The creative team behind The Laughing Fish wanted us to have
to work to focus on the figure of The Batman on the splash page of 1978's Detective Comics #475. The whole
composition of this spectacular, complex, and yet subtly disorientating full page shot is
designed to constantly tug the reader’s gaze away from the sight of the Dark Knight. Where we might expect The Batman to serve as the focal point of the shot, here's he's been pushed by Marshall Rogers and Terry Austin up into the top right of the frame, where he seems to have only just intruded into the scene. In a page that's layered with meticulously detailed aspects of Gotham's skyline as seen from street level, there's a great deal other than the man in the super-suit that's been placed to catch the eye and hold the attention. Up there, at the periphery of our vision, The Batman seems almost irrelevant where both the city and the on-coming storm are concerned, a distinctly human presence in what's quite rightly being made to seem an unlikely and surprising situation.
After all, folks simply don't dress up in costumes and lean out across the rooftops of buildings as if they're considering leaping into the air. If they're shown doing so, it should all seem to be the remarkable business it is.
After all, folks simply don't dress up in costumes and lean out across the rooftops of buildings as if they're considering leaping into the air. If they're shown doing so, it should all seem to be the remarkable business it is.
It's an impression that's intensified as the eye is dragged horizontally away from the superhero by Ben Oda's captions. His text boxes carry the reader downwards, hugging the left-hand side of the page until they take a right turning at the base of the side. That results in the captions, the logo, the Bob Kane credit box and the title all serving in combination as the two legs of a right triangle, the hypotenuse of which is suggested by the lightning bolt at the top of the page. Everything within that triangular arrangement demands our attention, while all that's excluded from it seems to exist far above our heads and on the edge of our sight. It's an arrangement which creates a tension between the human interest in the scene and the eye-directing design elements on the page, and it creates the impression that we're struggling to see this Batman as he goes about his perilous business far, far above the heads of everyday folks.
Only when the reader has been guided all the way round to the bottom-right corner does the positioning of the credit box offer the option of either an undisturbed journey upwards towards Bruce Wayne, or an exit in the direction of the next page. Yet even then, there's a sense in which the reader is being asked to work in order to travel the empty distance of brick work of windows upwards towards the crime-fighter's thought bubbles.
The Batman's world, it seems, is one that's very much divorced from ours.
At each step of the eye's journey down to the title line of The Laughing Fish, specific aspects of the design carry our attention briefly in the direction of the costumed crimefighter before others immediately drag it away again. The hotel flag bearing the label of Gotham City points vaguely towards Bruce Wayne, but its billowing fabric simultaneously works in combination with the direction of the lightning bolt to push us towards the second and third captions instead. Similarly, the Batman's silhouette placed under the focal point of the yellow text box suggests that we ought to be returning to his figure again, but the tilting vertical lines of the building upon which it's projected haul the eye away rather than towards the superhero. Wherever we look, we're presented with the competing attractions of the modern city, with an overwhelming mash-up of buildings representing the ambitions and compromises of a host of different periods. All of this sends the eye flitting briefly upwards and then back down again to what counter-intuitively feels like more pressing matters. In doing so, what all concerned achieve is the impression that The Batman's a sight unexpectedly glimpsed out of the corner of the eye. What we might otherwise take for granted here becomes a remarkable and somehow unexpected event which only a citizen's craned neck can help catch sight of.
The sight of a superhero on a rooftop is here taken out of its familiar, spectacle-draining, interest-neutering context, and suddenly, the very fact that a man in a costume is standing on the edge of a three story building becomes surprising and compelling.
How did he get up there? What's he doing? Doesn't he realise that that's dangerous? How can he possibly hope to leap from there and survive?
The sight of a superhero on a rooftop is here taken out of its familiar, spectacle-draining, interest-neutering context, and suddenly, the very fact that a man in a costume is standing on the edge of a three story building becomes surprising and compelling.
How did he get up there? What's he doing? Doesn't he realise that that's dangerous? How can he possibly hope to leap from there and survive?
When the reader does finally focus on the title-character himself rather the design and the distracting details of the shot, what's remarkable is how purposeful and yet vulnerable he appears. Confident and calculating, yes, but hardly the kind of frame-commanding indomitable hero that's even now typical in the super-book. This is a particularly human Batman, weighing up how he's going to travel across the not-inconsiderable challenges posed by the canyons and sheer-faced peaks of Gotham's vertiginous skyline. The artists have ingeniously played with the perspective and the framing of the scene, intensifying the sense of a subtly bewildering world. Everything here is made to tilt to one side, but our sense of how odd and perplexing this apparently typical city is is increased by the fact that the block upon which The Batman stands is apparently inclining far less to the right than its fellows. The buildings at the left of the frame seem almost to be lurching inwards, while the skyscrapers which serves as the spine running down the page from top to base feel as if they're straining not to tip any further in the same direction. Even when the eye does rest on The Batman, the effect of the guilefully. subtly addled world behind him creates a sense of intimidation and anxiety.
Matched with that is the wonderful evocation of the threat of the early evening's weather, of the storm which, as Englehart's script tells us, "refuses to break". The layers of dark, storm-bearing clouds, the flags and cape cracking in the wind, the electricity beginning to fork through the atmosphere. The more we stare at this page, the more the situation suggests a night when sane folks pull up their coat collars and head for the shelter of home as fast as possible. And yet, there's the Dark Knight, calculating how to thrust himself in a situation which we'd been more than simply keen to avoid.
Where the city-crossing superhero is usually presented in action as if leaping across streets and from building to building is no real challenge at all, here it's the perplexing and intimidating demands of all that block-hopping that are accentuated. Where the city is typically shown as a set of buildings blocks serving as a game-players board for super-heroes to bounce impressively around, here it's the most complex of systems, and that restores to the superhero comic the suggestion that super-people on roof-tops is in itself a remarkable business.
And that The Batman preparing to leap from one of those is a conspicuously beguiling event.
Matched with that is the wonderful evocation of the threat of the early evening's weather, of the storm which, as Englehart's script tells us, "refuses to break". The layers of dark, storm-bearing clouds, the flags and cape cracking in the wind, the electricity beginning to fork through the atmosphere. The more we stare at this page, the more the situation suggests a night when sane folks pull up their coat collars and head for the shelter of home as fast as possible. And yet, there's the Dark Knight, calculating how to thrust himself in a situation which we'd been more than simply keen to avoid.
Where the city-crossing superhero is usually presented in action as if leaping across streets and from building to building is no real challenge at all, here it's the perplexing and intimidating demands of all that block-hopping that are accentuated. Where the city is typically shown as a set of buildings blocks serving as a game-players board for super-heroes to bounce impressively around, here it's the most complex of systems, and that restores to the superhero comic the suggestion that super-people on roof-tops is in itself a remarkable business.
And that The Batman preparing to leap from one of those is a conspicuously beguiling event.
There's absolutely nothing that's wasted or irrelevant in Rogers and Austin's work here. The Laughing Fish is a tale in which we find Wayne hesitating on the edge of a potentially life-transforming decision, caught as he is between the desire to retain his secret identity and his adoration of Silver St Cloud, whose home he'll soon be swinging towards. The decision to begin this story with The Batman preparing to leap against the direction in which such a scene is typically read leaves the character seemingly faced by a strangely disturbing challenge. The figure on the page who throws themselves into space while being shown moving from left to right is carried forward with the direction of the reader's gaze. Yet the Batman is here caught before any action occurs, and if and when he does swing over the abyss, he'll be moving in a direction which moves contrary to how we read. This suggests not speed but struggle, not achievement but conflict. We can't see where he's headed and we can't feel that he'll find it easy to achieve his way there, although we are made extremely aware of the fact that there's a long way for the character to fall so he screw up.
All of which seems to describe Bruce Wayne's personal dilemmas every bit as much as suggesting the physical challenges immediately before him.
By emphasising the intimidating scale of Gotham in relation to that of this transparently human Batman, Rogers and Austin also suggest how impossible the character's stewardship of the city is. Similarly, the huge, imposing shadow of the Darknight Detective contrasts tellingly with the reality of the man in the longjohns standing on the precipice of a roof as a storm sweeps in. As those who've read Englehart's famous 1977/8 run of stories in Detective Comics will know, the writer was determined to establish that The Batman is ultimately very much a human being rather than an unassailable force of nature. (Indeed, the Joker is defeated by chance at the tale's end rather through Wayne's efforts.) That contrast between the myth of The Bat and the reality of The Batman, between the glory associated with the role and the appalling costs of assuming it, is made subtly and fascinatingly obvious here.
Finally, there's that oncoming storm. It's a classic application of the pathetic fallacy, reflecting how Bruce Wayne's life is suddenly beginning to tumble catastrophically out of his control. It's a conceit which will also serve as a spectacular backdrop and purposeful deus ex machina for the run's closing battle with the Joker, while its effects as it closes and breaks will be used to drive various members of the cast towards their individual fates.
Finally, there's that oncoming storm. It's a classic application of the pathetic fallacy, reflecting how Bruce Wayne's life is suddenly beginning to tumble catastrophically out of his control. It's a conceit which will also serve as a spectacular backdrop and purposeful deus ex machina for the run's closing battle with the Joker, while its effects as it closes and breaks will be used to drive various members of the cast towards their individual fates.
The splash page of The Laughing Fish might at first appear to have a great deal in common with today's sell-it-on-the-secondary-market pin-up shots of superheroes posing before obsessively detailed cityscapes. As such, it could be argued that Rogers and Austin's curtain-opener is a proto-widescreen waste of a side, all right-angles and rendering and very little storytelling at all. Yet here the wonderfully contrived, real-world-evoking architecture suggests a battlefield that's far more dangerous and involving than the Blade Runner cliches which typically serve as the backdrop for fars too many of 2012's comic-book money-shots. There's also an exquisite attention paid by all concerned here to the specific markers of the time of day and the weather which few contemporary comics show any concern for at all beyond the broadest of gestures. In taking such care and mustering such an imaginative control of their craft, the creators show us a superhero who will have to struggle with all his might, ingenuity and experience in order to cope with the urban battlefield before him. This isn't a undefeatable superhero presented as lord of all they survey, destined to beat down all that's thrown against them. It's certainly not a member of the cape'n'chest-insignia brigade who could conceivably shake off a sword through the guts or survive the trauma of a shattered spine. Instead, Englehart, Rogers, Austin and Oda present us from the off with a Batman where the accent's upon "man" rather than "machismo". In that, he's a superhero made all the more estimable because of how hard he has to struggle to survive, and all the more sympathetic for his inability to rise entirely above his fate.


Oh wonderful - very happy to see you discuss this era of the Bat Colin. Engelhart's Dark Detective run is my favourite interpretation of the character. I was actually just talking to a mate the other day about this book. I have always found the one-note version of Batman as a spirit of vengeance problematic.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind creators sometimes forget that just before the death of his parents, Bruce was watching a Zorro film. Therefore, for me, his costumed identity is also intended to represent his childhood love of adventure and swashbuckling - and Englehart understood that quite well, with Batman contending with compelling villains, while at the same time displaying a rare sweet romance with St. Cloud.
Hello Emmet:- I think it's my favourite period too, or at least, equal favorite with the O'Neil/Adams issues and Year One. All of those present a Batman who KNOWS that he's playing a role. Not, therefore, that spirit of vengeance tosh.
DeleteAnd I'm absolutely with on the Zorro issue. Bruce's super-identity has much of that tache-twirling-zest bled out of it by the trauma of his parent's loss, and yet there's still that child's sense of how the world might be made a better place in the Batman as a front for a crime-fighting mission.
But turn the Batman from a front to the character and everything becomes grim and unappealing to me too. I certainly can't see the admirable Ms St. Cloud falling for such self-pitying machismo.
"All of those present a Batman who KNOWS that he's playing a role."
DeleteOn this bit, I drift towards the Nolan universe, where he Knows Batman’s a role but rather than play which means it’s artifice, Bruce channels a real place. (Ignore the voice in the second film.) He may not be the spirit of vengeance (I too hate when Batman is relegated to something that he sets himself to be more than) but rather than takes that would have Bruce or Batman as masks of each other, both are the same man. I think it becomes an unappealing take because writers don’t understand this isn’t a Batman who has to be Batman, but chooses to be. You lose that, and of course there is no appeal, you’re watching the adventures of a man enslaved to his pretensions.
--- Niles Day
Hello Niles:- You've just managed to do something which no-one else has, which is make me want to go back and watch the first Nolan Bat-movie again. I might even finish the second one, which I just couldn't wade through.
DeleteI know, I know, it's a big hole in my little-league-blogger CV. Still, time to put that right .... :)
Hi Colin,
ReplyDeleteThat page is amazing isn't it? Incredibly evocative, and I loved your careful parsing of each element of the artwork and also of how the artwork, caption placement and dialogue work together.
Adding extra poignancy to the scene is how much it shows up the opening page from the KISS comic in your previous post. So much craft that was taken for granted in the 70s...and now 40 years it appears that very few US superhero artists today have learned from it.
I've not ever read the Englehart Batman run - of what I have read, my own favorite Batman comics would have to be the Grant/Breyfogle run. How does Englehart and Rogers' work compare to that?
Anyhows, keep up the good work, and have an enjoyable week.
Hello there:- thank you for the generous words. I agree entirely that such books simply haven't been studied enough, simply don't serve as influences upon nearly enough of the comics out there. It seems as absurd as it is tragic, that the sub-genre should have such examples of excellence and yet they're more-often-than-not ignored. The pathetic thinness of so much of today's artwork reflects either an ignorance of what, for example, Rogers and Austin achieved or an inexplicable disinterest in learning from it. Boo! for those who don't want to look back, Huzzah! for those who do.
DeleteI too enjoyed the Grant/Brefogle run. If you found a great deal of value there, you'll find in the Detective run of Englehart/Rogers/Austin. It is still a 70s comic, so there are thought balloons, re-caps and other stylistic tics from the period present on the page. But compensate for those, and that's not hard to do, and the stories are brilliant. What's more, the team's efforts become better and better. The first few chapters are somewhat rough-edged and typical of the period, but as the run continues, it develops into something quite brilliant. I'd say the tales collected in the Shadow Of The Bat collection are amongst the very best that the character has ever been gifted with.
I trust that the morning finds you well :)
My favorite pos so far.You sir, have touched the right chords... i have quite good memories from these bat-comics from the 70's that i've hunted down in my childhood.
ReplyDeleteYou've just made this Monday start better.
Hello Thomaz:- Thank you! On the whole, these sort of posts don't tend to be particularly popular where the Statcounter is concerned, but they're really useful for me. Staring at a page of a comic book might not end up with my understanding what's actually going on there, but it always suggests ways in which art might be both put to use and thought about.
DeleteAnd one way to make sure that incredibly familiar, well-loved pages stay fresh and exciting is to try to peer at them from previously unconsidered angles.
Dear Colin,
DeleteAll due respect, fuck the Statcounter :). This is the kind of stuff I come to your blog for. I mean, I also come to your blog for ethical quandries, torture discussions, etc*, but this nuts-and-bolts, trying-to-figure-out-why-a-page-works thing is so valuable.
In this post, you're justifying all the things you've said about how disappointing the modern comics are, by indicating definitively that it's possible to do incredibly better, just by putting some thought into it.
I did want to note that, although I realize the intention of your line about Batman's back being broken, the actual Knightfall storyline itself also was designed to emphasize his humanity and frailty. He starts the story with some kind of illness, cold or flu, and continues to get worse and worse and worse, and you can feel how much it hurts for him to, for instance, rescue the mayor from the sewer pipes (prompting the mayor to marvel, "he just doesn't stop!").
Anyway, I love these posts, and I don't want you to feel insecure about your statcounter results on these posts: they're the heart and soul of TooBusy, at least as far as I'm concerned.
* I just saw the Crucible: excellent movie, and a really nice illustration of the dangers of Torture - the fact that you're throwing rocks upon an old man to get him to confess the name of someone who can exonerate someone from witchcraft doesn't make you a bold hero, unafraid to get your hands dirty in the search for justice, it makes you a state-sanctioned monster.
Hello Historyman:- Ah, the tyranny of Statcounter :) I really don't blog to keep it turning. The truth is, I don't know how to do that and not seem like a terrible human being! For example, there were 500 people in last week for an old Thor piece from last November which very few folks dropped into at the time. Now, who could organise that? Similarly, the two pieces which have brought in thousands of readers in the past few months - on Wonder Woman #7 and the Spider-Toture issue - were posts I was sure would stiff. The truth is, I have no idea how to push 20 000 hits a month to even 21 000. I'd quite like to know. But short of "gutter press" tactics, such as faking outrage I don't feel, or attacking creators rather than criticising their work, I have no idea what to do.
DeleteMy theory for widening the blog's readership is based on the tenuous prospect of my learning to write a bit better.
My feeling about Knightfall is different to yours, but I hasten to say that I haven't read it in a long time. The plot required Batman to behave stupidly, which took him away from the bright, clever figure of Englehart's work and reduced him to a standard-issue super-hero, a fighter rather than a thinker. "My" Batman would have recognised his limits, called in his friends from all across the law enforcement and superhero community, and found a way to think himself through the situation. I know that that places a ridiculous strain on a creative team, and I don't mean that Knightfall didn't have much to commend it. But Knightfall was Batman as force of nature rather than smart, sharp, in-charge human being. Horses for courses, I know, and I will, yes, somewhere around 2018 - :) - take another look at Knightfall.
You do point an important issue; in both Knightfall and the recent Owls story, the Batman was indeed purposefully messed up before he underwent the physical trials dished out to him. The creators did strive to give reasons why The Batman wasn't thinking as he normally would. Fair deal. I'll go back to the above piece and see if I can't be more accurate about the principle I'm trying to express.
Thank you for the challenge - :) - and for the kind words. And The Crucible? Gawd-like genius!
Hello Historyman:- I've gone back and tightened up my point about Batman and the "human" aspect of Englehart's take on the character. It may not make the sense I intended, but regardless, I appreciate you making the point you did :)
Delete"My feeling about Knightfall is different to yours, but I hasten to say that I haven't read it in a long time. The plot required Batman to behave stupidly, which took him away from the bright, clever figure of Englehart's work and reduced him to a standard-issue super-hero, a fighter rather than a thinker. "My" Batman would have recognised his limits, called in his friends from all across the law enforcement and superhero community, and found a way to think himself through the situation. I know that that places a ridiculous strain on a creative team, and I don't mean that Knightfall didn't have much to commend it. But Knightfall was Batman as force of nature rather than smart, sharp, in-charge human being. Horses for courses, I know, and I will, yes, somewhere around 2018 - :) - take another look at Knightfall."
DeleteBut these forces aren’t necessarily incompatible. You can’t have Batman as force of nature without him being the brilliant meticulous and yet fallible man. Again, another feature which the Nolan franchise excels in demonstrating—the Batman as a beast in terms of maintaining the idea of him as larger than life, but that it takes work, superheroic work, that is always challenged in ways that he can’t always anticipate.
As for the veil between the stories that isolate a character from the world that is available to them (the Justice League, the Outsiders, the Justice Society, etc., etc.), when you say Batman neglects the obvious options that would help bring Knightfall to a screeching halt, I think there’s an unspoken agreement between each comix run and the audience as to whether or not the story is playing with the entirety of DC or a Gotham that somehow has an impenetrable wall surrounding it. It may be contrived and makes for more muddle than not, but that’s the way I’ve been able to overlook the obvious inconsistencies. I hope that's not one reply too many. Again, thanx for the powerhouse post.
--- Niles Day
Hello Niles:- I hope it's always a given that I know that what I'm saying when it comes to chewing over comics is opinion and nothing else. By which I mean, I fully concede that individual readers bring their own world-view to a comic such as Knightfall :) I'm incredibly aware that my own taste in what is and isn't believable is exactly that; a peculiar, subjective position which I can't defend, but only explain. I struggled with the Batman stories edited by Denny O'Neil because I could disassociate Gotham and the rest of the DCU, but I'd never suggest that what I tripped over should trip over anyone else. I think - and here you got me thinking about why I found that whole period so difficult - that what I struggled with was the lack of an effort to plot the stories out of trouble. In, for example, John Ostrander's Suicide Squad or Gail Simone's Secret Six, continuity was always engaged with rather than being held at arm's length. It's not that I'm a continuity freak at all. I've no time for it as a motor for plots, and I hope that's obvious! I just opt for the approach which views continuity as a game of respect and dare. If there's a great big Cyberman terrorizing Victorian London in a Doctor Who Christmas special, then there needs to be an explanation as to why the 20th and 21st century don't recall that. It shouldn't be more than a line or two, it certainly shouldn't spark another story designed to do nothing but sorting out old plot incompatibilities. (Of course, the giant Cyberman problem got covered in a later sentence as part of a different story, and that was cool as could be.) I felt that the O'Neil-led Batman tales, and those which followed in a Gotham-centric fashion - tended to avoid that challenge. I was entirely unconvinced a few years later by the explanation for why America's more civic-minded super-humans were largely absent from Gotham when it was cut loose from the USA. I was unconvinced by the cutting loose, I was unconvinced by the lack of civic duty on the part of the super-human community. A smart few lines, a sharp sub-plot or two; all could have been resolved.
DeleteThe congestion of a huge shared superhero universe is a nightmare. Yet strangely enough - and it's only really clicked here because of your point - my favourite writers are usually those who find a way of turning those constraints respectfully into positives. Cornell, Gaiman, Simone, Gillen, Gerber ... I could go on and on, and I do!
Of course, it's just a matter of opinion. I hope I haven't implied anything else :)
Detective Comics #475 is one of my candidates for best issue of Detective ever! That the Englehart/Rogers/Austin didn't stay together for three or four years (at least!) of Batman is one of the great tragedies of the 1970s comic book era! I think you could take every single page and write just as much about it as you did for the splash.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, I like #475 so much, it was one of the first comics I wrote about when I started the "Batman Friday" feature on my blog. (Which is here if anyone wants to see it.)
Did anyone notice that Detective #475 was hanging on the wall in the background in one of the scenes in the movie "Super 8"? That was pretty neat.
P.S. Another Trevor von Eeden sighting! I just got Detective Comics #507 and there's a four-page Batman back-up feature drawn by von Eeden, written by Bob Rozakis and inked by Steve Mitchell.
Hello Hoosier X:- Part of the reason why that Detective Comics run was so fine, or so it seems, was the fact that it was Englehart's intended farewell to comics. In a sense, if he hadn't been thinking he was going to say all that he wanted to in a intense form, we might not have had those wonderful issues at all. Yet, for all of that, I can't help but agree with you. Another four years sounds like a wonderful prospect.
DeleteThanks for the link. There can't be too much respect for those issues in my book.
I've just seen Super-8, long after just everyone else in the world. Now I've an excuse to watch it again.
Thanks for the post, Colin. The effect of the "ordinary" super hero moment emphasized to the extraordinary is a good one. You made a similar point in regards to a few panels of the Ditko Spider-Man a while back that has stuck with me ever since, and I'm glad to have another reminder here.
ReplyDeleteAlong a similar vein, though with the entirely opposite effect, last night I sat down to watch the Batman: Year One movie, a story that, in it's original form is very good at showcasing just how much work is involved in bringing a costumed do-gooder to life ("amateur. lucky amateur.")- not to say that the movie fails to do that as well, as it is incredibly faithful to the source material, buuuuut the scene at the end, when Gordon's infant son is kidnapped, Gordon is in hot pursuit on Wayne's motorcycle, and Wayne himself has to get after the lot of them, well, the leaps (both physical and of logic) Wayne had to make to follow them actually made me laugh out loud at how impossible they were.
Wayne leaps to the top of a building, from truck to flagpost (where would the super hero be without flagposts?) to something to roof, okay, fair enough- though still, those leaps are quite impossible- now how does he get down, I asked myself as he ran along the rooftops towards the bad guys.
Simple, he leaps down, across the first lane of traffic, to the top of a speeding truck!
After the truck turns off and Wayne has reached the bridge only a bit behind Gordon, Wayne proceeds to run up the arch of the bridge, high into the sky. "No way," I say, "there's no way he'd be able to run up that bridge in time to help Gordon, that'd take forever!"
The moral of the story is, if the world on display is more "real", then be careful with what you do that breaks reality, lest you go too far and the audience can no longer accept what's going on. Not that this is any great shocker of a revelation.
Hello Isaac:- Thank you :) I suppose I really do prefer there to be a range of heroic types, including those who like the original Batman were a role model of a sort. The old myth was always that a reader couldn't ever be Superman, since Kal-El's what he is in terms of power because of the luck - and the ill-luck - of his birth. But Batman was an ideal which kids could turn towards. Of course, no one can ever struggle hard enough to become the Dark Knight, but the dream is always there. But the Batman as a spirit of vengeance/bat-totem/indomitable hero? It makes it hard to associate with the character.
DeleteBut your point is ABSOLUTELY right. The trick is to create a world which seems real without ever allowing it to operate as our "real" world does. The very idea of a man being do anything in that cape is already ridiculous, and that's long before all that leaping across town is concerned.
(But I must admit, yours is one of those not-positive reviews which makes me want to see the film!)
The idea of Batman as a normal human being is, as you argue, every bit as much a fantasy as Brave And The Bold Batman or the Frank Miller Super-Macho Dark Knight. Best not show Bruce Wayne running up the arch of a bridge as you describe then :)
“The artists have ingeniously played with the perspective and the framing of the scene, intensifying the sense of a subtly bewildering world. Everything here is made to tilt to one side, but our sense of how odd and perplexing this apparently typical city is is increased by the fact that the block upon which The Batman stands is apparently inclining far less to the right than its fellows. The buildings at the left of the frame seem almost to be lurching inwards, while the skyscrapers which serves as the spine running down the page from top to base feel as if they're straining not to tip any further in the same direction.
ReplyDelete…
The decision to begin this story with The Batman preparing to leap against the direction in which such a scene is typically read leaves the character seemingly faced by a strangely disturbing challenge. The figure on the page who throws themselves into space while being shown moving from left to right is carried forward with the direction of the reader's gaze. Yet the Batman is here caught before any action occurs, and if and when he does swing over the abyss, he'll be moving in a direction which moves contrary to how we read. This suggests not speed but struggle, not achievement but conflict. We can't see where he's headed and we can't feel that he'll find it easy to achieve his way there, although we are made extremely aware of the fact that there's a long way for the character to fall so he screw up.”
There you go again Sir Smith, embarrasing the lot of us, with distillation par excellence. If you would indulge my two cents on your insights. As you said, the buildings leaning towards Batman, connote not just an uphill battle but a losing one—a flittering bat mechanical in its lust for the eye of the storm, a moth to the flame. Yet, the building he stands on, albeit and gloriously briefly, in being straight to its surrounding buildings’ lean, actually produces one more, dare I say, indelible effect: for all the transience of his movement and physicality, you could argue the Batman’s weight stabilizes the building. That his stance on it has allowed the edifice to see it need not fall to the wayside, that there is a better way to stand. Of course, the cost is, will it fall once he’s gone? Superheroix at its best.
I believe Gotham at its finest, isn’t where the mythical or the super-powered are accepted or necessarily proven, but where it may be; uncertainty is the most anxiety and that needs to be ever present for the truest Batman stories. It’s no mistake he’s the world greatest detective, because mysteries loom at every corner menacing to undo everyone and they assert themselves as the natural Gotham while positing Batman as the aberration; Scott Snyder’s conceptual Black Mirror in effect not necessarily his execution. (This is where my love for The Hatter and The Riddler, again more on a conceptual basis, come into play. Another day of course.) Two recent strong examples of this restless truth to Batman mythos—1) Grant Morrison’s Dr. Hurt aka “The Hole in Things” and 2) one shot in The Dark Knight, where Maroni goes into his car, but an arm is glimpsed incapacitating his goon as the camera pans away. It’s not what you don’t see—Gotham is what you thought you saw.
Last year I misunderstood Greg Rucka. When interviewed by War Rocket Ajax, speaking on the nature of Gotham Central, he said, "Batman is the weather. He's a complication." And yet, I first heard and rather can't forget, "Batman is the weather. He's a convocation."
Is it a mistake that the only reason we see Batman on this page at all, is the very thing threatening the city—the lightning?
continued...
continued...
ReplyDeleteThe rare event where we, Gotham, glimpse The Batman, both terrified of him and terrified for him, because as you elucidated, who would do this?, we myopically ask, as the text boxes plunge down to us—Is it our fault? Is it his? I return to The Dark Knight, when Bruce asks Harvey who appointed the Batman and he answers without hesitation, “We did.” Even the flag's shape in comparison to Batman's cape is shamed—Gotham City's commercial standard wavers, while Batman's is spread, in full bloom, unassailable. (Even the U.S. flag dances for the storm.) And yet, you don’t know…does Batman ascend descending? And you realize you want him to do neither. In the teeming space, as Englehart brilliantly put it, "the muttering," there is no solace.
The only suggestion I conceit is I wish they would've had Batman's shadow, its meagerness which is the highlight of the page, splayed about various buildings, still just as small, rather than relegated to just one. I'll state the obvious—such a choice only enhances the fracture inherent to Batman's mission which is the intention of the page's craft as you pointed out. The fact that his shadow—probably the finest articulation of the power of his bat-signal, as its actually his shadow rather than the contrived one atop GCPD all know (the tension between Batman larger than life vs. Batman, ordinary extraordinaire)—the symbolic for all he's worked to achieve, would only be a stain to these canyons, a stain that couldn't even register on one building let alone a city…such a choice, like the tilt to the page or the texture of the clouds as if they're in reaching distance (and thus all the more terrifying, even conjuring vertigo), reveal a rewarding Gotham, an actual scary moment in an actually scary city and thus why Batman's heroism is awe-inspiring…because it matters. Because he can fall and yet, does not believe Gotham is a losing battle.
Last but not least, there’s the matter of the minnow. An underwater animal of prey depicted as creepy cartoon, swimming in Gotham, smaller than anything else on the page yet, standing above a title that speaks otherwise. Does it laugh that its destiny was to be food? Is it laughing knowing what’s to come? Is the fish well at home, the omniscient narrator, content to be the center of attention so long as no one’s looking? Only if no one’s looking? After all, there comes one after him that is greater than him. Just to subvert my own previous statement—the fish laughs below Batman, while on the same edifice Batman stands on, at his aspirations of stabilization, as conceit, as absurd.
Again, this is why I love your blog, it’s jazz. You take what demands true engagement and go till you drop. It’s only fitting, I follow suit and hopefully, move someone as well.
--- Niles Day
Hello Niles:- Thanks for the kind words. They’re very much appreciated.
Delete“Superheroix at its best.”
I believe so :)
You’ll have to forgive me if I struggle to keep up with your knowledge of recent Bat-books. It’s not that I don’t follow the titles, but I can’t afford to do anything more than drop in and out of them. This month, for example, I took a punt on Batman & Robin and Batgirl. I keep my hand in, but it’s sadly only a hand.
As the likes of O’Neil and Morrison have consistently argued, one of the great advantages of Batman as a character is that he is so adaptable, which allows the kind of debates which you engage with. The Batman as a figure is a debate in himself, and we all pick and choose what we most want to see about the character and his world. And of course the arguments don’t and can’t solve anything, because that’s not their job. What they do is allow us a way to test our own opinions, and to broaden them. As such, I can very much see your point about having The Batman’s shadow appear on more than just a single building. Your argument seems compelling to me. I personally prefer the idea that even the Shadow Of The Batman can only begin to cover a single building in a single section of Gotham’s skyline. It accentuates how even the myth of the Dark Knight is limited in how much it can dominate Gotham.
For me, it’s important to emphasise how the Batman, even with his ever-increasing tribe of helpers, simply can’t control Gotham at all. By this, I don’t mean in the sense that we saw in Knightfall, or even as regards the power of The Council Of Owls. Rather, I mean on the level of how he can touch the lives of the city’s inhabitants. To me – and here we’re back to the matter of personal preferences – the ideal Batman would be reflect the level of politics and complexity which can be found in The Wire, so that it’s the Batman’s inability to do anything more than firefight problems on an incredibly limited degree which is always the point of the story. In that, I can see our preferences strongly over-lap if not coincide. And I agree entirely with you when you suggest that Wayne’s helplessness, his vulnerability, actually serves to highlight his bravery and competence. The city should always dwarf the superhero who’s striving to make a difference there, or it least it should in comics where some form of realism is being played around with. Otherwise the comic-book starts to say some very dubious things about power.
The wonderful thing about the Laughing Fish tavern sign is as you imply the fact that it triggers so many ideas once the reader notes it. I fear that I didn’t for many years. It’s largely hidden at the bottom of the page, a burying of clues to reward the second-time-through reader. Or, in my case, the thirtieth-time-through ….
Thank you for the generous words and for riffing off of the same Englehart/Austin/Rogers melody in your own way. Fingers crossed that, amongst all the other interesting things currently going on with Bats in a variety of mediums, we’ll seem something more of E/A/R’s influence popping up from time to time.
"The ideal Batman would be reflect the level of politics and complexity which can be found in The Wire, so that it’s the Batman’s inability to do anything more than firefight problems on an incredibly limited degree which is always the point of the story."
DeleteSee this is the thing that everyone knows and no one says. You follow the drugs, you get a drug case. You start following the money, you don’t know where you’re going. That’s why they don’t want wired taps or wired CIs, anything else they can’t control. Because once the tape starts rolling, who the hell knows what’s gonna be said. ––– Lt. Cedric Daniels, 1/8: Lessons
The Wire as the level that would accomplish the finest Batman tales, is a level of convergence I've thought of far too often as I love both to no end, and begrudge you for articulating first. Mind you, in spite of owning the entire series, I've only seen the first season (3-4 times) in order to achieve a dissertation of sorts on that season alone as I've found it to be the most compelling, rewarding, and finest piece of film/television work I've experienced. Once done, hopefully sooner than later, I'll be more than unhappy to continue the task that the masters Simon and Burns have distilled not for our pleasure but rather our action. Can you tell my psychology was molded by Batman at just the right time? But in spite of your assessment being on point that our proclivities in this ever-awesome mythos run the same vein, I am replying to disagree with the titular quote.
For all the shenanigans that pop comix are bound to wreak, the confluence of the 90s cartoon, the films, and the comix only culminated coalescing with what I understood about the world around me--the world is wrong and it won't change for the better lest we change it. Yes, everyone’s well within their rights to leave it as just adventure, but at its heart we have a man born into old money, understand that the world is as it is for tangible reasons and that not only is there no other virtuous choice but to rectify it, but that it is possible. Highly improbable, especially with the contentious approach of Batman, but possible. I can’t remember the actual source for the following view, but I’m quite fond of Batman as the optimal man—master thinker, master detective, master spiritualist, master martial artist, master scientist, etc. (Was this taken from Doc Savage?) As such donning the cowl isn’t what Bruce resorts to, it is a culmination of all he’s trained for since youth. But it is only one tool in his utility belt to revolt his city into a self-sustaining place infertile to injustice and home to abundance. I believe where Batman’s mission means more than the rest of the costumed variety, is that especially because of all the power and prowess he’s achieved, he is very aware of his limitations. He has to be. And thus, forming a network (not necessarily of younger disney versions) across the institutions of a city, should be expected; so should keeping himself accountable. The point of many a true Batman story may be his inability to do anything more than firefight, yet this cannot be a mountain that Batman issue-in, issue-out, runs headfirst into everytime expecting a different result. What I believe to be the finest realization of Batman is the visionary rather than the reactionary, and this can only be compelling when you win some, you lose some. Maybe more losses than wins and I don’t mean in the sense of beating or losing to a villain, but the city changing. At the onset, Batman understands what it’s going to take to revolutionize the city and I believe it’s up to the writer to be on Batman’s level in order to understand why he’s confident as to why. Are his reasons legitimate ways in which cities have, should, or could be resuscitated? I know I ask a lot out of pop comix but that’s because it’s there.
continued...
continued...
DeleteI wrote the following in March 2011, encapsulating what I feel about the icon, and the #475 opening definitely bleeds this. I am eager to see whether you see something contentious, problematic, or ideal within:
Most of the world’s governments thrive and have always thrived on economies that churn out the conditions he’s set out to eliminate. If we are to take his premise to heart, that he is indeed a renaissance man, a scholar who’s honed all—spiritual, mental, and physical—in order to resurrect his city into self-autonomy, the trademark self-discipline he is most renown for obviously indicates him as the most self-aware. A man of that capacity understands that criminality thrives on injustice. That severe economic inequality shouldn’t exist when there are enough resources for all and that when pushed to the limit few display integrity, especially when in such an environment, survival is more important. His wealth and its enabling him to make war on crime, makes him even more responsible to understand what his wealth implies upon America. If this man indeed is the most brilliant, descends from wealth, and he intends to wake Gotham, he will learn that his crusade is to change the American way of life, then the world. He is an enemy of the bourgeoisie. The Bat-Signal, that’s a revolution.
Clearly, I’ve put too much thought into all this.
--- Niles Day
Hi Niles:- "Clearly, I’ve put too much thought into all this."
DeleteIf I may say, it’s hard to put too much thought into anything which appears on a blog entitled “Too Busy Thinking About My comics.”
I think you put an entirely convincing case for the Batman being something other than I suggested. As you say, there’s an important fictional tradition of the family of “super-people” or their likes. And it would indeed make sense for a Bruce Wayne to create his own army of super-people. It has tradition and (comics) common sense behind it. Similarly, I could argue with your argument that the Batman should have a mission of sort beyond controlling crime, though it’s not my preference. The only two examples I can think of Batman as a social reformer as The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come. In the first, he ends up a fascist rebel rising against a democratic, if ineffectual and corrupt, regime. In the later, he’s a fascist running an army of super-robots and performing brain-experiments on super-criminals and putting what’s left to work towards his own ends. Neither is my vision of the kind of social mission I’d like to see the Batman engaged with.
But then, I have problems with superheroes with social programmes underway. They never seem to make very much sense. Of course, superheroes don’t anyway …
I wouldn’t disagree with your view of Batman as a man who would understand the various, and complex, theories of criminality. He’s grasp the social as well as the psychological and physiological influences that cause so much trouble. The problem is how he intends to put this information to use. Rebellion leaves the character a fascist. So should we have Batman who funds politicians, takes a far more active part in community affairs, education programmes and so on? And what would be the consequences of such a wealthy and famous man – whether as Wayne or Bats – doing so?
A revolutionary? That would be a fascist Bats. But a democratic Batman? That would sound cool to me.
Look, whoever the Batman is, he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life doing this.
DeleteHow could he? ––– Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight
I agree with your assessments of both TDKR and Kingdom Come, and I would even add Morrison’s recent Batman Inc. as of the same vein—these worx exude problematic if not downright damning usages of power, which undercut the idea of Batman.
There’s a scene in the titular movie where Batman kidnaps a criminal who fled overseas to a country that doesn’t extradite their citizens, thus breaking international law. He then hands the criminal over to Gotham PD. Alongside other extreme usages of power, much of the press saw a vindication of the Bush administration’s abuse of powers. Yet, why and how he does what he does, in handing the criminal over, you have Batman respecting powers that are supposed to work. I don’t think you can pigeonhole such actions, galvanizing as they may be, as fascist.
When I say he would employ a network to see Gotham shine, I don’t mean necessarily the costumed variety. I see allies in reporters, good cops, politicians of integrity, captains of industry showing economies that rely on dignity being celebrated as tenable, etc. Something that starts clandestine in the name of democracy--because democracy has been managed to accordingly by corruption--yet not in order to rule but see the people realized.
Thus, as tenuous as the following sounds, I don’t see a revolutionary Batman and a democratic Batman as incompatible. Yet, this is then the question necessary to address--is using force even against a corrupt and ineffectual democracy inherently fascism? Especially when such a status quo feeds off people? Real ruin. This is why the Batman only worx in the context of the urban decay (depicted realistic of cartoonish still doesn’t cease to evoke the pervasive misery) that has been prevalent throughout human history—whether the Great Depression of his original inception or today’s urban decay expected of metropolises—not because Batman is the correct answer, but a conceivable one. And it goes without saying, a compelling one. I return again to the Nolan franchise because its meditation on power inherent to the terrain of the costumed crime-fighter, achieves art in its honesty of lack—they give no certain answers because there are none. But they don’t hesitate to celebrate the principles upon which even the costumed hero in all its garishness can actually stand.
You’re absolutely right, as we've seen, nine times out of ten, writers realizing such a Batman is a recipe likeliest to fall in line with the rest of costumed crime-fighting bullies. But it doesn’t have to.
I blame Englehart, Rogers, Austin, and Oda for this conversation. I blame comix.
--- Niles Day
It’s okay to be afraid. Because this part won’t be like a comic book… Real life doesn't fit into little boxes that were drawn for it. ––– Elijah Price, Unbreakable by M. Night Shyamalan, 2000
Hello Niles:- Communicating by e-mail/comment boxes is inevitably - and regrettably - a matter of clarifying points misheard - mea culpa. Yet in doing so, you've not only helped my slow old mind get a better grip on what you're saying, you've also nailed down a fascinating problem in the Batman story which would always be worth playfully investigating;
Delete"Yet, this is then the question necessary to address--is using force even against a corrupt and ineffectual democracy inherently fascism?"
The statement is so loaded with "what-ifs" that it speaks for the super-book in general How corrupt, how much force etc etc. And it's somewhat obvious, I suspect, that that's a matter than I'm more than slightly interested in. I think it's a key matter whenever costumed/super-powered folks take the law into their own hands to whatever degree.
However, I might also throw back another connected matter than I'm trying to write about the moment, which is the all-too-prevalent myth that democracy is EVER going to be anything other than corrupt and ineffectual? By which I don't mean to suggest that it isn't the only system which I'd fight for. I believe passionately in democracy, as I hope everyone does. But there's never been a governmental system in human history which isn't open to abuse, and humans do have a knack for turning very good ideas into self-advantage and confusion at their very best. The struggle, obviously, is to continue to strive for as least flawed a system as possible. But the other side of that problem is the pernicious belief that democracy can "work" in terms of absolute, lasting "success". By it's very nature, democracy is a constant struggle against self-interest and stupidity. That fight can't ever be won until human nature itself is rewired. A truly democratic comic book would function there as The Wire does, to show how terribly difficult the everyday business of governing a society is, and of how important even the little victories are.
One of the things which worries me about the political message of the super-book is that it strives for BIG VICTORIES and helps foster the illusion that BIG VICTORIES are possible. The Batman, being such a vehicle for wish fulfillment, often does this. Arkham Asylum's failures to hold the Bat-Villains becomes in some fan's minds an excuse for the death penalty for the mentally ill folks who the system can't keep locked up. The way the stories are framed places the onus on the state to be perfect and implies, or even actively states, that vigilante action is necessary on even an everyday level in order to impose the mythical perfection which government won't.
It's that "won't" which scares me. Humans are fundamentally inept, selfish, often well-meaning and hard-working and mostly decent-hearted creatures, but that's the game. To pretend that the world would be 100% fine IF ONLY GOVERNMENT ACTED is to misunderstand the nature of people and the nature of government. Obviously you're not suggesting any such a misunderstanding, but I would disagree with you that there are no answers. There is no absolute solution. But the answer lies in the ever-frustrating, ever-limited, ever-troublesome and often entirely futile business of democracy. The process IS the answer. The game isn't about winning, because winning isn't possible. It's about winning a little more than might be have won if the fight had been abandoned.
By which I mean, the superhero works best when it expresses these conflicts, and when the likes of Batman symbolises that never-ending, often-dispiriting duty to do the best you can and come back again tomorrow. Whenever the answers start to appear in absolute rather than relative form, in terms of solutions rather than bloody-hard processes, then my oh-my-gawd-it's-fascist antennae start revolving.
cont
cont
DeleteSo, I guess we disagree a touch about your "revolutionary" Batman, in the strictest sense of the word. To me, that would be in itself a rejection of the democratic slog that's the only alternative to tyranny of one kind or another. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for every single one of the alternatives, and he should know, having flirted with one or two of the options in his time. And that's where "my" Batman lies, in the heart of that contradiction.
Having said that, everyone has their own tipping point at which democracy becomes so much a tyranny that rebellion because both a duty and a necessity. A rebel Batman under those circumstances is, I guess, like rebellion itself, a matter of conscience. I don't usually feel that we're there yet, and yet there have been moments recently where just for a moment I can't breathe for the audacity of the assaults on Britain's welfare state. Yet at the same time, there's someone else who can't breathe because of the audacity of having such a thing in the first place.
Everybody gets their own Batman and whoever wins gets to rule. Now, there's politics.
"One of the things which worries me about the political message of the super-book is that it strives for BIG VICTORIES and helps foster the illusion that BIG VICTORIES are possible. …The way the stories are framed places the onus on the state to be perfect and implies, or even actively states, that vigilante action is necessary on even an everyday level in order to impose the mythical perfection which government won't.
DeleteIt's that "won't" which scares me."
First order, apologies for the gap in response. I hate to stifle a great dialogue but life has a habit of converging on me when least convenient. Back to the matter at hand--
I don’t know how to concede democratic slog as the end-all be-all answer especially in the face of grotesque inequality that isn’t anomalous but symptomatic of the corruption at work. I do believe democracy as I’ve lived it is worthy to maintain, but not only I’ve yet to study alternative forms of government with enough diligence such as socialism, but I can’t in good faith reliably point to the elected official as the answer to problems where lives are at stake, to problems inherited from the history of officiating. As you said, democracy is open to the selfish and the stupid; slavery, wars, and a host of horrors were and are democratically ensured. (Of course, I’m not addressing the good of democratic achievement.) Whether its criteria for breast cancer treatment barring dying women in hardship, a justice system designed to feed a penal system designed to meet quotas rather than reformation, war mongers being invigorated through the government machine, or the discovery decades later that the wrong man was in prison—entire lives waste away through the status quo, often because of it. I know I preach to the choir. And I agree, no system is perfect, but I also agree, we’re fighting for as best a world. In Gotham, the status quo may not be the gun in Joe Chill’s hand but it certainly paved every road in Chill’s life to that evening. And the extreme approach of the Batman is most conceivable to me as a man rejecting injustice in its entirety rather than its culmination. The grand crime starts before that night.
I don’t believe we should concede the bare minimum as a big victory. I’m not talking some dubious mechanism ensuring mankind never commits violence unto itself, somehow making it impossible for anyone to ever kill a boy’s parents before their eyes. I’m talking about holding our world--the schools, hospitals, governments, temples, etc.--accountable, to ensure it doesn’t engender poverty, abuse, violence, murder, inequality, which continue to beset us. The same fight of the abolitionists, the civil rights movement, the anti-apartheid movement, etc. Yes, the degree and approach varies within each campaign, and clearly the numerous campaigns that were snuffed didn’t come to mind, but some of these movements managed to succeed, somewhat at the least. And those are the big victories that I think the super-book is useful in emulating, not that I can remember when it last did. I don’t think these victories undermine democracy but show its worth preserving and fighting for, even if you’re considered the criminal. But clearly, as I’ve said before, this only means something if it reflects the time, the work, and as you’ve pointed out, the reality that victory may only be a dream.
cont...
cont...
DeleteAnd again, as you pointed out when speaking on Britain’s welfare state, each set of eyes have different priorities and emulating such a brazen example as Batman, easily leads to conflicting parties running on the same fuel. That’s where you prioritize hiring talented creative that may believe something but are willing to portray someone legitimately contend against their voice. I think the way to avoid reducing Batman as I see him into a partisan propaganda machine is what people often forgot to reduce superheroes to—the salvation and celebration of human life. That’s what superheroes do. They hold life sacred, they save people, they affirm human dignity. Thus that’s the only stock that holds weight to them and when our politics reflect something less, then we’re the problem.
Batman may look natural as tireless custodian, but I can’t conceive Batman going through all the effort and mastery with the belief he’ll actually never win. He understands its not about winning, but that doesn’t mean he’s interested in seeing the system as is continue; after all, he isn’t speaking to the system on its terms. That being said, I believe Spidey’s well at home in a universe where winning is a rare grace. I don’t even believe how I see the best Batman realized should be the brushstroke to paint most superheroes modus operandi with. There’s just something else to Wayne…
I’m not condescending the dispiriting duty of returning each day to win a little more as ignoble, especially taking realism into account, but I think there would be rewarding dividends in seeing big victories and asking us to negotiate with them as plausible; the downfall of powerful corruption, the decline of poverty or violence in marginalized neighborhoods, the inequality gap closing in, etc.
Sorry for the soapbox. I too find it helps me discover whether or not what I propose is resilient &/or tenable in the first place. As you can see, I’m still trying to figure that out.
--- Niles Day
Hello Niles:- Alot of what you've argued is a direct answer to my part, and as such I'd like to show the respect I ought to and not simply repeat my original points. So if your points don't seem to be being responded to, it's because I'd be merely repeating myself, and that would be an insult to you. As I often say, repeating an original point because it hasn't won the day is the equivilant of SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY as if doing so alone would tip the balance of the debate. I'm happy to accept that my points have proven wanting :) I never expect anything else. It'd be a daft mind that thought they could put the world right in a comics blog!
DeleteYour points are a reflection of a soapbox mentality. Our difference is that I think that the West's democracy is a very delicate moment, and that there's a great many folks with power trying to undercut it. As such, it's the struggles to maintain the system that I think ought to be emphasised, rather than the possibility of great success. Great successes don't tend to arrive in a revolutionary way in democracy. Change is slow, and it's usually accompanied by two steps back for every three steps forward. The Suffragettes fought before WWI and we're still fighting to smash the glass ceiling. And that's what I mean about democracy being a hard road, and that's what our culture needs to accept. The alternatives have always, always been worse, which means that making the most of a system of a system that can often be very unrewarding is the struggle. Nothing will kill democracy more than a longing for it to be the means to a new millenium. It isn't, and it can't be.
Which I think is as far as I ought to go without not just repeating myself, BUT SHOUTING!!!!!
But I do agree that one of the roles of the superhero - not mandatory but a favoured one of mine - is to represent ideals which the government or the people as a whole might not be. That might mean the FAR right ideals of Mr A or the anarchist ideals expressed by V, or it could be - my preferred option - the liberal democracy of Steve Englehart's Cap or Gerber's Howard The Duck.
I think the way we differ is summed by a line of yours which caught my eye when I re-read your comment. You say that you "can't conceive Batman goignt hrough all the effort and mastery with the mastery he'll actually never win". Because how can you "win" with human beings? The system will always require constant struggle just to find a way to create a measure of consensus. I think our difference is you believe that the system can be made considerably better, and I belief that the process and not the result is what's important. There will be epochs when society seems to be moving forward and battles won, and then the next decade will reverse that. New generations may have no idea of the ideals which they owe their freedom to, which means the fight begins again.
The problem with big victories in fiction is that they give the impression that such as possible in real life. And they're really not. Today's victory is tomorrow's conflict, which brings us back to our fundamental difference.
But, and I know this will look daft to some people but screw 'em, that's what democracy is. Us not agreeing in places and yet looking for clarity and points at which we can compromise is exactly the process I think is so important.
There's never been a system which works. Human beings don't do "works". Even small pre-industrial, and even stone age cultures, turn out to have been marked by incredibly high levels of crime, including violence. Saviours in fiction can convince us that things can be difference. "Perseverers" can inspire us to keep trying despite that.
You've given me great food for thought and I only love the entire piece on one page all the more. Always a pleasure Sir Smith. Until the next time a powerhouse piece of yours taunts me into discussion,
DeleteKeep on Keepin on
--- ND
Hello Niles:- And you've done the same for me too. It's always a thoroughly useful "remember-you-are-mortal" moment to realise that one's subjective arguments are, er, just subjective and, er, no more than arguments :)
DeleteMy best to you.
I think it's fair to say this is classic comic book work, and you pin down the reasons why with diligence and intelligence. I understand Rogers had some training in architectural drawing, and it doesn't half show.
ReplyDeleteI remember how very adult that run seemed to me as a 14-year-old, and not in the Page 3 sense. The relationship, the passion and tension between Bruce and Silver felt so very real. That final image of Silver still breaks my heart.
I also remember the wallpaper in Silver's flat, which also showed up in Iron Man around the same time. But in a different colourway.
Hello Martin:- I agree with everything you say. I was 15 or 16 when I read these issues, and it was thrilling to see how all concerned improved issue upon issue. The last 2 episodes were such a rich reward for having persevered with the strip. In fact, it's a mark of how brilliant the work was that even Len Wein couldn't step into SE's shoes and come close to what had been achieved. That was a poisoned chalice.
DeleteHey! I remember noticing that wallpaper too. What would take a second today was anything but back then, I'd imagine.
A classic? Absolutely :)
I'm guessing it was a Letraset-style tone stick-on pattern!
ReplyDeleteHello Martin:- And how wonderful to imagine cutting it out and manually sticking it on the page. A different world. In fact, my brief experience working in a graphic design firm was all pre-computer. It's odd to consider how completely times have changed.
DeleteIn my day, whippersnapper ...
Colin, this was a great piece and the to-and-fro in the comments section was equally as fascinating, well done to you and al concerned (*all* concerned). I think that the Englehart/Rogers run is one of the absolute peaks of the Batman's comic book history, blasphemy tho' it may be to say it, I don't care for Miller's Dark Knight (kuh-niggit inPython-speak!) much, I admire it's significance but the material itself speaks not to me. Worse, is the extent to which Big Frank's very *personal* take on the Caped Crusader has become the accepted template for the character, particularly as it made him somehow less believable & *human* than he was in the apparently less "adult" and sophisticated works of Englehart, Goodwin, and O'Neil etc. A mistake I feel and a big one, but the character has gone from dtrength to strength so what do I know?! Writing in this freeform way brings me to think of The Killing Joke, another important work and one that I also find disturbing (and not in the intended way). I'm a great admirer of Alan Moore, he is probably the greatest innovator and writer within "genre" comics of the past 30 years...but even Homer nods, and while KJ may register far above, say,his Violator stuff in the scheme of things, ther's a coldness and a smugnes to it that does not come off wel, it isn,t an anomaly in Mr Moore's work either which is unfortunate. Thete is a distaste for the Batman character that seems to seep through and this leads to a denial of the humanity of Batman, it is notable that many of AM's best works do not deny the central humanity of their charactes no matter how fantastical, conversely his lesser works tend to be lacking in this element. And then ther's the fate of Barbara Gordon, victim of a terrible (almost unimaginably terrible) crime who disappears from the story from that point as an active character, dreadful. Certainly, Alan Moore had expressed regrets overthat story but I still thini it identifies flaws in Mr Moore's material that still tend to pop up every now and again. Though, once again, he admits to being a curmudgeon! The *real* problem has little to do with the Amazing Mr Moore, it's the fact that aspects of the KJ Bat-characterization are still popular, BatPsycho? No thanks. Of course, I *could* ranting about the simple-minded "rich guy beats up the poor" concept that certain people bring up, it's not as if Bruce Wayne checks the bank accounts of his opponents before he engages them, is it?! Every time I read that meme I can't help but sigh, even if, as with Grant M, it was brought up partly in jest. Ah, but the humanity and imagination of the Englehart/Rogers issues, lessons can be learned from them. Oh, and Dark Knight Rises could be good, tho' I didn't much like The Dark Knight (ooh!).
ReplyDeleteRegards, Redoubtable Robert (!)
Hello Robert:- I agree that it's a shame that it's the Dark Knight who's become so influential. It would've been far better if the Year One Batman had become the influence. That's a far more human and admirable take on the character, and not one that's so far from the classic O'Neil, Englehart etc takes.
DeleteSimilarly, I was no fan of The Killing Joke. I never thought that Moore ever "got" Batman. I suspect there was a political block there. In fact, Bats is the only DC character that I think Moore struggled with; the Swamp Thing guest appearance in the Gotham story was by far the best attempt. But elsewhere Moore struggled to present the Batman we know. (So he forgets who Dayton is in the Crisis crossover. But Batman doesn't forget the superheroes he's known, and especially not those whose weddings he attended.)
The "human" Batman was the character's status quo when I was a nipper, so I suppose that might something to do with my preference. Yet I can't say that I prefer the characterisation of the seventies in general. I suspect that I just want to admire some of my heroes, if not all of them, and Bats is one who I want to believe would be worth having a drink with.