Skip to main content

dc - Where was the first appearance of the idea that Batman is the real personality and Bruce is the mask?


Similar to the idea that Superman has three personas, Clark Kent bumbling reporter, Superman worlds greatest superhero, and the real Clark whom he only shows to those who truly know him (the Kents, Lois, Pete Ross, Kara and maybe Bruce); On the flip side the idea that the Batman persona is the real person and the Bruce Wayne persona was destroyed the day his parents where murdered. When was this aspect of the dual identity first explicitly mentioned?



Answer



The Batman character dates back to 1939 and has had many writers since then, so this is not a simple question to answer for an absolute "first appearance" of an idea. There's just so much material to look at from comics, movies, tv shows, articles, blogs, etc.


From a wiki page on Batman, in the Bruce Wayne section:



Writers of both Batman and Superman stories have often compared the two within the context of various stories, to varying conclusions. Like Superman, the prominent persona of Batman's dual identities varies with time. Modern age comics have tended to portray "Bruce Wayne" as the facade, with "Batman" as the truer representation of his personality.




The source that the wiki entry pulls from is The Batman Handbook: The Ultimate Training Manual, by Scott Beatty in 2005.


From your comment, I was able to trace and find the episode where you first heard of this flipped dual identity. It's Batman Beyond, episode Shriek (Season 1, episode 7-- aired Mar 14, 1999). The dialogue at the end of the episode is:



Terry: Tell me something - why were you so sure those voices weren't coming from you?

Bruce: Well, first, I know I'm not psychotic.

Terry: I hope your other reason is more convincing.

Bruce: Second, the voice kept calling me "Bruce." In my mind, that's not what I call myself.

Terry: What do you call yourself? [Bruce just looks at him for a moment] Oh, yeah. I suppose you would. [Batman voice] But that's my name now.

Bruce: Tell that to my subconscious. (Source)



Terry talks to Bruce at the end of the episode.


Although it's been suggested by Chris Sims in the post, Batman vs Bruce Wayne, that the idea even came before Batman Beyond. Give that article a read as it's very insightful about the whole Batman vs Bruce Wayne mask duality, along with Superman.


Others have suggested that it's Batman The Animated Series where Batman is the true character over Bruce Wayne.


In terms of pop-culture, I first heard about this alter-ego spin on superhero mythology at the end of Kill Bill: Vol 2, which came out in 2004. Honestly, when I read your question, my first instinct for source material was this movie as it was quite formal in addressing that a superhero is the true persona.



Superman dialogue at the end of Kill Bill Vol 2


Quentin Tarantino wrote a great dialogue here. Although it is applied directly on Superman, not Batman. But one could expand the meaning to apply to Batman's alter ego really being Bruce Wayne, although I personally find that argument to be so much weaker than Superman's alter ego really being Clark Kent.


Here is a clip from the famous Superman speech given by Bill from the movie:



Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race. (Source)



But to check out more interesting philosophies behind modern day mythologies that is Superheroes, check out Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way (Popular Culture and Philosophy).


Superheroes and Philosophy


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...