways by each individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Dec 31, 2014 14:13:23 GMT -5
You know why Bruce Wayne isn't in a sexual relationship with Dick Grayson? Because he's a fantasy figure. For children. He's not a grown man living with a small child... he's a CHILD'S IDEA of what a grown man is like. That's why he thinks that dressing in a Hallowe'en costume and punching the mentally ill is the best method for dealing with street crime. That's why he has girls around him, but he's not really interested in them. Because like a child, he likes girls sometimes, but he's still not sure why. It's not psychosexual deviation... it's cooties. Yes. If you view Batman through the lens of an adult with adult sensibilities, then sure, it's a weird arrangement, but that's not the character's intended target audience. It's the same reason he can go out every night and fight bad guys without crippling himself. Because kids are like that. They jump their bikes off homemade ramps and swing off ropes into swimming holes and eat dirt and fight and scrap... especially 1940's kids. And sure, they get injuries, but it's a scraped knee, or a broken arm in a sling for awhile, and then back to smacking your brother in the head with a stick while pretending to be Robin Hood. It's also why he's a martial arts master, detective, scientist, genius and all-round swell dude. Ever see a kid talk about his dad (or the guy he wishes his dad was like). Ten feet tall and made of steel. He can build a tree fort and fix a lightswitch. He can beat up YOUR dad for sure! That's where Batman comes from. He's the coolest uncle ever. I like throwing stuff back and forth about whether this would work in the real world or not, or how this or that would work. It's fun. But in the end, what your aim is is to tell good stories. And sometimes this element of realism helps. It adds to the verisimilitude of the piece, or it makes the story richer or more exciting or whatever. But in the end, it's a fantasy adventure piece. It's no more reflective of the real world than 'Dirty Harry' or 'Lethal Weapon' is of actual policework. And if 'realism' is undermining your ability to tell cool, exciting, fun adventure stories, then it can go hang. I agree with most of this, with one exception. While I think you're right that Golden Age Batman was primarily pitched at males young enough to associate girls with cooties, even boys that young are aware that the ability to charm lots of hot women identifies your basic "alpha male." Ten-year-olds may not have the actual desire to charm girls their own age, but they know they're going to turn into adult males some day. "Cooties" is a good way to keep the knowledge of that coming transformation at bay for a while. At the same time,reading about the adventures of clean-cut heroes, unanimously desired by hot women, also prepares the kid-reader for the fantasy that his older self will be having ALL THE TIME once the hormones kick in-- assuming they have not done so by that age. At the same time boys know that becoming entangled with girls will bring an end to the rambunctious joys of boyhood. Thus, when Robin resents Catwoman's influence on Batman, it's not out of sexual jealousy: it's because he doesn't want to see his cool uncle tied down. That recent Kevin Smith BATMAN tale, in which Bats comes close to taking the plunge, totally misunderstands the playboy appeal of Batman for male readers. I've often seen lazy critics assert that early superhero comics are sexless because they're diverting all their energies into violence. On the contrary, even comics where the hero doesn't squire women around-- say, CAPTAIN AMERICA rather than BATMAN-- the guy superheroes are almost always saving cute young females, rather than double-chinned old guys. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 31, 2014 15:02:47 GMT -5
For some Bat-fans, seeing the possibility of a sexual/romantic relationship between Batman and Robin in a positive way is one of the essential fantasy aspects of those characters. Many gay Bat-fans do this to re-imagine the characters in ways that make them more attractive for them personally. In his essay "Batman, Deviance, and Camp" Andy Medhurst has written about how imagining a romantic relationship between Bruce and Dick helped him feel better about his own gay identity and less isolated. These fans aren't claiming Batman and Robin are "really" gay (as Wertham suggested) but that, because they are fantasy characters, we have more freedom to pretend that they are if (and when) we so choose. And we can maintain different and competing interpretations of a character simultaneously (e.g., I love both Adam West's "Bright Knight" and Frank Miller's "Dark Knight"). One of the pleasures and freedoms offered by fantasy is its ability to be read in a variety of (often contradictory) ways by each individual. This thread abounds with awesome insight, I never really thought of it like that but I'm totally cool with the message you've presented. If imagining that Bruce and Dick are a happy and well adjusted gay couple helps some young readers feel good about themselves and their own sexual identities then I'm more than happy to have them interpreted that way. I mean that's what superheroes are for us as youngsters, they're role models and the fact that they can do that in different ways is inspiring. |
|
