Should Bruce know?

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

As we all know, Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when Bruce was just a child. But the identity of the killer is something that's been juggled for years. It's almost always been Joe Chill, or in some cases, a nameless mugger. This is where the question lies. Should Bruce Wayne know who killed his parents?

If he doesn't know, that means he will never find the killer, meaning there's one criminal out there he'll never throw in jail. But on a psychological level, that's the guy that he's always looking for, hoping that at some point, he'll run across the man with the haunting face. Or it could be that he has found the guy, but just doesn't know it, so as far as he knows, he's still out there.

If he does know the identity or finds it out at a later date, he comes with the most difficult choice of his life. Should he kill the man who killed his parents? We've seen this in Batman Begins and an episode of The Brave and The Bold. With Nolan's movie, Bruce was willing to shoot Chill in cold blood out in the open and the cartoon had Batman pulling his mask back, revealing his own identity. Bruce wasn't able to shoot Chill and Batman refused to kill him, despite the major consequences.

So, what works better?

 

[theMan-Bat]

No, I prefer him not knowing. I liked Denny O'Neil making the killer of his parents unknown in 1994 post-Zero Hour, and in Bill Finger and Bob Kane's original 1939 origin the killer was a nameless thug, and I like how the killer was portrayed so shadowy, nameless and mysteriously in Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One and All-Star Batman #4. I like Batman not knowing the killers name and not wanting to know. The man who shot his parents is no one special to Batman. He's simply the member of the enemy who happened to pull the trigger on his parents. That killer is just a representation, a symbolization, of crime. Batman is not out for revenge against that man, Batman's much bigger than that: he's warring on all crime for the rest of his life. And as a reader, I like the killer being a shadowy nameless thug because that's far creepier. As he's described in Frank Miller's Year One, "The man with hollow eyes and a voice like glass being crushed."

 

[IBRAH08]

I think he should.................................................................Not know. it's more interesting if every thug could be his parent's killer etc etc...

 

[zmystico]

I think its interesting that he does know and catches the killer, but is still unable to stop being Batman.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I think its interesting that he does know and catches the killer, but is still unable to stop being Batman.

I never felt that if Bruce knew Joe Chill killed his parents, he'd stop being Batman. The idea of Batman is not about revenge. It's about making sure that no one else ever has to go through what he did as a child.

I like how it was handled in the silver age comics, where Chill is gunned down by other thugs for creating Batman. However, i really didn't like Morrison's take on it, with Batman forcing Joe Chill to kill himself.

It goes both ways for me. Whether he knows or not, he's still going to be out there every night protecting Gotham.

 

[Drz]

I prefer that Batman knows personally. It stops from being a quest for revenge, but a quest for Justice. Even Miller's Batman ultimately finds out Joe Chill commited the murders and guess what? He feels pity for the man, as he was just a hungry desperate citizen trying to survive.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I don't care at all.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I prefer that Batman knows personally. It stops from being a quest for revenge, but a quest for Justice.

Batman's never been on a quest for revenge against that man. Batman's on a quest to avenging his parents deaths by spending the rest of his life warring on all criminals.

Book excerpt from Batman Unmasked - analysing a cultural icon by Will Brooker:

Even Miller's Batman ultimately finds out Joe Chill commited the murders and guess what? He feels pity for the man, as he was just a hungry desperate citizen trying to survive.

No, it's never even implied that Frank Miller's Batman finds out the identity of the man who committed the murders. In Dark Knight Returns Bruce only identifies the killer of his parents as "The Man", "Him", "He", and even thinks that one of the Mutant gang members might be him.

And Bruce remembers from the night of the mugging turned murder that "He flinched when he pulled the trigger. He was sick and guilty over what he did. All he wanted was money. I was naive enough to think of him the lowest sort of man." Knowing that all the man wanted was money doesn't mean Bruce knows the man's identity. It was clear that all he wanted was money when he wanted to take Bruce's mothers neck lace. He obviously wanted the expensive neck lace so he could sell it for money.

In Dark Knight Returns he says he was naive enough to think of him the lowest sort of man, because, after all, the man murdered both of his parents. The man flinching when he pulled the trigger is Bruce's indication that he was sick and guilty over what he did.

 

[IBRAH08]

I don't think that he literally thinks that the mutant member is his parents' killer but that he puts his anger on them as if they were the one's who did it.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I don't think that he literally thinks that the mutant member is his parents' killer but that he puts his anger on them as if they were the one's who did it.

He says "It is him. It is." Then he says "No, it's not him." I believe that indicates that he thought one of them was his parents killer for a moment and then realized that he wasn't. Remember that he was standing right where his parents where killed and thinking back to his parents murder and the man who killed them.

 

[Drz]

@TheMan-Bat: Ah i remembered wrong then regarding Dark Knight Universe killer thing. Regarding the "never about revenge" well it really depends. It's hard to say with so many incarnations of Batman. What would Miller's Batman do if he ever found the very killer? Brave & Bold Batman was almost on the verge of killing, but ultimately had stronger emotions for justice. Morrison's Batman possibly caused Joe Chill to kill himself, but this isn't something we know whenever or not it actually happened.

Nolan's Batman was also very interested in killing the killer, but didn't receive his chance despite urging for it. So yeah i guess what i'm trying to say is that it ultimately depends on the writer, but even with Batman making a promise to stop all crime, we'd all know if he found out about Joe Chill, stopping him would turn into something alot more personal.

 

[theMan-Bat]

@TheMan-Bat: Ah i remembered wrong then regarding Dark Knight Universe killer thing.

I'm happy to refresh the memory.

Regarding the "never about revenge" well it really depends. It's hard to say with so many incarnations of Batman.

There are so many incarnations of Batman, but I don't believe that revenge against the man who killed the parents is the purpose of any of the incarnations being Batman. They seem to all be on a quest to avenging their parents death by spending the rest of their lives warring on all criminals, not just the killer of the Wayne's.

What would Miller's Batman do if he ever found the very killer?

He'd punish him in "so many lovely ways."

Brave & Bold Batman was almost on the verge of killing, but ultimately had stronger emotions for justice. Morrison's Batman possibly caused Joe Chill to kill himself, but this isn't something we know whenever or not it actually happened.

Nolan's Batman was also very interested in killing the killer, but didn't receive his chance despite urging for it. So yeah i guess what i'm trying to say is that it ultimately depends on the writer, but even with Batman making a promise to stop all crime, we'd all know if he found out about Joe Chill, stopping him would turn into something alot more personal.

There are so many various versions and some have seeked revenge on the killer at one point but revenge against the man who killed the parents is not the quest and purpose of the incarnations becoming and being Batman. Some people thought Burton's Batman's whole purpose in being Batman was for revenge against Jack Napier, but all of the first movie before he found out that Jack was the killer and the end where he gave the cops the Bat-signal to call him whenever there is more fierce crime, and all of Batman Returns, show that revenge against Jack wasn't his purpose in being Batman. Even the Burton version was warring on all criminals for the rest of his life.

 

[IBRAH08]

He says "It is him. It is." Then he says "No, it's not him." I believe that indicates that he thought one of them was his parents killer for a moment and then realized that he wasn't. Remember that he was standing right where his parents where killed and thinking back to his parents murder and the man who killed them.

I guess I just thought of it more as him coming out of his flash back. Like in the moment he thinks, "oh that is him" but then he collects his thoughts and realizes that no this is now. maybe that is what you are saying and I was just explain myself poorly, wither way it's open to interpretation and that's what makes it good

 

[The Batman]

Honestly, it dosent matter either way. Either way, Bruce Wayne is going to fight crime. But I will say that Denny O Neil going out of his way to retcon it was one of the dumbest things about his tenure as bat editor. Its like he spent his tenure trying to create a batman that he thought misguided fanboys would like.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Honestly, it dosent matter either way. Either way, Bruce Wayne is going to fight crime. But I will say that Denny O Neil going out of his way to retcon it was one of the dumbest things about his tenure as bat editor. Its like he spent his tenure trying to create a batman that he thought misguided fanboys would like.

Congratulations, you have summed up Denny O'Neil's messy editorial reign in a few sentences. The most awful thing was to claim that Batman was now an urban legend. Yeah right, like that works with any of his published history Fanboyisms at work.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Denny O'Neil's recons were simply steps to make the killer mysterious again and Batman himself more mysterious. The mysterious unknown killer recon returned his origin closer the 1939 original version and the urban legend editorial mandate served to make the Batman character more mysterious. Denny O'Neil's urban legend mandate was an official rejection of the Adam West-esque deputized public Batman, the version that shows up in public during the day, chats openly with the police, testifies in open court, obeys the law, makes public appearances at charity events as Batman, and basically does nothing to hide the fact that he's just a guy wearing tights. The mysterious urban legend aspect fits well with the character as the mysterious terror striking vigilante he was created to be. Exactly what Batman should be to Gotham citizens is a mysterious urban legend. Is he real? Is he a demon? A monster? A ghost? Heroic or evil? There must be whole tomes of urban legends associated with Batman and Batman sightings and skeptics and theorists. There's a lot of stories where Batman actively avoids getting in the public spotlight, actually. Batman should not allow the general public to see him much, as little as possible - he should stick to the shadows as often as possible. There is fear in the unknown and Batman wants to be feared. And, after all, that is what Batman tries to do by lurking in the shadows. Using exploding gas pellets to make himself appear and disappear and so on. He loses a great deal of his effectiveness once they realize he's just a human. The whole point of becoming Batman is to create that edge -- he's some sort of sinister demonic bat creature. You fear the reaper. Like in the original Batman material:

And Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns:

And in Frank Miller's Batman: Year One:

I'm fine with the notion of Gotham citizens not knowing exactly what Batman is and if he really exists or not -- and why wouldn't skeptics assume he doesn't exist since they haven't seen him, and would assume he's somewhat supernatural or inhuman when confronted by him, especially given that his world is populated by all of those very public superheroes with powers. Denny O'Neil explained that Gordon and the cops would have to help push an urban legend concept in order to explain why they let the vigilante run loose in Gotham. They would also need to push the notion that the battered thugs were caught by police officers rather than a vigilante outlaw in order to make any sort of arrest stick. Batman #584 (2000) "The Dark Knight Project" by Ed Brubaker provides Gordon's explanation for having a Bat-Signal if there is no Batman:

 

[returntovoid]

I didn't know what to respond to this thread at first but after reading some posts, I think the killer should be mysterious and I think Joe Chill should be dead before he finds him since revenge was not the goal of becoming Batman but to war on criminals. Besides, Batman should not be the one to punish him since revenge won't do no good but just emotionally scar him further like his character progression in B'89, BR and BF.

 

[The Batman]

Denny O'Neil's recons were simply steps to make the killer mysterious again and Batman himself more mysterious. The mysterious unknown killer recon returned his origin closer the 1939 original version and the urban legend editorial mandate served to make the Batman character more mysterious. Denny O'Neil's urban legend mandate was an official rejection of the Adam West-esque deputized public Batman, the version that shows up in public during the day, chats openly with the police, testifies in open court, obeys the law, makes public appearances at charity events as Batman, and basically does nothing to hide the fact that he's just a guy wearing tights. The mysterious urban legend aspect fits well with the character as the mysterious terror striking vigilante he was created to be. Exactly what Batman should be to Gotham citizens is a mysterious urban legend. Is he real? Is he a demon? A monster? A ghost? Heroic or evil? There must be whole tomes of urban legends associated with Batman and Batman sightings and skeptics and theorists. There's a lot of stories where Batman actively avoids getting in the public spotlight, actually. Batman should not allow the general public to see him much, as little as possible - he should stick to the shadows as often as possible. There is fear in the unknown and Batman wants to be feared. And, after all, that is what Batman tries to do by lurking in the shadows. Using exploding gas pellets to make himself appear and disappear and so on. He loses a great deal of his effectiveness once they realize he's just a human. The whole point of becoming Batman is to create that edge -- he's some sort of sinister demonic bat creature. You fear the reaper. Like in the original Batman material:

And Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns:

And in Frank Miller's Batman: Year One:

I'm fine with the notion of Gotham citizens not knowing exactly what Batman is and if he really exists or not -- and why wouldn't skeptics assume he doesn't exist since they haven't seen him, and would assume he's somewhat supernatural or inhuman when confronted by him, especially given that his world is populated by all of those very public superheroes with powers. Denny O'Neil explained that Gordon and the cops would have to help push an urban legend concept in order to explain why they let the vigilante run loose in Gotham. They would also need to push the notion that the battered thugs were caught by police officers rather than a vigilante outlaw in order to make any sort of arrest stick. Batman #584 (2000) "The Dark Knight Project" by Ed Brubaker provides Gordon's explication for have a Bat-Signal if there is no Batman:

Thats great, Man-Bat...it really, really is.

It wouldve been even better if the stories were actually good too.

Again, O neil just wanted to make Batman "kewl and dark" instead of focusing on making good stories. Which is why he had Batman acting like an obnoxious, idiotic *******. They made this giant, elaborate effort to make Batman an urban legend, which makes no goddamn sense since most people would end up seeing him at one point or another...not to mention hes a MEMBER OF THE JLA, who's been seen in public in previous stories. The Urban legend idea was a dumb one, especially given Batmans role in the wider DCU.

Do I agree that Batman shouldnt be seen? Hell yes...but the way they did it was ******ed. It should be clear that Batman freaking exists. What he is exactly should be the mysterious part.

 

[theMan-Bat]

We agree that he should be mysterious. With him being is so mysterious, lurking in the shadows, he is unseen by most citizens then he is an unproven myth to those skeptics who haven't seen him and persist in disbelieving in him. After all, there have been claims and reports of countless UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts and Loch Ness Monster sightings and there are films and photos, but people are still debating about their existence. There is a UFO museum in Roswell, New Mexico! Does that mean everyone believes that those aliens exist? No. And Denny O'Neil sought to distance Batman from the Justice League. Batman wasn't in the Justice League for many years of Denny O'Neil's editorial control. Denny O'Neil wanted Batman's official Justice League membership to be removed from the group's canon. I actually like Batman acting stern, grim, and even obnoxious occasionally. Denny O'Neil was certainly focused on giving readers good stories. In Amazing Heroes #102 Frank Miller said "Denny O'Neil wanted to revitalize Batman in the regular DC books after Dark Knight and approached me to use my notes to construct a new beginning for Batman. The 'Batman: Year One' issues are based on those notes." Alan Moore's Killing Joke was under O'Neil's editorial control, Batman: The Cult, and so many others. Denny O'Neil created the Legends of the Dark Knight title and Denny O'Neil himself wrote "Shaman" in Legends of the Dark Knight #1 to 5 (1989), and the great pulp style Batman story "The Name" in Ms. Tree Quarterly #1 (1990), "Venom" in Legends of the Dark Knight #16 to 20 (1990), "Destroyer" in Legends of the Dark Knight #27 (1991), Batman: Death of Innocents: The Horror of Landmines (1996), etc. After the Knightfall saga, from 1995 until 1998, Denny O'Neil did away with crossover events in the Bat-titles for the most part as well as year long story-lines, which can alienate potential new readers and even turn off the most devoted fans. Instead O'Neil provided readers much more of a variety of storylines by allowing the writers to write old-fashioned short stories, thus making the books much more accessible to new readers again. I love the 1995 to 1998 Doug Moench/Kelley Jones run. Most stories ran no longer than three issues and there are many old-fashioned single-issue stories, getting actual and complete stories in an issue rather than mere pieces of year long mega-events. A refreshing change from the usual stuff in the comics today. The result was a wide variety of stories: including Batman and Deadman traveling to Peru pursuing criminals from Gotham and confronted by Inca mummies, Joker studding demonology, the occult, alchemy, and conjuring up the Demon Etrigan, Batman hunting Killer Croc to Louisiana and meeting Swamp Thing who doesn't want Croc to go back to Gotham, the Spectre in Gotham sticking his ectoplasmic nose into Batman's business - and right through the stalactite-spiked ceiling of the Batcave - to demand punishment (of a capital kind), Ragman in Gotham killing neo-Nazi skinheads. There is also refreshing humor in the subplots with the resurrection of Bruce Wayne's personal life. We see Bruce actually having a daylight affair with a woman (Vasper Fairchild) and visiting WayneCorp. That Bruce would not know where his office is located is both amusing and very real. And asking Lucius Fox "if midday is always this bright. Once you've had moonlight, Lucius, sunstroke's hard to take." Lots of fun Batman comics with plenty of great stories under Denny O'Neil's editorial control.

This discussion is straying far off the topic of the parents killer.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think that Bruce should know. Personally, Begins handled this best. Bruce had a chance to kill Chill and would have gone through with it if that woman hadnt shot Chill first. From that experience, Rachel's speech and some soul searching Bruce understands the true meaning of justice and becomes a better man.

Even if Batman caught Chill later in his career, i dont think that he'd kill him or torture him. I think that he is the kind of man that would understand why a poor man was forced to commit a heinous crime and that he would arrest Chill living up to his parents standards and wishes. Of course others feel differently, Morrison for example had Batman stalk Chill and even give him a gun to kill himself so that he'd be spared of Batman's harassing. I dont think that's heroic or even that Batman would ever act this way.

So yeah, i'd have Bruce know, and i'd handle it as a major test for him and so i'd do it either the Begins way, or very early in his career as Batman. A veteran Batman would be tormented, but he would be way cooler and it would be hard for him to lose it.

 

[Brother Jack]

It doesn't matter to me. Both approaches can make for great story and character ideas, depending on how they're used.