Who's the better Bat-writer - Dennis O'Neil or Steve Englehart?

[JulianPerez]

Who's the better Bat-writer - Dennis O'Neil or Steve Englehart?

Dennis O'Neil

The case FOR:
* Created Ra's al-Ghul, one of Batman's greatest villains
* Created Talia, who many fans say is THE woman in Batman's life
* Wrote musty, atmospheric stories centered on crime violence
* Helped by incredible art by Jim Aparo and Neal Adams
* Can write one hell of a good mystery (e.g. "Half an Evil")
* Gave Batman a darker vision after the Weisenger years

The case AGAINST:
* Approved NO MAN'S LAND as Bat-Editor
* Wrote annoying "let's make a difference" stories about society like "No Hope in Crime Alley" instead of having Batman SOLVE mysteries and fight crime


Steve Englehart

The case FOR:
* Used Batman's history; restored from disuse Hugo Strange, Deadshot, and created Dr. Phosphorus and Boss Thorne
* Created Silver St. Cloud, who many fans say is THE woman in Batman's life
* Wrote musty, atmospheric stories centered on pulp influence
* Helped by incredible art by Terry Austin and Walt Simonson
* Can write one hell of a good mystery (e.g. "The Malay Penguin")
* Gave Batman a sense of history, incorporating previous Bat-ages from Finger to Weisenger to Schwartz

The case AGAINST:
* Only wrote like, six issues


Me, I think Alan Brennart can take on both these guys, but what do y'all think?

[The Shadow]

Dennis O'Neil

The case AGAINST:
* Approved NO MAN'S LAND as Bat-Editor
Are you kidding?

That was THE best mega crossover EVER! It all tied in nicely, had lasting reprecussions and killer art!

[LordEd1976]

tough call. I'm having a hard time choosing between the two.

On another note, No man's Land wasn't that bad. The only problem I have with it is it seems kind of hard to swallow that something like it can happen in the DCU. One with think the heroes would ban together to fix Gotham and have it running in no time, the premise of the city being cut off would have worked better if Bats lived in his own universe. But still its not a bad storyline.

[Slam_Bradley]

I love both. And I agree that Brennert is probably the best ever.

I gave the nod to Denny. His work on Batman paved the way for Englehart and Brennert. His writing was the catalyst to put the Dark back in the Dark Knight. He's probably the second most important Bat writer after Bill Finger.

[dazzler_slave]

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing against Denny O'Neil since the two points you make against him, I would put in the plus category. No Man's Land was incredible, one of the most daring and brilliant experiments ever to happen in a comic book (and it worked too!). Also, I have always liked his socially conscious stories (Green Lantern & Green Arrow), so I put that in the plus category too.

[cactusmaac]

O'Neil's contributions as both writer and editor have been a lot more significant.

And in a rarity for superhero comics, the crossovers he supervised were all pretty entertaining.

I never got the love for Englehart. I read the Strange Apparitions trade and thought it was just OK. Heck, I'd much rather read Denny's Venom story in LOTDK than that.

[Slam_Bradley]

O'Neil's contributions as both writer and editor have been a lot more significant.

And in a rarity for superhero comics, the crossovers he supervised were all pretty entertaining.

I never got the love for Englehart. I read the Strange Apparitions trade and thought it was just OK. Heck, I'd much rather read Denny's Venom story in LOTDK than that.


Now for me, that would be a reasonable strike against O'Neil.

[JulianPerez]

My vote goes to "Stainless" Steve Englehart beyond the shadow of a doubt. His Batman was so well thought out and plotted - he used his brain in amazing ways, only changing when he realized there were no cameras around in Hugo Strange's lair, all the way to the Joker's ruthless competence; never had he been written as frightening or as unpredictable as he did under Englehart. Englehart gave the Joker his definitive characterization.

Much ado is made of O'Neil giving Batman his darkness, but he did so at the expense of Batman's past, by throwing things out: not using Robin (often, anyway), Batwoman, Ace the Bat-Hound, or Peggy Kane. Englehart had much more visible respect and love for his predecessors: the giant typewriters, the giant chess set in the Batcave, Batman having different costumes, and (talk about obscure) slipped in references to Julie Madison and naming people after great Batman creators like Sprang and Broome. He didn't use everything (he didn't have time) but what he did was done with profound respect.

Englehart for me was more stylish than O'Neil was. O'Neil involved a lot of gritty street crime, graffiti, and punks; Englehart went for elegant, pulp-style opponents like the Tobacconists Club.

Dennis O'Neil's best work, at least for me, has to be either his amazing, great HAWKMAN AND THE ATOM run (a team-up that had the humor and style that the "afterschool special" unintentionally hilarious but more popular GL/GA lacked) or his BATMAN stuff where he concentrated on mysteries. His recent JLA story arc involved them...saving a species of monkey from extinction. YAWN.

Denny, this is from one flaming liberal to another: please, STOP "HELPING."

For me, the seven best writers to ever tackle Batman are, in order:

1. Steve Englehart
2. John Broome
3. Alan Brennert
4. Bill Finger
5. Gardner F. Fox
6. Len Wein
7. Dennis O'Neil

I wouldn't mind being seventh on a list that includes Englehart, Fox, and Broome.

The only problem I have with it is it seems kind of hard to swallow that something like it can happen in the DCU. One with think the heroes would ban together to fix Gotham and have it running in no time, the premise of the city being cut off would have worked better if Bats lived in his own universe.

Excellent point, Eddie, you just hit my objections there on the line: why...did this happen AT ALL in a universe of superheroes? Maybe if Infinite Crisis is restoring the multiverse (keeping fingers crossed!) we can give Batman "Earth-B." :o

And I didn't find it entertaining much, either - just Batman whining with his supporting cast.

[Cash Lone]

Created Dr. Phosphorus? Englehart all the way!!! :D

[The Shadow]

Much ado is made of O'Neil giving Batman his darkness, but he did so at the expense of Batman's past, by throwing things out
He threw out all the campyness of the 1960's, got rid of the sci-fi Batman and actually had the characters evolve (like Dick going to College).

And I think Denny gave the joker his ultimate characterization with stories like the Laughing Fish which Englehart drew upon when crafting HIS stories.

Englehart for me was more stylish than O'Neil was. O'Neil involved a lot of gritty street crime, graffiti, and punks; Englehart went for elegant, pulp-style opponents like the Tobacconists Club.
Ya think so? IMO O'Neil did the pulp elements better than most by having Batman act as a detective in the mode of Sam Spade (only dressed as a giant bat! LOL) while retaining his Bruce Wayne persona.

[The Shadow]

why...did this happen AT ALL in a universe of superheroes?
Did you read it? If you did you might have remembered that Batman didn't want ANYONE's help. Superman offerered and was turned away and Bruce said he would do it alone.

[JKCarrier]

I like 'em both. O'Neil probably wins out through sheer volume, but Englehart rocked the casbah. A couple minor points:

He threw out all the campyness of the 1960's, got rid of the sci-fi Batman and actually had the characters evolve (like Dick going to College).

Frank Robbins wrote the story ("One Bullet Too Many") where Dick goes off to college, and Bruce moves out of the mansion and into the Wayne Foundation penthouse.

And I think Denny gave the joker his ultimate characterization with stories like the Laughing Fish which Englehart drew upon when crafting HIS stories.

Englehart wrote "The Laughing Fish". Maybe you're thinking of O'Neil's "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge"?

[Babylon23]

* Helped by incredible art by Terry Austin and Walt Simonson

Terry Austin was only the inker for Englehart's run. The artist on these issues was actually Marshall Rogers.

As for who is the better Batman writer, I really couldn't say. O'Neill redefined Batman for the modern era, and helped to introduce socially relevant stories to comics (which I consider a plus).

Englehart constructed a beautiful 12-month run that contained the "Joker Fish" story, which I still consider to best the best Joker story ever written.

Overall, I'd probably give the edge to O'Neill for recreating Batman.

[Guts/Batman]

Are you kidding?

That was THE best mega crossover EVER! It all tied in nicely, had lasting reprecussions and killer art!

Definitely.

I loved NML.

Also, this is the last time we have seen a competent and good Joker, I think.

[JulianPerez]

Did you read it? If you did you might have remembered that Batman didn't want ANYONE's help. Superman offerered and was turned away and Bruce said he would do it alone.

Considering the enormity of the problem that Batman was facing, this strikes me as titanically arrogant. Much ado has been made of Batman being a "jerk" in recent times, however, this is by far one of the worst occasions of Bat-jerkiness, because it's used to cover up a plot hole big enough to drive the Batmobile through.

Superman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern would have rebuilt the city in 24 hours. AND polished the big giant penny in the Batcave to boot.

Dennis O'Neil's Batman stuff is wonderful, but he can't write characters with powers. His response to them is to cut their powers in half, His Wonder Woman was interesting...but it wasn't Wonder Woman. My primary response to O'Neil's GL/GA was "Geez, hey, remember when Green Lantern used to...y'know, fight VILLAINS and go in SPACE?"

Englehart on the other hand, has much greater range as a creator, doing mystic stuff (possibly the best DR. STRANGE run ever written and COYOTE), high-level superheroics (possibly the greatest AVENGERS and AVENGERS WEST COAST runs ever) to street-level stuff (NIGHTMAN, DETECTIVE COMICS) to space opera superhero (GREEN LANTERN).

Terry Austin was only the inker for Englehart's run. The artist on these issues was actually Marshall Rogers.

Thank you for mentioning - Marshall Rogers is a great artist. Terry Austin deserves special credit, however, for his amazing inking, though, which had a lot to do with the atmosphere of the stories.

He threw out all the campyness of the 1960's, got rid of the sci-fi Batman

As I'm very fond of this period, throwing out elements from it strikes me as wasteful. If you don't want to do what Weisenger and Gardner Fox did, just don't tell the type of story that they told; there's no need to have Robin shot by the Joker in the arm and sent off to college, or never mention Kathy and Betty Kane again.

[dazzler_slave]

Considering the enormity of the problem that Batman was facing, this strikes me as titanically arrogant. Much ado has been made of Batman being a "jerk" in recent times, however, this is by far one of the worst occasions of Bat-jerkiness, because it's used to cover up a plot hole big enough to drive the Batmobile through.

Superman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern would have rebuilt the city in 24 hours. AND polished the big giant penny in the Batcave to boot.

Dennis O'Neil's Batman stuff is wonderful, but he can't write characters with powers. His response to them is to cut their powers in half, His Wonder Woman was interesting...but it wasn't Wonder Woman. My primary response to O'Neil's GL/GA was "Geez, hey, remember when Green Lantern used to...y'know, fight VILLAINS and go in SPACE?"

Englehart on the other hand, has much greater range as a creator, doing mystic stuff (possibly the best DR. STRANGE run ever written and COYOTE), high-level superheroics (possibly the greatest AVENGERS and AVENGERS WEST COAST runs ever) to street-level stuff (NIGHTMAN, DETECTIVE COMICS) to space opera superhero (GREEN LANTERN).



Thank you for mentioning - Marshall Rogers is a great artist. Terry Austin deserves special credit, however, for his amazing inking, though, which had a lot to do with the atmosphere of the stories.



As I'm very fond of this period, throwing out elements from it strikes me as wasteful. If you don't want to do what Weisenger and Gardner Fox did, just don't tell the type of story that they told; there's no need to have Robin shot by the Joker in the arm and sent off to college, or never mention Kathy and Betty Kane again.
It sounds to me like you give Englhart a little too much credit. Greatest Avengers and AWC runs ever? Give me a break! His AWC was passable at best, and his Avengers run doesn't even come close to the likes of Busiek, Stern, Roy Thomas and Stan Lee himself.

Oh, and if you like the campy 60's stuff, more power to you, but most of us prefer the Dark Knight to be, in fact, dark; at least to some degree. Oh, and Kathy and Betty Kane were silly charachters in silly costumes. They did not fit into the Bat universe at all, so I think most of us don't mourn their loss at all. I know I don't. As far as I'm concerned, Barbara was the first Batgirl, and whoever takes up the mantle after OYL will be the first Batwoman.

[JulianPerez]

It sounds to me like you give Englhart a little too much credit. Greatest Avengers and AWC runs ever? Give me a break! His AWC was passable at best, and his Avengers run doesn't even come close to the likes of Busiek, Stern, Roy Thomas and Stan Lee himself.

Roy Thomas is a genius, no question and his AVENGERS run was the highlight of his distinguished career; ditto for the amazing Roger Stern. However, Kurt Busiek's AVENGERS run owes QUITE a bit to Steve Englehart in terms of inspiration and characterization-centered approach. Both told similar stories involving the introduction of red-headed ingenues, both had an Avengers roster flux constantly, and at the end of AVENGERS ANNUAL '98 Busiek had a speech that was nearly word-for-word identical to one during Englehart's "Celestial Madonna," about how "nothing ever stands still in THIS group!" But don't take my word for it; Mr. Silver Age himself, Kurt Busiek has cited Englehart as his inspiration many times, and Kurt's amazing stories are all the better for it.

Kurt Busiek told the definitive Ultron story. Stainless Steve told the definitive Kang stories. I would not put Kurt above Englehart except in one crucial respect: JLA/AVENGERS in my opinion knocked Englehart's AVENGERS/DEFENDERS WAR out of the top spot for being the greatest crossover ever.

Englehart's AWC was astonishingly clever; Hawkeye defeating the Grandmaster was one head-clockingly amazing feat.

Oh, and if you like the campy 60's stuff, more power to you, but most of us prefer the Dark Knight to be, in fact, dark; at least to some degree. Oh, and Kathy and Betty Kane were silly charachters in silly costumes. They did not fit into the Bat universe at all, so I think most of us don't mourn their loss at all. I know I don't. As far as I'm concerned, Barbara was the first Batgirl, and whoever takes up the mantle after OYL will be the first Batwoman.

Batman is a great enough character that he has the strength to support multiple takes. The dark one is a great way to look at him (both Englehart and Dennis O'Neil did it very, very successfully) but it IS just one type of atmosphere and story to create.

Batman was wonderful as a swashbuckling adventure character surrounded by giant props (especially when drawn by a genius artist like Dick Sprang). Len Wein had Batman crack wise with villains, and say what you will, that's much more fun than today's "dick" Batman.

True, Batman in previous decades was surrounded by science fiction elements whose appropriateness is debateable, but Batman never stopped being Batman. Sure, he wrestled mobsters who were in fact, gorillas with human brains, but Batman still wrestled mobsters.

A gorilla with a human brain in a zoot suit with a tommy gun is WAY cooler than some random dude in a zoot suit with a tommy gun. :D

I'm sorry you don't share my fondness for Betty and Kathy Kane, however, that does not deny them their rightful place in history as the first Batwoman and Bat-Girl.

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm sorry you don't share my fondness for Betty and Kathy Kane, however, that does not deny them their rightful place in history as the first Batwoman and Bat-Girl.


This is the point I don't understand. They are still there. Nobody has erased them from your comics. The fact that O'Neil and Englehart didn't use them is meaningless.

[JulianPerez]

This is the point I don't understand. They are still there. Nobody has erased them from your comics. The fact that O'Neil and Englehart didn't use them is meaningless.

I was responding to a criticism of the characters themselves, not of their use by writers.

[Slam_Bradley]

I was responding to a criticism of the characters themselves, not of their use by writers.

I realize that. I was, to some extent, also responding to your earlier comments...


Much ado is made of O'Neil giving Batman his darkness, but he did so at the expense of Batman's past, by throwing things out: not using Robin (often, anyway), Batwoman, Ace the Bat-Hound, or Peggy Kane.

Ok. O'Neil didn't use them. So what. They weren't necessarily gone. Betty Kane was in the Teen Titans West. Robin showed up. And even if he didn't use them at all, it was an artistic and editorial choice. I'm cool with you not liking that choice, but it just seems odd to put the knock on O'Neil when Englehart didn't use those elements either.

[JulianPerez]

Ok. O'Neil didn't use them. So what. They weren't necessarily gone. Betty Kane was in the Teen Titans West. Robin showed up. And even if he didn't use them at all, it was an artistic and editorial choice. I'm cool with you not liking that choice, but it just seems odd to put the knock on O'Neil when Englehart didn't use those elements either.

True, Englehart didn't use these characters (he REALLY didn't have the time; the guy wrote only a few issues, really, and it's a tribute to Englehart's talent that he, like Alan Brennert, only wrote a few Bat-stories and they become associated with the characters).

It isn't a question of what was used or not used, it's a question of treatment of the past. You are correct that I perhaps, used a bad example with the Kanes (had them on the brain since they're talk of them returning to the DC Universe :) ), however, there is a difference between the two writers and Batman's history:

Englehart made use of it. Whether it be Hugo Strange, mentioning Julie Madison, bringing up Deadshot, naming characters and places after John Broome and Dick Sprang, down to that giant chess set in the Batcave.

O'Neil did not make use of it, at least to the extent and with the palpable veneration that Englehart did.

That's the difference.

I agree with you that Denny O'Neil deserves praise because of how long-term his strategy with what he doesn't use was. During Spider-Clones, the writers killed off Aunt May because they couldn't think of anything to do with the character, a very shortsighted action. Just because Dennis didn't have use for the Gorilla Boss of Gotham doesn't mean he had the gorilla die by eating a poisoned banana or something. O'Neil, a true professional, left that door open for future writers.

[The Wayner]

I love Dr. Phosphorous, but am voting O'Neil.

[Apathy Boy]

The Englehart/Rogers run is one of my favourite Bat-stories of all-time. But Denny O'Neil is Batman, moreso than any other creator who's worked on the character. O'Neil takes it, on the basis that thirty years of consistently excellent stories trumps one year of exceptional stories.

Denny O'Neil as editor is a different story. His reign started out strong (and "No Man's Land" was terrific), but Denny definitely had some strange takes on the character, such as the chaste Bruce Wayne and the "Batman as urban legend" riff.

[JulianPerez]

Denny definitely had some strange takes on the character, such as the chaste Bruce Wayne and the "Batman as urban legend" riff.

Now THAT was one dumb idea. It was Dan Slott that said that "dark heroes operating as urban legends only works for the first year of continuity...tops."

It fails the logic test. Not ONCE has anyone ever captured a photograph of Batman? Not one person that comes to the police department hid one on them? Not even some kid in an alley got a polaroid? It's absurd.

Granted, I prefer my flavor of Batman more swashbuckling, but the reason this retcon is aggrivating is because it is a denial retcon; it says THIS and THIS did not happen. Because of this retcon, it means that Batman was not at the Gardner Fox-written "Doom of the Star-Diamond" with the other members of the Justice League. It means that the WORLD'S FINEST comics never took place because it has both of them working with the press. All of these EXCELLENT tales now never happened and never could, and worst of all for an illogical, faulty reason.

Plus, I really, really liked the Batman Statue in Gotham Park. :) I really, really like the stories where the military or other countries ask Batman to help them.

Batman is an atmospheric character, yes, but this concept has been exaggerated. Who was it that in the 1990s drew Batman with a hunchback?

[cactusmaac]

Kelley Jones.

[Slam_Bradley]

Kelley Jones.


When did Jones ever write Batman?

[dazzler_slave]

When did Jones ever write Batman?
He was answering the question of who drew Batman with a hunchback.

[Slam_Bradley]

He was answering the question of who drew Batman with a hunchback.


Ok. Quotes are a good thing.

[dazzler_slave]

Roy Thomas is a genius, no question and his AVENGERS run was the highlight of his distinguished career; ditto for the amazing Roger Stern. However, Kurt Busiek's AVENGERS run owes QUITE a bit to Steve Englehart in terms of inspiration and characterization-centered approach. Both told similar stories involving the introduction of red-headed ingenues, both had an Avengers roster flux constantly, and at the end of AVENGERS ANNUAL '98 Busiek had a speech that was nearly word-for-word identical to one during Englehart's "Celestial Madonna," about how "nothing ever stands still in THIS group!" But don't take my word for it; Mr. Silver Age himself, Kurt Busiek has cited Englehart as his inspiration many times, and Kurt's amazing stories are all the better for it.

Kurt Busiek told the definitive Ultron story. Stainless Steve told the definitive Kang stories. I would not put Kurt above Englehart except in one crucial respect: JLA/AVENGERS in my opinion knocked Englehart's AVENGERS/DEFENDERS WAR out of the top spot for being the greatest crossover ever.

Englehart's AWC was astonishingly clever; Hawkeye defeating the Grandmaster was one head-clockingly amazing feat.



Batman is a great enough character that he has the strength to support multiple takes. The dark one is a great way to look at him (both Englehart and Dennis O'Neil did it very, very successfully) but it IS just one type of atmosphere and story to create.

Batman was wonderful as a swashbuckling adventure character surrounded by giant props (especially when drawn by a genius artist like Dick Sprang). Len Wein had Batman crack wise with villains, and say what you will, that's much more fun than today's "dick" Batman.

True, Batman in previous decades was surrounded by science fiction elements whose appropriateness is debateable, but Batman never stopped being Batman. Sure, he wrestled mobsters who were in fact, gorillas with human brains, but Batman still wrestled mobsters.

A gorilla with a human brain in a zoot suit with a tommy gun is WAY cooler than some random dude in a zoot suit with a tommy gun. :D

I'm sorry you don't share my fondness for Betty and Kathy Kane, however, that does not deny them their rightful place in history as the first Batwoman and Bat-Girl.
Okay, I'll give you the Busiek thing, but I will say that I think the student surpassed the master. BTW, I do like Englhart's Avengers run, but not as much as many others. I was not that impressed with the Celestial Madonna storyline. To be honest, I was disappointed with it after hearing so much about it.

Oh, and I don't think gorilla gangsters with human brains are cool. I think they are dumb, but then I never did get comicdom's fascination wth monkeys. I guess we will never agree because swashbuckling Batman just isn't my thing. Maybe it is the age difference because I started reading in the late 80's, but I think much of the Silver Age is silly, and nothing is sillier than Sprang-era Batman. I prefer my Batman to be a darker character. Not the current Bat-dick to be sure, but somewhere in between the way you like him and the way he is now.

[The Batman]

i voted for Denny O'Neil. while i think that both creators are top notch and have done some of the best work with Batman in his 60 plus year history, it's Denny's body of work and stewardship of the character that gives him the edge IMO.

[ACK!]

Who's the better Bat-writer - Dennis O'Neil or Steve Englehart?

Dennis O'Neil
The case AGAINST:
* Approved NO MAN'S LAND as Bat-Editor

I would say that's an invalid criteria because Denny didn't write it. Yes, he was the editor and he allowed it on his watch, but we're supposed to be grading him on his abilities as a scripter.

I would say Denny, because while both are great Bat-Writers, Denny had more of an impact with his longer tenure. Any fair-to-middling stories are negated by his work with Neal Adams, which redefined the character for a generation who saw Batman tainted by the campy TV show.

[Babylon23]

Thank you for mentioning - Marshall Rogers is a great artist. Terry Austin deserves special credit, however, for his amazing inking, though, which had a lot to do with the atmosphere of the stories.

I agree with you about Austin. His inks brought out the best in Roger's pencils. I think Rogers/Austin was one of those incredible penciller/inker teams that just meshes beautifully, much like Adams/Giordano and Miller/Janson did on their respective Bat projects.

[JulianPerez]

Okay, I'll give you the Busiek thing, but I will say that I think the student surpassed the master.

Well, I mentioned one case of that, which was how absolutely wonderful JLA/AVENGERS was. The influence of Englehart's "loser" characterization of the Swordsman can be felt all the way in Busiek's "Tarnished Angel" all the way to his THUNDERBOLTS and POWER COMPANY. Almost every Busiek project somehow involves a Swordsman-esque character that is a reformed supervillain mired in failure.

BTW, I do like Englhart's Avengers run, but not as much as many others. I was not that impressed with the Celestial Madonna storyline. To be honest, I was disappointed with it after hearing so much about it.

I find that Englehart comes out better the more time you read it, because the second time it's read, you see all the details come out: Englehart puts so much thought and synchronicity in his scripts that you read his work a second time and it you notice more things you missed the first time. Englehart is so skilled at characterization that you notice there are multiple meanings to even straightforward dialogue.

Oh, and I don't think gorilla gangsters with human brains are cool. I think they are dumb, but then I never did get comicdom's fascination wth monkeys. I guess we will never agree because swashbuckling Batman just isn't my thing. Maybe it is the age difference because I started reading in the late 80's, but I think much of the Silver Age is silly, and nothing is sillier than Sprang-era Batman. I prefer my Batman to be a darker character. Not the current Bat-dick to be sure, but somewhere in between the way you like him and the way he is now.

I think you misread me. Darkness and atmosphere WORK: it worked for Englehart and it worked for O'Neil. But the Weisenger era worked TOO: especially thanks to talented writers like the amazing John Broome. Batman ought not be judged by one particular incarnation, however: the character has a great history defined by many geniuses in the comics field in every era.

I wouldn't say "silly." Sprang's art was powerful and imaginative. Perhaps a better word may be "playful."

Any fair-to-middling stories are negated by his work with Neal Adams, which redefined the character for a generation who saw Batman tainted by the campy TV show.

Neal Adams is a genius artist, and one of the few that doesn't draw like Kirby (along with Frazetta) who achieved success post-Marvel. But I wouldn't say "tainted" at all about the 60s cartoon show. First, Gardner Fox, one of the greatest writers of any age, did his best work for Batman between 1964-1968. Also, BATMAN: THE MOVIE with Adam West is one of the greatest, most joyful superhero movies ever. Best Batman movie ever, at least until the fantastic BATMAN BEGINS came about.

[acagle7]

I'm going with O'Neil.

[Corrina]

This is the point I don't understand. They are still there. Nobody has erased them from your comics. The fact that O'Neil and Englehart didn't use them is meaningless.

Kathy Kane was killed, in a story that I think was written by O'Neil. Of course, that's pre-Crisis, so maybe she's around now.

[LordEd1976]

Kathy Kane was killed, in a story that I think was written by O'Neil. Of course, that's pre-Crisis, so maybe she's around now.

Last I heard kathy kane exists in Post-Crisis DCU but as a non-costumed heroine. She still is killed by order of the League of Assassins however there is doubt as to whether or not the killer was Bronze Tiger, who killed her while brainwashed in the pre-Crisis death.

[JulianPerez]

Last I heard kathy kane exists in Post-Crisis DCU but as a non-costumed heroine. She still is killed by order of the League of Assassins however there is doubt as to whether or not the killer was Bronze Tiger, who killed her while brainwashed in the pre-Crisis death.

Well...Kathy Kane exists, but doesn't exist. Betty Kane however, does exist very much, as the new "Flamebird" (yeesh), and while her aunt has been mentioned in dialogue, she has not truly made an "appearance" as such.

As Betty Kane has never been Bat-Girl, this means there's a whole different history at work (which hopefully the writers may straighten out sometime).

As great a character as Dick Grayson is, he's no Kal-El; Superman is the REAL Nightwing. :p Divorced from the context of Kandor, Nightwing and Flamebird become arbitrary identity choices without the power that their history gives them. Dick Grayson's choice to become Nightwing was made to adopt Superman's identity and idealism which Dick used to create a new identity distinct from Batman. If it just becomes another name change the former Teen Wonder pulled out of nowhere, it isn't as meaningful.

Also...if you're going to bring back Betty Kane, why bring her back the way it was done? Great, one more added to the list of "intentional parody character." It wasn't enough the Ditko-created Blue Beetle was turned into a fat fool?

Betty Kane was a type-A overachiever; the type of girl that won everything from beauty pageants to tennis matches. In the short-lived Weisenger revival of the 1970s, this aspect of her character was made use of, with a grown up teen Betty as a tennis professional.

[cactusmaac]

Maybe it's time for another poll:

Who would be more relevant to the world of Batman?

Former child uber-assassin or tennis player and beauty pageant winner?

[JulianPerez]

Maybe it's time for another poll:

Who would be more relevant to the world of Batman?

Former child uber-assassin or tennis player and beauty pageant winner?

I think Cassandra Cain's kinda neat, although her dialogue could use a little work. Besides, who doesn't love Stan Lee-esque alliterative names?

[jaguarshark]

I like them both, although some of O'Neal's stuff doesn't scan quite as well with me now as it did when I first read it. Still, I'm going with O'Neal. One question, though, about something that's always bothered me, for any O'Neal fans out there: In 'There Is No Hope In Crime Alley', how could Alfred possibly NOT know what day it was, and why it was important to Bruce Wayne/Batman?

[Mister Intensity]

Maybe it's time for another poll:

Who would be more relevant to the world of Batman?

Former child uber-assassin or tennis player and beauty pageant winner?

If you think about it both are silly ideas that reflected their times.

That said, although she's not favorite, I prefer Bettie over Cassandra, although that's in relation to each other.

Mister Intensity

[Max_Dillon]

O'Neil's contributions as both writer and editor have been a lot more significant.





My sentiments exactly

[JulianPerez]

If you think about it both are silly ideas that reflected their times.

That said, although she's not favorite, I prefer Bettie over Cassandra, although that's in relation to each other.

I don't think Bettie Kane or Cassandra are silly; though if I HAVE to say one is sillier, I would have to say Cassandra, mostly because Betty was a surreal character in a surreal world so she fit right in, whereas Cassandra is much weirder than people give her credit for and we're supposed to take her seriously by the grittiness of her surroundings; c'mon, a karate-move busting mute? She'd fit right in next to Tarantino characters like the Gimp and California Mountain Snake.

In the trailer for SERENITY, when that autistic girl busts out into Karate moves, it got lots of giggles because of the inherent goofiness of a teenage girl doing Matrix-type moves. I'm almost positive that scene was placed into the trailer to show that the movie has a sense of humor.

[Shellhead]

Did you read it? If you did you might have remembered that Batman didn't want ANYONE's help. Superman offerered and was turned away and Bruce said he would do it alone.

Alan Scott, the original Green Lantern, also lives in Gotham City. While he is usually busy with the level of threats that the JSA fights, he should have gotten involved during No Man's Land, or at least there should have been a damn good reason why he didn't, like being on another planet or dimension or something. I acknowledge that it would have wrecked the No Man's Land story, there should have at least been a satisfactory explanation for his absence. Unlike Superman, Alan wouldn't have stayed out of town just because Batman said so. He has a very strong sense of right and wrong, and has more willpower than nearly anybody else on DC Earth.

[JulianPerez]

Alan Scott, the original Green Lantern, also lives in Gotham City. While he is usually busy with the level of threats that the JSA fights, he should have gotten involved during No Man's Land, or at least there should have been a damn good reason why he didn't, like being on another planet or dimension or something. I acknowledge that it would have wrecked the No Man's Land story, there should have at least been a satisfactory explanation for his absence. Unlike Superman, Alan wouldn't have stayed out of town just because Batman said so. He has a very strong sense of right and wrong, and has more willpower than nearly anybody else on DC Earth.

Don't forget the original Black Canary. Heck, according to Roy Thomas, wasn't the original headquarters of the JSA in Gotham City?

They really didn't think it through.

Continuity is a wonderful thing. It creates a body of lore that can be used to inspire future stories, and validates the worth of great yarns by great writers. It allows a great many stories, and disallows very few. One of the few that it disallows, however, is NO MAN'S LAND. It makes no sense in the context of a shared universe inhabited by heroes other than Batman, some of whom can nullify the problem entirely. While Dennis O'Neil's work as a Batman writer is Englehart-level, if he allowed through a crossover with a concept with as many holes as NML into the DC Universe, his professionalism is compromised.

Thank goodness that Paul Levitz was promoted over O'Neil. Levitz is not perfect nor has his tenure been immaculate, however, NML demonstrates a lack of aptitude with how to order a cosmos shared by MANY characters.

[LordEd1976]

Don't forget the original Black Canary. Heck, according to Roy Thomas, wasn't the original headquarters of the JSA in Gotham City?




Well the original Black Canary was dead for awhile by the time the Bat-Quake and No Man's Land stories took place.

however, while we're on the subject. You are right in saying that the JSA were based out of Gotham for many years. In fact, their base was IN Gotham at the time of Knightfall and its related sequels. Kinda makes wonder why Alan Scott or jay garrick, Carter Hall, or even Jesse Quick didnt lend a hand when Bane broke open Arkham.

[Gingold]

Englehart's my all-time favorite Bat-writer. So he gets my vote. O'Neil is certainly in the upper-eschelon of Batman writers, though (falling behind Alan Brennert, Bill Finger and Archie Goodwin, IMO). And he certainly wrote many more stories than Englehart did. It's just that all of Englehart's stories were great.

I don't think it's fair to judge Denny's writing by his editing. I think his editorial tenure was among the worst things to ever happen to Batman, but he still wrote some of the best Batman stories ever.

[ACK!]

I don't think it's fair to judge Denny's writing by his editing. I think his editorial tenure was among the worst things to ever happen to Batman, but he still wrote some of the best Batman stories ever.


:D :) ;)

[tony2074]

i agree with that to a point.
denny o'neil was a great editor. the "event storylines" he managed were all coherent and well told. what we goin on now, is, well...a bit like batman as a person, impenetrable.
but to even attempt to tell between just the pair of them is too hard. o'neil wrote lots, but engleharts run was short and very, very well told.

[Leslie Lee III]

O'Neal

While Dennis O'Neil's work as a Batman writer is Englehart-level, if he allowed through a crossover with a concept with as many holes as NML into the DC Universe, his professionalism is compromised.

I could not disagree more. The fact that he was willing to get great writers to tell a great Batman story and didn't worry about characters that have absolutely nothing to do with that world shows he puts the work above useless and harmful "continuity."

[JulianPerez]

I could not disagree more. The fact that he was willing to get great writers to tell a great Batman story and didn't worry about characters that have absolutely nothing to do with that world shows he puts the work above useless and harmful "continuity."

By the way, are you mainly a Batman fan? Because that's pretty funny considering you're an "LL." :)

Not writing characters or worlds consistently with how they have been portrayed is BAD WRITING. You can't choose between choosing continuity and a "good story;" ignoring continuity and the rules of a world IS bad writing. And allowing writers to do that very thing when your job is to make the talent look good is unprofessional.

However, as others have pointed out, O'Neil should be judged on his writing, not on his tenure as Bat-Editor. And O'Neil's writing - at least on Batman, was not bad. He could tell a mystery story. He had Batman encounter goons, however, none of his encounters with goons felt the same.

Say what one wills about Englehart, he has yet to really write or do anything to compromise his legacy. His FANTASTIC FOUR run and his STRANGERS written in recent years show that Stainless Steve's still got it, just like back in the day.

[cactusmaac]

Wasn't his Fantastic Four done back in the late 80's?

[Mister Intensity]

It's easy to say Englehart because he wrote relatively few Batman stories and none of them stunk, IMO, however, O'Neil wrote many more and wrote his share of stinkers. Most people associate O'Neil with his collaborations with Neal Adams but he also wrote stories like "The Great Gotham Kangaroo Race" (not sure of the exact title but it appeared in a late-70's issue of Detective, just before he went to Marvel). It's hard to answer the question because if you look at O'Neil's output as a whole, there are a lot of average and bad stories, it's just that the "classic" stories (particularly with Neal Adams art) constantly gets reprinted, which gives people the impression that O'Neil wrote less Batman stories than many think.

For this reason, I say Englehart is the better Bat-writer because of the smaller good:bad story ratio.

Mister Intensity

[jaguarshark]

Here's a question for the history buffs out there, to help clarify this debate: the whole 'Englehart wrote a lot less than O'Neil' thing seems to be a major point here, does anybody know exactly, or even approximately, how many issues of Batman O'Neil and Englehart have each written? I have no idea, and I'm just interested to know how prolific O'Neal was.

[Dubbilex]

Not writing characters or worlds consistently with how they have been portrayed is BAD WRITING. You can't choose between choosing continuity and a "good story;" ignoring continuity and the rules of a world IS bad writing. And allowing writers to do that very thing when your job is to make the talent look good is unprofessional.But isn't the error being talked about here the type that pops up in superhero universes all the time? When Kurt Busiek gave the Avengers a machine that would detect any incursions on Earth from the Negative Zone, I remember one person posting a question to him, stating that this would make any Fantastic Four writer's job harder because they now had to account for why the Avengers aren't reacting every time they want a story about Annihilus or whoever coming to our world. Busiek responded saying something along the lines of, "Why should it? For the duration of their story, they can just ignore and not mention the Avengers and whatever machines they have. It's what superhero comics have always done." I remember, upon reading that, realizing that he was absolutely right.

At this point, calling the absence of other superheroes a continuity error is like calling the characters' static ages a continuity error. It's accepted convention.

[Gingold]

Say what one wills about Englehart, he has yet to really write or do anything to compromise his legacy.


I take it you haven't read Millenium or New Guardians. :)

[JulianPerez]

But isn't the error being talked about here the type that pops up in superhero universes all the time? When Kurt Busiek gave the Avengers a machine that would detect any incursions on Earth from the Negative Zone, I remember one person posting a question to him, stating that this would make any Fantastic Four writer's job harder because they now had to account for why the Avengers aren't reacting every time they want a story about Annihilus or whoever coming to our world. Busiek responded saying something along the lines of, "Why should it? For the duration of their story, they can just ignore and not mention the Avengers and whatever machines they have. It's what superhero comics have always done." I remember, upon reading that, realizing that he was absolutely right.

At this point, calling the absence of other superheroes a continuity error is like calling the characters' static ages a continuity error. It's accepted convention.

While I respect Kurt Busiek as the most talented writer of our generation, in this instance he is completely wrong. Just because something is a fantasy element does not mean that it can come and go when it is convenient for the writer. There OUGHT to be an explanation for why the Avengers don't participate in some form in any future Negative Zone story. If you create parameters for a situation, breaking them is bad writing.

The key word here is "verisimilitude."

If a writer wrote a story where criminals use radios for underwater work, and a reader (correctly) in a letter column points out that radios don't work underwater, the writer could not just dismiss this. As a result of poor research or willfull ignorance, for a moment we were drawn out of the reality of the story because the writer forgot to take something into account or got their facts wrong.

There is objective reality, and there is "story" reality, which is just as objective from the point of the view of the events and people in the story.

The more a writer is able to make us believe that events are truly taking place the better their writing is, and ignoring such a detail draws us out of the story. Thus, it is bad writing.

My hero, and Kurt Busiek's hero too, by all accounts, is Stainless Steve Englehart, who more than anyone else believed in the Marvel Universe, took it seriously, and treated it as if it was a real place. When the Avengers felt they were going to be battling the Kree, they made an attempt to contact Captain Marvel. It had nothing to do with the story and because of events in his own book it was not possible for Mar-Vell to appear, but it was a concession made to the fact that the Marvel Universe should feel like a real place, and though it is a small detail, it vastly improved the story's entertainment value because of Steve thought it through.

This instance is a lapse in Busiek's usual skill for verisimilitude. In that same AVENGERS run, Busiek could have ignored the question of where the Quinjets come from. After all, if all Busiek was thinking was just the story and not its context in the Marvel Universe, he could have dodged that question entirely, because the only function the Quinjets provide in the story getting the Avengers from point A to point B. No. Instead, Busiek explained in a very well thought out manner, that the Quinjets were produced at a factory in Wakanda after the license was passed from Stark-Fujikawa Electronics.

The more a writer thinks something through, the better the story is. This dismissive - and rather patronizing handwave explanation (does anybody really NEED to be told it's all "just a story?") is unfair to readers.

Further, a minor plot point of a gadget that has scarcely been mentioned since, and a major crossover whose plot hole can be spotted immediately by five year olds, is hardly equivalent.

[Bright-Raven]

Batman & Batman related / appearance comics written by Steve Englehart:

Detective Comics #439, 469-476

Legends of the Dark Knight #109-111

Batman: Dark Detective #1-6

The Batman Chronicles #19

Justice League of America #139-150

Unpublished Batman scripts by Englehart:

ELSEWORLDS: Bruce Wayne as Hamlet, trying to decide if he should avenge the murder of his father. (submitted 1996)

Batman Chronicles story Part II: "Gotta Dance With the Devil!" (2000, sequel to Batman Chronicles #19 story)

two-part Mad Hatter story for BATMAN CHRONICLES (submitted in Fall 1999)

**********

You want to me try to list everything O'Neil's written for Batman, forget it. Suffice it to say, it's a significantly larger body of work.

I don't know who I would say is the "better" Batman writer. Sure, O' Neil was more prolific, but was he really BETTER? I dunno.

[jaguarshark]

Thanks, Bright-Raven, that's really helpful. I knew Englehart hadn't written many Batman stories, I didn't realise just how few of them there actually were. Especially when you consider that the Legends, Chronicles, Dark Detective etc. stuff came AFTER he'd already been sainted as a great Batman writer. Impressive. The Strange Apparritions TPB collects Detective 469-476, then, right? Is that a stand-alone story? I've been meaning to pick it up for ages.

[JulianPerez]

Thanks, Bright-Raven, that's really helpful. I knew Englehart hadn't written many Batman stories, I didn't realise just how few of them there actually were. Especially when you consider that the Legends, Chronicles, Dark Detective etc. stuff came AFTER he'd already been sainted as a great Batman writer. Impressive. The Strange Apparritions TPB collects Detective 469-476, then, right? Is that a stand-alone story? I've been meaning to pick it up for ages.

Yes, and what's more, it also has a "Clayface" story by Len Wein in DETECTIVE #478-479 that picks up a thread where Englehart left off. It really says something about the incredible talent of Len Wein as a creator that you compare his Clayface story to Alan Moore's Clayface story in BATMAN ANNUAL #11 (1987) and Len Wein can hold his own against a guy as skilled at plots and as funny as the deservedly lionized Mr. Moore.

The TPB of Englehart's DETECTIVE stuff is highly recommended because it includes something of a "tell-all" introduction by that divine titan, "Stainless" Steve himself, where he divulges a few juicy details, like for instance, his suspicion that he was going to be assigned a lousy artist in the wake of all the DC people being bought up by Marvel.

[Mister Intensity]

Yes, and what's more, it also has a "Clayface" story by Len Wein in DETECTIVE #478-479 that picks up a thread where Englehart left off. It really says something about the incredible talent of Len Wein as a creator that you compare his Clayface story to Alan Moore's Clayface story in BATMAN ANNUAL #11 (1987) and Len Wein can hold his own against a guy as skilled at plots and as funny as the deservedly lionized Mr. Moore.

The TPB of Englehart's DETECTIVE stuff is highly recommended because it includes something of a "tell-all" introduction by that divine titan, "Stainless" Steve himself, where he divulges a few juicy details, like for instance, his suspicion that he was going to be assigned a lousy artist in the wake of all the DC people being bought up by Marvel.

Then again if Len Wein hadn't created that version of Clayface, Alan Moore wouldn't have written that Clayface story.

Mister Intensity

[JoeTrom]

Len Wein was one of the best Batman editors. He should have been allowed to stay after Crisis ended.