Batman. Enemy of the people. Enemy of the revolution.


by Kulvinder
28th May, 2007 at 5:48 am    

Batman ultimately represents the capitalist view of society and inherent in its storyline are not only the fears of the bourgeoisies but their anger for humanity itself. Its protagonist Bruce Wayne grew up in an idealised childhood filled with any whim he desired being catered to until one day his ‘perfect’ family was torn apart during a street robbery that cost the life of his parents. Eternally enraged by this our billionaire playboy ‘hero’ sets out on a quest of never-ending vengeance against the hated criminals of Gotham City. America supports this man as a force of good against evil.

The bourgeois man has always had a schizophrenic attitude to the proletariat. The underclass are needed to work the factories and houses of merchants, but they are also to be feared as wild lustful creatures ever on the edge of anarchy. The megalomaniac tendencies of the bourgeois man leads him to rage at the disorder of the universe; he sits in his highly fortified palace with its perfectly manicured lawns impotent to truly control life outside his fiefdom. How dare the filthy underclass behave in such a manner. He is perpetually fearful to walk the streets at night as the unthinking psychopathic mob are sure to rob, rape and kill him in their drug filled haze. Driven to the point of mania by his inability to deal with the exploitive-symbiotic nature of his society he organises state and private terror on the proletariat. Police forces and private security organisations are set up to both guard him and keep a revolution from occurring.

Bruce Wayne represents the pinnacle of what the bourgeois would consider Ãœbermensch. A billionaire industrialist and playboy he makes his money by exploiting the working class before sleeping with as many rich ‘it girl’ whores as he can. The holy trinity of money, power and sex are thus complete. If that were all there was to the story of Batman, his comics would never be a success. Our ‘hero’ must be a given raison d’etre in our make believe world; so that most primordial fear in the upper-classes is brought up. His family were unjustifiably murdered by the unthinking psychopathic proles. What’s worse is this happened during his childhood, and childhood for the bourgeoisies is sacrosanct as is represents a time when the true reality of proletariat society was unknown to them.

The implications of this are so profound for our bourgeois hero that he dedicates his life to fighting the underclass. Completely unwilling to empathise with his fellow man he sets out for the complete domination of the working class. He exploits them by day, and using his ill gotten gains, beats the shit out of them at night with elaborate weapons. He is the prefect man. Rich. Successful. Virile. Physically capable. His own private security and police force. He can walk wherever he pleases whenever pleases. The master of his universe. Obviously however he must cover up his face at night for fear the revolution will occur in his factory in the morning. His vigilantism is expensive and he cannot afford his identity to become known to his workers.

The humanity of the proletariat in all this is obviously missing. We are never given a reason Bruce Wayne’s parents are killed other than notions of total anarchy. No storyline exists where the robbers needed to buy over-expensive medication for their sick children, or about how working 18hours a day in Wayne Industry factories wasn’t enough to pay bills. Bruce Wayne never attempts to fight the causes of crime because he doesn’t care about the causes of crime. His arch-nemesis The Joker isn’t given a definitive storyline detailing why exactly he became a psychopathic murderer because ultimately we aren’t meant to care – he is just representative of the unthinking violence on the streets. We are never meant to question why his followers would even choose to work for psychopathic murder; though perhaps their choice to work for the Joker rather than Bruce Wayne tells us everything we need to know.

Instead of ‘combating’ such outlandish ideas as insufficient education, social exclusion, poverty, violence in the home or poor role models our billionaire playboy hero decides to dress up as a bat and kick the crap out of law breakers.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Culture,Humour,Uncategorized






71 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Henrique Placido

    É isso aí… tipo Dorfman e Matellart, só que sobre o Batman http://bit.ly/sxscQ


  2. Henrique Placido

    Ou, abrasileirando, texto sobre Batman "Dioclécio-style" http://bit.ly/sxscQ


  3. Henrique Placido

    "Batman. Inimigo do povo. Inimigo da Revolução" http://bit.ly/sxscQ Um ponto de vista interessantíssimo


  4. Henrique Placido

    @octavio_aragao Já leu esse texto? Interessante. Lembrei da sua aula sobre Dorfman e Matellart http://bit.ly/sxscQ


  5. Octavio Aragão

    RT @henriqueplacido: @octavio_aragao Já leu esse texto? Interessante. Lembrei da sua aula sobre Dorfman e Matellart http://bit.ly/sxscQ


  6. Billy

    @lepetitoiseau_ @thenewbrunette He's rich & well-hard. this amused me http://bit.ly/cPjIb5


  7. Mind Warrior

    @faustomarques Batman: Enemy of the people, Enemy of the Revolution: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1168


  8. Kulvinder

    @sunny_hundal hes against revolution sunny; i called him five years ago http://t.co/EcYNl6Qz




  1. alan — on 28th May, 2007 at 9:11 am  

    Shock: individuals have the ability to take action in this world and have individual responsibility for those actions.

    We cannot be objective about social forces since we cannot be fully conscious of them. Attempts to understand society are the precursor to attempts at social control. Such attempts are attacks on human freedom and diminish our sense of personal responsibility and agency.

  2. Random Guy — on 28th May, 2007 at 9:18 am  

    Look, it’s really quite simple:-

    Superman is the law. Batman is the protest group against the law.

  3. Rumbold — on 28th May, 2007 at 10:08 am  

    Brilliant Kulvinder.

    “Wayne Corp became a ‘green’ company under the control of Patrick and Laura Wayne, and has been environmentally conscious from that time forward. Even when environmentalism ‘wasn’t popular’, Wayne Corp followed those ideals. At the turn of the twentieth century, Wayne Corp was Gotham City in many ways, as it was the largest company located in the city. At this time it began its long-honored tradition of employing the largest part of the city’s considerable workforce. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Enterprises

  4. Muzumdar — on 28th May, 2007 at 12:03 pm  

    After that Marxist tirade, how do you propose we change things?

    Or are you, like most bourgeoisie, simply advocating champagne socialism?

    Anyway, I thought this board was a haven of bleeding heart liberalism, where Marxist theories are frowned upon.

  5. jim jay — on 28th May, 2007 at 12:08 pm  

    Yes, yes, yes – you’re so right – and Superman’s not so great either.

  6. soru — on 28th May, 2007 at 12:34 pm  

    The Superman one is much less convincing that the Batman one, you really have to mispresent the character.

    An interestingly-different myth about a guy from the same kind of background is Zorro.

  7. ZinZin — on 28th May, 2007 at 12:49 pm  

    Kulvinder ever thought about getting creating your own blog?

    Fisking Batman. Brilliant.

    Next up Spiderman?

  8. Zak — on 28th May, 2007 at 1:44 pm  

    Hmph Bats is still cool..

  9. sid — on 28th May, 2007 at 1:44 pm  

    My faves were Spidey and Luke Cage Powerman. There’s a lot of blaxploitation/oppressed Muslim mileage for a blog entry on Luke Cage.

  10. Sunny — on 28th May, 2007 at 1:49 pm  

    I agree. I felt like a neo-con *shivers* after watching Batman Begins. :(

  11. Soso — on 28th May, 2007 at 2:19 pm  

    But wait! Vickie Vale is a successful reporter, not a slut.

    And Catwomen, once an honest, dedicated corporate secretary, only became Catwomen after her company tried to murder her when she discovered widespread corruption.

  12. Riz — on 28th May, 2007 at 2:33 pm  

    Oh no, I enjoyed Batman but now you are making me think, and it’s hurting my head.

    In the latest film, Bruce is seen choosing the Bat because he found refuge in a cave which was full of bats, which he feared. Had the cave been crawling with rats, we could be dealing with a very different super hero: Ratman .

  13. Ramiie — on 28th May, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    I am not going to comment further on this ham fisted psuedo-analysis with its clunky, pedestrian tone, suffice to say that I am sick of this puerile anti-christian, anti capitalist, sixth-form diatribe. Get a life Kulvinder. Batman represents the bountiful and natural moral law of the universe (which has allowed for Earth to exist)but which is in perpetual battle with the forces of chaos and nothingness.In much the same way that Derek Walcot writes about the beauty of creating something out of nothing and Naipual can only bleat on about his exclusion, and the spiritual emptiness in which he must exist.

  14. Leon — on 28th May, 2007 at 3:16 pm  

    Oh dear..it’s just a fecking comic! Batman Begins was fantastic film, brilliantly shot, well acted and (thankfully) closer to the excellent Batman Year One graphic novel in the take on the character and his beginnings.

    The flaws in the theory is that you don’t know the Jokers background (tbh he’s had quite a few different versions of how he come to be), he could’ve come from a well to do family. Bruce Wayne’s parents killers were hardly out trying to steal money for their babies food were they?

  15. Zak — on 28th May, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

    From a psychological point of view Batman versus the joker show how two people with a fractured self concept and have experienced deep traumas can react to them in different ways. Batman taking the positive (punishing criminals good, killing them bad) and the joker taking the negative (it’s ok to commit crimes as long as it’s funny?)

  16. Sunny — on 28th May, 2007 at 7:13 pm  

    I am sick of this puerile anti-christian, anti capitalist, sixth-form diatribe…

    Well you know what to do if you’re getting sick of it, don’t your Ramiie?

  17. chrisc — on 28th May, 2007 at 7:17 pm  

    Sixth form tripe – exactly.
    Let’s all go out and hug a mugger – they can’t help it.

    Unless this is a brilliant spoof of Dave Spartian rubbish – if so please accept my apologies!

  18. The iLL Man — on 28th May, 2007 at 7:58 pm  

    I think the word ‘humour’ in the tags at the bottom would indicate that Kulvinder is maybe less than serious here. Or is he?

  19. soru — on 28th May, 2007 at 8:24 pm  

    Some comic book superheros are even easier to analyse than Batman.

    Link is slighty NSFW, and utterly unfit for human consumption.

  20. ZinZin — on 28th May, 2007 at 8:29 pm  

    Let’s all go out and hug a mugger – they can’t help it.

    Thats conservative party policy.

  21. The iLL Man — on 28th May, 2007 at 10:04 pm  

    Sorry, thought it was hilarious. A robotic cock with mechanical arms and boxing gloves on the end. Has the writer/artist been reading Oor Wullie annuals? Thought the ‘analysis’ was funny too…..

  22. William — on 28th May, 2007 at 10:18 pm  

    Alternative readings/interpretations of things in art can help us to think about other representations or misrepresentations. Even some cartoon characters can be born from someones imagination and that imagination can be linked to a social world. Batman along with other superheroes are like archetypal characters. There is a simplistic view of good and evil without looking at social forces/origins/causes.
    Easy entertainment after all who wants a lesson on society when they go off to the flicks.

    I believe in many ways that socialism is dead but the hardcore way of Marxist deconstructing and unpacking things can still reveal something about how society works.

  23. ChrisC — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:32 am  

    I thought tory policy was hug a hoodie.
    Surely not suggesting hoodie = mugger?!!

  24. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 12:03 pm  

    Dave Spart indeed! Nice one, whoever said that.

  25. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 12:06 pm  

    In much the same way that Derek Walcot writes about the beauty of creating something out of nothing and Naipual can only bleat on about his exclusion, and the spiritual emptiness in which he must exist.

    Both exist in the world, so we are wealthier with both writers and both of their insights.

    By the way, Naipaul doesnt bleat — he broods, stares, growls, and is often tender. He is a great, great, great writer.

  26. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 12:59 pm  

    Jagdeep,
    Its the white right wing that has dubbed Naipual great, in much the same vein they have decided that Maggie Thatcher was a great Prime Minister. Naipual’s talent is to lend racism a sheen of profundity, not unlike that other “great writer” Joseph Conrad (and being non white) he threw them a sliver of “balance” which the right clings to like a drowning man would to a straw. You know, I am sick of people like you who know nothing about the Caribbean or Caribbean Literature yet affect to raise that racist up on a pedestal. If you really want to know about the Caribbean read our true seers – Walcott and Kincaid for starters. And BTW Naipaul did not make his name as a world writer, but a Caribbean one. It’s the vicious racism in his text which later brought him “international acclaim” from you know who.

  27. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 1:06 pm  

    Its the white right wing that has dubbed Naipual great

    Ah yes, those famous ‘white right wingers’ like Pankaj Mishra….

    You know, I am sick of people like you who know nothing about the Caribbean or Caribbean Literature yet affect to raise that racist up on a pedestal.

    Gosh Ramiie, you don’t even know me, and yet you’re saying that you’re sick of ‘people like’ me. So you don’t like Naipaul and you don’t like white people, fine, but don’t presume to know me, because you come across as ridiculous. By the way, I have studied Carribean literature as part of my English Literature degree, so take it easy lest I embarass you with my knowledge and love for Carribean writers.

    And Kincaid isnt all that good, I don’t reckon.

  28. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 2:06 pm  

    not you, jagdeep, people like you…subtle but important diff. and btw, if the bona fide great chinau achebe calls naipaul a racist, who are you to disagree? And what would you know about whether kincaid is good or not..you’re not even from the Caribbean, and only we can tell you whether she is or is not.

  29. Rumbold — on 29th May, 2007 at 2:10 pm  

    Ramiie:

    ” you really want to know about the Caribbean read our true seers – Walcott and Kincaid for starters.”

    Jagdeep then revealed that he has read Kincaid, to which you responded ” what would you know about whether kincaid is good or not..you’re not even from the Caribbean, and only we can tell you whether she is or is not.”

    So Jagdeep is damned if he has not read her, and damned if he has.

  30. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 2:27 pm  

    not you, jagdeep, people like you…subtle but important diff.

    But if they are people like me, then it is my assumed likeness to them that makes you despise them, which means I too am on your list of people to be despised! Not very subtle and no difference. I don’t mind, you can hate ‘people like you’ (me) all you like.

    and btw, if the bona fide great chinau achebe calls naipaul a racist, who are you to disagree?

    First of all, regardless of what their opinion on Naipaul is, I can disagree with whoever I want to. As it happens I respect Chinua Achebe alot and value his criticisms, but I’m more worried about a literary fatwa that will be coming my way from you if I dare to challenge him or anyone else. Not very conducive to true literay and critical exchange, such intellectual authoritarianism.

    And what would you know about whether kincaid is good or not..you’re not even from the Caribbean, and only we can tell you whether she is or is not.

    How sad to see you inhabiting such a small minded and unimaginative self-contained and self-righteous mental ghetto — but not as sad as you using art and literature, the enemy of such small mindedness, as the mud with which to throw at others to defend your borders. Grow up.

  31. Arif — on 29th May, 2007 at 5:10 pm  

    I disagree Kulvinder. Batman Begins (at least) was a great film, and at another level has a very humane set of values.

    From what I remember, Batman tries to avoid killing his opponents, even the death of the baddie at the end was self-inflicted.

    He is portrayed as being blameless for the circumstances of his upbringing and his wealth, but still conflicted by it, to the point of running away into poverty and violence, and only returning in order to avoid an authoritarian solution being imposed on Gotham City. His own preference seems to be for reform, and although he does not dismantle his own capital, he tries to ensure it is built with less exploitation, and directed towards, well, I guess shareholders, but maybe not evil shareholders. Okay I won’t delve too far there.

    But despite the murder of parents which he has witnessed, he wants no revenge on the underclass, and has no wish to stereotype them, but believes in a vision of a more equal society. And that the society should be protected from destruction while it struggles to become better. Sure, the murders weren’t given a context, other than out of control maniac, but there was perhaps a moralistic undertone about how it should not be avenged any more than it should be excused.

    And what should people do if they find themselves privileged in an unequal society? I’d prefer them to help change society rather than suffer along with its more oppressed victims. To raise issues of conscience among people they have access to (that others do not0. To experiment with ways to change the model of society. To speak out where they can and act where they can.

    It seems like you want Batman to give away some of the tools to make change, because those tools either cannot be used for good or because they can be better used. I guess I agree with that, but then he is portrayed as doing more than others in his position, so it is at least pointing towards better values.

    Facing human choices, his criteria seem good, even if he hasn’t had the ideological fire to devote himself to good works. He’s just a superhero, not a saint.

  32. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 29th May, 2007 at 5:18 pm  

    If you are a fan of the Bat, you would know he wasn’t interprited like this until the brilliant “The Return Dark Knight” comic by Frank Miller who redraw him as a maniac not disimular to people he seeks to hurt out of vengance. The very fact that he is a deeply flawed charactor is what makes him the captiviating charactor that we see today.

    Superman is a goodie two shoes and Batmans kicks his arse in the The Return Dark Knight.

    TFI

  33. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:11 pm  

    but jagdeep.. If a writer says he speaks about a people, but his vision is rejected totally as obscene by his fellow artists from that people – as well as the common man -is he an artist or a professional slanderer? Thats the curious position Naipaul is in. Of course I pity him, he speaks about no one and for people who know nothing about the inner life of those he hopes to speak about. In his world, an artiste like Turner Prize winner Steve McQueen is the grotesque black man on the boat with the enormous lips and nose .. like Achebe to Conrad being a native on the bank, stomping and hollering.

    This of course is your “great great writer”.

  34. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:20 pm  

    Ramiie — yes, Naipaul is a great writer.

    Even Derek Walcott, who criticises him, acknowledges him as a significant author. Have you read his review of ‘The Enigma of Arrival’? It’s a great review, a great reckoning of Naipaul and his demons, and all done with the great generosity and insight that Walcott brings to ‘VS Nightfall’. In fact, if you have read it, read it again, if not, read it, and learn. It may even take the edge off your parochial vitriol and chauvinism regarding Carribean writers and those who read them.

  35. Kulvinder — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:20 pm  

    If a writer says he speaks about a people, but his vision is rejected totally as obscene by his fellow artists from that people – as well as the common man -is he an artist or a professional slanderer?

    I’m not a particular fan of Naipaul but that doesn’t really make an valid argument. Even if a writer is completely and utterly rejected by ‘his people’ – and he rejects the way they live – the ability of his work to provide thoughtful insight is not taken away. To suggest otherwise would be to reject out of hand the writings of dissidents like Alexander Zinoviev.

  36. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:43 pm  

    Kulvinder – if a writer is completely and utterly rejected by his people – including artists that are clever than he is – you have got to question his motivation. What manner of man or writer would travel around the American South and decide that black people were better off under segregation? Had he been white there would have been no question about where he is coming from, but he is brown, and so becomes the right wing’s ventriloquist’s dummy.
    Methinks there is something in the breast of many non-blacks (his fans) some old festering hatred of the black that is dying to project ouwards, and Naipual who admitted that his father was “a negrophobe who introduced him to Conrad”, does it for them in spades. He is the facilitator of soul cleansing negrophobia in modern English literature.

  37. Kulvinder — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:51 pm  

    Kulvinder – if a writer is completely and utterly rejected by his people – including artists that are clever than he is – you have got to question his motivation.

    Again the soviets would apply that same rationale to dismissing Zinoviev. If they have a problem with a specific analysis of his they should deal with that, broad judgements of ‘ah well hes negrophobic’ are essentially anti-intellectual.

  38. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:51 pm  

    Ramiie, please give the chapter and verse from ‘A Turn In The South’ in which Naipaul claims that black people would be better off under segregation. I’d be interested to read that.

  39. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 7:58 pm  

    Jagdeep…Naipual’s style is always rhetorical…he writes for his audience who joins the dots.

    Kulvinder..Naipual writes about race and religion, he is no political analyst,he affects to be a sociologist. In other words, apples and pears.

  40. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:06 pm  

    So in other words you can’t provide the evidence of him actually saying that. OK Ramiie.

    The best critcism I have read of Naipaul has been from Carribean writers like Walcott and Dabydeen. They confront his prejudices and art. Ramiie, you do a disservice to the anti-Naipaul camp. You’re incoherent.

  41. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:15 pm  

    Jagdeep..i’m not incoherent..my meaning escapes you.

    BTW if you think that Dabydeen is anything more than an ethusiastic surveyor of the caribbean experience, you should read his poem “The Slave” (sic) in which he affects to know what the life of a slave was like. I rest my case.

  42. Kulvinder — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:21 pm  

    Kulvinder..Naipual writes about race and religion, he is no political analyst,he affects to be a sociologist. In other words, apples and pears.

    Your original problem was one of rejection, but still sociology is very very much part of Zinoviev’s writing.

    I’m against labelling writers with tags like ‘negrophobe’ as it isn’t helpful either in putting their work in context or comparing them to other people. Paul Theroux and Naipaul have famously fallen out and pretty much hate one another. When he was younger Theroux worked in Africa and was actually quite important historically – helping Banda escape. It wouldn’t make much sense to accuse him of being a ‘negrophobe’ or a friend of Naipaul. Yet his book Dark Star Safari pretty much out Naipauls Naipaul.

  43. Kulvinder — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:26 pm  

    *helping an opponent of Banda escape

  44. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:42 pm  

    Kulvinder..why would you think that Theroux is not a racist, that he is a friend of the African..because he helped Banda escape? lol… and by pursuing a public relationship with Naipaul? Would I assume that David Irving’s recent enemies love jews?

    Talking about nazis..I could never understand why an apolitical aesthete like Leni Riefenstahl could be destroyed by simply taking the money- like all artists do- and a proper sheepcoat racist like Naipual would make a career demonising blacks yet he is held up by some like a greet seer.

  45. Kulvinder — on 29th May, 2007 at 8:55 pm  

    why would you think that Theroux is not a racist, that he is a friend of the African

    Well working for the peacecorp aside he taught in Malawi for 3 years. If you want to take that as the actions of a negrophobe go ahead, but in exchange ill just say thats anti-intellectualism.

  46. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 9:14 pm  

    he taught, did he? You meant he did research to come up with Dark Star Safari.lol

  47. Kulvinder — on 29th May, 2007 at 9:20 pm  

    No i meant he taught, he then went to Uganda and lectured there.

    (By lectured obviously i mean he simply told the Ugandans a lot of things and by ‘telling’ them was putting them in their place and hence he is a racist)

  48. Ramiie — on 29th May, 2007 at 10:03 pm  

    Jagdeep..here is the old nazi Naipual (page 102 of A Turn in the South)rhapsodising on some slave era paintings:

    “…And something as simple and heartfelt as that was at the back of a beautiful, celebratory book “A Carolina Rice Plantation of the Fifties”..the fifties of the title was the 1850s, before the Civil War..the water colours, of plantation scenes were romantic: sometimes dealing with plantation work, black men in a work gang mending a broken embankment, women loading rice onto a flat plantation barge; sometimes atmospheric studies of water and forest…the planter and his wife (life father and mother in an illustration in a children’s book) moving white and gracious among the smiling blacks, with-in another picture- a little blonde girl receiving a bouquet from a black child.”

    No irony. This is, of course the work of your “great great writer.” You and him are lucky that we blacks are powerless…we own no powerful media or armies to pursue settle the score.

  49. Jagdeep — on 29th May, 2007 at 10:28 pm  

    Ramiie, it’s quite extraordinary that you have to have this pointed out to you.

    Naipaul is describing a piece of art that is painted in a ‘romantic’ style that glosses over the horrors of plantation life.

    The whole point he is making is that this is how white people literally ‘white washed’ the oppression of black people in the South, and reduced it to pastoral imagery of gleeful and content black people happily subservient to their oppressors. It is a comment on the romanticisation of slavery by white artists.

    It is an observation of their moral blindness and how black suffering was filtered through white people’s moral squalor. They romanticised their relationship with the black people they oppressed — the obscenity was hidden behind art like this.

    Ramiie, you really are incoherent, your understanding of Dabydeen is laughable, and the violence and threats underlying your posts to me (“You and him are lucky that we blacks are powerless…we own no powerful media or armies to pursue settle the score”) would be sinister if they were not so clueless and deranged.

  50. William — on 29th May, 2007 at 11:02 pm  

    “It is a comment on the romanticisation of slavery by white artists”

    There are a number of things in this world where we have to be careful to get it right whether someone is doing it or pointing to it.

  51. Nathaniel Tapley — on 30th May, 2007 at 1:51 pm  

    This would be an impressive rant, were it based on any knowledge of the history of the character whatsoever. The Batman we have is always the Batman we want.

    The Batman of the 1970s was much more socially aware, and in the 1980s he even picked a Robin because he wanted to save a street-kid he found stealing his tyres. What other comic book character ever campaigned against landmines?

    The Batman of the 1950s is very different to that of the 1970s who is very different to the one we have now. As DC found that Batman sold more comics the ‘darker’ he became the less interested the stories were in the reasons for crime, and the social setting of the stories.

    You also appear to be ill-informed about the Joker, whose origins are explored in-depth in The Killing Joke, and numerous other stories (including a related tale in Tim Burton’s first Batman film).

    Unfortunately, you make no well-researched or interesting points, or any that would not occur to someone during an inchoate moment of drunken showing-off.

    Well done on taking on a fictional character, however. They’re the ones that really need taking down a peg or two…

  52. Ramiie — on 30th May, 2007 at 6:06 pm  

    O dear dear Jagdeep, here we go again. So Naipual is simply pointing out white gloss, holding it up to scrutiny. Dont make me laugh. Well if that was his intention it is a crassly written passage. Let’s look at the evidence:
    He writes
    “..something as simple and heartfelt as that..” well, how nice of the writer to not only to put himself in the skin of the racist painter/viewers, but to feel as keenly they feel. Its not unlike Byran Ferry’s keen appreciation of Nazi clobber (O Man!) It’s good to empathise…

    What.s also interesting is the way Naipaul colludes with this osbcene presentation of slavery..he decides to call the slaves “Black men” (If he really wanted to point out the absurdity of the painting, he could have simply substitute “slaves” for “Black men”..and the shock, the effect would have been quite something. And dont tell me a writer with gifts such as Naipaul couldn’t make that leap of the imagination!My six year old could have pointed that out.) But instead we have “Black men” twice, in a repeatedly dignified tone, not even a shred of irony.

    Naipual’s observation is no exposure of moral blindness, it simply exposes his diseased perception and the rotten heart of Naipaul revisionists, like you Jagdeep. Take a bow.

  53. Muzumdar — on 30th May, 2007 at 6:15 pm  

    It is no surprise that Jagdeep idolises a man like Naipaul.

    Pandering to the wit of one’s colonial master is something that that comes naturally to Jagdeep.

    After being utterly routed and completely annihilated on several threads, Jagdeep should step back and ask himself why he is so blind.

  54. Muhamad — on 30th May, 2007 at 6:50 pm  

    Even the non-fiction of V S Naipaul is suspect. Take, for example, the following from “Among the Believers: an Islamic Journey” (Penguin, 1994 reprint): “the life that had come to Islam had not come from within. It had come from outside events and circumstances, the spread of the universal civilization.”

    Hhmm, I wonder what’s implied here? Considering that this is how I’ve heard the advocates of Hindutva speak.

  55. Kulvinder — on 30th May, 2007 at 7:08 pm  

    It is no surprise that Jagdeep idolises a man like Naipaul.

    Pandering to the wit of one’s colonial master is something that that comes naturally to Jagdeep.

    After being utterly routed and completely annihilated on several threads, Jagdeep should step back and ask himself why he is so blind.

    what?

  56. Ramiie — on 30th May, 2007 at 8:41 pm  

    Oh look, Kulvinder is Jagdeep’s greatest fan. Who would have guessed?

  57. Kulvinder — on 30th May, 2007 at 8:59 pm  

    Oh look, Kulvinder is Jagdeep’s greatest fan. Who would have guessed?

    Hes putting across an argument rather than resorting to derogatory name calling. But yeah im his biggest fan, in the whole world. EVER. OH NOES!

  58. soru — on 30th May, 2007 at 9:21 pm  

    Interesting how there can be a discussion of a subject you know nothing about, and how, just from listening to the arguments of one side, you can become pretty sure that the other side is right in all substantial points.

    Thank you Ramiie and Muzumdar for expanding my knowledge of this issue.

  59. Ramiie — on 30th May, 2007 at 10:12 pm  

    Jagdeep wrote:

    (Naipual )he broods, stares, growls,

    most hilarious line I’ve read yet.

    Satan..he broods, stares, growls
    lol

  60. Jagdeep — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:59 pm  

    After being utterly routed and completely annihilated on several threads, Jagdeep should step back and ask himself why he is so blind.

    Which threads were they Mazumdar? Seriously, you must be hallucinating or something.

  61. Jagdeep — on 31st May, 2007 at 11:00 pm  

    Ramiie, trust me, you have amused me too!

  62. Jai — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:30 pm  

    =>”Pandering to the wit of one’s colonial master is something that that comes naturally to Jagdeep……After being utterly routed and completely annihilated on several threads”

    And Mazumdar’s complete inability to do bhangra with any trace of authenticity, rhythm or grace naturally contributes to his animosity towards Jagdeep.

    That’s right folks, I can fabricate the mother of all strawman arguments too.

    On a far more serious note, I think that Lex Luthor in “Smallville” is a lot like Bruce Wayne would be if Brucie really did step over to the dark side that he flirts so tantalisingly close to.

  63. Thunker — on 2nd June, 2007 at 6:51 pm  

    Um … no. Not according to the Batman Begins movie.

    During the depression, Bruce’s parents donated a public transport system to help lift the city back up. So you can’t call them heartless bourgeoisies. You can accuse them of being rich, but that’s another matter. If that’s your thinking, why criticise fictional characters when you can criticise real people? Like Bill Gates, a rich guy who gives huge amounts to charity.

    Secondly, it was the blue flower guys who wanted to destroy the city in order to “begin afresh”. To me they sound a lot closer to the mad-rightwing ideology of “kill them all and let God sort them out” than Batman does.

    But seriously, can’t people just enjoy a good story every now and again? What next, 1984 was an evil bourgeois campaign against communism?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.