NS: New York Times Article Spoils Batman #50

[history79]

"The answers to the questions are found in letters the couple have written to each other before their wedding day. Mr. Wayne’s correspondence reveals an acceptance of Ms. Kyle, who in her time has been a jewel thief, a villain, an antihero and a mob boss. “You’re not someone who can be figured out. Or solved. And never will be,” he declares. He also writes that he can be “more than a boy whose parents are dead,” that he can be “the man who loves you. Who will always try to love you better.”

Ms. Kyle’s letter lays out the truth as she sees it: “You’re still a child, Bruce. A hurt child.” Their happiness, she speculates, would kill Batman, who rescues everyone and turns pain into hope. “How can I do that,” she writes. “To save the world, heroes make sacrifices.”

In order to keep countless innocents safe, she concludes that she cannot marry Mr. Wayne. “My sacrifice is my life. It’s you.”

In the final moments of their story, the bride and groom end up at different locations in the early morning hours. In a silent page, Ms. Kyle sits on a rooftop, contemplating. She discards her veil and leaps toward the street. At the Finger Tower skyscraper, after an hour of waiting for his bride, Mr. Wayne realizes she is not coming. He throws off his tie and takes a similar leap, but in the opposite direction. Theirs is a story that is forever to be continued."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/fashion/weddings/it-just-wasnt-meant-to-be-batman.html

Comments

[akodo_rokku]

Mark Waid once gave Matt Murdock a message to deliver to anyone who thinks you can't be a hero without unhappiness and suffering, and I think it applies here.

[cainofdreaming]

You know, you only need three words to counter that whole "only personal tragedy makes heroes" thing.

Captain freaking America.

[jmacq1]

Yeah, there are actually a lot of Superheroes who aren't defined by personal tragedy. Very few with NO tragedy in their lives, but that doesn't really make them who they are/isn't the reason they do what they do.

[starwolf_oakley]

Even Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer were able to move Batman out of the "must avenge murdered parents" box.

[starwolf_oakley]

I've wondered about "personal tragedy" when it comes to Captain freaking America. Especially when Steve Rogers' backstory was changed from "Joseph Rogers died of alcholism" (Denny O'Neil and J.M. DeMatteis) to "Joseph Rogers was a wife-beating drunk who died of alcholism" (Rick Remender).

[arilou_skiff]

And I'm nto sure the Depression and World War II doesen't count as massive, worldwide personal trauma, personally...

[kore]

Steve has that whole Man Out of Time thing, though, and his endless guilt over not saving Bucky. Not to mention Civil Wars I and II and the murder-suicide with Tony.

[lucean]

Except this doesn't apply at all here. We are not discussing a generic hero or the hero concept in general. This is about a very specific character, Batman, and the creative vision for him specifically.

What makes me even more confused about this argument is that there already in the comments above someone brings out Captain America while another chimes in that there are heroes who are not defined by their tragedies. Which is legitimately good, but it also raises the question that what then is the issue here? Why can't Batman be defined as a tragic figure? Or is the stance that real heroes are defined by their happy, wholesome lives?

[icon_uk]

Because it implies that Batman can ONLY be defined as a tragic figure, when there's ample evidence that he's not.

He talks about being a tragic loner, but he's built a strong and loving family unit around himself over the years, moreso than any other single hero I can think of (We're talking soccer team sized numbers of sidekicks and allies). Yes, they argue and not everyone's speaking to everyone else all the time, but there's utter loyalty and love there too.

To suggest that he couldn't continue as Batman because he's married is just ridiculous. He's been able to operate just fine as a father all these years, why not a husband?

[lucean]

..Almost every successful Batman writer has viewed him a tragic figure. Even the beloved BTAS universe ultimately treats him as a tragic figure that ultimately ended up alone and carrying the cost of his mission.

As for the Batclan, that feels completely besides the point as unless the argument is that tragic figures can't work with other people? Also there are multiple stories that have established that even within the Clan, Batman does maintain a certain level of secrecy from others and takes actions/burdens by himself.

And, finally, on being married, that's not the point or the argument here. The main beat is that Batman can't be who he is if he is happy and fulfilled as being Batman is a tragedy. I disagree heavily with the way King tells that story as it fails to establish that argument despite it being his seeming end game, but as a concept there is nothing wrong with that. Even bringing up fatherhood is weird as the reason Dick Grayson is Bruce's greatest achievement is because Dick is able to do what he does while still having that capability for normalcy, that he did not become like Bruce.

Here's the thing. I don't think that every superhero should be a tragic figure and there are actually tons of them who aren't. At the moment, I'd actually argue the vast majority of them aren't tragic figures. Yet the tone of the backlash here seems to be that there is something inherently wrong about Bruce being a tragic hero, that being Batman is a tragedy. That I don't understand, especially considering the whole lot of major stories that have worked from that aspect.

[wizardru]

I'm old enough to remember when Batman WASN'T a tragic figure. There was a time when Batman being a driven, potentially mentally unhealthy obsessive was a fresh take, a new look. It isn't that Batman can't be a tortured, tragic figure, IMHO, it's that now it's assumed that it's all he CAN be. That Batman must be a jerk to everyone around him or that he has to be almost as broken as his enemies to be an effective Batman.

I mean, contextually now the argument is...well, you'd have to be crazy to be Batman, right? But that argument is put forth for many other characters, many of whom have similar circumstances. Spiderman is rarely presented as a borderline sociopath or that he must be one to be an effective hero. It's not that you can't do that, but I find the idea that its the only take for Batman anymore to be odd. Spiderman was still Spideman for 10 years while being married...it merely opened up different stories. The same is true for Superman.

I can understand not KEEPING Batman married, but I think a lot of people were really excited for the story possibilities this would have created (not unlike when Dick became Batman, for example). Just deep-sixing the whole thing feels like a massive rug-pull and a waste of time, especially after all the build-up to it. That's their prerogative, just like mine will be to not buy further.