Scan barcode
devchbi33's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
daenknight's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Loveable characters? Yes
4.25
neilrcoulter's review against another edition
3.0
Not knowing much about Batman comics generally, I hadn't heard of Arkham Asylum before. When I saw it on the shelf in the library, its look intrigued me, so I grabbed it and checked it out. Having spent some time with it now, I hesitate--as I think anyone should--to say something like "I loved Arkham Asylum!" To love this book would almost be like admitting lunacy or depravity, because it's a nightmarish story that I find easy to admire, but hard to "like."
Most of the time when I read a 1980s/1990s graphic novel that is acclaimed and revered, I am disappointed (yes, I'm including Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman). It usually seems that the writer is striving for more depth and substance than he is capable of, or trying to show off some amount of literariness that annoys rather than impresses me. And the art that goes with these stories rarely interests me. With Arkham Asylum, however, I felt that Grant Morrison got a little closer to realizing what's possible in the graphic novel. His ideas and imagery sometimes veer into the "please, could this be any more heavy-handed" territory--but he also keeps a lot of big ideas and themes afloat through the story. Somehow, even with the occasional pretentiousness, he manages to be more compelling than Miller, Moore, or Gaiman. I appreciated the general tone and direction of his story.
There were problems, of course. In particular, I felt that the story would have been more compelling had any of the characters been closer to my reality. For example, Arkham's descent into madness is kept at a great distance from my own questions and fears about slipping into madness. Instead of drawing out my fears, Morrison makes Arkham into a caricature of "insane doctor," with a trajectory that doesn't match anything in my real experience. Batman is a cold, distant figure as well, which doesn't help bring me into his story. I think Arkham Asylum would have been more powerful if it had presented some kind of mirror of the reader's reality.
I rarely find graphic novel artwork that I love, but Dave McKean's work on Arkham Asylum is some of the most interesting I've ever seen. It reminds me of another favorite of mine, Bill Sienkiewicz. The colors, the very abstract imagery, the interesting layout of panels . . . it's all perfect for this story, and I want to see more of this art style. It was interesting to read the script in the back of this volume and see all the ways that McKean brought out the bleakness of the story. There are a number of points where Morrison envisioned more detail that would have made the story slightly more conventional, but McKean repeatedly made it as opaque and abstract and dark as he could.
The redemptive ending, after all the darkness, was a beautiful surprise. Without that, I wouldn't be able to admire the book nearly so much.
As I said, it's not a book I could say I love, but it's a graphic novel that I admire in many ways. I'd like to find more graphic novels that are as satisfyingly complex and intriguing, visually and story-wise.
rycar's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
3.5
Graphic: Sexual violence, Suicide, and Violence
hcgambrell's review against another edition
5.0
Two really great things about this book:
A) Grant Morrison is an incredibly literary writer. He (in writing the Joker's character) used so many literary allusions, which worked incredibly well in merging both the insanity and intelligence of several characters (the Joker and Amadeus Arkham in particular).
B) Dave McKeon's illustrations are INSANE. I really loved how he integrated collages into the artwork, and I felt like I was slipping into madness with every flip of the page.
rachelhelps's review against another edition
2.0
bryce_is_a_librarian's review against another edition
4.0
He's just a bit pants, isn't he? So thunderously self serious, so strenuously post modern, and even IF his stories do work in the moment it's very seldom that I read one without fifteen minutes later going "Well that was a bit silly wasn't it?" And don't even get me started on the whole super sanity thing, I still have no idea what he's going for with that. Shifting personalities is all fine and dandy but c'mon.
Still a blind squirrel does occasionally find a nut (See Also WE3). So even though this book suffers from self seriousness (you need hip waders to walk through the bullshit on some of the sequences) and silliness (I don't care if has shamanistic significance the finale is pretty damn hilarious).
Much of it has to do with Dave McKean's art which brilliant breaks down each character to it's bare essence, while creating a bizarre tableau which makes reading the book a bit more like looking a mural unfold for a hundred something pages rather then reading the average comic book.
filmbusterspaul's review against another edition
5.0
“Harriet lies nearby, indescribably violated.”
“Almost idly, I wonder where her head is.”
“And then I look at the doll’s house.”
“And the doll’s house…”
“…looks…”
“…at…”
“…me.”
I have never read a graphic novel that literally bleeds it’s intent from its pages quite like “Arkham Asylum”. Every page embodies the madness of its subject and conjures a sense of utter dread and psychosis from every piece of surreal artistry or scrawled word. More than a story, it is a expressionistic deep-dive into the simmering insanity that trawls Gotham’s streets. And I loved it.
a_monkey's review against another edition
3.0