Am I the only one who loves The Dark Knight Strikes Again?

[cgh]

Well there's also the lionisation of Batman at the cost of Superman and the sexist, exploitative use of women but if you don't notice these things you'll probably never see why some people find it problematic.

DKR features these things as well. Do you hate it too? For the people that love DKR and hate DKSA, I'm betting it's more like "oh no, the Flash is in SHORTS" *clutches pearls*

[Nick Miller]

I love it for all the reasons mentioned here. It's just an explosion of craziness and ideas taken to their logical conclusion.

Are the people who hate DKSA offended because they feel it strips heroes of their dignity or something? I often hear it's because their behaviour is not "correct" somehow.

yeah thats one reason, they seem not to understand that it takes place in the Millerverse.

I wonder how many of the detractors read all of ASBAR?

And Cipher i have no idea why you are condemning Miller (in your pt 1 above) for telling the truth about media/sex/commercialization.

[Agent Z]

DKR features these things as well. Do you hate it too? For the people that love DKR and hate DKSA, I'm betting it's more like "oh no, the Flash is in SHORTS" *clutches pearls*

Both stories contain problematic elements.

Are you actually interested in people explaining why they don't like DKSA or do you just prefer to stick your fingers in your ear while painting Miller's detractors as straw men?

[Cipher]

And Cipher i have no idea why you are condemning Miller (in your pt 1 above) for telling the truth about media/sex/commercialization.

The Super Chix and some of the other hosts nail that. The other media elements nail what they go for (amazingly so, and in a ways ahead of the book's time).

I'm talking really about the book's opening two pages with the "You want it/You must have it" lips, and a nude poster, all of which just feels so unnecessary and drive home this weird female sexuality = vapid temptation kind of thing. Really, I think they're off the mark, too. While sleezy, objectifying advertising does exist, it's always been niche and viewed specifically as scuzzy, in comparison to the more insidious echo-chamber/vapid media takes the rest of the book does so well with. I also get the feeling that Miller's doing less to criticize the objectification of women, and more aiming at female sexuality itself, but that's drawing in knowledge of him from outside the book, where his approach to women has always been juvenile at best, misogynistic at worst -- you can't be a politically conservative author with that high a prostitute:non-prostitue ratio among women in your work and claim otherwise. Maybe if they weren't some of the opening images, they'd feel less problematic as well. But it's like, you're establishing all the problems of this world, which the rest of the book presents so well, and female sexuality really has to be one of them? Again, it'd feel much different if there were a clear distinction between objectifying women and the sexuality itself, but there isn't.

If all that seems like very specific nitpicking, it is, but it's important to give those issues thought when they slip in in thoughtless ways. But it's reigned in here and really, were it not Miller, I don't know how much it would bother me (other than being off mark). Otherwise, as I've said, I think the book works very well, gives Carrie Kelly a pretty strong showing and doesn't even have anything as "...Really, dude?" as Catwoman's role in DKR. And if I need to clarify again: I love this book overall.

EDIT --

Actually, "News in the Nude" works perfectly well, because it's so clearly about that kind of commercial objectification and is aligned with the edutainment news in the rest of the piece. Zero problem with that. If anything, it's unfortunately undermined by those opening pages and one of the earliest Super Chix panels, which puts its character in some poses that go a little past the line of sexy-celebrity believability and into "Do you really think this is what sexuality has to look like?" territory.

Basically, all this stuff can work, but it works better when it's clearly a comment on vapid/sexist media and I don't have to question at all whether the author is sexist himself (he is, so the best you hope for is that it's minimally noticeable, treats most characters fairly, and that the strength of the rest of the work makes it worthwhile if you can acknowledge the problematic elements; kind of a Bukowski/Hemingway scenario).

[Nick Miller]

good stuff Cipher

It sounds like you know more about his real life then i do. I can only comment on his characters in his crime books. and if he chooses to write stories about prostitutes and other unscrupulous characters i don't find it problematic or misogynist.

[BruceWayneJr.]

I enjoy it, as a kind of "Kingdom Come on crack". It's absurd satire, and it works on that level.

However there's no excuse for the crap that went down with Dick Grayson towards the end. And Miller's art has obviously fallen off, but I don't mind too much.

I'm also not looking forward to DKIII, considering all of Miller's output over the last decade or so.

[t hedge coke]

I can draw better than that.

Proof of that?

[Totoro Man]

I actually kinda enjoyed volume 1. he started losing me in volume 2... and then in volume 3 he lost me completely.


it starts off interesting and then gradually and steadily collapses under the weight of it's own surplus of ideas. I get that it was supposed to be a satire Silver Age x1000 sort of comic. I just didn't enjoy it the closer he got to the end.

(however, I'm always going to love the bystanders screaming "Superman's a pussy!" and "the fight's gone out of him" at precisely the moment when Superman demonstrates the most moral courage and determination he's shown in the entire story. I laughed out loud reading that stuff)

I really enjoyed certain moments in the comic-- but I think BIG part of the problem is that it was billed as a "Batman" story and it ended up being a profoundly goofy homage/mean-spirited send-up of the Justice League.

sometimes it was funny-- but it could often times merely descend into crass effrontery and authorial sadism. the distinction between "satire" and "spite-filled juvenile writing" was even harder to make with each subsequent chapter in the book.

I don't know very much about Frank Miller as a person-- but I don't really enjoy his writing on the whole. I think I enjoyed his earlier work because back then he had editors there to tell him "hey, y'know man, this part isn't as awesome as you think it is."

DKSA was like watching a spectacular airplane crash from start to finish in slow-motion. yeah, there was some interesting stuff in there, but it doesn't make it any less awful in the end.

[Dr.Octagon]

I really liked DNR.. and I really liked AllstarB&R.. because I new from the start that it was not canon to the main dc universe..
Allways stayed clear of readind DKSA because of bad reviews.. but after reading peoples contravercial sounding opinions on the book I have now ordered a copy of amazon and will pop my DKSA cherry.. wish me luck lol

[Cipher]

I really liked DNR.. and I really liked AllstarB&R.. because I new from the start that it was not canon to the main dc universe..
Allways stayed clear of readind DKSA because of bad reviews.. but after reading peoples contravercial sounding opinions on the book I have now ordered a copy of amazon and will pop my DKSA cherry.. wish me luck lol

Good luck! Go in with an open mind. Not saying you'll love it (I can see why people wouldn't), but you at least have the benefit of knowing what kind of experience it's trying to go for.

I really enjoyed certain moments in the comic-- but I think BIG part of the problem is that it was billed as a "Batman" story and it ended up being a profoundly goofy homage/mean-spirited send-up of the Justice League.

It struck you as mean-spirited? The book overall is certainly sardonic, but I think the Justice League is presented pretty well. In fact, a lot of the book celebrates their return as ubermensch paragons, even if that's a little problematic in and of itself (and I think that kind of joy/guilt in the reader is something the book instills fairly well in the reader). I guess that could be seen as mean-spirited as well, but, eh. And they're human throughout, displaying various levels of selfishness and different motivations, but I don't think that's mean-spirited, necessarily.

Like I said, kind of an anti-Watchmen thing, but instead of rendering them human and showing how impotent they'd be, warts and all, it renders them human and continues the celebration/fantasy we ask of superheroes, warts and all.

[dancj]

where his approach to women has always been juvenile at best, misogynistic at worst

I've never got these "misogynistic" accusations Miller gets.

Yeah he does portray prostitutes, but that's only misogynistic if you hate prostitutes, and I've never had the impression that Miller does. Pretty much all of the really nasty Miller characters I can think of are men.

[Cipher]

I've never got these "misogynistic" accusations Miller gets.

Yeah he does portray prostitutes, but that's only misogynistic if you hate prostitutes, and I've never had the impression that Miller does. Pretty much all of the really nasty Miller characters I can think of are men.

You don't have to hate prostitutes, but to cast that many women in those roles speaks to a lack of imagination -- sex can be power, but not if power has to involve sex. And to explore one or two characters who are prostitutes, fine, but they represent an overwhelming number of women in his work.

Also, he once, in an issue in which she spouts some hard anti-male (not feminist, like, decidedly anti-male) dialogue, adorned the cover with a shot of Wonder Woman's ass:

All-Star_Batman_5B.jpg

Which is so ridiculous that from another artist I might mine it for commentary, but there's nothing else going on here.

This is the guy who scripted Vicki Vale drinking a martini in sexy underwear for multiple pages:



Miller's women tend to run the gamut from powerful prostitute/stripper figures (Sin City, Year One), to victimized prostitute figures (Dark Knight Returns), sex objects or the most juvenile understanding of a feminist. Occasionally they make it out fine (Carrie Kelly, Superman's daughter, Barbara Gordon in All-Star) which is happily mostly the case in Strikes Again, or that prostitute obsession actually fits a cartoony noir world like in Sin City, but they're difficult trends to ignore when looking at his work as a whole. Also, most of the women to receive admirable non-prostitute portrayals tend to be children or teens, rather than full-grown women, so ... that's maybe something to scrutinize.

Pretty much all of the really nasty Miller characters I can think of are men.

Misogyny doesn't have to take the form of making women "nasty." Far more often, and more harmfully, it just takes the role of pigeonholing or objectifying them, which I think is the case with a lot of Miller's work.

[t hedge coke]

I think BIG part of the problem is that it was billed as a "Batman" story and it ended up being a profoundly goofy homage/mean-spirited send-up of the Justice League.

It's a comic about Batman's influence on all these characters. Batman is introduced as a shadow that wraps around the panels and he stays that way even when he's running around inside panels. He dominates the whole book.

But what part of it was mean-spirited? Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, The Question... everyone is presented as huge, heroic, amazing. The Question and Green Arrow battling it out on a talk show highlights their character flaws, sure, but it's not mean about it.

[Agent Z]

It's a comic about Batman's influence on all these characters. Batman is introduced as a shadow that wraps around the panels and he stays that way even when he's running around inside panels. He dominates the whole book.

But what part of it was mean-spirited? Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, The Question... everyone is presented as huge, heroic, amazing. The Question and Green Arrow battling it out on a talk show highlights their character flaws, sure, but it's not mean about it.

Yes nothing's more heroic than Wonder Woman referring to herself as Superman's prize. Excuse me while I vomit with disgust, I mean, inspiration.

[Aioros22]

While punching him dowm by how weak-spirit he was looking. This may not be the most politically correct thing to say to some (but I`ll say it anyway), but generally speaking, a strong woman will want a strong man. Nevermind a fictional female warrior from a culture with a large history on the warlike aspect.

Strenght in submission does exist too. But that`s going further

I enjoy unwarranted Feminism as much as Chauvinism but Miller wasn`t off track here as much some may think. Read the dialogue of Diana to Marvel, especially when he`s about to make the sacrífice. That`s inspirational at it`s core. It`s fantastic.