Dark Knight vigilante debate
Michael Richmond
an interesting question that I can't resist asking. In "The Dark
Knight Returns", we briefly tune into a debate (Point vs. Point -
I love the moderator's hairdo) about the Batman: Is he truly fighting
the forces of crime and evil, or merely a "social fascist" who
gets his kicks out of maiming (possibly) innocent citizens (who
invariably turn out to be guilty)? Well, what do you think?
Personally, I can't help feeling that he is doing right, but
what if he should come after ME? I mean, I know I'm innocent,
and people DO make mistakes... Anyway, I'd like to know what
other people out there think. I'll bet that if we got a group
of non-comics readers to answer the question too, they'd support
him a lot less.
Sorry if this opens a three-month-long discussion that gets cross-
posted to net.legal and ends up arguing the merits of Chuck
Norris versus Bruce Lee.
--
Michael Richmond Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!richmon
Ellen Eades
> the forces of crime and evil, or merely a "social fascist" who
> gets his kicks out of maiming (possibly) innocent citizens (who
> invariably turn out to be guilty)?
>
> what if he should come after ME? I mean, I know I'm innocent,
> and people DO make mistakes...
>
I read an excellent essay in _Shadow of the Bat Man_ #4 which
sheds some light on this question, at least in the opinion of
Steve Englehart, the writer and one of the 'definitive' Batman
authors. I quote:
"...the Batman is not onl sane, he's the sanest man around. He
is, in fact, the purest super-hero in existence, as I understand
the term.
"We all remember the legend. Bruce Wayne was only a child when
Joe Chill killed his parents in Crime Alley, and young Bruce
swore by his parents' spirits 'to avenge their deaths by
spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals.'
Beginning that night, he devoted his every effort to making
himself the ultimate crime-fighter-detective, scientist, athlete
.. superhero. Now, right away some people say, 'Ah, yes, a
terrible obsession -- clearly he's insane.' But I maintain the
obsession was an obsession with being the best at his chosen
career, and 'best' for the Batman is being a pillar of
righteousness. His obsession with being the Batman, in other
words, led him to MAINTAIN his mental bearings at all cost. The
world he inhabits IS a crazy one, but he's the one man who will
never succumb to it.
"'Ah!' say people who are willing to grant me that. 'Then he's
dangerous!' Why? 'Because he's a one-man vigilante who's
completely convinced he's right all the time. Hitler was like
that, and Charlie Manson, and ...' Yeah, sure they were -- but
what if the Batman really IS right ALMOST all the time, and when
he's wrong he rectifies his error? A powerful guy who knows
what to do at all times is not a priori a psychopath. That's
why I say he's the purest of super-heroes -- because he has
completely succeeded at becoming that ideal. All other members
of his exclusive profession have problems of one sort or another
-- and many villains exemplify the fears expressed above. But
the Batman, to me, does not. He REALLY is right in almost any
situation. If you throw out the idea that being obsessed with
fighting crime is by definition insanity, then I'd like to see
any other evidence that the guy's a lunatic.
"...The Creeper scares bad guys by being so freakish, but the
Batman scares 'em by being implacable. And dark. Oh yes, he's
an ominous figure of the night, but he represents the inevitable
nemesis only to the guilty.
"And so, a few hardy souls pounce a third time. 'Who is HE to
say who's guilty?' Well, now we're off into eternal
philosophical conumdrums -- we are, but the Batman isn't. Bob
Kane created the world he lives in to anwer that question
absolutely: the Joker and the Penguin and the Riddler and the
rest are CLEARLY guilty. You don't need to see them commit
their crimes to know just what they are -- while the Batman, for
his part, has devoted his life to being their OPPOSITE. To
argue that he's no better than the rest of them in that world is
to destroy the essence of the entire strip.
"Put another way, the Batman's world is extremely
black-and-white ... and that's precisely WHY he's the premiere
super-hero. The world he was designed to live in IS the world
of comic strips -- the world of black ink on white pages. ...
It's a 40s vision, of course -- the pure super-hero standing
firm against a dark and disturbing world -- but the more things
change, the more they stay the same, and it sounds a lot like
the 80s to me, too."
I must admit that I like Steve's reasoning. Although I have
never in my life heard of any vigilante or vigilantes who I did
not immediately detest for their skewed vision of the world, the
Batman's attitude is not selective. He fights criminals, all
criminals, not just [name your social evil here]. And he does
not make mistakes enough to mention. I suspect Miller is going
to bring this into question, since Jason evidently died due to
something Batman did or failed to do. The Batman's vision is
good enough that he is able to KNOW, right off, what action to
take. While I would never support vigilantism by ordinary
people, the Batman is not ordinary, nor, in that sense, a
vigilante.
Ellen
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?"
"I read it in a book," said Alice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -