Very interesting to me how the Times created their story by "persuad[ing] Justin to abandon his business and, to protect other children at risk, assist[ing] him in contacting the Justice Department. Arrests and indictments of adults he identified as pornography producers and traffickers began in September." I did not know it was ethical for a newspaper to do this. OTOH it seems like a good thing that they did.
The whole article is pretty gonzo, 1/4 of it is contact b/w the reporter and the subject. John -- he had a drug habit during a large part of his porn career which ate up a lot of his income.
Unnerved by menacing messages from a fan of his first site, Justin opened a new one called jfwy.com, an online acronym that loosely translates into "just messing with you."
Noted without comment.
And I don't think he got to keep all the money, apparently he used it to support his coke/weed habit. Sad story.
The latest request was always just slightly beyond the last, so that each new step never struck him as considerably different.
God, I should just start a collection of these statements for my accounting ethics class. I think it was dsquared who said recently, the answer to "How did things get so fucked up?" is usually "A little bit at a time."
There is also an element of "everybody else is doing it, why can't we". Which I suggest with reluctance, because it inevitably swerves into, "regulate porn" and "cut off the Internets", which is not what I meant to say, at all.
If you have a taste for this sort of thing, anyone who works with the local child services agency in any major city is a fount of unbelievably troubling stories. So much of our life is just the plain dumb luck of being born right. I've heard, a couple of times, that there are responsible, decent social workers who suspect that it's better for kids to be left with a sexual molestor who otherwise treats them well than to be put into the system.
decent social workers who suspect that it's better for kids to be left with a sexual molestor who otherwise treats them well than to be put into the system.
Where is our Charles Dickens? Why is it that the only writers who claim him as an icon (Tom Wolfe, John Irving) cannot come to grips with such issues?
What I like is that the NYT has--of course!--a video interview with him, available online for our voyeuristic pleasure. You just know we're all going to click on it wanting to know what he looks and sounds like.
"It's really hard to read the whole thing: dude was pimped by his father."
Since however you define "child abuse" (and there's a can of worms I'm not touching), this is not in the least surprising, since every possible measure notes that it's overwhelmingly close relations who do it.
Am I the only one who is slightly creeped out by Kurt Eichenwald's manner in this video? There's something about the way his voice drops every time he asks a question that indicates discomfort with the question in a really squirm-worthy way. I'd much rather he were drier and more flat about it.
I think Tom Wolfe's right on -- poking fun at the affectations of the upper- and upper-middle-class is the most urgent task of novelists today.
At least someone like John Updike is honest about what he is and isn't doing, instead of making these idiotic grandstanding remarks about saving the novel from itself, etc.
Gary, "hard to read" and "surprising" are different. But on the topic of what's surprising: it doesn't surprise me when I hear about intrafamily molestation; the existence of this kind of perversion is well-known. What surprised me is the depth of the father's venality-- he's motivated by greed, not lust.
I've heard, a couple of times, that there are responsible, decent social workers who suspect that it's better for kids to be left with a sexual molestor who otherwise treats them well than to be put into the system.
I've heard this as well, and it's both unspeakably horrifying and comprehensible. One gets the impression that a kid in foster care is likely, even if they luck out enough to not be terribly abused, to get almost no chance to become a functional adult.
This kills me. On a national level, we really aren't talking about that much money to lower social workers' case loads, provide more services (social, academic, whatever's necessary) and whatever anyone thinks about personal responsibility, there's clearly no incentive-based reason not to treat children in foster care as well as possible. (That is, I can see the argument (while thinking it's mostly crap) that a safety net for adults encourages dependence. But that argument doesn't apply at all to children.) So why can't we, or why haven't we? How can the situation still be so bad?
Thatcherism Cultural valorization of selfishness under -- and this is the genius part -- the name of Christianity. God, it's like a Bond villain's evil plan -- only it works.
And I have to say that I find the story puzzling from the point of view of law-enforcement malfeasance as well. Jesus Christ, these kids are advertising - we have enough police to go through 10,000 items of gay erotica and arrest PeeWee Herman because a couple of items might have pictures of 17 year olds taken in 1956, and we don't have enough to troll the Internet looking for live underage webcam shows to shut down? A reporter had to rescue this kid?
we really aren't talking about that much money to lower social workers' case loads, provide more services (social, academic, whatever's necessary)
I should note that I've never worked with or for any child service agency, and the one in-depth conversation I've had about this occured while I was sorting out how to get the other party naked. That said, the problem, as I understand it, is that love is really, really important. Even if it is deeply wrong love. Maybe that's because someone who loves a kid will make sure that the kid gets the services he needs. But I understood it to mean that kids do not develop a healthy, functional sense of the way the social world works without that sense of love. I'm not sure increased funding is the solution.
but I wonder if "services" are needed --- as the provider of such, the key problem in most of my clients lives is, simply, money --- a lack thereof. For a kid in foster care, wouldn't the real problem be that one parent, or some other family member, does not have the resources to move the kid out of a bad situation? "Services" are provided to plug gaps that are filled all the time by middle class people --- e.g., I think few white middle class people would allow their, say, drug addicted sister's children to enter "the system" instead of simply taking the children into their own home, as hard as that might be. But maybe I overestimate people. To link this with 28 (tho 28 did not raise anything in 25), one issue would be whether or not middle class people provide more love to their families, or just have more money to solve problems.
But I understood it to mean that kids do not develop a healthy, functional sense of the way the social world works without that sense of love.
You know, I'm sure this is true, but I think funding's still the solvable end of the problem. If you can get the kids safely cared for in civilized conditions so that their caregivers are stable and functional, they're probably going to get loved. Kids are lovable, and people who take care of kids tend to love them, if the circumstances are comfortable enough to permit it. The problem is that when you've got troubled, ill, emotionally disturbed kids and they can't easily get the help they need, then their caregivers aren't going to (unless you run into the occasional saint) make it past the misery of having to deal with the kids' problems to get attached to them.
You can't buy love, but you can buy comfort, and the more comfortable and well-taken care of these kids are, the more likely they are to be loved.
Possibly you're right. But a lot of the bad stories I heard were about bad foster parents. And some about parents really at the end of their rope: I think dealing with physical or emotional disabilities is infinitely harder than people (inc. me) realize. Again, I'm not opposed to throwing more money at the problem; I'm just really unsure that it will solve anything.
I think the money solution is that bad foster parents, or people who are at the end of their ropes, would benefit from a great deal more support: better oversight from social workers, mental health care, help accessing financial or medical services, and so on. Kids at risk would benefit from social workers and teachers who weren't dealing with huge caseloads, and could devote more time and attention to their charges. Parents who are trying to do the best by their kids but lack the money for, say, housing, the know-how to find stable employment, the ability to get themselves to work and so on could benefit greatly from financial help and, if needed, regular calls or visits from someone who can help coach them, find or provide back-up childcare, get them into drug treatment programs, and so on. Even kids whose parents are truly unfit or dangerous would benefit from sound foster care buttressed by regular contact with their parents (supervised if necessary) and supervised by competent social workers who can make sure that the foster situation is healthy.
yeah, andrew vaccchhs's' books are sort of about that. well, that, and the hard-boiled vigilante avenger who lives outside the system, with only his drop-boxes and secret warehouse apartment, his outlaw friends, and his perfectly trained giant killer dog to help him do what the law can and won't: go after the real monsters in society, only to realize he's too twisted and jaded to let himself love the girl. that, and he has an eyepatch.
In a compellingly written fantasy novel, bestselling author Andrew Vachss brings his razor-sharp talent to one of the most legendary characters of the 20th century—The Batman.
my favorite part of that batman thing (besides the book seeming to be exactly the same as his others, except this one has a hard-boiled vigilante for justice who lives outside the law, with only his outlaw butler and secret batcave apartment, and his perfectly trained killer batmobile. that, and he wears a cape. but i keed: i did read several of his books, and liked them fine. they're good enough for what they are, even if they're not exactly lolita - http://www.slate.com/id/2132708/ - sorry, haven't linked here before.)
anyway, my secong favorite thing was this review:
"A book no Batman fan should miss. If ever a work of fiction featuring a comics character deserved to be compulsory reading, this is surely it."
Even kids whose parents are truly unfit or dangerous would benefit from sound foster care buttressed by regular contact with their parents (supervised if necessary)
Not so sure about this. The child's wishes should be consulted.
Obviously. I didn't mean it as something that should be imposed on the kid, but more in the sense that most children, no matter how fucked up their parents are, love them, and cutting off all contact with, say, a mother who loves her children but has serious drug problems, or a father whose son longs for his attention but who is an irresponsible trifler, probably just exacerbates the kids' psychological issues.
I don't know about that. My mother was really negligent. My family's solution was to have my grandmother pay for boarding school. I was able to take care of myself pretty well. I made sure that I looked passable in school. My sister wasn't quite a with it; she showed up to school in the winter without socks, so the social services system got going. My father had to spend a lot of time dealing with that--avoiding getting brought into the system. And he pretty much had to retire and move us to the boonies so that he could take care of my sister.
Of course, if decent psychiatric care had been available to my mother in 1968 instead of fatuous psychoanalysis (which really does nothing for someone's psychotic break, when it involves speaking in tongues), maybe we wouldn't have had such serious problems.
I've gotten side-tracked though. I have always loved my mother in the sense that I felt guilty about not liking her, and I spent a lot of time trying to reform her--but I often dreamed about trading her in for another model.
I don't entirely disagree, although in such cases as you describe the parent is likely to be unavailable.
In a case like Justin's he might have been better off with no father rather than the one he had.
And keeping a child in foster care, encouraging a relationship with a feckless parent who is making no attempt to create a safe environment for his/her child: might not the child be better off being adopted? I'm not so sure families of origin are always the best families, although I'm not sure what the breakpoint would be--I'm glad I don't have to decide, and I'm not sure I'd trust anyone who did feel competent to decide.
bg- Your experience sounds as if it fits into the pattern sparacando suggested in 32; that money (your grandmother's) can do a great deal to alleviate the problems caused by an incapable parent. (and also sounds as if it must have been awful.)
What I mean is, why must it be an either / or decision? There's such a thing as open adoption now. And I'm not even talking about encouraging a relationship--just acknowledging one, and being willing to work around it in the kid's best interest without insisting that it bwe terminated permanently to do so.
To wrench the conversation back to the NY Times article, what gives with the lack of law enforcement in this area? Hookers advertising in the classifieds is one thing -- I am assuming that they aren't shut down because there's been a policy decision to tolerate a certain amount of prostitution. But this kid, and those like him, just don't sound that difficult to find -- why isn't the FBI more on top of shutting down such websites, getting the kids help and going after the patrons?
(This question is asked in total ignorance of the extent of the problem, what actions the FBI actually is taking, etc. -- based on the article, it sounds as if reasonable efforts would have found, e.g., this kid before a lot of awful stuff happened to him.)
LB: It was rather awful. I should add, though, that the speaking-in-tongues thing wasn't something that I ever witnessed. My Junior year in college, after my grandmother had died, my mother became convinced that my grandmother's lawyer had murdered her. When I was growing up, she was just disorganized and laughed inappropriately.
The speaking in tongues happened one summer when my mother was 17. I only just learned some of teh details from my aunt. For years it was just not talked about. At all.
Yes money can alleviate some of the problems. Bad psycotherapy (where the psychologist spends time talking about her own divorce and rails against medication as a tool of the patriarchy) can hurt. Also old-school psychoanalysis which tells parents that everything is all their fault, because they were bad parents, is really unhelpful. The best medical care available at the most prestigious mental hospital in New England wasn't very good in 1966.
I don't know that I would have minded being emancipated. When you're 14, and you don't want to leave your medical appointments to your mother, it really sucks that you can't make one for yourself or designate someone else to be your guardian. There may be more Dads doing this stuff now, but it was awkward and embarassing in the mid-to-late 80's.
I don't know that middle-class people do help that much. My Dad's brother is not a WASP and believes that everything he has he got on his own. He's not interested in helping others, and people are loath to interfere. How would you like it if some relative told you how to parent?
What I mean is, why must it be an either / or decision? There's such a thing as open adoption now. And I'm not even talking about encouraging a relationship--just acknowledging one, and being willing to work around it in the kid's best interest without insisting that it bwe terminated permanently to do so.
There's such a thing as open adoption, sure, and in the case of a mother or father who (usually because he or she is very young) simply hasn't the resources to raise her/his child, but is otherwise more or less stable, it can be a very good thing. A lot depends on the age of the children too.
My argument is not against open adoption, it's with your original remark, that even parents who are truly unfit or dangerous should be allowed to remain in a child's life. But perhaps we don't mean the same thing by "truly unfit" or "dangerous". I'm thinking "burns child with cigarettes to get the devil out" or "moves in with boyfriend who beats the child for crying when it's diaper is wet". There's a point where a child is truly better off without contact.
52 "why isn't the FBI more on top of shutting down"
I think it is in the nature of the internets, that with just a little caution in language you can create some fairly tight nodes or networks. Which will not come up with anything but a sustained and deep googling.
I know there is a whole music and mp3 blogosphere out there that doesn't show up when I search for musicians. Another one based around fine-art. You won't find these sites by simply searching for "naked boys."
Well, a parent who is sadistic probably no, shouldn't have any contact with a kid. But the mom who moves in with an abusive guy is more of a gray issue--obviously the mom is ineffective and dangerous inasmuch as she isn't protecting her kid. But what little I know about the psychology of abuse suggests that that doesn't mean the mother isn't a good mother in other respects. Obviously you have to take the kid out of the situation to keep it safe, but I would say it's a case-by-case judgment call whether or not cutting off contact with the non-abusive parent would be a good idea for the child.
"anyway, my secong favorite thing was this review"
That's a blurb quote, not a review. But I'm missing the point. Doubtless being too literal, as usual.
Of course, I remember when Vachss' Batman novel was announced, and came out. Never read it. Don't recall ever reading a Batman novel, if we mean the pure text type. I've read a few other superhero novels, though; usually because a pal wrote it, though a couple not.
Alan Grant has done some good comics writing, particularly for the Batman, which is why they used his quote, of course.
"I don't know that middle-class people do help that much."
If you referring to family, I can't offer personal testimony to contradict. Whenever I see any of the daily-available tv affirmations in which in family member will Do All For Their Daughter/Dad/Son/Mom/Brother/Sister/Cousin, I always wonder how it was my family got a different memo.
What's the thing about "The Batman"? I'm being sooo slow. I mean, that's what he's been called from the beginning in 1940, although like many other styles in comics, the use of "the" a great deal falls in and out of fashion to some slight degree. Some superheros get the "the," others don't. What am I missing?
Well, I was misinformed about "the Batman." Everything I was familiar with refers to him as "Batman" plain and simple. Though a bit of Googling finds a "The Batman" (annoying flash page, I won't link). Ah well.
Well, you know, "The Batman" (originally "The Bat-Man," if you really want to know, which you don't, but that was dropped forever after the first few issues in 1940) is his formal name. "Batman" is what people call him familiarly, when he steps out. People just try to suck up to him like they know him, all the time!
That's more or less accurate, in fact. Won't bother to quote all the other accumulated, less formal, titles/nicknames: the Dark Knight, Gotham's Avenger, that prancing priss in black, that sort of thing; those are more just things people frequently call him, along with "you trashed my stuff, asshole!"
Superman is never "the Superman," though, in case I've rendered insecure anyone's sense of their sense of superhero names. The Flash is, however, both "The Flash," or less formally, "Flash." Green Lantern ditto. This just fascinates everyone, doesn't it? Welcome to comics fandom. (I keed; a) I never participated in comics fandom; b) if anyone wants to laugh at comics fans, well, I'm going to shove Jim Henley and John Holbo in front of me, and let them take it! That'll show ya!
Latest political commentary influenced with a superhero motif here. Stalinesque lunacy with a lurking subtext here.
I'm being utterly serious, Gary, when I ask this: what do you mean, "The Batman" is "his formal name"? Do you mean that the narrative voice most often refers to him as "the Batman"? Do you mean that Bruce Wayne prefers his alter ego to be known as "the Batman" rather than "Batman" for some reason (i.e., maybe "Batman" isn't really a name, if it were, it would somehow make Bruce Wayne even more of a head-case than he is)?
Or is there actually a DC style guide that says, Bruce Wayne's costumed alter ego is properly referred to as "the Batman"?
I'm serious, I do want to know, stop mocking yourself for knowing and / or having an opinion about these things, and pronounce. Please.
I would say that it's weird that people address him familiarly by his last name instead of his first name, "The," but they do this to me all the time too.
"I'm being utterly serious, Gary, when I ask this: what do you mean, "
Well, the thing it's absolutely essential to keep in mind with comics characters is that their continuity is always in flux. There's always, whether it's sooner or later, a new editor taking over, and a new writer, and a new artist; sometimes all at once, more commonly on separate tracks.
And each new person has a slightly -- or strongly -- different take on the character and the universe she (though mostly "he") lives in.
And any issue may contain a "retcon": a retroactive continuity change, which is to say, a change in the character's backstory.
That classic sequence you so loved may be revealed next month to have actually been a dream induced in the protagonist by somebody who was actually controlling the character's dream. Or they were brainwashed. Or little did they know thata X was actually a clone, or an imposter. Or a new character steps forward and reveals, that, no, even though you were adopted and thought you had discovered your real parents, they were actually something else. Or maybe that story was actually on a parallel world. Etc., ad infinitum.
Or maybe there won't even be an instory explanation for why Spider-Man (not "Spiderman," incidentally) was actually never Peter Parker, but Parker was a clone, but, wait, no, it was "Ben Reilly" who was actually the clone, it turns out, two years later. Maybe the company just decides to cancel the old book and reinvent the character in a new one. Or maybe they'll add an addtional book, with a variant continuity. Or two books. Or twelve X-books all at once. Or whatever.
The point is, there is no solidity in Comics World. All is always potentially in flux, and flux happens. A lot.
There have even been various meta-explanations given at various times, instory, for that sort of thing. DC came up with a mildly ingenious one called "metatime" in recent years, which is too complicated for me to explain just now, but it involves the former multiple universes that were collapsed in "The Crisis On Infinite Earth" maxi-series back circa 1986 that completely redid the DC universe having been unstable, leading to vibratory factors that meant that the universe was unstable and character could wander into variant continuitys and back again and it was all like a river flowing through a channel that would be altered by the events triggered by the acts of the characters, or somesuch line of bullshit. No, wait, it was called "hypertime." Here, see what you make of this.
So there's not so much meaningfulness to try to establish what aspect of a character is "real" or not, even more so than for many other forms of fiction and text.
"...what do you mean, "The Batman" is "his formal name'?"
I was partially just trying to be slightly funny. There may be canonical sources (but see above for their worth) on his nomenclature, but I really am not a comics expert, and not even close. I have friends who are, and friends, or acquaintances, who write or edit the stuff (the guy in comics whom I knew very well and was a real friend was Lou Stathis, who finished his life as an editor at the Vertigo imprint at DC -- the "adult" imprint, which didn't mean "dirty" stuff -- well, okay, but only slightly -- just that the line was intended to be for adults, not kids, and was out of the main DC continuity, although it could wander in, and leaned more towards horror/fantasy, but I digress -- who died of brain cancer a few years ago; Chris Claremont may have forgotten the various times I've chatted with him at parties in NY in past decades), but, really, with about three exceptions, I quit collecting comics when they were twelve cents. My knowledge is really quite spotty, even on the most mainstream of comics, let alone the independents.
I'm just fond of the stuff.
So. I'm a bit unsure how to otherwise answer. "The Batman" being a fuller name, it clearly seems more formal to me, and it naturally follows that just "Batman" is less formal. I guess that's all I mean. I wasn't trying to imply that there was some actual discussion of this in a comic that I had in mind, although that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and you couldn't possibly know that that's not what I meant without asking, so thanks for asking.
"Or is there actually a DC style guide that says, Bruce Wayne's costumed alter ego is properly referred to as "the Batman"?"
Could be. Certainly they, I kinda assume, at least sometimes have style guides -- there certainly needs to be tons of coordination in modern mainstream big-selling comics with endless crossover, both through huge "maxi-series" with endless crossovers in the individual books as well, or just normal interactions between characters in one book or the next. (DC and Marvel have even become fairly colloborative in recent years, producing a variety of books or series in which folks from one company's universe wound up poinding on the other; there was even a set of "Amalgam" comics for a brief time in which the chacters from each universe were combined with the character most similar to them in the other, producing a weird hybrid character for that set, some years ago now.)
But I'm not the right person to ask, I'm afraid. Sorry. The folks who could answer, though, I'll point you to, live here. Kevin Maroney is my pal; tell him I say "hi." Just drop by and ask the question in comments somewhere.
A revised short answer: in the hands of some writers at some times, they've emphasized the "the Batman" usage -- "look, it's the Batman!" Other writers, at other times, prefer "Batman!" "Look, it's Daredevil!, er, Batman!"
Note that Batman Begins is the only movie yet to get Batman absolutely and completely right. It's a perfect expression of the quentessence of the character: the pain of loss, the need to do something about it, the channeling of the urge for revenge into the need to provide, instead, justice, and all the fine details. (Tim Burton's first wasn't bad, and had many virtues, in my view, and otherwise was a reasonable interpretation of the Batman, but it's, of course, so thoroughly Tim Burton's version of Batman. Nothing wrong with that, but it does rather put Tim Burton Style over Batman, as the priority.) But Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer know the character, and got him right, and that was their priority.
And in the movie, he's called "The Batman," as well as "Batman." (For one thing, "the Batman" is, obviously, a descriptive, whereas you wouldn't address him as anything other than "Batman.")
Very interesting to me how the Times created their story by "persuad[ing] Justin to abandon his business and, to protect other children at risk, assist[ing] him in contacting the Justice Department. Arrests and indictments of adults he identified as pornography producers and traffickers began in September." I did not know it was ethical for a newspaper to do this. OTOH it seems like a good thing that they did.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:25 AM
What a chilling rhetorical question!
Are we bringing up children in a worse world / country than the one in which we grew up?
(Maybe that's not rhetorical, just chilling.)
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:28 AM
It's really hard to read the whole thing: dude was pimped by his father.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:31 AM
dude was pimped by his father.
If you think M/ich/ael J/ack/son was anything like guilty, that's not all that surprising, sadly.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:33 AM
Hundreds of thousands of dollars? Did he get to keep it? College and medical school are paid for, it looks like.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:38 AM
The whole article is pretty gonzo, 1/4 of it is contact b/w the reporter and the subject. John -- he had a drug habit during a large part of his porn career which ate up a lot of his income.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:42 AM
Unnerved by menacing messages from a fan of his first site, Justin opened a new one called jfwy.com, an online acronym that loosely translates into "just messing with you."
Noted without comment.
And I don't think he got to keep all the money, apparently he used it to support his coke/weed habit. Sad story.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:44 AM
The latest request was always just slightly beyond the last, so that each new step never struck him as considerably different.
God, I should just start a collection of these statements for my accounting ethics class. I think it was dsquared who said recently, the answer to "How did things get so fucked up?" is usually "A little bit at a time."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:50 AM
Yeah, I had that thought too. "The experiment demands that you continue."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:52 AM
There is also an element of "everybody else is doing it, why can't we". Which I suggest with reluctance, because it inevitably swerves into, "regulate porn" and "cut off the Internets", which is not what I meant to say, at all.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:05 AM
dude was pimped by his father
If you have a taste for this sort of thing, anyone who works with the local child services agency in any major city is a fount of unbelievably troubling stories. So much of our life is just the plain dumb luck of being born right. I've heard, a couple of times, that there are responsible, decent social workers who suspect that it's better for kids to be left with a sexual molestor who otherwise treats them well than to be put into the system.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:05 AM
decent social workers who suspect that it's better for kids to be left with a sexual molestor who otherwise treats them well than to be put into the system.
Where is our Charles Dickens? Why is it that the only writers who claim him as an icon (Tom Wolfe, John Irving) cannot come to grips with such issues?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:08 AM
Where is our Charles Dickens?
Doesn't Andrew Vachss write about this stuff? I've never read him, but that's my understanding.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:10 AM
What I like is that the NYT has--of course!--a video interview with him, available online for our voyeuristic pleasure. You just know we're all going to click on it wanting to know what he looks and sounds like.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:13 AM
I see the latest Unfogged spam is coming from "Lolita Pics".
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:17 AM
"It's really hard to read the whole thing: dude was pimped by his father."
Since however you define "child abuse" (and there's a can of worms I'm not touching), this is not in the least surprising, since every possible measure notes that it's overwhelmingly close relations who do it.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:19 AM
Doesn't Andrew Vachss write about this stuff?
I confess utter ignorance. I will go find out.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:22 AM
Am I the only one who is slightly creeped out by Kurt Eichenwald's manner in this video? There's something about the way his voice drops every time he asks a question that indicates discomfort with the question in a really squirm-worthy way. I'd much rather he were drier and more flat about it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:22 AM
I think Tom Wolfe's right on -- poking fun at the affectations of the upper- and upper-middle-class is the most urgent task of novelists today.
At least someone like John Updike is honest about what he is and isn't doing, instead of making these idiotic grandstanding remarks about saving the novel from itself, etc.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:24 AM
Broadcast News-worthy.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:25 AM
I'd much rather he were drier and more flat
It's only women who ever express that preference.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:25 AM
20 to 18.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:26 AM
Gary, "hard to read" and "surprising" are different. But on the topic of what's surprising: it doesn't surprise me when I hear about intrafamily molestation; the existence of this kind of perversion is well-known. What surprised me is the depth of the father's venality-- he's motivated by greed, not lust.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:31 AM
Actually, I think it's not uncommon for kids to be hustled by their parents.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:34 AM
I've heard, a couple of times, that there are responsible, decent social workers who suspect that it's better for kids to be left with a sexual molestor who otherwise treats them well than to be put into the system.
I've heard this as well, and it's both unspeakably horrifying and comprehensible. One gets the impression that a kid in foster care is likely, even if they luck out enough to not be terribly abused, to get almost no chance to become a functional adult.
This kills me. On a national level, we really aren't talking about that much money to lower social workers' case loads, provide more services (social, academic, whatever's necessary) and whatever anyone thinks about personal responsibility, there's clearly no incentive-based reason not to treat children in foster care as well as possible. (That is, I can see the argument (while thinking it's mostly crap) that a safety net for adults encourages dependence. But that argument doesn't apply at all to children.) So why can't we, or why haven't we? How can the situation still be so bad?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:36 AM
How can the situation still be so bad?
ThatcherismCultural valorization of selfishness under -- and this is the genius part -- the name of Christianity. God, it's like a Bond villain's evil plan -- only it works.Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:38 AM
And I have to say that I find the story puzzling from the point of view of law-enforcement malfeasance as well. Jesus Christ, these kids are advertising - we have enough police to go through 10,000 items of gay erotica and arrest PeeWee Herman because a couple of items might have pictures of 17 year olds taken in 1956, and we don't have enough to troll the Internet looking for live underage webcam shows to shut down? A reporter had to rescue this kid?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:50 AM
we really aren't talking about that much money to lower social workers' case loads, provide more services (social, academic, whatever's necessary)
I should note that I've never worked with or for any child service agency, and the one in-depth conversation I've had about this occured while I was sorting out how to get the other party naked. That said, the problem, as I understand it, is that love is really, really important. Even if it is deeply wrong love. Maybe that's because someone who loves a kid will make sure that the kid gets the services he needs. But I understood it to mean that kids do not develop a healthy, functional sense of the way the social world works without that sense of love. I'm not sure increased funding is the solution.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:59 AM
Me. As per expectations.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:01 AM
Clearly what we need to do is legislate more families.
Or fewer children.
God, that article was nauseating. Props to Eichenwald, though -- I mean, for throwing the objectivity stuff out the window.
Posted by foo | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:09 AM
"Information about Justin's members has been downloaded by the F.B.I"
I'm telling you, the government is just as bad as the criminals these days. You'd think his member had already been downloaded enough times.
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:16 AM
to 25:
but I wonder if "services" are needed --- as the provider of such, the key problem in most of my clients lives is, simply, money --- a lack thereof. For a kid in foster care, wouldn't the real problem be that one parent, or some other family member, does not have the resources to move the kid out of a bad situation? "Services" are provided to plug gaps that are filled all the time by middle class people --- e.g., I think few white middle class people would allow their, say, drug addicted sister's children to enter "the system" instead of simply taking the children into their own home, as hard as that might be. But maybe I overestimate people. To link this with 28 (tho 28 did not raise anything in 25), one issue would be whether or not middle class people provide more love to their families, or just have more money to solve problems.
Posted by sparacando | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:17 AM
But I understood it to mean that kids do not develop a healthy, functional sense of the way the social world works without that sense of love.
You know, I'm sure this is true, but I think funding's still the solvable end of the problem. If you can get the kids safely cared for in civilized conditions so that their caregivers are stable and functional, they're probably going to get loved. Kids are lovable, and people who take care of kids tend to love them, if the circumstances are comfortable enough to permit it. The problem is that when you've got troubled, ill, emotionally disturbed kids and they can't easily get the help they need, then their caregivers aren't going to (unless you run into the occasional saint) make it past the misery of having to deal with the kids' problems to get attached to them.
You can't buy love, but you can buy comfort, and the more comfortable and well-taken care of these kids are, the more likely they are to be loved.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:17 AM
LB:
Possibly you're right. But a lot of the bad stories I heard were about bad foster parents. And some about parents really at the end of their rope: I think dealing with physical or emotional disabilities is infinitely harder than people (inc. me) realize. Again, I'm not opposed to throwing more money at the problem; I'm just really unsure that it will solve anything.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:41 AM
I think the money solution is that bad foster parents, or people who are at the end of their ropes, would benefit from a great deal more support: better oversight from social workers, mental health care, help accessing financial or medical services, and so on. Kids at risk would benefit from social workers and teachers who weren't dealing with huge caseloads, and could devote more time and attention to their charges. Parents who are trying to do the best by their kids but lack the money for, say, housing, the know-how to find stable employment, the ability to get themselves to work and so on could benefit greatly from financial help and, if needed, regular calls or visits from someone who can help coach them, find or provide back-up childcare, get them into drug treatment programs, and so on. Even kids whose parents are truly unfit or dangerous would benefit from sound foster care buttressed by regular contact with their parents (supervised if necessary) and supervised by competent social workers who can make sure that the foster situation is healthy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 11:49 AM
yeah, andrew vaccchhs's' books are sort of about that. well, that, and the hard-boiled vigilante avenger who lives outside the system, with only his drop-boxes and secret warehouse apartment, his outlaw friends, and his perfectly trained giant killer dog to help him do what the law can and won't: go after the real monsters in society, only to realize he's too twisted and jaded to let himself love the girl. that, and he has an eyepatch.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:23 PM
vaccchhs's
Nasty cough you've got there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:28 PM
the hard-boiled vigilante avenger
Apparently one such is actually Batman.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:36 PM
in his world, sometimes a cigarette is the only thing you can trust. at least you know its true intentions.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:37 PM
From the 38 link:
In a compellingly written fantasy novel, bestselling author Andrew Vachss brings his razor-sharp talent to one of the most legendary characters of the 20th century—The Batman.
WTF? Did they misspell "teh"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:50 PM
Is "The Batman" an archaic and victorian construction?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:57 PM
my favorite part of that batman thing (besides the book seeming to be exactly the same as his others, except this one has a hard-boiled vigilante for justice who lives outside the law, with only his outlaw butler and secret batcave apartment, and his perfectly trained killer batmobile. that, and he wears a cape. but i keed: i did read several of his books, and liked them fine. they're good enough for what they are, even if they're not exactly lolita - http://www.slate.com/id/2132708/ - sorry, haven't linked here before.)
anyway, my secong favorite thing was this review:
"A book no Batman fan should miss. If ever a work of fiction featuring a comics character deserved to be compulsory reading, this is surely it."
—Alan Grant, author of
Batman: Shadow of the Bat
well, i suppose he should know.
Posted by the matty | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 12:58 PM
they're good enough for what they are
Okay, the matty, maybe then you're the only one who can answer this question: are they an American Dickens's oeuvre?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:03 PM
certainly not. i was able to finish more than one of them. i can handle authors who get paid by the book, but not by the word.
luke ford may be an american dickens oeuvre, though.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:14 PM
Even kids whose parents are truly unfit or dangerous would benefit from sound foster care buttressed by regular contact with their parents (supervised if necessary)
Not so sure about this. The child's wishes should be consulted.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1090920961592B224
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:25 PM
Obviously. I didn't mean it as something that should be imposed on the kid, but more in the sense that most children, no matter how fucked up their parents are, love them, and cutting off all contact with, say, a mother who loves her children but has serious drug problems, or a father whose son longs for his attention but who is an irresponsible trifler, probably just exacerbates the kids' psychological issues.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:29 PM
I don't know about that. My mother was really negligent. My family's solution was to have my grandmother pay for boarding school. I was able to take care of myself pretty well. I made sure that I looked passable in school. My sister wasn't quite a with it; she showed up to school in the winter without socks, so the social services system got going. My father had to spend a lot of time dealing with that--avoiding getting brought into the system. And he pretty much had to retire and move us to the boonies so that he could take care of my sister.
Of course, if decent psychiatric care had been available to my mother in 1968 instead of fatuous psychoanalysis (which really does nothing for someone's psychotic break, when it involves speaking in tongues), maybe we wouldn't have had such serious problems.
I've gotten side-tracked though. I have always loved my mother in the sense that I felt guilty about not liking her, and I spent a lot of time trying to reform her--but I often dreamed about trading her in for another model.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:44 PM
a father whose son longs for his attention but who is an irresponsible trifler
"Trifler"? Is that a classier way of saying "bum"? Nice word.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:49 PM
I don't entirely disagree, although in such cases as you describe the parent is likely to be unavailable.
In a case like Justin's he might have been better off with no father rather than the one he had.
And keeping a child in foster care, encouraging a relationship with a feckless parent who is making no attempt to create a safe environment for his/her child: might not the child be better off being adopted? I'm not so sure families of origin are always the best families, although I'm not sure what the breakpoint would be--I'm glad I don't have to decide, and I'm not sure I'd trust anyone who did feel competent to decide.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 1:59 PM
bg- Your experience sounds as if it fits into the pattern sparacando suggested in 32; that money (your grandmother's) can do a great deal to alleviate the problems caused by an incapable parent. (and also sounds as if it must have been awful.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 2:10 PM
What I mean is, why must it be an either / or decision? There's such a thing as open adoption now. And I'm not even talking about encouraging a relationship--just acknowledging one, and being willing to work around it in the kid's best interest without insisting that it bwe terminated permanently to do so.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 2:17 PM
To wrench the conversation back to the NY Times article, what gives with the lack of law enforcement in this area? Hookers advertising in the classifieds is one thing -- I am assuming that they aren't shut down because there's been a policy decision to tolerate a certain amount of prostitution. But this kid, and those like him, just don't sound that difficult to find -- why isn't the FBI more on top of shutting down such websites, getting the kids help and going after the patrons?
(This question is asked in total ignorance of the extent of the problem, what actions the FBI actually is taking, etc. -- based on the article, it sounds as if reasonable efforts would have found, e.g., this kid before a lot of awful stuff happened to him.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 2:27 PM
LB: It was rather awful. I should add, though, that the speaking-in-tongues thing wasn't something that I ever witnessed. My Junior year in college, after my grandmother had died, my mother became convinced that my grandmother's lawyer had murdered her. When I was growing up, she was just disorganized and laughed inappropriately.
The speaking in tongues happened one summer when my mother was 17. I only just learned some of teh details from my aunt. For years it was just not talked about. At all.
Yes money can alleviate some of the problems. Bad psycotherapy (where the psychologist spends time talking about her own divorce and rails against medication as a tool of the patriarchy) can hurt. Also old-school psychoanalysis which tells parents that everything is all their fault, because they were bad parents, is really unhelpful. The best medical care available at the most prestigious mental hospital in New England wasn't very good in 1966.
I don't know that I would have minded being emancipated. When you're 14, and you don't want to leave your medical appointments to your mother, it really sucks that you can't make one for yourself or designate someone else to be your guardian. There may be more Dads doing this stuff now, but it was awkward and embarassing in the mid-to-late 80's.
I don't know that middle-class people do help that much. My Dad's brother is not a WASP and believes that everything he has he got on his own. He's not interested in helping others, and people are loath to interfere. How would you like it if some relative told you how to parent?
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 2:37 PM
What I mean is, why must it be an either / or decision? There's such a thing as open adoption now. And I'm not even talking about encouraging a relationship--just acknowledging one, and being willing to work around it in the kid's best interest without insisting that it bwe terminated permanently to do so.
There's such a thing as open adoption, sure, and in the case of a mother or father who (usually because he or she is very young) simply hasn't the resources to raise her/his child, but is otherwise more or less stable, it can be a very good thing. A lot depends on the age of the children too.
My argument is not against open adoption, it's with your original remark, that even parents who are truly unfit or dangerous should be allowed to remain in a child's life. But perhaps we don't mean the same thing by "truly unfit" or "dangerous". I'm thinking "burns child with cigarettes to get the devil out" or "moves in with boyfriend who beats the child for crying when it's diaper is wet". There's a point where a child is truly better off without contact.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 3:53 PM
54 is me.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 3:56 PM
52 "why isn't the FBI more on top of shutting down"
I think it is in the nature of the internets, that with just a little caution in language you can create some fairly tight nodes or networks. Which will not come up with anything but a sustained and deep googling.
I know there is a whole music and mp3 blogosphere out there that doesn't show up when I search for musicians. Another one based around fine-art. You won't find these sites by simply searching for "naked boys."
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 8:46 PM
pointer to the fine art blogosphere? or is it super secret?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:35 PM
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to smash your arms.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:40 PM
Since Armsmasher's pseudonym doesn't actually link to his blog, try this and his blogroll.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:45 PM
Well, a parent who is sadistic probably no, shouldn't have any contact with a kid. But the mom who moves in with an abusive guy is more of a gray issue--obviously the mom is ineffective and dangerous inasmuch as she isn't protecting her kid. But what little I know about the psychology of abuse suggests that that doesn't mean the mother isn't a good mother in other respects. Obviously you have to take the kid out of the situation to keep it safe, but I would say it's a case-by-case judgment call whether or not cutting off contact with the non-abusive parent would be a good idea for the child.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:51 PM
Thanks, MW, and BW too.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:54 PM
60: Yes. I agree with you. Yay!
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 9:58 PM
Heh, isn't it the weirdest thing how reaching a point of agreement makes one feel all better? Yay!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-19-05 10:11 PM
"anyway, my secong favorite thing was this review"
That's a blurb quote, not a review. But I'm missing the point. Doubtless being too literal, as usual.
Of course, I remember when Vachss' Batman novel was announced, and came out. Never read it. Don't recall ever reading a Batman novel, if we mean the pure text type. I've read a few other superhero novels, though; usually because a pal wrote it, though a couple not.
Alan Grant has done some good comics writing, particularly for the Batman, which is why they used his quote, of course.
"I don't know that middle-class people do help that much."
If you referring to family, I can't offer personal testimony to contradict. Whenever I see any of the daily-available tv affirmations in which in family member will Do All For Their Daughter/Dad/Son/Mom/Brother/Sister/Cousin, I always wonder how it was my family got a different memo.
What's the thing about "The Batman"? I'm being sooo slow. I mean, that's what he's been called from the beginning in 1940, although like many other styles in comics, the use of "the" a great deal falls in and out of fashion to some slight degree. Some superheros get the "the," others don't. What am I missing?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:33 PM
"Heh, isn't it the weirdest thing how reaching a point of agreement makes one feel all better? "
Um: no? Seems utterly non-weird to me. I'm being too literal again, and this is continuing the ritual, rather than being literal, right?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:35 PM
Well, I was misinformed about "the Batman." Everything I was familiar with refers to him as "Batman" plain and simple. Though a bit of Googling finds a "The Batman" (annoying flash page, I won't link). Ah well.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:52 PM
Well, you know, "The Batman" (originally "The Bat-Man," if you really want to know, which you don't, but that was dropped forever after the first few issues in 1940) is his formal name. "Batman" is what people call him familiarly, when he steps out. People just try to suck up to him like they know him, all the time!
That's more or less accurate, in fact. Won't bother to quote all the other accumulated, less formal, titles/nicknames: the Dark Knight, Gotham's Avenger, that prancing priss in black, that sort of thing; those are more just things people frequently call him, along with "you trashed my stuff, asshole!"
Superman is never "the Superman," though, in case I've rendered insecure anyone's sense of their sense of superhero names. The Flash is, however, both "The Flash," or less formally, "Flash." Green Lantern ditto. This just fascinates everyone, doesn't it? Welcome to comics fandom. (I keed; a) I never participated in comics fandom; b) if anyone wants to laugh at comics fans, well, I'm going to shove Jim Henley and John Holbo in front of me, and let them take it! That'll show ya!
Latest political commentary influenced with a superhero motif here. Stalinesque lunacy with a lurking subtext here.
Thor is never "The Thor." Except at the M....
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:16 AM
I'm being utterly serious, Gary, when I ask this: what do you mean, "The Batman" is "his formal name"? Do you mean that the narrative voice most often refers to him as "the Batman"? Do you mean that Bruce Wayne prefers his alter ego to be known as "the Batman" rather than "Batman" for some reason (i.e., maybe "Batman" isn't really a name, if it were, it would somehow make Bruce Wayne even more of a head-case than he is)?
Or is there actually a DC style guide that says, Bruce Wayne's costumed alter ego is properly referred to as "the Batman"?
I'm serious, I do want to know, stop mocking yourself for knowing and / or having an opinion about these things, and pronounce. Please.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:22 AM
I would say that it's weird that people address him familiarly by his last name instead of his first name, "The," but they do this to me all the time too.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:28 AM
Gary's "Stalinesque lunacy" link is well worth a visit, if you dig that kind of stuff.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:30 AM
Do you want us to start calling you "The", instead of just "Meatman"?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:54 AM
Oh, pwned.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:02 AM
"I'm being utterly serious, Gary, when I ask this: what do you mean, "
Well, the thing it's absolutely essential to keep in mind with comics characters is that their continuity is always in flux. There's always, whether it's sooner or later, a new editor taking over, and a new writer, and a new artist; sometimes all at once, more commonly on separate tracks.
And each new person has a slightly -- or strongly -- different take on the character and the universe she (though mostly "he") lives in.
And any issue may contain a "retcon": a retroactive continuity change, which is to say, a change in the character's backstory.
That classic sequence you so loved may be revealed next month to have actually been a dream induced in the protagonist by somebody who was actually controlling the character's dream. Or they were brainwashed. Or little did they know thata X was actually a clone, or an imposter. Or a new character steps forward and reveals, that, no, even though you were adopted and thought you had discovered your real parents, they were actually something else. Or maybe that story was actually on a parallel world. Etc., ad infinitum.
Or maybe there won't even be an instory explanation for why Spider-Man (not "Spiderman," incidentally) was actually never Peter Parker, but Parker was a clone, but, wait, no, it was "Ben Reilly" who was actually the clone, it turns out, two years later. Maybe the company just decides to cancel the old book and reinvent the character in a new one. Or maybe they'll add an addtional book, with a variant continuity. Or two books. Or twelve X-books all at once. Or whatever.
The point is, there is no solidity in Comics World. All is always potentially in flux, and flux happens. A lot.
There have even been various meta-explanations given at various times, instory, for that sort of thing. DC came up with a mildly ingenious one called "metatime" in recent years, which is too complicated for me to explain just now, but it involves the former multiple universes that were collapsed in "The Crisis On Infinite Earth" maxi-series back circa 1986 that completely redid the DC universe having been unstable, leading to vibratory factors that meant that the universe was unstable and character could wander into variant continuitys and back again and it was all like a river flowing through a channel that would be altered by the events triggered by the acts of the characters, or somesuch line of bullshit. No, wait, it was called "hypertime." Here, see what you make of this.
So there's not so much meaningfulness to try to establish what aspect of a character is "real" or not, even more so than for many other forms of fiction and text.
"...what do you mean, "The Batman" is "his formal name'?"
I was partially just trying to be slightly funny. There may be canonical sources (but see above for their worth) on his nomenclature, but I really am not a comics expert, and not even close. I have friends who are, and friends, or acquaintances, who write or edit the stuff (the guy in comics whom I knew very well and was a real friend was Lou Stathis, who finished his life as an editor at the Vertigo imprint at DC -- the "adult" imprint, which didn't mean "dirty" stuff -- well, okay, but only slightly -- just that the line was intended to be for adults, not kids, and was out of the main DC continuity, although it could wander in, and leaned more towards horror/fantasy, but I digress -- who died of brain cancer a few years ago; Chris Claremont may have forgotten the various times I've chatted with him at parties in NY in past decades), but, really, with about three exceptions, I quit collecting comics when they were twelve cents. My knowledge is really quite spotty, even on the most mainstream of comics, let alone the independents.
I'm just fond of the stuff.
So. I'm a bit unsure how to otherwise answer. "The Batman" being a fuller name, it clearly seems more formal to me, and it naturally follows that just "Batman" is less formal. I guess that's all I mean. I wasn't trying to imply that there was some actual discussion of this in a comic that I had in mind, although that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and you couldn't possibly know that that's not what I meant without asking, so thanks for asking.
"Or is there actually a DC style guide that says, Bruce Wayne's costumed alter ego is properly referred to as "the Batman"?"
Could be. Certainly they, I kinda assume, at least sometimes have style guides -- there certainly needs to be tons of coordination in modern mainstream big-selling comics with endless crossover, both through huge "maxi-series" with endless crossovers in the individual books as well, or just normal interactions between characters in one book or the next. (DC and Marvel have even become fairly colloborative in recent years, producing a variety of books or series in which folks from one company's universe wound up poinding on the other; there was even a set of "Amalgam" comics for a brief time in which the chacters from each universe were combined with the character most similar to them in the other, producing a weird hybrid character for that set, some years ago now.)
But I'm not the right person to ask, I'm afraid. Sorry. The folks who could answer, though, I'll point you to, live here. Kevin Maroney is my pal; tell him I say "hi." Just drop by and ask the question in comments somewhere.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:33 AM
I was kind of hoping you would tell me it says "The Batman" on his business cards.
Thanks, though.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 3:13 PM
A revised short answer: in the hands of some writers at some times, they've emphasized the "the Batman" usage -- "look, it's the Batman!" Other writers, at other times, prefer "Batman!" "Look, it's Daredevil!, er, Batman!"
Note that Batman Begins is the only movie yet to get Batman absolutely and completely right. It's a perfect expression of the quentessence of the character: the pain of loss, the need to do something about it, the channeling of the urge for revenge into the need to provide, instead, justice, and all the fine details. (Tim Burton's first wasn't bad, and had many virtues, in my view, and otherwise was a reasonable interpretation of the Batman, but it's, of course, so thoroughly Tim Burton's version of Batman. Nothing wrong with that, but it does rather put Tim Burton Style over Batman, as the priority.) But Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer know the character, and got him right, and that was their priority.
And in the movie, he's called "The Batman," as well as "Batman." (For one thing, "the Batman" is, obviously, a descriptive, whereas you wouldn't address him as anything other than "Batman.")
Short answer: ha!
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-22-05 12:32 PM
Short answer: ha!
Gary, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just asking. Really.
Although I was kidding in 74.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-22-05 1:59 PM