Batman as the great American epic (n)

A buddy of mine is making an argument that Batman, as a whole, should be classified as America's epic. I have only posted his abstract for you to read through. He is taking this seriously and has so far written thirty pages and counting to make his argument.

Student: Paul Mendez
Abstract: Batman: A Great American Epic (Tier One)
This essay explores the thesis that Batman is a new mode but still a traditional epic for our modern America. The discussion furthers investigation of comic books and super hero characters into the literary canon. The main claim is that Batman can be perceived as an epic, but the debate explores to some extent how the epic has changed over time. As a modern epic, Batman and its varied corpus feature characters, stories, and techniques that recur in the comics even as they are developed by multiple authors. This paper shows how Batman compares to previous epics, particularly The Iliad, The Aeneid, and Beowulf. This paper also argues that the orality of traditions and stories, typical of epics, has progressed or changed. The oral nature is satisfied and fulfilled by the visual of comics and film and by the comic medium’s graphic power. Further ideas to study both Batman and the epics’ reception are suggested. It is a basis for the explanation of ideas such as comic books and super heroes. The main focus is on how Batman can be perceived as an epic, but also on how the epic has changed over time. The descriptions come from the characters, stories, and techniques that are prevalent in the comics and this essay shows how they compare to previous epics. The inclusion and importance of oral traditions and stories shows the progression of the time and the way that the epic itself has had to adjust.

Remember, we are talking epic (n) not epic (adj.)
This link will define it for those of you who don't know what the difference is.

http://homepage.mac.com/mseffie/assi...wulf/epic.html

The Aeneid was written by solely Virgil. It really does't help your argument when your abstract contains a major error like the one I pointed out, as well as lacking grammatical structure. But I think the idea is interesting - but naturally not applicable to literary cannon. For comics have as much to do with lit as the cinema does. The comic book relies upon the visual as well as words, it is a genre unto itself.

Yes, all epics listed had most likely a single creator which based on some other source. I would also refuse to call comics as literary genre, after all, movies are not a literary genre and also have need of writting.

Anyways, guys like Batman or Superman have fallen on popular views, etc, work like arquetypes, even of their copyright is owned they have a "popular" construction that gave them several cannons, etc. which may be similar to something like Artur legends, without the oral appeal...

Interesting, if it was a specifically New York epic

But where the argument fails for me is the calibre of criminal he keeps facing - actual criminals are never interesting nor particularly crafty - their psychopathology, subnormal IQ's and limited world view tend to make them evade the spotlight via secrecy, and rely upon normal people's preference for easy happiness and willingness to ignore warning signs, until curtailed by Commissioner Gordon's and Inspector O'Hara's army of trained professionals

In the real world Batman's natural foes would more likely be the investment bankers, mafia, and crooked politicians - except that would run counter to Bruce Wayne's wealth - so you'd have to ask how precisely he maintains his inherited fortune - I mean he's no Donald Trump (fortunately) who try as he might can't get a farmer to sell up in order to build a golf course on the Scottish coast

Batman's just a fiction - and though the concept depends on elements of the modern USA and American Dream etc, the wild west is where the real epics are to be found

Clint Eastwood's later westerns are much closer to reality, though still about as far removed as the actual wild west is to us now

As an epic Batman isn't actually anywhere near as epic as say The Odyssey for time frame and scope which though it takes place over 7 years, is 7 years where most everyone at home (not ever-patient Penelope) presumed he was dead - the comparison point being Batman is essentially the same thing over and over like a recurring nightmare with different twists (taking into account the many and varied franchises) irrespective of the actual longer time-frame (Batman never refers to the stories that happened 60 years ago, because that would put him in the sphere of the Phantom's mythological longevity - though that may change in the future with the development of a life-extending drug or alternate time-line)

Don't get me wrong - I like Bats - I just don't think he is the ulltimate American epic material

Also other epics may be written that encompass more of the history, culture, politics and art than the Caped Crusader ever has

He is not epic, because epic is a format. The original poster is unclear if and how his friend defend the notion, if it is just to point him as character with epical traits or if the products of batman were epics.

But the reasons you gave to dismiss? Scope of 7 years? Since when this is relevant? The Iliad does not cover 7 years at all, how many years one can say The Comedy or Paradise Lost covers? And Batman stories actually cover decades. His best story he is past 50's.

How Wayne would keep his fortune? How the greeks would keep their fortune if they spend 10 years out of home in war? How the charity like christins of King Artur kept their fortunes? From were came Bewoulf strength?

Batman actually faces a considerable ammount of normal day misfits, but why facing realistic enemies has anything to do with epic? The Green knight is realistic? Morgana Le Fay is? Satan and Jesus were? The mours of El Cid and Roland's Cancion had nothing to do with real life mours.

And if there is an element that makes the actual Batman or Superman close to the culture that formed epics is the repetion. Before Homer, the stories were repeated over and over and I am pretty sure, they had no chronology, didnt followed a canon faitufully... See how mnay version we have for Neiblungs Rings. The arquetype of Siegried lives the same yet different story over and over, pretty much like Batman or Superman do. All true, all false. Some pretty crap, some that remembered well. The oral culture loses the crap, the written did not. In 200 years you may find Batman or Superman as representative of America as Artur turned. Not sure if so and neither if this is enough to call anything an epic...

Virgil wrote The Aeneid.

We don't know the name of the author of Beowulf, but that poem has a single author.

Clarify your terms. "Epic" vs. "epic" The appropriate use of the noun is for a specific type of poetic form. As an adjective, "epic" has been used much too liberally lately;
in fact LSS listed it as one of the "Banished Words" from a year or two ago. In that sense it's the same as "iconic" (or "icon.")

Also, try to respect Batman's copyright and authorship.

I agree with you (and with Bart Simpson) in that the comic book, perhaps even the graphic novel, is a true
American art form. (So is jazz, though Bart disagrees.)