Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns weigh in on the "Batman beating up poor people" debate.

[xdoop.insanejournal.com]

This is from Wizard Magazine #216.

Comments

[tacobob.insanejournal.com]

What, are you trying to tell me that beating up hobos is bad?

[mxlm.insanejournal.com]

If assaulting the indigent is wrong, I don't want to be right.

PATRICK BATEMAN IS BRUCE WAYNE

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

[sinisterlink.insanejournal.com]

What a jerk Batman is, beating up those junkies who are most likely doing something illegal so that they can get money to support their life ruining/also illegal drug habit. He's so meeeeeeean. He only picks on poor people....plus all those crazy people in costumes who show up every other day who aren't poor.

[schmevil.insanejournal.com]

I'm not sure the idea is that Batman is a jerk, but that there are some hinky class issues underlying the very concept of Batman: billionaire who fights street level crime. It'd be more interesting to talk about the stories and the writers, than the character, in this context.

Not Batman, but since we're talking superheroes and class

[arilou_skiff.insanejournal.com]

Now that I think about it, I think I understand what Quesada and the writers got "wrong" with Spider-man. Yes, he's supposed to be an everyman, but not a moral everyman, but a member of the working class. That *is* what often (but not always, depending on the writer) bugged me with a lot of Spidey-stuff. (where they went out of their way to make him a brilliant scientist, pulitzer-prize winner etc.) I think it takes something away from Peter's working-class roots.

There seems to be this idea that only the rich/educated/powerful can be superheroes (most are either millionaires without day jobs, or brilliant scientists: IE: members of the elite) Peter, while a brilliant scientist and a nerd, isn't in the stage where he is *acknowledged* as such. Thus he's still a working-class guy. He's kind of a refutation of the idea that you have to be rich and powerful to make a difference: All you need is drive, determination and being bitten by a radioactive spider.

That's not to say that he's *alone* in this. But he's clearly the most prominent "working class hero".

And I think that's what Quesada & Co was trying to articulate when talking about MJ (although I think the usual american inability to talk about class set in, too) in that a supermodel really is from a different class altogether (although MJ the struggling actor ala. JMS or something similar could have easily been done as well, and with less problems)

Re: Not Batman, but since we're talking superheroes and class

[yaseen101.insanejournal.com]

Actually though, even if the character is a 'working class superhero' I find the concept of someone working hard and not achieving anything to be pretty stupid. I don't think it takes away anything from Peter or Spider-man if he wins a Pulitzer Prize once in a while or if he did something brilliant (but not Reed Richard or Hank Pym level of thing). People work hard to achieve something and if he does not achieve anything and goes through repeated cycles of failure because a writer does not want to lose 'something important' about the character then you don't really feel anything about his hard work because it has no value now because you know he is going to fail anyway.

Re: Not Batman, but since we're talking superheroes and class

[(Anonymous)]

...Working class roots? I get what you're saying, but Peter Parker invented the web shooters and was made by Objectivist Steve Dikto... I don't think he was intended to be some ordinary joe, he was always intelligent, moral, and early on... a bit of a misanthropist prick (fortunately this was phased out).
I'm not sure why you object to him being a scientist/successful journalist, because he *earned* those accolades through hard work, and by making him stuck in the everyman role, despite his brilliance, isn't that saying that no matter how smart you are, if you're *not* born into high circumstances you aren't going anywhere?

[yaseen101.insanejournal.com]

It's not like he is beating up innoccent people, it's people who has obviously done something wrong even if it is for reasons that can be considered 'valid' or 'good'. 'Batman' cannot heal poverty or pay your rent or feed your children and that has been highlighted once in a post on SD 1.0, that's Bruce Wayne's job, there are multiple foundations and charities in Gotham and Bruce Wayne plays a part in almost all of them. Honestly, though stuff like this is only bad if he is actually after innocents and waving cash singing 'I have cash and yooou doooon't!!! BWAHAHAHAAHA' or if he is beating up people and doing nothing about their families given his wealth.

Right?

[jarodrussell.insanejournal.com]

Yes. Batman doesn't break into homes where people are smoking pot or shooting up heroin, he tackles and captures the junkie who just mugged someone for their next fix. Batman doesn't break into single mothers homes when they're spanking/disciplining their kids, he breaks the wrist of a pimp about to pummel his fifteen year old prostitute. There is difference, a gigantic one.

[kijikun.insanejournal.com]

Thank you, Grant "nerds with power are like Hitler" Morrison.

[runespoor7.insanejournal.com]

On the subject of Batman beating up junkies: does anyone remember that utterly stupid story where Bruce let a thirteen-year-old girl get killed because he was on the streets being Batman when she came by the Manor to ask for Bruce Wayne's help? They'd met at a society event and she was the rich little spoiled girl turned junkie due to parental lack of attention, something like that.

[yaseen101.insanejournal.com]

You can't really blame him for that. It was only after he came home he found out about it. And yes I remember that story, even though I liked it's depiction of Gotham and the characters (except the villain), I thought the whole plot and narrative was a bit too 'out there'. Besides he spends the entire story blaming himself for her death and hallucinating about her.

[aaron_bourque.insanejournal.com]

Oh, I see.

A Wizard interview. Well, any rebuttal is invalid, then.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

Seriously. I thought they'd closed up shop already. How many staffers do they have now? TWO?

[seriousfic.insanejournal.com]

And how about that time in the forties when all those Americans started going overseas and killing foreigners? What a bunch of xenophobes!

[arilou_skiff.insanejournal.com]

Do you REALLY want to get into the argument over whether or not wartime comics were xenophobic?

Because, the entire caricatuering of the japanese... Well, Yeah.

Hear, hear! re: Scott Summers

[jazzypom.insanejournal.com]

Morrison speaks the truth about Cyclops. About him being repressed and how, at seventeen he's found his calling, and has worked at it ever since. I didn't realise how much he was disliked until I started going to comic comms and people called him a tool.

Re: Hear, hear! re: Scott Summers

[arilou_skiff.insanejournal.com]

Motto. I love Cyke.

But then, my real introduction to the character was X-men: Evolution.

[stolisomancer.insanejournal.com]

Wow, you guys are taking an offhand comment way too seriously. Yes, it has an obvious counterpoint, but it's not a serious argument. Morrison is not sitting there and saying that Batman is obvious and constant class warfare.

[warpedhand.insanejournal.com]

So, what about Penguin, the Mafia families, Black Mask, Hush and so on? You know, all the incredibly rich people he fights? Do they just not count?

[darthnat.insanejournal.com]

Man, the amount of praise they heap on each other is honestly a little sickening. "Your book is the best!" "No, YOUR book is the best!"

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

I think it's cute. They remind me of those gophers from the old Looney Tunes cartoons ('Indubitably!').

[sistermagpie.insanejournal.com]

I know it's just an offhand comment, but it's really annoying given that Batman actually doesn't go out and beat up junkies. He's got a history of being pretty compassionate towards people in those kinds of situations.

Also it implies that Batman just beats up everyone he meets who's committing a crime when again, if he can just catch the person who just committed some crime he does that. The versions of Batman where he's wanting to wash the streets clean of all scum is the later creation of specific writers, but not inherent in his character himself. In fact, he's far more likely to go after higher-ups in the drug organization.

The idea that Batman beats up people who can't pay their rent is becoming an annoying meme that people seem to actually seem to think has some real truth to it just because it's cynical.

And also a bit ironic given that later GM's all Yeah, my Damian's awesome because he bugs people so much! Because he looks down on everyone and is really violent and likes to hurt people--but he's clearly a hero because he's Batman's only son.

[khamelea.insanejournal.com]

"I know it's just an offhand comment, but it's really annoying given that Batman actually doesn't go out and beat up junkies. He's got a history of being pretty compassionate towards people in those kinds of situations."

True. Basically his comment is applicable to something Batman could easily be/have been.

[thatnickguy.insanejournal.com]

I have to kind of agree with Morrison. Honestly, Batman's not even in my top 10, let alone top 20 superheroes. Not that I DON'T like him (I own many of his comics and cartoons), but I don't think he's the bees knees.

I think he's ridiculously psychologically damaged. As Martha Kent said in the Superman Animated Series: "That nutcase in Gotham". And yeah, he's super rich and beats up junkies when it might be more helpful to put them up in rehab, etc. Batman's one of those characters that, if you overthink him too much, you might go nuts. Kind of like wrestling catchphrases.

That said, it makes me sad to read Morrison's statement at the conclusion. That's what comics SHOULD be about but they're honestly not, these days. You've got wives getting raped, villains being mind-wiped, heroes making deals with devils, the good guys forcing their fellow heroes into registration camps/prisons which may as well be an allegory to WWII Germany, etc.

There are so few "fun" comics today that when they ARE fun, they stand out as being some of the best Nova, Guardians of the Galaxy, Hercules, All Star Superman, Johns' Superman run for the most part, Marvel Adventures, Atomic Robo, Batman Brave & the Bold are all great examples of this.

It's kind of like Alan Moore's statement that he wished Batman would be like the Dick Sprang Silver Age era, with being tied to a giant typewriter, teaming up with Ace the Bathound, etc. There was a fun, childish excitement behind these ridiculous but fun ideas. And, if Guardians of the Galaxy is any representation, it can still work. Especially if you have a psychic Russian cosmodog, an anthropomorophic squirel and a talking tree on your team.

[mysteryfan.insanejournal.com]

But Bruce Wayne's down with the rehab program.

And glad he enjoys and sometimes writes the "fun" comics, but Morrison's also one of the writers writing sexual assault-type moments, a Batverse hero who kills without remorse and the same hero making deals with the devil.

[mysteryfan.insanejournal.com]

I'm a little stuck on the comparison between 'not being able to afford your rent' and 'not being able to afford your next fix'.

[runespoor7.insanejournal.com]

I also particularly like the immediate leap from 'junkies' to 'poor people'.

[runespoor7.insanejournal.com]

I don't think he's being serious. He's presenting the point in one of worst ways I can think of, at least, it seems obvious he's not taking it seriously.

Can you think of him?

Okay, let's pass the fact that the default favorite character is male... I try not to hold his being Morrison's favorite against Damian, but I wish it'd stop being so in-our-face.

[(Anonymous)]

"most fun to write" does not equal "Favourite".

Just because someone's fun to write doesn't mean that they're getting 'treated' better than the others.

[xlineartx.insanejournal.com]

I...don't think Bruce just picks up random addicts on the streets and beats the shit out of them. I don't think that's what he does at all.

I think the issue here is patrols, where he stops things like muggings? GEE I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY BATMAN WOULD WANT TO STOP THINGS LIKE MUGGINGS.

Really though, his thing isn't a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime" or anything like that. He's all about defending people, especially people who can't defend themselves. While there may be Unfortunate Implications in what he does, those same implications would be there regardless of how much money he had, so long as he had more than they did.

Besides, he's a smart guy, and he recognizes the root of those problems is poverty. He also recognizes that the best way to address social issues is through his philanthropic work, as Bruce Wayne, rather than Batman. Thus, the Wayne Foundation, which seems to be there to address just these kinds of problems--problems Batman can't fix.

[freddylloyd.insanejournal.com]

Morrison's tongue-in-cheek characterization of Batman is on target for the earliest stories. In his first adventures, Superman cleared slums, saved people from unjust execution, punished mine owners who skimped on safety, and fought for his own intellectual property.

In contrast, Batman protected Gotham's elite and their property: wealthy investors, jewel collectors, partygoers, scientists who just wanted to collect other people (is that so wrong?).

I don't think Bruce Wayne showed much social conscience until Dick Grayson came along. Sometime in 1940 there was a story about setting up a sports club to keep other boys away from crime.

[kingrockwell]

You guys are all missing the most interesting line.
"Everything's hell--if the [terrorists] don't get us, something else will get us."

Let's play a guessing game! What do you think the edited word was?

[scottyquick.insanejournal.com]

I meant to post that, but had to run off to school!