Not only do I understand Batman and his interpretations better now, but I’ve learned a lot about archetypes and how they apply to my own writing and my own characters. Thank you as always for these amazing videos!
Thanks for asking! I tend to write in any genre that fits the kind of story I want to be telling, whether it’s literary, horror, fantasy, sci-fi, drama, and so on, sometimes mixing several together. It’s hard to describe! But I’m a published writer (with a small but good publisher) and you can read the description or sample of my second book here, if you’re curious. It’s a thriller with elements of fantasy and the supernatural, though I tend to call it “philosophical fantasy,” or “visionary fiction” apparently works as well. For me the most important is what story the story is telling, if that makes sense-what deeper meanings or philosophies or truths lie at the heart. The plot is the gravy on top ;) www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B075297D9F Are you a writer?
"I'm a fictional character you could probably do anything with. They've given me lantern rings, combined me with wolverine, given me all the knowledge in the multiverse, turned me into evil versions of myself. They've made me a vampire, an actual fucking bat. They sent me through time and I was a caveman and a pirate, etc. Ive starred as the lead of three Lego movies. Literally just think of any idea, doesn't matter how bad or simple, and just make me the main character. Put me on a cooking show."
@@Player-re9mo Announcer: Tonight in Batman's Kitchen! Batman yells: Aquaman, get the *beep* over here! Batman: Did you make these scallops? Aquaman: Yeah Batman: Can you talk to them? They're so bloody raw they should still be alive enough for you to *beep*-ing talk to them! Aquaman begins to weep. Batman: Who decided to put Aquaman on scallops, eh? WHO?! Batman throws plate of scallops across kitchen. Batman: Penguin. Scallops. Now. Penguin waddles past a weeping Aquaman. Laughs in Penguin.
Byronic Heroes are my second favorite types of heroes (after idealistic, but naive classic anti-heroes). They're so driven and inspiring, but also insufferable and vexing. They're the epitome of someone you love to watch but would hate to know. By the way, if you know any other good videos or books analyzing Byronic heroes I would love to know.
To sum up what this two-part video essay is saying, in my opinion, the kind of hero Batman is really depends on how he's portrayed and on who's writing him. While most modern DC fans recognize him as a dark and gritty hero, there's still the underlying fact that his characterization has changed throughout the years since his first appearance 79 years ago.
I doupt Mr Darcy is based on Byron since the book was written in 1797 even if it was published in 1813. And Mr Darcy is Byronic hero mostly before you actually see his inner character.
Yeah based on this definition of a Byronic hero, Darcy doesn't really fit, he doesn't really exhibit most of the character traits associated with a Byronic hero -- those that he appears to hold earlier in the novel (such as his unfair, self-centered treatment of Wickham) are largely proven to be errors on the part of Lizzie's judgment of his character. He's certainly got the typical Byronic aesthetic, but the description here doesn't really fit him. Heathcliffe from Wuthering Heights was a much better example of a Byronic hero, and I'm surprised he didn't bring up Frankenstein and His Monster, both of whom are certainly Byronic heroes by this definition.
Sara Samaletdin yep, i was thinking that exactly. darcy is more of a convoluted nerd, at best. bad at talking, and predjudiced, yes. but hardly byronic i think.
I blame adaptation distillation Darcy is supposed to be more an honorable fop but times change and dark and handsome is what gets the ladies going in this era. Hence why you get dark and brooding Darcy .
FreyaEinde, the 2005 version has issued but the 1995 was pretty perfect. And people who have red the book like Darcy because he is a caring awkward guy once you get to know him.
Absolutely. Jane Austen had heavily revised P&P and sent it to the publisher by 1812, the same year Byron became an international celebrity with Childe Harold's Pilgrimage--the first instance of the Byronic hero. I wouldn't even call Darcy a Byronic hero before we get to know him more. He has only a few of the surface characteristics. He's certainly not a rebel or an outsider or an engaging personality. Byronic heroes are dangerously personable, reeling people in, male and female (like Evgeny Onegin, Byron's Don Juan, Lermontov's Pechorin, etc.). The only surface attraction Darcy has is his money. The Bronte sisters on the other hand...yeah, 100% Byronic.
Mr. Darcy's more a romantic hero, I'd say. He's a bit withdrawn, but he's not really psychologically tormented in the way that Rochester or Heathcliff (or Batman) are, and his key characteristic turns out to be his integrity.
I said in the previous episode that Kylo Ren was a great romantic hero, but actually he would fit more with your description of the Byronic hero. He embodies that raw strength of nature (in this case, of the Force) that rises against the corrupt virtue of the Jedi, but he also wants to quench an eternal self-destructive thirst for power. The strength of his character comes from that he is animated by contradictory drives. He is megalomaniac, but he hates himself. He wants to bring order to the Galaxy, but also to destroy everything.
I don't think that's what Pilusmagnus is saying. Kylo Ren is framed as the villain in Star Wars because Star Wars isn't a Romantic story and it sure isn't the story of an anti-hero. However, in Romantic stories (and by proxy Byronic ones), Kylo Ren would be the one framed as the protagonist. He has the attributes of a Byronic hero even if Star Wars specifically doesn't frame him that way. And that might be the overall point of characterizing Kylo Ren in this way. Some people could be fooled into thinking that Byronic heroes are good or right or having a point, but in the end they are usually still in the wrong and usually more interested in themselves.
I don't care if he's not technically the hero. He's the driving force of the new trilogy, and one of the characters who takes the most important decisions. He might not be the hero, but he is the co-protagonist, along with Rey. It's not that clear in The Force Awakens, but becomes undeniable in The Last Jedi.
Neil Gaiman's short comic Whatever Happened To The Caped Crusader? is about exactly this quality of Batman, that he's different things to different people as times change, and that he's as much a folk myth as an actual person. Gaiman takes it to the next level, imagining the creative cycle of rewrites as an actual metaphysical event in the DC universe that sees Batman endlessly reborn in a cycle of eternal return, forever being Batman, forever dying in endless ways for the city. (It's fucking lit, I highly recommend reading it.)
7:47 well I sure wasn't expecting to get hit with the nostalgia of Disney's Robin hood while watching a video about batman, but here we are! Ps I love that song
Jane Austen wrote the first draft of "Pride and Prejudice" in 1797, and the second draft in 1812. Byron did not become famous until 1812, with the publication of the first installment of "Childe Harold." Since the first draft of "Pride and Prejudice" is lost, we don't know how extensive the revisions were, but the likelihood that Byron was a major influence on the character of Darcy seems a bit slim. Also, while Darcy is arrogant and brooding and misunderstood, he is also scrupulously moral, and even a bit of a prig; he's the upholder of traditional virtue against the scoundrel Wickham. All this seems rather un-Byronic.
Yes, but it's hard to say which was the established and which was supposed to be byronic. Cap is technically going against the "establishment" (i.e. the globalist progressive UN), but the values he represents (America's staunch individualism and the right of individual self-determination even to the perceived or real detriment of the majority) are more in line with what we would usually call traditional or established values (at least, in America). Whereas Iron Man is the reverse; he represents the "establishment" of the UN/govt but his values of global harmony would typically be seen as anti-traditional in America. It was a pretty clever continuation of the themes started in Winter Soldier and I think it's why I love the last two Captain America movies. They do a good job of showing that globalism vs. individualism is not a black and white struggle, there are good reasons for both. And I love that they have kept Captain America true to the American ideals of the 1940's, even if he doesn't like what modern America has done with those values.
Frank Miller's Batman is my favourite version, aside from the classic Batman. He is a massive powerhouse of age-old grit and vengeful rage, complemented by a blatant need to go over the top in his violent methods to compensate for his crippling aging - so that he suffers no pity from his younger, more capable enemies, while restoring the long-lost authority he succesfully implemented back when he was fear itself. The perfect hero for the middle-aged man: someone who has WAY passed the prime of his life, was left behind and outlasted everything he loved and stood for. But someone who has preserved his conservative worldview on morality and right and wrong, and still has a beast roaring inside him to get back out, willing to impose one last hurrah over all the wrongdoers - by extreme force and until death, if necessary.
Batman V Superman works better then DKR to me because it's a reversal, in that movie it's Superman who's right and Batman who's wrong. I have had mixed feelings on that film for-awhile but now that I'v watched it a third time I can firmly say it is a work of art that will be vindicated by History.
Batman to me is, an Epic Hero: cause he is Inspiring and Destine or Curse or Choose an Unending Mission of his own, a Tragic Hero: cause he has the Flaw of being too Humane and Morally Devoted, a Romantic Hero: cause he Rebels against the Norms to be a Symbol, a Byronic Hero: cause he is so Selfish at he's own Believe, an Anti-Hero: cause he work in he's own Way and Question the World he's Living in, a Folk Hero: cause he is like a Fairytale, a Myth, and a Legend. In Short he is One of the Many GOAT of Fiction.
I think the perfect example of the Byronic hero is Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is as cynical as can be, everyone around him dies, and you've even got the ultimate sympathetic brother in Doctor Watson.
Thank you! I loved these two videos. Not only because you used literary analysis, but also because of how well you put everything together. Now I have proof why I think Batman is the most interesting superhero On a sidenote, are you interested in examining other superheroes too?
Batman is not a hero, he is a vigilante. He is not interested in justice, only vengeance. Trying to fit him into a hero role will not work because he is not one. He seeks only to punish criminals; doing whatever it takes to satisfy his revenge against the concept of crime. He will not kill the criminal because he is at war with the action of the crime, not the person doing it. Once the crime (current or potential future crime) has be stopped the conflict is over. Killing the person just means that crime has won again.
I'm sorry, did you just put Edward from Twilight on the same level as Mr. Darcy? I may have to unsubscribe. 😂 Kidding, but really, what are you smoking.
OK really dude, Darcy as a Byronic hero? George Byron was 8 years old when "First Impressions" was set to paper. EIGHT. YEARS. OLD. I've enjoyed your videos up until now, even patiently accepting your fanboyish critique of Harry Potter because it still had merit, just as the Harry Potter books have merit despite not being literary masterpieces. But Darcy? Darcy's character is as far removed from a Byronic, or even a romantic, hero as you can get. He perfectly illustrates a man who is the product of his time, deeply ingrained in the social mores and the cultural expectations around him. There is not an atom of rebellion in Darcy and though you can describe him as passionate his passion is still firmly quelled by his commitment to "society". The closest you could come *might* be calling him a folk hero because he "embodies the values of the society he comes from", and maybe a little bit of the tragic hero because of his history with Wickham and Georgiana, but embodying certain values or having a little sad history doesn't make one a hero and ultimately he isn't a hero. He's a secondary character and love interest whose primary purpose is as foil to Elizabeth Bennet. Elizabeth Bennet might be your romantic hero, passionate and a little rebellious, but even she knows the limits of society and exercises great restraint over her restless personality. I think the real answer here, and the genius of Jane Austen, is that her books don't have an archetypal hero. I'm sorry if this comes off as quarrelous and rude, but it's so clear you haven't even read Pride & Prejudice or done even the minutest research into the story and characters. It's one of my favorite books and one of my favorite characters.
I think the really disappointing thing is how much I've grown to love your channel in the last week of binge watching all of your videos, and now I have to second-guess everything I've learned from you. If you got this so far wrong, how can I rely on everything else you've taught me?
couldnt agree more. Its hard for people to care for superman cause they are stuck with the image of a almost god superhero with too many powers, but when you analize him more in comics like All-Star Superman, or Superman for all Seasons, or Superman Earth One, he can be truly fascinating
I personally think you should've take a look at some other stories about Batman, not just The Dark Knight Returns. Like Denny O'Neil's 70's run. Which influenced Nolan's movies just as much as Miller's work.
DKR pretty much stakes out one extreme of Batman interpretation - much like Adam West is another extreme. It makes reasonable sense to focus on a handful of extreme interpretations rather than trying to fill in every nuance of interpretation in between...
I disagree with just one categorisation of Mr Darcy being a Byronic hero... He didn't lack integrity... That is the only thing that kept him away from being Byronic hero...
How curious. This really shows How Much Zack Snyder really knows Batman. 4:57 The lack of this Dynamic is what makes you realize.. .BATMAN IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEONE TO BE LIKED. This protagonist has become, a Villain. ♠ In BvS, Batman goes From a Byronic Hero to an Anti-Hero.. at by the BvS fight, he has reached the limit from BECOME a VILLAIN. Something the Dark Knight Returns is really aware of.
VERY good video. And I gotta say as much as TDKR is an important comic book and a fascinating exploration of the character it sucks that so many people consider it to be the definitive version of Batman, because it's just absolutely covered in Frank Miller's dumb edgy personal viewpoints that are hard to take seriously beyond the age of 16. Killing is cool, being a dick is awesome, women are whores, we get it Frank. It's especially strange since Frank Miller wrote one of the actual definitive versions of the character in Year One.
I like that last part. Since he's a symbol and rarely seen by the people, he can be depicted in so many ways. It makes me wonder if the stories, shows, movies, and comics about him are supposed to be actual depictions of him or just the stories about him- depicting him as all sorts of things. Or maybe they're all real but take place in alternate universes. There's another character who's similar in terms of ability to him who is also a legend and a symbol: Big Boss from Metal Gear. He's legendary in terms of his abilities and accomplishments and his name is adopted by a few people.
2:40 Very good series. Even if intended to be quasi-Byronic, how Byronic is Mr. Darcy really? He's arrogant sure, and a bit moody, but his rudeness isn't serious enough in its consequences to really qualify as "lack of integrity." The whole thrust of the novel is Elizabeth realizing that in the important things Darcy has integrity while the socially adroit and charming Wickem has none...
What would be the counterpart of the Byronic Hero? Is it the Superman boy-scout type? The Captain America vs. Iron Man mirror image? I'd love if you could produce a video about that.
Pretty cool, though I would have clarify the "classical antihero" with the protagonist failings are less moral, but focus more on vulnerability, like teenage Spidey, the closest to do for Batman was Keaton version who was more socially. awkward
That interpretation of those Biblical Brother is highly disputable. For one thing both Ishmael and Esau were recognized the first born and thus legally the rightful heir.
Oh... nevermind... turns out Byronic Hero is to the Romantic Hero as to how the Tragic Hero is to the Classic Hero... Sorry... last video I was all, "shoot..." and now I am all, "shoot... but... shoot..."
classical hero, romantic hero, tragic hero, byronic hero, anti-hero, folk hero....hmmm.... Did you notice in that in the more modern film examples, the "antagonistic mentor" character (Snape, Ras Al Ghul, Don Diego de la Vega) is often an "older model" of hero while the protege who inherits the legacy is a "more modern" iteration of the heroic archetype? And taking that a step further -- in stories with multiple apprentices vying for a title, isn't the "true" successor usually a reformer rather than a perfect carbon-copy of the previous hero? One thing's for sure, all these different kinds of heroes are some version of the "bad boy" archetype. I'm wondering whether scholars of the 21st century will finally recognize the budding "nice guy hero" archetype -- Commissioner Gordon, Captain America, Phil Coulson, The Atom (HoT), Mr. Fantastic (F4RotSS), Chuck (Chuck), Captain Marvel/The Flash (JL, JLU, YJ), Bolin/Asami Sato (Legend of Korra), Optimus Prime, Angus MacGyver, the Winchester brothers (Supernatural). These are all heroic characters who are pushed to the margins of society by their (high _or_ low) economic status, social status, intelligence or profession and who still lack most (if not all) of the "anti-social" traits found in most other heroic archetypes. However, just like other kinds of heroes, these "outsiders" are able to see problems with society more clearly and take action to correct them. Only the "nice guys" do so by creating and utilizing contacts both within and outside "normal" society and operating as an "adjunct" to official and existing levers of power rather than outright ignoring them. Or to put it another way: _"I stayed in and studied like a good little nerd. And fifteen years later, I'm one of the greatest minds of the 21st century. I'm engaged to the hottest girl on the planet. And the big jock who played football in high school, he standing right in front of me asking me for my help, and I say he's not going to get a damn thing, unless he does exactly what I say and starts treating me and my friends with some respect."_ That used to be something a _the villian_ would say isn't it? Dressing down the folk hero for presumptions arrogance and demanding recognition for one's achievements sure sounds like it to me. But then again, the days when you could beat your problems into submission with your bare hands are long over.
I FUCKING LOATHE "Look in the sky, it's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Superman!" Doesn't make in the context it's used or any other for that matter. Let's say a giant monster was attacking the town and some guy shouts that stupid shit. What if it really was a bird or a plane? Who fuckin cares! We gotta get the fuck outta here!
The Dark Knight Returns part 2 is the worst piece of Batman storytelling that I've ever seen. It's a disgrace and should be burned at the stake. It's massively overrated (8.4/10 on IMDb wtf? Are they faking the numbers?) and when I saw it for the first time I finally understood why BvS is also such a terrible movie. I bet Snyder was influenced by that film and thought "well, that's what the fans like, lets go with something similar" but he was wrong because it's absolutely not what the fans like.
Can you talk about what is the main difference between DC and Marvel's characters? Well, specially in the matter of DC's divinized characters, like Superman or Batman, and the more human approach to Marvel, just like Iron Man or Spider-Man.
A really intresting video ! If I may give my opinion on Nothrop Frye's example of the "struggle-of-brothers theme", I wouldn't say that Issac and Jacob are socially established figures in the Bible. In fact, these charaters (and espacially Jacob) are characterized by important mistakes regarding their family (which would be the social frame to respect) and even regarding God (the divine frame to respect). Fallible characters are frequent in the Bible, but the reason why the story is centered on them is because of God's promise to the posterity of Abraham (Issac's and Jacob's ancester). God made an alliance with this lineage to protect it and bless the whole world through it, and this with people chosen by God. It's not a question of social establishment but rather God's choice to accomplish his promise even through morally imperfect people. That's why there is a high stake upon this family and that's why the attention is centered upon these two characters in the Bible.
That part about Batman year100 is actually very interesting. In the JLA comic "Golden Perfect", when Wonder Woman breaks the lasso of truth, and reality starts to distort, batman becomes like a horrific shadow with only gleaming red eyes, cause that is what most people believe him to be.
Awesome video, but Mr Darcy isn't really a Byronic Hero. Jane Austen would scoff at the very idea of such heroes. Darcy is not self-indulgent, tragically flawed, or some sort of a self-proclaimed rebel against society. Sure, he considers himself a little above the people around him sometimes, but, he never sees himself as removed from humanity as a whole itself. He's just your classic privileged yet morally upright, introverted guy who's had to grow up and bear responsibilities earlier than usual and kinda forgot how to laugh and takes himself a little too seriously.
I'd like to see a similar sort of dissection like this of Superman. He doesn't get the same attention as Batman sometimes and we haven't seen a decently done modern version in cinema in the same way Batman was done by Nolan. They tried to "Nolanize" Superman in a way without understand how Nolan did it with Batman, nor understanding Superman as a character outside of a Randian sort of deconstruction of the character. Justice League made him likable again but it felt stilted probably because of how different he was acting from how he did in the previous two movies. I'm not sure. I think I like the Smallville version of Clark most but I can't quite explain why. He just feels like the most relatable version of the character, probably because he isn't at his peak potential until the end of the series (and cuz apparently Kryptonite is literally anywhere and everywhere in some form).
Wow, there's a lot of talk about dudes. One could easily assume women do nothing heroic (and you'd be wrong ) Would be fun to watch/hear a video about female hero influences on Batman.
As a Bible scholar, I'd like to understand your interpretation of how Esau and Ishmael were forces of nature and change. This isn't literary thematics, this is history.
I'd say Batman is almost an Anti Hero since he defienelily rides the line. He is definently a hero unlike Deadpool or the Punisher but he has a lot of anti heroic attributes
He isn’t a hero... He is the protector that Gotham deserves not the one it needs but the one it deserves. He is the silent knight of Gotham. He is a vigilante. He is a man who operates outside the law. He is Batman!
Batman is a byronic hero, who is damaged and and doesnt kill out ofhis damaged psyche. He is functionally crazy. He is not iselistic and very pessimistic, but still has hope.
The most glaring and intentional showing of the folk hero is during the ending of Batman Arkham Knight where he was already saying goodbye to the people he cares about. He knew he needed to end it all because he felt he was the reason his team mates (or anyone who sides with him-take Poison Ivy for example) keep getting into life and death situations. And for that reason, he didn’t want to be Batman anymore. And having shown himself to the world, the further preempted his decision to end his tenure as Batman. Batman without the mask is useless. The only problem with the ending of Arkham Knight was how he knew Gotham was already good having no Batman. There wasn’t an example of how crime fell or why people stood up to themselves to criminals or why they all decided they didn’t need a Batman. For some reason there was a sudden drop of corruption because Jim Gordon was leading the polls in his campaign as mayor. What further weakened Bruce’s decision was when they didn’t show the father of the mugged family stand up for them. One of Bruce’s greatest regrets was that neither him nor his father stood up to the mugger. And even in cooperation, the guy shot them. Again, there was no showcase of a boost of heroism inside the citizens of Gotham when Batman left. This could’ve been what Bruce said about Gotham needing something worse than Batman to scare off cowardly criminals. A better way of ending the epilogue scene in Arkham Knight having the father of the family stand up to the muggers and then have a vision of a bat flying towards them.
The Frank Miller Batman is realistic. When you've been standing on the edge for so long eventually you'll jump. He wrestled with his morals for so long. It doesn't just take a physical toll on you it can take a mental toll as well. He's past his prime and he's too worn out to put into the energy to resist. This is what happens when your heroes don't just retire. It was pretty sad watching Hakeem Olajuwon trying to do the dream shake with zero speed.
Jane Austen wouldn't have liked Byron and Darcy definitely is nothing like Byron. The problem with Darcy is he is such a profound character that most people only see the part about him being sullen and handsome and rich and they treat him like a foil character. The films do him no justice.
This is truly one of the more fascinating characters of all fiction. I believe in part because The Batman is the man's real character, while Bruce Wayne (the gentrified playboy) his his alter-ego.
I don't think you actually read Batman: Year 100. He does not stay behind the mask for the duration of the comic and he is not "more feral", nor is it left ambiguous wether he is Bruce Wayne or not. You got the message of the comic book right, though, so I think you read some parts of it. In that case, it does not matter as much. Still, you should read the entire book, it is a great read.
Hey phil, i am just commenting here to lyk that i have still been eatching all of the anatomy of a movie shows but it wont let me leave a comment if it has already aired ...lmk if there is a way around that or if I'm doing something wrong. It just says live chat and i can look at it but that's it. Thank you!
THIS GREAT!!! A FEW YEARS AGO, I GOT INTO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT OF HEROS AND VILLIANS. THIS JUST ADDS TO MY INTEREST AND PROSPECTIVES. I HAVE LEARN A LOT TODAY. THANKS!
I think what’s interesting about Batman is that the public understanding of how Batman “should be” is all of these mixed together. To me Batman is Byronic in the sense that he no longer seeks happiness as Bruce Wayne. He’s tragic in how his unwillingness to move on from his parents combined with his unwillingness to kill lead to an unending war that saps his spirit. He’s classic in his clear sense of morality.
Except when he does seek happiness - all the times he's been linked with Selina Kyle, for example. Or the 90s Batman movies with their recurring theme of Bruce Wayne trying to find Miss Right, only for her to disappear by the next movie. And in Dark Knight Rises, he even walks away from Gotham and the role as Batman to live as Bruce Wayne... Even when he's not actively seeking fulfillment as Bruce Wayne, it's a recurring theme that he needs to balance his two sides - Batman and Bruce - rather than letting the Bat take over.
It's not helped by his guest and/or ensemble appearances in non-Batman stories, where, with very few exceptions, he's consistently Batman rather than Bruce Wayne.
In reality he's a psychopath and he would definitely be a Killer in real life. A real person dealing with trauma the way Bruce does would go insane and if he did fight crime he would be a full time killer.
Part 1 was stronger and felt more effective in your presentation than this one did. I thought you were, from that presentation, going to center and focus on the version presented in the 3 movies exclusively rather than wander into animations etc.
Batman's most definitive Anti-Hero traits is when they cast him as the Hero who thinks he is more moral then the other Heroes, and its when the writer isn't writing Batman as the sympathetic one. IE Tower of Babel
