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.

Now that it's been said: I think the Punisher is Batman with self-awarded license to kill. From what I've read of him since I was eleven (whish hasn't been too small an amount), he takes no more pleasure in the actual beatdowns of the job than Batman does. If anything, he's become more hardened than Bats. Didn't bother with the Thomas Jane flick since I heard it was a crapfest, but from what I could tell in previews, they seemed to have gotten the psyche right. He's a cold killer; he doesn't kill bad guys because it gives him any joy, but because he's lost anything that would've made him stop at killing in order to achieve "justice." There's an interesting contrast between Frank and Bruce to be made there--how each one could've become the other, ethically speaking, and why he didn't.

My read on the Punisher (and I'd cite the Dolph movie as canonically more accurate but there's some faint praise) is that he takes more joy in being right.

Not joy like you and I (hope to) have it, but the feedback-loop that reinforces his behaviour is tuned differently enough that I don't think it's just the license to kill (or firearm issue) that distinguishes between them. I see the Punisher as having a savage and heartless "See what scum you all are?" glee, and Batman more of the "This is why we can't have nice things" sort.

Perhaps because Frank had embraced some violence and aggression before his loss? And Bruce is coming from an arrested development PoV? Not sure.