How long into Batman's career should Robin join him?

[Tzigone]

Which seems about right to me, because most of the classic writers had their heroes pegged permanently at around 30 years old.

May I ask what the source on this is? I've heard this before (and for the bronze age), and yet also heard that he and Clark were 25 then. Then there was that weird issue where Clark's classmate was having her 21st birthday, and no way was he that young (but that was later, anyway).

Actual golden age (not Earth 2) references to any heroes ages would be extremely welcome. But I don't think many exist. Guess I could try to figure out Steve's from his rank, but I don't know how promotions worked in the 1940s in wartime.

I admit, Bruce seems a little younger than 29 to me. Partially because he's initially referred to as "young socialite friend" - okay, so that's in comparison to a much older Gordon. But I think anyone explicitly defined as "young" should either be young for what they are described as (doctor, vice president of business, etc.) or be under 27 (non-official beginning of "late 20s" to me). After that, you're just a socialite, not a young socialite. I say this as someone who has 27 far in the rearview mirror. But I will admit, it would have taken him time to train. 25-27 is what I was thinking, but I can't deny the huge amount of later material that undoubtedly influences my viewpoint. I usually think Dick was 12 or 13. 14 is feasible. The kind of undercover gigs he did and his flirtation with a classmate don't suit for a younger age, IMO.

[Jim Kelly]

May I ask what the source on this is?

I admit I don't have a ready source for this. It's something I just knew to be the case in the 1960s when I started reading comics and all the adventure heroes were thirty-something--unless expressly stated otherwise. Peter Parker was novel for this reason, because he was a boy calling himself a man. When you're thirty, you're a man or so it seemed back then.

Which is why we were told not to trust anyone over thirty. Those people were the authority figures--and we weren't supposed to trust the authority anymore.

When Julie Schwartz took over SUPERMAN in 1971, it was expressly stated that Superman was twenty-nine. This seemed to me an age down, back when I read this at that time. And I wondered to myself if they made him one year less than thirty so we could trust him again.

I've started to rewatch THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW from the beginning and it's established she's turned thirty--so Rhoda observes that she can't trust herself.

And I've been reading THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERBOY from 1980 and it's reiterated there that Superman is twenty-nine. And given that title starts out with Superboy at 16, it's clear that all the stories are exactly thirteen years in the past from the date of the comics.

Schwartz would apply this rule 29 to almost all the male stars in JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA--so Barry, Hal, Bruce, Oliver, Ray were the same age.

When they were casting the Donner SUPERMAN movie, there were articles in the paper about this. They were looking at guys like Robert Redford and Burt Reynolds for the part. And the producers said that Superman is thirty-six. Which I remember, because it struck me as odd, given he was only twenty-nine in the comics. And they ended up casting Christopher Reeve, who I believe was twenty-six at the time--and that was considered much too young for Superman.

[Tzigone]

I notice all your examples are from much later. There's a youth-culture-against-the-olds aspect that I'm not sure really applies the golden age. Very big in the sixties, though. At least the latter part.

[Jim Kelly]

I notice all your examples are from much later. There's a youth-culture-against-the-olds aspect that I'm not sure really applies the golden age. Very big in the sixties, though. At least the latter part.

Yeah, it's easier to remember stuff from when I was alive. For older stuff I have to do some research.*

*edit: One thing that's apparent from old comics, pulps and movies is that the hero often has a past in the military. For 1930s pulp heroes, they were in the Great War, so they have to be old enough to have done that. By the 1950s, service in World War Two gave men a shared experience they could tap into, so the heroes had to be old enough to have been in the war. Lots of stories have a character showing up who the hero was in the service with. By 1950s standards, if a guy was a hero, then he was in the war. Even by the 1960s, a lot of heroes had been in the Korean War or had at least been in the military as national service.

[bat39]

May I ask what the source on this is? I've heard this before (and for the bronze age), and yet also heard that he and Clark were 25 then. Then there was that weird issue where Clark's classmate was having her 21st birthday, and no way was he that young (but that was later, anyway).

Actual golden age (not Earth 2) references to any heroes ages would be extremely welcome. But I don't think many exist. Guess I could try to figure out Steve's from his rank, but I don't know how promotions worked in the 1940s in wartime.

I admit, Bruce seems a little younger than 29 to me. Partially because he's initially referred to as "young socialite friend" - okay, so that's in comparison to a much older Gordon. But I think anyone explicitly defined as "young" should either be young for what they are described as (doctor, vice president of business, etc.) or be under 27 (non-official beginning of "late 20s" to me). After that, you're just a socialite, not a young socialite. I say this as someone who has 27 far in the rearview mirror. But I will admit, it would have taken him time to train. 25-27 is what I was thinking, but I can't deny the huge amount of later material that undoubtedly influences my viewpoint. I usually think Dick was 12 or 13. 14 is feasible. The kind of undercover gigs he did and his flirtation with a classmate don't suit for a younger age, IMO.

The 29 thing is more of a Bronze Age idea. The first time I remember it applying to Batman was in the iconic story "There's No Hope in Crime Alley" where its stated that the Wayne murders happened '21 years ago'. And while I don't remember if Bruce's age when his parents were killed was stated in that specific issue, the general consensus around that time was that he was eight...ergo, he's 29 in the present-day.

I don't think there were specific ages attributed to the heroes in the Golden Age...at least, none I can think of. We can't go by their behavior or how they are drawn either. Golden Age artwork isn't going to be able to capture subtle differences between a 20-something and a 30-something (which frankly can be left ambiguous with contemporary art as well), and behaviorally, the expectations and roles of 20-somethings in society back in the 30's and 40's was very different from today.

I guess the closest we can get to nailing down Batman's age in the Golden Age would be if a story from that era established Bruce's age when his parents were killed. Did "The Origin of Batman" give an answer there? When was the first time we were unambiguously told on panel how old Bruce Wayne was when his parents died?

One final point on the passage of time in the Golden Age - in "The Man with the Red Hood", we're told that Batman's encounter with the Red Hood happened ''ten years ago''. The story was published in early 1951, over 11 years after Batman's debut. So the implication there was that Batman had been around in-universe almost as long as he'd existed in the real-world! But Robin still seemed roughly around the same age as he'd always been - ambiguously pre-teen or mid-teens. I wonder if at some point, the writers just had it in their minds that Batman had been around a long time, but Robin was more recent since he had to stay a kid! Which ties into the original question of this thread...

[Aahz]

However, I know from a lovely, very sourced PDF (with one little oversight on Barbara that is law-related, not comic-related) that was previously posted (here, I think), that Brave and the Bold #197 did establish Earth-Two Bruce as ten when they were murdered.

I guess you mean this file.
I really need to update it at some point.

What oversight do you mean.

[Alpha]

I was reading No Man's Land and came across this tragically ironic panel. Bruce is such a hypocrite

IMG_20210815_072845.jpg

[TheRay]

I definitely want to have Nightwing investing the gangsters at the circus on his own and then he just happens to run into Batman doing an entirely separate investigation.

[MajorHoy]

NOTE: Thread / poll first started in July 2021.

---------------------

The long thread about the ''preferred duration'' of Dick's career as Robin got me thinking...how long should Bruce be Batman before Dick joins him as Robin?

Now, in a real-world publishing sense, Robin first appeared 11 months after Batman did, so there's a historical precedent for it being about a year.

But Post-COIE, . . .

With 63 people having voted so far,

* 3-5 years = 28 votes
* 2 years = 18 votes
* 1 year = 13 votes
* 5+ years = 4 votes

[Frontier]

I was reading No Man's Land and came across this tragically ironic panel. Bruce is such a hypocrite

IMG_20210815_072845.jpg

He literally trains them to be as safe as they possibly could when he takes them out there and usually goes out on patrol with them. So he's not intentionally negligent.

[Lightning Rider]

He literally trains them to be as safe as they possibly could when he takes them out there and usually goes out on patrol with them. So he's not intentionally negligent.

It's semantics, but nobody really is. It's negligence, acting in ignorance or indifference to something they should have known to take care of.

He definitely tries to keep them as safe as possible, but he definitely puts them in harm's way.

[mib86]

Well, if you look at real-life comics, Robin enters Batman's life quite early (his first appearance is in 1940, just a year after Batman debut in 1939), and I think that should be reflected in the continuity of the character.

I think two years after the start of the crusade the best place for Dick Grayson's debut and adoption.
I also would add 6 moths/1 year of training before Bruce allow the Boy Wonder to follow him in the field.

[MajorHoy]

. . . I think two years after the start of the crusade the best place for Dick Grayson's debut and adoption. . .

Why "adoption"?

What's wrong with Dick just being a ward as opposed to an adopted son?
And how old are we making Dick when he first partners with Bruce / Batman?

[phonogram12]

Honest question: do adults making children their ward an actual thing that still happens? I honestly don't know enough about the subject, which is why I'm asking.

Personally, I generally have Dick's parents dying shortly after he turns 12.

[Frontier]

It's semantics, but nobody really is. It's negligence, acting in ignorance or indifference to something they should have known to take care of.

He definitely tries to keep them as safe as possible, but he definitely puts them in harm's way.

Well part of it is that the kids are personally motivated to go out there with or without Batman, he just ends up giving them the tools and training necessary to protect themselves.

Jason's probably the one Robin he took in and deliberately trained to be Robin.