Batman: Knightfall

[Silver Nemesis]

Personally I like Batman to be part of a wider universe. I've never thought his lack of superpowers made him redundant amongst the Justice League. I've always liked Denny O'Neil's Iliad analogy: that Superman is Achilles, the near-invincible hero of unsurpassed physical prowess; while Batman is Odysseus/Ulysses, the strategist who relies on his wits and intellect. And ultimately it was thanks to Odysseus'/Ulysses' cunning, not Achilles' strength, that the Greeks won the Trojan War.

[The Dark Knight]

I find Batman fans tend to divide into two camps when it comes to Batman's level of vulnerability. There are those, like Kevin Smith, who like the invincible godlike version of Batman. Then there are those who prefer a more human and fallible interpretation. I'm definitely a fan of the second type. It's the battles which expose Batman's weaknesses that pack the most powerful dramatic punches. Be it the Knightfall battle against Bane, his failure to save Jason in A Death in the Family, or the scene in the 1989 film where he's badly injured and has to climb the cathedral to save Vicki. That's where we see his true heroism, his perseverance in the face of his own mortality and the very real possibility that he could die.

Agreed. My favourite Batman tales tend to be the ones where he's up against it. He's a human being who encounters big challenges, but muscles through them. Or sometimes, he doesn't. He loses. But he comes back. That's why he's a hero. These stories include The Cult - captured and mentally broken. Knightfall - worn down physically by Bane. Venom - going nuts after seeking superhuman strength via convenient pills and Court of Owls - going through their labyrinth and being worn down, this time finding extra reserves to fight his way out, but barely. I like it when Batman fails at something, or when he gets something taken from him. Because he's a dark character, he will brood about it for long periods of time. He always strives to be better, and we only learn through loss.

[The Laughing Fish]

Lately, I had been catching up with finishing my reading of Knightfall, Knightquest, KnightsEnd and I'm finishing up Prodigal. Now I want to add my two cents.

As brutalising the beatdown was, Bane's cunning plan to exhaust Batman was definitely more psychological than physical. A dirty tactical game where Batman was too distracted to think because he had to go after all of the prison escapees terrorising Gotham City. Bane forced Batman to exhaust all of his superhuman-like willpower till he was completely spent. And to add further insult to injury, Bane used his Venom to punish Batman further, and not even give him any time to think of a strategy to stop him. Despite the fact Batman was completely exhausted. On the surface, Bane was a real cheat (although then again its rare to see villains having any honour), but it showed how cruel and uncompromising he was to "break" the Bat spiritually.

Which brings to Bruce's decision to ask the unstable Jean-Paul Valley (Azrael) to become Batman. It was certainly an unwise choice by Bruce, but he was forced at hand after the ordeal Bane had put him through. I guess one could say Bruce thought Jean-Paul earned his trust by asking him that favour.

But as triumphant as Bane was, it came at a cost: he met his match in Bat-Azrael. Bat-Azrael was brutal, not one for mind games and intellect, and improved his armour to best Bane's intensity.  But the cost didn't only affect Bane, in fact, it affected Gotham City a lot more.

Mayor Krol, who Batman used all of his strength to rescue him from Joker and Scarecrow, became deeply inspired by Batman's bravery and began endorsing him while criticising Gordon and the police for their incompetence. Problem is, not only did the Mayor fail to recognise the armoured Batman was not the same man who saved him, he was completely unaware that Gotham City was becoming under threat by a lawless vigilante.

Commissioner Gordon, for the first time, expressed doubts in Batman. He and Mayor Krol never saw eye to eye, but he was a lot more dismayed over the uncharacteristic nature of Bat-Azrael and disgusted by his brutality. When he realises that this couldn't be the same Batman he had been acquainted with over the years, he was faced with a rude awakening - that he never really knew the man in the first place. We saw the trust beginning to erode, which makes it very hard to believe that's something that could ever be fixed.

Alfred was still willing to help Bruce to track down and rescue Shondra Kinsolving and Tim Drake's dad, but understandably, became fearful that Bruce was still too stubborn to risk his life once again despite his broken body and quits afterwards. Robin is caught in limbo, trying to make sense of Bat-Azrael's insanity while doing the best he can to live normally as he hopes his dad returns to safety. He's completely powerless to do anything.

Once he conquered Bane, Bat-Azrael's methods grew more volatile, anti-social and insane because of his struggles by the hallucinations as created by the System's brainwashing. It reached a breaking point where he threatened Robin out of the Batcave, even sealing him out, and his actions in letting Abattoir die had also made him responsible for failing to save Abbatoir's cousin Graham Etchison from being tortured to death. This was a massive set back after he appeared to beat the System's programming by sparing the Tally Man earlier on. . His armour became more dangerous, the cape was replaced with blade-like scallops that cuts anybody skin if they try to attack, he wears claws instead of gloves, fires bat-shurikens from his wrists that seriously injures anybody caught in the cross-hairs, and he later arms himself with guns - literally. It really does show that he's meant to be a parody of all the "extreme" comic book heroes coming out in the early 1990s. Had Jean-Paul never suffered from insanity, it definitely would've allowed Bruce Wayne to move on with his life without Batman for the first time

Perhaps the most fascinating moment for me came at the end of KnightsEnd, when Batman returns to confront Bat-Azrael at Wayne Manor. Here, Jean-Paul is definitely consumed by the image of Batman to the point he believes he is him, and Bruce is forced to admit that he created Batman, and he doesn't really exist. A shot of Batman's grimaced face after saying the second part of that sentence reveals he had to face an uncomfortable truth: that he knew Batman, on a subconscious level, was never his true face, but an image of his own making that consumed him. And while it never consumed him to the point of insanity, I get the impression that must've been the reason why he wanted Jean-Paul to remove his own mask and stop the image of the monster from destroying him any further.

I'd say more, but those were my first thoughts I wanted to share. The Knightfall saga has its strengths, but there are weaknesses too. The character themes are good, if not always executed successfully. But I definitely can't fault its ambition, it still got me to keep reading after all.

[thecolorsblend]

I liked that analysis. I'd nuance it a bit by adding that if Jean Paul was consumed by Batman, it was only after he'd first been consumed by Azrael.

As to Batman and Gordon's relationship, the events of Knightquest make a for a lot of water under the bridge. Gordon would have to be pushed to his breaking point to ever trust Batman again... and I think that Gotham City being ravaged by an earthquake and being cut off from (and then being abandoned by) the outside world might be enough to force Gordon to accept Batman once more. It's easy to believe, I think.

[The Laughing Fish]

I liked that analysis. I'd nuance it a bit by adding that if Jean Paul was consumed by Batman, it was only after he'd first been consumed by Azrael.

That's true. The brainwashing had forged Jean Paul into becoming an assassin, and he did try to reform himself at times, but to no avail. The hallucinations occassionally popping up condemning him failing to fulfill his duty for the Order of St Dumas AND as the Bat certainly didn't help matters either.

Despite the psychological conundrum, Jean Paul could never have been capable of taking the mantle as Batman if he never became Azrael. Perhaps one might say his new role was both a blessing and a curse in the sense that he took Bane down but then went progressively insane from there on in. Then again, maybe Bruce would've been forced to swallow his pride and ask Dick for help instead, and everything would've ended on a much happier note. Who knows?

I think this saga added a good rationale why Batman shouldn't kill. While KnightsEnd still maintained the belief that Batman shouldn't stoop to the same level as his enemies, it made it more complex that desire for vengeance can indirectly fail to save lives. Bat-Azrael's became so bloodthirsty to stop Abbatoir that it got to the point he brushed off Graham Etchison's death as a worthwhile sacrifice, much to Batman's outrage and dismay. It does pose the question: killing a maniac is well and good...but how virtuous is it if you choose vengeance at the expense of an innocent in dire need of help? I think this should go without saying, but when Batman kills, one prefers he'll go out to put an end to the madness without sacrificing victims caught in between.

As to Batman and Gordon's relationship, the events of Knightquest make a for a lot of water under the bridge. Gordon would have to be pushed to his breaking point to ever trust Batman again... and I think that Gotham City being ravaged by an earthquake and being cut off from (and then being abandoned by) the outside world might be enough to force Gordon to accept Batman once more. It's easy to believe, I think.

I had just finished reading Prodigal, and the Gordon arc is fascinating because his distrust of Batman is starting to affect his relationship with Sarah Essen, and we see the roles reverse for both of them. Sarah was always Batman's detractor, but she later accepts that Gordon needs his help, although still disapproving him. But Gordon dismisses this and claims it was foolish to ever be associated with Batman, let alone suggesting making contact with him. How ironic that such a statement that Sarah would normally agree with would suddenly result their marriage to be on shaky ground.

[The Laughing Fish]

Chuck Dixon once explained Bane was created to replace KGBeast, who had become irrelevant due to the end of the Soviet Union.

I believe Bane was always going to exist, no matter if the Soviet Union was still around in 1992.

But for the sake of imagination, I could see Knightfall getting tweaked to have KGBeast as the one who broke the bat. Have it as a sequel to Ten Nights of the Beast and KGBeast becoming vengeful after Batman locked him up to die. Maybe even make KGBeast a rogue agent while the USSR has completely dissolved. IIRC, the point of TNOTB is the USSR was already on the verge of ending and KGBeast was carrying out one more mission, so there wouldn't be any need to revisit that again for Knightfall.

The only downside is the whole Bat-Azarel plot in Knightsquest and Knights End could clash with the original premise of Batman of what did to KGBeast in TNOTB. The morality theme may need to be rewritten here. Otherwise, the whole saga would be pointless. Or maybe not, and it would've conveyed how Bat-Azrael would be the result of how Batman could've become if he took matters too far. Maybe Batman would've realised the justification of essentially burying KGBeast alive led to these strings of disastrous events in the first place.

It's fun to imagine and speculate if a KGBeast Knightfall story would've worked. But I prefer keeping Bane's Knightfall saga as it is.

[The Laughing Fish]

A couple of weeks ago, Graham Nolan was interviewed for a brief video. The topics range from how he got into comics, how Knightfall's story was intended as a negative response to readers' requests to make Batman as lethal as Wolverine and the Punisher, his relationship with Chuck Dixon, and his disappointment in Dark Knight Rises.

[Slash Man]

Chuck Dixon once explained Bane was created to replace KGBeast, who had become irrelevant due to the end of the Soviet Union.

I believe Bane was always going to exist, no matter if the Soviet Union was still around in 1992.

But for the sake of imagination, I could see Knightfall getting tweaked to have KGBeast as the one who broke the bat. Have it as a sequel to Ten Nights of the Beast and KGBeast becoming vengeful after Batman locked him up to die. Maybe even make KGBeast a rogue agent while the USSR has completely dissolved. IIRC, the point of TNOTB is the USSR was already on the verge of ending and KGBeast was carrying out one more mission, so there wouldn't be any need to revisit that again for Knightfall.

The only downside is the whole Bat-Azarel plot in Knightsquest and Knights End could clash with the original premise of Batman of what did to KGBeast in TNOTB. The morality theme may need to be rewritten here. Otherwise, the whole saga would be pointless. Or maybe not, and it would've conveyed how Bat-Azrael would be the result of how Batman could've become if he took matters too far. Maybe Batman would've realised the justification of essentially burying KGBeast alive led to these strings of disastrous events in the first place.

It's fun to imagine and speculate if a KGBeast Knightfall story would've worked. But I prefer keeping Bane's Knightfall saga as it is.

I noticed a lot of similarities between KGBeast and Bane on my own, interesting that one lead to the other.

I don't think the collapse of the Soviet Union would automatically spell the end of the character, but it did seem to align with the character's downfall in popularity. Though he never really had a sizable role written after to try to revive him properly. Ironically, his appearance in the Robin series (also by Chuck) predates Bane's first appearance.