id = ravening selfishness module; superego = nagging/punishing module for rules-following

Basically, Gotham:Batman::self:superego -- but within Batman himself, it's a lot more complicated than the basic Freudian schema. There's plenty of id-like stuff, though, what with the taking pleasure in violence, and the wild self-aggrandizement. Some superego-like stuff, too, with the guilt and the self-punishment and the discipline, but I think that takes somewhat of a back seat to the joy of the beatdown.

I think that takes somewhat of a back seat to the joy of the beatdown

Ah, no, that's not my Batman, not at all. He's all guilt and self-punishment and discipline.

I think that takes somewhat of a back seat to the joy of the beatdown

Ah, no, that's not my Batman, not at all. He's all guilt and self-punishment and discipline.

Absolutely. No joy there. He's almost entirely superego.

Batman's sort of like Angel, except he's the one who put the curse on, and he was innocent at the time. Abnegation boy.

Which is why I loved the ending with Rachel -- I think he was starting to process what he would give up to do what he had to (his family's good name and lineage), but that really hammered it home for him. Yay! Lovely moment.

Batman is VERY Angel. Or vice versa. (I always wanted to see a S6 of Angel where Angel and Connor patrolled together in a very Batman-and-Robin sort of way.)

Abnegation Boy

Really, you think so? I guess I'm coming at it roundabout, in some ways, because my first question was not "what pleasure does Batman get from his actions?" but "What pleasures do I get from the text?" And the first and longest-lived pleasure I've gotten from the text is the fantasy of wielding unilateral power.

Now, guilt may be a reason for wielding unilateral power, but, if I'm getting egocentric pleasure from it, I bet Batman's enjoying it too. I expect there's a fair vacillation between beat the mugger to show him who's boss and beat the mugger to instruct him in the error of his ways, but I think it's a mistake to leave out the former entirely.

I think there's some rich material in mining the rage/sorrow spectrum, where Batman is concerned. But I think you have to allow that rage -- the id-like, uncontrolled impulse -- is a part of him, or else you basically have Superman dressed in black.

Which was what the movie made me think of.

And the first and longest-lived pleasure I've gotten from the text is the fantasy of wielding unilateral power.

I can see this, but it's also how I know I could never be Batman. Because he feels he needs to, and that it costs him, but it HAS TO BE DONE. His ego comes into play where he thinks he's the only one that can be trusted to do it, sure, but there's no beatdown glee there. It's a bleak and shriven thing.

The guy you're describing sounds more like The Punisher.

His ego comes into play where he thinks he's the only one that can be trusted to do it, sure, but there's no beatdown glee there. It's a bleak and shriven thing.

The guy you're describing sounds more like The Punisher.

Yes and yes.

Because he feels he needs to, and that it costs him

No, I think you misunderstand what I mean. I am not saying "the pleasure of a necessary job done well"; I am saying "the pleasure of beating up a mugger to show him who's boss."

Now, both of those pleasures may reside in the same place, and may compete with one another at times, but I can't imagine the latter being absent. I mean, if nothing else, Batman is a huge publicity whore. He can claim that he is the absolute king of accessory branding solely for the purpose of scaring the unrighteous, but I don't have to believe him.

I think you misunderstand what I mean. I am not saying "the pleasure of a necessary job done well"; I am saying "the pleasure of beating up a mugger to show him who's boss."

No, I understand. And disagree.

I do not think that Batman has a canonical joy in the beatdown, and until recently was depending on not having a verifiable presence, so I can't call him a publicity whore either. He wanted to be the nightmare that's muttered about from felon to felon, but whose existence was denied by law abiding people in the light of day.

I don't have to believe him.

No, you don't. But I think that he's supposed to be that way, and that many people (like myself) accept it as canon.