Good but not great.

I knew the twist of this issue from the first or second page in. Of course it wasn't going to be the Joker who got to Barbara Sr. Of course not. When we don't get a single James Jr. reference the whole way through the book, then of course it's going to be him at the end. How can a twist like that really be all that critically lauded? I don't understand it. This is thriller-writing 101. It's not bad but it's just so...basic. I'm just not THAT impressed with it.

The dialogue on the other hand is very good, overall. We all know how great Snyder's dialogue is between Dick Grayson and Jim Gordon. Snyder scripts a great Barbara Gordon Jr., and a good Barbara Gordon Sr. as well. The back-and-forth between the Bat-team? Eh...not bad. Although I'm not really sure what Oracle and Tim Drake were actually contributing to anything, since in the end Dick Grayson seemed to find the Joker with no help from them. The dialogue between Dick and the Joker? It seemed serviceable enough, but Snyder's Joker seems a pale imitation of Morrison's Joker. The imitation seems intentional on Snyder's part, but still the dialogue just seems a bit hollow. (How could the Joker even have known about the attack on Barbara Sr.? Morrison's Joker certainly came off as somewhat all-knowing, but Morrison laid enough groundwork in his characterization of the Joker, issue after issue after issue, to earn that spooky, omniscient attitude. Snyder just cuts to the chase without building up to it, and I think it's clearly a shortcoming in his writing.)

The fight with the Joker here seems as basic as basic can get. It wasn't a bad fight, but I was just hoping for so much more from Snyder and from Jock. Jock's art here is so sparse (no backgrounds) and linearly abstract (if that's the right way to put it). Yes, I realize that the lack of backgrounds could be construed as being due to the bright light in the room, but even if that's the case, the effect of the art was still underwhelming. Elsewhere in the book, Jock does his usual, impressive job. But with the Joker? It just looks so basic. The art doesn't look sparse in the way that an abstract artist like Picasso could create a whole sense of mood with just a few brush-strokes; it looks sparse in the way that someone who's imitated by the gravitas of the subject-matter would perhaps just go the abstract route so as not to have to portray the material in much depth. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel. The Joker on the cover? Incredible. The Joker on the actual pages, and the fight with him? Not horrible, but very bland and underwhelming. Jock's art obviously doesn't have to be detailed in order to be great--he can do great sparse artwork--but here the sparsity seems a bit of a cheat.

In the end, I always find myself having to point out negative aspects of this title. It makes me come off as if I don't like it. But that's not the truth. I'm really enjoying this run. I think it's the best Bat-title out there (because Batman Inc. hardly ever comes out, so I don't really consider it "out there" anymore). But the constant reviews of 5/5 for this title leave me scratching my head. You guys really think THIS is some of the best artwork Jock has ever done? Look at that Joker sequence--How is that great artwork? And you're really THIS impressed with the plot? It's a basic twist that was entirely predictable. It's not bad writing by any means, but elements of it are so generic that I can't call it "excellent".

It's still "good", though, don't get me wrong. I'm really looking forward to seeing how this ends in a few weeks. This is the best Detective run in recent memory, maybe going back half a decade or more. But--perhaps I've read too many comics by this point--I think it's just "good", nothing more.