"Why doesn't Batman just use his money to fix gotham?"

[bat39]

Batman's world isn't realistic. It's grounded in psychological realism, where characters make decisions with a consistent internal logic based on the world they find themselves in, which is different than ours.

In real life, Batman's crusade would be a horrible idea. Going around and beating up criminals while dressed like a bat wouldn't end well for anyone.

But in the world Batman inhabits, it not only makes sense, it's absolutely the right thing to do. There are countless people walking around Gotham still alive because of what Batman does. If I was kidnapped by Riddler or Joker, I certainly wouldn't complain when Batman showed up and punched them in the face.

But even in a fictional context, you can only support Batman's efforts if Bruce is working to make life better for Gothamites on his side of things. I love stories where Bruce is privately funding rehabilitation efforts for criminals he's opposed as Batman, whether that means paying for their therapy or WayneCorp giving them jobs. If he's just a guy who punches people in the face, he's a monster. Maybe a monster on our side, but a monster nonetheless.

It should also be noted that there are very generous billionaires who still haven't eradicated crime and poverty. And they have to deal with the political limitations handed to them--Bruce could support a politician's campaign, but he couldn't guarantee their election. So he couldn't stop it if a mayor went 'tough on crime' instead and tried to cut funding for social safety nets and other beneficial programs.

But I think at his core, that's what Batman is - a monster who punches bad guys in the face, but a monster on 'our' side.

As a child, he was the victim, helplessly watching his parents gunned down by a criminal. As an adult, he watches criminals helplessly plead for mercy while he beats them to a pulp. That's the catharis he gets from the process of being Batman.

There is a moral aspect to it of course - doing his best to stop others from suffering the way he did. And no doubt the intellectual satisfaction of solving crimes. But he's also very much a monster on our side. But you can argue the same for any cop or soldier who indulges in violence to maintain civilized society - the only difference being that they are accountable to a system in a way that Batman isn't.

[Gotham citizen]

Batman's world isn't realistic. It's grounded in psychological realism, where characters make decisions with a consistent internal logic based on the world they find themselves in, which is different than ours.

In real life, Batman's crusade would be a horrible idea. Going around and beating up criminals while dressed like a bat wouldn't end well for anyone.

But in the world Batman inhabits, it not only makes sense, it's absolutely the right thing to do. There are countless people walking around Gotham still alive because of what Batman does. If I was kidnapped by Riddler or Joker, I certainly wouldn't complain when Batman showed up and punched them in the face.

But even in a fictional context, you can only support Batman's efforts if Bruce is working to make life better for Gothamites on his side of things. I love stories where Bruce is privately funding rehabilitation efforts for criminals he's opposed as Batman, whether that means paying for their therapy or WayneCorp giving them jobs. If he's just a guy who punches people in the face, he's a monster. Maybe a monster on our side, but a monster nonetheless.

It should also be noted that there are very generous billionaires who still haven't eradicated crime and poverty. And they have to deal with the political limitations handed to them--Bruce could support a politician's campaign, but he couldn't guarantee their election. So he couldn't stop it if a mayor went 'tough on crime' instead and tried to cut funding for social safety nets and other beneficial programs.

A post that deserves to be carved in the stone.

[David Walton]

But I think at his core, that's what Batman is - a monster who punches bad guys in the face, but a monster on 'our' side.

I see Batman differently, but just to be clear, I think your interpretation is credible. I mean, Frank Miller stopped just short of Bruce actually being possessed by a bat-entity in TDKR. And his work is, it goes without saying, brilliant.

But he stripped away a lot of elements to achieve that effect. Even as "the Batman" became a darker figure in the 70s, he was still a very active philanthropist who believed in people, and didn't see his mission in terms of 'war.' There's a great sequence--I'll see if I can find the image later--where Bruce takes some kids camping, and they're talking about what they think Batman really looks like, and he tries to scare them with his costume. They just laugh it off and he thinks something to the effect of, "Batman was created to scare criminals, not children.'

I think Batman is a creation meant to play on the fears of criminals, and while the Batman does use violence when necessary, it's the theatricality that's most important. The more violent interpretations of Batman tend to skew toward the idea that Bruce doesn't see a distinction between himself and the Batman, whereas more balanced models have Bruce infinitely aware that Batman is his creation, not a manifestation of his truest self, if you will.

And again, this brings us back to Miller, who was on the extreme end of the 'monster on our side' spectrum because his Bruce literally feels as though the Bat is a demon inside him.

As a child, he was the victim, helplessly watching his parents gunned down by a criminal. As an adult, he watches criminals helplessly plead for mercy while he beats them to a pulp. That's the catharis he gets from the process of being Batman.

I'd counter that his catharsis actually comes from keeping other kids from losing their parents.

There is a moral aspect to it of course - doing his best to stop others from suffering the way he did. And no doubt the intellectual satisfaction of solving crimes. But he's also very much a monster on our side. But you can argue the same for any cop or soldier who indulges in violence to maintain civilized society - the only difference being that they are accountable to a system in a way that Batman isn't.

I'd argue that there are many more dimensions to soldiers and police officers than violence (or potential violence), at least ideally. Both professions value service, not indulgence. And the same is true of Batman. He's not there to enjoy hitting people; he's there to save lives.

A post that deserves to be carved in the stone.

Thanks!

[SiegePerilous02]

But I think at his core, that's what Batman is - a monster who punches bad guys in the face, but a monster on 'our' side.

As a child, he was the victim, helplessly watching his parents gunned down by a criminal. As an adult, he watches criminals helplessly plead for mercy while he beats them to a pulp. That's the catharis he gets from the process of being Batman.

I think thats the core to some interpretations of Batman, but certainly not all of them.

Miller's Batman, at least outside of Year One, certainly seems to get off on beating up criminals. The likes of Adam West or pre-COIE Batman, not so much. I think he's more concerned with enacting justice by protecting people more than beating people up.

[Bat-Meal]

Because it is a universe where Meta-humans, Aliens, and literal Monsters exist - just using his wealth would only go so far. If he doesn't suit-up, others would (and do) anyway. A setting with super-villains needs superheroes.

[bat39]

I see Batman differently, but just to be clear, I think your interpretation is credible. I mean, Frank Miller stopped just short of Bruce actually being possessed by a bat-entity in TDKR. And his work is, it goes without saying, brilliant.

But he stripped away a lot of elements to achieve that effect. Even as "the Batman" became a darker figure in the 70s, he was still a very active philanthropist who believed in people, and didn't see his mission in terms of 'war.' There's a great sequence--I'll see if I can find the image later--where Bruce takes some kids camping, and they're talking about what they think Batman really looks like, and he tries to scare them with his costume. They just laugh it off and he thinks something to the effect of, "Batman was created to scare criminals, not children.'

I think Batman is a creation meant to play on the fears of criminals, and while the Batman does use violence when necessary, it's the theatricality that's most important. The more violent interpretations of Batman tend to skew toward the idea that Bruce doesn't see a distinction between himself and the Batman, whereas more balanced models have Bruce infinitely aware that Batman is his creation, not a manifestation of his truest self, if you will.

And again, this brings us back to Miller, who was on the extreme end of the 'monster on our side' spectrum because his Bruce literally feels as though the Bat is a demon inside him.




I'd counter that his catharsis actually comes from keeping other kids from losing their parents.



I'd argue that there are many more dimensions to soldiers and police officers than violence (or potential violence), at least ideally. Both professions value service, not indulgence. And the same is true of Batman. He's not there to enjoy hitting people; he's there to save lives.



Thanks!

I agree with everything you've said...and I don't think our takes are mutually exclusive.

I think Bruce Wayne is a complex person. He's channelized his trauma into helping people and making sure that no one suffers the way he did. But the specific way he chooses to help people is a violent one that gives him a kind of cathartic pleasure of preying on those who prey on victims. Now the extent to which he revels in this pleasure vs. the extent to which he stays focused on doing good is what varies depending on the interpretation or even just his headspace at a particular point of time.

This is something I actually liked about BvS and one of the best parts of the movie, albeit understated. We see that Batman has gotten to a point where he's branding criminals (mostly sex offenders, if I recall correctly), apparently condemning them to death in prison. Alfred notes that these are "new rules" and that Bruce has become far more brutal off late, even though Bruce writes it off by saying "We're criminals, we've always been criminals". Batman is a hero and he's always used violent methods, but initially his focus was on protecting people. having grown cynical and bitter over the past two decades, he's started to revel in the pain he inflicts on criminals and associate that with heroism. His arc over the course of BvS is regaining that early idealism and being motivated to help save people without necessarily reveling in cruelty - and that's the version we get to see in Justice League.

Bruce absolutely is a "monster on our side". The question is, is being a monster limited to putting on a suit to terrorize criminals to keep the city safe? Or is he a monster in the sense that he revels in inflicting pain above and beyond considerations of keeping people safe?

[Gotham citizen]

[…]
The more violent interpretations of Batman tend to skew toward the idea that Bruce doesn't see a distinction between himself and the Batman, whereas more balanced models have Bruce infinitely aware that Batman is his creation, not a manifestation of his truest self, if you will.
[…]

I can add only that in the most sociopath interpretations of the character (like Murderer/Fugitive), Bruce sees Batman like the true himself and Bruce like a mask useful when he can't wear the cape.

[…]
I think Bruce Wayne is a complex person. He's channelized his trauma into helping people and making sure that no one suffers the way he did. But the specific way he chooses to help people is a violent one that gives him a kind of cathartic pleasure of preying on those who prey on victims. Now the extent to which he revels in this pleasure vs. the extent to which he stays focused on doing good is what varies depending on the interpretation or even just his headspace at a particular point of time.
[…]

I don't see Bruce feels that "cathartic pleasure" when he hunts the criminals, I see in him a person moved by a very strong sense of responsibility toward the society and a very deep love for his city. Maybe I see Bruce in this way, because my idea of Bruce Wayne is heavily based on the stories of the Golden, the Silver and the Bronze Age rather than to the recent ones, but I think the more recent stories lend themselves to your interpretation.
About your question, my answer is: it depends by the story: for the most part of his life he wasn't a monster at all, but in various stories he was described like a man who wanted be seen like a monster to terrorize the criminals and keep the city safe; anyway he did never give me the idea he is a person who love inflict pain in the criminals he hunts.

[bat39]

I can add only that in the most sociopath interpretations of the character (like Murderer/Fugitive), Bruce sees Batman like the true himself and Bruce like a mask useful when he can't wear the cape.



I don't see Bruce feels that "cathartic pleasure" when he hunts the criminals, I see in him a person moved by a very strong sense of responsibility toward the society and a very deep love for his city. Maybe I see Bruce in this way, because my idea of Bruce Wayne is heavily based on the stories of the Golden, the Silver and the Bronze Age rather than to the recent ones, but I think the more recent stories lend themselves to your interpretation.
About your question, my answer is: it depends by the story: for the most part of his life he wasn't a monster at all, but in various stories he was described like a man who wanted be seen like a monster to terrorize the criminals and keep the city safe; anyway he did never give me the idea he is a person who love inflict pain in the criminals he hunts.

I don't think these two takes are necessarily in conflict. Sure, you can take any particular Batman story or adaptation and assume that this is the way the character is all the time. But its possible to imagine the other sides to him as well and construct a more holistic understanding of the character.

The way I see it, when he's at his best, Bruce is the way you've described him - a man with a strong sense of duty towards his city, who does his best to ensure that the darker vengeance-driven aspects of his crusade do not corrupt its sanctity. This is the Bruce we usually see in Year One-era stories, in the Golden Age and Silver Age, hell, even in the Nolanverse movies for the most part.

But then you have the Bruce Wayne who's worn down by tragedy and world-weariness, the cynical man who feels on some level that his idealistic mission is wasted and the best he can do is dish out the pain he feels to criminals. The man who doesn't just dress up like a monster, but who over time, has become a monster himself. This is the Batman of DKR, of BvS, of a lot of Post-Crisis Batman comics, particularly from the 90's.

My favorite takes are the ones who are somewhere between, which balance these two extremes. A Bruce Wayne who's been through tough times and is well-aware of his darker impulses and the violent and vengeful nature of his crusade. But someone who's still determined to keep the monster in check and not stray from the fundamental idealism of his mission.

The BTAS Batman I feel was this. As was Affleck's Batman in Justice League (too bad we couldn't see this side of him in a better film). For all that they are maligned, I think Val Kilmer and George Clooney's versions fall here as well (though Clooney's portrayal was bland, to say the least). Morrison's Batman falls here, as do a lot of recent takes like Snyder's and King's. When he's written well, I think modern Batman in general, is reasonably well-balanced between the extremes.

[Gotham citizen]

I can say I agree with everything; there are only two considerations that I want make.

[…]
I don't think these two takes are necessarily in conflict.
[…]

I did never mean that.

[…]
But then you have the Bruce Wayne who's worn down by tragedy and world-weariness, the cynical man who feels on some level that his idealistic mission is wasted and the best he can do is dish out the pain he feels to criminals.
[…]

Like David Walton wrote Batman is a character who live in an unrealistic world, grounded in psychological realism, so he can't react every time in the same way, but his reactions must fit with the situation. For example when he tried to kill Joker in the story "Hush", he did the right thing to do, not because it was morally right, but because in that situation he reacted exactly like a real human being would have reacted; even if in this moment I don't remember what sparked his rage.

[…]
The man who doesn't just dress up like a monster, but who over time, has become a monster himself. This is the Batman of DKR, of BvS, of a lot of Post-Crisis Batman comics, particularly from the 90's.
[…]

In my humble opinion sometime the writers of the nineties went too far during (above all with Rucka and Brubaker): because Batman is the hero, he must keep some heroic traits: he can't say things like: «Bruce Wayne doesn't exist: he is only a mask that Batman uses when he must work in daylight», like it happened in Murderer/Fugitive; yes, I have some issue with that story.

[…]
The BTAS Batman I feel was this. As was Affleck's Batman in Justice League (too bad we couldn't see this side of him in a better film). For all that they are maligned, I think Val Kilmer and George Clooney's versions fall here as well (though Clooney's portrayal was bland, to say the least). Morrison's Batman falls here, as do a lot of recent takes like Snyder's and King's. When he's written well, I think modern Batman in general, is reasonably well-balanced between the extremes.
[…]

I must say the modern writers are too obsessed with the idea to deconstruct the hero: after twenty or thirty years of deconstruction i think they should follow the Kurt Busiek's suggestion: "It is time to reassemble the engine, put it on the road and floor it to see what they are able to do" and I would also love to see again a little bit of that light there was in the past stories, but this is only an opinion of mine.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

What do you say to or think about this particular criticism of Batman? I think "Batman" as a story does its job of justifying the need for Batman as a character. Yeah he's rich, but Gotham City (and the larger DC universe) have problems that necessarily be solved with money. And he regularly deals with people who have enough resources to bankroll armies of goons, doomsday plots, weapons, etc.

Still, all that doesn't stop someone from seeing Batman as an elite who just wants to punch down. What do you think?

Batman already uses his money to fix Gotham. The real question is "Why hasn't Batman's money completely fixed Gotham?"

The answer is that personal charities don't bring systemic change. People organizing to enact change is what brings systemic change.

[Mr. White]

Batman Gotham Nights 7 - refurbishing Arkham Asylum cells.

Reckon bad guys would be "reluctant" to break out and commit crimes if AA was like a 7 star hotel?

That can be one way of "fixing" Gotham.

[Flash Gordon]

Well, we wouldn't have the lovely four colored adventures of Batman and Robin if he did.

He kinda does. Sorta.

[Gotham citizen]

Batman Gotham Nights 7 - refurbishing Arkham Asylum cells.

Reckon bad guys would be "reluctant" to break out and commit crimes if AA was like a 7 star hotel?

That can be one way of "fixing" Gotham.

There was an Italian song that said: «I want more, it is never enough!»

[Blind Wedjat]

Supposing in a story Batman and his allies (be it the Bat-Family and his legal allies) are able to effectively 'solve' crime in Gotham to a point where his mission is no longer a pressing issue, and therefore Batman turns his efforts to a more national and global level -- would that make sense?

Also forgive my ignorance if this has happened before, but I think a story in which Bruce has been making major moves with his philanthropy via Wayne Enterprises is actually making a difference, but some nefarious entity is plotting against this to maintain the status quo would be very interesting. A story that shows that Bruce Wayne is as equally important (if not more) in solving the problem as Batman. Say in a story like this, Bruce uses the Batman to do the nighttime espionage necessary to know more about the situation.

[bat39]

Supposing in a story Batman and his allies (be it the Bat-Family and his legal allies) are able to effectively 'solve' crime in Gotham to a point where his mission is no longer a pressing issue, and therefore Batman turns his efforts to a more national and global level -- would that make sense?

Also forgive my ignorance if this has happened before, but I think a story in which Bruce has been making major moves with his philanthropy via Wayne Enterprises is actually making a difference, but some nefarious entity is plotting against this to maintain the status quo would be very interesting. A story that shows that Bruce Wayne is as equally important (if not more) in solving the problem as Batman. Say in a story like this, Bruce uses the Batman to do the nighttime espionage necessary to know more about the situation.

I suppose to a certain extent, the Court of Owls has played that role?