6 Ways Bruce Wayne Has Ruined Contemporary Comics

http://whatculture.com/comics/batman-6-ways-bruce-wayne-has-ruined-contemporary-comics.php#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=batman-6-ways-bruce-wayne-has-ruined-contemporary-comics

I found this article to be really depressingly true. The stagnant and repetitive nature of Batman comics has utterly killed my interest in the character, and this article articulates that so elegantly.

Thoughts?

So this explains why I prefer the non-cannon takes on the character more.

BB

Great article. Explains a lot about the Big 2 tell the same stories over and over again and we keep buying it.

i don't think I agree with this.

- The funny thing is that i'm a Batman fan, but i don't find any of the Batman books(Books who have Bruce as the central main character) to be anything more than mediocre at best.

this is 100% true

I still love Batman and I will continue loving Batman. I am not easily manipulated by someone else's opinion!

However, I will admit this person makes a lot of good points, but still it's FICTION, despite the fact the writer tries to justify it.

I don't understant why everyone always complains about Bruce being Batman. No one complains about Green Arrow, Iron Man, Daredevil, Superman, Punisher, Captain America. There are so many other character that don't age or die. And almost Every writer rehashes stories; Jean Grey dies and reborns, Iron-Man builds another armor, Superman always saves the day. To tell the truth Batman's interpretetion has changed more than any other character, his character has undergone change every decade since his inception, and he has more original stories than most superheroes. Its mostly Dick Grayson fans that want Bruce Wayne dead. What if someone else other than Dick takes on the mantle after Bruce is dead? How many fans will like that? Grounding the character in reality doesn't mean that the character has to die, it can be done in a emotional and spiritual way. Change can be made in the way how a character thinks. The concept of Batman is a billionaire orphan in a batsuit fighting crimes and that's Bruce Wayne. If you want to read about a middle class orphan fighting crime then there's Daredevil, if want to read about sidekick stepping out his mentor's shadow and becoming his own man then there's Nightwing, if you want to read about the sidekick taking up is mentor's mantle then there's Flash, Blue Beetle, Niteowl. If you want to specifically read about a Batman who isn't Bruce Wayne then there's many Elseworld stories, it doesn't matter if its not canon, a story is a story. Bruce Wayne will always be Batman just like James Bond will always be a 007 agent. If you don't like it don't read it.

Quoted for truth. I love Batman and will continue to love Batman. The article pointed out some legitimate points, but, guess what, it's comics!! The entire medium is based on nostalgia. It doesn't start and end with Batman. Its why Clark Kent is still Superman and why, despite Spider-Man and Cyclops starting out at around the same time and the same age in the MU timeline, Peter is still in his twenties, while Scott is about 40. Of course Batman isn't gonna be retired because he is just too popular. Therefore, he's not gonna age in real time.

However, I will say that if someone told me that Bruce had been Batman since he was 20, I'd believe it. The article says it'd be hard to believe that he'd start crime-fighting before being old enough to drink, but Bruce does have a lifelong obsession with fighting crime, so why wouldn't he start as a young man? Ton give the article some leeway, I'll say he could have easily started at age 21.

Anyway, this is the exact reason why in the New 52, its been retconned that Dick started out as Robin in his late teens, say 17. Now, being in his twenties, say 22, it'd mean he could have been Robin for only about two-three before becoming Nightwing.

It's an interesting article but it operates on a lot of assumptions. It assumes that comics are indeed unarguably ruined. It assumes that all of these things are solely attributable to the Batman comic. It assumes that all the things it mentions are inherently bad.

Sure, the sheer volume of bad comics outweigh the good, but that's the same in any medium. Good things are difficult to make and require a skill level most people simply don't have. Go look at a book or music store. You will be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of crap published and you too will likely come to believe that the book and music industries are crumbling around your ears. There are always good comics to read and a couple even have Batman in them.

He seems to take a great deal of issue with Batman and Bruce Wayne being inextricably linked, but it's far more logical that they are. You can dress another guy up in a fedora and leather jacket with a satchel and a bullwhip, and have him run around ancient ruins, but that doesn't make him Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is a particular character with a particular personality. You can't put someone else in his clothes and insist that it's the same.

The cyclical nature of comics is tedious at times and I do wish more effort would be put in to tell new and different stories (then again, so many stories have been told in the 75 year history of comics that it's quite difficult to find something completely new). Maybe it's because I'm less continuity oriented than some that superheroes not aging generally doesn't bother me. I generally see it less as a single, long, continuous story and more as a loose network of interconnected mythology. Much like the Arthurian mythos of old, there's a shared cast of characters, a few ingrained plot points that make the setting make sense (we're in Camelot, Arthur has a sword called Excalibur, etc, etc), and whoever writes an Arthur story can put his own spin Arthur's personality and can tell a story about him being young or old or somewhere in between, and each story can be part of and add to a greater whole while maintaining its worth as an individual work.

This is not to say that there aren't problems, but I don't think they can be squarely placed at Batman's feet or that without him these problems wouldn't exist. Instead you would be reading 6 Ways Clark Kent or Peter Parker Has Ruined Contemporary Comics. For a guy who seems to look down upon the chronically dissatisfied comic fan, he sounds an awful lot like one.

I'm actually pretty damn happy with the current state of the Batman books. Snyder and Tomasi, in my opinion, are doing a good job, or at least a respectable one, on their current titles. Batman #18 was one of my favorite comics last month and #19 this month was pretty damn good, with an interesting new take on Clayface and an amazing back-up by Tynion and Maleev. Plus, Batman & Robin has just been incredible lately.

- I completely agree with this article.

Some of those points are ridiculous while others I can see where he is coming from but still don't 100% agree.

Furthermore, I disagree with the position that Bruce being Batman means that things will be forever stagnant or that DC, as a result, is averse to change. In reality, comic book fans themselves perpetuate the status quo. Every single time DC or Marvel try to change anything, fans immediately decry it as a gimmick.

I do agree with some of the points but they don't need to replace the character, a good writer can write a good and refreshing story without replacing him. The problem is that they are escalating the threat of the rogues,for change they should escalate the efficiency of batman. They should also give a life to make him relatable,they should give him a long-term girlfriend,make him a little bit happy. Scott Snyder has shown that Bruce is trying to make Gotham a better place also without not wearing the mask,I'd like to see more of that, he can also show him working as the CEO of Wayne Enterprise. Also Joker needs to die but not by hand of Batman but the law. Criminals should be judged a little bit realistically. The author is blaming Batman but he should actually blame editorials and writers for rehashing stories.

Then why are you a Batman fan?

Agreed. Batman, Batman and Robin don't rehash stories of the past,they may take some points but the stories are very different. Also Batman Inc. is a very refreshing take on Batman.

Think he meant the current books.

BB

My mistake. Anyway you prefer Elseworlds Batman comics more?

@rustyroy:

I like good stories so I swing both ways but elseworlds have more interesting settings and they open a bigger freedom for the character.

BB

@billy_batson: Which Elseworlds and canon Batman stories do you like?

Wow, super agreed. And it opened my eyes to something, the New 52 had to happen because of Batman more than anyone else. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, so in the New 52 they compressed Batman's entire continuity in 5 years, but effectively reset his age.

Plus, like in the Nolan-verse, the Batman ideal should be eternal, but the man behind the mask should be fluid. For realism, a normal man shouldnt be able to keep up the job for more than a decade or so. Id read the crap out of such a series.

"making it acceptable that superheroes are in most instances a reactionary force that can never garner solvency because no matter how heinous the crimes of their enemies are, the heroes or society never put a permanent end to the threat they pose. What does this do? It makes sure that the story never evolves because the same villains are always there, no closure, no justice, no finality. How awesome is Batman if the story makes it clear that he has no permanent impact on the criminal element? Who would want to live in Gotham if The Joker (who is fixated on Batman) can murder at will and then receive a slap on the wrist? Repeatedly."

I thought this was kind of the point. There is no final solution to "bad," and even what "bad" pertains is relative. Batman can never truly change Gotham, but it's the fact that he tries that matters. And timelines don't have to be linear, and all stories don't have to effect one another. Look at Futurama. It's a different way of writing stories.

- I'm a Batman fan because i like Batman in general however, i do not have to like every single Batman, or Batman related book or story (as i don't like the current Batman runs) to be a Batman fan.

I honestly feel that no one can be batman but Bruce Wayne. Thats his mantle. Its a manifestation of his tortured personality. Constantly changing who iss wearing the cape and cowl kind of destroys the point in my opinion.

Batman has become bigger than the man who started it. He's a legend/idea/new god.

Yeah but Batman isn't a sitcom. Thing is, Grant Morrison did try to make Gotham change from a generic noir city to a more Vegas-like city which had crime but wasn't dominated by serial killers and mobs 24/7. Didn't take long for that take to go away. So there's no reason Batman can't change things, even if he doesn't permanently finish his mission.

In the Nolan verse Maybe but in the comics NO. one point that Grant Morrison proved in his batman run is that no one can be batman but Bruce Wayne. Dick tried, but he would never match up to Bruce

I disagree with the article.

Most of this article is s###, and a lot of the complaints are more so against mainstream comics themselves than Batman.

Agreed with this. Everyone KNOWS Batman. And people also know that BRUCE WAYNE is Batman. If Dick, or anyone else, took over the mantle in comics permanently it would be a blow to the casual fan community. Most people don't know there's more than one Robin or who that Robin even is so hearing "Dick Grayson is Batman" or someone else is would cause huge confusion for people who aren't hardcore comic fans. /Rant lol

Where was this proven? Dick was more than fine with Batman. Honestly, Morrison basically made the same point as Nolan did.

I think Grant Morrison was one of the few writers who did tackle this problem, where instead of telling the same story (Villain appears, Batman beats up villain, Batman wins, in short), he expanded and pushed the symbol forward, where GM was talking about the Batman of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Another thing GM did was embrace DC's crazy Golden Age history, which I thought was great, instead of renouncing what made the early days 'golden'.

None of these criticisms are valid. I agree that Batman isn't as impactful on literature as a graphic novel such as Watchmen, but is that such a bad thing? I mean, must all science fiction or adventure novels be on the same plane of literary masterpieces, such as The Great Gatsby? I've read plenty of books which didn't necessarily make a huge impact on my life, or improve my intelligence, but I still enjoyed them. So, why can't some comic books be purely for simple entertainment, almost like literature's adaptation of television? If someone discredits Batman, or any modern comic book series, absolutely, it's because they fear reading them will diminish their intelligence, and thus keep them from being financially successful (or, from contributing to society through their intellect). And if they fear those things, they must have some sort of psychological imbalance, such as their superego engulfing their id.

Anyways, I enjoy reading Batman, so the writer of the article can fall in a hole.

@mr_holmes I get what you're saying. GM did really pull Batman together, as far as bringing Gotham to life, tying together all the timelines and strange events, and even addressing someone else taking up the cowl, and that setup dissipated as soon as The New 52 was launched.

Also, I agree that the comic industry is focusing on gimmicks and having tons of titles out instead of just focusing on good writing, and that really sucks. I talk about this at my local comic shop all the time, and the owner is the one who complains the most about DC and Marvel haha.

However, Image is really coming strong right now, and they have a much better way of doing business.

But Batman doesn't need to be one united continuity. Batman will change as American culture does, as art is a reflection or response to cultural values. I want to read about Bruce Wayne, and I want my kids to read about Bruce Wayne. It's awesome, and his story works with the Bat icon very well. Now, I wouldn't mind if there was a spin off where Dick was Batman, or even Damian or Tim, but I would hate to see Bruce Wayne disappear completely from the cowl.

I never understood why Dick would want to be Batman. Does he think he is less efficient as Nightwing or does he think Gotham won't survive without Batman? Realistically speaking why anyone other than Bruce would want to be Batman?

No, not really it was shown in his batman run that Dick would never be as good a batman as Bruce Wayne both Dick and Damian knew that. Thats Bruce Wayne's Mantle only he can fulfill it to the fullest.

Cool

Yeah, I kind of feel that these points only really apply or are felt when you've got mediocre writing. Bats does struggle with some of that, but there's generally always 1-2 all-star writers handling his ongoing.

Yeah... no. Who cares if yeah technically someone else can be Batman like someone else mentioned simply dressing like him doesn't make you him. It's one of the reasons I could never fully get into Batman Beyond, yeah Terry is Batman and he does a good job but he doesn't really act like him. If you have Batman without the Batman personality, what's the point? And in regards to Dick as Batman why would he feel the need to change identities, can't he still fight crime as Nightwing? Other than the costume what difference is there between Dick as Batman and Dick as Nightwing. Look at it this way, who wants a Superman who isn't Clark Kent? Not many people because it just wouldn't work that's how I feel about a Batman that isn't Bruce Wayne. And if you don't like Batman comics with Bruce as Batman then I have a easy solution to your "problem" stop reading his books. Problem solved.

This article is trying to place blame on Batman that you could place on almost all popular comic book characters, some of the criticism is fair but others not so much. I guess being the most popular has singled him out for the burden of the blame.

Not really a Batman issue, it is a general comic issue. Good points though.

Again where is this shown? I'd contest how much Bruce actually fulfilled as Batman given that Gotham is still just as bad if not worse when he started. Bruce Wayne is supposed to be a genius billionaire and yet he can't take care of serial killers and mobs. Better he focus on running Batman Inc/Wayne Enterprise - improving GCPD and the city from the inside while Dick can do the standard vigilante stuff.

Dick Grayson is more interesting because he acted the personality of Batman while the character himself wasn't necessarily as dark. It was a performance. Nightwing just isn't as interesting -see how generic and dull the current book is compared to B&R and Black Mirror.

The thing is while this kind of works for other characters, it's mostly true for Batman. See how much Dick Grayson as grown, see how much the X-Men have grown. Batman there have been attempts to move him forward but they always move back to square one. Morrison's attempts to make him get over his parents' deaths didn't even stick.

That depends on the writer not the character.

lol

Oh for the love of Moses... quite the overblown diatribe.

Mr. Maddox's article was very well written, but seriously... Haha! The guy needs to learn how to lighten up a bit, me thinks. It's just comic books, and Batman certainly is not solely to blame for the ruination of comic books. You would first have to operate on the presumption that comic books are indeed ruined, and that they are not.

He singled out Batman because he doesn't like Batman. It's as simple as that. :)

Comic Book fans taking this stance allows the mainstream to take the same stance, to treat comic books dismissively, and to marginalize people who read comic books. Comic books are as valid a hobby as any other, therefore they are subject to the same critical thinking.

You misunderstood me. Nobody is marginalizing people who read comic books.

I love reading comic books as much as the next guy (I've about 400 comics in my basement attesting to the fact), and there is nothing wrong with treating it as important... if it is important to you. It is very important to me too.

However, there comes a point when you have to realize that they are only comic books. In the grand scheme of things, comic books (in and of themselves) should not be placed too highly on anyone's list of priorities.

I question the author's intent more than anything else. He goes to great lengths in order to single out Batman and DC as being the "ruin" of comics, but he almost completely neglects the fact that many other publishers and characters are, and have been, guilty of the same problematic story-telling and marketing issues. A few viners here have already pointed this out.

At any rate, this among other things leads me to believe Mr. Maddox isn't really interested in helping/progressing the comic book medium at all, but simply has an ax to grind with one particular character/publisher.

@omnicrono: Well, other publishers not withstanding, all of the problematic characters would be immediately fixed if Bruce aged, retired, and eventually died. Then Green Arrow could do the same, the Robins could grow up, etc. The reason no one complains about Clark is because he doesnt age, he is effectively immortal, same with Wonder Woman.

Everyone is held at the same point in time, because Batman is. Batman is frozen in time, because he is just a normal human doing something incredibly demanding physically.

Everything about DC is broken to me. Hell in the Death of Superman story Superman literally killed the concept of death.

Actually, Clark Kent does age. He ages at a much slower rate, but he does age. He doesn't get the scrutiny perhaps because his aging wouldn't be as quickly "visible" as Bruce Wayne's.

In any case, there are many other characters who have aged as well, in spite of Bruce not aging. So that entire argument is essentially moot.