Just desserts: The eschatology of Barbara Gordon & how MOTB changed her (PG-13)

[The Old Maid]

(Snooze alert, it's long)

(Oh, and you might want to read the end before voting)

Hi there sports fans. I have been having a strange health condition. Every time I leave town for a few days my ears start burning.

I fear The Old Maid. :p What are you guys telling those poor newbies?

I don't bite. Germs, ya know. :D

If I did bite, this would've done it ...
Personally I go with what was said in the show ... that's maybe where we differ.... which is what I thought I was doing!

Our mutual compliments to the writers for creating such multifaceted television shows. They are a rare treat!

Rather than put people on the spot or change the direction of existing threads, I figured New Topic = New Thread. The Mystery of the Batwoman film changed things.

The animated Barbara Gordon is a really hard character to evaluate, for some reason. It's Barbara's attitude that is the subject of today's debate. Barbara is the Teflon Bat. Nothing sticks to her, not even things that probably should. She minimizes her flaws so silently and skillfully that it's practically hazardous to one's health to discuss them. The multidimensional writing contributed too, by giving Barbara noisier characters to hide behind. (As has been noted elsewhere, fanboys appreciate a gift for subtlety but there is such a thing as being too subtle.) Or maybe it's because Barbara is pretty and sometimes the rules are different for pretty girls. Whatever the explanation a subtle double standard exists, and it protects Barbara's character from the kind of scrutiny applied to the Batboys. Let a fanboy (however drooling a fanboy one may be) critique her character -- let alone criticize her specific actions -- and that fanboy is assumed to dislike her. These nullifications not only relieve Barbara of accountability for the role she has played in the events of her life, but they also serve to dismiss the observations of fanboys who look for that accountability.

Indeed, not only are fanboys hesitant to address Barbara or the decisions of her character, but the other animated characters don't do it either. Aside from Barbara's love life, Barbara herself remains a blank, almost disembodied in her ability to float through walls, plot holes and other people's lives.

As a result fanboys who like the purported Bruce/Barbara relationship claim it is better and/or more real than any other in her life ; fanboys who dislike the idea insist there has got to be a better way for her to get our attention.

The Bruce/Barbara scenario has been discussed (Bruce and Barbara? What the ?!?!) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=82037) and discussed again (Batman and Batgirl a couple?!) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=42874). It has been discussed on threads that didn't start out as Bruce-and-Barbara threads, such as the TNBA : You Scratch My Back (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=53108) Talkback or the Old Wounds confession (Did Bruce do the right thing (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=67507)) or the Batman's romance (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=45875) thread or the Favorite lost love of Bruce's (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=55575) thread or the Mystery of the Batwoman (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=92230) Talkback. And that's not counting the volumes of material sifted and evaluated by Maxie Zeus for his Animated Batman (http://anbat.toonzone.net/) website or by Jim Harvey, Flash, BB and Co. for their World's Finest (http://wf.toonzone.net/) website (who have graciously given my scribblings a home). And then there are all the TZ-affiliated websites I may have missed. If none of these talkbacks, reviews, essays and freestanding threads existed, sooner or later a newbie would ask, "What's with Bruce and Barbara?" and at least twenty people would answer him. It's an invasive topic.

It's also a divisive topic. At times the Bruce/Barbara affair vies with the Maxine Gibson character for the title of "Querulous Fanboy's Perennial Complaint." I'm not too fond of Max. I do think she's good-looking except for that pencil-eraser hair. (I've often wondered if the hair was an in-joke because the writers were pressured to create her, and that they might stand her on her head, rub the hair over one of her scripts, and use her to erase herself from existence, given the chance.) Unfortunately I have heard self-professing fanboys call Max "ugly" solely because she upsets them so much they can't even stand the sight of her. (Most of those guys got banned, so don't bother to look.) Yet for all the fanboys who dislike Max Gibson, I have never heard a fanboy say, "I consider Batman Beyond to be an alternate future solely because she's in it. If not for her, I would accept it as real." On the other hand, how many fanboys have said, "I'm going to consider Batman Beyond an alternate future because I hate the idea of Barbara and Bruce hooking up." Interesting ...

The Bruce/Barbara hints of BB were presently subtly, but they were not presented as open to negotiation. Fanboys were expected to believe. Whether any given fanboy liked it or not was beside the point ; it didn't change "the fact that it happened." As you may have noticed, I voted for "No sir, I don't like it." However I didn't want to banish Batman Beyond from continuity. So I tried to evaluate the discrepancies -- some would say Looked For Loopholes -- and came up with a few. (Why did Barbara say she walked out on Bruce when the forensic evidence -- a Batgirl suit riddled with bullet holes -- suggests she was carried out? What should be believed, the person or the evidence? Eh, maybe I watch too much CSI.) But in the end it seemed that any discrepancies were merely oversights on the part of the writers. They weren't intended to cast doubt on "the fact that it happened." So when I and others expressed our distaste for this turn of events, it was to express our distaste for a story which we believed to be true, and I wrote my opinions accordingly.

Mystery of the Batwoman changed all that.

One of my "real world" tasks of late has been to wade through Christian eschatological thought, of all things. Although I wouldn't stretch the metaphor too far, a few borrowed terms might help us organize the new nuances that Batwoman brought to Barbara's character and situation.

(You already know one term : "dispensationalism," which underpins a famous series of doomsday novels and explains the many faces of Batman Beyond's Dana Tan. Her boyfriend Terry McGinnis is presented with a Dana, neglects her, is presented with a new Dana and neglects her, etcetera. The point is to demonstrate that no matter how many times Terry tries to be a good boyfriend to her, he can't do it. In theory the story would end when Terry ruins his relationship with the seventh and final Dana, also known as Dana Go Bye Bye. Then suddenly Terry notices she's on a plane taxiing down the runway, and he can only chase after her on foot wailing, "Where are you going? Don't leave me! How did you even get on the plane? Your shoes are still in my car!"

We mention this to clarify that the Barbara Gordon character doesn't qualify for dispensational treatment as such. Dana Tan existed as a series of external frames imposed upon Terry's life to illustrate Terry's romantic failures. In contrast Barbara Gordon's destiny flows from her own choices. However, we will name various stages in her life just for clarity's sake, since we'll be looking at their interactions through time.)

The term "eschatology" traditionally has been assumed by the man-on-the-street solely to refer to doomsday (whenever that is), but that's a misunderstanding. It's just as much about the beginning and the middle and the "how do we get there from here" process which happens to have an end. So the stuff happening in the middle of time is just as valid as any Last Day stuff -- because what's in your face right now is the last day of your life so far. (Too many people conclude that if they buy into a plan from the beginning they're guaranteed a free ride to the end. You won't see them helping at the soup kitchen, aiding famine relief, or otherwise "healing the world" because those are "works." Besides, the sooner the world ends, the sooner they can leave. Hence the expression, "so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good.")

In Bat-mythos eschatology Batwoman offers us a glimpse of Bruce and Barbara in the middle of their lives. And it offers us a certain insight that we really can't find anywhere else. In Bat-mythos eschatology this film trumps the BB series -- not in the sense of overwriting continuity but of illuminating it.

I think the best way to understand what Batwoman reveals about Barbara's character is to go about it by way of her beginning, the end she achieved, and then to that scene in the middle of time.

I want everyone to understand that this is by no means intended to be a comprehensive review of Barbara Gordon's strengths, talents, accomplishments or ideals. Nor is it intended as Babs-bashing. I'm just trying to get past the spin-doctoring to try to understand her better. People say they want their Batman dark ; they think they want him dark (pitch-black Catwoman dark) -- but what they really mean is, "as long as it doesn't happen to Barbara." I appreciate the impulse. (I like Oracle but cringe at what she had to endure to get there.) But I think Barbara has also done things she's not proud of and should not be proud of. It's the things she hides from us (or from herself) that Batwoman invites us to re-examine or explore.

Begin at the beginning. Barbara/Batgirl has more origin stories than Carter has pills. The post-Miller versions tend to introduce her through the eyes of her father. Two of the most popular versions are the 1993/94 comics Batman : Madness (a.k.a. Haunted Knight : Madness) and Batman Adventures #12 ("Batgirl : Day One").

Madness introduces a 13-year-old Barbara chafing against the restrictions of her father, King Dork the First, Ruler of Dorkdom. Jim Gordon is totally in over his head, and he frankly admits he envies the Batman.
"I can't imagine that behind that mask, he hides a wife and children in Gotham. I don't think he'd answer my signal at night, if he had someone waiting for him at home. No, he gets to put on a cape, and leave that responsibility to the rest of us."

(Madness : p. 12)
Barbara for her part is strong-willed yet sheltered, a little bratty but not excessively so, and a diary-keeper who dots her "i"s and "j"s with little hearts yet manages to keep her cool when she is captured by the deranged Mad Hatter. For you see, King Dork the First has one shining virtue : he has this really cool friend who thinks the world of him. Therefore for all their sakes Barbara tries to think like a police officer, like her father. How would a police officer stall for time until the Really Cool Friend could rescue her? Ironically young Barbara's fascination with Batman helps to mend her relationship with her father, by encouraging Babs to see things from her father's point of view -- and by showing her that a man worthy of the Batman's respect might just be worthy of her respect too.

"Batgirl : Day One" shows us a dreamy young adult version of Barbara with her touch-of-gray father, who is clearly much calmer and happier now that his "little girl" is old enough to be streetwise and safe. So imagine Jim Gordon's surprise when his "streetwise young adult" daughter asks him out of the blue :

Barbara (preoccupied) : "Dad? Did you ever wonder what it's like to be Batman?"

Jim (slight frown) : "What do you mean?"

Barbara (starry-eyed) : "You know, leaping from rooftops ... chasing criminals .. dodging gunfire .. it just sounds so ... EXCITING!"

Jim (solemnly) : "There's something you have to understand. Every night a lot of men with a lot of guns try to kill him. Every night. All it takes is one mistake. One lucky shot ... and it's over. I admire Batman for what he does. But I don't envy him. Nobody should. (He rises and leaves for work.) Well, enough lecturing. You have fun at the [costume] party."

Barbara (smiling) : "Thanks, Dad. (Then she opens a box on the table and says) Good thing I didn't show him the costume!"

(Batman Adventures #12/1993 : p.1-2)As in the Sixties print version, the costumed "Batgirl" sees a crime in progress and can't resist the temptation to save the day. As the police process the paperwork, Barbara reassures her anxious father that she was nowhere near the action. "What happened to your costume?" asks Barbara's father. She takes his arm and walks with him saying,
"Oh, that. I threw it away. Turns out it didn't fit."Then there's the mainstream comics version of Barbara, who hangs up the cape yet is shot by the Joker anyway, simply because she is Commissioner Gordon's daughter. Now styling herself The Oracle, she coordinates communications and research for assorted do-gooders. Oracle proved so popular that the character starred in (some would say "carried") the short-lived television series Birds of Prey.

The animated Barbara is all of these creatures and none of these creatures. Her creators took the best elements from many interpretations and blended them into one consistent college-age Batgirl, a version we might call the Independent Contractor. Barbara only had about five BTAS episodes, but the creators made each appearance special. Fittingly, they introduced the civilian and the alter ego by way of the strong bond between Barbara and her father. Whether in the "Heart of Steel" storyarc, the hospital scenes in "I am the Night," or the rise of Batgirl as a figure of righteous wrath in "Shadow of the Bat," that constant bond remains. Where one Gordon goes, the other is not far away.

About this time Barbara starts dating Dick Grayson. Jim Gordon is delighted and does everything in his power to push them together ... not that they need his encouragement.

http://wf.toonzone.net/birdboy/boardstuff/oldmaid/t-barb03.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/batman/movies/SubZero/Screens/16.jpg)
"I only have eyes for you" ("Sub-Zero").
Pics printed with permission from World's Finest (http://wf.toonzone.net/).


At the same time, Barbara happens to have steamy dreams about Batman. The one seen in "Batgirl Returns" is charming, funny, and unrealistic as heck. (Two-Face alone used to lift weights, and has mopped the floor with Batman on several occasions. Joker too was out of Batgirl's league, as he demonstrated by flipping her off a building upon their first meeting [TNBA "Old Wounds"].) But dreams don't always translate into reality. Barbara is hot-for-teacher ; now she has to figure out what she is going to do about it.

Ask a psychologist whether it's okay to have romantic fantasies about someone who is not your significant other, and the psychologist will usually ask, "who is it" and "how much." If the object of one's desires is a stranger (say, a movie star), then the question "how much" should reveal whether the fantasizer is just having fun or is substituting controllable fantasies for living in reality. By this definition there's no harm for most of Gotham City's little girls (and not a few big girls) to daydream about Batman because, as with a movie star, it's not like they're dreaming about someone they could ever actually get. However if the daydreaming is excessive, or if the dreamer thinks of someone already in her life (say, a co-worker or neighbor), the fantasies pose a threat to any existing relationship. The temptation and opportunity to act upon those desires is there, every day. (Now if you ask a religious counselor, you might be told to stop it no matter who the object of your desires may be. No tap-dancing necessary!)

Barbara walks a thin line between normal and abnormal behavior. Most of the dreaming little girls (and big girls) will never meet the Batman. But even before Barbara knew his identity Batman was in her life. Just press a button on the rooftop and there he is. How then do we judge whether her fantasies are a threat to a real relationship or a reflection of her heart's desires?

We determine it by her actions.


Barbara fantasized about Batman (BTAS "Batgirl Returns"). Her initial interest was in Batman, not Robin. I think any interest in Bruce will always have had some foundation in the fact that his role -- The Batman -- was the one she had romantic fantasies.Here is where things start to go seriously wrong. Barbara Gordon was already being courted by Dick Grayson when she set her sights upon Batman. And here is where the double standard shows itself most blatantly. If Barbara was not interested in Dick Grayson then she should never have gotten involved with him. Yes, it's nice to have a rich buddy to take her on a weekend vacation to the coast (Sub-Zero) or to the toniest restaurant in town (TNBA "Old Wounds"). However Barbara can see, or ought to be able to see, that Dick is not doing these things to be her buddy. He isn't listing his qualifications as a good provider to impress some other woman. As noted elsewhere, Dick kept bringing up "the future," and as any escape artist can tell you, the term "future" is a code word for "committment." It doesn't mean "until the end of the week/prom season/this episode," and it definitely does not mean "settle for me until something better comes along."

(Additionally, though we would not normally quote the censors as reliable sources of information, even the censors thought things were getting intense. If memory serves, the censors asked for one of Dick Grayson's lines to be changed in Sub-Zero -- because they thought that his invitation to spend a weekend on the coast tacitly included the possibility of having sex. Censors are paid to have dirty minds ; nevertheless many unmarried couples use vacations as an excuse for such activity since nobody knows them there.)

If Barbara just wanted to be Dick's buddy, she should have bowed out graciously the moment she realized he was getting serious about her. Instead she waited until Dick said, "Whatever my future holds, I hope it includes you" -- and then she revealed that she would drop him in a beartbeat to rush to the Batman's side. This gives the appearance that she was just amusing herself with him until something better came along.

If Barbara preferred a romantic relationship or a future with Batman, all she had to do was say so. (There's no such thing as a shy Gordon.) Barbara even had a risk-free opportunity to express her feelings. For more than a year after Barbara became Batgirl, she operated under the assumption that Batman had no idea who she was. Therefore if Batman did not know her identity, it would have been safe for Barbara-as-Batgirl to tell Batman how she felt. If his response happened to be less than she had hoped, she could withdraw without dying of embarassment. She could still interact with him as the civilian Barbara. She could still work with him, talk to him and look him in the eye. Likewise, if Batman "didn't know" it was her, he would not go out of his way to avoid her. So at least Babs could still spend time with him until he "noticed her" as a civilian, or until she thought up a better plan. Meanwhile if she still craved the streets she could create a new vigilante identity, comfortable in her belief that if Batman couldn't figure out her old Batgirl identity, he won't figure out the new one either.

Therefore if Barbara truly believed she might have real feelings for Batman, she could have dealt with the situation half a dozen ways other than the way that she chose. If Barbara believed she and Batman belonged together -- then getting involved with another man was not the way to express this belief. However Barbara has a convenient avenue of escape : spin.


Dick was a childhood sweetheart. The term "childhood sweetheart" suggests they were both 14-year-olds on the playground. Actually the animated characters Dick and Barbara were already legal adults attending Gotham State University when they got involved. They probably have adult married friends who are younger than they are. Also, both characters would have been self-supporting if their fathers hadn't agreed to let them stay on the dole long enough to finish their studies. (Ten years later we can imagine Jim Gordon wondering, when is this happy day of "finished her studies" going to arrive anyway?)

We can see why the terms "crush" and "childhood sweetheart" are such effective verbal tools : they reinforce the double standard.

On the one hand Barbara goes around telling people that she and Dick were not old enough or mature enough to have a real relationship. Ah, but simultaneously Barbara is old enough and mature enough to pursue a relationship with the Batman?

On the other hand, if Barbara is old enough and mature enough to pursue a relationship with Batman, then she is also old enough to be held accountable for her actions -- to take responsibility for the way she treated Dick.

At this point Barbara might sprout a third hand and admit that she lusted after Batman and leaped at the opportunity to work for him, but that she didn't get involved with him until they both thought she was "old enough." Okay. If she "waited until she was old enough," then why did she get involved with the adult Dick Grayson? This practically implies that the Dick/Babs relationship was illegal (which of course it was not). If anything, we could compare Dick to a jaded soldier since he was a ten-year veteran in the war on crime when he started getting serious about her. He was a trained professional who took out criminals the SWAT team couldn't handle. So if Barbara walked out on a relationship with one "soldier" because it "wasn't right," is it better that she ran off with another soldier?

Either Barbara is old enough to be held accountable for all her actions (say, with Dick), or she's not old enough to be performing these actions (say, with Bruce). She can't have it both ways.


The point which I think is revelant which TOM doesn't touch on is that Barbara says in hindsight her love for Dick was not so much love, but a crush.Not true. I touched on it. I said I didn't believe her.

It is one thing for Barbara to dismiss Dick as "puppy love" if he could not compete with her hero worship for Batman. That may well be how she rationalized his loss. Whether Barbara came to believe this statement for herself, it does not grant her the insight, or the authority, to make such a sweeping statement on behalf of someone else.

If we go by "what we see on the screen," it should be plain that if Dick Grayson was just Barbara's "puppy love," no one ever bothered to inform him of it. He thought it was real. Watch their scenes in the TNBA episode "Old Wounds." (No time or space to post a transcript here. If anyone hasn't seen the episode, say so and someone might post it here.) They're very intimate scenes. They're very tactile scenes, as rich in gesture, look and touch as the quoted Batwoman dorm scene is rich in voicework. The positions of hands ; the expressive feet (the point of a slippered toe, legs curled under under so) ; sashaying ; stranded on a dance floor ; pacing ; chasing ; tiptoeing ; running ; the exquisite eyes which can express "here we go again" in loyal sympathy in Barbara's room but express "here we go again" with sour revulsion on a Gotham rooftop -- forget the Joker's sideplot and drink in the sight of these two moving sculptures instead.

There's an old saying to the effect that "home is that place that, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." Where is "home" to Dick in this transitional stage? Home is becoming less the mansion and the cave. Home is becoming the place where Barbara is. In bad times "home" is the place he can go at three in the morning for love, sympathy and comfort, if he will take it. In good times, "home" is a fine restaurant with a view : a view where, shimmering in the distance, he sees a future with Barbara in it.

Barbara's hold over Dick is not one-hundred percent identical to Andrea Beaumont's hold over the young Bruce. The situations have about fifty percent in common. Dick already wanted to leave Wayne Manor and hang up the cape. Had Barbara not been in his life he might have done so anyway. However, the prospect that the radiant Barbara waited for him in the civilian world was powerfully attractive, and was certainly a factor in his considerations.

It's easy to lay the blame at Bruce's feet for mishandling the "Old Wounds" situation. In truth all three of them are at fault. But Bruce lit the match. As Barbara could have handled Dick's feelings better, so also could Bruce. (And fifty thousand fanboys screamed in unison, "Where's Alfred?!?!") Yet we have to wonder ... if Bruce had not "outed" all their secret identities, how far would Barbara go along with Dick's dreams? If she never learned Batman's name, would she have married Dick? And if so, would that be "settling for him," or would it become real? Here is one of the great expanses in the territory of "what might have been."

Instead Dick is totally blindsided by Barbara's sudden preference for Batman. It's one thing for Jim Gordon to tease Dick that he has many rivals and Dick's victory will make so many men in town soooo jealous. But to have a romantic rival he didn't even know about!

Nevertheless Dick is traditionally blamed for most of the fireworks in "Old Wounds" simply because he's the loud one. Understand, slugging Bruce was inexcusable and we cannot excuse it. We can only consider whether he was provoked. (In law, "inciting to riot" is no excuse for a riot ; all parties are responsible.) On the one hand, Barbara almost died. Had Dick not personally saved her, she absolutely would have died. (Batgirl does more skydiving than any other character except Bats/Terry.) On the other hand, Dick only held back information from Barbara to protect Bruce's secret, not his own. Yet Barbara scolds him for not telling her. This places Dick in a no-win scenario (which we know from experience he hates). No matter what he told, or didn't tell, someone would have yelled at him for doing the wrong thing.

Dick also discovers that his girlfriend would rather be with her hero than her boyfriend. (She doesn't chase after Dick.) The home Dick would have left held no appeal for him anyway, but to see the home he hoped to make with Barbara evaporate before his eyes as well is devastating. If this is puppy love it's not like any kind he recognizes ... more like a veteran coming home to find his sweetheart is leaving him but (those naughty mails!) he just hasn't gotten the letter yet.

Dick's explosive temper and his hammer hands undermined his credibility with the fanboys, and went a long way toward turning Barbara's affections away from him to his wounded "victim." So yes, that was bad. Realistically, though, what else was he supposed to have done? Should he have stayed in the cave because Barbara was there, working for a man who enraged him, doing a job he had come to hate? Should he stay in the cave watching the woman he once loved getting busy (or trying to get busy) with another man? Should he have stayed on the grounds that "you would if you loved me" and therefore if he leaves, that's proof he doesn't? Should he have humbled himself like a Johnny Galecki character, to shuffle his feet and look at the ground and say, "If you sleep with him and you don't like it, I'll still take you back" ... Does this sound like something Dick Grayson would say? Should he have to?

It's all too much for this Borderline Personality, and Dick leaves Gotham and Barbara ... for all they know, for good.

The Dick Grayson who returns as Nightwing five years later is hardly recognizable. The generous, enthusiastic and openly trusting Boy Wonder is gone. In his place is a brooding loner. Does Barbara see something attractive in the mystery? Perhaps. In any event she sparks off Dick in several episodes, to no avail.


Dick doesn't help the situation by pushing aside every advance she makes in TNBA.There's no reason he should accept her advances. Barbara continues to make only the same offer that Dick Grayson had already rejected. The moment Dick realized she was cheating on him (in an emotional and intellectual sense at first, more later), to him that crossed a line. Dick knew from the start that he could not live as "the other man." He could not kiss her knowing that she might be thinking of somebody else. He could not spend his days with her wondering how many times in the day she might be thinking of somebody else. So Dick cut his losses. Unless Barbara is prepared to make him a deal he can live with, there's no reason for them to get back together.

Was Dick himself aware of the double standards of Barbara's love life? When Dick refuses to be the other man it's not seen as a gesture of self-respect. He has to listen to the line, "you would if you loved me." However when Barbara becomes "the other woman" to Batman (who is "married" to the job), for some reason that's considered empowering.

Dick also had to listen to the unspoken rhetoric that since he didn't put a ring on her finger -- and since the animated Bruce never actually adopted Dick -- then Barbara should not be "restricted" in her affairs but should be free to do as she pleased. After all, it's not like she's breaking up a "real" family. (To our knowledge no one has banished Dick far enough away to qualify as, say, Landlord-and-Tenant.) Would Barbara have the same freedom if the free agent had been a man? Or rather, if Barbara was a man who dated a daughter, then her mother -- or alternately, a man who dated a younger sister then switched to her older sister -- would it still be okay? Are things permitted to Barbara that people wouldn't tolerate from a man?

Did Barbara feel any sympathy for Dick? When Dick left she didn't chase him ; years later when Barbara left Bruce he didn't chase her either. Barbara assumes Dick ought to settle for being the other man ; when she settles for being the other woman it turns out to be not as much fun as she thought it was. When Barbara shrugged off a man who would give up the cape to be with her, she ended up with a man who would never give up the cape to be with her, and he said so. What Barbara has done unto others, others one day will have done unto her. Did her situation give Barbara any insight into Dick's thinking, any remorse for what she and Bruce put him through, any compassion for him whatever? The answer, simply, is No. Barbara's speech in Batman Beyond's "A Touch of Curare" shows no empathy, or from some fanboys' point of view, even decency. It was as if she really was amusing herself with him.

Dick's arguments with Batman contributed to his departure and reinvention as Nightwing, but the arguments and the NW identity were not reason enough to turn Dick into such a misanthrope. Batman alone did not have that much power. To coin a phrase, "There's a whole world out there where you ain't." Dick's problems with Batman soured his opinion of Batman. But it was the loss of Barbara whom he trusted that destroyed his faith in people.

Now single again, the TNBA Babs (let's call her Sidekick Barbara) goes to work for "the great man" himself, the Batman. For her it is a dream come true. Her hero has counted her worthy to serve at his side. Although she fantasized about him in "Batgirl Returns," there is nothing in the TNBA series or in the Return of the Joker feature film that could be construed as romantic interest or contact between the characters. Nor does there seem to be a need. They are co-workers, and for the grateful, worshipful, and impressionable Sidekick Barbara, just being his partner is enough ... for now.

http://wf.toonzone.net/birdboy/boardstuff/oldmaid/t-barb06.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/batman/tnba/episodes/TheUltimateThrill/01.jpg)
Sidekick Barbara reporting for duty
("The Ultimate Thrill," TNBA)

At first many fanboys greeted the change with enthusiasm. Who wouldn't want more Batgirl? But as time passed the complaints grew. Barbara had traded Quality Time for Quantity Time, and fans didn't like it.


... it seems she got a lobotomy somewhere between BTAS and TNBA ... I think that one of the reasons for Sidekick Barbara's behavior is that Dick Grayson's Robin was not replaced with another Robin (Tim). Actually, the first Robin was replaced with two Robins. For example, Batman is more tolerant of Batgirl's mistakes than of Dick's mistakes, solely because Batgirl exhibits the blind trust and unabashed adulation that is traditionally Robin's duty and Batman's due. Batgirl also competed with Tim Drake's Robin for put-downs and one-liners. Honestly, in many TNBA episodes we could have placed Robin in Batgirl's scenes and given him her lines, and it wouldn't have made any difference. (Obviously "Over The Edge" is an exception, but that's a topic for later.)

About fifteen minutes before I sat down to the computer (honest!) I came across an article in the Harvard Business Review magazine titled, "The Risky Business of Hiring Stars." It dissected the deterioration of Independent Contractor Babs and her reinvention as Sidekick Babs in astonishing detail. Here are some of the highlights :


"We observed that top performers in all [studied] groups were more like comets than stars. They were blazing successes for a while but quickly faded out when they left one company for another ....

Three things happen when a company hires a star, and none of them bodes well for the organization.

The star's luster fades. The star's performance falls sharply and stays well below his old achievement levels thereafter .... the decline in the star's performance [is] more or less permanent.

Obviously a star doesn't suddenly become less intelligent or lose a decade of work experience overnight when she switches firms. Although most companies overlook this fact, an executive's performance depends on both her personal competencies and the capabilities, such as systems and processes, of the organization she works for. When she leaves, she cannot take the firm-specific resources that contributed to her achievements. As a result, she is unable to repeat her performance in another company ; at least, not until she learns to work the new system, which could take years ....

The group's performance slips. Most executives realize that a star's appointment will hurt the morale of the people she will work with, but they underestimate the aftershocks. The arrival of a highflyer often results in interpersonal conflicts and a breakdown of communication in the group. As a result, the group's performance suffers for several years. Sometimes the team (or what is left of it) returns to normal only after the star has left the company.

The money that stars make isn't the only problem. Their coworkers often become demotivated because they feel they must look outside the organization if they want to grow or occupy leadership positions. Their suspicions are fueled by the fact that senior executives provide more resources to a newly hired star than to a company stalwart even if both have performed equally well ... Junior managers take the star's induction as a signal that the organization isn't interested in tapping their potential. That often results in demoralization in the group.

The company's valuation suffers. In spite of the positive publicity companies get when they sign up stars, investors perceive the appointments as value-destroying events ....

Many investors apparently believe that while compensation for a star with long tenure is more or less commensurate with performance, rivals are blinded by stars' status and overpay in order to bag them ....

Most of us have an instinctive faith in talent and genius, but it isn't just that people make organizations better. The organization also makes people perform better. In fact, few stars would change employers if they understood the degree to which their performance is tied to the company they work for.Note the parallels to Our Heroes. Fanboys (the "outside investors") whine about the shift from a psychological crime drama to a straightforward action/adventure series. Inside the company, Bruce/Batman recruits an outside "rainmaker" but the price proves too high. (It shatters the Bat-family.) Dick feels manipulated and unappreciated. He takes five years off to learn a new "crimefighting culture" before he debuts as Nightwing. (He knows that's how long it's going to take to absorb that new culture.) Thus Bruce/Batman ends up giving away "proprietary information" to two sidekicks who will grow up to start rival businesses. (Commissioner Barbara in particular uses that proprietary information i.e. she knows Batman's name, to try to shut him down.) The young Barbara is uprooted from the environment where she had prospered and transplanted in new soil where her old techniques and skills are not The Way Things Are Done Here. The new culture is so different that even as late as the training scene in the episode "Cold Comfort" she has trouble keeping up. Maxie Zeus once explained the New Character's Assimilation Dilemma this way :

The problem with illustrating a storyarc in which the new kid is learning and is receiving a valuable education -- is that it can come across as portraying the character as being in desperate need of that education.Anyhow, I found it fascinating to hear the remarks of a Harvard Business School study coming out of the mouths of teenage and young adult Bat-fanboys.

And so the years pass between the events of one DCAU series and the events of another. In that time Tim Drake is broken, Nightwing leaves Gotham for good, and Bruce and Barbara allegedly have an affair. A shifty look ; a picture ; a question directly asked and not answered with "no" -- these hints were carefully crafted to drive the fanboys batty (ha ha, very punny) but not, one hoped, enough to drive them away. Regrettably many fanboys did turn their backs on an entire series for this reason.

Let's take a closer look at what they missed.

(cont'd)

[The Old Maid]

(PART 2)

In Batman Beyond we meet Commissioner Barbara, a cynical lawman some forty years removed from her younger self. This commish resents the new Batman, and it shows. Twice her policeman open fire on Bats Junior ("ATOC," "Disappearing Inque") and Barbara neither reprimands them nor disapproves. Then again they're just following her example. Four times in the series ("Splicers," "Eyewitness," twice in "ATOC") Batman prevents the murder of Barbara's husband, D.A. Sam Young -- and three of those four times Barbara's response has been to flash her badge, or her weapon, in Terry's face. (We can almost hear poor Sam saying, "Um, honey? I realize it's a turf-war thing, but really, it's okay with me if having this Batman around makes me a little less dead.")

http://wf.toonzone.net/birdboy/boardstuff/oldmaid/t-barb01.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/beyond/bios/heroes/commgordon/03.jpg)
Commissioner Barbara ready for battle
("Eyewitness" [I think], Batman Beyond)

Every now and then Hollywood proposes a Batman musical. If such a musical came to be created for Batman Beyond, this little duet for Old Man Wayne and Commish Barbara would be a good opener :

(with apologies to Shirley Temple)

"On the good ship Status Quo
I like my seat, don't wanna go!"

As the BB series begins and Terry McGinnis lights a fire under Old Man Wayne, the latter concludes that maybe this boat deserves to sink. That leave the commish alone on the Good Ship Status Quo. Her mindset cannot easily adjust. Suddenly the villains who have been in business for years or decades -- Derek Powers, Mad Stan, Curare, Inque, etc. -- are Batman's fault.

As a result, Terry/Batman gets blamed not only for his own mistakes, or even for the actions of the villains he "attracts" -- but he is also held responsible for Commissioner Barbara's difficulties in coping with them.

Here's an example from the thread I won't have vigilantism in MY town (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=81064) :


This brings up the question of why characters define "vigilantism" differently depending upon whether or not they derive personal benefit from it. The example that has been gnawing at me for some time is the Batman Beyond episodes "Shriek" and "Babel."

In "Shriek" Bruce Wayne is minding his own business -- going to the office, walking down the street, visiting historic ruins -- when the title villain Shriek decides to murder him. The new Batman sees Shriek busily murdering Old Man Wayne and stops him. Now a fugitive from both Batman and the police, Shriek makes another attempt on Old Man Wayne through a nurse proxy. Batman traces Shriek to his new lair and a running firefight ensues. Batman disables Shriek to save his own life, but Shriek is injured. Specifically, Shriek is injured in a way that compromises his ability to perform his chosen work. [Note : the character is a sound engineer.] He loses his hearing, but he refuses to inform on the loan shark (Derek Powers) who sent him to murder Wayne to pay off a financial debt.

One year later Shriek tells Commissioner Barbara Gordon that he wishes to murder Batman and believes he has this right. Barbara never challenges his logic. Neither does the city. Quoth the ungrateful construction worker and the zookeeper whose lives Batman just saved, "Batman got us into this mess and now he's got to get us out of it. Why should we all suffer for a private dispute? Shriek just wants a little justice."

Batman is abandoned and blamed (even by Barbara) solely because he is Batman. But is Batman the real problem here?

For the sake of argument, let us say that Shriek is busily murdering Old Man Wayne, when they are surprised by a policeman. Since it is the policeman's duty to stop a murder in progress, he challenges Shriek. Let us further posit that the policeman shoots Shriek and kills him. Did the policeman deprive Shriek of justice? Was he wrong to save Old Man Wayne, or to shoot to save his own life? In all likelihood Barbara would not have a problem with it.

Alternately, let us consider "Babel" as it would play if Shriek survived. If he demanded that Commish Barbara must hand over the policeman who shot him, so that Shriek could murder him, would Barbara surrender her man to Shriek? I do not think so.

Ah, but you say, the policeman was appointed by society to protect and to serve. He was authorized to do what he did. This is certainly true. The problem is that it doesn't absolve non-policemen from fighting crime to the best of their ability.

As Sir Thomas More observed during his show trial, English common law declares that "silence implies consent," especially during murder cases. "Silence" includes both an absence of words and an absence of deeds. If you don't help, the law regards you as an accomplice. [snip] And the law is (or ought to be) compelled to defend the person who does the rescuing.

Let us then extrapolate further. Suppose that a bank clerk, a used-car salesman, or high school student Nelson Nash see Shriek busily murdering Old Man Wayne. If one of these saves Wayne's life (and had to hit Shriek with a brick to do it), would Shriek have any right to demand their lives? Would Barbara collect the good Samaritans and deliver them to him? What if a troop of Boy Scouts observe Shriek busily murdering Old Man Wayne? They cry "stop, evildoer!" and push him down a flight of stairs. Shriek is injured and loses his hearing. If Shriek reappears in the episode "Babel" demanding the Boy Scouts' lives, should the city surrender the boys to him?

[snip] To listen to all the bellyaching going on in "Babel," the people of Gotham (and Barbara as well) speak as if Shriek should have been allowed to murder Old Man Wayne.Next we observe Barbara's interactions with Curare ("A Touch of Curare"). The commish sets a trap for Curare, but it snares Batman instead. If Barbara had placed a vidcam in the building, she would have seen that Curare already suspected a trap and refused to even enter the room. Instead Curare spears the bait from a safe distance. (Also, the snare itself is flawed. The control panel should not have been where the prisoner could disable it.) If Terry/Batman had never existed, the odds are excellent that Curare still would not have tripped that trap. Curare still would have been spying on the commish from the beginning of the episode to the end, tapping Barbara's communications, and checking her at almost every turn. Yet Barbara speaks as if this is Terry's fault. She even threatens to throw him and Wayne in jail if she sees them again. (If she had no Batman to yell at, would she have taken out her frustration on one of her policemen? I hope not.)

Curare and Commissioner Barbara are a lot alike, which is why they keep pressing each other's buttons. Both have to be the best, and they are willing to cut down an innocent man and/or their old colleagues to achieve it. In contrast Terry, whose grades in school have tagged him as a bottom feeder, is more open-minded to the possibility that other people can be smarter than him. This is a concept that Barbara, in any incarnation, has always found a little hard to grasp.

Of course we have to visit the puppetmaster, the Spellbinder of "Eyewitness."

The "Animated Batman" review (http://anbat.toonzone.net/bb/ind/eyewitness.html) of the episode brings up several Babs points worthy of further consideration.


Barbara Gordon [is] cheated of development. Here she expresses a willingness to reveal her own past (and that of Wayne) if that's what it takes to bring McGinnis to justice, but the story comes nowhere near to forcing her to drink from that bitter cup. Nor is she revealed as anything but a conscientious enforcement officer (something we knew already). Had something of an obsession or vendetta against Terry been revealed in her the story might have had some drama, but she's one of the good guys, and so that's not going to happen.

[snip]

Barbara Gordon sees Batman killing Mad Stan; more relevant still, we see it too. So who are we (and Gordon) gonna believe, McGinnis or our own lying eyes? But not for an instant do we doubt Terry, and it's all too easy to guess the solution to the conundrum. But Gordon doesn't make the guess because then there wouldn't be a story.

[snip]

Instead of putting its characters under a microscope it gives us the story of a misunderstanding that simply doesn’t go anywhere. One gets the feeling that not only are Terry and Barbara willing to forgive and forget it ever happened, they and everyone else have forgotten it before the end credits even roll.
Goes back to the issue of "there is such a thing as being too subtle." By now we may wonder if Commissioner Barbara does harbor a bias against Terry's Batman. Certainly we shouldn't be surprised if Terry shrugged off her perfunctory apology because he knew this was as good as it would get.

As to how Barbara is cheated of development, let us count the ways. Barbara is skunked (again) by a hypnotic villain, yet she demonstrates she has failed to learn anything from the Scarecrow and her nightmare journey "Over The Edge." Barbara doesn't even recall that she arrested the Spellbinder in his first episode. (Surely he has a grudge against her.) Now is it reasonable to expect Barbara to always know when she is being skunked? Not really. The hypnotic villains are good at what they do. The problem is that if Commissioner Barbara saw someone she liked or trusted "killing" Mad Stan (say, her own husband, or maybe a rookie cop she had mentored), she would have moved heaven and earth to make sure he was really guilty. She would never rest until she could find an explanation, extenuating circumstances, anything. But Barbara's angry at Terry for ruining her sting operation, so she doesn't even check the surveillance footage, or even notice that she "lost" Mad Stan's body.

(Compare this to James Gordon's refusal to join the manhunt in Mask of the Phantasm even though more than twenty people "saw" Batman kill someone with no mind control involved. Anyone have a comment on that?)

Commissioner Barbara also assumes that if Terry spent three months in Juvenile Hall, then he must be capable of any manner of abomination, crime or cruelty. We know that Terry was locked up for breaking-and-entering (c.f. "Big Time"). He also did a little shoplifting, breaking windows, and other petty crimes for which he was never caught. It should concern us that Barbara assumes Terry must be capable of murder ... all the more so because the animated Tim Drake probably committed as many misdemeanors (if not more so) stealing food and trying to provide for himself after his father disappeared. (Tim even lifted some loose cash from Bruce Wayne's desk.) Young Barbara lets Tim off the hook solely because she likes him. Commissioner Barbara makes no allowance for Terry because she dislikes him. She simply concludes Terry is incapable of reform.

As noted in "The Pros of Batman Beyond" :

In the end Barbara because so emotional that she wouldn't even speak with Bruce. She could have killed an innocent man before she calmed down. [snip] Why did she think Wayne called her? To chat about the weather? Perhaps he had new evidence. Perhaps he agreed Terry was guilty and had a plan to encourage his surrender. Either way, Barbara didn't know and didn't care. Spellbinder gloats as much as if he had won. It's clear he is being grandly entertained.What makes "Eyewitness" more disturbing is that Commissioner Barbara becomes a creature she once feared. In "Over The Edge" young Barbara dreams that her father has it within him to become a bloodthirsty manhunter. Yet in "Eyewitness" it is Barbara who becomes the bloodthirsty manhunter, and when she empties her weapon at McGinnis, reloads and opens fire again it is not "dream" anything. She even hangs up on Old Man Wayne when he calls her to plead for a cease-fire.

In a dramatic twist, Barbara once thought her father was capable of this kind of violence, but when she talked to him, she learned he wasn't. Meanwhile the Barbara who started out sweet and winsome proves to be not just capable of it, but mighty good at it. I think this deserved some kind of exploration. Sheesh!

So when Commissioner Barbara tells the Batmen, "I'm not my father," it doesn't have quite the effect she intended. Has Jim fired a weapon? Of course. However Commissioner Barbara has fired more rounds in a 52-episode series than her father did in a 109-episode series plus three movies. Is Barbara a war veteran, of sorts? So is Jim Gordon and it is not "of sorts" anything. (In the comics Jim Gordon went to war when he was 20.) After surviving the brutality of war, Jim voluntarily fights a war on crime in his own town, for decades. Have the supervillains played Barbara like a piano? So they've done also with Jim -- from Joker's fondness for abducting Jim and tormenting him on live television, to Two-Face's machiavellian assaults on Jim's good name, career and bank accounts. Has Commissioner Barbara suffered? Has she had nightmares? Commissioner Jim Gordon can match her, suffering for suffering, nightmare for nightmare, grief for grief, and year after year.

What separates Barb from her father is attitude. The animated Jim's early exposure to violence deeply stamped his character as a nonviolent person. (He fights when he must, but he clearly hates it.) Jim's revulsion for lethal force made him receptive to the Batman. Batman's presence gave Jim nonlethal options. Additionally, we have seen these two men give their enemies more compassion and more second chances than we've seen Commissioner Barbara show to anybody.

In contrast, Barbara Gordon grew up as sheltered as a policeman could shelter her. Thus the world of crime seemed from the start mysterious -- and to the innocent, mysterious things can seem glamorous, grown-up, sophisticated and exciting. And I believe it set up Babs to crave adrenaline, to expect constant entertainment and excitement.

When Barbara was a little girl, the Batman was one of ten thousand other big-city attractions that her protective father would not let her play with. However Babs had seen the Dark Knight. Who else in school could say the same? And for a while that was enough.

One day it's not enough anymore. Barbara dresses up as a Bat (comics version) or works with Batman in the "Heart of Steel" storyarc. It's a thrill, and for a rookie she's good at it. And for a while that was enough.

One day it's not enough anymore. Batman and Jim Gordon want her to stay out of danger in "Shadow of the Bat." In the past Barbara would have trusted Batman to handle it his way, but now her way has to be the right way, the only way. At some level Barbara still knows Batman is pretty smart and that Batman cares about her dad. But suddenly Batman doesn't care "enough" and isn't smart "enough." Otherwise he would do things her way. Batgirl rises as "a figure of righteous wrath" to save her father her way. Jim then praises her in public. And for a while that's good enough.

One day it's not enough anymore. She fights crime in "Batgirl Returns" simply to put off studying for a math test. Then that's not enough and she leaps at the chance to become Batman's partner in "Old Wounds." Then even that's not enough : Barbara wants Batman to make her romantic fantasies real. If he complies, perhaps this won't be enough either. She might want marriage. Then maybe children. Then maybe Batman should quit his job. Then he should please her by, well, whatever she thinks up next. But addictions don't build healthy relationships : the more Babs gets, the more she wants. So from an early age Barbara has become habituated to an attitude that no one and nothing is enough for her. Denial, and needing more and more "fix" to get the same "high" are common behaviors in addictive personalities.

Whether Barbara had a relationship with Bruce and he wouldn't give up the cape to keep her, or whether Barbara merely had unrequited feelings, the result is the same : this may be the first time someone has said No to her and made it stick. This is the first time she has not been able to maneuver, wiggle, or spin her way out of it. And people who quit Cold Turkey can take it rather badly.

Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" was carefully phrased to give the impression that Babs made all the decisions in all her relationships.



Barbara : "[Dick Grayson and I dated] In college. Puppy love. Later on we just never talked about it .... Dick finally got fed up living in Batman's shadow. He decided to leave. He was hurt when I chose to stay behind, with Bruce .... On the street, it was like ballet. We were the perfect duo. But for Bruce (harder) Batman, there was nothing but the street. (briskly) Time comes when you gotta hang up the cape. But Bruce wouldn't. Or couldn't. (confidently) So I left, and never looked back."

("A Touch of Curare" Act II) Her tone suggests that Dick was "hurt" in the way a fourth-grade boy would be hurt if he was not invited to his favorite fourth-grade girl's party. This belittles the profound emotional anguish Dick and Bruce inflicted upon each other partially on her behalf. Barbara also speaks as if she should have had enough leverage to bend Bruce to her will had he been a better man. That is, only a bad man would refuse her wishes. Therefore if Barbara could not "save" Batman he must not be salvageable. This neatly sidesteps the questions of whether Batman actually needed to be rescued and/or whether she had the right ingredients to do so.

Individually, each of these incidents and each of Barbara's speeches can be minimized or explained. Collectively the picture is rather different. Nothing in Commissioner Barbara's life is ever her fault. So Curare spanked her (and Terry, BTW) in front of her troops? Well, it can't be Barbara's fault (because she has to be the best), and it can't be Curare's doing (because that would make her the best, or at least an equal). It must be Terry/Batman's fault. So Shriek and Spellbinder have played Barbara like a piano? That's Batman's fault. It rained on the Thanksgiving Day Parade ; I suppose that's Batman's fault too. And when Barbara speaks of her past, she does not say that she got involved with one man, waited until he was heavily invested in the relationship, and then pulled the rug out from under him -- and then got involved with another man, waited until he was heavily invested in the relationship (to the best of his ability, anyway), and then pulled the rug out from under him too. No, the fact that she left a trail of bitter male recluses behind her has nothing to do with her actions or decisions. She was just unlucky ; she had a string of bad boyfriends. That's very convenient.

Now before you all warm up your flame buttons let us hasten to add that Barbara is hardly the worst person in the world. Poison Ivy is a nutcracker. Inque is a nutcracker. Barbara just seems oblivious to the effects of her behavior upon other people. She incorporates just enough of the narcissist, the addict, the histrionic, and the indulged little girl to mess up her day, but not enough to mess up her daily functioning. And one quality all Bats have in common is their ability to rationalize their behavior. I just wish one of the animated characters would call her on it.

When we look at the intelligent but innocent Babs of BTAS and the BB Barbara with her long memory and short fuse, the question arises : How can we get there from here?

Appearances suggest Commissioner Barbara embodies (and broods upon) ancient arguments. One : when the commish tells the Batmen "I'm not my father," it suggests she has issues with Jim she didn't have before. She still loves her father -- we see his picture on her desk in some episodes -- but something has been lost. Barbara once respected her father so much that she put Batgirl's fate in his hands (TNBA "Over the Edge"). Something must have happened to that respect. It could be that she got tired of sharing him with the city and the politicians and the supervillains and the Batman. Or it could be something else. We don't know. All we know is that she thinks differently of him now that she is doing his job. When she says "I'm not my father," she seems to be saying she thinks he made the wrong choice.

Two : Barbara has more in common with Dick Grayson/Nightwing than either of them will admit. Both have a touch of the DSM-IV Histrionic Personality : they are uncomfortable when they're not the center of attention ; their emotions appear to others to be rapidly shifting, shallow and superficial ; and they're both overly suggestible. In Dick's case (as in TNBA's "Old Wounds"), we can add "tending to be overly dramatic or theatrical in expressing oneself." In Barbara's case (Mystery of the Batwoman) we can add "frequently acting in a sexually seductive or provocative way that is inappropriate to the situation." Even after young Dick and young Barbara separate they still have a lot in common. Perhaps Barbara, like Dick, went into Dad's line of work for the same reason as Dick : to prove she could do the old man's job better than he could do it himself. And both Dick and Babs have a most unpraiseworthy tenacity for holding grudges. Finally, Barbara married a man who is a lot like Dick, or rather what Dick was before he blew a gasket. So what if she can beat him at arm-wrestling? Sam Young is funny, with a comfortable self-deprecating sense of humor. He obviously adores Barbara. And he doesn't take any of her guff. ("This is my night off. Call my office and make an appointment, Commissioner." Sam, you da man!)

(To tie Barb's issues with her father together with her issues with Dick, both Dick and Sam are the kind of husband her father would have chosen. Sam is even relatively unappreciated in his hometown for all the incredible work he does -- just like her father. Anyhow, let's hope she fares better with this one.)

Three : Barbara's feelings for Bruce still dominate her thinking to the point that, when she tried to persuade Terry McGinnis to stop working for Old Man Wayne, she recites what was most hurtful to her, instead of what might be most hurtful to Terry.

And so we come to the middle of time. Somewhere in the Interregnum between TNBA and BB it is implied that Bruce and Barbara had an affair. I never liked that idea.

WORLD'S BIGGEST DROOLING FANBOY : "Wow, really? I did not know that. I really must spend more time here."

I disliked the idea and the arguments that promoted it.

1. The argument that Bruce and Barbara have "so much in common."

No more so than several other women in Bruce's life like Renee Montoya or Kairi Tanaga. It's a shame Old Kairi and Old Bruce didn't get a chance to take one last moonlit stroll along the boardwalk before the insane lizard people offed her. (P.S. they never found her body, right? Hint hint).

2. The argument that Batman needs Barbara to restore his sanity.

Batman dresses like a flying rodent because his parents were butchered and the crime was never solved. What's her excuse?

3. The argument that Barbara is superior to other women and therefore has the best chance of "saving" him, if anyone can.

That's just Mary Sue talk, wish fulfillment. ("He's just never met a real woman before.") I'm sure there are plenty of good-enough "real women" right under his nose. Besides, if Bruce seriously considered finding a woman no doubt Lucius Fox could set him up with one -- and Alfred probably has a prepared list. Would these "good enough" women accept Bruce's chosen lifestyle? Maybe. Maybe not -- but then neither did Barbara.

Just because Barb was the only young woman in Gotham with the brilliance and drive to become Batgirl, it does not necessarily follow that she would be a good girlfriend. Those jobs have different requirements. They deserved separate auditions.

4. The argument that they couldn't help themselves.

The only way I would believe this is if they were drunk at the time. And even that wouldn't get them through the second day. Gender problems really don't translate well into Batman's world. I would like to think we have gotten beyond the tired stereotypes that "women are ruled by their hormones and emotions" and "men are pigs" -- with Batman being a pig among pigs, notorious for hopping aboard any passing train, whether it be a northbound train or a southbound train, so to speak.

Therefore I concluded that if Batman would make a mistake with Batgirl, he would make that mistake the same way he would execute any other perilous undertaking : methodically and thoroughly.

First, the couple would weigh the potential benefits against the potential losses. That is, they would think about how other people would react and whether they could handle it. Secondly, Batman would make plain to Batgirl exactly what is involved in "The Plan." When they were clear about the risks and the terms, they began a relationship based upon Mutual Consent. (Remember that term because it's going to haunt us later.)

First let's look at the sacrifices they might have to make. We already know Bruce/Batman was skating on thin ice with Dick/Nightwing. We can predict that any romantic contact between Batman and Batgirl would end Dick's relationship with either one forever. However that's not the only relationship that would be jeopardized. Alfred got a lot of screentime in Batwoman and if he approved of this potential pairing then Alfred did a marvelous job of concealing that approval. Alfred's behavior suggests he doesn't think she was being mistreated. (He certainly doesn't spring to her defense.) We don't know his reasons : whether he is thinking of his "second son" Dick, or whether Alfred declines to speak up for Barbara for other reasons. All we know is that Alfred calmly watched Bruce shut out Barbara in the cold.

Then there's Tim. Bruce and Barbara face bigger problems than deciding what they would say to Tim if he walked in on them. The truth is an affair could mess up this kid in a big way. What would it do to him to witness an affair between his surrogate father and the young woman Tim thinks of as a big sister? That puts him in a position that he'd be forced to change how he thinks about them : either "sis" becomes "mom" or "dad" becomes "brother-in-law." And again, what does that make Dick, who is the closest thing Tim has to a big brother? (In the comics Dick calls him "brother.") One solution would be for Tim to renounce his emotional ties to Bruce. If Bruce is just his boss or his landlord, then he's a stranger and it's okay for him to date Sis. Erm, no. This is not fair to the kid. He might say it was okay, but kids say lots when they have no place else to go.

(I could ask if the timing could make matters worse ... if this purported romance happened just before ROTJ, would it explain why Tim was patrolling alone that night? Were the others too, ahem, "busy" to patrol with him? Or what if the affair happened after ROTJ, would Tim feel that Barbara had betrayed him by "getting friendly" with the man who threw Tim out of the house? And in that situation, how did Tim and Barbara reconcile, seeing as Barbara was Tim's confidante as an adult? Never mind. It's weird enough as it is.)

Hmm. I wonder who else could there be? Anybody?


I gotta wonder how James Gordon would feel about this. Not great, I'm betting.Nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Jim doesn't live in a culture where he can select his daughter's mate. He does live in a culture where he can praise, sabotage, respond with a deafening silence, or complain bitterly to anyone who will listen. Jim has never been shy about telling Barbara or her suitors exactly what he thinks of those suitors. Indeed, based on his behavior in "Shadow of the Bat" and "Sub-Zero" the real problem is he won't shut up.

Jim means no harm. It's just that he knows he won't be around forever. He wants to scope out the son-in-law (to weed out the bad ones) and to get to know his grandchildren. It would make it easier for him to go to his grave knowing his daughter was cherished and provided for. So it is interesting that Jim is so partial to Dick Grayson when Bruce Wayne (who is standing next to Dick in "Sub-Zero") is not even a blip on Jim's radar.

In the comics it is strongly hinted that James Gordon knows Batman's identity. We don't know what Jim knows in animated continuity. However the animated Jim Gordon has been long acquainted with the civilian Wayne -- they travel in the same fundraising circles -- and Jim has never presented Bruce to Barbara as an eligible candidate. Neither has Jim asked the Batman if the latter is single and if so, would he like to do something about it. Certainly Jim has the power to make or break such a relationship. For example he could help each person adjust to the other one's "quirks," for lack of a better word. Instead Jim doesn't seem to regard either Bruce or Batman as candidates. Explanations?

1. Jim absolutely would not approve.

2. It simply never occurred to him to consider either Bruce or Batman as candidates. The thought would have to occur to him before he could say No. However his previous behavior suggests that if his answer could be Yes, then it would already have occurred to him and he already would be trying to "sell" the couple on this project. Given Jim's personality, in this case silence does not equal consent.

James Gordon knows that the life of a policeman is hard, incredibly hard, and he knows what it can do to a marriage. (He's divorced.) How much harder it would be to be Batman's wife. Batman usually works alone, and he won't use lethal force to save himself. That's a surefire formula for making a wife a widow. Even his death might not protect his family from retaliation. No one close to Batman is safe. Possibly Jim Gordon couldn't even see Barbara -- because every time he left the house to go visit them, some supervillain might try to pick up his trail to follow him there. To be cut off from his daughter and grandchildren would break his heart (not to mention what it would do to the grandchildren to live in a cage cut off from their grandfather). This hardly matches Jim's criteria that Barbara's mate should make her safe and happy. Finally there's the fact that (as Independent Contractor Babs put it) Batman is a few bats short of a belfry, and Jim probably wouldn't be too pleased to have grandchildren who sleep hanging upside down.

I think Jim Gordon's answer to Barbara, whether spoken or unspoken, would be the one given by a Betsy Randle character :
"I can't support this relationship idea because I know you won't be happy. And I can only support your happiness."For the Batman it's a little more raw. Jim and the Batman have a longstanding relationship of mutual trust. The rules are largely unspoken. Their trust grew because they were already like-minded. They never needed to hammer out specific rules and agreements. They simply knew. Must Jim really say the words -- "Please don't boink my daughter" -- or is that one of those things that just ought to go without saying.

The truth is, Batman doesn't have a lot of friends. He really can't afford to lose this one, not even for an adoring woman. James Gordon isn't just a friend or ally -- he is a restraining influence, a link to Batman's sanity, and it is arguable that Batman would be a lot nuttier if not for the steady anchor of Gordon's faith in him.

So for Bruce to hook up with Barbara, Batman might have to sacrifice every other relationship in his life. What would happen to Batman's sanity if Barbara proves an inadequate substitute for those lost relationships? While I don't think this is either character's motive, it is a common tactic in abusive relationships for a dominant partner to urge the weaker partner to sever relationships with friends, relatives and allies as "proof that you love me." This isolates the victim from the people who genuinely cared about him, and who might have tried to help him.

Although neither Bruce nor Barbara meant for abusive overtones to creep into the situation, it could be argued that such overtones are unavoidable. How else to explain the notion that Batman should be compelled to sacrifice everyone he cares about to keep a woman who says, "It's still not enough." How else to explain the notion that Barbara might sacrifice a chance to marry in public, have children in public, send them to school in public, go to the grocery store in public, and visit her dad in public? She's sane, but she's not completely sane.

Those are the social risks they must face. What about The Plan?

Back before someone thought up the Bruce/Barbara idea, Batman always reaffirmed his decision that a wife and family cannot be part of The Plan. He has tried and tried. ("Plant Susan" in TNBA's "Chemistry," ; Talia in BB's "Out of the Past" ; Imaginary Selina in BTAS's "Perchance to Dream" ; Andrea Beaumont in Mask of the Phantasm). It turns out that his personal best is about two days. After that he tends to get a little stir-crazy. Also, Bruce/Batman has been burned, and burned badly, far beyond Barbara's comprehension. I believe that if Bruce/Batman ever began a relationship with Barbara (or anyone), the woman would have to convince him of two things :

1. She accepts him for who he is ;
2. She will be there for the long haul.

However, thanks to "The Plan," the man who asks to be accepted for who he is ... is married. He's married to the job. This means that the highest position to which a woman can aspire is to become his mistress.

This is what sets Andrea Beaumont apart from her competitors. Andrea met Bruce when he was still "engaged" but unmarried. (What Barbara might have done in the same situation is a pointless discussion, as she was twelve at the time.) When Andrea left, Bruce "married" the woman who would always be there (i.e. the job, The Plan, Gotham City, whatever you want to call it). He even changed his name when he got married.

What the Bruce/Barbara faction fail to see is that Barbara could never have the leverage Andrea had over Bruce, because they did not date the same man. Barbara faced a man who already had been married for ten to fifteen years. His mindset is profoundly different. The "marriage" has been a stabilizing influence on him. It has kept him out of Arkham Asylum. He is making a difference in the world. He saves lives. He has friends. (Not many, to be sure, but more friends than he had as a child.) He even has a clutch of ungrateful spoiled children -- the people of Gotham City, I mean, in addition to the Robins. (They're more "spoiled" as in "wrecked.") Batman is used to being married. He's comfortable. He feels needed. He knows what to expect. He is accepted for who he is. On good days he's even happy, after his fashion. And then one day he's supposed to trade in his ugly but formidable old wife for a glossy new trophy bride? Some guys would. Some guys do. This guy didn't. And for this the fanboys think he's the one with the problem? Granted, he's got problems -- but why should he risk everything he knows he can count on, for a woman he may or may not be able to count on? A woman who changes her mind from one day to the next?

Why, for nookie! say the fans. Bruce is a flesh-and-blood man (well, ink and paint, anyway), and a man Needs ... Some ... Comfort! Well, some men do. Again, not every man is ruled by his glands. One can't generalize. However if Bruce/Batman wanted this kind of action, the Catwoman has already offered. (She also drops hints that she can be "creative".) Additionally, Catwoman needs Bruce/Batman as inspiration if she's ever going to go straight, whereas Barb clearly doesn't need him.

If Bruce/Batman wanted a woman who was demure, brilliant and smooth as silk -- but who harbored an iron agenda to mold him into a new man more to her tastes and needs -- Talia also has offered.

What Barbara has going for her is her innocence. Unfortunately by definition her exposure to Batman would tarnish that innocence, thus diminishing her attractiveness to him. So from the start only her naivety could lure such an intelligent woman into a relationship with a "married man." Simultaneously, the quality he would most prize in her is one she cannot hold on to.

The "other woman" usually gets involved with a married man for one of two reasons :

1. She believes he will leave his wife for her.

2. Alternately, she has an affair for the same reason as the man : all the "fun" with none of the responsibility.

We have too little information to know Barbara's reason for jumping into this "affair." My tentative guess is reason 2, for fun. After all, when Barbara first became Sidekick Babs she certainly didn't want him to quit crimefighting (i.e. "leave his wife"). The "glamour" of crimefighting and the perceived freedom from all rules was what had fascinated her in the first place.

And then Barbara changed her mind. We don't have enough information to know if Babs issued an ultimatum to choose her or choose the cape. (We do know he didn't chase after her.) If she did, we have a problem. If it's okay for Barbara to issue an ultimatum to Bruce -- "choose the cape or choose me" -- then it should be just as okay for Dick Grayson to issue an identical ultimatum to Barbara back in the day. But if it's not okay for Dick to issue an ultimatum about "the cape or me" then it should not be okay for Barbara to issue an ultimatum to Bruce. (It's debatable whether Dick actually did ; this point is, if he did, there should not be a double standard.)

If Barbara did issue an ultimatum, then Bruce/Batman would see it as a betrayal. It is to say that :

1. She's not going to always be there ; and
2. She is no longer willing to accept him for who he is.

Bruce/Batman had "The Plan" for his life. When Barbara's incompatible Never-Enough Plan decreed, "I want more," then one of them would have to give up a Plan to keep the other person in his or her life. However, to do so would mean that one person literally would have to become someone else. One person would have to deny his or her own nature. But Barbara knew it wasn't going to be her, and Batman knew it wasn't going to be him.

http://wf.toonzone.net/birdboy/boardstuff/oldmaid/t-barb05.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/batman/tnba/episodes/JokersMillions/01.jpg)
"I'm over here! Over here! Workaholics! *grumble*"
("Joker's Millions," TNBA)

I hope Barbara didn't issue an ultimatum ... that she simply knew her priorities had changed. She now wanted him to "leave his wife" and woke up to the fact that he would never do so. So she left, and he let her leave. This was the theory of Mutual Consent. Each chose to get into this mess ; each chose how to end this mess. One went, one stayed. Each were equally jerks in their own way.

Mutual Consent lines up perfectly with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "ATOC." She gets to spin it a little bit, as if she "won" by leaving. (Technically he "won" by staying. Nobody calls him a fixer-upper, nosirree!)

I didn't like Mutual Consent -- still don't, since I didn't want them to be involved. But at least they made this mistake together.

Mystery of the Batwoman changed everything.

Mystery of the Batwoman removed the element of mutual consent.

In response I wrote two interpretations in my MotB review. (They're on page 9 (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=92230&page=9) if anyone's interested.) I titled the two interpretations Baked Alaska and Upside-down cake to keep them straight. (The review was based on a food motif.)

The Baked Alaska interpretation argued that this film showed Barbara actually had an unrequited crush on Batman. Thus her speech in "ATOC" was simply recounted to the best of her ability to remember the situation. No doubt her embarassment helped a little in the editing process.

Meanwhile, the Upside-down cake interpretation argued that MotB verified a real relationship between the characters -- but did so by introducing a severe imbalance of power. Basically one would have to be a predator and one would have to be prey, to explain what we see on the screen.

As it turned out, these interpretations, while still valid, proved overly simplistic. They neglected the element of timing, which is a big issue for some fans. So let's introduce some Big New Words from eschatological circles.

Preterist. This is just a fancy word for "all the big prophecies happened already, except for the Very Last Day which will be without warning."

If you're a "Bat preterist," you believe that Whatever Happened between Bruce and Barbara has already happened and we are witnessing the "death throes" of that relationship. Example :
Looks Bruce is trying to distance himself from Barbara after they ... you know ... Therefore there's nothing new to anticipate in this storyline until the last day of Batgirl's career, which will hit her like a board. (The "ATOC" reference to a Batgirl suit riddled with bullet holes comes to mind.) There will be tribulations still, such as Return of the Joker, but they aren't "romance-based" tribulations.

Bat Preterism has a number of problems. One : it doesn't quite line up with the commish's speech that she walked out on Batman. She did leave, but only after he dumped her first. That's not what she told people.

Two : it makes Bruce/Batman look like he preyed on a woman who has trusted him since childhood, then flushed her.

Three : Alfred and Tim seem to be okay with that.

Four : the only way to revisit the actual relationship would be to film a prequel to MotB. Since MotB is itself a prequel to ROTJ the writers would get complaints about going in the wrong direction. Alternately, they could try to fit it into Barbara's dialogue on Batgirl's Very Last Day Ever, but that could prove clunky.

Let's try another interpretation.

Futurist. This means "all the big stuff has yet to arrive." Futurists ride an emotional rollercoaster (sort of like market timers or extreme fanboys) because everything they see on the six o'clock news is a "sign" supporting their position. Then, just when their blood pressure subsides it's time for tomorrow's six o'clock news.

A "Bat futurist" believes that Whatever Happened between Bruce and Barbara has yet to happen. Example :
I like the nod to the future where we witness the budding relationship between Bruce and Barbara. Therefore we are witnessing the "birth pangs" of the relationship. That's an appropriate metaphor because things will get a lot more painful before the "oh, baby."

What are the Bat futurist's problems? One is Bruce's reluctance to get involved -- and the fact that he is getting everyone's unwavering support for his attempts to avoid her. (Even the Gotham TV reporters get in a dig at her expense by asking if she's old enough to do this.)

Two : if Barbara is the aggressor then she could easily drift into becoming the predator. If she had to drag him into the relationship and then (by her own admission in "ATOC") she dumped him, then she used him. That would make her look out of control.

Three : Given Bruce's obvious reluctance it's hard to figure out how they will get involved. In Catgirl's words, did Bruce suddenly "get the big light bulb" one day? Did he say, "Wow! You're gorgeous, intelligent, you know my name, and you're willing. Why didn't I see it before?" Or did Barbara wear him down? If she did, are we okay with that? Would we be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?

Do we see the problem? If the old assumptions of a Mutual Consent relationship soiled both characters and disturbed the fanboys :eek: --

then the possibility that one character exploited the other character is worse! :eek: :eek:

That's why my first reaction to the Batwoman film was amillennial. This is just a big word meaning that "timing is less important than what you do with the time given you. Sure, there's an end someday, but what are you going to do now?" The Baked Alaska review is amillennial. That is, character trumps timing. It also allows for parallel storylines (because The Millennium is now, in heaven, whereas troubles continue on earth). Barbara has had feelings and dreams for Batman in the past ; she's having them in the present ; she may have them well into the future. But is it her nature (or her fate) to actually act upon those feelings and dreams? Is it Bruce's nature (or fate) to respond? Would his response be positive, negative, sheltering, abusive -- or absent? What if his answer would be the same yesterday, today and always?

You see, the writers opened the door for the characters to back out of the situation without losing (too much) face, if they wish. Does Bruce find Barbara physically attractive? I'm sure he's noticed. (He's a loner, not dead.) Nevertheless he may never act on those feelings, what with the incest taboo being pretty strong even nowadays. And for Bruce, a man haunted by his family, the lure of physical/romantic fun may not be enough to compensate for the loss of filial relationships. Meanwhile, if Barbara had unrequited feelings for him, his refusal wouldn't change the fact that they're real to her. A Baked Alaska scenario would give her the freedom to feel what she feels, believe what she believes, and impose her own spin on her side of the story without actually making it wrong.

What do you think?

Here is the Bruce/Barbara conversation in its entirety.


Alfred drives the limo. Bruce and Tim sit in the back seat, with Bruce closer to the camera. Bruce's cellphone rings. He answers.

Bruce : "Bruce Wayne here."

Barbara : "Bruce! It's Barbara."

Bruce (friendly/casual) : "Hey Barb."

Tim (teasing/singsong) : "She misses you!" (holds his comic book over his face)

Bruce : "How's college?"

Scene shifts to Barbara's dorm room.

Barbara (stretched out on her dorm bed) : "Not bad. Though the night life here can't compare with (jaunty, enthusiastic) kicking butt as Batgirl!

She rolls over on the bed onto her stomach, feet kicked back and crosses her ankles ; begins twirling a lock of hair in her fingers.

Barbara : "But spring break'll be here soon and I'll be back in Gotham for (singsong) Two Whole Weeks. (purrs) Won't that be nice?"

Scene now alternates between the sets with each change of speaker. Bruce pauses, then :

Bruce (stone-faced, speaks neutrally) : "Yes. We'll all be happy to see you."

Tim (frowning) : "Don't drag me into this."

Barbara rolls off the bed, stands and wanders out to the balcony, her back to the audience.

Barbara : "Anyway, that's not the reason I called. I just saw the news --

She leans on the balcony railing, a breeze ruffling her hair ; orchestra begins an "awkward moment" clarinet solo.

Barbara : "-- and was wondering if you'd gotten a new partner, someone a little (petulant/disapproving) older?!"

Bruce (firmly) : "I have no idea who she is."

Barbara (you-better-believe-it-buster tone) : "Cause if you had, I'd be really upset.

She turns in profile to show an almost wistful expression ; looks at the ground, lowers her face to the phone

Barbara : "C-cause I thought you and I were ... (softly) you know ..."

Bruce deliberately picks up a newspaper and rustles it near the phone

Bruce : (uncomfortable expression on his face) "Uh ... Barb ... we're ... going through the East Tunnel now ... 'fraid .. signal's breaking up. Talk later."

Bruce turns off the cellphone ; his expression changes instantly. On her dorm balcony, Barbara hears him hang up, frowns at her cordless as if the phone has done something wrong. "Awkward moment" musical motif repeats louder.

In the limo Tim gives Bruce a conspiratorial grin and Alfred continues driving serenely. The "awkward moment" music is already darkening to the "don't trust her ; be careful" of the upcoming Rocky scene. By doing so it ties Batgirl to Batwoman, magnifying the impact of Bruce's last line in this scene which is doing the same thing.

Tim (attaboy) : "Squeaked through again, didn'cha?"

Alfred (attaboy) : "I never fail to marvel at your narrow escapes, sir."

Bruce (in a tone simultaneously professional and dismissive) : "One female Bat at a time."Whatever one may think of this scene, I wanted you to see the talent and craftsmanship and the incredible voice work that went into it. I don't doubt the creators reworked it a dozen times, polishing it to get it just right. (And yes, I caught the "gotcha!" before the character finished speaking the sentence. Heh, good one. :D )

Let's examine some lines in detail.

Bruce asks Barbara, "How's college?"

Um, okay, Continuity Alert. In the "real world" Barbara was already in college (Gotham State University, to be precise) when she was animated in what, 1992/93. In the animated world, Barbara was attending GSU at the same time as Dick Grayson. Based on the change in his appearance and his attitude between BTAS and the TNBA episode "Old Wounds," it's safe to say Dick Grayson aged one year (or more) between the time we met Barbara, and the time she attended his graduation. Supposedly we have another five years between "Old Wounds" and "Sins of the Father," when Grayson returns to Gotham. Then we have as little as three years or as many as five, between "Sins of the Father" and Return of the Joker.

So in the "real world" Babs has been portrayed in college for ten years (1993-2003). In animation Barbara has been in college for about ten years. And it only takes eight years to earn a doctorate. I suppose she's been attending part-time all these years, and I suppose she could be in graduate school. In that case I would have asked, "How's grad school?" not "How's college." But that's me.

Bruce says, "We'll ALL be happy to see you."

This could be translated as, "I shall be as happy as everyone else, neither less happy nor more happy." This line is a warning shot across the bow, so to speak. When analyzed more than that it gets too weird ... Barbara clearly hopes to enjoy a different style of "company" with Bruce than with everyone else, and he's pretending not to know what she would do differently with him than with anyone else.

Tim says, "Don't drag ME into this."

Tim speaks as if Bruce is looking for a place to hide, or a person to hide behind. Guilty conscience or being hunted? You make the call ...

Barbara says, "I just saw the news and was wondering if you'd gotten a new partner --"

Barbara's out of the loop.She's worried about both her job and her love love (if any). If she really is a partner, does Bruce/Batman owe it to her to tell her there's a new Bat in the cave, or is it okay for him to let her find out on the six o'clock news like a stranger?

Barbara continues, "someone a little OLDER?!"

She's peeved. It's almost as if she's worried the new person is a better match for Batman than she is, just because they're closer in age.

To digress here, Barbara really is acting younger than we've ever seen her. She twirls her hair, moons over some "moody boy" on the phone, and -- (I cannot believe no one has mentioned this) -- is rolling around on the bed. Yet it's not erotic the way it would be if we saw Catwoman rolling around on the bed musing whether she has a new rival in Batwoman. Barbara really does look like a regular teenager on the phone.

Where's Woobie? (Then again, the soccer moms would tie him to Barb's behavior and fly up the chimney. They just wouldn't understand.) Maybe he's in the washing machine.

You know what's funny? If the animated Barbara had been allowed to age normally (say, if she matched Oracle's age), she would be older than any of the Batwomen -- but she'd still be short and would still have to listen to TV reporters asking if she's "grown up" yet.

You know what's really funny? Barbara's more upset about "the age thing" than a lot of the posters here.

Bruce says, "I have no idea who she is."

Yeah, that ain't gonna save ya, Brucey. Both Batman and James Gordon claimed in "Shadow of the Bat" that they didn't know Batgirl's identity either, even though both of them knew Barbara's voice on account of hearing it all her life. They just never told her until TNBA when she forced the issue anyway.

Barbara say, "C-cause I thought you and I were ... you know ..."

Bruce already served notice once ("We'll ALL be happy to see you") that he doesn't want to talk about this. He was quite comfortable talking to her until she started flirting with him. Now she brings it up again. In response, he lies to her, hangs up on her, and is saluted for lying to her and hanging up on her.

Tim says, "Squeaked through again, didn'cha?"
Alfred seconds Tim's words with, "I never fail to marvel at your narrow escapes, sir."

This is obviously an ongoing problem. Bruce and Barbara have had this conversation (or avoided this conversation) before. They'll have it again too, since nothing has been resolved.

Let's look at Alfred and Tim. To paraphrase the Trek writer Janet Kagan,
If you hang your cape from a tree branch, someone's gonna pull it.And I have little doubt that this scene was written partly to tug some fanboy capes. You guys must admit you make the temptation almost irresistible. :D

Okay, so Alfred and Tim are making fun of Bruce. Those Great Stone Face types make easy targets. The problem is, by definition they cannot make fun of Bruce without also making fun of Barbara. And this is more mean-spirited because Barbara's not in the room. She can't defend herself ; she can't laugh it off ; she can't tease them back ; she can't slug them. Don't Tim and Alfred like her? Why ARE they doing this?

This is a big reason I came up with the Baked Alaska theory (i.e. Barbara just has a harmless crush). Otherwise, if they make fun of her they're making fun of something real, and that's cruel.

To stick with Alfred and Tim :
Alfred later says, "I think he may have some affection for this one." Tim then groans, "You sure can pick 'em."

Is Alfred saying Bruce/Batman does not have affection for another one? Is Tim saying Bruce picks badly? Or that Bruce was picked, and that this is bad? Again, this exchange takes place behind Barbara's back so she can't defend herself. It really sounds like Alfred and Tim are not pro-Bruce/Barbara.

Bruce concludes dismissively, "One female Bat at a time."

Batwoman is, of course, a headache, a loose cannon, and a problem he wants long gone. What is Bruce saying when he compares Batgirl to Batwoman?

Look at the dorm room scene again. Look at the character. Set aside the desire to leap to her defense or to leap to judgment, and look at her. She has sown ; what has she reaped? Does she look more intelligent, capable and professional in her purported position as a girlfriend, or less so? Is Barbara more poised and confident, or is she less so? Does Barbara seem happier? Does she seem happy? Maybe not as happy?

http://wf.toonzone.net/birdboy/boardstuff/oldmaid/t-barb04.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/batman/movies/MysteryOfTheBatwoman/Screens/16.jpg)
(Did the phone do something wrong? -- "MotB")

I think this is a good time for this quote :


I understand that virtually no one on this planet understands love, and those of us who do have probably only scratched the surface. I beg your pardon for getting so deep, but all I'm trying to say is, it doesn't seem like they're in love.I think the real attraction isn't about Batman or Bruce as a person. The truth is Barbara looks for certain qualities in her men : they're all borderline workaholics, they're passionate about justice, and they're idealists. I think Babs is really looking for men who at some level, remind her of her father. Not in a crude Electra sense of the word -- we've got enough of that weirdness already. I think she just wants to recapture those innocent days when she was the center of someone's world. To go back to the time when everything and everyone was perfect -- to a time when her dad could make no mistakes and she didn't either, because she was too young to be held responsible for her actions. To go back to a time without the brutish shades-of-gray that the adult world shoves in her face. To have one man who always believed in her, and when he looked at her saw only her best.

http://wf.toonzone.net/birdboy/boardstuff/oldmaid/t-barb02.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/WF/batman/movies/SubZero/Screens/14.jpg)
Barbara and her father ("Sub-Zero")

I think Barb's relationship with her dad was the purest, strongest, and most real relationship in her life. And I think the decades of comics, novels, episodes and films will back me up on this. From BTAS "Shadow of the Bat" to TNBA "Over the Edge" -- from The Killing Joke to No Man's Land : Claimjumping -- where one Gordon is found, the other is probably not far away. Of course no one and nothing has ever been good enough for Barbara, for who can compete with an ideal? Who can compete with a ghost? And if you ever had a taste of unconditional love, which is a rare and precious thing in this world, wouldn't you do anything to find it again? Batman comes in for a share of those pent-up emotions (positive and negative) because Batman is all that's left of her father. Batman is an expression of Jim Gordon's ideals, hopes and dreams, and a reminder of things lost. For all the people she had surrounded herself with, she is at heart deeply lonely. Her dad is gone. She's no one's little girl anymore.

Kind of like Bruce and his parents, come to think of it.

I find this a much more rich and true-to-character interpretation than the the same-old same-old "Dizzy Dame Torments Twitchy Bat."

I find it a more sympathetic and character-building interpretation than the same-old same-old "no one in Bats-land can keep their hot little hands to themselves."

But that's me.

That's my two cents.

And that's {The End.}

[The Old Maid]

POP QUIZ!

WORLD'S BIGGEST DROOLING FANBOY : "WAAAHH! You didn't say there was gonna be a quiz! Haven't I suffered enough?"

Aw, don't cry. Have a creampuff. :)

It's just that I think this scene will be debated for a while, and it's easier for people to formulate their arguments if they know how the other guys formulated theirs. I just want to know.

1. If you're a "Bat preterist," then you think Whatever Happened has already happened and now Bruce is distancing himself from Barbara. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's statement from "A Touch of Curare" (quoted earlier in post) that she was the one who left him?

2. If you're a Bat preterist you tend to believe that Whatever Happened could have been real. So how do you explain Alfred and Tim's behavior?

3. What do you think of the way Bruce is handling the situation?

4. Would you think differently if Bruce was a woman trying to distance herself from an equally persistent man?

5. If you're a "Bat futurist," you think that Whatever Happened is still in the future. If it's real, what do you think of Alfred and Tim's behavior?

6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?

7. Would you be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?

8. If you're a "Bat amillennialist" then the timing doesn't mean as much to you as the sum of their characters and "what are you going to do now." You probably think Barbara has an unrequited crush, because that crosses time from the past, into the present, and extending a little further into the future. So what you think of the way Bruce is handling it?

9. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" that she left him?

10. Anyone from any camp : If you think that the account told by Commissioner Barbara in "ATOC" is not in fact how it happened -- do you think Barbara was consciously trying to mislead Terry or bias him against Bruce, or do you believe she's telling it to the best of her ability to remember?

11. What mood, what "vibe" do you get from looking at Barbara? Is it sexy? playful? flat? sad? or what? Whatever look it is, is it a good look on her?

12. What mood/vibe do you get when you look at Bruce's response? Is it a good look on him?

13. Does anyone from any camp have an explanation for Alfred and Tim's behavior?

14. Are Alfred and Tim behaving this way for the same reason, or for different reasons?

15. Again, anyone from any camp : When Bruce lumps Barbara and Batwoman together in the dismissal, "One female Bat at a time," what does that make you think about how he thinks of Barbara?

Bonus round

(Related stuff that's not actually in the film)



A. What exactly is Dick to Bruce? And don't say "his ward," because that's a legal term. In emotional bonds, what are they? What are Bruce/Batman's obligations to Dick? If any.

B. If you see Bruce and Dick as parent-and-child, would you be okay with Barb's behavior if she had been a man who dated daughter then mother? If you see Bruce and Dick as brothers, would you be okay with it if Barb was a man who dated a younger sister then her older sister?

C. If Dick Grayson had never existed, would it change your opinion of the proposed Bruce/Barbara affair?

D. Do you think the animated James Gordon knows Batman's identity? Do you believe this knowledge (or lack of knowledge) was a factor in Jim's demonstrated preference for Dick Grayson as his daughter's suitor?

E. What exactly is James Gordon to the Batman? What obligations does Batman have to him? (If any.)

F. Although Barbara obviously misread her father's feelings and beliefs in TNBA's "Over The Edge," she's correct that her choices could cost him his career. What are her obligations to him? (If any.)

G. Where do we go from here?

EDIT : This question came up from later discussions. I put it here so it wouldn't get buried. Thanks to the Comics Board forum for the idea! :)

H. The CBC crew proposed that it wasn't being shot that made Barbara become Oracle -- so does it follow that if the animated Barbara is never shot, there must be another reason she didn't become Oracle? I'm not saying we should have seen Oracle in the Timmverse, or that it is Barbara's destiny to always become Oracle in any universe. Rather, I'm asking, when Animated Barbara decided to turn her girlhood crush on Batman into an adult romance, did that turn her into a person who could not have become Oracle in the Timmverse? Did Barb's persistent feelings for Batman kill her chances of ever being a Timmverse Oracle?

[maxnugget]

:eek:

[SilverKnight]

>passes out from the sheer length< ...Sweet merciful crap. I'm gonna have to reread this later. It presents interesting ideas, but there's no way I could sift through all of this in one sitting. Who knew anyone could possibly write such a long dissertation on the Bruce/Barbara debate, or care enough to. Hey, more power to you. What I've read thus far is definitely a, erm, intriguing read, even though it's making my head explode. :D Anyway, I'll be back later once I've regained a modicum of sanity. >disappears<

[DisneyBoy]

You've written too much here for me to read through in one sitting, but what I did read was fantastic and much appreciated. The Barbara/Bruce thing has been on my mind an awful lot now that Batman Adventures is wrapping up rather suddenly, and Justice League has yet to mention Batgirl as a guest star. What to make of all these disjointed scenes? Why was Barbara seemingly ready for engagement in Subzero and then rolling around (Woobie in the washer indeed!) giggling over Batman? The pieces don't fit quite as well as you give them credit, but I'm so glad you put your mind to charting a map nonetheless.

I especially liked the "Barbara is seeking another Jim" theory, but one thing threw me:

Her dad is gone. She's no one's little girl anymore.

Nothing actually happened to Jim did it? Have I missed an episode somewhere? Or rather, did you mean that Barbara is seeking to have a protector who regards her as the center of his world? And if that's what you meant, why on earth would she think that she could ever find that man? The love of a partner and mate is quite different from the protective adoration one recieves from one's parents. Something tells me she'd be smart enough to know that by now, given all her time in class.

I'm more than a little fed up with Timm's design almost demanding that Barbara be viewed as the "petite" little Batgirl, perky and ready for action, when she was really on the road to becoming a real woman; a person defined by something other than her romantic entanglements. I don't see why she can't be drawn as tall as Nightwing and Batman, instead of barely a foot above Tim. It may just be a visual thing, but to me, it speaks volumes of how little they let her grow. They started her at that height, realized she was shooting up too quickly, and then periodically trimmed her down. "Over the Edge" was really the last great story about Barbara, but in it, she does nothing except provide the audience with situations that reveal how she believes others perceive her. I'm still waiting for the day when she makes a decision. That split second when she jumped in front of the bullet intended for her father spoke volumes to me when I saw it. When was the last time she ever seemed so sure of herself or her feelings?

[maxnugget]

I'm still waiting for the day when she makes a decision. That split second when she jumped in front of the bullet intended for her father spoke volumes to me when I saw it. When was the last time she ever seemed so sure of herself or her feelings?

When did she do this? I don't remember a scene like that. (I'm not doubting you, I just mean I'm curious what scene/episode (Sub Zero?) you're referring to).

[BeastBoyWonder]

MOTB altered my perception further in that "Barbara has an unrequited crush on Batman; this makes me happy because I dislike the idea of a real romance." I had always sort of presumed that Barbara just had a crush on Bats or was grossly misinterpreting a very brief fling they had had or something along those lines which led to her comments in wherever the hell the coffee shop was (I think it was "A Touch of Curare", but I'm not sure on that), and to me that's what the little scene in Mystery of the Batwoman reflects. I don't think that this reveals any sort of deep inherent character flaw in Barb Gordon, but rather an inconsistency in her portrayal between the various shows.

[Alex Weitzman]

[low whistle]

All that and a quiz, to boot? Wow.

Heck, I can do this. Lemme see those questions.


1. If you're a "Bat preterist," then you think Whatever Happened has already happened and now Bruce is distancing himself from Barbara. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's statement from "A Touch of Curare" (quoted earlier in post) that she was the one who left him?

2. If you're a Bat preterist you tend to believe that Whatever Happened could have been real. So how do you explain Alfred and Tim's behavior?Irrelevant for me, as I am most certainly not a "Bat preterist". MOTB's Bruce/Barb scene only makes sense to me as being early in the "relationship", for lack of a better word.


3. What do you think of the way Bruce is handling the situation?Frankly, I think he's being about as diplomatic and cautious as he could possibly be. The Batman, after all, has a tendency towards blunt honesty. (Witness his treatment of Simon Trent in Beware the Grey Ghost.) Doubtless that Wayne's clear unwillingness to engage in such romantic patter with Barbara stems from the many, many negative factors that would be involved with such a decision, not the least of which is the respect he has for her father.

However, if that were the only motivation behind his actions, he'd have simply chastised her for the implications, authoritatively and firmly. The reason for his gentleness and white lying, then, must come from affection. I imagine it is the fanboy's struggle to figure out what level of affection is being utilized. For my money (at least, at this stage of the game), it is the affection that Bruce feels as a semi-surrogate father for a friend's daughter and a compatriot-in-arms as a vigilante. Love - his own love for Barbara - has not entered Bruce's mind at this time, and without the direct story of whatever affair ensued, I still have my doubts as to whether it ever did.


4. Would you think differently if Bruce was a woman trying to distance herself from an equally persistent man?Well, the tactics would certainly be shifted when the genders are reversed. But if we allow the matters of status to retain their current positions, I doubt I'd feel much differently. Being needy is not restrained to a particular gender; it just gets communicated in alternating ways.


5. If you're a "Bat futurist," you think that Whatever Happened is still in the future. If it's real, what do you think of Alfred and Tim's behavior?As Bruce is not the one driving this runaway train of a relationship, and things have barely developed as of yet, I suspect Alfred and Tim find this both endlessly amusing and unnervingly worrisome. Barbara has used her well-defined position within Bruce's personal non-romantic affection to try and shift herself into a new role, and it has put the Batman on edge in a way that few supervillains have been able to duplicate. Where else have we heard Wayne so flabbergasted? Because this stuff is harmless (in a physical sense, of course - once again, comparing it to his experiences as Batman), it amuses Alfred and Tim. On the other hand, they can see Barbara's actions with complete clarity and are smart enough to recognize that she's serious, and they care about her as well. They can see conflict on the horizon, thus their unwillingness to get particularly involved.


6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?A question of pure speculation. I can say what I'd like to see the story amount to, but I cannot say whether that is either a popular choice or one that is entirely faithful to the continuity.

I'd like to see their "affair", in its most active sense, occur within a very short span of time. Judging by her story in ATOC, I suspect Barbara has built up their romance more in her mind than what is reality, over the time they spent as partners in crimefighting. The pictures that Bruce looks at in Out of the Past seem to have been taken in the same set. What if the entirety of their physical relationship occurred over the course of one regrettable weekend spent away from prying eyes? (Meaningless detail ahoy: the pics in OotP are taken outside in a light woodsy environment.) A few years after Barb's end of grad school, they take a vacation - much like Dick had planned in Sub-Zero. But instead, what they do there ends up making Bruce sick with himself, in cold realization after the fact. Barbara expects to go even further than that, but Bruce puts the capper on there, citing the many reasons to not do what they already did. This precipitates Barb's evalutation of there being "nothing but the street" for Bruce, and her interpretation of her doing the walking away; she one-upped Bruce's elimination of the romantic relationship by fully eliminating all relationships between them.


7. Would you be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?Of course not. Browbeating is not how true love is created.


8. If you're a "Bat amillennialist" then the timing doesn't mean as much to you as the sum of their characters and "what are you going to do now." You probably think Barbara has an unrequited crush, because that crosses time from the past, into the present, and extending a little further into the future. So what you think of the way Bruce is handling it?

9. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" that she left him?Once again, not applicable due to my identification with a different camp.


10. Anyone from any camp : If you think that the account told by Commissioner Barbara in "ATOC" is not in fact how it happened -- do you think Barbara was consciously trying to mislead Terry or bias him against Bruce, or do you believe she's telling it to the best of her ability to remember?Neither. I believe she reinterprets the past and drops certain aspects in favor of others for her own benefit, not anyone else's. She is in self-denial, as she deep down knows how much she's screwed up. As wonderful a match she's made in Sam Young, he is a match for her older self, not her younger self, and it is her younger self that is unappeased and unresolved. She knows that Dick was the Sam of her youth, and she threw it away. She knows all of this at a subconscious level, but she refuses to be any more knowledgeable than that, because it would make her the villain in her life. So her foolhardiness becomes the men's loss, because that makes her the victim as opposed to the conductor of her own downfall.


11. What mood, what "vibe" do you get from looking at Barbara? Is it sexy? playful? flat? sad? or what? Whatever look it is, is it a good look on her?
Batgirl-age Barbara? I see curiosity. The kind that killed the cat. It is both highly appropriate on her and yet terribly depressing. One would wish that she had a sense of accomplishment in reality as opposed to a world more imbued in fantasy than even Batman's.


12. What mood/vibe do you get when you look at Bruce's response? Is it a good look on him?
He's running scared, I think. He's smart enough to sense a crush when it happens. He's a millionaire playboy; he's got to have dealt with this sort of stuff time and time again. The problem this time is who's got the crush. I don't judge this look on Bruce, because it is a defensive one. He earned it.


13. Does anyone from any camp have an explanation for Alfred and Tim's behavior?

14. Are Alfred and Tim behaving this way for the same reason, or for different reasons?
See previous answer.


15. Again, anyone from any camp : When Bruce lumps Barbara and Batwoman together in the dismissal, "One female Bat at a time," what does that make you think about how he thinks of Barbara?
I found it funny. :)

It does imply a sense of brushing her off, sure. But then, it's a meaningless social problem that is a pure distraction over the more important Batwoman issue. Once again, I felt it was a snarky comment that he's earned.


A. What exactly is Dick to Bruce? And don't say "his ward," because that's a legal term. In emotional bonds, what are they? What are Bruce/Batman's obligations to Dick? If any.Obligations? Oooh, toughie. I believe that he is obligated to Dick as a father, a mentor, and in regards to Barbara, a regretful reason for Dick's loss of happiness. Bruce clearly did not want to come between Barbara and Dick in Old Wounds. He made choices in that episode in hopes of possibly rectifying the problems, but he ended up making it worse. The five years that created Nightwing allowed Bruce to burn off the scab of that mistake and let his relationship with his former Robin be as cold as Dick wanted it to be. In some ways, that was also penance; he gave Dick the freedom to reject him if so desired. But Barbara poses a new breach upon Bruce's regret, a breach frought with additional dangers. His actions in MOTB don't surprise me at all.


B. If you see Bruce and Dick as parent-and-child, would you be okay with Barb's behavior if she had been a man who dated daughter then mother? If you see Bruce and Dick as brothers, would you be okay with it if Barb was a man who dated a younger sister then her older sister?The latter is more acceptable, to be blunt, but both represent significant lacks of tact on the part of the Barb character of the hypothetical, to say the least. Family is a sacred thing, and if such problems occur between family members, the mistakes of the second members who date the "outsider", as it were, would be significant but less of a betrayal. The responsibility between such family members is tempered by the love that exists between them - and the hypothetical must consider that such love does exist between Bruce and Dick. It is the fault of the outsider who keeps looking for more love from the same family unit, constantly flaunting the bad blood in front of the previous lover.


C. If Dick Grayson had never existed, would it change your opinion of the proposed Bruce/Barbara affair?Age, Jim Gordon, the situation of Batman.........yeah, it's still a bad idea.


D. Do you think the animated James Gordon knows Batman's identity? Do you believe this knowledge (or lack of knowledge) was a factor in Jim's demonstrated preference for Dick Grayson as his daughter's suitor?Over the Edge makes it quite clear, albeit subtly, that Gordon knows the secret of Batgirl/Barbara. It is safe to assume that in figuring that out, he knows the rest. ("All you need to know is that I love you. All of you.") We don't know when he figured this out, although my suspicion is that Barbara's more permanent introduction into the Bat-family was the key to the mystery for Jim Gordon. Ergo, Gordon's endorsement of Dick precedes that. After all, you said it yourself in "Wertham's Ghost":


Jim Gordon’s fondness for Dick is not an isolated incident or convenient plot device. It is consistent with the old commissioner’s character. Jim didn’t just watch Robin grow up at the Batman’s side. He watched young Dick grow up at Bruce Wayne’s side. It was Detective Gordon who interviewed Dick after his parents were killed ("Robin's Reckoning (http://anbat.toonzone.net/btas/ind/robinsr.html)"). It was he who approved Dick’s placement at Wayne Manor. Jim kept them informed of developments. He visited and checked up on them. Gordon genuinely cared about this orphaned boy and was determined to see that he got justice.

Gordon never did catch the man who killed Dick’s parents. When the killer (Tony Zucco) was finally apprehended, Gordon came down from police headquarters to arrest the man himself. Why not send someone else? Because Gordon wanted the killer behind bars as badly as the Batman did. Jim Gordon pursued this case, unseen and unappreciated, for almost ten years. Now he has the satisfaction of knowing that young Dick grew into an outstanding young man, and of knowing that he played a part in it. Jim is well prepared to accept Dick into his family.

The difficulties of the timeline present the problem of relating Jim's knowledge of the Bat identities with his endorsement of Dick; if I am correct in when Gordon figured it out, it would have occurred just after Dick broke off that very relationship anyway. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that the two of them were still together when Gordon put two and two together. I do not doubt that it took him some time to reconcile the idea of having his daughter engage in this brand of daredevil vigilantism. But I think Gordon would come to the realization fairly quickly that it is no greater a danger than he himself faces as a cop, just placed in different circumstances. He must've had these thoughts about Batman, too, well before he put a face behind the mask. I think it could've reinforced his support of Dick; it'd be wiser to keep it all "in the family", so to speak.



E. What exactly is James Gordon to the Batman? What obligations does Batman have to him? (If any.)Wayne owes Gordon the obligation of respect as both a man and a lawman, the obligation as a friend, and the obligation as a soulmate. Truly, they are soulmates, more than possibly any other two characters in the Bat universe. Gordon probably would join Wayne if he had the motivating tragedy to do so and the physicality to keep up; another reason, perhaps, that he ends up approving of Barb's secret life in Over the Edge. Because of this, it is no wonder that Bruce finds Barbara's advances difficult to swallow.


F. Although Barbara obviously misread her father's feelings and beliefs in TNBA's "Over The Edge," she's correct that her choices could cost him his career. What are her obligations to him? (If any.)In a perfect world, she should be a dutiful and loving daughter. But I hesitate to define such obligations, because the obligations between a parent and a child are tricky and transient things. No two families are alike on this issue. Her mistakes, though, have reasons enough to not exist without figuring in their cost to James Gordon to have to determine those anyway.


G. Where do we go from here?Like I said much earlier (boy, this post got big), there is still a story left to tell. It's the one missing piece of the puzzle that we really know of right now. If there's more, they are yet to be even revealed at all. The next place on this tour is the actual affair itself. And that may change it all.

[Grimlock]

That's my two cents.

And that's {The End.}
*snipped out everything*

Wow...you have a lot of time on your hands.

You do realize not even the creators put this much thought/time/energy into the barbara/bruce relationship, right?

[LoneWolf21]

Wow, that's one heck of a piece of writing.

Really, the only comment I can make at the moment is that how hard it is to get a good feel for what happened in the break-up of Dick and Babs, just because we've heard one, sort of vague, side of it, which is kind of the effect of Nightwing dissapearing off the face of the DCAU Earth and almost becoming something of an after-thought.

[Fone Bone]

*snipped out everything*

Wow...you have a lot of time on your hands.

You do realize not even the creators put this much thought/time/energy into the barbara/bruce relationship, right?
Hey! The Old Maid always puts a lot of thought into these essays. No fair to dismiss them because you think it's a waste of time. It's good to figure things out about a fanboy type show. All we do on this board is speculate on the motivations of these characters we love. Should the Old Maid be chastised just for putting a lot of thought into it and articulating it better than anyone else?

[Karkull]

Old Maid, as always my hat goes off to you. Your driven analysis of Barbara Gordon's character has always held my interest, and here it seems to come full circle. The conclusion that Babs is interested in Batman because he reminds her of her father makes sense (daughters look for guys that remind them of their fathers, after all) and provides a sense of closure to this running narrative you've constructed. Unless she shows up again, there's little more to analyze.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I recognize the risk in responding to a thread when I haven't seen all the stuff myself (Mystery of the Batwoman is on the "to-do" list), but I do have one minor correction and one twist on what's been said so far.

The minor correction is about Jim Gordon's marital status. Is it established that he's divorced? He could also be a widower (or, if you want to take a REAL risk, a single parent who was never married). I can't remember any references to an Animated Age Mrs. Gordon offhand. I don't think the difference matters much in your analysis, but you've managed to work in all kinds of other stuff that I considered relatively insubstantial, so maybe it does and I just don't see it yet.

The twist on what's been said so far also relates to Jim Gordon -- specifically, his attempt to influence Barb's love life. I agree with all the sentiments expressed on why he wouldn't consider Batman or Bruce as alternatives to his daughter. However, if he does know the secrets behind the masks, don't almost all the same arguments against Bruce also work against Dick?

-- Ed/Ace

[Phantasm]

WOW!!!
i am a newbie here and let me tell you old maid, your essays really make my day!call me biased but i nevr like dth ewhole idea of a bruce/babs relationship,and i don't know whether it your intention or not, your essays just give m eth prefect reason to dislike barb.
it's so lenghty though,so i haven't read the second part yet,but you are such a brillinat writer.i truely unbashedly admire your gifted sense of evaluation.How do you do that?and why?!Not that I man it in a bad way!no not at all!it's just that the stuff must require effort and you put in in these essays yet i don't see any obvious "reward" ...do you work for WB or something?!coz you have the barbara character nailed!!
and very well written as well!
thank you for the excellent read!
keep up the good job!

[The Old Maid]

Grimmy/FB : no harm, no foul. :) It's possible the writers had plans for the characters that never got developed because of the network interference on BB and the tragic loss of one of their own. Then again they could just be tugging our capes. Who'm I to disappoint? It's not like I've never heard the dulcet tones of the Boo Birds before. ;)


I believe she reinterprets the past and drops certain aspects in favor of others for her own benefit, not anyone else's. She is in self-denial, as she deep down knows how much she's screwed up. As wonderful a match she's made in Sam Young, he is a match for her older self, not her younger self, and it is her younger self that is unappeased and unresolved. She knows that Dick was the Sam of her youth, and she threw it away. She knows all of this at a subconscious level, but she refuses to be any more knowledgeable than that, because it would make her the villain in her life. So her foolhardiness becomes the men's loss, because that makes her the victim as opposed to the conductor of her own downfall.Beautifully stated. I still think it needs to be expressed on the show itself. Fanboys might see it, but fanboys aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences. The characters who do, deserve a voice.

(Meaningless detail ahoy: the pics in OotP are taken outside in a light woodsy environment.) I always thought it was Central Park.


... Jim Gordon's marital status. Is it established that he's divorced? He could also be a widower (or, if you want to take a REAL risk, a single parent who was never married). I can't remember any references to an Animated Age Mrs. Gordon offhand.True. I went by the comics because I didn't know of a good enough reason to contradict them. I do get a strong impression from Barbara's behavior that she grew up in a single-parent home. They both idealize each other, which implies no third person around to pop their balloons. Unless Jim has a personality to prefer the single life (which also hasn't been established), my guess was that he's single because it's so hard for city policemen to find spouses who won't pressure them to quit. Now a small town policeman might stay married for many years.



Originally posted by Ace the Bathound

The twist on what's been said so far also relates to Jim Gordon -- specifically, his attempt to influence Barb's love life. I agree with all the sentiments expressed on why he wouldn't consider Batman or Bruce as alternatives to his daughter. However, if he does know the secrets behind the masks, don't almost all the same arguments against Bruce also work against Dick?

Originally posted byAlex Weitzman

I think Gordon would come to the realization fairly quickly that it is no greater a danger than he himself faces as a cop, just placed in different circumstances. He must've had these thoughts about Batman, too, well before he put a face behind the mask. I think it could've reinforced his support of Dick; it'd be wiser to keep it all "in the family", so to speak.Well, you answered each other and you didn't.;) If Jim knew Robin's identity, my guess is that he also could tell by looking at Robin that this was not necessarily something Robin would do for a lifetime. Dick didn't have the drive or even the motivation to stay a vigilante for life until the two people he trusted "ganged up on him," as he saw it. I think Jim would look at the sociable Dick/Robin and foresee a retirement or "honorable discharge from the service," and that Dick might become a policeman, firefighter or crime lab scientist. Jim could then mentor him in some of these careers.

I agree with the comment about "keeping it in the family" ... my only quibble being that Jim didn't know that Dick/Robin didn't know that Barb was Batgirl. Jim probably thought everybody knew everything and that they were okay with it.

Now if Jim didn't know Dick was Robin, then Jim must be reacting to Dick's personality. A strong, funny, intelligent man who would be good to his daughter ... and who indulged her as much as her father did.


I don't know whether it your intention or not, your essays just give me the perfect reason to dislike Barb.Oops, no, not my intent. I don't like some of her actions, but I've pummeled a few Batboys too. Equal opportunity nitpicker. :D

Try giving Babs another chance in her Oracle role. She narrated much of the No Man's Land novelization by Greg Rucka. Barb does quite a bit of self-examination and it's an excellent introduction to her character.


Did you mean that Barbara is seeking to have a protector who regards her as the center of his world? And if that's what you meant, why on earth would she think that she could ever find that man? Why does Batman think he can stop all crime? Goes back to the unknowing child/invincible teen in them both ... they don't know there are things they can't do. It doesn't bother me if Barb does this because Bruce does it too, although they express it differently.


I especially liked the "Barbara is seeking another Jim" theory, but one thing threw me:

"Her dad is gone. She's no one's little girl anymore."

Nothing actually happened to Jim did it? I meant amillennially, in her attitude. Obviously one day he will die (he would be gone by BB's time), and that's going to be bad for everyone. I'm guessing Babs and Bats will sunconsciously compete for the role of First Mourner since they're already in competition as to who can carry on his legacy better.

See, when Babs was a little girl she was perfect and her father was perfect ; he could do anything except that he could never die. As they both grew older her idealist memories remained but reality intruded. He made decisions she didn't like : how to raise her (i.e. she became old enough to discipline) ; he started working longer at the office so that if she wanted to see him she had to play at the office too ; and he definitely had some times when he spent more time with the Bat than with her. Barbara is physically shrinking, but Jim is growing frail. And one day when he's gone she won't entirely accept that, no more than Bruce can accept that his parents are gone. He can't believe it. It's unbelieveable. Every morning he has to believe it all over again. For Barb it would be something along the lines of, "You said you'd always be there for me. If you loved me how could you leave me?" The way young innocents are stunned. However since Barbara sees the idealized dad as more real than the equally loving but fallible dad, in a way she's been losing him all along.

[Alex Weitzman]

Beautifully stated. I still think it needs to be expressed on the show itself. Fanboys might see it, but fanboys aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences. The characters who do, deserve a voice.
Indeed, but unless b.t. and his posse had plans to utilize JLU to reexamine old Batman issues such as this, I doubt we'll see the answers to that. Of course, barring a DTV flick.


I always thought it was Central Park.
This thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=109457) has the two pictures from Out of the Past. I take back the "light" in "light woodsy", because that pic of Barbara with the forest behind her looks definitely thicker than a simple park. In addition to that, the other picture from the same set (and it is most definitely the same set, given the identical garb for Barb) has an oceanside view. They are most definitely on a one-on-one vacation.

[DisneyBoy]

Gotta disagree there. Please note the earrings in the boating trip picture, and the lack of earrings in the following picture. Possibly two different occasions.

Not that we could ever know for certain, mind you, since no one seems willing to have Barbara walk about without her now "signature" black top and grey skirt. Since when does a lady of fashion wear only one ensemble, I ask you?

[Phantasm]

that's the annoying thing with animated stuff.The characters tend to wear the same outfit their entire lives.

[Alex Weitzman]

Gotta disagree there. Please note the earrings in the boating trip picture, and the lack of earrings in the following picture. Possibly two different occasions.
Argh, paradoxes.

For me, when details contradict, I tend to go with the more-difficult-to-screw-up details as the main proof. It takes effort to notice the earring snafu, but anybody can see that Barb's wearing the same outfit. More importantly, allowing such identicality of clothing would be a cinematic signpost that we are supposed to assume these pictures were taken in the same set.

[DerekPowers]

wow old maid, i think you just set a record on these boards. ive posted my share of in-depth, analytical, long posts, but this one takes the cake. i gotta be honest, i didnt read it all, but i most certainly will, in due time. so keep that in mind with this response...

first, i gotta re-watch sub-zero. i actually forgot about a lot of the interactions between barbara and dick in it. and good call on the dream sequence in "batgirl returns", i also tend to over look that when evaluating the bruce/barbara relationship.

now, the way i see, and forgive me if you covered this (which, you probably did given the lenght of your post), the mystery of the batwoman totally screwed everything up, if you want to talk about continuity. it can fit, if you really wanted it to, but it disrupts something that was better the way it was before. whats that you ask? well, batman beyond refered a lot to barb and bruce's relationship, BUT a lot of time passed between tnba and bb, and during that time a whole host of things could have happened, and it was left to our imagination to think up what happened AND elaborate on things touched upon, like their relationship.

motb makes it clear that they were intamate, or atleast thats what i gathered. that phone conversation, imo, goes down as one of the most gross and just completely screwed up scenes of the dcau batman's history. imo, it accelerates when their relationship should have happened. and it was due to bad writing, plain and simple. barbara was in college during btas, NOT tnba, and NOT during motb. sure, its been said that by "college" they could have meant graduate school, but thats a bit of a stretch, imo. AND you also have the tim drake factor. now, i understand that in the rotj flashback, bruce and barb COULD have been "together" so to speak, but there is no indication that they were, so imo, they hooked up after that happened. in short, robin was out of the picture.

now, i know that that is a lot of assuming on my part, but i truely think that bb implied that the relationship happened between the time of tnba and bb, not during tnba time, and motb just moved it up. if by "college" barb meant graduate school, then yeah, it could technically fit. but i personally think it messed up what was once left to our imaginations. and it was just a horribly written scene, and frankly, not that great a movie overall.

anyway, i personally always liked dick and barb better, but i never disliked bruce and barb either. i just think it was unnecessary to have them get involved in tnba time. it just leave out so many possibilities. what about batman and catwoman? what about everything inbetween tnba and bb. so, now at this point in the timeline, the next time we'll see bruce and barb NOT involved will be when barb stops being batgirl? anyway, i'll stop my rant now, but i'll be sure to read the rest of your post tomorrow, when its not such and un-godly hour. ;)

peace.

[DLM]

Excellent post Old Maid, very thought provoking and just a pleasure to read.


You do realize not even the creators put this much thought/time/energy into the barbara/bruce relationship, right? I disagree, I think the creators probably DID put alot of thought into the barbra/bruce relationship, but just left if purposly very open to interpretation because 1. It does give the fans (or "fanboys") something to chew on and 2. It necessarily involves some very adult issue that can't be directly addressed in a show that has to a least partly take into account younger viewers. They may not have broken down the whole thing down as elegently and specifically as Old Maid has, but they were definately deliberatly giving us complex characters and complex interpersonal relationships. Even if they didn't, its always debatable whether it really matters what a creator "intended" when examining a work of art. (See deconstruction and pretty much all of modern thoretical literary criticism.)

Anyway, I'm not going to answer each point of your quiz but I'll give you my over all take on things:

I think Mr Weitzman probably had it right when he suggested that Bruce and Barbara's actual "affair" was a brief, maybe just a one shot deal that by the time of BB Barbara has overlayered in memory with her own somewhat self-serving (in terms of protecting her own psyche) interpretation.

As to the "relative fault" in Dick, Barbara and Bruce, I'd just like to point out that these were individuals working together (at various times) in high-adrenaline, life-and-death extraordinary situtations. Lets look at Bruce and "sidekick" Barbara in particular. They have to literally trust each other with their lives in order to survive and function doing what they do. Add to this that there is already a kind of intimacy in knowing each others "secret". When you are talking about two attractive individuals of the opposite gender in these circumstances its only natural that some romantic tension might develop. Perhaps noone involved handled it idealy but who ever does? Especially when you consider that anyone who chooses to do what the Batfamily does has to be a bit funny in the head to begin with.

[Grimlock]

I disagree, I think the creators probably DID put alot of thought into the barbra/bruce relationship, but just left if purposly very open to interpretation because 1. It does give the fans (or "fanboys") something to chew on and 2. It necessarily involves some very adult issue that can't be directly addressed in a show that has to a least partly take into account younger viewers. They may not have broken down the whole thing down as elegently and specifically as Old Maid has, but they were definately deliberatly giving us complex characters and complex interpersonal relationships. Even if they didn't, its always debatable whether it really matters what a creator "intended" when examining a work of art. (See deconstruction and pretty much all of modern thoretical literary criticism.)


My point was, i don't think any of the creators wrote a 10 page essay on the subject. They probably put a lot of thought into what the past of Batman Beyond was (i.e. they decided barbara and bruce would have had a relationship), but in something like mystery of the batwoman...i would bet a thousand bucks that they threw in the scene with babs and bruce because they thought, "hey, we already said they got together in BB, let's just throw this cute little scene in here."

And that's what i imagine took place. I was just saying i think old maid is way over-analyzing it. But hey, if people enjoy it, let her write. It's an open forum after all...which also means i get to state my opinion :).

[Style]

Sign me up as Bat-amminimulist. She had a crush on him in BTAS and unfortunatly she was allowed to pursuit it through her Batgirl guise. As for her leaving him, I think that's more what she would like to think. What she said to Terry need not neccessarily be the truth, because she could be remembering wrong. Or she could just be trying to save face.

In effect, I believe what she meant by "leaving him" is that one day a light bulb went off for her: That she realized that this was a crush that she could not fulfill because he couldn't, and she gave up pursuing it. By dint of that fact, she also gave up Bat-girl for that guise was just a means of being closer to Batman by emmulating him. She had no reason to continue in that role if she were not with him. Ofcourse, she became bitter that Bruce wouldn't indulge her, so she passed the thing off as his fault.

That being said, Her line of, "I thought we were, you know..." Seems to indicate that at some time Batman did lead her on a bit, but I assume from Bruce's reaction that it was unintentional. I've been wondering what he might have done in that regard, but I don't think it neccessarily means they made love. Maybe Bruce said something to her she misinterpreted. I don't know.

Dang, this thread reminded me of how much I miss Batman Beyond :sad:

[Merlin Missy]

How It Could Have Played Out And How I Think It Did:

Barbara had her crush on him. A lot. For a long time. Before she was Batgirl, during her relationship with Dick, after Dick left, after RotJ. Sometimes, like during the events of MotB, it was in the forefront of her mind. Sometimes, she was bright enough to know she needed to focus on other things. I've had crushes like this, and what happens is that anything *anything* said to you by the object of your affection will be dissected for any reciprocally amorous content. At some point before MotB, possibly right before, Bruce said or did something that Barbara felt she could take as unambiguous. Possibly there was a near-death "I thought I'd lost you" moment, possibly there was a post-fight "I don't know what I'd do without you," possibly there was just a hug that ... um ... slipped. At any rate, Barbara went "Yippee!" and jumped at it, either spilling all her feelings, or simply making it Very Clear what she felt.

Barbara: I love you!
Bruce (internal): Uh oh.

Bruce then makes the mistake during MotB to try and spare her feelings, when honestly, the best thing you can do for someone who has an unrequited crush is to tell them simply and firmly that you're not interested. Tim and Alfred get it, and they also get that Bruce isn't trying to string her along, but is trying not to alienate her, too. Shades of Dick --- if he pushes her away too strongly, he'll lose another partner, and also he knows just how much trouble a jilted potential lover what knows his secret can be. He hopes she'll figure it out on her own.

Time passes. RotJ occurs. Dick is way gone, Barbara is the one there to help him help Tim come back to sanity. And then Tim is gone, and it's just the two of them. "It was like ballet," older Babs says, and to her, it probably was. No Boys Wonder to get in the way, just her and someone she'd been working with for ten(?) years by that point.

Maybe there was a bad night, bad string of nights. A lot of violence, some deaths he couldn't prevent, maybe he finally took down Selina when she crossed the line. It was a bad time, and his two almost sons weren't there to be his balance, and he was feeling more broken than usual, and there was Barbara, who was pretty, and willing, and thought she loved him. Later, he feels guilty, for all the reasons The Old Maid went into about why this is Very Very Wrong: Jim, Dick, and let's not forget jeopardizing their working relationship. And also, he's Bruce Wayne, reknowned for his love-em-and-leave-em lifestyle, and Barbara deserves better from him. So he tries. They go away on a trip together, maybe once, maybe more than once. He does care for her, and she's happy to finally have him after all these years. It is also the final nail in the coffin for Bruce's relationship with Dick.

And then one night, not especially long after this, she gets shot a lot, in an echo of what happened to the comics Barbara. He goes to see her in the hospital.

Bruce: You're off the street for good.
Babs: Fine. Come off the street with me. Stick with your day job, we'll get married and have kids.
Bruce: No.
Babs: Jerk.

And forty years later, she's still annoyed. She sees him as having strung her along for all those years, willing to play house with her but not willing to make a committment. Never mind that's kind of what she did to Dick; these things do not factor in when one is nursing a broken heart. Since she did get horizontal with Bruce, and not with Dick, it's much easier to dismiss the earlier relationship as "puppy love," because if it was real with Dick, she would have done that with him instead. Bruce meanwhile gets wistful memories of something that might have worked out, but probably wouldn't, just like every other relationship he's had. At the same time, he's managed to isolate himself from all three former partners, leaving him alone and grumpy.

So where does that put me in the scale?

MM:)

[Phantasm]

hhhmm... now that I think about it,Barbara seems to really like Bruce, so much so, it took the form of infatuation.I mean until now, it seems that all she did, she did it to have him, it's like her life revolved around him.So could it be, that Bruce truely was wrong at turning her down,regarding the fact that her infatuation with him, might have been good in the long run,for instance,if they ever did get involved, at least Barbs would never be the one to call it quits?She supposedly did dump him but I'm saying that if Bruce hadn't been the way he is, could the relationship really have worked so well because then, at least from barb's side there would be total commitment.Won't it be beneficial to Bruce if he has someone as commited to him in his life as she is?

[GCFyouthcamper]

Old Maid, I gotta give you credit for your thinking skills, analytical mind, and passion for delving into the issues of the Batman universe.

I still remember your other essay on a similar topic, the "Dinner and a Show" one. You know, "Baked Alaska" and "Upside-Down Cake." In fact, I saved a copy of it on my PC and read it to my brothers, who loved it, btw.

As the others have said, this is waaaaay too long to read in one sitting. As I did before, I saved it on my pc and will read it asap. Hopefully this thread will still be alive when I'm ready to post my two cents.

[ClockStomper]

I think Dini, Timm and the rest put a lot of thought into it, however, the MOTBW crew did not. There's not much at all in the aforementioned movie, since it tried to be "light and fluffy" to avoid the WBA censors from hell.

[lostrune]

hhhmm... now that I think about it,Barbara seems to really like Bruce, so much so, it took the form of infatuation.I mean until now, it seems that all she did, she did it to have him, it's like her life revolved around him.So could it be, that Bruce truely was wrong at turning her down,regarding the fact that her infatuation with him, might have been good in the long run,for instance,if they ever did get involved, at least Barbs would never be the one to call it quits?She supposedly did dump him but I'm saying that if Bruce hadn't been the way he is, could the relationship really have worked so well because then, at least from barb's side there would be total commitment.Won't it be beneficial to Bruce if he has someone as commited to him in his life as she is?

Bruce + Barb won't work in their regular persona because then, if one of the Bat-couple is captured and unmasked, it'd be easy to guess who the other is.

[randomguy]

The minor correction is about Jim Gordon's marital status. Is it established that he's divorced? He could also be a widower (or, if you want to take a REAL risk, a single parent who was never married). I can't remember any references to an Animated Age Mrs. Gordon offhand. I don't think the difference matters much in your analysis, but you've managed to work in all kinds of other stuff that I considered relatively insubstantial, so maybe it does and I just don't see it yet.
Actually, the original BTAS Writers Bible, available on the World's Finest website, says that Gordon is married... specifically, to Sarah Gordon, presumably the animated version of Sarah Essen. That being said, a lot of stuff from the Writer's Bible ended up getting tinkered around with pretty substantially, so I don't know if we can consider that canon or not. For what it's worth, I don't believe there's any evidence in the series to directly suggest that Gordon is single OR married. Though we don't see a Mrs. Gordon, it might just be that there was no important role for her to play.

Furthermore, Gordon was recently seen in bed with a woman in an issue of Batman Adventures.

[raykremer]

That was an amazing read. *Applauds*

[RAINMAN]

I never like the idea of them being a couple. Now after reading what old maid post prove my point. Or when push come to solve you can just blame WB for bad writeing.

[Steven C]

cliffs pls!

[Robin]

Even though I found the post really well written, my opinion doesn't change in the slightest. I love the idea of Bruce and Babs having a relationship. Something between the two clicks really nicely.They find something they want through each other. Barbara has a very inside track into the world of Batman she fantasized about for years. Bruce has has an inside track to the police force through Barbara who, in "Torch Song," was seen working for the GCPD. I think the two work. Granted, it has "doomed relationship" painted all over it, but they made for an interesting couple.

[Elderly Bruce Wayne]

Old Maid, that essay opened my mind to something I hardly gave second thoughts to. I want to respond fully and in my own words. But It took me all night to read, so this post will be abbreviated.


In effect, I believe what she meant by "leaving him" is that one day a light bulb went off for her: That she realized that this was a crush that she could not fulfill because he couldn't, and she gave up pursuing it. By dint of that fact, she also gave up Bat-girl for that guise was just a means of being closer to Batman by emmulating him. She had no reason to continue in that role if she were not with him. Ofcourse, she became bitter that Bruce wouldn't indulge her, so she passed the thing off as his fault.stly92's second paragraph comes the closest match to what I initailly made of Granny Gordon's speech in ATOC. If the actual "they did it" never occured (though ATOC definitely provoked the issue), then leaving was the culmination of "you can only be rebuffed for so long". I can only speculate if "they did it", then it haunted and horrified Wayne to no end and he definitely grew colder towards her.

At the risk of spending all morning engaging in speculation, I can't see the animated Wayne boinking any woman. He could have with Andrea, but after he married his work, never again. He became asexual (devoid of sexuality). He never had those urges, those needs.

The Bat-toon showed he could certainly kiss, but never have dirty thoughts of any woman; not Catwoman, not even Talia ('cept maybe Plant Susan). Only "Out of the Past" showed regrets over his lost loves. Even with Plant Susan and Hallie Berry, I mean Kathy Duquense, his happy expressions never elevate to Original Sin. Desire, perhaps. Love, as in affection/companionship rather than love, as in sex partner. I wonder how Kathy's relationship ended with Wayne? She get bored with him?

I think Granny Gordon's speech in "A Touch of Curare" may have been an easy out simply to explain WHY there is a wedge between her and Wayne and WHY she wants Terry to quit while he's ahead. When it was still the Terry-and-Bruce show, this unyielding resentment of the Batmen became part of the foundation. I found it distasteful. Come RotJ, her temperment was entirely toned down. But once "the fanboy cape was tugged", writers couldn't resist going back to it. Eventually, the "affair" has become a forced issue rather than a throwaway line (implied). Reaves and Burnett on MotB must've felt pressure/obligation to address the issue but not answer any questions. If not for the unbelievable motive for giving Wayne an all-new romantic interest, this chapter of the animated saga could've resolved some issues. Otherwise, it was a static, stand-alone episode. One that might be classified as a lost episode scheduled, but scrubbed, to follow "Mad Love". No passage of time, except for the college thing. Guess GSU wasn't curricular enough for Babs.

The animated canon is the only Batman I know. So I can't go chapter and verse with any of you on whether or not Wayne has had sexual relations in the other comics and novels.

Gotta stop now. Hope to answer your quiz at length later.

[The Old Maid]

cliffs pls?Aw, now if we did that would you still read the novel? ;) Cliff Notes can backfire on you since I've seen Cliffs that were longer than Ernest Hemingway's novellas. (Not that my scribblings would ever be mistaken for Hemingway.)

Actually, that was the real reason I put in a "pop quiz." It touched on the high points. I figured if anyone actually answered anything that would be great -- I'm genuinely interested in other people's observations -- but the "quiz" itself kind of served as my outline.


This thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=109457) has the two pictures from Out of the Past. I take back the "light" in "light woodsy", because that pic of Barbara with the forest behind her looks definitely thicker than a simple park. We saw Gotham Park in "A Touch of Curare" and "Final Cut." Curare had plenty of greenery to hide behind. Gotham Park, like its real-world counterpart (NY's Central Park) contain wide swatches of dense greenery, both trees and shrubbery, in addition to the traditional parklike wide-open spaces. Look at it from space sometime ; in parts you can't even see the ground. Alternately, the Barb candid on the grass could have been taken in Wayne's own backyard. The Wayne family holdings weren't limited to just the manor ; they owned that whole stretch of land between the coast and the road.


In addition to that, the other picture from the same set (and it is most definitely the same set, given the identical garb for Barb) has an oceanside view. They are most definitely on a one-on-one vacation.I agree with DisneyBoy that the two pics could be two separate occasions, but I don't think either pic supports the idea of a one-on-one vacation. Actually this pic in particular proves the opposite : stay-at-home candid shots with other Bat-family members around. It was almost certainly taken in the "backyard" along Wayne's "private beach" / exclusive stretch of the coast. (If it wasn't, it was probably taken on the balcony of Wayne Manor next to the railing. Not that it makes much difference.) See, you guys keep forgetting that someone else took the picture. I'm guessing Alfred was at the wheel to keep the boat from crashing into the rocks and Tim was behind the camera. (If they were on the balcony then Alfred would be fetching refreshments. Ruining your life is thirsty work!) Note that Bruce isn't looking at the camera. The weird expression on his face is one thing ; people can pass that off as bad animation, or else argue that Bruce just doesn't know how to smile. But not looking at the camera? Yeah, that's an "ambush" picture, which you know just screams Tim.
Barbara : "Can you believe it? No crime for 24 whole hours! I can't remember the last time we had a day off. Mmm, breeze is nice ... This is The Perfect Day."

Bruce (agreeably) : "It is nice."

(Impulsively Barbara snuggles under his arm ; Bruce's face contorts into what we saw on the screen)

Tim : "Say cheese!"

Bruce : "What?! Gimme that camera!"

Tim : "You're forgetting Robin's Rule of Relativity : you can't hit what you can't catch!"

(One week later)

Tim : "So Bruce, we need to discuss my allowance. I ain't chasing no more bad guys on a banana seat Schwinn."

Bruce : "Save up your money. Even I had to learn the value of money. Otherwise I would've spent it all by now."

Tim (waves the picture in Bruce's face): "Oh, I know exactly what things are worth. For example, I'm thinking this is worth a Tomahawk."

Bruce : "Even I don't have a Tomahawk!"

Tim : "Oh, when you put it that way it falls under the category of Not My Problem. I'm telling you, I won't settle for anything less than a Goldwing."

Bruce (through clenched teeth) : "Dirt bike. And I get the negative. And I don't ship you off to boarding school."

Tim : "Deal. Sheesh, you're a grouch."

Bruce : "Little weasel."

Tim (takes a deep bow) : "I was inspired by the presence of a master."Mm, yeah. I doubt it went quite like that. The point is, it looks like the sort of picture Tim would take. It couldn't be a stranger since Bruce is one of the best-known faces on the DCAU planet, and even in the "real world" a few million people also know him. It would have to be someone they know -- someone they would allow to take the pic -- someone they would even allow on Bruce's boat. In other words, a tabloid reporter did not take these photographs. The characters are clearly close to home surrounded by people they know.

It doesn't mean they never went anyplace alone. It's just that alone means alone. If they are on a romantic vacation alone, then what are Tim and/or Alfred doing there? You don't sneak off for a vacation of love/sweet talk/sex and bring the kid so he can, erm, watch.

Now whether Bruce and Barbara ever took a trip alone is probably unprovable. For me I doubt they did and anyway I don't see the need. Bruce can ruin his life just fine on his own porch. I think they're in the "backyard" on their day off.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread ...



At the risk of spending all morning engaging in speculation, I can't see the animated Wayne boinking any woman. He could have with Andrea, but after he married his work, never again. He became asexual (devoid of sexuality). He never had those urges, those needs.I absolutely agree. I always thought that. No matter which way the Bruce/Barbara "event" could have gone -- Mutual Consent, Preterist (he exploited her), Futurist (she exploited him), or Baked Alaska (unrequited crush) -- it changes things in the characters that frankly never needed to be changed. I have never liked "spatula" stories, and Batman seems to come in for more than his fair share of them. We've all seen "spatula" stories, or have known someone who survived a spatula relationship. The characters or real people are divided by some sex-related issue ... say, one is single and the other married, or they're married but not to each other, or one is straight and the other is not. When the object of unrequited intentions declines the offer, the pursuer looks at him speculatively and says, "Mmm, yeah, I can turn him."

Batman has had to put up with these spatula stories since he introduced Robin more than sixty years ago. Whoa, has it really been that long? Time flies ... The assumption that an asexual character like Batman must "turn" or explode (as if the character had been denied food or air, instead of sex) is insulting. And it's not too nice a thing to say to real-world folks either, like your asexual religious or maybe your Aunt Frieda who preferred travel or her career. So just when people stopped accusing Batman and Robin of trying to "turn" each other, we get Bat-females trying to "turn" them instead. Basically that's what the animated Barbara tries to do. I didn't like this "turning" crush of hers, but then again I didn't like the Mutual Consent idea since it implies she succeeded. Then, having flipped him from an asexual character to a sexually explicit one, she left because he didn't "turn" far enough. So it wasn't even worth it!

Going hand-in-hand with the spatula storylines is the assumption on the part of the fans that it's okay to turn someone against their wishes, or that everyone would turn if you just wait them out long enough. I wonder how many people who have survived real-world spatula relationships would say that's okay.

So while I think the unrequited crush is bad for Barbara's character and dangerous to Batman's reputation, I look at it as the best of bad options. I'd rather Barbara hadn't gone down this path at all ; I find it makes both characters really hard to root for.

On a related note, the animated Barbara is the only major character for whom becoming a vigilante was a backwards career move. The Comics Board crew touched on this in their Why can't Barbara Gordon be healed? (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=109837) thread.

It reminded me of the fable of the tortoise and the hare ... the Comic Book Barbara started off slowly and 20 years later the writers really hadn't done much with her. They hadn't intended to create her anyway -- that was pressure from the Sixties live series. The series wanted a fighting beauty, and Catwoman couldn't be in every episode. Hence an adult Bat named "girl". On the other hand, the animated Barbara Gordon got meaningful stories right from the start. Then somehow their continuities got crossed ... the two Barbs had to decide why they were still in the Bat business, and each took the other's reason as her own. Comic Book Barb decided she'd wanted to accomplish something specific, and that having done so she had outgrown the role. Meanwhile the Animated Barb decided to turn a girlhood dream ("When I grow up I'm gonna marry Batman") into an adult reality, whether Batman liked it or not.

If we run with the analogy that young Barbara was an adrenaline junkie (i.e. she needed constant entertainment and excitement), then what happens when the Barb of one universe chooses to give it up and the other one has that decision made for her? (That is, if Bruce/Batman refuses to play along with Barb's wishes, the decision is made for her.) In the real world, when addicts hit bottom they can't delay any longer the emotional processes of withdrawal. They have no choice but to acknowledge they have a problem ; they have to look unflinchingly at the consequences of their actions, including the harm they may have inflicted upon other lives. In a sense Comic Book Barb never had to hit bottom to get out. Nevertheless she chose to go through the process : she looked at her life and chose to eliminate the Bat from her life. That changed her into a different person, a more mature person. Suddenly the tortoise passed the hare on the highway.

The Comic Board crew argued that Comic Book Barb had the right stuff to become Oracle not because she couldn't walk, but because she matured into the kind of person who would be good at being Oracle. That is, she would be equally good as Oracle, as unique, useful and happy in that role, if she could walk. Therefore by extension is it possible that Animated Barbara's inability to let go of childhood dreams is the real reason she didn't become Oracle in the Timmverse?

Now obviously you can't have The Killing Joke and Return of the Joker in the same continuity since they're both end-game scenarios. In the one, Barb is crippled for life but Joker is healthy ; in the other, Barb is healthy but Joker dies. The point the CBC crew argued is that it wasn't being shot that made Barbara become Oracle -- so does it follow that if the animated Barbara is never shot, there must be another reason she didn't become Oracle? She doesn't even remind me of Oracle in her Batman Beyond future : she does almost no detective work, she's trigger-happy, and she's probably a micromanager, which is why she doesn't have a Bullock or Montoya to lighten the load for her.

I'm not saying we should have seen Oracle in the Timmverse, or that it is Barbara's destiny to always become Oracle in any universe. Rather, I'm asking, when Animated Barbara decided to turn her girlhood crush on Batman into an adult romance, did that turn her into a person who could not have become Oracle in the Timmverse? Did Barb's persistent feelings for Batman kill her chances of ever being a Timmverse Oracle?

I'm going to add that question to the "pop quiz," come to think of it. Who knows, maybe someone will answer. At minimum some of you DCAU types might not have known we also have a CBC forum here. Drop by sometime! :)

[Phantasm]

i found the whole tim taking the pic thing really hilarious!!!!!HAHA!Poor Bruce!Barb is sooo annoying!!!!!!evenm though i adore her big sis relationship with Tim

[GCFyouthcamper]

Wow. Barb really has a lot of issues. I wouldn't want someone like to be MY girlfriend, IMHO. Her crush on Bruce brought on a no-win situation for everyone.

Just an off-topic thought, I wonder what Dick and Barb's relationship is like in BB time? If Dick's still alive, that is. I wonder if their relationship is just as strained as Bruce and Barb's.

[James]

Okay, a long post deserves a long reply. One thing I do wonder - in regards to Barb being at college - could MotB be set between Sub Zero and NW's return? I don't think so.. but just another thought!

ANYWAY

1. If you're a "Bat preterist," then you think Whatever Happened has already happened and now Bruce is distancing himself from Barbara. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's statement from "A Touch of Curare" (quoted earlier in post) that she was the one who left him?

I'm not. I think MotB shows the beginning of a more confusing relationship. We have not only ToC but Out Of The Past to consider and in that we see a very strong connection on Bruce's part that goes against MotB. To me logically, this must have more ramifications yet unseen.

2. If you're a Bat preterist you tend to believe that Whatever Happened could have been real. So how do you explain Alfred and Tim's behavior?

I see Alfred and Tim seeing what's going on but keeping weeell clear of it. This isn't their business. Alfred always stays clear of Bruce's dealings - aside from a dry comment. Tim is staying out of it since Bruce is like a father and Barb a sister.. I think he's just not wanting to get involved. Being that Bruce is a role model, he maybe emulating Bruce's chauvinistic attitude and thereby copying his more nonchalant attitude to women.. not good.

3. What do you think of the way Bruce is handling the situation?

Very disappointing. I never saw Bruce as an out of control womaniser. That to me was an act.. he liked women, but he didn't play them unless it was to do hide his crusade.. so this seemed very out of character.. on the assumption IT IS character, I'd say it's more indicitive of his liking for Barb. He feels it's wrong - something happened or keeps happening which he rationally knows is bad - be it for Dick or for his family unit or for his crusade... I think that would also explain why he is showing interest in another girl - to try and prevent himself going after something he shouldn't. In this sense, his actions in MotB are actually better than at first glance. He's made "mistakes" and he's trying to involve himself in someone else as to avoid the relationship with Barb getting any deeper. His abilities to deal with Barb are very poor indeed also - he's not good with emotional issues. Another point is Bruce doesn't seem to really get involved that much - aside as cover for Batman. So again, his interest in Kane seems abnormal.

4. Would you think differently if Bruce was a woman trying to distance herself from an equally persistent man?

Interesting... no not really. I don't really look down on him for his actions in MotB - I'm disappointed he seems to have involved himself in something which he can't clearly control. I've been there - not a good scenerio. Especially if it's a reoccurring one.

5. If you're a "Bat futurist," you think that Whatever Happened is still in the future. If it's real, what do you think of Alfred and Tim's behavior?

Tim is staying out of it. It seems like it's an open secret - which isn't surprising. I imagine Bruce gets funny when it's mentioned, and for Barbara it's kind of exciting. Both know, but feel best to stay out of the situation. I think Tim is emulating Bruce's behaviour a little. Alfred is just being a good Butler and staying clear. Not taking sides and possibly waiting for the natural confrontation before stepping in.

6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?

Not sure I understand. I think Bruce is fighting feelings. I think Barb stayed there till for some reason he gave into them. If she knew he was involved with Kane, I can't see her pushing the issue. I could see her seeing someone else though and Bruce suddenly realising he didn't like that. Maybe the issue with her conflicted with Kane. I imagine what probably did change his mind is Alfred, who offered some sage advice which made him feel less guilty for caring for her.

7. Would you be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?

No. I don't like persistence. Both should equally go into a relationship. I don't think Barb would have tried to push him into a relationship

8. If you're a "Bat amillennialist" then the timing doesn't mean as much to you as the sum of their characters and "what are you going to do now." You probably think Barbara has an unrequited crush, because that crosses time from the past, into the present, and extending a little further into the future. So what you think of the way Bruce is handling it?

I see Barbara having an affections based on a crush. Let's remember, Bruce himself is an attractive guy - Batman aside. Working with him also, facing life and death, him being mature and standing for the rights you believe in.. I think all these elements were condusive to her interest in him. I do agree that the intial interest was indeed a crush.

9. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" that she left him?

The way I see it, is they continue dating - something happens like ROTJ - something big - maybe that relates to the bullet holes in Barb's costume and it becomes no longer a game. After Tim's removal from the game I wouldn't imagine it would take much to make the whole Bat thing dis-satisfying. I think there she would have wanted them to quit. Bruce wouldn't so she left him and his game. That would to me explain her slightly bitter attitude. I think she fell for him in love sick way, and then when he choose the Bat over her, she left him.

11. What mood, what "vibe" do you get from looking at Barbara? Is it sexy? playful? flat? sad? or what? Whatever look it is, is it a good look on her?

She's cool - if a little young and naive. I think there is more to her than people realise - something I want to cover in DKA in the future. I think she is very young though - and remains positive and innocence. I reckon than innocence and purity is what Bruce would find attractive in a dark and twisted world he lives in. If you refer to the MotB scene, I get a nervous excitement. Someone on the edge of a relationship they are REALLY for. She is toying with him a little - in a flirtatous way. Regardless of how she looks at him it's pity she's spending her time at college dreaming about him..

12. What mood/vibe do you get when you look at Bruce's response? Is it a good look on him?

He looks uncomfortable, and despite what Tim and Alfred says, he's never out of control with girls (Sel, Lois etc) - so one can presume its because he doesn't know how to handle someone he deeply cares for as a friend or maybe more.. it's this insecurity which leads to his rather dubious ethical moves in the film.

13. Does anyone from any camp have an explanation for Alfred and Tim's behavior?

I still think they are staying out of it. They like to tease probably both parties about it but know it's not their affair. When things get really bad and one party wants advice, I'm sure Alfred will butt in. At this point, Alfred knows Bruce won't listen to his advice. He has to wait till breaking point.

14. Are Alfred and Tim behaving this way for the same reason, or for different reasons?

The same pretty much - accept Tim I think is trying to copy his mentor a little - which is probably why he seems to be so uncaring about Barb.

15. Again, anyone from any camp : When Bruce lumps Barbara and Batwoman together in the dismissal, "One female Bat at a time," what does that make you think about how he thinks of Barbara?

It's a gag. You make sort of comments when you are in denial. He feels awkward about talking about his feelings - always has done. The comment is a shield.

Bonus round

A. What exactly is Dick to Bruce? And don't say "his ward," because that's a legal term. In emotional bonds, what are they? What are Bruce/Batman's obligations to Dick? If any.

Someone very important. Like a son. However, Bruce isn't the best with dealing with people very close to him. He can deal with realtionships if they are external but internal issues like Dick and Barb are hard for him. He misses ***** graduation! That's unforgivable, but doesn't mean he doesn't love him. Bruce will do things which seem cruel, but are simply Bruce being Bruce. The great irony that the world's greatest detective is one of the worst family guys... As for Dick in relation to Barb, as I said, maybe one reason Bruce is steering clear of Barb is because of Dick's old relationship - despite it being long gone.

B. If you see Bruce and Dick as parent-and-child, would you be okay with Barb's behavior if she had been a man who dated daughter then mother? If you see Bruce and Dick as brothers, would you be okay with it if Barb was a man who dated a younger sister then her older sister?

Regardless of the ethics, these things happen, and I feel that it's easy to condemn on presumption. We don't know what Dick's situation is at the time of this relationship - he maybe engaged, seeing someone else.. DEAD! Who knows. So baring in mind we don't have all the pieces I think we should be hesitant to judge the responsibilty this relationship between Bruce and Barb would have on Dick and Barb... again DKA will cover the issue of Bruce, Dick and Barb! Okay, we're not official - but we are intersted in being the first to offer a possible scenerio! :)

C. If Dick Grayson had never existed, would it change your opinion of the proposed Bruce/Barbara affair?

No, we cannot be jury without all the evidence. The question is therefore moot.

D. Do you think the animated James Gordon knows Batman's identity? Do you believe this knowledge (or lack of knowledge) was a factor in Jim's demonstrated preference for Dick Grayson as his daughter's suitor?

Not sure.. again DKA will cover this too.. :) I don't think Jim knew around the time of Sub Zero.. if he does know, I think it would be through a certain red headed companion joining Bats and a certain young batchelor disappearing at the same time as Robin changes identity. I think any idea Jim has comes from TNBA.

E. What exactly is James Gordon to the Batman? What obligations does Batman have to him? (If any.)

Erm, in relation to his daughter? Difficult. I think Batman runs on the assumption that if there are to be vigilantes in his city, he would rather have them under his wing where he might be able to protect them. Therefore working with Barbara would be in Jim's interest - to prevent her going off the rails as the Batwomen did.

As for a courtship with Barb - I don't think there are any obligations there. If this thing happened through exposure and not Bruce trying to woo Barbara then he has not broken any rules of friendship to Jim - especially if he did his best to avoid it. These things happen.

F. Although Barbara obviously misread her father's feelings and beliefs in TNBA's "Over The Edge," she's correct that her choices could cost him his career. What are her obligations to him? (If any.)

Good point! Well it's too late now. Her choice as a teenage would blight him now even if she stopped. But Jim is also to blame for his choice to work with a vigilante. This gave him the opening for her and the noose to hang himself with. In some respects, the fault is as much his as it would be hers.

G. Where do we go from here?

Erm to the fridge to get more pizza? Hope for more clues... I think we still need more evidence. All MotP does is confirm there was a relationship and that Bruce was unsure as how to handle it... it doesn't explain any more than that. It pretty much again ties BB to canon (as does SS and JL), but does little to give us the meat of the relationship or it's circumstances!


H. The CBC crew proposed that it wasn't being shot that made Barbara become Oracle -- so does it follow that if the animated Barbara is never shot, there must be another reason she didn't become Oracle? I'm not saying we should have seen Oracle in the Timmverse, or that it is Barbara's destiny to always become Oracle in any universe. Rather, I'm asking, when Animated Barbara decided to turn her girlhood crush on Batman into an adult romance, did that turn her into a person who could not have become Oracle in the Timmverse? Did Barb's persistent feelings for Batman kill her chances of ever being a Timmverse Oracle?

Read DKA (http://wf.toonzone.net/DKA) - we will offer some ideas on this as some may have already guessed! :D

[DLM]

*snip*
I don't think either pic supports the idea of a one-on-one vacation. Actually this pic in particular proves the opposite : stay-at-home candid shots with other Bat-family members around. It was almost certainly taken in the "backyard" along Wayne's "private beach" / exclusive stretch of the coast. (If it wasn't, it was probably taken on the balcony of Wayne Manor next to the railing. Not that it makes much difference.) See, you guys keep forgetting that someone else took the picture.
*snip*

Um.... most cameras do have timers these days. No disrespect, just pointing out that Bruce and Barb *could* have been alone.

[Elderly Bruce Wayne]

1. If you're a "Bat preterist," then you think Whatever Happened has already happened and now Bruce is distancing himself from Barbara. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's statement from "A Touch of Curare" (quoted earlier in post) that she was the one who left him?When I saw this is first-fun, I had no reason to doubt this. Having read other posts and studying the pattern of the mean old Granny, I'm more open to the possibility there are some half-truths and spun the falsehoods to her demented benefit.



2. If you're a Bat preterist you tend to believe that Whatever Happened could have been real. So how do you explain Alfred and Tim's behavior?
Alfred is excused. Tim I don't get. More on this later.



3. What do you think of the way Bruce is handling the situation?
In a most honorable fashion.



4. Would you think differently if Bruce was a woman trying to distance herself from an equally persistent man?
No. Not if Lady Bruce considers Barbara Dude to be a nice guy. Push hasn't come to shove at this point.



5. If you're a "Bat futurist," you think that Whatever Happened is still in the future. If it's real, what do you think of Alfred and Tim's behavior?
Later.



6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?
Neither. I think sty92 said it best. The light bulb went out for Barbara.



7. Would you be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?
Not if Lady Bruce didn't want it. Not like a pity date/affair. If the feelings are one-way, then regret is inevitable on both sides.



8. If you're a "Bat amillennialist" then the timing doesn't mean as much to you as the sum of their characters and "what are you going to do now." You probably think Barbara has an unrequited crush, because that crosses time from the past, into the present, and extending a little further into the future. So what you think of the way Bruce is handling it?
Darned if he does and darned if he doesn't. The more I think about the car scene, the more I'm convinced that he doesn't want to pursue this relationship. He's doing his best. He's not playing hard-to-get. If Barbara interprets the brush that way, then she's more diluted than I'm presently willing to acknowledge.



9. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" that she left him?
Whether she was heart-broken or left in an icy fury, it's her fault. She should've known better. The more she pushes, ultimately, he's going to have to push back. Not with a wimpy "Leave me alone" but a stern "NO!" or "Enough!"



10. Anyone from any camp : If you think that the account told by Commissioner Barbara in "ATOC" is not in fact how it happened -- do you think Barbara was consciously trying to mislead Terry or bias him against Bruce, or do you believe she's telling it to the best of her ability to remember?
I just pulled out the tape just to get a flavor of the dialogue again. She seemed to get dreamy all over again. But how dare she coin her relationship with Dick as "puppy love". That suggests a two-way crush. I say she had puppy love for Bruce. The misleading begins as she remains silent while Terry makes the inference. She didn't make Bruce out to be the bad guy. She didn't pursuade Terry to pry Bruce for info. I believe she told her account to the best of her somewhat diluted memory. Hilary Bader wrote this episode. It's too bad we can't ask her why she opened this can of worms. Was she ever interviewed on this subject before she died?



11. What mood, what "vibe" do you get from looking at Barbara? Is it sexy? playful? flat? sad? or what? Whatever look it is, is it a good look on her?
BTAS Barbara was playful. "Heart of Steel" got her detective juices flowing. The conclusion of "Shadow of the Bat" part two showed she liked the attention Batgirl got. TNBA Barbara seemed thrilled to be on the team. She earned Batman and the first Robin's approval. No longer working independently, she's having cake and eating it too. Playfulness was, as you astutely pointed out Old Maid, was competition with Robin II for put-downs and one-liners. She makes a few teasing comments in "Mean Seasons". Put Bruce down to his face in "Torch Song" ("Sometimes it pays to get the cheap seats"). A tease? Or a put-down? You be the judge. I never really considered her sexy in TNBA as they never drew her that way. Always dresses in black with gray skirt. Her measurements were like 4-2-4. All TNBA women looked sickly anorexic. Hairstyles and eye colors were interchangable. In TNBA, a Babara Gordon was a Poison Ivy was a Lana Lang was a Veronica Vreeland was a Bunny Vreeland, etc.

But getting back to the point of the question: ATOC established that the relationship failed. There's no need in MOTB to see the failure born, developing, or dying. It's more than sad. It's almost tragic. But, when you have three Batwomen in the story, you can't help but wonder what Batgirl thinks of this. The idea of one Batwoman coming between them is justification for Barbara's call. That said, Barbara displaying hurt feelings that she was his number one girl was Burnett and Reaves way of throwing us fanboys a bone.



12. What mood/vibe do you get when you look at Bruce's response? Is it a good look on him?
It pained me to see Bruce have to resort to that, the lying part. But that too was a writer's ploy. Will they or won't they? If he had just said "Talk to you later." Bruce incriminated himself by that display of rustling the newspaper. Tim noticed. Otherwise, nothing in that phone conversation should've led Tim and Alfred to deduce the tension in Bruce.



13. Does anyone from any camp have an explanation for Alfred and Tim's behavior?
Alfred is excused in so far as he's commenting not only on Bruce's narrow escapes with dangerous criminals but how he evades women. He's had to have seen this a million times. But Barbara should be different. I'd've preferred "Really, Master Bruce. Wasn't there another way to delicately handle Miss Gordon?" Tim I don't get. In TNBA, except for the Annie episode, he's been a "Girls? Yuck!" type kid, considering "don't drag me into this", but maybe that's just surrogate sibling rivalry. This is later in the timeline. While Tim is still the model of his TNBA incarnation, he must be approaching high-school age where that "Girls? Yuck!" attitude must yield if for no other reason than peer pressure. But he's not oblivious. He immediately interjects "She misses you!" The "squeaked through again" comment means he's witnessed this before and it by now has become amusing. I wonder how Hilary Bader would've wrote this scene. Since she was a main player, one of six series writers for Batman Beyond, I wonder how she may have explored this tried-and-failed relationship in ROTJ if she were a co-writer for the film. Would Granny Gordon go into a dreamy flashback over Bruce's sickbed and these flashbacks "tug our fanboys' capes" more or would it provide some solid answers?



14. Are Alfred and Tim behaving this way for the same reason, or for different reasons?
See previous answer. They're both saying "Atta boy", but in different subtexts. Alfred probably understands Barbara is too young not for Bruce's sake. Maybe not even for Dick's sake, but for her sake. She shouldn't be fooling around. Playing the field, as it were, at least not on the homefront.
Alfred didn't crack a smile when he responded. In fact, it was so dry I dare say he was almost saddened. Even more, unimpressed. He was probably being ironic.



15. Again, anyone from any camp : When Bruce lumps Barbara and Batwoman together in the dismiss al, "One female Bat at a time," what does that make you think about how he thinks of Barbara?
If Alfred was being ironic at never failing to marvel at Bruce's narrow escapes, then Bruce showed possibly justified irritation at Alfred. Tim may have thought this is funny. Bruce's tone intimates this is not funny. It doesn't change what he thinks of her. He hasn't needed to rein her in. They were still partners beyond the ruin of Tim Drake. How much further, who can say?



A. What exactly is Dick to Bruce? And don't say "his ward," because that's a legal term. In emotional bonds, what are they? What are Bruce/Batman's obligations to Dick? If any.
A kindred spirit. Someone Bruce can draw strength from while providing some for Dick.

The remaining bonus questions I'm going to cop out of. They're too heavy.



G. Where do we go from here?
One more DTV must be made. It must lump the two eras again. It must end with Terry McGinnis as an adult making his final choices and possibly the death of Bruce Wayne. But before that, it must resolve the Bruce/Barbara issue. The Near Apocalypse of '09 can play a prominent turning point in their relationship. The Al-Ghul's can provide the wedge which almost kills Barbara. The triangle of Bruce/Barbara/Talia can drive Barbara mad. It would have to be a rush job. Footnoting the instance Tim Drake got ruined, the total destruction of the Bat-family, all major villains die, disappear or reform, Bruce's one-man-war-on-crime-again leading to the creation of the Batsuit, revisit the heart-attack issue, the Derek Powers takeover, flash-forward and then do Terry's bat-job in cliffnotes while resolving his loose ends. Maybe a 90-minute movie on DVD which can be stretched to 2 hours on a network airing.

If not a DTV, then webtoons, something. We can't just leave it like this?

[Fone Bone]

I would love another DVD, but not another fluff piece like MOTB, a DEFINATIVE ending as suggested by Elderly Bruce Wayne. I want to see Two-Face reform, Catwoman die (Hello pitch black Catwoman DTV!), and more definative endings for the Riddler and the Penguin. Joker, Harley, Bane, and Mr. Freeze we already know but Ra's Al Ghul we need a clearer picture of. Poison Ivy would be nice too. A time-spanning movie beginning with Terry McGunnis with most of the rest of the film set in 2009, detailing Bruce and Barb's relationship, Nightwing's fate and tiff with Bruce, and Aftermath of Return of the Joker's flashback feauturing Tim trying to settle things with the old man and of course Ra's Al Ghul and the Near Apocalyspe of '09. It would end with a reconciliation between Elderly Bruce and Dick and a final smackdown between Terry and Blight. (A Zeta cameo to let us know he's stopped running would be sweet too if it never happens on Justice League Unlimited which I think it might.)

As for everyone's essays and the Old Maid's quiz, I have to say I can go either way on the Bruce and Barbara relationship. Until we get more definative answers all this is just speculation. (But FUN speculation!) That said I think the Old Maid is probably closest, but I wouldn't rule out a one-time fling. Not sure, but you can't say it definately never happened.

And yes, I would love to hear b.t.'s input.

[James]

I just pulled out the tape just to get a flavor of the dialogue again. She seemed to get dreamy all over again. But how dare she coin her relationship with Dick as "puppy love".

I think most of our first loves have an element of puppy love. What she is saying is that she realised that she realised that Dick wasn't the love of her life, as she felt at the time. Puppy love is normally that love in which you feel no one can compare ever again. She is saying she realises that this wasn't the case, and as a teen she was making it out for more, than in the long run it actually was.

Let's face it, we have almost as little on Barb and Dick's relationship to go on than we do of Barb and Bruce. We really only have Sub Zero and Old Woulnds.. it's not a horrendous amount to define their relationship as anything more than she suggests,



That suggests a two-way crush. I say she had puppy love for Bruce. The misleading begins as she remains silent while Terry makes the inference. She didn't make Bruce out to be the bad guy. She didn't pursuade Terry to pry Bruce for info.

I think puppy love can be some more than a two way crush, she justs means it wasn't what she believe it was - it wasn't true love.

As for Bruce, and again, I must confess the one thing that irks me about this topic is how many assumptions are made on so little evidence. We do know is that Bruce was obviously quite taken with her and some point beyond this - to put her above all the other girls in "Out Of The Past" - the story inference there is that Barbara was a very strong love of his life. Since this couldn't be in reference to his attitude in MotB we must assume it develops more before it goes bad. In which case, we can't really justify Barbara's interest in Bruce being either a crush or flirtation. We've seen no build up to their relationship before MotB and none after - so therefore we can only assume on what the dynamics of their relationships are. I'd agree she does seem very childish in MotB, but then we all become more childish in the first stages of a relationship we are really comfortable in. We let the barriers go down. Unfortunately, at this point, Bruce isn't in the same gear... :p Yet.

Rarely do relationships work equally. There is always one with the upper hand. Looks like at the start it's Bruce, by the end, by implication of Touch Of Curare and Out Of The Past, it's Barbara. Swings and roundabouts. :)


I believe she told her account to the best of her somewhat diluted memory. Hilary Bader wrote this episode. It's too bad we can't ask her why she opened this can of worms. Was she ever interviewed on this subject before she died?
That's presumptious with no evidence to support it and with some that goes against it. Firstly, Dick being puppy love as I said - makes sense without downplaying either of their feelings. Secondly, Out Of The Past implies there was something deeper in visual pictures and Bruce's behaviour. Finally, there is a tension between Bruce and Barb which - IMO - throughout BB feels like the tension of an ex-couple, not an ex-fling.

With my other points in my last post - regarding Bruce's actions in MotB being a little out of character, again implies that this relationship is one that is an issue for in him in certain ways - I don't think there is any way that you can arguably downplay the relationship. This does look like it moved on from here, and went deeper.

So I think the real questions here are how it began, how it ended and whether this was a tragedy - in it's nature and in it's effect to those around them. I think the evidence definately points to a deeper relationship than what we see in MotB. I think the Barb issue in MotB was there just to back up the BB canon and to give a hint of how this relationship began. BB tells us how it ends, MotB is to show us how it started - as well as to show that Bruce wasn't immediately comfortable with it. It also gave the impression, from Bruce's reaction, that it may have been something which just happened, rather than being contrived. The awkwardness that Bruce displays may have been to appease those who felt Bruce would never just jump in or try for a relationship with his ward's ex. :)

Afterall, when you face life and death together on a daily basis... these sort of things can happen in the heat of the moment.. :sweat:

[Bones Justice]

When I first saw "A Touch of Curare" and MOTB recently, I was surprised to hear that Bruce and Barbara had been together. After rewatching them, I'm fairly convinced that this was Barbara's crush. Everything we hear about it is from Barbara. Bruce is all business. I do believe he cares for her but she probably just read too much in to it. They did share a very personal relationship, that life-and-death relationship that only partners in crime-fighting or other dangerous occupations share but I doubt it was ever a romance in Bruce's mind.

Not totally unlike what Batman and Catwoman have going on, though I think Bruce really did have a thing for her. Catwoman was always more willing to take it to the next level but there were too many barriers for Batman to ignore.

[James]

When I first saw "A Touch of Curare" and MOTB recently, I was surprised to hear that Bruce and Barbara had been together. After rewatching them, I'm fairly convinced that this was Barbara's crush. Everything we hear about it is from Barbara. Bruce is all business. I do believe he cares for her but she probably just read too much in to it. They did share a very personal relationship, that life-and-death relationship that only partners in crime-fighting or other dangerous occupations share but I doubt it was ever a romance in Bruce's mind.

Not totally unlike what Batman and Catwoman have going on, though I think Bruce really did have a thing for her. Catwoman was always more willing to take it to the next level but there were too many barriers for Batman to ignore.I suggest you watch the season 3 episode "Out Of The Past" from Batman Beyond. It opens a lot more in regards to Barbara and Bruce. In fact it seems to imply she was the women she loved in his life - above the other ladies... I've noticed how the relevance of that episode is frequently ignored - especially in regards to MotB. I think it shows that whatever happened in MotB esculated for Bruce afterwards.

[The Old Maid]

Originally Posted by DLM
Um.... most cameras do have timers these days. No disrespect, just pointing out that Bruce and Barb *could* have been alone.

Doesn't explain that contorted expression, or why he wasn't looking at the camera. Last I knew Bruce could count. Given that this photo has two strikes against it, I would think an intentional photo would be retaken.

Originally Posted by SJJ
Let's face it, we have almost as little on Barb and Dick's relationship to go on as we do of Barb and Bruce. We really only have Sub-Zero and "Old Wounds."
Actually we have more on Dick/Barbara since we see the characters growing, changing, and interacting as they are growing and changing. I've always been puzzled that the hints and innuendo of "ATOC" and "OOTP" are held up as more solid and substantial than a proven relationship that grew, almost culminated in a proposal, and then exploded on screen. Dick/Babs got two appearances ; Bruce/Barbara got two appearances. How a tie "proves" Bruce/Barbara were real and "proves" Dick/Barbara were just playing house eludes me. :)

Having said that, I would never campaign for the animated Dick and Barbara to get back together after "Old Wounds." They were golden back in the day, but now they both have too much wrong with them. Either one of them would be a bad risk.

Originally Posted by SJJ
As for Bruce, and again, I must confess the one thing that irks me about this topic is how many assumptions are made on so little evidence.
It's like looking in a mirror. :D Though I am speaking of the Bruce/Barbara faction as a concept, not a specific person.

Originally Posted by SJJ
Bruce was obviously quite taken with [Barbara] and some point beyond this - to put her above all the other girls in "Out Of The Past" -- the story inference there is that Barbara was a very strong love of his life. [snip] "Out of the Past" opens up a lot more in regards to Barbara and Bruce. In fact it seems to imply she was the women she loved in his life - above the other ladies... I've noticed how the relevance of that episode is frequently ignored -- especially in regards to MOTB.
Hope it doesn't sound like I'm picking on any one person. SJJ just happens to articulate certain points especially well.

"Out of the Past" is just about the most devastating argument one could put forth as regards Barbara's place in Bruce's life. Until MOTB came along I wasn't certain anything could hurt her more. Relevance of the episode? It crushes her. It annihilates her. It shows Barbara in Bruce's life, certainly -- but this episode also paints her plainly as one of the "Girl of the Month" club. This episode goes out of its way to paint her so. How many times have I heard, "The Barb picture is the only one that shows him actually with the woman." How many times have I heard, "They look happy." Um, if memory serves this episode concludes with a picture of Bruce and Talia smiling at each other in that little bistro in Milan. Now this picture doesn't look forced or hesitant, as if Bruce is stifling a sneeze. Now this Bruce looked happy. Old Man Wayne and Terry even discuss the photo. Finally the episode concludes with Old Man Wayne calling Talia "beloved," something we've never heard him say to anyone, ever.

Now I'll grant this is a weird episode and the viewer must be This Tall before riding this ride. Commissioner Gordon dressed like Holmes' Watson. Batman in go-go boots like a lady-of-the-evening. I mean, what can you say about an episode in which "Robin the Boy Hostage" is wearing bright red lipstick? Ten women in this episode (eleven if you count Razzerella) and Robin's wearing the brightest lipstick. :eek:

Nevertheless Old Man Wayne wasn't vulnerable to Razzerella because "she" was such a snake. Wayne left with "Talia" because of his feelings for Talia. There is no way to pretty it up : when Barbara used carrot-and-stick she got diddly, and when "Talia" used carrot-and-stick she got her man. Because of Wayne's feelings for Talia, "she" wrung more concessions out of him in two days than Barbara wrung out of him in fifteen years.

I don't know if this means Talia outranks Catwoman -- we'd have to bring "Chase Me" and "Perchance to Dream" into the mix to settle that question. By the time of "Chase Me" Bruce had already met all the major players in his life. And although I am sure Talia and Batgirl could each lead Batman on a merry chase according to their own tastes, in the end this film is titled "Chase Catwoman," not "Chase Barb" or "Chase Talia." I always preferred the idea that Batman's first choice is Catwoman, with Talia second, and that Talia moved up in rank primarily by outliving Catwoman. To me the evidence is incredibly plain. I don't know if Talia ever outranked Catwoman on her own, but according to "Out of the Past"Talia absolutely outranks Barbara -- and by a considerable margin. Sorry.

If it makes you feel any better I don't like Talia. :D

Now combine "ATOC" with "OOTP" and MOTB. In "ATOC" Commissioner Barbara says (I'm paraphrasing here), "Am I your Number One girl?" Bruce's answer is No. To paraphrase his answer also, it translates like "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

In "OOTP" the mute Barbara in the picture silently pleads, "Am I your Number One girl?" Bruce's actions, words, and photo of another woman say No.

In MOTB a petulant Barbara calls Bruce on the phone : "Am I your Number One girl?" Bruce lies to her, hangs up on her, receives accolades from his buds, chases another woman, and tells two of the three Batwomen that he is very single. Again, his actions, words, and active pursuit of a woman AFTER the case is closed all say No.

One "no" is a bad day. Two is a pattern. Three is set in stone. Three strikes and you're out. Game ended. His attitude is plainly, "What part of No don't you understand?"

That's why in the "Just Desserts" section of my MOTB post, I gave Bruce and Barbara a month. In contrast I give Bruce and Kathy Duquesne about six weeks. That's how insubstantial I see the Bruce/Barbara thing becoming with the new evidence MOTB presented. To me the argument that "their relationship was solid ; it lasted for some time, most unusual for Bruce ; Barbara was the love of his life" cannot be substantiated by what we see on the screen. And it's not "all that flying rodent's fault." Based on what we see in canon, on the screen, these two just don't look like they have what it takes to make it. Which is fine by me :) because I think there are better ways than this to develop Barbara's character.

[James]

I've always been puzzled that the hints and innuendo of "ATOC" and "OOTP" are held up as more solid and substantial than a proven relationship that grew, almost culminated in a proposal, and then exploded on screen. Dick/Babs got two appearances ; Bruce/Barbara got two appearances. How a tie "proves" Bruce/Barbara were real and "proves" Dick/Barbara were just playing house eludes me. :)

I think first off, they aren't hints and innuendo - only if you take them that way. There is no reason to doubt what Barbara says in TOC anymore than you would doubt what anyone in the show says when they tell a tale. I mean, in the end if you are to get pendantic, nothing said or seen can be taken as fact, only what you imply it to be. I think when you analyse what is seen in a show like this, you have to an extent take what is said as fact, and not give supposition too much priority.

I don't doubt what was seen in Dick and Barbara's relationship. I take what I saw as fact. Likewise, when Barb calls it puppy love, I understand that too. The first girl I saw I was indeed deeply in love with. I thought she was the one. I couldn't believe she wasn't. It was puppy love - the ability to reflect back and appreciate it wasn't the be all it felt at the time. This takes what was said in TOC and Subzero as fact without supposition. Both shows actually support each other.



It's like looking in a mirror. :D Though I am speaking of the Bruce/Barbara faction as a concept, not a specific person.
Well I agree so far as guessing how far their relationship went is as much guesswork as anyones, but I don't think one can dismiss what was said in ToC - which a lot of your comments are based on. IMO, as I said, you can't overanalyse this. Could Barbara been lying? Could she have been exaggerating? You have to take what you see as credible unless you have very strong reason to see otherwise.



"Out of the Past" is just about the most devastating argument one could put forth as regards Barbara's place in Bruce's life. Until MOTB came along I wasn't certain anything could hurt her more. Relevance of the episode? It crushes her. It annihilates her. It shows Barbara in Bruce's life, certainly -- but this episode also paints her plainly as one of the "Girl of the Month" club. This episode goes out of its way to paint her so. How many times have I heard, "The Barb picture is the only one that shows him actually with the woman." How many times have I heard, "They look happy." Um, if memory serves this episode concludes with a picture of Bruce and Talia smiling at each other in that little bistro in Milan. Now this picture doesn't look forced or hesitant, as if Bruce is stifling a sneeze. Now this Bruce looked happy. Old Man Wayne and Terry even discuss the photo. Finally the episode concludes with Old Man Wayne calling Talia "beloved," something we've never heard him say to anyone, ever.

Again, I feel your argument goes to discredit the scene in a similar way to how you approach ToC - by breaking it down to much. You and I both know how that scene is meant to be read. When Talia says, "You really loved her, didn't you?", just because there is no reply doesn't mean he doesn't agree. For any piece of writing you can't spell out everything. "Yes, I loved her very much for a long period of time" coming from Bruce's mouth would sound stupid. The scene conveys the fact that regardless of why (and I agree that becomes guesswork) that a) he believes he loved Barbara, b) it was mutual (the photos show a mutual coupled image), c) it was more important that the other girls (she gets at least 2 photos and is the last in the group). Yes, you could say it's just co-incidence he has two of her, but in the end as a writing device, all the methods were employed to convey the message - Old Bruce has loving memories of this girl above the others.

So to sum up, so far as facts can go, we see that the writers are conveying clearly the point tha Bruce feels he loved Barbara greatly - more than the others.



Now I'll grant this is a weird episode and the viewer must be This Tall before riding this ride. Commissioner Gordon dressed like Holmes' Watson. Batman in go-go boots like a lady-of-the-evening. I mean, what can you say about an episode in which "Robin the Boy Hostage" is wearing bright red lipstick? Ten women in this episode (eleven if you count Razzerella) and Robin's wearing the brightest lipstick. :eek:

This seems an extreme overanalysis. Is if trying to deconstruct the relevance of the episode by pointing and mocking some of it's more abstract points. I'm not sure of the relevance of this whatsoever.


Nevertheless Old Man Wayne wasn't vulnerable to Razzerella because "she" was such a snake. Wayne left with "Talia" because of his feelings for Talia. There is no way to pretty it up : when Barbara used carrot-and-stick she got diddly, and when "Talia" used carrot-and-stick she got her man. Because of Wayne's feelings for Talia, "she" wrung more concessions out of him in two days than Barbara wrung out of him in fifteen years.Wayne is an old man. Talia is a young woman. Bruce's love for Talia was always mixed. I know I've loved more than one woman. The "Beloved" remark at the end is a mark of respect and in writing terms, resolvement. She always called him beloved, but he never did in return. Now after her death he realises how important she was also. Only now does he utter those words.

Anyhow, I don't see how this is really relevant as it's totally seperate to the feelings that are conveyed for Barbara. No one is saying that Barbara was Bruce's perfect women, just a woman he shared a deep connection with, that feel apart with tragedy and was one he regrets in some way. Those are elements that are pretty clear in the show that don't require any indepth analysis of scenes or other actions.



I don't know if this means Talia outranks Catwoman -- we'd have to bring "Chase Me" and "Perchance to Dream" into the mix to settle that question. By the time of "Chase Me" Bruce had already met all the major players in his life. And although I am sure Talia and Batgirl could each lead Batman on a merry chase according to their own tastes, in the end this film is titled "Chase Catwoman," not "Chase Barb" or "Chase Talia." I always preferred the idea that Batman's first choice is Catwoman, with Talia second, and that Talia moved up in rank primarily by outliving Catwoman. To me the evidence is incredibly plain. I don't know if Talia ever outranked Catwoman on her own, but according to "Out of the Past"Talia absolutely outranks Barbara -- and by a considerable margin. Sorry.

You are a strange fellow. :) I can't see how you can build up a list based on supposition (once again) without really any basis to what's given in the show. "I always preferred the idea that Batman's first choice is Catwoman, with Talia second, and that Talia moved up in rank primarily by outliving Catwoman." - that's a very personal view. And it seems that your need to limit Barbara's relationship with Bruce takes priority over what is said in the show.

You offer your own order, that Talia outranks Barbara, yet we see clearly in OOTP - with no need to guess or suppose - that Bruce ranked Barbara very highy. Higher than any of the others. I don't think Talia ever truely outranked Barbara for two reasons. Firstly, she wasn't on the list, secondly, she never had a relationship with him and finally, she betrayed him and stood for elements that Bruce did not respect. So I don't think even if we delve into speculation, that there is any logic to your argument. I think he cared for her, no doubt. Maybe if Ra's wasn't there he could have loved her - and I think that was the message at the end of the show. Bruce realises quite what he lost in Talia and he hadn't even considered it before. Does he then think it outranks Barbara? Maybe he does - who knows, and quite frankly, what does it matter? Again, I base my points on what I see in the show. Analyse too deeply you see things which aren't there and the speculation turns more into fanfiction. No offense - I love reading your work, but your personal angle seems to taint much of your arguments here - IMHO.



If it makes you feel any better I don't like Talia. :D

Not really, as it's clear you are using the point of Talia to try and deconstruct something else. Your issue is Barbara. :) That olive branch is of no interest! ;)


Now combine "ATOC" with "OOTP" and MOTB. In "ATOC" Commissioner Barbara says (I'm paraphrasing here), "Am I your Number One girl?" Bruce's answer is No. To paraphrase his answer also, it translates like "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Please no paraphrasing. If you have the quote use it, but don't paraphrase. :) I'll have a look at that myself.


In "OOTP" the mute Barbara in the picture silently pleads, "Am I your Number One girl?" Bruce's actions, words, and photo of another woman say No.

Conjecture again. Erm, he stays fixed on Barbara's picture. Stuck in the past regardless of what happens. There is nothing to imply such a thing. You are overreading a simple scene. He is looking longingly at Barbara remembering what has been - what ever that was. Talia comes in - from the present - and interupts his nostalgia. Anything else you read into it is your personal feelings. There is nothing more intended there - no matter how fascinating it sounds.



In MOTB a petulant Barbara calls Bruce on the phone : "Am I your Number One girl?" Bruce lies to her, hangs up on her, receives accolades from his buds, chases another woman, and tells two of the three Batwomen that he is very single. Again, his actions, words, and active pursuit of a woman AFTER the case is closed all say No.

Yes here, Bruce does not seem comfortable with Barbara. She isn't his number one girl here. On a PERSONAL opinion, as I said, it seems to me that he doesn't want to deal with the issue. It's clear something has happened. Alfred and Tim know it. He knows it. Barbara knows it. He won't face the issue. We know that in Out Of The Past, he someone how misses her. The pictures reflect a closer bond that we see. That would imply those pictures were taken before or after this film. Since Barbara says their relationship in ToC took a turn for the worse when she left, it would make sense that those pictures were taken afterwards. Therefore, Bruce is ignoring an issue which comes to some resolution after MoB. Now again, this is all logical conjecture. But I will admit that. I personally think it makes more logical sense that what you suppose, but I still maintain that we should look at the evidence within the show rather than suppose or over analyse parts to support a conjecture.


One "no" is a bad day. Two is a pattern. Three is set in stone. Three strikes and you're out. Game ended. His attitude is plainly, "What part of No don't you understand?"

Dear lord, two of those 'no' answers you've just made up! From your own decision. Certainly I don't recall any 'no' in ToC (which would have been after the relationship). Definately NO implication of a negative in OOTP. MoB is more definate for evidence of their relationship at that point but again points to nothing before or after. I'm disappointed in you OM. Your arguments aren't as strong here - maybe because it's become less analytical as your thread began and is becoming personal. :)


That's why in the "Just Desserts" section of my MOTB post, I gave Bruce and Barbara a month. In contrast I give Bruce and Kathy Duquesne about six weeks. That's how insubstantial I see the Bruce/Barbara thing becoming with the new evidence MOTB presented. To me the argument that "their relationship was solid ; it lasted for some time, most unusual for Bruce ; Barbara was the love of his life" cannot be substantiated by what we see on the screen. And it's not "all that flying rodent's fault." Based on what we see in canon, on the screen, these two just don't look like they have what it takes to make it. Which is fine by me :) because I think there are better ways than this to develop Barbara's character.
Well I think the screen has substantiated that something deeper than MotB happened. I recall ToC stating that the parting of their relationship was when Bruce couldn't give up Batman and she left... considering she's still Batgirl at ROTJ it's more rational to see this relationship in some form continues - in some way - till after ROTJ when Barbara leaves.

This takes into account all we see on the screen without adding ANY conjecture. I'm not saying what the relationship was like, how deep was it (except that Bruce with hindsight seems to feel it was important).

All my evidence is based with supposing on Barbara, Bruce, or anyone. I cannot give you an estimate of how long the relationship lasted because I don't know. You can't give it 6 weeks/month because you don't know either. All you can say that feelings were between them from sometime before MotB to quite likely after ROTJ. Whether there was a proper relationship for any amount of time or whether it was a soap like "will they or won't they?" no one can say. But based on what's said in the show - and like with everything else we take it as fact, then there was a relationship after MotB - so something happens AFTER.

Therefore to conjecture on the nature of their relationship based on MotB is insane.

I believe she loved Dick, I believe she feel for Bruce. I believe Bruce believes he loved her when they were together. I don't think one can ignore these elements.

My only bias is I like Barbara. I like Bruce. I like Dick *eep - innuendo ahoy*. In the end, I read in what the TV tells me, not what I want to read.

[RAINMAN]

So this is what we get when you bring in a female char whit no personlity?:sad:

[James]

So this is what we get when you bring in a female char whit no personlity?:sad:
What, an entire 3 page intense thread debating her actions? I think animated Barbara Gordon has become possibly one of the most nortoriously debated heroes in DCAU.. not bad for a female character with no personality...

[Phantasm]

Okay maybe this is not relevent but,i feel that andi surpasses Talia Selina and definately barbara when it comes to Bruce.

[James]

Okay maybe this is not relevent but,i feel that andi surpasses Talia Selina and definately barbara when it comes to Bruce.Amazing how two characters who didn't even have a relationship with Bruce can be deemed as suppassing a character whom he did. There is no reasonable way you can make such a supposition like that. Bruce abhored criminals. There was never room for relationships on that ground, and regardless, he was never involved with either in a full relationship - so how can argue that?

The point about Andrea is certainly one that can be argued very strongly. No doubt there, but Selina and Talia were never more than flirtatious chemistry and sexual attraction. I'm amazed how people slam one character down who did have a romance, whom Bruce clearly remembers with over-riding affection ("Out Of The Past") for characters he never had a relationship with who had ethics and priorities which were so different they could never be reconcilable.

There is a difference between attraction and flirtatious chemistry and that of a relationship.

No offense, but I'm finding this argument in this thread more and more illogical. :) It seems that people are disgusted with Barabara's actions and simply can't except the fact the show states (clearly) that, for a while (of no clear time period) she and Bruce had a happy relationship - then they split up. Simple. No happy ending, just one of Bruce's very few actual relationships - and guess what? He screwed up! Seems the issue is being made from a molehill into a mountain..

It seems personal issues is what it boils down to here. People not liking what is stated in the show and nitpicking so they can find a more comfortable way to resolve in their heads a relationship they don't like.

Sorry. :)

EDIT: And I can't vote in the poll as there is no option for "I believe Bruce and Babs had/will have a romance cos that's what the TV has told me!" :) I've no great love for romances so the first choice is moot!

[Phantasm]

Okay, let's put the issue that Andi and Bruce cannot have a relationship again aside.I know they can't. But if you compare what they had to what Bruce and Barbara had, it's obvious Andi was better suited to Bruce in every respect. Bruce always felt more for Andi then he did for Babs when he was with her. But yes, I do feel that Barbara was obsessed with Bruce and it might have been good for him to have someone like that in his life apart from Alfred.I certainly feel that Andi wasn't obsessed with bruce, rather Bruce was obsessed with her.Funny how even though Andi dumped him, he was ready to accept her back.I'm reffering to the incident when she returned her engaement ring. Barbar adidn't even do any thing like that, but still he refused her?!
And no, i am not saying that bruce and Andi can have a good relationship again.I'm saying they had a good, IMO the best relationship once.But that was that.

[Merlin Missy]

Bruce always felt more for Andi then he did for Babs when he was with her.
We never saw Bruce with Babs. We saw Bruce talking on the phone with Babs at an undefined point in their relationship (could have been Before, could have been After [unlikely for various reasons]). We saw Barbara talking about it all later, during which conversation she implies the two were lovers. We saw Bruce looking fondly at two pictures of the two of them together, in a sequence of pictures that includes Selina Kyle. (TOM, Catwoman is proof that this is "Girl of the Month Club"?? Selina may be the closest thing he has to a soulmate in the Animated Universe. Not that I'm biased, you understand. ;) )

That's it. We have yet to see the two interacting during the time when they are a Couple. There's no way to say for sure what Bruce felt, unless at some point we see him give a soliloquy on the various loves in his life. And even if he does stand there on-camera and explain exactly how he feels for each woman he's ever cared about, I'm sure we'll all find ways to fanwank it to indicate our own individual desires. If we want to see Babs as Bruce's True Love, we can look at the fact that she was the only one who rated two pictures in OotP, and we can say that MotB takes place before Bruce catches a clue. If we want to see Andi as Bruce's True Love, we can use MotP, and say that he didn't look at a photo of her in OotP because she was too special and thus too painful to contemplate. We can use the same argument for Diana. If we look hard enough, we can find examples to paint any contender for Bruce's heart to be psychotic, manipulative, and/or beneath notice due to a lack of examples (there's no one arguing that Bruce and Zatanna are destined for each other --- yet).

Did Babs and Bruce have a relationship? Yes. Barbara said so, and we have no direct evidence that she was lying. Did Andi and Bruce have a relationship? Yes. We watched it grow and then implode in MotP. Did Bruce and Selina have a relationship? In the animated series, they had a lot of flirting, a lot of innuendo, and a lot of chemistry, and we saw that in Bruce's "ideal world" they were engaged. Technically, we even saw them on a date. Did Bruce and Lois have a relationship? Yes. She was considering moving to Gotham to be near him, and he seemed to have no objections to the idea. Did Bruce and Talia have a relationship? Not precisely. She liked him; he was attracted to her but she was too much of a daddy's girl. Bruce and Zatanna are in a "To Be Continued" status. Ditto for Bruce and Diana.

We know what we've seen. We can infer some things we haven't, from the surrounding evidence, but the thing about inferring is that we are merely speculating, and might be wrong. For all we know, Bruce might, in his heart of hearts, believe Harley to be his one true love. Or Harvey, if you're into that particular interpretation.

We know that in the end, he's alone. He has no wife, no mistress, no friends, no psuedofamily (until the end of RotJ, when we see he might rebuild a relationship with Tim and Babs). All of his former loves and potential loves are married, dead or MIA (in "Future Shock," someone mentions Wonder Woman; this could be Diana, this could be a new woman with the title, either way she's never seen with him). Bruce has no one. He's easy on the eyes (or was during his heyday) and filthy rich, and he's no longer the Bat. Why is he alone?

a) He's happier that way. This is Bruce. He enjoys misery. Or maybe he's decided that he's not miserable, and is one of those people who is honestly happier living alone.
b) He doesn't feel capable of a normal relationship, so he doesn't ever try.
c) He has lousy taste in women. (cue: Flight of the Valkyries) Look at the psychos, look at the psychos ...
d) The right girl (guy?) got away and he doesn't want to settle for anything less.

There could be other reasons. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us who like Option D, and insert the name of our favorite love interest. But we don't know for sure why. We're just speculating. We know he's alone, we know there are probably good reasons. Laying the blame for the end of any particular relationship squarely on the shoulders of the woman in question means ignoring all the other relationships Bruce has had and lost, and it means ignoring what makes Bruce himself. (He's not well in the head. No one who dresses up in spandex and Kevlar on a nightly basis is completely well in the head. The Batfamily and the Justice League? Lots of therapy.)

Can we listen to Barbara's tale to Terry, and assume she's lying / remembering differently than what actually happened? Sure. We can claim that Bruce was victimized by Barbara's manipulations, that he never really cared for her, that it was all in her head. We can decide he has been innocent through all his failed romances, that it's always "her" fault (except, of course, for each of us our favorites --- then we are dealing with a case of starcrossed love, destiny conspiring against us). We're fans. We're good at this stuff. :) Can we also look at Bruce critically and claim that he is incapable of forming a healthy long-term relationship due to his childhood trauma and resultant lack of a stable family structure, that he sabotages potential relationships from the beginning, either consciously or not, by latching onto women who are criminals, deviants, or (should be) unattainable, that he pushes away anyone who does get too close to his heart (including his "sons")? We can do that too. We can set blame for every failed relationship Bruce's ever had wherever it pleases us to do so.

But we're just guessing until b.t. and the other producers show up and tell us exactly what they meant. And again, even then we can tweak what they say to fit our own theories. It's what we do.

MM:)

[Darkseid]

I enjoyed the essay. That was a good read. I don't think we're meant to take such a deeply negative look at our heros, but the tools are there.

Even so, I must point out these parts...


And I have little doubt that this scene was written partly to tug some fanboy capes. You guys must admit you make the temptation almost irresistible.
WORLD'S BIGGEST DROOLING FANBOY : "WAAAHH! You didn't say there was gonna be a quiz! Haven't I suffered enough?"

Aw, don't cry. Have a creampuff.I find the labeling of "you guys" as "fanboys" and the mockery of fanboys pretty ironic, considering you're clearly an epically-huge-sized fanboy yourself in order to have written something so detailed and passionate on such a small part of this large universe. Don't be all self-hatin' about it.

[The Old Maid]

Okay, three posters in a row either didn't catch the asides I meant as jokes, or else said "I got it ; I just don't think you're very funny." As I mentioned from the start, people are quite protective of the animated Barbara character and tend to idealize her to the point that anyone who goes against the majority opinion can expect a few words. (Though I must admit "disappointing" and "insane" are new ones for me.) I thought that a few jokes, not sparing myself, would keep things on a friendly footing. Also would spare other people the trouble. After all a sense of humor implies a certain impartiality to step back and look at oneself and life from a distance. I was trying to lighten the mood. Apparently that part of the plan didn't work very well. Point taken. No more jokes.

(I thought Robin's lipstick was funny. Wasn't that the reason they put it in there? If I'd known if would be held up as a reflection of my credibility you betcha I wouldn't have said it.) :(

[James]

Okay, three posters in a row either didn't catch the asides I meant as jokes, or else said "I got it ; I just don't think you're very funny." As I mentioned from the start, people are quite protective of the animated Barbara character and tend to idealize her to the point that anyone who goes against the majority opinion can expect a few words. (Though I must admit "disappointing" and "insane" are new ones for me.) I thought that a few jokes, not sparing myself, would keep things on a friendly footing. Also would spare other people the trouble. After all a sense of humor implies a certain impartiality to step back and look at oneself and life from a distance. I was trying to lighten the mood. Apparently that part of the plan didn't work very well. Point taken. No more jokes.

(I thought Robin's lipstick was funny. Wasn't that the reason they put it in there? If I'd known if would be held up as a reflection of my credibility you betcha I wouldn't have said it.) :(
Most of my rebuttal was not in regard to that one comment (which while relevant wasn't the crux of my point).

Besides. you've made serious remarks, I reply to the serious comments you made - I don't see why suddenly the thread has to be lightened up when people start making counter arguments. *shrug*

I'm not anally serious about this. People have their opinions and that's great - especially when they are as articulate as yourself. Where I get concerned is when fan deconstruction goes beyond the confines of the show and people start taking it as gospel. With yourself Old Maid, I think many people do now see yourself as being the truth. You arguments are well constructed and persuasive. I wanted to make people remember that much of what you say is extremely spectulative and not as impartial as it reads. Furthermore, it tends to twist or conjecture on scenes which should largely be read as they are shown.

Sorry if my seriousness emulates the seriousness you began the thread with.

[Revelator]

What, an entire 3 page intense thread debating her actions? I think animated Barbara Gordon has become possibly one of the most nortoriously debated heroes in DCAU.. not bad for a female character with no personality...
No, pretty bad. A 3 page thread of feverish speculation isn't proof that the animated Babs had much personality, but it's proof that when different writers don't make sure their contributions to the same character mesh, fans inevitably try to fill in the chinks, usually with futile guesswork and overheated theories.

It's because Barbara was so airily drawn as a character that this thread resulted, and the people involved in it aren't much different from the frenzied Sherlockians who use to debate what happened during Sherlock's stay in Tibet, what his exact relations with the royal family were, or how many wives Watson had or what his exact first name was--in all cases the situation is of fans trying to fill in discrepancies, curiosities or puzzles that the author (or authors) was (or were) either too lazy to address or indifferent towards. It's doubtful that Michael Reaves, who wrote MOTB, and who had previously been out of the Batman loop for years, went and looked back at those episodes of Batman Beyond that mentioned the Bruce/Babs relationship, and there's probably a similar divide between the BTAS and TNBA/BB writers, who generally were not the same people. (IIRC, Reaves also wrote Batgirl Returns--his treatment of the character there seems somewhat consistent with his treatment of her in MOTB.)

The situation is simply that Barbara Gordon's character lacks a good deal in coherency because most of the different writers who worked on her didn't really bother to make sure each new depiction matched with the last, and the producers didn't pick up that slack either...but the fans did, and in their attempt to give the character a greater coherency then she ever had they'll engage in fruitless speculative threads like this one till doomsday, and never arrive at a real solution even then, because that's something only the writers can provide.

I admire the tenacity and committment of people like Old Maid when they address the BG issue, but I also wonder if they're making the best possible use of their free time.

[James]

No, pretty bad. A 3 page thread of feverish speculation isn't proof that the animated Babs had much personality, but it's proof that when different writers don't make sure their contributions to the same character mesh, fans inevitably try to fill in the chinks, usually with futile guesswork and overheated theories.Touche.. hehe, now I know how The Old Maid feels about trying to insert comedy into this thread. Learned my lesson the hard way on that. It was a light hearted quip.

You see I don't see any real problem with her character - aside from a slight change between BTAS and TNBA.

Aside from that her characterisation is consistant. Where the issue lies is there is very little involvement of her within TNBA.. and then there is a big issue which lies Beyond (excuse the pun) which people want solid answer on.

I have no problems with her actions post TNBA.. she seems like a typical young adult. She makes choices and decisions like a young adult. Some of them maybe not be so good *shock* and like Bruce, we're not all perfect.. fans just don't seem to be able to handle that...

Now if people want to grumble about the character change of Barbara between BTAS and TNBA - fine. A definate change - one that made her a lighter and easier going character - but after that she remains pretty consistant.

I respect The Old Maid's power of argument and prose. However, I don't think her case warrants such disection. It's making a molehill from nothing then turning it into a mountain. We cannot judge Barbara totally as we've not seen the whole story to her actions - but on what we have seen we can justify with no effort.

If you watch ToC you can tell she's not proud of her decisions in her youth - with either Dick or Bruce.. as she says, she was young.. and TNBA Barb is pretty young..

So to me no issue - unless you are strongly against Bruce and Barb and then I have to say - as I would to those against Dick and Barb... DEAL WITH IT! :D

[Fone Bone]

'Kay!:) Like you said there really isn't any definative proof it never happened.

BTW I like NBA Batgirl MUCH better than BTAS Batgirl. I'll take Tara Strong over Melissa Gilbert ANYDAY!:D

[Phantasm]

I can comfortably state that Bruce had always cared more about Andrea than he did for Barbara.The most important thing in life for Bruce is th evow that h ekept for his parents.And twice he was about to give it up for her. Whatever he had to endure or give up for Barbara cannot surpass that.And he reufused to let go of that vow for Barbara, even though she asked for it.Andi didn't even need to ask him to do that.to ask.

[James]

I can comfortably state that Bruce had always cared more about Andrea than he did for Barbara.The most important thing in life for Bruce is th evow that h ekept for his parents.And twice he was about to give it up for her.
Again, you make this point - but no one is really debating who was more relevant to Bruce's life.. Andrea or Barbara.. This thread is about Bruce, Dick, Jim and Barbara. I don't really think there is enough information within the show to make a fair comparison between Andrea and Barbara so in the end the only conclusion you can make really comes down to your perspective.



Whatever he had to endure or give up for Barbara cannot surpass that.And he reufused to let go of that vow for Barbara, even though she asked for it.Andi didn't even need to ask him to do that.to ask.
Andrea didn't know at the time what he was doing. When she returned I really don't think Bruce could have adjusted to a relationship with a killer. Again, speculation, but I think it's important to know what is speculative and what is clear in the show.

We only have the vague details from one character to how Barbara and Bruce's relationship ended. We know that something made Barbara decide against being Batgirl. Something that didn't make it fun anymore. It MIGHT be connected to the comment about the bulletholes in the Batsuit. We don't know anymore that that - so making concrete comparisons between Andrea, Barbara is near impossible.

What I think is true of Bruce is that NO girl, bar none has truely been able to sway Bruce from his path (except, ironically plant girl in Chemisty - lol - and even then who knows for how long..). I don't think Talia, Barbara, Andrea.. none of them could have got him to give up Batman. He didn't seem to go after Andrea at the end of MotP. Once he donned the mantle he's never been able to truely take it off.

So I think comparison's are irrelevant. He wouldn't give up Batman for Barbara, for Andrea, for anyone.. it's his one true love.

To paraphrase a character from a British show. Batman isn't what he is, it's now who he is. I don't think any girl can take that away.

[Phantasm]

[QUOTE=SJJ] He didn't seem to go after Andrea at the end of MotP. Once he donned the mantle he's never been able to truely take it off.

QUOTE]


Andrea made it pretty clear at the end that she didn't want him to com eafter her.The necklace she left with him, with a black and white pic of them together symbolizes that she still loves him, but a relationship with him is history. He knew she was well and alive and didn't want to be further persued, so why would he?

[Phantasm]

Besides Andrea didn't make him give up the bat, she only made him consider it.Even that is a major thing in Bruce's case

[James]

Andrea made it pretty clear at the end that she didn't want him to com eafter her.The necklace she left with him, with a black and white pic of them together symbolizes that she still loves him, but a relationship with him is history. He knew she was well and alive and didn't want to be further persued, so why would he?From watching the show, the only reason Bruce would have followed Andrea would have been to pesuade her to turn herself in.

Of course she still loves him. What difference does that make - in particular to Bruce and Barbara?


Besides Andrea didn't make him give up the bat, she only made him consider it.Even that is a major thing in Bruce's case
No offense, but I can't make head nor tail of that. :p She was a murderer. Bruce doesn't take likely to them. If he couldn't reconcile a relationship with Kyle without cuffing her everytime she hugged him for theft, I think any form of relationship with a murderer is way out.

The end Batcave seen if you watch is about crossing the line. Bruce is upset because he thinks she's dead, and that she had done what he would never have wanted her to do - take a life. Alfred reminds him, that she had take a step into the abyss. Once you cross that line, there is no going back. That's the tragedy of the film and the importance of Bruce not crossing into the abyss as it corrupts your very nature.

ANYWAY.. this is way off topic. I know you have a great deal of love for Bruce and Andrea. That's wonderful. We love them too. It's a great film and they have good chemistry - but is there really any relevance in bringing this into this topic.

[Godiva]

Barbara as I see should be (unfortunately, she doesn’t seem to be) an intelligent young woman, down-to-earth type. She wouldn’t fantasize so easy with Bruce, imagine a relationship where there isn’t one or make him choose her or the “job”, she would know better then that.

I know we’ll probably not see an animated oracle but Barbara/Batgirl should be a little more respected or just interesting… Somebody said that if it was Batgirl nobody would bother to send Bane after her... I hate the truth.

(BTAS)

Her fantasy with batman it was just an innocent dream, like any girl would have. As I recall she wasn’t all happy with that or anything, quickly removing them from her head.

As for the character she was interesting, still a litlle silly, as in young unexperienced kind of way.

(TNBA)

That’s the way I see

I always thought that she and dick weren’t involved yet, they flirted and were getting there. In Old Wounds he mentioned the future and everything as a beginning of a relationship and they were going to kiss but they didn’t… and then he left. After some years I can’t see why Batman/Batgirl couldn’t happen, many paths could lead them there.

The character: “Bimbo”, “silly” even “dum” as I read in many theads here. I’m crazy about batgirl but they are right…She’s just a sidekick and can be replaced by robin in almost every appearance. And we could pass without some of her lines too. But she's not that bad, and Batman seems to care about here (at least)

There was a parody here, somewhere, that went something like this:

“Batman: Okay, now Batgirl, just try not doing something stupid!

Batgirl: Ooooops…”

… I wanted to hate it, but it was so true and right that I laughed with no regret.

My cousing was surprised to know that “that little girl” was older then robin (tim) (physically and mentally saying)

(Batman Beyond)

They tried to show that she was important in Bruce’s life, romantic saying. No more clues. And Barbara’s story to Terry has no clues that she was maybe lying as some said, it was supposed to be a little hint to us, that’s all. I hope it’s an alternate future ‘cause I wouldn’t like that bitter, unreasonable character to be her real future…

(Finally MOTB)

She seemd insecure again, she’d be replaced by somebody else like that? Bruce wouldn’t even warn her first? Didn’t like that… I rather go with SJJ theory (and everything else he said) that Bruce’s just avoiding the subject (not that she has a unrequited crush) and that Alfred and Tim just want to be out of it.


Phantasm,

I dont’ wanna fight or anything but:


“This is what sets Andrea Beaumont apart from her competitors. Andrea met Bruce when he was still "engaged" but unmarried. (What Barbara might have done in the same situation is a pointless discussion, as she was twelve at the time.) When Andrea left, Bruce "married" the woman who would always be there (i.e. the job, The Plan, Gotham City, whatever you want to call it” So if he met Andrea later I’d risc saying that maybe, just maybe, things could not be be exactly the same…

[Fone Bone]

From watching the show, the only reason Bruce would have followed Andrea would have been to pesuade her to turn herself in.

Of course she still loves him. What difference does that make - in particular to Bruce and Barbara?


No offense, but I can't make head nor tail of that. :p She was a murderer. Bruce doesn't take likely to them. If he couldn't reconcile a relationship with Kyle without cuffing her everytime she hugged him for theft, I think any form of relationship with a murderer is way out.

The end Batcave seen if you watch is about crossing the line. Bruce is upset because he thinks she's dead, and that she had done what he would never have wanted her to do - take a life. Alfred reminds him, that she had take a step into the abyss. Once you cross that line, there is no going back. That's the tragedy of the film and the importance of Bruce not crossing into the abyss as it corrupts your very nature.

ANYWAY.. this is way off topic. I know you have a great deal of love for Bruce and Andrea. That's wonderful. We love them too. It's a great film and they have good chemistry - but is there really any relevance in bringing this into this topic.
Okay, this crossing the line comment floored me. Just yesterday you made the argument in the live-action Batman/Superman movie thread that the filmed version of Batman's cheapening of the Batman character by allowing him to kill wasn't a big deal. Well, that's what crossing the line in the Batman mythos is all about, isn't it? I don't see how killing makes a man in a giant rubber batsuit more "realistic". If audiences want a realistic film they should watch documentaries.

To put it another way, who gave the live-action Batman the license to decide who lives and who dies? Who made him judge and jury? How is the animated Batman's ethics too "Saturday morning cartoon"?

Sorry, for going off topic, but I am truly confused by your twin arguments for the Batman character that are completely opposite of one another.:confused:

[Phantasm]

Phantasm,

I dont’ wanna fight or anything but:

So if he met Andrea later I’d risc saying that maybe, just maybe, things could not be be exactly the same…



oh but he did meet her too after he was "married" to batman! in fact he should have hated her for leaving him like that.but he didn't he forgave her instantly and no, i'm not talking about the whole killing issue

[James]

Okay, this crossing the line comment floored me. Just yesterday you made the argument in the live-action Batman/Superman movie thread that the filmed version of Batman's cheapening of the Batman character by allowing him to kill wasn't a big deal. Well, that's what crossing the line in the Batman mythos is all about, isn't it? I don't see how killing makes a man in a giant rubber batsuit more "realistic". If audiences want a realistic film they should watch documentaries.

To put it another way, who gave the live-action Batman the license to decide who lives and who dies? Who made him judge and jury? How is the animated Batman's ethics too "Saturday morning cartoon"?

Sorry, for going off topic, but I am truly confused by your twin arguments for the Batman character that are completely opposite of one another.:confused:
Fair question. I take every version of Batman within it's context. In other words, I don't look for puritism - just what works within the frame it sets up. If in one version Barb is seeing Dick and that's what the story dictates that's cool - but I don't therefore assume it should be the same in all versions. I'm happy with the change of Barb falling later for Bruce within BTAS, because I think that set up works within the frame of the characters they've rendered.

In the same way, I think Batman killing non gratuitously is okay within the dark fairy tale reality that Burton created for reasons I posted on the Entertainment board.

In the DCAU - Bruce does not kill. That's the line the character has made for himself - it's a very different character to Keaton's. It works in a cartoon, but I don't think it would make for a very strong dark figure in a film. Each character within the context of the tale.

To me, Batman is a myth to explore and tell in as many ways as the storytellers can dictate. As long as they remain true to the ideals within that story and what they produce is rational, I'm cool with it... whether I like it can be another issue...

I hope that answers your question. :)

[Bic]

Wow, this is a very informative and speculative read. I really enjoyed the Old Maid's look into the Batgirl as well as SJJ's responses, both are well written and despite the lengths at times, easy for someone like me to understand.

Sadly, as I am lacking in the proper skills dictated for serious discussion, I can not offer a rebutal or recomfirmation of the discussion about the aspects of Mr. Wayne and Miss Gordon's relationship. What I can offer however, is my take on an aspect of Miss Gordon's romantic possibilities that either of you have missed.

Barb was in love with Kara!! :o

The proof is in the TNBA episode 'Girl's Night Out'. After all, one of the girls has a white towel wrapped around her head while a blue towel around her body, and the other has the reverse. Also in the Justice League episode, 'Comfort and Joy' it's mentioned that Barb and Kara are skiing together for the holiday. There you have it!:D


(Just kidding on the Barb and Kara fling. While I think it'd been cool, WB would never agree. :( )

[Fone Bone]

Fair question. I take every version of Batman within it's context. In other words, I don't look for puritism - just what works within the frame it sets up. If in one version Barb is seeing Dick and that's what the story dictates that's cool - but I don't therefore assume it should be the same in all versions. I'm happy with the change of Barb falling later for Bruce within BTAS, because I think that set up works within the frame of the characters they've rendered.

In the same way, I think Batman killing non gratuitously is okay within the dark fairy tale reality that Burton created for reasons I posted on the Entertainment board.

In the DCAU - Bruce does not kill. That's the line the character has made for himself - it's a very different character to Keaton's. It works in a cartoon, but I don't think it would make for a very strong dark figure in a film. Each character within the context of the tale.

To me, Batman is a myth to explore and tell in as many ways as the storytellers can dictate. As long as they remain true to the ideals within that story and what they produce is rational, I'm cool with it... whether I like it can be another issue...

I hope that answers your question. :)
Wow! You ought to go into politics!:p I'd vote for ya!:D

I posted further arguments on the other thread. Hope to see your rebuttal soon.:)

[James]

oh but he did meet her too after he was "married" to batman! in fact he should have hated her for leaving him like that.but he didn't he forgave her instantly and no, i'm not talking about the whole killing issue
OMHO. like - to a certain degree - with the Old Maid, you have a tendacy to read what you want into the show rather than what is actually said. I don't recall Bruce ever forgiving Andrea for the crimes she had committed. I don't see why logically he would have wanted to hate her for leaving. He understands family duty more than anyone.

The tragedy of MotP is how two so compatiable characters are now totally incompatiable. She knows that, so does he. He's glad she's alive and probably still loves her, but he knows there is no longer a chance of relationship based on Waynes DCAU charcateristics. He is about duty over his personal life. He could IMO never reconcile a relationship with a murderer - no more than she can now face him for the crimes she committed. It's harsh and tragic ending, but it's what makes the film so beautiful.

Oh, and dream on Bic.... :)

[Phantasm]

oh no! Bruce would never forgive andrea for the killings because, he cares more for the fact that she killed rather than whether or not it was justified. no. by "forgivE" i'm not reffering to the whole killing issue again.i am simply stating the fact that even after she dumped him, he forgave her!that simply struck me as weird. bruce is a man of considerable self respect.shouldn't he have felt that andrea should have at least told him the reason as to why she returned the ring the very next day.oh and this IS way off topic!:shrug:

[Paul_Cousins]

oh no! Bruce would never forgive andrea for the killings because, he cares more for the fact that she killed rather than whether or not it was justified. no. by "forgivE" i'm not reffering to the whole killing issue again.i am simply stating the fact that even after she dumped him, he forgave her!that simply struck me as weird. bruce is a man of considerable self respect.shouldn't he have felt that andrea should have at least told him the reason as to why she returned the ring the very next day.oh and this IS way off topic!:shrug:I am not so sure about that considering nearly every time Two-Face showed up, Bruce was trying to help Harvey Dent.

Bruce might be able to forgive a former lover for commiting murder in the name of revenge, but it's a tough call and I don't know for sure.

[James]

I am not so sure about that considering nearly every time Two-Face showed up, Bruce was trying to help Harvey Dent.

He wanted Harvey to get help. He didn't not stop Two Face because he was Harvey. Justice came first - always. Bruce just never forgot who Two Face was.... or who he used to be.

He was concerned for his friend - and I don't think anyone here disagrees that Bruce would stop caring for Andrea deeply. He just would never be able to reconcile with the murder.

Anyway... WAYYYY off topic as Phantasm said. :)

[Maxie Zeus]

Whew! I really haven't had time to think about this and the earlier thread in depth. Anyway, to do justice to these arguments and observations, I would have to rewatch every episode of BTAS, TNBA and BB. That's cuz OM has done such an amazing job of getting into so many characters and looking at them not just in themselves but also in their relations with each other. To deduce facts about Barbara Gordon based (in part) on Bruce's relationship with Tim ... whew!

There are only two observations I would make, both in regard to ATOC:

As long as we are reading individual scenes so closely, I think it's worth looking more carefully at the scene that precedes Commissioner Gordon's coffee shop confession scene. Curare's second assassination attempt has just been foiled and Barbara confronts Terry on the street:


Terry: Wasn't me who set off the alarm. I did the best I could.

Barbara (teeth clenched anger): This is the last warning you get. If I see so much as a pointy-eared shadow anywhere near police business, I'll drag you and Bruce to jail. You got me?

Barbara turns and walks away.

Terry: Why do you hate him so much?

Barbara stops dead in her tracks.

Barbara(over her shoulder): Ancient history, McGinnis.

Terry: History's my favorite subject.

Barbara turns and smiles at him. Dissolve to coffee shop.

Now, watching the scene I was struck by how fast she reversed course, going from furious to friendly at neck-snapping speed. And I ask myself "Why? Why the sudden switch from threats to a willingness to spill family secrets?"

There are three explanations that I can see:

1. Script incompetence: The story needs her to be angry and then it needs her to give some juicy backstory gossip, and it just grinds the gears while making the switch. This is a legitimate explanation, but it's not satisfying if we take these events at face value, which is what I would prefer to do.

2. Barbara's weak character: I don't mean "weak character" as in "badly written character in the story," but in OM's sense that Barbara is a weak person with serious flaws. She's been dying to talk about Bruce and her history with him and she grabs onto it with both hands. This is an interpretation very much in line with OM's diagnosis of the character, I think, and I freely offer it to OM as an item to buttress her overall case. Is it the best interpretation? It's definitely a good one, and it's the easiest interpretation to make. I don't endorse it, but I think it's eminently plausible.

3. Ulterior motives: Barbara's got something to say to Terry, but it's not necessarily what we think she's saying. But, again, she sees a good opportunity and she seizes it. This is complicated, but bear with me:

This street scene is sandwiched between the coffee shop scene and the earlier scene in the Batcave. In both scenes she has highly negative things to say about the life of a caped crusader, and she says them within earshot of Terry. She's warning him off from a life as Batman. Why would she do that?

I think it's significant that in both cases she offers reasons that we've heard from Dick Grayson and (in ROTJ) from Tim Drake. "You think you chose this life, but you're being manipulated by Bruce Wayne; it's not a healthy life to lead; and you'll give it up later, so you might as well give it up sooner."

Of course, there's a bit more which gets said, and it's that extra which is the basis for thinking that the Bruce-Barbara relationship advanced beyond Barbara's dreams. The key moments in that scene: (a) Terry asks if she was his partner, then asks if she was his girlfriend, and takes Barbara's silence as an affirmative ("Whoa!" he says.) (b) Barbara says that they were terrific on the streets, but that's all that Bruce was interested in; the implication is that she wanted to be partners off the streets but Bruce wouldn't go along. Thus, the interpretation: Barbara wanted Bruce/Batman for herself, insinuated herself into his life (or allowed herself to be dragged in by her dreams and ambitions) and withdrew angrily when he didn't go along to her logical conclusion.

But silence and implication are not the same as explicit affirmation and explication. That's why the coffee shop scene (and what gets said and what goes unsaid) have to be interpreted in context of the other scenes in the story. Now, either the implication is the deeper and unspoken truth about her earlier scene with Bruce and Terry in the Batcave ("Don't go with Bruce like I did; and it was a mistake for me because I got my heart broken"); or it is Barbara's way of pressing home her argument from that earlier scene ("Don't go with Bruce because he doesn't care about people, only the mission.")

Barbara doesn't say that she had an affair with Bruce or even that she wanted one; Terry is the one who jumps to that conclusion and she lets him jump. If it's a false conclusion, why would she let him jump? For two reasons: First, letting Terry think that would bring out very sharply her basic argument: "Bruce doesn't have time for people; he doesn't even have time for love, so what makes you think you're so special?" Second, she can read Terry for what he is: a teenager with romance on his mind (he's the one who brought it up, after all). If Terry is going to become Batman, he has to recognize that it will interfere with his dreams of committing to someone (which is true enough). Instead of saying so directly (and Terry would resist being lectured to if she did say so directly), she lets him draw a (false) inference about herself so that she can be an object lesson.

In other words, she swung around so violently and took him to the coffee shop because she saw in it the chance to impress upon Terry the danger of becoming Bruce's acolyte, and she let him jump to a false conclusion (something didn't plan on) because she saw it was a way of getting to recognize a deeper, true conclusion: associating with Bruce is ruinous to everyone's happiness and he should stop being Batman right now.

Again, I don't endorse this interpretation. But if it is what's going on then with one blow we destroy the basis for thinking that she had an affair with Bruce, that her giving up as Batgirl had anything to do with that affair (remember, she referred to bullet holes in the costume when she first appeared), and we undermine all the implications for her character that would follow from those putative facts.

* * * * *

My second point (you forgot that there was going to be a second point, didn't you? :p) is a methodological suggestion to OM:

Much of the power and persuasiveness of your interpretation comes from turning the main characters inside out with empathy and understanding. But there is one character who doesn't seem to get this same treatment, and he's an important omission: Old Man Wayne.

I've suggested (shameless plug (http://anbat.toonzone.net/bb/ind/tocurare.html)) that the real interest in ATOC is in the rivalry between Wayne and Gordon. Gordon's reasons for resenting Wayne in this episode have been exhaustively explored; shouldn't the same be done for Wayne? If Gordon has personal reasons for resenting Wayne/Batman's interference in the Curare case, isn't it worth looking to see if Wayne has personal reasons to interfere? That is, if Gordon's resisting Wayne can't be understood simply as professional courtesy (she's the damn police commissioner, after all), why take at face value Wayne's insistence that his interference is similarly professional? And if Gordon's past romantic relationship with Wayne is held to color her judgement in the Curare case, why not look to see if it colors Wayne's? (After all, he seems to be going out of his way to prove that neither Barbara nor her husband are capable of protecting themselves.)

If we start pulling at Wayne's end of this thread, treating him with the same adversarial spirit as has been shown to Batgirl (I mean adversarial in the sense that a biographer is supposed to be the "conscientious enemy" of his/her biographical subject), it certainly seems plausible that we might get a very different light on Barbara and her crush on him. Just a thought: Bruce is very good at playing the love-em-and-leave-em playboy; is that because he's such a good actor, or could it be that the seducer is a deep part of his personality? Dick and Barbara have both suggested that Batman "seduced" them into being his assistants ...

[James]

Now, watching the scene I was struck by how fast she reversed course, going from furious to friendly at neck-snapping speed. And I ask myself "Why? Why the sudden switch from threats to a willingness to spill family secrets?"

There are three explanations that I can see:

1. Script incompetence: The story needs her to be angry and then it needs her to give some juicy backstory gossip, and it just grinds the gears while making the switch. This is a legitimate explanation, but it's not satisfying if we take these events at face value, which is what I would prefer to do.

2. Barbara's weak character: I don't mean "weak character" as in "badly written character in the story," but in OM's sense that Barbara is a weak person with serious flaws. She's been dying to talk about Bruce and her history with him and she grabs onto it with both hands. This is an interpretation very much in line with OM's diagnosis of the character, I think, and I freely offer it to OM as an item to buttress her overall case. Is it the best interpretation? It's definitely a good one, and it's the easiest interpretation to make. I don't endorse it, but I think it's eminently plausible.

3. Ulterior motives: Barbara's got something to say to Terry, but it's not necessarily what we think she's saying. But, again, she sees a good opportunity and she seizes it. This is complicated, but bear with me...

A forth is there is a scene missing. Some further scene which links the two. We get a lot of those in film history.. and normally any plot holes in a film are accounted by either sloppy script editing/scene cutting. Not suggesting this is what it is, simply that we get to see in any drama essentially the scenes which are relevant to get us coherantly from start to finish. There are scenes in between - like maybe one that bridges this gap, or even ones where characters go to the bathroom - that we don't see. Maybe there was something else which turned the tide.

I'm not saying this is what I believe, but I think Maxie is trying to open up further avenues.

Again, personally I see it as it written. I think delving too deep just becomes fan speculation. You see what wasn't intended and start creating your own tale.

I would go for something near number two on Maxie's list. However I'd just say, from how I read the scene, it was simply she knew when Terry said "History's my favorite subject." that he wouldn't give up on this. This wasn't something he intended to back off from, so decided she would divulge. Terry is meant to come across as a wannbe detective - I saw this as her reason. She put aside her personal privacy and decided to let Terry in. If he was to deal with situation, he might as well know the issues.

I think that was the implication of the scene. Simple as that. :)

[Maxie Zeus]

A forth is there is a scene missing. Some further scene which links the two. We get a lot of those in film history.. and normally any plot holes in a film are accounted by either sloppy script editing/scene cutting.

Except that the body language within the scene sure suggests that this is an instant decision on Barbara's part. That's why I included descriptions of character attitudes and movement. Barbara's reaction to Terry's persistence is an almost hungry expression. It sure doesnt' look like she has to be persuaded. Her looking over her shoulder when she says "Ancient history" is almost like an invitation.

Yes, it could be sloppiness (what I referred to in (1) as script incompetence), but I'm just doing what OM has done: taking seriously what is said and how it is said. :p


Again, personally I see it as it written. I think delving too deep just becomes fan speculation. You see what wasn't intended and start creating your own tale.

In general, I tend to agree with this attitude. But I think that it's worth poring over in the case of Barbara. The coffee shop scene in ATOC--which is where the entire idea that there was a Bruce-Barbara relationship--is so indirect and nuanced in the way it is written that you can't take it "as written." For what does it mean to take what is only implied "as written"? Barbara neither confirms nor denies Terry's "Girlfriend?" question, so "as written" is she saying "yes" or "no"?

BTW, that's the lovely thing about the way these shows are written and directed: it's not the case that everything is laid out explicitly, so you have to dig into the characters.


I would go for something near number two on Maxie's list. However I'd just say, from how I read the scene, it was simply she knew when Terry said "History's my favorite subject." that he wouldn't give up on this. This wasn't something he intended to back off from, so decided she would divulge. Terry is meant to come across as a wannbe detective - I saw this as her reason. She put aside her personal privacy and decided to let Terry in. If he was to deal with situation, he might as well know the issues.

I could see this if the body language in the sidewalk scene were different: if Barbara seemed reluctant or unhappy when pressed by Terry. But she smiles when pressed, as though she were happy to have the chance to go over "ancient history." It's her seeming eagerness in the scene that puzzles me. I didn't remember that attitude from her and didn't go looking for it; I was just wanting to refresh my memory of ATOC. But it positively jumped out at me when I rewatched it just a few hours ago.

[James]

Except that the body language within the scene sure suggests that this is an instant decision on Barbara's part. That's why I included descriptions of character attitudes and movement. Barbara's reaction to Terry's persistence is an almost hungry expression. It sure doesnt' look like she has to be persuaded. Her looking over her shoulder when she says "Ancient history" is almost like an invitation.

Well then the other possibility (suggesting possibilties - it's very easy to discount other options and decide on one when there are others available) is that she's used to people asking about her and millionaire Bruce Wayne and is used to shrugging people off who are looking for gossip but does want to tell it to someone who is interested. Similar to what you said, just a slight angle.



Yes, it could be sloppiness (what I referred to in (1) as script incompetence), but I'm just doing what OM has done: taking seriously what is said and how it is said. :p

I know and I've done the same. I see nothing wrong in it as look as people can see what is personally subjective comment and what is said in the show. That's the issue I wanted to clarify here, that there is a distinction between the two which is often blurry for fans.

Yourself and TOM are very articulate and rational, but any fan speculation is always still speculation. It's fun, but nevertheless shouldn't overshadow what is said. This was never meant to be a slam at The Old Maid, and I'm sure it sounds that way - I've spoken to many fans in my 3 years here who have argued on the basis of one of The Old Maid's essays as if they were gospel, where in fact, much of what is said is intelligent speculation and from that an opinion.

With Barbara and Bruce I was hoping people would put what is speculative aside, or what could be read from the show as to what is said in the show. I think in this specific instance there is a great deal which actually is clear in the show which makes a lot of comments about Barbara and Bruce redundant.

I know I've said that before, but I like to make it clear I do find tOM a fascinating read - as with Maxie and I don't want people think I'm belittling their opinion, just restating the relevant details within the show which requires no subtext.


In general, I tend to agree with this attitude. But I think that it's worth poring over in the case of Barbara. The coffee shop scene in ATOC--which is where the entire idea that there was a Bruce-Barbara relationship--is so indirect and nuanced in the way it is written that you can't take it "as written." For what does it mean to take what is only implied "as written"? Barbara neither confirms nor denies Terry's "Girlfriend?" question, so "as written" is she saying "yes" or "no"?

No know as well as I how that scene was meant to be read. In drama we can't have every word spelled out and if we do, people still subject it to - well could x be lying, could y have a motive beyond what they say.

Where do you draw the line. In scenes when you know the intent of the writers - and unless they are very poor writers - I think we know the implication of her smile. We know how it's meant to be read. The fact that both "Out Of The Past" and "MotB" offer similar suggestions, I don't think we can start quibbling when intent is obvious.

I don't think there is any doubt as to what the Gordon smile means. I seriously doubt had it been any other character people wouldn't question it, but there is a hang up for Barbara's love life that seems to really bug people.. :p

I have done similar essays on many visual stories from FF7 to Homicide Life On The Street. I think the argument that unless it's implicitly implied is a circular one - especially when you understand the subtle nuances of a scene. It's a technique best left to politicians.. :)



BTW, that's the lovely thing about the way these shows are written and directed: it's not the case that everything is laid out explicitly, so you have to dig into the characters.
Sometimes yes, you can indeed guess what was going through Andrea's mind at the end of Mask Of The Phantasm. You can indeed wonder whether the Joker was manipulating Harley throughout the entire "Mad Love" story, but there are certain dramatic devices which are clear. This is one of them. I just find highlighting it just give those who don't like the story of Gordon reason to argue against it. Fine if they want it as an excuse not to believe it personally, but wrong when people decide it offers conclusive evidence that nothing happened.



I could see this if the body language in the sidewalk scene were different: if Barbara seemed reluctant or unhappy when pressed by Terry. But she smiles when pressed, as though she were happy to have the chance to go over "ancient history." It's her seeming eagerness in the scene that puzzles me. I didn't remember that attitude from her and didn't go looking for it; I was just wanting to refresh my memory of ATOC. But it positively jumped out at me when I rewatched it just a few hours ago.
Seems.. but again, as you said, on the whole, there was something very girly about Barbara Gordon post BTAS. "Girls Nite Out", "MotB" all show her in a far more stereotypical teenager/young adult light. With the fact that her reasons to being Batgirl seem more superficial than Bruce or Dick's as well, maybe the eagerness to tell the story is in character. In all honesty I would have to watch the scene again.. I think it's dangerous to overanalysis though. My point here - as with all we've said is subjective. The scene itself - along with the episode and some following - shows a relationship between the two.

I would say IMO. But as I said, put all we've had so far together, and on some level, something - I don't know what - happened between MotB and Barb quitting Batgirl. Since we see some relationship in MotB, we know that something must have occurred after.

[Phantasm]

whao u people are real good at interpreting things...

[James]

whao u people are real good at interpreting things...
Again, interpretation is the key word. Opinion on areas which are subject to comment, but don't necessarily hold total validity. Always worth remembering that's what we have here. After making such a big thing of it, I will have to make sure I do so in future as well.. Otherwise this thread could really come around and bite me in the- :p

But yes, Maxie is great and catching small things and then poking those small things firmly with firm stick.. :)

[Maxie Zeus]

I know and I've done the same. I see nothing wrong in it as look as people can see what is personally subjective comment and what is said in the show. That's the issue I wanted to clarify here, that there is a distinction between the two which is often blurry for fans.

I don't think we have a disagreement about interpretive methodology going here. At least, if you're trying to get me to argue with you, you're going to have to say something that I actually disagree with. :D

As I said, I don't endorse any of the possibilities that I offered. If anything, with that third interpretation (the "nothing happened but I'm going to let Terry think something happened" interpretation) I'm mischievously trying to make OM's life more difficult by using her strategy of close reading to suggest a radically different take on Barbara's history with Bruce. :p

Anyway, I don't have much invested either way about Barbara and her relationship with Bruce. That's why I offered two readings of the sidewalk and coffee shop scenes that are diametrically opposed: One in which Barbara has ulterior reasons for making Terry think something happened, and one in which Barbara is so shallow and resentful of Bruce and her failed relationship that she rushes to tell Terry about it. Either interpretation is intellectually interesting. Now, maybe I should be so irrepressibly flippant as to offer and argue for these--if people are going to take these things as gospel--but if I can't have this kind of fun here, where can I have it? ;)


With Barbara and Bruce I was hoping people would put what is speculative aside, or what could be read from the show as to what is said in the show. I think in this specific instance there is a great deal which actually is clear in the show which makes a lot of comments about Barbara and Bruce redundant.

Okay, if I can be more serious for a moment--though it kills me to suppress a smile--what are the plain facts that we know about Barbara and her relationship with Batman/Bruce?

1. She is sufficiently impressed with his methods to create and don a "Batgirl" outfit ("Shadow of the Bat").
2. She has at least one dream in which she saves Batman and falls into a romantic clinch with him ("Batgirl Returns").
3. She lets her relationship with Dick Grayson collapse at the same time that she joins the Bat-family ("Old Wounds").
4. She shows a very girlish personality after joining (TNBA).
5. She shows a quasi-flirtatious, quasi-serious jealousy when another "Bat" female appears (MotBw).
6. She leaves the Bat-family to become a policewoman (post-TNBA, pre-BB).
7. She allows the deduction that she was an "item" with Bruce to go unchallenged ("A Touch of Curare").
8. As Bruce looks over photos of women who were old flames, we see her and him together in one ("Out of the Past").

Now, remove number 7 and what should you conclude? That she had some kind of crush on Bruce, at least for awhile. I think that much is plain and inarguable. Did Bruce reciprocate? Did they actually have a fling or a more serious relationship? Only 8 suggests that it might have gone further than a one-sided longing on Barbara's part, and I don't think the photograph says anything one way or the other. Barbara was important part of Bruce's life, so it's no surprise that he should have a photo of them together in a casual position; and in the scene he is looking over "might have beens." And surely Barbara represents a "might have been" even if nothing ever happened. In fact, given that Barbara left the Bat-family to lead a more normal life, it can just as easily be argued that in looking at Barbara in that scene he is looking at someone he might have had a relationship with if he had followed her out of the Batcave. She's not someone he did have, but someone he could have had--a significant difference.

The photo looks, in that context, convincingly like a shot of an old flame only because we have ATOC in the back of our minds. Whether it still looks like a photo of an old flame, then, depends on whether we take ATOC as proving that there was a relationship. The rest of the stories (including MotBw) take their provocative coloring from ATOC; but if ATOC does not reveal a relationship, then the rest of the episodes tell a much more innocuous story: Barbara had a "thing" for Batman but it never went anywhere.

This is why I would concentrate on ATOC and on what gets said and what goes unsaid: Without ATOC the other dots don't connect in any obvious pattern. So we have to understand ATOC.


I don't think there is any doubt as to what the Gordon smile means. I seriously doubt had it been any other character people wouldn't question it

I agree, the easiest and most obvious interpretation is that Barbara and Bruce, like birds and bees, did it. If we were to ask b.t. to settle the question, I would bet that's what he'd say. So why do I offer the alternative interpretation?


I just find highlighting it just give those who don't like the story of Gordon reason to argue against it. Fine if they want it as an excuse not to believe it personally, but wrong when people decide it offers conclusive evidence that nothing happened.

Because you're the one who's arguing that ATOC proves conclusively that something happened between them. And, like a good defense attorney who believes his client is guilty, I'm more interested in demonstrating that there is reasonable doubt. I don't have to prove that the alternative is conclusively true; I only have to show that it is plausible and that the widely accepted view that there was an affair is not itself conclusively established. ;)

What is ATOC about? As I've argued, the conflict is between Wayne and Gordon: Who will be the one to beat Curare? And this is a conflict between two visions, about whether the cape is superior to the badge as an instrument for law enforcement. Like Grayson and Drake, she deliberately rejected his influence and moved out of his shadow. She uses their language to explain why she rejected him and his vision. And if she believes what she avowedly, explicitly and heated says, then she has a compelling reason to try to talk Terry out of being the new Batman. In short, ATOC is a story about an ex-Batfighter explaining why she is no longer an ex-Batfighter, and her explanation is that it's a bad idea to be a member of the Bat-family. And, given what we've seen in "Old Wounds" and "Return of the Joker," it's hard to argue with that.

So what is that seeming confession ("Girlfriend?" Silence. "Whoa!") doing there? It adds nothing to the story; in fact, it causes it to wobble because it adds an element that revolts the tender sensibilities of many viewers.

The answer is to interpret it in a way that makes it consistent with Gordon's idealistic motives. She doesn't bring it up; Terry does. Why? Because he's got a girlfriend he probably hasn't spent an evening with in weeks, and that's what he's thinking about.

So what might she be thinking when he says "Girlfriend?" Girlfriend?! Ha, that's rich! Like Bruce had room for anything else. Poor, horny kid. Of course he wonders what kind of love life a Batman and Batgirl would have. He's probably got a girlfriend, and he's just dying to swoop in and save her. Well, you had that fantasy yourself, girl, so don't be too hard on him. But you saw through it eventually. This kid will too, but it hurts to learn that romance and caped crusading don't mix. Hmmm. Maybe it's best to let him think it was a bad love affair that ended it for me. Probably the only way to get it through his hormone-rattled skull that it's a bad life.

To get such an interpretation you only have to keep three things in mind: (1) Terry's the one who brings up Batman's love life; (2) Barbara will use any stick to pry Terry out of Bruce's dangerous grasp; (3) she's perceptive enough to see that the (almost-true) story of failed romance that Terry offers her is just the kind of stick that might work.

To summarize: Collectively, the other (non-ATOC) Batgirl episodes only show that Barbara had romantic fuzzies for Batman, not that anything happened between them. In ATOC, we only get Barbara's silence when she is asked point-blank whether she and Bruce had an affair. Why does she keep silent? Two possibilities: (a) it's true that they did and she's admitting it without saying so; (b) she has reasons for wanting Terry to think that his false conclusion is true. And ATOC--being the story of a former Batfamily member striving to show that caped crusading is unnecessary for the city and a positive danger to the crusaders--gives her those reasons for so pretending. I don't say that (b) is more compelling than (a); I only say that it cannot be dismissed with a casual "oh, everyone knows that silence means 'yes' when the subject is sex."

[Maxie Zeus]

It would be churlish of me to get in this deep (at this late date, too) and not play OM's game. But I'll be writing from my gut, not my brain, because it hurts too much to think about this stuff for too long. ;)

Here goes:

First, I classify myself as a "Bat amillenialist," for the simple reason that there's not enough info in MotBw to say for sure where in their relationship it occurs.

8. If you're a "Bat amillennialist" then the timing doesn't mean as much to you as the sum of their characters and "what are you going to do now." You probably think Barbara has an unrequited crush, because that crosses time from the past, into the present, and extending a little further into the future. So what you think of the way Bruce is handling it?

Badly. Very badly. I winced during that scene. Of course, being a modern man and (hence) prone to think in that horribly inconsistent way that Miss Manners decries, of course he's going to handle it badly. There's no use pretending that because Batman is the perfect crimefighter that he'll be the perfect gentleman too. He's doing his best but he's still being a jerk.

9.How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" that she left him?

There's no contradiction whatsoever. She says that at some point you have to hang up the cape, but Batman wouldn't or couldn't. So she left. Whether they were having a romantic relationship on the side or not, she wanted to hang up the cape but he wouldn't. So she hung up her own cape. If they were having an affair, she terminated the relationship at the same time; if they weren't having an affair (so that she merely had an unrequited crush on him), then she is only saying that she ended her life as Batgirl (and perhaps ceased those unrequited longings).

10. Anyone from any camp : If you think that the account told by Commissioner Barbara in "ATOC" is not in fact how it happened -- do you think Barbara was consciously trying to mislead Terry or bias him against Bruce, or do you believe she's telling it to the best of her ability to remember?

I have, above, offered at length an interpretation that says she didn't mislead him, but she allowed him, for her own purposes, to let him think that there was an affair. I don't endorse that interpretation, I only offer it as an alternative. That alternative takes whatever plausibility it has from the context of ATOC's story and her explicit protests in it: Her reasons for leaving Bruce are as good as those of Dick and Tim; it is unnecessary to posit that she left in a fit of romantic despondency at being continually rejected by Batman, because those reasons she shares with Dick and Tim, being sufficient for the guys, are sufficient for the gal as well. (In fact, isn't there something, er, presumptuous about going from "Girl had a crush on co-worker" to "Girl quit her job because co-worker would take the signals"?) She sees that Terry has romance-on-the-brain and she uses it to whack him into seeing what an empty, lonely life he has in store for himself.

Much the same can be said about that scene even if there was an unhappy relationship that ended badly, because she still knows what happened to Dick and to Tim; she still thinks that the badge is superior to the cape; and if admitting to her unhappy past is a good way of talking Terry out of life as Batman, then she'll admit to it.

11. What mood, what "vibe" do you get from looking at Barbara? Is it sexy? playful? flat? sad? or what? Whatever look it is, is it a good look on her?

In MotBw? She's hungry for Bruce, she's serious enough about it to make her feelings obvious. And it's a bad, bad look because a phone call isn't the way to discuss it and she's letting her feelings cloud her judgement.

12. What mood/vibe do you get when you look at Bruce's response? Is it a good look on him?

He looks like Margaret Dumont just after getting hit in the puss with a pie. He's flabbergasted and utterly unprepared for what is, after all, a problematic subject introduced in the worst possible way at the worst possible moment. He doesn't look good, he doesn't know how to handle it, and so (naturally) he loses all dignity.

13. Does anyone from any camp have an explanation for Alfred and Tim's behavior?

Tim's a kid and he's acting "cute" by his lights. The proper response to his "Don't drag me into this" would have been a snarled "Then shut up and stay out of it. No one asked to hear from you."

Alfred: The only one with any presence of mind. He knows what Babs is up to and doesn't think it's a good idea; he knows that Bruce is botching it, but he knows that the present (in the car, with him as chauffeur) is not the time to say anything. But he can't keep quiet (since silence might imply approval of what has just happened). So he offers an ambiguous comment: It sounds like he's praising Bruce's handling of Babs' call, but is he? Bruce's response is so obviously clumsy that Alfred's comment could just as easily be taken as sarcasm. I think that was exactly the effect Alfred was aiming at: complete, studied ambiguity.

14. Are Alfred and Tim behaving this way for the same reason, or for different reasons?

Different reasons: Alfred thinks quickly and coherently before he speaks; Tim doesn't think at all.

15.Again, anyone from any camp : When Bruce lumps Barbara and Batwoman together in the dismissal, "One female Bat at a time," what does that make you think about how he thinks of Barbara?

Doesn't say anything about how he thinks of Barbara; it says that, in trying to say something cute, he was temporarily channeling the spirit of Adam West. :p

Bonus round

A.What exactly is Dick to Bruce? And don't say "his ward," because that's a legal term. In emotional bonds, what are they? What are Bruce/Batman's obligations to Dick? If any.

At most, it's a mentor-trainee relationship with overtones of "comrade in arms." Dick was an only child whose memories of his own parents are too strong; there is no way he can see Bruce as a father- or brother-figure. He's a teacher and a friend, though obviously the relationship is a very intimate one.

Same for Bruce: His family feelings are wrapped up in his relationship with his dead parents, and as Batman he's interested in the abstract "concept" of what it means to be a caped crusader. Toward "Robin" he is merely the trainer of the next generation; toward Dick he is someone showing compassion. But, again, the relationship is intense, as it is between soldiers in a war.

As soldiers, their duties to each other are mostly symmtrical: you treat him with honesty, respect and unswerving support and loyalty. You don't do anything to make him suspect that you're not trustworthy. Bruce has an added responsibility, though: to be a good role-model to Dick and to understand that he is still immature in many ways, meaning that Bruce has to calibrate his toughness and his gentleness.

B. If you see Bruce and Dick as parent-and-child, would you be okay with Barb's behavior if she had been a man who dated daughter then mother? If you see Bruce and Dick as brothers, would you be okay with it if Barb was a man who dated a younger sister then her older sister?

Since I don't see a familiar relationship, I don't see an incest angle at work here. It's still nasty, but it shouldn't have psychosexual ramifications.

C.If Dick Grayson had never existed, would it change your opinion of the proposed Bruce/Barbara affair?

No, it wouldn't change my opinion; I think it's a bad idea regardless. It mixes the personal and the professional in a way that risks serious damage to both parties on both levels. That Dick's ego and heart got squushed only added insult to injury.

D. Do you think the animated James Gordon knows Batman's identity? Do you believe this knowledge (or lack of knowledge) was a factor in Jim's demonstrated preference for Dick Grayson as his daughter's suitor?

I don't know what Jim Gordon knew or when he knew it. And it's a profitless questions because you can speculate endlessly because the evidence is so thin.

E. What exactly is James Gordon to the Batman? What obligations does Batman have to him? (If any.)

Father-figure. This is where the incest angle enters for me. Or worse. I imagine Bruce tossing and turning in bed, wondering whether to pop the question to Barbara. He falls asleep, and finds himself, in a tux, standing in front of a preacher with the bride (in white veil) by his side. The preacher pronounces "Bruce Wayne and Barbara Gordon" man and wife. Bruce lifts the veil--and finds Jim Gordon underneath. He wakes in a panicked sweat.

No, I'm not serious. But sometimes I feel malicious.

F. Although Barbara obviously misread her father's feelings and beliefs in TNBA's "Over The Edge," she's correct that her choices could cost him his career. What are her obligations to him? (If any.)

Not to get killed, not to get unmasked, and not to screw up her relationship with Batman, Nightwing and Robin in a way that would force her father to have to choose between loyalty to her and loyalty to them.

G. Where do we go from here?

Well, where is here? You mean, how should the relationships between the members of the Bat-family be further explored, and what should those explorations reveal? I don't know; I haven't thought about it. Maybe I'll return to it later.

H. When Animated Barbara decided to turn her girlhood crush on Batman into an adult romance, did that turn her into a person who could not have become Oracle in the Timmverse? Did Barb's persistent feelings for Batman kill her chances of ever being a Timmverse Oracle?

No, she could have become Oracle. It would have been a simple, though highly unattractive process: She could have moved into the Batcave as Oracle to be around Batman 24/7, acting as though she were necessary as his computer jockey (something she can't pretend to be as his partner on the street) and taking on a self-dramatizing self-denying persona: Look, I've given up all my dreams and ambitions to be the spinster librarian that the man of my dreams needs! Eventually, he's bound to notice me! If not, what a noble and selfless thing I'm doing for him! I'm not saying that that is what Oracle actually is, but that's the kind of Oracle that romance-addled animated Barbara could have become.

[Phantasm]

Oh i like this theory even more!!!!the less barb has anything to do with bruce the better!:D

[Kylewayne]

PhantasmOh i like this theory even more!!!!the less barb has anything to do with bruce the better!:D Not really Pantasm, I sorta like Batgirl even if I am a big fan of Batman and Catwoman pairing up to be an item. Batgirl will always be part of Bruce's life, more than Andi will ever be. Remember, Andi never appeared in future eps of Batman. I don't think that she will ever be ressurected into the batman eps.

Batgirl is just what every young woman dreams about. Who wouldn't have a crush on Batman/Bruce even if he was her mentor in training her as Batgirl.

[Phantasm]

Batgirl is just what every young woman dreams about. Who wouldn't have a crush on Batman/Bruce even if he was her mentor in training her as Batgirl.
HAHA!!!!U said it...BRUCEY....:D

[SilverKnight]

HAHA!!!!U said it...BRUCEY....:D...No more sugar for you...

[Phantasm]

...No more sugar for you...
huh?!;)

[James]

Oh i like this theory even more!!!!the less barb has anything to do with bruce the better!:D
I'm sorry, I still find this all pretty crazy.. :)

Mystery Of The Batwoman:

- Bruce is called by Barbara. Something has happened which Alfred and Tim are aware about but awkward to speak about. Bruce doesn't want to deal with the issue.

- Something happened before MotB. That's certain. Did it continue? Was it a fling? Did Bruce not care?

Touch of Curare:

- Barb speaks to Terry about her relationship with Bruce. The scene tells us she was involved with Bruce.

- She says it ended when he couldn't give the Batman up - this was when it was no longer fun for her.

- There is reference to a bullet holed Batsuit being left unrepaired.

Speculation: Could this be why she left? Something terrible like ROTJ which affected her physically? Maybe whatever made her give up being Batgirl was to do with that comment. Bullet holes not repaired implies that was the last time she wore the suit.

Personal interpretation: She seems to see it as more than a crush. She classifies Dick as a sort of puppy love which implies she feels whatever she refers to with Bruce she considers somewhat more.
On it's own, ToC it doesn't say much. But...

Out Of The Past:

- Bruce goes through a rather sad file of girls from his past. The last is Barbara. She is the only one who has a pic with him in it as well. She also gets two pics while the others get one. He spends most time looking at her. Speculation: Last on the list - last love?

Talia/Ra enter's and says "You loved her didn't you".

Tie this with evidence offered in ToC it seems quite clear that there was a relationship. Which both saw as more than a crush or a fling in hindsight.

SO

Bruce who comes off so bad in MotB in the end either feels more for Barbara afterwards, or in hindsight regrets how he treated her. Either is possible.

However, with the Batgirl resignation being the cut off point in their relationship, and with that being after ROTJ (since Barbara is still in the team then) and with Tim being in Mystery Of The Batwoman we know:

That the relationship continues after Tim has left. Tim is in Mystery Of The Batwoman so therefore something more happens after the film.

Therefore:

Mystery Of The Batwoman is the start or middle of a relationship not the end. One that Bruce looks back with more affection than any of his other relationships (which are actually very few).

So regardless on how each scene is analysed, that's how the show sets it up. People can nitpick, but EVERYTHING is how it reads on face value. Yes, you can look at other ways to interpret - I've worked on how the scenes dramatically and tell you about the characters in a conventional drama perspective.

Afterall, that's what Batman is. It's pretty straight forward - it is meant to entertain kids.

My point? That theories that try and deconstruct any of the above are ridiculous. You don't need to imply or twist any scene to see what the show sets out - you don't try and twist the end of Macbeth because you feel sorry for the lead character. You don't look for ways to excuse the fact that Andrea leaves Gotham and Bruce's life at the end of MotP. If you are to enjoy a story, you should enjoy it for what it is and not what you want it to be.

I know I'm fighting against people who don't like Barbara for "betraying" Dick or for going with an "old guy", but the simple rational storyline that the show presents seems to be ignored more so than less... and that seems crazy.

The writers hear the fans respond and question whether Batman Beyond is canon.. whether Barbara did see Bruce Wayne.. they give you more evidence that these two points did happen.. and yet fans look for ways to discredit them.

If I was a writer I would be pulling my hair out. Short of tattooing everything that happens onto each character's head, I'm not sure they will ever convince fans of their intentions in the show.

[Phantasm]

Yes, I agree that the show does imply a romantic relationship between bruce and barbara.That is not something to deny but it would be stupid to do so.Now the question is whether or not one likes/aproves of the barbara/bruce relationship implied.I for one, do not approve the hole barbara/ bruce romantic entanglement thing, for various reasons. So i just disaprove of it not deny it. Sure if someone seems to have provided proof that Bruce/Barb did not get together than there is nothing wrong with agreeing about it's plausability for a sec. We treat Bruce and Barb like real people. Because we don't know there real intentions but can only guess and speculate about them. We will do so till the creators of the show publish some sort of a big fat book about the character anaylsis of BTAS.Which would be cool by tHE WAY. nNow about the whole Macbeath issue. I am not aware of just one pattern of interoretation on that play's part eaither. Since Shakespeare did not provide some sort of guide or commentary, we only speculate and interpret the situations and characters.That's part of and the beauty of literature. We see what we want to see and it's meant to be that way...unless teh craetor himself puts a stop to it liek Ms Rowling does with her books.

[Fone Bone]

Everyone knows MacBeth is an Immortal who battles Gargoyles in Manhattan and that William Shakespeare's version was nothing but fan-fiction.;)

[James]

Which would be cool by tHE WAY. nNow about the whole Macbeath issue. I am not aware of just one pattern of interoretation on that play's part eaither. Since Shakespeare did not provide some sort of guide or commentary, we only speculate and interpret the situations and characters.That's part of and the beauty of literature. We see what we want to see and it's meant to be that way...unless teh craetor himself puts a stop to it liek Ms Rowling does with her books.
My example was intentionally excessive. My only point, is just because there are no notes from the writer, you can't see how he wanted certain aspects of the plays to read. Granted, some areas are ambiguous and up for debate, but there is a fine line between analyising ambiguity and twisting the story too suit ones own interpretation - the latter is pretty insulting for the author of the piece.

Finding that line can be hard, but I find fans will find things which are clear cut and bend them when they don't like what's been suggested... Not pointing any fingers. Just a general comment based on this topic.

[Maxie Zeus]

My only point, is just because there are no notes from the writer, you can't see how he wanted certain aspects of the plays to read. Granted, some areas are ambiguous and up for debate, but there is a fine line between analyising ambiguity and twisting the story too suit ones own interpretation - the latter is pretty insulting for the author of the piece.

Certainly it is not easy to separate the intentions of the creator from the interpretation of the story. But there are two ways to relate intentions and interpretation:

1. The writer says what the events mean, and that settles the interpretation.

2. You interpret the story by looking at its internal evidence, and from that you deduce the intentions of the writer.

The producers of BTAS-BB have not said anything about what exactly happened between Barbara and Bruce, so (1) is--for the moment--out. That only leaves (2), and that is what we are arguing about.

But there is one technique you cannot use without falling into fallacy: You cannot say "Obviously, the story means x, so that is what the writer intended; and because that is what he intended, that is what the story means." That's reasoning in a circle.

I worry that you are very close to commiting this fallacy when you say "Obviously, based on storytelling technique, the writers intended it to be the case that Barbara and Bruce had a relationship" and then go on to say "You have to look at what the writers intended." You either start with the intentions and end with the interpretation, or you scrutinize the story for an interpretation and hypothesize an intention.

At best you have said that the plainest and easiest reading is that Babs and Bruce had something more than a professional relationship. That's fine; if pushed, I would agree with you. But the fact that it is the easiest interpretation does not refute other interpretations. And my only point in arguing is to show that there is plenty of room for other interpretations. But you can't go from "My interpretation is the most straightforward" to "This is what the writers intended" and then use that to circle back around to "No other interpretation is correct because the writers intended the interpretation I offered."

Look, we know that Babs had feelings for Bruce; and we know that she hung up the Batgirl suit with feelings of disappointment in Bruce. And there is her suggestive silence when asked point-blank if there was a romantic interlude. All that does is suggest that a romantic interlude was a possibility, but the fact that it was a possibility does not conclusively show that it was a reality. It's a hasty generalization, even if we allow that hypothesizing such an interlude is the shortest and straightest way to connect the evidence. As opposing counsel, my self-appointed job is to point out the other plausible lines that can be drawn to connect them. ;)

Consider: there are nearly a dozen ways that a Babs-Bruce scenario could have played out.

(a) Babs flirts casually with Bruce, but he ignores her; she grows discouraged and gives up.
(b) Babs flirts casually with Bruce, and one night he sweeps her up to the bedroom for a one-night blockbuster demonstration of his love-making technique. And after that it's back to business-as-usual.
(c) Babs flirts casually with Bruce; Bruce takes it more seriously than she intended and tries turning it into a relationship; eventually, one or both decide it was a mistake.
(d) Babs backs Bruce against a wall and breathes heavily; he tells her to grow up and she becomes embittered.
(e) Babs backs Bruce against a wall and breathes heavily; he temporizes, saying neither yea or nay, until she grows discouraged and gives up.
(f) Babs backs Bruce against a wall and breathes heavily; Bruce reluctantly accedes; it strings along unhappily for awhile; and then it ends.
(g) Babs backs Bruce against a wall and breathes heavily; Bruce willingly goes along; they're happy for awhile, but eventually it ends.
(h) Neither makes an overt move, until one night something happens. It's a one-time thing, and they try to forget, but it changes and eventually poisons their professional relationship.
(i) Neither makes an overt move, until one night something happens. They try to make it work, but it doesn't and eventually they just give up.
(j) Neither makes an overt move, until one night something happens. They try to make it work, and for awhile it does. But something bad happens (someting involving bullet holes in Batgirl's costume) and they eventually part ways.
(k) Neither makes an overt move, but the thought is in the air. One night they have a frank discussion, but decide it would never work. Nothing happens; later, something bad happens (something involving bullet holes in Batgirl's costume) and they eventually part ways.

There doesn't seem to me to be any good way to choose between them. The evidence is just too thin. Certainly, in any of these circumstances Babs could be expected to smile and keep silent when asked, out of the blue, whether she was Bruce's girlfriend, because in each case there was either something that happened, or there was a live possibility in Babs' mind. And any of these are consistent with the existence of that photograph.

So why do we assume so readily, along with Terry, that Babs smile means "Yes I was his girlfriend"? Maybe because, like Terry, we are desperate to know how bats do it ("upside down" is my guess), and so we leap heedlessly along with him to that conclusion. But in any future story we might get, that assumption could easily and with no damage to the evidence be overturned.

You may say: "Timm and company knew how we would take that smile and photograph, so that's what they wanted us to think." I say: "Timm and company have given away a lot less than you think, because they haven't given away nearly as much as you seem to think." I don't have to torture the evidence to get to that negative conclusion; I only have to show that there is a lot of empty space and a lot of plausible ways of filling it in.

* * * *

Back to that list of scenarios. Even though it's quite large (and could easily be extended), it basically breaks down into three general theories. I'm going to dump OM's food metaphor for an astronomical metaphor to describe them:

"Rogue Planet" Theory: This is (a) and (d). Babs has her dreams, but nothing happens and nothing was going to happen because Bruce isn't interested. There is no connection between them.

"Direct Impact" Theory: This is (c), (f), (g), (i) and (j). There is a personal relationship and it eventually has a strong effect on them.

"Near Miss" Theory: This is (e) and (k) most clearly; (b) and (h) might be sub-classified as "Glancing Blows." Something almost happened; it could have happened; it was either a lucky or unlucky thing that it didn't. The possibility of a "near miss" encounter between them has not really been discussed, but it's the one that interests me, which is why I keep pressing the idea that, perhaps, it's been a case of it looks like something happened but it didn't really.

The reason this possibility interests me is that I am (in OM's terminology) an "amillenialist." I'm less interested in what actually happened than in what the potentialities of the situation say about the characters. (It's also why I earlier asked the question "What is Bruce's attitude and memory of what happened? How did he act?") And entertaining a "Near Miss" theory gives us a way of pondering the meaning of a personal relationship without getting tangled up in the distracting topic of Bat-sex. Everything that OM has said on the topic, for instance, would still hold true, but we wouldn't be tempted to close the topic with a simple "It happened. Deal with it."

It also imports our own doubts (the doubts of viewers and posters in these forums) into the show. Instead of pondering the unwisdom of what happened, it would leave the characters pondering the might-have-beens of what didn't happen. It leaves Babs and Bruce wondering what we are wondering: "Would it have been good for us to get together?" Leaving characters with such doubts is, IMO, a good way of deepening their characters. It shows that they are reflective about their pasts--something that would really work in BB, where Bruce and Babs are close to the end of their lives and careers.

I'll also suggest that this note of doubt can also be easily interpreted as the creators' intention. After all, if they had wanted us to have an answer, they could easily have been much less coy. If they have the characters speak and act so ambiguously, why cannot that be taken as an easy and obvious signal that what happened was itself ambiguous?

[James]

But there is one technique you cannot use without falling into fallacy: You cannot say "Obviously, the story means x, so that is what the writer intended; and because that is what he intended, that is what the story means." That's reasoning in a circle.
I would say you are quibbling over my use of language. It's a hard thing to explain, but I think you know what I mean.

You watch a film, you can see dramatic intention - more so in a cartoon where there is less room for artistic license. Reading what's given in a cartoon is normally pretty easy - because there is little time and need for ambiguity. In a 20 min story - where there is little room for icing - such issues as backstory are thin. What is said, doesn't have the gift for complexity as there is no room to follow through with any such ideas. I have seen few examples where cartoons in particular have any ambiguity that hasn't been for lack of time or network constraints (networks not favouring romance or death in children's cartoons.)

As with anything, there is always interpretations. I would never deny anyone that, and of course there is fair interpretation of what happened.

Cartoons live in simple times, that's my point. And if you know films or even literature (which I KNOW you do :)). You know dramatic devices - and I've seen nothing that you've said or The Old Maid that hasn't made me feel that it's ignoring the obvious dramatic devices and trying to interpret what happened.

Naturally, where there is nothing definitive, it's all arguable, but that doesn't mean there is not a clear implication. Now, as soon as I say implication, we go back to your first paragraph, but that's a quibble with words. Something can be implied, through dialogue, but that does mean what is said is implied. One has to look at the context of the media (cartoon?Film?), the issues around the scene, the constraints on the making in that media (Network/suitibility). Taking these into consideration and the episodes that spin off them you can clearly see what is said about Barbara and Bruce. Again, the icing on the cake is "Out Of The Past" - which again in simple cartoon speak, defines Bruce like Touch of Curare - in cartoon speak defines Barbara.

So while I appreciate, the is no grounds to refute the possibility of other ideas, I still believe there is a firm intention within the cartoon's story which seems to take a lesser priority to fans.

Some of the ideas you describe, while interesting and possible, just seem to complex and comic based for the cartoon world. I must admit, through the last 5 pages I've tried to be more lenient with my view by saying we don't if the relationship was sporadic or solid. However there is a certain rythum to cartoons.. one you feel. It's that simplicity which makes them attractive.

I would say that the writers weren't being coy - as I said, take on the standard cartoon forumla, the elements they must include per quota and then you have little time for much else. Seemed to me, where they could, they added the bits that the fans needed. As always, fans need MORE. Unless it's released with blueprints, fans are rarely happy. Especially in this case where it's something fans don't like.

And that's what it comes to, like a political thread, this thread dodges the real issue and keeps attention on the wrong one. What this really comes down to is people feeling uncomfortable with the behaviour of Barbara and Bruce.

Maybe this is because the cartoon did break the cardinal rule I was talking about earlier. They made an issue which was simple and in the flow of this cartoon or cartoons in general. They created what most fans see as a messy moral dilemma and also one that goes against so much established continuity. Furthermore, they didn't give us all the details.

Now I don't think they ever will be able to. Any implications from this relationship born would be too complicated to show on screen. Ironically, I don't think it was just Bruce was feeling awkward with this issue in MotB, I think the writers were also. As we know, it's rare for a cartoon to pair up a hero for more than an episode - but a full relationship? With another established comic character? Again, I think they did their best to nod to the relationship's existence without dealing with it. By doing so, they probably made it worse... :p

What I dislike about these ideas, is that they seem more interested in disproving or limiting this highly unorthodox addition to Bat History than dealing with it as they would any other part. In other words, I've yet to see anyone really just take what is said as red and go with it - without having to deconstruct the characters to see why they would do such a thing.

In the simpicity of the cartoon, a message is clear - there was a relationship - which for Bruce is unusual. His affection in Out Of The Past gives it an edge we've not really seen to a relationship in his career. That in itself is telling. As it's given, the relationship finishes when she leaves - a time after MotB. As we've both said, what the basis of that relationship is, how it went, who started it etc is up for grabs. I have no issue with that - but I dislike over analysis. Assumptions made on characters based on events not known.

Now I've read The Old Maid for a while, and there is something great stuff, but there seems a lot of presumption to fit the argument rather than the show. It makes for an interesting read, but fans need to remember, there are simple answers as this is a simple cartoon.

Why am I so sure about Barbara's speech in ToC? I remember watching it when I wasn't a massive fan. I remember watching it cold, without hang ups, issues, history.... you watch that scene cold, and it talks a straight tale. Over analyse it and you can create many possibilites - that's what so many fans do. Watch it as a view, and not looking for possibilities or excuses, and the scene is as straight as they come.

I'm not like a lot of people here. I watched BTAS for a limited time when it aired - it was Saturday mornings and I was normally nursing a hangover rather than watching TV. TNBA didn't air over here for a long time. In fact BB was what I first started to watch - so maybe this gives me a more impartial slant *looks at his avatar - meh*. I've always enjoyed the complexities - or even certain lack - in the Batgirl character in the comics and animation. However - and maybe this is my European attitude, I'm not bothered by this moral issue that most fans have. Perhaps that's why I find these arguments or need for deconstruction - while fascinating - to jar with what I see on the screen.

*shrug*

[Maxie Zeus]

Well, maybe it does come down to a difference in interpretive strategy and viewpoint. At least, I know in my case that is not because of this:


What this really comes down to is people feeling uncomfortable with the behaviour of Barbara and Bruce.

I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable with the idea of their having a nonprofessional relationship. That's one reason I outlined all those possible scenarios: there are some which are appalling and some which are not. We don't know what the exact nature and tenor of the relationship is, so I feel agnostic on the question of whether it was a bad thing or not.

Where I blanch is at phrases like this:


You watch a film, you can see dramatic intention - more so in a cartoon where there is less room for artistic license.

You know dramatic devices ... and I've seen nothing that you've said or The Old Maid that hasn't made me feel that it's ignoring the obvious dramatic devices and trying to interpret what happened.

One has to look at the context of the media (cartoon?Film?), the issues around the scene, the constraints on the making in that media (Network/suitibility).

Some of the ideas you describe, while interesting and possible, just seem to complex and comic based for the cartoon world.

there are simple answers as this is a simple cartoon.

I remember watching it cold, without hang ups, issues, history.... you watch that scene cold, and it talks a straight tale.

Your intepretive perspective is that of a viewer watching an artificial, constructed narrative. That's why you talk about things like "dramatic" or "narrative" or "cinematic" "devices."

But my perspective--and it seems to be OM's, too--is that of a spectator, an invisible eavesdropper inside the story watching and listening to presumably real people; and when I do that, I notice that there is a lot of slack in the evidence and a lot more room for uncertainty as to what certain words or actions mean and reveal and imply. You are trying to understand the characters by treating them characters, figments of someone's imagination, and fitting them and their actions and motives within that outside imagination. I'm trying to take them on as the sort of thing they are presented as being: real people in real circumstances.

Side note: I once had a debate with an office-mate about how to interpret films. He claimed that the only way to explain what happens in a movie is by talking about what happened in the studio or at the typewriter. So, why did Rick send Ilsa away with Victor at the end of Casablanca, I asked? Because that's what Howard Koch and the Epstein twins wanted him to do, he answered. In short, the only way to understand the story of Casablanca was in terms of the filmmakers' beliefs and desires, not in terms of the characters. It's stupid to ask what "Rick" wanted, because he's not real.

Your position isn't as extreme, but it seems to lean in that direction: If you're going to say "The events depicted can't be ambiguous because cartoons are not ambiguous," why not go all the way and say "Why did Babs and Bruce have an affair? Because Timm and Bader wanted them to have an affair"?

Your perspective seems to empower the creators--the story means what they make it mean through narrative devices--but actually I think it limits them. If they use a convention that means "Babs and Bruce had an affair," then they cannot come back later and tell a story that says they didn't. That seems to me absurd because (to put it in technical way) it's a category mistake: it's a position that says that the extra-diegetic (cinematic conventions, for instance) exist on the same level as diegetic events (what the characters say and do).

Here's another way of putting it.


What I dislike about these ideas, is that they seem more interested in disproving or limiting this highly unorthodox addition to Bat History than dealing with it as they would any other part.

If the nature of events in the story are fixed by elements outside the story (such that no ambiguity is tolerated), then you limit the characters in a much deeper way: they just become the writers' sock puppets, or pawns in some game. In insisting that one interpretation must take priority (because that is the nature of the cinematic conventions chosen by the creators) you have not opened up a "highly unorthodox addition to Bat History"; you have closed off any other possibilities. (Remember, I'm not arguing that there wasn't an affair; I'm arguing that no definitive answer is available.)


However - and maybe this is my European attitude, I'm not bothered by this moral issue that most fans have.

Heh, well maybe it is your European attitude: You think all us simple-minded Yanks are prudes, so if we've got a problem it must be our silly puritanism. :p

Seriously, though, if you read OM's remarks carefully you'll see that that's not what is being said--not by a long shot. If I understand her correctly, it is this: The introduction of a romantic element between Babs and Bruce, and the particular way it is introduced, suggests that Babs is actually a very silly girl (IIRC, you yourself admitted that she is very girlish in TNBA) who is not a competent crimefighter (look at her career in BB) and whose entire caped career seems to revolve around getting close to a romantic fantasy figure, possibly even with the (unconscious) goal of seducing him and getting him to give up his Batman life in order to be with her. That's not a judgement about the propriety of extra-curricular activities, but on what these particular extra-curricular activities imply about her character. If it had arisen differently, there would be nothing wrong with it.

Now, in fact, much of what I have said in response to you could be turned with equal force against OM; in fact, I started this as a challenge and riposte to her, not you. That's because you and OM share a presupposition of which I am skeptical. She says "Looks like they had a thing, and that's bad"; you say "Looks like they had a thing, and that's not necessarily bad." I say: "I'm not so sure they had a thing, and even if they did, we don't know enough to know if it was or was not a bad thing."

Against you, I suppose, I am saying this: You have to take the characters and the events, not the framework which presents the events, as of prime importance and meaning. Against OM I am saying: There is sufficient room for doubt about what happened to suspend judgement about the meaning and import of what is suggested to have happened.

[James]

I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable with the idea of their having a nonprofessional relationship. That's one reason I outlined all those possible scenarios: there are some which are appalling and some which are not. We don't know what the exact nature and tenor of the relationship is, so I feel agnostic on the question of whether it was a bad thing or not.
Actually my bad for not clarifying - I wasn't referring to yourself.



Your intepretive perspective is that of a viewer watching an artificial, constructed narrative. That's why you talk about things like "dramatic" or "narrative" or "cinematic" "devices."

But my perspective--and it seems to be OM's, too--is that of a spectator, an invisible eavesdropper inside the story watching and listening to presumably real people; and when I do that, I notice that there is a lot of slack in the evidence and a lot more room for uncertainty as to what certain words or actions mean and reveal and imply. You are trying to understand the characters by treating them characters, figments of someone's imagination, and fitting them and their actions and motives within that outside imagination. I'm trying to take them on as the sort of thing they are presented as being: real people in real circumstances.
I like to think I can do both. I watch as a spectator, but I analyse with consideration to construction. When I try and work out what I assess, I try and decide what is intended and go from there. I do, on rare cases, where I feel unhappy with the way a show has handled a scenerio worked in the way you speak. I used to do a lot fanfiction for Battle Of The Planets which is a total mess of continuity and there I will do what I need to, but I'm always aware of the intent behind a show. On the whole I know when I'm going against the intent.



Side note: I once had a debate with an office-mate about how to interpret films. He claimed that the only way to explain what happens in a movie is by talking about what happened in the studio or at the typewriter. So, why did Rick send Ilsa away with Victor at the end of Casablanca, I asked? Because that's what Howard Koch and the Epstein twins wanted him to do, he answered. In short, the only way to understand the story of Casablanca was in terms of the filmmakers' beliefs and desires, not in terms of the characters. It's stupid to ask what "Rick" wanted, because he's not real.
Well as with me, it's not quite as simple as that (as you point out next). I will look at both. See if there is what is needed in their to make sense within the context of the story - but I know when I'm reading more than is needed. My point with looking at the exterior influences to the story was to define why I believed the ToC scene was a lot simpler than you suggest. Understanding a little about the media - and you only need experience in watching cartoons - does help explain why you understand the intent of a dramatic device. Why I feel sure that Barbara was referring to a relationship. If I don't offer one of the key reasons I feel there is a dramatic pause rather than an ambigous one, I'm not explaining myself clearly.

As for Casablanca, I read a Warners authoried sequel a few years back. Quite good, but their explanation of how the story moved from the dramatic intent of the film... implied Rick suddenly gets off the airfield and realises he has to go after Ilsa.. sod the whole speech about understanding what she is doing is more important than his and hers needs.. he just goes shooting off... bad way to connect the two parts.. bad.. bad.. :p



Your position isn't as extreme, but it seems to lean in that direction: If you're going to say "The events depicted can't be ambiguous because cartoons are not ambiguous," why not go all the way and say "Why did Babs and Bruce have an affair? Because Timm and Bader wanted them to have an affair"?
I think when analysing motivation, you should to a degree respect the intent of the writers. If there is a reason for someone to work on creating a dramtic device into a scene, I would be disappointed if people ignored it to justify what they want to believe. I know you aren't doing this per se, you are trying to justify other alternatives.. and that's cool. I hope through my bumbling tirade of psuedo intellectualism, that some people might consider whether they are supporting what they see, or what they want to see. That isn't aimed at anyone in general, just something I've noticed in this forum. Same goes for the "is Batman Beyond canon" argument - people support what they want rather than what is intended.. even now, with proof stacking up some refuse to acknowledge it...


Your perspective seems to empower the creators--the story means what they make it mean through narrative devices--but actually I think it limits them. If they use a convention that means "Babs and Bruce had an affair," then they cannot come back later and tell a story that says they didn't. That seems to me absurd because (to put it in technical way) it's a category mistake: it's a position that says that the extra-diegetic (cinematic conventions, for instance) exist on the same level as diegetic events (what the characters say and do).

Interesting point. Well I'm a little puritan there. I prefer for a tale not to do that. I like writers on the whole not to do that. IMO it's a lazy technique. One should have the idea and not be altering what's been done to open up a new idea. If changes have to made for some relevant reason, I'm not a fascist, but I prefer stories to remain as they are. Certainly you can take on different takes on a situation, approach the fact from a different angle but I'm not happy with the idea that writers change what is already done. I've seen that happen and it's normally baaad. Spider-Man? When they killed of Aunt May.. let's ignore what happened dramatically and historically and effectively re-write it... ewwww. Life isn't like that. What happens happens. You can look at it from a different angle but not rewrite... if possible.

I recall in a recent thread someone saying how they would love the final DCAU outing be a trip to prevent ROTJ happening.. that terrifies me.. I like continuity and I don't like things being messed with after they've done.


If the nature of events in the story are fixed by elements outside the story (such that no ambiguity is tolerated), then you limit the characters in a much deeper way: they just become the writers' sock puppets, or pawns in some game. In insisting that one interpretation must take priority (because that is the nature of the cinematic conventions chosen by the creators) you have not opened up a "highly unorthodox addition to Bat History"; you have closed off any other possibilities. (Remember, I'm not arguing that there wasn't an affair; I'm arguing that no definitive answer is available.)

Indeed, I prefer writers who don't change history, but find ways to include it. Like, "Legends Of The Dark Knight" - where they include various versions of Batman rather than rewrite to fit an idea.. that is far more preferable to rewriting history as DC has done. I must confess I prefer Marvel's approach to keep the time line as pure as they can (before they did the Apocalpsye rubbish) or just do new books.



Heh, well maybe it is your European attitude: You think all us simple-minded Yanks are prudes, so if we've got a problem it must be our silly puritanism. :p

My apologies, if that was the offness you referred to privately, it was deserved. I do feel that American culture is more prudish than European, I suppose it's presumptious to assume that's because the people demand that of their culture. However it was a crass generalisation. With all generalisations there is normally a hint of truth and at least a dab of inaccuracy. I apologise if I have over generalised there. Certainly no offense was intended.



Seriously, though, if you read OM's remarks carefully you'll see that that's not what is being said--not by a long shot. If I understand her correctly, it is this: The introduction of a romantic element between Babs and Bruce, and the particular way it is introduced, suggests that Babs is actually a very silly girl (IIRC, you yourself admitted that she is very girlish in TNBA) who is not a competent crimefighter (look at her career in BB) and whose entire caped career seems to revolve around getting close to a romantic fantasy figure, possibly even with the (unconscious) goal of seducing him and getting him to give up his Batman life in order to be with her. That's not a judgement about the propriety of extra-curricular activities, but on what these particular extra-curricular activities imply about her character. If it had arisen differently, there would be nothing wrong with it.
Well what got me - and I'm sorry for speaking without your presense as usual Old Maid - was that there was a personal approximation based on how long the relationship lasted which had no foundations at all. It all sort of made sense, but there was a great deal of presumption IMO. And when I questioned further it seemed to me that there was personal intent behind the ideas. That deconstructions of "OOTP" and "TOC" weren't as rational. That "OOTP" implied that Talia was more important than Barbara.. therefore.. and that there was an implication of Bruce saying no to Barbara's interest in both episodes - metaphorically speaking therefore that's three times he has said no.. things which didn't really make sense.. I felt that as with many people, there was a natural uncomfortableness with this issue that was creating such an analysis. Actually that's not true, I've always felt a slight distaste for Barbara in Old Maid's legendary essays.. I'm so sorry to dissect without presence, but I just needed to justify my previous comments. I think The Old Maid is a fantastic writer and analysist - same as you, but I have just felt in this subject, some personal perspective made some of the comments and rationale too weak to support their conclusion. IMHO.



Now, in fact, much of what I have said in response to you could be turned with equal force against OM; in fact, I started this as a challenge and riposte to her, not you. That's because you and OM share a presupposition of which I am skeptical. She says "Looks like they had a thing, and that's bad"; you say "Looks like they had a thing, and that's not necessarily bad." I say: "I'm not so sure they had a thing, and even if they did, we don't know enough to know if it was or was not a bad thing."

With TOM, it was "I think they had a fling, it belief it lasted less time than another fling." It was the end implication this was a fling I didn't feel the program supported for my above arguments. There's room to believe it, but you have to ignore a great deal of the dramatic intent in the Batman Beyond episode.. and I don't think that should be the case.. I wanted to be a voice of the show while TOM was voice of the possible interpretation of the show based on character analysis.



Against you, I suppose, I am saying this: You have to take the characters and the events, not the framework which presents the events, as of prime importance and meaning. Against OM I am saying: There is sufficient room for doubt about what happened to suspend judgement about the meaning and import of what is suggested to have happened.
Fair point. As I said I try and do both. I make sure my evaluation fits what the show dramatically tells me and squares with my opinion of the characters.

One element I've not been able to deal with yet in regards to Barbara is the clear character change from BTAS to TNBA. I can guess on the studio reason, but with no dramatic reason, and little chatacter based reason, I'm at a loss to find a good answer. Maybe I should reread some Old Maid's posts on that point again.. :)

[Fone Bone]

I do agree with SJJ wholeheartedly on one thing: Batman Beyond IS in continuity. It's kinda crummy for some people to write it off because they don't like how Bruce and Barbara were handled with their relationship, or Batman being a wise-cracking teen. It was created by Bruce Timm and friends. I know he's done some backpedaling and said it could be a what if scenario, but with all the references in MOTB, JL, and yes, Static Shock it's clear he was just trying to appease the hard-core fans.

I would HATE IT if ROTJ was written out of continuity in the last episode of Justice League. It would cheapen the greatest chapter in DCAU history.

[Merlin Missy]

I recall in a recent thread someone saying how they would love the final DCAU outing be a trip to prevent ROTJ happening.. that terrifies me.. I like continuity and I don't like things being messed with after they've done.
That was me, for reasons that have no relevance to the current discussion so I won't go into them here.

Chiming in for a moment on the "taking the medium in account" vs "assuming characters are acting as people would" debate:

I'd say we do have to take the medium in account for the purpose of analyzing what is and isn't said by the characters. These shows are rated Y7, which means that no matter how happy various throw-away bits make us fannish types, they still have to be considered "suitable" for a seven-year-old to watch. More to the point, it means the parents of that potential seven-year-old have to consider the shows "suitable." This is a little less true with JL, since it's only airing on CN, generally at night. As much as folks here enjoyed it and consider it high-quality animation and storytelling, BB was a Saturday morning cartoon. Kids watched it while eating their Lucky Charms.

During a Saturday morning cartoon, Old Lady Barbara was about as likely to say out loud that she and Bruce were lovers as she was to have started a striptease in the diner.

For me, and as far as I can tell for SJJ as well, this is pertinent to any discussion of the characters. Observing characters as people, one would assume they were only limited by their own personalities and the social conventions of whatever situation they found themselves in. However, observing characters as actual characters in a consciously-constructed reality means knowing what they absolutely cannot say or do, and taking this into account when analyzing their actions. As Maxie said, these are two completely different methods of textual deconstruction. I'm not entirely sure we could ever come to complete agreement coming from these two perspectives. (Not that we're aiming for agreement, simply mutual understanding of the various opinions at play here.)

Anyway.

*deletes long, not especially relevant ramble about American society and why it's somehow more damaging for kids to hear about two umarried adults in a physical relationship than to watch people beat the snot out of each other and blow stuff up*

MM:)

[James]

How comes MM can sum up in one post what has taken me 3000 words...? :P Must learn the art of data compression... :p

[The Old Maid]

So much scenery to chew, so little time. Where to begin? What's off-topic? What was I thinking to call it Bruce's "girl of the month" club? Or how about Maxie's "prelude to A Minor" scene in "ATOC"? The demographic shift in Bat-fandom? How we're spending our time? Driving the writers wild? Creampuffs?

Creampuffs ... the unofficial ToonZone snack treat and welcoming present to newbies. They've been around as long as I've been here. Don't eat the radioactive creampuffs. I think you're supposed to playfully throw them. I don't know why.

I doubt it would upset the writers too much to know that we admire and explore their work. Batman is a psychological drama with shades of a morality play. We look at the Timmverse and ask, What's wrong with Jim Gordon that he works with Batman? Did Batman do right by his Robins? Should he have never tried to bring up children? Why does Batman let his criminals live? Is there a place for both the badge and the cape, or is one better than the other? What's wrong with Batman? Or is there something wrong with the world? In a fan group which discusses mature topics such as these, I haven't grasped the need to paint the Bruce/Barbara situation as any less worthy of serious discussion, especially since the writers themselves opened the door to additional interpretations. Our characters purport to be champions of honor and right, and when they fall we want to know why.

Sadly the West (paging Crazy8s!) doesn't understand that animation encompasses more than cartoons, and that there's a difference between programming that children can watch and programming that only a child can stomach. Maybe when more countries take animation seriously as an art form things will be different.

Batman dreaming he accidentally married Jim Gordon ... almost fell off my chair when I read that one. It reminded me of Haunted Knight, in which Batman hallucinated that Scarecrow had to drug him to get him to the altar. Actually you've proposed a satisfying middle of the road solution. (Or nonsolution?) If Batman had such a fright then pushed Barbara away without telling her why, it would please Bruce/Barbara proponents because it would appear that he cares for her. It would also please opponents because it would appear that he had resolved never to act upon the opportunity regardless of whether he had feelings for her or not. (Not to be crass, but if a woman throws herself at a man, the man could seize the opportunity without actually caring for her.) Finally it would leave Barbara free to fill in the blanks as she understands the situation. I've never believed Commissioner Barbara lied about anything ... she just tells half-truths and/or tells the truth to the best of her ability to remember it, which sometimes merely seems twisted because she can't read minds. If by some wild chance the DCAU crew asks permission to use it, just tell us you'll let them.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

At best you have said that the plainest and easiest reading is that Babs and Bruce had something more than a professional relationship. That's fine ; if pushed, I would agree with you. Until new evidence was introduced with MotB and "Chase Me" so would I ; WG was written under this assumption, for goodness' sake. I stated that apparently Something Happened, and having done so I gave my opinion of this development. ("That was sleazy/this theme has been overused/must every Bat-female Put Out to get a job.") I am always pleasantly surprised when someone agrees with me, though I don't expect it. In truth I doubt I ever convinced anyone who wasn't already leaning that way anyway ; if anything I've heard at least as much from people who disagree with me but now have a better grasp of where we differ.

Anyhow, this Gentle Browser politely disagrees that my opinions lead me to misrepresent what we see on the screen. I think I've given reasonable proof that I'll report and accept facts that I dislike. When I thought the Bruce/Barbara affair was true I reported it as such. Here I also mentioned that "Out of the Past" elevates Talia far above where I would willingly place her, yet it would be unfaithful of me to not report that status. Now with MotB and "Chase Me" the creators introduced new nuances into the Bruce/Barbara situation, by removing the element of Mutual Consent. This allows for worse pairings (which I noted), but it also allows for possibilities that I consider more in-character and profitable for the characters. (That the new facts soften my sentiments toward the characters does not mean I invented them.)

This is why I wrote the poll the way I did. I wanted to acknowledge people's feelings, then to ask if they could vote against their feelings if the evidence required it, or would their feelings cloud their judgment. So far 21 percent have voted against their feelings, which suggest that one's fellow fans are indeed more objective than given credit for.

Over the years the writers have demonstrated that they are capable of doing brazen-faced, astonishing things to their characters -- but as a rule, when that is their intention, nobody has trouble understanding them. Nobody asks whether Dick/Robin really punched Batman, or whether Tim really killed the Joker. I as much as anyone detest soap-opera expositions, so I don't expect Bruce or Barbara to read us excerpts from their Day Planners. But if the writers declines to create a scene that would hit us with the same unmistakeable board, isn't it possible that they didn't intend to wield such a board?

All the MotB Barbara wanted was one crumb from the banquet. Instead she was shooed from the table as a pest. It wouldn't have taken any added effort to give her a single compassionate verbal "hug." Instead she got the cold shoulder. Why not take THAT at face value? Suddenly the nuances become A LOT more open to interpretation, don't they? Well, you see the problem.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

I've suggested (shameless plug) that the real interest in ATOC is the rivalry between Wayne and Gordon. Gordon's reasons for resenting Wayne in this episode have been exhaustively explored ; shouldn't the same be done for Wayne? If Gordon has personal reasons for resenting Wayne/Batman's interference in the Curare case, isn't it worth looking to see if Wayne has personal reasons to interfere?I touched on this very briefly in a thread a few years ago and actually considered including it in EoBG, but I couldn't think of a way to fit it seamlessly into the narrative and ended up discarded it.

The most obvious reason is that Wayne doesn't want to fight this battle with Terry again and again. He hasn't time or patience to involve Terry in a "he said/she said" situation, to say nothing of the fact that he simply doesn't know what Barbara is telling him. (The same is true for Barbara. I wonder ... if she told Terry her story, then found out afterwards that Wayne already told Terry about his lost love Selina Kyle in "Dead Man's Hand," how red would Barbara's face be? That's what happens when you don't know what the other side is telling the kid.) Yes, Wayne probably has just as much dirt on Barbara that she doesn't want blabbed around. But why have this argument every week when they can have it just once?

So Wayne simply appeals to Terry's honor, without trying to defend his own honor. Wayne knows that Terry, a teenager with a dishonorable past, respects honorable intentions as he understands them. All Wayne has to do is to observe (correctly, as it turns out) that Curare is the type of person who will kill a whole train of people just to make sure her prey was in there somewhere.

Put simply, Old Man Wayne is a busybody. And since he does it to everyone, I'm not convinced that this quality conveys sexual tension. Batman was just as big a busybody in Jim Gordon's day, and in "A Bullet For Bullock" the case was over when Batman SAID it was over. Also, neither Jim Gordon nor Harvey Bullock would have been surprised if Batman sent Robin to do the job.

For Barbara the annoyance is twofold : she doesn't want Batman in her business ; and, she remembers when she was as raw as Terry. Therefore she finds it especially insulting to have an amateur doing her job about as well as she is doing it. That is, Barbara isn't much better at handling Curare than Terry is, and Terry isn't much better at handling Curare than Barbara is. Is Batman "going out of his way" to "prove" Barbara can't do her job? If so, it's a short trip. Meanwhile Sam Young (the man who actually is in danger) stays out of it. (If he thinks his wife's tender feelings are a pretty trivial matter compared to saving his life, he's clearly smart enough to never say so.) If Batman wants to save Sam's life, Sam is extremely down with it.

Ultimately Batman's determination to protect people is an insult and a challenge only if both Batman and the target CHOOSE for it to be challenging and insulting. For characters like Sam Young or Jim Gordon, who don't let their ego interfere with their safety, it's clearly not an insult or a challenge. For a situational-ethics character like Bullock it depends upon the day of the week. For Commissioner Barbara it's infuriating. Old Man Wayne knows this, but it's not going to stop him. The man hasn't changed a bit.

Commissioner Barbara is another story. There's an old proverb that "all roads lead to" so-and-so. In this case it's "All roads lead to Gotham." That is, if you turn your back on Gotham and walk away, you are still on the Gotham road. You still pass the same signposts, exits and landmarks. You can travel by rote, as if in your sleep, because the journey is a familiar part of you. You have to go elsewhere, where there is no road to Gotham -- say, Australia -- to walk another trail, and you can't sleepwalk through that one because it's all brand new. Commissioner Barbara spends more time and effort rejecting the Bat-life than demonstrating HOW or WHY the badge is a better concept than the Bat-life. Her complaints against Batman are mostly personal or strategic, not metaphysical. So Batman is a detective who won't use guns? Very well, then she will do relatively little detective work and shoot stuff a lot. She also scatters snarky little comments against Batman but doesn't do much to tell us who she is, or who she would be if no Batman had ever existed for her to emulate or reject.

Additionally, Barbara seriously underestimates Wayne's hold over Terry. Not only is Terry not dependent upon Wayne for food, shelter and education, but Wayne is growing dependent upon Terry. In two episodes that I know of, Wayne needs Terry to do something so simple as drive him to the doctor ("Unmasked," "Ace in the Hole"). If Terry wanted to quit, Wayne couldn't stop him. But Barbara thinks of Terry as being in the same situation as the far more vulnerable Robins and she tries to "save" him accordingly.

Just a thought : Bruce is very good at playing the love-em-and-leave-em playboy ; is that because he's such a good actor, or could it be that the seducer is a deep part of his personality? Dick and Barbara have both suggested that Batman "seduced" them into being his assistants ...Dick is probably the only one who rightfully can make such a claim. Bruce/Batman took him in to protect him from the man who killed Dick's parents. But when that man left town for almost a decade, it was safe for Dick to find a more appropriate foster home or permanent home. It was Bruce/Batman who caused him to stay there. I'm not sure "seduced" is the right word, but otherwise Dick is right that Batman took advantage of a child's trust.

Barbara and Tim? Not really. They threw themselves at him. They had worshipped him from afar for years (Tim's newspaper clippings, Barbara's fantasies), and they even trained and practiced to pass a "partner's test" should they ever meet him (Barbara's fighting skills, Tim practicing with the Batarang). If Batman "seduced" these two it was by merely existing ... which is like saying a movie star seduced you the same way although you've never met. If Batman "seduced" them it was by not telling them, "Grow up and go home" when they first followed him to the job site.

I think "seducer" is misleading, but I can see why the situation might appear that way. When Bruce deliberately tries to charm people they're often people that he won't necessarily be seeing again. I don't think that's the case with the sidekicks. We know that every one of them came to Batman. (A fact Wayne pointed out to Barbara). I think the real problem is that Batman doesn't know how to hold on to the people he cares for. He doesn't understand the daily "maintenance" chores of a relationship. And like a real-world person I know who never realized that her first car's oil had to be changed on a regular basis, the machine eventually seized up. As a result Batman is honestly surprised that Dick would want to leave him -- "But I did this good thing for you eight years ago!" -- or that sending Tim to live with Thompkins would upset Tim. So if Bruce didn't give Barbara the Warm Fuzzies she expected, it may not have been that he was a faithless boyfriend (if any) so much as being an out-of-touch human being, and that he wouldn't have treated her much differently if she'd been a man.


As long as we are reading individual scenes so closely, I think it's worth looking more carefully at the scene that precedes Commissioner Gordon's coffee shop confession scene. Curare's second assassination attempt has just been foiled and Barbara confronts Terry on the street. [snip] Now, watching the scene I was struck by how fast she reversed course, going from furious to friendly at neck-snapping speed. And I ask myself, "Why? Why the sudden switch from threats to a willingness to spill family secrets?" Before we go on, let's give a quick glance to a specific line.
(confidently) "So I left -- and never looked back. No, I don't hate him. I hate what he's become. Such a great man, so alone." There's a paradox in those lines. If Barbara had the common sense to leave, then she's saying she left rather than stay around and get hurt. However if she got hurt, then that suggests she didn't have common sense. Most sensible people would know by looking at Batman that he's not a good catch. There must be plenty of other rich handsome bachelors in Gotham who, moreover, are unlikely to crack under pressure and climb to the top of a belltower with a Freeze gun. So what's Barbara got to be so proud of? "Such a great man" ... I found myself wondering how much of that was magnanimous and how much was schadenfreude.

In other words, has Barbara become a gossip?

Maxie suggested three explanations :

1) Script incompetence.

2) Barbara is a person of weak character who, yes, is dying to pass on some juicy gossip and gain sympathy.

3) Barbara has ulterior motives, but when Terry followed a red herring she let him. She didn't care whether Terry quit his Bat-job over a miscommunication, as long as he quits.

All are interesting proposals. Number 1 I would be inclined to set to one side until we have ruled out the more realistic options. Given Bader's talent for bringing out depths and texture in female characters it doesn't strike me as the kind of mistake she would make. Everyone writes a bowwow sooner or later, but in this case there would seem to be an in-story explanation.

I agree with Maxie that Number 2 is the most consistent with the animated Barbara's personal weaknesses.

The way Maxie phrased Number 3 made me realize that Barbara wants to advance an agenda but she really has multiple agendas. And since some of those agendas are in conflicts she may not be able to satisfy them all. She wants Terry to quit being Batman. She wants to discredit Old Man Wayne and anything he might have told Terry, which is hard because she doesn't know what Terry has heard. However Barbara does NOT want to make herself look bad -- and since she rearranged her entire life around Batman her boots have tracked through the same mud.

In various episodes we have seen that Barbara is willing to lecture Terry, to threaten Terry, to lock up Terry (and his boss), to shoot Terry, and possibly to kill Terry. But is she willing to lie to Terry? I asked why Barbara didn't discredit Bruce/Batman by making reference to Return of the Joker or some tragedy like it. Terry has "dad issues," and the ROTJ story would unnerve him more deeply than some sob story of failed love. Surely Terry would lose respect for his mentor if he learned that said mentor threw a child out of the house -- and a mentally ill, homeless child at that. But Barbara doesn't want to tell an ROTJ story because her hands aren't any cleaner. If both Barbara and Bruce were okay with it that Tim patrolled alone that fateful night, isn't it as much Barbara's responsibility as Bruce's to keep an eye on him? When Bruce/Batman threw Tim out of the house, was Barbara okay with that? Granted, Tim ended up with Leslie Thompkins but we are told Tim didn't like the solution others imposed upon him. According to Commissioner Barbara Bruce refused to return Tim's calls or to have anything to do with him. Didn't Barbara intercede? Or was she more interested in (as some here have suggested) finally having Batman all to herself, with no pesky Boys Wonder around to spoil the mood? If Batman's treatment of Tim was hurtful, why did Barbara stay on the Bat-team and tolerate it? And if we are reading the situation aright, this would be the second time that Barbara shrugged off Batman's well-intentioned but ultimately cruel handling of his Robins. Why did she have to wait until Batman hurt HER before she drew the line?

As I mentioned, I would be very interested to know how Barbara and Tim reconciled. (Though based on what little we've seen I would consider the idea that Barbara went to Tim saying, "You were right," and they've been gossipping about their mutual foe ever since.) And no, I won't debate whether ROTJ is a fair example to use when ROTJ wouldn't be written for another 18 months. All Barbara had to say was something like, "I'll never forgive him for what happened to Tim" or perhaps "He never even came to the hospital when --" and let the fans (and Terry) stew on it. Who knows. It might even have scared Terry out of a job.

Seem from Tim's point of view it becomes clearer why Barbara didn't tell Terry something more concrete about what she saw. But is that a surprise? Even the most shocking moments of Barbara's life only occur as she witnesses the suffering of OTHERS, not her own. In "Over the Edge" she hallucinates that her death will cause the ruin or death of everyone else. But in the end it is a hallucination, not real. In ROTJ she witnesses the victimization of Tim Drake -- and when Tim is victimized again by Bruce/Batman she watches that too. Even as Commissioner Barbara she is passive in ROTJ. The new Joker never makes a move to assassinate her. It certainly isn't for lack of knowledge -- he knew everything Tim Drake knew -- or for lack of time. As far as the new Joker is concerned, she's simply not worth it. How fortunate for her! And how embarassing!

Thus Commissioner Barbara really only contributes to the plot through her passive-aggressive behavior. When she stonewalls Terry she becomes merely another obstacle for Terry to overcome. Had either Barbara or Old Man Wayne broken ranks and told Terry what he needed to know, it is arguable that the new Joker would never have had the chance to storm the Batcave, to try to kill Terry and Dana, or to finish his doomsday weapon which incinerated most of downtown. Maxie observes correctly that the two veterans are too paralyzed by the past to address the present. As a result they forget that this Joker, phony or real, is not going to go away until he has destroyed them all. (Well, all of them except Barbara. Even the poor dog gets whacked before she does.)

Small wonder, then, that Commissioner Barbara holds up her love life (if any) to Terry as being just about the worst thing that ever happened to her -- because it is!

Whether she had a relationship or never had one, she clearly didn't get what she wanted from Batman. Under those circumstances it's consistent with her character to conclude she is telling the truth to the best of her ability to understand it. It's just that the truth she tells is a forlorn and tattered thing compared to her once-bright hopes and dreams.

To this day Barbara has refused to tell the story of the bullet-riddled Batgirl suit. There must be some reason why she hasn't told it other than that she prefers "fun" gossip and this Very Bad Day clearly wasn't fun. But again, whether Barbara had or never had a Bat-relationship, she tries to impress upon Terry that Bruce/Batman hurt her more than did the last villain who tried to kill her. As we saw in the episode, it only pained the fans, not Terry. Terry might drink in some juicy gossip, but he might also conclude it has nothing to do with him. "Things didn't work out for her because she wanted Bat-sex with the Bat-boss. I, Terry, do NOT want Bat-sex with the Bat-boss, so I don't think this is going to be a problem for me."

Back to the earlier question :
Now, watching the [sidewalk] scene I was struck by how fast she reversed course, going from furious to friendly at neck-snapping speed.Actually there are very good reasons for Barbara to "put on her game face," and Terry gave her a good one. Recall Terry's own line : "History's my favorite subject." Combine that line with his typical teenage slouch (hunched shoulders, hands jammed in pockets), and I remembered thinking, "What are you kid, eight years old?" I think Terry may have been reeling her in too. It's a very disarming line. Perhaps it reminded Barbara of the time she left off studying for a math test to go chase Catwoman ("Batgirl Returns"). Terry looks very much like Teacher's Pet sidling up to the school's meanest teacher, who is not mean at all but merely burned out and misunderstood. And it opens the door for Barbara to try her carrot-and-stick routine, or in her case donut-and-handgun. So I didn't find this about-face jarring at all.

Now what to make of Barbara's motives?

Judith Martin we've already heard from. Her way is to deal with failed relationships is to accept more blame than one necessarily deserves so that the other person can heal. ("It's not you, it's me.") But Barbara portrays herself as one who had to navigate a minefield because her men were so messed up.

This from the perspective of Rabbi Joseph Telushkin :


An ancient Jewish teaching compares humiliating a person to murder. For one thing, a humiliated person often wishes that he or she were dead. For another, the damage it inflicts is often irrevocable.

That's why we call slandering or libeling "character assassination."

Whenever someone considers criticizing another person, I suggest that she first ask herself, "Am I looking forward to offering this criticism, or would I give anything not to?"

If you're looking forward to offering criticism, don't. Your motives are probably insincere (and probably a little hostile), and the other person is likely to become defensive, and not be influenced by your words.

from The Ten Commandments of Character (2003)
Family psychologist Richard Warshak adds that every adult who is trying to influence a child's opinion of other relatives should prescreen their comments with these questions :


1. What is my real reason for giving [Terry] this information?

2. Will [Terry] be harmed by the information I am about to reveal? Or is [he] harmed if I withhold the information?

3. How will it help [Terry] to have the information I am about to impart?

4. Do the possible benefits of revealing the information outweigh the possible harm to [Terry]?

5. If [Bruce and I] were still getting along, and I wanted to protect [Terry's] relationship with Bruce, how would I handle the situation?

These questions are designed to raise one's consciousness. By all these criteria, it's certainly possible that Barbara shouldn't be saying some things and Terry shouldn't be encouraging her by listening.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

You may say: "Timm and company knew how we would take that smile and photograph, so that's what they wanted us to think." I say: "Timm and company have given away a lot less than you think, because they haven't given away nearly as much as you seem to think." I don't have to torture the evidence to get to that negative conclusion; I only have to show that there is a lot of empty space and a lot of plausible ways of filling it in.

[snip]

Barbara was an important part of Bruce's life, so it's no surprise that he should have a photo of them together in a casual position ; and in the scene he is looking over "might have beens." And surely Barbara represents a "might have been" even if nothing ever happened. In fact, given that Barbara left the Bat-family to lead a more normal life, it can just as easily be argued that in looking at Barbara in that scene he is looking at someone he might have had a relationship with if he had followed her out of the Batcave. She's not someone he did have, but someone he could have had -- a significant difference.Great point, and one I hadn't considered. Especially in changing the name of the "Girl of the Month" Club to the "Might Have Been" Club. I should've used that name instead.

When Andrea Beaumont first found Bruce in the cemetery, she found a Ken doll fresh out of the box. By the time Barbara sets her sights on Batman the situation is more like trying to buy a used car. It's faded, it's dirty, it's ugly and it doesn't drive in a straight line because the frame has been bent by a few nasty wrecks. (Ancient American proverb : "No one ever sold a used car for working too well.") But sometimes people buy the car anyway out of infatuation ("it's a classic car!"), out of naivety ("but the salesman seemed so nice!"), or out of simple desperation ("I can't afford any better"). Barbara really can afford a better model, that's what's so depressing.

So maybe a brief discussion of Bruce's girlfriends in a Barbara thread isn't as off-topic as we thought. The man Barbara chooses reflects on her judgment and character ; and the women who damaged Bruce reflect on his judgment and character.

As to "who is Batman's number one girl," I think that several of them can meet one of Batman's criteria, but no one can meet enough of them let alone all.

I propose that Batman has two tiers of women. The second-tier women are those on-again, off-again women who look good on his arm when he has to bring a date to a charity and doesn't want to break in a new stranger. Veronica Vreeland, Kathy Duquesne, and Kairi Tanaga would be second-tier women. I know some people would argue that Lois Lane, Zatanna and Diana/Wonder Woman should not be second-tier women because Bruce/Batman spent considerable time with them, but I think this is the right place for them. The second-tier women are those with whom he can be friends, if they can stand him.

The first-tier women are those who make Batman wonder if Bruce is still in there somewhere. They break his bones and cloud his judgment. They break his heart yet he comes back for more. These are the women with whom Bruce/Batman simply cannot be friends. First-tier women are Andrea Beaumont (of course!), Talia Head and Selina Kyle. It is this group into which Barbara is trying to insert herself.

ANDREA BEAUMONT ... the woman Bruce met when he was still "single," that is, not married to the job. When she returns to Gotham nine years later, she is now also married to a job -- a job as a serial killer. She still has a hold on his heart. As someone pointed out elsehwere, Andrea is the only woman to call Batman a mama's boy and get away with it. And after Andrea drives a getaway car to save Batman's life, the hints are extremely strong that they shared a Very Special Night together. (That is, being married but not to each other, they cheated with each other.) As Andrea and Bruce (in various stages of undress) embrace for the last time, they have a piercing conversation.


Andrea : "Can we make it work this time?"

Bruce : "I want to say yes, but you know what's going to come down between me and your father."

Andrea (not looking at him) : "Daddy doesn't matter anymore."

After she leaves, Alfred follows up on her visit.

Alfred : "It's so good to see you and Miss Beaumont together again. Might one ask what this bodes for your alter ego?"

Bruce visibly wilts. He doesn't answer for a long time.

Bruce : I'm not sure, Alfred. Everything's happening so fast. So much has changed."

Alfred : "You still love each other."

Bruce : "That's true. I love her. Maybe after this is settled ..." Twelve hours later Batman and Phantasm are at each other's throats. I think what people are responding to is Bruce's willingness to at least try to make things work. They also realize that Andrea is the only woman who really, truly knows how Bruce has suffered and continues to suffer now.


For Bruce Wayne, who never forgot the death of his parents, and who re-enacts that fatal night in every confrontation he has with a criminal, the past is not a foreign country but a land he still inhabits, and a landscape which grows larger, darker and more forbidding with each passing year; for Wayne, experiences do not vanish into the memory but accumulate like coral on the sunken hulk of an ever-present obsession. It's important to recognize this fact, for it goes a long way toward explaining many features of his psychology:

For instance, it explains why the Dark Knight so famously lacks a sense of humor. [snip] Clinging to a sense of noble victimhood, he cannot acknowledge that his quest has frequently left him looking faintly ridiculous to others ....

His ever-present pain also explains why Batman is both implacable and unafraid of death. Most of us can imagine the loss or disappearance of something we've always had, and can in the limit imagine the loss of everything we've had—which is to say we can imagine our own annhilation. But Wayne cannot imagine himself separate from his tragedy. And since he cannot imagine the disappearance of the pain, he cannot imagine the disappearance of the person having the pain—himself. It is not that he thinks himself immortal because his pain is immortal, only that, by comparison, death has a kind of shimmering unreality that makes it easy to ignore.

from Maxie Zeus' review of the episode "Out of the Past" (http://www.anbat.toonzone.net/bb/ootp.html)

Andrea is the only woman who knows how that feels. No matter how much Barbara hopes to "fix" Batman -- no matter how many books she reads or therapists they visit -- she cannot enter into his pain.

Why I called Andrea a "girl of the month" : for two reasons. One, Andrea remembers when she was first in Bruce's life. Her strong temperament might make it hard to share him with the Bat-life now.

Second, it would take a month at most for Batman to trace Phantasm back to Andrea. A Bruce/Andrea relationship could only resume if Batman never learns she is the Phantasm ; but even if she got into the Batcave to tamper with the evidence against her, in the end she never trained as a detective. He would find out sooner or later ... besides, he CAN'T let the case drop until he has cleared his own name.

TALIA HEAD ... Talia is accustomed to being second in someone's life, and is accustomed to being mistreated. It's a bad life but it's the only way of life she has ever known. So when Bruce/Batman throws her a few crumbs of affection (to the best of his ability), it's still more than she's getting at home.

It's no surprise that Talia is attracted to Batman. As Maxie Zeus observes in deliciously ghastly detail, Batman's weaknesses are of a kind that Talia's father regards as strengths. Therefore since Talia worships her father, Batman's weaknesses -- including being "married to the job" -- are not a problem for her. Talia could fit into Batman's life with minimal fuss or accomodation, if not for her father.

When Razzerella shows up in "Out of the Past," s/he persuades Wayne to not just give up Batman, but to give up being Terry's "Oracle."


"Bruce's long nights are over. I'll be keeping him close beside me at all times." It's shocking to see Wayne trying to convince himself that if he had a second chance in life that he would spend more time in an office. And it says something about the hold Talia has in Bruce's heart that he didn't challenge such a silly notion but actually spent two days trying to bring it about.


Originally posted by SJJ

Wayne is an old man. Talia is a young woman.Ageism! :p Sorry, couldn't resist. Young Talia and Young Bruce looked to be about the same age. Old Man Wayne is a little over 80. So if Talia was the same age or a few years younger than Bruce, and if she can't be older than her father (who is 640 years old in "Out of the Past"), then the "Talia" of "OOTP" would be between 70 and 620 years old. To coin a phrase, it's almost like saying that she took advantage of Old Man Wayne's youth and inexperience ...

Why I called her a "girl of the month" : because young Talia is too weak to resist her father's siren song forever. I'd be surprised if she could refuse him that long. As Razzerella, this erm, creature, would be lucky to hold on to Bruce Wayne for a month. As it turned out she only lasted two days, with is consistent with Bruce's record.

SELINA KYLE ... one of the best Catwoman quotes I ever heard came from the Michelle Pfieffer version in Batman Returns :
"Bruce, (achingly) I would love to live with you in your castle, forever, just like in a fairy tale. (anguished) I just couldn't live with myself." The animated Catwoman actually has two men to pull her back from the brink. But she finds Bruce's life of charity functions and empty parties stifling, and she can't get along with Batman if she can't overcome her mad desire to steal things. Nevertheless she is a strong woman who "owns" herself. No one else has any claim on her. She knows her limits ; she knows that even if Batman puts a ring on her finger she will always be a mistress compared to his job. She knows that's no life for her. And it gives her a kind of integrity in spite of her criminal habits.

Why I called her a "girl of the month" : because if she tried to reform she'd be lucky to keep it up that long. (Sorry, Merlin Missy, I should have clarified that point.)

When Bruce/Batman keeps coming back for more, often it's Selina ("Cat and the Claw," "Catwalk"). When he dreams he dreams of her ("Perchance to Dream," "Chase Me"). When Old Man Wayne comforts Terry for his bad day with Melanie/Ten, it's Selina's story that the old man shares. (I don't like Talia, but I would have expected him to talk about her instead. Catwoman and Ten have the same job -- thief -- but Talia and Ten have the same doormat/accomplice personality, trapped by filial duty to a tyrant who's not worth it. But when Wayne talks about lost love, it's Catwoman who comes to his mind, who puts a light in his eyes and a smile on his face. It doesn't follow plot logic, so is it really a coincidence? Hmm.)

BARBARA GORDON ... Barbara is bright, intelligent and in love with life. She just has this strange quality to rearrange her entire life around Batman and then to get angry when he doesn't do the same. I called her dilemma the "three strikes" rule, and as several people pointed out I could have phrased it better. Let's try again.

The Bruce/Barbara situation in Mystery of the Batwoman is a definite No. As Elderly Bruce Wayne phrased it, Bruce isn't playing hard-to-get. He's playing no-get.

In "Out of the Past," yes, Barbara has a picture. However I would disagree that they were listed in order of rank -- i.e. "Barbara ended the show so she must have been The One" -- or that her pictures outrank other women's pictures -- i.e. "Barbara's picture is the only one with Bruce in it, so she must be The One." Bruce DID have other pictures after Barbara, and Bruce was in a picture with Talia ... a picture which Bruce and Terry discuss. Razzerella interrupted the slide show during its middle, not at the end. I think we also need to be careful about saying that Bruce only called Talia "beloved" and "very special" as a writer's tool of resolution. By that logic Bruce wouldn't have said it if he didn't have an audience to impress.

I think a better analysis of this episode is that Barbara was (at best) one among many, and that Bruce Wayne considered quitting his Bat-life for Talia EVEN AFTER HE WAS YOUNG AND HEALED, simply because he thought Talia was the one who had asked him to do it. When Barbara asked Bruce to follow her out of the Batcave he wouldn't do it. If Wayne would give up things for Talia that he wouldn't give up for Barbara, that too is a No. It can't be dismissed as merely Bruce Wayne's fear of death since after he took the plunge he would be in the same position with Talia as with Barbara.

The third No in "ATOC" came from Barbara's own mouth.
"Time comes when you've got to hang up the cape. But Bruce wouldn't. Or couldn't. So I left -- and never looked back." There's a certain callousness in such a statement -- let me hasten to add we can't be sure if it's Barbara's callousness. We do know that she thinks she made an extremely reasonable request, and by implication Batman responded unreasonably. Perhaps if Bruce had been a policeman and she asked him to give up his job for her, the audience might have a different opinion as to which person is being reasonable or unreasonable. Here are some extrapolations :

1) Barbara's heart became hardened against him and she left. That's why it was easy for her to "never look back."

2) Batman's heart became hardened against her. That's why she never looked back -- because he made it easy for her to leave by not chasing her or giving her anything worth staying for.

3) Their hearts became hardened against each other after some disaster -- say, when Batgirl's suit was riddled with bulletholes. ("Why didn't you protect me?!" -- "Why didn't you duck?!")

4) The amillennial view : Batman's heart never softened toward her, or at least not to the extent she thought it would, could, or should.

But yes, there is a No in there by her own admission.

So if Bruce doesn't seem all that interested in Barbara, what evidence is there that she was The One? What evidence that he ranked her higher than the others? Doesn't the evidence suggest he pined over others more -- a LOT more -- and that if he ended up with Barbara it be because she threw herself at him and he shrugged and caught her? That it wouldn't necessarily be something he wanted? Isn't it possible that if Bruce had an affair with Barbara, it was because she made it clear that she was "available" ... in that sense of the word where "available" isn't a compliment.

Therefore isn't it possible that EVEN IF Bruce had an affair with Barbara it wasn't necessarily a GOOD thing?


It seems that your need to limit Barbara's relationship with Bruce takes priority over what it said in the show.That's a matter of perspective. One could just as easily argue that another's need to elevate Barbara's relationship with Bruce takes priority over what is said in the show. ;) From my perspective the evidence seems to be saying that either Bruce didn't have an affair with Barbara, or if he did she was one of many.

Bruce/Barbara camp : "Yeah, what she said."

Bruce/Barbara camp : "Wait a minute! Who said that? Old Maid, stop throwing your voice!"

TOM : "I didn't. I don't know how. I told you, I don't think I convinced anyone who wasn't leaning that way already."

Bruce/Barbara camp : "Yeah, what she said. We agree with her on a few things but there are other things where we strongly disagree with her."

Bruce/Barbara camp : "Who is doing that?!?!"

TOM : "Guys, let me introduce you to your fraternal twin. I've been aware of a split in the Bruce/Barbara camp for some time. There is one sub-faction that believes Bruce loved Barbara above all. There's another sub-faction that believes Barbara was one of many. They're not in the "nothing happened" camp, but they don't think Barbara was The One. If I'm reading them aright, a lot of them think it was a weekend thing, or maybe a little bit longer. The Girl of the Month Club, in other words ... It wasn't until Mystery of the Batwoman and "Chase Me" that they really found their voice, and the assumption is that I did it. I think they probably would have poked their heads above ground about now even if I hadn't been here to share their Catwoman fannishness. Most of these guys are Catwoman fans, it seems. So while we will sound a little alike at times, we more often disagree on something else."

Barbara-one-among-many sub-faction :"Yeah, what she said."

I suppose this is a bad time to mention it, but the Paul Dini who inherited Bader's Bruce/Barbara idea (or at least he was the one who ran with it) --

who spent more than ten years in Batman's head writing what we solemnly (oh so solemnly) call "canon" --

who hoped for a "pitch black Catwoman" animated film --

who wrote "Out of the Past" --

who cowrote "Chase Me" --

and in doing so followed up on the "Perchance to Dream" theme that Catwoman is the woman Batman dreams about --

this same Dini said Catwoman was The One.


Dini says he had always regretted not doing more with the "dark, forbidden attraction" that Batman and Catwoman have for each other, so that was a natural emotional story to explore. "I've always thought that Selina/Catwoman is the one woman Bruce/Batman really wants, but can never have," he says. "To embrace her is to deny everything he is, and he knows that, yet a part of him will always pine for her."

--from the ToonZone interview "CHASE ME Brings extra Charm to BATWOMAN DVD" (Posted 12-04-2003)
*puts link to article (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?threadid=96283) on table and runs as fast as possibly can*


Originally posted by Revelator

I admire the tenacity and committment of people like Old Maid when they address the BG issue, but I also wonder if they're making the best possible use of their free time. Some people like soccer, golf or wrestling ; those things don't speak to me. No accounting for taste. I mentioned that in the real world I've a list of books to finish on the topic of eschatological theory. Certain people in my circle think that A Certain Series Of Doomsday Novels are an inspiration and a great gift, while others simply don't care, and still others wonder whether That Certain Series teaches a false doctrine and if so, what should one do about it. (Do Christians have the concept of heresy anymore, or is everything a "denominational difference/alternate lifestyle" nowadays?) It's nice to take a break. ToonZone is Big Happy Playtime.


Originally posted by almost everyone else

You sure have a lot of free time on your hands, or some variation. (*thinks*)

Compared to whom?

Total scribblings by The Old Maid, including posts, rants, editorials, essays, and notes taped to the door of the refrigerator : about 325.
ToonZone members with more posts than The Old Maid : 715.
TZ members with 1000 or more posts : 263.
TZ members with 5000 or more posts : 15.
... and have websites to maintain : 12.
... and have mod duties : 10.
TZ heroes who create canon television series and/or comic books yet still spend more time/have more posts at ToonZone than The Old Maid : 6. (nothing, Dark Lantern, Dan Slott, John Delaney, PD Storrie, Matches Malone)
The Old Maid having some free time : priceless. :D

[James]

I will try and respond more to your comment - I've pretty much said all I have to say, but I can't let such hard work and time go unchecked.... :)

Only think I will say on the Dini/Catwoman point, was I don't think anyone here has said that Barbara was the soul mate of his life, or the perfect character for him... only that of all the relationships he had she seems to take higher priority than Kyle (Kyle not top of Old Wayne's distinctly grubby "Girl's I've had affection" for list. As of which, while he may pine for her most - as you put from Dini's perspective, doesn't mean the one he shares the fondest memories of. I think there is a big difference.

I certainly don't believe the DCAU Batman could have a relationship with Kyle - if Dini ever decided to play that one I would love to see it done cos personally, I can't see it resolving. Especially since the DCAU Catwoman has only ever really had the hots for Batman not Wayne. It's the thrill which seems to get her. With Wayne it's different, but I could see he would have a real trust issue with her.... A relationship I could see him pining for because the fantasy would be better than the reality, but I can see why (as far as we know - it never worked...) But this is fiction.. and anything is possible.

I don't think Dini's comment negates any of Bruce's actions in Out Of The Past however.

..

..... 10 mods with sites and mod duties and over 5000 posts.... :o Sad people.... yes....

[Maxie Zeus]

Batman dreaming he accidentally married Jim Gordon ... almost fell off my chair when I read that one. It reminded me of Haunted Knight, in which Batman hallucinated that Scarecrow had to drug him to get him to the altar. Actually you've proposed a satisfying middle of the road solution. (Or nonsolution?) If Batman had such a fright then pushed Barbara away without telling her why, it would please Bruce/Barbara proponents because it would appear that he cares for her. It would also please opponents because it would appear that he had resolved never to act upon the opportunity regardless of whether he had feelings for her or not.

SJJ and I have written ourselves into an unprofitable corner, I think--talk about interpretive methodologies just isn't as rewarding as talking about Babs and Batman, but I'm glad you mentioned this little fantasy, because it gives me one last chance to clarify my position:

When characters act, it is always permissible to wonder about their motives and intentions. In fact, it's necessary, because if we don't know what those motives and intentions are, we really don't know what they've done. (A man who drinks poison because he wants to kill himself has committed suicide; a man who drinks paint thinner because he thinks it's a martini has either an accident or a murder victim.) So it's not possible to know what kind of relationship Babs and Bruce had (or if they had a relationship) without searching out their background motives, and that's just what OM has been doing. I only take it a bit further and, after positing and describing the different motives that could accompany their on-screen actions suggest off-screen actions that can plausibly be inferred from those motives.

Thus, from the fact that Babs spends so much time in ATOC denouncing Batman's treatment of his subordinates, I posit that her motives are (plausibly) identical to those of Nightwing or post-ROTJ Tim Drake, and from that infer that it is plausible that in fact there was no Babs-Bruce relationship. Such a method is perfectly legitimate and does not represent an excess of ingenuity (though it might represent an excess of time and effort). ;)

Since this is a separate topic addressed to SJJ, I'll save my response to OM for another post.

[James]

When characters act, it is always permissible to wonder about their motives and intentions. In fact, it's necessary, because if we don't know what those motives and intentions are, we really don't know what they've done. (A man who drinks poison because he wants to kill himself has committed suicide; a man who drinks paint thinner because he thinks it's a martini has either an accident or a murder victim.) So it's not possible to know what kind of relationship Babs and Bruce had (or if they had a relationship) without searching out their background motives, and that's just what OM has been doing. I only take it a bit further and, after positing and describing the different motives that could accompany their on-screen actions suggest off-screen actions that can plausibly be inferred from those motives.
The only problem with this approach is that you have to suppose you have enough information to attain the data required to make such conclusions. In the case of Babs and Barb, so little on their relationship exists outside of Batman Beyond, it is hard to infer with any definition quite how the relationship went.

If we treat this as a historical analysis, since Batman Beyond gives us clear reason to do this, it's very hard to define the specifics of a relationships based on background motives. This is a problem with most TV shows as normally you have only one perspective to analyse from (eg; only one source - what you are shown on TV). That means it's difficult to truely define what is and what isn't in character when dealing with an issue which is rarely referenced in the sources we have (we see Bruce in very few relationships - in fact aside from Andrea, hardly at all). From that you have to support a conclusion on a period where there is no sources whatsoever. So trying to ascertain or conclude whether character motivation can give you an answer is very difficult. The only thing I would say is that any given relationship would not be out of character for either if the situation was passive (and say Dick was not a issue).

So character motivations is very hard read. Again, what we can but read is the evidence we are offered. Even there so far as a story we have to assume it's fact. If we go into fan disection as OM and Maxie have already said, you can see many alternatives but no defintive answers because you have only the one perspective.

Again, in this post I'm tripping to OM and Maxie's domain and not basing my comments on the dramitic elements which makes me conclude that something happened. However if we look at it within the context of stories and characters, MotB, ATOC and OOTP are historically useful as combined sources to conclude the strong chance of a relationship - however as everyone says, not positive proof as each of this sources themselves are singluar source materials.

Historically any source which has no other source to compare with is near to useless..

It's another reason why I take my conclusion from a mix of story and dramtic devices. Simply there is not enough to speculate any definitive conclusion otherwise. It all too non substantial to ignore the dramatic qualities when reading in your interpretation.



Thus, from the fact that Babs spends so much time in ATOC denouncing Batman's treatment of his subordinates, I posit that her motives are (plausibly) identical to those of Nightwing or post-ROTJ Tim Drake, and from that infer that it is plausible that in fact there was no Babs-Bruce relationship. Such a method is perfectly legitimate and does not represent an excess of ingenuity (though it might represent an excess of time and effort). ;)
My only concern is that would be if you took ATOC on it's own. With OOTP it's seems to weaken - but obviously not destroy - that line of thinking.



Since this is a separate topic addressed to SJJ, I'll save my response to OM for another post.
And I feel bad for not doing so yet.. there is a lot to read and I'm TRYING to break from posting this week.. a holiday.. much needed too..

[Maxie Zeus]

Let me start by recapping my position, and why I am arguing these points.

We are like observers who watched a game of pool, wandered away, then came back and are now trying to reconstruct the intervening state of play based on the current position of the balls. Very hard to do. The best hypothesis will be the simplest, and OM has set out a very simple hypothesis: Barbara Gordon had a thing for Batman; it's not clear he had any interest in her. But fifty years on they were estranged, and Barbara was left making comments that imply rather heavily that the two of them either had a personal relationship or that she thought they did and learned differently to her chagrin.

Because Barbara is the talkative one, and because she has motives that would make her the agent of change and development in their relationship, the simplest explanation will take her to be the active one and to read her as equivocating and making excuses as she comes to grips with the fact that she screwed up.

Note well: The Old Maid, I doubt, wants to see Barbara in this light. But it seems to me that if you concentrate on the evidence of Barbara's actions and state of mind while holding all else fixed, you will almost certainly be driven into putting her in the worst possible light. That's a structural feature: If her relationship with Bruce ended badly, and she was the agent, then the blame falls on her, and any allusive and non-detailed excuses she offers will look like attempts to evade that responsibility.

My argument: Such a strategy is flawed in two respects.

First, it is unnecessarily prosecutorial, because although it starts by looking at the evidence of the characters' actions, it quickly can (and here does) turn into a search for the guilty party. And once you adopt the perspective of the prosecutor looking for a wrongdoer, it is all too easy to interpret the actions and statements of the prime suspect in the worst possible light.

Second, it ignores the other characters and the way they might have contributed to the debacle, or the way their presence might color or explain Barbara's actions, the way they might lead us to reappraise her reasons for acting as she did, or even might cause us to radically rethink and reinterpret the evidence that otherwise would support OM's elegant reading of the situation.

So, for instance, in a spirit of playful spite, I suggested that the evidence might be read in a way that did not argue for the existence of a Babs-Bruce relationship. I suggested that Commissioner Babs's' noncommittal response to Terry's "Girlfriend? Whoa!" was motivated by her desire to see Terry give up the Bat-life because she thinks it's a bad idea for anyone to be Batman, and that she seizes on the implication—you can't be Batman and have a girlfriend—and a useful falsehood that could make her argument for her.

Well, I think it's possible, but I don't really believe it. I think it does, as OM admits, show that Babs could have mulitple motives when she sits down with Terry in that coffee shop, but I was more interested in showing that if we are more sensitive to the presence of other characters we might read the situation quite differently.

So let's take Terry and her relationship with Commissioner Babs in Batman Beyond. As OM has convincingly pointed out, it's a very hostile relationship. There seems to be little reason for it, which suggests that her hostility is really directed at Old Man Wayne, to whom she is rarely more than civil. Why might that be?

Well, if we "edit out" the sidewalk and diner scenes in ATOC, a fairly clear picture comes into focus. She says, explicitly, that she thinks the Bat-life is a bad one for whomever pursues it. This observation can be directed both at Old Man Wayne and at Terry, and in ATOC she delivers it point-blank at both of them. And there is a history to explain that: Dick Grayson broke with Batman for reasons that Commissioner Babs repeats, and we know that Tim Drake was nearly destroyed. It's not a stretch at all to conclude that Batgirl had a bad encounter (one that left bullet holes in the Batgirl outfit) and one needn't posit anything special between her and Batman to see that she might have come to have Nightwing-esque issues with the old man. Even her willingess to believe the worst of Terry in "Eyewitness" is explicable if we remember that she saw Tim Drake kill the Joker. Granted, he was acting under extreme provocation; but she doesn't know Terry and it's not hard to imagine her fearing that the new kid—who, after all, has a record—is not the sort to take the strain. (Indeed, I could see the aged Nightwing—grey, sear and awful, like an angel who has been inside and escaped from Hell—treating Terry with similar malignancy, or worse.) Hence, there is an easy explanation: She has grown to have a poor opinion of caped crusading (her bona fides as a law enforcer are not in doubt, as she switched to police work); knowing it from the inside, she is not as forgiving of it as her father was; she doesn't trust Bruce as a mentor or Terry as an acolyte. In short, the problem is Bruce Wayne, around whom all problems seem to revolve.

Now, add the edited bits back in. What happens to this explanation?

Well, it complicates it because it adds an anomalous fact. How can we fit it in? Two ways: Add an epicycle, or junk it for a Copernican theory.

For those of you who don't know the history of astronomy, let me explain my metaphor.

Back when the Ptolemaic system (which said the sun and planets went around the Earth), held sway, astronomers noticed that the planets sometimes performed odd movements that were not consistent with the posited orbits. So the astronomers added "epicycles," special mechanisms that kept the overall picture intact while explaining away the anomalous movements. But Copernicus simplified things when he suggested a radical revision: Make the planets (including the Earth) go around the Sun, and you could make sense of the strange movement without having to introduce these odd "epicycles."

So, in the present instance we can add an epicycle: It remains true Barbara is pissed at Bruce because of her disillusionment with him and the Bat-life. But she lets Terry jump to a different conclusion because she thinks that's a good way of getting him to quit, those putting a spoke in Old Man Wayne's wheel and getting a dangerous crimefighter off the street while also saving Terry from ultimate grief. It saves the simple theory that best fits the rest of the evidence while explaining away this bit of anomalous information.

The problem with epicycles is that they're ugly, and this epicycle, I cheerfully admit, is pretty ugly. OM's theory represents a radical, Copernican shift:

It's not about Bruce. It's All About Barbara. She's the problem around which that whole troubled BB relationship spins.

It's not only an ingenious theory, it takes that coffee shop scene and makes it intensely dramatic. It's like the "Luke, I am your father" moment in The Empire Strikes Back: it's a moment that forces us to radically reinterpret lots of stuff that we didn't think was important or which we politely ignored. It dramatically deepens both Bruce's character and Barbara's. And it not only makes sense of the tension in BB, it also gives us a key that unlocks a tremendous amount of Barbara's inner life.

It's brilliant, and the insights that OM realizes and explicates for us are the best I've ever seen on these forums. And for the remainder of this post, I will assume (what I already basically believe) that in fact there was something between Babs and Bruce.

My qualm is that she's pushed the idea too far because she has concentrated too much on Barbara. She has made Barbara too central to the drama, and interpreted too much by referring to Barbara and What She Did and What She Meant When She Did It. It's as though not only the planets, but all the moons and stars go around the Sun as well.

But once you accept the idea that there was some relationship between Babs and Bruce, you have recognize that we are dealing with a dual-star system, with all the gravitational complications that implies. Or, to finally jettison the tiresome astronomy references: It takes two to tango, and if there was a tango we have to know what each partner thought he or she was doing when they decided to dance.

So, for instance, I wondered about ATOC: If Gordon has personal reasons for resenting Wayne/Batman's interference in the Curare case, isn't it worth looking to see if Wayne has personal reasons to interfere?. To this, OM replies: Put simply, Old Man Wayne is a busybody. … [H]e does it to everyone … [and he] was just as big a busybody in Jim Gordon's day

That's a simple explanation, but assumes that, while Batgirl was deeply affected by their relationship, Bruce wasn't, and so we can simply stick in the explanation that would have been adequate back before they got together.

Granted, Bruce is a very conservative fellow who doesn't let much affect or change him. Also, penetrating Bruce's motives is hard: he could give Buster Keaton lessons in how to hold a poker face. Still, Batman/Bruce Wayne has a long and interesting history, and by looking at the overall pattern of his life we can get some clues as how he might have acted or reacted.

That's why I brought up the "seduction" angle.


Dick is probably the only one who rightfully can make such a claim. … I'm not sure "seduced" is the right word, but otherwise Dick is right that Batman took advantage of a child's trust.

Barbara and Tim? Not really. They threw themselves at him. They had worshipped him from afar for years (Tim's newspaper clippings, Barbara's fantasies), and they even trained and practiced to pass a "partner's test" should they ever meet him (Barbara's fighting skills, Tim practicing with the Batarang). If Batman "seduced" these two it was by merely existing.

… I think "seducer" is misleading, but I can see why the situation might appear that way. When Bruce deliberately tries to charm people they're often people that he won't necessarily be seeing again. I don't think that's the case with the sidekicks.

There are two aspects which make Bruce/Batman look like a seducer. First, there is his playboy persona. Of course, you say, it's a mask, not the real man. But here's the thing: you can disguise yourself as a foppish and ineffectual sort without bedding everything in sight. So if Batman's persona is merely a "mask" (like those sported by Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel), why does he add the extra fillip, especially as it's one that cannot help but hurt those he takes advantage of? I thought Batman had morals—and I don't mean sexual morals in a sectarian sense, but in the chivalric sense that there are rules, and as Bruce Wayne he seems to have thrown them out the window.

I also tend to disagree with OM on whether Babs was "seduced" into joining the Bat-team. Or, at least, Nightwing disagrees with her. In "Old Wounds" Babs says she volunteered to join Batman, but Robin says she's deluding herself. True, he doesn't use the word "seduce" (only "manipulates" and "pulls strings" and "gets other people to do what he wants"), but at best that's only a matter of degree. And even if Batgirl "wanted it," it is logically possible to "seduce" someone who wants it.

I bring all this up because of what I said earlier, about finding an overall pattern in Batman's behavior. I suggest that "seducer" is an important though rarely acknowledged facet of his personality, because it comes out in both sides of his existence. And if we take seriously his "playboy" treatment of women, it might be one that he is unable to control. (Notice also the seemingly unmotivated way he puts the moves on Diana in Justice League.) And this raises the possibility--and it is only a possibility--that if he tangoed with Babs between TNBA and BB, his actions might not have been nearly so innocent as we would like to believe.

Put it this way: So far we have had two general hypotheses about how a collision of anatomies could have occurred: (a) Babs breaks down Bruce's reluctance, but afterwards he comes to his senses; (b) Babs and Bruce, in a moment of vulnerability or hope, try to add another dimension to their relationship, but it doesn't take. Both of these leave Babs either the culpable party or as the one who laid the groundwork for a mutual mistake. But what if we add scenario (c): Bruce, in one of his feral moods, takes a willing but not-entirely comprehending Babs, the way a movie star (to take one of OM's analogies and turn it around) takes a groupie. Or, as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein puts it:

Lon Chaney: Tonight, when the moon is full, I'll turn into a wolf.
Lou Costello: You and twenty million other guys.

The difference being that Batman's costume looks more like Dracula's, which does not lessen the point. Makes it rather stronger, in fact, if you take the genre echoes seriously.

Now, as I said, this is only a possibility. It's not even a likelihood. But if you scrutinize Bruce with the same intensity as you scrutinize Babs, you can get an alternative that is just as hard on Bruce as OM has been on Babs. And by emphasizing (over-emphasizing, probably) the fact that Bruce is a moral agent with nerve endings, I mean to emphasize that we cannot adequately limn the characters and their flaws without looking at all the characters, not just the most salient ones.

Now, what happens if we leave this aside, but go back to the details of ATOC with our appreciation that Bruce also brings a history to events?


For Barbara the annoyance is twofold : she doesn't want Batman in her business ; and, she remembers when she was as raw as Terry. Therefore she finds it especially insulting to have an amateur doing her job about as well as she is doing it. That is, Barbara isn't much better at handling Curare than Terry is, and Terry isn't much better at handling Curare than Barbara is. Is Batman "going out of his way" to "prove" Barbara can't do her job? If so, it's a short trip.

... Ultimately Batman's determination to protect people is an insult and a challenge only if both Batman and the target CHOOSE for it to be challenging and insulting.

I've no quibbles with this. It's spot-on. But again, it's only Commissioner Babs's half of the equation. What does it look like if we concentrate on Bruce?

In one sense, the appearance of Curare puts him in a no-win situation if he wants to avoid giving Babs the chance to take offense. If he wants to humiliate Babs, he should act just like he does in ATOC and interferes. If he only wants to do the idealistic Batman-thing, he … acts just like he does in ATOC. and interferes. Here's another case in which we can't figure out his motives because, relative to his actions, they are woefully underdetermined. There just is no way of figuring out why he's doing this, or which reason is paramount. But if we fit ATOC into the patterns of the past, we can raise disquieting suggestions.

Bruce has been a busybody, but he's been more than that. In his dealings with Gordon there has always been an element of "show off": His noiseless, unseen exits; his getting everywhere first; his disconcerting habit of leaving the villains hanging in embarrassing positions that demonstrate his own athletic virtuosity. Jim Gordon shows an almost saintly ability to ignore what looks like sly ribbing. (Most people would react like Bullock.) As I said in my review of ATOC, Bruce's interference in the plot can look like an unattractive attempt to prove himself still superior to the Gordons—especially as this latest Gordon is one who used to be one of his own acolytes. That is, Commissioner Babs is not just another police commissioner, precisely because she has a past history with the previous Commissioner Gordon (so that Batman's reappearance can look as though it is keyed to the presence of a "Gordon" in that office) and because she had a serious break with Bruce. Thus, Bruce becoming active again during her tenure cannot help take on a color that it wouldn't if there were another person in the office.

(This isn't to say that Bruce intends it to have that color, only that circumstances are such that Babs would have to deliberately ignore that coloration. And it's not to justify her peevishness; but there's a difference between saying that she ought be a saint like her father and saying that it's a flaw that she's not. We're all sinners, but heaven preserve us from people who judge us as if they were God on the throne.)

There is also, in ATOC, the matter that Babs's husband is the target being protected.*

(*BTW, for those looking to cinematic and dramatic devices to justify believing that there was a relationship between Babs and Bruce, this is the place to look: why make Sam Young the target in the same episode that a Babs-Bruce relationship is alluded to unless you (the writer) mean for that relationship to be taken as holding?)

There are multiple subtexts that could be found in Bruce's interference, depending on how the relationship ended:

(a) If Bruce left Babs in the lurch, then this could be his way of saying "I still care for your happiness and will do what I can to protect it."

(b) If Babs left Bruce in anger and frustration, then this could be his way of saying "You can only be happy if I work to protect that happiness; you're still dependent on me."

In either case, Babs's anger at Bruce is understandable (maybe not laudable or justified, but understandable): If (a), he still looks paternalistic, and her response can be read as: Don't think you can salve your conscience by buying me off, buddy. I picked up the g*****n pieces of my life on my own, so **** you and the batwing you flew in on. If (b), he looks even worse, and the subtext of her response hasn't even one printable word in it.

As I say, Bruce might not intend any of these; and even if he's aware that his actions can be read this way he might not have a choice; as noted, just being Batman forces his hand. OM reprints wise advice from Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and Richard Warshak. Good advice for those looking to interfere. But what about those on the receiving of interference from those who might have bad motives? I suppose the advice is "Take the interference and don't wonder about the motives." But that's like telling someone "Don't think of an elephant." (You're thinking an elephant now, aren't you? :D) It requires either sterling character or great self-possession to pull it off, and it's a poor criticism to accuse Commissioner Babs of lacking either of those qualities. She does; so do most of us.

If I could encapsulate the general thrust of my criticism, it would be in relation to this sentence:


Most sensible people would know by looking at Batman that he's not a good catch. There must be plenty of other rich handsome bachelors in Gotham who, moreover, are unlikely to crack under pressure and climb to the top of a belltower with a Freeze gun.

The observation is true enough. There's an old Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon showing a rattlesnake, a hissing cat, a pufferfish and a man in a trenchcoat with a boot on his head, an inflatable pool ring around his waist, and a shotgun in his hand. (I'm working from memory, so that might not be totally accurate.) The caption: "How nature says 'Don't touch." Sure, you could probably put Batman in the picture and he'd look right at home. Still, he's not like poison oak; he's a morally responsible agent. Saying that Babs should have known better is a bit like saying Harley should have known better. Well, yes. But don't forget the person she should have known better than to get involved with. And in Batman's case we've got someone whose responsibilities don't end with telling Babs to get over her silly crush. Once he plays along, he's got a responsibility to make sure that things don't go badly. And once they do end badly, you've got to look and see how he handles it.

Basically, the tragedy of the situation is this: the relationship between Batman and his sidekicks always ends badly, whether romance gets mixed into it or not. (I don't go into details, but I suggest here (http://anbat.toonzone.net/btas/ind/lionunicorn.html) that, if you compare the personalities of Batman and Alfred, Batman looks like the kind of character who will always break his associates.) The addition of a personal relationship between Bats and Babs, and its going sour, might add an extra dose of the poison to the breakup, but I suspect the toxicity already present would have sufficed. Put it this way: If Babs and Bruce had never been an item; if Babs had gotten over her crush long before they parted ways; if Babs just wanted out, as they all seem to do, eventually: would things in BB look that different? I'm not sure they would. Think of Nightwing, who apparently is still off somewhere seething.


(Side note:


Commissioner Barbara spends more time and effort rejecting the Bat-life than demonstrating HOW or WHY the badge is a better concept than the Bat-life. Her complaints against Batman are mostly personal or strategic, not metaphysical.

Stepping back to critique the series and the writing as a whole, I would say that this was one of the missed opportunities; ATOC constructed an intriguingly--almost maddeningly--provocative relationship between Old Man Wayne and Old Commissioner Gordon, but the series never developed it. As with Dana, we are left trying to puzzle together a satisfactory theory about unsatisfactory characters, and it's not clear if our dissatisfaction should be aimed at characters who are flawed or at writers whose flawed scripts never "solved" the characters in a satisfying way.)

To recap so far: Once we scrutinize Bruce Wayne, we should see that there is no good reason to think that Babs must bear sole responsibility for the existence of a relationship; that Babs must bear sole responsibility for that relationship's souring; that Commissioner Babs has no good reason to grit her teeth when Old Man Wayne totters into view; or that Babs actions and statements are (mostly) an attempt to shift the blame from where it truly belongs (on her own shoulders). The illusion that she is the major agent depends upon a non sequitur: because she's the one doing the 'splainin', she's the one with some 'splainin' to do.

Well, that's actually unfair: OM describes another possible reason to think that Babs shows bad character: Babs seems to imply that her disappointment with Bruce has to do with her disappointment that he preferred the Bat-life to her. The logical terminus of a crush on Batman is the hope that he'll give up the Bat-life to be hers. This is, in fact, a horrible fantasy: It's the dream that he would give up everything—emphatically including his very identity—to be with her. Even Razzerella (that's OM's name for the Talia/Ra's monster in "Out of the Past") thinks s/he has to trick Bruce into giving that up.

What is the evidence for this hypothesis?

1. If you read Babs in the worst possible light, then this is what she would demand. Well, yes. But reading Babs in the worst possible light is not a method we should be engaging in. And we should suspect any interpretation that tends to put her in this worst possible light.

2. As said, this fantasy is the logical terminus of her original fantasy. But people don't always follow their fantasies to their logical terminus; why should we think that Babs has?

3. It's the implication of textual evidence: see the coffee shop scene. This is the strongest line to take. Is there such evidence?


(confidently)"So I left -- and never looked back. No, I don't hate him. I hate what he's become. Such a great man, so alone."

In saying this, Babs seems to be comparing Old Man Wayne's current state ("so alone") with what might have been: "He could have been with me." That is, she seems to imply that the only real alternative to his current tragic state (he's Batman, but he's all alone) was to give up the Bat-life to be with her (he's not Batman, but he's got me).

It sounds plausible, even convincing. But in pitying him for being "alone," is she really thinking of the alternate world in which the two of them are together? If so, then she must think he was "alone" even back when she was Batgirl, and even before she was Batgirl. Maybe she does think this (which makes her sound very selfish and delusional indeed). But there's an obvious alternative. Or, obvious once you think about it.

What was Alfred? Chopped liver?

No, get your mind out of the gutter. I don't mean that.

But if you have a moment, go back the essay (http://anbat.toonzone.net/btas/ind/lionunicorn.html) I linked to above. Alfred is not just a father-figure, he's the living link to Batman's lost past. He's the one who brings the human dimension into Batman's severe and unforgiving world. He's the only one who can understand Batman. "Bruce Wayne" is only a mask; "Batman" is the distended reality and projection of nightmare; Alfred is the one through whom Batman/Bruce Wayne can integrate himself because Alfred is the only one who knew him when he was a whole person. So what happens when Alfred goes?

There are two ways to approach that question: prospectively and speculatively.

Prospective: Batman doesn't want to answer the question, but as Alfred ages he must wonder: What will become of me when this necessary part of my life vanishes? Others must wonder too, and must see the consequence: Batman will become "alone" in a way that few of us experience: not the loneliness of bachelorhood or of widowerhood (though the latter approaches it); it will be a loneliness like being orphaned all over again. There will be the temptation to find a replacement, and the self-hatred for even having the thought. Alternately, there will be the desire to give up the life of Batman, and to try to recreate Alfred's gift to Bruce by reintegrating the Bruce Wayne/Batman personalities. Maybe Bruce can become fully human again, but it would come at the cost of giving up his Bat-life.

This would not imply that Bruce would hook up with Babs, or even with anyone. But when Commissioner Babs mourns "what he's become" she can be taken as referring to the ghastly way in which Bruce's life has decayed without Alfred's presence. He wasn't always alone, but he made himself alone by keeping to the streets when he could have given them up for a life in which Batman is not his identity. We needn't take her as deliberately and obscurely referring to Alfred, but referring simply to what she sees as Bruce's empty existence: an existence that he chose even when the existential costs became clear.

Speculative: What did Bruce do when Alfred died? Who was around to help him through that anguished time? And what form did that help take? Okay, why be coy: What if this relationship with Barbara occurred during a time of overwhelming psychological stress and trauma for Bruce?

Such a suggestion really does turn into fan-fiction, and I've no interest in pursuing it. There simply is no way of answering the question satisfactorily (short of taking the Sherman Oaks guys—and the one currently at work on Lost—at gunpoint and forcing them to make something up). Nor is it clear how such an event would reflect on Bruce and Babs.

Alfred's absence is like the dog that didn't bark. No one notices it, but really, it might be the single thing that most strongly explains why the atmosphere in the Batman Beyond Batcave is so awful. And it is further evidence that, in figuring out what happened and the import of it, we have to be very careful: We must not only look to what evidence we see, but to what evidence is saliently missing.

I've really nothing to say on the "Was Barbara 'The One'?" topic, and this is long enough as it is.

[James]

EDIT: Just to point out, this is an alternative way to look at B&B beyond episode evidence and character motivation. I didn't make it clear at 6am, but I felt that arguing a point on B&B having a relationship was not of interest to many fans. I could produce facts from the writers themselves, but if you don't like the idea, you won't go with it.. people always find an excuse.

So for those who don't care about character motivation, or what is dramtically implied/said in episodes, I offer this post as a more personal reason I have always stood for the B&B angle.

Thanks to Maxie's PM for making me think on clarifying this. ;)

I was just PMing Maxie about this, and I thought I would add it. I was going to add this before his post, so it doesn't relate to anything there.

I was talking in a chat room about BB. I think one of the main reasons I get charged up about defending this oh so small point.. is that for me, it's a defining aspect of what made Batman Beyond so cool.

Peel away the excessive villians, High school, suit and Max then you'll find a very tragic tale.

In fact, Maxie hit upon this in his last post about Alfred. The depth of Batman Beyond - beyond it's level to entertain children - is in it's tragedy. That's what drew me back into Batman. Dini/Timm and co created a future which dared to do so much which the comic couldn't - it spellled out a definitive future for it's Batman. It wasn't nice.

This guy has spent 20 odd years living alone in a mansion. The hero of Gotham, the hero of our childhood has lived as a husk for two decades. Not as Bruce Wayne, Millionaire owner of WE, or Batman, the Vengence of the Night. He lived as a Husk. That's the implication.

That's pretty shocking for a comic book. He's alone. Even Alfred, the quintessential ingredient to Wayne's estate - even more so than Wayne himself is not there. He's lost contact with all his friends. By the sounds of it, Dick - his ward, son/brother, companion no longer speaks to him. We later find out Tim doesn't either. Seems Jim Gordon is long gone too.

He has no friends, he has no enemies. He's nothing.

Then we have Barbara - and this is what was the icing on the cake when I saw OOTP. A fun girl. Flakey, maybe.. a little young. Certainly not a temptress like Kyle, or a betrayer like Talia. She offers none of those elements which excites Bruce.. those girls he's been after for all those years.. twinned with his dark side.. He finds a girl who mirrors his light, not his dark. She's pure, wanting to see justice like he. She's optimistic.. and well, full of what he isn't if you take away Batman - she's full of life. She was potentially someone who could make him happy - if he was normal. But no. He can't. He has his pact with his dead parents.. his excuse for his crusade. It implies he chooses the Bat over the chance of a normal life. He chooses dark over light - just as Dick did in Old Wounds. Chose the Bat over Barbara.

So he had a chance of redemption. A chance to embrace the good elements in him. Maybe he couldn't do that. Maybe his guilt for his parents death runs too deep. That's tragic.. and so Batman Beyond.

The final nail in the coffin - and what OOTP suggested to me - was he knows it. He knows he had that chance, and now he regrets it. It may have been an impossible path. He may be unable to offer himself happiness. That's a very human condition - people who carry to much burden to allow themselves happiness without feeling guilty. Regardless he knows what he could have had, but didn't.

So in a way, I find the B/B thing part of the very axis which seperated BB from "Spider-Man" unlimited. When people look at dissecting the show to see if there are any other alternative visions, I see that very vital aspect of BB being wittled away.

Of course I'm sure there are other aspects which made the writers decide Barbara - it wasn't to defy fans or just add to the tragedy of Bruce Wayne. As silly as it sounds, but there is the gay issue. An old man, in a cave, with a young boy? Okay, Batfans know he's hetrosexual, but how do the suits make sure mama and papa are happy with this? Give Bruce a relationship. Of course, they can't give him a current girlfriend - not in his character, so give him a past relationship. Barbara is an established character, she makes for a good dynamic, the is plausibility in their past, no need for a story round a new character.. so it all works. I'm just glad for whatever reason they did it..

This isn't a rebuttal to Maxie or OM - both, on the whole don't stand too far from myself or each other. This is just an observation.

Before any of you decide against the "eww" of Barbara and Bruce.. remember what it adds to BB. What layers it adds to the show. Maybe then you'll be less inclined to try and discard it for taste or personal reasons and be more interested in submerging yourself in the meaty tragedy it creates.

6amSJJ

:)

[Bic]

So, if I'm reading all this right... Barb and Kara never had a chance. Blast. I thought I had the bathtowel consipiracy all figured out. :(

The funny thing about the whole 'Bruce and Barb' realtionship angle is that whether you are for or against it, it was an interesting concept to use on Batman Beyond.

sorry guys and gals, I tried to write a couple of pages worth, but alas this was all I could come up with... :p

[James]

The funny thing about the whole 'Bruce and Barb' realtionship angle is that whether you are for or against it, it was an interesting concept to use on Batman Beyond.

That's precisely what I was saying last post.. I wish people would stop condensing my several thousand words into two sentences... It's making me feel excessively wafflely... ;)

[Maxie Zeus]

As OM has pointed out, the geography of this debate is pretty complicated, because there are actually two interacting questions that people have to deal with: Was there a relationship between Babs and Bruce? and Would it be a Good Thing if there was a relationship? So you get a fourfold division of attitudes:


1. I think there was a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Good Thing.

2. I think there was a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Bad Thing.

3. I think there was NOT a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Good Thing.

4. I think there was NOT a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Bad Thing.

Actually, even this schematic oversimplifies things, because, as SJJ points out, some people use their attitude toward the relationship to influence their opinion on whether there was a relationship. So each of the above gets a subdivision:


1A. I think there was a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Good Thing.
1B. I think there was a relationship BECAUSE I think such a relationship would be a Good Thing. (I'm just an old softie.)

2A. I think there was a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Bad Thing.
2B. I think there was a relationship BECAUSE I think such a relationship would be a Bad Thing. (I love the tragedy of people screwing up!)

3A. I think there was NOT a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Good Thing.
3B. I think there was NOT a relationship BECAUSE I think such a relationship would be a Good Thing. (I love the tragedy of missed opportunities!)

4A. I think there was NOT a relationship, and I think such a relationship would be a Bad Thing.
4B. I think there was NOT a relationship BECAUSE I think such a relationship would be a Bad Thing. (Babs and Bruce?! Ewwwww!)

All the B positions are bad--you shouldn't let your attitude about what happened affect your judgement of whether the evidence says it happened. So let's just pretend that the B positions don't exist and concentrate on the original fourfold scheme.

I gather that OM belongs in camp (2): She thinks the evidence shows that it did happen, and she thinks that the evidence shows that Babs was too flawed to be "The One" for Bruce.

I gather that SJJ is in camp (1): Like OM, he thinks the evidence shows it did happen, but he thinks that Babs had the right character and history and position to make Bruce happy.

So the debate between those two should be about Babs's character and whether she really was the right one. Whether OM gives aid and comfort to those in the 4B slot (or whether SJJ gives aid and comfort to those in the 1B slot) should be left aside.

And me? Depending on my mood, I can occupy any slot from 1 to 4. That's because I'm undecided on the two basic questions.

Against OM and SJJ both, I sometimes wonder if the evidence for there being a relationship is all that clear. Put it this way: If we got a new DTV in the Timmverse that said clearly and unequivocally that there was no relationship, I don't think we'd have a continuity problem. I would be surprised, but I think there's enough slack in the present evidence to let such a surprise be consistent with what we've seen.

Again, against OM and SJJ, I'm undecided on whether such a relationship would have been a Good Thing. My gut tells me that there isn't anyone out there for Bruce, and that Babs (at least as she developed in TNBA) is too much of a featherweight anyway. But if you look at the total context, there isn't enough evidence to justify painting Babs as blackly as OM seems to have done. Without knowing the details of what happened we can't parcel out blame, and so we can't use that blame to infer further facts about Babs's character.

The questions open up vast and mysterious vistas that are worth exploring. But the vistas are too big to assume that there's only one trail that leads through them.

[wrenchien]

my god.. so many, words. words. words.

what is an 'eschatology' anyway!?!

[Phantasm]

wow...i'm sorry but that's all i can add...i'm speechless...u guys are geniuses! go add something to the animated bat-universe,u got the talent, don't sit around and waste it!

[James]

wow...i'm sorry but that's all i can add...i'm speechless...u guys are geniuses! go add something to the animated bat-universe,u got the talent, don't sit around and waste it!Well if you refer to me as a genius (you may have not have been, and were probably right not to do so if you did.. :)) A lot of my perspective will be written into DKA in the future.. with a few twists naturally... so some of this will have not been wasted! It's good fuel for thought when trying to write a comic based in the missing years of TNBA.. :)

[Phantasm]

oh wait! i forgot that u for one, DO contribute! but yeah i'm refering to everyone who's holding up this rather interesting and intelligent discussion.

[Merlin Missy]

my god.. so many, words. words. words.

what is an 'eschatology' anyway!?!
Dude, that way lies madness. Grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy. This thread? Very entertaining as a spectator sport. :D


Especially in changing the name of the "Girl of the Month" Club to the "Might Have Been" Club. I should've used that name instead.

<snip>

Why I called her a "girl of the month" : because if she tried to reform she'd be lucky to keep it up that long.

*reads long long long explanation*

Aha! It all makes sense now. Thank you. Terminology occasionally makes me jumpy. In this case, "Girl of the Month" (for me) implies the women in the "second-tier" group as you described them, which is to say women he liked being around, perhaps for whom he even held some romantic feelings. However, as with any other woman on Bruce's arm, there was no real expectation on his end of a long-term relationship. I can completely see your reasoning for the "month" aspect of each of the first-tier relationships you described, although I disagree with the exact time periods involved for each --- I think some of them could Play Normal for quite a while before eventually returning to the Main Problem each has. I concur that each one would go back, though. Been there, done that, wrote that fanfic.

*ponders* The second-tier is almost entirely peopled by women Bruce dated (except maybe Diana, and most of their actual flirtation has been when he's wearing the Bruce suit) while the first-tier group consists of women Batman wanted (except Andrea, who was in Bruce's heart before Batman became the dominant personality). *rereads last sentence* *gets some Tylenol*

MM:)
---
"My fandom needs therapy." - Tara O'Shea

[Fone Bone]

I love you Merlin Missy. Just don't take away my Batman Beyond, Zeta Project or ROTJ.:)

[The Old Maid]

Mostly clarifications and a few questions.

First, I can't believe I missed this answer to the "Oracle question." I put up a quiz to touch on the high points and stimulate conversation, and one of the questions was this :

H. When Animated Barbara decided to turn her girlhood crush on Batman into an adult romance, did that turn her into a person who could not have become Oracle in the Timmverse? Did Barb's persistent feelings for Batman kill her chances of ever being a Timmverse Oracle?

To this Maxie Zeus replied :

No, she could have become Oracle. It would have been a simple, though highly unattractive process: She could have moved into the Batcave as Oracle to be around Batman 24/7, acting as though she were necessary as his computer jockey (something she can't pretend to be as his partner on the street) and taking on a self-dramatizing self-denying persona: Look, I've given up all my dreams and ambitions to be the spinster librarian that the man of my dreams needs! Eventually, he's bound to notice me! If not, what a noble and selfless thing I'm doing for him! I'm not saying that that is what Oracle actually is, but that's the kind of Oracle that romance-addled animated Barbara could have become.It's one of those "wait a minute -- this is the REAL Narnia" insights in which you find a piece of a puzzle you didn't know you were assembling. I could definitely see the Batwoman version of Barbara growing up in this fashion. It would in no way negate the ATOC account of a Batgirl suit riddled with bulletholes. (Imagine Barbara getting out of practice, so that the next time she takes to the streets she proves an easy target.) This animated Oracle experiment would certainly be a fascinating test of her resolve -- pitting Barbara's addictions against each other : her thirst for adrenaline (which won't be slaked sitting in front of a computer all day) versus her thirst to be unique in Batman's life. Which addiction to sate? To do something no one else in the DCAU can do -- or to prowl the streets rather than let Batman fall into the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality? It would force her to face her incompatible needs and motives in a way that few other scenarios can.

Having said that, the sight of the unbearably cool Oracle character being portrayed as a needy, lovesick woman with a martyr complex would no doubt enrage me.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Bruce has been a busybody, but he's been more than that. In his dealings with Gordon there has always been an element of "show off": His noiseless, unseen exits; his getting everywhere first; his disconcerting habit of leaving the villains hanging in embarrassing positions that demonstrate his own athletic virtuosity. Jim Gordon shows an almost saintly ability to ignore what looks like sly ribbing. (Most people would react like Bullock.) There are several points here I'd like to address. For one, I would actually settle for Commissioner Barbara reacting like Bullock. Batman and Bullock never hesitated to tell each other exactly what they thought of each other. Batman probably does taunt Bullock a little more than the others. Bullock has always been the first volunteer every time there's a manhunt with the Bat as its target. However for all their mutual tugging-of-capes/trenchcoats, I have never known Bullock to take out his distaste for Batman on any of Batman's sidekicks.

As long as Commissioner Barbara makes empty threats and angry faces, the Batmen aren't going to take her very seriously (even though they should). And of course that just makes her angrier, and worse than ever. On the other hand, if Barbara does arrest someone, she would be facing all those nasty ethical issues/plot twists such as possible jury nullification and/or whether Sam Young would pull a Janet Van Dorn and decline to prosecute. Then there's the question of how Barbara could present her evidence without revealing where she got it ...

When Terry walks into Barbara's field of vision, he never knows what her response will be from one day to the next. If Barbara arrested Terry and/or Wayne, had the Justice League push the house/cave/peninsula into the sea and say it was an earthquake, or gave Batman 24 hours to get out of town, then at least they'd know what they were up against. (Not that I mind Terry's complete freedom of movement ; it's just that he has this freedom because Barbara doesn't follow through.)

Does Commissioner Barbara detest Old Man Wayne enough to sacrifice her own position? Not at present ; it's all posturing. Poking Terry with a stick, as she's been doing, is sort of her way of having cake and eating it too. She loathes Batman as a concept and Batman as a person, but she's unwilling or unready to pick on someone her own size. (Unless Terry really is of her stature, in which case her anger is based on her perception that Wayne outclasses her.) I'm not saying that Barbara is as Machiavellian with Terry as Dudley Soames with Nightwing, or that I would want to see it ... but sometimes I wonder why all parties can't just meet at high noon in a deserted Wild West main street, tumbleweeds rolling by, and settle their difference like "normal" outlaws.

Two, as Maxie pointed out, Batman can upset people without intending it or even realizing it.

From earlier in this thread :

In one sense, the appearance of Curare puts [Old Man Wayne] in a no-win situation if he wants to avoid giving Babs the chance to take offense. If he wants to humiliate Babs, he should act just like he does in ATOC and interferes. If he only wants to do the idealistic Batman-thing, he … acts just like he does in ATOC, and interferes. And elsewhere :

designed the mask to frighten the guilty (you know, criminals being a superstitious, cowardly lot), and it would hit him as a tragic irony and flaw in his conception to find it frightening the innocent.

--from THE ANIMATED BATMAN'S review of [b]Batman Beyond's "Unmasked" (http://anbat.toonzone.net/bb/ind/unmasked.html)So also with Batman's other interactions with the good guys. Batman has no powers. He has honed his body and his mind into weapons. He uses psychology and image as weapons. These techniques save some wear-and-tear on his body by persuading criminals to flee or surrender quickly. But as with any weapon, yes, sometimes Batman's abilities hurt people Batman never intended to hurt.

For example, even James Gordon has his limits. I remember that when Gordon cussed out Bats real good in LOTDK #125 a lot of readers didn't like it. Some felt it was out of character. Others argued that it would have been acceptable except that Batman had also suffered ; therefore Gordon was too harsh on him. Basically, Gordon angrily tells Batman that a real friend would tell him his plans instead of walking out on him in the middle of a sentence. Batman wilts. Clearly he is unaware that his stealth tactics annoy people other than the ones Batman intended to annoy (like Bullock). Batman eventually mumbles that he just doesn't like goodbyes ; they're so final. After that he lets Gordon watch him leave. So the assertion that Batman intends to enrage the good guys is unfair because it's almost always a matter of perspective.

Finally Maxie, I think, may have gone into the discussion with the idea that I was promoting the "Babs is the Bad Guy" scenario, which I was not. I was just doing some compare-and-contrast with it. I pointed out that the Batman's behavior becomes condescending or threatening to the good guys when the characters CHOOSE for it to be. Therefore if one did believe in the "Babs is the Bad Guy" scenario, Batman's behavior would become bad because it is being filtered through Barbara's perceptions. Also, her perceptions had changed : all those "sneaky theatrics" that she dislikes so much as a commissioner, when she still liked Bruce/Batman she thought they were cute/cool. So Barbara's change of perspective would carry so much weight that even if Wayne did act from pure and honorable motives she would never believe him.


The illusion that [Commissioner Barbara] is the major agent depends upon a non sequitur: because she's the one doing the 'splainin', she's the one with some 'splainin' to do. I disagree. That doesn't sound anything like what I thought I was saying. I believe Barbara does all the talking because she thinks it is the best way to get what she wants. (She wants Terry to quit being Batman.) Old Man Wayne chooses deafening silence because it is the best way to get what HE wants. (He wants Terry to continue.) Barbara hopes to convince Terry that the Bat-life will destroy his happiness ; she hopes to puncture Terry's trust and ideals. Old Man Wayne knows that Terry has never been happy, and that the kid has no ideals or trust to be destroyed. Terry is reinventing his life, and for him to heed Barbara's advice is (to his mind) to go back to a life he already hates. Old Man Wayne keeps his mouth shut because he understands the boy ; Barbara talks because she mistakenly thinks he's just like her. She knows his record -- Terry's been in jail -- but she doesn't know the person at all.

Back to the Bruce/Barbara affair. A brief refresher course from page one :

left, and [Bruce/Batman] let her leave. This was the theory of [b]Mutual Consent. Each chose to get into this mess ; each chose how to end this mess. One went, one stayed. Each were equally jerks in their own way.

Mutual Consent lines up perfectly with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "ATOC." She gets to spin it a little bit, as if she "won" by leaving. (Technically he "won" by staying. Nobody calls him a fixer-upper, nosirree!)

I didn't like Mutual Consent -- still don't, since I didn't want them to be involved. But at least they made this mistake together.

Mystery of the Batwoman changed everything.

Mystery of the Batwoman removed the element of mutual consent.

In response I wrote two interpretations in my MotB review. (They're on page 9 (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=92230&page=9) if anyone's interested.) I titled the two interpretations Baked Alaska and Upside-down cake to keep them straight. (The review was based on a food motif.)

The Baked Alaska interpretation argued that this film showed Barbara actually had an unrequited crush on Batman. Thus her speech in "ATOC" was simply recounted to the best of her ability to remember the situation. No doubt her embarassment helped a little in the editing process.

Meanwhile, the Upside-down cake interpretation argued that MotB verified a real relationship between the characters -- but did so by introducing a severe imbalance of power. Basically one would have to be a predator and one would have to be prey, to explain what we see on the screen.

As it turned out, these interpretations, while still valid, proved overly simplistic. They neglected the element of timing, which is a big issue for some fans. So let's introduce some Big New Words from eschatological circles.

Preterist. This is just a fancy word for "all the big prophecies happened already, except for the Very Last Day which will be without warning."

If you're a "Bat preterist," you believe that Whatever Happened between Bruce and Barbara has already happened and we are witnessing the "death throes" of that relationship. Example :
Looks like Bruce is trying to distance himself from Barbara after they ... you know ...Therefore there's nothing new to anticipate in this storyline until the last day of Batgirl's career, which will hit her like a board. (The "ATOC" reference to a Batgirl suit riddled with bullet holes comes to mind.) There will be tribulations still, such as Return of the Joker, but they aren't "romance-based" tribulations.

Bat Preterism has a number of problems. One : it doesn't quite line up with the commish's speech that she walked out on Batman. She did leave, but only after he dumped her first. That's not what she told people.

Two : it makes Bruce/Batman look like he preyed on a woman who has trusted him since childhood, then flushed her.

Three : Alfred and Tim seem to be okay with that.

Four : the only way to revisit the actual relationship would be to film a prequel to MotB. Since MotB is itself a prequel to ROTJ the writers would get complaints about going in the wrong direction. Alternately, they could try to fit it into Barbara's dialogue on Batgirl's Very Last Day Ever, but that could prove clunky.

Let's try another interpretation.

Futurist. This means "all the big stuff has yet to arrive." Futurists ride an emotional rollercoaster (sort of like market timers or extreme fanboys) because everything they see on the six o'clock news is a "sign" supporting their position. Then, just when their blood pressure subsides it's time for tomorrow's six o'clock news.

A "Bat futurist" believes that Whatever Happened between Bruce and Barbara has yet to happen. Example :


I like the nod to the future where we witness the budding relationship between Bruce and Barbara.Therefore we are witnessing the "birth pangs" of the relationship. That's an appropriate metaphor because things will get a lot more painful before the "oh, baby."

What are the Bat futurist's problems? One is Bruce's reluctance to get involved -- and the fact that he is getting everyone's unwavering support for his attempts to avoid her. (Even the Gotham TV reporters get in a dig at her expense by asking if she's old enough to do this.)

Two : if Barbara is the aggressor then she could easily drift into becoming the predator. If she had to drag him into the relationship and then (by her own admission in "ATOC") she dumped him, then she used him. That would make her look out of control.

Three : Given Bruce's obvious reluctance it's hard to figure out how they will get involved. In Catgirl's words, did Bruce suddenly "get the big light bulb" one day? Did he say, "Wow! You're gorgeous, intelligent, you know my name, and you're willing. Why didn't I see it before?" Or did Barbara wear him down? If she did, are we okay with that? Would we be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?

Do we see the problem? If the old assumptions of a Mutual Consent relationship soiled both characters and disturbed the fanboys :eek: --

then the possibility that one character exploited the other character is worse! :eek: :eek:

That's why my first reaction to the Batwoman film was amillennial. This is just a big word meaning that "timing is less important than what you do with the time given you. Sure, there's an end someday, but what are you going to do now?" The Baked Alaska review is amillennial. That is, character trumps timing. It also allows for parallel storylines (because The Millennium is now, in heaven, whereas troubles continue on earth). Barbara has had feelings and dreams for Batman in the past ; she's having them in the present ; she may have them well into the future. But is it her nature (or her fate) to actually act upon those feelings and dreams? Is it Bruce's nature (or fate) to respond? Would his response be positive, negative, sheltering, abusive -- or absent? What if his answer would be the same yesterday, today and always?

You see, the writers opened the door for the characters to back out of the situation without losing (too much) face, if they wish. Does Bruce find Barbara physically attractive? I'm sure he's noticed. (He's a loner, not dead.) Nevertheless he may never act on those feelings, what with the incest taboo being pretty strong even nowadays. And for Bruce, a man haunted by his family, the lure of physical/romantic fun may not be enough to compensate for the loss of filial relationships. Meanwhile, if Barbara had unrequited feelings for him, his refusal wouldn't change the fact that they're real to her. A Baked Alaska scenario would give her the freedom to feel what she feels, believe what she believes, and impose her own spin on her side of the story without actually making it wrong.

What do you think?Well, the forums told us what they think. The majority of voters seem to be amillennialists (i.e. "nothing happened"), with futurists ("Barbara will catch up to him in the future") in second place. The remainder (a fairly distant third, at that)seems to be evenly split between preterists ("he got what he wanted, and she stays on for a few years because she can't believe it's over") and a few die-hard mutual consenters.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

[OM's strategy] is flawed in two respects.

First, it is unnecessarily prosecutorial, because although it starts by looking at the evidence of the characters' actions, it quickly can (and here does) turn into a search for the guilty party. And once you adopt the perspective of the prosecutor looking for a wrongdoer, it is all too easy to interpret the actions and statements of the prime suspect in the worst possible light.I mentioned back on page one that the Preterist and Futurist positions introduce an imbalance of power into the Bruce/Barbara scenario -- and that this can lead to abuse, which in turn creates a victim, which in turn leads the audience to search for the guilty party.

Based on what we HAVE seen in the characters' pasts and their futures, I got to talking with some of the Futurists on the board about how the situation might develop, and why I don't think the Futurist position is a good way to go. That is very different from actually endorsing the position. The Futurists have been contributing more to the thread than most of the other groups, so that's what we ended up talking about.


Second, it ignores the other characters and the way they might have contributed to the debacle, or the way their presence might color or explain Barbara's actions ; the way they might lead us to reappraise her reasons for acting as she did ; or even might cause us to radically rethink the evidence that otherwise would support OM's elegant reading of the situation.I don't think I've ignored the other characters, though I would agree with Maxie that I haven't spent as much time on Old Man Wayne as on everyone else. I do find Wayne more inscrutable. Simultaneously I think it's both unproven and unprovable that Wayne is trying to be a bigger jerk than usual. How he looks through the eyes of others will depend partly upon the lens they use to filter their own perceptions. Wayne is also more dependent on Terry than he was on any other partner, which means that Terry's scenes are in a sense also Bruce Wayne's scenes. In that sense I think I've been fairly thorough.

Again, I've (we) spent more time on the "Barbara will hook up with Bruce in the future" scenario because those are the fans doing most of the contributing.


What if this relationship with Barbara occurred during a time of overwhelming psychological stress and trauma for Bruce? I suppose we could call this a Conditional or Modified Futurist view. Whether assorted posters propose it was the loss of Alfred, or of James Gordon, or of the Robins ("empty nest" someone called it), it's definitely a theory that would not have occurred to me. (To clarify, are all y'all saying "Funerals make Batman a weeping romantic" or "Funerals make Batman hot" or something else?) Now, having mulled on it I still have to ask, why? Catwoman's door is always open to Bruce/Batman, and furthermore if he should fall with her it wouldn't alienate him from his family as a tryst with Barbara would have done. I'm guessing the answers will range from, "Batman liked Babs better, nyah nyah" to "She was the only one home." I'm just saying that's not my question. Usually Batman's response to trauma is to curl up into himself, not to reach out. If an affair is out of character, does that mean he was losing his mind, or what? If anything, the dorm room scene in MotB only confirmed that it would be out of character -- when Bruce was in his right mind he wanted nothing to do with her offer.

Then Maxie contributed a Preterist scenario. (i.e. "Bruce preyed on Barbara, then flushed her"). And so forcefully stated too! ;) It's a solid presentation ... my only quibble with it is that I think MZ only posted it because he erroneously believed I was promoting the Futurist view. Again, I was exploring the reasons I am not a Futurist.

It's true that I've kept the focus on Barbara, but I did so because focus tends to shift away from Barbara too easily. It's the story of her life. I haven't set out to dismiss or downplay Bruce's involvement. Rather, I was hoping to explore what it would do to Barbara's character for her to grow up into Barbara-the-victim versus Barbara-the-predator. Maxie kinda beat me to the punch by developing Barbara-the-victim, but I don't mind. By definition, when the writers removed the element of Mutual Consent this was one of the possible outcomes. Anyway, I can see the merits of various interpretations and still not like them.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

If you look at the total context, there isn't enough evidence to justify painting Babs as blackly as OM seems to have done. Again, I simply noted that ugly things could (and probably would) flow from an unbalanced relationship. This is why I'm glad I'm not a Futurist. More to the point, it may be a matter of perspective. What is worse : a scenario with Barbara-predatory--and-out-of-control, or one with Barbara-as-victim? I don't like either one.

Now if you really want a bleak, black scenario, I can only stammer at this one and call it "Preterism on Steroids" :


Saying that Babs should have known better is a bit like saying Harley should have known better.Now THIS was what had me pacing the floor all weekend! I have heard some surprisingly thoughtful and sensible discussions in which people compare Batman to the Joker. But the suggestion that Barbara might have a touch of Harley Quinn in her is one I haven't heard. Hmm ... Harley belongs in a battered women's shelter (because, well, we know why) ; a mental hospital (again, we know why) ; and a jail (because she's a criminal and incredibly dangerous). I suppose one could make a circumstantial argument for Babs and Harl, but that doesn't mean they have a lot in common, does it?

-- Both women rearrange their lives around a freak.

-- Both women do so with mixed motives. They want to "rescue" the man. They want glory for rescuing the man, a chance to point at him proudly and say, "Look what I did!" (Harley intended to write a tell-all book ; Barbara wants the notoriety of catching Batman when all others failed.) Yet both women had a idealistic desire to help people that expressed itself in a grotesque, distorted way. (Harley really did want to become a doctor ; Barbara really did want to fight crime.)

-- Maxie kindly points out Harley's mixed motives in his jaunty essay Black Widows and Widowers (http://anbat.toonzone.net/essays/blackws.html).
Her pursuit of the Joker reminds me of C.S. Lewis' quip about women who "live for others" : "You can always spot the others by their hunted expression." I think the Joker looks hunted .... [she] comes running back every time, trailing glories of forgiveness and ardor. Now there is a prospect to make a clown cry. This writer (humbly and nervously) points out the hunted expression on Bruce/Batman's face as Barbara flirts with him on the telephone.

-- Both assume that if they care about the man, then they know him.

-- Both have an about-face moment that makes you stand up and say, "Where did THAT come from?!?" (In "Harley's Holiday" Harley calls Bats "a nice guy" then kisses him and asks him to call her sometime ; in "Old Wounds" Barbara believes Dick and believes in Dick, is strongly in Dick's corner -- then learns Dick is angry at "her" Batman, so suddenly Dick's an idiot and not worth listening to.)

-- Nevertheless both Babs and Harl are utterly devoted to their man, even when he hurts a child (Joker tortures Tim : Bruce throws him out of the house even though Barbara said Tim kept calling him asking to come back). The woman's rationale? She will "make it right" by befriending the kid after the fact, instead of maybe speaking up for him BEFORE it happened.

-- The man has to be violently removed from her life to bring her to her senses.

So yes, it's easy to cobble together an argument based on circumstantial evidence. One could probably make a circumstantial argument that Babs has a lot in common with Mrs. Santa Claus. But that doesn't mean that our Barbara -- even Preterist Barbara -- has anything in common with Harley for real, right? Um, right?

Let the record show : this is someone else's hot potato, NOT mine ... I'm going to place it gently on the table and slowly back away ... Let others of more adventurous palates chew on this one.

*****

Let's recap what we've done so far.

On page one I tried to evaluate Barbara Gordon's character. She has a taste for Batman, a taste for adrenaline, and a need to rearrange her life around a virtual stranger to obtain these things. As a result she gets into a "Mutual Consent" relationship. I described a plausible way to develop such a relationship and what it would do to the characters. (I concluded that if they were going to ruin their lives, they would do a thorough job. They've never done shoddy work in any other area of their lives ; why start now?)

Then I mentioned the changes MotB brought to the Bruce/Barbara situation. I noted that the dorm room scene nearly eliminated Mutual Consent as a plausible scenario.

In place of Mutual Consent, MotB offered us three plausible scenarios : Preterist, Futurist, and Amillennial. So I described the most plausible of the three, the Amillennial scenario -- "nothing happened ; the characters live in different worlds ; the possibility that Bruce might never reciprocate Barbara's feelings doesn't change the fact that they're real to her."

In the thread's feedback many futurists gave their feedback, so I discussed with them the Futurist position. "Barbara pursued Bruce. The toy wasn't as much fun in hand as it looked on the shelf ; familiary breeds contempt. (How many times have I heard, "I thought because he was the strong silent type that still waters run deep. Then I got to know him and realized that the reason he doesn't talk is that he has nothing to say.") Barbara leaves when it's no fun anymore. As the more sociable of the two she rebuilds her life more quickly. Meanwhile, Bruce/Batman is shattered. When he lost his first family it took him 20 years to rebuild one with the Robins and the Gordons ; but when he lost that one, in part because of Barbara, it took him 40 years to rebuild his family. In the Klingon sense of the word, he waits. (He waits for his death.) Terry gives him a new life. But Barbara becomes enraged/disgusted, and too bad for the pawns (Terry and Sam) in the middle. Barbara thinks the old man needs to be put in his place, and if Terry won't get out of the way, he's a loser too and deserves whatever he gets."

Certainly a possible interpretation, but not one I'd want to see.

Maxie Zeus wrote the ultimate Preterist position -- "Bruce preyed on Barbara ; she only stayed because she couldn't believe he would do this. She is alienated from the same people as he, but since she's not cold like him it hurts her worse. She burns with rage and misery. She rearranged her life to spend time with him, which means she has wasted her life. When Old Man Wayne returns as Terry's mentor she feels threatened/shamed, and too bad for the pawns (Terry and Sam) in the middle. She needs to get rid of Batman to regain her sense of control over her life, and if Terry won't get out of her way, he's a monster too and deserves whatever he gets. "

Another possible interpretation, again, not one I'd want to see.

Inevitably the Preterist and Futurist positions introduce an imbalance of power into the Bruce/Barbara scenario -- and that when we combine this unchecked power with the characters' pre-existing traits, this can lead to abuse, which in turn creates a victim, which in turn leads the audience to search for the guilty party.

The dorm room scene in Mystery of the Batwoman has made any future attempts to write a Mutual Consent relationship much more difficult. (Note that I don't say "impossible.") Now that Bruce's posse has been alerted in advance of the problem, they are in a much better position to sabotage it than they were in the old Mutual Consent situation (where a relationship would probably have been presented as an accomplished fact). Barbara does not know that the wagons are circling against her, so that's not a deterrent. Her problem will be that she will now be haunted by doubt : "He had to change his mind to be with me. What is there to stop him from changing his mind back again?" So it would take some serious tap-dancing to undo the MotB dorm scene damage.

That leaves the amillennial position ("nothing happened"). Of all possible developments -- save only the writers specifically stating that Nothing Happened -- this was the happiest of news to me. I think the "parallel worlds" option offers the most opportunity for growth in both characters. They live on parallel planes of reality, seeing the same events through different eyes. It also undoes some of the damage of Mutual Consent by softening the hearts of the "Ewww!" faction. Maybe some of them will go back and give Batman Beyond a chance.

Finally, the amillennial approach appealed to my sense of justice. In Mutual Consent and Amillennialism there are no predators. Additionally, in the "nothing happened" scenario there is no guilty party. No searches for the guilty party. No need for the characters to change who they are. No right for each character to elevate his or her feelings over the other's feelings. And in both scenarios, Commissioner Barbara's problems with Terry grow organically from her encounters with Terry. True, she initially disliked him because of Old Man Wayne, but as the latter quietly avoids her, Barbara comes to see Terry as a separate hero/menace operating from his own convictions/lunacy.

The new evidence in MotB allowed me to switch camps from Mutual Consent (which I never liked, but at least it was fair) to Amillennial (which I like and is also fair.) So I'm a Very Happy Camper.

*****

Toward the larger question -- was the animated Barbara well-utilized and well-realized -- I'm of two minds on the subject. I consider her earlier appearances to be her best ones. In her middle years she was too generic and in her latter years she was colorful but too erratic. Again, I could have lived with her inconsistencies if the characters who had to cope with those inconsistencies called her on it.

The animated Barbara seems to me to be a weak person who lived vicariously through others. She witnessed the suffering of others, but didn't always act to alleviate it when she had a chance. She behaved as if she were unused to taking responsibility for her actions and often uncomprehending as to why she should do so. And her love life -- somehow shallow yet stormy at the same time -- suggested that she lacks the discernment to tell the difference between a good relationship and a bad one. This quality even carries over into her relationship with Sam Young : her self-image really is of higher priority to her than his safety. It introduces a destabilizing element into their marriage ... I like Sam ... I hope he never knows how she feels.

On the other hand, Barbara began her life on a pedestal because her father put her there. As she was in Dick Grayson's life, the civilian Barbara was the one thing in James Gordon's life that remained untouched by crime. Her presence gave Jim a chance to express the gentleness this man hides behind his steely resolve. His presence gave her the chance to develop those qualities. I still think their relationship was the most real one in Barbara's life, if a little overindulgent on both sides.

Ultimately Barbara strikes me as a reactive force, a bystander in her own life. I won't ask why the animated Barbara didn't become Oracle. I would only ask why she didn't become herself.

[Bic]

Ya know, you guys are making me feel ashamed that I didn't go to college. :p



Ultimately Barbara strikes me as a reactive force, a bystander in her own life. I won't ask why the animated Barbara didn't become Oracle. I would only ask why she didn't become herself.
This is true, and yet at the same time, she also fufilled other roles in the animated series. She became the 'motivation' Batman needed to get the job done because she got hurt in the 'line of duty' (btw is it just me, or did was she the cast member who got injured the most in TNBA?) and the 'loyal soldier/student role' (most noticble in BB:RotJ where she mimics Batman's movements and takes silent orders via hand signals) unlike Nightwing and Robin who were just a partner, she was the soldier.

But it's sad, I really wished the Barbara and Kara realtionship angle would've worked, then so many people wouldn't have been "ewww, Babs and Bruce. *ick*" :D

[Maxie Zeus]

Okay, I understand OM's geography better now. I didn't realize it, but I had misunderstood one of her key terms.

When she introduced the "amillenialist" position, I concentrated on the idea that what mattered was what it meant to the characters. That is, I took it to be a more or less agnostic position: It's less important to figure out what exactly happened and when it happened; it's more important to understand what could have brought the characters to the brink of this crisis and what it did to them afterward.

That's why I've been so puzzled by OM's concentration on Barbara and by the seemingly "prosecutorial" tone. If we're going to look at the past and at the future; if we're to look inside the characters and figure out what they meant or understood by their actions; above all, if we're guess at who these characters are and who they became in BB without stipulating a theory of what happened and when: then we have to concentrate on all the characters and we have to go in without preconceptions about the missing pieces.

Well, OM's most recent post makes clear that I misunderstood the term "amillennial." Now that I've found that particular dime, I can drop it and get a clue. :D

If "amillennial" actually means


"nothing happened"

then I am not sure I am an amillennialist. What I am depends on how much you press me.

I would say that I am an agnostic as described above: I see that BTAS and BB and MotBW gave us a few fragmentary clues and lots of implication, but also left out lots of key details. There are only a few dots, and depending on how you connect them you can get lots of different pictures. So I've been spending my time in this thread sketching lots of possibilities. I've never endorsed any of them; I've only tried to argue that there are a lot of possibilities out there, and that all of them are (to one extent or another) compatible with the available evidence.

So I've spun amillennial theories, preterist theories, and futurist theories; and I've tried bringing other characters into the picture, and have alternately painted them as saints, ogres, or something in between, all just to show how much slack there is. Certainly, I've nothing against SJJ's reading or against OM's readings: I think they're interesting and they're plausible. And I think that by picking them up and examining them (even if I don't ever actually buy and pocket any of them) I've learned a lot more about the characters. That's the wonderful thing about the Timmverse characters: there are potentially endless things to discover about them.

Now, if you put my fingers in a vise and turned it real hard while asking what I believe, I suppose I would come down as a Futurist. For the reasons SJJ has given, I think that Babs and Bruce were an item for awhile. And, after assenting to that, I would go on to infer that it happened sometime between MotBw and BB. Babs's attitude in MotBw just doesn't seem like the attitude of someone who thinks she's bagged her man, but as the attitude of someone who is beginning to think that she's got a man on her hands who might be bagged.

Then, answering OM's questions to the Futurists, I would say:

5. If it's real, what do you think of Alfred and Tim's behavior?[b]
Basically, same as I said before:

Tim's a kid and he's acting "cute" by his lights. The proper response to his "Don't drag me into this" would have been a snarled "Then shut up and stay out of it. No one asked to hear from you."

Alfred: The only one with any presence of mind. He knows what Babs is up to and doesn't think it's a good idea; he knows that Bruce is botching it, but he knows that the present (in the car, with him as chauffeur) is not the time to say anything. But he can't keep quiet (since silence might imply approval of what has just happened). So he offers an ambiguous comment: It sounds like he's praising Bruce's handling of Babs' call, but is he? Bruce's response is so obviously clumsy that Alfred's comment could just as easily be taken as sarcasm. I think that was exactly the effect Alfred was aiming at: complete, studied ambiguity.

In other words, they know what is in the air, and they are reacting to it: Tim is being thoughtless, and Alfred is being diplomatic.

[b]6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?
Here is where my hardcore agnosticism reasserts itself. I simply don't know how they got from point A to point G, whether it was a straight run through B-C-D-E-F, or if they skipped a few letters, or hopped about the alphabet, or even made an unexpected detour when Cookie Monster popped up in the mix. (That's a Sesame Street reference, you guys; pot roast and cola for anyone who recognizes it. (And an extra serving of pot roast and cola to anyone who recognizes "pot roast and cola.")) I have a hard time imagining either of the proffered alternatives, which is one reason I brought up the "feral moods" and "Alfred's death" scenarios. I suspect there is an extraordinary story surrounding the circumstances, because it seems like only extraordinary circumstances could bring it about. And we don't have any clues about what those circumstances might be.

7. Would you be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?
What is this, Adam's Rib all of a sudden? :p (Although, now that I think about it, if I were casting a feature film version of the DCAU forums, I could hardly do better than to put Kate Hepburn in the OM role. :D) Would "wearing down" be bad? Maybe; maybe not; it depends on how it is done.

But if you give the vise another twist, I'll admit that I have a hard time seeing how the Futurist position could play out in any way that does credit to Babs. OM paints the most obvious scenario--though the fact that it is obvious is no strike against it. On the contrary, it has an Occamite simplicity to it.

But, though I have protested the way Babs is made to bear so much of the blame, I am actually pretty phlegmatic about it. Part of it, I'll shamefacedly admit, is that I'm not all that invested in the Batgirl character, so I'm not todos doloroso (if that's the right translation of "all weepy") to see her knocked heels-behind-ears into the gutter by the skank truck. Then, too, I like to think of the Batman characters as being struck through with flaws, and this flaw in the animated Babs is not the typical superhero weakness. It helps "keep it real."

Where I think I do disagree with OM is in her final conclusion:


Ultimately Barbara strikes me as a reactive force, a bystander in her own life. I won't ask why the animated Barbara didn't become Oracle. I would only ask why she didn't become herself.

The character is a very reactive one. But there is one place where she isn't obviously reactive, and that's in her choice to join the police force. Of course, it's not obviously reactive because we don't actually see it or get any idea about what caused it. But it seems like a definitive act for her (the "endorsement of the badge over the cape," as I put it once), and it is possibly the definitive act, given that she seems almost to have drifted into the Batgirl role. Put it this way: If you told the Batman story from Babs's point of view, in many respects it would look like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: except for that moment. And that would be an interesting story to get, even if it shed no more light on her bedroom rendezvous with the Bat.

My own set of quibbles and clarifications, though they may seem pointless now:


There are several points here I'd like to address. For one, I would actually settle for Commissioner Barbara reacting like Bullock. Batman and Bullock never hesitated to tell each other exactly what they thought of each other. ...

As long as Commissioner Barbara makes empty threats and angry faces, the Batmen aren't going to take her very seriously (even though they should). And of course that just makes her angrier, and worse than ever. On the other hand, if Barbara does arrest someone, she would be facing all those nasty ethical issues/plot twists such as possible jury nullification and/or whether Sam Young would pull a Janet Van Dorn and decline to prosecute. Then there's the question of how Barbara could present her evidence without revealing where she got it ...

I suppose I have more sympathy for Commissioner Barbara because she really is in an impossible position. She resents Batman for (probably) lots of reasons. But she can't act on those issues like Bullock did because of her past. She is furious but impotent, and that impotence makes her even more furious. Eventually, she just seems to settle for a slit-eyed obduracy because it's the only way she can save face. If you like Babs (or want to like her) and you understand and sympathize with this attitude, it can leave you writhing the same agony as the character feels. But hey, that's drama for you.


I suppose we could call this a Conditional or Modified Futurist view. Whether assorted posters propose it was the loss of Alfred, or of James Gordon, or of the Robins ("empty nest" someone called it), it's definitely a theory that would not have occurred to me. (To clarify, are all y'all saying "Funerals make Batman a weeping romantic" or "Funerals make Batman hot" or something else?) Now, having mulled on it I still have to ask, why? Catwoman's door is always open to Bruce/Batman, and furthermore if he should fall with her it wouldn't alienate him from his family as a tryst with Barbara would have done. I'm guessing the answers will range from, "Batman liked Babs better, nyah nyah" to "She was the only one home." I'm just saying that's not my question. Usually Batman's response to trauma is to curl up into himself, not to reach out. If an affair is out of character, does that mean he was losing his mind, or what? If anything, the dorm room scene in MotB only confirmed that it would be out of character -- when Bruce was in his right mind he wanted nothing to do with her offer.

Short answer: It depends on what happened before the funeral and where Bruce and Babs were. It would take work, but there are ways to make it plausible. And the Babs-Bruce collision in such a scenario need not involve s-x. It might only involve them both thinking that Bruce is about to give up the street and that Babs is going to be the one to lead him back into normal life. (What happens after that, they may both think, is best left to the future.)


Then Maxie contributed a Preterist scenario. (i.e. "Bruce preyed on Barbara, then flushed her"). And so forcefully stated too! ;) It's a solid presentation ... my only quibble with it is that I think MZ only posted it because he erroneously believed I was promoting the Futurist view. Again, I was exploring the reasons I am not a Futurist.

Actually, the Bruce-as-predator scenario could also be a Futurist position. Who know when and how the mood might strike ...


Now THIS was what had me pacing the floor all weekend! I have heard some surprisingly thoughtful and sensible discussions in which people compare Batman to the Joker. But the suggestion that Barbara might have a touch of Harley Quinn in her is one I haven't heard. Hmm ... Harley belongs in a battered women's shelter (because, well, we know why) ; a mental hospital (again, we know why) ; and a jail (because she's a criminal and incredibly dangerous). I suppose one could make a circumstantial argument for Babs and Harl, but that doesn't mean they have a lot in common, does it?

Actually, that wasn't what I intended to offer at all. It was only an argumentative point against the claim that Babs "should have known" that Batman wasn't a great catch. Let us grant that. It doesn't absolve Batman of responsibility.

Actually, the "she should have known better" claim is what makes her look like Harley. Harley should know better because the Joker is a creature of highly diminished moral standing. By bringing Bruce back into the equation and emphasizing the role he would have to play in any encounter with Babs, I think I'm actually drawing a stronger contrast between Babs and Harley.

So--


Let the record show : this is someone else's hot potato, NOT mine ...

No, I think this is your hot potato, and you can drop it only by shifting some of the responsibility back onto Bruce. ;)

[William C. Maune]

Is this thread going to be preserved somewhere? If not, it really should be. I've been following the thread for awhile and I must say this is one of the best discussions I've read. (I really wish I would have taken more of dem writin classes in college). While I know it will still be available on the back pages of this forum, I think it would be great if it was at least linked to on a website or something.

[RAINMAN]

Ya know, you guys are making me feel ashamed that I didn't go to college. :p

This is true, and yet at the same time, she also fufilled other roles in the animated series. She became the 'motivation' Batman needed to get the job done because she got hurt in the 'line of duty' (btw is it just me, or did was she the cast member who got injured the most in TNBA?) and the 'loyal soldier/student role' (most noticble in BB:RotJ where she mimics Batman's movements and takes silent orders via hand signals) unlike Nightwing and Robin who were just a partner, she was the soldier.
:D

So your saying she was better then N&R cause she was a mindless soldier who took order whitout question insted of standing up to bats like N&R did? I show hate to see how she would have handel things in never fear?:eek: Or when bats was scarying that socalty guards family in his persuite for the joker in old wonds.

[Fone Bone]

Here is where my hardcore agnosticism reasserts itself. I simply don't know how they got from point A to point G, whether it was a straight run through B-C-D-E-F, or if they skipped a few letters, or hopped about the alphabet, or even made an unexpected detour when Cookie Monster popped up in the mix. (That's a Sesame Street reference, you guys; pot roast and cola for anyone who recognizes it. (And an extra serving of pot roast and cola to anyone who recognizes "pot roast and cola."))


;)
Kermit and a little girl are singing the alphabet song. Every few letters the little girl interupts with "Cookie Monster" and his picture shows where the letter should be. Kermit goes off in frustration when the little girl says "I love you". He comes back and says "I love you too." Best. Unsripted. Television. Scene. EVER! If someone ever told me that that was scripted my world would crumble.

Don't know about pot roast and cola, but on Sesame Street I'M the authority. The only thing in this thread I have ANY knowledge of.:p

You guys ARE genuises.:)

[Maxie Zeus]

Kermit and a little girl are singing the alphabet song. Every few letters the little girl interupts with "Cookie Monster" and his picture shows where the letter should be. Kermit goes off in frustration when the little girl says "I love you". He comes back and says "I love you too." Best. Unsripted. Television. Scene. EVER! If someone ever told me that that was scripted my world would crumble.

Pot roast and cola for Fone Bone! And yeah, it's brilliant!

In fact, you remembered it better than I did. I was thinking that it was John-John who Kermit was doing the skit with, but I think you're right that it was a little blonde girl.

Okay, as long as we're OT, this has been bugging me for years, and you sound like the guy to put my mind at ease: What was the name of the songwriter who was forever slamming his forehead into the piano and screaming "Oh, I'll never get it right! Never!!"

[Fone Bone]

Pot roast and cola for Fone Bone! And yeah, it's brilliant!

In fact, you remembered it better than I did. I was thinking that it was John-John who Kermit was doing the skit with, but I think you're right that it was a little blonde girl.

Okay, as long as we're OT, this has been bugging me for years, and you sound like the guy to put my mind at ease: What was the name of the songwriter who was forever slamming his forehead into the piano and screaming "Oh, I'll never get it right! Never!!"I forgot too so I did a search. I think we're thinking of Don Music voiced by Richard Hunt. Does that sound right? He could never get the words to rhyme.

Edit: Fun Fact: The segment with the little girl was shown on Farscape when the Moya crew returned to Earth. While the aliens were learning English Aeryn was confusing Cookie Monster for a letter! It was SO cute!

And D'Argo's only English words were "Hello. Goodbye. Bite me." Which he used on a cop!

Edit 2: I found out Don was removed from the show because parents complained that their kids were mimicing his self-injurious behavior by banging their heads against things. So I guess we won't be seeing a self-injurious Muppet prone to cutting and burning himself with cigarettes anytime soon.

Although Gonzo became pretty masochistic on Muppets Tonight.

[The Old Maid]

A rare Saturday appearance because the lab has free air conditioning.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

What is this, Adam's Rib all of a sudden? :p (Although, now that I think about it, if I were casting a feature film version of the DCAU forums, I could hardly do better than to put Kate Hepburn in the OM role. :D) It's a disgrace for a grown human on planet earth to admit it, but I have never seen Hepburn's work. So I have no frame for that picture. :)

The reference came up in a question about the imbalance of power between the characters and the potential for browbeating. To my mind certain qualities are simply human : gentleness, strength, curiosity, folly, crassness, respect, neediness, compassion, self-absorption, and jerk -- some things know no gender. What concerns me is whether there are different consequences. I've been asking whether Bruce would be pounded to a pulp for indulging in behavior for which Barbara would be exonorated. I think the answer is Yes. That's one of the puzzles I've been trying to address, and to solve if possible.

Before Batwoman came along, it was assumed that any relationship between Bruce and Barbara would be one of Mutual Consent. I mentioned that Batwoman has made this scenario very unlikely. I can see why people prefer it : the possibility that Barbara mirrors Batman's light rather than his dark, for example. However I think I've demonstrated that this light only shines in both characters as long as they never come together. If they become a couple, Barbara's innocence, her light, is snuffed by the grime and dirt of Batman's world. Batman's light is extinguished because he becomes isolated from the family that helped him hold on to his sanity. If Jim Gordon, Alfred and the Robins stop speaking to him, what becomes of him?

As ugly as this scenario was to me, at least it was logical, and as "just" and "fair" as family feuds get. The extended family stopped speaking to both of them. And yes, they both should have known better. Both had to rebuild their lives as best they could. When Terry comes along he becomes the tie-breaker for a family feud that dates back more than 15 years before he was born. Whoever wins Terry's heart "wins." Pathetic, isn't it?

Going back to gender roles and consequences for a moment, let's revive Warm Hearts, Cold Cash by Marcia Millman.


A lot of what we define as "masculine" or "feminine" is actually behavior that more precisely stems from being financially dominant or dependent. Because women usually earn less than men, it's easy to mistake the infantilizing effects of dependency for something deeper in the feminine psyche. For a mercy, Barbara has never expressed an interest in Bruce Wayne's money. Her only interest is in his other "family business," the Bat-business. In her near-stalker relentlessness she is a lot more gender-free than the earlier Bat-females pursuing their hopeless crushes. But let Barbara get hurt and she's just as quick to play the Victim card ... which, combined with her wholesome yet fragile appearance, actually works most of the time.

Earlier I described the risks Bruce/Batman would be taking if he became involved with Barbara. I mentioned that he has been burned far beyond Barbara's comprehension. This is why I proposed that before Batman would accept her, Batman would hammer out a deal that would protect his interests. If Batman is to turn his back on his family and friends, the woman must compensate him in some way. I described these terms as :

1. She must accept him for who he is ; and
2. She must be willing to be there for the long haul.

In a very real sense, Bruce/Batman hammered out a "prenuptual agreement" for the "affair". Millman notes that such agreements tend to favor the status quo, and this situation certainly qualifies. Barbara has to keep dressing like a Bat ; must obey his orders ; must work under unspeakable conditions ; and must never tell anybody (which means she will never get to brag that she landed him). But since Barbara already thought of those things and wanted to do them, such terms probably seemed fair and reasonable in her eyes. The problem is, Barbara isn't just "signing a prenup" that says nothing will ever get better. She's also "signing a prenup" with a man who is married to his work -- to be his mistress. A prenup to be a mistress? That's not a horrible idea. That's two horrible ideas. Nevertheless, when she first came to the table it was enough for her. She helped forge that prenup, and she chose to "sign" it.

None of this would surprise Millman.


It's my impression that when men are not the ones to propose a contract, they often take it badly if it's required of them, because they're less willing than women to acknowledge the unromantic aspects of marriage ; being the ones who usually have the money and the power, they can afford to believe in romance. Despite the stereotype of women as the romantic sex, research has consistently shown that men's love for women often seems more tied to fantasies and illusions. Women, being financially dependent, may have a greater need to be realistic. In the end, the reality testing forced by the contract bruises [certain] relationships insofar as [they were]built on illusions. But eventually illusions are shattered, anyway.

[snip]

Many people who are made to sign a contract as a condition of marriage feel embarassed or humiliated because it reveals that they have less power in the relationship and because it puts a discounted price tag on their love. But [romantic] love is never unconditional, and in the long run, it helps to have a realistic view of the partnership one is entering.

(p. 24, 143-44)
In her case Barbara is less realistic than the typical co-signer. She fantasized a lot more about Batman and entertained illusions about him. (We have never seen him do so for her.) Back in the days when Barbara had no piece of Batman's heart, mind or attention, the thought of becoming his mistress was sufficient for her, a prospect both desirable and uplifting. That attitude would change with experience.

Commissioner Barbara said that "for Bruce, Batman, there was nothing but the street." She adds that he wouldn't leave the streets when she did. It sounds as though she tried to renegotiate the prenup, and failed. Again, such renegotations would not surprise Millman. Time and again, she argues, the woman tells the judge that "my husband was my job." The woman insists that whereas the man brought tangibles (like money, a house, or the family business) into the relationship, she contributed intangibles like "a nice home," well-behaved children, or love. Unfortunately for the woman, these tactics usually don't work. If both parties considered the prenup to be fair and accurate at the time it was accepted, the courts rarely intervene.

This is why I joked that Batman's reaction would be "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." When Millman said it, it was no joke. When a woman tries to renegotiate a prenup, the man almost always sees it as a betrayal. By asking for more of his belongings, she is seen as siphoning off his very identity (his identity being closely tied to his role as a provider). Certainly Bruce/Batman would see Barbara's change of disposition as a betrayal. He gave up everything except his identity to keep her, and now she wants more? Not going to happen.

This "icy fury" male response to a woman's attempt to renegotiate the prenup is a characteristic response -- so characteristic and commonplace that the researcher dedicated four chapters of her book to the phenomenon.

Barbara's personality has been shaped so that she always needs "more, more" but she has put herself in a situation where she will receive less and less. This is why I proposed that any Mutual Consent relationship would be born (and would die) as the characters express their weaknesses, not their strengths. Barbara can't live with the deal she signed up for. That's a powderkeg waiting to explode. Now combine this with Batman's flinty personality -- where if you brush up against him he throws off sparks, or flames -- and you've got a nasty explosion on your hands.

Finally, this seemed to fit the facts more than the stereotypical complaint, "Well, Bruce must have messed up the relationship, because everyone knows he always does." Begging the Question, plus Appeal to the Masses. Maybe in the comics Bruce/Batman "always" (or at least often) ruins the relationship. In the animated continuity Bruce/Batman actually ruins things slightly less than half the time, with the woman ruining things slightly more than half the time. Just wanted to clarify that point.

Mutual Consent ... a bad way to go.


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Okay, I understand OM's geography better now. I didn't realize it, but I had misunderstood one of her key terms. [snip] If "amillennial" actually means "nothing happened" then I am not sure I am an amillennialist.You're confusing "amillennialism" with "eschatology." A-mill is one of the patterns/processes of eschatology.

Eschatology (wrong but popular definition) : having to do with the end of the world. Applied to Barbara, this is like saying "only old lady Barbara counts" or "old lady Barbara is more important than the other stages of her life."

Actual but little-known definition : having to do with God's interventions in human affairs, of which the beginning of the world and the end of the world are merely the most visible events but not necessarily the most important ones. The middle of time is where God meets us because that's where we live. The middle of time is where our character is shaped. It's about understanding the process of "how do we get there from here." That is, character trumps timing. Applied to Barbara, this is like saying, "the Batwoman version of Barbara exists in the middle of time, in the crucible, so we try to understand how her character develops."

One of the bugaboos of eschatology is a variant on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle : people may behave one way when they think they're being watched but may behave differently when they think no one is watching. The amillennial writer C.S. Lewis told a doomsday story in which only about five characters knew the world was ending, and even those few only realized it hours before it happened. Since no one knew these decisions would be the last they would ever make, the characters behaved much the way they always did : to be spineless, honorable, hypocritical, etcetera. For good or ill, their decisions flowed naturally from their established characters. The decisions were not tailored to ingratiate themselves to Someone. Neither did Someone force their hand or force their decisions upon them.

EDIT : to give a better example, let's look at Bruce/Batman up through the scene in Batwoman. When Barbara called Bruce he behaved one way. When she began flirting with him he behaved differently. When he turned off his phone, she was no longer "watching" him and he behaved differently again.

Now if Barbara had an opportunity to "watch" Bruce/Batman again, he would change his behavior again. For example, if he accidentally left the phone channel open, Barbara would overhear his conversation with the boys and would hear their snarky remarks. If she shouted, "I heard that!" his behavior would change yet again. This is what Heisenberg means by The Uncertainty Principle. The act of observation changes the experiment. In particular, Bruce/Batman is one of those people who will go out of his way to skew your data.

That's another reason I concentrated on Barbara. It's not just that Batman has about 10,000 threads and Barbara about 50 or less. It's the fact that her game is not on his level, so we have a better chance of reading her correctly.

This is also why I find the Mutual Consent scenario and its replacement the Amillennial scenario to be the most plausible interpretations of the characters. The Preterist and Futurist scenarios need more divine intervention to spring into being. MZ, for example, got it the first time without knowing that he got it.


6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?

I have a hard time imagining either of the proffered alternatives, which is one reason I brought up the "feral moods" and "Alfred's death" scenarios. I suspect there is an extraordinary story surrounding the circumstances, because it seems like only extraordinary circumstances could bring it about. There's a term for these "extraordinary circumstances." It's called deus ex machina.

Preterist (again)


Actually, the Bruce-as-predator scenario could also be a Futurist position. Who know when and how the mood might strike ...Not in the sense I mean. I use "preterist" and "futurist" to label the time period when the problem began, not when it ended. In this scenario the problem may already exist. Almost all the ingredients for this recipe are already in the cupboard. Barbara has been working with Batman as an adult (and worshipping him as an adult) for ten years -- yes, ten years. (Tim would have been about four or five during the events of "Shadow of the Bat.") Meanwhile, we see in Batwoman that Bruce is trying to distance himself from Barbara, but NOT in any way that would set her free. Additionally, several Preterists noted that Barbara seems to think they are a couple, which implies that Bruce did something to make her think that way. This is why I said that we are seeing the "death throes" of the relationship. As long as Barbara anxiously hovers in the vicinity, she can continue to be used. In Preterism, Barbara's unquenched craving for "more, more" makes her willing to let Bruce fight dirty if that's the only way she can get him.

This is a plausible interpretation, and it contradicts nothing in Batman Beyond. But it takes deus ex machina to make it work. First, the writers have to "make" Barbara either psychologically damaged (incompetent to make good decisions) or mentally damaged (i.e. very, very stupid). Or at least, she has to be too incompetent or stupid to even qualify for a Mutual Consent relationship. She needs to believe that if she didn't land her man in ten years, then somehow Year Eleven will make a difference. Then, the writers have to "make" Bruce/Batman into the kind of man who would sexually exploit a young person under his protection. The writers have worked hard to bury that old ghost. Asking them to dig it up again is asking a lot. Besides, as MZ noted we have always seen Bruce/Batman treat or mistreat the Batgirls the same way he treats or mistreats the Batboys. They're all cart horses to him, in the Anna Sewell sense of the word. It never occurs to Bruce/Batman that his horses are not little trains, that they get tired or hurt or overworked. So he uses up the old team and trades them in for fresh horses. As MZ notes, this abuse is gender-blind, so that Barbara's reasons for desertion are plausibly as good as the boys' reasons. Preterism nullifies that argument. To make Preterism work, the writers would have to "make" Bruce/Batman into a person who treats girls worse than boys, and for no particular reason. Finally, the writers have to "make" Alfred and Tim into persons who are complacent or comfortable with the situation.

That's a lot of external hands.

Futurist (again)


Now, if you put my fingers in a vise and turned it real hard while asking what I believe, I suppose I would come down as a Futurist. For the reasons SJJ has given, I think that Babs and Bruce were an item for awhile. And, after assenting to that, I would go on to infer that it happened sometime between MotBw and BB. Babs's attitude in MotBw just doesn't seem like the attitude of someone who thinks she's bagged her man, but as the attitude of someone who is beginning to think that she's got a man on her hands who might be bagged.She's beginning to think it? What about "Batgirl Returns"? I would say she's beginning to act upon it, which is rather different.


But if you give the vise another twist, I'll admit that I have a hard time seeing how the Futurist position could play out in any way that does credit to Babs. It's not exactly a good look on Bruce either.

Again, it takes deus ex machina to make things work. First, the writers have to "make" Bruce change his mind. In Batwoman he wanted nothing to do with her. Next, they have to "make" Bruce stupid about people -- worse than usual, I mean. Witness the casual way that Barbara broomed Dick Grayson when "something better" came along. How deluded, how stupid would Bruce have to be to get involved with a woman with Barbara's track record? Does he think "it won't happen to me" because he's better than Dick? He's not.

In Modified or Conditional Futurism (where one of Bruce's loved ones dies), the writers would have to "make" that person die. They would have to "make" Bruce react out of character. (Usually Batman's response to trauma is to curl up into himself, not to reach out.) Finally, the writers would have to "make" Barbara so callous and heartless that she would not be affected by this same death -- far from it, that it would make her kick him when he's down. As long as Bruce has the Bat to give him purpose (and a chance for revenge against whoever killed his family member), Barbara can't have him all to herself. The flying rodent has to go. But that flying rodent is his very identity. As Preterism makes Barbara give up her sense of self, so Futurism demands Bruce give up his sense of self. In Futurism, Barbara's unquenched craving for "more, more" makes her willing to fight dirty against Bruce if that's the only way she can get him.

MZ argues that Batman will always break his associates. In Futurism the writers essentially would "make" Barbara into a woman who always breaks her men.

Although this interpretation also contradicts nothing in Batman Beyond, it too requires a lot of outside intervention to make it work.

Amillennial (again)

In the end I consider the Amillennial scenario to be the most plausible. This is the first time, the only time, possibly the last time we see the characters addressing the problem themselves. They're not trying to explain themselves to outsiders like Terry McGinnis or the "jealous" Razzerella. They are alone with the problem, and they handle or mishandle it according to their own natures, not according to external pressure. It's their choice. It's the one scenario that doesn't need deus ex machina to work.

Amillennial doesn't mean "nothing happened relevant to the topic." It means nothing happened that could be classified as a relationship. Clearly a lot of things are happening in the characters' parallel realities. And as noted earlier, Barbara will always qualify as a "might have been" even if nothing happened.

Barbara's behavior -- craving adrenaline, glory, Daddy's approval, and Batman -- are qualities that are native to her from her beginning. These characteristics can be traced all the way back to the Sixties. In this animated continuity, Barbara threw away Dick Grayson, and threw away 10-15 years of her life, chasing a dream. Even if she quit today, she will never, never get that back. That's reason enough to make her bitter. Bruce/Batman treats her as well or as badly as the boys, which is another perfectly good reason to be bitter. Maybe (as styl92 said) the light bulb will go out for her, and her disillusionment will let her leave. Maybe she will never get over it and will live her life in denial. There's nothing here to contradict what we hear and see in her police-chief future.

Bruce/Batman's behavior -- the way he never really built enduring relationships with his sidekicks -- is also a quality that is native to his character in the beginning. It is so typical of Batman that every time his sidekicks express an unmet need (or pick a fight), Batman always dismisses their complaints as "going through a phase" and "they'll grow out of it." Uh-huh. So Nightwing has been "going through a phase" for fifty years? So he will "grow out of it" any day now? So Barbara and Tim are also "going through a phase" and if Batsy leaves it alone they will "grow out of it"? Eww, feelings. So messy. So troublesome. Better to pretend there's no problem, and maybe the problem will go away. Typical, typical Batman. He has been acting this way since the 1940s!

So there is clearly a lot happening in the Amillennial scenario. It's just not bringing them together. In Batwoman they meet on a tangent, once, before passing their separate ways to one-over-zero, that is, infinity.

In Preterism and Futurism the writers have to "make" the characters do something. In Amillennialism we just leave them alone and let them solve (or fail to solve) the problem themselves. This is the solution they came up with : that they live on different worlds and don't know it.

I remember that a few posters proposed that even Mutual Consent needs a little deus ex machina to work, since no one in canon ever thought of a Bruce/Barbara relationship until "A Touch of Curare" came along. To this question I have no answer. I'll admit that I always saw "Out of the Past" and Batwoman as paying tribute to a lost tale and a lost storyteller while simultaneously setting limits on it. The writers' way of acknowledging that Barbara was a "might have been" even if nothing happened.


I suppose I have more sympathy for Commissioner Barbara because she really is in an impossible position. She resents Batman for (probably) lots of reasons. But she can't act on those issues like Bullock did because of her past. She is furious but impotent, and that impotence makes her even more furious. Eventually, she just seems to settle for a slit-eyed obduracy because it's the only way she can save face. Good point, and if pressed I would agree with you. I'm exasperated that Dark Knight Returns' Ellen Yindel got a meatier role with far less screentime and far more soul-searching. She debated Jim Gordon's reasoning with the commish in person. A far cry from Barbara poking Terry with a stick. Which sheds more light on the cape-versus-badge debate, or illuminates a character's values : a woman arguing, "I've always admired the policeman you are, except for this quality," or a woman who can only feel good about herself by making Terry yip, "Ow, mean lady!"


character [b]is a very reactive one. But there is one place where she isn't obviously reactive, and that's in her choice to join the police force. Of course, it's not obviously reactive because we don't actually see it or get any idea about what caused it. But it seems like a definitive act for her (the "endorsement of the badge over the cape," as I put it once), and it is possibly the definitive act, given that she seems almost to have drifted into the Batgirl role. Strangely, I see this in the opposite light, like photos and their negatives. Barbara most emphatically did not drift into the Batgirl role. Almost from the beginning Barbara had an agenda that "when I grow up I'm gonna marry Batman" whether he wanted it or not. To her way of thinking, why would he not? She prepared for the time she might meet him : training in gymnastics, studying crimefighting, and getting involved in cases at least a year before donning the Batgirl suit. Additionally, she donned the Bat suit in the first place to force his hand (or to go behind his back). I don't consider her Batgirl role to be "drifting" but I do consider it reactionary.

(EDIT : or did MZ mean, "drifted IN the Batgirl role"? Now there I would heartily agree. That's why I found the Harvard article on "stars who become shooting stars" so apropos.)

I see Barbara's decision to become a police officer as a reactionary move. She's still on the Gotham road, just walking in the other direction. There's also the timing to consider. Did Barbara join the police force immediately after hanging up the costume? If so, then Batman would still be in her life, and she knows it. He might even shadow her moves (ostensibly to protect her, though I doubt she'd buy that). On the other hand, if she did not join the police force until Batman himself quit the streets, then we would ask, what exactly was she doing with her life for about fifteen years? (That is a topic for fanfiction, and I've no desire to develop it here.)

Put it another way : if Barbara's father had been an accountant, and Barbara grew up in Metropolis, would she still have become a police officer? Was that really her "fate" as such? Was it her true personality? Would she have done so without that external nudge? Barbara is such a reactive force that it would be very difficult to prove she did NOT join the police force in response to the men who influenced her life.

For me, Barbara's reappearance as a police officer actually kicks things up a notch on the creep-o-meter. (Not the person ; the actual situation feels creepier.) Barbara's determination to hook up with Batman had an almost pharoanic quality to it. It was the custom of certain pharoahs to compel their sons to marry their daughters to prevent dynastic disputes. No unemployed royals loitering about, and no wars over which branch of the family could carry on Daddy's legacy better, because there was no other branch of the family. The truth is that Jim Gordon's legacy and Bruce/Batman's legacy are so closely intertwined that there may never be a way to know whether Barbara's actions demonstrate admiration, rebellion, or her true self. (Indeed, what if it is all three elements at once? A touch of original personality, combined with a salute, combined with a one-finger salute.) One could argue Commissioner Barbara's pharoanic desire to extinguish the emerging Batman dynasty continues to express itself through her attempts to absorb/eliminate Terry, the rival dynasty's only heir.

It also ties in to Maxie's unexpected detour into Mad Harley Land.

That's why I've been so puzzled by OM's concentration on Barbara and by the seemingly "prosecutorial" tone.

[snip]

[The question that "saying Babs should have known better is a bit like saying Harley should have known better"] is your hot potato, and you can drop it only by shifting some of the responsibility back onto Bruce. ;)
Not likely! :D

Here's where I am puzzled. In three of the four scenarios I have spun, Bruce emerges looking bad, sometimes unspeakably bad. Even in the fourth (the Amillennial scenario), many in the audience think badly of the way he handled the situation. I think the Amillennial scenario gives both Bruce and Barbara the best chance of coming out looking good, but simultaneously I know this scenario doesn't guarantee it. I repeat, I didn't draw ANY scenario where Bruce necessarily comes out looking good. But people breeze right over this stuff, and I get to listen to, "No one who likes Barbara would say those things. You must not like Barbara." That's why I asked if there was a double standard, because no matter what I (or the writers) do to Bruce, no one ever says, "No one who likes Bruce would say those things. You must not like him."

MZ insists I haven't clubbed Bruce/Batman enough -- never mind that after I was done with him the character could barely stand -- and that Barbara can't be held accountable for Bruce's actions. Well, duh. ;) I've never disputed that Bruce's actions are Bruce's actions. I just don't think we're that far along in the debate yet. When I hear a Barb/Harley comparison, I hear something to the effect that "In addition to his existing sins, Bruce is in some way responsible for the fact that Barbara grew up to be the kind of woman who would be drawn to his kind of man." (Good man or bad, same difference.) Is there an implication that Barbara was too messed up before she met Batman to make good decisions with him? If so, did she get that messed up because Batman was in her life from the beginning? And if that is also so, isn't that just as much Jim Gordon's fault for indulging the Bat, for spending more time with the Bat at times than Jim did with his own daughter? And if it's Jim's fault and Batman's fault that Barbara grew up the way she did, can Barbara ever be held accountable for anything?

So no, MZ can have his Harley hot potato. I don't have any potatoes in the cupboard. :D

It may be possible to explain how Bruce, Dick, Tim and Terry chose to rebuild their lives when they were underage and either lacked faith in the system or didn't know another way to handle their problems. But the idea that a wholesome, vivacious librarian could change course mid-stream to become a spandex outlaw (Batgirl) or a piece-packing, frustrated policewoman is harder to explain in rational terms. I wonder what was missing from her "real life" that she made such drastic reversals. The affair/non-affair could be a big reason, but I wonder if it could have been the only one.

[Fone Bone]

Old Maid you are the Bee's Knees, the Biz Niz, and the Cat's Meow. Why do I get the feeling I should be paying you by the hour?

[James]

Okay this is a massive junk of stuff here. So bare with me. I never took philosophy beyond a basic stage, and I really don't think you need to for the amount of evidence we have on Barbara prior to "Shadow.." and what happened around "Batwoman" - which seems to be the crux of what you deal with here. Now I'm not saying I disagree with what you say. As we've all said, aside from the fact that the evidence we have points to some relationship that lasted before and after Batwoman - a relationship Barbara acknowledges as a mistake and one Bruce seems to look back on with either regret or nostalgia, there is little more here. Anyhoo...



Before Batwoman came along, it was assumed that any relationship between Bruce and Barbara would be one of Mutual Consent. I mentioned that Batwoman has made this scenario very unlikely. I can see why people prefer it : the possibility that Barbara mirrors Batman's light rather than his dark, for example. However I think I've demonstrated that this light only shines in both characters as long as they never come together. If they become a couple, Barbara's innocence, her light, is snuffed by the grime and dirt of Batman's world. Batman's light is extinguished because he becomes isolated from the family that helped him hold on to his sanity. If Jim Gordon, Alfred and the Robins stop speaking to him, what becomes of him?
Well I agree, first off we know this wasn't a perfect relationship, so I don't think anyone would say that what they had was perfect because Barbara's light reflects into Batman's dark world, just a better relationship for him than the other mismatched women he meets. He needs a lady who isn't a criminal. He's never shown any indication that he can really get past that, nor that he could trust a criminal with his identity.

He needs someone who understands and excepts who he is. This could work towards the prenuptial point you make. Barb knows who he is and what he stands for. There is also the trust issue. In Bruce's life, trust is obviously paramount.

He needs someone who isn't an obsessive. Someone like himself (in someways, Selena is the obvious example) who is an obsessive will never be able to maintain the status quo. The intensity of each's "mission" or drive interferes with the other. He needs someone lighter to juxtapose his dark intensity. Again, it goes back to someone who he can trust. Barbara again fulfils this.

He needs someone to keep him from crossing over the line. Possibly the reason he's behaviour got more intense in "Old Wounds" was because the responsibility to his ward was less. As Dick became his own person, his need to be protected or looked after became less. This is a maybe obviously. Seems at this point - possibly because Dick's been at college so much, Batman is a loner - even when paired up. Like in the comic after Jason's death, without the human element, he falls further into his own world. Again, having someone who constantly represents the "light" someone who is good natured, a firm companion yet requires attention could be what Bruce needs to prevent a further drop away from humanity.

Finally he needs someone who won't interfere or try and change him. A near impossible task for anyone in a relationship. There is a possibility that Barbara fails in this and hopes that she can change the very crux of who he is.

So the point (that I think I) made earlier, was not an idealistic one that Barbara suited Bruce, more that Barbara was the best suited for Batman.

The question is - what does Barbara get from Bruce? Well, IMO, very little. What does anyone get from an obsessive compulsive? Very little indeed. She wants to be part of that world - he is the heart of it. It is of no surprise she is drawn like a moth to a flame, but clearly there are far less reasons for Barbara to be with Bruce except that she wants to.



Earlier I described the risks Bruce/Batman would be taking if he became involved with Barbara. I mentioned that he has been burned far beyond Barbara's comprehension. This is why I proposed that before Batman would accept her, Batman would hammer out a deal that would protect his interests. If Batman is to turn his back on his family and friends, the woman must compensate him in some way. I described these terms as :

1. She must accept him for who he is ; and
2. She must be willing to be there for the long haul.

While I think that's logical - and very likely. Even if not in spoken terms, I think Barbara would know what would be expected of her. I don't think Bruce would expect to lose allies over this. Dick is an interesting one. I would love to go into Dick further, but I will be dealing with it in the DKA (http://wf.toonzone.net/DKA) fan comic. I don't see this "turning his back on family and friends". Bruce doesn't have any friends outside the dark sphere he works in. As for Jim, Jim is a working colleague. Again, I'll be looking at that in DKA, so I don't want to go too much into that. I don't think things are as carte blanche as you make out. I don't think there was any relationship which Bruce could have which wouldn't suffer such risks.


Barbara has to keep dressing like a Bat ; must obey his orders ; must work under unspeakable conditions ; and must never tell anybody (which means she will never get to brag that she landed him). But since Barbara already thought of those things and wanted to do them, such terms probably seemed fair and reasonable in her eyes. The problem is, Barbara isn't just "signing a prenup" that says nothing will ever get better. She's also "signing a prenup" with a man who is married to his work -- to be his mistress. A prenup to be a mistress? That's not a horrible idea. That's two horrible ideas. Nevertheless, when she first came to the table it was enough for her. She helped forge that prenup, and she chose to "sign" it.

Absolutely. This is the case with anyone who tries to take on a relationship with an obsessive compulsive. There has to be a prenup.

Then again, in all relationships we should be signing a mental prenup. We shouldn't expect the other person to change from what we "sign up" too. With a conpulsive there is little room for change. As I said earlier, what does Barbara get out of this? She is the normal one entering the world of the mentally... compulsive.


In her case Barbara is less realistic than the typical co-signer. She fantasized a lot more about Batman and entertained illusions about him. (We have never seen him do so for her.) Back in the days when Barbara had no piece of Batman's heart, mind or attention, the thought of becoming his mistress was sufficient for her, a prospect both desirable and uplifting. That attitude would change with experience.
Barbara's mind is hard to get into without specifics. Again as MZ, we speculate on what we know, unfortunately what we don't know could make all the difference here.



Commissioner Barbara said that "for Bruce, Batman, there was nothing but the street." She adds that he wouldn't leave the streets when she did. It sounds as though she tried to renegotiate the prenup, and failed. Again, such renegotations would not surprise Millman. Time and again, she argues, the woman tells the judge that "my husband was my job."
This is where I disagree this is gender orientated. Gender orientated actions as you suggest are by definition, extremely broad and with little evidence hard to pin. To me it's far more simple. She did what so many try to do in relationships with compulsives; she either looked for a changed or try to make a change. It doesn't happen. That was a mistake of inexperience to a degree, but the wanting and need to see someone beyond what they appear is an inate flaw in us all.


The woman insists that whereas the man brought tangibles (like money, a house, or the family business) into the relationship, she contributed intangibles like "a nice home," well-behaved children, or love. Unfortunately for the woman, these tactics usually don't work. If both parties considered the prenup to be fair and accurate at the time it was accepted, the courts rarely intervene.
Men can do the exactly the same if they are in relationships with compulsives. I don't disagree with outlay you present, I just suggest it's moot in this specific case as Bruce's key flaw far outweighs it.


Finally, this seemed to fit the facts more than the stereotypical complaint, "Well, Bruce must have messed up the relationship, because everyone knows he always does." Begging the Question, plus Appeal to the Masses. Maybe in the comics Bruce/Batman "always" (or at least often) ruins the relationship. In the animated continuity Bruce/Batman actually ruins things slightly less than half the time, with the woman ruining things slightly more than half the time. Just wanted to clarify that point.
Who ruins what is largely irrelevant in Bruce's case. As a compulsive, he cannot be changed so in the long run he will destroy any relationship because his nature is selfdestructive. The only relationship he can have is with a woman he can trust and accepts his calling and never tries to stand against it. I'm not sure I know a woman who has been in BTAS who would except it. Maybe Kathy, but then she's not in on the secret. That is the big challenge.

From what is implied in Touch Of Curare, if it was something major which stopped Barbara's involvement in the Batman, and we presume on the bulletholes in the costume being relevant, it must have been something pretty big which killed it for her. Her role in Batman - as with Tim, as with Dick, was not a calling. They all can move on when the role becomes too dicey. Bruce cannot.

For Bruce to have a perfect match you would need someone with the same compulsive nature as him specifically for the same call as him. Someone who would not let even near death get in the way. We've yet to see that character. LOL, maybe Clark is the nearest.. :D


This is why I said that we are seeing the "death throes" of the relationship. As long as Barbara anxiously hovers in the vicinity, she can continue to be used. In Preterism, Barbara's unquenched craving for "more, more" makes her willing to let Bruce fight dirty if that's the only way she can get him.

Considering I've seen many people start relationships as in Mystery Of The Batwoman, I still don't see the logic in it being the death of the relationship, just either the imbalanced start, or the nature it continues in.

The crux of the questionable scene has to be Alfred. Alfred's lack of concern throughout the story points to me as if he feels this is something that needs to be played out between them, or something he doesn't want to interfere with. With this in mind, the scene becomes more comical, with Bruce trying to fend off against a woman who is very interested in him. As a ward and a proud man, to wander into a relationship - even if it had Dick's blessings - would be something very embarassing and with it being so close to home (or cave) not something you would feel very comfortable with. Bruce is a methodical man. Everything he does is calculated. Despite having "helpers" he is at essence a loner. To fall into a relationship which pins him both socially and at "work" is going to be something he doesn't naturally want. Being a colleague, friend and support in his fight he's not going to want to lose.

The irony with Bruce is despite being the world's greatest detective, he is pretty bad with his family. He bungles up quite regularly. Here is an example of what to some being a clear cut scenerio being very awkward for him. His push towards Kathy would to me imply of someone desperately and feverishly trying to cling to his old lifestyle - the life he had before he adopted Tim into his house, Barbara onto his team, Dick as his equal. Life changes, and Bruce here is trying to have the best of both worlds.

I know you say you don't want to deal with Bruce as he's been done so before, but Bruce I think is the key here, not Barbara. Barbara is pretty easy to understand, Bruce, his dynamic in this is far more relevant IMO.

If I was Alfred I would see this as being something he has to deal with. Once that can of worms is opened, you cannot pretend it didn't happen. This is what Bruce is doing. Clinging to the past and trying to pretend he didn't create such a complicated issue. However as his fight becomes one of a family nature, the dynamics within. If I was Alfred I would see Barbara as Bruce's best chance for stability. I don't think Alfred would want to interfere. At the present he just lets Bruce exhaust his options and cling to his past knowing at some point he'll have to face what has happened on a level playing field. At this moment he's in denial of his actions.

Just another way at looking at it.

Considering Barbara is what we could consider almost normal, her actions are not too hard to realize, Bruce is the key here. Bruce is the abnormal variant and IMO should be looked at more closely.


Barbara's behavior -- craving adrenaline, glory, Daddy's approval, and Batman -- are qualities that are native to her from her beginning. These characteristics can be traced all the way back to the Sixties. In this animated continuity, Barbara threw away Dick Grayson, and threw away 10-15 years of her life, chasing a dream. Even if she quit today, she will never, never get that back. That's reason enough to make her bitter.
Quite possibly. That's always the danger as I said with compulsives. They won't change. You either accept that or give.


Bruce/Batman treats her as well or as badly as the boys, which is another perfectly good reason to be bitter. Maybe (as styl92 said) the light bulb will go out for her, and her disillusionment will let her leave. Maybe she will never get over it and will live her life in denial. There's nothing here to contradict what we hear and see in her police-chief future.

Again, we have one scene to imply that by. As I said, it seems on the evidence we have this is the beginning of a relationship. We know that some sort of relationship continues till Barbara bows out. Since that is a time away, it seems unlikely this is a middle of a relationship for the simple reason that I don't think Alfred would sit and accept such behaviour.

Either it's the end - but since we clearly have at least a year before she quits (that's on the presumption that ROTJ flashback happened the next day) that seems unlikely. Or the beginning. If its the beginning it's unlikely Bruce would continue the behaviour that displays in the car. I don't think the team would accept it, and I don't think Bruce is so weak to allow it to continue hurting everybody. If nothing else it would make for a terrible working enviroment - a dangerous one even.

So it being the end seems very unlikely. That also means that this behaviour is extremely unlikely to be a constant.



Batman always dismisses their complaints as "going through a phase" and "they'll grow out of it." Uh-huh. So Nightwing has been "going through a phase" for fifty years? So he will "grow out of it" any day now? So Barbara and Tim are also "going through a phase" and if Batsy leaves it alone they will "grow out of it"? Eww, feelings. So messy. So troublesome. Better to pretend there's no problem, and maybe the problem will go away. Typical, typical Batman. He has been acting this way since the 1940s!

To an extent if you've read what I've said, I agree. Feelings are messy and something that hinders rather than benefits his quest. He's happy to have feelings for someone, but on his time. So this little dozzy is something which he doesn't want to deal with. There is no keeping his love life at arms reach. This is bang on central to his siuation.

So I think the unanswered question is, if this is the beginning of his relationship, what does he do? He can end it, but how does it reflect on his working relationship? Does he have to get rid of Barbara? Clearly he does not? As I said, at this point (MotB) he's not accepting responsibilities for his actions. He's hoping he can distance himself from Barb, get back to his old routine, her messy feelings will go away. People don't work like that.

Considering we know he doesn't get rid of her, she either drops the relationship and the continue as partners or he decides to "commit" in some way. Considering he sees to hold more affection for her than his other girls (Out Of The Past) to the inference of "loving her" and that she doesn't leave his employ either they mutually admit to feelings but don't let it actually grow, or they continue with a relationship.

I think either of those are the most likely considering the evidence and characters.

I see Barbara's decision to become a police officer as a reactionary move. She's still on the Gotham road, just walking in the other direction. There's also the timing to consider. Did Barbara join the police force immediately after hanging up the costume? If so, then Batman would still be in her life, and she knows it. He might even shadow her moves (ostensibly to protect her, though I doubt she'd buy that). On the other hand, if she did not join the police force until Batman himself quit the streets, then we would ask, what exactly was she doing with her life for about fifteen years? (That is a topic for fanfiction, and I've no desire to develop it here.)
That too will be explored in DKA. I have ideas on that. Suffice to say it comes from neither her leaving Batman, or something else further down the road. I hope you'll like my take on it all. It should be hitting DKA around the end of the year! :D


For me, Barbara's reappearance as a police officer actually kicks things up a notch on the creep-o-meter. (Not the person ; the actual situation feels creepier.) Barbara's determination to hook up with Batman had an almost pharoanic quality to it. It was the custom of certain pharoahs to compel their sons to marry their daughters to prevent dynastic disputes. No unemployed royals loitering about, and no wars over which branch of the family could carry on Daddy's legacy better, because there was no other branch of the family. The truth is that Jim Gordon's legacy and Bruce/Batman's legacy are so closely intertwined that there may never be a way to know whether Barbara's actions demonstrate admiration, rebellion, or her true self. (Indeed, what if it is all three elements at once? A touch of original personality, combined with a salute, combined with a one-finger salute.) One could argue Commissioner Barbara's pharoanic desire to extinguish the emerging Batman dynasty continues to express itself through her attempts to absorb/eliminate Terry, the rival dynasty's only heir.

LOL. Interesting. Again, I hope my take will give you something to muse.

Anyway, some feedback. I hope it makes sense. I'm not a philosopher, but I still don't think you need to be to see some likely takes on Barbara's actions. Her history and complexity as a person.. shrug. I define people by their actions. Past histories and individual complexities normally boil down to very simple motivations and actions.

I've not read your previous missive and for that I apologise in advance. No offense TOM, there is only so much I can read of your so very detailed work before my brain explodes. TOO MUCH INPUT!! :D

[Merlin Missy]

Some thoughts before bed:

1. re: "death makes him horny??"

June 2002 saw a nice little spike in the birth rate in the U.S. Why? 'Cause in September of '01, something really bad happened, and humans have a surprisingly small number of ways they choose to seek comfort and communion after a tragedy. It's kind of how we're programmed. Speculating that Bruce sought out Barbara after an unnamed Bad Event, or finally allowed her in after the same, simply means he'd be acting human for once. Given a sufficiently bad event, such as the death of Catwoman or Jim Gordan or Alfred, and Bruce's complete alienation from the rest of his family, it's not a stretch.

2. MotB and ages

How old is everyone? Seriously. Because the more I think about MotB, about Babs being in college and the snark about "Batgirl all grown up," the more I wonder if Michael Reaves never got the memo about the five year gap between series, and intended this to fit in right around "Sins of the Father." And why is it that Tim is still pre-pubescent at RotJ? Never mind how much time we're told passes, how much time actually passes? It's like Apu married and now has toddlers, but Lisa is still in the second grade. The brain, it hurts.

3. "Old Wounds"

I'm still trying to figure out the reading everyone else is giving this episode, because it's leaving me baffled. I thought I was remembering wrong, but I've rewatched it twice and I'm still seeing the same things. Dick and Babs on a date, about to kiss, when Bruce interrupts. Plot happens, Dick gets mad at Bruce for good reasons and storms off to Barbara. Who lets him in and has no idea why he's so angry, and is just bright enough to know it's at Bruce. She goes to Bruce to try to mend the fence, or at least find out what the heck's going on, and just as he tells her, "Oh by the way, you're dating Robin," the Joker's back, Dick's nowhere to be found, and she goes along with Batman to try to stop Ye Olde Clown Prince. Dick shows up later, just in time to save her bacon, and then he wants to talk about their relationship while Bruce is being eaten by hyenas. The fight scenes finish, Dick continues to be mad at Bruce for various things, and a bit mad at Babs for not telling him her secret identity (and, hello pot). Then he hits Bruce and walks away, and as far as we know, doesn't show up again until the training scene five years later.

Now, I'd be perfectly happy to hear that we saw another episode where this was explained in much further detail, 'cause I would really like to see that interaction. (Please, tell me there's more. It's been years since I've seen most of this series.) But in lieu of such a scene, how does the above translate into Babs ditching Dick for Bruce? She stays in Gotham, sure, but when is she ever given the option of going off with Dick? Is there an ep I haven't seen? Because as "Old Wounds" plays out, Babs hears her boyfriend talk about the future, and the next thing she knows, he bites the hand that fed (and whom it turns out she's had a crush on for a while) and splits. Until and unless someone sits her down and explains the various shades of the Batman-Robin interaction as well as the Bruce-Dick interaction, all she's going to know is that Dick went slightly mental (and no wonder). Can we assume Alfred tells her everything, or do we go with the equally likely possibility that she only hears Bruce's side, if that, and has just that to go on for the years before Dick comes back?

It's kind of like the news: if you just watch Fox News, you're going to get a very different perspective on things than if you only watch the BBC. Without Dick around, Babs is going to be tuned into The Batman Channel 24/7. Since we've brought up abusive and dysfunctional relationships, here's another one. The daughter in the family has never seen the parents fight before, and only catches them once, when Mom has finally had enough after ten years and lets Dad have it. But since the child only saw Mom hit Dad, and never the other way around, her sympathies will be with her father, unless Mom or someone sets her straight. Sometimes this can translate into a stronger manifestation of the Elektra complex, where the daughter attempts to become a "little wife" to her father, to replace her "bad mother." By RotJ, we're certainly supposed to see Barbara as a surrogate mother for Tim in counterpoint to Harley, just as Batman and Joker play off as his fathers. (There's that parallel again.) The difference is that Bruce will not intentionally hurt Barbara, or Tim, or Dick, whereas Joker tortures Tim and uses Harley for his favorite punching bag all the time. But that's not to say Bruce won't hurt any of his family, just that if he does so, it's going to be an accident, or else his version of the lesser evil, or both. I repeat the suggestion that something happens with Barbara, however ill-advised, and knowing his relationship with Dick is hosed already, Bruce decides the better path is to try to make things work with Babs, rather than dump her ignomiously after the fact like just another debutante tumbled by the Wayne heir. Call it a mistake, call it his attempt to become a better man. She's someone he can have on his arm during the day, and still work with at night, and care for in both places. I don't know that I'd call it love, but then, I'm not in either's head. We know it doesn't work out in the end, that she (or at least her costume) gets shot, that she wanted him off the street and he said no. But from the same places, we know he doesn't have a future with Diana, either, and yet you can't throw a rock in JL fandom right now without beaning a BM/WW 'shipper. :p

I'm a Futurist because that's the picture painted for me. We have the characters stating as strongly as possible given the format that something happened, and to Old Lady Barbara, it was good for a while. We haven't seen her lie on anything else (short of secret identity issues, and all superheroes get a free pass on that one) so thinking she's lying on this one simply doesn't mesh with the character we've seen thus far, and does a disservice to her. I'm a scientist in my day job, so I know all about torturing data to fit a theory, but I'm not really seeing the point of it here. We know what we've seen, we know that it was supposed to imply something that could not be stated out loud.

Analyzing the text is great, and fun, but while I'm sure if we looked at things from a very specific point of view we could possibly see them as not being what was implied, we could also do the same with "Romeo and Juliet" and prove Romeo was actually in love with Mercutio just so we wouldn't have to call Juliet a ho. 'Cause I'm wondering if that's what this is about. In the quiz portion of the original essay, TOM asks what Bruce's relationship is to Dick, and if it's right that Babs gets involved with them both. An amillennialist position takes the comfortable tack that nothing happened outside of Barbara's head, so it doesn't matter and we can avoid the nasty incest subtext altogether. (My first 'ship was Luke/Leia when I was five. I can deal.) It's easier on our morality to say that Barbara is obsessive and a liar (if only by implication) and possibly delusional (if she does believe what she's telling Terry) and a too-demanding mistress (if she did manage to get involved with Batman) and even equivalent to Harley Quinn in her devotion to her sweetie, than to say yes, she was involved with both Bruce and Dick. One position presumes (and has been brought up in detail) a woman of poor character who may be mentally unstable, the other presumes (and is indicated strongly by OotP and AToC) a woman who dated and may have slept with two men who themselves were never entirely clear on their own relationship. (Bruce isn't Dick's father, not in the animated 'verse. He does have many of the qualities of a stepfather, with Dick's reliance upon and yet independence from him, and their relationship as friends and partners.) We don't like the latter scenario, because it squicks us to varying degrees. For me, it's that I never got the Dick/Babs I always wanted to see, but since neither position is going to undo the fact that Barbara is happily married to Sam, I'm going to go Occam's Razor and stick with what the show tried to say. The amillennialist position means Barbara is delusional or lying in AToC in order to scare Terry, and that Bruce had no particular reason to look at her pictures in OotP other than as a might-have-been. Intentionally or not, it does come across as being both very antagonistic towards Barbara and at the same time dismissive of her as a silly-minded girl who never got over being jilted. The Futurist position means that Barbara is telling the truth to the first person that she can tell who wasn't wrapped up in it at the time, and that at some undefined point in the not distant future, Bruce is going to do something stupid and human. It means that the characters make decisions, whether or not we agree with them, and they live with the consequences; those are the characters I've grown to know. That's the Barbara I see rising to Commissioner, and the Bruce I see brooding alone in his mansion. The Futurist position makes the most sense to me given the data. And MotB makes no sense either way.

MM:)

[James]

Some thoughts before bed:

1. re: "death makes him horny??"

June 2002 saw a nice little spike in the birth rate in the U.S. Why? 'Cause in September of '01, something really bad happened, and humans have a surprisingly small number of ways they choose to seek comfort and communion after a tragedy. It's kind of how we're programmed. Speculating that Bruce sought out Barbara after an unnamed Bad Event, or finally allowed her in after the same, simply means he'd be acting human for once. Given a sufficiently bad event, such as the death of Catwoman or Jim Gordan or Alfred, and Bruce's complete alienation from the rest of his family, it's not a stretch.
Totally. I won't give anything away by saying in the DKA fan universe, it is an ultimately bad situation which pulls them closer just as it is implied in Canon that an ultimately bad situation (Batgirl shot?) pulls it apart.



2. MotB and ages

How old is everyone? Seriously. Because the more I think about MotB, about Babs being in college and the snark about "Batgirl all grown up," the more I wonder if Michael Reaves never got the memo about the five year gap between series, and intended this to fit in right around "Sins of the Father." And why is it that Tim is still pre-pubescent at RotJ? Never mind how much time we're told passes, how much time actually passes? It's like Apu married and now has toddlers, but Lisa is still in the second grade. The brain, it hurts.

I did wonder that. As for Tim's design being pre-pubestent, I think that's just a model sheet and no way a depiction of age. He looks that age in ROTJ which we know is a few years in the future when in fact he should have probably looked like he did in Static. I don't pay too much attention to model sheets in DCAU as they change so radically.

However yes, I did wonder if this was set befores "Sins". It would make more sense in some respects, however it opens a whole keg in others. If this is the case, what happens in TNBA?

In some aspects it makes more sense. While at college and Dick gone, Bruce and Babs do.. something to which since at college Bruce weedles out of and they continue as colleagues when she returns from college in TNBA. Then something perhaps later fires off again while they are working as unit together. Maybe something like ROTJ sparked a relationship - something where a tragedy of major proportions that drove them closer. Who knows. It is an interesting theory. Was this Reaves mistake or was it intentional? Either way, the placement of Batwoman is ultimately very messy. Maybe she went back to college. Again, I have reasons to suppose that as well. Those will be born out (hopefully in DKA). The reasons for it would be sane and very obvious, I so what to give my input but I don't want to take away from the fan comic! Maybe if you are interested in my perspective I'll tell you via PM MM! :)


3. "Old Wounds"

I'm still trying to figure out the reading everyone else is giving this episode, because it's leaving me baffled. I thought I was remembering wrong, but I've rewatched it twice and I'm still seeing the same things. Dick and Babs on a date, about to kiss, when Bruce interrupts. Plot happens, Dick gets mad at Bruce for good reasons and storms off to Barbara. Who lets him in and has no idea why he's so angry, and is just bright enough to know it's at Bruce. She goes to Bruce to try to mend the fence, or at least find out what the heck's going on, and just as he tells her, "Oh by the way, you're dating Robin," the Joker's back, Dick's nowhere to be found, and she goes along with Batman to try to stop Ye Olde Clown Prince. Dick shows up later, just in time to save her bacon, and then he wants to talk about their relationship while Bruce is being eaten by hyenas. The fight scenes finish, Dick continues to be mad at Bruce for various things, and a bit mad at Babs for not telling him her secret identity (and, hello pot). Then he hits Bruce and walks away, and as far as we know, doesn't show up again until the training scene five years later.

Now, I'd be perfectly happy to hear that we saw another episode where this was explained in much further detail, 'cause I would really like to see that interaction. (Please, tell me there's more. It's been years since I've seen most of this series.) But in lieu of such a scene, how does the above translate into Babs ditching Dick for Bruce? She stays in Gotham, sure, but when is she ever given the option of going off with Dick? Is there an ep I haven't seen? Because as "Old Wounds" plays out, Babs hears her boyfriend talk about the future, and the next thing she knows, he bites the hand that fed (and whom it turns out she's had a crush on for a while) and splits. Until and unless someone sits her down and explains the various shades of the Batman-Robin interaction as well as the Bruce-Dick interaction, all she's going to know is that Dick went slightly mental (and no wonder). Can we assume Alfred tells her everything, or do we go with the equally likely possibility that she only hears Bruce's side, if that, and has just that to go on for the years before Dick comes back?

You've got me. I don't subscribe to that opinion that Babs ditched Dick anyway. It was Dick's tantrum and issues with Bruce that he took out on both of them. However I must say I just love your summary of Old Wounds. You should take that to stage as a one man show. :)

Not going to quote your big finale, but I agree with you on that all the way as well!

[Fone Bone]

I'm a little confused SJJ. Are you saying obsessive/compulsive people CAN'T have good relationships? If that's the case I'll just quit trying right now. We CAN'T change? That you should always get a pre-nup? Kinda mean-spirited statement in my eyes. Exactly how many obsessive compulsive people do you know?

[James]

I'm a little confused SJJ. Are you saying obsessive/compulsive people CAN'T have good relationships? If that's the case I'll just quit trying right now. We CAN'T change? That you should always get a pre-nup? Kinda mean-spirited statement in my eyes. Exactly how many obsessive compulsive people do you know?
Mean spirited? No. If someone is an obsessive compulsive to the level of Bruce Wayne the only person who will be able to change that person is Bruce Wayne. The other person will not change him. Therefore there is an unsaid prenup that exists. That person will be who he is now. The obsession could even get worse, but if it's an extreme mental obsession, it's highly unlikely it's going to get better.

It all depends on the level of obsession also. There is no "we" about it. There are varying degrees, but the nature of obsession is that it takes priority over all else. Wayne's promise to his parents - or more specifially - to himself is the essense of his existence. It creates the sphere and identity of his world. There is no finality to the mission either, no goal. It's a never ending drive. The only person who can help a person in such an extreme state is himself. Unless he wants to change, no one can change him.

Therefore, you enter a relationship with Bruce Wayne you have to accept what he is now. As the quest gets harder and harder as physical age becomes an issue he's quite likely to require to focus more attention to it. Again, the fixation will become even stronger. To enter a relationship with such a character would mean you would have to accept that there is little chance of you ever taking priority over this obsession, in fact your existence in that persons life will get less.

Real obsessive compulsive behaviour has a wide spectrum of issues. I don't feel qualified to actually talk about the details. My neighbour is a nurse and therapist who deals with a broad range of mental issues around the condition.

I'm not really talking about the mental disorder, more about obsession. Obsession can only be broken by the person themselves. No girl/guy can do it. You enter a relationship with serious obsession issues, you will not be able to change them. They can only do that, so to that extent you enter the relationship with a sort of mental prenup; that what they are is who they will be.

[Fone Bone]

Oh, okay. I thought you were putting all people with OCD down. Thanks for clearing that up.

[G. Wen]

POP QUIZ!





1. If you're a "Bat preterist," then you think Whatever Happened has already happened and now Bruce is distancing himself from Barbara. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's statement from "A Touch of Curare" (quoted earlier in post) that she was the one who left him?



2. If you're a Bat preterist you tend to believe that Whatever Happened could have been real. So how do you explain Alfred and Tim's behavior?

I’m not a Bat preterist.

3. What do you think of the way Bruce is handling the situation?

I remember many instances in BTAS when he’ll get nervous when any rich, young lady mentioned a serious relationship involving him. I don’t think Barbara is, at this moment, expressing serious romantic interest, but knowing Bruce, the thought of any quasi-romantic relationship, such as a crush, gives him the jitters.

As Batman, he won’t have time for romance. I know Barbara’s Batgirl, but there’s a difference w/ being involved w/ someone, and being romantically involved with someone. That’s why some people are reluctant about dating their best friends.

4. Would you think differently if Bruce was a woman trying to distance herself from an equally persistent man?

If She-Bruce is anything like He-Bruce, I’ll just think Bruce is being himself. Herself. Man, gender bending confuses me!

5. If you're a "Bat futurist," you think that Whatever Happened is still in the future. If it's real, what do you think of Alfred and Tim's behavior?

I’m not really a Bat futurist either. I think what we’re seeing is the event before the actual event, kind of like the sunset before the actual nighttime. If this is the case, and unless Alfred and Tim are psychic, they don’t know that Bruce and Barbara will have a serious relationship in the future. I think Alfred thinks Barbara has a harmless crush on Batman, and Alfred is applauding Bruce for distancing himself away from that harmless crush so it doesn’t turn into some weird May December relationship. Tim’s Tim. He’s a smartass. He doesn’t see the situation as serious, so he’s going to make jokes about it.

6. Do you think Bruce eventually got the big light bulb, or do you think Barbara wore him down? If she did, are you okay with it?

I think some unfortunate events brought them closer together, and eventually, they got into a misguided romance. Bruce and Barbara are both human. They both need companionship. After Dick and Tim left, they can only confide about their second careers w/ each other. This can bring them closer together. (I’m talking about in a spiritual and emotional sense, not in the rated XXX sense.)

7. Would you be okay with it if Barbara was a man who wore down an equally reluctant woman?

I don’t think Barbara wore him down. Look at my previous statement. Who can wear down Bruce? If the villains he fights can’t wear him down, I don’t think Barbara can.

8. If you're a "Bat amillennialist" then the timing doesn't mean as much to you as the sum of their characters and "what are you going to do now." You probably think Barbara has an unrequited crush, because that crosses time from the past, into the present, and extending a little further into the future. So what you think of the way Bruce is handling it?

Heh. I guess I’m a Bat amillennialist. Again, I think Bruce knows that Barbara has a harmless crush on him, and that he wants it to stop there. Because he’s Bruce, he can’t confront her about it, so he avoids her, and hopes she’ll forget about her crush due to frustration. (Kind of like how girls get over crushes of guys who don’t return the crush.)

As for Barb’s comment, “C-cause I thought you and I were…”, I believe she’s referring to being the crime-fighting partner he trusts in. If he replaced her, he trusts in someone else. Because she has a crush on him, she relishes even in professional trust, and would be disappointed even if that was given to someone else. Bruce knows this, and therefore gets uncomfortable when she brings it up.

9. How do you reconcile this scene with Commissioner Barbara's speech in "A Touch of Curare" that she left him?

I think left him. Not in this sense: “Good-bye, bastard! And while I’m at it, I’m taking all the dinner ware too!” More in this sense: “Bruce, honey, I’m getting tired. I’ve been injured. We spent plenty of time on the streets, but none alone. I’m sick of coming in second. Your heart is elsewhere. Good-bye.” She slams the door on her way out.

I’m going to analyze this scene as a whole. Terry tells Barbara his favorite subject is history. She smiles. Why does she smile? I don’t think it’s because she sees the perfect opportunity to manipulate Terry. I think she’s amused by his spunk. So she teaches him history. (Wasn’t she also amused by Tim’s spunk in “Sins of the Father”?)

She gives him a short history lesson, one without details, but the main events. She had a crush on Dick. (“It was puppy love.”) I know in the comics, their relationship was much more serious, but this is the series. We rarely saw her and Dick together when he was Robin. Maybe in the series, it was puppy love. In "Old Wounds", they do look like they're seriously involved, but many couples go on expensive dates and break up later in the relationship. She then says that, when with Bruce, while on the streets, it was like ballet, but it was different at home. Could she be alluding to Terry’s current situation with Bruce? Bruce as the choreographer, telling Terry, his principal dancer, which moves to execute? Terry will only remain as a principal dancer to Bruce, not a son, not a friend, and even a faithful servant. Just an empty, professional relationship. Even when they do draw close, it’s only for the dance, not for the dancer.

I think she’s warning Terry, not manipulating him. She’s telling him, “You’re working for a man w/ only 1 thing on his mind, and don’t be surprised if he cares more about the job than the person.” I say this because when she tells the story, she doesn’t sound resentful, but sad.



10. Anyone from any camp : If you think that the account told by Commissioner Barbara in "ATOC" is not in fact how it happened -- do you think Barbara was consciously trying to mislead Terry or bias him against Bruce, or do you believe she's telling it to the best of her ability to remember?

Look at my previous statement.

11. What mood, what "vibe" do you get from looking at Barbara? Is it sexy? playful? flat? sad? or what? Whatever look it is, is it a good look on her?

First wishy-washy, then teeny bopper, then unsure. Typical crush stuff.

12. What mood/vibe do you get when you look at Bruce's response? Is it a good look on him?

Bruce is funny. He has no problem handling the Joker, Two-Face, or Ra’s, but when it comes to crushes, he becomes a wreck!

13. Does anyone from any camp have an explanation for Alfred and Tim's behavior?

I answered that in question 5.

14. Are Alfred and Tim behaving this way for the same reason, or for different reasons?

I answered that in question 5.

15. Again, anyone from any camp : When Bruce lumps Barbara and Batwoman together in the dismissal, "One female Bat at a time," what does that make you think about how he thinks of Barbara?

Bruce was clumping Barbara in the “things that are causing me trouble” group. Knowing his dry humor, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s being sarcastic.

Bonus round

(Related stuff that's not actually in the film)



A. What exactly is Dick to Bruce? And don't say "his ward," because that's a legal term. In emotional bonds, what are they? What are Bruce/Batman's obligations to Dick? If any.

His shi-fu. Huh, what’s that? Well, the closest word for that in English is sensei (which is actually a Japanese word). In kung-fu, your shi-fu isn’t just your martial arts instructor, he’s someone you highly respect, and you respect him because he earned that respect from you. He’s also a parental figure (though not necessarily a father figure), a friend, the person you trust to have your back in a fight, and someone that you connect with on a deeper level.

B. If you see Bruce and Dick as parent-and-child, would you be okay with Barb's behavior if she had been a man who dated daughter then mother? If you see Bruce and Dick as brothers, would you be okay with it if Barb was a man who dated a younger sister then her older sister?

I don’t think Barb made the right decisions. This isn’t just about Dick. Barb has a crush on Batman. Does that mean Barb has a crush on Bruce? If Barb only has a crush on Batman, that means she’s in love w/ an ideology. Bruce is a person. I think that skipped her logic when she pursued Bruce.

C. If Dick Grayson had never existed, would it change your opinion of the proposed Bruce/Barbara affair?

I’m never fond of May December relationships. Big age differences usually cause problems.

D. Do you think the animated James Gordon knows Batman's identity? Do you believe this knowledge (or lack of knowledge) was a factor in Jim's demonstrated preference for Dick Grayson as his daughter's suitor?

I don’t think the animated James Gordon knows Batman’s identity. I think he approves of Dick because he thinks Dick’s a nice, young man. Bruce is nice too, but what type of dad recommends a man 15 years older than his daughter as a suitor for her?



E. What exactly is James Gordon to the Batman? What obligations does Batman have to him? (If any.)

What Thoreau is to Emerson. We’re talking about 2 people with similar goals in life, and they dedicate their lives to that goal. Gordon trusts Batman, and Batman knows this. Batman isn’t obligated to keep Gordon’s trust, but, at the same time, it’s cruel to betray his trust. Does Bruce getting together with Barbara break Gordon’s trust? I don’t know. That’s like saying, “If I date my boss’s daughter, am I breaking his trust?” It’s a gray area.



Although Barbara obviously misread her father's feelings and beliefs in TNBA's "Over The Edge," she's correct that her choices could cost him his career. What are her obligations to him? (If any.)

Barbara has to respect her father. He earned it. But does respect entail telling your parents every aspect of your life? She gets good grades. She’s a decent person. Her double life can get him fired. Because of this, in terms of obligations, she either has to give-up the mask, or make sure no one ever knows she’s Batgirl. Is she obligated to stay away from Bruce? No. It’s her life, she can date and marry whoever she chooses. Marrying Bruce will not cost her dad his job.



Where do we go from here?

In terms of what? Barb’s relationship with Bruce? Barb’s character development? There’s a lot that can be explored.

EDIT : This question came up from later discussions. I put it here so it wouldn't get buried. Thanks to the Comics Board forum for the idea!

H. The CBC crew proposed that it wasn't being shot that made Barbara become Oracle -- so does it follow that if the animated Barbara is never shot, there must be another reason she didn't become Oracle? I'm not saying we should have seen Oracle in the Timmverse, or that it is Barbara's destiny to always become Oracle in any universe. Rather, I'm asking, when Animated Barbara decided to turn her girlhood crush on Batman into an adult romance, did that turn her into a person who could not have become Oracle in the Timmverse? Did Barb's persistent feelings for Batman kill her chances of ever being a Timmverse Oracle?

No. She could’ve been in love with Batman, dating Bruce, married to Bruce, and still be behind a computer, researching stuff for all the crime fighters in the world. She didn’t stay Batgirl for Batman’s attention because she could’ve gotten that same attention as Oracle. (“Oh, Batman! I’ll look it up for you! And while I’m at it, you can lean over me and stare at the computer screen with me!”)

[G. Wen]

I’ll now take into account everything else people have written, and try to support my point of view with those facts. This is my point of view: I believe the scene in MOBW and the BTAS series show that Barbara has a crush on Batman. Because of Barbara’s comments in ATOC, I believe this crush develops into a serious romantic relationship. I believe they “fall in love” w/ each other because they can confide in each other about their lives under the mask, and this confiding turns into a misguided romance. Barbara eventually leaves Bruce because she doesn’t like being second in his life.

I’ll compare Barbara to a soldier. Like a young man, she originally signs up for the fight because she believes there’s something to fight for, whether it be for country or, in Barb’s case, her dad’s reputation. Furthermore, there are stories about a brave sergeant (Batman) who fights the good fight. In all the stories they tell of him, he wins the battles. Very little is known of him, (he wears a mask, after all), but he’s an inspiration to all. Well, soldier Barbara wins this battle, and she discovers she quite likes battling! First, it feels good to fight the good fight, and it feels even better to win the good fight. And then there’s the excitement of battle. Let’s not forget the victory parades and the adoring fans. But, in the battlefield, the biggest inspiration is still sergeant Batman. So brave! So mysterious! So heroic! And black is so sexy! One day, soldier Barbara gets to work for the esteemed sergeant Batman. They win a few battles, but the sergeant Batman fights the big battles, and these battles are tough on the human soul. Sometimes the victories are bitter, but they’re still winning the good fight, and that’s what’s important. But sergeant Batman can be a real pain! He drills you like- well a drill sergeant. He trusts his life in your hands, but he doesn’t seem thankful when you rescue him. He goes off the deep end when you commit the smallest mistake, because the smallest mistake may loose the battle. But at the same time, he trusts you, you’re his #1 soldier, and, when it comes to fighting the good fight, you share the same philosophy. After some years, the soldier connects with and becomes close to the sergeant. But there’s something buggy about sergeant Batman. The 1st thing he talks to you about is battling: strategies, training, etc. He never does anything friends do, like hang out, go to bars, laugh. He has a tendency to put the goals of the battle in front of the feelings of the person. War gets tiresome. They’ve won battles, but they’ve never won the war on crime in Gotham. After a while, soldier Barbara hates fighting. She’s been injured, tired, yelled at, drilled to death. She got a glimpse of sergeant Batman under the mask, and he’s not what he seems. He’s cold, has trouble expressing feelings, obsessed. She’s infatuated with the heroic sergeant, not the sergeant as a whole. Soldier Barbara wants to quit, but sergeant Batman doesn’t. So she quits. And like an old veteran, she has bitter memories of the damages of war.

Barb's and Bruce's romance reminds me of the failed marriages of research scientists. You have 2 bright scientists w/ the same philosophy: all in the name of science. Because they work together, think toghether, help each other with their research, they eventually connect with each other, think it's love, and get serious with each other. However, thier lives are spent mostly in the lab, none at home enjoying each other's company. Pretty soon, 1 scientist gets tired of work, work, work. Yeah, she likes science, but her partner took it to a ridiculous extreme. She's tired of the lab, tired of working, she needs a break, she needs to know she's more important than the experiments. But he never tells her this. So she leaves. She's still a scientist, but on her own terms now. She still does research, not because she wants to prove she's better than her ex, but because it's what she does. However, because their previous endeavors were emotionally straining, she'd perfer not to work with him at all. I know this happened to many famous research couples, but because my brain doesn't function properly, I can't remember any of their names.

I don’t think Barbara has the psychological problems listed by Old Maid. Instead, I think she was foolish because she was young. She was over idealistic, blind to certain things. She realized these things when she was older. Batman isn’t all he seemed to be. Crime fighting isn’t all it seemed to be. She got a few scars from her foolishness.

I don’t think Barb got together w/ Batman because she complemented his dark side. Any ditz could’ve satisfied that. I don’t think Barb got together w/ Batman because she wants more and more. She’s not spoiled. We never see her whine, complain, go on shopping sprees, etc. I don’t think Barb got together w/ Batman because they’re horny. Flash is the horny one in the Timmverse. Barbara told Terry donning the mask is a thankless job. Batman and Barbara are human. Batman may seem cold, but he, like all humans, needs someone to confide in and someone to relate to. After Dick left for Bludhaven and Tim ran away, Batman could only confide in Barbara. (I don’t mean spilling his guts, I mean trusting his life in her hands, knowing she’s there for him, seeing her face or mask after he regains consciousness.) Barbara was never personally thanked for protecting the city. No one knows she’s Batgirl. She thinks Batman may be thankful for her. After all, he takes on the more dangerous criminals in a fight. He has a habit of holding her close to his body and shielding her w/ his cape when anything explodes. So they confide in each other. They get close. They depend on each other when the more tragic events occur. They think they fall in love with each other. But Barbara always comes in second to crime fighting. So she quits.

Was Barbara the romantic person in Batman’s life? He has 2 pictures of her. He stops to view her pictures. I think Barbara had a big impact on his life. She was part of the Bat family, unlike the other girls. He trusted her to be his sidekick. But the real romantic person in Batman’s life is crime fighting.

Does Barbara get together w/ Batman before or after ROTJ? I say after. Before seems too soon. But wouldn’t Tim hold a grudge against Barbara if she got together w/ Batman after ROTJ? Tim seems more forgiving. When Tim relates his Robin stories to Terry, he says he thought he, when younger, could play hero forever. To the best of my memory, he never mentions being mad at Bruce.

But how about Barbara’s treatment of Terry? Surely she has something against Bruce if she treats Terry the way she does. Well, I’m kind of tired right now, but I’ll post something to respond to that soon. I promise.

[Maxie Zeus]

Wow, a lot has been added. I'll have to make a series of posts.

Reply to The Old Maid

By this point I'm not sure if we are arguing a metaphysical point or an epistemic one. That is, I am not sure if we are arguing about who these characters actually are and how they actually got to be that way, or whether we are arguing about the evidence that supports one or another theory about what happened. I know that I have been arguing the epistemic point, because I've been arguing that there is not enough evidence to decisively support or rebut one or another theory. But the recent comments about eschatology and deus ex machina intrusions leave me wondering if we are on the verge of going metaphysical.

The two kinds of issues are easy to confuse, because the underlying theses can be cast in metaphysical or epistemic forms that are superficially very similar.

Metaphysical: A person's character is the sum of her actions because it is formed by her actions, and her actions are the expression of her underlying character.

Epistemic: A person's character can only be inferred by examining her actions, and the nature and quality of her actions can only be inferred by understanding the nature of her underlying character.

I have been arguing that our knowledge of Barbara Gordon's character is underdetermined by the evidence of her actions, and that because we do not have sufficient evidence as to the nature of her character we must be careful in imputing to her any actions which we have not observed. For instance, we don't know what form her "relationship" with Bruce took, so we can't know why she broke with him. In turn, that means we can't judge what she was looking for in the relationship, and so we can't know for sure what the nature of her "fantasy" life was. That, in turn, means that we don't know enough about her underlying character to know what she was thinking during that phone call in MotBw, and that means we can't know for sure whether the "relationship" that she latched onto occurred prior to the call, after it, or maybe didn't happen at all.

As a result, we can conjure up lots of theories that draw her character in inconsistent ways while still respecting the evidence that we get in BTAS, TNBA, MotBw, and BB. Thus, I incline toward agnosticism about what happened between her and Bruce in one of those unobserved intervals.

So I am not saying that the Amillennial position is the wrong one, or that it is less well-supported by the evidence than are the Preterist, Futurist or Mutual Consent theories. I could grant that the Amillennial theory is superior to the other theories but still argue that, because the evidence for the Amillennial position is insufficient to decisively rule out the others, there is sufficient room for respectable disagreement.

To reach this conclusion I only need two things: First, I have to show that the Amillennial position does not perfectly confrom with all the available evidence. Second, I have to show that there is nothing problematic or illegitimate about inferring the existence of events that would support the non-Amillennialist theories.

For the first, I can rely on OM's cogent and convincing discussions. For the reasons that SJJ has offered (and which, in my more generous moments :p, I have supplemented) "A Touch of Curare" must be taken as saying that there was an actual relationship between Bruce and Babs. But the Amillennial position says that there wasn't. Thus, the Amillennial theory has to explain away the implications of "Curare" by saying that Commissioner Barbara was lying, or delusional, or manipulative, or forgetful, or something. OM argues that the non-Amillennialist theories complicate the characters of Bruce (and, in some cases, those of Tim and Alfred) in ways that make them unattractive or "out of character." But the Amillennialist theory also complicates the character of Barbara and also makes her unattractive. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: no theory easily fits, which is why we are having this discussion.

The second point is harder to establish, not because there are special problems, but because this is where the epistemic and metaphysical points can get mixed up with each other.

So, OM surveys some of my suggestions and finds in them the whiff of deus ex machina desperation. I'm not sure how to take this charge, because (at the very least) there is a terminological confusion. Whatever I am doing, deus ex machina is not the term to describe it. That's because a DeM (to shorten the phrase) is a device which concludes a story by interrupting it and preventing the drama from wrapping up in a way that discharges the conflict. So, for example, it would be a DeM in "Heart of Ice" if Ferris Boyle were run over and killed by a truck before Mr. Freeze and Batman got to him. It would be an interruption—a short-circuiting—of the conflict because then Freeze and Batman would be unable to fight over who gets custody of Boyle, thereby settling the question of whether vengeance or justice is to determine his fate. But whatever happened to Bruce and Babs between the flashback in "Old Wounds" and MotBw, or between MotBw and Batman Beyond, does not conclude the story arc of Bruce and Barbara—obviously, because that story continues in BB. Whatever unobserved events happened merely pushed this long and continuing story arc in a different direction.

OM appears to be pressing one or the other of two charges. (1) The Amillennialist position does not need to infer the presence of any complicating plot factors: what we have seen in the various series and movies is all that it needs in order to work. On the other hand, the other theories must postulate the existence of unobserved incidents, and this violates an Occamist's preference for simple theories. (2) The non-Amilliennialist theories must not only postulate a non-professional relationship between Bruce and Babs, they must either assume that certain characters (such as Alfred) are acting strangely in MotBw, or, in order to keep the characters from acting strangely, they must assume that further unobserved incidents (such as Alfred's death) occurred.

To the first charge there isn't much to say: The evidence for the existence of a relationship comes in a canonical episode—"Curare"—and there is surely nothing illegitimate about taking a character's story at face value. So it must be the second charge that is supposed to show that the non-Amillennialist theories require too much invention in order to be taken seriously.

Here is where things get hairy, because this is where the epistemic and metaphysical levels seem to be getting mixed up with each other. There are, in fact, three different ways of interpreting the charge. (If you're keeping score: There are three interpretations of the second possible charge that is designed to invalidate the second premise I need to defend my agnosticism. The incredible complication of the issues is why it has taken me so long to reply to OM's post.)

(a) Epistemic: To support a non-Amillennialist position, one must postulate plot inventions which are not in evidence. This kind of unobserved evidence is a poor evidence indeed to support a theory. I reply: Not necessarily. If what Commissioner Barbara implies in "Curare" is correct, there is an enormous lacuna in the story of Barbara Gordon and Bruce Wayne. The non-Amillennialist theories don't need to fill it; they only need to acknowledge that it exists. Fanfiction-like stories about the death of Alfred are not designed to fill it, only to illustrate that there are lots of materials which could be used to fill it in a logical and consistent manner. The existence of such elements should be enough to show that non-Amillennialist theories are as plausible as the Amillennialist theory.

(b) Metaphysical (I): The events required to construct a coherent and plausible non-Amillennialist theory would violate the integrity of the characters. (E.g., Bruce Wayne would have to react uncharacteristically to the death of Alfred.) Given what we know about the characters, we can positively rule out these possibilities. I reply: Actions flow from character, but character is formed by action. OM deploys a Heisenberg metaphor: People act differently when they are watched. Actually, the Heisenberg principle, if I understand it correctly, asserts that in certain situations there is no fact of the matter before an event has been watched. Taking this principle seriously (which I think we should, in this context), we should say that Bruce's character only implies certain potential acts, which (to turn it around) is to say that Bruce actually possesses certain potential characteristics. Those characteristics do not become actual until he acts. It is not only that we lack the evidence to say for sure how Bruce would react to Alfred's death: in fact, Bruce's "characteristic" reaction to that death is not set until after Alfred dies.

(c) Metaphysical (II): The non-Amillennialist theories would require a lot of work on the part of the writers in order for them to unfold in a coherent manner. By contrast, the Amillennial position is coherent without them having to do any more work. This seems to be another sense of "deus ex machina": For the non-Amillennialist theories to work, the writers would literally have to take up the continuity again in order to solve it. And to it I reply: So what? The non-Amillennial positions only preserve logical space for the writers. Further, my agnosticism can rest content with the preservation of that space. I do not myself fill the narrative space with Preterist or Futurist theories. I only point out that there is room for the writers, if they so choose, to fill it with Preterist or Futurist events.

My conclusion: Preterist and Futurist (and Mutual Consent) theories do not violate any epistemic or metaphysical norms; therefore, they are as interpretively valid as the Amillennial theory. I do not see any reason to choose one of the four, so I remain agnostic.

[Maxie Zeus]

Some additional points in reply to The Old Maid, intended to round off certain parts of the discussion.


character is a very reactive one. But there is one place where she isn't obviously reactive, and that's in her choice to join the police force. Of course, it's not obviously reactive because we don't actually see it or get any idea about what caused it. But it seems like a definitive act for her (the "endorsement of the badge over the cape," as I put it once), and it is possibly the definitive act, given that she seems almost to have drifted into the Batgirl role.


Strangely, I see this in the opposite light, like photos and their negatives. Barbara most emphatically did not drift into the Batgirl role. Almost from the beginning Barbara had an agenda that "when I grow up I'm gonna marry Batman" whether he wanted it or not. To her way of thinking, why would he not? She prepared for the time she might meet him : training in gymnastics, studying crimefighting, and getting involved in cases at least a year before donning the Batgirl suit. Additionally, she donned the Bat suit in the first place to force his hand (or to go behind his back). I don't consider her Batgirl role to be "drifting" but I do consider it reactionary.

(EDIT : or did MZ mean, "drifted IN the Batgirl role"? Now there I would heartily agree. That's why I found the Harvard article on "stars who become shooting stars" so apropos.)

I see Barbara's decision to become a police officer as a reactionary move. She's still on the Gotham road, just walking in the other direction. There's also the timing to consider. Did Barbara join the police force immediately after hanging up the costume? If so, then Batman would still be in her life, and she knows it. He might even shadow her moves (ostensibly to protect her, though I doubt she'd buy that). On the other hand, if she did not join the police force until Batman himself quit the streets, then we would ask, what exactly was she doing with her life for about fifteen years? (That is a topic for fanfiction, and I've no desire to develop it here.)

Put it another way : if Barbara's father had been an accountant, and Barbara grew up in Metropolis, would she still have become a police officer? Was that really her "fate" as such? Was it her true personality? Would she have done so without that external nudge? Barbara is such a reactive force that it would be very difficult to prove she did NOT join the police force in response to the men who influenced her life.

I'm not sure OM and I disagree, once we distinguish between "reaction" and "initiative."

To "react" is to act, of course, but it is to act in a particular circumstance: it is to act in response to outside influences. In this sense, not only is Barbara a "reactionary" character, but so is Bruce. After all, he "reacted" to his parents' murder by becoming Batman. But there are degrees of action depending upon how much creative initiative one shows in one's reaction. Bruce showed lots of initiative in his reaction; Barbara shows comparatively little initiative in many of her reactions. Her tendency is to follow the path of least resistance. She certainly drifted while "in" the Batgirl role. I also think she drifted "into" it because each stage of her development as Batgirl strikes me as a temporizing move. So, in "Heart of Steel" and "Shadow of the Bat" she acted heroically only because her father was in danger. In "Batgirl Returns" she reacted to Catwoman's provocations, and in "Old Wounds" it was easier to follow Bruce's lead once she was down in the Batcave. OM looks at Barbara's dreams and the flow of her actions and concludes that Barbara had a conscious and determined plan to insinuate herself into Batman's life from the beginning. I look at Barbara and see a dreamer who seized opportunities rather than created them. (Historians have similar arguments all the time about various politicians: Did Bismarck, for instance, have a conscious plan that he executed when he was the Prussian/German chancellor, or, as he himself said, did he "listen for God's footsteps and then clutch his cloak as he passed"?)

I don't think much turns upon the above question: either way, Babs looks like a dreamer and an opportunist. But I think it matters when it comes to looking at why Barbara became a police officer after hanging up the Batgirl costume. OM says that Babs was just following the old Gordon road, and I agree. But did she follow it because she was too lazy and unimaginative to see any other road? Or did she follow that road because she was determined to reach the destination it led to? To vary the metaphor: Did Barbara wash ashore as police commissioner because she drifted with the current that led to that beach, or did she swim there. It makes a difference to how we judge her.


When I hear a Barb/Harley comparison, I hear something to the effect that "In addition to his existing sins, Bruce is in some way responsible for the fact that Barbara grew up to be the kind of woman who would be drawn to his kind of man." (Good man or bad, same difference.) Is there an implication that Barbara was too messed up before she met Batman to make good decisions with him? If so, did she get that messed up because Batman was in her life from the beginning? And if that is also so, isn't that just as much Jim Gordon's fault for indulging the Bat, for spending more time with the Bat at times than Jim did with his own daughter? And if it's Jim's fault and Batman's fault that Barbara grew up the way she did, can Barbara ever be held accountable for anything?

This is another place where we probably do not disagree. I introduced the Barbara-Harley comparison in reaction to this quote:


Most sensible people would know by looking at Batman that he's not a good catch. There must be plenty of other rich handsome bachelors in Gotham who, moreover, are unlikely to crack under pressure and climb to the top of a belltower with a Freeze gun.

This statement stood for a general thrust I detected in OM's arguments: Bruce is crazy, so he can't be held responsible for the bad things that happened between him and Babs; therefore, if the relationship was a bad idea, it was Babs fault for being silly enough to get involved with a crazy man. That sounds like a plausible line to pursue with Harley and the Joker, and I only meant to point out that if we take that line with Barbara as well, then there is an ugly equation to be made between Babs and Harley. I did not assert the comparison; I only noted it as a logical consequence of a certain analysis.

Well, OM says that this was not the intended thrust of her arguments. I'll cheerfully accept that and note that, by now, we do have added a considerable discussion of Bruce's responsibilities for whatever happened between the two characters.



Finally, this seemed to fit the facts more than the stereotypical complaint, "Well, Bruce must have messed up the relationship, because everyone knows he always does." Begging the Question, plus Appeal to the Masses. Maybe in the comics Bruce/Batman "always" (or at least often) ruins the relationship. In the animated continuity Bruce/Batman actually ruins things slightly less than half the time, with the woman ruining things slightly more than half the time. Just wanted to clarify that point.


Who ruins what is largely irrelevant in Bruce's case. As a compulsive, he cannot be changed so in the long run he will destroy any relationship because his nature is selfdestructive. The only relationship he can have is with a woman he can trust and accepts his calling and never tries to stand against it. I'm not sure I know a woman who has been in BTAS who would except it. Maybe Kathy, but then she's not in on the secret. That is the big challenge.

I think OM's comment is aimed at me, and SJJ does a nice job of rebutting it. But let me add to it.

I originally made the observation here:


Alfred's tempering influence on Bruce is probably best seen in contrast with Bruce's influence on his own acolytes. He's taken in orphans himself, victims of equivalent tragedies, and taught them to be crimefighters too. But where Alfred restrains Bruce, Wayne goads and bullies Grayson and Drake and Gordon to be more strenuous, more serious, more implacably and inflexibly relentless. And so his influence is ultimately withering—all ultimately rebel, or meet untimely deaths or accidents. That Batman himself never falls or falters may be due to his immense skill; but it may equally be that unobtrusive little man whose pursed lips deter Bruce from crossing the same line he unforgivingly pushes others over.

And I applied it here:


Basically, the tragedy of the situation is this: the relationship between Batman and his [b]sidekicks always ends badly, whether romance gets mixed into it or not. (I don't go into details, but I suggest here that, if you compare the personalities of Batman and Alfred, Batman looks like the kind of character who will always break his associates.) The addition of a personal relationship between Bats and Babs, and its going sour, might add an extra dose of the poison to the breakup, but I suspect the toxicity already present would have sufficed. Put it this way: If Babs and Bruce had never been an item; if Babs had gotten over her crush long before they parted ways; if Babs just wanted out, as they all seem to do, eventually: would things in BB look that different? I'm not sure they would. Think of Nightwing, who apparently is still off somewhere seething. (Emphasis added.)

Note that I didn't say that Batman "always messes up relationships." I said that "Batman puts impossible pressures on his acolytes." It's the mentor-disciple relationships that are always going be screwed up, I claim.

Batman has lots of relationships, and most of them are healthy: He has a healthy (business) relationship with Lucius Fox. He has a healthy (familial) relationship with Alfred. He has a healthy (crimefighting) relationship with Jim Gordon and (in Justice League) with the JLers. His romantic relationships have been problematic, but as OM rightly points out, that is just as often the fault of the women. And I agree with SJJ: I don't think Batman cannot have a healthy romatic relationship; he only requires someone willing to be a "policeman's wife." (Which is difficult to imagine happening, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.)

Why is this important? Because I think that Babs' embitterment is, to an extent, overdetermined: She's like someone who takes poison and shoots herself after jumping off a very tall building. What caused her alienation from Batman? It's hard to tell, because there is more than one potential factor at work, and they might all be mixed up with each other. It's not a matter of assigning blame (to Bruce instead of to Barbara); it's a matter of understanding how complex the personal and psychological factors are. It seems to me reductive to see in Commissioner Barbara only a disillusioned lover. And if she's not merely a disillusioned lover, then it is a mistake to view her entire previous career as that of a romantic fantasist.

[Maxie Zeus]

Some thoughts before bed:

1. re: "death makes him horny??"

June 2002 saw a nice little spike in the birth rate in the U.S. Why? 'Cause in September of '01, something really bad happened, and humans have a surprisingly small number of ways they choose to seek comfort and communion after a tragedy. It's kind of how we're programmed. Speculating that Bruce sought out Barbara after an unnamed Bad Event, or finally allowed her in after the same, simply means he'd be acting human for once. Given a sufficiently bad event, such as the death of Catwoman or Jim Gordan or Alfred, and Bruce's complete alienation from the rest of his family, it's not a stretch.

If you don't mind me playing ping-pong with myself, I'm going to tackle both sides of this question.

I proposed that Babs and Bruce got together after an "unnamed Bad Event." I also suggested that Bruce might turn predatory. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that these two scenarios were one and the same. The Bruce-as-predator scenario doesn't require a Bad Event for it to occur, and Commissioner Barbara's statements in "Curare" do not necessarily that s-x was involved, only that the relationship took a non-professional turn. So I don't think that "Death makes Batman horny," and I appreciate the skeptical tone to your note.

If I may argue OM's side, though, I think she would find it out of character for Bruce to turn to Babs even in a moment of trauma. She says that Bruce's tendency is to turn inward in a time of crisis, and I can certainly see that. But I can see the other way, too. Basically, as I said in a post above, character is formed by action, and you don't fully understand a character until you've seen all of his or her actions. Is Bruce the type to turn inward in a moment of emotional crisis? Definitely. Is he the type to turn inward when his father figure dies and there is no one left? I don't know. Possibly, but possibly not. We would have to see what happens when Alfred dies.


3. "Old Wounds"

I'm still trying to figure out the reading everyone else is giving this episode, because it's leaving me baffled.

[snip]

Now, I'd be perfectly happy to hear that we saw another episode where this was explained in much further detail, 'cause I would really like to see that interaction. (Please, tell me there's more. It's been years since I've seen most of this series.) But in lieu of such a scene, how does the above translate into Babs ditching Dick for Bruce?

OM briefly PMs me the following, with permission to post it. (She begs off a direct post because of a busy schedule, but wants to get it out.)


Merlin Missy had a question, something about "when in Old Wounds did Dick actually ask Babs to leave with him." Short answer, he didn't. He said Babs shouldn't be Batgirl, that Batman manipulated her. Dick left Gotham twice. The first time he left, he returned as Nightwing. The second time, he LEFT as Nightwing. Commish Barbara describes this second departure as, "He was ... hurt ... when I chose to stay behind, with Bruce." She'd have to be lying or reality-impaired if that statement referred to the first time. (That wasn't Dick's poor little feelings getting hurt. That was Dick demonstrating whether or not humans can spontaneously combust.) Now, the second time, which was after TNBA, evidence suggests he gave her a last chance. Babs flirted with Dick through much of TNBA. (He rejects her four times in You Scratch My Back alone.) However, when combined with her unabashed devotion to Batman it really did look as though she was trying to collect the set. Dick didn't take her back during TNBA because Bruce/Batman and Babs/Batgirl were still spending time together, and Dick doesn't believe in sharing women. When Dick left for good, I think his actions and Comm. Barbara's statement suggest a scenario like this :

Dick : "I'm leaving. But where I'm going, it's just me. Not me and him. You behave as if you still want me? Okay babe, put your money where your mouth is."

Babs : "Um, no."

Babs talking to herself : "If he leaves, that's proof he doesn't care, maybe didn't care. If he wanted me he would stay."

Dick talking to himself : "Dick, you dummy. Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to."

To say that Dick is "hurt" in the second departure is still a rather brazen understatement. But at least it fits the available facts, without anyone having to lie.

This makes sense to me, and it stands as an example of the very subtle readings that OM can make to the series. But I think you make an excellent point in the passages surrounding this observation:


Without Dick around, Babs is going to be tuned into The Batman Channel 24/7.

That's an aspect I hadn't considered, and it's a good one: Even if Babs is "chasing" Batman, her being around him is going to reinforce her choice for him because she's going to be getting his "side of the story." And it ties in with my claim that Bruce has a "seductive" aspect to his personality. I don't think he has to deliberately run Dick down; he can make himself look good without even trying.

But there's one place where I have to disagree with you


I'm going to go Occam's Razor and stick with what the show tried to say.

Actually, if you want to settle the dispute by wielding Occam's Razor, you're going to have to go Amillennialist, because that's the one that posits the fewest complications.

First, it assumes that there is no "unseen" event that could be called a non-professional relationship between Babs and Bruce, and it doesn't have to assume any Bad Events that would explain how such a relationship occurred. On an Amillennialist theory, there is no "rest of the story" because we have seen all that there is to the story, except maybe a scene where Babs screams "I thought you loved me!" at Bruce.

Second, the Amillennialist position is able to get along without such posits because it describes Babs in a highly coherent and consistent manner: It starts with the dream sequence in "Batgirl Returns," which shows that Babs has, at the very least, a latent romantic attraction to Batman, and it ends with Commissioner Barbara in "Curare" being convinced (or pretending to be convinced) that there was a romantic relationship between the two of them. As I've put it, it paints her as a consistent "fantasist." Thus, there emerges a very simple explanation for Babs' feelings and actions across the span of her life and career. It's a very powerful explanation, and I feel its attraction even though I am not convinced by it. But then, I'm not convinced by any explanation. :D

[Maxie Zeus]

Gender orientated actions as you suggest are by definition, extremely broad and with little evidence hard to pin. To me it's far more simple. She did what so many try to do in relationships with compulsives; she either looked for a changed or try to make a change. It doesn't happen. That was a mistake of inexperience to a degree, but the wanting and need to see someone beyond what they appear is an inate flaw in us all.

Just a clarification in defense of OM on this point. Here is Millman's quote, which OM endorses and amplifies:


A lot of what we define as "masculine" or "feminine" is actually behavior that more precisely stems from being financially dominant or dependent. Because women usually earn less than men, it's easy to mistake the infantilizing effects of dependency for something deeper in the feminine psyche.

Millman (and OM) is not saying that Babs is acting this way because she is a woman; Millman is saying that when power relationships are unequal, one person can be forced into a disadvantageous position by the other. Usually it is the woman who is forced to make this compromise, but that is a contingent fact. A man can just as easily be forced into a humiliating position by a woman when the circumstances are right.

OM points out that this same power relationship is present in the Bruce-Babs relationship: It appears that she "needs" Bruce more than he needs her, so she is forced to "sign a prenup" that protects his interest, which is the maintenance of the status quo. You're not really disagreeing with OM here. :)

[James]

OM points out that this same power relationship is present in the Bruce-Babs relationship: It appears that she "needs" Bruce more than he needs her, so she is forced to "sign a prenup" that protects his interest, which is the maintenance of the status quo. You're not really disagreeing with OM here. :)
I understand - and I don't disagree with that analysis of relationships in the slightest. I've seen it too many times. However, I was just saying in Bruce's situation, the obstacle and nature of the power imbalance is clearly defined less by his treatment of her (which much of is deducted from hypothesis), but his personal obsessive characteristics.

My disagreement stems from the point that I don't think you need to look too much into Bruce's actions - much of which are being based on one scene - to understand the problems Barb encounters in a relationship with Bruce. I still don't see the MotB being a definitive indication of their relationship. You can see though that an unspoken prenup would be required from Bruce just by the nature of his obsession. Yes, I think that's something everyone agrees with. :) Horrah.

I wish I had time to go back and read the comments that you and TOM made I missed.. I wasn't going to get involved again - I think that OM can take that as a compliment that her last post drew me in regardless. :)

[Fone Bone]

Sob! Maxie, why didn't you reply to me? I GAVE you Don Music!:D

;) :p

[Maxie Zeus]

Doh! I knew there was a reply I forgot to make last night! And it was the most important one!

"Don Music." Sounds vaguely familiar. It's weird that I can't remember it; most of those memories are tamped into my skull like five-inch nails.

[Fone Bone]

Doh! I knew there was a reply I forgot to make last night! And it was the most important one!

"Don Music." Sounds vaguely familiar. It's weird that I can't remember it; most of those memories are tamped into my skull like five-inch nails.
Yep, it was Don Music. I DO remember Kermit calling the guy Don too. So, mystery solved.:)

Just don't bang your head on the computer keyboard. Kids could get the wrong idea.;)

[G. Wen]

First off, sorry about posting the last part of my reply so late, I've been busy with research. (If this thread is getting too old for anyone, just ignore it.) Also, I edited post 131, so if this doesn't make sense, read post 131.

Old, Bitter Barb



Let me 1st state that I don’t deny that Barb’s bitter (like a stated earlier, she’s like a old soldier w/ a few scars). However, I also don’t think Barb’s actions in BB is her trying to one up Bruce. If she wanted to outdo Bruce, she would mimic his actions, times 2. She would take not 1, but 2 protégées under her wing because Bruce wrangled himself a new errand boy. Bruce and Terry captured Inque? Well, she’ll do better. She’ll go out of her way to find and arrest 2 genetically altered criminals. Bruce and Terry cracked down on who’s supplying high school athletes with venom? Well, she’ll uncover the biggest drug bust yet. To me, Barbara isn’t trying to outdo Bruce; she just doesn’t want to work with him.

Although Barb doesn’t appear in Blackout until the end of the episode (and even then it’s a brief stint), I think her short phone conversation w/ Bruce shows a lot about her feelings towards him. (I’ll be paraphrasing a lot from here because I haven’t seen this episode in a long time, but I’m hoping I’m remembering this correctly.) Bruce calls Barb, says something, and Barb replies, “I’ve heard you wrangled yourself a new errand boy.” She doesn’t hang up on him, she doesn’t scream at him, she doesn’t even sound annoyed. She sounds a bit amused but also a bit not pleased.

Bruce replies, “I never wrangled any of you guys in. You all came to me.”

“Just once, why don’t you try talking someone out of it?”

“Would it have worked for you?” Then he says something about Batman dropping her a gift and how she should keep it on ice. If Barb were trying to one up Bruce, she'd say something along the lines of, “Oh, rubbing it in my face because you captured Inque, huh?”

Barb’s 1st major role in BB is AOTC. Many people see a competition between Barb and Bruce in this episode, however I believe the animosity stems from Barb not wanting to work w/ Bruce. If Barb catches Curare w/ Batman’s help, that means she has to partner up w/ Batman. Due to past, similar partnerships which left Barb with a bitter taste in her mouth, she decides she doesn’t want to repeat the experience. Let me play devil’s advocate for a while to cover all bases. What if Bruce and Barb work separately, each trying to capture Curare? Certainly, AOTC can be read that way. Neither character went up to each other and said, “Let me help you stop Sam’s assassin.” In other words, if they were working separately, and don’t get in each other’s way, Barb has no reason to get mad at Bruce and Terry. Now think about this: Barb worked w/ Bruce for a long time, so she knows that Bruce will meddle w/ the Curare affair. However, Barb never approaches Bruce before hand and says, “Hey, keep out of the Curare case!” She doesn’t give this threat until Batman gets caught in the trap intended for Curare. Now, if you took time and effort setting up a trap, and someone else ruins everything because he stumbled into it, of course you’d get mad and scream at that person. Barb can solve this problem. Just tell Bruce ahead of time of her plans and traps- but that would involve working with difficult Bruce. (I’m not saying Barbara isn’t difficult, but 1 difficult person doesn’t like working w/ another difficult person.)

Near the end of AOTC, Barb, Sam (I think), Batman, and Curare are in a meat factory (I think). During the fight, Barb assists Batman by throwing a Baterang. Barbara could’ve just let him duel it out w/ Curare (“He thinks he’s so cool, let’s see if he can take her on,”) but she didn’t. She saw Batman was in trouble and she helped him out. If she’s competing w/ Bruce, she would’ve let Curare kick Batman’s hinny and then take on Curare herself (“Ha, see Bruce? I do do a better job than you!”) And if she has any ill feelings towards Bruce, why not let Curare kick Batman’s hinny?

Then there’s Babel. Shriek demands the city hand over Batman, or they get it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! The city wants Batman to turn himself in and they blame him for Shriek’s demands. But what about Barb’s response? She asks Bruce to give up Terry. Sounds heartless, doesn’t it? But doesn’t she say that if he turns Terry over to her, she’ll take care of him because she’s been “trained by the best?” Barb isn’t just going to turn Terry over to Shriek, she’s got something up her sleeves. But why not let Bruce and Terry handle this situation? As commissioner, she feels personally responsible for the city, and she feels she has a duty to resolve the situation of Shriek’s demands. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be weird if Bruce shows up w/ Batman? Shriek would be like, “Hey, aren’t you that old guy Powers wanted me to kill?”

However, Eyewitness shows that Barbara is ruthless towards Batman. First, she blows up at him because he ruins a sting she took 1 yr. to set up. I argue she would’ve given anyone the same treatment (yes, including her cops). Batman ruins a sting she took 1 yr. to set up! This isn’t “Sorry, I broke your glassware” mistake; this is “Sorry, I crashed your car into your house” mistake. Granted, Barb could’ve controlled her temper better, but I argue her temper isn’t exclusive towards Batman in this situation. Later, she thinks she sees Batman kill Mad Stan. She enacts a manhunt and does everything (including shooting at Batman numerous times) in order to bring him in. This does appear like Barb harbors ill will towards Bruce, and will try anything to take him and his legacy down. But Barbara saw (at least she thinks she saw) Batman kill Mad Stan. If 20 of your neighbors told you they saw a fleet of UFO’s you’d be incredulous. If you personally saw a fleet of UFO’s, you’d believe what you saw (or tell yourself to lay off the drugs), even though your neighbors may not believe you. Barbara not only saw Batman kill Mad Stan, she knows that they hulled (a mirage of) his body away. Of course she’s not going to check if his body is still in the freezer because she thinks he’s dead. How many dead bodies get up and walk away? (If I remember correctly, Bruce never tells her Mad Stan’s body is missing. I wonder why.) But how could Barb believe Batman is capable of murder? She didn’t until she saw it (or think she saw it). Furthermore, she hasn’t known the kid for a long time. She knows Bruce can’t murder, who knows about the kid. He does have a record, and although this doesn’t mean he’s definitely a murderer, it doesn’t help his case either. Barbara now sees Terry as a criminal, and as a police officer, she sees that it’s her duty to bring the criminal to justice, even if it means revealing her own past.

Lastly, when did Barbara become commissioner? We assume it’s after she left Bruce, but we don’t know that for sure. She could’ve become commissioner during her later years as Batgirl. She could’ve become commissioner after her father died. Or, like we assume, she could’ve become commissioner right after she left Bruce. I bring this up because each situation presents Barbara in a different light, and if Barb left Bruce, became commissioner, that is 1 argument that she is trying to outdo and react against Bruce. But we don’t know when she became commissioner, do we?

Well, feel free to agree, disagree, point out holes, and argue with me. I hope I can argue with the best of you guys. (But if you guys are tired of this thread, just let it go.) J

[The Old Maid]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

By this point I'm not sure if we are arguing a metaphysical point or an epistemic one. Just for fun, which one is this? ;)


Calvin : "Hobbes, do you think our morality is defined by our actions, or by what's in our hearts?"

Hobbes : "I think our actions show what's in our hearts."

Calvin : "I resent that!"

from Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Patterson

Aside from the above, a lot of replies and concepts in this thread can be traced to timing.

Even this one. MZ claims Heisenberg to explain the Bruce/Barbara situation on the grounds that Heisenberg matches his "agnostic" position more closely than mine does. Gotta disagree there. Heisenberg (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html) argued that the act of observation alters the experiment. We could note position but only guess at momentum, or know momentum but guess at position. It doesn't mean that everything is unknowable. We could still get something out of it. When that first neutrino plinked in an underground pool of deuterium, we finally proved that neutrinos existed. Unfortunately the act of observation bounced the neutrino off its previous trajectory. It must be tracked all over again. (Barbara's private feelings have become public knowledge -- and Bruce is treating her as a pest. That was unexpected. Until we saw the characters actually interacting, the presumed position and momentum of continuity was that the two would become a couple. However the act of observation introduces new evidence that suggests that previously recorded data may be inaccurate. Even if it was accurate once, it may not be accurate anymore.)

MZ's position reminds me more of Schrodinger (http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html), best known for Schrodinger's cat (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_122.html). In Schrodinger's scenarios, the act of observation TERMINATES the experiment, which is rather different. Schrodinger argued that, since all unobserved possibilities were equally plausible, they are equally co-existent. Only when the cat is let out of the bag do all other realities wink out of existence, leaving the one "real" one. (We can never know what happened between Bruce and Barbara until the writers commit themselves by word and/or additional scenes broadcast on a canon Timmverse vehicle. What they showed us in "Batwoman" is not a sufficient committment. Therefore all possibilities remain "live" until we are presented with proof that would convince ALL agnostics.) True, this isn't identical to MZ's position, but I think it's closer than Heisenberg. And in fact amillennial theory has something in common with both scientists. On the one hand, everytime someone "heals the world" (or screws up) this human action "moves" The Last Day forward or backward in time, which is very Heisenberg. On the other hand, when the eternal finally reveals itself, the mortal world winks out of existence, which is very Schrodinger.

Now for all you science fans out there, watch Heisenberg and Schrodinger get into an argument (http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm). They didn't argue nicely like good, sweet ToonZone people do. ;) (If memory serves, one of them called the other one's work A Bad Word. Must've made it harder to eat those words when they discovered that they had one point in common! The discovery of this common ground led to the Unified Theory of quantum mechanics.) This is a great extra credit project and fun for the whole family.

There's a reason I didn't include, "Hunh, I dunno" as a poll option : it's no fun! :D How can the writers tug our capes when those capes are in the washer (with Woobie, I presume). That, and those of you who have never had the pleasure, now have some idea of what it is like to serve jury duty. Of course here at ToonZone you don't get paid, but you can point & laugh, snore, eat pizza, and scratch, as the mood strikes you.

A matter of timing : when is Batwoman set in DCAU continuity? I argue, it is after TNBA concluded its run. Batwoman cannot be set between BTAS and TNBA because TNBA begins the night that Tim Drake arrives in the Batcave and becomes Robin. Barbara/Batgirl is present to witness this theft and transformation. There is therefore no Tim Drake in the Batcave before TNBA to make fun of Barbara behind her back ; there is no quarantined Barbara to be belittled via long-distance.

Then, Batwoman cannot be placed within TNBA itself, for two reasons. One is that Barbara was in every second or third episode. There is therefore no gap sufficiently large to allow Barbara to be out of town at college for months on end. During these mini-gaps, she reappears looking quite unchanged. However in Batwoman a television reporter asks if Batwoman is "Batgirl grown up." This suggests that Gotham City has not seen Batgirl for some time (something they would not say if she had only been gone for a few weeks). So on the one hand Barbara is accounted for during TNBA. On the other hand, Dick Grayson/Nightwing is NOT accounted for in the Batwoman film. Dick Grayson returned to Gotham in "Sins of the Father," less than 24 hours after Tim Drake stole the Robin suit. Nightwing remains in Gotham for all of TNBA's run. There is therefore no reason not to mention him in Batwoman. Indeed, failure to do so would surely cause the Grayson fans to hunt down the writers with dogs and steeplechasers. Since the writers may be allergic to pain, it stands to reason that if they didn't mention Grayson, it is because he was no longer in Gotham.

Finally, in Batwoman Tim Drake's voice is changing. His voice cracks when he speaks to Rocky or about Rocky. Since Andrea Romano & Company almost never make a mistake in voice casting or direction, I believe this is intentional. In ROTJ Tim's voice has finished changing, and though he only has two lines it is definitely noticeable.

For all these reasons Batwoman appears to be set a few months before Return of the Joker.

A matter of timing : why the confusion about the time? Two reasons.

One is that Batman and Batgirl spent five years alone between BTAS and TNBA (in the "Robin interregnum"). Then they spent another five years (at most) alone after both Robins were gone. I think people get these intervals confused.

Two, I think that people become confused by Batman's behavior toward Batgirl in TNBA ; therefore they conclude "something" must have happened in the first 5-year-gap. On this and other threads, fans posit that Batman expresses his feelings for Batgirl by, say, shielding her with his body during explosions or by taking on the more dangerous criminals himself. Well, yes. Batman is fond of her. Up to the time of the purported affair he has treated her like a little sister. And like a little sister she needs his protection. (I am reminded of the training scene in TNBA's "Cold Comfort." Batgirl did her best, but we have to face the fact that Barbara was in her 8th year as Batgirl when she failed this test. Two years in BTAS, then five years in the time between the Robins. It's her 8th year as Batgirl and she's still playing catch-up.) But when Batman protects Batgirl, are his actions truly expressions of sexual attachment/romantic affection? I doubt it. He does it to everyone. Batman protected Harley ("Harlequinade"), James Gordon ("Mad Love") and Two-Face ("Judgment Day") from explosions. Twice Batman pounced on assailants to save Bullock ("A Bullet for Bullock"). Old Man Wayne put on an exosuit to save Terry ("Disappearing Inque"), even though this behavior could get Wayne killed twice over. (A heart attack could kill him before Inque could do it.) Do these identical gestures become "intimate" when Batman protects Batgirl? When Batman saves everyone else, they hear their teeth grinding. When Batman saves Batgirl, does she hear violins? If so, why?

This is the part where I get beat up after school a stern talking-to :p. For you see, if on the one hand the fans can persuade themselves that Batman's actions express intimacy, then we can see how easily Barbara might persuade herself of the exact same thing -- in other words, imagining a relationship by taking innocent actions and blowing them out of proportion. On the other hand, if Batman's actions can be taken for expressions of intimacy, then we are seeing the same mechanism at work that persuaded Fredric Wertham that the 1940s/50s Batman's interactions with Robin were similarly intimate. After all the circumstances are nearly identical : Batman takes a novice into battle, knowing that the novice will be flattered to be entrusted with such an important mission ; novice needs rescuing and Batman does this ; novice is duly impressed and grateful. And what gift is great enough to express gratitude for one's life? And why else would Batman endanger a novice's life again and again except to cultivate that gratitude? ... Well, you get the idea. (I think it's hooey regardless of the gender.)

I'm not saying this is how the fans think, or that this is how Barbara thinks. I'm just saying, this is how stories like that get started.

Timing : if Alfred did not confront Bruce/Batman in the limo because "it was neither the time nor the place," then why did they never get back to it? Why was the Barbara situation never addressed again? Some would argue "boorish behavior", others "forlorn wishful thinking", others script incompetence. As you know, my position is that Bruce never got back to Barbara because he is not interested in her.

Bruce never returns Barbara's call. (What was he waiting for, the rates to go down?) Bruce never reassures or comforts her. Meanwhile, if Alfred was reluctant to address the issue when Tim was present, both he and Bruce had ample time when Tim was not present. Both Alfred and Bruce have time enough to tail Kathy Duquesne all day. Apparently Alfred thought it a better use of his time to read the newspaper ("Dennis the Menace," to be precise) than to come to Barbara's defense or to bring up the subject of Bruce/Batman's obligations to her. Bruce tells Rocky he is "on the market," and he acts it. Bruce finds enough free time to go to dinner with both Kathy and Rocky, and time enough to with Kathy for three nights altogether -- but finds no time to throw a bone to poor Babs, who is far from home and imagining the worst. (I agree with the proposal that Barbara relishes even Batman's professional trust and that she is anxious to be losing even what little part of his life she has got.)

Was Bruce's interest in Kathy forced? Was he trying to "make" himself become interested in her to avoid facing his feelings for Barbara? I have to admit, I don't see it. If Bruce/Batman is ignoring Barbara, he doesn't exactly seem to be out-of-practice. It seems both comfortable and easy for him to do. He was doing that before he started spending time with Kathy. I could see Bruce and Kathy spending a few weeks together before they drift on to other interests, but I don't think it follows that Kathy is Barbara's competition. The Batwoman film spanned at least three days, plenty of time for Bruce/Batman's thought to return to Barbara, that is, if she was ever in his thoughts.

Timing : how old is Barbara? In BTAS "Heart of Steel" Barbara came home from college. Unless she attends college on the Doogie Howser Plan -- unlikely, given that she had trouble with math in "Batgirl Returns" -- she was probably the same age as a typical student. At the youngest, 19 years old. A year later in "Shadow of the Bat" she would be at youngest 19 or 20 years old. In "Batgirl Returns" she would be at youngest 20 or 21 years old. With the change in Dick Grayson's attitude between "Batgirl Returns" and the his college graduation in the "Old Wounds" flashback we could add another year. Therefore when Dick Grayson graduated he was about 22 to 23 and Barbara was, at youngest, 21 to 22 years old. (She could be older than Grayson, as she is in the comics. All we know at this point is that she didn't graduate in the same year he did.)

The day after Dick graduated he broke with Batman and Barbara and left Gotham (the "Old Wounds" flashback). He returned the day after 13-year-old Tim Drake joined the Bat-family ("Sins of the Father"). Canon writer Hilary Bader wrote these and other elements into the bridge comic "The Lost Years." This story proposes a five-year gap between the Robins. So in "Sins of the Father" Grayson/Nightwing was 27 or 28 ; Barbara was (at youngest) 26 or 27 years old. (Again, she could be older.)

How old is everyone in ROTJ? We have to start with Tim. I propose Tim could not be older than 16 at the time, and could very well be younger. If he had been 17 then Harley and Batgirl could not tower over him ; moreover, Terry McGinnis is 17 and he's animated in the same style as Tim. Anyhow, if Tim was 14 in either Batwoman or ROTJ, then Barbara was (at youngest) 27 or 28 at the time. When Tim was 15 Barbara was (at youngest) 28 or 29 at the time. It makes no difference that the TNBA Barbara is animated as a teenager or behaves as a teenager : by the time of Batwoman Barbara is (at youngest) pushing 30, and may be over it.

By the time of ROTJ and then the purported Bruce/Barbara affair, Barbara has got to be between 30 and 35 years old. At youngest. Unless you're a Preterist, in which case you are placing the affair before Batwoman, at a time when Barbara was (at youngest) 26 to 28 years old. Afterwards, Barbara lingered by Batman's side for about five more years because she could not accept/comprehend that it was over.

Whatever Barbara's age, Bruce/Batman is 12 to 13 years older than Barbara. In Miller's Year One Bruce/Batman is definitely 25 years old. In The Long Halloween, a "year two" story, Barbara's age is given as thirteen. So if Barbara is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 in the Batwoman/ROTJ/purported-affair era, then Bruce/Batman is in the neighborhood of 42 at the time, give or take.

What strikes me as odd is that people yip at Kathy's age, when the older Barbara is behaving in a more adolescent manner. A few posters commented that maybe Barbara was just being girly/flirty because she felt more comfortable with Bruce. I'd buy it except for the fact that it's not a turn-on for Bruce. (If it's a turn-off for him, why does she do it?) Meanwhile the only quality in Kathy that strikes me as truly "fluffy" is her passion for clothes shopping, but then again some men (including Bruce) have a similar passion to buy cars, motorcycles or power tools. (It's open for debate which behavior expresses immaturity, materialism or cooing "girly talk" to one's beloved. For me the tiebreaker is that Bruce treats Kathy as if she's old enough to keep up with him, but does not seem to regard Barbara in a comparable light.)

Timing : when did Barbara become the police commissioner? I argue, no earlier than 40 to 45. Why is that? Well, Barbara cannot become commissioner before she rises in rank among the police. She cannot rise in rank until she becomes a policewoman. She cannot become a policewoman until she graduates from the police academy. And that is something we have not yet seen her do. In BTAS ("Shadow of the Bat I") and TNBA (I forget the name of the episode) Barbara seems to have a clerical job with the police department. She has permission to enter restricted areas, rummage through their files, and use their phone. This does not make her a policewoman. She's still a clerk.

Our educated guess is that Barbara became a policewoman after she gave up her role as Batgirl. After she becomes a policewoman, I would expect her to put in at least ten years in assorted assignments before she could be a viable candidate to take command of several thousand police officers. (She can't exactly write "was Batgirl aged 19-30something" on the "previous work experience" page of her resume.) The police union would not place the lives of their troops in the hands of a rookie, no matter how much book-larnin' said rookie might have attained. In fact I would question the integrity of a police union that would waive the experience requirement. Giving Barbara a minimum of ten years to go from academy graduate to police commissioner is more than fair.

On the day Barbara actually graduates from the academy she will have the training and authority to use lethal force. However if Barbara tries to become a policewoman before she hangs up the cape, Batman probably would fire her. Batman turned to tights in the first place because he rejected not just guns, but also key aspects of the legal system that makes room for them. (Again, there's that comparison to Jim Gordon, who by making an alliance with the Batman, also rejects key aspects of a system Gordon swore to uphold and protect.) The day that Barbara picks up a gun, she rejects Batman's core beliefs. Indeed, to his mind, she joins the gun culture that he blames for the death of his parents. He cannot tolerate, will not tolerate, a gunslinger in spandex. He hates guns. He hates them so much that he fired both the animated Tim for using a gun and then fired himself for pointing a gun. Never mind that no jury would have convicted either one of them. Bruce/Batman cannot stand it, and he won't.

MZ proposes that the tension between Old Man Wayne and Commissioner Barbara arises from professional competition. How did they get to that point? Did Barbara reject Batman's ideology to embrace an ideology he had rejected? Did she reject the person first and then his ideology? Are these hopelessly mixed up because Bruce created the Batman ideology, and thus any sliver of dissention between them is a rejection of both his natures? Did Bruce/Batman reject her ideology (which some here have proposed is an ideology of "being in love with the ideology of Batman but not the person known as Bruce") ... Did he reject the person (either by well, rejecting her, or by failing to provide what she needed) and in doing so drive her away to another ideology? To drive her away to an ideology he hates? Ah, boundaries.

A matter of timing : why does Commissioner Barbara so dislike Terry McGinnis? Is it solely because she sees Terry as merely an extension of Old Man Wayne? Well, yes and no.

In the Preterist and Futurist scenarios (where Bruce and Barbara had a severly imbalanced and particularly ugly relationship), Commissioner Barbara may never progress beyond seeing Terry this way. In the Mutual Consent and Amillennial scenarios, I think Barbara's relationship with Terry can express even deeper problems. I would argue that Terry reminds Barbara of a time that she cannot explain away as a "youthful indiscretion." Terry brings up bad memories for Barbara, or at least unresolved issues. I propose that Barbara projects those unresolved issues onto Terry : when she criticizes him, she is expressing a conflict within herself.

Dick and Tim were minors when they came into Batman's life. When Barbara became Batgirl she was a legal adult, living independently at college. Furthermore, Barbara operated as Batgirl for two years, tolerated by the Batboys but not accepted. And this is what Barbara may be projecting onto Terry : Barbara was conveniently "old enough" to be Batgirl on her own, but after she became Batman's partner and it turned bad, she conveniently became "too young" to have associated with Batman in any manner.



Barbara : "I appreciate what you've done here tonight, but I want you to stay out of police business. Of course, maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy. (She turns to Bruce, ignoring Terry.) Hard to believe you're still remaking your image at this late date."

Wayne : "I never forced him."

Terry : "It's what I wanted."

Barbara : "That's what we all thought, at first."

-- Our Heroes arguing in the Batcave, "A Touch of Curare"

Barbara compares herself to the Robins, and to Terry. But she makes a crucial error in doing so, for there is nobody in her position. The Robins really were too young to comprehend the dangers, whereas Terry may be more mature than Barbara at the same age (or at least more worldly). Terry doesn't need to be cured of hero worship, because he doesn't worship Wayne. Terry does not need to be warned that Old Man Wayne is a freak, because Terry recognized that fact and called Wayne a freak on their first day. Terry does not need to be warned about Bruce/Batman's dark side, because Terry has his own dark side that even Old Man Wayne never shared. (Wayne was never a criminal.) Terry has been incarcerated. If Terry gets caught again, he is old enough to be tried as an adult. In some states he is eligible to get a capital sentence as an adult. (Certainly in "Eyewitness" Barbara tries to gun him down like an adult. She couldn't just dose him with knockout gas? She had four or five opportunities. If she didn't try harder to capture Terry alive, is it possible she wasn't certain she wanted to? Just asking.)

So it is not quite accurate for Barbara to say that she was one of many sidekicks who were too young to know what was good for them. If anything, she is the one adult partner who had the best chance at a normal life -- and she threw it away because she didn't want it. She wanted the freaks and the spandex and the thrills. As MZ correctly notes it is possible for Batman to seduce someone who "wants it," but how can Barbara explain away her two years as Batgirl before Batman brought her into the Batcave? Well, she can't. Not without acknowledging that she is responsible for the direction of her life, and if her life didn't turn out perfectly, well, whose has?

Commissioner Barbara seems uncomfortable facing this possibility. It's easier to project the problem onto Terry -- to conclude that he is a weak person and that it is her duty to rescue him from a strongman. And indeed there is nothing Terry could have done to dissuade her from her quest. If he quits being Batman just because she asked him nicely in "ATOC," that only confirms her diagnosis that Terry is a weak person, and not just because he sold his soul to the GCPD for a donut. On the other hand, if Terry refuses to quit being Batman ... then he is a weak person who cannot discern Old Man Wayne's nefarious intent. It has to be this way, for the day that Barbara acknowledges that Terry is old enough to make his own choices and face the consequences is the day that she must do so too.

In the comics it was Nightwing who had to wrestle with this issue. Did Batman "seduce" someone who "wanted it?" At first Nightwing said Yes. And then to the vast surprise of nearly everyone (including himself), Nightwing recanted :


"You never lied to me and you never demanded that I be anything I'm not.

"I didn't imitate you because you insisted that I do so, but because I wanted to. Of all the men I knew, you were most worthy of imitation. Then I blamed you for letting me be who I was. Pretty dumb."

from Nightwing : Ties that Bind

Okay. If the comic version of Nightwing could make peace with Batman, then why couldn't the animated Nightwing also make peace? Oh, they lived side by side for a few years in TNBA, but it clearly didn't last. I still say that Batman's decision to bring Barbara into the cave, and the way he did it, remains the reason. The loss of Barbara, and the way he lost her, shattered Dick's faith in people. Additionally Batman's actions may have given Dick the impression that Batman was replacing a "difficult" partner with a "docile" one. I think that impression is a false one, but in Dick's defense neither Batman nor Batgirl do anything to disabuse Dick of that notion. We never see Batgirl stand up to Batman, not the way the Robins used to do. (The most real "spine" she shows is in an apocryphal incident, when Commissioner Barbara tells Terry that she walked out. We didn't see it, though.) Circumstantial evidence certainly could plant an idea in Dick's head that Batman seeks out weak individuals. And once Dick starts saying it -- he oughta know, he lived with Batman for about 12 years -- that makes it okay for Barbara to repeat it to Terry, regardless of the facts.

(Side note : did Commissioner Barbara have a plan to save Terry in "Babel"? I would argue No. First, she didn't sell herself very convincingly :


Barbara : "Give him to me. I'll think of something .... Look, if you've got a better plan .... We're trying, Bruce. But we've only got until midnight. What then?"Secondly, if she did have an idea she should have pleaded her case to Terry directly. Instead she appealed to Old Man Wayne, as if to say, "You convince him, because I can't."

This scene drives home the argument that Barbara still doesn't see Terry as a distinct person, even a person who is about to lose his life. Wayne argues about obligations and loyalties, so at least he's seeing something in the kid. It's not enough to hold him, though, which is why Terry leaves. Both the commish and Old Man Wayne argue as if Terry is Wayne's dog, and Wayne's dog bit someone, and now Shriek wants it put down. Why would either of them plead their case directly to the dog? Either Wayne will surrender his dog to the authorities or he won't.)


Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Note that I didn't say that Batman "always messes up relationships." I said that "Batman puts impossible pressures on his acolytes." It's the mentor-disciple relationships that are always going be screwed up, I claim.Actually I was addressing a different problem. For as long as I've been with World's Finest I've noticed a bias against Bruce/Batman when it comes to his relationships. I'm paraphrasing, but it goes something like this :


"If Bruce and Barbara had a relationship and lost it, then Bruce must have screwed up. He always does. Look at his track record. Dick is missing, Tim is missing, and Barbara hates Bruce's guts. These people are really easy to get along with. Well, maybe not Dick. But if they're gone, it must be because of Bruce. He messes up a lot so he messed up here too. Besides, Barbara is a great catch and only a loser couldn't keep her. If she's gone it must be his own fault. Everyone knows that Bruce ruined the Bruce/Barbara relationship because he always does."Yes, the various relationships are mixed up and erroneously used to support each other. That is part of the bias I've been addressing.

Does Bruce/Batman put impossible pressure upon his partners? Depends upon the partner and the situation. In the comics, Grayson/Robin chose to save Batman's life instead of a civilian's life, and Batman fired Robin. To this day, whenever Scarecrow gasses Nightwing, the hero's recurring fear is that he will never be good enough. Also in the comics, Batman ordered Batgirl II (Huntress) to hold their territory against Two-Face. When she failed, Batman fired her. Huntress retorted that she simply could not save those six men, neither could she hold the territory against an army. What was she supposed to do? "More," says Batman. Huntress inferred the insult, "You had no right to escape with your life when better men died," and it was a big reason she almost died taking a similar stand against the Joker. Meanwhile, in animation we saw both Robins crack under pressure. So we can say with certainty that yes, Batman can break his associates.

On the other hand, the comic-book Batman did not ruin his mentoring relationship with Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Barbara's Batgirl, Barbara's Oracle, Cassandra/Batgirl III, or Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. As for the animated Terry McGinnis, Old Man Wayne actually has very little power over him. Wayne doesn't feed him, house him, shelter him, and can't make him do anything he doesn't want to do. It's possible Wayne will die before Terry becomes disaffected with the Bat-life or anyone in it. So Bruce/Batman doesn't always ruin his relationships with his partners. It depends upon the continuity, but it also depends upon the specific character who interacts with Batman in that continuity. I agree that the animated Batman has the potential to ruin a working relationship with the animated Barbara. I would also note that Barbara has the potential to ruin a working relationship with him.

As for romances/relationships with women, as already noted the ratio of "whose fault was it" is about 49/51 in animation and about 70/30 in the comics. Could the animated Bruce/Batman ruin a personal relationship with the animated Barbara? Absolutely. Can we prove he did? Well, no. Again I add, can Barbara ruin a personal relationship with Bruce/Batman? Yes. Can we prove she did that? No.

Bruce/Batman is in the position of The Boy Who Cried Wolf : because he has ruined a variety of relationships in the past, he cannot shake the bias that he must have ruined any and all relationships between him and Barbara. It seems to be the "default setting" that "everything" becomes and remains "Batman's fault" until we bring up Barbara's role in her own life, asking what responsibility she should assume for her choices -- and then conveniently "it doesn't matter whose fault it was." I'm not certain that is everyone's intention. (Perhaps the prevailing sentiment was simply worded badly). But the appearance it gives is that Barbara's choices aren't Barbara's responsibility in the same way that Bruce's choices are Bruce's responsibility.

Again, it goes back to timing. The mitigating circumstances cited for Barbara's choices are "her youth and inexperience." Okay. At what time in Barbara's life does the "youth and inexperience" explanation fail to satisfy? At what time in her life does she become old enough that it becomes an excuse rather than an explanation, and a delusion rather than an excuse?

I've argued from the position that Barbara has been an adult from her introduction, and that she (unconsciously) has coasted on the privileges of childhood for a longer time than others in the same position (including all the Batboys) could reasonably receive or expect.

Let's start with experience. In truth most of us will remain "inexperienced" all our lives in the sense of never having certain experiences. Instead we develop a trait called "common sense." Common sense helps us to recognize that we need not actually experience bankruptcy, jail, addictions, homelessness or hunger to recognize that these are things worth trying to avoid. We develop common sense through study : asking questions, observing, seeking the advice of others. Through study most individuals who have never experienced the Bat-life nevertheless can predict/witness that said Bat-life tends to be nasty, brutish and short. In other words, not everyone has to learn things the hard way.

What about youth? Western cultures do not as a rule conduct rites of passage. And in cultures that do, completion does not magically transform one's habits or thought processes. However there comes a time when we begin to think of one as "old enough to know better," and this was the point of my argument that Babs should know better than to date someone like Batman. It was not "Batman is crazy, so he can't be held accountable for his actions." No. I argue, "at what point should Barbara have developed enough common sense to figure out what most other people already know." I've tried to argue that she passed that age, but failed to pass that level of mental or emotional development.

Maturity is an ongoing process, but not everyone attains it at the same age (if ever). One person (actually three or four people on ToonZone, I believe) may be self-supporting or supporting their families at age seventeen, whereas another individual might still be immature and irresponsible at sixty. One can't generalize. However one of the puzzling features of our society is that childhood can be extended for as long as one's acquaintances can tolerate it, or for as long as one can spin it. I am reminded of a certain person who leads a certain country -- let us call it The States -- who got into Heap Big Trouble. (Something to do with drinking and driving.) Well, this person defiantly would not apologize for mere "youthful indiscretions," as who among his critics had never stumbled at a tender age. Youthful indiscretions? The person in question was in his thirties at the time. That's older than a lot of policemen, teachers, and oh yes, Nightwing and possibly Batman. "Youth" can be a moving target, and Barbara (however unintentionally) may have been given the ability to move that target.

DisneyBoy points out that Barbara's appearance because physically shorter as she diminished in personal stature. This especially distracted me in "A Touch of Curare." Commissioner Barbara visits the Batcave and stands before the Batgirl costume in its display case. Nostalgia softens her stance for a moment as she touches the costume's shoulder and says, "I see you sewed up the bullet holes." Commissioner Barbara towers over the costume. She is almost a foot taller than a costume she supposedly wore in her thirties, long after her "youthful growth spurts" should have ended. In fact, since the commish is at the right age for osteoporosis, she should have been shorter. (I realize the costumes may have some spandex, but none of the other costumes contracted.) Then as Barbara stands next to Old Man Wayne she is still almost a foot shorter than he, stooped and aged though he is. This would make the Batgirl who wore that costume in her prime, to be a solid two feet shorter than the Batman in his prime. Makes it a lot easier for Barbara to pass off her years as Batgirl, and her relationships with Dick and/or Bruce as "youthful indiscretions," doesn't it.

I've argued that Barbara is protected by a double standard. Whenever Barbara makes a decision that pleases her or has pleasant consequences, she considers herself to be old enough and wise enough to make that decision. When something ugly happens, then suddenly Barbara was not old enough or experienced enough to have made a decision. Therefore she made an innocent mistake of youth, or else the decision was made for her by some bad outsider and it is that person's fault, not hers.

As I said, either Barbara is old enough to be held accountable for her choices (say, with Dick), or else she is not old enough to be making those choices (say, with Bruce). She can't have it both ways.

Let us say that a four-year-old child is roaming in a snowy park. The child spies a pond. In that pond, an island. On that island, a hermit. In the hermit's hand, a bag of candy. And it seems to that child that this candy is a thing she would very much like to have. Maybe the hermit offered her candy, maybe he told her to get lost. Whatever the reason the child steps out onto thin ice, and sinks. Did the child do it? Yes. Is the child responsible? No, because it lacks the mental tools and training to exercise adult discretion. A child may honestly believe that strangers have the best candy. A child wants what it wants. A child cannot read the warning signs. The child may even lack depth perception, so that even if you cautioned the child against treading on thin ice, the child couldn't recognize it. Any blame falls upon the parents (where were they, anyway?!) and the hermit. Even if the hermit refuses to share his candy, he may still qualify as (in legal terms) an Attractive Nuisance. Still, even if there was no hermit, and the child stepped onto thin ice because the island looked like a nice place to have tea with her dolly, the child cannot be held accountable in the sense of knowing what she was doing. Children are not born knowing what is good or bad for them. So we give them a break.

(Off-topic trivia quiz : Why did the Alzheimer's patient clamber onto the furniture? Answer : The patient has lost depth perception. If your floor pattern is too busy, the patient may think it is a burned-out floor or rotten ice, and will climb on the furniture so she won't fall in. To stop the patient from climbing on the furniture, put down a plain area rug or change the floor pattern so that it looks solid enough to walk upon again. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.)

Now let us say that someone Barbara's age -- someone old enough to live independently, study for a specific career, old enough to marry or vote or buy a house -- sees the same pond, ice, island and hermit. Let us say that this Barbara-aged person is old enough to get a job and buy her own candy. (Or is the hermit offering "special" candy ... you know, the kind that D.A. Van Dorn said Batman represents : "A drug the city takes to avoid facing reality." There's that concept again, addiction.) But Barbara wants some of his. She can see that the ice is thin -- the ice being Batman's sphere of influence -- that black water roils just beneath its surface. She can see the signs stating, "Danger! Thin Ice!" She can hardly get where she is going because there are so many signs for her to get around. They're practically a fence. All these signs were posted by people she professed to trust and respect : Harv Bullock, D.A. Van Dorn, Dick Grayson. Granted, these characters can be (to put it politely) shrill, but that doesn't negate the logic of their arguments. Batman is dangerous, his lifestyle is dangerous. But Barbara wants to reach the island, so she steps out -- and promptly sinks. (Joker flips Batgirl off a building upon their first meeting.) Meanwhile, frustrated lifeguard Dick Grayson (who considers the hermit to be trespassing and was already heading in the direction of the hermit with a flamethrower) arrives to notice a Barbara-shaped hole in the ice. He saves her using his lifeguard training. (Robin catches the unconscious Batgirl before she can crash onto the street.) She wants to go back out there and, unable to stop her, he joins her just long enough to get her to the island. As Barbara watches, he paints another warning sign, hammers it together, slams it into the ground in the manner of Tom Welling's signature fencepost move on Smallville, and reads the print to Barbara aloud in ... little ... words ... so ... she ... can ... understand ... it. Dick then flames the hermit and leaves. Barbara is horrified. (That's not in the Superheroes Manual). She stays and witnesses the suffering of others, but really has little suffering of her own -- at least, not until the purported affair comes along. Then suddenly she's out on the edge of the pond hammering signs into the ground for the benefit of Terry McGinnis. Never mind that Terry walks to the island on a bridge (he's not a sidekick) ; Barbara finally "got" it, and Terry's gonna get it too, one way or another.

Some have argued that the TNBA Batgirl was a featherweight, and to extend our metaphor a feather's weight won't break even rotten ice. The feather still could flit along the surface until it falls into a hole in the ice. However it also fits the interpretation that when things went bad for Barbara she finally grasped the gravity of the situation. She gained substance. And in this metaphor she gained weight, and fell in. We're not unsympathetic -- Barbara is wrapped in a blanket, shivering, and frankly, soaked. But our sympathies become strained when this intelligent adult woman denies awareness or even consent : "there was no reasonable way I could have known that would happen."

Does Commissioner Barbara still believe this line of reasoning? No knowing. However I think that Terry reminds her of a time when she did believe it, whether or not that time is over.

To the general audience, this question : when does Barbara's age cease to protect her? When do her behaviors become adult choices and weaknesses rather than youthful indiscretions?



Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

I think that Babs' embitterment is, to an extent, overdetermined: She's like someone who takes poison and shoots herself after jumping off a very tall building. ROTFL ... this is why MZ's quotes so often end up in other people's sigs. Good thing we all know better than to take sentences out of context -- because that would have been a great one to use to prove that Barbara can be a touch histrionic and to blow things out of proportion.


What caused her alienation from Batman? It's hard to tell, because there is more than one potential factor at work, and they might all be mixed up with each other. It's not a matter of assigning blame (to Bruce instead of to Barbara); it's a matter of understanding how complex the personal and psychological factors are. It seems to me reductive to see in Commissioner Barbara only a disillusioned lover. And if she's not merely a disillusioned lover, then it is a mistake to view her entire previous career as that of a romantic fantasist.That's why we should be asking ourselves why she painted herself this way to Terry McGinnis. I've tried to argue that the proposed Bruce/Barbara affair is the most visible of her difficulties, and perhaps the one closest to her heart, but not necessarily the deepest of her difficulties or even the source of them.

Carl Jung once said, "Neuroris is always a substitute for legitimate suffering." At what point does Barbara's explanation of "youth and inexperience" cease to be believable? For in the end there is a difference between "young at heart" and immature ; there is a difference between being "a late bloomer" and being stunted.

At the same time, the weaknesses that I've described in the adult Barbara -- are not failings in a child. If she really is too young to know better, then they're just the normal learning curve. (Terry McGinnis is wrecking the curve for her.)

I'm not asking to be argumentative but out of curiosity (and mild wonderment). For you see in some cases when people give Barbara a break because of her "youth and inexperience," Barbara may be as much as twice the speaker's age. There is no firm "cut-off" date at which time Barbara has to be a fully-functioning adult. But at what point is it not quite believable anymore when Barbara gets soaked and says, "there was no reasonable way I could have known."

Will the creative team ever take up the topic of Barbara/Batgirl again? No knowing. I don't know if/how it could fit into the JLU (I know it's not their fault, but I'm sorry, "The Unlimited" sounds like disco, glitter balls and polyester :eek: ). And of all the ideas the creative team would love to portray in a feature film, I don't think they'd spend a rare film opportunity developing this one. But there is still a lot more to the Bat-family story, and Batwoman only gives us a sniff of the banquet in the other room.



EDIT: As mentioned just below, Maxie Zeus was in the middle of something else, and didn't have time for a detailed response. See his excellent rebuttal thread, Return of "The Eschatology of Barbara Gordon" (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=174951) for the continuation.



.

[Maxie Zeus]

Just got time for two brief notes:

Epistemic or metaphysical?


Calvin: "Hobbes, do you think our morality is defined by our actions, or by what's in our hearts?"

Hobbes: "I think our actions show what's in our hearts."

Calvin: "I resent that!"

Hobbes is making a epistemic point: We come to know what is in another's heart by watching his actions, so he is arguing that there is no distinction between judging based on actions and judging based on intentions. Most of us would rebel against this, however. After all, a killing may be a killing, but whether it is murder, manslaughter, a mistake, or self-defense depends upon intention. That is Aristotle's point: You cannot separate the nature of an action from the state of mind that produced it. That is why we punish people (who are capable of having culpable mental states) but not animals or machines.

Hobbes here is very close to channeling Calvin (the theologian, not the snot-nosed six-year-old kid), if he is arguing that character is pre-set and cannot be altered by action. Against this, Sartre argued that character is created by the free acts of will. Aristotle said that they are both right (well, that's what he would have said if he hadn't pre-deceased them both by millenia): Action flows from character, but character is altered by action. That's why it is dangerous to see all of Barbara's actions as determined by some character that she had even before she donned the Batgirl costume. And to look at her in Beyond is to see someone whose character in that series has been formed by a long series of choices, many of which can be traced only obscurely back to her initial character.


I know it's not their fault, but I'm sorry, "The Unlimited" sounds like disco, glitter balls and polyester :eek: ).

Based on what I saw at the Con, this isn't so far off the mark. The new iteration looks like a lot of fun. I have the impression that the impending wrap up of the Timmverse has left b.t. and his collaborators in a jolly-minded "what the hell" frame of mind. :D

[JTMarsh]

Man, it took a while to read through all these pages. But what a fascinating read it proved to be. I myself have nothing to contribute other than I personally did not like the idea of a Bruce/Barbara relationship, as it brings many unpleasant ideas to the mind.

EDIT/QUESTION: Is it against the rules to respond to a thread this old?

[SKDarkDragon]

An old thread is still a thead, right? :) But honestly, I have no idea. XD;

I actually just watched Mystery of the Batwoman for the first time the other day. I really didn't mind it overall (I was expecting it to be really bad.) But it was kind of fun to see Bruce and Tim in their downtime/around the city, which is something we don't usually get to see a lot of. However, I did find the whole conversation with Babs on the phone weird (for reasons this thread has already discussed in length! I actually read through a lot of these essays a while back), and I also thought it was peculiar that Bruce was dating the daughter of that crime boss, considering she's probably more than half his age. XD; I mean, Bruce Wayne is supposed to have that playboy image and all that, but it was just a little weird. (Also weird in the fact that I felt like he wasn't totally playing it for appearances.)

But yeah, even disregarding the whole factor that Babs used to date Dick, and was pretty much shown as still being interested in him throughout TNBA, it's still kind of awkward. You'd think Bruce would have enough sense and respect not to get involved with her, especially if he were just going to treat it like one of his other "playboy" conquests (complete with him conveniently ignoring her when she starts to act like they are something/serious), which is how the phone call played out, for me anyway.

Edited to say I haven't watched anything Batman Beyond save for [most of] the movie. XD; I hate timejumps, and being a fan of the Robins, there wasn't really in the show that appealed to me. Just to disclaim myself, as I'm not familiar with many implications from that show.

[Antiyonder]

Yeah, I know this comment was made in 2004, but I figured I'd respond to it.


However, Eyewitness shows that Barbara is ruthless towards Batman. First, she blows up at him because he ruins a sting she took 1 yr. to set up. I argue she would’ve given anyone the same treatment (yes, including her cops). Batman ruins a sting she took 1 yr. to set up! This isn’t “Sorry, I broke your glassware” mistake; this is “Sorry, I crashed your car into your house” mistake. Granted, Barb could’ve controlled her temper better, but I argue her temper isn’t exclusive towards Batman in this situation. Later, she thinks she sees Batman kill Mad Stan. She enacts a manhunt and does everything (including shooting at Batman numerous times) in order to bring him in. This does appear like Barb harbors ill will towards Bruce, and will try anything to take him and his legacy down. But Barbara saw (at least she thinks she saw) Batman kill Mad Stan. If 20 of your neighbors told you they saw a fleet of UFO’s you’d be incredulous. If you personally saw a fleet of UFO’s, you’d believe what you saw (or tell yourself to lay off the drugs), even though your neighbors may not believe you. Barbara not only saw Batman kill Mad Stan, she knows that they hulled (a mirage of) his body away. Of course she’s not going to check if his body is still in the freezer because she thinks he’s dead. How many dead bodies get up and walk away? (If I remember correctly, Bruce never tells her Mad Stan’s body is missing. I wonder why.) But how could Barb believe Batman is capable of murder? She didn’t until she saw it (or think she saw it). Furthermore, she hasn’t known the kid for a long time. She knows Bruce can’t murder, who knows about the kid. He does have a record, and although this doesn’t mean he’s definitely a murderer, it doesn’t help his case either. Barbara now sees Terry as a criminal, and as a police officer, she sees that it’s her duty to bring the criminal to justice, even if it means revealing her own past.

1. Perhaps, but her own experience with Scarecrow in "Over the Edge" should have given her reason to play it smarter. As Old Maid brought up before, Barbera behaved in the same exact manner that she feared her father behaving.

2. Also, using what Old Maid brought up again, a point to consider. If it was a favored officer or her husband being framed for Stan's murder, would Barb be eager to toss the book at either of them? Chances are no. She'd do everything in her power to prove Sam or the favored officer innocent.

Heck, even Spellbinder points out how the police and Barbera were ready to think the worst of Batman.

[Toddman]

An old thread is still a thead, right? :) But honestly, I have no idea. XD;

I actually just watched Mystery of the Batwoman for the first time the other day. I really didn't mind it overall (I was expecting it to be really bad.) But it was kind of fun to see Bruce and Tim in their downtime/around the city, which is something we don't usually get to see a lot of. However, I did find the whole conversation with Babs on the phone weird (for reasons this thread has already discussed in length! I actually read through a lot of these essays a while back), and I also thought it was peculiar that Bruce was dating the daughter of that crime boss, considering she's probably more than half his age. XD; I mean, Bruce Wayne is supposed to have that playboy image and all that, but it was just a little weird. (Also weird in the fact that I felt like he wasn't totally playing it for appearances.)

What gave you the impression that Kathy DuQuesne is more than half the age of Bruce Wayne? :confused:


But yeah, even disregarding the whole factor that Babs used to date Dick, and was pretty much shown as still being interested in him throughout TNBA, it's still kind of awkward. You'd think Bruce would have enough sense and respect not to get involved with her, especially if he were just going to treat it like one of his other "playboy" conquests (complete with him conveniently ignoring her when she starts to act like they are something/serious), which is how the phone call played out, for me anyway.

Edited to say I haven't watched anything Batman Beyond save for [most of] the movie. XD; I hate timejumps, and being a fan of the Robins, there wasn't really in the show that appealed to me. Just to disclaim myself, as I'm not familiar with many implications from that show.

Ah, you see without having watched Batman Beyond and analyzing the brief hints the audience was given regarding the Bruce/Barb relationship from that series, you're missing out on some key insight.

Bruce might seem as if he's mostly uninterested in the deeper nature of Barbara's feelings in MOTB, but in BB it's revealed by (Commissioner) Barbara Gordon (in the episode "A Touch of Curare") that their relationship eventually went deeper than that.

Furthermore Old Man Wayne briefly reflects on his former romantic relationships in "Out of the Past", lingering on two pictures of Barbara longer than those of other women (Selina Kyle, Zatanna and Lois Lane). There's little doubt that the feelings he had for all of those women in particular were genuine and not just a part of his playboy image.


Also, using what Old Maid brought up again, a point to consider. If it was a favored officer or her husband being framed for Stan's murder, would Barb be eager to toss the book at either of them? Chances are no. She'd do everything in her power to prove Sam or the favored officer innocent.


I can't quite agree w/that. While it for sure is logical to assume that Barbara would doubt her own eyes/senses if she saw her spouse committing a murder, I doubt she would put that kind of faith in any officer on the police force (assuming that officer wasn't her godchild or something). Having grown to resent Old Man Wayne over the decades and not only being unfamiliar with McGinnis, but also having doubted his overall methods in the beginning of the episode, I found her actions to be well within character.


Toddman

[Antiyonder]

I can't quite agree w/that. While it for sure is logical to assume that Barbara would doubt her own eyes/senses if she saw her spouse committing a murder, I doubt she would put that kind of faith in any officer on the police force (assuming that officer wasn't her godchild or something). Having grown to resent Old Man Wayne over the decades and not only being unfamiliar with McGinnis, but also having doubted his overall methods in the beginning of the episode, I found her actions to be well within character.


Toddman

I'm not doubting it to be in character. Rather I'm trying to prove that her actions were based on personal dispute over professionality.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

What gave you the impression that Kathy DuQuesne is more than half the age of Bruce Wayne? :confused:


I'm guessing you mean "less than half," because there's nothing abnormal about more than half :D

Also, anyone care to make a TL;DR summary of this? I mean, I don't want to criticize anyone for being thoughtful and all, but the first two posts have more words than some 100-post threads, and this thing goes 8 pages.

[SKDarkDragon]

I'm guessing you mean "less than half," because there's nothing abnormal about more than half :D

Also, anyone care to make a TL;DR summary of this? I mean, I don't want to criticize anyone for being thoughtful and all, but the first two posts have more words than some 100-post threads, and this thing goes 8 pages.

Haha, yes, I meant "less than half." ^_^;



Ah, you see without having watched Batman Beyond and analyzing the brief hints the audience was given regarding the Bruce/Barb relationship from that series, you're missing out on some key insight.

Bruce might seem as if he's mostly uninterested in the deeper nature of Barbara's feelings in MOTB, but in BB it's revealed by (Commissioner) Barbara Gordon (in the episode "A Touch of Curare") that their relationship eventually went deeper than that.

Furthermore Old Man Wayne briefly reflects on his former romantic relationships in "Out of the Past", lingering on two pictures of Barbara longer than those of other women (Selina Kyle, Zatanna and Lois Lane). There's little doubt that the feelings he had for all of those women in particular were genuine and not just a part of his playboy image.

I guess since I never had any interest in Batman Beyond, I just like to watch everything that came before it and treat it as its own thing that does not devolve into the Beyond future, which to me, seems depressing. And since it's all created before Beyond, that's not really a problem.

However, unless I'm mistaken, this DTV came out after Batman Beyond had already finished. So I guess the scenes must have been written with that future in mind, technically making it not possible to disregard the BB stuff. XD; But in any event, because I watched it from a certain perspective, that's why I have that opinion of their behavior in the movie.

[Elderly Bruce Wayne]

I guess since I never had any interest in Batman Beyond, I just like to watch everything that came before it and treat it as its own thing that does not devolve into the Beyond future, which to me, seems depressing. And since it's all created before Beyond, that's not really a problem.

However, unless I'm mistaken, this DTV came out after Batman Beyond had already finished. So I guess the scenes must have been written with that future in mind, technically making it not possible to disregard the BB stuff. XD; But in any event, because I watched it from a certain perspective, that's why I have that opinion of their behavior in the movie.

I've always taken comfort in the belief that the alledged affair never happened, or at least not even close to the degree Granny Gordon insinuates, as written by Hilary Bader. And since Wayne is about the only person who can keep a secret, he doesn't kiss-and-tell. Until he actually tells someone, even himself, aloud, then I dismiss the affair as Bader's cape-tugging. Had Bader not died shortly after the series' end, she might've expounded the subject further. Alan Burnett and Michael Reaves tried to water Bader's seed, but nothing grew of it. I guess they were afraid to tug the capes further. Say what I want about Bader, at least she was bold.

I've watched enough BTAS/TNBA to conclude the Old Bat doesn't have promiscuous sex. If he makes love, he really makes love (Talia). Bader would have us believe young Barbara somehow caught Wayne with enough of his guards down, whether Wayne be romantic, pained/depressed, needy, or did it just because she asked for it and that she was available that Wayne abandoned all his codes to give her a night to remember. I'm sorry. The Bruce Wayne I know from these series never displayed such weaknesses no matter which characters (as opposed to writers) are forcing his hand.

I'm not a writer by trade, but in my mind, I've written an explanation to conform to the irreversable canon of the alledged affair. Young Barbara got a hold of Poison Ivy's hypnotic lipstick. And wise-old Wayne, ever two steps ahead, countered that potion with another potion that made Barbara not like it and go away. There you are Berkowitz, Burnett, Dini, Fogel, Goodman, McDuffie, Reaves, and Tucker. Top that!

An empty challenge, I know. The series is closed. There's no going backwards. Here's to wishful thinking, however.

[JTMarsh]

And assuming this romance did happen (unpleasant an image as that is), one has to wonder - did Batman's work with the Justice League, or more specifically, his working around Wonder Woman, have something to do with the relationship coming apart? Surely Babs knew who he was working with outside the cave even if she wasn't a part of the League (someone had to hold down the fort after all while Batman was off horsing around with his super-friends), and Wonder Woman is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world in addition to be one of its best fighters. It wouldn't be unreasonable of Babs to feel intimidated by that, even though we never see those two to three characters in the same room. How can prettily petite little Babs compete with the flawless perfection of Princess Diana of the Amazons?

Of course, assuming Bruce & Babs had a relationship, Bruce could have put a stop to Wonder Woman pursuing him by saying point blank "Sorry hon, but I'm dating my foster son's ex-girlfriend who also happens to be the daughter of one my closest friends back home in Gotham." And this is all assuming they were together or came together during his time in the Justice League.

[Yojimbo]

I like to think that Batman's service with the Justice League and Justice League Unlimited did take up more of his time than he let on or what we saw on the show so much that it did affect the Bat Family solidarity. Mystery of the Batwoman threw a monkey wrench into Batgirl's status, really. It seemed implied that she was getting a masters degree out of state, further implying that she saw less action as Batgirl. So I think both sides were responsible for the lapse. So for that string time covering JL and JLU, it was the Robin and Nightwing show in Gotham? Then we know as late as the final episode of JLU that Nightwing moved on to Bludhaven, heavily hinting at the timeframe of Return of the Joker's flashback. And it seemed like wither Batgirl was still away working on her master's when Tim Drake was kidnapped or they rarely patrol together and just focus on certain areas of the city alone.

Wonder Woman? Nah, not in my opinion. Never cared for that. Sure you try to dig an Amazonian princess from the rubble of a downed missile in an isolated yet technologically advanced city of super smart gorillas and now you're an item? :sad:

[JTMarsh]

I like to think that Batman's service with the Justice League and Justice League Unlimited did take up more of his time than he let on or what we saw on the show so much that it did affect the Bat Family solidarity. Mystery of the Batwoman threw a monkey wrench into Batgirl's status, really. It seemed implied that she was getting a masters degree out of state, further implying that she saw less action as Batgirl. So I think both sides were responsible for the lapse. So for that string time covering JL and JLU, it was the Robin and Nightwing show in Gotham? Then we know as late as the final episode of JLU that Nightwing moved on to Bludhaven, heavily hinting at the timeframe of Return of the Joker's flashback. And it seemed like wither Batgirl was still away working on her master's when Tim Drake was kidnapped or they rarely patrol together and just focus on certain areas of the city alone.

That is entirely possible.



Wonder Woman? Nah, not in my opinion. Never cared for that. Sure you try to dig an Amazonian princess from the rubble of a downed missile in an isolated yet technologically advanced city of super smart gorillas and now you're an item? :sad:
Believe me I never liked that either, it always felt forced. Bruce Timm always claimed in one of the early behind the scenes documentaries it was done because they went on line to some forums and saw an overwhelmingly strong positive fan reaction to her kissing him on the cheek so they decided to make it a subplot rather than have her be attracted to Superman because "it was just so much more interesting" to have her chase after Batman (which might explain why Superman & Wonder Woman never really have any meaningful conversations or even just friendly chats after "Paradise Lost"). Of course it could also be that Timm & the guys just didn't know what else to do with her so they figured "Hey, Batman's our favorite, Batman is everyone's favorite, so lets throw Wonder Woman at him, he'll make her 10 times cooler!" One can only wonder what made WW eventually give up on him, whether he lost his appeal as he got older or she saw just how ugly and messed up his life really is and was turned off by that or maybe the lightbulb finally went off in her head that he would never come around after he rebuffed her one time too many. Or, again, him dating Babs. I'm sure there must have been a couple of threads on this somewhere, but they seem to be gone now, sorry to have hijacked an old thread for a rant.

[Yojimbo]

Believe me I never liked that either, it always felt forced. Bruce Timm always claimed it was done because they went on line to some forums and saw an overwhelmingly strong positive fan reaction to her kissing him on the cheek so they decided to make it a subplot rather than have her be attracted to Superman because "it was just so much more interesting" to have her chase after Batman. Of course it could also be that Timm & the guys just didn't know what else to do with her so they figured "Hey, Batman's our favorite, Batman is everyone's favorite, so lets throw Wonder Woman at him, he'll make her 10 times cooler!" One can only wonder what made WW eventually give up on him, whether he lost his appeal as he got older or she saw just how ugly and messed up his life really is and was turned off by that or maybe she the lightbulb finally went off in her head that he would never come around after he rebuffed her one time too many. Or, again, him dating Babs. I'm sure there must have been a couple of threads on this somewhere, but they seem to be gone now, sorry to have hijacked an old thread for a rant.Maybe b.t. addressed it here sometime, I can't remember (hint it's not posts 165-665). I will say I'd rather have been Batman and Wonder Woman than Wonder Woman and Superman. It would have been the world's most boring couple and Batman would become the third wheel. Plus, it'd mess with the infallible Superman and Lois Lane romance.

I think WW isn't as dumb as she looks and caught on that Bats would never settle down. I doubt it was the appeal, she did go and find Steve Trevor in the present and I didn't detect any revulsion on her part in that final scene of "The Savage Time." One example that comes to mind is the end of "Kids Stuff" when WW muses on how cool it was to be a child again, and Batman is the moment killer when he espouses, "I haven't been a kid since I was eight" and cue the stern and gloom background music. If you just look at how WW reacts and everyone just walks away from Batman, subtle, yes, but that's how I saw it. She gets it and drops the banter.

And no problem, you've hijacked and necromanced one of the finer threads on this forum. ;)

EDIT: I think these were the quotes I was thinking of (http://jl.toonzone.net/episode31/episode31.htm):

Bruce Timm on Batman and Wonder Woman’s flirtation: “We thought it would be interesting to have a minor flirtation going on [and], at a certain point, we didn’t want to completely go down that path, so we started pulling back. We’re not going to do too much more with that (courtesy of ToyFare Magazine).”


Dwayne McDuffie on Batman and Wonder Woman’s potential future: “When Batman Beyond was written, the Wonder Woman romance hadn’t been thought of. Keep in mind that Bruce is an old man in Batman Beyond. He’s had dozens of relationships including, I’m sure, a number of meaningful ones that weren’t referenced in Batman Beyond. Heck, for all we know, Bruce was married for thirty years between JLU and Batman Beyond. None of this necessarily means that he and Diana didn’t get together at some point, or that it wasn’t a good relationship. It just means we haven’t seen it (courtesy of DwayneMcDuffie.com (http://www.dwaynemcduffie.com/)).”