I don’t know. Looking over newgroup discussion however, it seems like a whole in logic. All the conversations seem to go, “Batman doesn’t kill” repeated ad nauseum.
It’s like a talisman that many fans feel they need to hold on to, or their lives will end. Besides which, the explination of “it’s a diffrent Batman” doesn’t wash wish me, since before Gardner Fox and Julius Schwartz decide to invent the concept of “earth 1” and earth 2", the batman from 1930 was the same man as had paled around with the Justice Society of America in the 40s and beyond.
p.s. This thread is in the pit because it makes me angry.
Well, not to nitpick… aw, who’m I kidding? To nitpick : Even after the division of Earth-One and Earth-Two, the Batman from 1939 was the same one as the one who palled around with the JSA in the Forties. AKA : Earth-Two’s Batman.
You must have a very happy and trouble free life if this is the burning issue in your mind.
Heck, in his first appearance (well, his second, actually), Superman picked up a guy like a javelin and threw him hundreds of yards to certain death.
I’m guessing this early bloodthirstiness was okay since both characters were more-or-less adapted from the pulp fiction of the day, which was quite violent. When pictures became the largest part of the story, though, and the audience’s age level could drop several years, it must have occured to the editors to put on some limits, let the government force the issue.
Incidentally, the word FLICK was forbidden in case the letters ran together, according to Steranko.
Hi, Scott! Just wanted to say that I appreciate your articulate posts (and sense of humor) so far, and look forward to seeing them in other fora. (Fanboys need love too!)
Thanks, but umm… Looking forward to? Do you get out (of the pit) much? If I wasn’t poor, and could afford to be a registered member, then you would see a pretty high post count nest to my name. For other Sweet, Sweet, Scott-posting goodness, see:
I have issues with the state of the superhero genre as it exists today, for a number of reasons, but with this I must respectfully disagree. It may have been so at one time, and the appreciation of superheroes by chronological adults may indicate abnormalities of a psychological, emotional, or maturity-level nature in some cases, but I dispute that your opinion is a truth for even a majority, let alone for all people.
I also disagree. Batman’s approachable on any number of levels. Despite the rigid PGness, despite the no-killing rule, I can (and do), enjoy him as a barely-contained psychopath living in a world of stark moral laws and unconquerable strife.
To say “Superheroes are kid’s stuff” is to oversimplify the genre, and Young Adult works in general. Batman is no more kid’s stuff than “The Chocolate War” or “Ender’s Game” or “Buffy: The Vampire Slayer,” just because they’re appropriate for that reading/developmental level. While I’d probably be comfortable with a 12 year old reading “The Killing Joke,” what I get from it isn’t childish.
I get frustrated because DC pulls its punches due to a conservative cast to the industry, and because more modern works that parallel it do not. It’s a criticism, but not a call for change. I’ll eventually embrace it as a stylistic element of what I’m reading, but since I’m so new to comics I can only compare and contrast to what I’ve read before.
I knew someone would misinterpret me in this way. I knew it.
I love superhero comics. And cartoons. And cartoons about superheroes. I’m 23. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a grown person enjoying juvenile media. Nor does it mean said media can’t be intelligently written or be take on serious subjects. * The Chronicles of Narnia * were written for children. As was Alice in Wonderland, both classics of English literature.
What being children’s literature means is that we have to forgo seeing Barbara Gordon’s nipple, and her father’s penis. I mean, I really liked that story, and there’s a place for it, but it should be the exception, not the rule. Insisting that a juvenile media have adult content just isn’t fair for the kids. They should be able to read Batman too.
I don’t see how I’ve misinterpreted your position. You’ve referred to superhero comics as kid’s stuff, juvenile media, and children’s literature, and at least implied this is all you think they should be, so that children aren’t excluded. I don’t disagree that some comics should be kid-friendly. I disagree with your stance that all superhero comics should be written to that level. It’s not necessary, any more than it’s necessary that all published books be at the level of Goodnight Moon, excluding such works as Lady Chatterly’s Lover or The Firm. There’s room for both extremes, and a lot more besides.
There’s plenty of room for adult comics (which sounds like I’m talking about porn, but I’m not ). But superheroes? The genre about men in tights solving problems through violence?
The thing is, once upon a time, comics were for kids. That’s what the rack said “Hey Kids, Comics!” They still have that rack at my store. I think there’s maybe six comics on them, and none of them are superheroes. The natural order has been turned topsy turvy, and now comics are as much about tits and gore as they are about fantastic adventure. Hell, I’d think twice about letting an eight year old into a comics store, let alone have him read the stuff that’s there. A kid wouldn’t get most of it anyway, not without following the last 30 issues spread through five titles. I’m not saying that superhewroes must be exclusively for children, but it should be primarily written with young readers in mind (which, again, doesn’t mean written poorly). Right now, most of the kid’s superhero stuff is adaptations of cartoons, where the cartoons are adapting the spirit (and often the plots) of the comics of thirty years ago. That just ain’t right.
Menocchio. I wonder if you’re forgetting the diversity of the postwar 20th century comics’ market with war, romance, crime, mystery, horror and humor each having a huge chunck of the marketplace. Comics have never been exclusively marketed to kids, but some genres have been more-kid-friendly than others – siuperheroes having endless appeal for boys.
Disagree that comics should be written for young readers. Comics should be written primarily with new readers in mind, regardless of age. The old comic pro’s adage every comic adage, “Every comic is someone’s first” is very compelling. This much I do agree with: too much continuity and overlong canonical backstory only appeals to a dwindling marketshare.
I don’t get your beef about 30 year old plots and creative zeitgeist. Plots are essentially timeless. Retro examinations and hommage are part of nearly every entertainment medium.
On this point we agree, and it is one of my aforementioned issues with superhero comics today. When comics are market-driven and try to generate buzz in an attempt to be a hot property, and when writers of comics strive to be hip, cool, edgy, etc., kids get left out of the equation. This is not a Good Thing.
For this and a few other reasons, I walked away from comic books after more than 4 decades of reading.
I was all ready to point out Year Two as an exception, as Batman was all ready to shoot the dude who killed his parents but I thought this exception was way more interesting: http://www.superdickery.com/dick/52.html
Superman is such a dick. (Don’t shoot! It’s the name of the article that it comes from. Please for the love of god, don’t shoot.)
Know, when I started this article, I would have disagreed with Menocchio. After all, it is not like any known comic fan has survived past childhood. All known reader of comic books have died early, making the market of those who read, buy and write comic books consistently of 12-year old boys and girls. There is no base to draw from of people who are willing to write fantastically written stories of comic books that conform to adult sensibilities, neither in the UK, nor the US, Japan or France. None what-so-ever.
Anyone want to pitch my idea to about a mature line reads monthly comic to someone at DC? Any DC comic working Dopers? It would correct the above problem, and would allow peolple to say, "Maybe comic books, including superheroes, can be meant for both adult and child. Unlike what is currently happening. Here, I will save you the trouble of scrolling all the bay back to the begining of the page, and repost my points below.
They have one. It’s called Vertigo. They’ve made some high quality stuff (including some Superhero stuff, like Animal Man and Swamp Thing). I just wish they had a kid’s line (not based on the animated stuff) to compliment it.
Not at all. In fact, I mourn its decline. If there were more viable genres, superheroes could be allowed to be the kid’s adventure stuff they’re best at.
I didn’t express myself clearly. It’s topsy turvy that the Cartoons are reaching back to classic plots and style, and that the only consistently kid-friendly books are apaptations of the cartoons. The comics, the main line of books, should be blazing the path for kid’s comics, not stuff on TV (high quality though it might be).
). But superheroes? The genre about men in tights solving problems through violence?