Post by David on May 20, 2007 10:38:29 GMT -5
An eloquent defense of the book, Grant, that would make any apologist proud (and I mean that with all due respect).
For the record, I am a Frank Miller fan--- I'm just not pre-disposed to like whatever a favorite author puts out just because his name is on it (it's what drives me nuts about fans of Geoff Johns: that guy had flashes of brilliance mixed with utter dreck), and I have big problems with not just Miller's work, but this book as a whole, including the lackluster performance from Lee.
So what was your favorite part? Batman's lack of concern for justice? His apparent obssession with violence and inflicting pain? The sophomoric repition of monologue disguised as craft? The characterization of Superman as a whiny loser and Wonder Woman as a misenthropic harridan? Alfred describing the last moments of Martha Wayne's life (which he was not present to witness) as realizing her son had become "a demon"?
I'm sorry, Grant. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see what's to love about this story, nor why we had to wait a year to be subjected to it. This is a talented writer indulging in a selfish, fantastical presentation of a beloved character, and a top-of-his-game artist merely going through the paces to fulfill a contract. I'm almost inclined to be insulted by the creator's disdain for their audience: and I paid money for it!
Well since you asked...lol
First, I think Miller is probably laughing...but not because he is trying to pull a fast one on readers. He is just telling his story like any other writer. If I was him I would be laughing my ass off at readers who have fanboy meltdowns over every panel asking -"Is Miller being serious??? Is Miller doing a parody?? Is Miller really the devil??" and so on and so forth. And in all this blah blah blah over what Frank Miller REALLY means by his All Star Batman and Robin story, people are missing the answer that is staring them right in the face - the story itself.
I understand the conceit of the All-Star line is to give "all-star" creators leeway to present these tried and true characters as they themselves see them, and this is Miller's saving grace: he gets to do this by virtue of his other successes. Does the fact that his vision is unpalatable to a great many of fans mean anything? I think it should. After all, I'm of the school that work-for-money (and let's define it as that, because if sales tank, they'll cancel it) means you have to be responsive to an audience. Pure art for art's sake, this is not (otherwise, damn all critics and just put it out there and let it speak for itself; comic books don't have the luxury of that perspective, though, as this is a money business).
In that regard, every time Miller thumbs his nose at the "fanboys" who put bread on his table, he's failing at his most basic mission: to entertain them. Please don't mistake my meaning: I'm not saying he should be pandering to the fan-base, I'm saying he should have a better understanding of his audience and his character (and I'm not just talking about the history of the character, I talking about what the character "means". Who Batman is is not necessarily determined by a long history of changing cultural mores).
But that's not who Batman is. It's hard to view a non-creator controlled character in any kind of definitive sense, but we can define him either by audience perception (a very real reality) or the cultural standards of the day. To say that Batman is a killer because he used a gun and killed criminals in the unsophisticated stories of the Golden Age is to ignore an evolution of the character that might still be occurring. Unless we view this story as a throwback, shouldn't we define what justice is to Batman by the cultural standards of the readers? If Batman behaved today as he did in the Kane/Finger days, he'd be more akin to the Punisher, and not a hero at all.
I agree, but this is a question of motivation. Does All-Star Batman do what he does in the pursuit of justice, or to exercise personal demons (as Alfred fears), or for the thrill of it (as his own thoughts imply)? His regard for justice seems not just secondary, but tertiary! This is a highly disturbed (deranged?) individual, lacking the nobility of cause critical to Batman's character.
Well, I'm not sure if that's such a great example of his concern. He does nothing to really comfort the traumatized woman(admittedly, not Batman's style, anyway--- though I've never really known him to be without compassion, either), he never looks at her, and then takes off in a hurry, leaving her in the same neighborhood she was nearly raped in! At least he could do is shadow her as she makes it home (doesn't have to happen on-panel, or even be explicit)--- but instead, he's back on the hunt, more concerned with the prey than the victim.
I would say that is a more-than-fair observation.
I'm not sure if that is such an original concept, though. I think Miller has exacerbated the "loss of control" angle, and emphasized the psychosis, but this is how I always understood this to play out (but then, I'm really not a historian of the character, nor is my Batman collection comprehensive). Can Miller really be the first writer to explore a situation that has, by now, become fairly well established (enough to be known by a casual fan such as myself)? Could be!
Not sure what you're trying to say here (I think there's a typo obscuring your meaning), but I'm a fan of noir, too. And cliched literary techniques make for bad writing, in any style. But I can appreciate what Miller is trying to evoke, for what it's worth.
Also, while I am a little behind on City of Crime, I am enjoying it immensely, and would point out that your fan fic is stylistically head and shoulders above the writing in ASBARTBW.
Alright, I'll give you that. Upon a second reading of that scene, I'd have to revise my opinion of Miller's portrayal of Superman. Maybe I was just turned off by the tantrum he's having in those panels (twisting girders and smashing walls yelling: "Damn it, Diana, this is my world, my people, my rules..."). Not necessarily a flattering picture, though, is it?
Whoa...! That is a bold statement. I think maybe you just haven't read some good Wonder Woman... I'd reccommend Perez' seminal re-launch in the 80s, and Rucka's recent run for meaningful and insightful interpretations of the character (incidenatlly, Marston's original vision still holds up pretty well, too, though it is dated)
Diana is the only one with super-powers.
So someone who';s life has been devoted to the arts of peace, compassion and understanding will naturally react with vitriolic disdain and incline towards violence? Do you really think Miller "gets" this character?
A warrior utopia...? I don;t think that's how I would describe DCU's Amazon's at all--- unless they're different in the Millerverse. But even if that was the case, I'm not sure if thousands of years of peace and emotional healing would so quickly revert to hostility and the desire to do murder. I think a more activist approach would be far more likely. Miller is just projecting here, and this is another example of bad writng.
Hey, aren't we all!
The subtle difference here is, traditionally, Bruce Wayne became Batman to avenge his parent's murder, and to prevent the same from happening to others. In the Millerverse, it's implied that the same act has made Bruce as much a monster as Joe Chill (or whoever pulled the trigger). The avenging impulse is sublimated by Bruce's emotional scarring and his desire to make others hurt as much as he did/does.
It was certainly over the top (if only the writer had exercised more restraint). But far from thinking that this was a fun ride, I was disgusted. I look for nobility and heroism in my superheroic characters, and I found very little evident here. There should be a disclaimer on the cover stating: "Frank Miller's All-Star Batman and Robin..."
Well, I contend that any time an artist puts out a piece of work, they leave themselves open to whatever criticism fans care to deliver--- care is the operative word there. Of course, you get the ignorant gits as often as the earnest reviwer. There's no call to take potshots at the writer; it's the product that's under the microscope (though a case can certainly be made that on a certain level the two are inseperable).
You hit the nail right on the head there. And while I have big problem with this title currently (and will not be buying it in the future), I do hope that a shrinking fan-base won't curtail its run, or damage Miller's reputation overmuch. I still enjoy his work (just not his recent Bat-work, evidently), and look forward to reading more of it in the future (if he can get work after this debacle
).
I respect your opinions on this subject, Grant, as you obviously have a deeper understanding of the authors intentions, and I hasten to add my dislike of this book is absolutely colored by my own sensibilities. In the end, I'm glad creators like Miller have the opportunity to share their personal visions with the world-at-large--- but caveat emptor!
For the record, I am a Frank Miller fan--- I'm just not pre-disposed to like whatever a favorite author puts out just because his name is on it (it's what drives me nuts about fans of Geoff Johns: that guy had flashes of brilliance mixed with utter dreck), and I have big problems with not just Miller's work, but this book as a whole, including the lackluster performance from Lee.
capeandcowl said:
fantom said:
So what was your favorite part? Batman's lack of concern for justice? His apparent obssession with violence and inflicting pain? The sophomoric repition of monologue disguised as craft? The characterization of Superman as a whiny loser and Wonder Woman as a misenthropic harridan? Alfred describing the last moments of Martha Wayne's life (which he was not present to witness) as realizing her son had become "a demon"?
I'm sorry, Grant. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see what's to love about this story, nor why we had to wait a year to be subjected to it. This is a talented writer indulging in a selfish, fantastical presentation of a beloved character, and a top-of-his-game artist merely going through the paces to fulfill a contract. I'm almost inclined to be insulted by the creator's disdain for their audience: and I paid money for it!
Well since you asked...lol
First, I think Miller is probably laughing...but not because he is trying to pull a fast one on readers. He is just telling his story like any other writer. If I was him I would be laughing my ass off at readers who have fanboy meltdowns over every panel asking -"Is Miller being serious??? Is Miller doing a parody?? Is Miller really the devil??" and so on and so forth. And in all this blah blah blah over what Frank Miller REALLY means by his All Star Batman and Robin story, people are missing the answer that is staring them right in the face - the story itself.
I understand the conceit of the All-Star line is to give "all-star" creators leeway to present these tried and true characters as they themselves see them, and this is Miller's saving grace: he gets to do this by virtue of his other successes. Does the fact that his vision is unpalatable to a great many of fans mean anything? I think it should. After all, I'm of the school that work-for-money (and let's define it as that, because if sales tank, they'll cancel it) means you have to be responsive to an audience. Pure art for art's sake, this is not (otherwise, damn all critics and just put it out there and let it speak for itself; comic books don't have the luxury of that perspective, though, as this is a money business).
In that regard, every time Miller thumbs his nose at the "fanboys" who put bread on his table, he's failing at his most basic mission: to entertain them. Please don't mistake my meaning: I'm not saying he should be pandering to the fan-base, I'm saying he should have a better understanding of his audience and his character (and I'm not just talking about the history of the character, I talking about what the character "means". Who Batman is is not necessarily determined by a long history of changing cultural mores).
First yours specific questions about why I like this issue:
1) Batman's lack of concern for justice? His apparent obssession with violence and inflicting pain?
Well I actually don't get your objection here. There is no such thing as a "definitive" Batman. To some its Miller, others Denny O'Neil other Englehart and so on. Over the course of Batman comics, what Batman considers "justice" has varied considerably. In original Batman stories by Kane and Finger, Batman was stone cold killer. He carried a gun and routinely greased criminal - he was forever dropping crooks into the vats of acid that were apparently all over the place in Gotham, breaking the necks, shooting them in the face, throwing them off buildings and so on. So that is Batman's original sense of "justice."
1) Batman's lack of concern for justice? His apparent obssession with violence and inflicting pain?
Well I actually don't get your objection here. There is no such thing as a "definitive" Batman. To some its Miller, others Denny O'Neil other Englehart and so on. Over the course of Batman comics, what Batman considers "justice" has varied considerably. In original Batman stories by Kane and Finger, Batman was stone cold killer. He carried a gun and routinely greased criminal - he was forever dropping crooks into the vats of acid that were apparently all over the place in Gotham, breaking the necks, shooting them in the face, throwing them off buildings and so on. So that is Batman's original sense of "justice."
But that's not who Batman is. It's hard to view a non-creator controlled character in any kind of definitive sense, but we can define him either by audience perception (a very real reality) or the cultural standards of the day. To say that Batman is a killer because he used a gun and killed criminals in the unsophisticated stories of the Golden Age is to ignore an evolution of the character that might still be occurring. Unless we view this story as a throwback, shouldn't we define what justice is to Batman by the cultural standards of the readers? If Batman behaved today as he did in the Kane/Finger days, he'd be more akin to the Punisher, and not a hero at all.
Through the 50 and 60s, putting the camp of some of that to the side, Batman became just another joe in tights. His motivations and methods not much different that Superman or Green Lantern. O'Neil's late silver age stuff gave Bats an edge again, although not quiet the same as Kane's original. By then Batman had long developed a hatred of guns. But O'Neil's Batman wasn't above beating the crap out of a criminal, even if it was just for an object lesson. People weren't just scared of Batman because looked scary, but because he inflicted damage. Still, Batman remained an unofficial cop, and a defender of the status quo.
Miller turned that on its head in Y1 and DKR, in both books he beats the crap out of cops - in Y1 he beats Gordon's corrupt partner to a pulp and breaks several of his bones. And we never quite find out what happens to that rapist in DKR...but sure as hell was more violent than being tied up for the cops to arrive with a note attached to his chest.
All Star Batman is much the same. But this time we see it directly. Not told by another character, not in a minimalist style. We see what Batman does.
So his sense of "justice" is really depending on which era and which writer.
Miller turned that on its head in Y1 and DKR, in both books he beats the crap out of cops - in Y1 he beats Gordon's corrupt partner to a pulp and breaks several of his bones. And we never quite find out what happens to that rapist in DKR...but sure as hell was more violent than being tied up for the cops to arrive with a note attached to his chest.
All Star Batman is much the same. But this time we see it directly. Not told by another character, not in a minimalist style. We see what Batman does.
So his sense of "justice" is really depending on which era and which writer.
I agree, but this is a question of motivation. Does All-Star Batman do what he does in the pursuit of justice, or to exercise personal demons (as Alfred fears), or for the thrill of it (as his own thoughts imply)? His regard for justice seems not just secondary, but tertiary! This is a highly disturbed (deranged?) individual, lacking the nobility of cause critical to Batman's character.
It is worth noting however, after Batman beats the rapists up, he advises the girl to go home and so on and call her shrink - his concern for the innocent remains in tact.
Well, I'm not sure if that's such a great example of his concern. He does nothing to really comfort the traumatized woman(admittedly, not Batman's style, anyway--- though I've never really known him to be without compassion, either), he never looks at her, and then takes off in a hurry, leaving her in the same neighborhood she was nearly raped in! At least he could do is shadow her as she makes it home (doesn't have to happen on-panel, or even be explicit)--- but instead, he's back on the hunt, more concerned with the prey than the victim.
This brings me to another point, the apparent manic behavior of Batman that exceeds the newly minted crime fighter of Y1, or the wise yet jaded Batman of DKR and DKSB. This Batman, not long from Y1 appears to be getting crazier panel by panel. (the laugh by the by, was in both Y1 and DKR. Its nothing new.) Dick Grayson is previous issues tells us how much he HATES Batman. Alfred in the last two issues now expresses serious reservations about Batman's behavior. In terms of where Batman is going, this is so telling that I am disappointed that Miller has telegraphed his punches like this.
Part of what this story is about is the origins of Robin in the Millerverse. But in doing so, Miller is asking a question most Batman writers do not - why on earth would Batman ever NEED a kid sidekick or even want one?? Most "classic" takes have Batman behaving as an experienced parent, knowing exactly what to say and when to say it. But Miller's Batman, being a much more extreme and flawed character, is not like that. He has to learn as he goes.
So again, why does Batman need a robin? In part because he wants someone to carry on his mission. But there is a more important reason I am now convinced Miller is getting us to. Batman is sliding out of control.
Part of what this story is about is the origins of Robin in the Millerverse. But in doing so, Miller is asking a question most Batman writers do not - why on earth would Batman ever NEED a kid sidekick or even want one?? Most "classic" takes have Batman behaving as an experienced parent, knowing exactly what to say and when to say it. But Miller's Batman, being a much more extreme and flawed character, is not like that. He has to learn as he goes.
So again, why does Batman need a robin? In part because he wants someone to carry on his mission. But there is a more important reason I am now convinced Miller is getting us to. Batman is sliding out of control.
I would say that is a more-than-fair observation.
Alfred is starting to worry if Bruce has gone mad. Bats is losing himself in his obsessions and its going to be Robin that has the ultimate humanizing effect on him. It's going to be Dick Grayson that levels him about a bit, that keeps him from becoming the thing the hates the most. You heard it here first.
I'm not sure if that is such an original concept, though. I think Miller has exacerbated the "loss of control" angle, and emphasized the psychosis, but this is how I always understood this to play out (but then, I'm really not a historian of the character, nor is my Batman collection comprehensive). Can Miller really be the first writer to explore a situation that has, by now, become fairly well established (enough to be known by a casual fan such as myself)? Could be!
2) The sophomoric repition of monologue disguised as craft?
Well I actually think the writing is fantastic and, if you have read City of Crime you'll know this, a huge fan of noir and neo-noir styles.
Well I actually think the writing is fantastic and, if you have read City of Crime you'll know this, a huge fan of noir and neo-noir styles.
Not sure what you're trying to say here (I think there's a typo obscuring your meaning), but I'm a fan of noir, too. And cliched literary techniques make for bad writing, in any style. But I can appreciate what Miller is trying to evoke, for what it's worth.
Also, while I am a little behind on City of Crime, I am enjoying it immensely, and would point out that your fan fic is stylistically head and shoulders above the writing in ASBARTBW.
3)The characterization of Superman as a whiny loser and Wonder Woman as a misenthropic harridan?
How is Superman a whiny loser? Because he doesn't want Wonder Woman to run off and murder Batman? How does that make him whiny. Superman was laying down the law. He wants the heroes to behave in a certain manner, to have rules..and he understand what will happen - in a foreshadow of DKR and DKSB - what will happen if they don't. Batman is the biggest risk so far as Superman is concerned. And Supes STOPS Wonder Woman from running off to do the deed. That isn't whiny at all.
How is Superman a whiny loser? Because he doesn't want Wonder Woman to run off and murder Batman? How does that make him whiny. Superman was laying down the law. He wants the heroes to behave in a certain manner, to have rules..and he understand what will happen - in a foreshadow of DKR and DKSB - what will happen if they don't. Batman is the biggest risk so far as Superman is concerned. And Supes STOPS Wonder Woman from running off to do the deed. That isn't whiny at all.
Alright, I'll give you that. Upon a second reading of that scene, I'd have to revise my opinion of Miller's portrayal of Superman. Maybe I was just turned off by the tantrum he's having in those panels (twisting girders and smashing walls yelling: "Damn it, Diana, this is my world, my people, my rules..."). Not necessarily a flattering picture, though, is it?
Wonder Woman: actually this is the most I have ever enjoyed Woman Wonder in a comic. Miller has actually thought the character through, which most writers don't.
Whoa...! That is a bold statement. I think maybe you just haven't read some good Wonder Woman... I'd reccommend Perez' seminal re-launch in the 80s, and Rucka's recent run for meaningful and insightful interpretations of the character (incidenatlly, Marston's original vision still holds up pretty well, too, though it is dated)
most writers just want her to be all wise and perfect. But Miller has it right. Diana has just arrived from a island of super powered warrior women
Diana is the only one with super-powers.
whose only experiences with men have been, well, not good. Her island is a bloody Eden. I mean its "Paradise Island" for crying out loud. The "world of men" would seem like an awful cesspool by comparison.
So someone who';s life has been devoted to the arts of peace, compassion and understanding will naturally react with vitriolic disdain and incline towards violence? Do you really think Miller "gets" this character?
So her is a powerful warrior, from female warrior utopia, in world that would to her seem totally corrupt and weak. She would naturally be completely hostile to all of it.
A warrior utopia...? I don;t think that's how I would describe DCU's Amazon's at all--- unless they're different in the Millerverse. But even if that was the case, I'm not sure if thousands of years of peace and emotional healing would so quickly revert to hostility and the desire to do murder. I think a more activist approach would be far more likely. Miller is just projecting here, and this is another example of bad writng.
We know from the story is still "new" to "the world of men." Obviously she mellows somewhat by the time we see her in DKSB. But right now, she is trying to cope in a world run by stupid weak men.
Hey, aren't we all!
4)Alfred describing the last moments of Martha Wayne's life (which he was not present to witness) as realizing her son had become "a demon"?
I actually like that. Obviously Alfred is speculating based on what Bruce likely told him and his own impressions of Bruce and Martha. So far as Alfred is concerned, Bruce became Batman the moment his mother died.
I actually like that. Obviously Alfred is speculating based on what Bruce likely told him and his own impressions of Bruce and Martha. So far as Alfred is concerned, Bruce became Batman the moment his mother died.
The subtle difference here is, traditionally, Bruce Wayne became Batman to avenge his parent's murder, and to prevent the same from happening to others. In the Millerverse, it's implied that the same act has made Bruce as much a monster as Joe Chill (or whoever pulled the trigger). The avenging impulse is sublimated by Bruce's emotional scarring and his desire to make others hurt as much as he did/does.
As for more overall comments - there is a lot going on in All Star Batman and Robin. Batman is not one dimensional. He is both in love with his own capcity of violence, and plauged by deep doubts about his methods. Dick Grayson is wise beyond his years. Alfred is kind of a badass, a real partner and helper for Batman instead of just a guy who hangs around the manner all day. There is alot going on. And on top of it, its just plain fun. Its overtop, Miller doing what he does and I love it.
It was certainly over the top (if only the writer had exercised more restraint). But far from thinking that this was a fun ride, I was disgusted. I look for nobility and heroism in my superheroic characters, and I found very little evident here. There should be a disclaimer on the cover stating: "Frank Miller's All-Star Batman and Robin..."
I think it is unfotunately that many people are ignoring the story and just attacking the author. I think one of the stupidest comments I read is from readers who flipped out of the issue where Bruce talks about touching his mother's breast after she was shot. There is absolutely nothing sexual about that scene - its a very sad moment of a little boy trying to stop his mother's heart from bleeding out, and realizing its too late. He can't help her. But because the word "breast" was used, some fanboys react as though they were in grade school - "oooh he touched his mother's breast. ewww!" This is sort of the bulk of the shots taken at this book and they are pretty spurious.
Well, I contend that any time an artist puts out a piece of work, they leave themselves open to whatever criticism fans care to deliver--- care is the operative word there. Of course, you get the ignorant gits as often as the earnest reviwer. There's no call to take potshots at the writer; it's the product that's under the microscope (though a case can certainly be made that on a certain level the two are inseperable).
Obviously, not everyone is going to like it and that's cool. For instance, I cannot stand All Star Superman - which is one of the most boring books I have had the unfortunately experience of paying money for. But then after a couple of issues, I just dropped it. I stopped buying and stopped reading. And if someone dislikes All Star Batman so much they should just drop it.
You hit the nail right on the head there. And while I have big problem with this title currently (and will not be buying it in the future), I do hope that a shrinking fan-base won't curtail its run, or damage Miller's reputation overmuch. I still enjoy his work (just not his recent Bat-work, evidently), and look forward to reading more of it in the future (if he can get work after this debacle
).Overall, this is one of my 3 fav. comics right now along with Hellblazer and Moon Knight.
I respect your opinions on this subject, Grant, as you obviously have a deeper understanding of the authors intentions, and I hasten to add my dislike of this book is absolutely colored by my own sensibilities. In the end, I'm glad creators like Miller have the opportunity to share their personal visions with the world-at-large--- but caveat emptor!
