Out of curiosity, why?

Bruce's entire MO is about generating shame and terror. Diana fights fear and stands for hope and second chances. Bruce is incredibly sexist and Diana's the ultimate feminist. Bruce loathes magic, Diana is magic. Bruce has faith only in himself, Diana is a priestess. Bruce hates and distrusts gods, Diana's been a god and remains a demigod. Bruce needs control and distance and plausible deniability, Diana gives of herself wholly and is only nourished by same. Bruce distrusts change profoundly, Diana's entire purpose is to change everything. Bruce is built out of deception upon deception upon deception, Diana is the incarnate Truth. Bruce loves and must protect Gotham, Diana loves and must protect her people.

They have *one thing* in common: they both punch bad guys.

"Opposites attract" may be a fun, trite little cliche to throw around, but birds don't fall in love with fish, and if they should try to live together, one of them dies. Bruce and Diana are incompatible on every level, and it takes a pretty good author to even make me believe they're the devout kind of friends they're supposedly meant to be. Lovers, never.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

And yet, all I can think reading your list is "so they complement each other then!" XD

More seriously, Bruce desperately needs a shrink (or an army of them) more than anything else, and Diana is an excellent therapist (hey, it's canon that she can help achieve in a few hours what it usually takes a lifetime of therapy to achieve). I really think she could help him work some his issues out and make him into a much better person, one she could actually be in love with.

I mean, I know it's never going to happen, because for some weird reason dick!Batman sells like hotcakes (why? why?) and DC is never going to let him stay a decent person for long. But still, I think the potential is there.

Then again, I'm a shipper, and shippers don't really need a reason to like something besides "ooooohhhhh! sexy!", so you could say I'm in denial and just looking for excuses :P

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Diana is an excellent therapist (hey, it's canon that she can help achieve in a few hours what it usually takes a lifetime of therapy to achieve). I really think she could help him work some his issues out and make him into a much better person, one she could actually be in love with.

She's also not the kind of person to get involved with someone to 'fix them'.

He's also unlikely to accept her help, to that point - he's that broken.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Yeah, I don't know, I don't find it particularly romantic to have a relationship where one person has to do the entire work of fixing the other before he can be of any use to her. A partner is supposed to be a source of support, reinforcement, and safety, not a demanding and strenuous project to further drain one's emotional resources who provides nothing and costs much.

That's, of course if Bats were even interested in change, or DC could permit it (as you say, he sells as he is, and a radical personality change would be rejected even if it weren't at the behest of a woman).

Bronze Age Bruce was a more reasonable match, though, so there's always that goofy-ass story where Babs and Diana fight for his love to distract Copperhead. ^_^

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

To be fair, though, I've seen further in the Kelly run, where most of the Bats/Wondy story takes place, that Batman does make an effort to be more open to her.

Also, I really don't get your statement earlier that Batman is sexist--not even because he's my fave character, I just don't see it objectively. To the best of my knowledge, besides the odd example in the 40s which were...less sophisticated times, there hasn't been a story where Batman has dismissed someone because of their gender. If anything, he's pushed more girls away because of his massive emotional issues, not because of any latant sexism.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

although Bruce's civilian ID is a bit faked I don't think he's so much about deception. In fact I think Batman kind of forces honesty from his opponents, because well if they aren't bad guys they have nothing to fear from Batman.

Bruce has faith in the entire Batclan, meanwhile the standards he holds his fellow heroes to are so ridiculously high he must have some degree of faith in them

And the sexism is only in bad writing. Take a look at how he treated Batgirl in that Bronze Age story posted yesterday. Sure it was ages ago, but really if stories where the major female characters in Batman comics were good writing they wouldn't be consistently retconned.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

You just had to distill all the bad writing that's accumulated around Batman for 23 years, didn't you? How would you feel if someone did the same thing for Diana or Barbara Gordon?

Bruce's entire MO is about generating shame and terror.

Shame shouldn't be on this list, and terror should be qualified by "in the guilty."

Diana fights fear and stands for hope and second chances.

Bruce should also be a symbol of hope and second chances. That someone is actually out there trying to keep Gotham from losing it's last vestiges of civility should be ultimately inspiring. And sure, Batman is harsh and brutal to bad guys, but he's also got the Bruce Wayne identity for charitable work and giving people the chance (and sometimes second chance) they need to help prop up the city.

Bruce is incredibly sexist

GRAAAARG THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, WHOEVER DID THIS SHOULD BURN FOR ETERNITY.

Bruce loathes magic

Well, yeah. As should all rational people. But just because he loathes it doesn't mean he would deny it exists, or even never use it himself, in the right circumstances.

Bruce has faith only in himself

And, the qualifier should go, his most trusted allies. Basically, the way your point should be put if Batman hadn't been kneecapped characterization-wise for far too long, Batman believes in self-determinism, Diana believes in destiny and fate.

Bruce hates and distrusts gods

Hates should be too strong a word (and distrusts should be too weak a word).

Bruce needs control and distance and plausible deniability

This I'll grant you. That's what makes Batman Batman, and not Dick Grayson in a Batman suit.

Bruce distrusts change profoundly

But should embrace it when it's inevitable. He's a scientist, after all, and science marches on.

Bruce is built out of deception upon deception upon deception

Which should be used as his survival mechanism, but not as the side of the bed he wakes up on. After all, he's supposed to be the World's Greatest Detective, and Detectiving is supposed to be all about uncovering the Truth. Whether he uses the truth is a matter of his devotion to Justice.

Bruce loves and must protect Gotham

And this should read "Bruce loves and must protect Gotham first, and then others."

Man, I miss really well-written Bruce. And now he's "dead" and we have to wait even longer for it.

What we really need is for writers to realize that they DON'T have to put their mark on a character as soon as they're hired for a gig. There should be a character bible that they have to follow, similar to how TV shows do it. Yeah, that's the ticket . . .

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

You just had to distill all the bad writing that's accumulated around Batman for 23 years, didn't you?

Well, yes, since that's his character now and that's the guy who Kelly was trying to hook up with Diana.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Was Bat-DickGod in effect at that point in history? I'm not familiar enough with continuity to be sure. In particular, was the Bat-DickGod evident in Kelly's JLA itself?

I'm somewhat disturbed by your willingness to write off good Bruce and admit that bad Bruce is "in character." You (quite correctly) aren't willing to make the same concession to Diana's equally long history of bullshit takes and I'm not aware of any other character whose decent core you're willing to abandon to the wolves in this manner.

Less seriously;

They have *one thing* in common: they both punch bad guys.

Not true! They have lots of things in common; a few examples:

THEIR PARENTS ARE DEAD.
They've both been written out of character for the majority of their published history.
They both harbor a secret desire to get in Superman's pants.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

When something is a character's dominant portrayal for long enough, it ceases to be OOC. Diana doesn't really have that problem because, as extensive as her history of bullshit is, it's fairly inconsistent bullshit. No two writers get her wrong the same way, so no wrong take can take hold. Bruce's dickery is well-established and very consistent across multiple writers, titles and years of publication.

Beyond that... When Diana is written as a moron, it makes her book annoying to read and her character look stupid. When Dinah is written as an incompetent dupe of Ollie, it makes her book annoying to read and character look stupid. When Dick is written as a waffling jellyfish, it makes his book annoying to read and his character look stupid.

When Bruce is written as an emotionally stunted, controlling jackass, it hurts Babs and Dick and Tim and especially Cass, it fucks over the Justice League, it gets characters killed (Steph, Ted), and makes half the DCU look twisted and foolish or cheap or overtolerant or like an abused spouse who comes back for more. It's not quite as easy to overlook or move on from once a good writer hops on board, when it leaves other characters bleeding in its wake in their own stories (or cuts those stories short). Particularly since the good writers are generally the ones doing it, which gives their stories traction ("Who is Wonder Woman" is a shit story on its own merits even if Diana had been a completely OC; "Bruce Wayne: Murderer" was an interesting crossover that had a lot going for it and good reason to be called back to).

And actually, I did throw Cassie to the wolves somewhere along the course of Johns' TT run. I genuinely don't think of her as the same character, any more than I think of post-Crisis Bruce as the same character as Bronze Age Bruce or DCAU Bruce.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

When something is a character's dominant portrayal for long enough, it ceases to be OOC.

I cannot disagree strongly enough.

When Diana is written as a moron, it makes her book annoying to read and her character look stupid. . . . When Bruce is written as an emotionally stunted, controlling jackass, it hurts Babs and Dick and Tim and especially Cass, it fucks over the Justice League, it gets characters killed (Steph, Ted), and makes half the DCU look twisted and foolish or cheap or overtolerant or like an abused spouse who comes back for more.

In other words, bad Diana effects only Diana (and maybe her ever changing supporting cast), whereas bad Bruce effects everyone. And yet, and yet, they keep . . . doing . . . it.

Either they need to get rid of the DC Universe as they intend it and bring back "each book stands alone", or writers need to stop thinking they have to put their mark on a character, and actually follow along with who that character is. Like with a bible, or frickin' editorial vision or something.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I cannot disagree strongly enough.

But it *has* to be. If I'm going to say that the platonic Batman is the real Batman, that no matter how shitty the Miller/Moore heir post-Crisis Bruce gets, it's always OOC and always wrong and the real guy is the Bronze Age/DCAU one...

... then I also have to say that the real Wonder Woman is the pre-Crisis boy-chasing weirdly sexist clusterfuck whose powers don't work when a man binds her wrists. I have to say the real Supergirl is the abhorrent thing Loeb dropped in our lap when she was introduced, no matter how much work they put into fixing her and no matter how golden she may one day become. I have to say the real Black Canary is the useless captivity-prone limp fish she was before Birds.

If I permit enough persistent and consistent writing and characterization to change my perception of a character for the better, I cannot forbid enough persistent and consistent writing and characterization from changing my perception of a character for the worse. Either how a character is presented matters, or it doesn't.

Like with a bible, or frickin' editorial vision or something.

I dunno, isn't current editorial vision kind of the *opposite* of "who that character is," at both companies? "Who that character was when I bought comics" or "what event can we jam this big name into" are the best you're going to get from the IIC EIC types these days.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

platonic Batman is the real Batman . . . the real Wonder Woman is the pre-Crisis boy-chasing weirdly sexist clusterfuck whose powers don't work when a man binds her wrists

But she's not the platonic WW, you've shown us the platonic WW.

Either how a character is presented matters, or it doesn't.

It does indeed matter. Unfortunately, nobody's listening.

isn't current editorial vision kind of the *opposite* of "who that character is," at both companies?

I don't know, anymore. When 52 was coming out, of the the interviews with whoever was giving interviews that week said that the writers and artists and editors were supposed to be caretakers of the characters reputation. That's the sort of editorial vision I was talking about, but you're right. Their caretaking has been more like neglect, strapping them into wheelchairs, rolling them to the window, leaving the blinds drawn, and sticking a tube of applesauce-like substance down their throat until they choke to death or the substance comes back up, leaving aside the whole "Yeah, I'm not gonna clean that up" approach when they soil themselves, and failing to take action when their body is covered in bedsores, but it's okay, as long as you always take your medication each day, and come and join in on the arts and crafts fun, see how much fun we're having during carefully regimented blocks of fun, why aren't you participating, do you want to be taken back to your room, now, do you want to lose your television privileges, and we were thinking of sprinkling some cinnamon in your [open verbal-fingerquotes]lunch[close verbal-fingerquotes] but if you don't join in the spirit of things, we may have to rethink that!

. . .

Sorry, my mom used to work in a nursing home. It was always a joy when she had a story about her day. And by joy I mean torture. And by story I mean torture. And by day I mean torture.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; and by torture, I mean torture.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

But she's not the platonic WW, you've shown us the platonic WW.

But she only exists because somebody looked at pre-Crisis Wonder Woman and said "well, this is junk, let's change it, a different take would make her more interesting/compelling/a better sale." Which is exactly what happened with Bruce - DKR was a different take, somebody thought it was a more interesting one that would sell better, and they changed it. That thinking saved Diana. That thinking made Batman a monstrosity. That thinking made Tony Stark a supervillain, and it made Shulkie quite possibly the only female spin-off character ever to be massively interesting, important and successful completely unconnected to her distaff counterpart (Babs doesn't count, as Oracle is not a distaff Batman). Lo, the muses they giveth, and the muses they taketh away.

and by torture, I mean torture.

But what do you mean by "always"?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

but she only exists because

Tut tut tut. The point is she exists. One day, the same will hold true for Batman, I have to have faith that it will. And every other character out there. Because there is no such thing as finite awesome, or finite love, and someday, they will get their due.

I may even live long enough to see it! You never know! Human life expectancy is only in the 70s-80s now, but by the time we're in our 70-80s, it could be longer!

But what do you mean by "always"?

Enh, whenever.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

then I also have to say that the real Wonder Woman is the pre-Crisis boy-chasing weirdly sexist clusterfuck whose powers don't work when a man binds her wrists. I have to say the real Supergirl is the abhorrent thing Loeb dropped in our lap when she was introduced, no matter how much work they put into fixing her and no matter how golden she may one day become. I have to say the real Black Canary is the useless captivity-prone limp fish she was before Birds.

By this system, you'd have to say that the real Batman was the golden age guy who didn't blink when the bad guys died, (and I honestly don't know anything about him other than that he was so boring), not the totally awesome dude with issues (serious. issues.) in DCU/Bronze Age.

If I permit enough persistent and consistent writing and characterization to change my perception of a character for the better, I cannot forbid enough persistent and consistent writing and characterization from changing my perception of a character for the worse. Either how a character is presented matters, or it doesn't.

False binary. My policy is that my perception of how a character should be works like judicial review: There's stare decisis, but that doesn't hold against a good argument, e.g. "these qualities cause the character to suck, therefore the character ought not have such qualities." Excellence is the highest standard - the true Wonder Woman is the best Wonder Woman, regardless of what may have come before or after that Wondy, and likewise for Batman, Cassie, Joker, etc.

There's a presumption against a truly novel characterization, but that's reasonable. Such are, by this system, claiming to be the very best take on the character ever, and after the length of time and number of takes that have accumulated, that's a pretty tall claim.

As much as people mock Johns for retconning Hal Jordan's heel turn into "a yellow fear bug possessed him!" I feel a consensus that Evil!Hal was terrible and ham-handed, whereas redeemed Hal, under Geoff's pen, is as good and interesting as Hal has ever been.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

There's also the phoenomon known as "fanon." Basically--your interpetation is as valid as the next guy. Want your modern Wondy next to a saner Batman? Why not?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Excellence is the highest standard - the true Wonder Woman is the best Wonder Woman

Fair enough, when trying to decide "what the real" version of a character is. If somebody asks me to write "a Batman story," totally divorced from all other considerations, I am naturally going to use the Batman who is closest to the platonic ideal, something that resembles DCAU or Bronze Age Bruce, something like a genuine hero.

That doesn't solve the problem of "what version exists now," however. Paranoid, insane, emotionally stunted, hostile asshole may be OOC for the ideal, "real" Batman, but given the (essentially) coherent DCU, it is not out of character; it can't be. Ted Kord is still dead. War Games still happened. Sasha Bordeaux is still half OMAC. Cass is still... well, okay, Cass is a whole other issue, but you know what I mean. As long as these things are still true, Bruce still did those things, which means a consistent and repeated pattern of behavior exists, which means that that character is still that character.

Maybe the "real" Batman isn't like that. But DCU Batman is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)