APoetSomeday

August 4, 2013 8:13 pm Yeah, I agree. I liked it a whole lot. Not perfect, but enjoyable and mostly satisfying.

August 4, 2013 8:08 pm @Itho, you didn't come across as condescending or antagonistic at all. You just see things slightly differently to me, which is a good thing. I don't think either of us are wrong BTW, we're just looking at the same stuff from two different vantage points. I think the fallout from Snyder's stories has actually been pretty big, as I said above. However, it isn't really that he makes huge changes to established continuity (or even whether those changes are 'huge' or not) that bothers me, it is more the massive changes he constantly makes to the foundation stones of continuity, which is where the Claremont comparison comes in to play. I'm referring, of course, to changes that occur in backstory. For example, when Alfred's daughter Julia turned up in the 80's, it had the effect of changing Alfred's backstory immensely. Had Alfred fathered a child in the present, the changes would be minimal (and ignorable to some degree), but when it transpired that he had fathered a child in the past, before he worked for Bruce Wayne, it changed everything (and its no coincidence that Julia did not survive the Crisis on Infinite Earths Reboot). The character's history had been eroded a little bit. In addition, because that story took place during a fixed point in time, it instantly dated the contemporary timeline, making that story dated not by fashions, writing style, technology or other, freely fluidic (and totally ignorable) concepts that don't really bother the continuity-minded fan (thank you, Mr. Morrison), but instead by a world event, something concrete and traceable that means that now, this story cannot possibly be considered canon under any circumstances. It thereby created an instant continuity problem that could only be resolved by either a retcon or a reboot. The best way I can sum up what I'm trying to say is this: Bruce Wayne (as an example) has only 8 (or 10) years of backstory before his parents are killed. Because it is backstory, it is finite. Every 'Young Bruce Wayne' story you tell either takes up a large amount of space in the character's life-cycle, or else renders an older story obsolete. You have 8-10 years, ergo there simply isn't room in a character's backstory for too many events. This is not true, however, for stories set in the present. NOTE: Killing Joke and Knightfall were so massive in implication that they essentially became backstory rather than active continuity,even when they were revisited. In comics, we're always in the second act and, as a result, our heros are continually at optimum efficiency, ever striving for a goal that is just out of their reach. Personally, I think this is part of their appeal. In this sense, superhero comics represent stability and an idealized (as well as constantly reinforced) status quo. In the present timeline, Two Face can be cured and re-scarred, Joker can die and return and Batman will forever be at optimum efficiency. Story potential, in this era of the character's life, is infinite in the truest sense of the word. Conversely, in the timeline of backstory, story opportunity is very finite and pretty much every story directly effects the present timeline (otherwise why else is it there? Like that dumb, pointless story where Mary Jane Watson moves into Peter Parker's childhood neighborhood and then moves away again) meaning that history and continuity become aggressively entangled, when they don't really need to be. Backstory is essential for refreshing an ongoing character, each successive creator visits the wellspring of the character's past in order to re-create their eternal present. This wellspring should forever be simple, classic and mythic. 'A young boy from a rich family witnesses his parents' murder and vows to avenge their deaths by fighting crime'. Let's not start including too many Owls (Snyder), Evil brothers (Snyder), demon headmasters (Morrison), visiting assassins (Engelhart), murderous friends (Loeb), Near-death experiences (Snyder), childhood sweethearts (Brubaker) and so on (Snyder will doubtless have added a great many more to his personal collection by the time 'Zero Year' wraps). I agree that many stories that touched upon backstory did so to great effect, Black Mask's origin story, Hush, Dark Detective, House of Hush, Gothic and others have all done this really well, but I still feel that there is such a thing as overdoing it. It should be a rare treat to shed light on a bit of backstory, not a regular occurrence. The more tampering with backstory, the greater the need to regularly reboot. I tend to see Bruce wayne's training years, or the years before and after his parent's death as 'load-bearers' for continuity as a whole. There should always be room for possibilities without constantly having to wipe the slate clean and start over. The more clogged up that past becomes, the more complicated the future will ultimately be. I've not done a great job of explaining myself here, its late and I'm tired, so I hope what I'm saying comes across as more than just the ravings of a madman! :p PS - Mr. Morrison, if you're reading, Ithosapien has a really cool pitch for you...

August 2, 2013 8:35 pm @Nightwing - Supergods. Awesomely bizarre book, I have it and have read it several times (I've lost count exactly how many). :) Glad I'm not the only one who enjoyed that little curio. @WAC1 - You da man.

August 2, 2013 8:31 pm @Itho - Not to entirely disagree (you make a number of very good counterpoints, my friend), but I think, firstly, that we need to determine what qualifies as an 'event'. 'The Coming of Galactus' by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby (arguably the first major comics event and grandaddy of all future events) consisted of three issues and no tie-ins. 'Death in the Family', a story that I think absolutely qualifies as an event, was four issues. 'Year One' was a four parter. Modern events, such as 'Blackest Night' may have had hundreds of tie-in chapters, but I don't think you can quantify an event in terms of how many parts it has. To me, an event is more of a story that has a lasting effect on the character(s) and involves a major upheaval of the status quo. 'Knightfall' is a pretty definitive Batman event and, in my opinion, 'The Court of Owls' 'Death of the Family' and 'Zero Year' all qualify as events. As for 'epics' an epic (at least how I define the term) has less to do with what happens in the story and more to do with the implications of the events. The guy locked in the library in that famous episode of 'The Twilight Zone' has his most epic moment when his glasses break, not when the world ends, leaving him as the last Human being alive. To speak to the more obvious changes to Batman's timeline made in the nineties, I would say that none of the examples you listed are actually damaging to continuity. The Joker died and returned during his first ever appearance. The Two Face rehabilitation storyline is part of his appeal (and always has been). Alfred leaving is purely for dramatic effect (both on and off the page), Batman never really 'dies', he always returns. Arkham gets destroyed as a plot device to let all the villains out at once, its just an update on the classic 'jailbreak' story (another story that dates right back to Batman's earliest encounters with Hugo Strange). The more lasting changes are, in my opinion, things like this: Any story that features Alfred's father, Bruce Wayne's early childhood, Mr. Freeze's origins, Thomas and Martha Wayne, Alan Wayne or Dick Grayson's childhood will probably have to go around 'The Court of Owls' now. That's a heck of a lot of pull for one story to have. Any future Joker story must now explain Joker getting his face back (presumably) but also take place against the backdrop of Joker definitively knowing who Batman really is...I could go on, but I don't see that I really need to. The changes exacted by Snyder's stories are very, very lasting. They are far more significant than simply 'Two Face gets his Face repaired' or 'Hugo Strange dies (again)'. As for Geoff Johns, I think its a bit different when you essentially re-define the character and everything about him over the course of a decade having first revived him from the dead, redeemed him from sin and rekindled the fans love affair with the a classic character. All rules can be broken, they are defined by the exceptions, as Jaques Lacan used to say. I also don't think writers have the option to ignore continuity entirely, nor do I think they should have that freedom. A writer could choose not to mention a story, of course, but some stories cannot be avoided. For example, if I was writing Batman (original continuity), I would totally ignore Steph Brown's death and the subsequent coverup by Leslie Thompkins, it was just horrible out of character for Leslie and I hated it. However, if I wanted to use Barbara Gordon in an (old continuity) story, I could not simply 'ignore' 'Killing Joke', it was an event (to at least some degree, even if it was just one GN) and its implications were simply too massive. I agree with a lot of what you've said and, in truth, I may well be overreacting a little bit, but I really do think that we need to scale these stories back a little. :)

August 2, 2013 8:04 pm @Baykid - Good question. Generally, I think that Morrison uses (DC) continuity reasonably well, but he's not above completely dashing it against the rocks if he has to. His Batman run, however, served as a kind of 'continuity backbone' for the increasingly complex Post-Crisis timeline. Put simply, it was a badly needed shot in the arm. By re-incorporating Batman's Golden and Silver Age adventures and re-instating 'lost' characters like Kathy Kane and The Club of Heroes into the Dark Knight's life, Morrison added a mythic dimension to Batman continuity. Nothing was true, ergo everything was permitted. Within this context, Morrison allowed us to see the Dick Sprang era or the Bill Finger/Sheldon Moldoff stories as 'canon' once again. For me, as a lifelong fan, that was a beautiful gift, because it allowed us an option to see Batman as elemental, eternal and almost Godlike. The 'core' of Batman exists in every good Batman story, no matter the era. Bottom line: Not every Batman story fits with Morrison's continuity, but Morrison's continuity fits with every Batman story. In that sense, he essentially re-wrote the 'official' continuity, but did so in a way that was so reverent, so respectful and yet so punk rock at the same time (how the heck he does that, I'll never know) that the continuity was all the better for it. Before Morrison's run, I felt that DC's continuity was floundering a bit, but Morrison stitched it back together, reinforced it and reminded it of its own great and lasting legacy. Many of my own essential views on the character and the possibilities of his world were either a) forged or b) changed during this run. I am a pretty huge Morrison fan. I spent a couple of years trying my hardest to be King Mob ('The Invisibles' joins Jack Kirby's 'New Gods' and Alan Moore's 'Watchmen' as maybe the three best comics I've ever read), I've read a lot of his stuff (though not all) and I pretty much always enjoy it. I would suggest that I don't have a great sense of proportion when it comes to Mr. Morrison's work, so feel free to blast me for that, I won't defend myself. lol.

August 2, 2013 10:11 am PS - Just to reiterate, Mr. Snyder is a great writer. His work on Batman has been excellent and I'm not saying that he would be responsible for a total breakdown of comics continuity, (even if he continues to tell massive, operatic stories that span the entirety of Batman's life and career every month for a hundred years), I'm just saying that this type of storyline, on a constant basis, can be ruinous, which is why editors in the past have always discouraged it. - I just want people to see that telling a regular, decent story with three acts, engaging characters and a lasting message is actually a lot harder than doing huge, event-level stories. I'd like to see Snyder just write Batman, not a Batman event, just a cool Batman story, like the two part 'Clayface' piece he did. That kicked ass.

August 2, 2013 10:01 am @Invincipal - Essentially, when we talk about comic books, we're talking about something that has never actually been done before in all of Human history. I don't mean in terms of form, but in terms of continual storytelling. Even the longest-running soap operas on TV pale in comparison to the length and breadth of DC and Marvel's continuity. In the case of Batman, we're looking at 74 years of continuous storytelling, that's with at least one new story being published (almost) every single month since that time. Storytelling on that level has never been done before, so whilst we have 'culture heroes' and mythological figures from the past like Robin Hood or Hercules, they only have a set amount of adventures in their original form. We add to them, of course, but not every month. As drably conservative as this sounds, comic book writers sometimes need to simply keep things ticking along, rather than going all out, all the time. Its like a long-distance marathon and sprinting it will lead to collapse. Past Bat-scribes like Chuck Dixon, Alan Grant, Denny O'Neil and Doug Moench (along with literally hundreds of others), were absolute masters of taking a regular Batman story, with little to no effect on the lasting continuity and making it indescribably awesome, challenging and exciting. Writers like Len Wein or Bill Finger could tell great stories, in any era, without resorting to huge shocks, massive revelations and major deaths every other month. The point is not that Snyder handles continuity badly (although it is certainly not his strong point - check out his re-introduction of James Gordon, Jr against the established Gordon Family timeline. Even taking 'Infinite Crisis' into account, you'll see that it doesn't hold up hugely well). What I mean is that, for every 'Death in the Family' and 'Knightfall', for every 'Year One' and 'Killing Joke' there are literally hundreds of stories in between. If today's fan grows to expect a major revelation, a character death or some other 'once in a while' event in every single story cycle, then we'll have a serious problem on our hands. Why? Because continuity can't handle it. We're already seeing the beginning of this pattern. How many people, on these (and other) forums hated the (great) ending of Snyder's 'Death of the Family' simply because 'The Family' didn't die? Sub question: How many of those people ever thought further than what would happen if Dick, Tim & Alfred had actually died? It could reach a point where DC feels that in order to boost sales (or keep them steady), they'll have to do a new origin, a new character death or some complete re-imagining/reboot every 12 months or so. In that respect, without the guiding hand of continuity and (decent) editing, every creator will simply do 'their' version of Batman. This will have the effect of being pretty cool for a couple of years and then eventually eroding and breaking down the character's relevance, until no story has any lasting impact. Even when Damian died, which was a heartbreaking event (and well written, especially by Tomasi), the mainstream media's reaction was "What, Again? He'll be back. Who cares?" Almost every article I read about the death ended with "oh well, Jason Todd came back to life, so Damian will be back too" (or sentiment's to that effect). Shock value only works with timing. Jaws would not be anything like as cool if you saw the shark in every scene. Also, when you kill Alfred, you have to bring Alfred back. When you bring Alfred back and kill someone else, you have to bring that someone else back. The whole thing ends up being ridiculous and impossible to take seriously. I don't mean to heap all of this on Scott's shoulders, but he's the head Batman writer. Where he goes, Batman (and the readers) follow. Snyder has made many, many changes to canon in his run. Many of these have been totally positive, don't get me wrong, but if every single story arc he writes becomes an event, then he'll render the regular stories (the lifeblood of comics) as 'lame' or 'non essential' in the eyes of many fans. There are other ways of getting people reading and coming back month after month. It needn't always be 'the definitive this' 'the final that' or 'the origin of the other'. Sometimes it should just be 'Batman vs The Villain of the Week' because Batman is fascinating, exciting and cool and we all enjoy reading about him. Epic runs and events are awesome, but writers these days can come off as a little selfish and egomaniacal in their desires to do something 'lasting' with the character. After your run, someone has to pick up the pieces and do their run and if you've left those pieces in disarray, then you're making their job a lot harder. Between 'Zero Year' 'DotF' 'Court of Owls' and 'Black Mirror' there is now a ton of backstory for other Bat-scribes to deal with. In just a couple of years, Snyder has single-handedly dumped more stuff in Bruce Wayne's already-cluttered life than every Batman writer of the last decade combined. Now, I feel, it is time for him to just do some good stories that don't leave a messy, winding trail of continuity breadcrumbs as maddening as it is unnecessary behind him. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree and still more will say "I don't care about continuity" and that's fine. However, there's a broader picture at work here and this is a critical time for comics. It is fine not to be OBSESSED with continuity (preferable, even), but not to care at all? You might find that you miss it when its gone. Sorry for the rant, thanks a lot for those who stuck with it this far. :)

August 2, 2013 9:18 am There have been plenty of good 'proteges' (who went on to greater fame in their own right), but, until recently, it was just known as 'learning from the best'. Roy Thomas was a 'protege' of Stan Lee (sort of), and Roy in turn got Denny O'Neil his start at Marvel. There is a long tradition of artists, writers and especially editors nurturing promising talent, throwing work their way and collaborating with them (although it is usually uncredited), until they are ready to get out there on their own name/merits. In Kevin Smith's delightful 'Fatman on Batman' Podcast, Greg Capullo mentioned that he did TONS of uncredited pencil work for Todd McFarlane. I wouldn't say Greg was a 'protege' (he'd done lots of work by then) of Todd, but its a good example of comic book credits not always telling us the whole story. Michael Turner was a protege of Marc Silvestri, having met him at a convention. Also, Jim Lee launched a whole load of careers (most of which are still going strong) when he started 'Wildstorm'. It could be also argued that Neal Adams was a protege of Archie Goodwin (in as far as the craft of storytelling is concerned), whilst Steve Ditko was a protege of Jerry Robinson. Mark Millar was a protege of Grant Morrison. Jeph Loeb worked for (and learned a large amount from) Elliot Maggin, Phil Hester was definitely a protege of Bob Shreck (he says as much in the Green Arrow 'Sounds of Violence' trade). Away from comics (a little), Geoff Johns was a protege of Richard Donner and I think I read somewhere that Scott Snyder himself was a protege of Stephen King. This is how it works in comics, it always has been this way and it probably always will. They just seem to be tying Snyder's sales and solid reputation to others like Tynion, Bennet and (to some degree) Kyle Higgins as well. Its not a bad strategy, all things considered, although I hope it doesn't prevent fans from seeing the 'protege' as an artist in their own right, or else encourage them to ruthlessly compare younger, less experienced talent against big-time players.

August 1, 2013 6:48 pm One of the milestones of comics fandom, I feel, is the moment when you realize just how important good inking is to good comics. A talented inker can make bad art good and good art great. It really is a collaboration in the truest sense of the word, symbiosis, if you will. Maybe with one really good inker, the mediocre art in this issue would have looked good.

August 1, 2013 6:43 pm Agreed.