I Think Your Love of Batman Has Clouded Your Vision (A response to Shaun Joy)

Another instance where I am about to show that I can have a civil discussion with someone whose work I have a very massive disagreement with.  I am friends with Shaun on Twitter, and we have had some good discussions about games and various elements in games for some time.  However, I haven’t always agreed with him, and there are times when I have enjoyed some civil disagreement.  I am about to do that here.  See, I think that Tech Raptor’s writer, Shaun Joy, has become blinded by his love of the character of Batman to see the truth about this character, and why I find him fascinating.  In a recent article, there was a case made that Batman is truly separate from the Joker because of his refusal to kill.  I am not going to respond to this article point by point, as I have with others.  Instead, I shall give you a link to the article, and talk about it as a whole.

I make no secret of my disappointment in Arkham Knight.  Not only do I consider it a poor ending to the franchise, but I also think that it took a LOT of steps backwards in the way they were portraying this character up til now. So, instead of looking at this game, let’s rewind to the last one – Arkham City.  I don’t count Arkham Origins, because initially, Rocksteady said that they didn’t count it as part of their saga.  I guess WB got some pressure on them.  A dick move, but what can ya do?  But yeah, that game aside, let’s look at the last entry in the franchise.

See, I don’t see Batman as a hero.  I see him as something of an anti-hero..  There’s a reason for this.  Shaun makes the point that killing is utterly against Batman’s code, but the way I see it, that doesn’t make him a hero.  Arkham Asylum was an excellent game, but it was very standard hero fare.  You have a villain, the hero swoops in and saves the day.  Yay!  But Arkham City went a little deeper.  They actually examined the very violent side of Batman that has always fascinated me.  The thing is – killing people is the ONLY thing that Batman won’t do.  That’s how he justifies the awful things he does.  It’s an easy out that he has to not feel like a murderer.  He will bust bones, destroy bodies and threaten everything up to death.  If you ask me, the reason that he doesn’t kill is because of the other thing that I believe is so powerful with him.

While I am remiss to agree with Ben Kuchera on anything, I will give that I believe that Batman and the Joker are a lot closer than one would think.  I think the Joker was on to something when he brings up in the church tower that there may come a point where one of them is staring down at the dead body of the other and wondering what to do next.  I think that Batman needed him.  I think that the Joker represented a reason for his actions.  See, Batman does terrible things.  He abuses his power with absolute abandon.  He views violence as the first and only solution to any situation.  He will beat anyone.  There was a great point made in an article where the fact that Harley’s pregnancy tests come back negative is a result of Batman throwing her against a wall.  If it was any other studio, I would think that it was just a false positive (it happens more than you think, with take-home pregnancy tests), but this is Rocksteady.  They know what they’re doing.  Violence is the first, last, and ONLY thing he uses to solve his problems.  There never comes a point where he doesn’t see it as a means to an end.  Never does he moralize that he might be on the wrong side of the law.  In his mind, his crazed violent abandon is for the greater good.

But what is this greater good?  That’s easy – the Joker.  That unrestrained psychopath is the reason that his violence is given necessity.  All the more poignant, considering that Batman made him.  The Arkham games follow the Red Hood origin for the character.  He made this monster.  His need for violence made him.  A need that he vaguely was able to justify by using the death of his parents.  That was his ability to give himself an excuse.  But then comes the Joker.  A monster who views killing as the solution, even when there is no problem.  His chaos says to kill people.  Why?  Reasons.  Reasons that nobody understands.

There is even a moment in Arkham City where Batman actually starts to hash this out.  He is staring at the cure, knowing for a fact that giving it to the clown will only cause more violence and death.  Everything tells him that the greater good would be served by letting him die.  But he can’t stop himself.  That makes it so telling how, in the Joker’s final moments, the two actually do share a genuinely human moment together.  He tells the clown a joke, and they get to have some emotional connection.  This monster, that he should absolutely hate, is the closest thing that he has to an emotional connection.  Look at the other person he connects with – Talia al Ghul.  She’s a daughter of a criminal mastermind.  Bruce Wayne is only able to truly connect with the monsters in his double-life.

If you ask me, Arkham City was a critique of this character, and to be honest, it was rather scathing.  It made a character who is supposed to be a great hero out to be a violent thug, who has a need for violence.  He is willing to let all the criminals in Arkham City die in order to save the only other person he shares a connection with.  That’s what makes the final scene in the game so powerful.  Was he carrying Talia out of the theater?  No.  He was carrying the Joker.  The only person that he genuinely had a connection with.  I love that game because it didn’t shy away from the darkness of its premise, and took it to the next level.  It’s the thing that bothered me so much about Arkham Knight.  It’s like Warner Brothers took Rocksteady aside and said, “yeah, we can’t have you going too dark.  Make sure you tell the audience repeatedly about how Batman doesn’t kill, and how he is such a great guy.  Make sure that we know how wonderful the guy is, and take away all that moral uncertainty.  Gamers just want a hero fantasy.”  And we got it.  We got to “Be the Bat.”  Because hard moral questions about uncomfortable characters are too difficult for us, apparently.

Maybe I carried on my pretentious rant a bit long.  But it was an interesting article of Shaun’s, and I hope that he can take this with the same grain of salt that I took his work.  I look forward to any potential discussion.

Until next time, a quote,

“Confusing, isn’t it?  I know I’d want to know just what the hell is going on if I were you.  Let’s just say, at times like these, it’s best to keep up appearances.  But first, if you would be so kind – hand over my cure!”  -The Joker, Batman: Arkham City

Peace out,



2 thoughts on “I Think Your Love of Batman Has Clouded Your Vision (A response to Shaun Joy)

  1. Sorry this took me so long, I’ve been busy putting other articles/videos/chaos together, and I wanted to take some time to really think about if my view is biased or not regarding it.

    I think the idea of a hero is an interesting one, because I think my definition of a hero may be different from someone else’s, due to life experiences. A lot of the people who I would consider heroes are people who stand up for what they believe in, for the good of those around them, and even if the tactics of that hero is at times questionable. Of course the idea of a hero having negatives, flaws, or even elements to them that one would consider “evil” at nature seems weird at first, but I think that’s the thing: I think it’s more compelling on the human level that way.

    I agree with you on the Batman/Joker being very much similar, and I think I tried to point that out in the review. The only thing that keeps Batman from being the Joker is his order in my opinion: his stigant way to the rules. They have similar methods at times, willing to do things others would not: but with Batman, it’s for reason, while Joker, it’s for the heck of it. Even if the rule wasn’t about killing, if Batman’s core rule set, any one of them were broken, he would turn into the Joker. A mad man.

    But I will say I disagree with the monsters portion. I think Batman is able to connect with a lot of people in his life, but not in the typical way that people would expect. His connection with Oracle in this last game was one of admiration, one of respect, for example. I think with Batman, he throws out some of what society says is “right” and more lives for what they are at the moment. Poison Ivy being the prime example in this last game: he let Poison Ivy out understanding that he could get what he needed, but understood that her need to save the plants of the city was admirable, and that her past transgressions weren’t enough to stop him from doing that. You can see when he indicates that she’s probably going to die: he respects the fact that she’s willing to uphold her ideals so strongly that he lets her do it: because he probably sees a little bit of himself inside of her.

    I think the duality in Arkham Knight of Batman with the Joker sequences was done well, and shows how close Batman is to becoming the joker on literally every moment. Again, the idea that order devolves into chaos being the biggest one: make one wrong “move”, and he”s no better then the Joker. And while it may not have tested some of the character elements that Arkham City had for example, I think it tested a whole another series of them here.

    • An interesting perspective. However, I chose to not look at Arkham Knight because I genuinely believe that it is a bad ending to the series, and that’s a whole other discussion that would take a long time. It has good ideas, but each and every one of them is watered down so that they don’t have to deal with just how morally questionable Batman is. Arkham City did it almost perfectly It showed that there is a violent man who is willing to brutalize anyone who stands against him. Who sees violence as the first and only solution. Batman has a code, but the problem is that he’s human. And there is a part of him, buried underneath that control, that wants to hurt people. His parents death is what he uses to justify it, but that’s just a smokescreen. He wants the violence. Without it, what does he have? Without Batman, who is he? That’s what made the ending sequence of Arkham City so profound. He was carrying the Joker out of the theater. He should hate him. He should despise him. Yet, when he set him down on that police cruiser, he was gentle.

      Arkham Knight was such a let-down when it came to examining the darkness of the character. It took all that out. They could have truly addressed what he let himself become, but they didn’t. I expected so much more from that game. It would have made the psychological stuff with the Joker that much more interesting if they actually took it to the next level. Instead of it being some plot thing with the Joker’s blood, make it just the fear toxin. Have becoming the Joker be the thing that he is afraid of. Have him gradually doing worse and worse things as the story goes on and people die. But they didn’t. It was all just casually swept away, so they could get a triumphant hero ending. So disappointing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s