Avatar

The Batman Files

@thebatmanfiles-blog / thebatmanfiles-blog.tumblr.com

Avatar

I- do people honestly not know that the whole “Batman and Robin are gay for each other thing” in popular culture comes from The Seduction of the Innocent? You know, that homophobic book that published a homophobic article about Batman being gay and being a pedophile (because he’s gay)?? That was written literally for no other reason than to tear down the comics industry???? Like-??

Ship what you want, but don’t say “it’s popular culture because it’s canon” when it’s not, it’s popular culture because a homophobic dick head who hated comics and equated being gay with being a pedophile published a bunch of fucking slander saying it’s canon. You are just flat out wrong. Not subjectively. You are objectively, historically, factually WRONG.

ACTUALLY— this whole post is wrong. This whole post is objectively, historically, factually WRONG.

I wrote my BA thesis on Batman, and I’m preparing to write my MA thesis on him as well. As a result, I’ve spent a lot of time with Fredric Wertham and Seduction of the Innocent. Wertham was not a homophobe, nor did he have it out for the comics industry; literally everyone just really HUGELY and unfortunately overreacted to SotI.

In brief:

  • The “Batman and Robin are gay for each other” thing actually preceded SotI! Wertham was just the most prolific writer on the phenomenon.
  • Wertham was a psychologist. A very strange and eccentric one, but also a very progressive one. He founded the first free clinic for African-Americans in Harlem in the 1940s. He dedicated his entire life to speaking against racism and sexism and – believe it or not – homophobia. 
  • A lot of his patients were kids, and, being kids in the 1940s, they all read comics. Because kids only really went to therapy if they were having serious problems – read: juvenile delinquency, violence, and, yes, Non-Heterosexual Feelings because this was the 1940s – Wertham’s sample was really biased. No one is saying he was a particularly good research psychologist.
  • Seduction of the Innocent chronicles Wertham’s conclusions from hundreds of these patients and therapy sessions. If anyone actually bothers to read the Batman and Robin chapter in question, they’ll see that Wertham is not running around screaming that Comics Are Corrupting Your Children With Homosexuality. 
  • What he is saying is that a lot of his patients are identifying with a queer reading of Batman and Robin – that they like the idea of it, that it comforts them, because guess what, these kids were probably queer and desperate for representation!
  • He actually advocates for compassion for his probably queer patients! I quote:
  • “Many adolescents go through periods of vague fears that they might be homosexual. Such fears may become a source of great mental anguish and these boys usually have no-one in whom they feel they can confide […] during and after comic-book reading they indulged in fantasies which became seriously repressed. Life experiences, either those drawing attention to the great taboo of homosexuality or just the opposite – experiences providing any kind of temptation – raise feelings of doubt, guilt, shame and sexual malorientation.” (SotI 189)
  • Will Brooker, preeminent Bat-scholar, writes on Wertham that:
  • “We might now quibble with the term “malorientation”, but overall, rather than expressing shock and outrage, Wertham’s tone seems one of quite reasonable concern. He does not, in my opinion, come across as ‘shrill’ or ‘anguished’. Rather than advocating a witch-hunt against deviants, he understands that a climate where homosexuality is a great taboo, gay fantasies might be a source of worry for young men. Moreover, his overall suggestion, at the beginning of his discussion on Batman, is merely that ‘a subtle atmosphere of homoeroticism’ pervades the comic; not a scenario of ‘deviance’, but, in his own words, a ‘love-relationship’.” (Batman Unmasked 111-112)
  • wow, really homophobic isn’t it…..
  • Mostly, Wertham was worried about the violence and gore of horror and crime comics cultivating a casual attitude toward violence, much as we to this day worry about TV and video games doing the same!
  • The Comics Code Authority (what OP means by “tore down the comics industry”) was a bad thing. No arguments there. But Wertham was not responsible. He testified to Congress against censorship! He advocated to the comics industry against imposing the CCA! He was furious about it! That was the last thing that he wanted! 

In conclusion:

  • Wertham: not a homophobe, did not think homosexuality = pedophilia
  • Wertham: also not a good researcher, but had some good points anyway
  • Seduction of the Innocent: not homophobic, was not intended to take down the comics industry
  • Batman and Robin chapter: also not homophobic, also not intended to take down the comics industry
  • 1950s America: a racist, homophobic shithellhole ready to destroy everything at the slightest provocation
  • Stop blaming Wertham for the industry’s own nonsense and the radical misinterpretation of his genuine concern for the gays by racist, McCarthyist suburban parents pls and thank.

Hi, I’m sorry but what?

You are absolutely right in pointing out that Wertham opened one of the first low-income clinics in Harlem, and that this was a good thing, but to claim that he didn’t have it out for the comics industry is an absolute falsehood.

Wertham was easily the most influential voice in what would eventually result in the Comics Code Authority.  The 1954 Senate Subcommittee for Juvenile Delinquency, which discussed Seduction of the Innocent: The Influence of Comic Books on Today’s Youth in detail and which Wertham personally attended and took part in, is universally regarded as what prompted the comic industry to universally adopt the CCA (for fear of government censorship).

Wertham may have been against “censorship” when it applied to adult media, but he absolutely believed laws should be applied when children were at risk. He mentions this in detail at the 1954 Senate Subcommittee, but also says so in Seduction of the Innocent:

  • “There seems to be a widely held belief that democracy demands leaving the regulation of children’s reading to the individual. Leaving everything to the individual is actually … anarchy. And it is a pity that children should suffer from the anarchistic trends in our society.”

Wertham testified six times that comic books were harmful to children. [source]

At the 1954 Senate Subcommittee, Wertham testified in length about how he believed that so-called “crime comic books” were detrimental to children.  The following quotes are by Wertham from the 1954 Senate Subcommittee [Source].

  • “...it is my belief that the comic book industry has a great deal to do with [juvenile delinquency]. While I don't say it is the only factor at all, it may not be the most important one, it is one contributing factor. “I would like to point out to you one other crime comic book which we have found to be particularly injurious to the ethical development of children and those are the Superman comic books. They arose in children phantasies of sadistic joy in seeing other people punished over and over again while you yourself remain immune. We have called it the Superman complex.”
  • “Talking further about the ethical effects of comic books [...] In many comic books the whole point is that evil triumphs ; that you can commit a perfect crime. I can give you so many examples that I would take all your time. [...] The second avenue along which comic books contribute to de- linquency is by teaching the technique and by the advertisements for weapons.”
  • “Now, what about the remedy ? Mr. Chairman, I am just a doctor. I can't tell what the remedy is. I can only say that in my opinion this is a public-health problem. I think it ought to be possible to determine once and for all what is in these comic books and I think it ought to be possible to keep the children under 15 from seeing them displayed to them and preventing these being sold directly to children.”  
  • “Children nowadays draw maps and say, ‘This is the street where the store is we are going to rob ; this is where we are going to hide and this is how we are going to get away.’ That is in many comic books, and they show me in comic books that is how they are going to do it. I would not say in such a case this is the only reason why this child committed delinquency, but I will say that is a contributing factor because if you don't know the method you can't execute the act and the method itself is so intriguing and so interesting that the children are very apt to commit it.”
  • I think Hitler was a beginner compared to the comic-book industry. They get the children much younger. They teach them race hatred at the age of 4 before they can read.”

Wertham argued that the industry as a whole forced cartoonists and writers to create comics that were bad for children, and that the creators of these comics “would much rather do something else than do what they are doing,” presumably because they knew they were creating dangerous comics.

He also very clearly demonized Batman and Robin as influencing children into the homosexual lifestyle.  Wertham was a firm believer that children would not become homosexual if they weren’t introduced to homosexual themes.  The language in Seduction of the Innocent clearly suggests that the homoerotic subtext of Batman and Robin was intentional:

  • “As they sit by the fireplace the young boy sometimes worries about his partner: ‘Something’s wrong with Bruce.  He hasn’t been himself these past few days.’ It is like the wish dream of two homosexuals living together.”
  • “The atmosphere is homosexual and anti-feminine.  If the girl is good-looking she is undoubtedly the villainess.  If she is after Bruce Wayne, she will have no chance against Dick.  For instance, Bruce and Dick go out one evening in dinner clothes, dressed exactly alike. The attractive girl makes up to Bruce while in successive pictures young Dick looks on smiling, sure of Bruce.”
  • “They live in sumptuous quarters, with beautiful flowers in large vases, and have a butler, Alfred.  Batman is sometimes shown in a dressing gown [...] Sometimes they are shown on a couch, Bruce reclining and Dick sitting next to him, jacket off, collar open, and his hand on his friend’s arm.”

The “dressing gown” scene was implied to be racy and sexually inappropriate, considering it was a scene between two men.  Wertham would also claim that Robin’s “green underwear” and shaved legs were further influences of “sexual deviancy.”

He also called Wonder Woman the “lesbian counter-part to Batman” in Seduction.

I could go on for ages and supply dozens of quotes.

Wertham was, by no means a bad man.  He was partly a product of his time, and wasn’t a particularly great psychologist, but he did make attempts to progress societies’ race relations.  His studies were used in Brown v. BOE as proof of the detrimental effects of segregation.  For those contributions, he deserves recognition.

But it would be wrong to downplay the effect his animosity towards the comic book industry had on America’s history.  He led a crusade, very much intently, because he truly believed that mainstream comics harmed American youth.

Avatar

Do you know anything about the n52 timeline? I'm reading Zero Year right now, which takes place "six year ago". But that doesn't appear to be enough time for four Robins (one of whom was born grew up while Bruce was Batman?)

Avatar

Ugh okay yeah

This is the n52 bat timeline

And frankly? I very strongly suggest you ignore it. Entirely.

Because it pretty clearly doesn’t make sense. You’re right– there’s no way Bruce could go through four Robins in that many years, especially since yes, Dick should have grown up with Bruce. In the n52 timeline, he didn’t become Robin until he was 15. And it pretty much falls apart after that.

The goal is, of course, to make Bruce young again. I think in the n52 he’s supposed to be in his mid thirties? As opposed to the old one, where I would probably put him in his mid forties at least. 

But deaging Bruce throws the rest of the timeline straight into the blender– I mean, look at Damian. For this to work, he has to be artificially aged. Which I’m not buying.

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: the best way to read the n52 is to sub in the old timeline and all the old backstories. That way you avoid a good 40% of the things that make the n52 frustrating (for example Tim the Not-Robin, artificially aged Damian, and the version of Jason’s history where the Joker was behind everything). It also lets all of them be Robin for more than .05739 seconds apiece. 

Avatar
Avatar

Yeah, that is my main thing, though. I don't mind if people love the hell out of it, but when they praise it while ignoring plot holes or trying to justify (for e.g.) Bruce's behavior as IC, it lowkey bugs me. I see posts that say Bruce wasn't "DIRECTLY" responsible for murder, therefore he didn't kill, when... no... that still defies Batman's moral code. You could just say, "You know, Bruce was violent in this movie but I love it as an AU anyway" and that's something I can respect

Avatar

Same.  

Also shooting the flamethrower pack definitely counts as intentional killing, because there was no purpose to shooting it other than to blow it up and kill the wielder.  Denying that Bruce intentionally killed in the movie is just wishing for ignorance.

Enjoy the movie, don’t enjoy the movie, w/e.  I’m sure I’d get just as much resistance if I talked openly about the problems that Marvel movies have (which so many fanboys would be shocked to hear about, since I can only possibly dislike BvS because its not a Marvel movie, right?), but I run a DC blog, and a Batman one specifically.  My critique is focused on BvS because that’s relevant to this blog, but be assured I could fault any movie you name that I’ve seen.

Avatar

Psst, to add on to your Anon, I calmed down a lot after seeing the movie and wouldn't use the word hate. I'm disappointed that DC didn't use this opportunity to establish a more... canon DCEU and I always rate things with pretty high expectations. There's many areas that I think are poorly scripted but there's a lot of movies I like that are actually rated as flops by critics. It's more like I can understand why they're flops. With BvS I expected more but it's nbd, just a movie; you're fine love

Avatar

I still despise it.

But I’ve also never held it against anyone for liking it.  Like I said, subjective enjoyment.  My level of hate is based on a combination of objective and subjective issues.  

It’s more that I’m always annoyed when people refuse to acknowledge a movie’s issues because they like it.  As long as you say “this could have been done better, but I still enjoyed it” I’m fine, because that means we as a society are able to improve our movie media in the future.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

i really respect all your opinions, so much so that i'm a little nervous because i really enjoyed bvs, and i know that you (AND shelly) hated it... i know this is really my problem, but do you think i can reconcile my love of the comics with my love of bvs? you made some really good points but i still like this movie and i'm just wondering if that means i don't appreciate the comic canon as much as i thought i did. that sounds a little silly but i guess that's just how my brain works lmao.

A movie doesn’t have to be perfect (or even good) for you to enjoy it.  Everyone has movies that they love despite the fact that they may be god-awful.  I love the Underworld movies.  Those are horrible, poorly made movies.  I love them anyways.  I also recognize what makes them horrible movies, where the creators could have improved, and what types of things future movies should avoid doing.

Movie-making is an art, and that’s how I view it first and foremost.  Objective critique about a movie (BvS being ooc, using tired tropes, and being overall discombobulated) does not mean that it’s impossible to subjectively enjoy.  The fact that you’re able to recognize a movie’s issues despite your enjoyment of it actually means you have a pretty good grasp on logical objectivity.

Subjectively, I’m not the biggest fan of Miller’s AUs, and I feel like his non-canon work has been beaten like a dead horse.  This makes a movie that seems to acknowledge only those AU titles for Batman immediately less interesting to me.  A lot of people love Miller’s AUs, and those people are more likely to be able to ignore the issues in BvS because they like seeing Miller Batman (again) on screen.

There’s other factors, of course, and it’s different for each person, that’s the beauty of subjectivity.

Avatar
Avatar
toflyandfall

DC Rebirth Diversity Overview

To qualify for inclusion on this list, a title must have a minority lead as the title character, or for ensemble books, the majority of its main cast members must be of that minority.

Female-led books:

Female-led books cancelled: Starfire, Black Canary, Catwoman, DC Bombshells Female-led books added: Supergirl, Superwoman, Batgirl and the Birds of Prey Female-led books ongoing: Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Gotham Academy, Harley Quinn

DCYou Total: 8    (15.4%) Rebirth Total: 7   (21.5%)

PoC-led books:

PoC-led books cancelled: Dr. Fate, We Are Robin PoC-led books added: Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes and Ted Kord sharing the title) PoC-led books ongoing: Cyborg, Gotham Academy

DCYou Total: 4       (7.6%) Rebirth Total: 2.5    (7.8%)

LGBTQIA-led books:

LGBTQIA-led books cancelled: Midnighter, Catwoman, Secret Six LGBTQIA-led books added: LGBTQIA-led books ongoing: Constantine, Harley Quinn

DCYou Total: 5    (9.6%) Rebirth Total: 2   (6.2%)

Total Generic DCYou titles: 37       (71.1%) Total Generic Rebirth titles: 22.5     (70.3%)

Some titles could be made much more diverse in actuality than their title represents, especially if legacy characters make a comeback. Green Arrow, for example, could have a really nice diverse cast bringing in Mia Dearden, an HIV positive girl, and Connor Hawke, Ollie’s mixed-race son, but reads in a list like another SWM title.  Some of the newly announced titles also could have diverse leads depending on who DC uses as the hero behind the mask (for example, the DCEU’s Aquaman is a PoC so a relaunched Aquaman could potentially be as well). If you have concerns, the most helpful thing you can do is send them to DC directly asking them to include more of x demographic.

List current as of: 3/27/2016

The most disappointing part of the Rebirth is definitely the reduction of LGBT+ led titles.  This is a 60% reduction, with absolutely no new LGBT+ titles added.  During a time in history where LGBT+ representation is especially important (as a means to acclimate the heteronormative community to the growing prominence of LGBT+ peoples in everyday spaces), this creative decision is a huge disappointment and reinforces to me what I’ve thought for a long time: top DC heads are more concerned about pandering to market segments than they are about making actively progressive decisions, despite the fact that they try to make us think otherwise.

We can hope that it won’t be long before DC reintroduces it’s existing LGBT+ titles or creates new LBGT+ ones, but for the time being this decision shouldn’t be glossed over and ignored.

Avatar
Avatar
marcusto
Anonymous asked:

I know youve already answered something to this effect, but because youre my fav comic artist I really want to add on and say how much I want to see Dick get treated as handsome but not an object. The ass shots and objectifying stuff in Grayson was what turned me off from that series. I know youre going to kill it on the art side and Im so glad to see you back on a batfam title. I'll be cheering you on!

I’ll do my best to make sure that Nightwing is a book that you all deserve. Thank you for the advice. Also you know me, butt shots are reserved for commissions :)

Avatar
Avatar

wow i loved bvs but it's NOT right that some fans seem to be okay with bullying you for not liking it. please ignore them. they probably like your blog very much and feel angry with you for not liking it. they'll get over it or they'll leave.

Avatar

Yeah, if my posts rile them up that much, they’re probably best off not following/blocking me.  I’m not shy in speaking my opinion on things, and not everyone’s going to agree with it.  That’s okay.  I’ll stand by it and do my best to explain my logic, but the world will never be in complete agreement on anything.

I think the worst kind of argument you can make is that liking or disliking BvS makes you “not a real fan” in some way.  I’ve seen a lot of posts that infer the only reason anyone doesn’t like the movie is because they’re obsessed with the Marvel movies, and that kind of logic is so ridiculous that it doesn’t even warrant objection.  Obviously if anyone is really riled up by the movie its because they’re a fan and they wanted to enjoy it.  And just because I thought it was OOC and you liked it doesn’t somehow make you a “fake fan.”  We’ve really got to shut down this gate-keeping nonsense, it’s counterproductive to progress.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

i just want to say i'm really sorry to see you're receiveing those kind of messages.... i literally cringed. i didn't even finish reading the ask.

Haha, don’t worry about it.  My skin is thick enough for it not to bug me.  People like that annoy me because they add nothing to the discussion and only want to bring other people down.  It’s not cool to try to belittle people or make them think less of themselves like that, it’s part of the culture of online bullying.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

You are just an asshole and im sure dc is ashamed to have fans like you. Go suck marvels dick and leave bvs alone, its not our fault you dont have a good taste

While I’d say you’d be happy to know that I hold Marvel up to standards just as high as DC, the truth is that you didn’t know that and don’t care because you really just wanted a convenient strawman to deflect away your hurt feelings over someone you don’t know not liking the thing you liked.  And being that your message relies on attacks on character instead of adding anything of substance to the discussion, I find it mostly petulant.

But let me save your energy for the future.  I don’t care.  Your juvenile actions can’t hurt my feelings.  If you really can’t handle hearing thoughts that aren’t your own my suggestion would be to either not follow the blogs you don’t like, or block them.  You can like the thing I don’t and I can dislike the thing you do, and the world keeps spinning.  I’m not going to come to your blog and shit on you for (dis)liking a thing, so unless you choose to, you’ll probably never have to hear from me again.  I promise it really is that simple.  Bye-bye.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

For the Anon asking about Damian and sexual interest in New 52, Damian ends up hanging out with a couple of older girls, Maya Ducard & Carrie Kelley and a girl called Maps but there's nothing in particular that could be taken as sexual, since the main focus for Damian on the New 52 is his relationship with his parents and his character growth....

Avatar

BvS Review; mild spoilers

I give this movie 3.5 out of 10 stars. (Sorry.) 

I do see some redeeming qualities in this movie, and I’m going to highlight those, but when I first got out of the theater, I was ticked off, not impressed and ranting for two hours. I agree with what most critics have been saying (just in a less pretentious / annoying way), but now that I’ve had time to digest the movie, I want to be more fair about it. I don’t think it’s right to overlook this movie’s flaws, and I also don’t think it’s fair to say this movie is a complete failure. I think there’s a balance in the middle and you’ll be swayed one way or the other depending on the type of fan you are and how you view the characters. 

Before I go much further, I want to put a stop to this talk of “you’re not a real fan if you hated BvS” or “the only people who criticize BvS are Marvel stans trying to slander DC.” We don’t need this kind of divisive rhetoric in this already divisive fandom; please stop. 

Although I personally didn’t like this movie, I can understand why this movie would appeal to other fans, and I’m making this review to try to level the ground between both sides. I’m avoiding all major plot details in this review, so it should be predominantly spoiler-free, although you should definitely avoid this post if you’re planning on going into the movie blind.

Avatar
Avatar
nightween
Anonymous asked:

except Bruce brought (spoiler villain thts in the trailer tht people already know about) back to Gotham to an ABANDONED bay. in fact in that same line u mentioned he literally says "the bay is abandoned" so no one died

First of all, thanks for the clarification. When I’m watching a movie for the first time, I don’t always catch every detail, and I missed that the bay was abandoned.

Second of all, I was avoiding the trailers to avoid spoilers, and I have friends who are avoiding trailers for the same reason. I’m aware that the villain was spoiled in a trailer already, but I managed to avoid that info prior to the movie by telling people to not spoil it for me. While I appreciate your subtle ass hole-ish tone (that was sarcasm, I don’t appreciate it), I was intentionally censoring the villain for anyone who doesn’t already know about it because some people do like to go into these movies blind

Third of all, your tone annoys me. I don’t mind being corrected, but you can chill with the condescending subtext

Avatar

Actually that throw away line annoyed me because anyone with half a foot in reality (which the movie kept reinforcing as being part of its selling point) would know that an “abandoned bay” isn’t actually abandoned.

Are there workers?  Home owners?  Businesses?  Apartments?  No.

But there would be homeless, there would be criminals, there would be impoverished, there would be the mentally ill.  The idea that any part of a metropolitan city like Gotham is completely empty is laughable.  And one of the things that really grinded my gears in this movie is that it routinely reinforced the idea that the lives of the lower members of our community, like criminals, are of less value.  Not only is that anti-Batman, but it’s just overall a really shitty point of view.

Bruce’s anger at Superman was over the people who died in the Metropolis accident, but he showed no hesitation in killing nameless thugs.  The “abandoned port” line only casually continued this.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

What was your biggest problem with the movie? Do you think there's any hope for the rest?

There’s always hope.  I think the casting is fine and therefore has potential under a good writer/directer team.

I guess my biggest problem would be with how dull and boring the movie was.  It had no substance, there was no coherence to the order of events.  It was a “Michael Bay” movie where the whole idea is that they can keep your attention if they dangle something shiny in front of your face for two and a half hours, and even then the action was so boring that I just wanted it to end.  That’s unforgivable, and I can tell you right now that once the hype dies out a lot of people who go “I didn’t think it was boring” will realize it on second look.  Happens all the time with movies like this.

The next would be the characterization.  Making Batman a murderer can’t be justified.  Don’t care how you try, it can’t be done.  The most insulting thing to me was that Snyder didn’t even try to justify it, he just did it and then claimed it made his movie more “mature.”  Ding dong you are wrong.

I find it hilarious that Snyder had the gall to say that this movie is his successor to “Watchman,” because it shows you just how little he knows about the superhero genre.  Watchmen was an intentional deconstruction of the superhero genre, meant to make fun of the idea of superheroes and to prove they won’t work.  Batman, Superman, and Wonderwoman are the crux of the Superhero genre, meant to represent everything we wish superheroes could be.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.