Hush

[knightsintights]

I just finished reading the Hush series jim lee, jeph loeb. I thought it was pretty good except that I feel a little bit lost. As if I did not understand the entire meaning behind the story. I have som equestions that I thought you guys might be able to help with.

1, So who ended up using the Lazerous Pit? Was it Riddler?
2. How did Tommy Elliot figure out that Batman was Bruce Wayne?
3. What the hell is Two face doing in this story?
4. Is Twoface the guy in the bandages or is it Tommy?
5. how did Twoface revert back to the disfigured look?

I feel that Loeb was trying to hard with this story. Alot did not make any sense to me, like the motivations for manipulating Croc, Ivy,or the joker? what was Tommy/Twoface/Riddler getting out of it?

Also what are your thoughts on the story dislikes? likes?

[Paul Dee]

SPOILERS for anyone who hasn't read Hush or Face the Face


1, So who ended up using the Lazerous Pit? Was it Riddler?

Yeah, he used it behing Ra's' back.

2. How did Tommy Elliot figure out that Batman was Bruce Wayne?

Did the Riddler not tell him?


3. What the hell is Two face doing in this story?

Trying to make it more interesting reverting back to Harvey making the story a starting point for a whole host of potential (but un-realised) stories about Harvey Dent's post-Two-Face life? Oh, and for the whole Batman-losing-one-friend-but-regaining-another aspect I guess.


4. Is Twoface the guy in the bandages or is it Tommy?

It's Tommy other than when you see him say "He's innocent. Get the joke?" (as far as I am aware) and the scene in Joker's cell obviously.

5. how did Twoface revert back to the disfigured look?

He was a murder suspect in the One Year Later story and he, feeling upset because of Batman ot believing him he scarred himself again goaded on by the Two Face character speaking to him in his head. All a bit silly really.


Hope this helps.

[Choppa]

And to answer your last question-




Also what are your thoughts on the story dislikes? likes?


It sucked. Art was nice though.

[The Shadow]

And to answer your last question-
It sucked. Art was nice though.
What he said.

Dear god I can't believe such a mediocre story STILL (3 years later) gets so much attention!

[The Xenos]

Yup. I didn't like it either.

Hush was a waste of a character.

As for your questions. Yeah, I was somewhat confused with those issues too. It all was delt with almost randomly and rushed.

Being from the writer of The Long Halloween, I was severly disapointed. Maybe Sale's art style gave a more poper tone to the book, but I thought Hush just didn't carry itself as well as a story as Long Halloween. Long Halloween had its share of craziness, but it felt much more coherant.

[Lorendiac]

I4. Is Twoface the guy in the bandages or is it Tommy?

Depends on which scene you're looking at! Sometimes it was Tommy, a couple of times it was Harvey, and sometimes it was somebody else wearing all those bandages!

I'll explain that as thoroughly as I can.

I read the individual issues as they came out, but I didn't even realize until toward the end of the story arc (when I saw a contest on DC's website urging us to cast our votes on "Who is Hush?") that we were supposed to be calling that mysterious guy "Hush." For the first 9 or 10 issues, I thought "Hush" was just the title of the story. So I was thinking of "him" (or "them") as Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy, for lack of a better name :)

After I had all 12 issues and could go back and double-check, here's what I came up with about the various characters who, at one time or another, were all dressed up as Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy in order to confuse the issue:

1. Most of the appearances of a Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy were Tommy Elliot, also known as Hush, with a handful of exceptions. One helpful clue: Any time that Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat guy muttered something philosophical that turned out to be an obscure quotation from Aristotle, it was really Tommy doing the quoting.

2. The Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy who went to Arkham Asylum in the middle of the story arc and started talking to Joker, and then removed his own facial bandages to show us he was bald (head shaved for recent surgery, that is) underneath, saying, "Harvey Dent is back," was really Harvey Dent. (Tommy Elliot, brilliant surgeon that he was, had somehow completely fixed his face.) One or two issues earlier, I think he had said of Joker something like, "He is innocent," then flipped his lucky two-headed silver dollar and said to us (since no one else was listening except us readers), "Get the joke?"

3. The Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy who fought Batman in that cemetery (around Part 11 of 12), and who cut off his own bandages in that scene to reveal the face of "a fully grown version of Jason Todd if he were still alive, wearing a Robin mask," was Clayface. As Batman eventually figured out. That was Clayface's only appearance as Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy, although he had previously impersonated "Tommy Elliot's Corpse" in order to make Batman think that Joker (or somebody) had killed Tommy.

So that's the way Loeb originally planned it in his plot: Clayface was only Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy in the fight scene in the cemetery. Harvey Dent was Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy for a brief time while he was recuperating from his plastic surgery, as seen in just two scenes in "Hush" (flipping his trademark coin at the end of one issue, and revealing his face to the Joker in Arkham when he sprung him somehow). Tommy was Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy in all other appearances, including the big fight with Batman in the last chapter of the story.

Just to confuse the issue a bit more, we had at least two other Mysterious Unbandaged Trenchcoat guys. Right after Tommy died, a Mysterious Unbandaged Trenchcoat Guy fired a few shots toward Batman and then was holding a gun to his head to discourage him from killing the Joker, but we eventually got to see his face and knew it was Jim Gordon. At the end of Part 11, Batman met another Mysterious Unbandaged Trenchcoat Guy on a bridge and accused him of betrayal. At first we could only see him from the back and didn't have a clue who he was (except that he had hair, unlike Harvey with his shaved head), but it turned out after a minute that he was Harold Allnut. (Who had not previously appeared in "Hush" at all in any way, shape, or form!)

Now, to further confuse the issue! Other writers apparently said to themselves, "Hey, this is fun! I want to fool around with these ideas myself and make the mystery of Hush even more lame and convoluted than it already was! No matter what it takes!" So they did! (Always nice to see a writer pursuing his dream to make a fool of himself, don't you think? :))

4. Judd Winick, when he brought back Jason Todd in a later run on the Batman title, well after "Hush," wrote a retcon telling us that no matter what we thought at the time (or what Batman thought, or what Jeph Loeb thought), the "real" Jason Todd had been the first Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy to appear in that fight scene in the cemetery. After trading a few blows with Batman and saying a few unkind words, he suddenly ducked out of sight and Clayface, disguised to look exactly like him, jumped out of the shadows and continued the rest of that fight scene with Batman, without Batman noticing that anything had changed in the guy he was fighting! (As far as I know, Jason Todd does not claim he was actually the man inside the bandages in any other appearance of Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy throughout the 12-part "Hush" story arc.)

5. A.J. Lieberman, in his post-Hush run on "Gotham Knights" (which I have largely ignored) played mind games with the reader for awhile by making us think the "real" Tommy Elliot was all tied up as a prisoner of the "real" Hush in his secret lair. Which would mean (if it had worked out) that the Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy who appeared in several scenes in "Hush" wasn't really Tommy Elliot after all, but some other guy entirely, whose face we had never seen underneath his bandages, who had simply claimed to be Tommy when he was having his big fight scene with Batman at the end of "Hush"! And Batman had fallen for that clever lie; hook, line, and sinker! (Batman is such a naive and gullible person, you know!)

However, it turned out that "Prisoner Tommy" was all a fake. Hush was really Tommy, also known to me as The Main Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy.

All clear? I can't imagine why some people think this subject is confusing! ;)


Also what are your thoughts on the story dislikes? likes?

If you really want to know just how many plot holes I thought I saw and disliked in the way the story was written by Loeb, you should look at my parody!

I posted a two-part parody of it, written in the mocking "Mad Magazine" style, way back when. It's been a few years, but I find that copies of the parody are still available at

Bratman: Shush (Part 1 of 2) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=109911)
Bratman: Shush (Part 2 of 2) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=112074)

[Chachi]

Wasn't the original plan for Hush for it to turn out to be Jason Todd under the bandages and not Tommy Elliot, but Loeb got cold feet about bringing Jason back?

[Lorendiac]

Wasn't the original plan for Hush for it to turn out to be Jason Todd under the bandages and not Tommy Elliot, but Loeb got cold feet about bringing Jason back?

I don't think so. I've seen that mentioned several times over the last few years as a theory or a vague rumor, but I've never seen or heard of anything so solid as a fan saying: "I personally heard Jeph Loeb say this when I was in the audience at a panel in a convention and he was answering questions from the audience!"

In addition, if we buy the theory that Hush was originally supposed to be Jason, then all those weird childhood flashbacks to the old friendship of Bruce and Tommy become pretty much meaningless. When I read the flashback scene in which Bruce foolishly assured Tommy "My dad will save your dad's life!" or something -- and it didn't work, and Tommy went ballistic -- I took it for granted that this emotionally charged and "unresolved" moment would be dragged into the plot in the "modern day" somehow and referred to again. As it was, in a surprising way, by revelations in the final issue of "Hush." But if Tommy had died and stayed dead in the middle of the story arc then that whole "setup scene" from their childhoods would have nothing to do with anything! Total waste of our time! So when I looked at DC's website just after reading Part 10 (of 12), and seeing they were having a contest on "Who is Hush?" I looked at the long list of candidates and naturally clicked on "Tommy Elliot" as my vote! I was convinced that the childhood flashbacks, particularly the one I mentioned about his father's death, were planned all along to lay a foundation for his later reappearance onstage!

For that and a couple of other reasons, I firmly believe that Loeb got to tell "Hush" just the way he wanted to all along, but that Winick later retconned that fight scene in the cemetery to serve his own personal agenda.

(Incidentally, one variation of the theory seems to be that it wasn't Loeb who got cold feet about bringing back Jason; it was the editors on the Batman books who panicked and abruptly ordered him not to. I don't think that one makes any more sense, though.)

[Choppa]

Wait I forgot to mention the one thing that I did like. If you read HUSH after Long Halloween and Dark Victory, having the Riddler be the mastermind at hte end was a niec twist.

[Carter Hall]

Y'know, I actually really liked Hush. I'll admit I was disappointed how at the end, Tommy Elliott is revealed to be Hush- extremely predictable when you introduce a new good guy and new bad guy at the same time. I thought Two-Face's "evil half" would've been a better identity. Oh yeah, and really confusing at times.

Having said that, I loved the art, and Loeb writes good dialogue. Not to mention the fact that trips through a hero's rogues gallery are always fun. Hush provided some good moments with Ra's Al Ghoul, Harley, and the Riddler, especially (I agree that using the Lazarus pit was an awesome twist). It also played with the idea of the Bruce/Selina relationship actually GOING SOMEWHERE AFTER 60 YEARS (although subsequent writers messed up that plotline AND Hush), and I love seeing progression of characters- isn't that why everyone loves the character of Nightwing?

All in all, I'll say that issues 1-11 were awesome, and then it dipped with issue 12. But for me it wasn't enough to ruin the whole story.

[The Xenos]

I have now realized Hush should have been called Mysterious Bandaged Trenchcoat Guy instead. Not that I would have liked the story any better, but I would have certainly prefered that name and title. Hush? Lame.

[Hush Little Batman]

Y'know, I actually really liked Hush. I'll admit I was disappointed how at the end, Tommy Elliott is revealed to be Hush- extremely predictable when you introduce a new good guy and new bad guy at the same time. I thought Two-Face's "evil half" would've been a better identity. Oh yeah, and really confusing at times.

When "Hush" flipped the coin at the end of one issue, I was excited because I thought Loeb had set us up to think the predictable (Tommy being Hush) and swerved us by given Harvey a third personality, ala Dini/Timm did in BTAS when they created "The Judge". I was really annoyed when it was revealed to be Tommy after all.

[zverko]

If Hush is the guy wearing mask then Tommy is the guy, if Hush is the guy who thought of everything, then Riddler is the Hush.

[Drakonnen]

Also what are your thoughts on the story dislikes? likes?

I just read Hush recently myself.

Over all, I enjoyed the story. They kept it interesting and it was great to see all the characters that were involved.

That said, I thought it was obvious all along that Tommy Elliot was Hush, even when they tried to throw us off by "killing" him.

My whole issue with the whole story line is this: Tommy Elliot tries to kill his parents as a boy, but Dr. Thomas Wayne saves his Mother. And for that, Tom decides he's going to become a Super Villain and take it out on Bruce 30 years or so later?

Even more ridiculous is the fact that Tommy tried to kill his parents, and later became an evil Supervillain, but instead of simply trying to kill his mother off again, he waits 20-25 years for her to die of cancer instead? If he is evil enough for the first attempt and evil enough to become a Supervillain, why the hell did he decide to just ait all that time and then blame Bruce, who had nothing to do with it anyways?

I thought that was completely weak.

I also think the Batman Annual #25 retcon that made it so Jason Todd really did fight Batman briefly in the Cemetary was lame, especially since in Hush Batman said he knew it wasn't Jason not just from the clay, but because he kept referring to him as Batman instead of Bruce.

[Choppa]

In addition, if we buy the theory that Hush was originally supposed to be Jason, then all those weird childhood flashbacks to the old friendship of Bruce and Tommy become pretty much meaningless. When I read the flashback scene in which Bruce foolishly assured Tommy "My dad will save your dad's life!" or something -- and it didn't work, and Tommy went ballistic -- I took it for granted that this emotionally charged and "unresolved" moment would be dragged into the plot in the "modern day" somehow and referred to again.




The flashbacks could be seen as Bruce learning the lessons that he needed to defeat HUSH (ie:think outside the box, etc). As for the scene with Tommy's dad, IMO it could have gone unresolved and just have been put in as another strong emphasis of the difference between Tommy and Bruce.

I strongly believe that Clayface was supposed to reveal himself as Tommy to mess with Bruce's head (a copy of an alternate last page even exists) and the final reveal was supposed to be Jason/Riddler. The story makes a lot more sense that way.

[Mr Obie]

I was flipping thru these trades briefly in Barnes an Nobels.I was wondering if they were worth picking up.The series seemed interesting an the art was good.Anyone else read them an have an opinion on them ?

[Joe Acro]

I think you could search this forum, and maybe some other forums, using "Hush" as the keyword to find plenty of opinions, spoilers, and reviews. Go to it!

[The Shadow]

I think you could search this forum, and maybe some other forums, using "Hush" as the keyword to find plenty of opinions, spoilers, and reviews. Go to it!
What Joe said.

But to cut to the chase: Pretty art... horrible story.

Here are other opinions:


It sucked. Art was nice though.

Yup. I didn't like it either.

Hush was a waste of a character.

Y'know, I actually really liked Hush./snip/ All in all, I'll say that issues 1-11 were awesome, and then it dipped with issue 12.

That was all just from a Hush thread a few down from this one called "Hush Questions"

[Lorendiac]

On the plus side, Mr Obie, after you've read "Hush" you'll be in a good position to appreciate the scathing parody of it that I wrote a couple of years ago. Shamelessly poking fun at every plot hole or really weird "out of character" moment I could find (which kept me pretty busy!). I won't offer a link because I don't want you to read it before you've read the original.

Granted: Just knowing that I wrote such a parody tells you something of what sort of impression it made upon me when I read it (as the individual issues were coming out), but I don't want to give Spoilers of any details here.

My general feeling about writer Jeph Loeb's work on Batman goes like this: "Catchy dialogue, good suspense -- but lousy 'resolutions' to the mysteries he spends so much time developing, and sometimes he seems to think Batman can't detect his way out of a paper bag unless someone else takes him by the hand and drags him toward the correct solution."

[Drakonnen]

I just read Hush. I liked it up until the very last chapter which was kinda stupid.

Worth checking out though.

[The Xenos]

If I may add to that, while Hush was a waste of time and characters (with nice art), the author isn't bad. Perhaps it's because I've seen the author do so well before.

Instead of Hush, if you don't already have it, I suggest Batman: The Long Halloween. A murder mystery by the same author and a different, but just as good (if not better), artist. It's set early in Batman career. It similarly features many characters and villians. You slowly see the freaks taking over Gotham. Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent play key roles. It's a wonderful follow up to Batman: Year One (which is a must read too!). Both Year One and Long Halloween inspired Batman Begins. I can only hope they continue to with the sequels.

[Shadow ES]

I loved Loeb's TLH and follow up Dark Victory much more than Hush. I'd recommend taking an afternoon to read Hush in B&N instead of buying it.

[dancj]

Also it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of people (myself included) which didn't like the art all that much either.

[PaulTiberius]

I have to say that Hush was the first Batman story I ever read in comics. Seriously. I mean, when it came out, I didn't know Time Drake from Jason Todd from Dick Grayson. I was confused enough to think the Robin character's civilian identity was named Burt Ward. Really. So this month I'm celebrating my fourth anniversary of being a Bat-fan.

I haven't re-read the story since it first came out. I loved it then. Now that I'm much more knowledgable of the character and mythos (I now own several thousand Batman comics going back to the post-Crisis revamp), it would be fascinating to see what my reaction is.

Whatever people say complaining about Jeph Loeb's plotting ability, he hooked me on the character of Batman, and I haven't looked back since.

[Slortex]

On the plus side, Mr Obie, after you've read "Hush" you'll be in a good position to appreciate the scathing parody of it that I wrote a couple of years ago. Shamelessly poking fun at every plot hole or really weird "out of character" moment I could find (which kept me pretty busy!). I won't offer a link because I don't want you to read it before you've read the original.

Granted: Just knowing that I wrote such a parody tells you something of what sort of impression it made upon me when I read it (as the individual issues were coming out), but I don't want to give Spoilers of any details here.

Could you post a link to said scathing parody?

[The Xenos]

Wow. Paul. That is impressive. I guess every coimic really is potentially someone's first. I'm also impressed about your collection. Very nice. Though I sure hope you got a bunch in trade format. Then again, if not, that's even more impressive.

I guess my previous involvement with the characters in Hush upset me with the story. From being used to Jason being dead as a given to the almost cheap use of Huntress and various other things that didn't sit right, I was bother by things you luckily wouldn't pick up.

Have you checked out Loeb's Long Halloween and other Batman tales? I think many, including myself, find those to be so much better. Another reason why many long time fans were disapointed in Hush.

[PaulTiberius]

I read Long Halloween some time after I had read Hush and lots of other Batman stories, and really enjoyed it. It only solidified my understanding of Loeb as a prime time player ... which made me all the more bewildered when I started hearing just how irritated many fans were about Hush.

[TROUBLEZ]

I would not buy it in a trade, but if you can buy a couple of the early issues of the story. It reads better as a monthly than as a tpb.

[El Santo]

Wow. Paul. That is impressive. I guess every coimic really is potentially someone's first. I'm also impressed about your collection. Very nice. Though I sure hope you got a bunch in trade format. Then again, if not, that's even more impressive.

I guess my previous involvement with the characters in Hush upset me with the story. From being used to Jason being dead as a given to the almost cheap use of Huntress and various other things that didn't sit right, I was bother by things you luckily wouldn't pick up.

Have you checked out Loeb's Long Halloween and other Batman tales? I think many, including myself, find those to be so much better. Another reason why many long time fans were disapointed in Hush.

To be fair, I don't think it was Loeb's intention to resurrect Jason Todd. The use of Jason in Hush never bothered me much (oddly enough, I think Hush, while not my first comic book by a long shot, is what got me back into it), but the later use of Hush as an excuse to drag him out of the grave struck me as cheap. And Loeb's other recent works, like Superman/Batman and Supergirl, have annoyed me tremendously.

[Lorendiac]

Could you post a link to said scathing parody?

Sure. There was no reason to do that before, since I was responding to Mr Obie and it would look very strange if I posted links at the same time I was solemnly counseling him not to read my parody before he was familiar with the source material. Some narrow-minded people might even accuse me of sending hypocritical mixed messages! But since you asked . . . :)

Bratman: Shush (Part 1 of 2) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=109911)
Bratman: Shush (Part 2 of 2) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=112074)

It was originally posted right here on CBR's forums, among other places, but that was about two and a half years ago, and any threads that old appear to have long since been automatically scrubbed out of the database, as near as I can tell.

It amused me to write it in script format, as if Mad Magazine or some similar outfit might publish it with illustrations one of these days as a 12-page story, but of course I never seriously believed that was going to happen. (Hmmm. I wonder how it would look as a webcomic, if I could find someone who could do a humorously exaggerated imitation of Jim Lee's style? ;))

[yourverysilly]

does everyone REALLY dislike hush? surely not, but I've been hearing some crazy hush hating recently, I mean, whast the deal? Hush haters, why do you hate it so? Its genius! Its Loeb, of course its genius!

[Karl O'Neill]

some indignant fans can dig their heels as much as they want.
Hush was a Tour de force.
a masterpiece
if an alien was to land on earth now and wanted a good comic,
i would give them hush by loeb and lee

[MaxofSteel]

I agree with you two. I liked Hush a lot. Mainly for Lee's art, but the story was great as well. And I'm not even a Batman fan! :eek:

[niall mc cann]

i really didn't like it, but its ages since i read it...

I remember being very frustrated by Hush himself; as mystery villains go, the identity was transparent.

The villain showdowns were beautifully drawn (Lee's forte is baroque action), but shallow and a bit pointless to me.

The Catwoman love story was annoyingly mopey to me... an emo batman is not something i've ever particularly wanted to read.

All these things together make for a book i can take or leave. nine times out of ten, i'll leave it.

I've had just about the opposite reaction, though... everybody i know loves the book. I've recomended it to people against my better judgement. I don't know where you're running into all these Hush haters, but let me know the next time you see one, 'cause they sound like my kinda folk! :D

[elias_A]

I don't HATE Hush, I just think it's nothing special, surely not a masterpiece, and also not what I'd recommend a new reader as first impression of Batman.

It's obviously constructed as a sightseeing tour through all the iconic things of Batman's world (fighting Superman, chasing catwoman, almost killing Joker), but it does not feel like a compelling story to me. And the use of Ras, Talia, Ivy, Harvey etc. felt very forced.

It was very obvious the doctor/ childhood friend was introduced to be a villain.

Besides, it was too much JLA/superhero-Batman, I prefer noir urban vigilante.
Batman should beat Killer croc with martial arts, not with some high-tech-gimmick.

[Sparda]

Hush was'nt that great for me either and I'm a Loeb fan. Reason it's bad for me is the dragging on and on of the story in such a boring matter and the main reason alot of people love it cause of Jim Lee's overrated art. Loeb can do much better than this and I feel he's at his best when he know's what to do, and in Hush it feels like "Hmmm DC paid me lots of money to do this story so I gotta come up with something fast to drag on for 12 issues. People would'nt mind the story cause thier Jim Lee freaks hahahhahaha".

Loeb at his best is really at his best, in Hush's case he did it to drag on for the purpose of Jim Lee doing the issues.

[RBHarmon]

I really enjoyed Hush but I agree on the actual villain of hush, he's bad. His motivations are bad and his identity was far from secret, he is still better than Jason Todd though

[ZacharyLovesYou]

Loved Hush, but I agree that it was transparent in a lot of places where it ought to not be. There were definitely some suprises, but nothing huge.

If I were to suggest some Loeb reading to someone who'd never read comics before, I'd hand them a trade of Batman: The Long Halloween. Now that was a mystery page-turner that kept me guessing.

[brundlefly]

Its Loeb, of course its genius!

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Loeb's most recent works (HUSH, SUPERMAN/BATMAN, SUPERGIRL) are mediocre at best and nowhere near the greatness of his older team-ups with Tim Sale (SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS, THE LONG HALLOWEEN). He's capable of masterpieces, but he's very inconsistent and has been in quite a slump the past few years. But given the situation with his son occurring around the same time, it is certainly understandable. Maybe another pairing with Sale would help him break out of his creative rut. HUSH, for example, was little more than a pretty Jim Lee flip-book, with Loeb just "writing for the artist" and not putting a lot of effort into a strong plot and story to go along with it. That's why it's vastly inferior to his prior stuff with Sale, which has both quality art and writing. HUSH is simply a Jim Lee art showcase, with Loeb just along for the ride.

[carabas]

If I were to suggest some Loeb reading to someone who'd never read comics before, I'd hand them a trade of Batman: The Long Halloween. Now that was a mystery page-turner that kept me guessing.

It's a bit too bad that Loeb cheats by having several people be Holyday, and that the final reveal is plucked straight from 'Presumed Innicent'.

[PunisherFan]

I really liked Hush, the story and the character. I was a bit surprised at how many people hated him. Put it this way, he has got to be 10 times better the villain than lets say Mad Hatter or The Riddler, yet people love those two. I guess it's all about what kind of character you like.

[sun tzu]

I loved Hush for most of the ride...Then I got to the ending, and thought it sucked. It made no freakin' sense (much as I loved the Riddler/Batman exchange...Tommy Elliott?! And because of...?! Stupid.)

[rwe1138]

I highly enjoyed it. But don't read the A.J. Lieberman stuff. For your own health and well being.

[Locue]

It was okay apart from the fact that Loeb n' Lee sounds like an 80's white guy rap group.

Reading between the lines: no, I didn't like Hush.

[bennyblanko]

hush was ok until krypto ruined it.

[yourverysilly]

ARGH!!!
does noone else see it?
I needed to create a new thread for this, this is VERY important, but SPOILER WARNING!
Ok, In my last thread I heard a lot of 'there was no mystery' or 'it was obvious who hush was'. You guys are being played like a prize banjo by Loeb.
You see OF COURSE hush was tommy! that was a red herring PLOTLINE! you see the REAL twist, the real Mystery was the Riddler! Just like he did in dark victory and the long halloween, loeb created a smokescreen to trick the reader, just like Alberto being dead, Sofia being parlysed, the question of WHO WAS HUSH was a similar smokescreen. The real twist was in the revelation that this washed up memeber of the rogues gallery was doing it all along! THATS WHY THE STORY IS GENIUS! I could (and do) read that part of the story over and over.
Yeah, so I've always really felt this was an important part about hush, and I really think a lot of people miss it.

[Lorendiac]

does everyone REALLY dislike hush? surely not, but I've been hearing some crazy hush hating recently, I mean, whast the deal? Hush haters, why do you hate it so? Its genius! Its Loeb, of course its genius!

Well, I'm not a "Hush hater." I bought every issue as the story arc was coming out, and I found it very interesting and suspenseful, but I was badly disappointed by the ending (and various other little flaws along the way). "Disappointed" is not the same thing as "hating."

My general feeling about writer Jeph Loeb's work on Batman goes like this: "Catchy dialogue, good suspense -- but lousy 'resolutions' to the mysteries he spends so much time developing, and sometimes he seems to think Batman can't detect his way out of a paper bag unless someone else takes him by the hand and drags him toward the correct solution."

In other words, in some ways I think he's definitely better than average, but when it comes to complicated plots, he really ought to find a good collaborator so that his big epics will actually make sense!

Beyond that, if you really want to know what flaws I thought I saw in the story, you should read my two-part parody of it.

Bratman: Shush (Part 1 of 2) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=109911)
Bratman: Shush (Part 2 of 2) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=112074)

It was originally posted right here on CBR's forums, among other places, but that was almost three years ago, and any threads that old appear to have long since been automatically scrubbed out of the database.

It amused me to write it in script format, with humorous distortions of all character names, as if Mad Magazine or some similar outfit might publish it with illustrations one of these days as a 12-page story, but of course I never seriously believed that was going to happen. (Hmmm. I wonder how it would look as a webcomic, if I could find someone who could do a humorously exaggerated imitation of Jim Lee's style? ;))

[carabas]

It doesn't matter.
Over 90% of the book is about who is the guy that stole Negative Man's outfit. And it turns out that it is indeed the most likely suspect that everyone thought it would be, except that he has the most inane (not a typo for insane) origin of all Batman villains.
A last minute reveal that there is someone else pulling his strings only slightly aleviates the general mediocrity of the plot.

[The_green_listener]

I'm seeing a lot of hate for hush here and I can understand that. I for one enjoyed it (then again I was probably too busy drooling over the artwork) although the ending bothered me. It just seemed to fall on its arse all of a sudden. I had to go back and check some things to figure out what actually happened, confussing but nontheless I was impressed with Hush

[dancj]

HUSH is simply a Jim Lee art showcase, with Loeb just along for the ride.

I thought pretty much the same of his Tim Sale collaborations. The big difference of course being that Tim Sale is one of the best artists in the business!

Personally I found Hush pretty mediocre in both story and art. I think the main reason for the level of hate for the book is not so much because terrible, but because it's held up as this masterpiece that it so blatantly isn't.

[HankMcCoy]

I just read Hush, and I was very impressed. It was the first batman trade (or dc for that matter, besides watchmen) I've read and I actually bought it too. There are definitely more Hush haters than I expected to find here. (Then again, I am talking about the CBR forums.)

Was this book really hyped up when it was being initially released? Perhaps it didn't live up to the hype, considering Loeb's legacy of LH and DV? This wasn't the case for me, as it was my first batman trade, not having read LH and DV and also I was not aware of Hush until recently so I knew nothing about it.

So I duno, maybe that's what ruined it for all you people?

[Captain Jim]

It's a wonderful book if you're new to Batman. And when the story was first coming out, that's who I consistently saw praising it: people who had never read Batman before. It *did* bring a lot of new readers onboard, and that's a good thing (especially if they stayed around). But to people who'd been reading Batman for years, it wasn't so much that it was bad as it was "been there, done that." Personally, I saw a lot of similarities to Loeb's own Long Halloween and Dark Victory (as you imply), and thought the originals were actually better. Jim Lee's art was very nice, but again, to me he seems like a Neal Adams clone.

[Paul Dee]

Jim Lee's art was very nice, but again, to me he seems like a Neal Adams clone.

Ooh, that's interesting. How so? I disagree though, seeing them as polar opposites. Neal Adam's work is* much more figurative whereas Jim Lee goes for the over-the-top hero-on-steroids look.


* well, was. That recent picture of Bruce fighting Ra's Al Ghul looked like it was influenced by Jim Lee - rippling muscles etc

[The Xenos]

I just read Hush, and I was very impressed. It was the first batman trade (or dc for that matter, besides watchmen) I've read and I actually bought it too. There are definitely more Hush haters than I expected to find here. (Then again, I am talking about the CBR forums.)

Was this book really hyped up when it was being initially released? Perhaps it didn't live up to the hype, considering Loeb's legacy of LH and DV? This wasn't the case for me, as it was my first batman trade, not having read LH and DV and also I was not aware of Hush until recently so I knew nothing about it.

So I duno, maybe that's what ruined it for all you people?

Yeah. Pretty much it was ruined because we read the much better stories you mentioned you haven't yet. For anyone's who's read Hush, I want you to erase it from your memory somehow, go read these other stories first, then read Hush. Then you'll see what a disapointment it was. Plus just futzing around in the main Bat title with diregard for characters didn't help either. Hell, the crappy treatment of Huntress alone made me dislike Hush. Nevermind what a total load of BS Hush's identity was. The whole Batman and Catwoman romance that went nowhere fast.

Of course anyone who hasn't read any other Batman books couldn't notice any of it.

[Choppa]

I don't get why new readers like HUSH so much. The story makes no sense!! It's a terrible mystery that's barely even a mystery. What is it that makes it so appealing to newbies?

[The Xenos]

It's a neat pow bam wiz bang Batman story with a bunch of supervillians. It's just a fun comic book. Meanwhile, other readers have come to expect more than just a fun comic book from current Batman stories.

Then again, Morrison has brought some silver age wackiness to the Batman title, as well as All Star Superman, and yet I am enjoying it there.

[Choppa]

It's a neat pow bam wiz bang Batman story with a bunch of supervillians. It's just a fun comic book. Meanwhile, other readers have come to expect more than just a fun comic book from current Batman stories.

Then again, Morrison has brought some silver age wackiness to the Batman title, as well as All Star Superman, and yet I am enjoying it there.

Well I guess I misunderstood new readers by assuming that they would at least want something comprehensbile. It's too bad that a story that simply makes sense is now the highest expectation that we can have of the book.