What a curious story. The understated, interestingly composed cover caught my eye, but that name 'Neil Gaiman' sold me.
I don't know what they heck's going on, but it's an entertaining read. The narratives of a murderous Catwoman and a codependent Alfred from realities similar to, but unlike any that I'm familiar with, at any rate, make up the bulk of the book.
Criminal mourners at a batwake. I think there was a Flash issue using the Rogues in a more straightforward manner years ago. It's still an interesting idea.
Posted by stephbarton on :
I liked it, but who knows when the second part is coming out. The stories and set-up were curious and an interesting take on "Batman"
However, I was surprised by the lack of Robin (Dick Grayson specifically) in those stories. He's mentioned but considering the Alfred story you would think the addition of a sidekick would get mentioned.
But a fun "elseworlds" tale and here's hoping the second part comes out while I still care...
Posted by Caliente on :
Second part is out in Detective Comics in... I want to say May. Anyway, Gaiman already finished scripting it, so don't worry about the timing tooooo much.
Posted by Raging Bull on :
Whatever Happened to the Second Part of this Story?
Apparently, it's coming out tomorrow. Now I need to re-read the first part to remind myself what had happened all those months ago.
Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
Despite being a big fan of Neil and a longtime mega-Batman fan, I just haven't been able to get all that excited for this. Now that its so late, I wonder if I'll even bother to read it, or just skim through it.
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
I read the first part of it and did enjoy it.
But there's also a realization that this isn't "real" or "canon" or whatever--and that means it has no consequence.
I mean, Click Here For A SpoilerAlfred as the Joker? Interesting idea, but it would only carry weight if it "really" happened within the context of the Batverse. Otherwise, it's like second graders making up their own Batman stories. It's fun for them but meaningless for anyone else. Or have I missed the point?
Posted by Raging Bull on :
* MINOR SPOILERS *
Goodnight, starry-eyed admiration for Neil Gaiman.
Now that I've read the second part, I have mixed feelings about the story. On the whole, I'm a bit disappointed and dissatisfied because the story is (1) far from Gaiman's best effort, and (2) significantly inferior to Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?, to which the story's title intentionally alludes, and to which comparisons must inevitably be made.
Even putting aside the art (and, in my opinion, Andy Kubert can't begin to compare to Curt Swan), the earlier Superman story was much stronger. For starters, Man of Tomorrow was a story in the traditional sense, albeit an "imaginary" (or proto-Elseworlds) one: it had a definitive beginning, middle, and end, and actual things happened to the characters in the story. Caped Crusader was less a "story" and more an extended allegory.
Allegories have their place in comics, but the problem with this one was that it didn't really tell or show us anything about Batman that we didn't already know -- or that really set him apart from any other DC super-hero. So we learn that he never gives in, and never gives up... and that he'll die being a hero -- in the line of duty, so to speak. How exactly is this unique to Batman? The second half of the story was unforgivably generic; it felt like you could have substituted a different backstory and different supporting characters/settings, and easily have had the same allegory for some other character.
What also bothered (and surprised) me was how maudlin the ending was! It just seemed incredibly cheesy and -- let's be blunt -- amateurish. It read like a mawkish tribute fanfic from a budding high school student.
So... what's next? Whatever Happened to the World's Mightiest Mortal? Whatever Happened to the Amazing Amazon? Posted by rouge on :
The second issue was superior to the first, I found.
I disagree about the art. I thought Kubert was amazing in the way he was able to mimic other artists from throughout the ages (I'm still not a Kubert fan, but this issue was spectacular).
The story was an interesting counterpoint to Grant's run. Grant's premise was: What if all the Batman stories were canonical? Neil's seems to be: What if all the stories were just different incarnations and interpretations of a theme?
What I really liked though, was Gaiman establishing a strong connection between Bruce and his Mom. I can't recall a story that did that to any great extent. It's always Bruce looking up to his Dad, or mourning his parents as a unit, but I don't remember specifically keying in on Martha. I think that connection made the "origin" story resonate with me for the first time in years, and it also made the ending very touching.
I agree it's not Gaiman's best, but it was still an enjoyable read.