![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerOh, one more thing, for the Bat-nerds out there, especially my fellow Harvey fans.
In his essay, "How Jason Todd Went Wrong a Second Time", the blogger MightyGodKing starts by talking about how Jason is so obviously a sucky suck-ass character, but that having him brought back to life didn't have to end up sucking like it did. Quoth MGK:
There’s a good reason for it: “what if Jason Todd came back” was a really good idea. Forcing Batman to relive his greatest failure - and the implicit criticisms of his method that are inherent in Jason Todd’s presence - is goddamned great story fodder, because under normal circumstances Batman is a very difficult character to believably threaten or damage. He’s Batman: he’s the best at everything always. That’s why he’s Batman, but this makes it hard to create an antagonist who can really get to him. The Joker and Two-Face and all the rest can be external threats to Batman, but they really can’t get inside his head and make him doubt himself. Jason Todd, however, could do that.
At which point I stopped reading the essay entirely. I still haven't read the rest.
I plan to later, once I've rested up a bit and have time to kill, but for the time being, that was all I could stand to read before the wheels in my head started turning. I immediately went to the comments, curious to see if anyone else had touched upon what I could only barely begin to formulate, the kind of response that could take me a good hour to properly compose.
Of the 45 responses, only one discussed the topic in question. But the commenter, "BSD," did so in a manner that put to shame anything I could have come up with on my own, at least in my current state:
Two-Face is the Best Batman Villain because he DOES get inside of Batman’s head. He’s precisely what Alfred is scared of, what Bruce in his heart of heart really worries about, and simply by existing challenges the entire Bruce/Batman project (this is part of why Hush is stupid and boring: he’s completely redundant.) In fact, his purely internal challenge to Batman is twofold: First, he is the synthesis of the Batman/Joker thesis/antithesis, and second, he is a dangerous what-might-have-been for Bruce.
Joker is so important to Batman because he is his perfect inversion. No real identity, no real origin, he is devoted to and emblematic of an unjust, meaningless world, directly opposed to the core Batman idea that the world can be “cleaned up”. Two-face, then, as the synthesis of the opposites, is even more of a challenge, arguably a better Batman than Batman in that he accepts that the world is fundamentally random and chaotic, that events occur without meaning, but that once chaos has had its say, in the best Two-Face stories, he works with that, either building the best world he can from the world that exists, or destroying it as best he can (my favorite Two-Face story remains the one in which he’s cured, is back to being Harvey full time, but then claws off half of his own face).
He’s also a challenge to Batman in that he evokes a hypothetical “Alleyman” or “Two-Gun”, a vigilante who just hangs around alleys and shoots people. If anything, Two-Face’s origin would be more, not less, likely to produce a hero rather than a madman.
And every time they fight, Bruce has to ask himself about that.
Wow. I honestly don't think I could have said it better myself. I wanna find this person and buy him/her a beer.
How disappointingly typical that not a single person other than myself have even responded to his comment, or even MGK's throwaway dismissal about Harvey in the first place (not to mention the Joker, that one's not really true either; of ALL the Bat-villains to name-drop for characters who don't fuck around with Batman's head and heart, those two might just be the worst examples to make!) but it's so amazing to read someone else actually getting what I've spent the last three years and eight drafts trying to explore.
Now, more than ever, I want to get back to work on Draft Nine, start those massive overhauls of the second half. But no, I need to give the original HEFNER MONOLOGUES a script overhaul in of itself, plus get to work on two brand-new separate projects for my 2010 Fringe tour. I doubt I'll really be able to give the Harvey book the attention it needs until late Fall. Serious sadness, people.
But until then, here's hoping more people take BSD's astute observations to heart, as far too many writers have completely missed the point*. Because that, folks, that is why Harvey Dent is so vital to the Batman mythos to this very day, and why he's one of the most compelling and vibrant characters out there now. In my own humble opinion, naturally.
What think you, BatFans?
*Including great writers like Chuck Dixon. He wrote one of the all-time greatest Joker stories in BATMAN: DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, but his take on Harvey is one of the most glaring examples of Two-Face-Fail out there, particularly as shown in BATMAN: PRODIGAL and ROBIN: YEAR ONE.
Dixon's sneeringly evil Harvey will happily screw with the coin's outcome and essentially cheat to make the odds work in his favor, which right there just turns him into a one-note madman with a gimmick who also beat the shit out of a child with a baseball bat. Not that the Robin beating isn't great in its way, but damn, what I'd give to see (or write) a proper retake on that whole sequence.
In his essay, "How Jason Todd Went Wrong a Second Time", the blogger MightyGodKing starts by talking about how Jason is so obviously a sucky suck-ass character, but that having him brought back to life didn't have to end up sucking like it did. Quoth MGK:
There’s a good reason for it: “what if Jason Todd came back” was a really good idea. Forcing Batman to relive his greatest failure - and the implicit criticisms of his method that are inherent in Jason Todd’s presence - is goddamned great story fodder, because under normal circumstances Batman is a very difficult character to believably threaten or damage. He’s Batman: he’s the best at everything always. That’s why he’s Batman, but this makes it hard to create an antagonist who can really get to him. The Joker and Two-Face and all the rest can be external threats to Batman, but they really can’t get inside his head and make him doubt himself. Jason Todd, however, could do that.
At which point I stopped reading the essay entirely. I still haven't read the rest.
I plan to later, once I've rested up a bit and have time to kill, but for the time being, that was all I could stand to read before the wheels in my head started turning. I immediately went to the comments, curious to see if anyone else had touched upon what I could only barely begin to formulate, the kind of response that could take me a good hour to properly compose.
Of the 45 responses, only one discussed the topic in question. But the commenter, "BSD," did so in a manner that put to shame anything I could have come up with on my own, at least in my current state:
Two-Face is the Best Batman Villain because he DOES get inside of Batman’s head. He’s precisely what Alfred is scared of, what Bruce in his heart of heart really worries about, and simply by existing challenges the entire Bruce/Batman project (this is part of why Hush is stupid and boring: he’s completely redundant.) In fact, his purely internal challenge to Batman is twofold: First, he is the synthesis of the Batman/Joker thesis/antithesis, and second, he is a dangerous what-might-have-been for Bruce.
Joker is so important to Batman because he is his perfect inversion. No real identity, no real origin, he is devoted to and emblematic of an unjust, meaningless world, directly opposed to the core Batman idea that the world can be “cleaned up”. Two-face, then, as the synthesis of the opposites, is even more of a challenge, arguably a better Batman than Batman in that he accepts that the world is fundamentally random and chaotic, that events occur without meaning, but that once chaos has had its say, in the best Two-Face stories, he works with that, either building the best world he can from the world that exists, or destroying it as best he can (my favorite Two-Face story remains the one in which he’s cured, is back to being Harvey full time, but then claws off half of his own face).
He’s also a challenge to Batman in that he evokes a hypothetical “Alleyman” or “Two-Gun”, a vigilante who just hangs around alleys and shoots people. If anything, Two-Face’s origin would be more, not less, likely to produce a hero rather than a madman.
And every time they fight, Bruce has to ask himself about that.
Wow. I honestly don't think I could have said it better myself. I wanna find this person and buy him/her a beer.
How disappointingly typical that not a single person other than myself have even responded to his comment, or even MGK's throwaway dismissal about Harvey in the first place (not to mention the Joker, that one's not really true either; of ALL the Bat-villains to name-drop for characters who don't fuck around with Batman's head and heart, those two might just be the worst examples to make!) but it's so amazing to read someone else actually getting what I've spent the last three years and eight drafts trying to explore.
Now, more than ever, I want to get back to work on Draft Nine, start those massive overhauls of the second half. But no, I need to give the original HEFNER MONOLOGUES a script overhaul in of itself, plus get to work on two brand-new separate projects for my 2010 Fringe tour. I doubt I'll really be able to give the Harvey book the attention it needs until late Fall. Serious sadness, people.
But until then, here's hoping more people take BSD's astute observations to heart, as far too many writers have completely missed the point*. Because that, folks, that is why Harvey Dent is so vital to the Batman mythos to this very day, and why he's one of the most compelling and vibrant characters out there now. In my own humble opinion, naturally.
What think you, BatFans?
*Including great writers like Chuck Dixon. He wrote one of the all-time greatest Joker stories in BATMAN: DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, but his take on Harvey is one of the most glaring examples of Two-Face-Fail out there, particularly as shown in BATMAN: PRODIGAL and ROBIN: YEAR ONE.
Dixon's sneeringly evil Harvey will happily screw with the coin's outcome and essentially cheat to make the odds work in his favor, which right there just turns him into a one-note madman with a gimmick who also beat the shit out of a child with a baseball bat. Not that the Robin beating isn't great in its way, but damn, what I'd give to see (or write) a proper retake on that whole sequence.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 09:38 am (UTC)*snrk*
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 06:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 11:50 am (UTC)I do believe that Jason's role and impact on the Batfamily could be his best asset, and the thing that makes him fundamentally different than Harvey, especially now, is that effect he has on the Batfamily as a whole. He's not just Bruce's personal hobgoblin, he's Dick and Tim's too. When they're forced to deal with him they're all stuck with this bizarre mishmash of fear, contempt, anger and an almost fraternal desire to pull him back into the fold. Tim and Damian in particular aren't really invested in Harvey (except in the abstract way all of Gotham is), but Jason...yeah. He's the Dark Robin, the fallen son. He's a family tragedy, the kind of dark thing that lurks in most clans. Harvey is something else, he belonged to the city, not just the Batfamily. When Harvey falters, when he commits wicked deeds, Gotham should tremble for its own fallen son. Harvey is bigger than Jason, but I'd argue Jason can (or should) cut deeper.
I certainly agree that it's bizarre to state that Harvey and the Joker can't get inside of Bruce's head, but considering neither of them show any particular interest in doing so lately, whereas Jason is all about personal vendettas and proving the Bat's methods wrong, it's not hard to see why MGK would feel that the character has the unique ability and, more importantly, the DRIVE, to do so. Harvey passively messes with Bruce's head by merely existing, the Joker can only be arsed to attack Batman in a meaningful way a quarter of the time, usually he's too busy acting like a wild animal or a cartoon character (not necessarily a bad thing, that makes those rare direct attacks that much more discombobulating). Jason, when (if ever?) written well, would always be an explicit attack on the family and on the bat-method. There's no murky 'Does Batman encourage and create his villains...?' with Jason, the answer is obvious, Jason Todd is a costumed villain because of Batman. Batman did this. He created this. He started the process that turned a child into a costumed villain. That's a father's anxiety. It's also a brother's anxiety, when one falls the possibility of others following the same path seems that much more likely. It's different than what Batman can (should) have with Harvey, and MUCH different than how he struggles mentally with the Joker.
ETA: This was a pre-coffee rant, so it's a little...all over the place. Despite what I said I actually don't think a character needs to act in a stated 'I'm messing with your heeeeaaaaad' way (which seems to be Hush's MO) to actually prove an effective mental and emotional hurdle for Batman. The Joker and Harvey cause Batman to question himself, his mission and so forth even when they're not dealing directly with him. I just think that Jason's more direct and personal approach is probably what motivated MGK to make that statement.
Also, typos. They're everywhere.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 03:45 pm (UTC)Because I strongly feel that Harvey was the proto-Robin in a number of ways. The youngest D.A. in Gotham history was Batman's very earliest non-Alfred ally, before even Jim Gordon joined up (in post-Crisis DCU and even some pre-Crisis ones as well?). If the Robins are Bruce's sons, Harvey is his brother. As such, it's been a pretty perfect accident that Wacky Uncle Harv has ended up being the Trial By Fire for Dick, Jason, and Tim in their earliest outings. Harvey's the lost member of the Batfamily, and Bruce's first great failure.
This one's probably all over the place too. Sorry, I just got back from a long and very distressing drive, so my brain is not quite in place yet either.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 12:30 pm (UTC)Millions of people Read Cathy every day and it's still unforgivable tripe. And it's not nearly as in love with itself as Something Positive. But anyway.
Although honestly, I think that both you and Chris Bird have points. I love Two-Face as a villain, but he only really works as something more than an external threat if the writer choses to acknowledge certain things about his history that are sometimes considered canon and sometimes not - like Bruce and Harvey being friends. Even then, while it's true that is is a source of regret for Bruce, he is certainly not a source of regret as deep as that of Jason Todd's death. Batman can tell himself that he's not REALLY responsible for Two-Face; he can't tell himself that with Jason Todd. Batman has fought Two-Face so many times that Bruce's fondness and concern for Harvey doesn't really hamper his quest for justice; when Jason Todd was brought back, him as a villain was a new idea and people had legitimate cause to wonder how Batman would react.
Jason Todd is the direct result of the failure of Batman as a construct AND Bruce as a person. Harvey Dent is ultimately the result of shitty, shitty circumstance, and the Joker represents something totally unique, but he's not there because Batman failed.
So to that end I think he has a point.
I also think that people get way too invested in "their" characters, in fandom. I'm not sure when I started to feel this way. I worry that I am one of those people who is like, "Oh, I USED to feel that way, but I'm too OLD for superhero comics now" - those people are condescending dicks who are dead inside and I hate them! - but honestly, the stories just compel me less and less, I have a progressively harder time relating to the characters, and I have a hard time getting it up for this kind of thing these days.
NOT THAT THAT STOPPED ME FROM AN EPIC COMMENT OF DOOM ON THE SUBJECT, HA HA.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 01:27 pm (UTC)But in the best of those, Batman has blamed himself to a certain extent for Harvey becoming Two-Face. In the original appearances, it was because it was Batman's intervention that deflected Moroni's hand throwing the acid. In the past thirty or so years, it's Batman not acting early enough once he started seeing signs of Harvey cracking. In the animated series, Bruce even had a nightmare where his feelings of shame and guilt put his failure to save Harvey as just another failure on par with his failure to save his parents. Which speaks mainly to Bruce's boatload of issues more than anything else, but still.
In the end, I have to concede that the failure of Jason cuts more deeply, and to that end, Birdman has a point. But me, I wish we could see more stories where the failure to save Harvey is acknowledged and explored, because even if those aren't always canon (although at this point, isn't it?) it's certainly far more emotionally and thematically powerful than a one-note coin-flipping supervillain in a blind throwing death pennies and acid rain down on New York City.
Aye, I have sometimes found myself slipping into that "my character" mindset, mainly because of the frustration I would get at reading other fans get carried away. Especially when those fans are wrong about "their" characters, but that's another rant entirely.
Sadly, I dare say I feel where you're coming from. Although wait, I should ask, the stories that compel you less and less... are we talking about the current superhero output, or even the stuff you used to love? Because in the next post or two, I'm gonna mention the HAWKWORLD issues I've plowed through and loved. I got the mini-series, plus issues #1-25 (missing issue #11, tho)! I loved it all, mainly for the characters and dynamic of Katar and Shayera, as well as the mythology of Thanagar itself! I now have a greater appreciation for the Downsider member of the Green Lantern Corps, and his fears of being dissected for the entertainment of the upper class.
Also, nice to know the utter!dick!Hawkman in JLI was, in fact, a Thanagarian spy and all-around asshole.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 12:51 pm (UTC)But Earth-2 Robin's outfit is WAY worse than Red Robin's.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 01:56 pm (UTC)Anyway. For some reason, MGK hits my workfilter as "Adult/Sexually Explicit", so I can't read the above, but honestly, I haven't had a lot of use for him ever since LJ kicked him out, aside from the occasional parody.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 02:23 pm (UTC)Damian may be a Wesley though...
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 07:46 pm (UTC)They brought him back?
Date: 2009-07-30 04:44 pm (UTC)I can see how that could really mess with Batman's head. And, reading through the comments and discussions you've gathered here, it seems like there's a consensus on that.
Worse than some of his classics? Especially the two listed? I don't know...
But that all depends on how good the writers are. And I think that's probably the thing most at issue here. (Having not read the recent stuff, and only being intimately familiar with a handful of the classic stuff from the 60s via my father's limited collection, I'll just leave it at that.)
In other Batman threads... have you seen this? I thought of you when I saw it and hope you get a kick out of it. :)
Re: They brought him back?
Date: 2009-07-30 06:54 pm (UTC)And hell yes, I've seen that! What a great example of a parody outshining the original!
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-31 01:39 am (UTC)"I want to get back to work on Draft Nine"
Date: 2009-07-30 09:44 pm (UTC)Re: "I want to get back to work on Draft Nine"
Date: 2009-07-31 01:40 am (UTC)