Thursday, September 30, 2010

Batman Apologetics #2: Batman Beyond

A common "discrepancy" that batman deniers like to point to is the Batman Beyond chronicles. The usual argument goes something like,
If all of the batman chronicles are things that actually happened then what about Batman Beyond? How can we be talking about things that actually happened that haven't happened yet? It's just plain nonsense!

-Richard D.
Well, this pseudo-anonymous denier (whose name rhymes with "Hawkins") has forgotten one important aspect about our universe: time travel. In fact, this is clearly outlined in the Batman Beyond chronicles. During Batman's confrontation with Chronos we not only learn of the possibility of time travel, but in fact the existence of a working time-machine. It is all laid out in the chronicles, but since deniers never bother to read what they criticize, this clear and undeniable fact often escapes them.

In fact, we know that Batman visited the old west while pursuing Chronos, which gives a first point of contact for information to bleed through from the future.  Granted, this doesn't explain how later entries into the chronicle made it back through time.  However, we have sufficient facts at our disposal to draw a conclusion.

We know that time travel is possible from the chronicles, and we know that Batman went back in time at least once.  We also know that Bruce Wayne, McGinnis's predecessor, is a crafty bastard who does whatever it takes.  So upon Batman's discovery of time travel, he likely decided to make use of time-travel to ensure Batman's defeat of his many enemies.  So it is likely that Wayne sent a copy of the chronicles back in time in order to be able to make use of them in his time.  It is even likely that he received copies of the chronicles when he was younger, spurring him to send them at a later date to avoid a paradox.


Don said...

So Bruce Wayne is Xanatos from Gargoyles?

Wikinite said...

Interesting that you should bring that up. Obviously, Xanatos is one of the many derivative false historical accounts of Batman.

Some of the flaws in the story are clear. Bruce Wayne isn't a memeber of the illuminati. Additionally not only does he not associate with gargoyles, but gargoyles are clearly drawn from the cape and cowl style of the Batman.

It would be more accurate to say Xanatos is supposed to be Bruce Wayne, and that the Gargoyles are a projection of the Batman that Xanatos uses. Of course, such records are less accurate and less honest accounts of history.

Tom Foss said...

Here's my question: if we accept that Batman is real--and I'm not saying that he isn't, I'm more playing Joker's Advocate here--don't we also have to accept that the characters with whom Batman regularly interacts--Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and so forth--are also real? If so, then why don't we see more evidence of the Justice League in our everyday lives? If not, then how do we reconcile the accounts of Batman's fictional allies with the accounts of his real exploits?

Further, in the Batman literature, his identity is secret, and yet we are aware that he is, in actuality, Bruce Wayne. How can we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Wikinite said...

Well, to answer your first question Tom, You have to consider what is proper cannon and what isn't. This is very tricky business, which I won't go into at the moment. It suffices to say that some of the literature is legit and some isn't.

The identity of Bruce Wayne is a most interesting topic and in fact the subject of my next post. The basic notion is that Bruce Wayne is more of a title then the name of a specific person.