Overall I'd give this a 4/5 and it will probably end up being my Pick, but...PEE-YEW that "Goodnight, __... Goodnight, ___" sequence was sickening to me. Gaiman really indulged in his wistful, syrupy side here, which I didn't like at all.

Also, Batman is an atheist who doesn't believe in the afterlife. Really. Nice unnecessary tip of the hat to secularism, Neil. Hey--I'M AN AGNOSTIC and not religious at all, but it doesn't make sense for Bruce Wayne to be so (inexplicably) dismissive of spiritual/supernatural forces especially since 1) he's been to other dimensions and seen "gods" of all sorts like a thousand times, 2) he's in the afterlife while this story is going on! Imagine you suddenly find yourself in the situation Bruce is in during this story--in those circumstances, would it really make sense for you to say "I doubt the existence of heaven" WHILE you've been pulled out of reality and are conversing with a being who's basically like an angel? Heck no. Yet the routine reincarnation ending that Gaiman gives us is, on the other hand, supposed to be better and profound? Ugh. Yeah, sure, sure, traditional Heaven/Hell stuff, that's passe and laughable--but reincarnation is so profound, dude.

I mean, seriously, YES, for a myth to be recycled/reincarnated is very fitting, but when you couple that with Bruce's jarring poo-pooing of the existence of heaven, it sort of takes away from showing us how myths might be reincarnated. As it is, the reader can't help but think "Oh, so Batman was right: heaven isn't real; we just get born again as the same person". That's a much smaller, more literal interpretation of what Gaiman was trying to comment on, but that's what Bruce's "I don't believe in heaven" comment leads us to think about. (Am I making too much of this? Possibly.)

Not that I really have a problem with the ending. The plot was fine. If you showed me the ending pages without text, but told me what was happening on them,  I'd say it was very good. But Gaiman's sicky-sweet dialogue during the last half of this...the stuff that some of you guys say is making you, uh, cry...it's almost nauseating to me, sorry. I wouldn't say that the writing was even "bad" toward the end. But I've just read so many things like this, by Gaiman especially. With him, I can see this sicky-sweet wistful stuff coming a mile away, and I can't help but roll my eyes. He's done this routine, where "the confused, earthly male" meets and is corrected by "the sweet otherworldly female who will explain all--with explanations that have a charming New Age vacuousness", he's done it so many times (Stardust, Miracleman (the genius baby), anything with Death), that it was a letdown for me to see this otherwise great story devolve into that same stock situation yet again. Great otherwise, though. Not a classic, but great ideas, great art.

I liked Morrison's farewell retrospective (in Batman 682-683) better. Sure, Kubert is a much better artist than Lee Gorbet, but Morrison's two-part farewell had a palpable, in-continuity, narrative point, and it was more innovative. More confusing too, but less cliche. Gaiman's story gave us images that were a straight-up retrospective. Morrison's gave us similar images from Bruce's past, but the retrospective here was the product of a real in-story element (Darkseid's henchmen creating a dreamworld trap). In a sense, I felt like I had already read Gaiman's story before I finished reading it. "Imagine Batman seeing different versions of the Bat-mythos all attending his own funeral, and then he's reborn, and the story's written by the guy who wrote Sandman: The Wake": Okay, got it. It didn't feel new to me. Well-handled, but not new. In the same way, I feel like I've already seen a Tim Burton-directed Alice in Wonderland movie starring Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. I can imagine that in my mind pretty easily. Because I've seen so many things like it, especially by the creative force(s) behind it.

So. Batman is tireless in his quest to fight evil. He never gives up. Yes, and we knew this long ago. But: Batman will, can, and does, even die during his quest. It was Grant Morrison who told us this part of the myth, whether we wanted to hear it or not, and whether or not we liked the way he told us. Gaiman doesn't add anything; he tells us things we already know; he tells them to us in a manner that devolves into the same motifs he's been using for twenty years now. We don't learn anything new about Batman in this story. And compare that to all the different sides of Superman, all the new insight into Superman's character, that Alan Moore gave us in his Last Superman Story. It's not even close. (Oh maybe Gaiman does add something by telling us that Batman would say he's an atheist even while he's talking to an angel in the afterworld. Sure. Great little addition to the mythology.)

This was a good story. I gave the first part 5/5s. But I don't find this remotely near classic status. It's interesting to think about this story, and about Old Man Logan, and about how DC and Marvel are now trying to manufacture instant "classics". Have a look: they just take a good-but-derivative story, put A-list creators on the book, and then actually advertise the story as a "classic" before the thing is even released, and the fans are happy to go with it and believe them.