Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.11 AVERAGE
4.11 AVERAGE
I’ve read Batman comics my entire life, probably at least 3 quarters of the entire original run. I had always put off reading this one and Miller’s Batman: Year One, but if Year One is as good as this story then they are the greatest Batman stories ever told. Brilliant and possibly my favorite book of the year.
It's official, I really do hate super hero comics. I didn't like it so much I couldn't get through it... a comic book. It should have interested me. There was nothing wrong with the story or characters, but I just couldn't force myself to read it. I learned something about myself though, if I don't even like the most highly acclaimed batman comic of all time, I really REALLY don't like super hero comics.
I haven't ever read any classic Batman comics, so I'm not exactly the ideal audience for this book. But I was still drawn in by Miller's mix of action and philosophical musings on the nature of heroism. In Miller's dark world there is no doubt that the bad guys are bad, but there is no promise that the good guys are good. The aging, haunted Batman becomes a polarizing figure in Gotham City, as TV pundits debate whether he is a new American hero or the worst psychotic at all. This book is excellent evidence for those who assert that graphic novels can have as much literary power as any fiction. If you've never considered picking up a comic book, you might want to try this.
adventurous
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
When I read the first two issues, I was ready to give this three stars. It wasn't great. It had a fair share of problems, but there was good stuff in it that made me enjoy it. During issue three, the rating dropped to a two. The problems had become more overwhelming and more writing and character issues were cropping up. After the fourth and final issue, I debated whether to settle on the two or drop it down to a one. There were still good things in the book. There was still enjoyment to be had, but the last issue was the one with the biggest problems - story and character and otherwise. Thinking about it for a while, I decided to give it one-and-half-stars while rounding down for the Goodreads rating. Overall, the book left me unhappy despite some good material being present.
What were these problems? Well, I've organized them into a handy-dandy list.
1. The artwork. This is a minor criticism. The art by Frank Miller is mostly good. I enjoy (not love) the style, but sometimes the panels and images are unclear, leaving me confused about what's going on.
2. Carrie Kelley a.k.a the new Robin. The concept for this Robin is there. She's meant to provide a lighter, more youthful side to the darker and older Batman. Sadly, Miller never gives her time to develop. We see that she's morally good, smart, and capable of thinking on her toes. But Miller doesn't dive into her and these qualities enough to satisfy me. I didn't ever feel like I knew her well at all. She's bright and optimistic, but she's less a character and more a yellow smiley face dressed in a Robin costume.
3. The damn politics. One of the reasons this story was hailed as so revolutionary at the time (along with Alan Moore and Dave Gibbs "Watchmen") was because it dealt with serious issues like politics, Reagan, The Cold War, the news, city violence, and problems with police. The latter two issues are fine and I have no problem with them being discussed in a Batman book. The others...Well, some people love the politics and some don't. I fall into the some that don't. Why? Two main reasons.
One, what do they have to do with Batman, a character who is not inherently political. Two, even if we grant that those problems are relevant to Batman and thus okay to feature in this book, they bog down the story and hurt the momentum. The stuff about politics and the news do occasionally help the story by telling us what kind of a world Batman is coming back into. The news segment also can serve as a nice expositional tool. Too often, though, the news segment can be a hindrance, delaying us from getting from the story we want to get to. You know, the one about that one guy...what's his name again...oh yeah, BATMAN! The same goes for the political stuff, except that feels even more out of place and unneeded most of the time. If this had been a straight forward tell about Batman, the story would've been streamlined and more satisfying. As is, the story, particularly in it's latter 1/2 to 3/4s is a bit of a mess, trying to do too many things and say too much for one book.
4. The characters. This is really what made me give it the one-and-a-half stars. Let's go through the main offenders. Gordon is mostly fine. He is shown, however, to be a tad sexist towards the new incoming female commissioner, which I don't feel really fits with his character. He's gruff and old-fashioned in certain ways, but I never felt like he thought women were less capable than men. Green Arrow is only featured in the closing pages of the book, but he, for some reason, seems to have a thing against Superman, which, again, doesn't feel right with his character. I'm not expert on his history, but I don't ever recall reading or hearing about him conflicting with Superman in a big way. Speaking of the big blue guy, the Superman of the comics (I mean comics that aren't written by Frank Miller) doesn't seem like a character that would so readily serve the government, basically becoming their personal weapon and errand boy. They do try to explain this. The explanation is okay, but still doesn't ring true I feel to old Supes, I feel.
Lastly, we come to Batman himself. He's in character at times and a bit out of character at others. Batman's a dark character, no doubt about that, but I've always felt like there's a sense of hope inside of him. If you think about it, he would need that grain of hope for his whole Gotham saving crusade to even make sense from his point of view. In "The Dark Knight Returns", we see that hope...sometimes. Sometimes we see his dark optimism that the city and people can be saved from the darkness. During other times, he comes off as too cynical. Other problems I had with him are him thinking of Carrie, Dick Grayson, and Jason Todd as soldiers, which just feels far too cold and just plain wrong. (He also, utilizes a group of people as soldiers in his war against crime. Again, this feels wrong somehow.)
His one rule of not killing is also a bit inconsistent in the story. In the second and third issues, Batman makes a big deal out of the fact that he can't kill. It's a major story point in his battle with one of the story's big bads and when it comes to The Joker later on. But earlier in the comic, he uses a heavy automatic weapon to shoot a criminal holding a kid. This is odd on two levels. One, him using a gun when it's been shown in other comics and later on in this same book that he hates guns and the use of them. Two, the killing thing. Now, it's never explicitly said that he kills the guy. The criminal just slumps down to the floor with a hole in the bloodstained wall. BUT it comes off like Batman killed him. A little before that, Batman rigs a helicopter to explode, killing the men inside. After these incidents, Miller, like I said, makes it a point to emphasis the no killing thing, but these early incidents make him inconsistent on the point. Batman also gets too much enjoyment out of beating people up. I can never believe Batman would actually enjoy beating someone to a pulp. It's too sadistic for him. The final point I want to make regarding Batman's character is his dislike for Superman and vice-versa. Miller has been clear over the years that he doesn't think Superman and Batman should be friends. So he has them clash in this in ways that don't feel true, sometimes unfairly denigrating Superman just to make Batman look good.......Oh, before I move one, Superman says that Batman once said that the superheroes have always been criminals, which is a bunch of BS.
Some of these problems, as well as others like over-dramatic narration, can be found in abundance in Miller's later work, especially his Batman stuff, and are some of the reasons his writing has been suffering as of late.
So...yeah...Not a great rating for such a prestigious and groundbreaking work. Again, there are good things in it. Batman looks cool, he has some nice moments fighting crime, dealing with other characters, and his redemption story is good if brought down by the needless political material. Should you read it, I would say no unless you're a Batman completest or just really curious to see what all the hubbub is about.
In regards to the latter, "The Dark Knight Returns" (again, along with Watchmen) show people what could be done with comics, that they weren't just kids' stuff. It also reminded the public at large that Batman originated as a much darker character than what he was known as through the 1960s Adam West and Burt Ward TV show. (I do want to stress something, though. While "The Dark Knight Returns" solidified Batman as a dark character in the comics and in popular culture, which was helped by the two Tim Burton Batman films, Batman had been taken back to his darker roots back in 1969 comics-wise thanks to writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams, who, among other things created the character of Ra's Al Ghul. My point in mentioning this is that while Batman had gotten progressively sillier and lighter from 1942 to 1969, it was not Frank Miller to initiate a change from that.)
In closing, read it if you feel like you have to. Otherwise stay away and read some better Batman stories (like Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's work or The Court of Owls) instead.
What were these problems? Well, I've organized them into a handy-dandy list.
1. The artwork. This is a minor criticism. The art by Frank Miller is mostly good. I enjoy (not love) the style, but sometimes the panels and images are unclear, leaving me confused about what's going on.
2. Carrie Kelley a.k.a the new Robin. The concept for this Robin is there. She's meant to provide a lighter, more youthful side to the darker and older Batman. Sadly, Miller never gives her time to develop. We see that she's morally good, smart, and capable of thinking on her toes. But Miller doesn't dive into her and these qualities enough to satisfy me. I didn't ever feel like I knew her well at all. She's bright and optimistic, but she's less a character and more a yellow smiley face dressed in a Robin costume.
3. The damn politics. One of the reasons this story was hailed as so revolutionary at the time (along with Alan Moore and Dave Gibbs "Watchmen") was because it dealt with serious issues like politics, Reagan, The Cold War, the news, city violence, and problems with police. The latter two issues are fine and I have no problem with them being discussed in a Batman book. The others...Well, some people love the politics and some don't. I fall into the some that don't. Why? Two main reasons.
One, what do they have to do with Batman, a character who is not inherently political. Two, even if we grant that those problems are relevant to Batman and thus okay to feature in this book, they bog down the story and hurt the momentum. The stuff about politics and the news do occasionally help the story by telling us what kind of a world Batman is coming back into. The news segment also can serve as a nice expositional tool. Too often, though, the news segment can be a hindrance, delaying us from getting from the story we want to get to. You know, the one about that one guy...what's his name again...oh yeah, BATMAN! The same goes for the political stuff, except that feels even more out of place and unneeded most of the time. If this had been a straight forward tell about Batman, the story would've been streamlined and more satisfying. As is, the story, particularly in it's latter 1/2 to 3/4s is a bit of a mess, trying to do too many things and say too much for one book.
4. The characters. This is really what made me give it the one-and-a-half stars. Let's go through the main offenders. Gordon is mostly fine. He is shown, however, to be a tad sexist towards the new incoming female commissioner, which I don't feel really fits with his character. He's gruff and old-fashioned in certain ways, but I never felt like he thought women were less capable than men. Green Arrow is only featured in the closing pages of the book, but he, for some reason, seems to have a thing against Superman, which, again, doesn't feel right with his character. I'm not expert on his history, but I don't ever recall reading or hearing about him conflicting with Superman in a big way. Speaking of the big blue guy, the Superman of the comics (I mean comics that aren't written by Frank Miller) doesn't seem like a character that would so readily serve the government, basically becoming their personal weapon and errand boy. They do try to explain this. The explanation is okay, but still doesn't ring true I feel to old Supes, I feel.
Lastly, we come to Batman himself. He's in character at times and a bit out of character at others. Batman's a dark character, no doubt about that, but I've always felt like there's a sense of hope inside of him. If you think about it, he would need that grain of hope for his whole Gotham saving crusade to even make sense from his point of view. In "The Dark Knight Returns", we see that hope...sometimes. Sometimes we see his dark optimism that the city and people can be saved from the darkness. During other times, he comes off as too cynical. Other problems I had with him are him thinking of Carrie, Dick Grayson, and Jason Todd as soldiers, which just feels far too cold and just plain wrong. (He also, utilizes a group of people as soldiers in his war against crime. Again, this feels wrong somehow.)
His one rule of not killing is also a bit inconsistent in the story. In the second and third issues, Batman makes a big deal out of the fact that he can't kill. It's a major story point in his battle with one of the story's big bads and when it comes to The Joker later on. But earlier in the comic, he uses a heavy automatic weapon to shoot a criminal holding a kid. This is odd on two levels. One, him using a gun when it's been shown in other comics and later on in this same book that he hates guns and the use of them. Two, the killing thing. Now, it's never explicitly said that he kills the guy. The criminal just slumps down to the floor with a hole in the bloodstained wall. BUT it comes off like Batman killed him. A little before that, Batman rigs a helicopter to explode, killing the men inside. After these incidents, Miller, like I said, makes it a point to emphasis the no killing thing, but these early incidents make him inconsistent on the point. Batman also gets too much enjoyment out of beating people up. I can never believe Batman would actually enjoy beating someone to a pulp. It's too sadistic for him. The final point I want to make regarding Batman's character is his dislike for Superman and vice-versa. Miller has been clear over the years that he doesn't think Superman and Batman should be friends. So he has them clash in this in ways that don't feel true, sometimes unfairly denigrating Superman just to make Batman look good.......Oh, before I move one, Superman says that Batman once said that the superheroes have always been criminals, which is a bunch of BS.
Some of these problems, as well as others like over-dramatic narration, can be found in abundance in Miller's later work, especially his Batman stuff, and are some of the reasons his writing has been suffering as of late.
So...yeah...Not a great rating for such a prestigious and groundbreaking work. Again, there are good things in it. Batman looks cool, he has some nice moments fighting crime, dealing with other characters, and his redemption story is good if brought down by the needless political material. Should you read it, I would say no unless you're a Batman completest or just really curious to see what all the hubbub is about.
In regards to the latter, "The Dark Knight Returns" (again, along with Watchmen) show people what could be done with comics, that they weren't just kids' stuff. It also reminded the public at large that Batman originated as a much darker character than what he was known as through the 1960s Adam West and Burt Ward TV show. (I do want to stress something, though. While "The Dark Knight Returns" solidified Batman as a dark character in the comics and in popular culture, which was helped by the two Tim Burton Batman films, Batman had been taken back to his darker roots back in 1969 comics-wise thanks to writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams, who, among other things created the character of Ra's Al Ghul. My point in mentioning this is that while Batman had gotten progressively sillier and lighter from 1942 to 1969, it was not Frank Miller to initiate a change from that.)
In closing, read it if you feel like you have to. Otherwise stay away and read some better Batman stories (like Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's work or The Court of Owls) instead.
dark
tense
slow-paced
Influential, iconic, satirical, and pretty ridiculous. Bruce's relationship with the new Robin and Alfred were the highlights. The worst part for me was the formatting--a lot of narrow text in panels colored to have a fluorescent sheen took away some of the immersion.
It would take DC (and arguably Marvel) twenty years to catch up to the themes of dissent, anarchic heroism, and brute grit displayed so lucidly in this, as well as Moore's Watchmen. You can't get around this one. In the same way Tolstoy uses the saturation of trivial discourse in Anna Karenina to question hegemonic moral codes, Miller does so with his use of the televised narrative. A masterpiece; my only criticism is the artwork is coarse without motivation and hard to look at for an extended period of time.
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Frank Miller is able to bring back one of fictions most iconic characters to his roots after a rough patch in the 60’s and 70’s in a beautifully crafted story with great art. I would recommend this to people who are into dystopian novels even if you aren’t very familiar with comics.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, War
Moderate: Death, Gun violence, Blood, Kidnapping, Grief
Minor: Alcoholism, Suicide