A Death in the Family

[The Laughing Fish]

I finally read this over the weekend. The comic where Jason Todd - the second Robin- got murdered was by the Joker while searching for his biological mother overseas.

What does everyone else think? I thought it was a pretty good story that represented one of Batman's greatest failures. He doesn't seem used to having a side-kick who rebelled at the extent that Jason did, and he feels uneasy that Jason could go rogue on him as he longs to find out his true mother's identity. Once Jason dies, Batman feels extremely guilty  and blames himself for taking Jason along in the first place because he wanted to relieve himself from feeling lonely.

Jason's death was quite strong. I've seen the Joker crowbar panels before, but the way the whole scene was executed was quite brutal: Jason's own mother (a relief aid worker who was coerced into working with Joker because of her shady past) had betrayed him to the Joker, who in turn double crosses her and traps her and her son to a ticking time bomb. Despite the disgraceful betrayal, a half dead Robin still tries to get her to safety.

I can't help but feel that the story tried to make a point about the political themes by setting it in war-torn Middle East and poverty-stricken Ethiopia, but they don't really say anything new about them. The craziest moment in the book was the Iranian government granting Joker diplomatic immunity. It's bizarre, although Batman assumes the Iranians wanted Joker to wipe out the entire UN embassy (which he nearly did). I liked that Superman made a cameo, as the political situation with the Joker provoked a moral argument between him and Batman.

There were some crazy ideas into the book, but they didn't put me off from reading the whole thing. Does anybody else reckon that Jim Aparo's art never looked better?

[The Laughing Fish]

I liked that Superman made a cameo, as the political situation with the Joker provoked a moral argument between him and Batman.

Come to think of it, Superman was more concerned about the political ramifications and consequences if Batman decided to kill the Joker once and for all.

[The Laughing Fish]

When DC ran the voting polls to decide Jason's fate, it seems many fans wanted to kill him off because it would loosely connect with The Dark Knight Returns, as that story indicated Jason's death was the reason why Batman retired in the first place. I even heard that some fans found Jason to be an annoying character at the time. If that's so, I bet they would find Damian Wayne unbearable. 

Like it or not, A Death in the Family wouldn't be anywhere near as memorable or iconic if the fans voted for Jason's survival.

[thecolorsblend]

The final vote was pretty close. I read somewhere that it was ultimately decided by somebody who had a primitive auto-dialer. He set it to make hundreds of calls in favor of Jason's death. The margin of victory for the death voters was 72 so he was clearly the guy who put the death vote over top.

In other words, the readers voted to spare Jason and one person spoiled the result.

Even so, I think killing Jason off was the right decision. For one thing, it led to a very interesting post-Jason status quo for the Batman titles of Batman being despondent and then ultimately bitter, angry, vengeful and brutal as he tried coming to terms with Jason's death. For two, it gave us Tim as Robin and an even more interesting status quo of Batman being perhaps overly-protective of Tim. Tim was regularly shut out of situations that Bruce wouldn't have thought twice about bringing Dick or Jason into. For three, the specter of Jason haunted Batman, an ever-present reminder that Batman is only human and he can make mistakes. And when he does, those mistakes can have deadly consequences. Until Bane came along, Jason served as Batman's greatest mistake and it was something he took very seriously.

But now Jason is back from the dead, tee hee hee, so everything is okay now.

Anyway. Honestly, ADITF had important and interesting consequences for Batman but the story itself isn't very good. Jason's death is the one positive element of it. But even that is tempered by the fact that Batman had no reason whatsoever to not kill the Joker.

The story should've created circumstances whereby the Joker is responsible for Jason's death but it should've happened in a way where Batman shouldn't have wanted the Joker's blood. The Joker should've been indirectly responsible for Jason's death. Perhaps the Joker could've blown up a building without realizing Jason was inside.

But beating the kid to within an inch of his life with a crowbar and then 'sploding the building for good measure was simply the wrong move since it attaches intentionality to the Joker's crime which Batman could NEVER forgive. The Joker directly and intentionally killing Jason raises the ante far too high to ever come back from whereas accidentally killing him gives everybody involved a way out.

The other thing is randomly moving the story to the Middle East. For a story of this magnitude, I think Gotham City should've been the venue. Gotham is as much a character in the Batman mythos as anybody or anything else. Robbing Gotham of its role in Jason's death kind of misses the point in my way of thinking. The city itself should ultimately be responsible for Jason's death. The Joker should've been merely the occasion by which it happened.

Overall, it's a worthwhile story... in spite of itself.

[The Laughing Fish]

I never knew the final result was so close. As I said before, I doubt the comic would've been memorable as it is today if Jason survived. We definitely wouldn't have gotten Tim Drake or the Under the Red Hood animated film, as well as the Under the Hood comic that it adapted from. Whether you're a fan of Judd Winick's story or not is beside the point.

The story should've created circumstances whereby the Joker is responsible for Jason's death but it should've happened in a way where Batman shouldn't have wanted the Joker's blood.

As you know, the topic over whether Batman should kill or not is pretty tiresome, and it's something I try not to dwell too much nowadays. But I've come to terms with tolerating it as long as the writers stay consistent with it. For example, when Batman tells Jason Todd in Under the Hood/Under the Red Hood that he can't go down that path to no return once he kills the Joker, no matter how much he wants to kill him, I can at least handle it as long as he doesn't break his rule five minutes later. I might not necessarily like it that much if I think about it from a realistic point of view. But from a comic point of view, I suppose Batman being afraid of not stopping once he crosses that line has some merit. His role and conduct as a vigilante puts him in a precarious position as it is anyway. If Batman kills in a comic, I prefer they don't make a big deal about the rule at all, like in issues from previous eras I read.

The way it played out in the end of A Death in the Family though, Batman's chance to avenge Jason was taken away from him, thanks to that idiotic henchman who recklessly shot him and Joker, and indirectly causing the helicopter to crash. A cruel twist of fate.

The Joker should've been indirectly responsible for Jason's death. Perhaps the Joker could've blown up a building without realizing Jason was inside.

I don't think the Joker would've cared if he killed Jason by accident. In fact, I'd go far and say the he would've claimed he did it on purpose just to spite and torment Batman even further while claiming diplomatic immunity. Just for sh*ts and giggles.

The other thing is randomly moving the story to the Middle East. For a story of this magnitude, I think Gotham City should've been the venue. Gotham is as much a character in the Batman mythos as anybody or anything else. Robbing Gotham of its role in Jason's death kind of misses the point in my way of thinking. The city itself should ultimately be responsible for Jason's death. The Joker should've been merely the occasion by which it happened.

Perhaps they could've done that. But I don't think it's that big of a deal. We already know how Gotham City is always responsible for tragedy in the Batman mythos, whether it's Bruce and Dick losing their parents, Barbara Gordon getting paralysed, Sarah Essen's murder, Harvey Dent becoming a psychopath and so forth. So having Jason Todd murdered overseas while in the middle of an investigation AND trying to find his mother at the same time is something new that I can accept. Plus, Joker's crimes and dealings with other criminal networks overseas paved the way for granting diplomatic immunity and it fueled the tension and anger in Batman, as a crude realisation that justice and the law are two separate things that don't always share the same goal.

Speaking of which, some of the comics in the late 1980s didn't shy away from politics, the Middle East and terrorism. You have the Joker dealing with the Iranian government, including a cameo by Ayatollah Homeini, and the US government warning Batman not to meddle into matters or else it would further strain US-Iran relations. In Detective Comics #590, you have Batman investigating a terrorist attack on a local veterans' club in Gotham - with the culprits screaming "Allah Akbar!" - which leads to a conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack on the House of Parliament in London, because the Syraquis see it as retribution against the American and British for hurting their country as well as other third world countries. In today's politically correct climate, I'm not sure if this sort of context would ever go to print.

[The Laughing Fish]

Jim Starlin, who wrote ADITF, went on camera to admit he was never a fan of Robin being an integral part of the Batman mythos and took every opportunity to write him off. He even voted to get the character to die in an AIDS-related storyline that DC Comics were considering before he got the chance to kill Jason Todd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGxAR-kstwk&feature=youtu.be

From what I remember, Robin was created as a sidekick back in the Golden Age to serve as an avatar for the young readers. It makes sense from an escapist's point of view, but once things got heated up because of comics censorship and future artists having their own take and opinion on how to fit him in the Batman mythos, it can paint Batman in a questionable light if you think about it too realistically. On the other hand, that's why it's important to get stories like A Lonely Place of Dying that cements the idea of Robin as the sort of moral strength Batman needs to stay in line.

Put it this way, would Batman be just as compelling if he were morally right all the time, and never had to deal with such complexities for having child sidekicks? I doubt it. Like it or not, Robin enriches the mythos.

[The Joker]

Jim Starlin, who wrote ADITF, went on camera to admit he was never a fan of Robin being an integral part of the Batman mythos and took every opportunity to write him off. He even voted to get the character to die in an AIDS-related storyline that DC Comics were considering before he got the chance to kill Jason Todd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGxAR-kstwk&feature=youtu.be

I remember hearing about the whole Jim Starlin thing with him wanting Jason Todd to die of AIDS, back when DC was considering a major character to die of the virus (I think Jimmy Olsen was also a name thrown around for this as well if I am not mistaken. How serious those talks about Jimmy is anyone's guess). Which was yet another voting situation, but only with the people in the DC Comics office evidently.

Since it was essentially a free-for-all in the names that could be applied to such a story line, Starlin was well within his right to cast Jason's name on the ticket. Personally, I can't help but think of it as Jim having a sense of entitlement. "I don't like Robin, so I'll just explore any and every opportunity to get rid of him." Which I find annoying to a certain extent, considering the character of Robin wasn't and never will be his character. There were scores of other writers/illustrators who came before him, and made the dynamic duo work within the parameters that was given to them upon taking up the job.

Look, I'm sure there were other writers/illustrators during the forty-something years of Batman and Robin before Starlin was assigned as a writer, that were not big Robin fans (most notably Denny O'Niel, though I don't believe he was so fixated on Robin being killed as Starlin was), but that speaks more about the writer's ego than it does the character. As there were plenty of readers who were at the other end of the spectrum, and liked the character of Robin, and enjoyed the character being around.

As a writer for a long standing property, my opinion is that you are there to serve the characters and history. First and foremost. In this undertaking, the "challenge", as a writer, is to work within the established motifs set forth, and ideally succeed. Or a reason not to accept an assignment. Not a reason to change, or in this case, kill off the character.

That, in short, is a all too common example of the characters serving the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters.

From what I remember, Robin was created as a sidekick back in the Golden Age to serve as an avatar for the young readers. It makes sense from an escapist's point of view, but once things got heated up because of comics censorship and future artists having their own take and opinion on how to fit him in the Batman mythos, it can paint Batman in a questionable light if you think about it too realistically. On the other hand, that's why it's important to get stories like A Lonely Place of Dying that cements the idea of Robin as the sort of moral strength Batman needs to stay in line.

Put it this way, would Batman be just as compelling if he were morally right all the time, and never had to deal with such complexities for having child sidekicks? I doubt it. Like it or not, Robin enriches the mythos.

Robin has always been a character I like, but I tend to go back and forth on the notion of multiple Robin's that started with Jason Todd. As a kid who didn't really start reading Batman comics until around 1992, Jason Todd's Robin felt incredibly unique due to him being Dick Grayson's successor, but then firmly established as being deceased. I remember getting the "A Death in the Family" trade, but didn't really have a bunch of issues featuring Jason. Which I guess added to the allure of his overall tenure as Robin. Tim Drake was basically "my" Robin. He's the Robin I grew up reading, and I guess I'll always have a liking for the character because of nostalgic memories. Dick Grayson is, and will forever be the classic Robin, and even though Tim Drake was the current and long standing Robin during the 1990's, I could never shake the idea that Dick was, for all intents and purposes, THE Robin in terms of Batman mythos. Damian I could care less about, and the Spoiler's time as Robin was forgettable at best. There's probably more in continuity Robins who have had short stints for all I know, but I just don't keep up with the current stuff that much anymore.

Having said all that, especially now as an adult, I have grown to have mixed feelings on the notion of Batman having had so many Robin's over the course of his publication history. For many of us, it's all that we have ever known, but on the other hand, I sometime wish that Dick Grayson's tenure as Nightwing would have either A. Never happened. Or B. Essentially being a blip on the character's history. I get the whole thing about Dick becoming Nightwing to step out of Batman's shadow, but I also think that this progression of his character could have also transpired under his Robin guise as well. Thus, making Robin not a "title" for subsequent character's, but Robin being who Dick Grayson actually is. Similar to the Earth-Two Robin.

[thecolorsblend]

Robin has always been a character I like, but I tend to go back and forth on the notion of multiple Robin's that started with Jason Todd. As a kid who didn't really start reading Batman comics until around 1992, Jason Todd's Robin felt incredibly unique due to him being Dick Grayson's successor, but then firmly established as being deceased. I remember getting the "A Death in the Family" trade, but didn't really have a bunch of issues featuring Jason. Which I guess added to the allure of his overall tenure as Robin. Tim Drake was basically "my" Robin. He's the Robin I grew up reading, and I guess I'll always have a liking for the character because of nostalgic memories. Dick Grayson is, and will forever be the classic Robin, and even though Tim Drake was the current and long standing Robin during the 1990's, I could never shake the idea that Dick was, for all intents and purposes, THE Robin in terms of Batman mythos. Damian I could care less about, and the Spoiler's time as Robin was forgettable at best. There's probably more in continuity Robins who have had short stints for all I know, but I just don't keep up with the current stuff that much anymore.

Having said all that, especially now as an adult, I have grown to have mixed feelings on the notion of Batman having had so many Robin's over the course of his publication history. For many of us, it's all that we have ever known, but on the other hand, I sometime wish that Dick Grayson's tenure as Nightwing would have either A. Never happened. Or B. Essentially being a blip on the character's history. I get the whole thing about Dick becoming Nightwing to step out of Batman's shadow, but I also think that this progression of his character could have also transpired under his Robin guise as well. Thus, making Robin not a "title" for subsequent character's, but Robin being who Dick Grayson actually is. Similar to the Earth-Two Robin.

My view is that comic book Batman wants accountability partners. I see Batman as kind of like a more functional version of Dexter Morgan. Dexter can't suppress his urge to kill. But somehow, Bruce can. And yet, it's a precarious balance. If he slips, he knows he'll never stop killing.

Robin is sort of a gimme under those circumstances. Superman gave Batman the kryptonite ring in case he ever needs to get taken down permanently. Bruce intentionally set up many "kryptonite rings" to take him out if he ever goes rogue. Dick might not be able to take Bruce out all by himself. But Dick along with Tim, Gordon, Babs, etc, they could probably manage it if they pooled their resources and knowledge. Deep down, I think that's the real function they serve for Bruce. They're a firewall standing between the bat-demon and innocent people.

For my money, Tim is more of a "purist" than Dick. Dick has a complicated father/son dynamic with Bruce that Tim just plain lacks. The most Bruce could ever claim to be for Tim is a mentor... and, I would say, a cautionary tale. If Batman ever crossed the Rubicon, Dick just might find a way to excuse him, look the other way, etc. Tim wouldn't. If Batman crossed the line, Tim would probably lead the charge to take Batman down. Dick might compromise by letting Bruce slide; Tim never would.

To put it another way, I see significant value in what Tim brings to the table as Robin. I'm familiar with the arguments some people make that "Robin" was always Dick's thing and subsequent sidekicks should've had their own callsigns. I understand that but that ship has sailed. Robin is more of a fungible concept than Batman is.

For those reasons, Tim is my Robin too.

[The Dark Knight]

I like the concept of Robin for a number of reasons, and it's why I like Adam West as Batman so much. For me, the number one positive is that Robin allows Bruce to spiritually connect with his father by stepping into his shoes. And I prefer the concept of Robin to be a childhood internship that Dick Grayson establishes, moves on from and other inherit.

Being under Batman's wing is crime fighting school, and Dick becoming Nightwing is graduation – becoming a fully formed reflection of his mentor's teachings. Choosing a new name works better because it's a clean break. Being his own man with his own city is more of a Batman thing to do. He's going solo but honoring his mentor.

The concept of Robin also allows for relationship deterioration, which I think is an important aspect of Batman. Dick has grievances with Bruce, but they are mostly healed and they share a strong bond. Whereas Jason goes down a much darker road. You don't get those nuances otherwise. 

I see Batman as kind of like a more functional version of Dexter Morgan. Dexter can't suppress his urge to kill. But somehow, Bruce can. And yet, it's a precarious balance. If he slips, he knows he'll never stop killing.

Dexter is coming back for 10 more episodes next year, by the way. A fantastic opportunity to end things on a better note than Season 8.

[The Joker]

Dick Grayson/Nightwing:

It's kinda interesting to think that up to a certain period in DC Comics history, most characters owned their names literally for life. If I had to say where this began to shift, was during the1980s where the trend of characters taking one code name then shifting to another really began. How "successful" this approach was can be argued. In terms of Dick Grayson leaving behind his Robin code name, for a new guise/code name as Nightwing (which was a kryptonian code name originally, right?), I get the appeal of the sentiment that it's Dick becoming his own man. However, due to the fact that DC clearly doesn't want Bruce being perceived as a ageing Batman, Dick's advancing has sort of stalled in a lot of ways. Which probably explains much of the gimmicky tinkering the character has experienced in recent years (Dick's Batman, then back to Nightwing, he's a spy, then he has amnesia, back to Nightwing? ect). Course Dick Grayson being under the Dan Didio editorial for so many years wasn't likely a positive thing either.

In short, I believe it takes something away from the uniqueness of each DC character, if code names are constantly being swapped around. This is something that fans of Tim Drake has had to endure since the introduction of Damian just over 10 years ago (2007ish?).

If Jason Todd would have lived thru A Death in the Family:

It's interesting to think what might have happened if this had actually occurred. I have to think that upon Jason recovering from his injuries, that he likely would have received a editorial makeover in terms of both his personality and costume post A Death in the Family. Under this alternate timeline scenario, I can imagine that Jason might have gradually become more and more akin to Tim Drake over time (as I really don't think keeping Jason as he was, was really an option considering how split the readership was on him), and it would have been Jason, not Tim (since Tim wouldn't exist in this scenario), that would have received the Neal Adams Robin makeover, and quite possibly, a ongoing Robin title subsequently.