I like Red Son a lot, but since it’s a character study, it may not resonate with somebody who’s not as familiar with the characters.
I feel sort of the same way about Kingdom Come. You should read both of them, but not necessarily right away.
There’s actually two books that have the stories Lynxara and I are mentioning.
One is the aforemention DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore. It has like a dozen great Alan Moore stories (including the Killing Joke, a crucial Green Lantern story, and those great Superman ones) and there is also a slightly more expensive thinner one with just the Superman stories (there’s actually a third Supes story in there somewhere). But it’s hardcover and oversized.
Links to both:
[DC Universe: Stories of Alan Moore](http://www.amazon.com/DC-Universe-Stories-Alan-Moore/dp/1401209270/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251489311&sr=8-1)
Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?
Unfortunately, All Star Batman gives us the ultimate result of Miller’s idea of Superman as a Super Stooge. It’s very… ‘funny’.
The Alan Moore Collection is fantastic. Just get that one.
Yeah, but Miller gets to “Superman as government stooge” by degenerating into outright idiot plotting. It is never made clear how Superman, who was supposed to be a profoundly advanced intellect at the time of DKR’s writing, could even rationalize his actions, let alone believe he was doing the right thing.
Now, the ends somewhat justify the means there as Batman’s battle with Superman is quite interesting when viewed as an examination of Batman’s basic character. The fight requires Superman be reduced to little more than an obstacle in Batman’s path, though, a shell with Superman’s powers but none of the character’s other identifying traits.
(And given the atrocious depths mainstream superhero comics sunk to in the 90s, he was right.) I honestly think it’s Moore’s best single comic.
There’s a similar Moore comic called In Pictopia! that’s a similar but far more aggressive tirade against the 90’s excesses that Moore clearly saw on the horizon. The art is by the creator of Megaton Man and really some of the gentleman’s best work. The story itself is a rarity but you can stumble across it online and I believe TwoMorrows keeps it in print in one of its collections.
I don’t have a problem with how Superman is portrayed in DKR. It needed to be done that way for that universe. He’s a bit similar in New Frontier as well.
But All-Star Batman is just too far.
I always got the sense that (much like the right wing of the time) Supe’s patriotism for his (adopted) country effectively blinded him to the evil he was committing. Batman, being a cynic, saw things more clearly.
As a strict interpretation of character, sure, Miller’s DKR Superman is like a character assassination. A more dogmatic comics reader would be outraged at the things he does with Supes and Wonder Woman in Dark Knight Returns. But as a symbol, the idea of Superman being used as a tool of a rotted, imperialistic Reaganist America is hugely powerful.
I’ve never been a particularly dogmatic comics reader, the kind that really cares all that much about continuity and such. I see these characters more as templates for great writers to stamp their own impressions on, as a means to deliver a story or idea. (That’s probably why I’ve always dug DC over Marvel, because DC’s characters are such strong archetypes. One of the things I’ve always loved about Batman (for example) is how the character can mutate from campy rich-kid party-boy to insanely brilliant detective to bad-ass minja warrior to brooding tortured anti-hero to a thousand other facets and still be Batman.)
There’s a similar Moore comic called In Pictopia! that’s a similar but far more aggressive tirade against the 90’s excesses that Moore clearly saw on the horizon. The art is by the creator of Megaton Man and really some of the gentleman’s best work. The story itself is a rarity but you can stumble across it online and I believe TwoMorrows keeps it in print in one of its collections.
Good call - that’s a really terrific story.
I agree that this is supposed to be the sense you take away from Superman’s behavior. However, I feel Miller really handwaves this in the execution-- there’s little proof on the page that Miller’s Superman has much of an intellectual inner life at all, let alone is on any basic level a man of science or reason.
It is impossible for me to believe that Miller’s Superman could justify his actions to himself-- but what defines a political zealot is that they can justify anything in the name of their cause. We needed at least one scene where Superman did this. Instead all Miller did was invoke the concept of a Superman who could act like a zealot, presuming the audience’s imagination would fill in the gaps. From there he quickly moves on to his setpiece fight scene.
My issue here is not that Miller altered Superman for his own purposes. My issue here is specifically that he altered the character in a way that is not convincing or sensible. Superman may be used a symbol, but if he behaves as a symbol then his value as such is diminished. It certainly does not make DKR a story that works if you regard it as being about Superman in any significant way. (It’s a landmark Batman story, of course.)
A more dogmatic comics reader would be outraged at the things he does with Supes and Wonder Woman in Dark Knight Returns.
You appear to be implying here and elsewhere in your reply that I am some sort of “dogmatic” reader of Superman. If so, I feel I must take offense at this characterization of my motives in criticizing Miller’s handling of the character. I am criticizing Miller’s creative decisions regarding Superman because I feel they were poorly executed, not because I disagree with the fundamental concepts involved.
But as a symbol, the idea of Superman being used as a tool of a rotted, imperialistic Reaganist America is hugely powerful.
It is nearly impossible for me to appreciate DKR as a work of political allegory. The zeitgeist it reflects is not one I’ve experienced personally (due to age) or in historical readings about the period. I’m not inclined to chalk this up to my own deficiencies as a reader, though.
I do appreciate the political allegory inherent in Watchmen and V for Vendetta, but both those works are far more nuanced in their approach than DKR. They both represent the awful ugliness of the day’s zeitgeist and reactions against it. Miller’s Superman acts so little like a human being that I do not believe he’s in any way a convincing reduction of your typical 80’s Reaganite. He is a hostile caricature of them at best.
I’ve never been a particularly dogmatic comics reader, the kind that really cares all that much about continuity and such.
Neither have I. Continuity can go fuck itself. So if we continue this conversation, I hope not to see this sentiment repeated further. It is irrelevant to my concerns as a critic and unproductive in any discussion of works that happen to be about superheroes.
One of the things I’ve always loved about Batman (for example) is how the character can mutate from campy rich-kid party-boy to insanely brilliant detective to bad-ass minja warrior to brooding tortured anti-hero to a thousand other facets and still be Batman.)
This is because Batman is fundamentally a stuffed suit, the work of many hands. Many of the original pre-Robin Golden Age Batman stories have been conclusively proven to be plagiarized from contemporary Shadow pulp stories. Bob Kane used ghost artists to draw the vast majority of “his” Batman work. As a character, Batman only began amassing memorable traits and supporting cast members as a function of time. His fundamental “emptiness” lets him be anything to anyone.
I do not believe Superman can be regarded the same way, as much as DC probably wishes this was the case. Any study of Superman’s creation, or an examination of the early Siegel/Schuster strips, demonstrates a character very concerned with specific themes and ideas. While there are notable influences on Superman’s creation, the character’s early stories are wholly original and incredibly subversive. Good work with the character recognizes this; poor work doesn’t and ultimately rings false.
Because Superman is very fundamentally about something in a way Batman isn’t, Superman cannot be written convincingly as a stuffed suit. You can add to or subtract from him very easily, but from his very inception Superman is already a symbol of extremely powerful aspirational ideas tied to the experience of American immigrants. Most of Superman’s best writers - including Garth Ennis and Mark Millar! - clearly recognize and reflect this element of artistic integrity in the character and his history. Miller could’ve gotten where he wanted to go with Superman in DKR by recognizing this, too-- but he chose not to, and I believe his work was poorer for it.
The way Miller has Superman in the book (constantly silhouetted, never spoken by name) definitely shows a symbolic approach. I don’t think of it as less because of it.
And yeah Batman, sort of like Wolverine (who I guess is the equivalent in popularity) has been messed with a lot. Bob Kane was a Stan Lee style self-promoter. I believe Bill Finger got ripped off big time as a co-creator (a bit like Jack Kirby). And Batman was using guns and killing people. Have you guys read the first appearance of Batman? He’s pretty fucking brutal in it (I believe he lets a man die in acid).
Bob Kane was a Stan Lee style self-promoter.
This comparison strikes me as frankly unfair to Stan Lee-- he actually did most of the work his name was put on! Kane was well-known as someone who didn’t like drawing all that much and used ghost artists as much as possible.
Kane just happened to get a much better contract out of DC than most all of his contemporaries because he had a relative who was a lawyer. Since Kane actually negotiated instead of just signing immediately on the dotted line, he made sure he got all credit for Batman’s creation.
If only Siegel and Schuster had been so lucky-- or poor Bill Finger!
Have you guys read the first appearance of Batman? He’s pretty fucking brutal in it (I believe he lets a man die in acid).
This is one of the most amazing cases of plagiarism in all the early Batman stuff-- this issue has been conclusively proven to be a near-perfect copy of the Shadow pulp story “Partners in Peril.” It was only when Batman (and superheroes in general) began rising to popularity that Finger and Kane stopped ripping off Shadow stories!
Great comments, Lynxara! For the record, I wasn’t speaking of you, per se, being a dogmatic comics reader. I was thinking more of the dudes I used to know back when I worked in a comics shop, for whom any change from how they perceived a specific character was the cause for epic nerdrage.
I selected the above couple of paragraphs because I believe I think it gets at the heart of why I like Frank Miller where others maybe don’t. The historical impact of something like Dark Knight Returns is almost impossible to understand if you weren’t there in the 80s. Comics have come a long, long way towards critical and cultural acceptance as a medium capable of conveying mature ideas and stories, but back in 1986 none of that was true. Quite the opposite - the idea that a comic could somehow have the depth or impact of a movie or a novel was laughable, especially ones that features those silly men in tights. Dark Knight Returns felt dangerous and subversive, which was literally the last thing you ever expected from a superhero comic 1986.
I think Miller really only works if you take him the way I saw him when DKR was released: a punk. DKR (and it’s much maligned sequel, which I also like) is like the comics equivalent of the first Ramones record: it’s coarse, loud, crude and angry. DKR plays fast and loose with the DC universe the way that The Ramones play fast and loose with “California Sun” or Chuck Berry riffs. It encapsulates that ubiquitous feeling that me and all my friends had in the 80s - that shit had somehow gone very, very wrong. America felt fucked up, and if Superman is supposed to be all Mom and apple pie and America, then he’s fucked up too.
So I totally agree that Miller is hostile and un-nuanced. That’s the part I like.
Oh, I’m sure you meant no harm. In online conversations about comics, though, it’s very easy for comments about those guys to mutate into “Well, clearly you’re one of those guys.” That eventually shuts down conversation completely and I’m no fan of that.
I think Miller really only works if you take him the way I saw him when DKR was released: a punk.
Miller’s no punk to me and never will be. I’ll try to explain why from my perspective.
He spent the 90’s-- when I came to comics-- preaching self-publishing and creator’s rights, then crawled back to DC for more Batman once the money was right. He happily spread his legs when it was his turn to be the recipient of Hollywood blowjobs, after spending a decade screaming about how Marvel wanted to help Hollywood destroy the comics industry. The guy comes off as a hypocrite at best and a sell-out at worst.
That said, I do try to discuss his groundbreaking work in a fair light-- and I think the vast majority of what he did broke new ground up until DKSA. At that point he became a far more conventional creator, whatever else you think about him. Frankly, I think Miller and what he represents have become the comics industry establishment that must be rebelled against.
(So here I am, rebelling.)
I like DKR, but by that point in 1986 there was plenty going on.
It was a crowning achievement for Miller, but he’d already done his Daredevil, and Wolverine run. Elektra Assassin was also coming out at the same time.
In fact you already had TNMT gently, but successfully, mocking Miller’s style, and launching a thousand black and white animal titles in that vein. The stores were choked with YOUTHFUL MUTATION MARTIAL ANIMAL titles.
By then you had Moore doing Watchmen, as well as Swamp Thing and Miracleman.
American Flagg had been going for three years.
It was ON.
The only thing truly subversive about DKR was that it was actually about Batman instead of an allegory of the character.
I think Miller really only works if you take him the way I saw him when DKR was released: a punk. DKR (and it’s much maligned sequel, which I also like) is like the comics equivalent of the first Ramones record: it’s coarse, loud, crude and angry. DKR plays fast and loose with the DC universe the way that The Ramones play fast and loose with “California Sun” or Chuck Berry riffs. It encapsulates that ubiquitous feeling that me and all my friends had in the 80s - that shit had somehow gone very, very wrong. America felt fucked up, and if Superman is supposed to be all Mom and apple pie and America, then he’s fucked up too.
I agree with you there. But Batman didn’t really have that immediacy to me.
I’d also point out that in DKR the punks were the typical gang-villains.
That pissed me off. Still does a bit.
No, at worst he comes off as the director of The Spirit, which is unquestionably one of the worst films I’ve ever seen in a theatre.
I think Miller had tremendous impact with DKR because it’s exactly what the medium needed at exactly the right time with exactly the right character. He tapped into the zeitgeist and hit it out of the park at that one perfect instant. However, everything else I’ve read by him has felt fairly mediocre, and Spawn/Batman actually broke me of my Miller delusions back when it came out. I think he’s a middling writer who hit the jackpot once and has been chasing that dragon ever since.
I was thinking about make a thread like this. I’ve been a fan of Batman since I’ve watched the majority of the animated series, seen the movies and played the games yet I’ve never read a single Batman comic. Starting at 0 when it comes to the comics, what are the must reads?
For me the Batman must-read list would be:
Dark Knight Returns (The defining Batman story for the modern age)
Year One (Follow-up to Dark Knight Returns by Miller covering Batman’s early career…Batman Begins drew from this)
A Death in the Family (The death of the second Robin, a huge turning point)
The Killing Joke (The definitive Joker story)
The Man Who Laughs (Modern follow-up to The Killing Joke)
Arkham Asylum (Batman as horror graphic novel)
Batman: Detective and Batman: Death and the City (Paul Dini’s Detective run, the guy who created the Animated Series…top notch Dark Knight Detective action)
The Long Halloween
Dark Victory
Hush
Those last three are written by Jeph Loeb, who has a really, really bad rap in the industry right now for very good reasons, but these three were done back before he went batshit crazy. Many credit the artist of Long Halloween and Dark Victory, Tim Sale, with much of the good in the stories. Hush features Jim Lee on art duty, and is some of the best modern Batman work.
Others will no doubt have other suggestions, but for me that list more or less defines the modern Batman to me. It’s also worth tracking down some of the '70s era Neal Adams stories, which aren’t as gritty or noirish (Gotham City doesn’t really become a hellhole until after the Crisis in the early '80s), but introduced the more serious tone that evolved into what most modern fans consider the core Batman character.
Can you sum up what happened with Loeb, Matt?
Actually DKR finished before Watchmen even started.
Essential Batman?
Dark Knight Returns is #1.
Batman Year One is the other big one.
Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth
Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader
Grant Morrisons Current Run
I hear a lot of good things about the Rucka/Brubaker/Dixon era but Dixon’s stuff is good but not special.
Loeb’s stuff (Long Halloween, Hush, and Dark Victory) is a lot of fun if not very smart, and it all has killer art.
While a Death in the Family is a very important story I think just knowing the repercussions of it is enough.
A Lonely Place of Dying is similar.
Killing Joke is a must. Pick up that DC Universe: Stories of Alan Moore trade for that. Such a good deal.
Nothing happened. Loeb was never that fantastic a writer to begin with. But his son died of cancer. There’s a bunch of theories. One is that he mentally hasn’t been the same since. Another is that his son ghostwrote his work. I think it’s all bullshit.
I agree with all these, with an exception for Hush… Hush (in my opinion) was written just so Jim Lee could draw every single bat-character in a single story, and beyond that artwork (which admittedly looks great) doesnt offer much else. So if you want to see some great looking artwork, Hush is worth it, but the story just doesnt hold up to multiple readings… Or one reading… It took Dini to make the villain Hush anything more than a caricature…