CLASSICS: Batman: Year One

[t hedge coke]

At the end of Year One they were still together, but she later left Jim. (And didn't she take James Jr. with her at that point?)

Whether her leaving was because she couldn't take being married to a cop in Gotham, and how much of it was also caused by the situation with Essen . . . hard to say. (I don't know if DC ever clearly defined the reasons she had for leaving.)

Yes, but that's not Year One, which should probably be judged on its own.

In any case, Gordon and Essen certainly had a great marriage for some time, that couldn't have happened without Essen being introduced. And since I can't remember any great stories or storylines involving Jim's wife except Year One, I'm inclined to think Essen was a good contribution and Jim's affair doesn't make him an irrevocably horrible dog, it just makes him human and flawed. His faults, in Year One, are no worse than Bruce's or Selina's, and certainly no worse than Flass' or the Roman's.

[Captain Jim]

It was never fully "in continuity" with the main DCU.

I disagree. It first appeared in the main, monthly title and was the (belated) beginning of the post-COIE revamp. This was considered the beginning of the new continuity at the time. Were some elements of it later removed from continuity? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that it was accepted continuity at the time.

[Beantownbrown]

I've seen online how this is such a great story. I've had the chance to read it recently and I thought it was overrated. For me this was not a great story. It was just aight.

[t hedge coke]

I disagree. It first appeared in the main, monthly title and was the (belated) beginning of the post-COIE revamp. This was considered the beginning of the new continuity at the time. Were some elements of it later removed from continuity? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that it was accepted continuity at the time.

Fair enough. And, probably much more accurate.

[Randumbz]

I've only read it once and that was two years ago, but I wasn't particularly impressed with it. It's better than TDKR at least.

[XanatosVanBadass]

I disagree. It first appeared in the main, monthly title and was the (belated) beginning of the post-COIE revamp. This was considered the beginning of the new continuity at the time. Were some elements of it later removed from continuity? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that it was accepted continuity at the time.

Weren't Collins, Starlin, etc. encouraged to treat even DKR as if if was at least a possible outcome. As in, "as far as you're concerned, you're writing THIS guy from now on"?

[resipsaloquitur]

Let's not forget that "The Long Halloween" fed right off from Year One. They're set six months apart, and TLH quickly became its own story rather than a direct sequel to YO, but TLH isn't possible without Miller's story.

[Captain Jim]

Weren't Collins, Starlin, etc. encouraged to treat even DKR as if if was at least a possible outcome. As in, "as far as you're concerned, you're writing THIS guy from now on"?

Though Miller obviously pictured DKR and YO as occurring in the same continuity, DC did not treat things that way. DKR originally appeared as a mini-series, at a time before Batman's post-Crisis revamp and was always said to be one possible future. YO was the beginning of the revamp, appeared in the monthly Batman title and was considered continuity at the time.

[Jim Kelly]

In my own private opiinion, Batman Year One is the beginning of the post-Classic Batman era. At the time, there were so many things that stuck out like a sore thumb as not being in continuity, that I thought it couldn't be considered a continuity story. As an out-of-continuity story, I would have liked it. But editor Denny O'Neil moved heaven and earth to make things fit into the new continuity that it established. It was the beginning of a series of retcons that completely altered the Batman we had known.

I had a good opinion of it for a few reasons--such as the art. But over time, I've come to like it less and less. I bought the animated version awhile back, but rather than reminding me of all the good things in the original story, it only reminded me of all the things I didn't like. Which seems to be the case with most DC animated adaptations.

[t hedge coke]

Establishing Alfred has having been there with Bruce all along was brilliant. And removed some of the dumber/more disagreeable aspects of the original Alfred-comes-to-stay stories.

And, visually, I think it's one of the most beautiful Batman comics ever done. Is the newest edition really colored/reproduced as poorly as has been claimed?

[Jim Kelly]

The Alfred retcon was unnecesary--and one of the things I have always hated (the Barbara retcon being the other). I much prefer the version from John Byrne's GENERATIONS. And I think Roy Thomas and Marshall Rogers did a similar thing in SECRET ORIGINS. It's Alfred's father, Jarvis who brought up Bruce, after the death of his parents. As established in the original continuity, Jarvis had been the butler of Thomas Wayne, and Alfred became Bruce's butler on the wishes of his deceased father. It's not a far stretch to put Jarvis in the scenes of the early adventures. And that father/son connection for the Pennyworths would make a nice mirror for the same with the Waynes. I never thought it was brilliance on Miller's part to get this wrong--I just thought it was ignorance and arrogance.

[Maxpower00044]

Not only one of the best Batman stories, but, one of the best comic books, ever.


I don't care if it's in continuity, or not; it will always be the first Batman book I give a new reader to read. I love the new origin for the new 52, but this book will always have a special place in my heart as the definitive Batman origin.

[t hedge coke]

The Alfred retcon was unnecesary--and one of the things I have always hated (the Barbara retcon being the other). I much prefer the version from John Byrne's GENERATIONS. And I think Roy Thomas and Marshall Rogers did a similar thing in SECRET ORIGINS. It's Alfred's father, Jarvis who brought up Bruce, after the death of his parents. As established in the original continuity, Jarvis had been the butler of Thomas Wayne, and Alfred became Bruce's butler on the wishes of his deceased father. It's not a far stretch to put Jarvis in the scenes of the early adventures. And that father/son connection for the Pennyworths would make a nice mirror for the same with the Waynes. I never thought it was brilliance on Miller's part to get this wrong--I just thought it was ignorance and arrogance.

I really dislike the idea that a grown - more than grown - man with family, a career, a life gives it all up to wait hand and foot on a billionaire he's never met before, before it's "in the blood" for him to serve.

He doesn't know if Bruce is a good man or not. He does know, however, pre-Crisis, that he's got a career, friends, family, romances, a full on life.

[David Walton]

Though Miller obviously pictured DKR and YO as occurring in the same continuity, DC did not treat things that way. DKR originally appeared as a mini-series, at a time before Batman's post-Crisis revamp and was always said to be one possible future. YO was the beginning of the revamp, appeared in the monthly Batman title and was considered continuity at the time.

Batman definitely lived in the shadow of the approaching future envisioned by Miller until Tim Drake made the case for a new Robin in "A Lonely Place of Dying." I don't know how much of that was intentional, but I remember reading that when asked about what TDKR meant for Jason Todd, Frank Miller joked that he was a goner.

[Jim Kelly]

I like constructive retcons rather than deconstructive ones. What I liked about the '70s and early '80s at DC and Marvel is that writers would get hold of a small detail and tease out a story from that. It was very satisfying when a story came along that gave a greater resonance to already established events (Elliot Maggin did this with Luthor, Roy Thomas did this with countless Marvel characters). The writers didn't have to wipe out continuity (although they might have tweaked it) to create a larger tableau for their stories.

I blame Denny O'Neil more than Frank Miller. It was O'Neil's job to stand up for continuity and not just waffle. And it was O'Neil who chose to make the small amount that Miller had written as the cornerstone of all Batman continuity going forward. By pushing all the major events of Batman's life into the period before Wayne met Grayson--so it all took place in that Year One reality--O'Neil made Batman's chronology quite wonky.

All the major players, all the major villains, all the development of techniques and headquarters happened before Robin existed--contrary to the actual history of the character. So if you graphed Bruce's life you would have this spike at Year One then a long trough from the death of the Graysons until well after Dick grew up, gave up being Robin and took on the Nightwing persona, at which point the graph starts to jump up again. It's like Robin brought this period of inaction in the life of Batman and he needed to be rid of his Boy Wonder to get back into the swing of things--which is probably on a meta level what O'Neil really felt about the character. I sometimes wonder if Denny had any respect for anything that happened before he himself wrote Batman.

It would be much better if the chronology showed pivotal moments and introductions of new villains all through the timeline (something that Grant Morrison did somewhat restore to the character, I think). The timeline for Conan the Barbarian (as adapted by Roy Thomas) shows how a chronology can be much better employed for a character.

Getting back to Alfred, if you tease out the reality that must have existed in the pre Year One continuity, it becomes apparent that Bruce actually did know Alfred in earlier days (this is a slight retcon tweak, but not much given what we know). If Jarvis was the faithful retainer of the Waynes (and it seems like there was a long tradition of service in the Pennyworth clan), then he must have had his sons when he was already in their employ. That establishes a fraternal relationship between Alfy and little Bruce. Then there was some major blow-out between Jarvis and Alfred, which caused the son to leave and seek adventure.

In the pre Year One continuity, Alfred didn't have a family other than his late father and his wayward brother (the later retcon with Julia bothered me and I wrote a letter to Dick Giordano complaining about this development--but in any event Alfred never knew she existed until later in life). Alfred had a history of travelling around, never putting down roots. There was nothing for him to give up when he returned to the Wayne estate. In fact, he gained a lot more. He gained a family, he pursued his interest in detection, and he proved a valuable ally in the fight against crime. Given he immediately sussed out that Bruce and Dick were in fact the Dynamic Duo, he probably decided to stay with them for the very reason that he could contribute to their cause.