Do you find Bruce to be a tragic character?

[The World]

Simple question, do you?

[JBatmanFan05]

Yes, Bruce is a tragic character, to some degree. More than of course many comic characters, his tragic nature is more fundamental to his character. Mask of the Phantasm captured the duality of Bruce's life perfectly, the rewarding and happy heroic yet tragic nature of it.

All of our lives are both. No one is spared regrets and losses and hardships and failures and lives/futures they can only imagine but can't or won't have.


Every comic character is on a spectrum though...a scale of degree of how tragic they are overall...maybe one might say Booster Gold is not a tragic character nearly as much as Batman or Punisher or Red Hood. And so, if asked on the street: "J, do you find Booster Gold to be a tragic character?"...I will probably say "No" despite me knowing that Booster has lost all these people and failed all these missions in some way or another, etc. Overall, Booster doesn't live his life like a very tragic character and no reader really thinks of him as one so much.

Bruce lost his parents at a young age and that deeply affected him and he's had a hard grueling life since and many stories highlight the trade offs, the cons, of his chosen path (less love and romance, less social life, death, betrayal, lies and secrets, etc).

[Thom1]

My favorite moments are the ones that give the character a little bit of a happy ending. I'm thinking of things like declaring the case of the Wayne murders "closed" in "Untold Tale of Batman", or the end of the Dark Knight Rises or even the "good death" of Dark Knight Returns. Tragedies can be enjoyable, but I think giving him some hope makes him more heroic, and gives the stories a little more meaning. Batman, to me is about using tragedy to make yourself stronger, but not really a tragedy in itself. (Though I get it if the majority of fans and writers see it that way).

[blackbolt396]

Yes he is a tragic hero.

[AlexanderLuthor]

Complicated question and like many things in comics it depends on the writer. As I've said on many Batman threads in the past, I don't like the way Snyder views the character as is best encapsulated by the latest arc. IMHO he views the whole story of the Batman as a tragedy. Again IMHO, I think the character is better represented as he was in the 40s and 50s...as a person who had a tragic thing happen to them and turned that tragedy into something heroic. That Batman did not endlessly brood about his parent's death, he developed Batman because of it and became a heroic character. Some might think I'm splitting hairs there, but I do think it is a tangible difference. Having a whole arc showing how happy Bruce would be in a different life and how becoming Batman ruined that doesn't do anything for me. To me, Buce's parent's death was the tragedy, not becoming Batman, and IMHO that is how he was written up until about 1985

[Kurtzberg]

For certain values of the word tragic, yes. It's as others have said, Batman is a tragic hero, with the caveat to a certain degree.

[Dzetoun]

Complicated question and like many things in comics it depends on the writer. As I've said on many Batman threads in the past, I don't like the way Snyder views the character as is best encapsulated by the latest arc. IMHO he views the whole story of the Batman as a tragedy. Again IMHO, I think the character is better represented as he was in the 40s and 50s...as a person who had a tragic thing happen to them and turned that tragedy into something heroic. That Batman did not endlessly brood about his parent's death, he developed Batman because of it and became a heroic character. Some might think I'm splitting hairs there, but I do think it is a tangible difference. Having a whole arc showing how happy Bruce would be in a different life and how becoming Batman ruined that doesn't do anything for me. To me, Buce's parent's death was the tragedy, not becoming Batman, and IMHO that is how he was written up until about 1985

I agree, although it isn't entirely Snyder's fault by any means. After all, his run in some ways is simply a distillation of the bitterness that suffuses the last issue of Batman Incorporated, which itself recapitulated themes from any number of earlier stories. But with Snyder it does seem to reach a pure form, with Batman literally caught in a constantly recurring cycle of tragedy, an airless, incestuous, smothering round of insanity and rebirth in which Batman and Gotham and the Joker are trapped in a quasi-supernatural dance of doom through, apparently, all eternity. I mean, what's more to be said in that framework? You either have to concentrate on the other characters, who actually offer the possibility of escape outside of this narrative straitjacket, or decide to take Batman in a direction that really does break him decisively free from that cycle.

[bat39]

I voted yes because the prevailing perception of the character justifies that answer. But it could honestly has been no as well.

Complicated question and like many things in comics it depends on the writer. As I've said on many Batman threads in the past, I don't like the way Snyder views the character as is best encapsulated by the latest arc. IMHO he views the whole story of the Batman as a tragedy. Again IMHO, I think the character is better represented as he was in the 40s and 50s...as a person who had a tragic thing happen to them and turned that tragedy into something heroic. That Batman did not endlessly brood about his parent's death, he developed Batman because of it and became a heroic character. Some might think I'm splitting hairs there, but I do think it is a tangible difference. Having a whole arc showing how happy Bruce would be in a different life and how becoming Batman ruined that doesn't do anything for me. To me, Buce's parent's death was the tragedy, not becoming Batman, and IMHO that is how he was written up until about 1985

Agreed. Though I believe all interpretations are valid. The reason why people have developed a bit of a negative view of the 'tragic' version lately is because that version has become so ubiquitous over the last three decades that we've just simply become tired of it. A 'non-tragic' interpretation of the character, in this context, actually becomes a novelty and something to be sought after.

Its like...there was a time when 'deconstructing' Batman was a new popular past-time for creators because stuff like 'Is Batman the real person and Bruce Wayne the mask?' or 'Is Batman insane?' was new and groundbreaking stuff. Today, honestly, the idea of Bruce Wayne being a real person capable of happiness or some kind of optimism in his mission is what's seen as the groundbreaking idea.

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, I'd say that Nolan's Batman is the perfect blend of tragic and non-tragic (not that its that simple, but it serves the purpose of answering the OP). He's a guy to whom a LOT of bad things happen over a long period of time and who literally sinks into a pit of despair but he 'rises' (pun intended!) again, accomplishes his life's mission, and flies off into the sunset. He is a tragic character, but one who finds a way out of tragedy in the end.

Honestly, in as much as I love those interpretations, I kinda prefer the ending of Nolan's Batman as a natural conclusion to the character to the endings suggested by DKR or Batman Beyond. If Batman is indeed meant to represent the very best of humanity fighting for justice, then I think he deserves to succeed on SOME level, even if its just an emotional and/or psychological one.

[Carabas]

Ideally, he's not.

The best Batman runs have him as a character who had a tragic beginning, and then took that tragedy, conquered it, and fashioned it into a weapon to prevent more tragedy.

Granted, a lot of the time he's written as a loser who is completely consumed by his own tragedies.

[blackbolt396]

Ideally, he's not.

The best Batman runs have him as a character who had a tragic beginning, and then took that tragedy, conquered it, and fashioned it into a weapon to prevent more tragedy.

Granted, a lot of the time he's written as a loser who is completely consumed by his own tragedies.

Loser? I don't agree with that.

[TRS80]

On his own and in his own books, he is often tragic and that works for his character. The Venom story arc is one of my favorite tragic moments. When he is with the JLA or crossovers he is godmode in a batsuit. Not very tragic.

What is tragic, is when writers believe that everyone has to have tragedy to be motivated. Y'know, because it works for Batman. Superman and Flash, two of the most optimistic icons in history have recently been deluged with tragedy for imo no reason. They are good people that want to use their power to help others. Sometimes thats all the motivation heroes need. Why dont we just rewrite every hero with a tragic background or make them brood for 30 years until they put on tights?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

With caveats, yes. At his best he lives what I'd call a happy life (friends, family, a purpose that aids his community and often the world), but everything in it stems from having his childhood stolen from him, in a way that he knows full well warped him emotionally and made it basically impossible that he'll ever be a fully well-adjusted individual. I see him having a happy ending, but I can't really say that a story that's contingent on "he lost everything he cared about and was angry about it every day for the rest of his life" isn't also a tragic one. Even in the versions where there's some form of showdown with Joe Chill, or where he realizes he's no longer actively burning with anger over losing his parents, there's no catharsis or vengeance or healing in the sense of being able to completely trust and relax again. The happiness he gets is from the family he builds independently of the one he lost and that he's helping other people from being hurt in the same way, rather than overcoming the fundamental emotional damage done to him. That's as good as it gets for him, even if at the end of the day it's maybe enough.

[GigiFusc]

I've always thought of him as a tragic character - 100%. Was listening to a radio interview the day where the question was posed - Batman or James Bond?

The celeb (can't remember who it was now) said absolutely Batman, because of the gadgets and vehicles etc as well as the idea of living two 'lives'. For me, that's the answer of someone who either doesn't realise who Bruce Wayne and Batman is as a character or just didn't really think it through properly.

Would you like to have both your parents shot and murdered when you were a child? Dealing with the aftermath - both as a kid, through puberty and then adulthood. Bruce then went into a recluse period where he put himself through the most punishing of tests - both physically and mentally. Then, when he eventually comes out of that period, he starts on a new, never-ending quest to fight crime in Gotham - The onslaught of super villain after super villain, the constant danger, night after night, the loss and injury of close friends and 'family', seeing the horrors that he has seen - the brutal murder and torture of innocents. Bruce has had one of the worst lives of any character I can think of. He lives through Dante's inferno every day.

Personally, I can't see any other answer than 'yes, he's a tragic character'.

(On a side note, you have a cool, suave super spy who gets all the laydeez).

[Starter Set]

The weird thing about him is that almost nothing in his life really seems to bring him happiness.

I mean, is Batman enjoying himself? Does he have a kick being the Batman? Being Bruce Wayne? Sens of duty, the genuine will to protect people and a strong desire for justice are all fine and good motivations but is that enough to give someone the strength to keep doing all the crazy stuff he does and goes through on the long run?

If there is something tragic about Bruce i would say it's how little personal gratification he seems to gain from what he's doing. And maybe it all sound very selfish but that's how people work, except if you're a saint you have to get something from what you're doing, some joy, happiness, sens of accomplishment..whatever...but something to fuel your motivation.

[bat39]

The weird thing about him is that almost nothing in his life really seems to bring him happiness.

I mean, is Batman enjoying himself? Does he have a kick being the Batman? Being Bruce Wayne? Sens of duty, the genuine will to protect people and a strong desire for justice are all fine and good motivations but is that enough to give someone the strength to keep doing all the crazy stuff he does and goes through on the long run?

If there is something tragic about Bruce i would say it's how little personal gratification he seems to gain from what he's doing. And maybe it all sound very selfish but that's how people work, except if you're a saint you have to get something from what you're doing, some joy, happiness, sens of accomplishment..whatever...but something to fuel your motivation.

That's an interesting question.

Certainly, before COIE, and even in some Post-COIE interpretations, Bruce did derive some sense of joy in his work...quiet visibly so at times. He was especially proud about his work with the sidekicks.

One of the more underrated aspects of TDK was how we actually got to see, at the start of the movie, a Bruce Wayne who had actually accomplished something as Batman, was prepared to support Harvey Dent in order to make his accomplishment permanent, and generally ready to hang up the cowl and move on with his life. Apart from the last part (which we'll likely never see in a mainstream Batman book), this is something we DO still see in the comics from time to time.

Honestly, if Bruce accomplished NOTHING in Gotham, as either himself or Batman, then either the entire franchise is dedicated to a failure, or to a character so stupid that he can't bother changing tactics no matter how often he fails - neither are very palatable outcomes IMO.