tired of this shitty take, if a neurodivergent person is about to poison the city you don't just leave them be. He beats them up because the alternative is to just kill them, and he genuinely is trying to rehabilitate them. Arkham keeps failing to do this for one reason or another. "oh them he should fix Arkham" he has tried repeatedly. "he should fix the problems of poverty" he's also tried to do this. The reason he can never quite finish it is because if he did we wouldn't have batman stories anymore.
Your last point is the problem! He could use his ridiculous money and power more effectively - he's a fucking multibillionaire head of a global megacorporation (and often arms manufacturer/military supplier so yeah great job Brucey). He could fix Arkham easily with his pocket change, it's just not done because yeah the story "needs" him to beat up mentally ill and neurodivergent people. That's the meta-criticism of Batman as a character and franchise, that it is in no small part fundamentally grounded and based on those things.
A massive part of the character has always been him donating to charity, start up foundations, and finding ways to help people. Like yeah, it is a valid critique that all the villains are depicted as neurodivergent, this does not make it batman's in universe fault that he has to fight them. The writing is built not to resolve, so every time he makes some fix to gotham it gets undone. That's a critique of the comics industry as a whole, not batman's in-universe failing. It bothers me that people criticize the character batman, who often is doing the best he can in the stories he is in, instead of the story itself. It's just as weirdly thermian to act like gotham's problems are his fault.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.
tired of this shitty take, if a neurodivergent person is about to poison the city you don't just leave them be. He beats them up because the alternative is to just kill them, and he genuinely is trying to rehabilitate them. Arkham keeps failing to do this for one reason or another. "oh them he should fix Arkham" he has tried repeatedly. "he should fix the problems of poverty" he's also tried to do this. The reason he can never quite finish it is because if he did we wouldn't have batman stories anymore.
Your last point is the problem! He could use his ridiculous money and power more effectively - he's a fucking multibillionaire head of a global megacorporation (and often arms manufacturer/military supplier so yeah great job Brucey). He could fix Arkham easily with his pocket change, it's just not done because yeah the story "needs" him to beat up mentally ill and neurodivergent people. That's the meta-criticism of Batman as a character and franchise, that it is in no small part fundamentally grounded and based on those things.
A massive part of the character has always been him donating to charity, start up foundations, and finding ways to help people. Like yeah, it is a valid critique that all the villains are depicted as neurodivergent, this does not make it batman's in universe fault that he has to fight them. The writing is built not to resolve, so every time he makes some fix to gotham it gets undone. That's a critique of the comics industry as a whole, not batman's in-universe failing. It bothers me that people criticize the character batman, who often is doing the best he can in the stories he is in, instead of the story itself. It's just as weirdly thermian to act like gotham's problems are his fault.
no one here likely cares about batmans 'in universe fault', this is a meta-analysis of the franchise as a media product. avoid diegetic essentialism
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.
The post is about how the charavter would react to real world politics