Morrison's Batman work has been like a big weird symphony. It started in 2006 with Batman #655, and every month or so since then what we've gotten in each issue is really like the next 10 minutes or so in a massive symphony that (thank God) is still ongoing and unfinished. I make this comparison because, eventually, once you've been able to digest and remember enough of it, you start to notice that themes of Morrison's stories start to repeat and play off one another, like motifs in a symphony do. Ideas and phrases begin to echo; you'll notice similar ideas and dialogue coming from different sources, referring to different things--as if, in a symphony, a musical phrase you heard first from the violins is later taken up, two movements later, by the flutes, only now the phrase has been altered slightly. The thing is, it's hard to evaluate a symphony very well, or know too precisely what a certain portion of the music might MEAN or SIGNIFY when you aren't able to listen to the WHOLE thing yet, or when certain sub-movements within it have yet to be completed . So with each installment of Morrison's Batman work, if you're paying real close attention to it, then you're aware of how anything in a new issue might change or build upon the meaning you had sensed from much older issues. Beethoven's Ninth is great, but until the Ode to Joy comes in it's all a bit weird and bleak and sometimes thunderously chaotic.

If you think the symphony metaphor is pretentious...eh...don't get mad. Instead, go read a Geoff Johns comic with five splash pages in it, with really big, obvious heroic moments in it. I guarantee you won't have to do any deep thinking or worry about what anything "means". I don't say that spitefully, either! That sort of a comic is fine with me, too. I liked Green Lantern #50 just fine. But it ain't part of a complicated symphony like Batman & Robin #7 is. It ain't a comic like one of Morrison's Batman installments, all of which reward readers who really, really pay attention and really, really REMEMBER and think about what they read. (I'm not patting myself on the back, either. There's this guy, "rikdad", who has a site mostly about Morrison's Batman, and he pulls many more gems out of this run than I can.)

Here's what I noticed about Batman & Robin #7. Here are, basically, the "symphonic" motifs that recurred in the new installment:

On the second and third pages of this we get a wealth of references to commonplace high-technology toys. Londoners/tourists take pictures of Batman on their cameras and camera phones (a reference which itself recalls another related Morrison comic, Final Crisis #1, when the Human Flame cheapened Martian Manhunter's death by taking a picture of it with his camera phone). Then there are mentions of Google Earth and GPS. This is the high-technology that today's world makes available to everyone. These are great leaps of technology that, really, amount to the TOYS of the average Westerner.

What are these tech-toys in contrast to? They're in contrast to the amusements of the Big Bads of the world, like the Pearly King who we see in this issue. He's a very rich, very powerful man, but he states right out that he doesn't "hold with none of your computer la-di-da". No, the amusements of the Big Bads (as portrayed in Morrison's Batman run) are represented by traditional low-tech games: dominoes, cards, roulette. In the first six issues of Batman & Robin we saw a ton of dominoes, and we see even more in this current issue. Earlier in Morrison's run we twice (Batman #667 and 677) saw roulette wheels, and each time the appearance of a roulette signified the start of one of the Black Glove's "games". In Batman #673 we saw Joe Chill with some playing cards. And then in DC Universe #0 (the prelude of  RIP) we saw the Joker in his cell with some playing cards as well. In that brief, 3-page story, the Joker in his cell in Arkham gave Bruce Wayne clues based on the cards he showed him. And now in the current issue of B&R we see another 3-page scene in which Pearly King, imprisoned himself, gives Dick Grayson clues based on the arrangements of dominoes on the table before him. (He also points to a few particular numbered dominoes--whatever that represents, I'm not sure.) Do you see how almost thrilling this can be, as a reader, to notice these thematic recurrences? It's not like I had to go back and read DC Universe #0 again--because you get to a point where you recall all this stuff pretty naturally, once you really start paying attention.

Okay, so, while the innocent masses of the world play with cellphones and Google, the great villains of the world play low-tech games. These traditional games, of course, serve as metaphors for the "games" that these nefarious elite play on the world stage with the lives of actual people. The Black Glove organization played games with people's lives. And in the current issue Dick notes that recently in England "there was a game of cards played using REAL PEOPLE. Coal gambled and LOST."

This spurs another recurring motif in Morrison's Batman: betting and gambling. In both Black Glove storylines (667-669 and RIP) Dr. Hurt orchestrated the proceedings so that people could either bet on good or evil. In the "Club of Heroes" storyline, John Mayhew bet on evil, but Batman and company (including the Squire and the Knight) foiled his plans. In Batman #669 Hurt tells Mayhew "In today's contest between good and evil, you gambled on evil, John Mayhew. You lost." And in the current issue of B&R we hear that a villain called Old King Coal gambled in some similar game, played with people's lives, and also lost. Was this game also sanctioned or sponsored by the Black Glove? Are all these criminal enterprises REALLY closely linked (including those who follow the Crime Bible and hunt Kate Kane)? We don't really know. So far all we can do is take note of the thematic motifs and appreciate their recurrences. I read the current issue, notice the reappearance of an old theme and think, "Aw! He did it again! Here's ANOTHER instance of the same thing, but this time it's a bit different and it's referring to different people." This creates the rules of the world of Morrison's Batman--the overarching characteristics of the "symphony".

Another such motif comes in the form of "Coal and Pearl". Morrison's run has been full of such dichotomies--or false dichotomies. King Coal and Pearly King seem like opposites--black and white--but they're both really much more similar than they might seem at first. The Pearly King tries to argue the difference by telling Dick: "See, this is all about STREET ROYALTY against COUNTRY, the SOUTH vs. the NORTH". But, eh, they're all just criminals at the end of the day! Same as the "Red and Black" motif found throughout the RIP arc: it wasn't so much red vs. black, life vs. death, or cupid vs. the devil like it was hinted at--they were really just two colors pointing toward the same confounding evil influence. Not really a dichotomy so much as a false dichotomy that might deceive outsiders. At best the slight difference between bad guys is like the "narcissism of minor differences" (as Freud would call it), the prideful illusion that makes people feel superior to other people who are actually more LIKE them than they'd want to admit. Pearly King and Old King Coal--they're both just criminal bosses whose REAL trait is that they kill and rob normal people. The fact that one's from the country and one's from the city doesn't matter to anyone but them!

Similar prejudices between criminals have been found throughout Morrison's run, particularly in Batman #673 (my personal favorite issue of the entire run so far). In this issue Joe Chill, who is something of a crimelord himself at this point (and wearing red and black, notice) tries to rationalize his criminality by explaining that any bad thing he does is okay, since he used to be poor, and even though he's rich now, he had to steal and rob--err, "work" his way up, unlike some criminals who were born rich. Ruminating about the ways of the world, Joe says: "I had to FIGHT and KILL my way to the top of the food chain. If it ain't the rich PREYING on the poor like VAMPIRES, you tell me what ELSE it is? It's US against THEM. Anything I ever did, I can justify as class warfare. CLASS WARFARE." I can imagine that the more "working-class" Old King Coal and the "royal" Pearly King--despite their initial class differences deriving from place of birth--could each justify their actions in much the same pathetic way: "It's okay for ME to KILL and STEAL because of who I am. I'm not one of those OTHER people, so it's okay." But these are false dualisms, pathetic dichotomies. (How do I know this is the message? Because to think otherwise would mean that Morrison is really arguing that Batman is worse than Joe Chill. And even he isn't that crazy.)

Speaking of royalty, privilege and aristocracy, notice that we've got two "Kings" in this issue (King Pearly and Old King Coal), even though only one of them claims to have "real" Royal connections--going back to King Arthur, even. (Pearly King is actually drinking from a cup with the Queen's seal on it!) But Old King Coal, on the other hand, just MADE HIMSELF a "King", even though he's supposedly the relative "commoner". This is sort of like, earlier in Morrison's run, how the leader of the Black Glove was referred to as the "King of Crime", even though Dr. Hurt is not a real royal. Hurt actually upbraided Bruce Wayne for the latter's privilege: "this self-righteous do-gooder, this arrogant, damaged little ARISTOCRAT, is about to face a long-overdue rude awakening" (from Batman #677). Themes of aristocracy, privilege and/or royalty keep repeating. The Knight is an Earl, too--another good guy aristocrat.

Damian has also, of course, had a very privileged upbringing (remember when that came out earlier in B&R, when he just referred to Alfred as "Pennyworth"?). In this issue Talia says that Damian will eventually "stride across the 21st century like a new ALEXANDER". And this in itself hearkens back to the first page of Batman #683, on which Talia tells Bruce that their "son will inherit the world". The word "inherit" is important: it signifies privilege. Joe Chill didn't have privilege, but he did work hard (at being bad) to get some status. Bruce Wayne had privilege, but he also made good on it--he worked hard to fight crime. The question is how exactly will Damian come to terms with his inheritance?

Now is probably a good time to allude to the theme of fathers and sons. Morrison's first proper arc in this Batman run was "Batman & Son". In Batman #673 we learn that the only reason Joe Chill didn't shoot Bruce Wayne along with his parents was because Bruce reminded Joe of Joe's own son. In the current issue of B&R, Dick saves Pearly King's son, and that good turn seems to be why Pearly King sneakily shows Dick a map of the underground mine. Dick saved the son of Pearly King, and Joe Chill in a sense saved the son of Thomas Wayne (who Dr. Hurt SAYS he is). Damian is Bruce's son, but Dick isn't really Bruce's "son" even in a figurative sense--Dick is more like Bruce's younger brother. Dick makes it a point to stress that in this very issue: "He was my brother, my best friend."

What's the ultimate "meaning" of all this? This is all just a network of relations that the reader perceives while reading the current issue. Past relations are felt again based on what's said in the current issue. This whole long saga started out--and has very much been about--fathers and sons. And here in the current issue we hear Dick Grayson stating that he is not a "son" of Bruce Wayne, not the way Damian or even Tim is--but rather he's a brother to Bruce.

When Dick rescues Pearly King's son in the Underground, Eddie calls him the Angel of Death ("God 'elp us, it's the Angel of Death!"). This is significant because religious themes have been prevalent throughout the run. Dr. Hurt is possibly the Devil. The Third Batman (Michael Lane, who's now Azrael) thought he was the Anti-Christ. Damian was described by Tim as the "Son of Satan" (issue 676). Batman #666 dealt with a litany of apocalyptic themes. And later on in this current issue Batwoman speaks of a prophecy about how the "Knight of the Beast will rise"--as if Bruce Wayne's corpse is going to re-animate as a dark bringer of doom. Is there an ultimate "meaning" to these religious identifications? Is Hurt "really" supposed to be the Devil, for example? And if so, is Batman "really" supposed to be an "angel" of some sort? I don't know if Morrison will ever go so far as to suggest anything too definite--but the fact is that the potential religious meanings are there. They're out there for the reader to notice and play with. "Lazarus" is a biblical reference itself. And notice that Dick descends into the "Underground" twice in this issue. (Notice also that the mine is a "dead zone", meaning that the technology of the masses--cellphones, GPS, etc.--won't work underground. All of these touches add to the ways the themes play out: Dick & co. are in a hellish place, underground, that's out of the reach of the happy technology of good, normal people.)

The ultimate point, I think, has to do with the symbolism of Batman himself. Batman is the good guy who looks like he would be a bad guy. Sometimes Batman actually looks demonic (in issue #664 or 665, a character refers to the points on Bruce's cowl as "devil-ears"). But Batman seems evil in order to combat people who really are doing evil things. In some ways, then, Batman's function is like that of the Devil's: Satan is supposedly part of God's plan, because the FEAR of the Devil is what makes otherwise "devilish" people be good. See the parallel? The Devil might not be "real", but that might not matter--because criminals are a "superstitious" lot. (The word "superstition" appears in B&R #7 too--the person who says it attributes it to someone unlike himself--y'know, because we all think OTHER people are more irrational than we ourselves are--And I don't think Grant Morrison can use the world "superstition" in a Batman comic without thinking of the "criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot" motif).

Maybe most readers think this is all too much. "I read comics for fun," I can hear someone say. And there are fun moments in Batman & Robin #7. There's an action scene to start things off. There is surface-level fun. But there is also a hell of a lot more going on. Besides that, I'd say that there are different sorts of fun, and all of the above IS fun for some of us. Seeing these thematic recurrences, with every new issue of Morrison's Batman saga, is great fun. It just takes some "work", a lot of reading and rereading, to get to the point where you can start to really, really appreciate this stuff. "Comics should be fun", but they also CAN be work--FUN WORK that seems more like PLAY. Morrison's Batman isn't the greatest comic ever, but it's undoubtedly been the run I've had the most fun reading, ever. "Comics should be fun!" Sure, but comic series can also be like really complicated, intricate "symphonies", playing with themes like high crimes, "games" on the world stage, wealth and poverty, privilege, fathers and sons, angels and devils, false death and false resurrection.

I think the medium of comics is better for having a run like this one in it, a run that can hold all of these themes in it at once, a run that holds up under and rewards multiple deep, close readings. If the "symphony" comparison is too pretentious, think of it like that Beatles line, where the "Love you take is equal to the love you make"--only with Morrison's Batman, it's more like the fun work you get out of it is equal to the imaginative investigation you can put into it.

It's pretty good on the surface level too. And it isn't "wrong" to just read it that way.