not incredibly well-worded but what makes the current way bruce is portrayed so not compelling to me is the way that he's always (in the words of my friend) rewarded for being wrong. it's not that bruce isn't allowed to be self-destructive post-jaybin death, or bruce isn't allowed to have control issues or inherent biases, it's not that bruce isn't allowed to be self-righteous or victim blame jaybin. it's that the narrative (formed by dc editorial team and writers) agrees with bruce and praises him, rewards him for it.
saying this mostly in the light of.. whatever the fuck that 'when robins come pre-broken' is. i don't know what they're thinking, honestly, about that one. it makes bruce look even worse than he already is, especially the panels with alfred where alfred tells him he's just telling bruce 'the truth' and 'the truth' is that 'bruce is an optimist, while jason doesn't want and can't be shown light.' (paraphrased and summarized)
the narrative, through alfred, coddles bruce and tells him it's okay sweetie, you made a mistake, it's not you, you're not a mistake, it's the mistake, separate from you and your actions. because robins come pre-broken, sometimes... right? even the way the words are said 'richard was exceptional, jason is DEEPLY troubled' sound like pre-fed lines being parroted. very intentional. i don't even know if the writer chose that or the editorial told the writer to script it that way.
nevermind the fact that that's not what happens at all. i don't like starlin's run, but even in starlin's run, bruce is shown to 'make a mistake' in the form of 'picking up another child soldier.' it's recognized and then punished, the punishment being jason's death. and when starlin out of all people had better writing than whatever this story is... that's when i know the story isn't even worth reading or contemplating about. despite the very banger very cute art. it's a shame tbh.
i've been thinking for a while that even with the... odd and very questionable actions modern bruce has committed, from not allowing his kids to have a life outside vigilantism to like, motherfucking lobotomy, maybe he would be more compelling to me, more interesting and even more beloved if these actions and flaws were presented by the narrative in a way that's more.. neutral? and less biased towards making bruce seem the most correct and right and kind and morally just and strong and smart and tragic and victimized? like, i don't need to be told that it's negative. the narrative just needs to be more neutral.
he would be far more compelling, because maybe then bruce would come across as a guy who's constantly trying, trying so fucking hard whether with the kids he picks up or his mission in vigilantism... and is also wrong, often failing and so on. maybe then his successes would resonate stronger and despite his many privileges that i don't have, maybe i'd relate to him more. maybe it'll be a lesson in how love and care don't always show up sweet, but that it'll have its own values anyway. maybe it'll be a message about compromising and reaching an understanding and letting past ghosts rest despite current hurts.
but then i also realize that maybe someone in the dc team realizes that bruce would be perceived negatively even if the narrative stayed neutral. like, if the narrative doesn't side with him and actively excuses his actions, rewards his behaviors, coddles him, then someone would maybe notice that hitting your kids is bad actually. or taking in a kid while being under-prepared for it, as a replacement for your other kid that you drove away, is bad actually. which he did more than once, btw.
so yeah. i guess for doylist reasons, the dc team knows bruce has to be beloved by the narrative.
just that maybe not all of the audience will eat up that narrative blindly.
