I am sure that eventually, somebody within DC Marketing will envision a Grant Morrison Batman omnibus that collects his now historic runs of “Batman and Son” and “R.I.P.” (and its various preludes) along with his 16-issue Batman and Robin, the Arkham Asylum graphic novel, and even the tales collected as Batman Gothic.
That’s from Nathan Wilson’s review of Grant Morrison’s Return of Bruce Wayne up on the Comics Journal website.
And yes, you read that right: Morrison’s run on “Batman and Son” and “R.I.P.” are “now historic.” After all, they occurred in the past. And…Batman! Grant Morrison! They must be important.
The rest of the review slides seamlessly from that low terrain into dank and oleaginous depths of fannish bosh. Morrison is praised for the signal achievement of writing an episodic story that can also be collected into hardcover, as if the history of serialization started last year rather, than several centuries ago. He’s patted on the back for his utterly derivative and uninteresting “pirate voices” and for his utterly derivative and uninteresting “experiment” with time travel. Finally as a denoument, Wilson earnestly informs us that:
As with most of Morrison’s work, a second or even fourth read-through is essential not only to catch various clues and hints about the story and Batman’s larger, historical continuity, but also to unravel and appreciate the gems that Morrison often includes in each of his writings.
Or, you know, alternately you could not even read it once. You’d find about as many gems, and you wouldn’t have to pretend that the confusion attendant upon incoherent continuity porn is caused by intellectual depth.
I’m not opposed to someone liking the Return of Bruce Wayne. It’s a pretty shitty comic, but people like Jog or Tucker Stone or Matt Seneca can often praise genre comics I think are shitty in ways that are stimulating or interesting. But …”historic”? That’s just embarrassing. The Comics Journal was created pretty much explicitly to crush this kind of hagiographic fanboy drivel. Yet, there it is, sitting on their home page, blandly assuring us that if Grant Morrison says it, it must be worth respecting.
There are other things on the TCJ website at the moment. Rich Kreiner, for example, has a very entertaining old school drubbing of this year’s Best American Comics anthology: kind of late to the party, but nonetheless quite enjoyable. Still, that Morrison Batman review seems like a soggy headstone of sorts; a dull, damp “thplutz” as we close the door on this wretched, lazy, irrelevant incarnation of the Journal. Here’s hoping for better times soon.
Or…you know…maybe Morrison’s Batman stuff just isn’t for you? Say what you will about “hagiographic fanboy drivel”, but your pompous anti-genre stance is every bit as cloistered and self-absorbed as the worst of the superhero crowd. You just use more academic language (and you’re verbally fellating yourself, rather than a particular comics artist or character).
I like Morrison when he doesn’t suck. I love genre when it doesn’t suck.
I even enjoy the stung, confused whining of vocabulary-challenged comics nerds when it’s done well. Yours is middling; could be worse.
Meh, I probably shouldn’t have even bothered commenting. I’ve been reading for a while and I think I just have ideological objections to your/HU’s whole approach to criticism. Which is kind of to say it’s not you, it’s me (except you’re still wrong).
No, no — your comments great! Really, it totally works with the cranky wish for the TCJ good old days; they lived to be attacked by genre fans.
I honestly do like Morrison a lot, and I’m way more enthusiastic about genre than a number of people here. It’s all relative, of course.
Well, here’s my question then – hey, you encouraged me – since part of my dilemma in reading HU is I also think you’re obviously a smart guy, and your writing is at least funny even when it annoys the fuck out of me: why does it have to be “genre fans” or non-fans? I’m a relatively new comics reader; I’m not exceedingly well-read in graphic literature by any means, though I’m certainly conversant. So I don’t have the historical perspective on why the readership is divided into these pseudo-political camps – much like I was too young in the 1980s to ever see much point in picking sides between “underground” and mainstream pop music. To me it’s all worthy. I like genre comics and “literary” comics – I don’t understand why there’s this notion that you’re supposed to choose. Especially when so many artists and writers who are championed as literary, Morrison included, don’t have to make that choice! Granted, plenty of these creators probably do the superhero stuff for a paycheck, heroically repressing their disdain all the while, but I doubt that that describes the majority. Clearly there’s something there which has an appeal to reasonably intelligent people who do not collect vinyl figurines, or debate about which hero would defeat which in a fight, or any number of other equally convenient (albeit sometimes true) stereotypes.
And – this is somewhat related but somewhat separate – I do think it’s a little disingenuous to say that Morrison’s Batman stuff sucks. I mean I’ve read shitty mainstream comic books, and his stuff isn’t that. I can’t help but suspect that it’s an ingrained bias against capes, as it were, that has more to do with aesthetic politics (or even politics politics – though I won’t open that can of worms right this moment) than with the actual quality of the work. Then again, you also hated The Dark Knight and The 39 Steps (!), so clearly we’re not on the same aesthetic page, period!
I really do like a lot of genre stuff, and a lot of Morrison stuff. Love Bob Haney for example. Love the early Wonder Woman comics. Like a lot of Alan Moore genre. Like Morrison’s run on X-Men and JLA (more or less) and on Animal Man a lot. Honestly, if you read the blog long enough, you’ll find I hate everything; genre, lit comics, manga, Hitchcock, whatever. I am unbiased in my totalizing animus.
I don’t really pick camps…but if you want to know why there *are* camps, it has a lot to do with comics long time indebtness to one genre and the various flailing efforts to establish more cultural credibility (of which TCJ was a part.) Superheroes were so dominant for so long, and are so critically despised, that there has been a reaction against them by folks who want comics to be art. (That last not really describing me. I don’t care all that much what happens to comics.)
Or at least that’s my take…..
Zach: “I can’t help but suspect that it’s an ingrained bias against capes, as it were, that has more to do with aesthetic politics (or even politics politics – though I won’t open that can of worms right this moment) than with the actual quality of the work.”
The actual quality of the work depends on its aesthetic and political qualities. I don’t have a lot of respect for a rich guy who could be helping some poor people in his own town or elsewhere and prefers to dress like a clown and beat the crap out of people instead.
See! I told you! Domingos actually hates genre…except for Carl Barks.
More than genre I hate Fascists like The Batman.
Isn’t Bruce Wayne a philanthropist? So he’s helping poor people AND beating up poor people while dressed as a clown! He’s a Renaissance Man.
Domingos: Hmm, I can’t hop on that bandwagon. Not that what you’re saying isn’t in some way accurate – I wouldn’t have much “respect” for Batman as an actual person, either, and for similar reasons – but using ideology to judge cultural products just feels dicey. There’s an essay I read several years ago about genre, coming from the heyday of 1970s Marxist theory, which took several film genres and boiled them in their entirety down to these conveniently conservative axioms. So horror films were all about admitting the possibility of the supernatural, or crime movies were all about the isolation of guilt in the individual, etc. All of these things were true in some respects, but in boiling down these formulae to their “essence,” they actually left out a lot of what makes them worthwhile or interesting. You were left with just the quasi-fascist stuff, when almost every work of any genre actually carries a range of often-conflicting meanings and interpretations. I think the same can be said of Batman. Yeah, on one level he’s a Dirty Harry-esque right-wing vigilante fantasy. But I don’t think that’s what he is when Grant Morrison writes him. I don’t even necessarily think that’s what he was when Frank Miller wrote him. Certainly that wasn’t the character in any of the movie interpretations. In any case, there have been SO MANY of these interpretations that it’s really difficult for me to subscribe to the idea that Batman – much less superheroes in general – can just be written off wholesale, for political OR aesthetic reasons. It’s like saying Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, and Inglourious Basterds are all war movies so they’re all equally jingoistic flag-waving propaganda.
Noah: Yeah, I’ve definitely noticed that you hate pretty much everything, which I suppose on some level I respect. I should also mention that your recent piece on Wonder Woman – mediocre issue though it may have been – has basically convinced me to seek out the early issues (it was the zipper masks that did it). Your take on the whole lit-vs-genre debate in comics also more or less jibes with what I’ve been able to (albeit retrospectively) perceive. Personally I’m more of the opinion that genre can be and often is art than that it’s an impediment to art, but in the end I basically like what I like. I think in that, at least (and apparently Wonder Woman in bondage), we can agree.
Zach: fair enough. You just described why I never go very far in my comments about the superhero genre. To do so I would need to actualy engage with the material and I don’t want to.
Irrespective of the meta stuff, I’m with you, Noah: Morrison’s Batman read like shit to me, at least up to the end of Batman RIP (all I’ve read). And I’m *highly* predisposed to like Morrison’s work; plus I have no hifalutin prejudice against genre like all the rest of you stuck-up, hoity-toity snobs.
Also, yeah, that tcj review made me cringe too — and I could give a shit about the Journal’s “standards”.
Zach: “Yeah, on one level [Batman is] a Dirty Harry-esque right-wing vigilante fantasy.”
One more thing though: why is this so frequently forgotten by critics?
It’s the American monomyth constructing a screen on the critics’ heads, maybe?
Jones, he’s too in love with the character. It all just ends up as “yay for Batman,” which is really tiresome.
Zach, re horror films, you might like this essay. More where that came from too if you want it!
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to think about ideology and politics when evaluating art. That doens’t need to just work to dismiss genre necessarily though….
Noah: “I think it’s perfectly legitimate to think about ideology and politics when evaluating art. That doens’t need to just work to dismiss genre necessarily though….”
Not necessarily no, you’re right. But it so happens that hacks tend to create genre product that’s simplistic and Manichaean. People want to be entertained, not challenged.
Y’now, I really liked Morrison’s initial Batman run, especially Batman RIP- but I pretty much hated “Batman and Robin” and two issues of Return of Bruce Wayne was all I really cared to read.
By the end of Batman and Robin, I really felt Morrison was ruining his own earlier stories.
Back in RIP, he did this clever thing with the Joker, where Joker states (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that the thing that cracks him up about Batman, is Batman is all about facts and clues, which isn’t how real life works, Joker tells us, facts and clues is only how Wikipedia works.
It fit in nicely with the bit where Batman is *wrong* about the identity of Dr. Hurt- and Batman wonders if he has hit the limit of reason.
Hurt isn’t a puzzle that Batman can solve, there’s devil symbolism associated with him, but on the other hand, Hurt originally came off as an evil sort of manipulative psychologist, and you could still read the devil stuff as being a lie and a manipulation.
RIP ended with a flashback to events right before the death of Batman’s parents- and the visual motifs than ran through Batman RIP- the “clues” really, date back to the night Batman’s parents died, namely a black glove worn by the Waynes, the Zur Enn Arrgh thing is the slurred last works of Thomas Wayne before he was shot, the red and black motif recurs in the lighting.
It seems to be saying that these clues exist in Batman’s subconscious, rattling in his head since he was a boy, but there is no actual “solution”- real life is about questions but not answers. (someone online compared the ending to “The Crying of Lot 49”)
On another level, the Black Glove is just a fantasy Bruce has concocted, like the Batman identity itself, to deal with the trauma of the unexplainable death of his parents. He is, psychologically, the only character in the story, Black Glove is an element of his fantasy. (Black glove refers to himself as the “hole in all things”, earlier Batman meditates and talks about a “void” he can’t overcome in his psyche)
This all worked pretty well for me.
Then… it seems Morrison ran out of ideas, because later on it becomes just, in Joker’s own words, Wikipedia.
Black Glove’s identity is revealed, instead of being left open ended, and its all this non post modern “professor plum with the candle” sort of crap. And the Wayne ancestor stuff is really just rehashing stuff Morrison’s done with the Invisibles. (I believe the back story of one of the villains there was a guy seeking knowledge who encountered bad higher dimensional stuff)
And it was just not very good. In the conclusion of Batman and Robin, Morrison repeats scenes almost shot for shot from Batman RIP, but without the novelty or the subtext. I also have serious problems with the climax of the Dick and Damion arc being Bruce returns and bails them out, surely they should have won their own victory again the Black Glove? Surely, its structurally more appropriate for Bruce Wayne to return only after they prove themselves as heroes by taking out the Black Glove?
But the weird thing for me is to see the over-analysis of what for me is this really crappy story. For example, there’s this pig villain, who seemed to me like a really forced sort of “Mad hatter” crazy guy. He babbles gibberish, and is all like “Me so craaaaazyyy!”
and the fans are all like “Let us tear apart the secret meaning in this dialogue Its just soooo deep!” (I realize the irony here given my own sort of over-anaysis of his earlier stuff)
Clearly the best thing on a Fantagraphics-owned website today is this: http://www.fantagraphics.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Dilbert-Let-s-You-and-Him-Fight.html&Itemid=113
Jones: ” I could give a shit about the Journal’s “standards”.”
Oh, man, you have me so dead to rights it hurts.
I’m telling myself it’s cause I was there for a year…I’m hoping after a couple of months it’ll wear off. If not, maybe rehab?
Why is that NOT on the TCJ homepage right now? Seriously. That could be a regular feature. “Alright- today’s topic is “Marmaduke- GO!”
“Jones, he’s too in love with the character. It all just ends up as “yay for Batman,” which is really tiresome.”
I agree with this to a point; a widespread criticism online has been that that’s the sum total of the comics’ theme. But I don’t think that fully explains why the results are so lacklustre, basically because of the contrast with All-Star Superman (or “ASS”).
ASS clearly shows that Morrison is also in love with Superman. If anything, more than with Batman: if the over-riding theme of his Batman work is “Batman is AWESOME!”, then the theme of ASS is “Superman is AWESOME — and accept no subsitutes!” The structural thread that runs through nearly every single issue of ASS is that anyone who mimics, echoes or stands in for Superman is inferior to the real thing.
By contrast, in the Batman comics, the possibility at least seems open that other Batman-type folks could do, if not just as well as the original, then still pretty well. There are loads of Batman substitutes throughout his run on the core Batman title; from what I can tell, there are even more in later stuff like B&R and B. Inc. Even Batman himself becomes, at one stage, a Batman substitute.
So ASS seems even more beholden to hero worship, and over-respect for the character, than Batman. But I’d much sooner reread ASS than Batman. I’d much rather stab myself in the face with a pickaxe than reread Batman. I’m not as fond of ASS as most of its online acolytes, but it still seems to me the better work by far.
The reason is no doubt the writing, but it’s probably also the respective artists. Christ, the art on Batman is terrible, except for those few Williams issues. I gather B&R has more consistently good art, so maybe I’d enjoy those books more?
Beats me, Sean. I guess none of those guys actually work for the Journal.
I’m waiting for them to take on XKCD.
Jones, ASS irritates me for the same reasons, and I’m not a huge Quitely fan…but yeah, the cast of thousands artists on return of bruce wayne adds significantly to the shittiness of that book. And whatever my reservations about Quitely, he’s got a consistent visual style and is pretty good. That’s a huge reason to like ASS better.
Pallas, that’s an interesting take. I think I missed those earlier issues? I read a bunch of Batman and Robin and now this… Batman in the JLA titles was kind of fun, just because he didn’t have to carry everything himself….
Sean, I wondered that too! It is a really entertaining discussion. Pretty safe — lowering the rhetorical boom on Dilbert seems a little pointless in some sense. But still, a lot of the old pizzazz….
Jones: ” I could give a shit about the Journal’s “standards”.”
Noah: Oh, man, you have me so dead to rights it hurts.
But what exactly are these “standards”? They seem to be in a state of slow flux if one considers the various incarnations of TCJ over the last few years (with a further change when Comics Comics takes over the roost). Aren’t you referring to some of these old time standards when you commend the “entertaining” “old pizzazz” in the Dilbert discussion?
Sure! My point is just that caring about these standards — wanting the Journal to live up to its rep — is just ridiculous. Why the fuck should I care? I can go read something else which is better. I can go read something else which is better than the Journal ever was! Why should it pain me that they’re lame?
Like I said…I’ll wait several months. I’m sure I can heal in time….
Yes, time to take a laxative to wash it all out. Tell you what though, I still care about “standards” when it comes to criticism in general and sometimes that will involve what comes up on TCJ (even when it transforms into Comic Art magazine).
There’s caring about standards qua standards and then there’s pissing and moaning just because one always erratic institution plying the debased trade of comics criticism happens to suck with somewhat more frequency than it did in the past.
When’s the revamp scheduled to occur over there? I thought it was supposed to be today.
I did too!
Maybe they’re waiting for next Monday? Or maybe it’ll be tomorrow — who knows?
Pallas’ account of what made the Batman R.I.P. run interesting and compelling is right on. While there were many dud moments, the unexplained and inexplicable links to the Wayne family and the “Black Casebook” (and eventually Zur En Aaarh) pulled it (mostly) together by the end. I also really liked the two issue aftermath in “Last Rites” (I think it was called), that pulled the storyline into “Final Crisis” without being incomprehensible (as FC mostly was) and without undercutting the whole storyline that preceded it.
The decision to “stay on” and write Batman and Robin, “The Return,” and now Batman, Inc. seems to have been a horrible one—as none of these were particularly enjoyable–and “Return” was just incomprehensible dreck.
None of it was as bad as that TCJ “review” however–which is basically advertising copy for a Batman book–neither a review nor criticism, but a waste of bandwidth. DC pays people to write that kind of thing….why TCJ would do it is beyond mortal comprehension (no doubt Batman could figure it out though)
There were some great pieces written about Batman’s “fascist” and “corporate tool” elements in the Many Faces of the Batman book from Routledge (way back in 1990 or so, in the wake of the first Burton Batman film.
“Clearly the best thing on a Fantagraphics-owned website today is this: http://www.fantagraphics.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Dilbert-Let-s-You-and-Him-Fight.html&Itemid=113”
Jesus Christ. They clearly need to up their meds.
Thanks for the tip Eric!…
Noah, so they ran a bad article. (By your lights, anyway.)
So what? That happens every now and then in any journal.Looking back over the hundreds of articles published on HU…will you stand behind each of them?
You are giving off a nasty vibe of attacking TCJ because they gave HU the heave-ho. Even if it’s not true, the appearance counts, on the Caesar’s Wife principle.(Especially as you’d just given a negative review to the same comic…)
Digression: Morrison’s and Janson’s “Gothic” was terrific. Batman vs Melmoth.
I did attack them while I was there too, though! And, you know, I’ve pretty much owned my bitterness in the comments, and in previous articles. If people want to think the worst of me…eh. I won’t lose sleep over it.
I do mostly just wish that they’d start doing better though. Next week I’m hoping; fingers crossed.
I don’t think I’ve ever published something quite so conventionally reverent and so thoroughly pointless as Wilson’s Batman article. Mileage varies as they say, though.
I guess I need to check the comic out before commenting further…
As Mark Twain noted, it’s better to remain silent and pass for a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
PS…why no blogroll? Is HU so absolute in its awesomeness,
Huh! I thought we had a blogroll…? Oh, yes, there’s a little links section….
We are pretty absolute in awesomeness. Mostly it’s just that I never got around to making one I think? And the side is so overcrowded anyway… It’s a good thing to think about for the new design though; thanks.
“it’s better to remain silent and pass for a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”
But…I’m a blogger! There is no doubt, and my mouth is always open.
Ng Suat Tong- sometimes that will involve what comes up on TCJ (even when it transforms into Comic Art magazine).
Say what????
Domingos, that book also contains a great “queer” reading of the old Batman TV show. Probably the best piece of Batman criticism that I can recall reading, although I can’t be sure it’ll be up your alley—None of this helped me get the name of the book right, though. It’s The Many Lives of The Batman (from 1991)
Pingback: Is Fantagraphics dying? « n i j o m u
Steven: “Say what????”
You make it sound like a bad thing. The new TCJ.com will be better designed (with more graphics), more detailed in its analysis, and more reverential in its tone. Sound like any magazine you’re familiar with? There’s a place for this kind of thing on the web though the consolidation of taste is a bit troubling (perhaps inevitable if one looks at the literature scene in general).
“The new TCJ.com will be better designed (with more graphics), more detailed in its analysis, and more reverential in its tone. Sound like any magazine you’re familiar with?” Are you referring to the print version of the Journal or the website? Also, is there any proof for this? I haven’t heard any statement from Fantagraphics that the new Journal — either the website or the print magazine — will be more reverential. I know for a fact that the magazine will have a long roundtable on Crumb’s Genesis which will be be very contentious and not offer a “consolidation of taste” but rather vigorous debate. The print magazine will have more graphics but the TCJ has been heading that way for a long time, and it makes sense for a magazine about comics to be more visual. The fact that Todd Hignite was the first person to put out a nice looking magazine of comics criticism says more about the comics world than anything else.
I’m referring to TCJ.com, and I’m not complaining about the graphics or design. Far from it. It’s definitely the way to go. As for the “more reverential” tone, let’s see what happens in 1-2 months shall we? I hope to be proven wrong.
I’m not against change, just very curious. You seem to know more about what’s happening there than us. So they’re changing their name to “Comic Art” magazine?
Alex:
“As Mark Twain noted, it’s better to remain silent and pass for a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Noah:
“But…I’m a blogger! There is no doubt, and my mouth is always open.”
Just for the record, the open-mouthed fool I referred to was me, not Noah; I was chiding myself for the silliness of commenting on a Batman comic I hadn’t read.
(Though commenting on stuff you haven’t read is an art in itself. I can discourse for hours on Don Quixote and Moby Dick, and Proust is my bitch.)
BTW…did you know that the adjectival form of Noah is “Noachian”? It’s in the OED! Now we can all gripe about ‘Noachian smugness’ &caetera.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………no. Just… no. This is… No. No, no, no, no, no. My God. NO.
This still isn’t disappearing, so I’ll (SIGH) explain. I tell myself, “these people just don’t know… how could they know?” But how dare you express an opinion when these issues have already been raised in closed communities on the internet and have caused RIFTS and FISSURES in these communities. Seeing a message board split apart is like being on the deck of the Titanic.
I know my rights. My humanity, my interesting sexuality, ability to form adult relationships, and everything bad that ever happened to me is inseparable from liking “Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne.” From Caveman times to the Wild West, his journey is also mine. It is disturbing to see gay people appropriate persecution narratives that have always been the property of comic book fandom. Don’t tell me about hate speech: “Have you thought about spending less time online?” “Did you go outside today?” “Did you even get out of that chair?” I’ve heard it all. Even…
“get…”
“over…”
“yourself…”
(NEVER!)
Of all the peoples who have wended their way through this vale of tears, I suspect that only readers of “boys kissing” manga might come close to understanding me, although their nervous systems are not as highly developed.
Nobody should ever have to experience being made fun of on the internet, and I’m starting a foundation to ensure that can’t happen again. I won’t stay, this is not a safe space for my ego to blossom, but I must sternly denounce this communal arrogance and self-absorption. I will not tolerate any denial of the validity of my perceptions, or, in Muggle terms, “arguing.”
Mr. Berlatsky, tear down this thread.
Touche.
If we can have ‘queering’ the discourse, can we have ‘fanning’?