[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It's funny that you'd mention Frank Miller's work as a positive example here, Saya considering that the man is, if not an outright fascist, certainly errs on the side of fascism both artistically and personally.

There is a strong case that the morally questionable Batman of Miller's world because Miller really thinks actions heroic. It's highly likely he's writing his own power-fantasy not a study of a psychopath.

Much as I dislike Miller, I highly doubt he thinks forcing little boys to eat rats heroic. His work hasn't been good in a long time, but I can see what he's trying to do when he makes Batman so hyperbolic. Kick-Ass pulled off the same concept a lot better, in that it was clear that Big Daddy was unbalance and endangering his child (who is like his Robin, who is now in the comics Bruce's very young son with Talia, and in previous continuity he adopted Cassandra Cain, one of the Batgirls and now the Batman of Hong Kong. After two Robin "deaths," it didn't stop Bruce!)

In any case, I meant "good" in the sense that he had to be the hero and the audience had to sympathize with him. This is batman we're talking about, not superman. He's a dark character.

I think Nolan utterly failed in the first two movies to make Bruce Wayne sympathetic. I couldn't care less about him, and got impatient when his scenes would drag. Go back to the Joker! The only reason I rooted for Batman at all is because it was like, "oh, yeah, I suppose Gotham shouldn't be destroyed by a ridiculous giant microwave. MICROWAVES DONT WORK LIKE THAT". or "I'm enjoying the Joker, but do not agree with him and he should be stopped." I can't relate to an obscenely rich CvP who just can't heal from his parents dying.

Does anyone else think it's Hi-goddamn-larious that Saya has problems with TDKR's narrow view of criminals but she's totally down with spending three hours in the theatre to watch J.R.R. "literally-every-single-black-person-is-evil" Tolkien?

You know that the big interpretation was that it was an allegory for WWI, right? Of which Tolkien was a veteran? Or it might be a Christian allegory, as he was religious?

Which he denied.

"I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, (...)"
Deeply move! That's an essential point about the epic.
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches

Dude also straight up hated allegory. He would probably not have liked Nolan.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.