Special Edition: Property of the Bat-Fans
by THE OLD MAID
Before "Girl, interrupted" was a film it was a book.
The author,
Susanna Kaysen, coined a phrase of interest to Batfans
:
the "designated crazy." The author believed that
sometimes whole
families require treatment. Society, however, discourages
that
treatment. If a whole family is institutionalized,
how can they
attend school? How can they pay the mortgage? Therefore
one person is
selected as scapegoat. Remove that one person from
the environment
and the victim gets better. Return him and he worsens
again. Yet even
if the first scapegoat never returns, the family
may select another.
The role must be filled. The only alternative would
be to address the
real problem.
The "Batman Beyond" series demonstrated this same
dynamic. Its target
characters (scapegoats) are selected by the audience
for a variety of
reasons. Some, like Mary and Matt McGinnis, fail
to engage the
emotions of the viewers. The characters were one-dimensional.
Fans
soon proposed killing them, just to see if Terry
McGinnis would even
notice. That wouldn't solve the real problem.
Other characters, namely Terry and Dana, suffer from
multiple
personalities. Their original incarnations were
intelligent and
strong-willed. They kept each other on their toes.
Their kid-friendly
revised versions ranged from pathetic to bland to
obnoxious. Fans
don't root for Terminator Dana, and Doormat Dana
puts viewers to
sleep. The doormat Terry "forgets" skills he already
knows. He takes
a worse beating from high school foes than he took
from the Rogues'
Gallery (with the exception of Inque). It's hard
for fans to support
such inconsistent characters. As a result some of
them quit trying.
How can fans defend Terry or Dana if no one knows
which of their
personas will report to work that morning?
Obviously the most prominent scapegoat was Max Gibson.
It's true she
didn't appeal to all fans. The character was about
25 percent useful,
25 percent teen scene (malls, phones, fun), and
50 percent fantasy.
Some fantasy elements, like Max hacking the Defense
Department's
computers in less than a minute ("Once burned"),
strained the faith
of even her most loyal fans. (In LOTDK #125 it took
the real Oracle
more than three HOURS to do the same thing.) Even
so, Max was the
second most consistent regular on the series. The
problems started
when viewers thought she overshadowed the Batmen
who had dedicated
their lives to this job.
The most consistent character of all has been the
ex-vigilante Bruce
Wayne. Fans can trust him to never betray them.
That's why it is such
a surprise to hear viewers propose killing HIM.
Kill Bruce? WHY?
First, let's make clear what we mean by "Batman"
and "kill off a
character." In Season One it seemed both men were
Batman. Most fans
accepted this arrangement. Bruce was the master,
Terry the apprentice
and field agent. Yet Terry is physically alone out
there. He must
learn or die. He has become skilled at using his
enemies' weapons
against them. Terry made real progress, both as
a detective and as a
Name in the underworld. As the series wilted under
network coercion,
though, the protagonists were separated.
So far no one has proposed killing Terry McGinnis
for the perceived
flaws in "Batman Beyond." While many viewers believe
his high-school
incarnation compromised the series, no one has ever
proposed that
Terry should pay for it with his life. Why then
should Bruce Wayne
pay with his?
There seem to be three aspects of this problem. Fans
claim ownership
of Bruce but not of Terry. Many fans actually want
to honor Bruce.
Finally, the fans lost faith in the writers, if
only during this
series.
Batman fans are loyal. Feed them well and they'll
follow you
anywhere. Their first loyalty, though, is to the
character. Batman
and his fans exist in a symbiotic relationship in
which writers are
privileged to enter. Fans claim intellectual ownership
of the
character. This is not the industrial/legal sense
of the word.
Rather, the fans believe they decide what becomes
canon in this
mythos. Allow me an example.
Those of you with heart conditions may want to stop
now.
Ready? Very well.
The 1997 film "Batman and Robin" has become a byword
in Bat
mythology. It was so unique in its vision that it
won multiple Golden
Raspberry Awards and was nominated for several more.
To spread rumors
that its creative team hoped to film a sequel is
dangerous -- it
could send the fans into apoplectic fits. Fans reject
"B&R" because
they can. They can't be reasoned with. They can't
be bargained with.
These fans are claiming ownership of Bruce Wayne's
Batman. They
avenge all insults to his honor, real or imagined.
They protect him.
Fans have been less successful claiming ownership
of Terry's Batman.
Terry is a recent creation. More than that, he was
created by some of
the best writers in the Bat business. The balance
of power has
shifted. Now the writers and the suits think THEY
decide what becomes
canon for Terry's Batman. Fans -- their tastes,
their wishes -- seem
to be an afterthought.
Here is an example. The fans declared back in TNBA
days that they
don't like giant animal stories. What do we get
in "Beyond?" Giant
animal stories. We even had splicing so as to squeeze
in more of
them. True, the tribute to Man-Bat was clever. Also,
the
transformation of Fingers ("Speak no evil") is probably
the most
realistic and poignant use of splicing ever. But
the others? Animals
and manimals were usually just there, a way of saying
"we couldn't
think of another ending for this episode." Writer's
block is
understandable. When the fans feel, whether true
or not, that their
voices are not heard, that's a bigger problem.
Why did fans dislike "B&R?" Time does not permit
a complete list. But
when a vigilante is reduced to the feature attraction
at the party-of-
the-year ("TFDAR"), it's a little bizarre to criticize
"Batman and
Robin" for doing the exact same thing. Same chickfight.
Same gaping
plot holes you could drive a Batmobile through.
Same cruise-control
Batdude. One criticism of "B&R" is that viewers
could tell who Batman
was even with his mask in place. The Terry of "TFDAR"
was also the
same throughout, regardless of what clothes he wore.
Terry McGinnis faces a handicap Bruce Wayne does
not. Because Terry's
writers are also his creators, his character is
more easily entangled
in weak episodes or ideas. No fan looks at "Batman
and Robin" and
says, "This is what Bruce Wayne is really like."
But viewers can and
do conclude that "Sentries" or "TFDAR" is what Terry
is really like.
This locks in, legitimizes, an episode's flaws as
TERRY'S flaws.
And so we arrive at an impasse. Fans trusted these
writers because
there is ample proof they are capable of better
work. But should fans
trust a script that differs from their vision? Do
they have the right
to define new characters?
"ROTJ" only drew more attention to this question.
On the one hand it
went a long way toward soothing hurt feelings. The
writers did
respect the fans! They respected Terry! They weren't
just amusing
themselves with him. However that just provoked
the fans to ask,
where was all this heart and character development
when the EPISODES
were being written? And that was before the editing
fiasco.
How did fans cope with their feelings of betrayal?
They targeted
Bruce Wayne, the one character who has remained
faithful to them.
Ironically very few of the fans calling for Wayne's
death dislike
him. Actually they tend to be his most vocal supporters.
They are
simply exercising their feelings of ownership. It's
just directed at
the wrong target.
So far there have been six different proposals. Some
are harmless
speculation, others blurted out in anger, and still
others were
surprisingly thoughtful. The death of Wayne has
been suggested by :
1. Neutral viewers who think the Bruce/Max feud is
his fault.
2. Maxfoes who suggest Max should kill Wayne (?!)
3. Terry fans who believe Wayne hinders his development.
4. Wayne fans who don't want Wayne's name attached
to the BB series.
5. Fans of one or both Batmen who believe the death
would force Terry
to the next level.
6. Wayne fans who say he's earned the right to rest
in peace.
Group One : Viewers who dislike the way Wayne treats
Max. There's no
doubt Max and Wayne compete for scenes. ("Anything
you can do, I can
do better ; I can do anything better than you.")
They also compete
for custody of Terry's loyalties. There may indeed
be only one of
them in the end. Is Bruce Wayne harsh to Max? Yes.
Did Terry have
something to do with it? Maybe. Let's suppose Terry
had confronted
the problem directly, instead of sneaking around
behind Wayne's back.
Would that have helped? Maybe not. Changing Terry
won't necessarily
change Wayne :
Queen (aka Bruce) : Melanie (Terry), men (sidekicks)
come and go.
Most of them cause nothing but trouble. Some of
them are worth it.
But not one is worth the sacrifice you're about
to make."
Melanie (Terry) : "You don't know this one."
Queen (Bruce) : "You didn't see fit to introduce
him (her) to us.
That's because you knew he (she) wouldn't fit in.
Someday the right
one will come along ... but only if you stick with
this family (me)."
As long as Bruce Wayne and Max remain the same individuals,
they will
never truly get along. It's not true to say that
Maxfans want Wayne
gone. Many of them like him. The real reason viewers
propose Wayne
should die first is because it would take dynamite
to get Max to
leave.
Group Two : Maxfoes who propose that Max kill Wayne.
To this, a Bruce
fan can only shake her head in wonder. Thank goodness
the proponents
went on to explain their reasoning, because this
one went right over
my head. Here's their plan. They loathe Max and
think she serves no
purpose. Therefore they think Max will kill (or
at least hurt) Bruce
Wayne so that "the time wasted on her would be justified."
How plausible is this scenario? Max has a history
of controversial
behavior. She is, to be frank, a cyberstalker and
an opportunist. Now
it's been said that Max should be excused for stalking
Batman or the
Jokerz because their existence provoked her. They
should have
expected it ; they "asked for it." That's not an
excuse. It's not the
perpetrator's place to decide what rights the victim
has to lose. Max
ended up framing Terry for Terminal's crimes (four
counts of
attempted murder, in that episode alone). Terry
is an ex-offender
with a history of violence. Whose word is worth
more? Even so, some
viewers will overlook Max's choices in the series
as youthful
indiscretions, no big deal. Certainly Terry does.
And he is the man
on the spot, is he not?
Max is one of those rare characters who is both jinxed
and charmed.
Jinxed because bad things keep happening to her.
Charmed because
she rarely, rarely suffers the full consequences
of those bad things,
even when she causes them. She gets the sliver,
Terry gets hit with
the board. The theme is always the same : "I didn't
know that would
happen." No, Max would never kill Wayne on purpose,
but she's good at
making things blow up in Batman's face. Thus Terry
would learn a
painful lesson about trading birthrights for bowls
of stew. It would
also make everyone else hate Max as much as these
viewers do, which
seems to be the ultimate goal of this campaign.
Ironically Max is a charismatic, well-rounded character
who could
have anchored her own series instead of creating
conflicts on this
one. The writers were quoted in Comic Book Continuum
(sometime in
August 1999) as saying that they were "getting a
lot of pressure" to
bring in a new Batgirl. Max arrived shortly thereafter.
She's exactly
the type of character beloved by the network (witness
the number of
Max clones on other WB cartoons). When fans began
choosing sides, it
was partly over the issue of whether the suits can
tell Batfans what
to do and whom to watch. And so some viewers embarked
on a scorched-
earth policy. If they can't decide Wayne's fate,
then no one else
will. There's a problem with this idea. For the
suits, Bruce has
always been a thorn in their side. Even though he
is not a living
person he has as strong a voice as one. He causes
as much trouble as
one. "Sending a message" to the suits wouldn't help
if they WANTED
him gone.
Personally it doesn't bother me that Maxfans like
Max. I do have
ethical problems with the character. Batman is a
morality play ; the
Max character would do better on a show that is
not one. But using
Max to kill Bruce Wayne? Why must he pay? Just give
Max her own show
and everyone's happy.
Group three : Terry fans who believe Wayne is holding
him back. To
this I say only one thing : SEASON TWO. Wayne was
already neutered
and it didn't improve the series. Terry simply latched
on to another
boss. No, Wayne isn't holding Terry back. If anything,
Wayne's temper
tantrum in "Revenant" is proof that he wants Terry
to leave the
kiddie fare behind.
Group Four : Wayne fans who don't want his name attached
to the
series. From this point on, we come to fans who
really want the
character to live -- but not like this!
These fans are simply trying to protect Bruce from
the alleged insult
to his legacy. They see Terry (and the suits) as
playing on an old
man's desperation. They love him too much to see
him get hurt again.
Never fear, these fans will watch Justice League,
the Year One film,
and even a Batman Beyond film if the stories honor
Batman "properly."
Group Five : Fans of Wayne, Terry, or both, who believe
the death
would force Terry to the next level.
If I agreed with any kill-Wayne theory, it would
be this one. I don't
remember who it was who proposed it. Only one fan,
maybe. The heart
of this one is that Terry has taken Wayne and put
him in place of his
own dead father. (True.) That is the real reason
Terry continues as
Batman even after avenging Warren's death. (True
again.) Therefore
his pain seems to have abated. In reality he has
merely patched old
wounds with a new and temporary dressing. To be
Batman, said this
long-ago poster, Terry will need new nightmares
to drive him -- and
those nightmares will spring to life when Bruce
Wayne dies.
Terry would torment himself with questions like,
"Why didn't I listen
when he was alive? What if I'm not good enough?
Was his trust in me
justified?" This grief would indeed make Terry as
disturbed as the
original Batman. So this would be a good time to
explain why I still
don't believe Bruce Wayne should die to see it.
Killing Bruce Wayne COULD make Terry a more haunted
Batman, but it
WON'T make him one all by itself. Wayne is not the
one who made Terry
loiter at the mall or in school with his little
friends. Killing
Bruce won't change that. Killing Terry's loved ones
(his family, his
girlfriend) wouldn't make a difference. Mad Stan
could sneak into
Hill High and Blow It All Up so that they could
never write another
teen-angst episode again. (No one left to write
about.) None of these
things would make a difference. If the powers-that-be
like peripheral
charcters more than the Batmen, then they'll always
find a new one to
promote. If they don't feel like giving us good
stories about Bruce
or Terry or both, well then they just ain't gonna.
Fans object to Wayne's death for so many reasons.
No writer could do
justice to such a story. More than that, these writers
in particular
may have forfeited any right to write his death.
They may regain the
fans' trust in time, but the death of Wayne will
always be off-limits.
Besides it lets a writer off the hook. It is a common
mistake among
beginning writers to paint a character into a corner,
kill him and
call that a plot. Remember the tale of the raider.
Once upon a time,
a raider attacked another ship. It seemed so much
stronger and faster
than it seemed invincible. Then the ship exploded.
It proved to be no
special thing at all. That ship was sent on a suicide
mission. Since
it never intended to return home, it could expend
all its energy on
the raid and none on keeping its crew alive. Readers
feel similarly
cheated when writers do this to characters. If the
writers do their
best to trap a character in some horrible mess,
fans root for him to
find his way out again. Killing him off is just
toying with the
audience for the practice.
Killing Bruce Wayne is a beginner's strategy. It
means the writers
only have to write one good Bruce story, instead
of making ALL of his
stories good.
Does this mean Terry can never gaze into the abyss?
No. "Batman
Beyond" has a villain capable of providing this
emotional crisis. It
is, of course, Spellbinder. Yes, fans will say this
is reminiscent
of "Over the edge," but there's nothing wrong with
the concept. What
undermined "OTE" is not that the gimmick has been
used before. It was
that the crisis shown in that episode, the questions
it raised, had
no long-term effect on the character who experienced
it. Barbara
Gordon needed reassurance from her father that the
nightmare she
predicted would never happen. She got it. Therefore
she had no reason
to dwell on the visions any longer.
Terry will not have that comfort. Wayne will indeed
die someday. The
nightmare Terry's mind predicts WILL happen. And
if Terry does care
about Wayne as a father, that would alter his behavior.
Perhaps he
becomes a better apprentice. Perhaps he drives himself
too hard and
Wayne must say, Enough, get some rest. Or perhaps
Terry becomes a
bigger jerk, hoping that if he stops caring, it
won't hurt. My
choice? That Terry would start treating Wayne like
a father now,
while they still have time. If anything, Terry would
become a little
too solicitous, too protective. That would set up
the perfect line
for their relationship :
"I appreciate what you're trying to do here. But
stopping me from
living won't stop me from dying."
Group Six : Wayne fans who say he's earned the right
to rest in
peace. Again, I appreciate the impulse to protect
the character. But
no one can protect him this way. Bruce Wayne has
become part of world
consciousness. He's too big to die. No deathbed
scene would be worthy
of the man. Moreover, no kind of death would allow
him to rest in
peace. If the Batman died in his sleep, it would
be cheap
exploitation, a cop-out. However if he went out
in "a blaze of
glory," that would only bring him more grief, more
pain. Batman never
wanted glory. So achieving it won't comfort him.
There would also be
the fact that he needs to put an end to all crime.
That need is
impossible to fulfill. But should that need be crushed
by our
reality, just because we can? If he died in battle
with an opponent
he would, in effect, die in failure. This would
be true whether or
not he took his opponent out with him, for if the
foe dies then
Batman has violated his oath to protect all life,
no matter how
degraded. Think also of the bragging rights it would
give the foe if
he survived. In the end there IS no way to kill
Bruce Wayne's Batman
that wouldn't cheapen the Bat's legacy or break
the old man's heart.
Bruce Wayne is closer to finding peace by living
to watch Terry grow
(or, in the comics, Catgirl) that he ever could
be by dying. The
bitter ex-con and the bitter ex-vigilante look to
each other to heal,
to have their lives fixed. After all he has given
us, Bruce Wayne
asks so little in return. Let him have that.
CONCLUSION.
It's understandable that the fans want to control
Batman's fate now,
just as they did in the past. I'm angry myself at
the way Bruce Wayne
and Terry McGinnis were treated. They deserved better.
However
killing either Batman won't solve the other's problems
-- and we fans
should be more careful not to put such ideas into
the suits' heads.
I am no writer of fiction. My fanfics are dull and
I will not torment
other human beings with them. Yet it seems that
if even a plain
plodder of the nonfiction set can see potential
in Old Man Wayne,
there's plenty of life left in the Batman yet.
|