Ram V and Rafael Albuquerque on Detective Comics

[JBatmanFan05]

despite the attempt to make Batman a "Zen Master" as Morrison called him, ultimately Morrison's run left Batman looking like a complete failure.

As much as I love Morrison's actual writing skills (which are stellar IMHO), I admit was off put a tad by his run's ending. But it has grown on me, and I cannot say it wasn't well/brilliantly-executed, and it boldly subverted my expectations (and probably Morrison's own expectations!) to raise and highlight a poignant point about Batman's current state of affairs and his corporatization. Morrison praised Snyder, and Snyder praised Morrison, but Morrison's end I still see as somewhat a meta commentary also on Scott Snyder's version of Batman* (which I believe Morrison likens to Miller's Batman and other Post-Crisis versions he didn't really care for, I doubt Morrison much liked King's version as well though I'm sure he'd never admit it or utter it).

(*so in a way, Morrison ends with the precise commentary he started with in Arkham Asylum, which was an elaborate commentary against Miller, Moore, etc.....full circle)

my current Unifying Theory of Batman Writers, which is that every writer who handles Bruce for a significant period of time (longer than two years, mostly) ultimately highlights something about their own personality and experience that they find connects to the Batman story. Morison was the Zen Master fighting the Lost Mother (and failing), Snyder was the terrified parent fighting terrorism (and losing), King was the aged warrior/spy looking for love (and failing...mostly)

Anyway. I am very interested to see what Ram V and Chip Zdarsky have to reveal about themselves in Bruce Wayne.

Bravo, an unbelievably insightful and accurate theory. You or someone could write a book about this.

[millernumber1]

As much as I love Morrison's actual writing skills (which are stellar IMHO), I admit was off put a tad by his run's ending. But it has grown on me, and I cannot say it wasn't well/brilliantly-executed, and it boldly subverted my expectations (and probably Morrison's own expectations!) to raise and highlight a poignant point about Batman's current state of affairs and his corporatization. Morrison praised Snyder, and Snyder praised Morrison, but Morrison's end I still see as somewhat a meta commentary also on Scott Snyder's version of Batman* (which I believe Morrison likens to Miller's Batman and other Post-Crisis versions he didn't really care for, I doubt Morrison much liked King's version as well though I'm sure he'd never admit it or utter it).

(*so in a way, Morrison ends with the precise commentary he started with in Arkham Asylum, which was an elaborate commentary against Miller, Moore, etc.....full circle)

Bravo, an unbelievably insightful and accurate theory. You or someone could write a book about this.

Morrison's dialogue and thematic preoccupations just aren't my jam, but I do think that run is hugely influential and offers something different about Batman that has grown the mythology in mostly excellent ways (primarily through Damian and Batman Inc, as you have observed, the Zen Master approach was pretty much explicitly rejected by Snyder, and it doesn't feel like anyone is really interested in following up on it...though I am actually really interested to see if Ram V brings some of that back). I do think that Morrison's point about Batman not being able to grow is a solid one, though one I would claim was stolen from David Mazzucchelli. I also think it's one of fairly limited utility for readers and writers - either you are okay with the fact that Batman's story is one of endless middle, no ending really possible, determined by his enormous popularity to be kept in a narrow range of characteristics and story types because that's what sells - or you're not, and you move on to Sin City or some other creator owned work, or into prose fiction also not constrained by corporate demands. I don't think focusing too hard on the Oroboros-like nature of Batman's existence really adds to that appeal, though you could make a fairly solid case that it connects to the Loeb/Sale short "Every Night".

I also have problems with the motivations and coherency of Talia in Morrison's run, but that's a huge, decades long debate that still shows no signs of finding any kind of resolution. I'm kind of excited that Talia is being brought to prominence again in Williamson and Ram V's work right now, as perhaps we can get some new answers and new material that could deepen her character again from the mustache twirling Lost Mother Morrison featured in the second part of Batman Inc (I know Tomasi, Gleason, Abnett, and a few others have tried, but nothing's really stuck - that's how powerful Morrison's story was, despite the frustrating flaws in Talia).

[JBatmanFan05]

as you have observed, the Zen Master approach was pretty much explicitly rejected by Snyder, and it doesn't feel like anyone is really interested in following up on it...though I am actually really interested to see if Ram V brings some of that back).

Yeah, and we more or less know why Scott Snyder more or less rejected healthy zen Batman: his stated unabashed love of Post-Crisis Batman, the Batman he grew up with (like many or most of us)...which is probably what propelled young 1980s Morrison to try to attack that vision of Batman in its infancy, Morrison sensing that the Miller-influenced vision would long influence Batman comics down the road.

It will be most interesting to see where Ram and Chip fall in the main spectrum of Batman writers....the more O'Neill/Englehart/Morrison/Matt Wagner/etc end or the Miller/Sam Hamm/Scott Snyder/Tom King/etc end?

I also have problems with the motivations and coherency of Talia in Morrison's run, but that's a huge, decades long debate that still shows no signs of finding any kind of resolution. I'm kind of excited that Talia is being brought to prominence again in Williamson and Ram V's work right now, as perhaps we can get some new answers and new material that could deepen her character again from the mustache twirling Lost Mother Morrison featured in the second part of Batman Inc (I know Tomasi, Gleason, Abnett, and a few others have tried, but nothing's really stuck - that's how powerful Morrison's story was, despite the frustrating flaws in Talia).

Morrison's Talia is a complex subject. I have no doubt that Morrison somewhat sorta "New X-Men Magneto'd" Talia for his run in that he sought to offer an "extension" of her character rather than keeping to her "traditional" characterization (which if we're fair, is far less consistent and clear than we think, Chuck Dixon, for example, offered a fairly dark evil enough murderous take on Talia in the 90s that was rather different than O'Neill's Talia, BTAS Talia, Bronze Age Talia, etc).

Morrison defended his New X-Men Magneto on the grounds that he was taking his (controversial) Magneto back some to the original Stan Lee version (as opposed to the softer more nuanced later Claremont version). Surely, Morrison can't claim he was taking Talia "back to her roots" so much, so in that sense, Morrison's approach to Talia was rather different than Morrison's stated approach to his Magneto.

I think Morrison's Talia was mostly worth it, mostly worth the epic earth-shattering (and also deeply personal) "superhero divorce" narrative he was aiming for, the Dark Mother chapter of his Dark Mother(Talia)/Dark Father(Hurt) overall story. Morrison didn't leave any tool in the sandbox to undo or unwind his changes to Talia, and so maybe I could agree that was a mistake. But I will continue to push back against the claim that Morrison's Talia was as unprecedented as some might try to assert. I think Morrison's take was definitely (whether Morrison knew it or not) a logical extension of at least Chuck Dixon's Talia from the mid/late 90s.

[millernumber1]

Yeah, and we more or less know why Scott Snyder more or less rejected healthy zen Batman: his stated unabashed love of Post-Crisis Batman, the Batman he grew up with (like many or most of us)...which is probably what propelled young 1980s Morrison to try to attack that vision of Batman in its infancy, Morrison sensing that the Miller-influenced vision would long influence Batman comics down the road.

It will be most interesting to see where Ram and Chip fall in the main spectrum of Batman writers....the more O'Neill/Englehart/Morrison/Matt Wagner/etc end or the Miller/Sam Hamm/Scott Snyder/Tom King/etc end?

Morrison's Talia is a complex subject. I have no doubt that Morrison somewhat sorta "New X-Men Magneto'd" Talia for his run in that he sought to offer an "extension" of her character rather than keeping to her "traditional" characterization (which if we're fair, is far less consistent and clear than we think, Chuck Dixon, for example, offered a fairly dark evil enough murderous take on Talia in the 90s that was rather different than O'Neill's Talia, BTAS Talia, Bronze Age Talia, etc).

Morrison defended his New X-Men Magneto on the grounds that he was taking his (controversial) Magneto back some to the original Stan Lee version (as opposed to the softer more nuanced later Claremont version). Surely, Morrison can't claim he was taking Talia "back to her roots" so much, so in that sense, Morrison's approach to Talia was rather different than Morrison's stated approach to his Magneto.

I think Morrison's Talia was mostly worth it, mostly worth the epic earth-shattering (and also deeply personal) "superhero divorce" narrative he was aiming for, the Dark Mother chapter of his Dark Mother(Talia)/Dark Father(Hurt) overall story. Morrison didn't leave any tool in the sandbox to undo or unwind his changes to Talia, and so maybe I could agree that was a mistake. But I will continue to push back that Morrison's Talia was as unprecedented as some might try to assert. I think Morrison's take was definitely (whether Morrison knew it or not) a logical extension of at least Chuck Dixon's Talia from the mid/late 90s.

You're definitely right - both Snyder and King point to Dark Knight Returns as their "perfect" Batman book that inspired them. I personally don't really care for Dark Knight Returns, though I understand why people love it - Year One is my "perfect" Batman, so I'm still infected by Miller.

I have a feeling that Zdarsky is going to fall sort of in the middle of the Morrison/Miller spectrum - he seems to be taking a very "synthesis" approach with his first two issues, and his Daredevil run seems to have a somewhat similar approach, though I am not nearly as well versed in Daredevil history as I am Batman. I also am hoping that he's building up to a reunion with Catwoman - you could read these first two issues as Zdarsky closing the door on that book, as some fans are, but I think it's more setup for a more powerful reunion arc later. But we'll have to wait and see!

I do think that Talia, like many villains, lost consistency over the years. I don't remember a TON of Talia from Dixon, outside of a few Birds of Prey issues, and Bane of the Demon. Bronze Age Talia, like Wolfman's take, still confuses me a lot. I'd be very interested to hear more on what specific actions and stories you think Morrison extended from Dixon's work to make his unhinged psychopath Talia. (I still think she's incredibly incoherent in Morrison's run - her plans don't seem to have any gain whatsoever, to me, so it feels like she's really dumb as well as shallowly evil.)

[JBatmanFan05]

I do think that Talia, like many villains, lost consistency over the years. I don't remember a TON of Talia from Dixon, outside of a few Birds of Prey issues, and Bane of the Demon. Bronze Age Talia, like Wolfman's take, still confuses me a lot. I'd be very interested to hear more on what specific actions and stories you think Morrison extended from Dixon's work to make his unhinged psychopath Talia. (I still think she's incredibly incoherent in Morrison's run - her plans don't seem to have any gain whatsoever, to me, so it feels like she's really dumb as well as shallowly evil.)

Bane of the Demon (along with Dixon's Talia appearances in and around Contagion/Legacy/etc) is sufficient example enough of Dixon's more-Ra's-like darker far-less-sympathetic Talia. Talia, for example, upon exiting from a Order of St Dumas location, explicitly orders her League assassins to commit suicide "simply to make the return journey to her father’s base less crowded." (see below, an example of a reviewer noticing how different Dixon's Talia was)


"This portrayal of Talia paints her as one very sick puppy. She takes an interest in Bane and takes him back to meet her father. The assassins under her command all commit suicide at her request, simply to make the return journey to her father’s base less crowded! When Bane reciprocates her initial attraction to him, they have a quick dalliance and then she decides it’s frosty time. I’m not sure if he was a dud in the sack or if she simply likes her men tall, dark and unattainable. Bane should have taken a leaf from Bruce’s book with Talia -- treat her mean, keep her keen."
https://collectededitions.blogspot.c...n-bane-of.html

[millernumber1]

Bane of the Demon (along with Dixon's Talia appearances in and around Contagion/Legacy/etc) is sufficient example enough of Dixon's more-Ra's-like darker far-less-sympathetic Talia. Talia, for example, upon exiting from a Order of St Dumas location, explicitly orders her League assassins to commit suicide "simply to make the return journey to her father’s base less crowded." (see below, an example of a reviewer noticing how different Dixon's Talia was)

"This portrayal of Talia paints her as one very sick puppy. She takes an interest in Bane and takes him back to meet her father. The assassins under her command all commit suicide at her request, simply to make the return journey to her father’s base less crowded! When Bane reciprocates her initial attraction to him, they have a quick dalliance and then she decides it’s frosty time. I’m not sure if he was a dud in the sack or if she simply likes her men tall, dark and unattainable. Bane should have taken a leaf from Bruce’s book with Talia -- treat her mean, keep her keen."
https://collectededitions.blogspot.c...n-bane-of.html

Very interesting. I'll have to reread Bane of the Demon. In the Big Romance arc of Birds of Prey, Talia seemed to be a lot more sympathetic, though that was likely an act to help butter Dinah up for her father as the mother to his heir. And she does have moments of rage and violence there.

As for Bane being a dud in the sack...Dixon has said on his youtube recently that Bane's addiction to Venom, like most steroid abuse, probably has left him nearly completely impotent.

[Vordan]

That is a very good point. I will admit, I'm not a big fan of Morrison's writing, partly because despite the attempt to make Batman a "Zen Master" as Morrison called him, ultimately Morrison's run left Batman looking like a complete failure. Which I think was meta commentary on coporate comics, etc etc, but I didn't enjoy it at all.

It was. Morrison’s run corresponded to various eras of Batman. Batman was the 50s, Batman & Robin was the 60s, the first half of Batman, Inc. was the 70s and the final half was the 80s/Miller. Despite attempting to argue that Batman didn’t *have* to be the tortured child soldier fighting a forever war, the final half is basically Morrison admitting that Batman can never really move beyond that. It’s simply too popular and appealing for Bruce to ever evolve past that core. That’s why the run ends with Morrison torching everything and resetting Batman back to basics as it were. I get why you don’t like it, it’s a pretty damning criticism, but one I can’t help but see only growing ever more realistic given the way King’s run ended.

I’m curious where these two new writers will go. Zdarsky isn’t a very innovative writer. His Daredevil is a retelling of Daredevil’s greatest hits, like Loeb reusing TLH for Hush, so I’m not expecting much for him although like he should be enjoyable. Ram V however is a much more creative writer, his Swamp Thing has been totally unlike Alan Moore’s, but managed to recapture that sense of excitement and freshness that Moore brought to the title. What he’s said so far hasn’t been all that creative either, the Orkhams are apparently yet another “villain who says Batman isn’t doing enough for Gotham” but we’ll see what the execution is like.

[millernumber1]

It was. Morrison’s run corresponded to various eras of Batman. Batman was the 50s, Batman & Robin was the 60s, the first half of Batman, Inc. was the 70s and the final half was the 80s/Miller. Despite attempting to argue that Batman didn’t *have* to be the tortured child soldier fighting a forever war, the final half is basically Morrison admitting that Batman can never really move beyond that. It’s simply too popular and appealing for Bruce to ever evolve past that core. That’s why the run ends with Morrison torching everything and resetting Batman back to basics as it were. I get why you don’t like it, it’s a pretty damning criticism, but one I can’t help but see only growing ever more realistic given the way King’s run ended.

I’m curious where these two new writers will go. Zdarsky isn’t a very innovative writer. His Daredevil is a retelling of Daredevil’s greatest hits, like Loeb reusing TLH for Hush, so I’m not expecting much for him although like he should be enjoyable. Ram V however is a much more creative writer, his Swamp Thing has been totally unlike Alan Moore’s, but managed to recapture that sense of excitement and freshness that Moore brought to the title. What he’s said so far hasn’t been all that creative either, the Orkhams are apparently yet another “villain who says Batman isn’t doing enough for Gotham” but we’ll see what the execution is like.

I think that's a lot of good points, but I still think it's really...I'm trying to think of a word, but it's not coming to me. What Morrison did is so destructive and negative I just don't appreciate it. I think there's a reason that the Miller/80s stuff has defined Batman, and I don't think it's an entirely bad reason. I think that kind of metanarrative, when applied to destroy that which came before, isn't satisfying, and I think really feels like Morrison having contempt both for Miller and for readers who like Miller. When Talia says "you like your conflict black and white" - I don't think that's even fair for what Miller was doing, or what readers really like.

As for King's run...well, it is my favorite Batman run, because I think it ends, unlike Morrison (or Snyder's) runs, with a note of hope.

Ram V I think will be a gripping story, but it will be much more limited in appeal and accessibility, so I don't think it's going to have nearly as big an impact. Zdarsky I'm very curious to see - I hope he's better than Loeb, especially at endings, but we'll have to find out. He strikes me more as a less nihilistic Fraction, and I could dig a semi-absurdist, continuity heavy, but more warmhearted take on Batman.

[Vordan]

I think that's a lot of good points, but I still think it's really...I'm trying to think of a word, but it's not coming to me.

Defeatist or nihilistic is how I would describe it. Morrison wrote it just as they were becoming completely disillusioned with corporate comics and superheroes. The ending of Batman is Morrison giving up on the notion that Batman can ever stand for or be anything beyond a highly profitable IP that a megacorp exploits for money, and thus artificially stunts his growth because to allow him to change would be to run the risk of ruining their cash cow. Morrison’s Action run has some of that too, and it’s front and center in Superman & the Authority, but it’s a more measured response that does still leave room for Superman to be able to grow or stand for something beyond the limits he has as a corporate IP.

What Morrison did is so destructive and negative I just don't appreciate it. I think there's a reason that the Miller/80s stuff has defined Batman, and I don't think it's an entirely bad reason. I think that kind of metanarrative, when applied to destroy that which came before, isn't satisfying, and I think really feels like Morrison having contempt both for Miller and for readers who like Miller. When Talia says "you like your conflict black and white" - I don't think that's even fair for what Miller was doing, or what readers really like.

As for King's run...well, it is my favorite Batman run, because I think it ends, unlike Morrison (or Snyder's) runs, with a note of hope.

I get why King’s ending might hold more appeal but there’s a sort of freshness to Morrison being in your face about the reality of what you’re consuming. Batman and Spider-Man will never grow or develop beyond a certain point, they will always reset and cycle through the same “arc”. Maybe I’m just becoming more jaded (or maybe my increasing bitterness towards Batman makes me more receptive to Morrison going “actually Batman sucks and is a black hole that sucks everyone and everything down to hell with him” lol).

Ram V I think will be a gripping story, but it will be much more limited in appeal and accessibility, so I don't think it's going to have nearly as big an impact. Zdarsky I'm very curious to see - I hope he's better than Loeb, especially at endings, but we'll have to find out. He strikes me more as a less nihilistic Fraction, and I could dig a semi-absurdist, continuity heavy, but more warmhearted take on Batman.

Zdarsky will do a good job but he won’t bring anything new to the table just as he hasn’t with Daredevil. Ram V I’m hoping will.

[JBatmanFan05]

I think really feels like Morrison having contempt both for Miller and for readers who like Miller. When Talia says "you like your conflict black and white" - I don't think that's even fair for what Miller was doing, or what readers really like.

I'm pretty sure Morrison largely, mostly or entirely praised Frank Miller and DKR in his book Supergods (he seems to have more clear directed animosity for Alan Moore & his works). And I should point out that despite loving Grant Morrison on so many levels, I also personally deeply love DKR (my favorite Miller story, maybe my favorite Batman comic) and Year One when it comes to Frank Miller's Batman. I myself tend to view Morrison's criticisms (based off of certain indications here and there in his mountains of interviews and books and etc) as being more directed to (what he perceives as) the cheap or trite Miller imitators after DKR, the ones he probably suspects were driven a lot by corporate DC editorial. I think he was most critical of this, in his eyes, reductive cultural shift in Batman comics, driven sorta inorganically and cynically by an increasingly corporatized 1980s DC.


(I think DKR has been kind of a Rorschach test for readers and new/old Batman writers and editors, where they sorta read whatever into it despite the story's extreme dystopian circumstances and playing up or playing down various elements in it, Miller I think offers a pretty nuanced Batman that seems misunderstood or pigeonholed by some/many)

[HsssH]

Do we know if the ending of Batman Inc. was influenced by new 52 or was this how Morrison always wanted to end it?

[JBatmanFan05]

Do we know if the ending of Batman Inc. was influenced by new 52 or was this how Morrison always wanted to end it?

Seemingly always how he wanted to end it. Morrison never indicated or suggested he was forced to change anything, or that he suddenly changed the end just before the end (before starting on Inc). And Morrison did somewhat explain the end a bit: (one can argue that maybe Morrison was partially influenced by the New 52's tone/direction)

When asked about his thoughts on the finale, Morrison said, “I really think a lot of people will hate it, because it’s super bleak. It kind of – to a certain extent it destroys the concept of Batman. So I think a lot of people will not like it. But then a few years will pass, maybe a bit less, several months, and then people will start to say, “oh, this all makes sense.” But I genuinely think it will cause a slight upset. Maybe if I say that it won’t!”

“Part of what the Batman run has been is recapitulating the years of Batman and the different ways that Batman’s been dealt with. So I wanted to deal with that modern Batman that has started to get bleak again. The stuff that Scott [Snyder] is doing, that John Layman is doing, everyone is starting to get bleak again. You cannot bring Batman into the light, is basically what I’ve learned. So we wanted to acknowledge that in this last issue – it’s quite nightmarish in a way.”

“I think that it’s because he always has to stand for a certain part of us, it’s the part of us that deals with the darker stuff. So Batman is constantly forced into bleaker and bleaker confrontations with our existential fears. That’s what he is I guess, and we wanted to take that to our own personal limit and say, there’s a place where Batman runs out – beyond that place, you’ll see what happens.”

https://dccomicsnews.com/2013/07/23/...an-inc-finale/

[millernumber1]

Defeatist or nihilistic is how I would describe it. Morrison wrote it just as they were becoming completely disillusioned with corporate comics and superheroes. The ending of Batman is Morrison giving up on the notion that Batman can ever stand for or be anything beyond a highly profitable IP that a megacorp exploits for money, and thus artificially stunts his growth because to allow him to change would be to run the risk of ruining their cash cow. Morrison’s Action run has some of that too, and it’s front and center in Superman & the Authority, but it’s a more measured response that does still leave room for Superman to be able to grow or stand for something beyond the limits he has as a corporate IP.

I get why King’s ending might hold more appeal but there’s a sort of freshness to Morrison being in your face about the reality of what you’re consuming. Batman and Spider-Man will never grow or develop beyond a certain point, they will always reset and cycle through the same “arc”. Maybe I’m just becoming more jaded (or maybe my increasing bitterness towards Batman makes me more receptive to Morrison going “actually Batman sucks and is a black hole that sucks everyone and everything down to hell with him” lol).

Zdarsky will do a good job but he won’t bring anything new to the table just as he hasn’t with Daredevil. Ram V I’m hoping will.

Well, I'm glad you are the one who picked "defeatist or nihilistic". I understand being disillusioned with corporate comics and superheros - I do understand, while being repelled by, The Boys, after all - but I still think it's a pretty jerk move to slap your readers in the face and say "what you like is bad and you shouldn't like it, also, pay me money for slapping you in the face." You can argue that Morrison is trying to slap DC as a company in the face, but even that seems very ungrateful given they were paying for what Morrison was writing, and they wouldn't be successful if readers weren't buying it. Yes, a slap in the face is "fresh", but I don't admire it.

I do understand why people come to the opinion that Batman sucks and sucks everything down with him - but I think it's not inevitable, and I don't think it's more virtuous to think and feel that about Batman than to love Batman.

Perhaps it's obvious, but I'm less interested in something new for Batman, who is over 80 years old, after all, and I more want to see craftsmanship and energy and thematic exploration from a new perspective. I am very curious to find out more about Zdarsky as a person and writer through what he finds most interesting about Batman, just as I found out about James Tynion, Tom King, Scott Snyder, and Grant Morrison (I still need to apply my interpretive lens to the pre-Morrison writers, but that's a tricky proposition given the crossover storylines and much longer runs).

I'm pretty sure Morrison largely, mostly or entirely praised Frank Miller and DKR in his book Supergods (he seems to have more clear directed animosity for Alan Moore & his works). And I should point out that despite loving Grant Morrison on so many levels, I also personally deeply love DKR (my favorite Miller story, maybe my favorite Batman comic) and Year One when it comes to Frank Miller's Batman. I myself tend to view Morrison's criticisms (based off of certain indications here and there in his mountains of interviews and books and etc) as being more directed to (what he perceives as) the cheap or trite Miller imitators after DKR, the ones he probably suspects were driven a lot by corporate DC editorial. I think he was most critical of this, in his eyes, reductive cultural shift in Batman comics, driven sorta inorganically and cynically by an increasingly corporatized 1980s DC.

(I think DKR has been kind of a Rorschach test for readers and new/old Batman writers and editors, where they sorta read whatever into it despite the story's extreme dystopian circumstances and playing up or playing down various elements in it, Miller I think offers a pretty nuanced Batman that seems misunderstood or pigeonholed by some/many)

Seemingly always how he wanted to end it. Morrison never indicated or suggested he was forced to change anything, or that he suddenly changed the end just before the end (before starting on Inc). And Morrison did somewhat explain the end a bit: (one can argue that maybe Morrison was partially influenced by the New 52's tone/direction)

https://dccomicsnews.com/2013/07/23/...an-inc-finale/

What did Morrison praise Miller for? I do know that Miller also criticizes people after him for "just doing a lot of television screens". Listening to Chuck Dixon a year or so ago, he is irritated with the idea that he got from DC editorial that Watchmen and DKR are the greatest comics ever written, and nothing they do afterwards even have a chance of being better (something Tom King literally just said too, in an interview about his One Bad Day: Riddler story coming next week: https://screenrant.com/riddler-tom-k...iew-sdcc-2022/). Much as I dislike what Morrison ended up saying with the ending to Batman Inc vol 2, I do appreciate that it was an attempt to write something of serious intent and high craftsmanship. I just prefer what Tom King did by a huge amount, because I think Batman is not just a cool figure, but an admirable and inspirational one, and Morrison deliberately trying to destroy him just bothers me a lot.

[JBatmanFan05]

What did Morrison praise Miller for?

I can't recall all he said in Supergods, but I did find this older 2002 quote specifically on DKR (and also indirectly on Miller himself) (which IIRC he reiterates some or a lot of this quote here in Supergods): Morrison: "[DKR is] a great, honest work and deserves its place in the pantheon. It's also one of the key American texts of the Reagan '80s along with Rambo and American Psycho. I don't think it can be seen as the last word on superheroes, as many have viewed it but it makes its point in an undeniably original way and is light years ahead, in both ambition and execution, of most other works in the field at the time."


(pretty high praise by Grant to compare to Frank to David Morrell and Bret Easton Ellis)

[HsssH]

I don't know, I didn't feel like someone slapped me in the face when I finished reading Batman Inc.

As for slapping DC, well, I think that Morrison's every bigger story had some jabs at DC's editors and their overall publishing strategy so it was more of the same on that front.