quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
all too often, writers make batman's driven nature into that of a computer -- where he's this relentless cyborg that knows everything, does everything, acheives everything, etc. most importantly, feels nothing.

im notta fan of that.
Neither am I (however, where you enjoyed Miller's Batman work, I didn't, so we'll have to agree to disagree there). Over and over again I hear people assert that making Batman human, allowing him to be able to smile, joke, and enjoy life once in while makes him "campy" and turns him into Superman in a blue cape. Over and over again, I see them claim that a totally humorless, heartless, hateful, one-note psychopath makes him "serious" and a good character. I'm sorry, but I find such a one-dimensional, one-note Batman to be not only a villain in hero's clothing, but I find the "humorless, always grumpy" Batman to be the campiest incarnation of the character yet. At least Adam West's version was intentionally funny. The Batman of 1986-onward is so pretentious and over-the-top "dark" and "obsessed" that he's practically begging to be skewered and mocked. In fact, I did just that in my WWFF parody Superman: The Grease Version, taking the piss out of this inhuman, heartless Batman, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy doing it.

My preference for Batman has always been, and will continue to be, the Batman of Finger, Fox, Hamilton, Alvin Schwartz, Broome, '70s O'Neil, Robbins, Englehart, Wein, Brennert, Conway, and Goodwin--the Batman of 1940-1986. That was a Batman who was driven and serious, but noble, caring, and able to enjoy life every once in a while. One of the best scenes in any Batman story I've read was in Englehart's "The Deadshot Ricochet," where Batman and Robin were sparring. They were joking around, teasing and kidding each other and having a good time. I love that scene to death. To me, that encapsulates what Batman ought to be; a horrifying menace to criminals everywhere, but in the company of friends and loved ones he's a guy who can smile and laugh and live life to the fullest. He was a fully-rounded, deep, rich character, not a hateful, one-dimensional cipher like the Batman of 1986-onward. Kia Asamiya's Child of Dreams echoed this by making Batman a caring, likable individual (he only got smart with the reporters because they were constantly getting in his face), and the FOX run of the animated series presented Batman in that 1940-1986 light, with Batman smiling, joking, and teasing Robin and Alfred and playing pranks on the Joker. Far from being campy, such a portrayal shows Batman as a fully human and developed character. I miss that.

As for Loeb's Batman (pre-"Hush"), I think he was trying to achieve a middle ground between the one-note sameness of the 1986-current Batman and the humanity of the 1940-1986 version. And I think he succeeded, making Batman somber and depressed without making him a jerk. That said, I don't think I'd want to read about that Batman on a regular basis. I like my Batman with some joie de vivre.