BW Vs Bleeding Fool> Working Through The “Batman Paradox”

Jungle Batman watches you sleep.

Just because I use something as a research resource doesn’t mean I agree with everything on it. While admittedly I do agree with the writers of Bleeding Fool more often than I don’t, exceptions happen. Take for example the article we’re going over tonight.

In a recent article by contributor Jerry Lucky under the headline “Batman’s Paradox: Should The World’s Greatest Detective Shed Blood?” he’s referring to the blood of the villains of Gotham. In other words, Lucky is trying make the point that Batman’s “no kill rule” doesn’t make sense as a crimefighter in Gotham City.

Since this is a Vs article you can guess my stance on that. Batman doesn’t kill. There are reasons Batman doesn’t kill. And yes, Christopher Nolan, Batman DOES have to save Ra’s Al Ghul because he’s Batman. Whatever influence from the old pulp heroes like The Shadow that Batman had in the past the character evolved into the crimefighter he is today and unlike the Punisher (as noted in this morning’s video short) it makes as much sense for Batman to not kill as it does for the Punisher to kill.

Much has been written over the years about whether or not Batman should be involved in intentionally taking the lives of certain adversaries. I’ve come to think of this as the Batman Paradox. As a lifelong Batman fan, going back to the early 60’s, I wanted to explore this issue a bit deeper and perhaps take the conversation into some “uncharted waters”, all-the-while recognizing some of the things I bring up may be considered controversial and and could be hotly contested among other Batman fans. That said, please remember I’m just the messenger. No snarky ad-homonym comments please.

There is no question this debate was heightened with the release of the 2016 movie Batman v Superman where Batman is clearly seen dispatching more than a few villains to their death. Clearly much of the emotional sensitivity of these scenes revolved around one’s views regarding Zack Snyder’s take on the comic book characters.

It’s actually not that new. There’s a reason Knightfall exists. I have nothing against the debate. It’s good to have if only to go into what makes a DC hero and why they are the way they are, or rather were until the DiDio era of DC that still haunts us today. From there, Lucky goes into that recent comment by Snyder about how not wanting to see Batman kill is “protecting your god” or some crap. Writers and directors create scenarios, and Snyder wanted to create a killing Batman scenario because he wanted to see Batman kill (or at least create a situation where others would kill for him), in the same way he wanted to see Superman kill Zod. There are no lasting consequences for how they’re seen, no emotional scars. Superman snaps Zod’s neck and we go right to a “hilarious” scene were Superman drops a spy satellite near the general’s moving car and tells him to quick being a creepy stalker. I’m going to ignore the movie part of his commentary because the movies got it wrong. Let’s focus on the comic side instead. You know, Hollywood, the SOURCE MATERIAL you didn’t create!

It’s clear that in the very beginning, Batman was not afraid to take the life of a bad guy. There’s even one panel where he states that while he doesn’t “like” to do it, in the case of that particular villain he deserved it. We also see in the early days that Batman was even packing heat, carrying a big old automatic hand gun. Not sure where it fits in the utility belt, but there it is. Clearly these are not random acts, they are well considered before action is taken.

So in the beginning of his crime-fighting career, taking the life of someone he perceived as deserving it, didn’t seem to be a problem. Or, to look at it another way, Batman seems to understand that the people he was fighting were evil and sometimes the only way to deal with evil is to eliminate it to ensure it doesn’t become a problem in the future. Rehabilitation, if it works, was not Batman’s problem.

Wait, isn’t this the Joker’s origin?

He shows this scene, which includes “Bat-Man” not caring that the villain died. Killing him wasn’t the goal. It just happened and Bat-Man goes “A fitting end to one of his kind”. In the story he was killing his business partners to become sole owner of the company. There was a remake of that story made years later which made it more of a revenge story when his partners tried to vote him out. In either case, Bob Kane and Bill Finger were inspired by pulp heroes because Batman’s style of superhero had yet to be finalized, which would be done by Batman. Even Zorro takes cues from Batman now, and he’s considered another of Batman’s inspirations.

In an interview published in the Overstreet Price Guide #19 in 1989, the question of censorship was asked of Bob Kane and he offered this perspective:

“In the first Batman book, he originally had a gun. He had a machine gun on his plane and used it fighting monsters. The editorial policy was to bring him over to the side of the law and get away from the vigilante he originally was and not carry a gun. They thought this was more in keeping with the social mores of the times, and making him a murderer would taint his character. The policy was to make him an honorary member of the police force who was outside the law but still working within it. The whole moral climate changed after 1940-41, you couldn’t kill or shoot villains.”

Also, and this has been lost to modern comics, Batman had a kid audience even before the Comics Code was created. They figured a less violent Batman was a good thing. This would eventually lead to the debut of Robin, the first teen sidekick, to help lighten the tone and give Batman someone to talk to and have his back in a fight.

It’s worth remembering that the original Joker story in Batman #1, submitted by Bill Finger, ended with the death of the Joker. It was only an editorial decision that allowed for his reprieve given that he could be used over and over as a top-line villain. In that same Overstreet interview Jerry Robinson corroborated this event when asked about Joker’s death:

“Yes. Bill killed the Joker off in the script he wrote, but our editor, Whitney Ellsworth, felt that he was such a great character that he had us redraw the last few panels to show he hadn’t really died. It was natural for Bill to decide to kill him off. For him to come back was a precedent. I can’t really think of any other villains in Batman that did continue before this. Batman usually disposed of them at the end.”

And this brings us to one of the real reasons why Batman was encouraged to stop taking the lives of villains. The comic publishers recognized that bad guys like the Joker might be a good “recurring” villains and they wanted to be able to recycle them in other stories. It was not good for Batman to simply kill off a villain when there could be multiple future story lines brought up. The “no-killing” rule was an editorial one, rather than strictly a moral one.

That’s a real world reason for Batman not killing, but that wouldn’t crossover to henchmen or less interesting villains. Batman has had a number of baddies who were never going to make it past the first appearance. Nevertheless, Batman having a no-kill rule requires you to make it work in the context of the universe, and this is what has become part of the iconic Batman over the years, the version that was embraced and became famous enough to make movies and television shows about.

It’s no secret that by the mid-to-late sixties and early seventies as leftist, progressive, anti-death-penalty creators, editors and publishers became more involved in the comic book industry, they devised what they felt was a more satisfying reason for Batman’s non-lethal behavior, and it had to do with a sense of morality.

The writers of the day, influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethic of “Thou shalt not murder,” proclaimed that killing the villain was the easy way out. Batman needed to “be better.” He had to think of ways of solving crimes that didn’t involve taking a life, even as bullets were flying in his direction from all corners. This approach was true even for atheists and agnostics, who to one degree or another derive their sense of “morality” from those same Judeo-Christian principles. Rather than default to a naturalistic “survival of the fittest” mentality, Batman was placed in a no-win situation of making an effort to keep the streets of Gotham safe by sending the perpetrators to prison only to have them be released a few issues later in a revolving door of justice.

“Actually, I’m going to chop your head off now so you can’t kill any more homeless people and call it help.”

I assume this wasn’t intentional, but is he calling one of the Ten Commandments “left-wing”? Speaking as a right-leaning person because I hate labels but agree more often than I don’t with conservatives and libertarians, that’s a terrible read. Especially when you consider the far-left’s approach to anything religions they can’t wave away as “culture of another people” because they don’t understand how worship works unless you worship them. In truth there aren’t many conservatives in the creative fields because they were talked out of anything that wasn’t part of traditional business…and look where pop culture is now. You can’t complain about the state of Hollywood and other media when you actively talked people who agree with you to ignore it. Len Wein, who was responsible for Bronze Age Batman returning to his roots but not reinstating Batman’s gunplay, was quite liberal but he cared about the stories he was telling.

Reading the responses to Zack Snyder’s comments on the Joe Rogan podcast, this topic regarding the decidedly more left-leaning comic creators struck me as a mix of projection and, yes, an ad-homonym argument. We tend to see our superheroes through our own eyes and when that superhero is caught doing something we don’t like, too often we get offended. It rarely has to do with any inherent logic of the superhero’s world, but more to do with our own. Yet, for all the supposed faults of the world that Zack Snyder created for his superheroes, that world was in fact consistent and logical. They acted as they would in that particular situation. Snyder faced Batman’s Paradox squarely in the eye. Far too many contemporary comic book writers seem all too happy to avoid the logical conundrum of vigilantism, and end up writing stories that are far more dissonant than consistent.

This is when we get to the focus of his thesis and where we start disagreeing. Snyder’s previous dumb quote was that if you didn’t think superheroes kill, you’re living in a “fantasy world”, forgetting that’s what he creates. He can’t do it well, based on the reviews I’ve seen of Rebel Moon but that’s his job. Batman’s no kill rule is consistent with his character.

There is an interesting scene in one of the Austin Powers movies where Dr. Evil and his son Scott are having a discussion about getting rid of Austin Powers. Dr. Evil sends Powers to a slow death and proceeds not to even watch what happens. Scott on the other hand, knowing they will escape, because they ALWAYS do, says he’ll go get a gun and end them right now. The obvious point being made in this exchange is that the cliché of not taking care of business only means that either the villain, or in this case the hero, lives to see another day and, as such, perpetuates the story. It’s essentially a contrived literary or filmic trope, and the reader or viewer knows it. There is no peril in the story. One of the things that made the Game of Thrones series so engaging was this aspect of life and death. You never knew from one week to the next if your favorites would be killed off. This aspect of peril breathes life into a story.

So glad Batman’s not in peril right now.

They’re still trying to kill Batman. He’s just not responding in kind. There’s your peril. The Austin Powers movies are parodies of James Bond and the various knockoffs like the Derek Flint movies (which are on my Finally Watch list just for the curiosity). Dr. Evil is pretty much an embodiment of the “Evil Overlord’s List” that made the rounds in the old days of the internet, based on Peter Anspach’s “Top 100 Things I’d Do If I Became An Evil Overlord“. Done right at least some of the usual villain faults make sense. The stormtrooper helmets look threatening. You don’t have time to watch the hero die but you’re still a sadistic bastard. That sort of thing. Frankly, I’d like to see a villain that is actually amused by the hero escaping his or her death traps because they’re in it for the challenge more than the bloodletting.

Also that list is supposed to be a joke, but since some fans still embrace “Man Of Steel, Woman Of Kleenex” as gospel and proof of the Wonder Woman option, some jokes are lost on people.

There is the ever present notion that if Batman kills he becomes the villain. As one commenter has stated, if Batman kills he becomes the Joker. This misses the context of the argument in an effort assuage one’s own feelings about the issue. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is a fundamental difference, established in natural law and its legal equivalent that killing in the pursuit of a crime is different than taking a life to prevent or stop a crime. This is the shady, grey area of the law where the vigilante operates. This is also a key point: Batman, while trying to avoid taking a life, may in fact make that happen, but it’s in the pursuit of justice rather than the pursuit of a crime. These are NOT the same thing.

I don’t think killing would make Batman the villain, but as he’s stated, the path becomes too easy. With each kill it becomes easier until he’s killing guys that could be redeemed. Bruce Wayne gives ex-cons jobs if he thinks they could avoid returning to crime if they just got a better break, something most ex-cons never get and end up having to return to crime just to have money to buy food. You can’t redeem a corpse.

This is the inherent flaw in the Batman mythos – not killing doesn’t make him stronger – it removes any real threat or peril and actually makes him weaker – because he’s doing something that is inherently inconsistent with his environment. This is not to say that he should go out with guns blazing, but it does mean that there will inevitably be times where a life is lost, some accidentally and, yes, some intentionally. He doesn’t don the cowl and cape night after night with the intention of taking a life, but bad things can happen in Batman’s world.

Again, how does this remove peril? If anything it heightens it. Batman won’t kill so how can he stop the guy trying to kill him without just knocking him off a ledge to his death? I’m not understanding this perspective or we have different perspectives on peril. “How’s he going to win” is more exciting to me when “just shoot him” isn’t an option.

This is the continuing human pathos of the Batman character. To suggest that because his parents were killed using a gun therefore he won’t use a gun is far too simplistic. If his parents had been hit by a car should he vow never to use a car? Where’s the sense in that? We seem to have bought into this notion without thinking it through. He doesn’t want to kill, but understands that there may be times where it could happen. That’s been the essence of the Batman character from the very beginning. To say that taking a life is off the table, is akin to saying he shouldn’t be allowed to use the Batmobile. Why? One is in service of the other.

Bruce saw his parents gunned down as a child. Subconsciously he views the gun as the weapon, a weapon that only kills. It may not be an accurate viewpoint, since it’s an inanimate object and you can shoot to wound. The Lone Ranger did that all the time, and Old West gunfights usually end with one dude on the ground with a lead-induced hole in his chest. Batman doesn’t want to be judge, jury, and executioner. He wraps them up for the police, and for the justice system to hopefully do its job. Nobody every complains that a judge hasn’t sentenced the Joker to death even when there was a death penalty.

To quote Douglas Adams: “This never happens.”

I fully recognize this may be a controversial view among Batman fans because it challenges long-held “sacred-cows.” I’m not even sure DC’s “no kill rule” should be changed. All I’m suggesting is that the one-size-fits-all contrived nature of Batman never taking a life, the Batman Paradox, gives us a shallow and contrived hero who becomes vulnerable on many sides for no logical reason. It actually works against the very vow he made as a youngster to “avenge” the death of his parents.

And avenge doesn’t necessarily mean kill unless you’re Charles Bronson or Frank Castle. He also brings up the “I am vengeance” line from the Matt Reeves movie, but the line started as a throwaway bit of dialog in Batman: The Animated Series as Bruce tries to shake off Scarecrow’s fear toxin.

The line was so good Fox Kids used it in some of the show’s ads, and it was used in ads for the tie-in action figures. He’s not “vengeance” any more than he is “the night”. (If Darkwing Duck owns the night…does Darkwing Duck own Batman?) I’ve grown to hate that line because it confuses what Batman is just as much as Nolan’s throwing stars keep getting called Batarangs. A Batarang is based on a boomerang, a flying blunt object that curves in flight so the target isn’t ready for it. Not that throwing stars were used to kill, unless they were drugged, since at best they could wound and distract enemies so the ninja could escape.

The thing is, Batman not killing IS in contrast to his environment, and that’s a feature, not a bug. Batman wants to bring hope. He believes in potential reforming and healing, which some of his villains did until a new writer wanted to make Riddler a bad guy again and the good Clayface deceased. He could kill Two-Face but he hasn’t given up on Harvey Dent. Superman is not the only symbol of hope. It’s just Batman does it from the shadows and gets a bit ruffer. He gives his opponents as much a chance to give up as he can. While Batman is a product of his environment he is not part of it. It’s why Geoff Johns’ alteration of Billy Batson bothers me so much, a kid who didn’t let all the bad things that happened to him get him down versus the modern jerk. Bruce was affected by that night but his parents love, and Alfred’s, led him to become something better, something that can break through the shadows and bring hope and justice to others, to lead people out of the darkness and into the light. It’s why I like Batman and not the Punisher beyond his original miniseries.

Batman doesn’t kill because like most pre-DiDio DC heroes Batman is supposed to be the best of us striving to make the world better, and you don’t necessarily do that with a body count.