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.

I think that he's supposed to be that way

Well, but we're arguing out the cultural implications of a figure in comics, movies, and the public imagination. Does canon of the current comics hold any more sway than any other source? (I'm aware that the more general we get, the less undisputed explicit evidence there is for us to interpret.) I haven't read the current comics, but I've read several compilations that go back to the 40s. And surely Batman has changed over time, as the culture has changed.

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.

Even that -- with which I don't really agree -- isn't that publicity? Just publicity to a specialized audience. He gets a charge out of being scary, and it's a lot of fun to be scary to people against whom you've already hardened your heart. There's a whole other thing, the ego-massage/elitism of withheld knowledge, too.

Anyway, once your brand (tm) is emblazoned across the sky on a search light, I think the second half of the above is rendered moot. Maybe Batman intended to be unpublicized, but that intent never sticks around for long that I have seen.

with which I don't really agree

What are you basing your disagreement on? What is your source text?

He gets a charge out of being scary, and it's a lot of fun to be scary to people against whom you've already hardened your heart.

Where is the evidence that he gets a charge out of being scary? Just because I think it'd be fun -- doesn't have any bearing on his character.

He gets a charge out of being scary, and it's a lot of fun to be scary to people against whom you've already hardened your heart.

I really don't see this -- not in the movie, and not in the comics. I'm not sure Batman finds *anything* fun, but he certainly doesn't seem to get a charge out of being scary. I think he views it as a necessity; the only way to get the upper hand with the baddies.