The Batman, Delineated
Core Genre: Crime. Heavily influenced (or outright stolen from) pulp fiction, and as much as even the early stuff had improbable batgadgets that edged into SF and bad guys that were outright supernatural horror, crime-fighting detective work is the heart of the character.
The Bad: Easily the most-explored character in comics, with countless different versions over the years. Comedy, tragedy, dark avenger, borderline psychopath; is there a single take than hasn’t been done to death? I submit this is the biggest obstacle. There’s nothing left to do with him.
He’s a billionaire with unlimited resources. Simply put, there isn’t a single person with experience of this who’s going to be in a position to write the character, so “write what you know” goes straight out of the window. He’s the world’s greatest detective, but writing mystery fiction, in particular fiction with great twists and enthralling, fair puzzles, is incredibly difficult. Month in, month out, damn near impossible. Writers have developed plenty of tricks to sidestep this over the years, whether just ignoring detective work entirely or getting the batcomputer to do all the work, but the crime fiction roots run so deeply that I think this lack sticks out (admittedly, Dini is far better at this kind of thing than most, but this just makes any issue where he’s not writing even more noticably poor).
The Good: Nothing new to do, maybe, but this doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It gives us an opportunity to put aside a desperate need to reinvent the wheel with constant change, but instead to really get to grips with the rich history we already have. I think this is what Morrison’s been trying to do, but has gone a bit too far down the path of chucking everything against the wall without considering how the story flows. Unfortunately, if you list dozens of cool ideas, no matter how cool they are you still end up with a list. What’s needed is a writer who takes a Geoff Johns-type approach by putting a satisfying spin on everything that’s gone before.
Here’s the question: what does Batman consist of?
A) Scary costume
B) Mad Fightin’ Skillz
C) Madder Detective Skillz
D) Cool gadgets
A and B go together, because they’re his methods of directly interacting with ne’er-do-wells. C is how he locates and puts them into context, for himself (in-story) and for the audience (without). D covers both these grounds, depending on what the gadgets are being used for.
It’s tempting to put “Deep Psychological Problems” in, too, because in recent years this has become the default reading. But even so, I’m not convinced that “Mad Fucking Bastard” needs to be demonstrated in a Batman story, otherwise it’s not a Batman story. What I mean is that A-D, in one form or another, are essential, otherwise it isn’t really a Batman story. It may be good fun, but the central character becomes interchangable with almost anyone else. It may not matter in a good story whether your protagonist is Batman, the Blue Beetle, or even Sam Spade, but in a good Batman story you can’t imagine Ted Kord doing the honours.
I don’t know, maybe eventually “raving nutter” will become essential, but I don’t think we’re quite there yet. By the same token, “Sidekick” is an important element, but not essential. Plenty of good Batman stories with Robin, plenty of good ones without. In fact, Robin’s become so unnecessary that he rarely seems to have a role in a Batman story that’s deeper than showing his face around the cave.
To extrapolate, a good Batman and Robin story should have Robin actually making a difference to the plot. Or to put it in the form above, it should cover the Batman elements listed above, and Robin’s corresponding elements. Of course, that’s another post entirely.
Other factors: Batman’s supporting cast. Let’s break down the essentials:
Commissioner Gordon. He’s been there since the very start, though perhaps not properly utilised as a character in his own right until Miller’s Year One and Oldman’s performance in the two most recent films. Trying to write him out of the Batman titles is as crazy as deciding to write ongoing Sherlock Holmes series with an arbitrary character replacing Watson. Frankly, the same goes for Alfred. Neither have to be in every Batman story, but if you need to utilise their specific character type for a task within a story, it doesn’t make any sense to ignore them and use either someone else, or invent someone new.
That’s the problem with characters like Spoiler and the current Batgirl (in terms of story), and that’s why Leslie Thompkins was such a brilliant creation. Spoiler provides nothing to Batman’s story that Robin can’t. New Batgirl provides nothing that Old Batgirl couldn’t. Note, however, that this doesn’t mean that Spoiler doesn’t provide something significant to Robin’s story, or that she shouldn’t make a perfectly viable character on her own. Leslie Thompkins was brilliant because she provides a perspective on Bruce Wayne that can’t be provided by any other previously existing character. Which is incredible, if you think that in the thirty years and many different adaptations before her creation, this gap had never been addressed.
His rogues gallery is perhaps the best in comics, but at the same time, seriously over-exposed. It’s been good to see the Riddler get far better play thanks to Paul Dini, but the one guy I’d love to see done well, certainly in a form more appealing than “generic shapeshifter”, would be Clayface. Basil Karlo’s still around, right?
Conclusion: Batman’s one of the greatest characters created in the Twentieth Century. It’s just a shame that so often he can be so easily switched with other, lesser characters, in so many of his stories without any noticable effect.
