Thursday, 22 March 2012

On Batman # 6


Please be warned: spoilers and, for those weary of such, venting too.

Deliriously celebrating the rare goals they score, while blank-mindedly ignoring the deluge of the same pinging in at the other end,  the mainstream comics industry continues to obsess about market share while alienating everybody beyond the habituated fanboy consumer. Intrigued by wave after wave of ecstatic reviews and evangelical recommendations, I finally took a punt on Snyder and Capullo's Batman #6, having felt unmoved to sample the title further after its unremarkable debut issue. After all, the com-critics of the blogosphere are untypically united in their reverential recommendations; "A triumph!"; "incredible awesomeness"; "near flawless"; "a real tour de force". What could be less convincing, and therefore more intriguing, than such uncommon unanimity in the Babel of comics reviewing?

Perhaps I might add to the heavenly chorus a few lines of my own, ready to be snipped and added to any poster advertising Batman #6 for all but the month-to-month die-hard reader? "Entirely baffling", "incredibly stupid" and "overwhelmingly macho-humourless" would be my discordant offerings to the choir. With Batman being such an obvious entry-point to New 52 experience, and with The Dark Knight Rises primed for its July release, we might expect that Beneath The Glass would at the very least make sense to the casual reader. Please let me assure my fellow consumers from the adventitious tendency; Batman #6 makes absolutely no sense at all. In that, it's a spectacular own goal, since all but the devoted Bat-adherent are going to find the experience of Snyder and Capullo's work an overwhelmingly excluding one. Even with my 44 years worth of reading Batman under my ever-lengthening belt, I honestly - honestly - don't have the faintest what's going on. Wha'ppen? Though I've no doubt at all that the regular reader understands everything that they're being presented with, the rest of the world's potential Bat-readers will be entirely perplexed even before they're pole-axed by the bleakly blokish hyper-violence of it all.

        
Beneath The Glass opens with the yamnsomely over-familiar sight of yet another DC headliner with a sword sticking out of the front of him. The New 52 doctrine of shock generates less and less gasps and adrenalin-surges now that it's getting hard to remember all the disemboweled, and yet strangely still prospering, superpeople from the past few months. (There was even a similar fate portrayed in Bat-Wing just six months ago, meaning that somebody in editorial's not even paying attention to the Bat-books, let alone elsewhere.) Not only has that character in Batman's costume received a blade right through the guts, but he's then shown crawling across the ground before being lifted into the air, hurled to the floor again, and, to add wearisome excess to wearisome excess, savagely beaten too. We would, I'd presume, assume that that's it for Bruce Wayne. Given that much of the appeal of Batman has always been that he isn't superhuman, that he can't survive the likes of such a brutal and protracted assault, his death is surely assured. If not, then Batman has degenerated into a character who can not only improbably recover from a broken back, and indeed death, but who quite literally cannot be stopped by any degree of physical injury at all. If there's no remarkable and convincing reason for Batman's survival here, then what we're being presented with is the thick-headed, testicle-tingling cult of the indomitable hero taken to its deplorable extreme.



After several more pages of Wayne being beaten so fearsomely that he's actually kicked right through a wall, we arrive at the page above, in which, it seems, Batman's been transformed into a giant vampire creature. It makes for a typically eye-catching, high-prices-on-the-secondary-market pin-up, but it does leave just a little plot-hole needing to be closed, namely, what is happening here? 



Jump anxiously with the suspense of it all to the very next panel and there's no answer to be found. Batman's engaged in some seriously silent-movie-villain, strike-a-pose voguing, but there's no explanation of how he became the world's tallest Bat-Thing. More confusing yet, he appears to have seriously shrunk since the previous page, meaning that either he's gotten smaller while the reader was turning the page, or those Muchkin Owl-fellows grow a touch when they're terrified.


Read on and there's some evidence that this Batman really has been physically transformed. His unnamed -  yes, entirely unnamed - adversary states that Batman is "beating (his) "wings", which. given the lack of any such thing does add confusion to confusion, but he also declares that the Dark Knight is "gnashing (his) little fangs". We may care to disagree about whether those great rhino-hide-piercing chompers are "little" or not, but they do seem to have an objective existence in the story. 

      
However, all signs of possibly-giant, possibly be-winged, probably fang-full Batman disappear without explanation or even attention within a few more pages. In the middle of the next chapter of Batman's brawl with Ninja-Owl Man, or whatever he's called, Batman suddenly shifts back into human mode. The pointy teeth, the ferociously broad jaws, the I'm-a-beast affectations; they literally disappear between panels, although our hero's ability to outfight a ferociously able super-baddie isn't in any way held back by either his return to only-human status or his previous and cataclysmic wounds. In fact, Batman, despite losing his apparent super-powers, is now well enough to hurl his opponent through a wall in return for previous assaults rendered, which you'd think even a painful stitch would have prevented. Only with the defeat of his nemesis does Batman, now also suffering from being knocked flat and set alight by an explosion, appear to have been weakened by his obviously not-so-consequential experiences.

Is this Batman a mutant, a vampire, a super-giant, drugged, hallucinating, telepathically-controlled, disordered, a Bat-spirit, or even, perhaps, somebody other than Bruce Wayne? I couldn't tell you the answer, although given his upset at the sight of  a photograph of a terrified "Alan Wayne", I presume that it is Master Bruce. But how he could manage to pull off what he's shown to be doing in this story, and why he behaves as he does, is simply never once explained, or even hinted at in passing. Even in terms of comic-book logic, Batman #6 is entirely baffling.


     
Fanboys will no doubt exclaim that no-one should expect recaps in the last chapter of a long-standing story, but then, how is the curious but uncommitted reader to know Batman #6 contains any such thing? The cover doesn't warn the innocent consumer of what's inside, and there's no text page to either help the reader into the loop or comment to advise them to hunt #5 down first. Instead, what we have here is yet another comicbook produced by a ferociously complacent industry which can't grasp how its product might exclude those casual readers who'd really quite like to understand what they've just invested $2.99 in. In that, Batman #6 doesn't so much express a sense that the trusting occasional reader is of no importance at all, so much as the air of them being entirely unwelcome. Beneath The Glass appears to stand as an expression of a belief, whether conscious or not, that only the insiders, the believers, the folks who've memorized the catechism, are welcome here. Gentlemen of the Bat-Office, the point, I do assure you, has been taken.

The New 52 was supposed to be a welcoming fresh-start of consumer-friendly product in which stories wouldn't be written for the trade, in which narrative clarity and invention was king, and in which each and every single issue would reward the consumer who trusted DC at its word. It seemed to be a gold-standard promise cut with 90% flim-flam even back at the end of the Summer when the line was launched, and nothing's changed for the better since then at all.

.

54 comments:

  1. Wow, interesting to see someone who does not like Batman!

    Not reading any DC comics myself anymore so I cannot comment on it, but going by this list (http://ifanboy.com/comics) it seems pretty popular, and has stayed so month after month.

    What do you think about the new Wonder Woman?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello JG:- Yes, it's me that didn't appreciate Batman #6. I'm very conscious that this puts me in what seems like a minority of one. It's certainly a very popular comic, but that was something of my point; it's a book which settles for the audience it has without any wish to reach out to anyone else.

      This may not be the best time to ask about the new Wonder Woman. I thought it was a competent but humourless reboot until this week's book. Not knowing whether you've read it or not, I hesitate to spoil the issue. But I'm of the opinion that the reframing of the Amazons in that book is ... you know, I daren't express what I think here. I felt that way about an hour ago when on Twitter and I still do.

      I suppose you could say that I'm out of step with the times.

      Delete
  2. Seriously, I was considering giving this series a look based on some very positive reviews of Snyder'a writing. I think a lunch time pint tomorrow instead would be a better use of the money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Peter:- Yes, those reviews, and some positive notices from commentors who's opinions I respect too, meant that I just had to check the book out. And as I say, Snyder may be the coming man, but there's no way I could say on the basis of Batmn #6 because I can't understand it. I've no doubt the folks who've been with it since the start have no problem at all with the book. But I can't help but despair about comics which just don't care for folks who aren't regular readers. What could be more likely to kill the industry, apart, of course, from all the other problems?

      A pint at lunch would undoubtedly be a better investment. Or perhaps a 2nd or 3rd print of Batman #1 to start you off. I'd warn you, though, issue 1 and 6 are relentlessly blokish, grim and humourless.

      Delete
    2. Honestly, the casual reader doesn't exist in comics anymore. Well, it does, but they buy trade paperbacks and collections, not single issues, trained to devour their culture this way, just like buying a TV series on DVD.

      Delete
    3. Hello Bill:- Several thoughts come to mind. Niche markets can and have responded to ways of consuming which run contrary to cultural norms. Secondly, there are plenty of cultural norms re: consumption that encourage the buyer to buy products in discrete units. Thirdly, the causal reader certainly does exist; I'm one of them. Even if Batman consistently does 100 000 as a monthly, there's every chance that thousands more won't buy in because they're not welcome. Given that all the book's costs have been already covered by then, DC are therefore throwing away nothing but profit. Fourthly, a TV series which alienates readers is likely to either be cancelled or to benefit from a great deal less positive chit-chat when it's collected.

      All of which says nothing about the fact that the comics industry could only benefit in general if it started showing the discipline and concern which its readers actually deserve. I know we disagree here, but unless the industry is going to paste "This won't make sense unless you've already spent $15" on the cover, they're shortchanging the reader, and undermining themselves.

      Or, according to taste, and that's all it is of course, I'm talking piffle.

      Delete
    4. I do wish, if they insist on sticking to individual issues, that each one at least have some kind of beginning, middle, and end. I don't think text-filled recap pages work, because everybody skips over those anyway. (If I remember correctly, Gotham Central had a thing where they wrote and drew a more-or-less original "Previously On..." segment, which I did like, but that also takes up valuable page real estate.)

      I don't really care for the writing-for-the-trade mentality, and no, this wasn't the best issue of Batman, but I have been enjoying the series. Dropping in on this issue is probably similar to dropping in midway through The Idiot Root arc Peter Milligan wrote 20 years ago, but that only cemented my obsession with comics. I much prefer being thrown into the story with both arms tied behind my back than to have a bunch of exposition. It's the same reason why I would skip the cut-scenes in a video game. Let the issue or narrative succeed or fail by what it presents.

      Of course, it's subjective, and I'm rambling.

      Delete
    5. Hello Bill:- Your rambling is always appreciated, due to its lack of ramblingness, I'd suspect.

      I'm quite fond of text pages, but I accept fully that they need to be crafted in a way that's visually compelling and fundamentally helpful. Marvel's pages are often written by folks who seem to be both strangers to the English language and to the contents of the issue they're supposed to be setting up. This is clearly not a good idea. (Only some, I hasten to say, but that's far too many for a professional enterprise.)

      The Idiot Root! Now that WAS a mind-twister, and particularly the Milligan issues (I hope I've remembered that right.) My memory of the books of the time is that they were good in delivering back-story, but that could be wishful thinking.

      I do agree with you that a mass of exposition is a no-no. It's one of the reasons why I believe that writers brought up on the 2000AD tradition of short serial chapters turn out to be good writers; they know how to keep the reader's informed without burying them in backstory. There's no time to do so in a 6-page chapter, and you can't repeat the catch-up for 10 weeks either. I hope that doesn't sound like jingoism. It's not the Britishness of 2000AD or the writers I'm referring to which helps, but the discipline of writing to such a demanding form.

      And I am rambling ...

      Delete
  3. I was a bit like you on #6, although, I seemed to be more into #1 than you were judging by your comments here. I tend to wait for the trades, but I heard a lot of great things about issue #6 particularly so I picked it up in the book store and was greatly underwhelmed. I don't think I hated it as much as you did, but it did deflate most interest I had in picking it up. I'm okay with that though as I can pick up some manga or Vertigo series I need to catch up on instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Joe:- You give me the opportunity to say that I didn't hate the comic itself so much as the attitude it expresses. That I do loathe. On its own, Batman #6 is just another lad's superhero shock-horror book. If you don't want characters who show anything other than absolute evil or grim-grim-grim heroism, then it's fine. I do agree with you that there's lots of other stuff out there to buy instead. Yet I have a sense that if I give up on the week-to-week super-book, I'll never be back. And I don't want to do that, for whatever sentimental reasons. But for the cost of Batman #6, I could've had two-thirds of another volume of 20th Century Boys.

      Delete
    2. As of right now, the only title from the Big 2 that I'm reading regularly is Amazing Spider-Man. I can't say I'm missing anything dearly. I hear good things about Keiron Gillen, but the art dissuades me from picking much of his work up. I can understand your hesitation about dropping out completely, because I found that the less I read of Marvel or DC's output, the less I cared. The only reason I pick anything up at all is to join in the discussion for a supposedly great or supposedly awful issue here and there, because I find that no one is talk about the comics I like the most. But I want to talk about comics! So I join in whenever I feel knowledgeable enough to contribute.

      Delete
    3. Hello Joe:- I can't say I blame you, though there are some fine books out there in the super-book. Waid's Daredevil is a great book. As you say, KG's scripts aren't always served as they might be by the art, but that's not always so, and the scripts are both smart and full of heart. But then, I've made my tastes in modern-era comics clear. So, if you don't mind, can I ask what the books are which you feel aren't discussed so much? I'd love to know, even if it's just to add their names to my endless list of things to check out when I can.

      As long as I'm blogging here and writing elsewhere about comics, I want to know what's happening at The Big Two as much as anywhere else. But neither company's making it easy to want to really buy into their product. And I suspect that if I do storm off in either a huff or a sigh of discontent, I won't be back to anywhere like the same degree.

      And then I read a book like today's Wonder Woman, and I just feel stupid handing over my money to folks who reinvest it in such offensive, ill-judged piffle ...

      Delete
    4. Luckily there's a small amount of chatter about some of the books I enjoy. You did a lovely piece on 20th Century Boys not too long ago, but for the most part it's only ever mentioned in passing if at all elsewhere. Sadly, Moebius died and the blogosphere was all a-grief over the news, but I didn't see a single mention of Humanoid's recent release of Madwoman of the Sacred Heart. Heck, I never see anything mentioned about Humanoid's output. Bakuman is a fun teen drama/comdey about two kids trying to make it big as manga artists. Usagi Yojimbo seems to be a book that gets the occasional CBR review but no actual discussion beyond "yeah the story and art are good as usual."

      Maybe I'm not reading the right blogs. The Robot 6 blog, Seqart, and David Brothers sometimes do a pretty good job. And a big reason I appreciate your blog is for your occasional look into stuff I am reading or pointing out stuff that I'd be interested in reading (such as Hermann's "Towers of Bois-Maury") and the insight into even the stuff I don't read can be illuminating.

      But then again, I can't say I'm surprised. My tastes in other forms of entertainment are hardly typical of the mainstream. I rarely ever go to the theatre, because in the small town I live in the films I'm interested in rarely get released here. Even my Japanese friends wonder how the heck I find out about the Japanese bands that I like that they haven't even heard of.

      I'm mostly used to it, I just need to vent occasionally.

      Delete
    5. Hello Joe:- I always appreciate your recommendations. For example, I've never heard of Madwoman Of The Sacred Heart, and I wished I'd heard of it before; it's going for a fortune over in the UK. Mind you, I've never had the sense to just search E-Bay and Amazon for Humanoids titles. You see, it helps to be nudged :)

      You're very welcome to vent here on those occasions when you've a moment to fill and there's something of interest being discussed here. I've made a note of the books you've recommended. Usagi Yojimbo is a book I haven't read in - can it be? - decades now. Why that should be so, I can't say. Sounds like stupidity to me. Best try to put that right too.

      Delete
  4. >"incredible awesomeness"

    OCCUPY ENGLISH.

    It's good to know that if I'm ever shot or stabbed, even if the wound is to my stomach, it shouldn't inhibit my usual physical abilities, provided I'm manly enough to walk it off. Thank you for the life lessons, comic books! But I wonder, how was it that Thomas & Martha Wayne met their deaths from mere bullet wounds? They were a couple of pansies, am I right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Michael:- I don't know why super-baddies bother with the old sword-in-the-back-and-straight-out-the-front strategy, because it never works. Animal Man, Bat Wing, Swamp Thing, Batman; as you say, it's only lily-livered weaklings who can be stopped by disemboweling.

      If I stop to think about it, it's so ludicrous that it's actually repellently insulting. But them Rumpers have eaten it up, so I suppose I must be over-reacting. What we want for heroes, obviously, is grim, humorless blokes who can't ever be stopped by anything. Chop off his head, set light to both bits of his corpse, the Batman is still gonna get ya!

      Delete
    2. Couldn't you say the same thing about the fact that Batman's shoulder never dislocates when using his grappling hook in impossible ways?

      Delete
    3. Colin, I thought of a better (less sarcastic) response after my above snarky comment; I was thinking about Usagi Yojimbo, where characters often die during sword duels. Stan Sakai always include a speech balloon containing a humourous skull image with each death. However, the deaths usually lack gore - early stories used the occasional spray of blood, but it's less frequent now. Characters are sometimes decapitated or have a blade run through their head, but not in an exploitative way.

      And my real point in all this - Usagi is himself frequently wounded and this has some bearing on how the fight scenes play out, even though Usagi is more likely to be cut in the arm or side (rather than the gut wound others find fashionable). Sometimes Usagi will take months to recover from a wound. His friend Gen once took 16 issues to recover from a shoulder wound. A shoulder wound!

      Throw in Blacksad and I'd like to know... why is violence rendered more believably in the typical funny animal drama than it is in the typical super hero drama?

      Delete
    4. Hello Adam:- Yep, you could. The very idea of Batman is entirely absurd, of course. And your point is therefore a fair one. Any argument about what Batman "can" do is always grounded in the fact that he "can't" do anything, given that he couldn't and doesn't exist. As such, yes, it all comes down to personal taste. And I guess my measure of the absurd is one that permits those shoulders to hold, but doesn't incorporate the sword through the guts followed by the incredible brutal beating-up. I mean no snark by what I've written there at all. It's a good point. I've no doubt that "my" Batman would be far too grim and far too capable and violent for a lover of the Adam West Batman who considers that the defining text, for example.

      Delete
    5. Hello Michael:- "Throw in Blacksad and I'd like to know... why is violence rendered more believably in the typical funny animal drama than it is in the typical super hero drama?"

      It's a VERY good question. I fear it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Comics are written for the Rump, which excludes all but the most Rumpish, which means that each new year produces a greater degree of rumposity. It's far easy to increase the degree of bleakness, violence, horror etc etc than it is to construct a story which suggests such things without degenerating into a parade of intensely macho conventions. The funny animal drama exists outside that circle of rumpishness, with Blacksad, for example, being from the off a book for adults which offers no easy short-cuts into genre excess; it's a book which actually dials back on the cheap short-cuts of the genre, meaning that the form remains vital rather than, for want of a better word, decadent. And the funny animal genre is rooted in comics and comic strips, TV and film, which deal with adult themes by tradition as well as having to display a fundamental quality of humour. There's far less room to play to self-indulgence there.

      I'm sure it's endlessly more complicated than that, but the super-book is caught in a terrible cycle of the rump rising to be creators, who then target the hardcore of the rumpish, and on the cycle turns, with the mainstream surviving and prospering on licensing rather than its own products. It's a sad thought that the likes of Batman: The Animated Series or The Brave And The Bold just couldn't survive in the floppies, and never could've have originated in that form.

      Delete
  5. Well, I wasn't terribly impressed with issue #1, although it wasn't terrible. I have been reading good reviews of it and was going to pick up the trade, but maybe I won't now. Part of it is your review (mainly because you can break down a book's weaknesses really well without turning it into something that, say, Tucker Stone would write), and part of it is how worried I am about Snyder. I thought he ended his run on Detective rather weakly (and overall, I liked the run) and Severed turned out to be really awful. I've liked the one trade of American Vampire that I've read, but I'm starting to think he's somewhat overrated. Thanks for featuring this, because it's given me something to ponder!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Greg:- I'd agree with you that Batman #1 wasn't terrible. In comparison with some of the Bat-books, it was a splendid book. In its own terms, it seemed deeply mediocre.

      It may be that the story which closes with Batman #6 makes perfect sense in collected form. I've no evidence that it doesn't. But it certainly doesn't in $2.99, single-issue form. And I suspect that a writer who doesn't care about their casual readers isn't going to produce a great long-form piece either. But that's a suspicion. I'll certainly check the TPB out if my local library gets a copy. But having paid out for a comic which didn't paid back, I'm certainly not going to pay for the privilege of discovering how the tale reads when collected.

      I can't say that I've warmed to American Vampire. I'm two trades in and I can't say I've ever had a convincing sense of time and place in what I've read. Some of that's the art, some is the story. The past there-in seems such a cliche, such a collection of story ticks and cliches that are over-familiar from TV and film. Of course, I could very well be wrong there too. The likes of Stephen King, of course, rave about AV. I stare at the page there and wonder why it seems so thin, so obvious.

      Which, as always, makes me want to go back and prove myself wrong. My gut hunch is that Mr Snyder will become a far better writer than other recent writing flavours of the month. There's a sharp mind at work and some bright ideas too. But at the moment, and despite the column inches, I fear it's all more light than heat.

      Perhaps I'll be able to understand his work better if I track down his Detective run. If you say it's good, even given the problems of how it closed, then I'll keep an eye open.

      Delete
    2. In terms of opposite opinions, I thought Snyder's last issue of Detective was his strongest, and probably my favorite single issue of a comic last year that was not from Atomic Robo or Axe Cop. That run as a whole started off good but a bit shaky, and ended up pretty great.

      Batman 1, and I suppose Batman 6, are some of the weaker issues so far. #5 was particularly good, at least if you enjoy comics that play with page structure and the page-to-page experience. It's not a perfect Batman comic, no, but it's probably the most enjoyable series of the New 52. Heck, I even enjoy the Capullo art, and that feels mind-boggling to me.

      Delete
    3. Hello Bill:- Well, between you and Greg, it looks like I'm just going to have to check Detective out.

      It's interesting that #1 and #6 are the weaker issues in the run for you, simply because those are the issues which need to shine. I will go and read the collected edition when it's out, because I'd like to read a book that you class as being as much fun as the likes of Axe Cop. I know you mean a different kind of fun, but it's fun all the same.

      The most enjoyable of the New 52? I prefer Demon Knights, but you make a good point; I'm struggling to think of any other fun books at all. I enjoyed Cornell's last Stormwatch ... but I can't think of "fun" in that context at all.

      That's a terrible thing to say about such a huge number of comics. As you so often have, you've given me a new way of looking at thing. I'm off to find fun New 52 moments.

      Delete
  6. Hello Colin, I entirely agree. I made similar comments on a message board or two when the book came out, but hordes of readers insisted that, well, duh, he's Batman. It seems that Grant Morrison's Bat-God is alive and well and living in Gotham. My incredulity that Batman should be able to do what(ever the heck he did here) after eight days of sleep deprivation, being stabbed, beaten and drugged fell on mainly deaf ears. I know heroes have to be able to beat the odds, but here the odds had well and truly beaten our hero. And yet he managed to beat his attacker through a wall and escape. Why worry about Batman ever again, he's magic!

    There were a few posters on the CBR boards who agreed with me; I think we're going out for a drink.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Martin:- "Why worry about Batman ever again, he's magic!"

      The New 52's focus on comics (largely) by the Rump (largely) for the Rump has reduced whatever was left of smarts in a great many books to the kind of naked wish-fulfillment which super-books have always been accused of. The superhero is constantly portrayed as an put-upon but heroic adolescent faced with a society who is both entirely alienating and entirely hostile. And so, Wonder Woman can't come from a happy, noble matriarchy, because she has to be alienated, because everybody has to has parents that they're in conflict, because no-one can belong. And Batman can defeat anything; have an alien burst out of his stomach and he'll catch it, bite it's head off, and seal the wound with the super-tough skin of its corpse. And THEN he'll beat up everyone around him. Why? Well, it looks like the fantasy of the bullied kid to me, and though that was always a huge comfort zone in the super-book, it was rarely this ... moronic.

      Several people have said that the story as a whole deserves a chance, so I say this based on this issue and this issue alone. But you're right; who could care less about less about the fate of Batman when he can do anything? These are comics for folks who don't want a trace of doubt or unease in their books. They want the hero beaten as badly as possible so that the final victory can feel violently satisfying.

      Good luck with that drink. I hear Rump Sentinel patrols are out at night looking for folks who think a sword through Batman is a ridiculous idea. Best be home by dark.

      Delete
  7. Oh Colin...I feel for you. I am not the biggest Bat Fan in the world, in fact I prefer it when Batman is getting hit on the head from behind, or tripping over Ace the Bathound. But I HAVE been enjoying this book.

    It is NOT however, a book that can be jumped into mid-stream as it were...at least not easily. He's been drugged, and without food or sleep for days and days, and a whole lot of things that he took for granted have been proven to not be true, and in very unBat-like fashion...he badly underestimated the enemy. But seriously, unless you had been reading this series from the start there is no way that you would know that.

    So I understand completely your be-puzzlement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Sally:- First off, thank you for the background info. Why that couldn't have been framed in a text page or drip-fed into the story is beyond me. Mind you, I'm still baffled by how he could survive the sword/beating etc. Perhaps the drug provides the qualities necessary to do so.

      I can certainly see the virtues of aspects of the story. The Owl conspiracy is certainly interesting and daring, given that Gotham has traditionally "been" Batman's.

      I love the phrase "be-puzzlement". And that's the process I'm suffering from. As you say, those of us popping in because of all the good publicity simply can't make sense of the book.

      OK. You've convinced me. I will look out for the tpb. It won't change my feelings about the way that Batman #6 was put together and sold, but if you think it's a cool story, then I can't help but be curious.

      (Now I have this week's John Stewart book to read, which should be here in today's mail. I've not been back since the number #1, and I really DO want to enjoy it.)

      Delete
  8. "Yawnsome" is a perfect word to describe my current feelings of ennui when it comes to this sort of thing. Is "swords jammed through people" the new "extreme," I wonder?

    I've kind of had a nagging feeling for a long time that I've long ago reached a saturation point with Batman comics. It's not that I think there's too many or I necessarily don't like that, just that some point I read my limit for Batman stories and I really didn't feel I needed to read any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Kazekage:- I understand that sense of saturation. Although I wouldn't presume that my own sense of that is the same as yours, I do have a sense that I wouldn't need to ever read another, say, FF or Justice Society story. Yet whenever I come across an old or new classic for those characters/properties, I find that I still get the same buzz of pleasure from the page. I long ago reached my end-game with the X-Men, for example, and yet the first Whedon/Cassady series and the Gillen/McKelvie Generation Hope absolutely delighted me.

      But I do know something. The "swords jammed through people", which reflects the New 52's conviction that "shock" is essential to grabbing an audience, isn't for me. Unless there's a reason why a character's been so wounded, I'm just not interested. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the Batman in #6 couldn't "just" have been badly beaten. The stabbing counted for nothing in itself beyond making the impressionable gasp. I'll happily buy a comic in which such a thing carries meaning, in which the plot won't function without it; but a cliffhanger that has no consequences, that could be replaced by something far milder? Is "swords jammed through people" the new "good right hook", and is that really how debased the currency of violence now is?

      Delete
  9. BATMAN #6 is perfect.

    In the last few issues, Batman has been confronted by a mysterious organization and their point man, who is a dark reflection of Batman himself. They have forced him down into the underworld, which he escapes in #6.

    Why is Batman turning into a giant bat monster? Because he's drugged, Colin. How do you know he's drugged? It's not because there's an off-hand reference to the possibility in a single panel when he drinks from a fountain in #5 -- it's because that's what happens at this point in Batman Confronts the Mysterious Organization. Batman gets drugged. Batman always gets drugged.

    You know this, Colin. Oh, you do. You do. You try to deny it, but you do.

    In your heart, you've always known.

    You've read this comic before. We all have. This comic is inside of us. I am the Rump, and you are the Rump, and we will read this story and we will keep reading this story until you absorb very beat, until every rallying "you thought I'd lost, but you're wrong, because I'm Batman" speech makes you weep, until you hear that "this isn't over" villain speech in your dreams, until that upcoming Shocking Twist makes you wake up screaming and trashing in bed.

    We will read until we die, because we have no choice. This isn't really a comic at all -- it's scripture. It's a missal. Just mouth the words and follow along, and you'll understand soon enough.

    BATMAN #6 is the perfect comic. BATMAN #6 is the only comic.

    Let us pray.

    -- Jacob

    (I was posting as J a while back, and was getting on your case about canon, but there's apparently somebody else lurking around here with the same minimalist nomenclature, so I figured I'd best come on out. Hi!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jacob:- I'm picturing a new self-help/express-yourself book as I read your comment, with the title "I AM THE RUMP, YOU ARE THE RUMP TOO!"

      It's good to hear from you. I hope you're well. I never thought you were getting on my case about canon: I thought you were compelling me to make a better argument, which, for all that the ego can winch on occasion, is a good thing.

      Reading your comment, I realised again that the last chapter of this Batman epic reduced itself to one point: if you refuse to be beaten, you won't be beaten. It's just not a point I'm comfortable with at all. It's just not a healthy message, for one thing. Now, I fully accept that the super-book isn't about pushing messages to most folks, and that's a justifiable p.o.v. I'm certainly not for ideology coming before entertainment. It's just that I've found in life that determination actually doesn't equal success, although most times it's a vital component of the same. And yet, as you say, the peril that the Batman's in doesn't stand for anything and it doesn't express anything other than generic badness; it's just the nefarious organisation which appears at the story's closure in order for the hero to show he's a badder MF than everyone else.

      "BATMAN #6 is the perfect comic. BATMAN #6 is the only comic."

      Despite the fact that I find the faux-conviction grounding that phrase to be terrifying in a glass-eyed, welcome to Jonestown way, you're of course right to say so. Batman #6 IS the perfect comic, it seems, for today's market. Now, Sally has assured me that the story as a whole is worth reading, and I trust her in that. But the issue in isolation seems to reflect what appears to be the New 52 philosophy for most of the line; machismo, a lack of subtlety and emotion, no "real-world" issues, shock and excesses of violence, a constant sense of bleakness, etc etc.

      You're right. It IS a perfect comic. It is MY perfect comic.

      There is no resistance.

      Delete
  10. How did Batman survive and quickly recover from the sword impalement? HA! SIMPLE! Through years of dedication and focus, he is master of ginjal cara ("way of the kidney"), the Indonesian martial art of shifting one's bodily organs! As the sword pierced the armor of his bat-suit, the Batman's training kicked in and he instinctively shunted his kidney, stomach, intestines, and other organs out of the way of the blade!

    FOR HE IS THE BATMAN!

    (...or it could be that it's important for Our Hero to get horribly abused and bloodied first in order to excuse the hideous violence he's about to unload upon the bad guys, because "it's only fair"...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Harvey:- Now I understand! Those old panels of Bruce Wayne claiming to be doing yoga when he's clearly doing nothing of the sort was actually him pushing his internal organs in odd directions, and then back again. His insides must slide backwards and forwards like a child's toy car on a shiny flat floor. Good old Batman.

      Ginjal cara. I believe that's also a new sport in the London Olympics. Dull to watch unless the competitors are wired up in whole body scanners while they slosh themselves around.

      (But that whole beat-up-the-Batman-so-beating-up-the-bad-guys-feels-good biz; it's vile, isn't it?)

      Delete
    2. I guess you're kidding, but could it possibly be some supernatural aspect to this whole arc?

      Honest question as I have not read any of it.

      At least from the description here it sounds like some sort of inner/metaphorical journey that Batman takes or is forced on. Not necessarily something that takes place in the real world. Or the comic world of Gotham!

      Delete
    3. Hello JG:- There's nothing in #6 which says that the supernatural does or doesn't play a part in the story. From what I've been told, it doesn't. I think you're absolutely right to suggest that there's the germ of an interesting "inner/metaphorical journey", and I'd have no problem with such an ambitious project at all. The problem is that the scenes could mean anything to the just-dropped-in reader.

      It's an absolutely fair question, JG. I assure you it didn't come across as anything else!

      Delete
  11. Great write up. I am also one of the few dissenting voices in regards to this current Bat book; I find it all incredibly arbitrary and lacking any sort of coherent, internal story-logic (Of course, I will admit that the arc does have a few interesting elements and moments sprinkled throughout), but everyone seems to be praising it as an infallible work of magic. I really don't understand it, but to each there own, eh?

    You're spot on in regards to the complete ineffectiveness and the failings therein of the "new 52" scheme. Sloughing off decades of old continuity to make books more accessible to new readers is, in theory, kind of a decent idea, yet the way DC has gone about it all has rendered the entire gesture utterly pointless. When someone needs to spend $20 on back issues to understand the newest single issue, then you're simply rebuilding all that “necessary” back story (continuity) that they so brazenly cast off with the New 52. It is trading one for another and in that sense it is completely foolish to think it made a single bit of difference to anyone.

    I've always remembered hearing a quote by Stan Lee saying (I'm paraphrasing) 'Every comic is someone's first comic.’ Which is why he created the "editor's notes" and recap section at the beginning of all his titles. It definitely makes sense and would certainly help forward this phantom initiative to "bring in new readers" which the superhero publishers seem so obsessed with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Comics Astonish:- I wish I'd read your review of #5 before I bought the following issue. It would have warned me that there's a few more dissenting voices out there than I thought. To each their own is of course absolutely the right tack to take. But the "Batman-is-fantastic" p.o.v. isbone which takes some understanding.

      I agree entirely with your concerns about the New 52. Given that the Ultimate Universe hit all these problems, you'd think DC would've been prepared. Sadly not. The arrival of a wave of tie-ins merely complicates an already lousy situation. The idea comes to mind that the big-wigs at DC must know this. And that means that he either think they can hook enough lasped readers to permanantly bring the profits in, or they believe that they can reboot again a few years down the line. And I don't think they'll manage that trick again.

      "Every comic is someone's first comic" has to be the organising principle of any serial graphic fiction. I know it was something which Jim Shooter used to say all the time as Marvel's EIC, but it strikes me that it's exactly the sort of thing that Stan would have said. Paying attention to the principle needn't mean that stories are slowed by flashbacks, exposition etc etc. As you say, there's a host of ways to help a reader understand what's going on.

      New readers? I don't think many folks at the Big Two are interested in any such thing. Or maybe they are and the powers that be aren't. It'd be interesting to know.

      Delete
    2. Thank you thank you thank you Colin! I've been so sick of hearing the praises of the current Batman run (yes, I know, you are only speaking for #6 specifically) while I've been yelling at anyone who'll listen how much I don't like it.

      I was confident that at end of the day, eventually, I'd hear your opinion and I'd feel like I had some company on this side of the fence (the less than impressed side)

      Issue #7 came out this wednesday- may I spoil something for you?

      *SPOILER*

      You know how at the end of 6 Batman was trapped under ice and about to drown? Or at least that's what the page appeared to be saying, which comes to the same thing for me. Regardless, you wanna know how Batman got out of that? What brilliant maneouver, which prescient Bat-gadget got him out of that one?

      Well, so would I!

      They never show us what happens. He either washed up on show, or someone fished him out or... I don't know, it all happened off screen! Maybe it was the random young girl we see reviving Batman that fished him out... she's pretty small, so how she managed that could be a story in itself. And how did she come to be by the water wherever Batman ended up drifting (I'll have to assume his body ended up by the harbor front, unless this girl is a spelunker and happened upon him in an underground river...)-- we don't know!!

      This is seriously driving me crazy, and though this is the most egregious example of letting Batman off the hook for the various dangerous situations he finds himself in without letting him be Batman to get out of it, there's also the random gargoyle Bruce Wayne landed on after falling from Wayne Tower in the one issue, and THEN there's the explosion that appears to kill Batman in #4 (I think) but then at the beginning of #5 we get this great narration about how explosions aren't that big a deal, so Batman's fine.

      Okay, I'm simplifying that narration drastically, but the point is- WHOA, how is Batman going to get out of this? Oh, he's just going to be fine, he doesn't even need to do anything, great for him, I guess.

      Only seven issues, and I can already cite those three examples of Batman just, to borrow from another poster here, being "magic".

      It burns me up.

      On the other hand, I've been quite impressed with Kyle Higgins and company with their work on Nightwing. I'm a little disappointed that with this current issue it turns out that the adventure is intricately tied into the current Batman stuff, but until that point it was a great tale that you could sit back and enjoy separate from any other books, told in a style that for me harkens back to some of my earliest/favourite comics.

      And I've rambled on long enough- thanks again for gathering some dissenting voices Colin!

      Delete
    3. Hello Isaac:- It’s good to hear from you again, and I’m glad there’s been a contrarian position on show here that you can feel some sympathy for. Just as folks who love those Batman issues will find it hard to grasp the objections to them, it’s tough for those who don’t to understand their fervour. In the end, comics, like any work of craft, comes down to opinion, and yet I’m baffled that the points raised in the above can’t at the least register with a broader number of folks.

      I can understand why the problems you raise in Batman #7 wind you up. They would me too. Unless there’s a specific narrative purpose for such unexplained matters, the story’s screwed up. And in a single-issue context, it sounds like Mr S simply doesn’t care to explain. In fact, it’s starting to drive me crazy and I’m only responding to your summary of events. It’s not just that the story in itself has skipped several key beats, it’s that the previous issue’s cliffhanger has been entirely ignored. AND THEN IT WAS ALL A DREAM at least has the virtue of being an explanation of sorts.

      “This is seriously driving me crazy, and though this is the most egregious example of letting Batman off the hook for the various dangerous situations he finds himself in without letting him be Batman to get out of it, there's also the random gargoyle Bruce Wayne landed on after falling from Wayne Tower in the one issue, and THEN there's the explosion that appears to kill Batman in #4 (I think) but then at the beginning of #5 we get this great narration about how explosions aren't that big a deal, so Batman's fine.”

      OK … that doesn’t sound good, but it does sound as if Mr Snyder’s work is consistent on an issue-to-issue basis, which makes the issues I was concerned about in #6 less mysterious. If it’s his style, then that does make more sense. He obviously doesn’t care about sense so much as the spectacular. I’m sure it’s more fun to write these stories in a plot-light, incident-heavy way, and it might even feel modern and cutting edge, but in the end, all there is is craft. It can be messed with, improvised with, but it can’t be ignored. A story without the key beats of a story isn’t a story; it’s an experience, and can be splendid for it. But it’s not going to be a popular experience, it’s going to be a niche one. And even at 100 000 sales an issue, Batman’s currently a niche experience.

      “Okay, I'm simplifying that narration drastically, but the point is- WHOA, how is Batman going to get out of this? Oh, he's just going to be fine, he doesn't even need to do anything, great for him, I guess.”

      It’s wish-fulfilment, isn’t it? Nothing’s going to keep us down!!!!! And we can hurt people too.

      “On the other hand, I've been quite impressed with Kyle Higgins and company with their work on Nightwing. I'm a little disappointed that with this current issue it turns out that the adventure is intricately tied into the current Batman stuff, but until that point it was a great tale that you could sit back and enjoy separate from any other books, told in a style that for me harkens back to some of my earliest/favourite comics.”

      I shall pick up the next Nightwing issue which appears :) Thank you for the nudge.

      “And I've rambled on long enough- thanks again for gathering some dissenting voices Colin!”

      And everyone – for or against – has been civil and put forward entirely reasonable arguments. Who says that the blogosphere’s a place where civility collapses into point-scoring?

      Delete
  12. Collin,

    I have been thinking, check that, obsessing, over your review of Batman #6. I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I wrote a (fairly) positive review of Batman #6 on my blog, http://interestedinsophisticatedfun.blogspot.com/ I'm not embarrassed to say that I liked #6, I'm embarrassed to say that I let Snyder et.al. off the hook, even though I knew something was off. When Batman goes all atavistic and grows to the size of a skyscraper I wrote: "Whose perception is this? The 'court of owls,' 'Talon,' who?" You cut all my mealy-mouthed treacle by simple stating that Batman’s growth spurt and his change in appearance from panel to panel "makes no sense." Thank you. Your essay has also made me think, what do I, as an unpaid, unaffiliated blogger, owe to comics creators? One can post anything one wants, be as contrarian as one wants (positive or negative), but if no one reads it, is it relevant? It’s honest and maybe that is enough. Maybe, that’s all there is, all there needs to be.

    I like this Batman series. Now, I haven't read 'Batman' for 25 years -- the last Batman comic I read was 'The Dark Knight Returns' and 'Batman: Year One.' However, the more praise I read of Snyder, the more skeptical I am of his talents. No one is this good, right? Batman’s New 52 incarnation is not 'ground-breaking,' but it is clever. My praise of the series is that at least it is trying to do something new. Where, I think, Snyder falls down is that Snyder is on a ‘fool’s errand.’ There are no 'stakes' in a Batman comic, never have been, never will be. Batman may not be superhuman, a 'Superman,' but 'Batman' the property is indestructible. Nothing can happen to that dude. So, in a way, I feel sorry for Scott Snyder. He's boxed in, his grand design for Batman is to 'change Batman's world,' to show him that he doesn't know Gotham as well as he thinks he does. So what? Is Snyder’s endgame to create a humbler Batman? Maybe ... but he's still Batman what's really going to change? When it comes to comic book superheroes it really is a case of, ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same.’ Which is O.K, right? Collin, thank you for reminding me, ‘to thine own self be true;’ especially when it comes to a five-thousand-pound-twenty-story-tall-Batman-with-fangs.’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Kevin:- There's absolutely no reason, of course, why we can't enjoy an issue and yet recognise failings in the way it works. I think the blogosphere, and the culture, does tend to take an either/other stance when it comes to criticism. I certainly find myself feeling wretched when I criticise anyone's work, and I really do mean that. The temptation is to stay focused on work I love. Not because what I say counts, but because it still feels wrong to speak out in any public forum about another's work when I've less than zero qualifications for the "job". Balanced against that is both self-interest - I benefit from blogging in a great many ways - and the sense that if there is a great Babel of opinion, there's no harm in pushing an opinion that reflects sincerely held beliefs. I see your point about whether anyone reads what gets written, and I agree with your conclusion about that issue. If the process is as honest as it can be, if the opinions expressed are backed up with clear examples and transparent reasoning, and if the blogger is always ready to admit they're both entirely fallable and ready to recant when mistaken; well, then I think the whole business is an honest one. But then, given there have been a fair few people over the past few years who seem to have been both profundly bored and annoyed by what I've written, I have to admit that my own opinion of what good intentions are might not count for much.

      That's a fascinating business which you present about the constraints Mr Snyder is working within. From what I've read, I'd draw a distinction between his smarts and his ambitions, and his craftmanship. The first two qualities are admirable, and the narrative superstructure which he's put in place is fascinating. To make Batman less of an all-knowing over-man, and to make Gotham far more scary, is a laudable project. But for me, Synder's craft doesn't match his ambition. As you say, issue #6 has considerable problems with transmitting the author's intentions; some of that might be a problem with the art, but there's no expositionary dialogue anywhere to ensure the story's transparency. And stabbing Batman through doesn't raise the stakes, it undermines the sense of jeopardy because it destroys the non-committed reader's ability to buy into the conflicts we see.

      I see your point about super-books being caught in a form of statis, but I think that's where the craft pays off. If Snyder wants me to believe that Gotham is an even more dangerous place on anything other than an abstract that's-a-good-idea level, he has to make Batman more rather than less vulnerable. No point making the baddies worse if the goodies become yet more impervious to harm. (How long is Batman shown being out of action in #7? I'd like to think 6 to 9 months at the very laughable least? I don't know the answer, but I wonder; is Snyder introducing aspects of gory jeopardy and yet retaining an entirely unconvincing way of telling stories/ If so, he's short-changing his positive changes with narrative indulgence, with sensationalism.)
      cont

      Delete
    2. cont

      I very much appreciated reading of your admiration for the series. I want to be challenged, to find out how subjective and therefore daft my opinions are. Or at least I do when the debate is civil and informed, as I'm grateful to say this is. But it is odd, isn't it, how hard it is to remember to express doubt as well as liking for a work which we think well of. When I'm writing about a creator I admire, or a comic I've enjoyed, I really do struggle. I'm relieved to know that other bloggers find themselves wondering about how to express what they really think and feel, to themselves as well as to others. If for no other reason, I suspect blogging is worthwhile because it forces the blogger to consider such things. I know that runs of risk of me sounding precious, and yet, conversation out here in the real world tends to be sound-bite-heavy and partisan. Blogging, which is so often defined as being about ill-informed, knee-jerk reactions, can actually be a really productive way to come to terms with less mutton-headed of thinking.

      At least, I hope that's what's going to happen for me :)

      Delete
    3. Collin,

      I want to ruminate on your response a little bit more -- paying special attention to what you've said about the 'role of the blogger' in comic book criticism and the extremely fine line between being a sycophant and a 'Boswell' (if you catch my meaning).

      Six to nine months!?!? Dr. Smith, I question your diagnosis. This is 'the Batman' we're talking about; after weeks of torture, starvation, drugging and pierced through with sharp implements ... perish the thought! To wit: Alfred says (I'm paraphrasing here) 'Sir, you must rest!' Bruce (cowless) says, (again, paraphrasing) I'll sleep when I'm dead' [on second thought, that may be Warren Zevon], but the intent is the same. The point here is that after everything that unfolded in issues #4, #5 and #6 (beatings, stabbings, drubbings and druggings) Batman returns to the Batcave and doesn't miss a beat ... he doesn't freaking stop, not once, not ever! No rest for the caped crusader I guess. Also, while I've got my dander up, #7 is mostly a chat-fest (between Bruce and Dick), lots of exposition, secrets are revealed, etc. in which Dick keeps his Nightwing costume on the WHOLE TIME!!! What is this Superfriends!?!?! (I read your first post last night about Batman and Marvin, while brushing up on all things Collin) O.K., so, #7 was a miss, I'm still in on Batman at least for a little while longer, good for DC since it goes to $3.99 next month! Nonetheless, Collin, you've removed the 'scales from my eyes,' you ancient mariner you (yes, I know I'm conflating my Acts with my Romantics). I am a (not at all) sad, and (certianly) a wiser man! Oh, and it's Keith by the way, not Kevin. ;-)

      Delete
    4. Hello Keith;- I do apologise for misnaming you. I have no excuse but an excess of regret. The least I could do is not make such a mistake. Sorry. (:

      But please do ruminate away. I'm endlessly more interested in the comments than the blog itself!

      I think I get the difference you allude to. Boswell was obviously an entirely biased reporter, but he was also a fine writer in his own right and he was offering a unique and valuable lense through which to view his subject. That strikes me, if I have grasped your point, as a pretty good model :)

      I am absolutely determined to check out the TPB of this tale. I've said that to quite a few folks who've urged me to look again both here and on Twitter. It'd be a poor show on my part to do anything else. Yet the information you give here does make it difficult for me to imagine that I'll be able to generate too different an opinion. If I can't take a Batman who can be so seriously beaten and stabbed and still beat up the world, I certainly can't take one which doesn't need to recover from such a sequence of wounds. I understand that others don't feel that way. I grasp it's all subjective. It's just that it feels like a kind of story which I've no interest in. It's macho bloke time, and that's for somebody else.

      It goes to $3.99 next month? Well, that's going to be interesting. And it's an odd decision, to milk the best-selling books. Ah, well, the bean-counters of the Big Two have never put a foot wrong, have there.

      Thank you for visiting the Batman and Marvin post. How strange to think that anyone would pop in there for a second. The same builder as was mentioned there was here at the Splendid Wive's mansions last night dropping off some wood which would have cost him to dispose of. Yes, we discussed our diets, and yes, I thought of Marvin and the three of us discussed what's up. These repititions are quite comforting.

      Thanks for commenting, and in such a generous spirit. I look forward to your next review of the next Batman issue.

      Delete
  13. I liked this series okay until issue 6. It felt like a cut-rate version of Amazing Spider-Man 33; our hero has to find unheard of reserves of strength to defeat an impossible obstacle, and does so by thinking of a relative in distress. Batman, however, goes from half-dead to overdrive in one panel. The triumph felt unearned. Did he even know his ancestor? Certainly not the way Spider-Man knew Aunt May.

    The critical reaction reminds me of getting a meal at a pricy restaurant that isn't as good as you want it to be but you convince yourself is good because it's not fast food.

    On the other hand, have you read the new Flash series? Francis Manapul's art is fantastic, the story is mostly fine, and there's some honest-to-God ambition on display. I bought 1-6 at a discount and enjoyed them more than I thought.

    Scott Smyder's Detective Comics work was better than his current Batman stuff. Although there's some decompressed storytelling at work, Snyder crafted a tense, creepy story that worked for me. It helped that the art was by Jock and another artist (whose name escapes me) with a style that fit the story. I actually recommend it, even if it isn't the 2nd coming of Miller & Mazzuchelli.

    -Mike Loughlin

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Mike;- Well, if you thought the comics before the conclusion were worth your time, then I'm certainly going to make sure to check them out. It's a strange situation; there's such an open debate going on here, with pros and cons being expressed in such good temper, and even though I find myself becoming more and less tempted, I feel sure it's a collection I'll just have to check out.

    I think you express my feelings in a far better way than I did. The Batman's victory IS unearned, isn't it, and the lack of consequences where those wounds are concerned just makes that problem all the more worrying.

    I think the fast food argument is an interesting one too. We comics fans - and I include myself here, of course - do tend to want there to be good super-books, and we do tend to laud whatever is the best available. There are few books today, however, which would always be top-of-the-pile comics. I'd suggest Waid and Co's Daredevil would always be a good book regardless of the era, but beyond that, I'm struggling where the Big Two are concerned. There are good scripts being given to mediocre artists and vice versa, but few examples of both disciplines firing at once.

    I think the art on The Flash is often excellant and regularly innovative. I fear my feeling is that the scripts are mediocre, and in places so under-powered that I felt uncomfortable. Still, I've not read 5 and onwards, so I'll keep an eye out for later issues at an affordable price ..

    Another vote for those Detective issues. How did they pass me by? Again, I'll be keeping my eyes open for the opportunity to act on your kind recommendation ..

    ReplyDelete
  15. I totally understand and sympathize with the logical and causality issues apparently in B#6, but I gotta say, that giant Batman is a cool image. I'd like there to be a reasonable reason for it to exist, and maybe when I read it I will consider it to be so- but I'm glad that that picture exists- it just looks cool!

    I realize that the difference between this and the issue where Batman goes to space with Robin and they fight aliens and he thinks Robin's dead is that that one has some flimsy justification about them being put in a sleep depravation chamber or whatever (and Grant Morrison's 50-year later update). And I guess it would have been easy for Snyder to put in a line justifying it.

    But as someone else said, don't we know what happened? He was on some kind of drug that gave him superhuman strength or size or something, and then it wore off- it's comics! Anything can happen!

    Am I being Rumpish? Probably. Would I feel differently if I actually read the comic and had to deal with confusing storytelling? Again, probably. But those are some cool images, and that's worth something, at least.

    For what it's worth, I did like American Vampire. I don't remember too much of it, but it seemed entertaining, and the storytelling seemed pretty easy to follow. I seem to recall some touching character work, even, though again, being able to recall so little maybe says something less favorable about the comic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Historyman:- I've no beef with that pin-up page, despite wondering whether a whole page needed to be invested in it. (Still, I bet it went for big money on the second hand art market.) It is indeed a cool image. And Batman #6 is full of cool ideas. What it doesn't have for the casual reader is a story. Some readers who've read the whole arc tell me it #6 does make sense in the broader context, some assure me that the whole arc is full of good ideas which make little sense.

      The causal reader has NO idea what's happened, Mr H, and I'm totally confused about how a drug explains what happens even after that's been mentioned here. No-one's mentioned the drug giving him super-powers.

      You're not being Rumpish if you think it's a cool image? In fact, if you like the surface of a book even if it makes no sense, you're just enjoying what you choose to. I'd label that attitude as Rumposity, but who gives a nat's elbow what I think :) Cool work is always of value. Whether it's functional or sensible in the context of an isolated issue is what I was concerned about.

      I SO want to enjoy American Vampire. I really do! But for my money, Snyder is a bloke who creates cool concepts and strings of eye-catching water-cooler moments. What he isn't, so far, is a really good writer. That may be why you can't remember AV in any detail, but then again, it may not be!

      Horses for courses, etc, etc :)

      Delete
  16. Just for the sake of clarification, the drug we've been referring to was in the water from the fountain that was, for the length of time Batman was trapped in that mysterious maze, his only source of water. Though the effects of that drug were never explicitly spelled out, I'd say it was supposed to have a disorienting effect on Batman, and certainly not give him superhuman powers.

    If it's being suggested that the image of the towering Bat-Hulk is merely Batman's drugged out perception of himself, I'd say the Court of Owls got a batch of the least effective fear toxin that Scarecrow has ever made. (To be clear, I'm kidding, there's zero indication that the drug used was taken from the Scarecrow).

    The dialogue in the scene suggests that members of the Court of Owls are seeing this scary vision- are they high on something? Why are they particularly (and suddenly) afraid of this grievously injured Batman? Or is the scared dialogue ALSO a hallucination that Batman is having?

    I have every issue, so if there's some code to understanding this bit, someone forgot to give me my decoder ring!

    I hope it doesn't sound like I'm harping on a small detail, but I'm sorry, this part really does bother me! This part and others!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Isaac;- I don't think that's a small detail at all. I think it's absolutely essential. The key scene in the book is Batman finding the strength to fight off his persecutors. It's given a long lead-in, it has the only scene of an emotion beyond machismo and cruelty preceeding it, and it HAS to make sense in order for the story mean anything other than BATMAN IS REALLY REALLY MANLY. What you say matches - for whatever little worth it might be - my own perception of the scene formed without the knowledge of the drugged fountain water, a lot-point which, as you say, makes no sense no matter its juggled with.

      All the ambition and cleverness connected to Snyder's overall vision for the title doesn't count for anything unless the story both makes sense and makes for compelling reading. "Macho Batman beats up everyone" isn't a story; it's an example of fanboy excess.

      Delete
  17. The experience you are describing in your post has been characteristic of my casual Batman readership over the past few years. I am then left to ask: Am I stupid or is this poor storytelling? My friends assure me neither is true, but I am certainly not drawn to read stories that were previously a source of joy.
    Ah.. I miss Denny O'Neil & Jim Aparo...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Brett:- I find myself think exactly the same thing, and there's always a sense that the Emperor's New Clothes are loaded with meaning and virtue while any alternative visions are old fashioned if not entirely redundant. I don't believe that's so. I can recall lots of times in comics history when we were supposed to swallow the rubbish that the company's were serving us as new and forward looking and terrific. Most of the 90s works as an example of that process. The joy IS being leeched from the sub-genre's books, or at least it is if you don't want spectacular violence, "shocking" surprises and an irredeemably grim tone.

      But that's just an industry which is largely trying to nail down an audience of adolescent, and adolescent-minded, fan-blokes. The super-book will, hopefully, survive this, as it does the first half of the fifties, the late Seventies, and the entire Nineties.

      I too miss knowing that craftsfolks such as O'Neil and Aparo were at work. I had the chance and privilege to express my respect to Alan Brennert earlier this year for his Batman tales. I'd love to see just one Batman title today which could match the excellence of Mr Brennert's tales of Mr Wayne and his mysterious costumed activities.

      Delete