Should Batman Be Realistic Or Not?

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a book called Batman Unauthorized (see my "Comic Book Studies" post). On its back cover, it asks "which one is the real Batman?" The answer - it's a trick question. The original 1939 comic book version of the character is NO MORE real than the campy 1965 TV show version or the dark 1989 movie version, but one is definitely more realistic than the others. Out of the 18 essays in Batman Unauthorized, 13-14 (depending on whether you count the essay on Batman's creator) promoted the more realistic takes on the mythos. Were they right? Sorry, but that's another trick question. When it comes to opinions, there are no rights and wrongs.

Even if the majority seems to think that serious beats silly, each different version must be at least one person's favorite. Did I like The Dark Knight movie? I loved it. Does that mean I hated the 1997 Batman & Robin movie? No, I thought it was a great riff on the campy version, and it is possible to like multiple versions, even contradictory ones. Do I agree with most that the 1992 animated series is the "best" amalgamation of the various versions? No, and I dislike its art style.

Another thing I have to say about trying to make everything fit together is that I'm almost anti-continuity when it comes to comic books. I like "imaginary stories" (to borrow a term from the Silver Age) and decompression only works in trade paperbacks. I don't like crossovers and team-ups and that's the great thing about Gotham - it's just Batman, a man and his hometown. Those are the only boundaries I need. The limitations of him being a non-superpowered human whose mission draws a line at the city limits - it requires more creativity to leave that alone than it does to add to it. That may not include the 1950s' outer space stories or the 1970s' Ra's al Ghul in the Middle East. It may not even include the Justice League headquarters or the Hong Kong scene in The Dark Knight movie. Oh well, those things were made for someone else.

Here's a quote from my favorite essay in Batman Unauthorized ("Holy Signifier, Batman!" Nick Mamatas, 2008): "William Dozier, the producer of the TV show, actually detested comics and felt that the show would only work as Pop art. And he was right. Batman only works as Pop art. Because Batman is nothing but a logo, and because we are all soaking in logos and commercial messages and not-quite-real (or too-real-to-be-real) realities, the campy TV Batman of the 1960s is the most compelling version of the Caped Crusader of them all."

Here's another quote from Comic Books and Other Necessities of Life ("Comics That Didn't Really Happen" Mark Evanier, 1994): "Today, we're going to talk about why you disagree and why you have every right to disagree. We're going to talk about Krypto-revisionism, a concept developed and named by myself and my friend Steven Grant. Once you understand it, Krypto-revisionism will become very important to you, the comic book reader. It is one of your two greatest powers as a reader, the other being the financial one - what you choose to support, what you choose not to buy. Krypto-revisionism has to do with what you "buy" in a non-monetary sense: Which comics do you accept?"