Batman 300 and up (reviews by shaxper)

[shaxper]

Batman #384

"Broken Dates"
writer: Doug Moench
pencils: Rick Hoberg
inks: Rudy Nebres
letters: John Workman
colors: Adrienne Roy
editor: Len Wein

Grade: A-

I do believe Moench has successfully managed to employ a clever double meaning as the title of a story. He's tried many times before, but it actually works this time.

I think that's a good set up for discussing the story in general -- much of it works better than usual.

I should begin, though, by making note of this story's odd tie-in to Crisis on Infinite Earths. At the time of this story, the first two issues of Crisis had already hit stands. This issue explicitly and unnecessarily ties into Crisis by having a bunch of scared thugs from Dr. Fang's old gang call a number they were given and hire The Monitor to broker a contract on Batman. One phone call later, and Batman has a motivated villain for this story. The Monitor's involvement in this story was largely unnecessary. The criminals could have hired someone themselves.

The odd part about this tie-in to Crisis is how uneven it is. At this point in Crisis, Batman has witnessed a dying Barry Allen, appearing panicked before him and announcing that the Earth is dying. It spooks him enough that he calls upon Superman to discuss the issue and is then promptly visited by Pariah, who explains the exact same thing. Batman is indisputably freaked out by this. Yet, in this story, there's absolutely no acknowledgment of this. We see Bruce haunted by the loss of Selina and haunted by his obsession for Nocturna, but larger concerns like what's happened to Barry or what's up with the Earth dying never seem to cross his mind. So Moench fully and clearly wants to acknowledge that the Crisis is happening, yet he largely ignores it when it threatens to derail the focus of his storylines.

Still, there's a lot working in this issue.

I'm mixed on Moench's depiction of Calendar Man, though I definitely liked him more than not. There's a tremendous effort on the part of Moench to sell us on the idea that Calendar Man is a major Batman antagonist when, in fact, in his two previous appearances, he was a thorough joke. Yet, when The Monitor must call on a villain (any villain) to kill Batman once and for all, the call goes out to Calendar Man (odd since he admits, only a page later, that he's never killed anyone). This Calendar Man is no longer a demented obsessive personality. He's a refined, apparently wealthy (so that's how he can afford all the costumes and vehicles) and elegant man who is more fascinated by, than clinically obsessed with, calendars. I must admit, Hoberg and Nebres help to sell me on the guy by drawing and inking his face so well. The eyes are deep, serious, and complicated. He could say nothing, and I'd still feel like I understood and even admired him. Still, Moench may push it a bit far when he attempts to make Calendar Man's relationship with Batman as time-honored and personal as The Joker's when Calendar Man comments:

Could it be that I actually respect the Batman--and look forward to our periodic contests? Of course it could, and were I to kill the Batman--red letter day aside...the rest of my days could well be blank boxes. With the Batman dead, would I have any reason to live?

Buddy, you fought him twice, and neither struggle was particularly epic.


So the romantic drama continues this issue with one noticeable difference -- it works. Yes folks, this is where Moench really surprised and charmed me this issue. Batman's revelation that Selina survived her fall a few issues back, and his mixed emotions and internal struggle between Selina and Nocturna that follow, are both done quite well. Even when Vicki calls, ending their relationship (again), I didn't mind. Once again, Hoberg's art helps here. He's the first to draw Vicki in an endearing way.

A nice touch here are the subtle continuity points brought forward from last issue. As Moench walked us through the gag of Bruce not being able to get sleep, Bruce unwittingly made a date with Julia and half-slept through a serious talk with Vicki about their relationship. Both points seemed incidental then but have had consequences in this issue. Both women were hurt by Bruce's actions.

The real charm of the romantic plot in this issue is Julia...Yes, I said Julia. My second least favorite character in Moench's Bat Universe really really pulled it off this issue. First, Alfred had an earnest talk with Bruce, finally explaining why he wants Julia and Bruce to be together, so it no longer bothers me that it doesn't bother Alfred when Bruce comes onto his daughter. Next, Julia expresses true concern for Vicki's hurt feelings, even volunteering to cancel her date with Bruce in order to comfort her (of course she never says the date is with Bruce), and finally, the big moment for me comes when Alfred comforts Julia over Bruce breaking their date yet again. He wants to explain things with all his heart, but only allows himself to say, "He...he is a complex, many-sided man..." to which Julia gives the surprising reply:

That much I know. Vicki may think of Bruce as an irresponsible playboy...but from the moment I first met him--I've sensed deeper dimensions...

True, this could just be Julia being love-sick and seeing what she wants to see in Bruce, but (once again) Hoberg and Nebres convey it all with an intelligent, focused face that strongly suggests that Julia has, in fact, tapped into a part of Bruce's inner self. For once, I get what makes her special and why she feels she belongs with him.

And then the conversation goes further:

Alfred: I'll say only one thing in his defense, Julia, asking you not to repeat even this much...He has legitamite cause for whatever seemingly callous actions he takes.

Julia: I notice Jason is not here. Does the "legitimate cause" involve him?

Alfred: Yes...but we'll leave it at that...



Wow. No "I knew it!" or similarly shallow reaction followed by an emotional outpour of gratitude and relief. Instead, her reaction is purposeful, intelligent, and further proof that she understands Bruce a little too well. I'm actually rooting for Julia now.


The Calendar Man story continues (and will carry over to the next issue of Detective) but, for once, I'm more interested in Moench's romantic subplots than the core storyline. He's doing more with Calendar Man than I ever imagined someone could (or would even try to), but at the end of the day, it's just another forgettable villain.


Worth noting: I believe the portable Bat Signal makes its second appearance in this run. I neglected to mention it in Batman #383. Cei-U could better answer whether or not it had appeared prior to this run, but I'm too pressed for time to consult his index right now.

Funny, it seems that Colan's return to this title was a tease. Hoberg is back on for at least this and the next issue...but I'm not disappointed. He and Nebres really did something magical in this issue, and I have high hopes that they will continue to wield that magic consistently.

[Captain Jim]

I think DC was actively encouraging their writers to put these little Crisis "tie-ins" in place. As I recall, there were a lot of them.

Which brings up an interesting point. Fans widely refer to the pre-Miller issues of Batman as "pre-Crisis" (and the same is often done of the pre-Byrne issues of Superman). I guess it's acceptable shorthand, but it isn't really historically accurate, as both the Superman and Batman books continued several months post-Crisis before they were revamped. (If you're desperate, I suppose you could say that the Crisis had some residual effect.)

[shaxper]

but it isn't really historically accurate, as both the Superman and Batman books continued several months post-Crisis before they were revamped. (If you're desperate, I suppose you could say that the Crisis had some residual effect.)

It was just today that I came to that realization. I hadn't realized the Crisis had already begun until I read this issue. It didn't take a lot of math to realize that Batman should be at #393 when the Crisis ends, and the post-Crisis Batman doesn't begin until #404. The title goes a full year after Crisis ends before rebooting.

[Cei-U!]

Actually, the Batman reboot begins with #401, which features Magpie, a villainess introduced in Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series.

Cei-U!
I summon the technicality!

[shaxper]

Detective Comics #551

"The First Day of Spring"
writer: Doug Moench
pencils: Pat Broderick
inks: Bob Smith
letters: John Workman
colors: Adrienne Roy
editor: Len Wein

Grade: C+

I can't tell if this is something new, or if I'm just now noticing it in contrast to the fine art that Hoberg is dishing out in Batman, but Broderick is very very lazy. Overall, his art isn't bad, but there are numerous times in this issue where he'll just get a face COMPLETELY wrong, and I think most self-respecting artists would have gone back and made a change. On page six, for example, Bruce's jaw is larger than the rest of his head. He literally looks like an ape. On page 11, Julia looks happy and excited while pleading for Vicki to come back so that they can remain friends. Even on page 2, Broderick draws the grid on Calendar Man's smoking jacket from last issue (no attempt at drawing realistic dips, rises, and creases, by the way. The lines are completely straight) but neglects to fill in the days of the calendar on it. More generally, though, some of these panels look fantastic and some look terrible. Also, several times in this issue, the placement of word balloons makes the dialogue order very difficult to follow.

Regarding the story itself, the bulk of it centers on Batman arguing with Robin that he should not come out since Calendar Man has marked him for death. Of course, we have no reason to take Calendar Man seriously as an opponent, but Bruce and Doug Moench feel differently. As usual, Bruce tells Jason to go to bed, and for two years now, any time he's told Jason to do this, we've known he'd just sneak out as Robin and get into trouble anyway. So why doesn't Bruce know this?

Julia confesses to Vicki that she had a date with Bruce, so now Vicki isn't talking to her either. This, as well as Bruce's heart to heart with Jason, really need the Hoberg touch to make them accessible/interesting. Right now, it just feels like Moench is spinning the same tired wheels.

We meet Gotham's new mayor, Skowcroft, in this issue. While not apparently a bad guy, he's presented as a shameless self-promoting politician. I'm pleased to see that Moench avoided the easy solution of bringing in a "good" mayor to signal the end of the Hamilton Hill fiasco. A gritty city like Gotham deserves real politics at its center.

The plot in one relatively short sentence this time: Bruce grounds Jason to protect him from Calendar Man, Vicki isn't talking to Julia for dating Bruce (even though he stood Julia up), Calendar Man attacks an event hosted by the new mayor, Batman fails to catch him, and Jason is missing (presumably out as Robin).

A thoroughly adequate issue. Very little that stood out in a good way, and (aside from Broderick's laziness) very little that stood out in a bad way.

Oh, Calendar Man references Green Arrow in this issue and talks about taking him on as a nemesis once he kills Batman. A nice plug for the backup feature!


"Oliver Queen, for a change!"
writer: Joey Cavaleri
pencils: Jerome Moore
inks: Bruce Patterson
colors: Jeanie Casey
letters: Bob Lappan
editor: Len Wein

Grade: C-

No way this was an accident. For the second issue that Alan Moore wrote of this feature, it got a huge plug on the cover, making it clear that Alan Moore was writing. Clearly, they knew he was a draw. So this issue leaves out first names and jobs, simply (and largely) advertising itself as "A Cavalieri Moore Patterson Lappan Casey Wein presentation". The only reason I bothered to read this was because I knew Moore was a part of it.

But it wasn't Alan Moore.

"Moore" refers to penciler Jerome Moore. He's a solid artist, to be sure, but this was cheap bait and switch.

The story that follows is actually a half decent one for Cavalieri, though I'm sure the excellent art helped make it more digestible.

Ollie and Dinah are in a rundown hispanic diner when two immigration officers bust in waving guns, forcing Ollie to punch one out. If that didn't seem a little over the top, Ollie is told by a hispanic friend to visit his immigrant brother, who will tell him the immigrants' story (why Ollie needs this enough to go on a trip to get it, or why the friend couldn't just relay it to him, is beyond me). Immediately after Ollie finds this brother in a church basement, immigration busts in, waving guns again, and they're surprised to see Ollie there again (which means they hadn't follow him).

Hmmm.

Same officers...

other side of town...

exact same timing..

same over-the-top entrance...


Yup! It's bad writing.


This time around, they arrest Ollie too (presumably for punching the one officer). Now, I may be wrong on this, but it's my assumption that it would be beyond the jurisdiction of an immigration officer to make non-immigration related arrests. Maybe not, but it's not like the issue had a whole lot of credibility prior to that moment, anyway.

Considering the source, this is not a terrible story. It doesn't have the ridiculous villain, and it's trying to promote a necessary social consciousness message (very appropriate for a Green Arrow story). It's just that Cavalieri sucks. You don't blame an ugly person for being ugly or a mentally challenged person for being mentally challenged, so I don't fault Cavalieri for being Cavalieri. I do, however, fault, DC for tricking me into reading his work yet again.

[shaxper]

Actually, the Batman reboot begins with #401, which features Magpie, a villainess introduced in Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series.

Cei-U!
I summon the technicality!

Did not realize that. Without a renumbering, and with no indication on the cover, it couldn't have been all that obvious to the reader. Why not start with Year One, the post-Crisis origin story?

How odd to wait 8 months before rebooting, then do it quietly, and then tell the new origin (followed by the new origin for Robin) three issues after you've begun?

So I'm guessing the dude on the cover of #402 isn't Anton Knight? That had been my assumption up to this point. I read #401-#403 years and years and years ago, but I only remember the very basics of the stories.

[Cei-U!]

Finally feeling back up to snuff so here goes!

How much power did an editor in the Bronze Age have to make such substantial changes, though? Were they able to see the script before it went to the penciler, or could they send a page back for revisions? On a few occasions, fixing the error simply meant changing a few words, but a lot of other times, it would have required substantial alterations. Was there time for that, and how much authority over the writer did the editor actually have?

These are not rhetorical questions, by the way. I honestly don't know.

If I may be permitted a rare moment of humility, neither do I. What little I know about DC’s editorial process in the mid-Eighties is third-hand, fragmentary and not altogether trustworthy.

In the Silver and early Bronze Ages, when titles often had multiple writers and continued stories were rare, editors like Schwartz, Weisinger and Boltinoff played a far more active role, working with the scripters to plug plot holes and keep characterization consistent. A script didn’t get assigned to an artist until the problems had been worked out. (That why you sometimes saw stories obviously meant for Jimmy Olsen or Lois Lane pop up in Superman or Action.)

But by the era we’re talking about, the reliance on a single writer per title and the dominance of continuing stories with multiple running subplots would’ve made it impossible to hold up a problematic script without affecting the production schedule. (By the way, I seem to recall reading that the stories of the early ‘80s had to keep the subplots confined to discrete pages so they could be removed for the foreign market, which didn’t always run stuff in the order it ran in America, without affecting the main plot. Compare the Wein/Simonson Calendar Man story from Batman #312 to its reprinting in the Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told for an example of this.) While you might see the occasional fill-in, editors obviously couldn’t treat the stories as interchangeable.

As a former business process analyst (and a darn good one if I do say so myself), I see massive problems with DC’s system, even given how little I know about its inner workings. Could I, or someone with similar skills, have fixed it? Maybe, but if the editorial mind-set of “I won’t mess with your scripts if you don’t mess with mine” didn’t change too, I doubt it would’ve made much difference.

It didn't get bad until that point, but it seemed to be almost entirely devoid of steam after The Judas Contract. There was probably about a year in between where the stories were merely adequate for the most part, at least as far as I'm concerned. I don't know when Wein stopped editing the Titans, and I'm too lazy to look, so the point is somewhat moot anyway. I just know that a lot of long term planning and continuity was involved in the culmination of that storyline; the kind of long term setup that thoroughly reminded me of what Wein had been doing in Batman before Levitz rerouted him.

But Wolfman had a history of building his stories that way predating the Titans book. Just look at his work on Tomb of Dracula, Nova or Green Lantern. I will gladly concede, however, that it never worked as well as under Wein (who left following #39, incidentally). I also think the book didn’t really go downhill until after Perez left, as his co-plotting seemed to be integral to its quality. Kinda like Claremont’s X-Men post-Byrne.

Can't speak to that. Nearly no familiarity with the series and its history.

Don’t sweat it. Just one of my own personal bugaboos.

It was more there than it wasn't. Under Wein, the mayor got a name, crime bosses got names and histories (Reed was still making up crime bosses out of the blue to suit the purposes of his stories as recently as Batman #301 and #302), long term secondary characters were introduced like Lucius Fox, Gregorian Falstaff, that secretary, Shamrock and the homeless folks (although Levitz killed that idea), and put long term plot lines into effect. Most of them were left unresolved when Wein left (at least partially because Levitz kept pushing for throw-downs with costumed villains), but the comic really had a momentum by the time of Wein's departure, with countless plotlines still up in the air from the mundane (Fox's allegiance to Bruce) to the serious (Falstaff's criminal activities and bid to take over all of Gotham).

When Conway first took over, he was doing largely stand alone stories introducing or reviving costumed villains no one cared about, but as soon as Wein entered, he was juggling multiple plotlines far more efficiently and effectively than even Wein did. Moench was still doing that up until the conclusion of this last big storyline -- Mayor Hill, the Gordan/Bullock relationship, Nocturna and Thief of Night, the development of Jason Todd, (regrettably) Julia and Vicki -- all of these characters and storylines were being continuously developed in the title. There were no stand alone stories arbitrarily introducing villains and discarding them by the end of the story. As a result, conflicts were more earned, and personalities were given time to develop over a span of time instead of simply working as vehicles to further a plot line.

That was all or mostly Wein. It had to be. And it's what I'm enjoying most about this run.

Ah, I get it now. I absolutely agree that the expansion of the Bat-books’ supporting cast and the fleshing out of Batman’s world were long overdue and lifted them out of the doldrums they’d been stranded in for the last few years of Schwartz’s tenure. But I firmly believe Batman works best in plot-driven done-in-ones (with continuing subplots) and that he is singularly unsuited for the dreary Marvel-style romantic entanglements Moench insists on foisting on the character. A better balance was needed… all in my opinion, natch.

You can see a lot of this development happening in New Teen Titans during this time, as well. Just follow the progress of any of the main characters over a period of time -- Terra (obviously), Wally and his feeling like he's not a part of the team, Donna and her search for identity, Victor and his relationship with his girlfriend (what was her name again?), Gar and his issues with his dad and his past (The Doom Patrol), and of course Dick's quest to define himself outside of Batman. All of those plotlines were visited repeatedly over many issues in a way that hadn't been done before Wein's tenure as editor.

Dunno if I’ve talked about this much but I hate kid sidekicks in general, Robin in particular and Jason Todd as Robin with a passion. Stan Lee recognized early that kid sidekicks were a dated and ilogical element of the genre that needed to be kicked to the curb hard but DC never got it. The Batman titles improved immeasurably once Robin was removed at the start of the Bronze Age and I mark the return to the Dynamic Duo paradigm as a major step backwards, part of the same horrendous miscalculation that moved Bruce back to Wayne Manor and turned him from socially-conscious philanthopist back into the cliched and dull “bored-and-boring playboy” ruse.

If Dick Grayson had to stick around, I’d prefer him restricted to solo stories or teamed with the Titans. I certainly never would’ve turned him into Nightwing (a lame alias that doesn’t work outside the context of Kandor). I never really bought into the whole “I need an identity separate from Batman” shtick in the first place. All he really needed was a grown-up costume—either the Earth-Two version’s (which “our” Robin” wore first anyway) or something along the lines of what Tim Drake got—to say “Yes, I was Batman’s partner but I’m my own man now.”

As for Jason, it isn’t that I found him unlikeable (not pre-Crisis, anyway). It’s that his entire existence was dictated by the marketing department. Robin was one of DC’s Big Four cash cows when it came to merchandising so someone, by god, had to wear those green pixie boots if Dick wasn’t going to. I think that’s why Jason’s origin was such a tepid rehash of Dick’s: because the character was imposed on Wein and Conway from higher up.

Always a pleasure getting into these things with you! Now destroy me!!

But then I’d have to go back to correcting Dan and there’s no challenge in that!

Cei-U!
This is fun!

[JKCarrier]

I think DC was actively encouraging their writers to put these little Crisis "tie-ins" in place. As I recall, there were a lot of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a direct order that every title had to fit the Monitor in somewhere. He even turned up in Swamp Thing and G.I. Combat.

(If you're desperate, I suppose you could say that the Crisis had some residual effect.)

It was pretty obvious at the time that DC hadn't planned out the post-Crisis universe in any detail, and it took a while for them to get all the pieces in place. This was an explicit plot point in All-Star Squadron, where the robot Mekanique was said to be somehow "holding back" the effects of the Crisis, giving Roy Thomas a chance to finish off his storylines before half his cast got retconned out of existence. There's a similar bit in The Legend of Wonder Woman, with Aphrodite keeping the Crisis from fully taking hold on Paradise Island until the end of the story.

[shaxper]

If I may be permitted a rare moment of humility, neither do I.

Forgive me, but I nearly fainted when I read that. This is a first!

In the Silver and early Bronze Ages, when titles often had multiple writers and continued stories were rare, editors like Schwartz, Weisinger and Boltinoff played a far more active role, working with the scripters to plug plot holes and keep characterization consistent. A script didn’t get assigned to an artist until the problems had been worked out. (That why you sometimes saw stories obviously meant for Jimmy Olsen or Lois Lane pop up in Superman or Action.)

But by the era we’re talking about, the reliance on a single writer per title and the dominance of continuing stories with multiple running subplots would’ve made it impossible to hold up a problematic script without affecting the production schedule. (By the way, I seem to recall reading that the stories of the early ‘80s had to keep the subplots confined to discrete pages so they could be removed for the foreign market, which didn’t always run stuff in the order it ran in America, without affecting the main plot. Compare the Wein/Simonson Calendar Man story from Batman #312 to its reprinting in the Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told for an example of this.) While you might see the occasional fill-in, editors obviously couldn’t treat the stories as interchangeable.

Didn't realize that's why the bronze age subplots were often portioned out in that manner. Thanks for the explanation.

As a former business process analyst (and a darn good one if I do say so myself), I see massive problems with DC’s system, even given how little I know about its inner workings. Could I, or someone with similar skills, have fixed it? Maybe, but if the editorial mind-set of “I won’t mess with your scripts if you don’t mess with mine” didn’t change too, I doubt it would’ve made much difference.

Well I think the rise of creator celebrities made this an inevitability. The companies knew they didn't want to piss off their A writers and artists or they'd lose their cash cows. Kirby certainly made this apparant in the 70s, leaping from company to company whenever they looked at him wrong. So, if you're suddenly going to hand all of this power over to some creators and take a lot of power away from the editors, it sets a climate that trickles down to all staff members. On top of that, if I'm not mistaken, Pacific Comics had launched by this point, so you had Adams, Kirby, and a bunch of other creators out there publishing their own works and keepng all the rights. I'd imagine there was a temptation to pamper talented creators at this point for fear of losing them to a company that could offer them a better situation.

But Wolfman had a history of building his stories that way predating the Titans book. Just look at his work on Tomb of Dracula, Nova or Green Lantern. I will gladly concede, however, that it never worked as well as under Wein (who left following #39, incidentally). I also think the book didn’t really go downhill until after Perez left, as his co-plotting seemed to be integral to its quality. Kinda like Claremont’s X-Men post-Byrne.

Oh, I agree that the loss of Perez, compounded by the demand of writing for two monthly titles, was the end for that run. I think we're in agreement, though, that there was a mastery of continuity and character development occuring while Wein was on the book that didn't continue once that story arc ended.

Ah, I get it now. I absolutely agree that the expansion of the Bat-books’ supporting cast and the fleshing out of Batman’s world were long overdue and lifted them out of the doldrums they’d been stranded in for the last few years of Schwartz’s tenure.

Yes.

But I firmly believe Batman works best in plot-driven done-in-ones (with continuing subplots) and that he is singularly unsuited for the dreary Marvel-style romantic entanglements Moench insists on foisting on the character. A better balance was needed… all in my opinion, natch.

Well elaborately weaved storylines do not necessarily require poorly done romantic entanglements. I could have done without most of the romance, myself, but I absolutely adore the interweaving side plots and long term conflicts. I particularly enjoyed the internal conflict Conway created for Batman as he struggled with his inability to reach out to others, the solution to which ended up being Jason Todd. That was some well-earned long-term development that took many issues to execute properly. To some extent, it's still continuing in the issues I'm reading now, though on a much more subtle level at this point.

Dunno if I’ve talked about this much but I hate kid sidekicks in general, Robin in particular and Jason Todd as Robin with a passion. Stan Lee recognized early that kid sidekicks were a dated and ilogical element of the genre that needed to be kicked to the curb hard but DC never got it. The Batman titles improved immeasurably once Robin was removed at the start of the Bronze Age and I mark the return to the Dynamic Duo paradigm as a major step backwards, part of the same horrendous miscalculation that moved Bruce back to Wayne Manor and turned him from socially-conscious philanthopist back into the cliched and dull “bored-and-boring playboy” ruse.

You lost me on this one. "Robin" is my favorite superhero character of all time precisely because, as a child, I could better identify with the kid sidekick than the superhuman hero. I know people are divided on this (and always will be) but Wein did so much for sidekicks to make them less absurd and more fascinating. He let Dick grow up properly, proving that sidekicks could grow and evolve just like the young boys looking up to them, and he turned "Robin" into a legacy and institution rather than a single kid who could never be allowed to grow up.

I respect and appreciate solo Batman stories, but I doubt I could ever be the fan that I am without Robin and Wein's contribution to him/them. I certainly wouldn't have been devoted and interested enough to have started this thread.

If Dick Grayson had to stick around, I’d prefer him restricted to solo stories or teamed with the Titans. I certainly never would’ve turned him into Nightwing (a lame alias that doesn’t work outside the context of Kandor). I never really bought into the whole “I need an identity separate from Batman” shtick in the first place. All he really needed was a grown-up costume—either the Earth-Two version’s (which “our” Robin” wore first anyway) or something along the lines of what Tim Drake got—to say “Yes, I was Batman’s partner but I’m my own man now.”

I was extremely moved by his need to to establish his own identity at the time; the desire to be a secondary hero less people would know rather than the follow-up to "Batman &..." that everyone knew. Just as all sons must break away from their father's shadows and find their own destinies, so too did Dick.

As for Jason, it isn’t that I found him unlikeable (not pre-Crisis, anyway). It’s that his entire existence was dictated by the marketing department. Robin was one of DC’s Big Four cash cows when it came to merchandising so someone, by god, had to wear those green pixie boots if Dick wasn’t going to. I think that’s why Jason’s origin was such a tepid rehash of Dick’s: because the character was imposed on Wein and Conway from higher up.

Yes, but they made it work, just as they made Death in the Family work. By your logic, you should have the same feelings about Batman. He happened because someone monitoring earning statements needed another Superman, and Kane figured he could shamelessly steal from an old silent film character to do it. Even the changes Batman underwent during the years were prompted by the need to attract new audiences and sell more books. In fact, the only major change I can think of (prior to Morrison) that wasn't prompted by a concern for sales was the introduction of Robin. Finger felt Batman needed someone to talk to.

Yes, savor that irony

Cei-U!
This is fun!

Indeed! Hope my thoughts were focused enough, btw. I'm watching my two year old as I write all of this.

[Reptisaurus!]

Dunno if I’ve talked about this much but I hate kid sidekicks in general, Robin in particular and Jason Todd as Robin with a passion. Stan Lee recognized early that kid sidekicks were a dated and ilogical element of the genre that needed to be kicked to the curb

Ah, Stan Lee. What did he know?

Although, to be honest, I've always liked Robin more as a character than Batman, and I tend to prefer young heroes, either as side-kicks or on (preferably) on their own. In Robin's specific case, channeling personal tragedy into being the laughing boy daredevil strikes me as a more interesting and original core concept than "My parents died and I'm all angsty for life! Ah boo! Ah boo!"

But on the one hand, I sort of see what you're saying. I don't expect logic from superhero comics, but I do have problems with set-ups and istuations that make the heroes function less well as role-models or moral paragons - Like having to constantly lie to your friends and family to preserve a secret identity. Stuff like that.

And dressing a ten year old kid up in pixie boots and taking him off to get shot at strikes me as extremely morally questionable.

But...

On the other hand...

"Kid Sidekicks" seem to me to be incredibly useful from a storytelling perspective.

First of all, having a character who's part of BOTH the heroes world is a great way to deliver exposition. This is especially important in detective stories - Holmes needs a Watson type to explain the mystery to. And, just coincidentally, explainnit to the READER at the same time.

Plus, it's useful to build and underscore a sense of wonder. Having Jimmy Olsen around to go "HOLY CRAP!" whenver Superman punches out a gorilla is serves as a quite functional exclamation point at the end of a fight scene.

Likewise, and I'm paraphrasing Frank Miller here, there's nothing like having Robin around to make Batman look BIG. Kid sidekicks in general and Robin especially make a great visual counterpoint to the main hero. And two characters in general offer a greater variety of panel design options that a solo hero.

And there's the ever-present audience relatability function that Shax was talkin' about.

And let's not forget that Batman's popularity exploded when Robin was added. If it weren't for Dick Grayson, there's a good chance that Bats would be a footnote in comics history, ala the Crimson Avenger or the original Atom.

[Cei-U!]

Forgive me, but I nearly fainted when I read that. This is a first!

Relish it, cause it ain't happening again any time soon!

Well I think the rise of creator celebrities made this an inevitability. The companies knew they didn't want to piss off their A writers and artists or they'd lose their cash cows. Kirby certainly made this apparant in the 70s, leaping from company to company whenever they looked at him wrong. So, if you're suddenly going to hand all of this power over to some creators and take a lot of power away from the editors, it sets a climate that trickles down to all staff members. On top of that, if I'm not mistaken, Pacific Comics had launched by this point, so you had Adams, Kirby, and a bunch of other creators out there publishing their own works and keepng all the rights. I'd imagine there was a temptation to pamper talented creators at this point for fear of losing them to a company that could offer them a better situation.

It didn't have to be inevitable. Professional writers from Thomas Hardy to Stephen King have extolled the benefits of working with a first-rate editor, someone to provide them with objective feedback and help them find and polish their authorial voices. Comics is the only branch of professional publishing I know of where the tail consistently wags the dog in that way.

I think we're in agreement, though, that there was a mastery of continuity and character development occuring while Wein was on the book that didn't continue once that story arc ended.

I'd have to actually re-read those post-Wein issues to say so positively. Still, I can't argue that my interest in the Titans' doings drops faster the farther we get from "Judas Contract" so maybe you're on to something. I think you win this one.

Well elaborately weaved storylines do not necessarily require poorly done romantic entanglements. I could have done without most of the romance, myself, but I absolutely adore the interweaving side plots and long term conflicts.

I'll buy that.

I particularly enjoyed the internal conflict Conway created for Batman as he struggled with his inability to reach out to others, the solution to which ended up being Jason Todd. That was some well-earned long-term development that took many issues to execute properly. To some extent, it's still continuing in the issues I'm reading now, though on a much more subtle level at this point.

Yeah, but I hate the whole notion of Batman-as-emotional-cripple. I understand the thinking behind it but I don't agree with it. I've never believed that the loss of Bruce's parents warped him in the way he's been depicted from the '80s on. It shaped him, yes, but in the sense that it inspired him to the pinnacle of human achievement. (If it were really all about Thomas and Martha, you'd think the deaths of Joe Chill and Lew Moxon would've spelled the end of Batman's career.) Batman as the world's greatest detective, a force for rationality and justice in a world short on both, that's what interests me about the character, not Batman the obssessive-compulsive sociopath.

You lost me on this one. "Robin" is my favorite superhero character of all time precisely because, as a child, I could better identify with the kid sidekick than the superhuman hero. I know people are divided on this (and always will be) but Wein did so much for sidekicks to make them less absurd and more fascinating. He let Dick grow up properly, proving that sidekicks could grow and evolve just like the young boys looking up to them, and he turned "Robin" into a legacy and institution rather than a single kid who could never be allowed to grow up.

And he belongs in an institution for doing it! Buh-DUMP-bump!

Seriously, how am I supposed to argue with that? "He's my favorite superhero." Sheesh!

What can I say? Even as a little kid, the sidekicks never worked for me. That was the main reason I preferred Marvel over DC. I could sort of buy into Kid Flash or Toro, since they at least had super-powers, but my willing suspension of disbelief couldn't handle the likes of Robin, Bucky and Speedy. Plus the existence of Robin would've just made it easier for Gordon or some other halfway intelligent sleuth to suss out Batman's true identity.

I respect and appreciate solo Batman stories, but I doubt I could ever be the fan that I am without Robin and Wein's contribution to him/them. I certainly wouldn't have been devoted and interested enough to have started this thread.

While I'm the polar opposite: I respect and appreciate Batman and Robin stories (especially the less "realistic," more absurd Golden Age stuff) but Batman never would've become my favorite super-hero if Schwartz and Robbins hadn't written Robin out in '69.

I was extremely moved by his need to to establish his own identity at the time; the desire to be a secondary hero less people would know rather than the follow-up to "Batman &..." that everyone knew. Just as all sons must break away from their father's shadows and find their own destinies, so too did Dick.

Yeah, but how many sons change their names to distance themselves from their fathers (unless your real name is Charles Manson, Jr., or the like)?

Yes, but they made it work, just as they made Death in the Family work.

"Death in the Family" stunk like dirty diapers in kimchee sauce, dude.

By your logic, you should have the same feelings about Batman. He happened because someone monitoring earning statements needed another Superman, and Kane figured he could shamelessly steal from an old silent film character to do it. Even the changes Batman underwent during the years were prompted by the need to attract new audiences and sell more books. In fact, the only major change I can think of (prior to Morrison) that wasn't prompted by a concern for sales was the introduction of Robin. Finger felt Batman needed someone to talk to.

Yes, savor that irony

Ha! But no. There's a big difference between creating a new, if arguably derivative, character to take advantage of a trend and cloning an existing character because you don't want Underoo sales to drop.

Indeed! Hope my thoughts were focused enough, btw. I'm watching my two year old as I write all of this.

Your thoughts were focused just fine. Always a pleasure debating with you, sir.

Cei-U!
I summon the meeting of the minds!

[Cei-U!]

Ah, Stan Lee. What did he know?

Word.

But on the one hand, I sort of see what you're saying. I don't expect logic from superhero comics, but I do have problems with set-ups and istuations that make the heroes function less well as role-models or moral paragons - Like having to constantly lie to your friends and family to preserve a secret identity. Stuff like that.

And dressing a ten year old kid up in pixie boots and taking him off to get shot at strikes me as extremely morally questionable.

dingdingdingdingding!

But...

Uh-oh...

On the other hand...

"Kid Sidekicks" seem to me to be incredibly useful from a storytelling perspective.

First of all, having a character who's part of BOTH the heroes world is a great way to deliver exposition. This is especially important in detective stories - Holmes needs a Watson type to explain the mystery to. And, just coincidentally, explainnit to the READER at the same time.

That's what Alfred's for. And Gordon, at least on the detective side. He filled that role quite nicely in Haney and Aparo's Brave and the Bold run.

Plus, it's useful to build and underscore a sense of wonder. Having Jimmy Olsen around to go "HOLY CRAP!" whenver Superman punches out a gorilla is serves as a quite functional exclamation point at the end of a fight scene.

But, as your own example shows, that doesn't require a 10-year-old in pixie boots.

Likewise, and I'm paraphrasing Frank Miller here, there's nothing like having Robin around to make Batman look BIG. Kid sidekicks in general and Robin especially make a great visual counterpoint to the main hero. And two characters in general offer a greater variety of panel design options that a solo hero.

I can't say I agree with that.

And there's the ever-present audience relatability function that Shax was talkin' about.

I never bought into the whole "reader identication" idea. To paraphrase Stephen King, who wants to pretend to be Robin when they can pretend to be Batman just as easily?

And let's not forget that Batman's popularity exploded when Robin was added. If it weren't for Dick Grayson, there's a good chance that Bats would be a footnote in comics history, ala the Crimson Avenger or the original Atom.

I certainly can't argue with you there but I'd counter that the need for Robin had passed by the late '60s as storytelling styles and the audience alike became more sophisticated.

Cei-U!
I hold my ground!

[Captain Jim]

I can't tell if this is something new, or if I'm just now noticing it in contrast to the fine art that Hoberg is dishing out in Batman, but Broderick is very very lazy.

LOL, wasn't it just a few posts back that you were complaining about Hoberg's art?

Actually, the Batman reboot begins with #401, which features Magpie, a villainess introduced in Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series.

Did not realize that. Without a renumbering, and with no indication on the cover, it couldn't have been all that obvious to the reader. Why not start with Year One, the post-Crisis origin story?

How odd to wait 8 months before rebooting, then do it quietly, and then tell the new origin (followed by the new origin for Robin) three issues after you've begun?

Well, the real reason for the delay (both here and on Superman), I'm sure, is that DC simply wasn't ready.

BM #400, the over-sized anniversary issue, was Moench's swan song (at least for the time being) and was the last issue to feature the continuity of the pre-Crisis Batman.

BM #401 is a Legends tie-in issue. Since Legends comes after Crisis, it is ipso facto post-Crisis. BM #402-403 are both written by Max Collins, who would remain Batman's regular scribe after Year One.

So I'm guessing the dude on the cover of #402 isn't Anton Knight? That had been my assumption up to this point. I read #401-#403 years and years and years ago, but I only remember the very basics of the stories.

I'm afraid not.

[shaxper]

Relish it, cause it ain't happening again any time soon!

No worries. I've already marked it on my calendar. Once a year on this day we will tell stories of the day Cei-U! didn't know everything there is to know about comics.

It didn't have to be inevitable. Professional writers from Thomas Hardy to Stephen King have extolled the benefits of working with a first-rate editor, someone to provide them with objective feedback and help them find and polish their authorial voices. Comics is the only branch of professional publishing I know of where the tail consistently wags the dog in that way.

Well my ignorance of how publishing works in other mediums is going to handicap me here. In the book industry, how often does a famous author switch to (or threaten to switch to) another publisher? How much power do editors have over famous/established authors? I can't imagine an editor holding back a Steven King or John Grisham novel because he/she wants to see changes. From my limited perspective on the matter, I'd say the two fields seem remarkably similar in that respect.

Maybe the true difference there isn't the relationship between writers and editors but rather with writers and their own sense of professionalism. I'd imagine novelists tend to respect their work more, whereas comics are still seen by many as a disposable medium targeted at kids and immature adult men. Sadly, I think Danielle Steele probably takes herself and her "legacy" a lot more seriously than Paul Dini does.

Feel free to disagree, of course. This is all wild opinion.

I'll buy that.

Adding this one to the calendar, too: "The day shaxper made a valid point"

Yeah, but I hate the whole notion of Batman-as-emotional-cripple. I understand the thinking behind it but I don't agree with it. I've never believed that the loss of Bruce's parents warped him in the way he's been depicted from the '80s on. It shaped him, yes, but in the sense that it inspired him to the pinnacle of human achievement. (If it were really all about Thomas and Martha, you'd think the deaths of Joe Chill and Lew Moxon would've spelled the end of Batman's career.) Batman as the world's greatest detective, a force for rationality and justice in a world short on both, that's what interests me about the character, not Batman the obssessive-compulsive sociopath.

Well that's neither here nor there. The issue is whether or not long term secondary plot lines can be a desirable thing. This was just an example of one I enjoyed. Granted, this structure of storytelling generally requires more internal conflict on the part of the main character, but it doesn't have to take on the "emotional cripple" approach.

And he belongs in an institution for doing it! Buh-DUMP-bump!

Never understood why taking on a kid sidekick is so much more fantastic than putting on tights and a bat costume in order to fight crime and then swinging from roof tops.

Seriously, how am I supposed to argue with that? "He's my favorite superhero." Sheesh!

Well, you don't like Robin. My response is that I do. How else does one counter an opinion? Sure, there are reasons why the character makes no sense, and there are reasons why he's appealing. I think we've covered all sides of that, don't you?

What can I say? Even as a little kid, the sidekicks never worked for me. That was the main reason I preferred Marvel over DC. I could sort of buy into Kid Flash or Toro, since they at least had super-powers, but my willing suspension of disbelief couldn't handle the likes of Robin, Bucky and Speedy.

A valid opinion, just one I don't agree with.

Plus the existence of Robin would've just made it easier for Gordon or some other halfway intelligent sleuth to suss out Batman's true identity.

Certainly true. My suspension of disbelief didn't find this harder to handle than a lot of other absurd aspects of the character, premise, and individual stories, but I can certainly respect that yours did.

Yeah, but how many sons change their names to distance themselves from their fathers (unless your real name is Charles Manson, Jr., or the like)?

The difference here being that the name represented a status as well as an individual for Dick. Most sons are expected to grow into their own person. Those expectations weren't as clear for Robin, a character who had always been known by fans and the inhabitants of Gotham alike as a sidekick.

"Death in the Family" stunk like dirty diapers in kimchee sauce, dude.

And how, my dear friend, shall I argue against a comment like that? I happen to think it was a very powerful and well-executed story once you ignore the absurd media stunt behind it.

Ha! But no. There's a big difference between creating a new, if arguably derivative, character to take advantage of a trend and cloning an existing character because you don't want Underoo sales to drop.

The point being that Batman's entire creation was the result of a mandate intended to make more money and sell more comics. Kane had so little vision/drive to create the character that he stole/borrowed most of the original concept. I have little doubt that there'd be no Batman today if Kane hadn't been specifically ordered to create a second Superman. Thus, it's ironic that you dislike Jason Todd specifically because, "his entire existence was dictated by the marketing department."

Your thoughts were focused just fine. Always a pleasure debating with you, sir.

Thank you, sir. It's a pleasure on this end, as well!

[shaxper]

I never bought into the whole "reader identication" idea. To paraphrase Stephen King, who wants to pretend to be Robin when they can pretend to be Batman just as easily?

Kids who needed a dad in their lives.

I answered this question in a lot more detail a very long time ago in my old blog: http://shaxper.xanga.com/234031504/item/