BATMAN AND ROBIN #8
What did the
iFanboy
community think?
Pulls
Art and Variant cover by Cameron Stewart
Cover by Frank Quitely
Size: 32 pages
Price: 2.99
Apparently, Grant Morrison was rushed for time and released every other page of this month’s Batman & Robin. There are huge leaps in plot between panels. There’s no real depth to any of the villain characters. I imagine Morrison is trying to make this book frantically paced to add to the excitement, but it’s a terrible read. Bad enough that I’m dropping this title, despite how good the first two arcs were.
On second read, it seems slightly less scattered, but only slightly. Morrison is at his best when he takes an idea and really tears into it from my any angles, and let’s the characters breathe. And there’s no breathing in this issue.
Yes, you can figure out what’s going on in this issue, especially if you flip back and forth and reread. But, for me, things were happening too fast to enjoy what was going on. It was like Final Crisis when you were getting pieces of a story, but didn’t have time to connect with the characters. For me, Batman is all about the characters in Gotham. The action is just the background, like the city itself. And, in this issue, the story really suffers from not giving the reader time to connect with anyone. The procession of “cool, look, shiny things happening” gets tiresome. Why are the shiny things happening, and what do they mean? These answers aren’t in this issue. And they weren’t in the previous issue.
Basically, the last two issues have read like a Cliff’s Notes version of a story. Again, the way Final Crisis read like a Cliff’s Notes version of a story. I felt that I was getting just enough to understand the plot, and pass a test on what people’s motivations were, but I was missing the magic of the story, and what would have made it a good read.
This is clearly a deliberate choice by Grant Morrison. He appears to view it as a stylistic choice, just giving you the bare minimum glances at the story he’s trying to tell. Whether it’s because he’s trying to consolidate words and images, or whether he just thinks it’s cool, is something I’m not privy to. I just know that it doesn’t work for me, at all. And, as such, I’m not going to subject myself to it.
Art: 4 - Very Good
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
Cool. If you hate it I’m sure I’ll love it and find tons of interesting things in it. 😀
I’m afriad to jump on the band wagon, but I disagreed with your review last time this book was out, and hope I will again. I am enjoying this series more than any Morrison project in recent memory.
@zeppo: I enjoyed the first six issues tremendously. I thought they were some of the best comics in years. But, yea, I just think the convention he’s using on these last two issues is horrible. I know some people are going to love them. Some people loved Final Crisis.
@flapjaxx: There are interesting things in it. That’s not the issue. Though there weren’t any cool domino moments like in the last issue, there were some neat plot happenings, the problem is that the happenings were not givenb enough time to become plot developments.
Haven’t read the issue yet, but you definitely NAILED my problem with Morrison’s more recent super-hero output — particularly with regards to RIP and Final Crisis. He’s definitely changed his narrative style from the old days of Animal Man and Doom Patrol, and in this case I don’t think it’s for the better. It’s too bad. The first Quitely arc of this series seemed to step away from these new storytelling tics.
"but you definitely NAILED my problem with Morrison’s more recent super-hero output – particularly with regards to RIP and Final Crisis."
Plus one, ditto and yepper!
I respect everyone’s right to a negative opinion, but here’s where I’d respond to certain aspects of your review:
"Yes, you can figure out what’s going on in this issue, especially if you flip back and forth and reread. But, for me, things were happening too fast to enjoy what was going on."
Were things happening too fast or were you reading too fast? I don’t mean this as an insult at all, but I think part of the reason why people have trouble understanding Morrison’s recent work is because they’re used to reading contemporary comics that can just be "skimmed" through, basically, rather than material that requires focused reading. I didn’t have any trouble understand what was going on in this issue. But when I read it I didn’t plow right through it. It was a pretty action-packed issue but it took me like 20 minutes+ to read. I love that it took that long. And I know I’ll notice a lot of Easter Eggs when I reread it multiple times. To me, that’s value. Unlike a lot of newish comics, this one doesn’t resemble storyboards to a movie or cartoon. It might LOOK like that on the surface sometimes, but in order to set the narrative in your mind you have to pause often and really examine what’s on the page. I *like* that Morrison respects me enough as a reader to leave that up to me. It’s fun brainwork, and because Morrison isn’t spelling everything out for me, he can use more of his words/space to make intricate allusions and references (which, admittedly, will be lost on casual readers).
"Why are the shiny things happening, and what do they mean? These answers aren’t in this issue. And they weren’t in the previous issue."
Examples? What do you mean? All of the villains’ motives (regarding the subway train and resurrection plot) are completely contained within this and the previous issue. Every other character was also shown in the previous issue. Everyone’s motives are all here (except, of course, for the crazy resurrected clone Batman). Alfred and Damian are back in Gotham after Damian’s been healed by his mom’s scientists. Dick & co. are underground where we left them. The issue opens up with a flashback of Batwoman telling how she got involved with these baddies in the first place. The Batman rising from the pit was the one Dick brought to England as shown in the previous issue. The only real "outside" reference is the flashback panel to Darkseid in Final Crisis. But that shouldn’t’ve been a problem since you knew what that was.
"Basically, the last two issues have read like a Cliff’s Notes version of a story. Again, the way Final Crisis read like a Cliff’s Notes version of a story."
Cliff Notes are simple, straightforward recaps of (more difficult) novels. What Morrison does is the opposite of simple and straightforward. It’s more like: every OTHER comic is a Cliff Notes version, but Morrison’s Batman is an actual piece of modernist literature. (Because anyone calls me a snob, I’ll point out that just because something is like modernist literature doesn’t mean that it’s GOOD, necessarily. It just means that it’s more complex. There are degrees of this, too. I generally dislike Bendis, but I think the recent Dark Avengers Annual was a much better comic than Final Crisis #7. Just to show you guys that I’m not ridiculously pro-Morrison. I really like his Batman, but a lot of his other stuff is only "ok" imo.)
Like I say I respect everyone’s right to not like this, but I really think that if a lot of detractors would just spend more time with the issues and not insist on reading them straightforward in 6 minutes’ time like we can most other superhero comics, then you’d really find the answers to almost all of your questions. Everything you need to understand most of what’s going on, is right there, if you take the time to examine it. That might feel like "work" to some readers who are used to having it easy–and that’s perfectly valid–but to me and a lot of other people, this relatively "difficult" style is just a lot of fun.
I do take your point about how Morrison usually doesn’t provide palpable "character" moments. I totally agree. But the thing is, I’m glad he doesn’t. This might seem like sacrilege, but as a reader I really don’t care about "following" characters that way, usually. I’d rather read something interesting from an author. I’ll write more on this in my own eventual review of the issue, but you hit on something I was going to bring up this week anyway: In a sense, this isn’t really about "character". It’s not about "following" your favorite characters–not about letting them "breathe", like you said. This is about formalistic narrative innovations (or whatever jargon we’d need to use to describe it). I think that’s why I like it so much.
Good or bad, I wish this fucking snow would melt so I could go pick up my copy!!
@flapjaxx: I agree with your assessment that a lot of people scan through comics instead of taking time to read them. While there certainly are comics where I do scan through them, I tend not to scan through Morrison comics because, more often than not, I’ve enjoyed his writing. At least, that used to be true. Because, yes, MOrrison comics did *used* to be about character: Animal Man, New X-Men, We3, Planetary,The JLA, and the first six issues of Batman & Robin. Yes, many cool things happened in these titles, but the characters had time to react to them, and it made the reader either more or less empathetic, depending on the situation. FOr me, that’s what makes stories exciting.<br>
<br>
As for The Cliff Notes anology. I’m not saying that his writing is more simplistic. That’s certainly not true. I mean that his writing skips over what I, and most people I know who read too much, consider the heart of the story. It tells you the bare minimum of the story. Yes, it’s complex. Yes, it’s understandable. But it isn’t, to me, the least bit engaging.<br>
<br>
Were this written by a less known writer, I’d probably have given it a two or a three stars for writing. Most likely a two. But because I know what Morrison is capable of (I love Joe The Barbarian so far), I find issues like this a huge disappointment. He wants to tell more story by writing less. It is, indeed, about being innovative. For me, if you’re going to be innovative, I also want to enjoy it. I haven’t really enjoyed this version of "Innovative Morrison".<br>
<br>
Again, I like that he’s out there trying to stretch the formula, I just don’t like the results. I also believe that good literature isn’t innovative for the sake of innovation. I loved "House Of Leaves" by Mark Danielewski because he made interesting typographical decisions, and interesting story formatting, AND told a compelling story. His follow up, Only Revolutions, was set up to be deliberately "innovative", a story told from different perspectives, and you had to flip the book back and forth and…ugh, it was a terribly dull story. Innovative. But awful.<br>
<br>
I feel (and this may be incorrect) that a lot of people who staunchly defend Morrison’s new work WANT to defend it because they desperately WANT it to be good. I mean, he’s Morrison. And he’s trying so hard to be different. It’s not that the title is really intricately put together and hard to follow, it’s that he PURPOSEFULLY goes out of his way to make it hard to follow, and, historically, hasn’t provided endings that justify his convolusions. I thought the ending of Final Crisis and RIP sucked. I know not everyone agrees. But I thought both series were tremendous wastes of time. And I’m done wasting my time on the Morrison stories that don’t engage me.<br>
<br>
I’ll continue to read Joe The Barbarian, which I think is excellent. And I’ll pick up new titles as he writes them, and judge each one on whether he’s going to sit down and tell me a story, or just throw concepts at me until I surrender.
great review. you were fair and honest.
Addendum @ flapjaxx: I should also say that, per my Cliff’s Notes analogy: I would love to read the story that this condenses. Especially if Morrison was the one one who who elaborated on it.
Hasn’t this argument happened before? Unfortunately it has, and in the end it seems that most people who don’t like this "version" of Morrison’s work are just SOL because he’s obviously changed the way he writes again for this arc. If you like it, good for you, just don’t start rehashing the reading comprehension argument.
Everything above the asterisks was correct. This issue was pure vomit and I’m really angry that Morrison is shying away from solid plots to this sloppy shit he’s had over the past few issues.
What really sucks is that this is my first exposure to Cameron Stewart who seems to be a pretty strong artist.
@DocSamson: I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware you were an authority on what other people could and couldn’t talk about. Last time I checked, I was free to write my opinion on a comic book. Just as flapjaxx is allowed to express his well-informed (though different from my) opinions. If you don’t want to read about other people’s opinions, fine. Don’t read them. But all revews contain people’s opinions about things that may or may not have been said before. I don’t post aggressive "this writer sucks and should die" reviews, but express my thoughts on many issues I read. And I like that people like flapjaxx respond withy why they feel differently. It helps me make informed comments to my customers over whether they’ll like a title or not.
Whoa whoa whoa boss. Apparently I needed to throw my 😉 emoticons in there. I have NO PROBLEM with people stating their opinions. The only thing that got in my grits is when flapjaxx brings up the "people need to spend more time reading it to understand it" thing. This was one of the big arguments when RIP and Final Crisis was going on. Everyone has their own opinions, just don’t force yours on me. That was my point. Chill dude.
@Doc: My point was: No one *is* forcing their opinions on you. You are always free to ignore peoples’ opinions. If I disagree with someone’s points, and don’t want to interact with them, I just ignore what they write (iFanboy troll Kickass comes to mind here). Don’t like flapjaxx’s credo about more reading time? Ignore it. Clearly you’re not going to change his opinion, and vice-versa.
(And, just to be clear, I do value your opinion, which is why I’ve responded.)