The Grim Knight - Analysis

[Ursalink]

It surprises me nobody has started a thread about this, but the issue talking about the "Punisher version" of Batman was already out.

I'm sorry to say this, but I like this Batman's Grim Knight. I mean, if he's ally of the Batman Who Laughs, he's clearly wrong. But hearing his story before that, I can't avoid to think he did the right thing. His killing tactics put an end to Gotham's greatest problems. No Joker, his victims lived. No Zucco, Robin never lost his parents. All corrupted officers eliminated, no maniacs from Arkham to break havoc, no sick shows of demency and cruelty.... If this world's James Gordon would have known how Gotham would have been with a Batman who doesn't kill, I don't think he would have stayed in the Grim Knight's way. I mean, in this world, Barbara would have never been "handicapped".

And I'm not sure, but when that scene showed how this Batman stopped a criminal right before he killed a family similar to Batman's, I think it proved his point. And I'm not sure about it, but I believe the citizens were really grateful for Batman's protection.

It would be interesting to see this Batman in worlds like Injustice. I do believe the Tyrant Superman would eve like this Batman, because with him, Metropilis' disaster would have never happened, because the Joker never existed in the first place.

[TheJudge95]

Yeah I think the writing struggled to make him villainous, like when they make him almost kill Alfred for no reason. I said this on Reddit, but I think if Gordon had to be set on a collision course with Batman, it should have been after a long relationship together, which would infuse the conflict with more dramatic heft. Plus, if Batman only started killing after, say, Jason Todd's death, it would give Batman a better reason for breaking his no-killing rule than him simply killing Joe Chill. Then the Grim Knight could have been a more insightful exploration of why Batman does not kill, instead of making the Grim Knight do things out-of-character (burning Harvey Dent's face, putting a bomb in Alfred's neck) to make him a bad guy. Everything else about the Grim Knight's history - his weaponization of Gotham City, vigilantism, surveillance methods, lethal training - is straight out of Batman's playbook, but the conflict between him and Gordon felt contrived.

[Ursalink]

Yeah I think the writing struggled to make him villainous, like when they make him almost kill Alfred for no reason. I said this on Reddit, but I think if Gordon had to be set on a collision course with Batman, it should have been after a long relationship together, which would infuse the conflict with more dramatic heft. Plus, if Batman only started killing after, say, Jason Todd's death, it would give Batman a better reason for breaking his no-killing rule than him simply killing Joe Chill. Then the Grim Knight could have been a more insightful exploration of why Batman does not kill, instead of making the Grim Knight do things out-of-character (burning Harvey Dent's face, putting a bomb in Alfred's neck) to make him a bad guy. Everything else about the Grim Knight's history - his weaponization of Gotham City, vigilantism, surveillance methods, lethal training - is straight out of Batman's playbook, but the conflict between him and Gordon felt contrived.

Well, now that you mentioned, that idea was also used before. In the 52 Multiverse, Earth-51 had a Batman who, after the Joker killed Jason Todd, he decided that killing the Joker was the only logical thing to do. Ater that, he started to use his resources to targeting and eliminating super-villains; and later regular criminals. Unaware of this, the other super-heroes reacted to the disappearance of their nemeses by revealing their secret identities and becoming more publicly accepted. With this, Earth became an Utopia, and several heroes retired of crime-fighting was almost erradicated.

The ways may not be the best, but they actually work. Another prove that a Batman who kills can actually be a good thing, as reprochable as it can sounds.

[TheJudge95]

Well, now that you mentioned, that idea was also used before. In the 52 Multiverse, Earth-51 had a Batman who, after the Joker killed Jason Todd, he decided that killing the Joker was the only logical thing to do. Ater that, he started to use his resources to targeting and eliminating super-villains; and later regular criminals. Unaware of this, the other super-heroes reacted to the disappearance of their nemeses by revealing their secret identities and becoming more publicly accepted. With this, Earth became an Utopia, and several heroes retired of crime-fighting was almost erradicated.

The ways may not be the best, but they actually work. Another prove that a Batman who kills can actually be a good thing, as reprochable as it can sounds.

That would be interesting to see how the Batman Who Laughs corrupted that utopia and brought the Grim Knight over to his side. The Grim Knight seems to have put an end to crime in his reality too, but the writing doesn't emphasize that and portrays it as more of a totalitarian dystopia. I think Scott Snyder didn't want to portray guns as a cure-all or subvert the morality of Batman's no-kill rule, but the Grim Knight turned out less of a "what-if" version of Batman and more just another evil Batman for it.

[Vordan]

Yeah I think the writing struggled to make him villainous, like when they make him almost kill Alfred for no reason. I said this on Reddit, but I think if Gordon had to be set on a collision course with Batman, it should have been after a long relationship together, which would infuse the conflict with more dramatic heft. Plus, if Batman only started killing after, say, Jason Todd's death, it would give Batman a better reason for breaking his no-killing rule than him simply killing Joe Chill. Then the Grim Knight could have been a more insightful exploration of why Batman does not kill, instead of making the Grim Knight do things out-of-character (burning Harvey Dent's face, putting a bomb in Alfred's neck) to make him a bad guy. Everything else about the Grim Knight's history - his weaponization of Gotham City, vigilantism, surveillance methods, lethal training - is straight out of Batman's playbook, but the conflict between him and Gordon felt contrived.

He almost killed Alfred because Alfred could have exposed him and brought him down which is what ended up happening.

[Ursalink]

He almost killed Alfred because Alfred could have exposed him and brought him down which is what ended up happening.

Except for the lethal part, this is exactly what regular Batman does. Even when you are supposed to trust your allies, Batman always makes plans to stop his allies instead of doing the same with his enemies. He prefers to create ways to eliminate the Justice League than eliminate Arkham's inmates.

[sirmarkus]

Except for the lethal part, this is exactly what regular Batman does. Even when you are supposed to trust your allies, Batman always makes plans to stop his allies instead of doing the same with his enemies. He prefers to create ways to eliminate the Justice League than eliminate Arkham's inmates.

I think that the Justice League going rogue is a greater fear to Batman than anything in Arkham.

I think my favourite part of the book was the flashbacks. The rest was pretty typical fair. Bruce learning at an early age that killing is an effective way to control situations, and his natural intellect and emotional trauma leads pretty organically in this direction. I also loved the flashback art, it added a bit of warmth to a character otherwise lacking in humanity.

https://sirmarkussite.wordpress.com/...grim-knight-1/

[Vordan]

My favorite part personally was that Jim Gordon was his nemesis because there never was a Joker due to GK Killing Red Hood that night in Ace Chemicals. I wonder if this Batman had any partners?