On the flip side, no article proclaiming “comics aren’t just for kids” or “comics have grown up” or “comics should be judged as serious work and not kid stuff” will ever be taken seriously when the title to said article (as this one is)is “Holy Bats in the Belfry, Batman!”

It’s almost as bad as “Biff! Pow! Wham! Comics are Cool!”

i love ASBRTBW. it’s awesome.

Where was this guy 20 years ago when Miller started writing these types of comics? Or where was he ten years ago when Miller started writing THIS comic?

He’s only just figuring out NOW that comics aren’t just for kids?

Seriously-it’s grittier. Grit doesn’t equal realism though, does it?

Whenever I read anything by Frank Miller, it’s like the guy is talking about *my life*.

I mean, *I* can feel my ribs moving.

The city is *my* lover, and I can hear her scream.

*I’m* blacking out.

Hell, I painted my living room completely yellow and sat around drinking lemonade in it just last week.

So real.

Well, I guess the hardcore Miller fanboys can now use this as ammo whenever they champion this book as the way Batman should be portrayed across the board. *sigh*

Am I the only one who’s sick of repeatedly being told that a satanically evil, morally bankrupt Batman who hates and mistreats everytone, gets his jollies from killing, maiming, and injuring people, and gets off on abusing peopel who should be his friends and colleagues is “realistic”? In the real world, Miller’s Batman would be deservedly gunned down.

Yeesh. Batman can be a total badass to criminals without being a completely morally reprehensible character that beats up children.

But this is a somewhat comedic book…

Anyway, anti-ASBAR/Miller fans seem to always get in an uproar when someone compliments the book.

“How can people like this?”

Well, they do. You don’t have to like it. In fact, you can just ignore it if you’d like. It’s not in continuity. It doesn’t effect any DCU book. And get this, there are OTHER Batman books.

Oh well, there’s some karma out there. ASBAR’s still the top selling Batman book. Ha ha ha.

Hi there – I’m the writer of the Batman piece y’all are commenting on. Yes, Frank L., I’m aware of Miller’s past efforts – and mentioned them in my article. Keep in mind that not everyone in the world is as intimate with the history of these comics and characters. So you’ve got to keep audience in mind when you write these things – some people who read the WSJ probably need more of a primer on past history as well as a 100,000-foot view on what it all means. Had I been writing for a publication where readers were more familiar with everything, I might have not waited until issue #9 to weigh in and I might have spent less time on Miller’s history and focused instead on specific incidents in the books.

Brian Steinberg

But but but comics fans can never misinterpret the intent of the author and snap judgements on a message board are always the most incisive form of analysis!

Yes, why can’t Batman be a nice guy who pals around with Superman and Plastic Man whilst simultaneously being a man who dresses like a bat to scare criminals

Mr. Steinberg,

I believe the reason Frank L. questioned your knowledge of Frank Miller’s previous work is because you stated in your article that Miller’s characterization of the All-Star Batman was “refreshing, adding a much-needed belt of reality to a genre founded on escapism,” when in fact, it is not new at all. Indeed, one might ask if you have had occasion to read any other comic books or graphic novels within the last twenty years in order to reach the conclusion that the Miller’s All-Star Batman and Robin is refreshing in any way. Especially since you do mention that Frank Miller has already presented us with this version of Batman in his previous work, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, published in the 1980′s. The settings are different but the portrayal of Batman as a psychotic and disturbingly violent person remains the same, to the detriment of the modern vision of Batman.

In the intervening years, the superhero genre has evolved to the point where Miller’s regurgitation of the Batman of the Dark Knight series into the All-Star Batman and Robin series comes off as a stunt or some type of writer’s shtick, instead of a refreshing view of an iconic figure. The idea that in order to recreate the Batman in a new and intriguing manner one must use stilted dialogue which is ridiculous even for a psychopath, let alone every character within the book, alongside such shoddy storytelling is an insulting view to take of comic books. The ridiculous nature of Miller’s portrayal of Batman speaks more to the camp of the Schumaker films and the 1960′s tv series than the grim, realistic graphic novels of today. His run on All-Star Batman and Robin is filled with such over the top characterization that it is hard to take any of it seriously. To read the series in earnest would be a little like enjoying Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal as a sound example of the 1700′s economic practices without realizing that though the proposal is couched in what seem like realistic terms, the very premise is nonsense. I am hard pressed to find “the much-needed belt of reality” in a book where all of the characters speak as though they were twelve years old, the Batman manages to paint an entire room, himself and his sidekick yellow as a matter of self-defense, and Wonder Woman calls someone a “sperm bank.”

The most frustrating part is that there are comic books that manage to include the violence, reality, and maturity one might expect from a comic book geared towards sophisticated adults without compromising the storytelling or the characters themselves. It is the very fact that the Wall Street Journal’s audience would most likely be unaware of the existence of the comic books and graphic novels available that shapes the need for an understanding that Frank Miller’s run of All-Star Batman and Robin is not indicative of the superhero genre as it is written today.