Death of the Family (2012) SPOILERS

[Silver Nemesis]

Has anyone been following this story arc? I haven't read absolutely every issue, but I've more or less kept pace with it. The press release for Batman #18 says:

In the wake of unspeakable tragedy, Batman is in danger of losing his humanity!

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/12/05/batman-18-gets-all-star-guest-artist

Speculation is high concerning which member of the "family" might die. Alfred would be the obvious choice, given the plot so far. But I think it would be a huge mistake to kill him off. They tried it once before back in Detective Comics #328 and the fans didn't like it one bit. Maybe it will be one of the Robins? Or perhaps Gordon? Either way, we'll know soon enough.

[The Joker]

Yes. Been keeping up on the storyline. I've been hearing Alfred and Gordon as well, but I guess we'll see. Out of the Robin's, think Jason's safe since that would be a bit too repetitive. Damian getting his turn on the other end of a crowbar, however, is a nice thought. 

Looking forward to seeing how this all ends with scary Leatherface Joker.

[Silver Nemesis]

I doubt anyone would object if Damian got killed off. But another possibility occurred to me...

I was trying to imagine where the writers are going to take the Joker next. I'm not a fan of gratuitous gore in general. I thought violence in comics was cool when I was a teenager, but the older I get the less taste I have for it. Continued depictions of violence eventually render it meaningless. It just becomes numbing and loses its impact. For example, when Bruce had his back broken by Bane during the Knightfall story arc it was a major event that had long-lasting repercussions. But when Damian Wayne was paralysed by Flamingo in Batman and Robin #6 (January 2010) it was no big deal. He just got a new spine and was back on his feet a couple of issues later. If you're going to present stories containing extreme violence, then you should show the consequences of those acts. Otherwise death and injury have about as much meaning as they do in an episode of Looney Tunes. And I think that's what's happened in the Batman comics over the past few years.

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with violence and gore as long as they're used sparingly and effectively. But when gore becomes a substitute for plot, or a cheap means of getting a reaction out of the reader, then I start to lose interest. That's why I'm not a big fan of the way the Joker's been depicted in recent years.

In this storyline in particular he's been so extreme, so vile and over-the-top, that there really isn't anywhere else to go with the character once this arc concludes. And while I'm no doctor, I would imagine a man whose face had been crudely hacked off wouldn't last long without proper medical treatment. He can't just go on indefinitely. So could it be that the 'Death of the Family' title is ironic, that the Joker is in fact the one who's going to die?

Probably not. But I thought I'd throw the theory out there anyway.

[The Joker]

Not an absurd theory at all, and duly noted on the point you made about death and injury in Batman comics. There was alot of good points in your post about those sort of instances meaning nothing and honestly .... I've grown very desensitized (wouldn't say completely but it's going that direction) to injury and death not just in Batman comics, but comics in general over the past 10 years. Because, as you stated, when characters die, and return in a matter of months, or get severely injured, but back in action a few issues later, that incident, as a result of how it was handled, means nothing. A Looney Tunes-type universe indeed.

I began reading comics more intently back in the early 1990's (right around Batman Returns time), and comparing injury and death in comics with those times vs. now ... it obviously meant more then. Which is saying something since the 90's comic book industry was extremely gimmicky (much like the current state of the industry).

Jason Todd was dead ... and that remained permanent for years. Batman got his back broken ... and was replaced for a good long while. For how long? Who knew? Much like alot of other people, I wasn't privy to the internet back in the mid 1990's, so outside of talking to friends or people at the local comic shop who, much like me, were speculating, we had very limited knowledge on what might transpire. Knightquest seemed to go on for a loooong time and it made you think just how long was Azbats going to be around? I think the worry at DC was fans taking to Azrael. Of course that didn't happen and Bruce returned, but it wasn't quick. As a kid reading comics back then, that made his eventual return more impactful.

With Superman, we had the Death of Superman storyline. Sure the Doomsday arc was a epic slug fest, but the way the events of Funeral for a Friend was handled, Superman's death carried more weight, and thus, had more impact. It wasn't just one issue or mourning, and then back to action like usual. Or, as the case these days, on to the next company wide 'status quo' changing mega event, which leads into the next ... company wide 'status quo' changing mega event. Where death has become so temporary, the eventual return of whatever character is what would naturally pop in a readers mind as a result of being so desensitized to it all. The tenet of the chance that perhaps a major death being permanent, and thus, THE status quo for years to come is simply no longer there, and how could it be? Especially when there's been instances of comic book character's themselves commenting on the frequencies of resurrections. Which is very telling of the state the big two comic book universes are set in. Which are more like the looney tunes way of life more now than ever.

My apologies for the tangent.

P.S. On the Joker thing, I don't know how long he would last with his face being crudely cut off, but it WOULD lead to him having a great deal of difficulty speaking properly! Or more precisely, form words in a comprehensible manner.

[thecolorsblend]

I think the worry at DC was fans taking to Azrael.

I've always assumed this is why Azrael-as-Batman was written as he was. DC wanted to set up a straw man for why Bruce shouldn't kill and they invented the biggest nutjob possible to carry out the argument. The dilemma they seemed to present was that Batman could either be the relatively stable and grounded Bruce or else a psychopathic loose cannon like Azrael. It's funny that a comic book so heavily premised upon shades of gray that they set up such an idiotic black and white false dichotomy as they did.

To everyone's point though, the Joker paralyzed Babs (although she seems to be feeling better), killed Jason (Ibid.) and killed Sarah Essen (still worm food as far as I know). Those things carried a lot of weight because of how permanent they were.

[Azrael]

I think the worry at DC was fans taking to Azrael.

I've always assumed this is why Azrael-as-Batman was written as he was. DC wanted to set up a straw man for why Bruce shouldn't kill and they invented the biggest nutjob possible to carry out the argument. The dilemma they seemed to present was that Batman could either be the relatively stable and grounded Bruce or else a psychopathic loose cannon like Azrael. It's funny that a comic book so heavily premised upon shades of gray that they set up such an idiotic black and white false dichotomy as they did.

To everyone's point though, the Joker paralyzed Babs (although she seems to be feeling better), killed Jason (Ibid.) and killed Sarah Essen (still worm food as far as I know). Those things carried a lot of weight because of how permanent they were.

My guess is that Bat-Azrael was more or less a comment on the 90s trend for supposedly "edgier" anti-heroes, and an argument about why the real Batman shouldn't follow suit. If I remember right, in a sequence where Bat-Azrael fights a few unnamed criminals, there's a half-cyborg that is an obvious parody of Spawn's Overtkill (just like Kingdom Come's Magog, another critique of 90's anti-heroes, was based on Cable), and in those days Spawn and Image were the mothership of the homicidal anti-hero trend.

Speaking of continuity - I gave up long ago. It lost me. No time and money to follow different bat-titles, even though I obviously love Finch's artwork.

Good points about the Joker's death... However, even if the Joker "dies", he falls under the Joker Immunity Act which states that the most marketable villain in history will never die for real

[Silver Nemesis]

My apologies for the tangent. 

Don't apologise, you make some very interesting points. I started reading "grown up" comics round about 1994 or 1995, so my perspective on the changing attitudes in the industry is more or less the same as yours.

I remember a time when A Death in the Family was considered one of the must-read titles in the Batman library. Not because the artwork was especially good or because the writing was outstanding, but simply because it marked the death of Robin. It was a landmark event in the DC timeline. But then they went and revived Jason Todd – a character who until then had eluded the impermanent death trope – and suddenly the story didn't seem quite so significant anymore.

I suppose The Death of Superman story arc is slightly different because nobody really thought he'd stay dead. Plus the writers handled the concept pretty well. But with Todd's death we were left to think it was real for over fifteen years. I guess the upside is that we got some good stories with the villainous Red Hood Todd in return. But even so, it's one of the most frustrating examples of the comic book trend for characters not staying dead.

I was going to cite Steve Rogers/Captain America as a rare exception to this, as I recall a lot of people praising the authenticity and permanence of his highly-publicised "death" in 2007. But I've just looked the character up (I don't really follow Marvel comics; I'm definitely more of a DC fan) and – surprise, surprise – Rogers isn't dead after all. He's alive and well. So it seems no one in comics really stays dead after all.

... Sarah Essen (still worm food as far as I know).

Well, except Sarah. But I wouldn't put it past DC to revive her at some point in the future. We'd better be careful we don't give them any ideas...

I've always assumed this is why Azrael-as-Batman was written as he was. DC wanted to set up a straw man for why Bruce shouldn't kill and they invented the biggest nutjob possible to carry out the argument. The dilemma they seemed to present was that Batman could either be the relatively stable and grounded Bruce or else a psychopathic loose cannon like Azrael. It's funny that a comic book so heavily premised upon shades of gray that they set up such an idiotic black and white false dichotomy as they did.

My guess is that Bat-Azrael was more or less a comment on the 90s trend for supposedly "edgier" anti-heroes, and an argument about why the real Batman shouldn't follow suit. If I remember right, in a sequence where Bat-Azrael fights a few unnamed criminals, there's a half-cyborg that is an obvious parody of Spawn's Overtkill (just like Kingdom Come's Magog, another critique of 90's anti-heroes, was based on Cable), and in those days Spawn and Image were the mothership of the homicidal anti-hero trend.

I think you're both right. They did the same thing with the Earth-51 Batman during Countdown to Final Crisis. That character was basically just a paradigm to justify Batman's no-kill rule by showing the extreme slippery slope sequence of events that would've occurred if he'd killed the Joker following Jason Todd's death.

Good points about the Joker's death... However, even if the Joker "dies", he falls under the Joker Immunity Act which states that the most marketable villain in history will never die for real

True. The guy's returned from the dead more times than Doctor Who. And I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Paul (ral)]

Batman 15 out today. The cover reminds me of a Neal Adams cover...anyone know the one I'm talking about?

[The Joker]

Detective Comics #457




Right? 

[Paul (ral)]

That's the one