Grant Morrison's Batman Debuted Ten Years Ago

[Metamorphosis]

Damn, hard to believe his run started 10 years ago already.

After being an avid comic reader for years as a kid, I quit comics in the mid-90's, frustrated with the state of the industry at the time (this was the nadir of the big two and the Image crap). Morrison's Batman was one of the comics that got me interested again, but I didn't start buying it month to month until around the time of "The Black Glove" arc (by which point I was hooked). I had started with the hardcover version of "Batman and Son" which, while I didn't love it, it certainly whet my appetite for more, because it was intriguing.

What a ride the whole run was. Funny enough, I quit monthly comics again around the time of the end of Batman Inc Vol II and the death of Damien (I did buy until the end of the run). Didn't plan it that way, but it's like a full circle.

[Rikdad]

JB,

The topic of reading orders is a fascinating one. Certainly some things can work two different ways, and Batman #700 is the one issue that is definitely outside of the flow of the rest of the run plotwise even though it fits in very well thematically in various ways, including the time travel and Damian in the future.

#701 and #702 certainly were published at a quirky time given their place in the narration, which I think is best justified in terms of maintaining the drama concerning Bruce's disappearance. (Remember, there was a time when readers thought that he might actually be dead… temporarily.) I'm also unsure if the material in #701 and #702 was even intended to be written and published until after Final Crisis was done.

I think it's important that Morrison intended many of his sub-runs to have endings in the sense of a climactic scene that wrapped things up… but then for those endings to become middles of something longer. #681 was intended to end R.I.P. even though Morrison already knew that he would keep going after that.

So, what different reading orders do is convert some of the endings into "mere" middles and other middles into endings, and to some extent, there's a payoff gained for the payoff that is lost. If you read #701 right after #681, then #681 loses something, but comprehension and coherence may be better. For a reader who has the whole stack available at once, without those pauses of a month (or over a year!), maybe different reading orders make sense than what we had the first time around.

[t hedge coke]

I do think that RIP as a story is better ending as it ends. The Missing Chapter is fun, but it's not really "the last chapter of RIP for me. I wouldn't want to see it appended to the end of the RIP collection or something. It's a separate, related story.

The beauty, to me, of RIP is that it doesn't really answer anything by the end. And, there's no fair play element to it at all. We're so trained, as readers, to expect fair play mysteries. Batman is, psychologically, almost addicted to making connections and sussing out answers, and he simply does not have the relevant information to make sense of what's going on to him in that storyline, at that time.

Ending so abruptly, as it does, with little to no explanation for many of the major mysteries, including that cliffhanger of an ending itself, is beautiful.

I changed up my usual reading order, this time, though, to follow up RIP with B&R completely on its own to #16, then the Bruce-centric stuff from other titles. It's a time travel story in serialized segments. There really shouldn't be an official or mandatory reading order. I find that refreshing, in a big way. I can interweave the pieces differently on rereads and glean new material from how they stack together in each different way.

The Daedalus stories fit over different parts of the whole epic in interesting ways, not just Daedalus and Icarus, but the others as well. Dr (another Modernist namedrop) Dedalus and Kathy/Agent 33/Batman. Bruce and his sons. Talia, even. And, the buddhist parable of the bull, herein rendered a goat, is even more applicable to - as is its nature - many different sets of characters or sets of events within the whole run. (Which is probably why Talia picked it; it's a riddle that's applicable to any situation Batman decides to apply it to, and one without satisfactory or full conclusion.) There's a lot of wheels within wheels, cycles cycling on. It's all Hamlet, but it's all Batman and Son magnified, too.

(So above, so below, yadda yadda, it's Morrison.)

[JBatmanFan05]

For a reader who has the whole stack available at once, without those pauses of a month (or over a year!), maybe different reading orders make sense than what we had the first time around.

I guess I can be fine with fans have secondary orders that try to rearrange things because one is, I would suppose, dissatisfied some with the likely intended primary order....you have these desires to "convert some of the endings into "mere" middles and other middles into endings." But I myself will probably always stick with the primary what-Morrison-likely-intended order and I think fans should always be most aware of and given that order. Burnham's order (for B&R, RoBW, 700-702) is not the order we had first time around, all sorts of changes, RoBW #6 we all remember came out after B&R #16 despite RoBW#6 leading right into B&R#16, so Burnham corrects all that publication error due, as always, to artist delays. I don't think anything needs to really move to see that some endings became middles and some middles became endings, I think the run's order (with Burnham's order) already just evidences that and I think no moves are needed to make anything of that read or flow better. I especially think that Burnham's order preserves the nonlinear channel-surfing aspect that Morrison already clearly said he aimed for with Final Crisis....Morrison was digging that approach and I think in general loves the nostalgia of runs (like Knightafall, etc) where you read Batman #X, Tec #X, Shadow of the Bat #X, Legends of the Dark Knight #X, then Batman #Y, etc, etc.

Rik's order:
Return of Bruce Wayne #1-5
Batman and Robin #10-15

Return of Bruce Wayne #3 (I think it was) offers one of the best discrete little arguments for Burnham's order because DickBats & Damian are looking for Bruce clues in Bludhaven and Damian mentions that perhaps they should get back to Gotham to continue to watch over the just-captured Joker. But your order Rik has RoBW #3 before Joker is even captured at the end of B&R #12. New to the run or not, I wouldn't want to read it that way. Sticks out (and that's just one instance).

[nepenthes]

...................

[t hedge coke]

I actually enjoy reading chunks of it more than trying to do a full reread. Even the three to six issue arcs are heavy and potent. The single issue stories.

For me, it starts to get easy to forget how potent they can be, if I'm trying to get through them because there's twenty issues left to go still. Joe Chill's final days or El Gaucho and Batman pursuing Leviathan shouldn't be transitory stories. They're not (just) stepping stones, but platforms.

[t hedge coke]

The anniversary reread is up, for those interested.

Sad to think the old threads from here are all gone. The threads at Barbelith are gone. A lot of the good at-the-moment, sink or swim, mad goofy extrapolations and live and in person bullshitting... gone.

I did find myself disagreeing with Cody Walker's and Marc Singer's books, both, especially this time, and particularly, re Singer, with the Frank Miller stuff. I don't think it is Morrison mocking or trashing Miller. It's love. Love, admiration, and a little bit of ribbing.

I wouldn't doubt it at all of someone told me this page was scripted along the lines of, "OK, I'm shameless. Let's go for an ass shot."



It's drowning in Miller and enjoying it as much as that old bastard bat fighting off two younger, more eager bats in Planet Gotham.

[Dr.Octagon]

I have currently been re-reading Morrisons run...
Just finished Return of Bruce Wayne yesterday..
I love the way morrison purposes Batman created his own myth and inadvertently created himself and his own master villain..
And that basically when you look at it Batman has basically beaten Darseid in the form of the hyper adapter at the of time travelled to the past to create himself and the conditions that brought him to the present and end of time on a endless time loop...
Batman defeats ultimate evil goes back in time inadvertently creates ultimate evil and himself over and over and over in a time loop.. Batman can never die! Lol you can't defeat "Time and the Batman"
Also love the way that at diff time in Batman RIP when Batman is tripping out at diff times(heart attack,later when drugged by hurt,thogal times etc) and seeing glimpses of the past present the mystical hole in things life death birth, it's because everything that has and is going to happen in Morrisons run has already happened and we as the reader are just witnessing events in the time loop of Morrisons run that could of happened a thousand times already over and over again (mind Blown)

[JBatmanFan05]

I did find myself disagreeing with Cody Walker's and Marc Singer's books, both, especially this time, and particularly, re Singer, with the Frank Miller stuff. I don't think it is Morrison mocking or trashing Miller. It's love. Love, admiration, and a little bit of ribbing.

Haven't read either book, so don't know how they put it or how far, but Morrison has been mocking and perhaps trashing the Miller effect on Batman as a character since Arkham Asylum. It's a philosophical enemy of Morrison as far as Batman. I think Morrison, like many or most fans, might blame the writers who kept parroting Miller more than Miller himself, but Morrison has described the Miller version of Batman as the one he's not happy Batman became, he prefers the hairy chested love god spectrum of Batman. You and I agree on the admiration and such (I think Morrison does admire Frank's Batman or style some), but I think it might more than "a little bit of ribbing" on either Miller and/or those who kept Miller Batman going.

Morrison to Nrama in '06:

So, while I won’t pretend we all live on Sunnybrook Farm, I don’t think its appropriate – particularly in trying times – to present our fictional heroes as unsmiling vengeance machines. I’d rather Batman embodied the best that secular humanism has to offer – a sour-faced, sexually-repressed,humorless, uptight, angry, and all-round grim ‘n’ gritty Batman would be more likely to join the Taliban surely?

[t hedge coke]

I had forgotten just how many versions of the Joker get play. The shift, brought on in part by Joker hotboxing Robin with Scarecrow's fear gas, between Cesar Romero lunacy to DKR-style quiet, strutting horror in Time and the Batman, alone, is just intense.

We got some cool new characters, but ye old favorites really got some nice spins, too. Joker, Catwoman, Talia, Penguin, and the almost forgotten but revived fresh I Ching, Sensei, the Hook, the... insect girls (they probably have a team name?). Morrison does good polish.

[t hedge coke]

Haven't read either book, so don't know how they put it or how far, but Morrison has been mocking and perhaps trashing the Miller effect on Batman as a character since Arkham Asylum. It's a philosophical enemy of Morrison as far as Batman. I think Morrison, like many or most fans, might blame the writers who kept parroting Miller more than Miller himself, but Morrison has described the Miller version of Batman as the one he's not happy Batman became, he prefers the hairy chested love god spectrum of Batman. You and I agree on the admiration and such (I think Morrison does admire Frank's Batman or style some), but I think it might more than "a little bit of ribbing" on either Miller and/or those who kept Miller Batman going.

Morrison to Nrama in '06:

That's fair, and to be clear, they are both good books, with interesting ideas and extrapolations, and Morrison isn't probably Frank Miller's biggest fan ever, but he has shown, going all the way back to even before his bat-run, that he likes the work enough to lift from it considering the Sin City techniques borrowed for The Invisibles in what seems entirely good faith.

He has spoken critically, particularly of when Holy Terror was going to be a bat-book, but he's also talked pretty lovingly about DKR and not only reaffirmed the importance of the pearls and other Miller elements, but revisited Year One's version of the bat-origin enough times that the bell, even, became a major element. That, the broad operatic climbs and soaring falls, the Mutant gang, the cross-shadows over the face motif, and many other callbacks and reused techniques do seem, to me, to lend credence to his happier comments on Miller's work being also in earnest. (Even if some are, likely, down to the artists, as well, showing their appreciation, there's enough in terms of motifs, panel pacing, affected tone and language, for me to feel comfortable that it's not all, or even mostly mocking.)

Miller paced the close editing of text and image to provide a galloping rhythmic beat, timing panels like the breaths and pauses of an artfully orchestrated heavy-metal symphony. Ever the innovator, he had developed another new art style for this project, and the line was blocky and aggressive, thrusting forward relentlessly through scene after scene of heart-stopping narrative choreography...

...After decides of hallucinogenic sci-fi, anodyne detective stories, mocking irony, and formula, the Bamtan had returned to doing what he did best in a bleak work that was easily recognizable from any nightly news broadcast as our own, on steroids and PCP...

...Most important, The Dark Knight Returns was good. This two-hundred-page slab of grown-up, layered, and ambitious grand statement was no easily dismissed throwaway story for children. It was as formally ambitious as any novel, as well constructed and exciting as the best Hollywood blockbuster; as personal as a poem, yet populist... Here was a new way to do superheroes. The deadlock was broken."

Morrison's book also has praise for All-Star, Year One, and DKSA.

[JBatmanFan05]

but he's also talked pretty lovingly about DKR and not only reaffirmed the importance of the pearls and other Miller elements, but revisited Year One's version of the bat-origin enough times that the bell, even, became a major element. That, the broad operatic climbs and soaring falls, the Mutant gang, the cross-shadows over the face motif, and many other callbacks and reused techniques do seem, to me, to lend credence to his happier comments on Miller's work being also in earnest. (Even if some are, likely, down to the artists, as well, showing their appreciation, there's enough in terms of motifs, panel pacing, affected tone and language, for me to feel comfortable that it's not all, or even mostly mocking.)

Oh yea, we agree that Morrison really loves Miller's skill as a creator and his iconic contributions to the mythos. He really enjoys Miller. I love DKR and Year One myself. But it's definitely key to understanding Morrison's run that Morrison traces the fundamental philosophical problems of Batman's presentation since the 80s right back to Miller or the effect Miller had.

Morrison has like literally been writing about meaning and purpose and optimism vs nihilism like his whole career. I just read Annihilator and Nameless, two of Grant's latest works, and it feels like him getting only more and more super focused on that. And with his work on Batman is no different. The Batman Grant grew up with was the lighter happier healthier Batman (Grant would probably say that Batman was like Star Trek...this positive forward-looking optimistic thing about human beings and their potential). Grant quote from Multiversity interview: "Where once we had Star Trek now we have The Walking Dead. We see our civilization as something that’s basically, ultimately doomed. And maybe a generation ago we saw our civilization as something that would naturally be carried into the stars, and have this fantastic utopian future." So I think Grant has been saying since Arkham Asylum that the Miller effect remade Batman (comics) into an expression of doomed nihilism (with all the sour-faced, sexually-repressed,humorless, uptight, angry, and all-round grim ‘n’ gritty) whose only saving grace was that that he briefly conquered our "existential fears" (see interview below) for us that each comic would throw at us.

And since Arkham Asylum, he wanted to bring Batman and Batman comics back into the light. And found he couldn't. That people weren't buying that idea anymore. They loved Snyder and the bleak too much. Culture made up its mind.

Of course everything Morrison has said happened to Batman happened to comics in general, so it's all connected.

Nrama: So is this [Batman Inc ending] like an “Empire Strikes Back” thing where it’s ending on a series of down notes?

Morrison: No, it’s not even that…

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.

[Just then, Robert Kirkman walked by, and tapped Morrison on the shoulder. “Hey,” said Grant. “I love you,” said Kirkman. “I love you too!” Grant replied.]

Nrama: What is it about Batman that brings that bleakness back to him? Is it his obsession?

Morrison: No, 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

[t hedge coke]

I had just seen that interview again, and I love that his ending, while incredible dark and cynical, it's also boundlessly optimistic. Bat-Jesus taking the hits for us, basically. Plumbing and fixing the darkness with violence and the occasional bat-hug, so that we don't have to get in those fights as deeply ourselves.

[rpi]

I am so very glad we had it and so very sad that it's gone. I remember how much more human his Batman was compared to the Batman he did in JLA, and I was disappointed by it. His new Batman could lose and had a son that he wasn't even aware of. As I assimilated it into Morrion's three decade long arc through LOTDK and then Arkham and then JLA and then JLA Classified/Seven Soldiers and then 52 and finally Batman/Final Crisis, I realized just how amazing and phenomenally orchestrated his entire Batman story was. People love to talk about what Alan Moore has done in comics, but for sheer ambition he's got nothing on Morrison. Morrison is the gold standard that I hold all DC comics to, and I suspect he will be the best Batman storyteller ever. I never get tired of what he did, although I will say that the grand Spyral/Talia/Ouroboros finale was underwhelming, if appropriate. But Morrison has never been able to stick the landing. He's always been about those amazing flips in mid-air.

[t hedge coke]

But Morrison has never been able to stick the landing. He's always been about those amazing flips in mid-air.

This isn't an uncommon sentiment, but it's one I've never really felt a truth in, myself. For my own money/enjoyment, I mean.

I probably get more charge out of both volumes of Inc than the earlier titles, to be honest, and think the last arcs or issues of The Invisibles, The Filth, New X-Men, Doom Patrol, Animal Man, and Klaus are among the best bits of any of those runs/comics. I think his seeding for the future can get clunky, tbh, but when he starts pulling it all together it looks gorgeous and feels permanent and definitive.