Apr 28th, 2009
Batman / Spider-man
by Miles Benson
What is this book about?
Two of the greatest heroes from two separate companies fight two of the most brilliant villains from two separate companies.
In an “alternate reality,” where the characters Batman and Spider-man exist in the same universe they often find themselves teaming up with eachother when their respective villains team up with eachother.
In this story, Ra’s al Ghul (pronounced “Raysh” al-Ghoul), who is an international terrorist whose ultimate goal is to create a world in perfect environmental balance. He feels the only way to achieve this balance is to eliminate most of humanity. Ra’s began researching like minded individuals and came across a crime boss in New York City who goes by the name Kingpin. Ra’s see’s a kinship in the Kingpin and asks him to help carry out his plan. The Kingpin refuses once he hears the ludicrousness of how he plans do this not to mention that it will destroy the Kingpin’s main base of operations, New York City. Ra’s, knowing that the Kingpin would refuse, injects the Kingpin’s wife with an experimental form of cancer that Ra’s only knows the cure for. Kingpin’s wife being his Achilles heel, agrees to meet Ra’s to carry out the plan so he can get the cure from him.
When the Kingpin is asked to come to visit Ra’s to carry out the plan they are followed by Batman and Spider-man who have recently teamed up to stop their respective nemeses from destroying the world.
Why should you read this book?
The unfortunate thing about this book is that it advertises only one thing. Two companies agreeing to use their iconic characters together in one book to tell a story. When there was a very interesting message behind it all.
When Vanessa Fisk (Kingpin’s wife) and Talia al Ghul (Ra’s al Ghul’s daughter) meet for the first time, Talia recognizes Vanessa as a kindred spirit, because both of them love a man that society would regard as a monster.
We’re quick to judge Kingpin and Ra’s al Ghul as evil “super villains” because they use chaos to create order. But, what then does that say about the Kingpin’s wife and Ra’s daughter? As well as all the followers and people that work for them and are willing to die for their cause.
We brand terrorists as madmen and cowards. But is there a fine line between freedom fighters and terrorists? Certainly inherently we cannot bring ourselves to justify murder or pain in any regard no matter what kind of romantic spin we put on it. But that’s what is interesting about this book. Is two women meeting for the first time in comic history that share a common dilemma.
Certainly on a very base nerd level I let out a tiny “squee!” exclamation when reading two of my favorite characters teaming-up. But, it was quickly muffled when posed with a very controversial thought that I might sympathize with a terrorist and their family over my childhood heroes.
It’s great read and I recommend you read it. Buy it here.
Discussion: Do you think freedom fighters and terrorists are one and the same? (Please leave your comments below, do not message or IM me with your answers)
April 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pm:
The NINTR comments section is neither the time nor the place to engage in philosophical arguments about the ontological underpinnings of ecological terrorism.
However, comma, it’s the perfect place to give you a kudo or two for standing up for the right pronunciation of Ra’s al Ghul’s name. I loved BB, but it’s hte suck compared to B:TAS. We want more HARDAC!
April 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pm:
First off, *”H.A.R.D.A.C.”
I’m amazed I actually know what you’re talking about. (BB and B:TAS, hahaha)
Speaking of which, stay tuned for a great review on BGA.
And you’re right, I should stay away from philosophical discussions about terrorism, but I can’t assume people will leave amazing comments based on the fact that I included the right pronunciation of Ra’s Al Ghul.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm:
yes. It’s all about perspective. the men that crashed into the Twin Towers thought that they were doing the right thing for whatever reasons, be they religious, political, etc.
Ironic, that they named the replacement “Freedom Tower” huh?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:44 pm:
It is a dangerous fallacy to state that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is a repudiation of the rule of law. If we restated it as “one man’s murderer (or rapist)is another man’s hero (or role model) then it may become a little clearer. It is the Orwellian, 1984 fallacy of polluting the language and making things impossible to decide. Terror is a word that has a definition and a meaning. If you support terrorists then, in order to communicate effectively, it is better to say that you support this form of terror. Otherwise we end up with a lot of grunting and killing and no one listening to anyone else, sort of what we have now.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pm:
Joel,
“Otherwise we end up with a lot of grunting and killing and no one listening to anyone else, sort of what we have now”—I couldn’t agree more.
But why is acceptable to believe that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is analogous to saying “One man’s murderer (or rapist) is another man’s hero,” but calling a soldier a murderer, is not only considered politically incorrect but deemed despicable?
If a person who kills another is never anything other than a murderer, then lets get rid of all terminology potentially analogous with “murderer” since it is apparently Orwellian double speak. Assassin, executioner, freedom-fighter, hit man, and soldier should all be eliminated, because it is a fallacy to call a murderer anything else…
April 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am:
haha Did they? Oh man…
April 29th, 2009 at 8:58 am:
Orwellian double speak. Great term Pete!
I feel like the only way to, (for lack of a better word) “solve” discussions such as this is to determine the answer to the question behind most Earthly discussions: does good and evil exist as a universal law or is it a human creation? I think then it would be easier to determine if a murderer, rapist, or terrorist could rightfully and ethically be someone’s hero.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm:
I’m sorry to read that this controversial thought muffled your “squee”.. might I add a thought provoking and intellectual movie quote? “Why is it, that if a man kills another man in battle it’s called heroic; yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion, it’s called murder?” -Waynes World
Also, Timmy, How is the NINTR comments section both a time and a place? Based on how much sense the begining of your comment made, I’m not surprised I don’t understand the rest of it.
My definition of a terrorist is someone who is willing to kill innocent people for their political cause, thus forcing their politics into the personal lives of people who could otherwise give a shit. People who strap a bomb to a kid in a wheelchair and roll him into a crowd of people is a terrorist. An army defending a country against the people that strap those bombs and kill bystanders is not a terrorist.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm:
What do you call an army that is not “defending a country against people that strap those bombs and kill bystanders,” but who is instead occupying a relatively innocent country, thus inciting more violent acts? Can they be called terrorists? If they can be, then why is it wrong to also call the murderers?
April 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm:
Q: How is Bin Laden like Fred Flintstone?
A: Both may look out their windows and see Rubble.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:22 pm:
pete, are you some liberal douche? Do you really think that all these semantics you’re pulling out of your ass is making a sound argument? You’re comparing murderers, rapists, and soldiers and saying there’s no difference. You should have read what Joel was saying, stop focusing on the language and look at the meaning. The reason a soldier is killing someone is because that person would most likely be killing you if they had the chance. The “murdering soldiers” you’re talking about aren’t people disrupting your way of life or the society you live in, but rather quite the opposite. I’m not for war at all, but I am for our military doing whatever necessary to protect our country against insane religious fanatics who want nothing more than to see our culture destroyed and our bodies disemboweled. If protecting me from that makes a soldier a terrorist fine, fuck it, go U.S. terrorists. Stop being a douche and move to Canada or something..
Isn’t this shit supposed to be about batman or something?
April 30th, 2009 at 9:06 am:
“Isn’t this shit supposed to be about batman or something?”
No. Not necessarily. Timmy, made a noteworthy Batman-esque comment but, not everyone will leave comments about the comic or characters themselves. Which isn’t necessarily the point. I don’t want ONLY comments in regards to Batman and the fandom that surrounds the characters…no! Quite frankly there’s enough of that on the internet anyway.
When I read a comic I see the story and moral and point to why they’re writing. Which is often over looked in comics for geekdom that is: “two major comic book labels crossing over characters, selling two editions of the same book in varied-ink chromium covers.”
When I read this book, I immediately thought of why these women put up with the evil these men do, and continue to come back to them time and time again, which led me to wondering if these people are truly evil or misunderstood which made me wonder if there were a difference between America’s military to terrorists. Kenny, HNB, Happy Noodle Boy, Bob, Pete, jjjjjj, etc etc, this topic is exactly why I started writing discussion questions in almost every post of mine. Because I want to know what you all think. Yes, I wrote a post ABOUT a Batman comic book, but I asked a quasi-philosophical question in hopes that people might understand that these books aren’t JUST about a man dressing as bat, moreover, sometimes, it’s not even about Batman it’s about the wives and daughters of the villains of Batman, and these “super-villains” are just metaphors for real life comparisons such as the one I am asking about in the discussion question.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:08 am:
PS: Bob, I can’t believe that Flintstones joke actually made me laugh.
haha I’m surprised the joke hasn’t started a flame war yet.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm:
yes, Kenny I am a liberal douche. And I in fact already live in Canada!
And maybe I should stop with the semantics, but Joel started it! And you yourself went there too.
And I am sorry if I am annoying you, but I still don’t get how American soldiers occupying Iraq has anything to do with 9-11. And if you still don’t know that Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9-11 then you should educate yourself better.
P.S. to group the word murderer, terrorist, freedom fighter, and rapist all together (which is what Joel did, not myself) is total semantic bullshit. that was the point of my reply…to point out that is argument is bogus. So if you are allowed to say it to me, then I should be allowed to say it to Joel, so don’t try to change the subject to Batman because you feel uncomfortable.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm:
The question in the headline is a gross oversimplification. There are many terrorists who are manifestly not freedom fighters (obvious example: Osama bin Laden). There are also many freedom fighters who are manifestly not terrorists. (obvious examples: Vaclav Havel, Martin Luther King, George Washington.) Ignoring that, and implying that it’s all relative, is a great way to make people you think terrorism is okay and obscure a worthwile point.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm:
I agree Katherine R. that people are oversimplifying the issue. The problem is who gets to label whom?
That’s why I said above that its all about perspective!
May 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am:
I think I may asked the wrong question…
:-/
May 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm:
Why do you feel that way? Maybe its the right question and that’s why people are responding…
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 am:
True, good point.
As you were…
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 am:
I think both terms are equally propagandist, so it doesn’t matter either way.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am:
How do you mean?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm:
Propaganda is the dissemination of information with the intent of persuading or influencing its audience. It is often biased. It often presents facts selectively. It mostly calls on appealing to the audience’s emotions to persuade (pathos), rather than on their reason (logos).
Both 1. “freedom fighter” and 2. “terrorist” are loaded words that evoke an emotion (1.Pride) or (2.fear) in the audience. The point is to rally people either (1.for) or (2.against) the act of violence. Use the word freedom fighter and it makes the act of violence appear noble, sacrificial, and mostly patriotic. Use the word “terrorist” and the very same act connotes violence, ruthless aggression, and even evil. Both terms are carefully selected by the government and disseminated by the media to rally a country around an idea, which is exaggerated and manipulated, and thus inaccurate, in either case.
yes, it is all about perspective as jjjjjjjjjjjjjj has said, but that perspective unfortunately tainted by outside forces (the media) in either case. Both are propagandist terms, so perhaps neither of them should be used.
The terms (both of them) are meant to manipulate, and from the looks of many of the posts above, the tactic has worked…
May 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm:
P.S.
And the semantics shouldn’t stop; the whole route of the question is semantic, for each term is highly connotative…and chosen accordingly…
So neither Joel, Pete, nor KennyHNB should be criticized for “going there”
May 6th, 2009 at 8:47 am:
Wow.
Danielle, you’re like 20 steps ahead of me with a new blog post I am working on about photo retouching that I think you might be able to relate with the use of propagandist words. And actually I’m really glad you said this, because it really makes me think about how I use words as well. You’ll have to read the post when it’s up to understand what I’m talking about; it’s titled: “Sex, lies and Photoshop.”