A Death in the Family

[thecolorsblend]

The precedent of a new character taking over an existing hero's name goes back to the 1950's when Barry Allen and Hal Jordan made their debuts. Since that time, Wally West, Kyle Rayner, Bart Allen, John Stewart and other characters used those names as well.

But the irl story behind why Dick changed names...

Dan Greenfield: Why don't we start with Nightwing. Tell us how that all happened.

Marv Wolfman: It was fairly simple, actually. I got a call that (DC) really would like Robin back in Batman, and they wanted Robin to be younger. Again, because Batman really needed a partner. The nice thing was that Teen Titans—which I was still on at the time—was way outselling Batman and I really wanted Dick Grayson and I really loved the character.

We had aged him, we had made him a real leader, we had done a whole bunch of things with him, and I didn't want to give up Dick Grayson. And it suddenly struck me — I don't even know what happened because it was unprecedented in comics — I said, "Why don't I keep Dick Grayson and you create a new Robin and make that a big to-do in Batman... while we have Nightwing."

https://13thdimension.com/behind-the-mask-marv-wolfman-on-the-creation-of-nightwing

The name change served the story Wolfman and Perez were telling in Teen Titans. How can Robin, the ultimate sidekick, possibly be a leader of anything? Plus, creating a new character to be Robin maintained the iconic pairing of "Batman &..." so it seemed to work well.

I've read claims that the editorial office first tried creating a new character out of whole cloth, including a new uniform and codename. It just didn't work as well.

If Jason had survived ADITF, hoo boy. For one thing, I think it would've prevented the Joker from becoming a mass-murdering maniac for at least a few years. That would've ultimately worked to the Joker's benefit.

[The Joker]

I believe it was in the 1980's, when the notion of long established heroes giving up their code name (not so much the case of introducing another hero with the same code name from an alternate earth) and taking up another that's drastically different really became into vogue. In terms of the Teen Titans, Aqualad took up the name, Tempest, after some time. Beast Boy took up the code name, the Changeling, at one point, but returned to his original name (probably for the best). Wonder Girl switched to the code name "Troia", then just Donna Troy (it could be vice versa on that), followed up by becoming Wonder Woman at one point, then back to Donna, ect. She, like Hawkman, suffers from retcon fatigue. Speedy/Roy Harper has burned thru a few entirely different code names since dropping the Speedy code name. I think Raven and Starfire have largely remained with their code names for the most part.

That's interesting that editorial attempted, or at the very least, considered drastically changing with dynamic duo with a completely different character/code name/costume. Kinda sounds like the idea, at that point, was probably to just keep Dick as Robin, and have Batman take up an entirely new sidekick. Yeah, I can see why that would run into a host of problems. Especially with Warners and the merchandising departments.

The Wolfman explanation is understandable to an extent, but reads to me like a writer who used his clout at the time, for leverage in getting what he wanted. Which is fine. It happens. But I guess I never really bought the premise that the code name "Robin" was A. a code name that's solely for an adolescent, and B. that he couldn't be perceived as a adult and/or leader under the Robin guise. Dick Grayson as Robin enjoyed solo adventures, in both Batman Family and Detective Comics, just as he did in the Wolfman/Perez revivial of Teen Titans, and he was consistently presented as responsible and as his own man. Typically always up front and center. I think the problem, over the years, since there has been several Robin's who are children that have appeared, has unfortunately done nothing but cement the perception that Robin can only be a child in most peoples minds.

It is what it is.

But back in the early 1980s? I don't really think the name "Robin" was in itself the problem, but rather DC's then reluctance in not allowing the Robin costume itself to mature alongside Dick Grayson (which there was already a precedent for even if it was one from a alternate earth). "Robin", after all, is an identity that Dick created and has a personal connection to it. Which in itself is based off Robin Hood, and not a bird. He doesn't really have that sort of connection with the Nightwing code name. An identity that was taken from Superman's Silver Age stories, and then later, from a back-up series Superman Family title.

With Jason living thru A Death in the Family, it does bring up some interesting alternate history. For all intents and purposes, Jason Todd escaping death would have essentially been a 3rd attempt to get the character on solid ground with the readership. Which is why I believe Jason's personality probably would have gradually shifted from his agnsty Post-Crisis self, to something, at the very least, more akin to Tim Drake's characterization. But keeping Jason's Post-Crisis street kid origin intact. Using his near death experience as a life altering event that truly opened his eyes.

No doubt, there would have been a sincere push to get Jason Todd's "Robin" back up and running on steady ground (much like what actually happened with Tim Drake taking up the code name). If, by some chance, Jason still remained a polarizing character, I think DC may have used the Zero Hour event to do some maneuvering to get Robin truly healthy again.

[The Dark Knight]

However, due to the fact that DC clearly doesn't want Bruce being perceived as a ageing Batman, Dick's advancing has sort of stalled in a lot of ways. Which probably explains much of the gimmicky tinkering the character has experienced in recent years (Dick's Batman, then back to Nightwing, he's a spy, then he has amnesia, back to Nightwing? ect). Course Dick Grayson being under the Dan Didio editorial for so many years wasn't likely a positive thing either.

On this subject, Batman choosing everyone but the obvious person to be his replacement is something I rather like. Is he just being a bastard or is he being protective? It's like your rich parents locking you out of their will, or putting clauses in there so you have to wait until a certain age before you get your hands on it. This stuff is annoying and thus in storytelling it has considerable power. As a reader of ongoing, mainstream continuity comics we will never see Batman retire or stone cold dead die, so I think we should never see Dick as Batman full time. 

[thecolorsblend]

However, due to the fact that DC clearly doesn't want Bruce being perceived as a ageing Batman, Dick's advancing has sort of stalled in a lot of ways. Which probably explains much of the gimmicky tinkering the character has experienced in recent years (Dick's Batman, then back to Nightwing, he's a spy, then he has amnesia, back to Nightwing? ect). Course Dick Grayson being under the Dan Didio editorial for so many years wasn't likely a positive thing either.

On this subject, Batman choosing everyone but the obvious person to be his replacement is something I rather like. Is he just being a bastard or is he being protective? It's like your rich parents locking you out of their will, or putting clauses in there so you have to wait until a certain age before you get your hands on it. This stuff is annoying and thus in storytelling it has considerable power. As a reader of ongoing, mainstream continuity comics we will never see Batman retire or stone cold dead die, so I think we should never see Dick as Batman full time.

I cut my teeth on Post-Crisis comics where Dick never wanted to be Batman. So, that's shaped my sensibilities about who the character is.

I always thought that in the end it would be Tim Drake who ultimately replaced Bruce as Batman. Tim would've been a less dark Batman overall but I think he'd do the name proud... and Dick would be only too happy to let him.

[The Dark Knight]

I see it as the line of succession. The first graduate of the school has the most experience and has waited the longest time. It's the hero's journey, which isn't easy, but ultimately rewarding.

[thecolorsblend]

Flipped through my ADITF trade earlier today. I reiterate what a lost opportunity this storyline was. The Middle Eastern stuff is just completely out of place in this kind of story and I'll never understand the decision to move the main story away from Gotham City. Gordon's absence is also deeply felt.

All in all, this just isn't a good storyline at all.

[Slash Man]

I'm still very mixed on the matter. Bob Kane maintains that Robin shouldn't die, regardless of who's donning the mantle and I find myself agreeing. Not liking a character or finding them annoying is one thing... but that shouldn't equate to wanting to see a child get murdered for it. In that respect, this story feels very 80s in its excess.

I'm also equally mixed on the retconning of the story and bringing Jason back to life. I usually stand against retcons of all kinds to retain the integrity of the original storyline. However, this entire climax was left up to a vote that was very likely falsified, so who really knows. It didn't weigh on Batman as heavily as I'd assumed; while there are plenty of key issues where Jason is brought up, it's not as much a constant in the series moving forward; the author just wanted to wipe the slate clean and create a new status quo.

The actual story itself is a pretty good, well-paced read, only marred by the basis itself being pretty bonkers. It's funny that I was beginning to like Jason's new character after the Crisis reboot; I wish they'd given him more time to develop in that respect, and maybe I'd be more inclined to believe that he'd get himself killed after a rather sudden acceleration the few issues before.

Now I've read some of the issues out of order, and one thing that struck me about one of the annuals before was how much it humanized Jason. There was a backup story centered around Robin that just featured Jason Todd in a high school setting. Reading that after seeing his brutal death really made it sink in that he's just a kid struggling with the everyday issues of being a teen. Then at the end of the day, only four people were there to attend his funeral.

[The Dark Knight]

Bob Kane's word on anything Batman related is questionable. These stories are often at their strongest when emotional pain is at the forefront (the legacy of Jason's death is given the prominence it deserves in TDK Returns) thus I have no problem with killing a Robin. They should serve Batman's character growth, and that goes for everyone. Killing Jason put the entire sidekick concept into perspective because it's a miracle it didn't happen earlier, DC plot armor aside. And I'm a fan of the resurrection for reasons I've explained before.

[The Laughing Fish]

Back in 2014, the late Denny O'Neil looked back at the whole process of determining Jason Todd's fate, while he was the editor-in-chief of DC.

Dan Greenfield: No interview with you is complete without talking about A Death in the Family.

Denny O'Neil: Oh, yeah.

Dan Greenfield: Now, I wanted to talk about Robin a little bit because you said you were instrumental in his departure in the early '70s. Now it's the mid-80s. Again, you said, it was time to start over.

I remember I was in college at the time when this came out and I made one of the calls. (Denny stifles a chuckle) I called for him to live. And the reason is that even though I liked, to coin a phrase, the badass nature of the concept, I knew I had to take a stand. I knew I had to vote.

I'd been reading Batman forever. Batman was very important to me as a character. Very important to me as a concept. And I was also at that age where, "Oh, Batman's only dark!" and I had rejected the Adam West idea and I was waiting for the Tim Burton movie to come out. "Batman's gotta be tough and bad and he doesn't NEED a Robin."

But then when it came time to make the call, I couldn't bring myself to call for him to die. I couldn't do it. For whatever reason, I called to have him stay alive. I remember at the time, I remember everything that went into it and feeling surprised at the outcome. ... With almost 30 years gone on it, what's your take on it? Explain it to me.

Denny O' Neil: Well, first of all, it came about after a retreat was over and (DC chief) Jenette Kahn and maybe Paul Levitz and I were sitting in a room waiting for our rides to arrive. The editorial work was done. This was in the mountains, maybe 50 miles north of here.

The Catskills?

Yeah, there's a beautiful old, huge mansion up there that they've turned into, like, a resort. ...

So, one of us — it might have been me — came up with this idea. We knew we had a problem with Robin. It was a case of something you hear about and seldom encounter: a character taking on a life of his own.

Maybe I should have been a more hands-on editor but it just kind of slipped past us and all of a sudden we had this disagreeable little snot and I thought we either had to give him a massive personality change or write him out of the series.

And so somebody came up with the idea of letting the readers decide and Jenette went to work making that work with the phone company. Jim Starlin got the job of actually writing the stories as he was the Batman writer at the time. He did a good job and Jim Aparo did his usual fine job — one of my favorite artists! ...

I had a number to call and a robot voice would tell me what the count was. Comes Friday night. It's late and (my wife) Marifran and I are the only two people in the office. It's 10 after 7. I make the final phone call and I find out the kid did NOT make it. (Executive Editor) Dick Giordano and I had different opinions about that. He thought they would not kill the kid. I thought the readers would do it just to see if we would actually go through with it.

It turns out, if what I heard is true, that a lawyer programmed his Macintosh to dial the killing number every few minutes. It was only 85 votes out of over 10,000 and that may have made the difference. I have never been able to verify that story but it was a squeaker any way you look at it. And I'm like, "OK, this has been an interesting caper but it's over and I'm gonna go home and have my weekend."

And I got back on Monday morning. For about three days or so I answered phones. ... As it turns out, I was glad that I didn't get on television but I sure as hell got on the radio. Somebody heard me in Australia. We made the papers, especially the Daily News, and there was a fairly violent reaction. I had to take the E train down to Soho every night and I was really glad this face did not get attached to that stunt!

So it changed my mind about what I do for a living, that one incident. Some of the fan publications said we had staged a Roman circus and people were talking about the death of a kid.

So I said, "Look, you understand that this is paper and ink! This is something that Jim Starlin made up in his head! Nobody was killed making this comic book!"

But they kind of treated it that way, particularly the ardent fans, and I realized that I had thought that what I was was a writer/editor in this odd little backwater of American publishing, this bastard child of comic strips and pulps. And I realized coming off of that caper that I'm a custodian of folklore. These characters, about four of them now, have been around SO long. 76 years, 75 years, 74 and Spider-Man well over 30 now.

https://13thdimension.com/denny-oneil-getting-rid-of-robin-twice/

Back then, the idea of killing a child sidekick would be considered unconscionable. For better or worse, nowadays nobody would bat an eye. If you have crap like Crossed being sold to the market then Jason's death in ADITF is pretty tame, isn't it?

The rumour of some lawyer programming his computer to bump up the votes to kill Jason is pretty amusing.

[thecolorsblend]

Honestly, I never thought Jason's death in the comics was remotely tame. He got sold out by his own mother, beaten absolutely senseless by the Joker and then left to die in a bombing.

The older I get, the more inappropriate ADITF seems. The story has aged very badly for me. I'll admit that good storylines came out of it. But ADITF itself is not a good story, both in terms execution and in terms of content.