InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "You love me SOOOO much."

starwolf_oakley (starwolf_oakley) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-23 23:27:00

Entry tags:

publisher: wildstorm, title: the authority

runespoor7's post of Jason Todd talking to Mia Dearden led to a thread discussion about billionaire vigilantes beating up poor criminals.

A panel from THE AUTHORITY: TRANSFER OF POWER shows that at least a few comic creators are aware of this.

"The Authority" was always pretty "out there" for superheroes. But that's Warren Ellis and Mark Millar for you.

For more than a few superheroes, actually being a superhero can be seen as a case of Noblesse Oblige. Noblesse Oblige can be seen as "With great power comes great responsibility... and a really smug sense of superiority."

It came back to Batman, as these things do. After all, we never really go into detail about how "well-off" the Kents were from farming, or how much Clark Kent's Daily Planet take-home pay is. Some seem to think it ties into "Lonely Place of Dying," that since Tim Drake's family is wealthy, Tim isn't as "street" as Jason Todd.

Quotes from users via http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/987439.html?thread=27947311#t27947311:

runespoor7 said: "The fact is, 'Oh, Jason was lower class and her turned out badly, and then he was replaced by Tim, who came from a good family the same side of the streets as Bruce and who did very well as Robin' leaves a strange impression."

lynxara said: "In particular, confronting the class issues at work in the Batman stuff is impossible without coming to the conclusion that most of the characters involved are selfish monsters so steeped in white privilege that they've lost all grasp of reality."

icon_uk said: "Dick was suddenly an ethnic Romany with angst about the likelihood of him ending up in jail like so many of his kin."

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

aaron_bourque
2009-09-24 04:22 am UTC (link)

I'm not even talking about this, unless the restrictions on insulting people are lessened. Let me just say two things:

1) Jason Todd didn't "turn out badly" because he was a poor kid from the street. He turned out badly because they guy writing him wanted him dead.

2) Batman doesn't go out at night and beat up poor people, and he doesn't go out at night and beat up poor people because he's wealthy. He goes out at night and beats up criminals, rich or poor, and his wealth has almost nothing to do with his crimefighting, and never has (it has to do with how he operates, not why he operates).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	trelas 2009-09-24 05:03 am UTC (link)
	Your second point basically sums it up for me. The first point resulted a bit complicated. Jason didn't turn out badly because they wanted him dead. That just got him dead, with the majority of voters wanting that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

aaron_bourque
2009-09-24 05:15 am UTC (link)

The majority of voters wanted that because Jim Starlin wrote him as unsympathetically as he could get away with, because he wanted him dead. And it wasn't even Jason Todd he wanted dead, it was just Robin. I don't remember where I read it, and I may be misremembering, but I think he once gave an interview where he said he would have done the same thing if Dick Grayson were still Robin.

Anyway, my less measured thoughts on the subject on my own lj.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-09-24 05:36 am UTC (link)
	Denny O'Neil is not Jim Starlin. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-09-24 06:55 am UTC (link)
	Yes, and? Jim Starlin hated the idea of kid sidekicks and wanted Robin dead. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-09-24 07:10 am UTC (link)
	http://www.universohq.com/quadrinhos/entrevista_starlin_eng01.cfm (Reply to this) (Parent)

trelas
2009-09-24 05:43 am UTC (link)

Good points in your journal. I especially agree with you about the fact that people often overlook the fact that Bruce used his vast wealth in those charities and economic programs instead of just dressing up and fighting crime.

The thing is that I did like the Jason brought back by Winick and established after that in flashbacks. I think that it fits the Bat-canon, is even required, for there to be failures, those who did not have what it took mentally. I also think that the fact that Jason was that one had less to do with him poor and of the options available he was most suitable due to his death.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

starwolf_oakley
2009-09-24 06:16 am UTC (link)

Well said.

I might have pressed the issue to far with my "Well, it can't hurt to talk about it" idea. I was trying to see Jason's "intentions" towards Mia, and where "We're from the streets, for reals, dawg" played into it. Which led to Leslie Thompkins talking about Batman beating up the "socially disadvantaged." Which led to... and so on and so forth.

I'm suddenly reminded of a (translated) line from Rififi, the classic French heist movie, where one of the criminals is compared to people who don't go into crime.

Louise: You're not the only one that had an unhappy childhood, there are millions like you, and, in my eyes, *they* are the tough ones, not you!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

aaron_bourque
2009-09-24 07:00 am UTC (link)

Well, talking about it is okay. It's just the examples specifically cited are wonky out the wing-wang. And the whole argument that "entitled rich people are beating up the poor" is flawed in three ways, at least. Having such a character may potentially make a decent story, but to look at the way comics are and have been and reach that conclusion, you have to either warp the stories and characters out of whack, or have a rather warped world-view in the first place (or are taking the piss, but badly). It's sort of like how Batman and Robin are having a pedophilic relationship in the 40s and 50s. Sure, you can read it that way . . . but to do so seriously, you have to either fail at reading their characterization, or are simply reading waaaaayyyyyyy too much into it. And classism is a pet peeve of mine, as I say on my own journal. So I went from zero to rage in less than 2.6 seconds . . .

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-09-24 07:01 am UTC (link)
	And classism is a pet peeve of mine, as I say on my own journal. Actually, it's not so much classism, but false accusations of "-ism" in any sense. Really gets to me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	runespoor7 2009-09-24 06:09 am UTC (link)
	You misunderstand. Of course in the text it's not presented that way. On a meta level, though, that's how it reads. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-09-24 07:02 am UTC (link)
	The same way it reads as Batman and Superman gave gay sex on the weekends, right? Or Bats and Robin had a pedophilic relationship in the 40s and 50s (or later!). Like I said. You can read it that way. But you sort of have to either want it to be there or are warping the characters to fit. Which tends to irritate the everloving fuck out of me. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

runespoor7
2009-09-24 05:09 pm UTC (link)

No.

Let's assume my point is 'lower-class characters in the Batfamily are treated in a significantly less positive fashion than the richer ones'. It's not entirely, but it's a fair start.

Bruce: is rich.
Dick: is lower class. How much focus is given to that depends heavily on the period, Devin Grayson is the one who, afaik, gave his social background the most exposure in canon, and the period of during which he was created didn't put the same emphasis on character psychology, but I'll still take him as a rebuttal.
[Babs: middle-class]
Jason: is lower class.
Helena: criminal background, so this is linked to other issues.
Tim: is rich.
Steph: is lower class.
[Cass: not sure how applicable this criteria is here.]
Damian: not sure how applicable it is either. I tend to think he's written as aristocratic, but it's not the only thing about him.
Kate: is rich.

The other issues you can find in the portrayal of members of the Batfamily are gender, race, and genetics. I am in no way saying that the interpretation I'm presenting makes analysis of these other issues impossible, that would be completely stupid.

Now let's play "which of these characters have 1)died; 2)been portrayed as incompetent; 3)been depicted as 'not right'; 4)deserving what happened to them". We can also do the reverse.

I am not warping either the characters or the text. I am reading the things that are written on the page and drawing conclusions. I see a pattern emerging, which, while it doesn't hold for all the characters, seems to me a consistent trend.

I also don't see why you're making this about sexual interpretation or subtext.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlbarnett 2009-09-24 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	I think Tim is rather frequently portrayed as "not right" Steph is far more emotionally stable than him. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	runespoor7 2009-09-24 06:08 pm UTC (link)
	I meant as a crime-fighter and for the role of Robin. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

aaron_bourque
2009-09-24 08:13 pm UTC (link)

Stephanie isn't portrayed as a bad crime-fighter because she's poor. She's portrayed as a "lesser" crime-fighter because she's young and (especially compared to the rest of the batclan) barely trained (and every time someone writes her getting training . . . the next guy forgets it). She's moderately well-adjusted, she's enthusiastic, she wants to do good. If she were in Metropolis, Superman would probably try to stop her because she has no super powers . . . and because she's young. Not because of her economic status.

Again, you kind of have to want it to be there, and warp the characters to get it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	runespoor7 2009-09-24 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not saying that any character in the book is of the opinion that because she's poor she's incompetent. I'm not saying that any writer thinks that because she's poor she's incompetent. I'm saying that the pattern exists. That makes it an issue. It doesn't have anything do with intentions. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlbarnett 2009-09-24 11:28 pm UTC (link)
	it only exists if you want it too, though It's like seeing deminic symbols in street layouts in DC. (Reply to this) (Parent)

aaron_bourque
2009-09-24 08:34 pm UTC (link)

a fair start.

Uh, no it's not.

"which of these characters have 1)died; 2)been portrayed as incompetent; 3)been depicted as 'not right'; 4)deserving what happened to them"

How many times has Batman been portrayed as "not right"?

How many times has the Huntress been portrayed as "incompetent" or "not right"?

How many of the characters who died are still dead now?

I'm not touching "deserving" because . . . well, it's the most subjective, honestly.

Now, flip the questions around. Were these characters killed off, portrayed as incompetent, portrayed as "not right" etc, because of their economic background or "class status"?

NO!!!!

It was never because of economic background. Finding it to be so is like what Wertham did with Batman and Robin in the 40s or 50s (to answer your question about sexual interpretation and subtext--the subtext is unintentional at worst).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

runespoor7
2009-09-24 08:50 pm UTC (link)

By 'not rght' I meant as a crime-fighter. It was very unclear in my original phrasing, I apologize for that.

Helena is more linked to the 'genetics' side - all of them are. Moreover, class isn't all about money, and in that sense Helena is definitely not from the same world as Tim.

The deaths were meant to be permanent. One lasted a significant time, and the other was retconned due to fan outcry.

I'm not touching "deserving" because . . . well, it's the most subjective, honestly.

There have been scenes where 'Steph/Jason deserved what they got' is clearly between the lines. I have an old issue where an editor answers a fan letter practically with these words regarding Jason's death.

Now, flip the questions around. Were these characters killed off, portrayed as incompetent, portrayed as "not right" etc, because of their economic background or "class status"?

NO!!!!

I have no idea where you're taking this 'because' from. This is where you don't understand what I'm talking about: the 'because' doesn't matter. There's no explicit 'because' from point A to point B, and it doesn't invalidate what I'm saying. Class issues in the portrayal of the Batfamily, like gender issues, exist whether anyone means them to exist or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-09-25 01:06 am UTC (link)
	Class issues in the portrayal of the Batfamily, like gender issues, exist whether anyone means them to exist or not. We're done talking. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -