But how does this relate to the current incarnation of Batman in live action, considering that Robin has appeared on film before? Given the logic that as long as Robin is in there "somewhere" in the mythos this is sufficient for our overall understanding of Batman ... well then, is what we currently have sufficient? Or do you feel that Nolan must incorporate Robin?
How would the presence of Robin in another version of Batman's story be sufficient for
this version of batman's story? In any case, if they were interested in a complete and proper characterization of Batman, Robin would be absolutely necessary. Since this probably will not happen, I have to accept an incomplete characterization. I'll survive.
Personally I don't think that I would like Batman any less if I hadn't read a single story that involved Robin.
Nevertheless, the Batman you like is still the Batman written by writers who design his personality with an understand of the effects Robin has had on him. It is not necessary for you to read a Robin story in order for the effects of Robin to be important to the stories you
do read, in the same way that it is not necessary for me to have read Identity Crisis in order for the events of Identity Crisis to affect Batman's characterization in the stories I
do read (of course, I
did read Identity Crisis, because it's awesome).
To me that aspect of the mythos always seemed a little like forced sentimentality upon a character which is best portrayed as dark, stoic and endlessly brooding.
Which is not contradictory to sentimentality. Batman, ostensibly, may be the ultimate rational mind, but he is motivated purely by emotion and, yes, sentimentality.
Robin creates a sort of healing and closure which is contrary to Batmans nature, at least in the way that I see him.
Hardly--it creates an entirely new sort of conflict, rooted in Batman's emotionally unavailability and inability to appropriately parent a child, given his own psychological damage. Does vigilantism seem like an appropriate way to parent a traumatized child? That's Batman's response (even in interpretations where it's Robin's idea), because he doesn't interact very well emotionally, doesn't know how to handle with people who have been emotionally wounded. He doesn't have the tools most human begins acquire for human interaction and parenting, by virtue of how he grew up. Robin also forces him to struggle with his own degree of inhumanity.
To me, it's solo Batman that is the true heart of the story
Characters can't exist in a void, and accordingly Batman is never "solo." He always has his partners, from Gordon to Alfred and, in Batman Begins, even Lucius Fox.
So? Everything in Batman, and in all of mainstream superhero comics, is designed to appeal to children on some level.
something which mostly made sense in the era of the master/apprentice relationship
The story has been updated appropriately.
We might consider that at the time Batman and Robin were first created, boys were expected to learn a trade from their fathers or from a journeyman on the job. The social culture of the time placed this dynamic onto superheros as well, and expected that even heros would "learn the trade" from someone.
Following in the footsteps of the father will always be relevant theme, and more importantly, the origins of the sidekick convention are unimportant, by the same token that batman merely being created to capitalize on the popularity of Superman is unimportant: these conventions have gone beyond their origins to become irrevocably ingrained components of the genre. The thematic relevance is always shifting (currently from master/apprentice, as you mentioned, to father/son), so saying 'It's not relevant anymore" doesn't fly: it's relevant as long as you can find a reason for it to be.
A lot of people think updating characters is about carving out the ideas that don't make sense anymore, but I subscribe to the philosophy that it's much more useful to find new explanations for those ideas, ones that
do make sense. So instead of saying "Robin doesn't make sense, get rid of him," you ask "How can I make Robin make sense?" Hell, domino masks don't make a lick of sense, but I love them. That means that if I want to use them, I have to figure out a way for them to make sense.
It does not translate well in our modern day and age, where such a relationship between a grown man and a young boy is seen as "bizarre" and "child endangerment" at the very best, and more sinister allegations are always just around the corner.
That just makes it a challenge, and infinitely more interesting when the challenge is met. That's as close as you can get to a guarantee that the idea will be interesting. Naturally, there is enormous potential for failure, and that's the risk you take when you challenge convention: you have to be good enough to make it work.
I'm heading out now, so I'll have to answer your second post in a few hours, when I get back.
t:
