First: Sorry for missing last week. I actually have a lot to say about Year One, so I might go back there when I’m done here.
One thing I have to say before I dive in: I did not like this when I first read it, but there are things I appreciate on reread (note that this was actually one of the first comics I read, so I think I didn’t notice some of its more subtle strong suits). First, and I don’t mean this in a snarky way, Barr does know when to shut up and let the artist carry the story. Any book that can go a page or two without dialogue and maintain its pacing is on the right track. And the art is quite good. Not quite as good as David Mazzuchelli’s in Year One, but both artists are definitely solid.
I’ll do a compare-and-contrast under the appropriate question, but look at this:
I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be symbolic or meaningful, but if nothing else, it’s just cool and proves that there was some good thought put into this story.
And I’m saying all of this because my responses to the actual questions are going to involve a lot of ragging on this thing, so I want to acknowledge that there are some things that it does very well.
I mean, OK. I’ll admit that the Reaper predates most of the similar-but-more-interesting characters that we’ve seen over the years (though I think Black Spider was actually the first to use the “murderous rival vigilante” gimmick). But… I don’t know. The guy feels like the most simplistic, brute-force way to implement the concept. First, if there had been an earlier, homicidal vigilante before Batman ever existed, you’d think that would seriously color everyone’s reactions to Batman. But alright, this was probably being worked on around the same time Year One was still in-progress, so let’s assume that’s just a minor hiccup. He’s just kind of… ham-fisted. He’s not just a vigilante who kills people, he’s THE REAPER, and he runs around making melodramatic speeches about DEATH, and he has a SKULL FOR A FACE, and he keeps telling people to FEAR HIM. Between that and Leslie Thompkins making her usual self-righteous speeches, it kind of bleeds out any potential for moral ambiguity. And I get that Barr isn’t trying to make it ambiguous, but it just makes Batman look kind of stupid for taking so long to decide against lethal force when the guy Batman is considering emulating is THE REAPER.
It also doesn’t help that I get the Blue Oyster Cult stuck in my head every time this guy shows up.
Alan Davis’ art in the first issue is… fine. It does its job. But McFarlane’s art is really good, and it’s a shame he didn’t do more Batman stuff. I mean, look at this:
LONG FLAPPY POINTY THINGS
But in all seriousness, look at the detail in the background there. It’s incredible.
This was really kind of lame. First, Joe Chill is set up as this badass super-hitman, which doesn’t really line up for someone who’s basically the perpetrator of a random mugging. He’s essentially there as a vehicle for heavy-handed symbolism which I’m not sure is actually necessary. And to the extent we get the confrontation between Batman and the guy who killed his parents… once again, any need for Batman to make his own choices is shunted away by THE REAPER.
Well, here’s where my thoughts on Year One come in. Namely, I don’t think it’s that good. The dialogue is revolutionary for the time (relative to comics; I have to assume that before 1986 or so, no comic writer ever watched a movie or TV show, because otherwise I can’t explain the sorry state of classic comic script-writing) and the art is incredible, but the plot is unfocused and disjointed. By comparison, this story knows what it’s about and focuses on communicating that message. It’s just ridiculously ham-fisted and clunky about it. So, I’m not sure what, precisely, would constitute a “worthy successor” to Year One, but between the two, I think I prefer the previous entry, for David Mazzuchelli’s art if nothing else.