Unca Cheeks the Toy Wonder's Silver Age Comics Web Site!

Ladies and gentlemen: the Batman's best bestest Boswell of the past decade (and the pen behind the cunning "Bat-Mite" illustration, above...

... Chuck Dixon.

UNCA CHEEKS: Okay. Let's start off with a few of the more notorious and recurring online "controversies" involving the character of the Batman, of late... and move on from there.

Possibly the most contentious debate ongoing nowadays, re: the Batman, is the whole "urban legend" thing; in which the very existence of the Darknight Detective is (as I understand it, at any rate; please feel to correct me if I've misconstrued) is considered to be apocryphal, even within the confines of Gotham City, itself.

Contrariwise, however:

*** ... Tim Drake's origin hinges upon his having intuited the Batman's secret identity, after observing said hero on television;

*** ... the U.S. government dispatched an uneasy Superman to dissuade the Batman from attacking the Joker, post the latter's callous murder of Jason Todd;

*** ... a thundering and victorious Bane tossed a badly mangled Batman down into the midst of a gaping and horrified street crowd, during "Knightfall";

*** ... and (of course) the Darknight Detective has repeatedly been shown being filmed by television new crews, along with his spandexed fellows, in Grant Morrison-scripted issues of JLA. (Just to name the first four examples of contrary evidence which spring readily to mind.)

Assuming that all of the aforementioned (i.e., Tim Drake's origin; "Knightfall"; etcetera) are all still "canonical," then: isn't the "urban legend" shtick rather an instance of attempting to nail shut the barn door, long after the horsies have all done run away...?

CHUCK DIXON: A "daylight" Batman just doesn't make sense to me. If everyone knows what the guy looks like, then he's not terribly mysterious or dark. The urban legend angle is more in keeping with the character's original portrayal. It fits so perfectly.

Most of the examples of this being conflicted with are either before my time in the Bat offices, or have been written by writers very vocal in their opposition to Batman as a mysterious, maybe mythical, creature of the night. They'd love to turn the clock back to 1966, and have Batman calling people "citizen" and accepting commendations from the mayor

of Gotham on the steps of City Hall at high noon. And then there's another group of writers who don't know what they're doing.

As for Bane tossing Batman to the feet of a crowd on Grand Avenue, no one said, "Jeepers! It's Batman!" Nobody knew who this clown in the cape and boots was. And he was whisked away before any questions could be asked.

CHEEKS: This segues nicely, I think, into the following query:

Writers such as Grant Morrison and Mark Waid (among others) have gone on record as stating (correctly, in my own humble opinion) that the line-up of DC's "flagship" team -- the Justice League of America -- should, by rights, be comprised of said company's biggest, most "iconic" characters, overall.

Given your own auctorial druthers, however -- were it up to you, and only you -- would you allow the Batman to be utilized as an ongoing JLA character? (... and, if not: why?)

CHUCK: I have no argument there. He should be on the team and the

team should consist of the "magnificent seven" of the DCU. But you can do that without having Batman duking it out with octopus men from Venus on national television. You can play him as remaining in the shadows, protecting his identity. Frankly, there's more story fodder there than having him zip around in an invisible airplane.

None of this will come as any shock to Grant or Mark. I've said as much to Mark when I've spoken to him. We just have to agree to

disagree on that one.

And it's up to the readers to choose which they believe.

CHEEKS: Speaking of inter-title (and cross-editorial) follies

There is a minor (but aggressively vocal) sub-set of readers, online, who have been demanding, for some time, that Dick [Nightwing] Greyson be romantically "reunited" with the character of Starfire, from the old Marv Wolfman/George Perez TEEN TITANS series.

The argument most often put forward by said faction, "Reader's Digest" version, might best be summed up as: "Dick Grayson is more of a TITANS characters than he is a BATMAN character." (An argument which -- I'll readily admit -- never fails to make my own jaw drop, in naked incredulity; given that the aforementioned Mr. Greyson was bopping around for a full quarter-century before the first ever published TT offering.) (... and I imagine it would have caused gentlemanly Jerry Robinson to cough politely once or twice, as well.)

Do you feel, personally, that the inclusion of a flying, starbolt- wielding alien princess into the NIGHTWING "mix" would hobble or compromise what it is you're attempting to achieve therein, story- wise? And how would you respond to the oft-repeated argument that primary "claim" to the character of Dick Grayson (somehow) rests with the TITANS office, post-Wolfman/Perez?

CHUCK: The addition of Starfire to NIGHTWING's plotlines would

destroy the book. That match-up worked when it worked. It's just no longer viable. Nightwing and Dick Grayson are Batman-related characters.

CHEEKS: Robin I. Robin II. Robin III. Nightwing. Barbara Gordon. Azrael. The Huntress. Batgirl. (And -- if you really wanna get picky about things -- Commisioner James Gordon and Alfred. Plus that whole "Justice League" thing, aforementioned.)

IS the Batman "a loner," really...?

CHUCK: He's a loner in the sense that his thoughts and motivations still remain largely locked inside. He's a difficult and complex and egocentric character.

He's the center of the mythos and the other characters are satellites. And satellites never touch their host.

CHEEKS: It's been stated, more than once, that the primary difference between the Batman's "rogues' gallery" and that of every other DC hero -- say, Superman, or the Flash -- is that the latter's always end up cooling their villainous heels in prison; whereas the former's routinely end up swapping favorite electro-shock stories in an honest-to-God insane asylum.

Given that you've been responsible, your own self, for more than a few of the classier and more intriguing "Bat"-villains of recent years -- my own personal favorites, among these, being Bane and The General (the latter whom is just about due for a reappearance, don't you think...?) -- what, in your estimation, makes for a "classic" bat-foeman, overall...?

CHUCK: Well, if I knew the answer to that one I'd be cranking

out one a month.

Most of the lasting Bat-villains either have an awesome gimmick (Ventriloquist) or tremendous motivations (Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze) or

have simply become icons over the decades (The Joker, Catwoman).

Bane falls into the "motivations" category. He's a fully realized figure, with a tragic past. At heart he's a victim of fate and so, whatever mean things he does, he still holds some of the reader's sympathy.

CHEEKS: How would you elect to respond to the oft-repeated assertion -- which I'm not altogether certain II agree with, by the by -- that "the Batman no longer acts as an honest-to-goodness detective, nowadays; he just punches people, basically"...?

CHUCK: I wrote DETECTIVE comics for over 80 issues. I sweated

out a whole bunch of complex mysteries over those years. Most stories had punch-ups in them, but there was also a lot of solid police procedural type detction going on. I never got far from that part of the character.

CHEEKS: Azrael attempted to assume the mantle of The Bat, and promptly went whack-a-ding-hoy. Nightwing took his turn, and felt manifestly uncomfortable doing so. And Tim Drake has asserted, repeatedly, that he has no interest whatsoEVER in donning the cowl.

Is the "Batman" identity, ultimately -- unlike that, say, of Lee Falk's PHANTOM -- one which cannot be "handed down" to any successor, no matter how able or well-intentioned...?

CHUCK: It's not just the costume and the cave and all the cool cars. Batman derives from the reactions of a little boy to a horrific

experience in his past. He was made an orphan before his own eyes.

Everything comes from that. You can't hand that down.

CHEEKS: Silly question, perhaps (but one well-suited to this site's particular Silver/Bronze Age "slant"): would you ever be willing to utilize -- just for kicks, mind -- any of the following "bat"-characters within a BATMAN; ROBIN; NIGHTWING; or BIRDS OF PREY story...?

A.) Bat-Mite

B.) Flamebird

C.) Tweedledee and Tweedledum

D.) The Ten-Eyed Man

CHUCK: A.) As an in-joke or aside, maybe.

B.) Scott Beatty and I actually have a proposal in with Flamebird as part of it.

C.) Sure. They're creepy when handled right.

D.) Ummmmmmmm...

CHEEKS: Finally, in your own practiced estimation: what is the one thing any writer absolutely, positively must know, in order to get the Batman "right"...?

CHUCK: When you need to write his dialogue think "Clint Eastwood."

Batman is not a yakker.

.

"MORE COMIC BOOKS," YOU SAY...?

The DC Comics Sub-Directory
The Marvel Comics Sub-Directory
The Miscellaneous Comics Sub-Directory
The "Gotta Find That DC Character" Menu
The "Gotta Find That Marvel/Miscellaneous Character" Menu

Home Page

LEGAL SHAMANISMS