Death in the Family
No Man Land
War Games/War Crimes
One Year Later
Grant Morrison run
Court of Owls
All Star Batman & Robin
I fail to see your point. Because of one special, anecdotal case, where the state of medical technology and the nature of your injury overlapped, that now suddenly means that ALL permanent, crippling, or disfiguring injuries are now curable?And in this world, the one we're in? I'm off my stick because medicine marches on.
Until paralysis, as an injury, is eradicated from society, it shouldn't be eradicated from comic book fiction.
Does your friend look the same as he did before his injury? Does his face and skin look exactly the same? Is the equipment he uses not visible or cumbersome at all, so much so that you wouldn't know it was there if you didn't say so? Has he completely gained 100% of his physical faculties?A friend of mine went from bedridden in a coma with most of his skin gone to having a new face and a wheelchair to being out of the chair and on a walker or cane with big absurd-looking boots and a load of machinery stuck in place of bone and organ that wasn't working so well anymore.
Most importantly, if all the above is true, then does everyone who has suffered as he has also have access to the same miracle cures?
I'd be willing to bet "No" to most, if not all, of the above.
But I guarantee you, when a protagonist in comics suffers the kinds of injuries that would result in paralysis, disfigurement, some form of crippling, or even DEATH, you'll never see it portrayed honestly. Plastic surgery will always make the hero look identical to their pre-accident days - no scars, no disfigurement. They'll get out of wheelchairs and fight crime again, with a physical performance that's better than ever.
And that's dishonest.
Exactly. But what you don't understand is the difference between those examples and the "Miraculous cure" problem we're discussing.The fantastic element, by necessity, changes the rest of the world in which it is taking place, just as introducing a novel device or idea into this world changes how much of it operates. The car changed many cultures when it was introduced, and not just in terms of getting to one place from another faster. Commercial train travel changed English literature forever. Medicine has changed how we eat, work, have sex or investigate crimes. To change these things in fiction or in reality doesn't invalidate anything. To pretend that advancement or fantasy are a waste of time and resources is just sad.
Take cars as your example (you can substitute anything else you listed, though). Cars absolutely changed everything. And fiction - including comics - incorporate that. You see cars all over the place in comics. It's not only Batman with his Batmobile - each everyday character in a comic has a car, whether that's vital to the story or not.
But not every character has a miraculous cure - so magically curing your protagonist, but then not incorporating that into the rest of your fiction and magically curing EVERYONE in your written universe, is nonsensical. Because what's really going on is that the writer is too lazy to accept the consequences of what's happened to the main character - so they wipe it away, and then ignore the consequences of that wiping away (which should be to then apply the cure to everyone else).
It's a double standard. Either accept the consequences of getting shot and paralyzed, or accept the consequences of a miracle cure existing in your fictional world. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Magical cures aren't "overcoming adversity." Learning to accept the frustrating limitations that life has dealt you, and learning to move beyond them and still enjoy a fruitful and productive live DESPITE them, is "overcoming adversity." Barbara's first 20 years as Oracle was "overcoming adversity," and that's why she was a hero worth reading about.Besides, these are superheroes. If overcoming adversity isn't in them, what are they here for?
Choosing not to give her a miracle cure or make her one of the exceptions (i.e., one of the people whose injuries are now more easily treatable) isn't DC "refusing to acknowledge" advances in medicine. It's them realizing what the point of Barbara's paralysis ended up being, from a narrative point of view.
Barbara represents the idea and gives the message that "one can work AROUND one's injuries and still live an enjoyable life and contribute to society."
If they did what you suggested, that would transform the message into something like "one needs only wait around long enough for medical science to reach the point where you can be cured, then everything will be hunky dory." That's a terrible message to send.
You won't get any argument from me there. I'm not "happy to accept" Bruce's magical cure, and I'll be the first to castigate Bruce's healing as being a creatively bankrupt storyline decision.Again, it reeked of double standards that Batman was back on his feet in less than what, two years, and through the very same magical mumbo-jumbo healing touch crap you're so disdainful of, but are apparently happy to accept, and yet she's not allowed a bit of the same.
The only thing that makes Barbara's healing worse than Bruce's healing is the fact that DC had actually GOTTEN IT RIGHT for 20 years before they went back and retconned it.
Voted War Games...
Though it was never really an 'event,' any time Kevin Smith gets to write Batman, it's pure shit.
DC: Action Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
Marvel: All-New X-Factor
I'm not averse to her even gaining her ability to walk again, I just hate how it was handled. I would have much prefered to watch Babs gradually heal and eventually regain the use of her legs. That in my mind, would have been a great journey for her character and would have restored her to the "physical perfection" that is so necessary for comics in a way that would have benefited the character in the long term.
Really, beside the shooting of Barbara, I think Killing Joke is no where near one of the worst bat stories told.
If you want to argue that she should not have regained the use of her legs however, I don't necessarily disagree. I prefered the character as she was but if she was going to be "healed" they were many better ways to go about it.
I would like to say for the record that this is the FIRST TIME I've withheld dong when someone was so desperately asking for some.
Brian C Wood
Not to dredge up any old arguments in my first time here, but I have to wonder how many of you bought TKJ off the racks. In context, none of the sidekicks were getting much love those days. Denny told Marv & George he WAS NOT going to use Dick & they could do whatever they wanted with him.
The clown's game in TKJ wasn't against pointy-ears, it was against Gordon. Not to say if he had broken Jim, the big man wouldn't have crumbled, but still ... Babs' shooting was a move against the Commissioner. And Jim Gordon kicked the clown's ass!
The super-scientific cures for paralysis. Again, Denny was trying to do the Shadow, not Doc Savage. There were no super powers in Gotham. Right or wrong, there was no chance of Babs getting any sort of miracle cure(Shondra Kinsolving aside).
But, this isn't "defend one you think is unfairly attacked", it's worst. I had forgotten how bad Last Laugh and War Crimes were, hated R.I.P., and would go so far as to say anyone who embraces INC. doesn't understand Batman in the least.
Inc is the best Batbook out right now. I understand Batman, but I also understand what Morrison is doing with the character.
Currently reading: Flash 143-163
I didnt voted for it because it wasnt on the poll, and I saw some pretty good contenders for the title, but god, Kevin Smith literally pissed all over Year One with his oh-so-clever Batman the Widening Gyre. Man that was a turd if i ever knew one.
Jean Grey : What makes you such a bitch, Emma?
Emma Frost : Breeding, darling. Top class breeding.
As for the 'no superpowers' in Gotham thing, that was entirely at odds with the rest of the DCU, and even if it was O'Neill's intention to make it a more low-key, urban Batman who was the stuff of legend, once he left the books, there was no excuse. We aren't asking for miracle cures like Batman got, but it was telling that there have been progressions in science that have enabled people with paralysis similar to Barbara's to walk again. In the 90's? Fine, sure, it wasn't happening, but there was no excuse that we reached 2011 and she was still in the chair with the only progress being that she'd moved her toes post-Brainiac. It's not even super-science, these days, it's science fact. There are things out there in the world that can help people with paralysis beyond them being in a chair, but DC made it and her struggle almost tokenistic at times; Again, she didn't even have, say, an actual electronic wheelchair or whatever - except in far-future portrayals like Batman #666. It was ridiculous, and yet DC have just blundered into another misfire by having her be suddenly Batgirl again when fans know she was previously Oracle, and yet there's no real weight, nothing earned from the development. There's nothing satisfactory about her being magically handwaved back into using her legs entirely via some African experimental science mumbojumbo they can't even be bothered to explain fully explain now, which is just as pathetic as if they had magicked her legs back into working in the 90's.
I haven't read all the books on this list but I believe that if you can remember it, even if you remember it for being terrible, then there's no way it can be the worst bat book. So for me the worst one is one I probably read at some point and now can't remember ever reading.
Oh and I recently read Batman odyssey and while it was terrible it truly is one of those brilliant pieces of art that is so absolutely awful in every regard that it becomes fantastic.