How to use this Page

A panel on Friday, March 29^th, the first day of programming at WonderCon brought together a rather iconic cast to discuss “iconic characters” and what keeps a character “true” to their origins over long periods of time. Mark Waid opened as moderator by pointing out that the table full of seasoned pros had more than 125 years of comics experience between them and most had worked on longterm characters and newer creations alike. The essential question posed by Waid was how to “vault” characters “into the 21^st century without losing what keeps them special”. The question seemed particularly pertinent to Waid, whose ongoing work on DAREDEVIL has evoked critical acclaim. Waid asked his panellists how they handle the “core elements of characters” to face this challenge.

J. M. De Matteis introduced an image that stayed with the panellists as a reference point for discussion. He felt that creators handling long-lived characters work “within a cage”, so they can’t “go wide” with the character in term of change, but they can “go deep” in terms of making new discoveries. For De Matteis, personally, it’s all about the “Big Why” of characters, figuring out what makes them tick. He prefers working with super-villains to pose questions about the formative impact of their past histories because there’s “always a little corner of the psyche to dig into”. Ann Nocenti, however, in her recent work with Catwoman found that “her archetype was pretty clear” as a troubled kid originally, “on the streets” originally, and moving through “foster homes”. Her intuitive approach is to “play with a character and see what feels right” and she doesn’t mind the fact that later creators will do the same with long-term characters. It’s “like treading water”, she said, “You give a sense of constant, dynamic action, but you’re really not moving far”, and she expects later creators to be under the same constraint.

Doug Mahnke’s challenges, as an artist working on long-term heroes, is rather specific, handling costumes and their overtones. He observed that heroes, even today, often don’t look “contemporary” because their appearance has become iconic and we no longer question the anachronism, like Superman’s “underwear outside his pants”. Other features like capes and boots, Mahnke said, “made sense at the time” they were created based on a “swashbuckling” influence. In fact, he explained, an artist’s job is to “bring out the majesty in the character. It doesn’t matter so much what they’re wearing”, but you can use costume as a “tool” to use to your advantage.

Several of the panellists then commented on the fact that objectively, some of the nomenclature and costumes of characters created decades ago would seem “stupid” now. Nocenti’s example was a resurrection of a minor character, Zebra Man who was “visually fantastic” but the name and concept bizarre. Slott felt that once an icon is an icon, “the fact that it’s an icon gives it weight”, preventing further critique from readers. Even Waid’s considered opinion was that “Green Lantern” is a “stupid name for a character, but after 75 years”, it has “gravitas”.

The panel then tackled the question of when and how exactly a character becomes officially iconic, and they set the bar high on awarding this status. De Matteis opined that “nothing about the character idea makes it iconic. It’s the execution”, and not every character reaches this status despite reasonably strong storytelling behind them. Dan Slott interjected that it only takes “one writer and one artist to do it”, like Frank Miller on DAREDEVIL. The discussion often drifted into slap-stick commentary on the more absurd aspects of superhero lore like the possession of a super vehicle as an icon accoutrement. Nocenti provided the little known detail that Cat Woman’s car is known as a “Catillac”. Slott confessed to proposing in a “meeting with real adults” that Superman’s car should be known as “Superman’s Ford Taurus of Solitude” with disasterous results.

Waid observed that some characters are iconic in pop culture without necessarily being long-lived, like Woody Woodpecker, who’s highly recognizable, but not a currently active character. Waid commented that the tendency toward merchandizing may encourage the slow-down or freeze of new developments in a character since “every character becomes a beach towel” in the end. The entire panel segued into a long and fairly serious discussion of Wonder Woman as a character and why she has, or has not, lived up to her iconic status in terms of actual comic storytelling.

Most felt, like De Matteis, that Wonder Woman comics have not always been “all that good”, nevertheless the character definitely qualifies as “iconic”. Waid had a fairly idiosyncratic theory behind why this is the case. He observed that there was a strong “sexual element” to the “first 10 years of the strip” that was later removed to render the character more “plain vanilla”, and that now, lacking that “x-factor of sexuality”, stories fail to live up to the early days (an issue, he said, he frequently discusses with Grant Morrison). Slott disagreed pointedly with Waid’s assessment. He instead blames the lack of verve in Wonder Woman comics to the fact that comics are essentially a “make dominated industry” that has not explored the “many angles of the character” sufficiently. Slott still feels that if the right team is put together, the stories can rise to iconic status again, without recourse to the “weird quirky bits”. His choice of phrase caused plenty of giggling among the panellists.

This led Waid to ask his panel how they decide what elements are most essential to a character, what continues to translate, and what can be left behind. De Matteis advised to “always approach the characters psychologically and emotionally” and not worry too much about the “other stuff”, and sometimes that psychological appeal can be found in lesser known characters. Nocenti commented that her current work on KATANA based on the strange but intriguing concept of a “girl with a sword” produced “good potential” for developing “obsessional love triangle” elements between herself, her murdered husband, and his murdering brother.“The less iconic a character, the more fun you can have!”, she enthused.

Slott agreed with Nocenti on  this idea, up to a point. When you’re handling an iconic character, readers lose the fear that their reckless lifestyles will do them in, whereas if a character is “unknown”, “Everyone is worried”, wondering if they will survive from issue to issue. Slott and Nocenti shared an interesting moment of commiseration, albeit brief, about their mutual killing off of Spider-based characters, and the emotional reaction of fans. “Screw letters from emotional fans”, Slott concluded, laughing, but Waid intervened by informing the audience that he’s sure Slott “weeps himself to sleep at night with 6 year olds’ fan mail” over the death of Spider-Man .

The panellists didn’t always find their subject matter easy to decipher, nor did they feel that there’s always an easy answer for why some characters “click” as icons and some don’t. Batman, particularly, has a mysteriously successful dynamic, they said. But some things do change. Waid observed that he “couldn’t have imagined a world where I walked down the street and everyone knew who Tony Stark was” until after the Iron Man films had been made. Waid suggested that iconic status for characters might be measured in the number of imitators who have sprung up. De Matteis returned to his general position that archetypal patterns determine iconic status, however. Slott provided examples, stating that Superman is like Hercules, Batman a being on a vengeance-quest, and Tony Stark is, too, iconic in formula, as a combination of “Man and Machine”, an icon that the world is ripe for right now.

The panellists’ parting thoughts during the Q and A period focused on an interesting point made from the audience about the superhero/villain ratio. With so many more supervillains than superheroes in comics, “recycling” them is the norm, but at what point do they become “stale” and need to be retired, at least for awhile? De Matteis was firm about the roles of the artist and writers, insisting that there are “no stale characters but stale interpretations of characters” and that good work will prevent this problem. “Every character is great if you did into them in the right way”, he said. Waid’s closing example to support De Matteis’ point was that “20-25 years ago, no one would have thought that GREEN ARROW would become 2 times the best selling DC book, and then get his own TV show”. His bottom line: “If you dig deep enough you can find something that resonates”, and that’s the key to creating an icon, something that may not happen overnight.

 Photo Credits: All photos in this article were taken by semi-professional photographer and pop culture scholar Michele Brittany. She’s an avid photographer of pop culture events. You can learn more about her photography and pop culture scholarship here.

 

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

 

 

 

Display Comments Add a Comment

As the first of several “Comic Book Roundtable” events to be held at the Soho Gallery of Digital Art under the auspices of gallery owner John Ordover and former Marvel editor, author, and educator Danny Fingeroth, this event exploring the life and legacy of Dr. Frederic Wertham was planned for the occasion of Wertham’s 118^th birthday, but in the lead up to the event, recent developments in scholarship about the controversial comic reformer shed new light on the evening’s subject matter. In February 2013 Librarian, professor, and scholar Carol Tilley discovered, after examining Wertham’s papers held by the Library of Congress, that some of Wertham’s methods and reports were questionable, sparking debate in comics scholarship and among comics fans.

“Surely You’re Joking Dr. Wertham” hit the controversy head-on by bringing together a distinguished panel for discussion, including Tilley, comics writer, editor, and educator Denny O’Neil, author and educator David Hajdu, practising physician, psychiatrist, and author Sharon Packer, and author, editor, art director, and cartoonist Craig Yoe. The Soho Gallery provided excellent accompaniment to the event in the form of Wertham-related images and quotes displayed as a digital exhibit, and hosting a reception afterward.

The evening opened to a thoroughly packed-in audience, among whom were many scholars and authors who have shown a public interest in Wertham’s career and legacy, including James Reibman, the official Frederick Wertham biographer designated by Wertham’s estate. Host and moderator Danny Fingeroth provided an introduction to Wertham in the form of slides including pictures of Wertham in and out of official capacity as a clinical psychiatrist working with children, and also reminded the audience of the other books Wertham authored aside from his now legendary Seduction of the Innocent, a critique on the “influence of comic books on today’s youth”, published in 1954. This placed Wertham within the context of other cultural reactions of the time that questioned the sex and violence being depicted in comics as appropriate for young readers.

Tilley started off the panel discussion by explaining exactly what her recent research has uncovered about Wertham’s work. While her original intention was to locate materials relevant children’s education, she found “other things” that she didn’t expect to find among Wertham’s documents which she found “well-organized” in a “couple of dozen plus boxes” at the Library of Congress. The documents included copies of Wertham’s other research papers and speeches spanning his career, among which she found “discrepancies” and “some indication that he did things like combine the testimony of kids” or “broke apart” the testimony of one child “into four or five” in order to use quotes. This practice also resulted in evidence of “deleted or added” phrases from the children’s testimony that Wertham presented in Seduction of the Innocent and other works. This resulted, Tilley said, in a general “perception” of evidence in Wertham’s book that was “not the same as the actual case” of his research materials. When questioned about whether these changes were negligible or whether they altered the meaning of the children’s testimony, she confirmed that these “additions and word changes did change the meaning of testimony”. While Wertham’s book has often been criticized for its “lack of attribution” in footnotes or bibliography, Tilley feels that she has “seen personally” that his use of sources was not exacting enough. For those interested in Wertham’s legacy, this was something of a bombshell, though Tilley has been public about some of these findings previous to the evening’s discussion.

Hajdu then commented on Wertham as a figure, reminding the audience that Wertham is  often a “handy symbol” of a wider movement against comic book excesses, and even a “personification” of the “cynicism toward comics in the late 40’s and 50’s”, even though he didn’t start this trend personally. Hajdu explained that even “newspaper comics incited criticism” prior to Wertham’s career and were often perceived as “crude, anti-literate” and examples of “defiant behavior” that raised public concern. The Catholic Church, particular, he noted, were active in inspiring state legislation against comics, due to their belief in the “power of aesthetics and the power of art” for both positive and negative influences on human behavior.

[Packer, Yoe, and Fingeroth]

O’Neil, himself raised Catholic, confirmed that his “first encounter with the (comic) witch hunters was in the pages of The Catholic Digest” and that he, as a young person “read and believed” that superhero comics, particularly, were potentially harmful. He related, to the audience’s amusement, that former Marvel editor Roy Thomas “as a kid” had participated in a book burning in Missouri where he “burned comics he was not interested in”, but rescued others he liked. Tilley briefly added that she had discovered evidence that librarians, too, had participated in comic burning and attempted to keep them out of libraries during this period because they were seen as “disruptive”.

Packer suggested that Wertham’s book title, Seduction of the Innocent, might have spoken particularly to a Christian demographic because of its suggestion of the massacre of the innocents by King Herod related in the New Testament of the Bible. This led to a reassessment among the panellists of Wertham’s title, since its original version was “All Our Innocents”. Fingeroth pointed out that this change made the title “very pulp sounding” and therefore more sensational.

Yoe’s background on the subject of juvenile delinquency as an author, and also his discovery of the “fetish art” of Joe Shuster confirmed that there were real-life implications for the more violent aspects of comic art, such as the case of the Brooklyn Thrill Killers who killed indigent people and molested women and when interviewed by Wertham as an expert witness, confessed to being inspired in their deeds by Shuster’s artwork. Yoe, however, prompted a wide-ranging and at times heated discussion on the subject of exactly how and when Wertham’s papers at the Library of Congress had been made available for research purposes. Both Yoe and Hajdu, upon requesting access in the past, had been denied use of the papers since they were “sealed” until the children who participated in the studies had passed away. “In many ways, I respect Dr. Wertham”, Yoe said, but “the Library of Congress is our library” and its contents “should be seen” regardless of the circumstances behind their compilation. Outspoken attendee and Wertham biographer Reibman, who was granted access to the papers at a much earlier date in order to work on his book, disagreed with Yoe’s statement in favor of “freedom of information”, arguing that sealing Wertham’s papers at the library was part of the “terms of the gift” to the library. Reibman’s frequent interjections on behalf of Wertham during the event contributed to a rather heated atmosphere.

Yoe questioned further why some individuals, and not others, were then granted access despite the terms of the gift. Hajdu chimed in that he had requested access “dozens of times” but had been denied despite his academic credentials. Yoe asked Tilley if, based on her experience as a librarian, this discrepancy was “unusual” or not. Tilley confirmed that in her experience, the sealing of the papers while at the Library of Congress and then granting access to only those individuals sanctioned by the estate of the deceased, was indeed “unusual”.  Attendee Karen Green, Graphic Novels Librarian at Columbia University, also commented that while “archives can be restricted”, for public documents this practice is “not usual”. Tilley provided further information about the situation by explaining that she was obliged to sign an agreement with the Library of Congress about the materials she accessed, even though a large portion of the Wertham papers consisted of “newspaper clippings” which “shouldn’t be restricted” anyway. Yoe brought some levity to the rapid fire questioning and often terse dialogue between he and Reibman by pointing out that Hajdu closely resembled a young Frederic Wertham and ought to have just turned up at the library, saying “I am here to see my papers”. Though Hajdu found the comparison amusing, he said “That’s the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard”.

[O'Neil and Hajdu]

Fingeroth then gathered the reigns of the discussion as moderator to direct attention back to the panelists and away from the discursive arguments breaking out among audience members. Fingeroth asked O’Neil, specifically, if he had felt any “lingering hesitation” about comics after his experience with The Catholic Revue in childhood. O’Neil related that Wertham’s legacy, but particularly the Comics Code had impacted his career in comics.  He was involved in “several public arguments” with administrators at comics publishing companies, wherein comics supporters felt the need to argue “comics are good, not evil anymore”. O’Neil’s personal feeling has always been, and still is, he said, that “If it’s censorship, it’s bad”, and often felt frustrated by the “vagueness of the language” in the Code itself, often leading comics creators to create elaborate avenues to get around the letter of the Code. He related a particularly frustrating incident where an IRONMAN story involving a “six story tall monster” crushing a police car was censored because it “showed disrespect to the police car” even though it also showed policemen being very brave in their fight against the monster. This kind of “idiocy” in the Code he particularly objected to, and added his motto that “blind worship of authority figures whether or not authority figures had any authority” should never be supported.

At this point, it was relevant to clarify that Wertham was not the founder of the Comics Code, though his work certainly paved the way for its development. Yoe reminded the audience that Wertham was, in fact, a progressive who was in support of the freedom of the press. It was more that Wertham “created the climate”, O’Neil supplied, which led to the Senate hearings, which led to the drafting of the Code. Both Yoe and O’Neil agreed that comics publishing was, in fact, in a very low economic position at the time of the Senate hearings anyway, due to the rise of paperback novel sales and TV watching. Yoe and O’Neil continued to discuss whether a “rating system” couldn’t have been created, rather than the unilateral Comics Code, in order to steer children away from more disturbing comics. Hajdu pointed out that the rating system was not in effect in Hollywood, by comparison, until the 1960’s, so there was not a particularly clear model to instate for comics at the time.

Fingeroth asked the panelists, and in particular, Packer, whether Wertham’s research was purely “anecdotal” or whether he furnished “hard statistics” when working with children. Packer provided some context as a clinical psychiatrists about the methods of the time during Wertham’s career. She compared Wertham to Sigmund Freud and pointed out that though “Freud was celebrated at that time”, “much of his original psychological literature” was “just as baseless” as Wertham’s methods. Tilley added that her survey of Wertham’s papers revealed that his “data was rich”, but it was just “how he used it rhetorically” that was “questionable”. Yoe commented that even though his rhetorical use of his data might lead us to view Wertham with increased suspicion, in the big picture, Wertham made a “pretty good case. Many comic books were not good for young children” in term of their content.

[Tilley and Packer]

Fingeroth took the question to a finer point. Did Wertham, he asked, in the opinion of the panelists, “take too many liberties” or not? Tilley stood her ground by asserting that “scientific investigation” requires accuracy, and a failure of accuracy is troubling from a scientist. Tilley added that her “personal sense” from working with the papers is that Wertham “cared more about getting rid of the comic book industry” than about his public cause of helping children develop in a psychologically  healthy atmosphere. Though he certainly “cared for kids”, she reminded, she still felt that Wertham used children as “leverage” to achieve this greater goal of attacking the comics industry. One of the things that gave her a less than sterling impression of Wertham’s personality was discovering detailed transcripts that he “noted meticulously” of phone conversations that contained potentially harmful gossip about people who he saw as enemies in his career. He “collected information”, she said, “looking for weak spots” in the lives of people he wanted to undermine, particularly people who acted as “consultants for the comic book industry”.

Fingeroth asked about Wertham’s movement, in his later career, toward criticism of the film industry and whether Wertham might have seen “comics as a stepping stone to a higher agenda” as a “career path”, but the general consensus among panelists seemed to be that comics were more easily attacked as a less profitable industry early in Wertham’s career, and that the tide of criticism had generally turned toward film around the time of Wertham’s developing interest in film. Film itself had, by the mid to late 60’s, become more overtly violent with works like Bonnie and Clyde.

The rather charged atmosphere during the panel discussion gave way to an extensive question and answer period involving the audience and spanned a number of subjects. Did the distaste the comic book industry came to feel for Dr. Wertham result in a generally negative portrayal of psychiatry within comics? Yoe agreed that there are certainly plenty of “sinister psychiatrists” portrayed in comics tradition, and Packer supplied examples from Batman mythology including the Arkham family. O’Neil added that the character Harley Quinn was originally assigned to “cure” the Joker of his madness and instead was “driven nuts” herself. A more pointed question was posed about whether the possibility that Wertham skewed his evidence really made the questions he was asking about the role of comics at the time irrelevant. Hajdu fielded this question by commenting that the “weakest criticism of Wertham is that comics can’t affect minds and hearts”. As an art form, Hajdu argued, comics certainly do have impact and can “transform people”. “Comics have that power”, he reminded.

O’Neil weighed the issue by confessing that as a comics creator “You launch a given work and you have no way of knowing how it’ll bounce” and he often worried during his early career what impact particular comic stories might have on “kids already imbalanced”. O’Neil gave and example of his decision-making when he declined to include a “martial arts move” in one of his comics because it was “simple and damaging” and judged that kids might too easily learn to implement it. The audience, of course, immediately wanted O’Neil to demonstrate the deadly move, but he refrained in the interest of safety. For the same reason, O’Neil never allowed Molotov cocktails in his works, sure that it was too much of a “temptation” for kids to “see if it would work” building their own.

The Beat’s own Heidi MacDonald asked a rather burning question from the floor, one that continues to puzzle readers and comics historians alike: “Why do you think he attacked comics specifically? What did he hope to get out of it?”. The panelists answered in various ways. Yoe felt pretty strongly that Wertham was, in fact, motivated primarily by the fact that he “cared about kids” and was worried about the impact of comics. Packer analyzed Wertham a little by pointing out that Wertham himself, despite being married for many years, had no children of his own and this might have created a kind of “displacement” of concern for children that drove him to extremes. Hajdu simply stated that he felt Wertham to be “attracted to sensationalist cases” whether as an expert witness in extreme criminal cases or his research. He was, Hajdu said, a “publicity hound” at heart. Even Yoe added the admission that without a doubt Wertham had a “raging ego” driving his career.

Questions continued to circle back to the central role of Tilley’s new research on Wertham’s inconsistencies. How do we reassess Wertham based on the incorrectly conveyed details of his research, which clearly skewed his information in order to more sensationally and fundamentally support his thesis, when the “big picture” of his message, that extreme violence and sex in comics can be inappropriate for child readers, does seem sensible? Fingeroth presented a list of Wertham’s more “progressive” tendencies, stating that it’s possible to “go through a checklist of Wertham’s beliefs and agree except for comics” and respect many of his social contributions.

The final assessment of the panelists revealed some consensus out of a wide-ranging interrogation of Wertham’s method and legacy. O’Neil reminded the audience that Wertham was certainly not the “black-hearted villain” that many comics fans feel him to be, but he did detrimentally present those working in comics, “demonizing” them and making them out to be the “seducers and corruptors” of society, a crusade that damaged comics for decades to come. Yoe felt that the fundamental problem with Wertham’s whole approach to his subject was not necessarily the assumption that comics could be damaging to young minds, but that he “didn’t see that comics could be an art form”, and never commented on their positive potential as an “educational” resource. Yoe left the audience with the question, a lingering one, “Why couldn’t he see that?”. If Wertham had seen the potential of comics as a positive force, no doubt our current view of his work would also be more balanced on the whole.

[The panelists and their moderator]

A predictably lively, but amicable, discussion period followed during the reception for the event, but if attendees expected definitive answers about the implications of Tilley’s new research on Wertham, they were left to their own devices. The panel discussion did provide solid context for Wertham’s life, work, and even a little for his motivations, as well as some solid information on what exactly Wertham’s failings as a researcher might be. Whether audience members were “pro-Wertham” or “anti-Wertham” initially, the discussion opened up new facets of his personality and work for further thought. Frederick Wertham may be less of a mystery now in the light of new research, but if anything, he’s even more of an enigma, confirmed as a complex figure. Learning more about Wertham changes perception of comics history, and that’s bound to change even more as scholars pay closer and closer attention to the records left behind in collections, personal archives, and thankfully, libraries.

The Comic Round Table events will continue this Spring at the SOHO Gallery for Digital Art with another hot topic in comics right now, the openly anti-gay position of Orson Scott Card and his work on SUPERMAN entitled “The Man of Steel vs. Orson Scott Card” on April 10^th.

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

 

Display Comments Add a Comment

In All-Star Superman #1, writer Grant Morrison retold the origin of Superman in only eight artfully chosen words:

On Twitter, Dave Lartigue (@daveexmachina) retold the origin of Batman in only eight artfully chosen words:

Add a Comment

TweetYou Can Never Be Me by Patrick Kyle There’s a meme (as I believe they’re called) that I see cropping up fairly regularly in my forays of Internet yonder. Here, allow me to show you: Batman is a seductive fellow, isn’t he? Fetishes aside, one of the main appeals of the character is that, theoretically, anybody [...]

Add a Comment

Brett Culp kick-starts his Batman inspired not-for-profit documentary, Legends of the Knight. Culp that features interviews from everyone's favorite industry Bat-fans, and powerful everyday people that use their enthusiasm to be active in their communities and overcome extreme hardship.

Display Comments Add a Comment

(Spoilers!) Well, we can’t say that we didn’t know it was coming. From early on in the run, Grant Morrison has said in interviews and at convention appearances that his six year Batman run would end in heartbreak.

Even for those who somehow missed DC’s massive spoiler alert, Morrison’s obvious love for the character that everyone initially hated, then came to love, marked his doom. Along with, of course, the bizarrely popular reset button that every superhero character possesses, demanding that writers put their “toys back in the box” when they leave.

It’s perhaps testament to Damian Wayne’s popularity that even as the death promoting cover leaked, with the events spelled out by the publisher and revealed by the writer, that fans first hoped the “death” was another misdirect, and now cling to the idea that no one in comics ever truly dies. And that latter trope is now partly the problem with the whole concept of death and loss within the superhero genre – when heroes die every week only to return weeks, months or years later, what impact does killing them even have anymore? Especially Robins. For every fan feeling a little sad at this newest revelation, there are ten more dismissing the gravity of the plot out of hand, with a dismissive, “he’ll be back”.

Morrison of course – love him or hate him – is not known for casually killing his characters. Every plot thread and complex idea in the last six years has been leading up to this moment; the culmination of the twisted war between parents that has their spoiled and far wiser child at the centre. To dismiss this latest character death as nothing more than controversy seeking is to underestimate the intricate planning behind these events.

Morrison didn’t create Damian, but he moulded him into one of the strongest characters in Gotham, giving us a Robin that was truly different from his predecessors. Playing the dour Boy Wonder to Dick Grayson’s chipper Batman revitalised the concept of the Dark Knight in a whole new direction; the resulting Batman Incorporated somewhat hamstrung by the narrow confines of the continuity obsessed New 52.

That particular pairing resurfaces in Batman Incorporated #8. We’ve seen over the past few issues that Damian is not the Batman of the future that Bruce assumed. Instead that honour goes to an unnamed monster, a bizarre adult clone of Damian who his mother has raised from the belly of a whale. A leviathan. Curiously enough, leviathans and whales have been swimming around my own mind recently; from my re-reading of Mike Carey and Peter Gross’ The Unwritten, to the recent season of Supernatural, and the arguments of Thomas Hobbes. Symbolism is usually a tad more subtle in the works of Morrison, but the whale is such a potent allegory that it is no shock to see it break through.

Chris Burnham plays his pages mostly straight, with some fantastic fragmented panel layouts and one of those amazing scatter pages picturing the most frantic fight scene in the book. Glass and broken glass is a repeated motif once more, both fracturing Batman’s struggle to escape his confines and heralding the entrance of the various Robins. The near colourless clone is draped in a cloak of fire at the climax, mirroring the cape of Damian in a hellish form. The final splash page brings together glass, fire and rain with deceptively simple ease; the final page finishing on an extra tiny panel sequence, another of Burnham’s signatures, now fading to black.

This issue is all about the Robins, with Batman only appearing on two pages. Damian rides to the rescue, briefly saving Grayson on the way, as Tim fights off the Leviathan henchmen and saves a damsel in distress (Ellie). With an army of brainwashed children on his heels, Damian starts cracking skulls (because children on children violence isn’t quite as worrying as adults beating on them) before ending the fight with his quick thinking. Not quick enough however, as our other former Robin, Grayson bursts on to the scene to save him from gunfire.

I won’t lie, having those two team up again is, well, awesome. There’s a little foreshadowing in Damian’s praise for Grayson which sounds more than a little like a goodbye. “We were the best Richard. No matter what anyone thinks.” Knowing what is to come, that is perhaps the real moment of sadness. The final battle comes down to Damian and his demonic twin, with both Tim and Grayson laying broken on the floor.

As Damian begs his mother to stop, to call off her monster, he remains sure that he is the only one who can reach her. He steps in to save Ellie from the monster, remembering his promise to his father that he would never kill again…

His faith is misplaced. His last word is “mother”. Talia weeps, Bruce is too late, and Damian dies a hero. And unseen, I can’t help but think of the little kitten back home waiting on him.

Damian was a character nobody should have been able to relate to – a poor little rich kid begging the attention of his parents. And yet, Batman himself is equally unrelatable – a playboy millionaire with a disturbing obsession with crime-fighting, a detective with near superhuman psychological barriers, and often just a big brooding emo kid. But we love him, of course, and not just for his gadgets. He’s human and so his achievements seem that much greater than the big Boy Scout. He is ancient and iconic, a creature of the night that battles for good, a modern day Sherlock Holmes.

What Morrison did, stitching together that vast history into one epic lifespan, broke him away from the lone warrior teetering on the edge of madness and made him human once more. Of course that Batman would have a son, and even come to learn to forgive the transgressions of all his family. He even, dare I say, began to see shades of grey and inspired his son to choose heroism over villainy.

And Damian the brat became Damian the loveable brat. With his ribbing of Grayson and his fondness for his menagerie of pets, his occasional wisdom beyond his years, and most of all his tiredness with the ridiculous war between his parents, Damian became perhaps one of the most popular newer characters DC has.

Had. Of course he could come back, of course he probably will. The fall out will last so long and then an editor or writer will decide that that particular toy needs to come back out of the box. Let’s have a new Robin. Let’s kill them too.

But make no mistake, this is a real death. With Morrison soon to leave Batman behind, this is the end of his Damian. He introduced the character as we now know him back in 2006, as a murderous little psychopath and his mother’s pawn. Now he has ushered him out, as a genuine Robin, a beloved son, and a true hero. And as cliche as some superhero deaths may be, this really is the end of an era.

*sob!*

Batman Incorporated #8
Writer: Grant Morrison
Artist: Chris Burnham, Jason Masters (p.6-9)
Colourist: Nathan Fairbairn
Cover Artist: Chris Burnham
Letters: Taylor Esposito
Editor: Michael Marts, Rickey Purdin
Publisher: DC

If you like, try: Growing your heart three sizes!

Display Comments Add a Comment

Well, the task of being Batman’s sidekick has claimed another life. Young Damian Wayne, the fruit of Batman’s own loins, with killed in a battle with his clone brother in Batman, Incorporated #8. And not in a quick one panel zap, the way we used to do comic book deaths, but in a multi panel pummeling. Since Damian was a little brat for most of his 10 years, some people weren’t that sad. But others were. The reactions have been many and varied. First and most poignantly the entire Batfamily is mourning on next month’s somber covers, as revealed at Buzzfeed.

And there was much talk in the mediasphere as well, although without cool Greg Capullo covers. One thing’s for sure…Damian wasn’t the first Robin to die…and I’m guessing he won’t be the last.

First, author Grant Morrison explained his motives:

I chose to build my story around the basic trauma, the murder of his parents, that lies at the heart of Batman’s genesis. It seemed to me there would be a part of Bruce Wayne that resented his parents for leaving him and especially resented his father for not being Batman that night, so the principal villains were an archetypal bad father figure in the form of Dr. Hurt and a dark mother in the form of Talia, our villain for the concluding chapters of the story.

Like or loathe the story, it was clearly planned for a while.
At Wired, Sean T. Collins investigated the cause of death::

If we were to take a look at the coroner’s report, we’d no doubt find “franchise maintenance” listed under “Cause of Death.” Morrison’s execution of the concept has been excellent, particularly when teamed with artists like Frank Quitely, Chris Burnham, and Frazer Irving, who wring both off-kilter action-scene dynamism and genuine pathos out of drawing Robin like the child he is. But one need look no further than most of the other books that have featured the Dynastic Duo to realize that the role has a limited shelf life outside of Morrison’s control.

It’s tough to imagine “Batman as dad, Robin as his son” taking off in the public imagination to the extent it could be used as the backbone for a blockbuster film, or even an animated series. “Batdad,” as an image and as a set of ideas about that character, simply doesn’t square with his pop-culture profile as an avatar of terrifyingly badass hypercompetence and black-clad angst. This is to say nothing of all the child-endangerment issues we’re already whistling past when we read about Robin, which are only compounded when the child being endangered is Batman’s own son.

At Robot 6 (which has been covering the death of Robin the way KNBC covers a car chase) Corey Blake took a look at history an knew it had to happen:

When Marvel Publisher Dan Buckley insisted to The New York Times in 2007 that Captain America Steve Roger is “very dead right now,” those last two words didn’t go unnoticed. “Still, these are comic books, where characters have a history of dying and returning,” noted the newspaper of record. Four years later, the New York Daily News couldn’t get halfway through its coverage of the Human Torch’s death before cynically pointing out, “Fans can also be optimistic that The Human Torch will eventually return.

J Caleb Mozzocco knew Damian’s days were numbered:

I certainly didn’t think Damian was going to last too terribly long, and assumed it was only a matter of time before it was revealed he wasn’t really Batman’s son. And/or The Joker killed him (not that I know all that much; I never thought DC would bring Barry Allen or Jason Todd back from the dead, or re-number Action Comics, for example).

Oddly enough, he has at this point been around so long that I just recently stopped expecting him to be written out of the comics.

Chris Arrant points out that Grant Morrison is a serial killer, with many of his own creations dead:

Think back to his first major mainstream superhero book, JLA. In it, Morrison and Howard Porter revived the team in a back-to-basics approach featuring the seven most popular and iconic members. But during that time Morrison also created (with Mark Millar and N. Steven Harris) the Mesoamerican hero Aztek. Launched in his own series — whose first issue teased his impending death — Aztek later joined Morrison’s JLA and was killed in JLA #41, the writer’s final issue.

Former DC editor Mike Gold was glad to see the little brat go:

His obnoxious demeanor isn’t reason I detest(ed) his character. I do not condone his birth.

Batman – Bruce Wayne no longer exists – is the poster boy for obsessive-compulsive. All the Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Lexapro combined can’t help this sucker, and yet somehow we have come to perceive his behavior as noble. If we refused to sell guns to the mentally unstable, Master Bruce wouldn’t make it to his next fox hunt.

WaPo’s David Betancourt just wonders “WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?”

Mike Mayhew feels that the killing of the son reinforces Batman’s immortality:

It started the way it’s supposed to. Batman, the fictional character, outlasted and replaced his creators. But because a company owns him, the natural process stops there. There’s no reason for him to go away. Ever. As long as he continues to make money, the king never dies. He never gets out of the way and he never passes the throne to his heir. That’s what Morrison describes in his essay. The Dark Knight Rises aside, no one besides Bruce Wayne – not Dick Grayson, Damian Wayne, Jean Paul Valley or anyone else – gets to be Batman for long. Batman does not R.I.P. Bruce Wayne always returns.

Tom Bondurant looks at the context of Robins through the ages

I mention all that in order to highlight those long stretches of stability. Most of Dick’s 44 years as Robin weren’t spent on some long-term emotional journey to adulthood. In fact, I would argue that the real story of Dick’s “graduation” began in 1980, when Marv Wolfman started writing Batman and the then-new New Teen Titans.* In both books Dick was eager to establish his independence from Bruce, including dropping out of college and operating out of New York City with the Titans. This estrangement challenged the nature of “Robin” even more than Dick’s physical separation from Bruce, because it forced readers to evaluate whether “Robin” meant anything apart from Batman. Moreover, Batman’s post-Adam West gothic makeover had long since gotten readers used to the idea of Batman without Robin.

 

Valerie Gallaher questions whether showing the brutal death of a young child is really in good taste.

But here is the big elephant in the room and I’m going to just say it: in the aftermath of the brutal killing of so many other children in Newtown, is this a tasteless story? Or more precisely, is the story itself not tasteless — but the use of it as just another “gimmick” to tickle the mass news outlets (of which I am quite aware I am a part of) into once again realizing that comics exist, tasteless? I only have to point to one of the the NY Post’s headlines for the Robin story, “Holy Hit Job!” — a bizarre nod to the sunny 1960s TV show.

Penultimately, Burt Ward, who once played Robin, reacted with shock and alarm:

Ward tells us, “It’s a terrible choice to kill off Robin. Why bite the hand that feeds you? … Robin should only die in people’s imaginations! Or in a state of primal ecstasy!”

 

For those who want to compare and contrast with other memorable deaths PW’s Matt White has the 10 Most Memorable Superhero Deaths

Display Comments Add a Comment

Following on from Night of the Owls and Death of the Family will come an 11-part storyline from Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo called ZERO YEAR. Taking the sime kind of approach as Frank Miller’s ‘Year One’ story, this will see Batman in the New 52 – establishing the Bat Cave, meeting his first super-villain, and hopefully painstakingly working out just how pointy the ears should be on his costume.

Snyder is careful to establish that this isn’t going to be a story which dismantles the story and idea behind Year One, but will instead be a new story giving a different perspective on Batman’s origin, and building up the character in a different way:

We tried to preserve as much of Batman’s history as we could and keep what we could of this history intact. It’s ‘The Zero Year,’ the one that no one has told the story of before. We see how Bruce became the Batman, built the cave, faced off with his first super villain … It’s time for a new story showing how Batman became who he is in The New 52. It builds up the mythology

And, as the creative team established a short while ago, the story is not intended to cross over into any event storylines - like the last two Batman stories have. This is set to be self-contained. And looking at Capullo’s lovely, simple cover for the first issue of the story (issue 21) it looks as though DC are hoping to turn this into the first properly notable and standalone graphic novel collection for the New 52. So shiny.

Batman in the new 52 currently has a wonderfully convoluted and messy backstory, with countless robins, a son, a couple of rebirths and a few vanishing Batgirls currently crammed into what DC says are the first five year’s of the character’s life as Batman in the new DC Universe. How is Snyder going to deal with all that?

And most importantly – when is Bat Mite coming back?

Display Comments Add a Comment

Hold onto your monocles, because it’s time for DC comics to make their first attempt at getting you to drop them in shock. The initial round of April ‘shock’ gatefold covers have been released via various locations – CBR, MTV Geek, DC’s Source blog, and so on – and I’ve collected them here. So far we have, I believe, seven officially released covers from DC, as part of their (formerly WTF) April promotion, from comics including Dial H, Batman, Stormwatch and Swamp Thing.

Each one of these is meant to make you spit out your Pimms in surprise – so, how well do they succeed?

Personally? Well.. I wasn’t shocked (my monocle remains trusty and proud), but I was pleasantly surprised by some of the stories suggested here. Mr Miracle’s return in Earth 2 is probably the best of the reveals so far, but that new Batwing also looks pretty familiar…

Display Comments Add a Comment

Display Comments Add a Comment

In the 2008 book The DC Vault, a curious story is recounted. In 1973, Bill Finger said the character Bob Kane showed him on that fateful day in early 1939 was named not “Bat-Man” but rather “Bird-Man.” That had been reported before, notably in Gerard Jones’s Men of Tomorrow.

However, it is what The DC Vault said next that gets the vote for “Most Startling”: it was Bill who then suggested the bat motif, and, by implication/extension, the name “Bat-Man.”

This is significant because The DC Vault was sanctioned by DC Comics. In other words, DC is crediting Bill, not Bob, with a key component of a character for which only Bob is officially credited. I love this, and it’s risky for DC, even if it’s true.

That said, in Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman, the name “Bat-Man” is the only creative element for which I give Bob credit. I did that because Bill himself did (in The Steranko History of Comics, Volume 1). As I’ve written multiple times on this blog, memory is unreliable, but sometimes it’s all we’ve got, and even when it pains me (as in a case like this), I will go with Bill’s take over anyone else’s.

But there are other possibilities: Bill’s decades of credit suppression might have led to simple surrender—or brainwashing. Perhaps Bill did suggest “Bat-Man” but later felt he had to go along with Bob’s claim to it since it would be his word against Bob’s. Or perhaps in a complete collapse of self-esteem, Bill actually came to believe the name was Bob’s idea.

It seems to be universally agreed upon that the character Bob initially sketched was indeed named Bird-Man; yet lacking firm evidence in Bill’s favor, I stand by the belief that it was Bob who changed the name to Bat-Man. But did he do so before he showed Bill? I don’t—and we may never—know.

Either way, I’m comforted by two larger points:

A bat-themed character was hardly unique in those days (which only lends more weight to Bob choosing the name). Other varieties of Batmen had graced pulps and films before 1939.

Even if Bill was right and the name did come from Bob, most everything else—including the aspects of Batman that made him an enduring icon—came from Bill.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Hey! It’s one of those dates where American readers can’t shout at me for getting the day and month the ‘wrong’ way round! Hurrah! That’s a relief.

This week was Dennis Hopeless Week, with the writer bringing two new Marvel launches to the world. I’ll be reviewing one of them - the controversy-bathing Avengers Arena - along with two vampire stories and, what the heck, the latest Batman. What better way to wash away all those scary night-loving monsters than with… a third scary night-loving monster. Hm.

This week I’ll be reviewing Batman #15, The Amazing Spider-Man 699.1, Marceline and the Scream Queens #6, and Avengers Arena #1

Batman has proven to be an interesting comic over the last few months. Writer Scott Snyder has thrown an incredible amount of thought and planning into the series, but for some reason none of this seems to be developing into a story. This month’s Batman #15 gives us a short showdown between Batman and the Joker, before setting things up for another showdown which will happen next month. Besides a framing sequence which pauses everything to try and look into the heart of why Batman can never defeat The Joker, the rest of the issue feels rather empty and lifeless.

Surprisingly, this Death of the Family storyline has been dragging almost since the first issue, with The Joker feeling lifeless and dull, rather than chaotic and scary. Beyond the visual image of Joker’s ripped-off face – which itself looks creepy half the time and stupid the other half – there’s nothing to the character here which sells him as a scary villain. His dialogue reads as an homage to Grant Morrison’s super-sexual version of Joker in Arkham Asylum, but without any of the verve or sting. This Joker is simply camp and affectionate, and that doesn’t make the character creepy, rather he seems bloodless and defanged.

Despite the abundance of dialogue and narration boxes, it doesn’t feel like Snyder has gotten beneath the skin of any of the characters involved here, with predictable storytelling and a lot of filler. The majority of this issue is an eight-page sequence where various Batman allies argue over whether Joker once broke into the Batcave a few years ago. This is presented as the core of the story, and something which will drive a wedge between everyone – but there’s no reason for readers to find any of this relatable  It doesn’t feel important or real as a story beat, and as a result the thread is diluted.

Overall this storyline has felt perfunctory, with no surprise or intensity in the way The Joker’s plan unfolded. It’s been a disappointment. There’s a backup sequence here which appears to be setting up The Riddler as the next villain for Batman to face – but again, it’s as though everything interesting about the character has somehow drained away. All that’s left are a few tics and very little character. Forget Batman needing to protect Gotham from supervillains – at this rate they’ll all have faded into bland obscurity by next year.

 

Amazing Spider-Man 699.1, on the other hand, is the sort of story Batman should be telling. Written by Joe Keatinge and drawn primarily by Valentine Delandro, the issue grabs on to a dark and moody character and presents him as genuinely unsettling – yet empathetic at the same time. Despite the title, this is a prologue to the Morbius series Keatinge will be working on with Rich Elson, and as such we get a look at the character’s past and present.

Delandro’s art does a lot of the work for Keatinge here, providing a distinctive representation of the character which makes him look unworldly even before he becomes, well, a vampire. Sorry, spoilers! But that doesn’t mean Keatinge sits back – this is a fascinating character study, which really gets into the skin of the doctor and works a lot of power into the presentation of the narrative. The feeling of horror grows magnificently over the course of the issue, building up and building up until a climax which feels expected, but in a thrilling fashion.

Just because we can tell what will happen by the end of the issue doesn’t mean that the journey towards it isn’t filled with dread in each word, and it doesn’t make the tragedy any less affecting. I didn’t care much for Morbius before this issue – but the creative team have here put together a very strong case for why the series should exist.

 

 If you’re looking for a slightly less terrifying story about vampires, I don’t suggest Marceline and the Scream Queens – because it’s just as scary! Although, much funnier, and a delight. Issue #6 wraps up Meredith Gran’s miniseries with a few nice jabs at the state of comics fandom itself… as well as a vampiric rock concert and plenty of hard nudity.

The story wraps in the expected manner, although you’ll have no chance pre-guessing how Gran gets there. Throughout the series we’ve seen Gran having what looks to be a whirlwind of a time with these characters, bringing out excellent jokes from their personalities whilst not being averse to the odd left-field piece of unexpected nonsense. Issue #6 is very very funny, but weighted with character. Her art is a perfect fit for this ‘world of Adventure Time’ style as well, with her use of body language getting across emotion even when half the characters have dots for eyes.

Lisa Moore’s colouring is also superb, and I was particularly fond of the way Princess Bubblegum’s hair seems to grow brighter and more powerful with every panel, whilst Marceline’s grows somehow blacker. I don’t know if that’s a trick of my eye, but it certainly seemed that way. Eccentric in the very best way, this has been a great miniseries, and a great showpiece for Gran’s art and writing.

 

Which brings us to Avengers Arena #1. Was this really going to prove a crude cash-grab on the success of the Hunger Games, with snuff and misery? No, no it wasn’t. It was a book with a clever, crafty central conceit, as well as great character work and stunning art from Kev Walker.

The real star of the issue may well be Frank Martin’s work on colours for the book, however, which are at once outlandish and crazy, yet keeping touch on the characters and story. The scenes in Murderworld are gaudy but visually striking for it – which plays into the way Arcade sees the venture. Yet the scenes set outside are cosy and warm, without that feeling of artifice. That is all a result of Martin’s colours. Walker also proves once more to have a solid grip on team stories, with a multitude of characters who all stand apart, and dynamic, exciting storytelling.

Dennis Hopeless’ central contribution to this first issue is the feeling that there is a plan for the book. This isn’t going to be an exploitative title (well, it is, but not in a grotesque way), but instead a character study performed in that rarest of locations: a comic where characters can die forever. It’s startling how quickly removing the barrier of ‘comic book death’ pinballs the book into immediately scary, unpredictable territory. We’re so accustomed to nothing actually ‘mattering’ beyond the next big event, that Hopeless’ freedom here to do whatever he wants to these characters is shocking and riveting.

It’d be worthless if Hopeless didn’t make the characters empathetic, however, and on the basis of this first issue he has a solid grasp on every character he voices here, furthering them as protagonists even whilst making it clear that they could be gone by next issue. Taking away the safety net brings us a chaotic series which can do anything it wants – and a creative team firing on all fronts. This could be the big hit of Marvel Now, if they can keep this up. Which is the big question now, isn’t it?

Display Comments Add a Comment

Tweet For those of you that don’t have cable or watch television, CBR broke the heart breaking news that Green Lantern and Young Justice was not renewed for another season to make room for Beware the Batman and Teen Titans Go! There are some die hard fanboys and girls are not going to let the Warner Bros. [...]

Display Comments Add a Comment

TweetOne accusation thrown at DC is that their comics are very stern, and there’s little room for silliness and fun jokes in their Universe. And it’s an accusation which does tend to hit the Batman books hardest, given that arguably one of the themes of the franchise is “stern hero punches joke-tellers”. Batman’s villains are [...]

Display Comments Add a Comment

TweetHello and welcome! We are starting a weekly art thingy and have -rather thoughtfully- set it for Friday, that interminable day where the weekend is within touching distance and yet you still have to be at work. Hence, pretty and cool stuff that will help tide you over- forget words, just feast your eyes. This [...]

Display Comments Add a Comment

TweetSome early morning ramble to go with your coffee. While all around us creators are struggling with editors, artists are flying from one series to another every three issues, books are chopped and movies are cut – there is a little oasis in the middle of the DC desert. Batman. When the New 52 started [...]

Display Comments Add a Comment

When I reflected on the shooting tragedy that took place in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012, it did not occur to me that I would ever go there.

When Sunrise Elementary School in Aurora invited me in the fall of 2012 to do an author visit on 2/8/13, I was surprised and (as always) flattered and excited—but also a bit worried. I told my kind host, librarian Susie Isaac, that my latest book is about Batman and asked if, under the circumstances, it would be insensitive to bring it up during my presentation. Mind you, I am not one who shies away from having tough conversations when situations call for it, but I was not about to risk upsetting young people.

Susie was as cheerful as the name of her school. She assured me that all would be fine. She said none of their students were directly affected and the Batman connection to the tragedy did not dim the students’ enthusiasm for the Dark Knight.

That dynamic alone would make for a memorable visit, but amplifying that, Susie went all out to prepare for my arrival.

Every school day for the month prior, she lobbed a trivia question about me to the kids.

She ran a contest for the students to design their own superheroes and decked out the library with their creative submissions.

And she shared my books with the kids, who then welcomed me with great gusto.

Before the presentations, I was interviewed on the students’ morning news show. One student announced that there were no birthdays that day.

Oh, but there was. Bill Finger was born on 2/8. Adding even more poignancy, Bill Finger was born in Denver.

Of course this visit had the same purpose as any I’ve done: motivate, educate, entertain. Yet as I was trying to deliver on those goals, I was privately grateful to be able to mourn strangers on their own turf, strangers I may have been more drawn to than other victims due to the movie they were watching when their lives were senselessly cut short. They were watching a movie about a hero who shuns guns.

Thank you, Susie and the students of Aurora, for inviting me into your community.

Display Comments Add a Comment

The “titles” of Batman Begins showed the symbol of a bat formed in a swarm of bats, the titles of The Dark Knightshowed it in fire, now The Dark Knight Rises shows it in ice. The bats in Begins were a symbol of fear, the titles a metaphor for an identity forming out of shadows. The fire of The Dark Knight was like a wall of fire for that bat, that symbol, pushing through the chaos inflicted by the Joker. Now, the bat is, literally, the cracks in the ice formed by the isolation of Gotham City at the hands of Bane.

Display Comments Add a Comment

TweetFriday is art day! Friday is also the harbinger of the weekend, but who cares about that? Instead, take a look at all the pretty pictures I gathered for you from the shady, cob-webby corners of the Internet you dare not venture… (I can’t say more) FF by Mike Allred (you HAVE to click on this to [...]

Add a Comment

TweetScott Snyder and Greg Capullo’s Batman #17 came out this week, concluding their ‘Death of the Family’ storyline to universal approval from reviewers. But in all the rush to celebrate and praise, there’s been precious little evaluation of the book itself — many of the reviews, in fact, read more like a pre-emptive defense of the [...]

Display Comments Add a Comment

TweetInterviewing Neal Adams over at the New Statesman in the run up to this month’s London Super Comic Con, we chatted about his legendary role in providing greater creator rights for all within the comics industry, his own start in comics, and pushing comics in a more “relevant” direction. So while I recommend going ahead [...]

Display Comments Add a Comment

Nobleman, Marc Tyler. 2012. Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman. Ill. By Ty Templeton.  Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.

Batman.  Who doesn’t know Batman in one format or another? The 1960s TV show, the incredibly popular Dark Knight movie series, cartoons,  and of course, the original comic books which first appeared in 1939, bearing the name of Batman creator, Bob Kane. 

Every Batman story is marked with the words “Batman created by Bob Kane.” 
For almost thirty years, fans did not suspect otherwise.  But that is not the whole truth.  Bob Kane himself said so.
A Finger had a hand in it, too.

Bill the Boy Wonder is the story of that Finger, Bill Finger, the co-creator and long-time writer of Batman.

First forced to hide his identity as a Jew (his real name was Milton) to obtain work during the Great Depression, later writing in obscurity while Batman illustrator, Bob Kane,  rose to fame, and finally working (if only half-heartedly) to gain his duly deserved recognition, Nobleman chooses to present Bill, The Boy Wonder as a story with three parts, "Secret Identity 1 – Bill," "Secret Identity 2 – Writer of Batman," and "Secret Identity 3 – Co-creator of Batman."  This well-sourced and researched biography is as fascinating as it is entertaining,

Bill liked to ride through the city to think.  As the bus picked up passengers, Bill picked up plots from street scenes and daydreams.

He recorded stray facts – the boiling point of mercury, the Chinese character for virtue, what happens when a dog’s nose get scold – in what he called his “gimmick book.”  He routinely skimmed it for a spark that might ignite a story.  In time he had a library of gimmick books at his Fingertips.  He even let other writers – his competitors – hunt for story ideas in them.

Though brimming with details and quotes, Templeton moves the story along with the talent of a comic book writer.  A six-page Author’s Note adds details and period photographs.

Ty Templeton, a Batman artist himself, was the perfect choice to illustrate this fascinating look at Bob Finger’s work and the work of other talented artists, writers and fans who struggled to garner for him the credit he deserved.  The end papers are dramatic and inspired, and the illustrations are done, of course, in comic book style with white text box insets.

from Ty Templton's site

Even if you’re not a Batmanian, you’ll love this book. It's clear that it was a labor of love for the author.

• Kirkus' review of Bill the Boy Wonder