Remember this year’s New York Comic Con, where Grant Morrison said of “Batman R.I.P.” that “when we find out at the end who the villain is, it’s possibly the most shocking Batman revelation in 70 years?”
Well, last Wednesday in Batman #681 we found out who The Black Glove is…sorta.
So, who is The Black Glove? Thomas Wayne? Alfred? Batman himself? Jezebel Jett and four random, nameless bad-guys, all of whom represent different “fingers” in the glove? The Devil? Just some guy named Mangrove Pierce? Bob Kane? The dinosaur and giant penny from the bat-cave? The bat that flew in the window of Bruce Wayne’s study in his secret origin?
No.
According to one of the several mainstream media news articles about Batman’s “death” (if that’s what we’re calling superheroes disappearing in helicopter explosions these days), the real Black Glove is…Grant Morrison.
“For almost 70 years, he’s seen off every ‘baddie’ fate has thrown at him, from The Joker and Mr Freeze, to Catwoman and The Riddler,” Guy Adams of The Independent wrote in an article over the holiday weekend. “But now Batman’s alter ego, Bruce Wayne, seems to have finally met his match: a middle-aged comic book writer from Glasgow.”
Of course! As the writer, it was ultimately Morrison who was pulling all the strings! His is the hand that wears The Black Glove! Man, it’s just like the ending of Animal Man!
Of course, Adams’ Independent article also says Batman was “ejected from a speeding aeroplane” rather than riding the windshield of a helicopter that exploded, that the closing page “ends with an eerie picture of the outfit fluttering to earth” rather than the flashback to the night of the Waynes’ murder that actually ended the book, and was headlined “Holy smoke, Batman! Are you dead?”
Ha ha, like Robin used to say in that teevee show! Man, that joke will never get old!
Seriously, I always enjoy reading articles in the mainstream, non-comics media in which the specifics of comics stories are discussed. As cringe-inducing as the results often are, there’s something kinda cute about it, like hearing a young child naively and innocently ask a silly question.
Like this paragraph, which takes as news someone online saying something negative about Morrison’s take on the future of the franchise: “The comments prompted an instant backlash from fans, who flooded the internet with protests. ‘Do not buy this book,’ wrote one blogger. ‘Bruce IS Batman. There has to be a campaign against this.’ Another disgruntled fan wrote simply, ‘Thanks for vomiting over my childhood’.”
Dude, everything said on the Internet about comics prompts an instant backlash from fans, who flood the Internet with protests.
And vomiting over one disgruntled fan’s childhood? That fan’s lucky that that’s all that was done to his childhood. That fan’s childhood could have been raped, which is the usual online complaint against what DC and Marvel intend for the childhoods of their fans.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Aw, it’s not that bad an article, just your average reporter’s attempt to present the details in as lively a manner as possible. Given the squeeze on newsroom staff in the UK, and the fact we can’t all be an expert in everything, I don’t think the writer has done too bad a job.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:38 am
Wow it’s Caleb! Congratulations on the new gig! Finally made it to the big time man, good job good job.
Yeah that newspaper article is horrible in so many ways, but it is almost amusing seeing who and what was quoted.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am
I can’t believe the bullshit “spoilers” the British tabloid papers are spinning about Batman……….wait yes i can, they’re fucking tabloids. If it doesn’t have some sort of agenda in the UK, it’s not a tabloid.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Dearie Lord, get a life! It’s a colour piece no one but us willremember in five minutes.
And while the Indy is tabloid-sized, it’s classed as a quality rather than a redtop. What do you think its agenda is, exactly?
December 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I hope this doesn’t replace your EDILW work!
December 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Yes, those bloody awful Brit tabloids. How dare they not take Batman seriously……jeez, I’m re-reading ‘What they did to Princess Paragon’ again at the mo, and I’m feeling very afraid.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
My favorite part of that article was where an unnamed expert announced the existence of something called “The Bucky Clause.” In my over 20 years of comic book reading (and 10 years of reading industry news/rumors/hype), I have never heard of this “Bucky Clause,” but I assume it’s a fairly new term related to Brubaker’s resurrection of Bucky. I just hope that Uncle Ben is brought back next. Maybe Uncle Ben could come back in the form of a cyborg zombie as the NEW Deathlok. Now that would definitely rape a lot of childhoods.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
@Terence:
Check out THE SUN article about R.I.P then the BBCs, you’ll get what i mean.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
You know, it wouldn’t surprise me too much if Morrison really means that he was the Black Glove.
Personally, I haven’t read anything because I read in trades–which puts me behind the comics curve, to be sure, but lets me read entire works at once. So I’ll have to reserve judgment on this whole Morrison run for a few months.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I felt like the answer proffered by Bruce in the comic–that it was the bastard father of blahblahblahblahblah–was an interesting move in terms of being reminiscent of the “bloody-minded randomness” angle that (I think it was) Ditko had original wanted to take with the “real” identity of the Green Goblin.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 am
RayJ
I’ve read enough fluff pieces on comic books in daily newspapers; they are there to fill up pages, provide a bit of entertainment, and in a round about way, help increase visibility of a niche market.
I’m not that concerned about what some journo has gleaned from reading the ‘net and turned into 500 words. Only last week, on the same RIP story, a puff piece in the thelondonpaper reported that it was Robin that did it, turned to the ‘dark side’. I wonder what message boards that journo was reading?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 am
I’ve worked on enough papers to say Terence is spot on. We do our best, but basically we’re filling space with something light - we might as well be writing about cute gerbils.
The protests about the ‘awful’ piece seem to be due to worries that the world isn’t respecting our grown-up hobby. I could give a stuff! Why not give the paper a bit of credit for at least having a crack?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 am
No or do not. There is no try.