Crisis crisis crisis. The word has no meaning anymore.

Coming in November 2005 -- DC presents: Infinite Tartlet!!!!

Appetizers will never be the same in the DC universe again.

Infinite Tartlet!!!!

Please (a) let this be true and (b) let it lead to Batman telling someone to stop calling him pastries.

Batman telling someone to stop calling him pastries

Oh, delicious circularity!

DC presents: Infinite Tartlet!!!!

So it all comes back to pie. I suspected as much.

(b) let it lead to Batman telling someone to stop calling him pastries.

"Why so late, donut?"

"Clark, stop calling me pastries!"

"Awwww, did my gooey apple turnover have a bad night fighting crime?"

Well, I started this discussion with the avowal that I don't know a thing about current canon, so it's possible that my view is just antiquated. I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong, however; I'm not exactly middle-aged, and I'm recalling character points from within my lifetime.

the mere fact that I'd wish that upon myself, ever, highlights why he gets to do it and I don't

That's why it's a fantasy. You get to indulge your propensity for violence without ever breaking the law.

I'll admit that the meta approach can be a little alarming, since it comes from outside the text, and can sometimes outright contradict what is stated on the page. The idea is to delve past stated authorial intent and dig up all the available interpretations. That I skew heavily toward the "that too is ego-massage" interpretations is possibly a sign of how distrustful I am of the formal definitions of heroism.

I've got to start reading comics again.

Which Batman title should I read?

I think I'm not explaining myself well, Nutty. "My" Batman would distrust anyone who wanted to do his job too much, since he doesn't regard it as a joy. It's a grieving process for him, and atonement for a crime he didn't commit, and a way of putting forth a legacy.

That's why the fact that I think it's cool has no bearing on whether or not he does.

I'm not alarmed by the approach to this particular text. I just don't think it has a point here, since I'm making flawed assumptions to make it work.

All the possible interpretations aren't that interesting to me.

Well, I started this discussion with the avowal that I don't know a thing about current canon, so it's possible that my view is just antiquated.

I do that all the time. I've made Ple roll her eyes so hard they unscrewed from their sockets and rolled under the couch and got covered with cat hair.

I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong, however; I'm not exactly middle-aged,

::checks calendar. Oops, 44 tomorrow::

But Kingdom Come is AU. I mean, if we're trying to come up with a psychological profile of the "real" Batman (inasmuch as he's fictional), we have to use canon to do so.

Actually, this is a thing too -- or two things. (1) How did you know that Kingdom Come was AU? I didn't. Anyway, do you think that people had thought of Willow as an evil, gay leatherqueen before that one episode? And after, despite its being an AU, wasn't your view of real-Willow changed a bit, against all formal logic? AUs have a lot more power than you seem to be giving them.

(2) Who is the "real" Batman? And relatedly, whom is this movie speaking to? Batman has legs way beyond comic books -- he shows up as punch lines in commercials, e.g. (and what a fun commercial that was!!) As a not-really-comics person, who is relying on general cultural knowledge, I shouldn't feel so left out in the cold, should I?