#bruce.zip

this is an interesting question because i don't actually think he is consistently characterized as an abusive asshole, especially not in the last couple of years. it happens, of course, and it brings in a lot of attention specifically because it's controversial– like gotham war, or king's iteration, or lobdell's whump– but there are plenty of writers who are quite persistent in their propagation of bruce as a loving & caring character – this is for example what zdarsky was so liked for before the current event (the famous "lollipop scene"), what tynion was set on during his run, and what williamson seems to want to achieve in batman and robin (or at least this is my impression from what i've seen, as i haven't read it yet). and it's not like there were not similar attempts to bring in some of pre-crisis-esque personality back.

the reason for which pre-crisis bruce is pre-crisis bruce is not just his personality; it's not that he is strangely modest for the circumstances or sweet to people around him as a rule or even gregarious by default. it's because he is portrayed in a very human, ordinary way. and the reason for which he is human is his civilian life and the civilian cast. we get to see bruce as a friend, as a lover, as a socialite, and as a father because his civilian persona is actually real. pre-crisis bruce does not have a social life just to gather "intel." it's not an undercover "brucie" mission. it is his life. and it's nowhere as grand as what contemporary comics make it to be, btw (@roobylavender has recently written a great post about how bruce's fame became more and more exaggerated).

but post-crisis, things around bruce change in many ways, and gotham is nowhere as cosy when it comes to the portrayal of its communities. bruce is also not really a father anymore (and in my opinion he never truly is one again at all). and in place of the vigilante lifestyle that was much slower, emergencies that were usually much more local, we have a major crisis after a major crisis. this is nowhere compatible with who bruce used to be.

in other words, pre-crisis bruce simply cannot exist in post-crisis; because the world is wider, because he's barely a civilian anymore, because the part of him that is a civilian is also just another mask. and part of it is just bad writing that i do not appreciate. but, i am not gonna lie, i do believe some of it also makes sense.

personally, i would not like to see bruce coming back to his pre-crisis personality all of a sudden, because it's horror material rather than a retcon that could be achieved seamlessly. and i think this is one of the reasons why batman of the last couple of years fails to bring back these qualities even though at times it seems they want to. the editorial wants bruce to be an ordinary man again but they also cannot compromise and by necessity keep all the edge and grandiose of the current era. they also fail to understand that it does not matter if bruce is not a 1% anymore if he still has no real civilian cast around. and finally, after all the tragedies, it would be disturbing to see bruce unchanged. so all i ask is just acknowledgment that he used to be different. i always talk about it but dc retconning their timelines to preserve the same characterisation is one of their biggest mistakes. let the characters be dynamic. let there be development, for better or worse.

"master dick was ready to leave-- your work with him was finished." "yes... and with jason it's barely begun. but i mean it, alfred..."

"perhaps misery cannot be escaped until conquered, master bruce." "yet i'm hardly putting up a fight here in jason's empty room..."

"of course, but... i just can't shake this feeling of being gloomy... depressed." "jason is a good, bright lad. and the light he's brought into your life has been taken away"

"and yet sir, even if your life is less without jason..." "can you afford to stop living?"

batman (1940) #376, story by moench.

"and yet, sir, even if your life is less without jason..." "can you afford to stop living?"