Batman: Antihero or Hero?

[Arach Knight]

Let's start with his costume. Sure, it fits the general blueprint for a superhero costume, but it's of a bat. He doesn't dress the way he does to inspire veneration, but rather to strike terror. More to the point, he assumes the role of a monster and phantom to accomplish his ends. His totemistic representation carries with it connotations of malevolence within Occidental mythology.

Since you bring up occidental "mythology", I do wonder, exactly which western cultures you are refering to, and exactly which myths from the west, do you feel that Batman is appealing to? And can his costume design honestly represent malevolence, when he himself is benevolent both as The Batman (he never kills) and as Bruce Wayne (a philanthropist). More so, his costume tones (originally and actually) are blue and gray, which are dark tones, but they are not necessarily consistent with ideas of darkness (the modern take on the costume being black and gray). Also, when thinking of actual bats (which most breeds are harmless), they pose no threat to people...only to their prey. Would not Batman represent the same thing?

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Wow. That was a very good piece, now that I have read it. I disagree with half of it, but it's good and well thought-out. The main part I disagree with is your assessment of Batman's motives.

The Batman I know is not frightening to the innocent. Part of what he does by making himself a symbol (Batman Begins made a point of stating it, but it's always been true in the comics and in TAS, as well) is that as a symbol he is something for the innocent to rally around. He's their protector, an avenging angel of the night. They cheer for him because he protects them from evil.

Look, gargoyles look demonic but they are meant as protective totems to frighten away evil spirits... because all creatures feel fear... especially the scary ones.

I think it's less Batman using a totum animal symbol, but the fact that he exists--a guy that wears a wierd costume, runs around rooftops, and beats the s**t out of people--even if he's doing good, it's still enough to creep you out a bit. It just makes you wonder--how f**ked up can a man be, or how f**ked up of a world we live in, that someone has to resort to that to get things done?

No, he is a hero, a symbol of hope, safety and protection to the innocent, a symbol of retribution to the guilty. Much like the police are intended to be (though these days it seems the innocent have an irrational fear of them as well... WTF?)

It's probably because we see more corrupt cops than real ones. We've seen this in modern history so much it's not even funny--from the Capone era to Serpico to even Rodney King. If there is any one good example of the phrase "Power corrupts," a good many times, it's the modern policeman.

 

[7Hells]

And can his costume design honestly represent malevolence, when he himself is benevolent both as The Batman (he never kills) and as Bruce Wayne (a philanthropist).

Never is a strong word that cannot be used in that context

More so, his costume tones (originally and actually) are blue and gray, which are dark tones, but they are not necessarily consistent with ideas of darkness (the modern take on the costume being black and gray).

In comparison to his superhero counterparts, at the time of his conception, I disagree. His costume was definately intended to be consistent with darkness. And, actually, the idea of Batman being created with light intentions is so far off Im not sure how you could even use it as a viable argument. Have you read many Batman comics?

Also, when thinking of actual bats (which most breeds are harmless), they pose no threat to people...only to their prey. Would not Batman represent the same thing?

That all depends on the motives for Bruce choosing bats as his symbol.

 

[Arach Knight]

Never is a strong word that cannot be used in that context
In comparison to his superhero counterparts, at the time of his conception, I disagree. His costume was definately intended to be consistent with darkness. And, actually, the idea of Batman being created with light intentions is so far off Im not sure how you could even use it as a viable argument. Have you read many Batman comics?

That all depends on the motives for Bruce choosing bats as his symbol.

1)I am obviously not refering to the "papa spank" era of Batman (who had no qualms with killing or negligence that lead to untimely demise). Current Batman doesn't run around killing people...and he hasn't for many decades, to my knowledge.

2)I never said Batman was designed to be a light character. It is obvious that his intention is to be menacing to his foes. I merely said that his intenions for the costume, can't be malevolent. Satan is malevolent. Some greek gods are malevolent. That requires a deep rooted and diabolical nature, because it implies that you not only spread wrath, but grief and misery. Batman may dole out wrath when people do wrong, but he doesn't do it just to feed on grief and misery. He does so as a means to an end. And to answer your question, i've been reading Batman for almost as long as i've been reading Spider-Man. Though my reading is off and on.

3)We all know why he chose the bat...and in fact, it would be further proof of Bruce's intentions. On his original outtings, Bruce sported nothing more than dark clothes and a disguise, to not be recognized as Bruce Wayne. But his original crime fighting persona, caused him to get stabbed by a hooker, and shot at by the police. When he laid there bleeding to death, and the bat crashed in, it was then that he took it as a sign. The sign that he could use, to strike terror. It has nothing to do with him being evil. If he could do it without the fear, I think he would (and he already tried on his first night out). But given how badly things went when he neither had their fear, or powers to back up their lack of fear, he realized the need for criminals to fear him, if he was going to continue to survive each of these patrols.

 

[The Caped Knight]

BATMAN is a Superhero nuff said...

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I think it's less Batman using a totum animal symbol, but the fact that he exists--a guy that wears a wierd costume, runs around rooftops, and beats the s**t out of people--even if he's doing good, it's still enough to creep you out a bit. It just makes you wonder--how f**ked up can a man be, or how f**ked up of a world we live in, that someone has to resort to that to get things done?

I don't read it that way. It's strictly a matter of practicality. What do you figure, there's about 8 million people in Gotham City? (That's the estimated population of NYC, which Gotham was based on, so we'll use it for Gotham). How many of Gotham's citizens are criminals? Not just wise guys or made men here, I'm talking psychos, street punks, common purse-snatchers, uncommon sex-offenders, murderers, freakazoids. Crooked cops, city officials, and judges. Using Detroit's crime rate as a model, I'll say that Gotham averages about 641,600 crimes a year. That's probably a conservative estimate. I'm being kind to Gotham.

So Batman's fight is, say, 1 vs. 641,600. What the hell kind of odds are those?

Not good ones, that's for sure. The man needs an edge. He needs to become something more than a man, as the movie said. He needs to be a legend, a mythical figure that drops from the rooftops and busts a few heads before ascending back into the night sky. He needs to convince the criminal element that he is something superhuman. I draw your attention to the last four panels on this page:

It's a way of evening the odds. Making him more than just a man. If the people he's up against fear him, it gives him an advantage. So it's absolutely a totemic emblem. He's a bat because he's trying to scare the bad guys. Just like a gargoyle scaring the evil spirits. Except a little more proactive.