So now Batman's even smarter than the Devil, huh? Now Batman's such a perfect scary crimefighter that he even makes the Devil afraid of him? That's the ending Grant Morrison gives us, and unfortunately it has the effect of giving the reader LESS insight into Bruce Wayne than we would have expected. Over the past twenty-some issues Morrison has torn down the walls of Bruce's safe existence, but now at the very end it is as if he builds them back up, more oppressive and opaque than ever. Batman is even MORE formidable than the Devil! It's a fun ending but it doesn't bear with it any new discovery into who Bruce Wayne is or what his life means. It makes him less relatable than ever, which in it's own way is quite a mean accomplishment.

It's still a very good ending, in my opinion. Things don't have to make sense. Loose ends don't have to be tied up. Mysteries don't have to be explained away with most of the puzzling details accounted for. As the rest of the story stands, the Devil reveal fits. Hey, if you're not going to explain what the thing was on Bat-Mite's back, then the amorphous explanation that the Devil is Dr. Hurt is a good enough, spooky Black Glove reveal. "But Dr. Hurt seems hardly supernatural! Would the Devil care about how his henchman is piloting a helicopter? No way! We've seen no actual evidence that Dr. Hurt is REALLY the Devil--Batman just SAYS he is in his notes--and phrases the supposed reveal as a question. Read the scene WITHOUT reading Batman's notes and there's hardly a hint that Hurt is the Devil! All Hurt says is just typical villain dialogue: 'I'm the big abyss at the center of your existence, hero!' Hurt being the Devil makes no sense!" All true, but it doesn't NEED to make sense. And, for instance, if you're simply not going to explain anything more about what the talking gargoyles were in 679, then you might as well imply that the Devil is the Black Glove and leave it at that. Going further, if you're simply not going to explain what the deal was with Honor Jackson in 678, then you may as well have an ending, a final issue, and a Black Glove reveal that don't really explain all that much either, that leave the reader wondering about a lot of things. And that's fine.

Joe Chill would have been a better Black Glove. That’s what I think. It would have meant more to the Bat-mythos (because the Devil certainly HAS NOT and WILL NOT be an enduring character) and it would have presented an opportunity for the writer to easily tie many other themes and plot-points together. But like I say, if in the last issue as a writer you're NOT GOING to tie many things up, then the Devil is the better, more appropriate choice.

Morrison's first issue, 655, opened with a fake Batman shooting the Joker, who almost dies. From that point on the Joker tauntingly/belligerently sings a song that "Batman shot the Joker!", and Bruce reacts to this with hostility and indignation: "Batman doesn't use a gun! I don't kill people!" What does the Devil being the Black Glove SAY about this plot thread? NOTHING. But what would Joe Chill being the Black Glove imply here? A LOT, because in 673 we see Bruce vengefully using a gun to bring about Chill's death. This action would have been an almost Classically tragic rationale for the Black Glove to punish Bruce: because he "deserves" it, as the Joker told us in DCU #0, because Batman long ago actually broke his own rules about guns and death. (This meaningful scenario seemed on the cusp of Morrison later chapters, but it never came to pass: "No Batman, you didn't use a gun or shoot the Joker, but you did use a gun and try to bring about the death of Joe Chill--you just don't want to remember the time you broke your own rules.") On the other hand, why would Batman "deserve" to have the Devil pursuing him? He wouldn't; so the Joker's clue actually makes no sense and proves worthless. A waste.

Toward the end of 681 the Devil tries to get Bruce to join the dark side--gosh, but in 673 he was already there! This is a huge plot hole. In 673 Bruce apparently brought about a coerced suicide. And yet the story Morrison tells us in 681 is one of Batman being something like a perfect, perfectly innocent angel--which is very boring, in a way. Characters who are faultless and perfect are less interesting that those with flaws. In 673 Morrison wrote a great, potentially fatal flaw for Bruce: that he had repressed the memory of killing Joe Chill, that once upon a time years ago Batman was a REvenger instead of an Avenger. Were this the seed of the Black Glove's plot against Batman, I believe the story would have been more powerful.

As it is, there's a lot that doesn't make sense. Some have said that the Chill scene in 673 didn't really happen, that it was just a hallucination or an implanted memory that Hurt gave Bruce. As it stands, we just can't say anything for sure. If Hurt implanted that memory--though Hurt's never been shown to have the technique to implant memories, only to implant "trigger phrases"*--then he never capitalized on it, or even referred to it. The Chill retcon in 673 stands as a complete anomaly. It's a big retcon that Morrison doesn't seem to have made for any greater purpose. It's potentially very meaningful, but Morrison didn't do anything with it. And if you aren't going to do anything with that mysterious plot-point, among so many others that you're not going to explain (what was the thing on Bat-Mite's back?), if as an author you're just not going to explain those things, then you might as well say that "The Devil was the Black Glove" (or rather "Is this the Devil?", since Bruce phrases the reveal as a question) and be done with it on that note.

It's still a good ending. You have to admire the ambition of it all. This isn't a typical comic book, and it's clear that a lot of effort was put into it. More effort went into each issue than usually go into several issues of other comics--that's pretty clear, even if the result doesn't "please" everyone. And if this issue, or Morrison's run in general, has pissed you off, I think you should still thank him for trying to shake you up a little. Don't just be a snarky brat or a typical dismissive hipster: it's good to read things you don't "get" sometimes; it's good for you to realize that you don't need to "get" everything, and that sometimes there's value in thinking about problems that don't break down into definite answers.

But the Bat-mythos is definitely NOT changed forever with this story. Nothing about the origin of Batman is changed. "Was the Devil behind the murder of the Waynes? Did THAT come through in what Morrison showed us in 681?" Erhm... MAYBE, but what would that even tell us? It doesn't matter. The Devil can ALREADY be said to be behind EVERY evil act ever, in a sense. We might as well insist that God was behind the birth of Batman too, since God can be said to be behind everything, period (and the Devil was behind the death of Dick Grayson's parents too, and so was God, and the Devil was behind the Red Skull--didn't you know?--and God made Peter Parker to become Spider-Man, etc etc). Saying those things doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether the Devil was in part, in some sense, behind Chill's act, because no one is going to rewrite or rephrase how we talk about the origin of Batman given the amorphous nature of what Morrison showed us in 681, compounded with the amorphous nature of the Devil himself as an entity. (If Chill were the Black Glove, however, then we WOULD be reinterpreting the rationale of why Batman makes the rule that he and those under him don't kill: not only because it's wrong but because Batman himself in a moment of evil vengeance once DID take a life through the use of a gun, an act that would be seen to have caused him psychological problems and very real problems down the line.)

Hurt being the Devil IS a shocking reveal, but as for the reveal being billed in advance as "the most shocking reveal in 70 years of Batman"...nah, I don't think so. Dick Grayson turning out to be the Joker in Frank Miller's underappreciated Dark Knight Strikes Again: THAT was a more horrifying, more meaningful, more shocking reveal. In my opinion. But I'd say this Devil reveal might rank as #2 Most Shocking.

Don't get me wrong in any of this, though, this was still a great issue. I have to be so hard on it because the run leading up to this--or, more specifically, the way the run caused the reader to think--was so masterful. The conclusion isn't completely satisfying--not even close--but it's still very impressive. The value in art isn't to cause the audience to sit back at the end, nod their heads and take comfort in all their assumptions, prejudices and predilections being confirmed. Art should challenge us, at least some of it, sometimes--some art should challenge us VERY MUCH, as this Batman run has. Morrison's whole run was better than the ending itself is--and that's how it should be, because otherwise you may as well just read the last chapters of novels or see the last five minutes of films. It's perfectly understandable that not everyone has wanted to get more than a little obsessed with these 20-some issues or wanted to work out theories that even the theorists themselves knew probably wouldn't come to pass. But there is a value in thinking creatively and coming up with theories that don't get confirmed. Morrison's Batman tried to encourage the reader to think hard and to try to be very creative--that's more than most other works of art do, here today in our (very nearly obsolete?) culture of passive consumption. The ride should be more important than the destination, because the capacity of thinking is more important than either being correct or being pleased with what the answer turns out to be. You don't like the answer? There are many answers you won't like. Deal with it and try to learn from them the best you can, because you have indeed been provided with opportunities to learn, whether you choose to take them up and rise to the challenge, or just complain about how you've not been completely catered to as a consumer and talked down to as a child.

I opened this review by saying that Morrison's closing note on Batman makes the character somewhat more superficial: "Yup, yes, Batman's PERFECT, I guess, and that's all there is to it; why, he's so completely perfect that he can beat the Devil." There is a redeeming quality in Morrison ending on this note, however, if RIP does prove to be the LAST big adventure of Batman within this continuity. If Final Crisis really does reset things to a large degree, then I think that Bruce Wayne in this continuity does deserve to go out on a high note: and seeing that he has actually struck fear in the very Devil's eyes is certainly a RIDICULOUSLY high note for Bruce to go out on before Darkseid assimilates him in Final Crisis. Put it another way: if Bruce is going away in Final Crisis, then right before that he deserves to have so great a victory as to beat the Devil. But if the Devil's curse is responsible for Bruce falling into the hands of Darkseid, then who really won?

*The actual Zur-En-Arrh space adventure was shown to be a hallucination of Bruce's own devising, brought on by his exposure to Professor Milo's gas. Hurt did not come up with Zur-En-Arrh (the phrase or the space adventure), he just wedded the phrase with a psychological command for Bruce to shut down.